Loading...
Admin Section i - ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Thank you card from Mary A. Daly Letter to Minnesota Auto Service Partnership dated February 9, 1988 ' Memo from Don Ashworth to Mayor and City Council dated February 19, 1988 ' Letter from The Chanhassen Villager dated February 16, 1988 ' Memo From Dick Feerick dated February 16, 1988 Letter from Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission dated February 11, 1988 Memo from Lori Sietsema to Mayor and City Council dated February 18, 1988 ' Memo from Barbara Dacy dated February 3, 1988 Letter from Animal Humane Society dated February 11, 1988 Memo from Jim Chaffee dated February 11 1988 Y Letter from B. C. ('Jim) Burdick dated February 11, 1988 Letter from Marsh J. Halberg dated February 3 , 1988 Letter from Roger Knutson dated February 3, 1988 Letter from Todd M. Vlatkovich. dated February 4, 1988 Letter to Soo Line Railroad Company dated January 27., 1988 Memo from Frank Ellering dated January 25 , 1988 Letter from Chanhassen Taxpayer dated February 2, 1988 Letter to B. C. Burdick dated February 10, 1988 Memo from Gary Warren dated February 11, 1988 Letter from MnDOT dated February 17, 1988 ,4 r 0 i,x �..., I ,„,, CITY OF . ,, ` I ,Y CHANHASSEN \ . , , ,,_ . I \;,,,_ '°"° 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 Imay. (612) 937-1900 February 9 , 1.988 ��r7 - 7 �_� e.� w� c 1°°"" I y- j L 0 M c d i S'r c t oo-' G.'..'''si l �c ! try., :. } I Minnesota Auto Service Partnership c,./q, TSB a `u�<.E', Y.,s Attn: Mr. Mark Hebert ` MU u J ‘r. 6484 King Fisher Lane car �- �����- /. s�.�,,P y IEden Prairie, MN 55344 r'es..o 4..1. ( 3is' l ��d a ' may ) . � ���`• ,•, Re: Auto Service Center Site , S �'� �/ ���1'•''S � c°�^� .i I Storm Water Retention Basin Construction 0-4,-.2. ,,y 1- I 0, A'es“,31, Project No. 87-33 y/ V Iv f 741,Dear Mr. Hebert: � ;tee rµ<' . :s ,;,,1w ,,,, '�,, mod. IGe., N fi.e/fe.i/� . yew, it o...s tf-r I trust that this letter has reached you in a timely fashion as we now have your current address . I have attached a copy of our I February 1, 1988 correspondence which apparently did not reach you. As we have discussed on the phone February 5 and 8 , I would like to update our letter of understanding to more accurately reflect the City' s position concerning your Auto Service Center application. Due to the difficulties in arriving at a unit cost for the fill material and the acutal monitoring of the excava- tion, we agreed that your contractor would be responsible for I rough grading of the ponding areas for the City ponds in accor- dance with construction staking to be provided for by the City. You also indicated that you were adjusting your site grading in I order to accomodate all of the fill to be excavated from the City ponds with the understanding that the City would be able to uti- lize the organic portion of this fill for top dressing of the pond areas for planting. In our joint conversation with Mr. Ed Matthiesen of Israelson, Reese, Ellingson and Associates, he indi- cated that the site may actually require import material to balance. Therefore, our goal of not having any material leave I the site seems to be achievalbe without any additional expense to either party. Depending upon how the quantities balance out, the City may have material available to you if import is necessary. Concerning the design, it was agreed that Mr. Matthiesen would perform the design for the City' s ponds and integrate this into your application. The City obviously will reimburse Mr. Matthiesen for his expenses as they relate to the City' s request and to that fact he agreed to prepare a preliminary cost estimate for my Mr. Mark Hebert February 1 , 1988 Page 2 Without actually knowing the quantities of removal for the City' s ponds or the quantities of need for your site, this scenario is hard to put a total dollar value on at this point in time. As you are very interested in moving forward with this project, I am concerned that this approach may impose added delays until the details of the quantities and cost per yard can be worked out between the two parties . As you can tell, I am obviously in favor of our initial proposal. In an added turn to this issue, I have had discussions with our consultant, Barr Engineering, and have concluded that since Barr is the Watershed District engineer a conflict of interest pre- sents itself if they also serve as the design engineer on this wetland alteration. I therefore would like you to consider that your consultant, Israelson, Reese, Ellingson and Associates , actually design the ponding areas as a part of your plan. The City would obviously reimburse Israelson for their costs for this portion of the plan. I believe this would provide a better con- tinuity for both parties especially as it relates to your pursuit of a wetland alteration permit for the site. To make our initial proposal more attractive, the City would agree to provide dispo- sal sites as necessary for the disposal of any excess materials from the pond construction. Mark, I still feel that we are close to agreement on this . After you have a chance to review this please give me a call and we can pursue this further. