Admin Section 1
ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
Letter to Mr. Wood R. Foster, Jr. dated August 30, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Wood R. Foster, Jr. dated September 2, 1993.
1 Letter to Mr. Skip Ristau dated September 2, 1993.
Letter from Robert E. Generous dated August 30, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Steve Berquist dated September 7, 1993.
1 Letter and attachments from Gary Fuchs dated September 2, 1993.
Letter and attachments from Thomas Scott dated September 1, 1993.
'
Open House Flyer from MWCC received September 7, 1993.
1 Y
Letter from Jay Dolejsi dated August 25, 1993.
' Letter to Mr. Jack Frost dated September 3, 1993.
Thank you from Trumpy Homes.
1 Letter to Property Owner Re:Status of Legion dated Aug. 20, 1993.
' Letter to Mr. Peter Pflaum dated August 18, 1993.
Letter from Michael Schroeder dated August 20, 1993.
Letter from Lance Yohe dated July 29, 1993.
1 Letter to Mr.Lawrence A. Moloney dated August 18, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Phil Gravel dated August 18, 1993.
City Business news article dated August 20, 1993
1 Memo to City Council and Senior Commission dated August 24, 1993.
Grade report from Hamline University and note to Todd Hoffman.
' Memo from Jerry Ruegemer dated August 25, 1993.
n'Y g g
1 Letter to Mr. Evan Green dated August 26, 1993.
1
1
1
Memo to City Council and SWMP Task Force dated August 27, 1993.
I
Memo to Sheriff Al Wallin dated August 26, 1993.
Letter to Gregg Davies dated August 27, 1993. 1
Letter to Mr. Robert Generous dated August 25, 1993.
I
Memo to Mayor and City Council dated August 26, 1993.
Memo from Don Ashworth dated August 31, 1993. 1
Letter to Klein Bancorporation, Inc. dated August 31, 1993.
I
ISTEA Newsletter dated August 23, 1993.
Letter from Triax Cablevision dated August 31, 1993. 1
Letter to Mr. Gene Peterson and Mr. Matt Fischer dated Sept. 1, 1993. 1
Letter from Mike Kuehn dated August 31, 1993.
Memo from Todd Hoffman dated August 30, 1993. 1
Memo to Dean and Daryl Schmieg dated August 31, 1993. 1
H.R.A. Accounts Payable dated September 9, 1993.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
1 Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Campbell (612) 452-5000
�I Roger N. Knutson Fax (612) 452 -5550
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G. Fuchs
I James R. Walston
Elliott B. Knetsch
Michael A. Broback
Renae D. Steiner August 30, 19 9 3
II VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
1
I Mr. Wood R. Foster, Jr.
Siegel, Brill, Greupner
& Duffy, P. A.
1300 Washington Square RECEIVED
100 Washington Avenue South
I Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 SEP 0''1993
Re: City of Chanhassen v. AVR, et al. CITY Ur Lr'rarvr- PASSEN
1 Dear Mr. Foster:
In response to your letter dated August 26, 1993, this will
I confirm that the City's contractor doing the reconstruction work
on Highway 101 will not, prior to September 3, 1993, remove the
railroad crossing that provides access to the AVR Chanhassen
I plant.
In response to the second paragraph in your August 26th
I letter, I am uncertain what you mean by "AVR's willingness to
enter into this agreement essentially settles the question of the
1983 conditional use permit." I would appreciate a bit more
explanation of the conclusion you seem to have reached and the
I basis for it.
Finally, I am still discussing with the consulting engineers
and the contractor a method to provide access beyond September
I 3rd. However, from my discussions with the engineers, it is
clear that, even if access is provided beyond September 3rd, it
will not be possible to provide access beyond October 28. The
I reason for that is that the first layer of asphalt is scheduled
to be complete prior to that time, the crossing is scheduled to
be complete and, upon completion, the project is scheduled to be
I turned over to MN DOT. If the access point is from the
reconstructed Highway 101 on the east end of the AVR site, MN DOT
will never allow that access point to stay open once the highway
II is under their control. We may even have problems with having
that access point prior to the time it is under their control.
1 Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
1
Mr. Wood R. Foster, Jr.
August 30, 1993
Page 2
1 Mr. Fischer will have to be satisfied with his initial position
of access through the end of October.
I hasten to add that we have not yet determined whether we
can provide access past September 3rd. Do not assume from the
above paragraph that we have already concluded that access is
available beyond September 3rd.
I will keep you informed of the developments. If you have
any questions, please call me.
1 Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FUCHS, P A. •
1 By: AA AIM ,. Agr
5
Ga 'T chs
1 GGF : c j h
cc: Mr. Donald Ashworth,/
Mr. Jon Horn
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
Thomd, J Campbell (612) 452 -5000
Roger N Knutson Fax (612) 452 -5550
Thomas M Scott
Gary G Fuchs
James R. Walston
Elliott B. Kner,ch September 2, 1993
Michael A. Broha ck
Rcnae D. Steiner
RECEIVED
Mr. Wood R. Foster, Jr. SE° 07 199
Siegel, Brill, Greupner
& Duffy, P. A. CITY 0t tar «
1300 Washington Square
100 Washington Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re: City of Chanhassen vs. AVR, et al.
Dear Mr. Foster: '
This letter is to set forth the City's position and the
substance of our recent telephone conversations regarding access 11 to AVR's Chanhassen concrete mixing facility.
As you know, due to the reconstruction of West 78th Street
and Dakota Avenue (Highway 101), access to the site will be
eliminated. The City has continued to provide access through the
construction period, but the scheduling of the project required
access to be terminated on September 3, 1993. In an effort to
continue to allow AVR access to the site and to preclude
litigation, in response to your requests and suggestions, the
City has agreed not to terminate access on September 3, 1993 and
is considering an agreement with AVR whereby the City will
continue to provide access to the AVR site through October 28,
1993 on certain terms and conditions, including but not limited ,
to the following:
(1) Except as provided in (3) below, all traffic entering
the site will enter from the west, from Great Plains
Boulevard, through the "Hanus" property which is
directly west of the AVR site.
(2) All traffic exiting the site will exit to the east on
to newly constructed Dakota Avenue (soon to be Highway
101), where there will be a right turn only exit. No
traffic will exit through the "Hanus" property.
(3) All trucks carrying aggregate, cement, sand, concrete
or other materials for delivery to the site will enter
the site only from Dakota Avenue and will not travel
through the "Hanus" property. In order to make the
right -hand turn into the site from Dakota Avenue it
will be necessary for the vehicles to be traveling
Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
1
1 1.
1, Mr. Wood R. Foster, Jr.
September 2, 1993
Page 2
southbound on Dakota Avenue. It will not be P ossible
for them to make a turn off of Highway 5 on to Dakota
' Avenue and then make a U -turn around the concrete
islands to access the site. The parking lot on the
"Hanus" property will not provide sufficient support to
' loaded trucks without damage to the parking lot.
(4) All trucks, whether loaded or unloaded, will be
' prohibited from traveling on Southshore Drive, which is
a residential street.
The "Hanus" property is scheduled to undergo some
' construction /maintenance type work some time in October. It is
expected that the reconstruction work on West 78th Street will be
completed prior to the time the "Hanus" property work is to be
' done. Traffic entering the AVR site will, in all probability, be
re- routed on to West 78th Street as soon as possible and will not
travel over the "Hanus" property during part of October.
The access point for exiting traffic on to Dakota Avenue
(Highway 101) will be provided by not installing a section of the
concrete curb and gutter until the end of the access period.
Based on your prior representations, AVR will pay for all
additional costs associated with the late installation of that
section of curb and gutter.
' In return for the guarantee of access through October 28,
1993, AVR would agree to terminate the operation of its concrete
mixing facility in Chanhassen on October 28, 1993. AVR would not
be waiving any rights it may have as a result of its claim for
"going concern damages ". The current litigation pending before
the court would continue. However, regardless of the outcome or
' the decision by the court in the pending matter, neither party
would attempt to enforce any portion of that decision that would
be contrary to this agreement regarding access through October
28th.
I believe the above accurately sets forth the terms of the
agreement that the City is considering and, as I understand it,
it willing to enter into. I have several phone calls pending
between me and members of the City staff and the consulting
engineer that may result in minor modifications to some of the
above terms, but I don't believe any of those modifications to be
substantial.
Finally, it is my understanding that the proposed hearing
for a temporary restraining order has been continued. It is my
understanding further that you continued that hearing based on my
representation that we will not terminate access on September
' 3rd. In the event our efforts at reaching this agreement are
1
1
Mr. Wood R. Foster, Jr. �.
September 2, 1993
Page 3
fruitless, we may be back to the restraining order hearing. I,
however, agree to give you advance notice, to the extent of my
ability, of any decision to terminate access. 1
I request that you respond at your earliest convenience with
your client's reaction to the above terms.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL, 41 SON, SCOTT
& FUCHS, A.
•
4 4
By: .41 Ara/ P L.
Gary c chs 1 '
GGF :cjh
cc: Mr. Don Ashworth ✓ 1
1
1
1
. 1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
r CHANIIASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 September 2, 1993
Mr. Skip Ristau
ALM Builders
Highway 14 West
P.O. Box 191
Waseca, MN 56083
' Dear Mr. Ristau:
1 I know that you agree that it is in everyone's interests to close out your contract with the City
of Chanhassen. Therefore, I am requesting that you forward to Van Doren Hazard Stallings
all close out items which are yet outstanding. For your information in preparing a final pay
' application, the city will assess damages in the amount of $11,561.25 against this contract.
This represents the $11,036.25 in invoices for professional services beyond substantial date
previously submitted to you, and a July billing of $525.00 (invoice enclosed). In regard to a
final change order, I have amended ALM's list of July 12, 1993, to reflect the amounts which
I will recommend for payment. These amounts are documented in Van Doren Hazard
' Stalling's letter of August 31, 1993. Mr. Daubenberger and I reviewed the final change list
independently with our conclusions being very similar. Item 13 is of most concern to us. As
we have discussed, and as I documented in my letter of August 10, 1993, costs directly
I associated with removing the old concrete and pouring new concrete are ALM's
responsibility. Additionally, the costs itemized for the excavation and placement of fill are
not representative of market rates. As indicated, the city will make payments of $780.00 for
excavation and $640.00 for granular fill only. It is my position that if ALM paid $4,207.32
for this work, you paid too much. I cannot recommend the City Council do the same. Please
reflect these changes in a final change order and a final pay application.
' I wish to make it clear that my patience with this project has grown extremely thin, a rare
occurence with me. I will not look favorably upon unnecessary delays or ill- founded disputes
to our findings in regard to resolution of your contract. If you wish to dispute the content of
this letter, I will refer you to the City Attorney's office. In reviewing this issue with them, it
is their position that the opportunity you have been presented to resolve your contract is in
your favor.
1
Mr. Skip Ristau
September 2, 1993
Page 2
Thank you for your immediate attention in this matter.
Sincerely,
Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
TH:k
pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1
Max Daubenberger, Van Doren Hazard Stallings
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
111
Enclosures
Letter from Max Daubenberger dated August 31, 1993 1
Remarked Final Change List, Original date July 12, 1993
1
. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
.I 01 VanDoren
Hazard INVOICE
Stallings, Inc.
1 Architects • Engineers • Planners
Prof. Va.: 91- 319 -DO
I To: City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147 Date: August 20, 1993
Chanhassen, MN 55317
II
II TEI6 IRVOICE 21 DUE ADD PAYABLE UPON RECEIPT
II Re: Lake Ann Park Picnic- Recreation Facility NITS RATES
Chanhassen, MN
II Services Beyond Scheduled Completion Date
1 Period 07/01/93 through 07/31/93 -
II Senior Engineer 7.0 $75.00 $525.00
II
12) II AMOUNT DUE THIS INVOICE $525.00
" 7, 6 .
1 zy
��
1 . RECEI\ ED
1 AUG 19 1993
CITY OF CHf NHASSEN
1
1' .
VAN DOREN- HAZARD- STALLINGS, INC.
1 BY g ; k_ i //
Max J. D e nberger, Vic resident
1 3030 Harbor Lane North, Bldg. II, Suite 104, Minneapolis Minnesota 55447 -2175 (612) 553-1950
VanDoren ,
Hazard .
Stallings, Inc.
Architects • Engineers • Planners
August 31, 1993 ,
•
Mr. Todd Hoffman
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
Re: Additional Construction Costs
Lake Ann Park /Recreation Shelter
VHS Job No. 91 -319
Dear Todd:
We have completed review of the attached letter from A.L.M.
Builders dated July 12, 1993 and offer the following comments:
Items No. 1 & 2: '
These items are legitimate additional costs to A.L.M. and are
substantiated by invoices.
Item No. 3:
This item was covered under Change Order No. 3 and therefore
is not an additional cost at this time. '
Items 4, 5 and 6:
These items are legitimate additional costs to A.L.M. and are
substantiated by invoices.
Item 7:
This item is a legitimate additional cost to A.L.M. The
additional retaining wall cost of $2,408.00 from Garden Images
is not substantiated by an invoice.
Items No. 8, 9 and 11: '
These items are legitimate additional costs to A.L.M. and
supported for the most part by invoices.
Item No. 12:
This item is in a "gray area" regarding additional cost. VHS
discussed routing and sealing one crack line with Bob
Mickelson. A.L.M. on their own routed and sealed a number of
cracks. We have previously gone on record regarding the cause
and affect of these cracks.
1
3030 Harbor Lane North, Bldg. II, Suite 104, Minneapolis Minnesota 55447 -2175 (612) 553 -1950 ,
.,
Mr. Todd Hoffman
August 31, 1993
Page 2
Item No. 13:
The costs associated with the removal and replacement of the
' slab -on -grade should be disallowed due to earlier discussions.
The labor and equipment costs associated with the excavation
and backfill are excessive. Recognizing the additional
difficulty of removing the soils due to the building overhang,
comparison of A.L.M. and VHS estimate is as follows:
ALM VHS
' Excavation (80 C.Y.) $1,896.00 $780.00
Granular Fill (80 C.Y.) $2,311.32 $640.00
' We recommend payment for this item to be $2,344.64:
Item No. 14:
' This item is a legitimate additional cost to A.L.M.
Based upon our review of all items contained within A.L.M.'s letter
of July 12, 1993, we recommend that a change order be prepared for
a total of $11,772.29. The total is detailed as follows:
' Item No. Allowable Cost
1 $ 46.76
2 1,622.80
4 120.75
' S
6 2,058.50
227.70
7 3,495.71
' 8
9 238.05
458.85
11 126.50
12 399.53
' 13 2,344.64
14 632.50
$11,772.29
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed information,
please contact our office at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
VAN DOREN- HAZARD - STALLINGS, INC.
Max J. Daubenberger, P.E.
Vice President
Enclosure
MJD /ev
11 ADDCOSTS.L05
1
11
A Bu
A DIVISION OF ASSOCIATED LUMBER MARTS INC. s
Highway 14 West • P Box 191
Waseca, MN 56093 Phone 5071835 -1315 ,
WM MINIM MN :•
1111171111110111.9M1 4
311 MEI OM mill till JIM NM
WIN AIM 4114MI
July 12, 1993 ,
VanDoren, Hazard & Stallings Inc.
3030 Harbor Lane N., Building II,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Mn. 55447 -2175
Attn: Max Daubenberger
Re: Lake Ann Park Shelter
Chanhassen, Mn.
Dear Max: '
Please use this list as our final changes on the above mentioned
project: '
d1. Formica - per attached invoice ordered by Todd. $ 46.76 4'/
1 2. Toilet partition doors - ordered by Todd.
Wanted different color - didn't like color
selected by architect. $ 1622.80
Bartley invoice 1411.13
15% Overhead & Profit 211.67
.- , : o h t f e ra- ta-i.a -i-ag wall by stairway - -- - -- - ---$ -115 D0
Replace existing Keystone block with
straight face per attached letter - approved
by Todd.
/4. Change plumbing vent through roof to cast $ 120.75 4f'
II
iron - per architect field report #10.
Elander Plumbing 105.00
15% Overhead & Profit 15.75
/5. Change underground plumbing to cast iron - $ 2058.50 / ./%
per building inspector. PVC not allowed yy %% •
in wet clay soils.
Elander Plumbing 1790.00
15% Overhead & Profit 268.50
X. Proposal Request #3 - Substitute Bobrick B288 $ 227.70
toilet tissue holders in lieu of Am. Spec. 0715
Specialty Sales 198.00 II
15% Overhead & Profit 29.70
.1
1 1
Y7. Proposal Request #4 - Construct exterior stairs & $ 3495.71 4 /�
I ..'�V
associated construction w /upper level floor
plan & stair detail 10 /A3. Change to 5' wide &
add retaining wall on west side of stairs - per
I Todd and Architect field report #11.
Additional forming materials $ 90.00
reinforcing $ 17.50
concrete
I $ 74.25
-Additional Labor -Baum- $ 450.00 ■S/fE'O /4./G ' /G
18 hrs @ $25.00 /hr.
1
7
Retaining wall- Garden
Images $ 2408.00
24 SF @ $10.75 SF -�
15% Overhead & Profit $ 455.96
1 A. Proposal Request #5 - Change painted ceiling $ 238.05 er
in Room 101 to clear sealer.
I Casci Painting $( 118.00)
Paint conduits in
ceiling to blend in
wood deck per Max. $ 325.00
1 15% Overhead & Profit $ 31.05
Originally. conduits would have been painted with
wood decking. Now they had to be carefully painted
1 separately now that underside of wood is clear sealed.
1 . Proposal Request #6 - Gypsum Board ceiling in
1 Corridor #002. $ 458.85
Elander Plumbing- change ,„.,Ai
piping $ 50.00
Metal studs & drywall $ 60.00
1
Labor to frame & hang
drywall $ 200.00
8 hrs. @ $25.00
1 Casci Painting - finish
drywall & paint $ 68.00
Patch block $ 20.00
I // 15% Overhead & Profit $ 59.85
CI0. Add retaining wall at lower level per architect $ .00
field report. #11.
1 No change because less block used on staight
retaining wall and this wall was added to offset
other wall.
1 v11. Repair blocks cracked by frost. $ 126.50 e
Masonry materials $ 10.00
I labor 3hrs @$25.00$ 75.00
Repaint wall $ 25.00
15 Overhead & Profit $ 16.50
These walls were constructed per architect detail
I 8/A -2. There was not enough room for movement. When
frost pushed up under wall - several block cracked.
1
'•
d12. Patch deck topping at upper level 101 -per Max. e II
Mason Cutters route
cracks. $ 225.00
Sealants $ 72.42 ,
Labor 2 hrs @$25.00 $ 50.00
15% Overhead & Profit $ 52.11
Frost heaved one or more precast plank causing topping to
crack. Nothing we did or didn't do caused that to happen.
13. Remove and replace concrete pads at lower level 2.54?
due to damage caused by frost heave.
(Concrete steps - which were removed because
they were installed improperly - are not included
in this.)
love cracked concrete slabs
Bauman hrs r. $ 600.00 •
Bobcast 8 -• - - $3 . - $ 280.00
Tr 8 -hrs @ $30.00 /hr. ^•0.00
Remove frozen soil appx 4 -1/2' +/
James Bros. 12 -hrs backhoe @$50.00 /hr $ 600.00 ��
12 hrs bobcat @$35.00 /hr.$ 420.00
12 hrs truck @$35.00 /hr $ 420.00
12 hrs.truck @$38.00 /hr $ 456.00 '
- - - - -,
Place and compact approx. 4 -1/2 +/-
granular fill.
James Brothers 6 hrs backhoe @$50.00 $ 300.0 '
12 hrs bobcat @$35.00 $ 420.•• / ze1
12 hrs truck @$35.00 $ 420.0 Of
L'
6 hrs truck @$38.00 $ 228.00
24 hrs. labor 2 -men @$18.00 $ 432.00
Mueller Gravel $ 511.32
Braun Intertec - compaction tests $ 249.75
Total Rental - packer rental $ 196.88
Drain tile & fittings $ 97.19
Replace concrete slabs
5- hr3/e$21 /hr $ 3757170
$-604-r00
C $ S . v=+
Remesh /expansion joints $ 75.00 ,42
1
15% Overhead & Profit $1116.72,97
These slabs cracked because of frost upheavel - not because of
anything we did wrong. Spec's called for 6" gravel under walks. We
placed over 12' under them. We had to remove frozen soils to a
depth of 4 -1/2' + / -. We excavated so we could see under the
building footings. There were frozen soils underneath the buildings ,
frost footings. We talked to Braun and explained what had happened
and they indicated that there was nothing we could have done to
prevent this. You have: 1. Moist (wet)clay soils. 2. Cold 3. No
direct sunlight. You can tell by all the movement in the building
and walks that frost got under this building and probably will
11
.1
1 1
again. There is nothing we or anyone can do to stop that in this
' building and this location. There is just too much of the
conditions that favor deep frost at this site.
14. Add set of handrails to outside at stairway- $ 632.50
1 ordered by building inspector.
Metal Railings $ 245.50
Welding 1 -1/2 hrs @$50.00$ 75.00
' Labor 6hrs @$25.00 /hr $ 150.00
Paint railing $ 80.00
15% Overhead & Profit $ 82.50
Total $19,139.10
/7 77 2
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
. _5I
Sk Ristau
Vice President
SR:pp
LAFINAL.WPS
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C -L • Ad srvf•
�- K.
be,„, A• 1•
5eAn .4.
230 SE 28th Terrace
Cape Coral, FL. 33904
August 30, 1993 ,
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
Assistant City Manager
City of Channhassen
P.O.Box 147
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
Re: Letter of Acceptance '
•
Dear Mr. Gerhardt: ,
This letter is to acknowledge your letter of employment, dated
August 25, 1993, and to confirm my acceptance of the Planner II
position with the City of Chanhassen. Pursuant to our telephone
conversation, we have agreed to move my start date back one week
to September 27, 1993 so that I may complete my move from Florida
to Minnesota. If possible, I will attempt to come to the office. 1
on Thursday and /or Friday in order to begin my orientation. I
will contact you about this once I arrive in Minnesota.
I eagerly await beginning my work with the Planning Staff and the 1
rest of the City personnel. I believe that you will be very
happy with your choice to fill this position.
If I can provide any additional information or if you have any
questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
1
Robert E. Generous
1
RECEIVED
1
SEP O 7 199:
CITY OF nr+ivri i SEN 1
CITYOF
.r CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
r
1 September 7, .1993
Mr. Steve Berquist
Merit Heating and Cooling
r 7801 Park Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Steve:
On behalf of the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Department, thank you for your cooperation
r this summer in letting us advertise our concert series on your billboard.
We were able to hold all four concerts even though weather was a little threatening at times, and
' we felt that they were a success. In fact, we are already planning to do the Lawn Chair Lyrics
concert series again next year.