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN .4 G. ■ Warren, P.E. ' ity En► ineer cc: Don Ashworth Jo Ann Olson 1 1 1-201464,,,L4r\ CITY OF CHANHASSEN AL, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager DATE: February 19 , 1988 1 SUBJ: Development Exactions/Fees Given City Council discussion regarding the use/abuse of develop- ment fees and exactions during the past several months , I thought the attached article would be of interest. The author, Mr. 1 Sellergren, is a well-respected attorney specializing in munici- pal law. Mr. Sellergren has helped the City of Chanhassen on various occasions and remains a personal friend. 1 f�� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Is Iv l T c� j�GK 1 MI1NNEIISOTA I'' IAL T T 1 JOURNA IIVolume 3, Number 11 Butterworth Legal Publishers September/October 1987 1 DEVELOPMENT EXACTIONS AND FEES -- PUBLIC NEED, I PRIVATE RIGHTS, FAIRNESS, AND THE LAW IDavid C. Sellergren THE PROBLEM AND RESPONSES ment to a potentially antidevelopment public and as a I means of getting the necessary public facilities for their Development fees are one of the hottest fiscal and legal projects. Municipalities support development fees, since issues inland use today.With budget shortfalls and cuts in they encourage responsible development and help pro- federal aid programs,' local governments across the coun- vide needed infrastructure for their communities. I try are looking more and more toward private financing of new public improvements, making the provision of im- Ideally,the use of exactions can create a win-win situa- provements a requisite for approval of subdivisions and tion for all parties involved. Yet, the exactions are subject I other land uses. Development fees or exactions' are spearheading this drive toward private financing. They to abuse. With reckless application,development fees can create a no-win situation for all parties involved. This take on different forms,but generally they involve require- article will discuss the incidence of development fees,the ments of land dedication,fees in lieu of dedication,or fees limits, if any, a municipality is under in imposing them, I charged for the impact new development presumably will and the need for a conscientious awareness in their have on public services and facilities. The exactions are administration. levied on the assumption that new residential and corn- I mercial developments generate increased public service requirements. Exactions are based on the simple philosophy that new dev development should"pay its own way,"arguably an equit- able standard.If a subdivision or commercial development I Developers, surprisingly, at times seem to be among induces growth.' that requires additions or improvements the strongest proponents of development fees, but for de- to public services and infrastructure, then the developer fensive reasons.'The exactions are regarded as an appease- should make contributions toward meeting the costs of the improvements. After all, the development will presum- ' ably benefit from the improvements.A simple philosophy, David C. Sellergen is chair of the Land Use and Development however, does not preclude controversy. Department of Larkin, Hoffman. Daly&Lindgren, Ltd. Mr.Sel- lergren is a graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School Much litigation around the country has found its way ' and holds a master of laws,environmental law.from The Nation- into the case books over the question of ascertaining the al Law Center, George Washington University. He has lectured relationships between the size and type of a development extensively and has been an instructor in land use law at Ham- and the needs that it will generate.Certain kinds of munici- I line University School of Law.vIr.Sellergren has practiced land pal needs are easily identified with a subdivision,such as use,local government,and environmental law in Minnesota for fifteen years. He has participated in the exactions debate in its many forms on nearly a daily basis. I ARTICLES AND FEATURES IN THIS ISSUE Mr Sellergren acknowledges the assistance of Craig A. Zuelke. who added invaluable polish to a practitioner's thoughts. Mr. Development Exactions and Fees—Public Need,Private Zuelke is currently a student at the University of Minnesota Law Rights, Fairness, and the Law 161 I School and a graduate fellow at the Hubert H.Humphrey Insti- tute of Public Affairs,working toward a dual law and master of Case Notes 170 planning degree. I 1 f, 162 - 3 Minnesota Real Estate Law Journal . 