1 Thanks again for your support of the community and the many different events that occur here.
r Appreciatively,
1\, Gu01
•
r Dawn Lemme
Program Specialist
r DL:ns
' p.c. hanhassen Parks and Recreation Commission
Chanhassen City Council
r
r
1
1
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at LaW
Thomas 1. Campbell (612) 452 -5000
Roger N. Knutson Fax (612) 452 -5550 1
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G. Fuchs
Jame: R. Walston // �D
Elliott B. Knersch September 2, 1993 n — r I
Michael A. Brohack
Remit! D. Steiner ee "c G - �,J:
District Court Administrator
Civil Division
Carver County Courthouse
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, Minnesota 55318 1
Re: City of Chanhassen vs. Guy S. Petersen, et al
(Trunk Highway 101 Realignment)
Court File No. 91 -28228
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed for filing in the above - entitled matter please find
Petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Preclude Evidence
and Affidavit of Service by Mail. '
If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours, 1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FUCHS, P.A.
By:/ 1
Ga G. Fuchs
GGF : cj h
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Don Ashworth
Suite 317 • EaganJale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
1 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
I Tho m as J Campbell (612) 452 -5000
Roger N Knutson Fax (612) 452 -5550
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G. Fuchs
James R. Walston
Elliott B. Knetsch September 2, 1993
Michael A. Broback
Renae D. Steiner
Mr. Wood R. Foster, Jr.
Siegel, Brill, Greupner
& Duffy, P. A.
1300 Washington Square
100 Washington Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
1 Re: City of Chanhassen vs. AVR, et al.
1 Dear Mr. Foster:
Enclosed and served upon you by United States mail please
find Petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Preclude
Evidence in the above matter.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FUCHS, P.A.
J e P
1
By: A .., ... t
' Ga Fu
GGF : cj h
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Don Ashworth
1
1
1
1
Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
1
1
MINNESOTA T
STATE OF DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT '
Case Type 2: Condemnation
City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota '
municipal corporation, Court File No. 91 -28228
Petitioner, '
PETITIONER'S MEMORANDUM
vs. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE
Guy S. Petersen;
State Bank of Chanhassen;
Apple Valley Red -E -Mix, Inc.
n /k /a AVR, Inc.; First Bank National
Association; Builders Development, Inc.;
The Equitable Life Assurance Society of
the United States; B F Holding Company;
Dorn and Associates, Inc.;
Metropolitan Financial Mortgage Corporation
n /k /a Metropolitan Federal Bank fsb;
Owatonna Savings and Loan Association
n /k /a Metropolitan Federal Bank fsb;
St. Louis County Federal Savings &
Loan Association n /k /a St. Louis Bank
for Savings fsb; John Doe and
Mary Roe and County of Carver,
Respondents.
Petitioner, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, submits this Memorandum in
Support of its Motion to preclude Respondents from introducing '
evidence regarding, or recovering damages for, loss of going
concern value.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 1
The City of Chanhassen commenced this eminent domain
proceeding to acquire fee title to several parcels of property 1
for the realignment of Highway 101. The City's Petition was
submitted to the court on January 9, 1992. By its Order dated
.1
January 27, 1992, this court found, among other things, that the
1 Petitioner was authorized to condemn the subject property and
that the use for which the property is being taken is a public
use. The court appointed three commissioners and two alternates
to determine the damages sustained by the property owners as a
result of the taking. The three Commissioners, Charles Dimler,
1 Gayle Dungey and William Glaeser, were sworn in by the Clerk of
Court on March 23, 1992.
At the hearing on the Petition, Respondent Apple Valley
1 Red -E -Mix (hereinafter "AVR ") served the Petitioner with notice
of its intention to offer evidence on, and make a claim for,
1 damages for "loss of going concern value" to its business. At
1 the swearing in of the Commissioners, counsel for the Respondent
again informed the Commissioners of the intent to claim damages
for loss of going concern value.
The Petitioner now brings this Motion requesting that this
1 Court adjudge that the Respondent is not entitled to any
compensation in this proceeding for loss of going concern value.
Furthermore, Petitioner requests that the Court prohibit
1 Respondent from offering evidence of such a claim to the Court
appointed Commissioners; direct the Commissioners not to accept
1 or consider such evidence; and direct the Commissioners not to
award any compensation to Respondent for loss of going concern
value.
' INTRODUCTION
The Petitioner readily acknowledges that the Respondent is
entitled to compensation for the loss of its Chanhassen property
and physical assets. However, the Petitioner disagrees with the
1 -2-
1
j .
Respondent regarding the Respondent's claim for loss of going
concern value. Loss of going concern value is designed to
compensate only those business owners who lose their entire 1
business and cannot relocate. The going concern value represents
the goodwill, reputation, and other intangibles inherent in any
1
business. If the business survives the condemnation, its
goodwill and reputation will naturally survive as well.
Therefore, unless the City takes all of the Respondent's business
and the Respondent cannot relocate, compensation for loss of
going concern value should be denied.
1
FACTS
The property owned by Apple Valley Red -E -Mix (AVR) that is
being taken in this proceeding is located on the east end of '
downtown Chanhassen, directly west of the existing Highway 101
and Highway 5 intersection and between the Highway 5 right -of -way
1
and the Soo Line Railroad right -of -way. The parcel is
approximately 77,900 square feet in size, is long and narrow, and 1
is used as a concrete mixing facility. The lot contains a small
concrete block building, a cement silo, conveyors, and associated
machinery and equipment. AVR operates a total of ten such mixing 1
plants, most of which are located in the Twin City metropolitan
area. The Chanhassen site and the improvements serve as one of
AVR's satellite concrete mixing plants. Like its sister plants
located in St. Louis Park and Burnsville, the Chanhassen plant
primarily serves the southwestern metropolitan area. Other AVR
1
plants also deliver concrete into the southwestern metro area
from time to time. 1
-3- 1
The Chanhassen facility plays a relatively small role in
AVR's extensive network. Chanhassen produced only 5.44% of AVR's
total concrete production and approximately 5.25% of AVR's total
dollar revenue in 1990. In 1991, 5.9% of AVR's total concrete
1 production came from Chanhassen. The Chanhassen plant typically
operates only eight months out of the year. It was completely
1 closed down four months out of the year in 1990 and 1991, and
three months in 1992. In other words, the Chanhassen plant was
1 not in operation for a total of 11 months in the past three
1 years.
When the Chanhassen plant is closed, the St. Louis Park,
1 Burnsville, and the two Apple Valley facilities typically serve
the southwestern metropolitan area. Mathias Fischer, AVR's
1 principal owner and one of its officers, admitted that AVR will
1 continue to do business after the Chanhassen facility closes
permanently. Steve Linegan, AVR's Vice President, admitted that
1 relocation of the Chanhassen plant would not have any substantial
impact on that plant's ability to function if the new location
1 had similar access and visibility. Despite this recognition, AVR
has made no application to the City for a permit to relocate its
business to any other site within the City of Chanhassen.
Moreover, AVR has made no effort to relocate the Chanhassen
facility in any nearby cities such as Victoria, Chaska, Eden
1 Prairie, or Excelsior.
The subject property has been in use as a concrete mixing
plant for approximately 30 years. The property is in an area
1 zoned as "BH ", Business and Highway Services District, and
1 -4-
11
Respondents' use of the property is a nonconforming use within
1 that zoning classification.
AVR's concrete mixing facility became an nonconforming use
when Chanhassen adopted its zoning ordinance No. 47 in February,
1972. That original zoning ordinance has been amended numerous 1
times since 1972. However, from its inception, the ordinance has
prohibited the expansion, enlargement, alteration or increase in
size, use, or intensity of use of a nonconforming use.
In 1982 AVR made application to the City to allow an
expansion or enlargement of its nonconforming use of the subject 1
property. The expansion involved the construction of an
aggregate wash -out system. Following discussions and 1
negotiations, AVR made a final proposal to the City. AVR offered
to terminate all nonconforming use of the subject property no
later than July 1, 1992 in exchange for a permit to expand AVR's 1
current nonconforming use until that date. The City Council
accepted AVR's offer and agreed to permit the expansion of the 1
nonconforming use. The agreement, which was subsequently put
down in writing, was even signed by Mathias Fischer, the
President of AVR (See Exhibit 14). Both parties believed that 1
the agreement was fully executed and binding. Bruce Goldstein,
who was representing AVR during the negotiations in 1983, wrote a
letter to the City confirming the existence of the agreement and
stated he would immediately inform AVR to begin installing the 1
wash -out system. (Exhibit 12) On the same day, Bob Waibel, the
Chanhassen City Planner, sent a letter to Hugh Fischer, Mathias
Fischer's nephew and an employee of AVR, where he restated the 1
terms of the agreement and included a copy of the conditional use
-5- 1
1
1
permit. In the letter, Bob Waibel told Hugh Fischer that "the
conditional use permit ... will need to be executed on behalf of
your firm before a building permit can be issued for the
installation of the wash -out system." (Exhibit 13)
' The realignment of Highway 101 and the taking of AVR's
property has been public knowledge for well over two years. In a
letter dated October 16., 1991, the City formally notified AVR of
the condemnation proceeding. By letter dated January 8, 1992,
the City formally notified AVR of its intention to take
' possession of the subject property on or after August 1, 1992.
In the Spring of 1992, scheduling and coordination problems
i arose regarding reconstruction of the railroad crossing that is
part of the highway realignment project and possession of AVR's
property was not needed in August, 1992. Rather than
unnecessarily dislocate AVR, the City opted to allow AVR to
remain in possession and operate its facility.
' ISSUE
Is Loss Of Going Concern Value Compensable
Where The Going Concern Value Will'Not Be
Destroyed And Where The Business Can Be Relocated?
THE CURRENT LAW
The general rule of law in Minnesota is that loss of
going concern value is not compensable in a condemnation
proceeding. Matter of Mpls. Community Dev. Agency. (Kaplan
Block), 488 N.W.2d 319 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) Housing and
Redevelopment Auth. v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co., 282
N.W.2d 537 (Minn. 1979); City of Minneapolis v. Schutt, 256
N.W.2d 260 (Minn. 1977); State by Mattson v. Saugen, 283 Minn.
402, 169 N.W.2d 37 (1969).
-6-
1
1
A narrow exception to that general rule is found in Saucren,
supra. In Saucren, the State took the entire property upon which
the owner had operated an on -sale liquor business. The parties 1
stipulated that the owner had unsuccessfully applied to transfer
the liquor license to another location. The Minnesota Supreme 1
Court held that, under those stipulated facts, where the
condemnation had destroyed the business and City ordinances
prohibited relocation of the business, ". . . the facts of this
1
particular case fall within an exception to the general rule of
no compensation . . . for the loss of the going business . . . '
Id., 169 N.W.2d 37, 46.
Eight years later, in Schutt, supra, the court set forth a
two -prong test to determine if loss of going concern value is 1
compensable in a condemnation action. The court held that:
Compensation for loss of going concern value will be
1
permitted where the holder of the interest to be lost by
condemnation can show 1) that his going concern value will
be destroyed as a direct result of the condemnation, and 2)
that his business either cannot be relocated as a practical
matter, or that relocation would result in irreparable harm
to the interest. 1
Schutt, 256 N.W.2d at 265. In Schutt, the court found that no
recovery could be had because the condemnation resulted in a
1
taking of only 20% of the owner's parking ramp and, unlike
Saugen, the owner "will continue to operate as a going concern, 1
even if profits are somewhat reduced." Schutt, 256 N.W.2d at
263.
In Naecrele, supra, the court interpreted and applied both ,
Saugen and Schutt and held that both prongs of the Schutt test
must be satisfied before there could be any recovery for loss of 11
going concern value. In addition, NaeQele reiterated that the
-7-
1
.1
business owner has the burden of proving that the condemnation
proceeding results in a total take of his /her business and, in
order to recover for the loss of a going concern, the business
owner also has the burden to prove that the business's going
1 concern value is dependent on its current location, the business
cannot be relocated as a practical matter, and the going concern
value cannot exist at another location.
In Matter of Mpls. Community Dev. Agency (Kaplan Block), 488
N.W.2d 319 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), the condemning authority
1 condemned the Corral Bar on Franklin Avenue in Minneapolis. In
ruling that loss of going concern value was not recoverable, the
court held that going concern value must be "firmly bonded" to
' the location of the business, rather than to the owners of the
business or the services provided. The court found that the
going concern value of the bar in the Kaplan Block case was
primarily tied to the services provided by the bar owner, such as
' cashing checks and sponsoring trips to Canterbury Downs, and the
safe and comfortable environment the owner provided for his
customers. The particular location of the bar was secondary.
1 THE LAW APPLIED TO THIS CASE
AVR IS NOT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR
LOSS OF GOING CONCERN VALUE. AVR CANNOT
MEET EITHER PRONG OF THE TWO -PRONG
REQUIREMENTS OF SCHUTT.
1. AVR cannot show that this condemnation proceeding
results in a total take of its business.
2. a. AVR cannot show that its going concern value is
dependent on this location.
b. AVR cannot show that it cannot relocate as a
practical matter.
-8-
1
c. AVR cannot show irreparable harm; i.e., that its
going concern value cannot exist at another
location.
3. AVR contractually agreed to terminate its business i
operation at this location effective July 1, 1992.
1. This condemnation proceeding does not result in a total ,
take of AVR's business.
The Minnesota Supreme Court's holding in Schutt controls the '
present case. In Schutt, the City of Minneapolis condemned 20%
of a downtown parking ramp. As a result, the plaintiff could no
longer serve 20% of his clientele. The plaintiff also lost
profits (presumably 20% of his profits) which would have
otherwise stemmed from utilizing the parking stalls. The
Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged that the condemnation would
mean the plaintiff would lose some of his customers because he r
would no longer be capable of serving them. The court also
acknowledged that the plaintiff would lose profits. However, the
Court denied any compensation for loss of going concern value. 1
In the Schutt decision the Minnesota Supreme Court stated:
As has been said, many acts of eminent domain operate to the
detriment of private parties in furtherance of a valid
public purpose, but such a detriment does not become a
constitutional taking unless it can be shown that the loss, '•
as in Kimball, Saugen, L & L, and Wery, was egregious and
irreparable. Schutt, supra at 265.
The only times that the Minnesota and Michigan Courts have 1
found that a taking is "egregious and irreparable" enough to
require compensation of loss of going concern value has been
where there has been a total taking of the entire business 1
enterprise. (See Kimball, Sauaen, L & L, and Wery, supra). The
courts have never granted loss of going concern compensation ,
where part of the entire business concern survives.
-9-
1
.,
AVR is complaining that condemning the Chanhassen property
will lend to a diminution of AVR's client base and corporate
profitability. Even if this is true (which the City does not
concede and largely doubts), it makes no difference. AVR's claim
1 would still fail. If a 20% decrease in client base and
profitability was not "egregious and irreparable" enough to
1 require compensation for the loss of going concern value in
Schutt, a 2% to 6% decrease in client base and profitability in
I AVR's situation is definitely not compensable. The case law is
clear that only a total take of the corporation gives rise to
compensation for loss of going concern value.
1 AVR's attempts to distinguish the Schutt decision from the
present case are ill- founded. AVR wants special treatment
because the company is not all located under one roof. However,
1 whether or not AVR is or is not lumped all together is of no
consequence. If a company cannot serve 6% of its clients after a
1 condemnation, the company is not entitled to loss of going
concern value. It doesn't matter if the lost customers were
1 previously serviced out of a satellite facility or from part of a
' larger facility. The effects of the condemnation are the same,
the company loses a few clients, but the Company's goodwill and
1 reputation survive.
AVR also claims that treating it differently than "if the
1 plant were the single property of a small, local operator" is
unfair and discriminatory. Such a claim is absurd. A company's
going concern value represents the goodwill, reputation, and
1 other intangibles inherent in any business. (See "Goodwill as
Element of Damages for Condemnation of Property on which Private
1 -10-
1
1
Business is Conducted ", 81 ALR3d 198, 199, footnote 2). The law
doesn't discriminate against larger corporations which operate at
more than one location. Rather, the law makes a meaningful 1
distinction between dissimilar situations. In the case of the
single property facility, condemnation (without relocation) would 1
completely destroy the company's goodwill. However, in AVR's
situation, its goodwill will survive. AVR will still operate its
dozen or so other plants and its going concern will continue. 1
While this condemnation proceeding is a total take of AVR's
Chanhassen property, it is not a total take of AVR's business. 1
The going concern value of AVR remains with AVR following this
condemnation proceeding. The City of Chanhassen is not totally
taking AVR's business. This particular concrete mixing plant is
only one of ten operating locations of AVR in the Twin City
metropolitan area. Even Mathias Fischer, AVR's principal 1
shareholder and an officer in the corporation, acknowledged that
the taking will not totally destroy AVR's business.
In addition, the Chanhassen facility remains closed 30% of 1
each year and generates only 4% to 8% of AVR's total annual
concrete production and dollar revenue. AVR's business will 1
continue after the Chanhassen plant is closed. If AVR really
believed the Chanhassen facility was crucial to the survival of
the company, AVR never would have dreamed of agreeing to close 1
the plant in 1992 in exchange for a wash -out system. AVR's
failure to even attempt to relocate suggests that AVR realizes 1
that maintaining a concrete plant in Chanhassen or the immediate
area is not crucial to AVR's survival. AVR could not be so 1
short - sighted as to "risk losing its entire business" without
-11-
1
compensation by depending on a lawsuit instead of first trying to
relocate. Relocating the Chanhassen operation would allow AVR to
1 avoid all of the uncertainties associated with a lawsuit. One
would expect AVR to attempt to avoid unnecessary, and very large
1 risks.
AVR will continue to serve many, if not all, of its
' southwestern metro area customers from its Burnsville and St.
1 Louis Park plants as it already does when the Chanhassen plant is
not operating. Even Mathias Fischer acknowledges that closing
1 Chanhassen will not sound the death knell for AVR, Inc.
2.a. AVR's going concern value is not dependent on this
location.
AVR has a number of mixing plants scattered throughout the
1 metro area. The good will or going concern value that AVR has
' developed over the years has more to do with the ownership of the
company and the quality of the product, than it does with any
1 particular location of any particular plant.
A Michigan case, citing and relying in part on Saugen,
1 explained when good will or going concern value is compensable.
In State Highway Comm'n v. L & L Concession Co., 187 N.W.2d 465 -
1 (Mich Ct. App. 1971), the court stated the general rule that
1 going concern value is not ordinarily compensable. However, the
court noted that, in certain circumstances, the location of the
business is so particularly "adapted" to the use that going
concern value is awarded if "the destruction of the business was
a necessary consequence of the condemnation."
1 In L & L, the defendants owned the only concession stand
allowed at a race track. The race track and concession stand
-12-
were condemned. The court allowed recovery for loss of going It
concern on the following basis:
The going concern value of L & L's business is not related ,
to customers cultivated but to the patronage of the race
track; the concession gives L & L a monopoly on food and
souvenir sales at the Speedrome. The value of the
concession flows from locational advantage and L & L's
monopoly position at that location, not conventional
customer good will. The value flows from an "adaptation" of
the grand stand to a use for which it is suited. Viewed
from that perspective, allowing compensation for the value
of the concession is consistent with the case law which
recognizes that in valuing real estate for condemnation
purposes it is proper to include value attributable to a use
for which the real estate is adapted.
(emphasis added). '
L & L, supra, quoted in City of Minneapolis v. Schutt, 256 N.W.2d '
260, 264 (Minn. 1977). L & L was allowed to recover for loss of
going concern because its value as a going concern derived not ,
from the quality of its product and service but, rather, from its
monopolistic position in a particular location.
In AVR's instance, the going concern or good will is based '
on AVR's prominence in the concrete business for decades, not
because one of its plants is located off Highway 5 in Chanhassen. '
That location is no more valuable to AVR than any other suitable
location in the area. Steve Linegar testified in his deposition 1
that relocation of the Chanhassen plant would have little impact '
on the plant's function if the access and visibility of the new
location were similar to the existing location. Customers do not ,
come to the plant to pick up their concrete. Rather, AVR
delivers the concrete to the customer. Although AVR's location '
may result in more profit from the delivery of concrete products
to certain locations, loss of convenience or decrease in profit
is not compensable. Schutt, supra. 1
-13-
1
•
' 2.b. AVR cannot show that it cannot relocate its business as
a practical matter.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that, "even
where going concern value cannot be transferred, the loss may be
1 so speculative that proof of the loss may be justifiably
excluded." Kimball Laundry Co. v. U.S., 338 U.S. 1, 11, 69 S.Ct.
1 1434, 1441 (1949). The Michigan Court of Appeals, in an opinion
embraced by the Kaplan Block decision, followed the U.S. Supreme
Court's reasoning. The Michigan Court held that a clothing store
owner was not entitled to compensation for loss of going concern
value pursuant to a condemnation action because the damages were
too uncertain and speculative. Although suitable relocation
sites were already occupied by existing businesses, in order to
recover for loss of going concern the owner "would also have to
' prove that none of those businesses would either sell or go out
of business, leaving an available relocation site." City of
1 Detroit v. Whalings, Inc., 202 N.W.2d 816, 820 -821 (Mich. Ct.
App. 1972). The Court also noted that the owner still needed to
prove that his business cannot exist apart from those locations.
AVR has made no effort to relocate its Chanhassen mixing
plant business. It has made no application to the City of
Chanhassen for a permit to operate at a new location within the
City. Mathias Fischer acknowledged that he has not made any
1 other efforts to relocate this business to any other city.
Furthermore, AVR has made no effort to purchase an existing
concrete plant in Chanhassen or the surrounding areas. It is
AVR's burden to show that its business cannot be relocated as a
practical matter, or that the relocation would result in
1 -14-
1
1
irreparable harm. Without such a showing, AVR cannot meet the
second prong of the two-prong Schutt test. Without having made 11 P g P g g
any effort to relocate, AVR cannot meet its burden. John Voss's 1
appearance and testimony at the evidentiary hearing is
insufficient to prove that AVR cannot relocate its business. 1
Voss's testimony is pure speculation. The United States Supreme
Court in Kimball Laundry Co., supra, stated that speculation
cannot serve as the foundation for permitting loss of going 1
concern value.
The Court should not be mislead by the seemingly charitable 1
phrase "as a practical matter" contained within the legal test
articulated by Schutt, supra. The test, at first blush, may
appear to establish a relatively low threshold for the business 1
owners to meet. However, the courts have routinely applied that
language in a very stringent and narrow way. For example, in 1
Kaplan Block, supra, the business owner was denied compensation
for loss of going concern because he did not prove that his
business could not exist apart from its location. Moreover, in
111
City of Detroit, supra, the same test was applied when denying
the business owner recovery for loss of going concern. The Court 1
based its denial on the fact that the business owner could not
prove that although no space was currently available in his trade
district, other business owners would not sell out or go out of 1
business and thus open up some space for the business owner.
2.c. AVR cannot show irreparable harm; i.e., that its aoina
concern value cannot exist at another location.
Under the Kaplan Block case cited above, AVR must show 1
irreparable harm. Irreparable harm is defined as "the going
1
-15-
1
1 concern value cannot exist apart from the location " . Kaplan
Block, supra, at 321. It is clear here that there is no
' irreparable harm. Unlike L & L, where the court found that L &
L's location was adapted for a particularly highly productive use
and was in no way dependent on ownership by those particular
persons, AVR's ownership obviously affects its going concern
' value. AVR's product is well known through the industry. This
condemnation proceeding will not change that.
More compelling, however, is the fact that AVR can continue
' to serve many, if not all, of its customers from other currently
existing and operational locations. Not only will their business
not be destroyed, but relocation of this particular mixing plant
is not even necessary for the business to continue operating and
continue to be profitable.
' 3. AVR contractually agreed to terminate its business
operation at this location effective July 1992.
' The 1982 Agreement between the City and AVR (delineated in
Exhibit 14) requires AVR to terminate its nonconforming use of
' the property in July, 1992. There was, in effect, no ongoing
business at this location after that date. Therefore, there
cannot be a taking or destruction of a going concern since AVR
1 cannot legally operate at this location.
The Current Law of Offer and Acceptance
' In order to complete a contract, there must be an offer by
' one party, an acceptance by the other, and consideration. St.
Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Bierwerth, 175 N.W.2d 136, 285
' Minn. 310 (1969); Cooke v. Belzer, 413 N.W.2d 623 (Minn. Ct. App.
1987) .
' -16-
1
A promise is an offer if it is made with the intent to reach 1
a binding agreement. Peters v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co., 420
N.W.2d 908 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). A party's intention to make an
offer is determined by outward manifestations, and the existence
of an offer may thus be inferred from words and conduct. Id.
In general, to constitute the acceptance of an offer, there
must be an expression of the acceptance by word, sign, writing,
or act communicated or delivered to the person making the offer
1
or his agent. 8 Dunnell Minnesota Digest Contracts, Section
5.02B, citing Pierce v. Foley Bros., 283 Minn. 360, 168 N.W.2d
346 (1969). Therefore, a party can accept an offer by '
communicating directly to the offerors. 451 Corps v. Pension
System for Policemen and Firemen of City of Detroit, 310 N.W.2d
1
994 (Minn. 1981). A party may also accept an offer by performing
the actions contemplated by the offer. Peters v. Mutual Ben. i
Life Ins. Co., 420 N.W.2d 908 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). Accepting
1
an offer through performance creates an unilateral contract. Id.
The unilateral contract, therefore, comes into existence the
1
moment the act or forbearance has been fully performed. Hartung
v. Billmeier, 66 N.W.2d 784, 789 (Minn. 1954).
The Law of Offer and Acceptance Applied to this Case
Three separate transactions transpired between the parties,
each of which satisfy the elements of offer and acceptance. ,
A) The First Transaction
Offer: AVR's petition to the City Council. '
Acceptance: City Council approved AVR's proposal.
Acceptance: City performed by issuing the permit (See
Exhibit 13).
-17-
B) The Second Transaction
Offer: The City's approval of the permit.
' Acceptance: AVR signed the agreement and mailed it to
the City.
1 C) The Third Transaction
Offer: AVR signed the memorandum of the agreement.
1 Acceptance: City performed by issuing the permit (See
Exhibit 13).
The Court should conclude that the City and AVR entered into a
binding contractual agreement.
' A. The First Transaction
' In 1982, AVR made application to the City to allow the
construction of an aggregate wash -out system. Following
1 discussions and negotiations, AVR made a final proposal to the
City. AVR offered to terminate all non - conforming use of the
subject property no later than July 1, 1992 in exchange for a
permit to expand AVR's current non - conforming use until that
date. AVR petitioned the City with the intent to reach a binding
1 agreement. According to Peters v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co.,
supra, AVR's actions constitute an offer.
1 The City accepted AVR's offer when the City Council
unanimously approved the issuance of the permit to expand the
nonconforming use (See Exhibit 10). The City communicated its
1 acceptance by letter (See Exhibit 13). The City's actions
constitute an acceptance in accordance with Pierce, supra and 451
1 Corps, supra.
The City accepted twice -over when it mailed the permit to
1 AVR (Exhibit 13). The City performed its obligations under the
1 contract. ( "Once made, an offer may be accepted by performance
-18-
of the actions contemplated by the offer, thus resulting in the IF
creation of a unilateral contract." Peters v. Mutual Ben. Life
Ins. Co., 420 N.W.2d 908 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988), (See also Hartung '
v. Billmeier, 66 N.W.2d 784, 789 (Minn. 1954)).
B. The Second Transaction
The Court could alternatively construe the City Council's
1
approval of the conditional use permit and the accompanying
provisions found in Exhibit 10 as an offer. AVR accepted those
1
terms when it signed the agreement reproduced in Exhibit 14.
C. The Third Transaction
Although the court should find that both Transaction No. 1 1
and Transaction No. 2 independently constitute binding agreements
comprised of an offer and an acceptance, there is yet a third
1
transaction which also satisfies the requirements of a binding
agreement. This third transaction was analyzed by AVR in its 1
Prehearing and Posthearing Memorandums of Law. AVR states in its
memorandum that AVR's act of signing Exhibit 14 "constituted an
offer to contract by AVR." AVR then incorrectly concludes that
the City did not accept the offer until 1988 when the City signed
Exhibit 14 and by that time the offer had lapsed due to changed '
circumstances. (See Respondent's Memorandum, Section B2 and B3).
AVR assumes that the only way the City could have accepted
the offer was to sign the contract and return a copy to AVR
within a few months. However, Minnesota case law provides that a
party can accept an offer and form a binding agreement by 1
"performing the actions contemplated by the offer." (See Peters
v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co., supra and Hartung v. Billmeier,
supra). In exchange for AVR's offer to build the wash -out system 1
-19-
1
1
and to terminate all operations at the Chanhassen plant by July
1, 1992, AVR asked the City to grant and issue a conditional use
permit. The City accepted AVR's offer by granting and issuing
the conditional use permit.
1 In short, by AVR's own admissions, AVR offered to enter into
the wash -out system agreement when Mathias Fischer signed the
1 agreement and sent it to the City. The City accepted AVR's offer
' by performing its duties as contemplated by the offer.
The problem with AVR's argument is that AVR wants to go to
the last exchange between the parties regarding this wash -out
agreement, refer to the last exchange as an offer, assert that
the City never accepted AVR's offer, and then conclude that there
' was never an acceptance. In leaping to the last transaction, AVR
overlooks three separate transactions which satisfy the
1 requirements of offer and acceptance. Even the parties
themselves appear to have been under the opinion that a valid
contract constituting an offer and acceptance was formed. (See
' Exhibit 12 and 13).
The Law of Consideration
Only a promise supported by consideration constitutes a
contract; and consideration requires a voluntary assumption of an
1 obligation by one party upon the condition of act or forbearance
by the other. Baehr v. Penn -O -Tex Oil Corp., 104 N.W.2d 661, 258
Minn. 533 (1960). A valuable consideration for contract may
consist of some benefit accruing to one party or some detriment
suffered by the other, and the tendency is to emphasize the
detriment to the promisee. Estrada v. Hanson, 10 N.W.2d 223, 215
Minn. 353 (1943). If consideration is found at all to support a
-20-
contract, inquiry into its adequacy is forbidden. Satellite
Inds., Inc. v. Keeling, 396 N.W.2d 635 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
The Law of Consideration Applied to this Case 1
The City provided consideration for the agreement. The
benefit AVR received was a conditional use permit which allowed
it to install a wash -out system. The wash -out system permitted '
AVR to conduct its business in a more cost effective way. The
City suffered the detriment of expanding a prior nonconforming ,
use.
AVR provided consideration for the agreement. The City '
received the benefit of a cleaner environment for its
inhabitants. The City Council acknowledged that AVR's then
current method of recollecting aggregate and cleaning its trucks
1
had the potential of adversely affecting the City's environment
(See Exhibit 7 and 10). AVR suffered a detriment under this '
agreement. According to the terms of the agreement, "Apple
Valley, Inc. will immediately, upon execution of the conditional
use permit, install at its Chanhassen plant and at its own
expense, a wash -out system..." AVR was required to install the
wash -out system. Since AVR was to install the wash -out system at
its own expense, AVR did not have a choice but to incur the costs
of installing the system.
Any argument that AVR did not receive adequate consideration 1
because it never put in the wash -out system is improper. The
contract was properly formed and is binding. AVR received the 1
benefit of its bargain (a conditional use permit) and chose not 11 to act on it. The City performed its obligations under the
agreement. The City is entitled to have AVR perform its '
-21-
1
obligations under the agreement. The City cannot be precluded
' from exercising its rights under the contract because AVR decided
to sit on its hands and not make full use of its right under the
contract. (See Steele v. Northrup, 143 N.W.2d 302, 307 (Iowa
' 1966) "Equity will not knowingly permit a party to benefit by his
own delay and mistakes, and abhors forfeitures. ")
AVR's Prehearing and Posthearinct Memorandums Should Be
Completely Disrecarded As It Is Based On Faulty Assumptions.
' Section II of AVR's Prehearing and Posthearing Memorandums
of Law claim that the agreement between the City and AVR
' concerning the wash -out systems in unenforceable. AVR bases that
assertion on five distinct rationales. Each rationale is
considered individually below. For the reasons herein expressed,
AVR's position on each is incorrect.
I) A signed writing was not a condition precedent to the
formation of the agreement.
AVR incorrectly presumes that a signed writing was a
1 condition precedent to the formation of this contract. AVR
consequently claims that the City never properly executed the
' contract. (See Petitioner's memo Section B1). AVR states, "when
' the parties' know that the execution of a written contract is a
condition precedent to their being bound, there can be no binding
contract until the written agreement is executed," citing
Northway v. Witting, 436 N.W.2d 796 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989), among
' other cases. AVR then assumes that a written contract, signed by
both parties, was a condition precedent to the correct formation
of the wash -out system agreement.
It is not indispensable that all parties to a contract
should sign it absent testimony of an intention not to be bound
' -22-
until the instrument is signed by others or an agreement to such '
effect, a party who signs and delivers an instrument is bound by
the obligation he therein assumes. 8 Dunnell's Contracts, 1
Section 4.04 citing Day v. Day, 180 Minn. 151, 230 N.W. 634
(1930); Winter v. Skocrlund, 404 N.W.2d 786 (Minn. 1987). The
Minnesota Court of Appeals, in Johnson v. City of Jordan, 352 '
N.W.2d 500, 503 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), recognized that, "although
the intent to make a written contract is clear in this case, it '
does not necessarily follow that there was no binding contract
until the execution of such a writing."
AVR's assumption is its undoing. As the above law states, '
AVR has the burden of proving that the parties intended a signed,
written contract was a condition precedent to a binding
1
agreement. However, AVR has provided no evidence that the
parties "[knew] that the execution of a written contract is
condition precedent to their being bound..." as Northway
requires. The parties never agreed to such a condition
precedent. '
AVR, in its posthearing memorandum, cites language from
Northway and states "This language demonstrates that Northway
believed the stock purchase agreement had not yet been entered
1
into as it had not been duly executed by the parties." AVR is
correct, the Northway decision reasoned that if the parties '
didn't believe that they were bound because some occurrence
hadn't happened, that occurrence was probably intended to be a
condition precedent. The opposite is also true. If an
occurrence hasn't happened, but the parties believe that a
binding agreement has been formed, the parties probably never 1
-23-
1
intended the occurrence to be a condition precedent to a binding
1 agreement. Such was the case here, both parties believed that
1 they had already formed a binding agreement.
Exhibit 12 shows that Bruce Goldenstein, AVR's attorney at
the time of contracting believed that the agreement was already
executed. In Exhibit 12, Goldstein wrote, "since this
1 conditional use permit was approved by the Chanhassen City
1 Council on April 4, 1983, I will advise Apple Valley Red -E -Mix,
Inc. that it may immediately proceed with the installation of the
1 system." Such language hardly suggests that AVR's attorney
believed any conditions stood in the way of an executed
1 agreement. Furthermore, in Exhibit 13, the City of Chanhassen,
1 through its City Planner, Bob Waibel, demonstrates that the
believed the agreement was not subject to any condition
1 precedent.
Exhibit 10 contains the minutes of the City Council meeting
1 in which the City Council accepted AVR's offer (or where the City
1 made its own offer which AVR accepted by signing the agreement,
depending on which above - labeled transaction one considers).
1 "Mayor Hamilton moved that the conditional use permit and zoning
ordinance variance for Apple Valley Red -E -Mix, Planning Case 82-
1 4, be approved with the following conditions:" The seven
1 conditions listed below that quote are the same seven which
appear in Exhibits 12 and 13. Those essential conditions do not
1 include executing a signed, written agreement. If the City
Council considered a signed, written agreement to be an
1 indispensable condition precedent to the agreement, the City
would have listed such a condition among the essential conditions
1 -24-
1
pursuant to which the approval of the conditional use permit was
granted.
Therefore, AVR's argument that the agreement was never 1
properly executed due to the existence of an unsatisfied
condition precedent is fallacious. Such a condition precedent
was never intended by the parties. It is true the City desired 1
to create a written document evidencing the agreement. However,
that alone does not form a condition precedent. (See Johnson v.
City of Jordan, supra). It is just good business policy to put
down all agreements in writing in case problems arise in the
future. The signed written agreement was evidence of an 1
existing, valid agreement, not a condition precedent of the
agreement.
II) The Agreement contained both offer and acceptance.
As was demonstrated above, there were three separate
transactions between the parties which satisfied the requirements
1
of offer and acceptance.
III) The Agreement was executed before 1988.
1
AVR's contention that the contract is invalid due to changed
circumstances obviously must fail. The argument is based on the
assumption that the contractual requirements of offer and
acceptance were not fully satisfied until 1988 and by that time
circumstances had changed. As was demonstrated above, there were
three separate transactions between the parties which satisfy the
requirements of offer and acceptance. Therefore, AVR's argument
that circumstances changed before the Agreement was formed is 1
meritless.
1
-25-
1
IV) Delivery was not required, the acceptance was
11 communicated.
AVR also argues that the contract was never delivered and,
therefore, the agreement is void. AVR states in its Prehearing
' Memorandum that "Delivery is ordinarily an essential element of a
written contract. The purpose of delivery, of course, is to
1 provide an overt, objective manifestation of the intent to
complete the transaction." Citing in Nodland v. Chirpich, 240
1 N.W.2d 513 (Minn. 1976). The Minnesota Dunnell's recognizes that
' the delivery requirement can be met by communication of the
acceptance. 8 Dunnell's Diciest, Contracts, Section 5.02C and
1 also cites Nodland for the proposition. The City provided an
overt, objective manifestation of the intent to complete the
transaction by letter (See Exhibit 13) and by performing its
' obligation under the agreement. Therefore, the rationale behind
the delivery requirement was met. By issuing the conditional use
1 permit, the City fulfilled its obligation to communicate its
acceptance.
1 Courts in other jurisdictions have reached similar
conclusions regarding the necessity of delivery. Physical
' delivery of a signed contract is one way to express acceptance;
1 however, "it is not an absolute necessity unless so intended by
the parties. If the parties understand that the contract has
1 been executed and is in operation, it will be considered as
delivered." 17A AM.Jur.2d, Contracts, §190. AVR's attorney
expressed his understanding that the agreement was operational in
his letter to Craig Meritz dated April 6, 1983 (See Exhibit 12).
The City expressed its understanding that the agreement was
-26-
1
operational in a letter to Hugh Fisher dated April 6, 1983 (See It
Exhibit 13).
V) The Agreement was properly executed. '
The last section in Petitioner's memo once again presumes
that AVR's offer was never accepted by the City and therefore the 1
contract is void. However, as shown above, the City did accept
AVR's offer when it issued the conditional use permits. In the
alternative, AVR accepted the City's offer when AVR signed the
1
written Agreement and mailed it to the City.
In short, AVR bases its entire Prehearinct and Posthearing '
Memorandums of Law on the assumption that AVR made an offer to
the City and that the City never properly accepted the offer.
Since AVR's assumption is incorrect in light of Minnesota case 1
law and the facts in this case, AVR's entire argument should be
disregarded. ,
Significance of the Binding Agreement
AVR entered into a binding contract to discontinue the 1
nonconforming use of the property by July 1, 1992. The date of
the taking is anticipated to be August 1, 1993. At the date of
taking, there will be no "going concern" on the property.
Therefore, going concern valuation is irrelevant. Going concern
is compensable only where of the owner has a "reasonable
expectation" of the continued operation of the business. Here,
AVR has no reasonable expectation to continue, based on the
contract into which it entered, ending use on July 1, 1992. 1
CONCLUSION
It is very clear that AVR will not lose its entire business 1
as a result of condemning the Chanhassen satellite plant. After
-27-
•
11
the condemnation, AVR will continue to do business out of its ten
other plants. AVR will also continue to enjoy the goodwill and
' reputation it has built after the past few decades. In addition,
AVR agreed to discontinue operating its Chanhassen site in
exchange for a conditional use permit. The City lived up to its
end of the bargain by issuing the permit. Now AVR must live up
' to its promises as well.
' AVR should be prohibited from offering evidence regarding
loss of going concern value in the Commissioners' hearing and in
any trial that may follow. Permitting the introduction of such
evidence serves only to confuse the Commissioners, to permit
1 consideration of a noncompensable claim for damages and to
unfairly influence the Commissioners regarding damages allegedly
suffered by the property owners, all to the detriment of the City
and to the interest of fair compensation.
Since AVR is unable to meet the criteria established by the
Minnesota Supreme Court, all evidence regarding loss of going
concern value should be inadmissible.
Dated: 'p 02 q Respectfully Submitted,
1 CAMPBELL, s : ! SON, SCOTT
& FUCHS, A. '
By: .i A O
Ga .J uc - 2566
A -•r- eys f• ' P
1 - t= #317
'8. Corporate Center Curve
Ea--n, MN 55121
Telephone: (612) 452 -5000
-28-
CAMPBELL KNUTSON SCOTT &FUCHS P.A.
Attorneys at Law
•
Thomas J Campbell (612) 452-5000
Roger N. Knutson Fax (612) 452 -5550
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G. Fuchs ss (�
James R. Walston Oti� oCe j
Elliott
B. Knetsch
Michael ,p
Michael A. &ohack eQ i �G� - /✓
Renae D. Steiner
September 1, 1993
District Court Administrator 1
Carver County Courthouse
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, MN 55318 1
Re: Frank Beddor, Jr., et al.
vs. City of Chanhassen, et al.
Court File No. C5 -93 -1185
Our File No. 12668/310
Dear Court Administrator: 1
Enclosed for filing in connection with the above - entitled
matter are the following: 1
1. Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, with
attached Affidavit of Service;
•
2. Plaintiff's filing fee in the amount of $129.00.
Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FUCHS, P.A.
By: 1 Thomas M. Scott
TMS:rlt
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Don Ashworth (w /enclosure)
•
8229
�
Suite 317 • Eaoandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, . 1 N 55121
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
I Thomas) Cami' hell (612) 452 -5000
Roger N. Knutson Fax (612) 452 -5550
Thomas M Scott
I Gary G Fuchs
James R. Walston
Elliott B. Knetsch
Michael A. Brohack September 1, 1993
Renae D. Steiner
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
AND REGULAR MAIL
Mr. Lawrence A. Moloney
Doherty, Rumble & Butler, P.A.
3500 Fifth Street Towers
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402 -4235
Re: Frank Beddor, Jr., et al.
vs. City of Chanhassen, et al.
Court File No. C5 -93 -1185
Our File No. 12668/310
Dear Mr. Moloney:
Enclosed herewith and served upon you by mail is Defendants'
Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint in connection with the above -
entitled matter.
Best regards,
1 CAMPBE L, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& HS, P.A.
By:
Thomas M. Scott
TMS:rlt
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Don Ashworth
8231
' Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
i
1
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CASE TYPE: Other Civil
Court File No. C5-93-1185
Frank Beddor, Jr., Todd Novaczyk
and Sherry Novaczyk, and Robert L.
Post and Sandra J. Post,
Plaintiffs, 1
vs. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER
TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
City of Chanhassen, its Mayor
Don Chmiel and City Council
Members, 1
Defendants.
1
Defendants above - named, for their Answer to Plaintiffs' 1
Complaint, state as follows:
1. Deny each and every statement, allegation, matter, or
thing contained in Plaintiffs' Complaint except as hereinafter
specifically admitted.
2. Admit the allegations in Paragraphs 3, 4 and 8 of the
1
Complaint.
3. As to the allegations in Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the
1
Complaint, admit that the City intends to condemn property owned
by Plaintiff Frank Beddor, Jr. and his wife for the extension of ,
Nez Perce Drive. The other allegations are specifically denied. 1
4. As to the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint,
deny that the City of Chanhassen is a home rule charter city. ,
5. As to the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint,
admit that City staff recommended approval of the Tower Heights 1
Addition plat subject to various conditions and that the Planning 1
8226
i
', '
Commission held a public hearing on the plat on July 21, 1993.
II ,
The other allegations are specifically denied.
' 6. Admit the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint
except that the hearing date has been changed.
1 7. As to the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint,
admit that an EAW Petition has been filed. The other allegations
are specifically denied.
' 8. As to the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint,
admit that Plaintiff Beddor has presented materials to the City
1 Council relating to purported alternatives to the road extension.
The other allegations are specifically denied.
9. Specifically deny the allegations in Paragraphs 12, 13,
14, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Complaint.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
10. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
1 11. Plaintiffs are not proper parties. The action must be
brought in the name of the State of Minnesota.
12. Plaintiff Frank Beddor lacks standing to bring this
1 action because he is not a person residing within the State of
Minnesota as required by Minn. Stat. § 116B.03.
1 13. The action has not been properly commenced in
accordance with Minn. Stat. § 116B.03, Subd. 2.
1 14. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the
1 proposed road extension and the project is consistent with and
reasonably required for the promotion of the public health.
15. Defendants are exempt from any claim under the
Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 116B.02, et
8226 2
g seq., because the road will be constructed on property which will
II
be owned by the City and the removal of trees for the road cannot
reasonably be expected to pollute, impair or destroy other II
natural resources located within the State.
II
BAD FAITH LITIGATION
16. Defendants are entitled to an award of their costs, 1
disbursements, reasonable attorneys' fees and witness fees
against Plaintiffs and their attorney pursuant to Minn. Stat. 1
§ 549.21 because Plaintiffs have acted in bad faith, asserted a
I
claim that is frivolous and costly to Defendants and are taking
an unfounded position solely to delay the ordinary course of II
proceedings.
WHEREFORE, Defendants request judgment dismissing 1
Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and awarding to Defendants II their attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.
Dated: September 1, 1993. 1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT I
& FUCHS; P.A.
By: L.-` rl .
T
II
homas M. Scott, #9 498
Attorneys for Defendants
317 Eagandale Office Center '
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
Telephone: (612) 452 -5000 '
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The undersigned hereby acknowledges that costs,
disbursements and reasonable attorneys and witness fees may be
awarded pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.21, Subd. 2, t the party
I
against whom the allegations in th spl ading are as rte 1,.....,
Thomas M. Scott, #984 8 1
8226 3
1
Pul /3 CC aol d
• SHAKOPEE • PRIOR LAKE • EDEN PRAIRIE • CHANHASSEN • VICTORIA • te a ,
Our $54 million expansion is complete!