1 needs for interior streets, street lighting, sanitary sewer, space in its region is elastic and other communities have storm sewer, water, and sidewalks. Identifying other homes and offices available at prices not hiked by exac-— needs, however, can be much more problematical. These tions. Developers/builders can either swallow the costs, other needs may include: parks and recreation, storm refuse to build in that particular market,or pass the costs water holding areas and ponds, natural amenities, "pri- on to the buyer. I vate"open space,extra width for major thoroughfares,trail systems,public transportation shelter areas,scenic views, In most instances, the costs are passed on, having a school sites or charges for a site,fire station sites or charges, cumulative effect not at first apparent. First, financing Iand library sites or charges. improvements through exactions can be inefficient. Financing an improvement or dedication through the corn- At the heart of the controversy are the fees that have bination of a land development loan at three points over been levied against developers for off-site improvements. prime rate and a home mortgage at 11%is more expensive I The demonstrated need in such cases is often very tenuous than through the typical lower rate associated with munic- and can camouflage the true motives of some municipali- ipal bonds. Second,the higher home prices caused by the ties.Fiscal constraints sometimes tempt local governments exactions result in additional increased costs including a I to transform development fees from regulatory tools into higher sales commission, an increase in the amount of simply means of raising money or obtaining free capital mortgage and points related to the mortgage, and an in- improvements.Litigation in Florida and Utah has revolved crease in property taxes caused by the higher market value around costly impact fees that were,in part,designated to of the home.Finally,the higher exaction-fee-induced costs I subsidize capital facilities not related to the particular limit the number of potential buyers,especially lower-and subdivisions moderate-income families. There is then,an exclusionary element in front-end exactions imposed on housing I The Price of Exactions developments. Some municipalities' practices of charging exactions Another serious problem that may result from a reck- I have generated criticism on other grounds,mostly having less use of impact fees to finance new public infrastructure to do with the incidence of the fees. By making develop- is the inequitable treatment of new and existing residents. ments more costly, the process of providing reasonably New residents who finance new infrastructure through priced housing or fostering needed commercial tax base impact fees may also have to help retire the debt of existing I and jobs is potentially slowed.6 This is especially true for a infrastructure through general revenue assessments. This particular community if demand for residential or office double payment may again arise in the replacement of existing public facilities. New residents will contribute to replacement of existing infrastructure long before the new I Minnesota Real Estate Law Journal infrastructure(which they paid for in the exaction process) wears out. Current residents, meanwhile, will enjoy the Volume 3,Number 11,September/October 1987 added tax and exaction revenue of new development and I MANAGING EDITOR the lighter burden it brings for making public Timothy C.Brantner improvements. EDITOR New homeowners may be able to recoup some of the I Stephen L. Liebo costs of the exactions if they sell their homes; however, ADVISORY BOARD OF EDITORS new renters will not have this opportunity. Likewise,cur- Robert P Bohlett rent homeowners may enjoy the advantages private I 1 Robert Bohlett Associates. Inc. financing of public improvements bring,but current rent- James B. Druck ers may be hit in a different way. When exactions are Halpern & Druck passed on to the buyer,prices for existing housing also rise, I Leland J. Frankman since the demand for the cheaper, existing housing and Attorney at Law rental units increases. Current homeowners may experi- ence favorable capital gains, but current renters may sim- I James D. Olson ply experience higher rents.The existing renters,then,are Best & Flanagan indirectly bearing some of the costs for the new This journal may he cited as 3 MINN. REAI.Est' L.J XXX(1987). development.b Minnesota Real Estate Law Journal(ISSN 0278-7628)is published I by Butterworth Legal Publishers,289 East Fifth Street,St. Paul. Legal Constraints on Imposing Exactions Minnesota 55101-1989.Telephone:(612)227-4200.Subscription price is $75.00 for one year. Copyright 'c 1987 by Butterworth Legal Publishers, a division of Reed Publishing(USA) Inc.. All Municipalities do not have free reign to impose exac- I rights reserved. tions on developers. To the contrary, they must comply with significant legal constraints. First, both the federal if September/October 1987 163 I and state constitutions limit the reach of local govern- ated list of public uses but is limited to requiring land ments. The "taking clause, which reads "nor shall pri- • dedication. Counties are not specifically given the fee in vate property be taken for public use without just corn- lieu of dedication option." Beyond these limitations, pensation,"has been used to nullify several exactions.In however,the broad scope of these statutes makes challeng- I Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,'° the United ing municipal and county exaction statutory authority a States Supreme Court ruled that a condition placed on a difficult endeavor. building permit violated the taking clause because the ' condition did not further the public purposes the permit A third constraint on the municipality that may pro- vide requirements served.The Nollans wished to build a house e grounds for challenging an exaction is the validity of on some coastal property they owned but were required to the local ordinance. Since the legislation just cited is dedicate a public access easement along their shorefront enabling legislation only, there also must be a valid local I before a building permit would be granted.In its opinion, ordinance on which the exaction is based. For example, the Court assumed that the California Coastal Commis- the Bloomington City Code, states: sion's objective of preserving public access and the charac- I ter of the shoreline was legitimate but ruled that the condi- it is hereby found and declared that,as a general rule, it is tion did not rationally further that objective.The condition reasonable to require an amount of land equal in value to ten was not substantially related to a governmental purpose percent of the undeveloped land proposed to be subdivided, that would justify a denial of the permit. The condition, be dedicated or reserved to the public for public use as parks, Ithen, amounted to a taking of Nollans' property without playgrounds, open space, or trails.. just compensation. Municipalities that attempt exactions supported only by I their " Similarly,a federal decision,Parks v. Watson,"invali- hallen elides" or administrative devices are inviting a dated a city's demand for dedication of a geothermal well g in exchange for the city's vacation of a platted street The local ordinance cannot by ultra vires, that is, it I because the demand violated the "taking clause." The cannot be unreasonably beyond the scope of the enabling condition—dedication of the well—was not rationally legislation;neither can it overreach.Developers have chal- lenged to the benefit conferred — vacating the platted lenged local ordinances as being so vague that the street. g gu they invite I arbitrary action. Generally, though, challenges of this Parks also exemplifies how exactions, if unevenly nature are unsuccessful due to the courts' recognition of applied,can be successfully challenged as violations of the municipalities'need for flexibility in financing their pub- "equal protection"clause."The condition requiring dedi- cation of the well was a distinction made between the developer seeking vacation of the street and other develop- A fourth constraint, requiring development fees to be ers who had received vacations, and it was "totally unre- applied reasonably to land use activities,is the most fertile I lated to the city's statutorily defined interest in determin- ing source of challenges.A finding of unreasonableness is also hether to a precondition to a finding on the constitutional issues.Z° g grant the discretionary benefit [street Most states, including Minnesota, determine reasonable- vacation]."73 Also related to the equal protection challenge ness through a rational-nexus test. I is the charge in some cases that development fees are unconstitutional taxes, in that they are used for general Rational-Nexus Requirements revenue purposes but not uniformly paid by residents of_ I the community.14 A subdivision exaction designated to meet some need entirely within the subdivision will, in theory, create a A second general constraint on the imposition of corresponding direct increase in the quality of facilities development fees is the enabling legislation or statutory serving that need in the subdivision.The subdivision has a I authority for exaction activity.A municipality may use the need for the exaction,and the exaction provides a benefit police power to protect the health and welfare of its to the occupants of the subdivision. If the exaction subsi- citizens as an instrument of the