O x
Z Each day more than 24 MILLION GALLONS of m
I m z
N CITY Or L MJtAS 0 rillp,ioNtIvin • .
z 07 • 5Pk
I Q SEP 0 7 ..
W becomes... o
e.
ENGINEERING DEPT. 0
>
. a Ct tr.. .it‘N _ )r I
•
z
0
V z
' 3 at the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant.
m
z
I
0
o m
m
O 0
3 OPEN HOUSE m
Ica
. .
N
Sunday, September 19 N
1 ¢ 1:00 — 4:00 p.m. • X.
-4
0
6957 Highway 101, Shakopee • r•. •
I .�
W (next to Valleyfair) _ ® 0
e s •
tai 1 YES, there is a FREE LUNCH!!! ,..�e'. io 0
c Hot dogs, bratwurst, soda pop, coffee & cake '' � = .1
0
- ` i r
z SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE ,r _L; 0 .. 0 -
A `eS7 E
w Tours • Door Prizes • Balloons • Gam -- v
I 11 o m
. The Upgrade /Expansion of the Blue Lake Treatment Plant increased the capacity of this •
I sophisticated plant to 32 million gallons a day, to meet the future needs of the growing area. c
W Z
> z
m
W 31
o Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
' . For more information call: 229 -2129
* [41
• MOUND • SPRING PARK • MINNETONKA BEACH • MINNETONKA •
1
1
. 1
1
1
1
A ---- 169
;;: " : Minnesota River
fin: Viiii:, , 1
. f<rv,:::.:::.:.. : '* ::`. Blown' on
101 :::::::.:
'`< ®' M1} IL* Lake Plant : <.tr:;::<i>
cc
Z Raceway Park ::: ::
169 City of Shakopee c 101 '- ... i
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
gdme 4-e-afi-•J
1
Jay Dolejsi
6961 Chaparrel Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: 470 -4437
1 August 25, 1993 Note: Mr. Dolejsi requested that this letter be forwarded
to the City Council. He may or may not appear
' under the Visitor Presentation section on the agenda.
Mayor Don Chmiel
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
' P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mayor Chmiel:
I would respectfully request that the City of Chanhassen incorporate the "1995
Study Area" along State Truck Highway 5 into the comprehensive Guide Plan.
I believe that this would be an appropriate time to take such an action because of
the proposed Arboretum Boulevard. The road alignment, zoning and land use in this
area are all interdependent. The discussions of land use by the Highway 5 Task
Force and the Planning Commission revolved around this interdependence and the
uncertainty of land use in that area adding to the difficulty of planning. This
uncertainty of land use also extends to the land owners who have difficulty in
supporting the city's efforts in this area.
' With MNDOT delaying the next phase of the Highway 5 upgrade and the Highway 5 Task
Force completion of its mission, this would be an appropriate time to unite the
Task Force recommendations, road alignment, zoning and land use into the
Comprehensive Guide Plan.
Sinc ,
; rY
J ejsi
1
1
CITYOF
CHANIIASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
September 3, 1993 1
1
Mr. Jack Frost
Senior Planner
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101 -1634
Dear Jack: 1
Sorry for the delay in responding to your July 22, 1993, letter concerning Chanhassen's Surface
Water Management program. As you are probably aware, my wife and I have been out of the 1
country most of the summer completing the adoption of our daughter from Peru. Your letter
posed several questions which I believe have fairly simple responses as follows:
1. Chanhassen is working with the Department of Natural Resources to adopt revised
Shoreland Regulations. We are approximately 80% through the process and have
developed a draft ordinance for review by our planning commission. We have been
working with Ceil Strauss from the DNR to iron out differences between the city's
regulatory environment and that which is contained in the model ordinance developed by
the DNR. We expect to have the process completed over the next few months.
2. Yes, the city will be incorporating the Surface Water Management Plan into the
Comprehensive Plan. We anticipate doing so upon acceptance of the final draft of the
plan later this fall. We are bringing the draft plan back to our Surface Water
Management Task Force in early October and expect to be able to have it before the
Planning Commission and City Council later that month and into November. When this
process is completed, the SWMP plan will be referenced in both our Comprehensive Plan
and in our ordinances. 1
3. All activities in the city, be they private development or public infra- structure
construction, are managed subject to our adopted Best Management Practices Handbook. 1
We do not discriminate between the public and private sectors and manage our projects
the same manner which we expect private developers to undertake theirs.
1
1
Mr. Jack Frost
September 3, 1993
Page 2
4. Your proposal that vegetative cover standards be reduced from 30 days to 14 to 21 days
in the city's Best Management Practices Handbook will be taken under consideration by
the SWMP Task Force at their next meeting in October. I do not envision any problems
' with adopting this change.
Please let me know if you have any further questions in this area.
Sincerely,
t
aul Krauss, AICP
1 Planning Director
PK:v
1 pc: (City-Council
SWMP Task Force
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
It METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 -1634 612 291 -6359 FAX 612 291 -6550 77Y 612 291 -0904
't'
July 22, 1993
Paul Krauss r ` ' ,'r
Planning Director
City of Chanhassen 1
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 5531 '
D e ^r . *.': .ra':ss:
I have reviewed the information you submitted regarding the cites surface water management 1
• program. Based on this review I believe the city has complied with most of the requirements in
the Council's Interim Nonpoint Source management Strategy. I do have several questions that
need to be resolved before the Council can approve the cities program. First, has/is the city
working with the Department of Natural Resources to adopt the revised shoreland regulations as
found in the Statewide Standards for Management of Shoreland Areas? Second, has/will the city
incorporate its surface water management plan into the city's Comprehensive Plan? Third, the
city has adopted the National Urban Runoff Program criteria for detention pond design into its
Best Management Practice Handbook. Is all pond construction, even city constructed ponds,
required to follow this criteria? Finally, as we have discussed previously, the requirement for
vegetative cover to be applied if no significant grading will occur within 30 calendar days is
excessive. It is recommended that this provision be reduced to 14 to 21 days.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the cities surface water management planning. If
you have any questions please let me know.
Sincerely,
James L. Frost
Senior Planner 1
1
1
1
1
IF • Recycled Paper 1
( — i
. .
. .
„, ,,,,,,,,,, ..,:• „ ; .;‘,,,,,,„:„: .• ..::::,:•.. „„: :;;;;;::. -...:• , z•-• .....,,...,:.;:.,.:,..:,;;.:::.:,,..i. ,,,;;;;., .. .0,, . . .- . ••
'
.; :.,,,,,..,,.,:,,,,.„....,. .:,...,„,.,,.... ,. !..;;.: ,.,.,..,....:::......,..„,;;::.„.,,,, ., s, • ..,.„.„ - ■'1 , 1 1 ! 1 i!:!;:4 1 .::.1: - • iili:1;;;1
1
1 , 1 , ..
1 _.
1
,
1
1
;;;i,1,;:i:3:1Wi ,,;!;:, 3+1 . - 1 11, 1 •1 t ;,,.. „li ,1:,:.1 : .,.k.:,,44-; , ;.-:s:;--..,;-... , .a.: _ ,:;-no. , -•,;
.-4--,. --,- ..s:4 -.... — -., - 7 :.*-yle.,,,: *,...:::;;;.,,:,.,,::&ii
l',' -::!. ;:' ,,-.- 4 •- .'t - A z; - - -.;.- .. -'• ...1‘, .1
.xt4;,,.,•:. .1 ,
:1;i:: , : , .1•,.. ..,.35. ,,,,::: 1 -. . •-_, 7,- , -,-- . •
,
:: . _ , . .1...k. J.4
' ,.....,, Os - ' — « A • N'ir'ii ,=,a..74:
r =
III
' - - wr ' 4;0 1051 ;; V!
1 -. ...,.. ttar. : • • .
-. ; '11 - • l ,_. 11:i. ?;
, . - - V4,4- •,: (D4 mES
6 ,..,.o-- - 1,24, - ti:*.', . ,;',,,, ' , i,- • ,--;44-i'ii:i. ----,". :
. - r , , -,,- : :-....,.- ,: ? 4.1,-,;-.,;,: ' :7- ,.- :.? 7 4= ;',•,-. ...?., '.-.f.:4, . t - P.ilt;
' .." '`-•• DERNI (TRUMPY)' TRVEMP1,-: Pres!deb 2-
i 1' ='_. Deveicipe , fteatEstat,: -.13 01(e :71;i: _
1:4 --;__.-' -' `..- : - i'i
•.. rk - - :I: (612): 93T-9500r .,., • - • ,' Pz'. .. . •'- -
.'E'- '--.";. ' ''r '' - :,-.'''''. 1 - -: 1
1 .- - ,,- -•
- .. ; , ,-, 7 7.,z„7.. , ., i‘i ,-,,..,..i.._:-.:,.;a-,••iic; 1..,•thAiix;
— _......•-•-•--
I
'
1
. . ..
•
1 . .
1 .
-
1 771 a kt 4 1 /04 , '-- r ht aki kly 7 1-11. 4 --
.:.
t pi 5p-edioh2 tA..t.edfri.tc‘ci ay al : .
113;,:•• :; . •:. . ,
I ' • ::i.i, .-
sh 4 re Co LA •71-----• .
1 •
I 71- b 0 5- 472p y e c.... I vie_ci 6 y
1
i
4 HI- •
4? r
4
1
i ,....„...,,....„.........4....
77
-../1._.4:(...77-.
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN 1
11
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
August 20, 1993
Re: Status of Legion/M. A. Mortenson Planning Process
Dear Property Owner. 1
Because it has been a rather long time since we last met and it may be a while longer, it seems imperative
that we provide landowners and neighborhood residents with an update of the status of the planning
process for the Hwy. 5 pedestrian overpass for the Legion/M. A. Mortenson properties located at the
comer of Highway 5 and Great Plains Boulevard. As you may recall, the city received a $300,000 federal
grant to construct the bridge which is designed to link your neighborhood with downtown Chanhassen.
We have also discussed the potential of a separate but related proposal to redevelop the adjoining parcel
with a joint use development that could include a park and ride facility for Southwest Metro Transit and
other potential uses. A neighborhood meeting was held in the spring to discuss the concepts on a
preliminary basis. We would hope to conduct another neighborhood meeting in the near future when plans
are somewhat more solid.
The Highway 5 pedestrian bridge is well along the process of implementation. An architect/engineer is 1
being recommended by city staff to the HRA on Thursday, August 19, 1993. Because of all of the federal
approvals required, the design and approval process will be Lengthy, leading construction in late summer
of 1994. In the meantime, a variety of concepts will be developed by the architect and photo imaging will 1
be utilized to evaluate a range of alternative bridge designs. 11 will be important that this bridge make
the proper statement as it frames the east gateway to the City of Chanhassen.
We are continuing to talk with a motel developer, the Legion and Southwest Metro Transit Commission
regarding the potential for their use of a portion of the property. We are also exploring the issues and .
concerns that were raised at our last neighborhood meeting. When plans are somewhat further along, we
will share them with you at a second neighborhood meeting. It may be October or November before that
meeting can be held. -
If, in the meantime, you have any questions or concerns, please give either me or Fred Hoisington (835-
9960) a call. We hope you are having a good summer and look forward to meeting with you again in the
fall.
S
aul Krauss, AICP
Planning Director
pc: City Council
Planning Commission
Hwy. 5 Task Force
Diane Harberts, SWMT
1
r.- ( lre %cQ
Gu
i
6311 Staghorn Lane
1 Chanhassen, MN 55317
August 18, 1993
1 Mr. Peter Pflaum
President, Lundgren Bros.
1 935 E. Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
1 REF: 6311 Staghorn Lane, Chanhassen, MN
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
Beginning this spring we noticed that several trees which had been beautiful when we
i purchased our house last September were not developing leaves. Hoping that they were -
just late bloomers, we were not too concerned. However, as spring progressed, the trees
in the area west of our house never leafed. We also noticed that our neighbors at 6310
' Staghorn Lane, The Hasek's, had the same problem. We both became very alarmed with
the fact that these trees which must have been 30-40 years old were dead and would have
to be cut down.
' When we purchased our house a ear ago, we asked wh
Y g � your house cost more than the
model. We were told by Dan Lowe, "Your lot cost much more because of the trees on it.
1 We now have a lot with 9 dead trees and 7 more in jeopardy. It appears that we did not
make a very good deal. I believe that not telling us that a portion of our lot had over 30"
of fill, (which would probably kill our trees), was a willful act of mis- representation.
Several tree experts who have assessed our lot (and our neighbors), indicated Lundgren
i Bros. had to know that filling our gully and covering our trees' natural ground level,
would kill most trees within a matter of months. Having time on Lundgren Bros. side
enabled them to sell us our treed lot looking as though it were a healthy normal lot. As if
' the filling of the trees well above their natural soil were not enough, Lundgren Bros. also
allowed heavy machinery to travel at will over the lot bruising and cutting the existing
trees with no concern for their delicate tap roots and trunks. As a result, per Mr. Jeff
' Schultz, Forestry Intern with the City of Chanhassen, all of our trees in the front and north
gully have physical evidence of construction damage and are now dying. Not only are we
faced with the ordeal of cutting down trees which are close to our house, we are also
cutting away a great deal of value to our real estate. The house will no longer have the
same look as it did when it was purchased, and it will not have the same value. Each tree
which has been lost to our fill and construction damage is irreplaceable in value.
1 RECEIVED
' WG19 1993
i
. . ,
. I.
1
1
Mr. Peter Pflaum
August 18, 1993
I
Page Two
At this point, I'm sure that you are wondering what you as president of Lundgren Bros. I
can do to placate us on our very unfair purchase of a dying treed lot. What we expect as a
good faith response from Lundgren Bros. for selling us a lot with a ticking time bomb of
I
dying trees:
1. Professional felling of all dead trees paid by Lundgren Bros.
1
2. Replacement of each felled tree by Lundgren Bros. with equal trunk size tree.
3. Landscaping area in the northwest gully to acceptable status by owners (returning
original look). II •
4. None of the above is to be done by heavy machines which could further damage
the environment of remaining landscape.
I
If the requested response is met by Lundgren Bros., we would feel that you have done
your best to restore our confidence in Lundgren Bros. and in our purchase of your real '
estate.
Past efforts on our part to Mr. Ed Lundgren, Mr. Mike Pflaum have gone unanswered. I • 1
can only hope that you will make a serious effort to reconcile the problem. A swift re-
sponse and schedule of work by Lundgren Bros. would be most appreciated. Thank you.
Most sincerely, I
r
1 f‘ k, 4 ,...("t/2? 4 k ci---
Grady Lic ael Ferguson and Sandra Hughes - Ferguson
cc: Sandy Patterson - Edina Realty
Dan Lowe - Lundgren Bros. I
Jeff Schultz - Forestry Intern, City of Chanhassen
Ed Lundgren - Lundgren Bros.
1
1
jJ u c ^uQ l
_,
,H4c,cr,.
1 MINNESOTA 20 August 1993
DESIGN
I TEAM Mr. Paul Krauss, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Affiliated Organizations Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
AIA MN RE: Affiliation of Minnesota Chapter APA with the MDT
American Institute of p
Architects - Minnesota
MnAPA Dear Mr. Krauss:
Minnesota Chapter,
American Planning Earlier this year, the MDT and your organization executed an agreement that
I Association formed a relationship that we hope will prove to be a benefit to both groups
MASLA and to communities throughout Minnesota. It is my understanding that you
Minnesota Chapter, have been assigned to be the APA's representative to the MDT Steering
I American Society of Committee. The committee is a loosely structured group that oversees the
Landscape Architects activities of the MDT, reviews work performed by the MDT during community
Local and Urban Affairs visits, and set all direction and policy for the MDT. Like the MDT, it is an all
I Program volunteer group, and looks for input and guidance from wherever it can be
St. Cloud State University
found.
1 The Steering Committee meets on the second Wednesday of each month, at
5:30 p.m., at International Market Square, 275 Market Street, Minneapolis.
Meetings are typically help in Room 318 (check the board in the entry to Suite
' 54 to check locations), but on occasion are held elsewhere. Your name will be
added to the Steering Committee's mailing list which will update you on
' activities and meeting times and places.
The enclosed Community Manual is included as a resource for you, to learn
' about the MDT and the way it works in the communities it serves. While this
is a great tool for communities, we are constantly looking for ways to improve
our work, and look forward to your thoughts and participation.
I me at 835 -9960 if you have an
275 Market Street Please call y any q uestions.
I Suite 54
Minneapolis, Sincerely,
Minnesota
55405 -
612.339.3577 Michael Schroeder
612.338.7981 FAX Vice Chair for Affiliate Relations
1
g rad
11( 7 m
T1"
Firshilwier ,2j ee Qd f A./
Foundation July 29, 1993
at Spring Hill Center 1
725 County Road Six
Wayzata. MK 55 391 Charles Folch
`612' 449-009Z City of Chanhassen 1
fax. (61 434 -11592
690 Coulter Dr.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Water is Life
Dear Mr. Folch:
Founder 1
Richard G Gras S7 1 S. The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) is nearing the
Officer,
ic S Ca.d Hord completion of Phase II of its "Centralization/Decentralization (C/D) Study" of
Chairman the metropolitan wastewater disposal system. This study examines the future 1
\h Chai wastewater collection and treatment needs of the metropolitan area through the
Lu.ienne 1 Ta' L 1) year 2040.
Se.retaq 1
Th,rn,a. L \ \a n,
ure As part of this study, the Freshwater Foundation sponsored a second workshop
Tie
G E B on April 29, 1993, at which various stakeholder groups were asked to critically
.4.> "(ant Treasurer review and react to the work of the MWCC and its project team. A copy of
H�uadrd of � " the "Report Of The Study Workshop" is enclosed.
Lind'as G 47ihu Jr
er\
H Br un
Don rn Blount
Donal) G The participation of the many and varied stakeholders in the C/D Study process
Brae:
Sacs Burton Jr Po D is critical to its success. The evaluation of available disposal system options
John Hirr e Growl; significantly influences the future pattern of wastewater service in the metro
R obert Hurt ,c area. The MWCC and the project team appreciates the support and
Daniel T LinJses
Joseph T Lin, PhD involvement of all stakeholders.
John B Luc„(,. '
Warren G \L.,.crsor •
Charles \1 M,tos
Elinor h Ogden Sincerely,
John Packard
Stephen Ra •Fell
D Dean heaton
nWhitaker
Mr. Ward
; F W �
Lae \ lobe President & C) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1
Lane \ lobe
Lance Yohe HEM
Advisor. Board
Roger L Baker President & CEO
R a ∎ mo \t Baler FR ESHWATER FOUNDATION
Mr' H c \k 8 JUL G 1993
Mn Herbert W Bu�,he:
Henn Doerr
Jame. L. Hetlan,! Jr_ Enclosure ENGIREER�N DEPT 1
Mr John 0
Earl H Mo.tmac
Mrs William G Phillips
Marc Renner
Robert L
1
A Public 'Nonprofit Foundation 1
Contributions are lan- Deductible
Nee Printed on Re:,,;ed Parer
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION
CENTRALIZATION/DECENTRALIZATION STUDY
REPORT OF THE STUDY WORKSHOP
This report is a summary of the workshop held on April 29, 1993 at the Freshwater Foundation
1 relating to the Centralization/Decentralization Study being conducted by the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission. The workshop focused on the results of Phase I of the C/D Study and the
recommendations for Phase II of the study. Those in attendance included five stakeholder
groups: Policy makers, implementors, regulators, communities, and technical management
advisors. This was the second of two workshops that have been held related to the study.
BACKGROUND
' The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) and the Metropolitan Council are in the
process of evaluating future wastewater treatment options for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.
This evaluation, entitled the " Centralization/Decentralization Study," will determine where future
1 wastewater treatment plants and pipes will be located. The study focuses on two basic options:
A "centralized" wastewater treatment system, employing relatively fewer and larger treatment
plants, and a "decentralized" system, requiring relatively more and smaller treatment plants.
1 Wastewater collection and treatment has occurred in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area for more
than fifty years. During this period, the number of treatment facilities increased along with the
' population of the area. By the late- 1960's, when the concept of centralizing wastewater treatment
was adopted, more than forty separate treatment plants were in operation. Today the
Metropolitan Disposal System consists of eleven treatment plants serving 105 communities.
1 These plants discharge into the Mississippi, Minnesota, St. Croix, and Vermillion Rivers.
The C/D Study is being conducted within the context of long -range planning for the metropolitan
' area. From a policy planning standpoint, the study responds to both the technology needs to
meet future environmental standards, and the desire to reconsider centralization/decentralization
in terms of current population projections for the metropolitan area through the year 2040. This
1 study will be used by the Metropolitan Council and the MWCC in their respective planning
efforts.
1 At the request of the MWCC, the Freshwater Foundation conducted a one -day workshop on
October 22, 1992. The workshop provided an opportunity for stakeholders to review preliminary
plans for Phase I of the study. It was the intent of the MWCC and its Project Team to use input
from this workshop to guide their Phase I activities. A second workshop was planned for 1993
to review the results of these Phase I activities, and to provide input into Phase II of the study.
This report is a summary of the second workshop.
1 1
1
1
1
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 2
CENTRALIZATION/DECENTRALIZATION STUDY 1
The purpose of the workshop was to review the metropolitan disposal system alternatives that 1
have been identified and described by the Project Team since the October 1992 workshop, and
to provide input to the team on the alternatives. Workshop participants included representatives
of metropolitan area communities, regulatory agencies, policy makers, implementors, and I
consultants. Prior to the workshop, each participant received an executive summary containing
the Phase I alternative scenarios and conclusions, and the Phase 11 recommendations.
The workshop included a presentation by the Project Team on the results of Phase I, the viable
options to be evaluated in Phase II, and the Phase II study program. After a question and answer 1
session, the participants were divided into three discussion groups. The assignment for each
group was to respond to the following questions. 1) Is there anything missing from the Phase
I analysis? 2) What do you think of the Phase I alternative scenarios? 3) What do you think of
the Phase 11 recommendations? (Is there anything missing that should have been considered, or
is there anything that doesn't make sense ?) 4) Do you have any other information that would
be of benefit to the Project Team? Following these discussions, each group reported their main I
conclusions to the workshop participants. After discussion, the Project Team briefly outlined the
next steps of the C/D Study.
PHASE I RESULTS
Since the early 1970's, the MWCC has been gradually "centralizing" the treatment of wastewater.
I
During this period, the number of treatment plants in the metropolitan area has been reduced
from 33 to 11; two of these plants, Anoka and Bayport are to be phased out. The remaining
eight plants, and the existing interceptor system, represent the baseline from which the current
I
Phase I and II evaluation starts. (The evaluation reveals that the core of the interceptor system
can accommodate the alternatives considered.) These nine plants are Metro, Stillwater, Blue
Lake, Chaska, Seneca, Rosemount, Empire, Cottage Grove, and Hastings. 1
In establishing and evaluating disposal system alternatives, the MWCC applied several criteria:
Input from stakeholders, as expressed at the October 1992 Workshop; metropolitan area
I
population and demographic projections; traffic information; wastewater flow forecasts; future
regulatory constraints and effluent limitations; phosphorus options; and earlier studies. These
criteria were reviewed within the framework of the respective design capacity of the wastewater 1
treatment plant facilities.
On the basis of the available information, the criteria described above, and the directives from
1
the Metropolitan Council, the MWCC identified 64 treatment system alternatives for initial
consideration. Through a process of subjective analysis, 14 of these alternatives were eliminated
from further consideration. This analysis was based on technical and political feasibility,
environmental issues, and economic factors. Following this initial screening, the remaining 50
alternatives were evaluated on the basis of economics, which resulted in the elimination of 23
alternatives. The 27 alternatives that remained following this evaluation were reduced to 13 by
1
1
1
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 3
CENTRALIZATION /DECENTRALIZATION STUDY
' applying the following considerations: The Stillwater plant should be retained and expanded in
the future; the Chaska plant should be eliminated, with its flow routed to the Blue Lake facilitvt
and the Empire plant should not be expanded to accommodate flows outside of its current service
' area. At the end of the Phase I evaluation, thirteen wastewater treatment system alternatives
remained for consideration during Phase II of the Centralization /Decentralization Study. These
alternatives have been grouped into three scenarios:
' • Scenario A Maintain the treatment plants at eight existing locations; eliminate the
Chaska plant and route its flow to the Blue Lake facility
• Scenario B Maintain the Blue Lake, Empire, Metro, Seneca, and Stillwater treatment
plants; consider various options for addressing service needs currently met
1 by the Cottage Grove, Hastings, and Rosemount treatment plants; and
consider the possible construction of a new Southeast Regional Plant.
1 • Scenario C Assumes the same treatment plant system as Scenario B, but with 'the
Metro plant capacity limited to its current design capacity of 250 million
gallons per day, or derate its capacity in response to phosphorus removal
requirements; route the excess flow from the Metro plant to a new
Southeast Regional Plant
INTRODUCTION TO PHASE II
1 These three scenarios are the proposed focus of evaluation to be conducted during the Phase II
portion of the Centralization/Decentralization Study. For the purposes of guiding the Phase II
1 portion of the study, the following conclusions have been made with respect to each of the nine
treatment facilities in the system.
1 1. Expansion of the Metro plant is economically viable; however, other considerations, such
as environmental factors and the quality of Mississippi river water, could affect plant
expansion.
I _4( 2. The Chaska plant should be eliminated and its flow routed to the Blue Lake plant.
3. The Blue Lake plant should be expanded to accept the flow from the Chaska plant.
4. Expansion of the Seneca plant is not necessary.
5. The Empire plant should be expanded to serve its existing service area only.
1 6. The Stillwater plant should be retained.
1
1
1
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 4
CENTRALIZATION/DECENTRALIZATION STUDY
7. The Hastings plant should either be retained or its flow routed to a new Southeast 1
regional plant.
8. The Rosemount plant should either be expanded or its flow routed to a new Southeast
regional plant.
9. The Cottage Grove plant should either be expanded to serve its existing service area or
its flow routed to the Metro plant or a new Southeast regional plant.
The MWCC has formulated the following Phase II Study recommendations to frame the
evaluation of the three scenarios and their respective treatment plant components described above.
• Develop detailed cost estimates of the alternatives within each of the three scenarios.
• Formulate final economic and other screening criteria for selecting and recommending the
specific alternative.
• Refine wastewater flow inputs and relevant interceptor system capacity figures. 1
• Evaluate the rated and actual capacities of the Seneca and Blue Lake plants and the
impact of future phosphorus removal requirements. 1
• Incorporate the final results of the Cottage Grove, Rosemount, Chaska, and phosphorus
facility plans.
• Evaluate the Metro plant and new Southeast regional plant sites based on Mississippi
River quality.
• Develop criteria for preliminary site selection of new Southeast regional plant sites. ,
• Refine "anti- backsliding" criteria where required.
• Evaluate the need for and timing of interim improvements at those plant facilities 1
scheduled to be eliminated.
• Evaluate the wastewater treatment system alternatives according to the following criteria,
in order to maximize treatment system flexibility:
*Higher and lower regional population growth projections
*A potential expansion of the existing wastewater treatment system service area
*Impacts on the system associated with major development, such as a new airport
*More stringent environmental controls on treatment plant effluent discharges
1
1
1
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 5
1 CENTRALIZATION/DECENTRALIZATION STUDY .
1 The Phase I Final Report is scheduled to be completed by the MWCC in June 1993. The Phase
II Draft Report will be released for review in September 1993, with workshops and public
meetings on the Phase II Report tentatively scheduled for October 1993. The Phase II Final
1 Report is currently scheduled to be published in December 1993.
REACTION OF WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
I Following the resentation of the Phase I results and the introduction to Phase II of the study,
y,
I the workshop participants met in small groups to review and respond to the Project Team's
presentation. Each of the three small groups was asked to critique the Phase I analysis and the
Alternative Scenarios (A,B, and C above), as well as the Recommendations for Phase IL Several
I issues were identified by the small groups, which were reported to the reconvened participants
following the small group sessions. The small group discussions yielded the following issues for
consideration by the Project Team in the continuing C/D Study.
111 A fundamental concern that was expressed regarding the CID Study is that the evaluation and
screening emphasized economic factors, perhaps to the exclusion of other important issues. The
I MWCC needs to document how other non - financial factors were employed in the screening
process; these include environmental, technical, and political factors, as well as the issue of an
expanded service area,
1 Expansion Issues
•
I 1. How much can the treatment plants be expanded beyond currently projected
needs? Moreover, have these needs been sufficiently evaluated in order to justify
the proposed plant expansions?
I 2. With respect to proposals for future plant expansions, which appear to be based
on flows, how has the issue of phosphorus removal, and its effect on plant -
1 capacity, been factored into the assessment?
)// 3. There is no evidence that factors such as water conservation, reuse, and recycling
1 �r have been considered during the Phase I analysis in calculating future needs
projections, the related economics, and the selection of the three scenarios. This
situation is analogous to the solid waste issue of twenty years ago, when we
1 assumed that all solid waste would be landfilled.
Relative to the issue of flow reductions through water conservation, infiltration
1 and inflow into the pipes is a concern that should be taken into account. Reduced
water flows from households may not translate to a corresponding reduction of
flows to treatment plants, because of infiltration and inflow.
1
1
1
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 6
CENTRALIZATION/DECENTRALIZATION STUDY
5. How viable - economically and politically - is the prospect of expanding the I
Metro Plant outside the floodwall?
6. How sensitive was the Phase I evaluation process to the uncertainty associated I
with future projections? Is it possible that alternatives were eliminated too early
in the process, and that if certain projections, such as population growth, are
I
wrong, an eliminated alternative would become attractive?
7. Might solids capacity at certain plants be more limiting than flow capacity?
1
8. How does the expansion of certain plants to meet short-term needs affect the long-
term plan?
1
* 9. How will the elimination of the Chaska Plant affect the western communities? I
Has the feasibility study for routing the Chaska flow to the Blue Lake Plant been
completed?
Environmental Issues 1
1. Has a biological assessment been conducted relative to each of the proposed plant I
expansions?
2. The C/D Study should place more emphasis on water conservation; in terms of
I
wastewater treatment, we take more out than we put back.
3. How has the airport de -icing issue been addressed, particularly as it relates to
collecting and recycling glycol rather than treating it.
4. The study should include an assessment of the water quality impacts on the • '
Minnesota River.
5. The C/D Study needs to take cognizance of the large, complex, and long -term
water issues facing us. These large water management issues are the context in
which wastewater treatment is being evaluated and planned.
6. The environmental concerns relating to "Scenario C" need to be further explained. I
7. The report has to address environmental issues (and the associated costs), such as 1
Mississippi River quality, the disposal of waste byproducts, and stormwater
quality /non -point source pollution and its effect on the treatment system.
1
1
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION
7
CENTRALIZATION/DECENTRALIZATION STUDY
1 Alternative Technology Issue
1 1. The entire wastewater treatment system is based on river discharges, and plants
are located mainly in the southeastern quadrant of the metropolitan area. Has the
- establishment of a "man -made" wetland for discharges been considered? Has the
' study considered discharges upstream to ensure the availability of water supplies?
Have other discharge plans been considered, including reuse of discharged water
for water supply?
' Infrastructure Issues
' 1. The C/D Study assumes existing wastewater conveyance and treatment system.
Can we acknowledge the prospect of designing a completely new system? What
prevents us from doing this?
2. Some communities cannot support high population densities; urban sprawl may
be positive in terms of water use. Is there a vehicle or study in place to address
this issue?
3. How was transportation addressed in the study? The wastewater treatment system
can be built, but people have to be able to get there. Is expansion outside the
MUSA good from this perspective?
1 4. Consideration should be given to expansion of the existing MUSA. Expansion
will fill communities within the MUSA, and it may be difficult to keep growth
' within the MUSA. A more detailed GIS analysis should be conducted, posing
"what if' questions relative to future population growth and demographics.
' 5. The study should expressly consider the impacts of such factors as potential
legislation ( "Orfield bill," for example), and the prospect of a new airport.
The workshop participants expressed interest in an additional stakeholder meeting, to be convened
prior to publication of the Phase II Final Report. Such a meeting is being planned. In addition,
the participants expressed concern regarding public input and awareness of the C/D Study and
the long -term impacts on the public.
1
1
1
1
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys it Law 1
Thuma, J Campbell (612) 452-5000
Rutter N. Knutson Fax (612) 452-5550
Gan NI. heart
Gan G Fuchs V), _
James R. Walston
Mich ael 13. .I h � � ck f / '
Mich .Steiner August 18, 1993 �GL� -
Renae D. Seiner
1
Mr. Lawrence A. Moloney
Doherty, Rumble & Butler
3500 Fifth Street Tower
150 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402 -4235
1
Re: City of Chanhassen vs. Beddor et al.
Civil No. C9 -93 -1111
Dear Mr. Moloney: '
This letter is to confirm the agreement we reached in our
telephone conversation late last week in which we agreed that the
petition hearing in the above - referenced condemnation proceeding,
currently scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on August 25, 1993 in the
Carver County Courthouse, has been cancelled. It is my
understanding that you wish to consolidate the condemnation
proceeding with another matter and that you have scheduled a
motion for September 2, 1993 seeking an order for consolidation.
I am uncertain as to which position the City will take
regarding your motion to consolidate. It is my understanding
that the cancellation of the petition hearing was solely to allow
the parties additional time to consider their various positions
in both proceedings. I intend to reschedule the petition hearing
sometime in the future, but will give you the statutorily
required notice prior to doing so.
Finally, it is my understanding the proceeding that you have
commenced against the City of Chanhassen will be handled by Tom
Scott in our firm. You should address all further correspondence
on that matter to Mr. Scott.
Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
1
1
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
' Very truly yours,
CAMPBELL, ' TSON, SCOTT
& FUCHS /P.A.
1
BY: /ALL.
GGF:ses
cc: Don Ashworth
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Northern Environmental 1214 West Venture Court s>
Hydrologists • Engineers • Geologists Mequon, WI53092
Fax 1- 414 - 241 -8222
1-414- 241 -3133
1- 800 -776 -7140
41410%;;* 5 / ?-
August 18, 1993
(BRA141207) 1
Mr. Phil Gravel 1
•
Bonestroo & Associates
2335 West Highway 36
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55113
RE: Executive Summary of Phase I Regional Hydrogeologic Reconnaissance and
Contamination Assessment
Dear Mr. Gravel:
In May of 1993 Northern Environmental Technologies, Incorporated (Northern Environmental)
was retained by the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota to conduct a phase 1 regional hydrogeologic
reconnaissance study and contamination assessment. The purpose of the phase 1 investigation
was to evaluate the glacial and bedrock ground water supply resources within the City limits and
determine if any potential sources of contamination inhibit the City's development of additional
supply wells. 1
The City presently receives its water supply from five wells located in three well fields. The Lotus
Lake well field has two wells pumping from the glacial sand and gravel aquifer and one well from
the Jordan Sandstone aquifer. The Gaipin and Lake Susan well fields produce from single
Jordan Sandstone wells. The City has made preliminary plans to expand their water supply with
the addition of approximately six sand and gravel wells to the Lotus Lake well field and
approximately six Jordan Sandstone wells to the Galpin well field. The feasibility of
implementing the proposed well fields or alternate well field design options were evaluated as
part of the regional hydrogeologic reconnaissance study. 1
The topography of the bedrock surface in the Chanhassen area is resultant of glacial scouring
and preglacial river activity. The rivers and glaciers formed the bedrock topography by cutting
channels into the bedrock surface. Many of these channels were later filled with permeable sand
and gravel deposits. The geologic reconnaissance study identified a large channel with several
smaller tributary channels on the west side of the City. It appears that the Gaipin well field is in
an area near the intersection of the main channel and a tributary channel. While the potential
for sand and gravel deposits in this area is high, the extent of the Jordan Sandstone formation
is partially limited due to truncation by the bedrock valleys. In light of this truncation, the
feasibility six additional Jordan Sandstone wells in this area is questionable. A controlled
pumping test will be needed to determine the effects, if any, on safe agVigciyjgt lain-HAM D
AUG 2 3 1993
ENGINEERING DEPT.
111
1
•
Due to the limited extent of the Jordan Sandstone, ft would be prudent to consider another
1 aquifer for some or all of the new wells in the Galpin area. Due to the expense of test borings,
we recommend that geophysical methods be used to explore for permeable sand and gravel
deposits in the Galpin well field area. The geophysical investigation should be followed by a
' limited number of test borings and test wells, to determine the potential for high capacity well
sites. If water supply options from sand and gravel do not exist, an extended pumping test
should be performed to determine the safe number of Jordan wells that can be located in the
1 Galpin well field.
The reconnaissance study showed no major bedrock channels running through the Lotus Lake
well field area. It is likely that the sand and gravel deposits exploited by the two Lotus Lake wells
are in a smaller bedrock valley or outwash channel not identified by the well logs from the area.
Well logs show the Jordan Sandstone Formation is at full thickness in the area, with Prairie Du
Chien Dolomite overlying it. Existing pumping tests indicate that the sand and gravel aquifer is
isolated from surface recharge but may be capable of sustaining six additional wells. To confirm
the estimates, an extended pumping test using several observation wells should be performed.
The purpose of the test would be to identify any hydraulic barriers or recharge sources not
detected in original well completion performance tests. The presence of hydraulic barriers or
recharge sources will determine the safe continuous yield of the aquifer, which will determine the
maximum number of sand and gravel wells that the aquifer can support. ff necessary, additional
1 water supply may be obtained from a Jordan Sandstone well in the Lotus Lake area.
The Galpin well field is free of obvious contamination sources. However, prevailing agricultural
1 practices may have an impact on the aquifer, and should be addressed during pumping tests.
The Lotus Lake well field has a spill and leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site less than
1,000 feet away. Well Togs from the area show that the sand and gravel aquifer is covered by
80 feet of clay, reducing the contamination potential. However, this clay barrier is probably thin
or absent in some areas, creating a migration pathway for contaminants in the aquifer. Along
with the addition of new wells in the Lotus Lake well field, the City should develop a well head
1 protection plan to protect the long term water quality.
We trust this information meets your needs. Please feel free to contact us if you have any
1 questions or comments.
Sincerely,
'
•
Northern Environmental
Technologies, Incorporated
,///
1 Mark A Foht
Hydro j ogist I
Jo n R. Jans , R.G., R.Gp.
Director of Geosciences
MAF /dmw
2
1
1
• CityBusiness AUGUST 20, 1993 7
/1
tCh a nh a sse n ma s ow on roa
d ,
said Jim Sheeley, general manager of the plex. A musical the size of Fiddler costs
Tour one of several tactics Ordway Music Theatre in St. Paul. The about $150,000 to mount, according to ,
eyed briri in more cash Ordway manages short national tours for the Brindisi.
e
y g Royal National Theatre of Great Britain. For another $150,000, the show could be .
' Yt' " .
The expansion plans and Brindisi's new kept on the road for a year he said. That z
By SANDRA EARLEY job come on the heels of the July sale of the budget would include modifying sets and "� "� •
Chanhassen to Century Park Pictures of costumes for the tour, hiring and rehearsing , .,_. ;;' >:; <,'..'
Chanhassen Dinner Theatre is looking for Minneapolis for a reported $50000. That a new set of perhaps 25 actors and paying ,
new sources of revenue for its four - theater price didn't include the land, which the the their salaries and expenses. The budget
suburban complex, including taking its cur- ater doesn't own. Scallen is CEO of Century might also include the costs for six or seven
rent show on tour to small cities around the Park Pictures. musicians to travel with the show, he said.
country. The Chanhassen, while profitable itself, Scallen's experience booking Ice Capades
In his first two weeks as managing artistic was caught in the 1991 Chapter 11 bank- and Globetrotters' exhibitions could work a ..
director, Michael Brindisi has begun plan - ruptcy filing of International Broadcasting well for the Chanhassen, said Sheeley of the '
ning a national tour, probably of Fiddler on Corp. (IBC). In addition to the Chanhassen, Ordway. "It's just a different kind of show,"
the Roof The tour, a first for the Chanhas- IBC owned Ice Capades Inc., the Harlem he said.
sen, would begin in the spring and travel to Globetrotters Inc. and a majority of stock in But the three or four national, companies
cities of 150,000 to 200,000 people. Century Park Pictures, according to Scallen, that supply traveling theater to small cities
Such a tour would break even after half - the former CEO of IBC. usually do so with non -union actors, Sheeley "We need to make more money; said the
week runs in 10 cities, said Tom Scallen, IBC now owns only Ice Capades Chalets, said, while the Chanhassen hires union ac- Chanhassen's Michael Brindisi.
CEO of the company that owns the Chan- which are indoor ice skating rinks around tors. Providing promotion and ticketing and
hassen. the country. IBC, formerly of Minneapolis, hiring local support staff in cities far from Minneapolis. It has a school of about 90
Brindisi is also considering offering voice, is now based in New York and is owned and Minnesota can also be expensive, he said. children.
acting and dance classes for children at the operated by officers of National Westmin- Brindisi said representatives of Actor's The Chanhassen is well - located to. offer
Chanhassen facility beginning in January. ster Bank. Equity, the actors' union, have said it would kids' classes. "It's in one of the fastest -grow-
He may also produce plays for young audi- "Chanhassen was always profitable; it is be willing to make actors affordable for any ing suburbs in terms of kids," Cranney said.
ences in the Chanhassen's second - largest still profitable," Scallen said. The theater Chanhassen tour. But a school can also present problems
room, its 260 -seat Fireside Theatre. complex earned about $8 million in reve- As for a musical theater school for chil- • for a theater, according to Don Stolz, pro -
More flexible ticket pricing is also under nues Last year, he added. He declined to dis- dren, Brindisi said he plans to use three ac- ducer - director of the Old Log Theater in
consideration, he said. cuss expenses. tors from the Chanhassen's core company of Greenwood, a stock theater company similar
"We need to make more money. We need Across the country, dinner theaters are a permanent employees as teachers. in mission to the Chanhassen.
to put more bodies in this building or we dying breed, both Scallen and Brindisi said. Classes would have 10 to 15 students "We have very assiduously stayed away
- need to reach out," Brindisi said. Ten year ago, there were perhaps 100 such once or twice a week for children 11 or 12 from them. You want to have excellent
But such plans, especially touring, can be theaters employing union actors; now there years old and older, he said. classes if you do them. And if you have
risky, other local theater professionals said. are only 10. Children's acting and dance classes are in classes, the children want to be in a play.
"The tour sounds like an ambitious plan The idea behind a Chanhassen tour is to great demand both from parents and kids And if they're in a play, then you're not sell-
- breaking even that soon — although I get additional use out of a production even themselves, said Jon Cranney, executive ing a professional play to the public," Stolz .
don't know all that they're planning to do," after it has closed at the local theater com- producer of the Children's Theatre Co. in added. ❑
V V ar
■
- - - - - -
CITYOF
CIIANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
s
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council and Senior Commission
FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
1 DATE: August 24, 1993
SUBJ: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding Status
While I am not 100% sure yet, I think we have managed to maintain our CDBG eligibility. The
attached memo is from Tom Feeney, who runs the HUD Regional Office, to Doug Benson, who
runs the Hennepin County Program. On the last page there is a special note referencing
Chanhassen. It states that because of the annexation of the home in Shorewood, Chanhassen now
has a small population in Hennepin County. Thus the "total vovulation of the city will be
included in the county's population for FY 1994 CDBG allocation ".
1 While this seems final, I just want to confirm it. If this bolds up, I want to acknowledge the help
of the many people who worked with us to get the situation resolved. This would include Larry
Blackstad and Doug Benson at Hennepin County, Congressman Ramstad and his staff, and the
1 City of Shorewood.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
AL3— —1993 10 :32 FROM HENN CO OFC OF PLNG & DEU TO #19375739 P. 02
at e.ra. Y.S. Department of Housing and Urban Deve opment g $nneapotiaSt. Peal Office, Region V
' 220 Second Street. South C 0 P Y 1 Mnneapoiis, i nneaota 55401 -2195
1
AUG 17 1993
II
Doug Benson, Planning Supervisor I
Office of Planning and Development
822 S 3rd Street, Suite 310
Minneapolis, MN 55415 II Dear Mr. Benson:
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
II
Urban County Requalification
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Enclosed with this letter is an Urban County status II
worksheet and instructions on how it should be completed. Please
review the worksheet for any incorrect information. If there are
any errors, please notify us prior to August 31st.
II
If you have any questions, please contact Cindy Behnke at
370 -3026.
II
Very sincerely yours,
II
homas T Feeney 1
anager Alr
Enclosures
II
II
II
II
II
F - II
RECEIVED AUG 1 8 7993 1
4u0 -2 -1993 10 :32 FROM HENN CO OFC OF PLNG & DEU TO #9375739 P.03
II INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING URBAN COUNTY STATUS WORKSHEETS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994
II The Urban County Status Worksheet identifies each unit of
local government located in whole or in part (split place) within
the county with its 1990 population. The worksheet also shows
the current participation status of each small place or town as
I indicated by an "I" for included or an "E" for excluded in the
column "STATUS UC NOW ". All small places are shown as included
for the counties that are not currently urban counties.
1 Completion of the Urban County Status Worksheets should be
based on cooperation agreements, opt -out statements, joint grant
I agreements and deferral statements submitted in accordance with
CPD 93 -13. Field Offices should retain all such agreements and
statements as well as a copy of the completed worksheets for
further reference. The following instructions will assist in
1 completing the worksheets. .
1. Each small place or town participation should be reviewed.
If there is a change from the "STATUS UC NUw ", indicate the
1 change in the "CHANGE UC TO" column either "E" for excluded
or "I" for included.