state, but it first must be dizes public services and facilities beyond the boundaries I granted the authority to do so." Both municipalities and of the subdivision,however,the need for the exaction and counties in Minnesota have the statutory authority to the benefit it supposedly will confer to the subdivision are charge exactions from developers.Municipalities have the less direct. The exaction,then, is more open to attack as a authority to require land dedication for certain public uses taking. I and land dedication or fees in lieu of dedication for certain other uses. The reach of municipal exaction authority is The answer to the question of whether an exaction is a limited,however,to the subdivision of land and does not valid use of the police power is determinative of whether include development in its many forms that does not the exaction is a"taking."Courts have assessed the validi- ty of exactions using, predominantly, two standards. The restricted to subdivision developments or to an enumer- first standard,articulated in Pioneer Trust&Savings Bank I I 164 - 3 Minnesota Real Estate Law Journal v. Village of Mount Prospect,='finds the subdivision exac- of land which the evidence reasonably established that I tion legal only if the burden cast on the subdivider is Bloomington needed to acquire for the purposes stated as a "specifically and uniquely attributable to his activity."22 result of approval of the subdivision."" With that inter- This test has a two-prong requirement. A municipality pretation, the statutory requirement and implementing must show that a new development causes the need for regulations in question were upheld as being in com- 111 public improvements and that the improvements confer pliance with the state and federal constitutions. The en- benefits directly to the developer and his property.23 The abling statute was amended to include the Collis language "specifically and uniquely attributable" test was a shift in 1980." I from earlier cases, which had approved nearly any exac- tion by stating that it was the price to pay for the "privi- In adopting the rational-nexus text,the Minnesota su- lege" of subdivision.24 preme court chose an easier and more realistic, albeit I broader, test than the specifically and uniquely attribut- The second standard, established in Jordan v. Village able standard. The "reasonable relationship" (rational- of Menomonee Falls,25 adopted the two prongs of the"spe- nexus) standard of Jordan is, according to the court, "of cifically and uniquely attributable" test but relaxed the necessity,a facts-and-circumstances test,but it is the only I burden of proof associated with it: "[T]he words `specifi- kind of test that will consider the myriad of factors which cally and uniquely attributable to his activity' are not so may bear on a municipality's needs for certain kinds of restrictively applied as to cast an unreasonable burden of facilities and the relationship of a particular subdivision to I proof upon the municipality which has enacted the ordi- those needs."" nance under attack.""Under this approach,a municipality need not show that an exaction meets a need solely attrib- Knowledgeable local government decision makers and utable to a particular development or that it confers ben- attorneys know the complexities and tradeoffs involved in efits directly to the particular development that it was subdivision exactions, so the test elected by Minnesota exacted from.The cumulative impact of new growth over and most courts now is better than those used in the past.It several years could form a reasonable basis for the subdivi- encourages recognition of the incremental burden occa- ' sion exaction: "[A] municipality might well be able to sioned by growth.It puts on the municipality the burden of establish that a group of subdivisions approved over a proving a relationship between local exactions and public period of several years had been responsible for bringing needs attributable to subdivision development but also I into the community a considerable number of people mak- permits some flexibility in establishing the nature of the ing it necessary that the land dedications of subdividers be relationship. utilized for school,park,and recreational purposes for the benefit of such influx."27 THE EVOLUTION OF THE RATIONAL-NEXUS I TEXT AND THE PROPOSED STREET IMPACT This second approach, known as the rational-nexus LEGISLATION test,was adopted by the Minnesota supreme court in Collis ' v. City of Bloomington.28 In Collis, developers challenged The 1987 Minnesota legislative session witnessed the the constitutionality of state enabling legislation and a introduction of a bill that would give municipalities the Bloomington ordinance that required dedication of parks authority to levy street access charges on new develop- and