II 2. Split places appear both under the "SPLIT PLACES" and "SMALL
PLACES" heading. Annotation for split places should be made
under the "SMALL PLACES" heading only.
I 3. Potential metropolitan cities must either defer metropolitan
status or accept metropolitan status. If the city accepts
1 metropolitan status, it may have a joint grant agreement •
with the urban county or simply be an independent
entitlement.
1 A. A new potential metropolitan city has "POTENTIAL" in
the "METRO STATUS" column. Please indicate in "METRO
CHANGE" column, "DEFER" if metro status is deferred,
"JOINT" if accepts metro status with joint grant
agreement, and "METRO" if accepts metro status as an •
independent entitlement.
I B. A city previously deferring metro status has "DEFER" in
the "METRO STATUS" column. If the city continues to
II defer, no change is required. If the city accepts
metro status, indicate either "JOINT" or "METRO" in the
"METRO CHANGE" column.
1 4. Any existing joint grant agreement city has "JOINT" in the
"METRO STATUS" column. If there is a change to independent
_ entitlement, indicate "METRO" in the "METRO CHANGE" column.
II
5. If there are no changes to any places in the urban county,
indicate "NONE" on the "WHOLE COUNTY" line in the "CHANGE UC
1 TO" column. '
1
.PUG-23-1953 3 10: 33 FROM HENN CO OFC OF PLNG & DE) TO #93 75 739 P.04
Page No- 26
05/26/93 II FY 1994 CDBG ENTITLEMENT DETERMINATION
URBAN COUNTY STATUS WORKSHEET
COMMUNITY NAME 90 POP STATUS CHANGE METRO METRO
II
UC NOW UC TO STATUS CHANGE
** REG /FO /ST /C0: 05/46/MN/053 II
•
* WHOLE COUNTY II HENNEP IN COUNTY 1,032,431 NO CHANGES THE
SEE *
UNITS
BELOW
' FOR OTHER CHANGE 1
* ENTITLED CITY
BLOOMINGTON 86,335
MINNEAPOLIS 368,383 II PLYMOUTH 50,889
* SPLIT PLACES
CHANHASSEN - ALL PARTS 11,732
I
DAYTON -ALL PARTS 4,443
HANOVER VIL -ALL PARTS
ROCKFORD -ALL PARTS 2,
-ST ANTHONY -ALL PARTS 7 II
* SMALL PLACES /TOWNS
BROOKLYN CENTER 28,887 I De er, 1
BR00 YN PARK 56,381 I -
CHAMPLYN
HASSEN -THIS CO PART 0* I
II
•-CORAN 5,19'
CRYSTAL 23,788 I
DAYTON 4,392 1 I
DEEPEiAVEN 39 I
EDEN PRAIRIE
EDINA VILLAGE 46,070 I II EXCELSIOR 2,367 I
GOLDEN VALLEY 20,971 I •
GREENFIELD 1,450 1 •
GREENWOOD 614 I
HANOVER VIL -THIS CO PART 269 1
HASSAN TOWNSHIP • 1,95.1 I
HOPKINS CITY ,534 1 I
INDEPENDENCE 6 2 2 1
LONG LAKE 1,984 I
LORETTO
MAPLE GROVE 38,736 I II
MAPLE PLAIN 2,005 I
MEDICINE LAKE 385 I f
I
•
1
AUG-23-1993 10:33 FROM HENN CO OFC OF PLNG a DEV TO #9375739 P.05
1 ..•
-t
II Page No. 27
05/26/93
FY 1994 CDBG ENTITLEMENT DETERMINATION
URBAN COUNTY STATUS WORRSEEET
• COMMUNITY NAME 90 POP STATUS CHANGE METRO METRO
UC NOW UC TO STATUS CHANGE
1 MEDINA 3,096 I
MINNETONKA 48,370 I
I MINNETONKA BEACH 573 I
MINNETRISTA 3,439 T
MOUND VILLAGE 9,634 I
NEW HOPE 21,853 I
1 ORONO 7 I
OSSEO 2,704 I
RICHFIELD 35,710 I
1 ROBBINSDALE 14,396 I
ROCKFORD -THIS CO PART 440 I
ROGERS 698 I
1 ST ANTHONY -THIS CO PART . 5,278 1
ST BONIFACIUS 1,180 Y
ST LOUIS PARK 43,787 I
SHOREWOOD 5,917 I
„„ SPRING PARK 1,571 I
TUNKA BAX 1,472 I
WAYZATA CITY 3,806 I
I WOODLAND 496 I
FORT SNELLING 90 E
1
Field Office Contact Cindy Behnke Phone Number FTS 612-370-3026
1 * As discussed with Margorie Siegel, Data Systems in Washington on August 16,
1993: because of the annexation of a portion of land by Chanhassen, which is
1 in Hennepin County and has a small population, the total population of the
City will be included in the County's population for the 7Y94 CDBG allocation.
This population change is currently being processed by the Census Bureau.
1
1
1
1
1
HAMLINE UNIVERSITY
1
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55104
.f
FINAL Grade Report
Summer Graduate Session 1993 - '"
II
- Todd J Hoffman ID 471741995 II
Box 256 - -
Victoria, MN 55386 . . .
• .
n Pu • " i ± ;- ` `� _ GPA 824 00 Planning %Or : -. • A 1..0
. ,
- . _ V- r` E RC D TERM PA? UM GP
1
'� �� - „ mO 4 .00 c, 78
,_ , . .
.0 r
-1/'
3 ' T Y a
, tip
F e ;F , ' •.`.
\i,,..-- - % IIR %. "
T `' _ 1854 = y __
a aj
4 ; . '.4,, .{' r _ -- - _ - - -
-'•.-1 te. , ; - -
- . ts "'&' r -c - 4-1.14e " , ; 46 7' N 's .-14, 4 -
• ;7::e4)P .. . . Y :
c�lr C. r c v,,, / - -N -f 4 - ye•.,� /•r - may �•�•. - ... ej 1
..ev r a I tic r6 c /` ,..: p ,�
r' 3 J 7 . ./ /l . a .mk
OFFICIAL GRADE REPORT 4....;-....2 - •
C c_ . ,, r-L.,„ , / K-Ze
G:^'
,„.,,r,„,..
,- /
1 GG
CITYOF
i litir CHANHASSEN
1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937.1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent
I FROM: Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Supervisor
1
•
DATE: August 25, 1993
SUBJ: Junior Varsity Tennis using Chanhassen Elementary Tennis Courts.
1
In conversations with Marie Hasty, Athletic Director for District 112, dates were compiled for
I the Junior Varsity Tennis Team using the Chanhassen Elementary Courts. The dates and
contacts are listed below if you have any questions.
1 Wednesday, August 25 9:00 - 11:30 A.M.
Thursday, August 26 1:00 - 3:30 P.M.
I Tuesday, August 31 4:00 - 6:00 P.M.
Friday, September 3 10:00 -1:00 P.M.
Monday through Friday,
1 September 7 - October 15 3:00 - 5:00 P.M.
Coaches: Deb Peters
I Pam Schmillen
Athletic Director: Marie Hasty
I * All be reached at 448 -8613
,
pc: Todd
Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
r
1 s,
1
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
August 26, • 3
1
Mr. Evan Green
Project Manager
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Re: TH 101 North Leg Trail Project No. 88 -22B -6 1
Dear Evan: 1
This is a letter confirming the distribution to you of a feasibility study for the proposed
Trunk Highway 101 North Leg Trail Project in Chanhassen, Minnesota for your review and
input. Please review this study as a part of the overall permit acquisition process which the
City of Chanhassen will need to obtain from MnDOT to construct this proposed trail project
within the Trunk Highway 101 right -of -way. Once you have had a chance to review this
document, I would suggest that the project engineer from BRW, Todd Hoffman and myself
meet with you and other appropriate MnDOT personnel to go over this document and any
additional design and surveying information that has been generated to date. Thank you 1
for your time and effort in this project.
Sincerely, 1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Charles D. Folch, P.E. 1
City Engineer
CDF:ktm 1
c: Jon Horn, BRW
Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
City Council Administrative Packet (9/13/93)
1
1
1 CITYOF
ClIANIIASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council and SWMP Task Force
FROM: Paul Krauss, Plannin g Director
1 DATE: August 27, 1993
SUBJ: State of Minnesota Shoreland Ordinance Rebate
As most of you know, the City is in the process of drafting an updated Shoreland ordinance. The
' update was mandated by the State and they offered a grant program to offset costs. The
ordinance is nearing completion and will shortly be brought before the Planning
' The City's costs have generally been limited to staff and City Attorney time spent on developing
the ordinance. The enclosed check for $2567.98 is the first 1/2 installment on our grant. We
have had the funds deposited back into the SWMP account since this is where our time was
1 billed.
1
cc: SWMP and Shoreland Ordinance Files
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
gm l am EN am am No Imi EN I um MI NM MI I MI • MI NM
•
•
r , - ,.L My1•410.0 -L iNgliir A•.. a 4........ 4.. n�YSn .7...MY.. Z' e 4 L. "* ,°c • TT *are TT ...to. STATE OF MINNESOTA 400 CENTENNIAL BLDG 65B CEDAR ST. ST. PAIR. MN 55 ISS
29
DEPARTM OF FINANCE 224% , TRANSACTION Na . oEPfpV. � DEPARTMENT NAME PHONE WIDOWS INVOICE NO/DATE ">E A !
STATE OF MINNESOTA 4 4 5 8 0 0 O 2 08189312790 29000 NAT RESOURCES 612-296-8944 SHORELAND ORDINANCE 2,5
400 CENTENNIAL BLDG 658 CEDAR ST.
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155
K 612- 296 -1706 n
A OVDR NO 036770 -001 DATE 08-19-93 NO 44580092 i
U CHANHASSEN CITY OF _ NET AMOUNT
CITY TREASURER {
'L CITY HALL BOX 147 * * ** *2,567.98
OR 690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 r
H F ' '- 1
b � R1
a WARRANT 40 44580092 TOTAL 2,5
Ci__s,.w.�:.,.s+.. "•''' '- -°'`�''"''.'" -"''•''''` s a o KEEP THIS STATEMENT FOR YOUR FILES. FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE TURN OVER THIS FORM.
1:09600096 21: 4 5 20
1 ee.y° -A
C ITYOF
1 . i
1 _.:::_:,
x 7.4.. 1 ‘, v.... ,•; I. CHANHASSEN
\ _.
:.
. _ `� _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
1 MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Sheriff Al Wallin
FROM: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director -- r
I � y
DATE: August 26, 1993
1 SUBJ: Lake Ann Park Shelter
1 On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I am writing to express our appreciation for the efforts of
Tim Koehler, Derek Lee, Mike Douglas, and Joel Speilman, who worked together to apprehend
I two individuals who recently burglarized the Lake Ann Shelter. This has been a chronic
problem, and we greatly appreciate their efforts in making these arrests. Please pass on our
appreciation to these deputies. .
1 cc: Mayor Don Chmiel
City Manager Don Ashworth
1 Park and Recreation Director Todd Hoffman
1 e
1
4 1/4. `
1
1
1
t 4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
, 1.. J- e-
ee N,./ic 1
C ITY of
1
'‘) CHANHASSEN
Nit
=___ _ if'
e - - .. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
•_ " (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
3
August 27, 1993 _ 1
Gregg Davies, Emergency Management Director 1
Carver County Courthouse
600 East 4th Street
Chaska, MN 55318 1
Dear Gregg,
I would like to let you know how pleased we have been with Scott Gerber's contributions to I
emergency management since he has been hired as the new Safety Officer. I have been very
pleased with the contacts that he has made, and taking it upon himself to respond to calls, even
I
before specifically requested. It is reassuring to know that he is taking his job so seriously, and
carving out a unique niche for himself. I look forward to continuing working with you, Scott I
and the rest of your staff.
Sincerely 1
al <--------- - ' -
1
Scott Harr - .
Public Safety Director - 1
4
SH:bk - ,_ —, - 7::::,-:-.1,-'.. - ..: ,.... :,_,.z: -. - - -
cc: Mayor Don Chiruel Ma. x _ x
1
City Manager Do - kshworth a �°, �"
1_.
. -
1
1
1
t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1
e € �cN-- wy ,
1
0 46, S,,i-
CHANIIASSEN
c ITY oF
1
:40:11r1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
I August 25, 1993 7 /�� �
/ v �Q �1 . -: , - � VOL/`S o r/
I Mr. Robert Generous
230 SE 28th Terrace
Cape Coral, FL 33904
I Re: Letter of Employment
1 Dear Mr. Generous:
This letter is to confirm your appointment as the new Planner II for the City of Chanhassen. As
I we discussed on the phone, your starting salary will be $34,000 per year. We also agreed that
you will earn 6 hours of vacation and 8 hours of sick leave for each month of employment.
You will also be subject to a six month probationary period, after which time your supervisor
I shall prepare a performance evaluation outlining your overall job performance. A physical
examination is required to measure your abilities for this position. Please contact our Office
I Manager Karen Engelhardt to schedule this appointment.
I have attached a copy of the city's full benefit package. You are also required to follow all the
I personnel policies and procedures outlined in the city's official Personnel Policy attached.
If you have any questions in regard the terms and conditions of this employment letter, please
I do not hesitate to call me. Again, congratulations, and I look forward to your first day of
working for the City of Chanhassen.
1 Sincerely,
I J a
Todd Gerhardt
Assistant City Manager
I pc: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 Jean Meuwissen, Treasurer
1
1
Mr. Robert Generous 1
August 25, 1993
Page 2
Attachments
1. Employee Benefits 1
2. Personnel Policy Manual
3. Informed Consent Form
4. Application Forms for Benefits
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CITYOF
1
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORA M
TO: Mayor and City Council
1 FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: August 26, 1993
SUBJ: Accounts Payable Questions
The followin g are responses to accounts payable able q uestions from our last City Council meeting,
P onses
1 i.e:
HGA Bill of 8/9/93 - $2,572.62:
The above bill was thought to have been associated with the elementary school/park
capital project. As can be seen from the attached billing, that comment was incorrect and
' the $2,572.62 billing was associated with the community center project. Following the
selection process which established HGA as the architect for the project, no one
anticipated that twelve different renderings would be prepared or the planning process
' would extend over nearly a year. As can be seen from the attached invoice, the planning
process was quite expensive. A letter was sent to HGA telling them that no additional
services should be provided to the city in regards to the Chanhassen community center
1 project unless specifically directed to do so by myself.
HGA Bill of 8/23/93 - $6,440.00:
1 This is the first of two bills for predesign services associated with the elementary
school/park facility planning process. Predesign services are not to exceed $12,000.00
1 and are to be billed through the school district using the hourly rate established in their
contract. Should the City Council decide that the overall construction program of the
school should be increased to represent a separate gymnasium/locker rooms/community
1 rooms on our property, as well as increasing the size of a portion of the school facilities
themselves, I will need to present a contract between HGA and the city for those services.
HGA is proposing that that contract, if approved, be set at 6% of the construction budget
for the facilities determined to be included in the expanded program. This future contract
would be identical to the one signed by the school district and it is anticipated that
billings would continue to go through the school. As this office has the authority to
obligate the city to pay minor contract costs, the check for $6,440 will be sent to the
school district.
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
July 30, 1993
•
Mr. Curt Green
Hammel Green and Abrahamson, Inc.
1201 Harmon Place
Minneapolis, MN 55403-1985
Dear Mr. Green: 1
Thank you for the update as to activities occurring as a part of the joint meeting which occurred
on July 19, 1993. I will share that document with the HRA, Planning Commission, Park and
Recreation Commission, and City Council.
In light of the fact that a major reduction in tax increment revenues has occurred, I must ask you 1
to cease any additional work on the community center project unless notified by this office. I
have enjoyed our working relationship and would hope that the project can become a reality at
some point in the future. Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
0e)-
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA:k 1
1
es
4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
i• ,
STATE BANK OF CHANHASSEN
� CHANHASSEN, MN
1 G`�Y O 052262
75- 1458/919
l 'n A��'� THIS INSTRUMENT WHEN SIGNED BY THE CITY PAYABLE TO
TREASURER SHALL BECE A THE ORDER OF THE PAYEE NAMED THE AMOUNT
STATED
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 VOID AFTER 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF CHECK
111 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 AMOUNT DATE
* * ** *2#572.62 08 -09 -93
hAMIME1, GREEN E * * * * *2 0572 AND 621100 DM. LARS
IpA0 AB AhAMSEN
ORDER OF
1261 HARMON PLACE
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403
1 NON- NEGOTIABLE
MAYOR
1 v 0 5 2 26 210 t :0 9 1914587s: 0 9 010 L I' TREASURER OR MANAGER
CITY OF CHANHASSEN REMITTANCE ADVICE PLEASE DETACH BEFORE CASHING
i ll 890 COULTER DR., CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 .
C1 t ; 3. hAt C R L Eta. c CC52262 08 -0C -93 I *****2/572.62
11070'4 4 0 — CCt - 4,3CO FEES, SERVICE 2,572.62 2,572.62
** ChECK TOTAL ** 2,572.62
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
eo. 0
145 JULY 12T
INVOICE # 307o 9
PROJECT 1139 - 004 -01
MR DON ASHWORTH CITY MANAGER
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
P 0 BOX 147
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Total Contract Amount - Hourly
Professional services previously invoiced including
labor, reimbursables, consultants and interest $49,259.05
Amount paid • - 12,017.89
Interest expense on unpaid balance (over 30 days) -0-
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 25, 1993 ,
CHANHASSEN ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX STUDY
HOURS 1
GREEN, C.H. 18.50
REETZ, G.A. 1.00
TENNENT, C.P. 2.00
DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE 21.50 hours = 1,018.70
COMPENSATION @ 2.500 X DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE 2,546.75
REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES '
PROJECT SUPPLIES 6.63
PRINTING, INTERNAL 2.44
MILEAGE 16.80 1
TOTAL THIS INVOICE 2,572.62
Account Balance $39,813.78 '
Payment is due upon receipt of this invoice. We sincerely appreciate the
opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
HAMMEL G' • N AND ABRAHAMSO I g C4 3� '
nary A. Reetz
GAR /ds 1
F•ZCEI ✓E D
AIL 16 1523 1
CITY OF C;- !ANHASSEN
1
STATE BANK OF CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN, - 1458 / 19 MN
xS 052420
Y O
75- 1458/919
THIS INSTRUMENT WHEN SIGNED BY THE CITY
1##$ Alga TREASURER SHALL BECOME A CHECK PAYABLE TO
THE ORDER OF THE PAYEE NAMED FOR THE AMOUNT
STATED.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P 0 BOX 147 VOID AFTER 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF CHECK
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 AMOUNT DATE
* * ** *6,440.55 08 -23 -93
INCtof hD .T SChCCI * * ** *6,440 AND 55/100 DOLLARS
PAY TO
'ORDEROF DISTRICT iii12
liCci:O VILLACE RCAC
CHASKA MN 55318 NON- NEGOTIABLE
MAYOR
n' 0 5 2 1 -1 200 1 :0 9 L 9 L45871: 0 9 010 6 p' TREASURER OR MANAGER
CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLEASE DETACH BEFORE CASHING
690 COULTER DR., CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 REMITTANCE ADVICE
, . = i 7 4 ` _ ' . 1 T T , ! `16`_574 ?0 OP -23 -44, ** * * *h.440.'35
7 i ULv c7C— Gvi; -43::. FEES, SLRvICE 6,440.55 6,440.55
** CFECK TLJTtL ** 6,440.55
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- - --"- '
• i 4 - : :
,. _..._.
- BUDGET CODE INVOICE ::: 9400;
' . )
Chaska Public Schools #112 •
1
110600 Village Road •
Chaska, Minnesota 55318 ., .
1
TO: City &th Chanhassen SHIP TO: ISD #112
Attn: Don Ashworth , : 110600 Village Rd
Chaska MN 55318 II
\ . Attn: Donna Quaas 11
CUSTOMER'S ORDER SALESMAN TERMS DATE SHIPPED SHIPPED VIA F.O.B. DATE
7/20/93
..? Ref: Hammel Green and Abrahamson invoice
regarding professional services on Chanhassen
Elem. - CoMvunity Program. " 6,440.5
i q
, \ 6 , 4 4 0 . 5 5
c
0 1r
,,,, „,.). % .e/ ii( V
j 0- : cA re )
1
i e tr"
.c.i
4c' _
DISTRIBUTION: White: Please return with remittance. Thank you. Canary: File Pink: Retain for your records.
____L__ _
„
1
1
1
1
• 111111111111■ MI /V 111
vii -
Remit to:
1 Hammel Green and Abrahamson, Inc.
1201 Harmon Place -. p
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 -1985 Hap � O@G I Telephone: 612 /332 -3944
JULY 9, 1993
1 INVOICE # 30740
PROJECT 1400 - 003 -01
MR JEFF PRIESS DIRECTOR OF
BUSINESS AFFAIRS
I ISD #112 - CHASKA
110600 VILLAGE ROAD
CHASKA MN 55318
1 Total Contract Amount - Hourly to $12,000.00
Professional services previously invoiced including
I labor, reimbursables, consultants and interest -0- nt paid -0- nerest expense on unpaid balance (over 30 days) 0
1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 25, 1993
CHANHASSEN ELEM. COMMUNITY PROGRAM
II HOURS
ROZEBOOM, T.R. 36.00
LESCHAK, D.M. 34.50
1 MERCER, M.L. .50
LUNDE, S.K. 1.00
II DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE 72.00 hours = 2 576.22 '
COMPENSATION @ 2.500 X DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE 6,440.55
1
II TOTAL THIS INVOICE 6,440.55
Account Balance $6,440.55
1 Payment is due upon receipt of this invoice. We sincerely appreciate the
opportunity to be of service.
II Respectfully submitted,
HAMMEL GREEN AND ABRAHAMSON, INC. f/"
II
l J 5-i)
�,v
Theodore R. Rozeboom � v
tc
I TRRds - �� A
1
° - - - - _ _ _ _ - _ - __ - ice n: f..s. -v.
- -52_,•:,-:-;-*:---,,-:-- ._ _._. ._ . . . � . -_ - _ :.� ._ � _. �" - .._..... .... a .'- ." `.•� -+a. .
1
1
1
Independent
School
1
District # 112 1
New 1
Elementary 1
School
Chanhassen • Minnesota
1
1
1
Program
and
Preliminary 1
Concepts 1
1
10 August 1993
1
1
Hammel Green and Abrahamson, Inc. 1
1
I ISD112
Area Summary
Space Description Total Arca
Family Clusters 34,125 •
Music/Art 2,850
I Physical Education
IMC 5,750
6,280
Administration 2,930
I Community Program 2,900
Food Service 3,150
Building Services 3,750
I Total Net Area 61,735
Total Gross Area 90,000
1
1 Chanhassen
Program
I
Area Sum mart'
Space Description Total Arca Option One
Chanhassen Phy. Ed Option One (Additional) 19,350
I Chanhassen Community Program (Additional) 5,000
Total Net Area 24,350
Total Gross Area 35,308
1 .
1 Chanhassen Prograth
I
Area Summary
Sp ption Total Arca Option 'Dm
1 Chanhassen Phy Ed. Option One (Additional) 9,600
Cyanhassen Community Program (Additional) 5,000
Total Net Area 14,600
I Total Gross Area 21,170
1
1
1 New Chanhassen Elementary School 5
1
•
1
PhysicalEducation
1
Space Description TS Qty Area SF Total Area ISD 112 Program
Gymnasium 2 2,400 4,800 The gymnasium will be used for a
I
Gymnasium Storage 1 350 350 full range of physical education ac-
Gymnasium Office 1 100 100 tivities by the elementary school as
Stage (Portable) 1 500 500 well as for youth and adult commu- I
Total 5,750 airy groups for basketball, volley-
ball, etc. The gym should be conve-
nient to all areas of the school and 1
also be accessible by a community
entrance for after -hours use.
1 (- 7 1 r — 1 The gymnasium, as sized, could con -
(1 1 tain a high school -sized basketball
1 1 1 court or be divided into smaller cross 1
1 1 court teaching stations of approxi-
mately 2,400 SF each. Gym storage
should also be adjacent to the gym 1
and office with a double door access
1 1 to the gym for large equipment stor-
2400 1 1 12400 age. An area for a portable stage shall 1
L _TL _1 be located immediately adjacent to
1 the gymnasium for school programs.
Gymnasium 1
1
350 100 500
I
Gymnasium Gym Stage (Portable)
Storage Office
1
1
1
1
1
1
New Chanhassen Elementary School 11
1
1
Physical Education
1 Space Description TS Qh Area SF Total Arca
Chanhassen Program
Expanded Gymnasiums (incl. seating) 1 10,400 10,400 (Option One)
I Running Track 1 4,500 4,500
Community Storage 1 500 500 The Chanhassen Community pro-
Aerobics Room 1 1,600 1,600 gram (Option One) is in addition to
I Locker Rooms 1 1,000 1,000 the ISD #112 Physical Education pro-
Entry (Community) 1 150 150
Fitness Room 1 1,200 1,200
gram spaces described earlier. The
Total 19,350
1
addition of this community program
to the building program strongly en-
hances the community school con -
(-- - \ [ - soa cept.
1
1 O Public access to this area will C) ,
bethrough a separate community en-
111 try. The public will have the use of
this area at all hours of the school
{ Scoreboesii day. Available to the public will be
1 ) four 3/4 basketball courts or two full
( ) 0 C competition courts during school
hours. An additional two 3/4 basket-
!' ,
ball courts or one full competition
t ,�, 1OC court are available during off school
1 1 - hours. An aerobics room, fitness
I 1
I ( 1 r room, locker rooms and a mezzanine \ (�
(TT running track will be available at all
y V J times for public use. The increased
I 1 Scoreboard accessibility by the public will re-
quire controlled access to the "inte-
ad1 rior" of the school. Separation of
1 E200 saws cs.o ] diagram includes 2 both community and school athletic courts
the ISD 112
and City of shall be by movable partition.
Chanhassen physical
1 education pro. The community's usage of this facil-
ity reinforces the idea that a school is
, the heart and soul of any community,
I a city-wide landmark which every-
one can identify and take pride in.
500 1600
I Comm. Aerobics
Stor. Room
1
1 1000 150 1200
Locker Rooms Envy Fitness
1 Room
New Chanhassen Elementary School 13
1
, Physical Education 1
SpaceDeccription TS Qh Area SF Total Area
Chanhassen Program
Expanded Gymnasiums (incl. seating) 1 6,000 6,000
(Option Two)
I
Community Storage 1 250 250
Aerobics Room 1 1,600 1,600 The Chanhassen Community pro -
Locker Rooms • 1 1,000 1,000 gram (Option Two) is in addition to 1
Entry (Community) 1 150 150 the ISD #112 Physical Education pro-
Fitness Room 1 1,200 1,200 gram spaces described earlier. The
Total 9,600 addition of this community program I
to the building program strongly en-
hances the community school con-
cept.
1
Public access to this area will be
through a separate community entry. I
n The public will have the use of this
area at all hours of the school day.
Availabletothepublicwillbetwo-3/ 1
( 4 basketball courts or one full com-
petition court during school hours. . )
93 An additional two-3 /4 basketball
S courts or one full competition court
N
oci CT are available during off school hours.
An aerobics room, fitness rom and
Li locker rooms will be available for
'
public use. The increased accessibil -
10 D
116 ity by the public will require Con-
I
The adjacent gymnasium dia trolled access to the "interior" of the
gram includes both the ISD school.
112 and City of Chanhassen I
physical education programs. The community's usage of this facil-
ity reinforces the idea that a school is
the heart and soul of any community, '
a city -wide landmark which every-
501 1600 one can identify and take pride in.
Comm. Aerobics
Stor. Room
1
1
1000 150 1200 1
Locker Rooms Entry Fitness
Room
1
1
New Chanhassen Elementary School 15
1 Chanhassen
Comma nityProgram ,
I Space Description TS Q■ Area SF Total Area
Toilets 1 500 500 The Chanhassen community program
I Multi Rooms 4 1,000 4,000 is in response to the City of
Janitor 1 50 50 Chanhassen and Independent School
Storage 1 300 300 District 112's collective desire to build
Entry (community) 1 150 150 a true community school. The spaces
1 Total 5,000 identified here will be in addition to
the ISD 112 community spaces pre-
viously itemized. The purpose of this
I portion of the program is to provide
additional meeting rooms to the com-
munity to be used as required. Ex-
111 0 amples of such uses could include
but not be limited to Scout meetings,
w fire arms safety classes, craft shows,
janitor social receptions, etc. The use of
1 these community program spaces by
the community will be during as well
as after school houses, accessible via
1 Storage a separate community entrance.
The large multi- purpose room will
have the capabilities to be sub -di
III vided into four smaller meeting/class-
500 4000 t 50 moms. Additionally, designated stor
Toilets Multi- purpose/Meeting Rooms Entry age and toilet rooms will service this
1 community program
A spatial relationship identified as
I one which would be desirable is that
the large meeting room would have
access to the school's kitchen facili-
ties and building services area for
1 servicingoftheMulti-Purpose/Meet-
ing Rooms for large events.
1
1
1
1
1
1 New Chanhassen Elementary School 23
ISD # 112 Program 1
Exterior Activities
SpaccDcscription TS Qty Arca SF Total Arca i
Parking 150 52500 1.2 ac Spatial relationships:
Bus Drop -Off 20 650 .31 ac
Site Roadways • The bus traffic should be sepa-
Site Walkways rate from auto traffic
Service Access 1 2000 .05 ac • Students should not have to cross I
Soccer 1 71750 1.64 ac any traffic to board a bus
Softball 1 58188 1.33 ac • The long -term parking should
Playground 1 10,000 .22 ac be near the gymnasium and the
Hard Surface/Multi- Purpose 1 2,400 .05 ac main building entrance 1
• The auto drop -off should pro -
Total vide space for 10-15 cars stacked
along a curb, allowing children I
to get in or out of cars without
L__I I crossing a traffic lane
• Preschool playground should
be separate from other
playground(s)
• The playgrounds should be pro-
tected from the northwest winds
O by the buildings) if possible
• The playgrounds should be open
to existing practice field areas
13030 52500 • The playgrounds should be ac-'
Bus Parking cessible from educational houses
Drop off and from the cafeteria
• Coat storage and toilets should
I t-, I be in close proximity to play-'
Soccer ground entrances
;;: " `:;.: Physical Requirements: I
•
•
:: • Parking and roadways should be
2000 10000 2400 curbed, blacktop roads
Service Playground Hard surface! • 500 SF of playground should be
Muni blacktopped and lined off for
I
r :.. court games
M ... • Soccer field should run north
::- O and south and softball batter
I
Softball 270 feet should face northeast due to sun
angles
• Preschool playground (2,000 SF)
should contain climbing appara-
tus, slides, swings, etc.
The ISD 112 exterior activities program is divided into two basic components I
which are: 1) on -site pedestrian/vehicular circulation and 2) physical
education fields. Site vehicular circulation consists of bus drop off area for
approximately 20 buses, staff parking of approximately 150 parking stalls,
I
automobile drop off area and 10 -20 short -term spaces relating to the ECFE
program/entry. The physical education component consists of a 1 -5 play-
ground, a hard - surface multi - purpose area, a soccer field and a softball field.
1
i
New Chanhassen Elementary School 29
•
Chanhassen
Exterior Activities
I Space Description
Soccer/Softball TS Qty Arca SF Total Arca
4 6.56 ac The Chanhassen program of exterior
Tennis 4 .66 ac activities is the result of the City's
I Soccer/Ice Rink
Parking 1
120 1.64 ac commitment to develop the remain-
.96 ac ing 20 acres of the elementary school
Site walkways (1) site as a community park. The site
I Site Roadways
Total wallcways/roadways parking arta and
9.82 ac playing fields indicated are all in ad-
dition to the ISD 112 program.
I (1) The site will have a trailway connecting to the City trail system which will
include passive park/wetlands development with future provisions for picnic
shelters.
1
III
117.1 fT7 17■1' [7:.
: 11 1 II 111 II
1
1 i 1 i 1 0 111
I .1 1 1
Tennis Tanis Tennis Tennis
I 42000 .
arking
I ilii , •E.,
1 ::• . 's ....:: :.:„. :-. :;:- :.'. ..:.4. .:,
I .
.. ... .
gi • . :::::..i.:
::::•.•::, • ec) :
f:•• .,:::... • •::: •:::- •••::•.
., .1 .•-:„.: -
1 E •C . t .
,.:,:,. , .:: i:::::::r... 1: .,.....„..• . ... ._
...:...:: .. : . ::: ....,, ....„. . ..,: ::„...:::........„.:::.:.::::::,".......
•. .• , :::„ • ,......„....,. : .4.::,::::,....,... ...9
I
Softball/Socca Softball/Saxer
' -
.: '. . —I
1 L I .'. .,.... - ...1 L_I 1 0
:::: ::: ..:.-:.:..::
;::: • •'• ••:::: .....:.
::: P .,. •:. ::::: • ....'; , •'...•:.::.. 81 0 F)
.,
1 :e:::. ••:.•
.. . .
•(:). ••••
...... 1::...„.:.:.,...,,,.:••.,.::: - .•::.:5„::.,.,..„..,—
..... ... •.... . ::: : . ......
" — ".."
.:•::::: , ......„: ... •;.,, -,..... „....-..,. .,. ,
:::.,..... ...„......., .„,.....„ ...„.„ • •. Seeeerflee R1111115
.:. ,..*:: ki..:1 ' •:ii:. • • .;.. ..:1;:.
1 L • 1. . p .
::i aid... . 1 , .. , .r. , i .. ...i.• . )::::. ''i":::::
. 1 . ... f
( . -. '''L-Z ' : , I ri• :I,* !..:::...,..:.: .:.: . 4 .... 1
Softball/Soccer Softball/Soccer
1
1
1 New Chanhassen Elementary School 31
1
ISD 112
. Project Budget
Construction (incl. 4% contingency) S 6,926,400
Professional Fees 466,200
Furnishings and Equipment 799,200
ISD #112 Costs 400,000
SiteAcquisition/Off -Site Development 340,000 I
Total S 8,931,800
Chanhassen
Project Budget 1
Construction (incL 4% contingency & site development)) S 3,112,000 Option One
Professional Fees 211,616
Furnishings and Equipment
City of Chanhassen Costs
Site Acquisition/Off-Site Development ,
Total
Chanhassen
Project Budget 1
Construction (incl. 4% contingency & site development) S 2,038,000 Option Two
Professional Fees 125,000 P
Furnishings and Equipment
I
City of Chanhassen Costs
Site Acquisition /Off -Site Development
Total 1
'93 '94 '95 Project Schedule
AMJJIAISONDJFMAMJ JA3
Schematic .:' .
Design (2 Mos.) '''`
Design ::4:4::444::- :"
Development (3 Mos.)
Construction i :
Documents (3 Mos.)
{ 1
Bid and Award (1 Mo.) it
Construction (16 Mos.) :`'_: <_ ? r-
: >: { ?
Occupancy (2 Mos. ' "
1
New Chanhassen Elementary School 45
1
r r on rs r r i on or us rr r r r am ow r s vie
Chanhassen Elementary School 1400.003.00
,. , ' .:,;, ,. r,,, 1993 0 ; ' ,..1994 c 1995.
MD 1112 Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb i Mar Apr May May June July Aug
ISD 1112 Stall Review • • s
Board ReviewNVorksessions/Approvel • •
Design end Administration Committee (wkly) •••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Staff Approval of Program • 2
Staff Finalize Construction Budget Out
Park District Review •to
Planning Commission Review Ole
City Council Approval • 23
Staff Review • • • • •
Staff Approval • • •
SCHEMATIC DESIGN (2 months) .
HGA Ignition Meeting - • 1
Plan Backgrounds f
Building Footprint/Location t�
Access Road Locations
Exterior Studies I
Building Messing r IIIIIIIM
Code Analysis OM I MN
Equipment Room Sizes/Locations im
Structural Concept ma
Building Finishes
I OM
Governing Agency Review I •
Construction Cost Estimate ■
Site Design Concept NM
Expansion Plans (if required) I NM
Schematic Design Report •
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT (3 months)
DD phase Begins •
Furniture /Equipment Layouts
Equipment Lisa List M ainum.
1/8' Floor Plans Developed
Outline Specification PM
Freeze Arch. Floor Plans (Owner) •I
Construction Cost Estimate •
Locate and Size Floor Openings
Reflected Ceiling Plan
Exterior Elevations
r iMilini n i
Interior elevations
Distribute 1/8' Plans to Engineers • I
Significant DetelisIVall Sections
Finish Schedule
Engineering Drawings/Specs
Design Development Package •
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS (3 months)
CONSTRUCTION (18 months) month) -1 _ I� -111-- CONSTRUCTION h) .
Substantial Completion July 1 •
Punchout and Training
Equipment and Furnishings .
Occupancy I )�
l:\140011400\003\as \trr1.xis
Fitness/ Courts
Time Pool Weight Racquetball Lounge Track Gym 1 Gym 2 Class Auditorium
Room
5 AM Open Closed Open Open Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Closed
6 AM Lap Open Lounge Shop/ Open Open
7 AM Swim Corporate Open Wallyball Open Juice Aerobics Leagues Open for Seminars,
Bar
8 AM Team Open Health Scr Conferences,
9 AM Water Instruct. Classes: Fitness, Tennis/Golf Parent/Child Workshops, Speakers,
10 AM Exercise Open Tumbling, Karate, Open Classes, Pm- Shows,
11 AM Lap Wallyball Tennis, Archery, School Classes Private or
12 PM Corporate Golf, Craft Shows, Aerobics Open for Corporate
1 PM Open Expos, Self- Defense Open ` Meetings Rentals
2 PM Open Open Special Events _ Parent/Child or
3 PM Lap Corporate Open Instruct. Track & Camps: Sports/Day Practices: Preschool `
4 PM Field Aerobics Baseball, Classes Classes
5 PM Open Soccer, etc. Youth & Adult (Music/Drama)
6 PM Lessons Tourneys Open for — Open Leagues: Ed. Classes, etc.
7 PM Water Training Racquetball, Aerobics, Adult Dance, Basketball, Craft Classes, Open for
8 PM Exercise Testing Wallyball, Closed Rentals, Dog Obedience Volleyball CPR, Health Performances,
9 PM Leagues Open Leagues/ Roller- Dances, Rentals, WhiffIeball, etc Screening, Party Productions,
10 PM Toumeys blading Lock -ins or Open Open Rental, Birthday Catered Events,
11 PM Gym Parties Banquets, etc.
INN SIN IIIIII 111111 all me no am Ea ea or ma me ow ma 11111 MINI I. NO
CITYOF
• CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' w
To: Daniel Klein, Klein Bancorporation, Inc.
1 Lewis Mithun, State Bank of Chanhassen
Kevin McShane, State Bank of Chanhassen
Gary Wenande, Klein Bancorporation, Inc.
1 Fred Hoisington, Hoisington - Koegler Group, Planning Consultant
From: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 Date: August 31, 1993
1 Subject: Suggested Modifications to Gary Wenande's Memorandum of August 11,1993
1 I am in agreement with Gary's memorandum of August 11, 1993, with the exception that I would
modify a., b., and c. on page 2 to read as follows:
1 a. Fred Hoisington is to review the anticipated growth needs of Chanhassen State
Bank and determine how the existing westerly parking area of the bank might be
_ 1 reconfigured to better handle the additional parking requirements; and
b. Mr. Hoisington is to similarly meet with the Postal Service and determine their
1 future needs. As a part of that process, he is to explore the possibility of
reconfiguring both the westerly half of the postal parking area as well as the bank
parking area to see if a new parking lot configuration could serve the needs of
1 both entities. This alternative would make the assumption that the city would
create this new parking as a municipal parking lot with funding for such being
derived from new increment generated as a part of new construction; and
1 c. Should Mr. Hoisington ascertain that the Postal Service needs cannot be met on
their current property, and that a much larger facility will be required for them,
he is to explain the possibility of relocating the Postal Service and use the
increment from both the Postal Service addition, as well as the Klein addition, to
help in that relocation and provide the land necessary for the parking requirements
1 for the new bank (usage of the old Postal Service property by the bank); and
1 d. In the event that a. -c. cannot be accomplished to fully meet the bank's parking
needs, to ascertain how the city would be using the old bank property for office
1
1
I
• August 31, 1993
Page 2 1
expansion, parking, and park purposes in an effort to show how spaces for those
expanded uses could be used by the bank to meet their new parking requirements. ,
I believe the above restatement of your points is very similar, but differed enough to warrant
restating them. As a point of reference, it is my understanding that Mr. Hoisington has contacted 111 both Kevin McShane and the Postmaster in an effort to start the above process.
1
/4--C1) 4111111 III
0 IP 'W
I
•
I
1
I
I
11
I
i
I
1 +
.�� ,� Klein Bancorporation, Inc.
KLEIN BUILDING CHASKA. MINNESOTA 55318
11�� 612/448 -2
T
1
1 To: Daniel Klein, Klein Bancorporation, Inc.
Donald Ashworth, City of Chanhassen, MN
I Lewis Mithun, State Bank of Chanhassen
Kevin McShane, State Bank of Chanhassen
From: Gary Wenande
1 Date: August 11, 1993
Subject: Condemnation of Bank Owned Property, Parking Needs, Etc.
I
This memorandum is to summarize the discussions and conclusions reached at a luncheon
1 meeting of the above parties at Hazeltine National Golf Club at noon on Wednesday, August 11,
1993
1 The meeting was requested by Klein Bancorporation, Inc. (ICBI) to discuss subject issues
w ith all of the parties involved (City of Chanhassen [City], State Bank of Chanhassen [Bank), and
KBI), in the City's planned condemnation of the Bank owned property (two lots and old bank
I buildings) to the west of the Bank's present operating facility and a lot owned by Mithun
Enterprises
I Donald Ashworth reported that the City's purpose of starting the condemnation process at
this time was to insure that all parties are aware of the City's intent to acquire subject property for
purposes of using it as a park or green area.
I KBI and Bank representatives discussed that part of this Bank owned property being
condemned was viewed as a solution for future bank parking requirements when the Bank's
1 present operating facility is expanded. A preliminary review of possible expansion reflects a need
for an additional 80 parking spaces.
1 Considerable discussion was held regarding the timing of the condemnation process and its
relationship to KBI's pending purchase of the Bank, future parking needs and requirements of the
Bank, concerns and considerations of intended uses of the property to be condemned, etc.
I
The meeting was concluded with the following a
T g g reements: g
1 1. Donald Ashworth will request a six month delay for the initial
condemnation hearing on subject property. Such a delay will enable the
I present owners of the Bank and KBI, as its buyer, to complete the
sale /purchase without having to amend any agreements currently in place. ': =LEI VED
hia' 15 1993
I CITY OFC'r!\,,H
1
,Mcmorandum
August 11, 1993
, Page No
present owners of the Bank and KBI, as its buyer, to complete the
sale /purchase without having to amend any agreements currently in
place. ,
2. Three alternatives to the future additional parking space requirements
were discussed, and the City will work with the Bank, the Mithuns as '
sellers of the Bank, and KBI as buyer of the Bank to resolve the
problem. Kevin McShane will be the Bank's contact person for the City
to work with. The three possible alternatives solutions for the Bank's
future parking space problems discussed were -
a. The City will work with the Bank to satisfy the Bank's 1
future parking space requirements related to a Bank building
expansion by guaranteeing required parking spaces in a
municipal parking lot, either as part of an expanded City
Offices lot, or from part of the property to be condemned.
b. The City may consider acquiring the Post Office property
and making required parking space for Bank expansion
available on that property. 1
c. The Bank acquiring the Post Office property for expansion
purposes, including the required parking spaces. (This 1
alternative does not fit into the Bank's future expansion
plans.)
c
If the above does not represent discussion and conclusions rea hed at the August 1 lth
meeting, or if any attendee does not agree with the above summary, please contact Gary
Wenande.
Sincerely,
KLEIN BANCORPORATION, INC. 1
'.i I
Gerd C. Wenande
Vice President
GCW:ld t
1
1
1
CITYOF
i
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
August 31, 1993
1
Klein Bancorporation, Inc.
Attn: Mr. Daniel G. Klein, President
Klein Building
Chaska, MN 55318 •
Dear Mr. Klein:
Thank you for your letter of August 25, 1993. I will share that correspondence as well as Gary
Wenande's memorandum and my suggested changes to that memorandum with the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority.
The city's ability to meet the October 19, 1993, deadline suggested in your August 25, 1993,
letter may be difficult. Fred Hoisington has been given a number of assignments through my
August 31 memorandum and I would hope that he can complete those as quickly as possible.
Whether they can be completed prior to October 19 and submitted to our HRA for final
disposition is the area that becomes questionable.
As we had agreed in our meeting, the city will put on hold the proposed condemnation for a six
month period to examine the parking issues. We will continue to abide by the agreement and
attempt to have resolved issues prior to recommencing condemnation. I am assuming that by
your letter you are clearly advising the city that condemnation will be looked at very differently
by the bank if the parking issue has not been resolved. Specifically, I am anticipating that you
are telling me that the parking issue is an integral part of not only the current value of the bank,
but also its future value, and that any form of condemnation by the city which does not consider
the parking needs for the new bank will assuredly include a claim for a reduction in value to the
new bank. I further recognize that these points are not being made as any form of a threat, but
solely to ensure that the city fully recognizes the importance of additional parking to meet the
future needs of the bank itself. I can understand these concerns and, again, will work as
diligently as possible to attempt to resolve those concerns and to have that resolution placed into
written format. However, I must state again that the likelihood of that happening prior to
October 19, 1993, will be difficult.
1
1
1
Mr. Daniel G. Klein
August 31, 1993 1
Page 2
Thank you for writing, and again, I will share the correspondence from yourself, Mr. Wenande, 1
Lew Mithun, as well as my correspondence with the City Council/HRA.
Sincerely,
1
LEje)
Don Ashworth
City Manager
1
DA:k •
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
�_� }( iein Bancorporation, Inc.
KLEIN BUILDING CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318
612/448 -2484 FAX 612/448 -7788
August 25, 1993
1
Mr. Donald Ashworth
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Don:
As you are aware, we are in the process of purchasing the State Bank of
Chanhassen (Bank), and as we have discussed, the City's planned condemnation of two
lots owned by the Bank including the lot on which the old bank building is located, is of
concern to us. Our long -term planning for the Bank includes probable Bank building
expansion. Such expansion would require additional parking space requirements.
In determining our purchase price for the Bank, we gave considerable
consideration to what we viewed as the ultimate value of the two (2) lots that are planned
for condemnation. We viewed this property as a solution to parking space requirements
when future Bank expansion occurs, as well as property that has considerable
development value due to its location in relation to other recent developments in the City.
Our primary concern is one of solving the parking space requirements when the
Bank building is expanded. We believe that the condemnation will take away our ability
to add on to the banking facility and continue to provide the City, and its residents, with
needed banking services as the City and its service area grows.
We appreciate your willingness to work with us to resolve this parking space
requirement problem. Please be assured it is a major concern of ours, not only in
connection with our pending purchase of the Bank, but to enable us to continue to provide
the growing local community with necessary banking services.
is to work out an amicable solution to the parking
We will use our best effoi o p g
problems that future Bank expansion will create. In that regard, in order for us to close on
our pending purchase of the Bank, we request that the City provide us with a written
1
j Mr. Donald Ashworth
August 20, 1993
Page 2
1
assurance /agreement by October 19, 1993 that the City will guarantee future parking
space required by future Bank expansion as was reviewed and discussed with Fred
Hoisington on Friday, August 20, 1993.
We look forward to working with the City of Chanhassen, not only relating to this 1
parking issue, but to help in any way we can to assist the City of Chanhassen with its
financial needs and in its development of the City and community.
Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time if there are questions regarding Y q 8 8 our
plans for the Bank, or if we can be of assistance in any way. We appreciate the
opportunity to be involved in the communities in which we own banks. Our primary
business is "Community Banking ".
Sincerely, 1
KLEIN BANCORPORATION, INC.
ilgItie /e6;»
Daniel G. Klein, President
DGK:1d 1
1
1
1
•1
1
1
1
1
Minnesota
Department of Mn/DOT commissioner named as
III Transportation �/
� go ernor's 1STEA designee
1 In a letter to the Secretary of Federal Highway Administra- portation plan. This is a new
IsTEA the U.S. Department of Trans- tion (FHWA) for acceptance federal requirement. hut is
portation (DOT). Gov. Arne for federal highway project similar to the state require -
IMPLEMENTATION Carlson named the Commis- programming. ment in which Mn/DOT is
NEWSLETTER sinner of the Minnesota MPOs also sent TIPs directly responsible for developing a
Department of Transportation to the Federal Transit Admit- state transportation plan
The Intermodal Surface his designee in earning out istration (FTA) for review of (Minnesota Statute 19 7 6 sec-
II specific requirements of the the transit portions, with a tion 17 -t.03 subdivision h).
Transportation Intermodal Surface Trans -
Efficiency Act of 1991 portation Efficiency Act copy to the governor's office. , Surface Transportation
I (ISTEM. U.S. DOT guidelines Now MPO TIPs (including Program
for each of these require- highway and transit portions)
In this issue: q will be submitted to Mn /DOT Mn/DOT will cenif}• to U.S.
ments indicate action can for approval. and Mn /DOT DOT the state will meet all
occur by a state's governor or ' requirements of the Surface
I Mn /DOT commissioner will forward them to FHWA i
named as governor's designee. and FTA for inclusion in the Transportation Program and
ISTEA designee Metropolitan planning federally approved State TIP. will motif} the U.S. f th Secretary
Mn/DOT. the governor's Delegating authority to the of Transportation of the
I Congestion mitigation. air n • as te governors g 8
g g amount of obligations to
quality improvement projects designee. now approves the Commissioner will expedite
Metropolitan Planning Orga- the formal approval process
royal occur during a specified time
included po tan Plannin O a- while still indicating state ley_ within a fiscal year. This is an
nization (MPO) Transports- g ' administrative requirement
I How are ISTEA Area Trans- tion Improvement Programs el concurrence. for accounting purposes.
portation Partnerships work- MPs). g P �'
ing? Statewide planning (contact Pat Bursaw,
In the past. MPO- approved Mn /DOT will retain the i 612/582 - 1397)
'Number 10 TIPs were submitted to responsibility for developing i •
August 23,1993 Mn /DOT for transmittal to the and adopting a state trans -
Congestion mitigation, air quality tion Agency (EPA) consulta- ! ties. safety and promotional
improvement projects included tion: programs, state bicycle
pedestrian coordinator posi-
Irik Uthority can use the funds for any
1 • Transportation activities dons.
tle 1. Section 1008 of ISTEA project eligible for Surface in an approved SIP. I CMAQ funds may } not be
establishes a Congestion Miti- Transportation Program 2 Specific transportation ` used to construct new capaci-
It ation and Air Quality funds. control measures identified in ty for single - occupant vehi- .
CMAQ) Improvement Pro- the Clean Air Act Amendment ", cles unless the project
gram for projects or programs Eligibility (CAAA). Included are involves an HOV facility only
hat contribute to the attain- For a project or program to improved public transit. HOV available to single- occupant
I
receive CM funds. it must (high - occupancy vehicle)
ent of federal air quality Q lanes. employer -based trans- travel vehicles times. at other than peak
standards. be included in a State Imple- portation management plans.
mentation Plan (SIP) or be traffic flow improvements. ' Applicability and
lf otal funding for the program determined likely to con- park - and -ride lots. programs Implementation
is S(, Killion during the six- tribute to the attainment of to reduce single- occupant In Minnesota. the Twin Cities
'ear period. Funding is to be national ambient air quality vehicle travel or to increase of Minneapolis and St. Paul•
istrihuted haled on a state's standards, based on the emir- nonmotorized travel. i St. Cloud and Duluth are offi-
opulation and pollution lion reduction potential of cially carbon monoxide
Po 3. Traffic congestion, public nonattainment areas.
severity level. Each state is various transportation control transportation facilities and
uaranteed a minimum of .3 measures. intermodal transportation The Minnesota Pollution Con -
rcent of the funds. facilities management sys_ trol Agency (MPCA). howev-
Federal Highway Administra- terns. I er. has determined St. Cloud
I pplicability : tion (FHWA) interim guide- and Duluth are currently
VAQ funds will be used for . lines identify the following a• Capital and operating costs meeting federal carbon
for traffic monitoring. man- j monoxide standards. Formal
projects or programs in projects or programs as meet- agement and control facilities
zone and carbon monoxide ing eligibility criteria. These requests for redesignation of
(cannot replace local or state Duluth and St. Cloud from
cmattainment areas. States projects do not need further funds in existing programs).
without nonattainment areas U.S. Environmental Protec-
5. Bicycle /pedestrian facili- (over)
nonattainment status are ! able. Minnesota receives the areas. ' other projects is pending Fur-
:
under review by the U.S. , minimum share of CMA Q Six projects in the Twin Cities ther procedures and a
I
EPA. Official redesignation ' funds since the state's num- , area and two in Duluth were ! are currently being develope
could come this year. . ber and severity of nonattain- approved for CMAQ funding. by Mn /DOT and the affected
ment areas and population Mn/DOT. Minnesota Pollution i Metropolitan Planning Organ,
CMA Mn e
Q funds available to equals less than the minimum nations (MPOs) for selecting ,
Minnesota during fiscal year share. That means Minnesota Control Agency and FHWA CMAQ projects,
I eligibility (FY) 1992 were $4.1 million. receives the same amount as concurred on the eligy of
For FY 1993 approximately North Dakota, for example. 1 these projects for CMAQ (contact: Pat Bursaw,
S4.8 million more are avail- p ' funding. Federal approval on i 612/582 - 1397)
which has no nonattainment ; I
How are 1STEA Area 7hransportation • More realistic funding Although public review is
estimates are needed. important, professionals such,
Partnerships working? ; as engineers and planners
■ Entire planning process . should retain the authority of
Here's an example of how an cult. Up -front policies and needs more local input and
ISTEA Area Transportation procedures were lacking and involvement. establishing investment priori'
Partnership (ATP) works. needed. ties.
A Mn /DOT District 8/Willmar Clear statements of II Guidance and technical Editor's note: The Office Of
ATP was formed in late authority and responsibilities assistance regarding planning Htg Programs disagrees
were needed for the ATPs, and project development with the last sentence. Local
March. The partnership con- Mn /DOT districts and central activities should be provided elected officials. often working
silts of eight members: three office. to local units of government.
Mn /DOT engineers, one ! through their professional
The newness of the II ATPs should be more staff. should agree on the pri-
county engineer, three process and the -players" o rities or multi-county trans -
regional development corn- raised questions of trust: Ttir involved in nomination, j
mission (RDC) planners and instance, would ATP priorities selection and approval for all portation investments.
one Mn /DOT planner. They be respected% projects in all program care- These observations were
met for a total of about 24 gories. For instance, have the I made by Cheryl Plathe.
hours April through June. ■ Timing —the process for ATP select projects for the Mn /DOT District 8 transporta-
soliciting candidates. and enhancements category. Then Dion planner; Steven Voss,
The ATP's mission was to approving projects for STIP work with the transit system RDC 6W transportation plan -
deliver a priority list of pro- (State Transportation manager to fill out the data i ner; Annette Bair. RDC 8
jeers for the area. It was Improvement Program)— sheet and ve ' local com-
understood the list had to be p transportation planner; Donn
must be coordinated. For mitment to the candidate pro- Winckl RDC 6E transports -�
financially constrained and a example. some projects were jects. 'lion planner; and Gary
dollar target to aim for would solicited and selected
be furnished. First the mem- statewide while others were • The process needs to be Danielson, county/city repre-
bers had to learn about the decided at the area level. expanded over a longer peri- sentative.
various items listed under Enhancement programs of time. The members did { (contact Cheryl Plathe,
ISTEA, then draft a Trans- a - rush job this year. but in ! 612/231 - 5497)
need to be coordinated with the future more time will be ! 1
portation Improvement Plan ! recreational trails and scenic
(TIP) to cover 1994 -96. ! needed for public input and
byways. comment.
Equity was a major concern ■i More work has to be
for all parties. It quickly done on the decision - making •v' Questions, comments to: U.S. Postage I
became evident. h owever, ro cess. More time and effort '§. R o d en L owe, N ews l etter Ed PAID
that the decision- making
process. B Minnesota Department o Transportation First Class
needs to be devoted to set - 807 transportation Building Permit No 171
II process would be extremely tin up the guiding rinci- I 395 John Ireland Boulevard
difficult because the needs g p g g p I St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul, MN
pies. the qualifying and Tel: 612296.1657; fax: 612297.3160
far exceeded funding. For ranking criteria so decisions
example. the area identified can be made. 1
transportation needs in More effort could be put
excess of 5110 million for into developing and commu-
1994-96. The target was 575 nicating the statewide and
million. and available funding I regional goals and objectives.
will probably be around S45 The members feel they Charles D. Folch, City Engineer
million. have nothing to help judge City of Chanhassen
What the partnership learned I what's more important to the 690 Coulter Drive – P .0. Box 147
through this experience region or the state as whole. Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
II
includes. Editors note: Individual RDC
• The lack of established 1 plans and state transportation 1
policies and procedures was investment guides u+ere
a hindrance. Developing i available to help determine
rules along the way was diffi- area priorities. 1
C.c. ' Adm.. f0.4%
pM 144ltiwer
TRLAX
,11 CABLEVISION
1504 2nd St. S.E., P.O. Box 110, Waseca, MN 56093
507/835 -5975 FAX 507-835-4567
.
■
1 August 31, 1993 Ar
Dear Franchise Authority:
Triax Cablevision is making changes in the rates charged for certain
equipment used by subscribers for the reception of cable television
services. These changes are being made as a result of rules governing
cable television companies and contained in regulations issued by the
Federal Communications Commission.
In the past, Triax Cablevision has provided one standard converter to
customers requiring its use without charge. Additional converters,
11 along with converters capable of remote control, have been made
available to customers for an additional monthly charge.
Effective on October 1, 1993, all customers with a converter will be
11 assessed a monthly fee for its use, including those customers who have
previously received the first converter free of charge. Also on
October 1, Triax Cablevision will discontinue its practice of renting
remote control converters and hand held units to its customers.
Instead, hand held units to operate remote converters will be offered
for sale for a one -time charge of $8.00. Customers currently renting a
remote control converter will be offered an opportunity to purchase the
hand held unit at a reduced rate, equivalent to one month's rental
charge, and all monthly rental charges will be eliminated from their
bills as of October 1, 1993.
The converter charge will vary depending on the style of converter used
by customers in their home. Please refer to the listing below for
converter charges.*
Standard Converter $ .59
Digital Converter $1.29
*Rates subject to final detereination and clarification of FCC rules.
We apologize for any inconvenience caused as a result of this change.
Please feel free to contact me at 1- 800 - 332 -0245 if you have any
questions or if I may be of any assistance in explaining the rules
issued by the FCC and the impact of those rules on your constituents.
Si. - ely your
:..ert . angley
Regional Manager
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
a
September 1, 1993
Mr. Gene Peterson 1
12910 Hamlet Avenue
Apple Valley, MN 55124 1
and
Mr. Matt Fischer
Apple Valley Red -E -Mix
6801 West 150th Street
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Dear Gentlemen: '
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the models you prepared regarding the
potential AVR relocation in Chanhassen. We have had an opportunity to discuss the proposal 1
in -house and I developed the attached memorandum outlining staff's position. The memo has
been forwarded to our City Council, HRA and Planning Commission as an information item and
to get whatever input they could add.
Sincerely, 1
Paul Krauss, AICP 1
Director of Planning
PK:v 1
Enclosure 1
pc: City Council
HRA
Planning Commission
Gary Fuchs, City Attorney
1 CITYOF
1 1.010, CHANHASSEN
i
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 City Council
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
1 FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director .
DATE: August 25, 1993
I
SUBJ: Review of Potential Apple Valle Red -E -Mix Site Redevelopment and Relocation
PP Y P
Several weeks ago I received a call from Gene Peterson, who is a developer I had met in the
e g pe
I past. He indicated that he had been working with Matt Fischer, the owner of Apple Valley Red -
E-Mix. They had developed redevelopment plans for the AVR site and plans to relocate the
facility to the Stockdale property on Audubon Road, south of the City garage and railroad tracks.
l He asked if I could set up a meeting between themselves, the Mayor and City Manager to discuss
the proposal. He further indicated something along the lines of preferring to make an attempt
to explore solutions to the problem that may be able to head off pending litigation on the
I condemnation of the AVR parcel. I said we are generally willing to talk and set up the meeting.
It was attended by myself, Todd Gerhardt, in lieu of the City Manager and, due to the on -going
litigation, by the City Attorney.
I The plans we reviewed were in the form of extremely professional and apparently expensive
scale models. Two were presented, one of the AVR redevelopment, the second of the Stockdale
I site. The plans were prepared without any input by City staff and the designer was clearly not
up to speed on many issues affecting primarily the AVR site.
I The AVR redevelopment featured four office/retail buildings, two of which are multi -story,
aligned from east to west along the long, narrow parcel formed by not only the AVR parcel, but
also the old Taco Shop and part of the Hanus site. External access was to be provided by three
1 entrances including a right - in/right -out only from Highway 5, a new at -grade crossing running
north over the tracks to West 78th Street and by an extension of West 79th Street around the
I Hanus building. Internal access is apparently provided by private drives running through parking
lots of each of the structures. Mr. Peterson claimed to have tenants for each of the structures but
did not indicate who they were.
1
1
1
August 25, 1993
Page 2
While the plan is attractive, it raises a large number of often insoluble problems including: 1
1. The site is no where near wide enough to accommodate what was illustrated. Grading,
access, internal circulation and landscaping requirements would result in a substantial t
down sizing of any potential building sites.
2. One building is situated on top of the Hanus parking lot that is scheduled for upgrading 1
and landscaping in an upcoming project. This parking is critical to the functioning of the
Hanus building and occupants. Loss of the parking would make the building worthless.
It also occupies the site of the new, largely ISTEA funded pedestrian overpass. As
designed, it would not be possible to accommodate the bridge. Although this could
possibly be rectified, it would result in the loss of at least one of the proposed buildings.
•
3 The access proposals are highly suspect. I seriously doubt that MnDOT would allow a
new access from Hwy. 5 or that we would support it due to safety concerns. It is also
unclear how grades could be made to work. The access around the Hanus building has
been explored extensively in the past. Due to the narrow corridor between the building
and railroad, the only way a full street could be built is to tear off the north bay of the
building. The at grade railroad crossing is also problematic. The City has been
negotiating for years for the Hwy. 101 crossing which is certainly more important and
replaced an existing one, and has found the process to be nearly impossible. This
proposal is likely to have a much tougher time and in any case would require acquisition
of additional private property to reach West 78th Street.
4 Internal access is also highly compromised due to the constrained nature of the site and
raise questions over parking adequacy and emergency vehicle access.
The ro osal to relocate AVR to the Stockdale parcel was also attractively executed. It used the
P P
depressed grade of the site and extensive landscaping to offer fairly good screening if the plan
illustrated the situation accurately (which is sometimes not the case due to artistic license
including the use of 50 -60 foot high trees. We do not know if this is the case or not in this
instance since we were never given detailed plans). The main tower of the plant was 50 high
and would probably be visible although most of the direct views would be minimized. 1
In this case, staff indicated that such a location is theoretically possible since the ordinance does
allow mixing plants as an interim but not permanent use. However, we pointed out that the
Council may have reservations over the proposal due to the many homes that are being built a
short distance to the south along Audubon Road. Additionally, this type of use may adversely
impact the quality and value of neighboring parcels in the office/industrial district. A church and
the U. S. Weather Service have been approved across the street. The 55 acre parcel to the east
is owned by Redmond and is considered a prime office/industrial parcel. At the present time
staff is working on a proposal for a 10,000,000 square foot project of mostly office space on this
1
1
1
I August 25, 1993
Page 3
I site. We told Mr. Peterson and Mr. Fischer that having AVR as a neighbor is not likely to be
viewed favorably.
I The models were presented to us in their hope that they could somehow begin a dialogue to avert
a lawsuit over the condemnation. After discussion, staff concluded that there is little possibility
of this substantially altering the City's action to remove AVR from Highway 5. They did not
I appear to be promising enough to stop the litigation which has already been delayed by the AVR
attorney. I asked for a clarification on what they would expect from the City if both plans
proved to be feasible. They seemed to indicate a belief that even if this was to pass that it would
1 reduce, but not eliminate, the damages they are seeking. Thus, there seemed to be little financial
incentive to pursue this further at this time since a pending court action is likely to better define
our liability in any event. I conveyed this position back to Mr. Peterson and sent him and Mr.
1 Fischer a copy of this memo. Should the Council or HRA wish to have more information on
these proposals, appropriate arrangements could be made.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
GG CB C'k• -e5r
Ary
REGIONALTA4NSIT BCIIRD
Mears Park Centre
230 East 5th Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -
612/292 -8789
r y s
1
1
August 31, 1993
1
Paul Krause
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
Dear Mr. ise. °�
Thank
yo for taking time from your busy schedule to meet with me to discuss regional
transit issues. I enjoy the chance to find out your thoughts on transit programs and to
keep you updated on transit developments in the Twin Cities area.
I encourage you and your community to increase your awareness of transit issues and 1
continue to place emphasis on transit in the future planning of your community. As
transit programs continue to play an increasingly important role in dealing with
congestion issues and other transportation concerns for the region, I hope your city will
work with the Regional Transit Board (RTB) on innovative and creative solutions that
will help maintain our quality of life for the metropolitan area.
Please do not hesitate to call on the RTB for our assistance and thoughts on ways that
transit can be an important development tool for your city. Again, I appreciate your
willingness to meet with me and I hope we can continue to do so on a regular basis.
•
Sincerely,
1
Mike Kuehn
Community Relations Coordinator
1
-__
i
1
An Equal Opportunity Employer
CITYOF
1 i
CHANHASSEN
• • IN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
DATE: August 30, 1993
•
SUBJ: City Council Inquiry, Eurasian Water Milfoil Control Joint Powers Agreement for
Y q uY► 8m
Herbicide Application Between MnDNR and the City of Chanhassen
' A budget for milfoil control has been approved as a part of the city's budget process since 1991.
The administration of the milfoil program is listed as a work item in my 1993 goals. In
recommending the execution of the subject agreement, I recognize the DNR as the lead agency
in this regard. They are the experts in the field, employing a full time Eurasian Water Milfoil
Coordinator. I also recognize that this agreement places the city in the best position possible to
receive effective treatment applications. All of this is accomplished, while saving the city money
in both administration and treatment costs. You should be aware that administration of the city's
eurasian water milfoil control and education program has recently been transferred to Diane
Desotelle, the city's new Water Resources Coordinator. However, for approximately the past 2
to 3 years, the Park and Recreation Department has carried out this task. Prior to our
involvement, which will continue due to the gate attendant program, the Public Safety
Department was involved in milfoil control (alas, the Deputy Weed Inspector). If you require
1 additional information in this regard, please let me know.
pc: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
1
1
1
1
1
1
III
CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 09 -13 -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 t
048476 685.27 MANKATO STATE UNIVERSITY TRAVEL & TRAINING G
048477 284.88 MANKATO STATE UNIVERSITY TRAVEL & TRAINING
l
048494 21.50 CARVER COUNTY RECORDER OTHER ACQUISITION COSTS
048504 250.00 MARK W NELSON PROMOTIONAL EXPENSE 1v
048538 743.37 METRO TENT PROMOTIONAL EXPENSE
AND -SALES TAX ON PURCHASES 4
5 1,985.02 NECESSARY EXPENDITURES SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
l
4
Iwo glim 1 t
e �
r �
► t
1
l I W M m E um -. m m m ow m ma m Imp mmil
MN M R N MR NM OM N 1111i m r MI M M M M
CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 09 -13 -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
052496 65.37 DONALD ASHWORTH TRAVEL & TRAINING
052497 54.12 TODD GERHARDT TRAVEL & TRAINING
AND - MILEAGE
052498 2,024.41 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP FEES, SERVICE
052499 67.84 P C EXPRESS FEES, SERVICE
AND -OTHER EQUIPMENT
AND -SALES TAX ON PURCHASES
052500 23.25 ROAD RUNNER FEES, SERVICE
052501 111.98 SW SUBURBAN PUBLISHING PRINTING AND PUBLISHING
6 2,346.97 CHECKS WRITTEN
TOTAL OF 11 CHECKS TOTAL 4,331.99