playgrounds or fees in lieu thereof as a condition of ment. The charges would be based on a calculation of the I subdivision approval.The Minnesota court traced the two number of household trips that a new development would lines of cases establishing standards for analysis of the be expected to generate.Developers would be assessed the validity of subdivision exactions and found the test articu- street access charges on top of their building permits and I lated in Jordan to be the more workable one.29 would have up to ten years to pay them.The fees,in effect, would be treated "in the same manner as taxes on real The Minnesota supreme court recognized the worst in property for which the building permit was issued and I the "taking" problem in Collis, stating: would be subject to the same penalties and interest as city A municipality could use dedication regulations to exact taxes on real property."'°This bill presents a classic exam- land for fees from a subdivider far out of proportion to the ple of an impact fee.Developers would be assessed charges needs created by his subdivision in order to avoid imposing for the impact that their projects would reasonably be I the burden of paying for additional services on all citizens expected to have on existing city streets and highways. via taxation.To tolerate this situation would be to allow an otherwise acceptable exercise of the police power to become Impact fees presently are not recognized in the Minne- grand I theft.° sota statutes.They differ from the traditional development exactions in that they are not tied to the subdivision proc- The court upheld the enabling statute,however,since the ess and are not based on the necessity of acquiring land for statute authorized dedication of only a "reasonable por- public improvemens;rather, impact fees are based on the I tion" of land for its stated purposes. The court found the need to generate revenue for making the capital improve- "reasonable portion"to be dedicated to mean"that portion ments presumably necessitated by a particular develop- I I etember/ S p October 1987 165 I ment. As previously discussed,a municipality can adopt lected"do not exceed a pro rata share of reasonably antici- pated costs of expansion," and (3) "the use of the money for public use as streets, roads, sewers, electric, gas, and collected is limited to meeting the costs of expansion."" I water facilities,storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds,and similar utilities and improvements.A munici- pality also can require the dedication of land or fees in lieu The need for expansion is generally not disputed,espe- of dedication for "the public use as parks, playgrounds, cially if the fee requirements are based on the expansion of Ipublic open space, or storm water holding areas or conventional public services or facilities, such as roads."ponds."" There is no mention of a fee-in-lieu-of- Disputes often occur, however, in determining the fair dedication option in the county enabling statute, but the amount of costs new development should bear in relation I statute in one respect is broader than its counterpart for to the benefits received.The Utah Supreme Court,in Ban- municipalities.A county is limited neither to subdivision berry Development Corp. v. South Jordan City," a case regulations nor to an enumerated list of permissible public which considered park dedication requirements and water uses but may establish standards for"the preservation and access charges,provided a comprehensive list of criteria a I dedication of streets and land for other public purposes municipality should consider when determining the and the general design of physical improvement.'3e equitable balance between expansion costs and the ex- pected benefits that expansion would generate.The seven I Like the county enabling legislation,the proposed im- ableness of the fee requirements are: pact fee legislation goes beyond the subdivision limitation criteria a municipality must consider in setting the reason- -a development other than a subdivision may be asses- ' sed charges for the impact the development has on the city (1) The cost of existing capital facilities; (2) the manner of arterials and collector streets and highways.The proposed financing existing capital facilities. . .;(3)the relative extent legislation still does not give municipalities the authority to which the newly developed properties and the other to require nonsubdivision developments to dedicate land properties in the municipality have already contributed to I or pay fees in lieu of dedication.The proposed legislation the cost of existing capital facilities. ..;(4)the relative extent broadens municipal power but limits the power to cover to which the newly developed properties and the other properties in the municipality will contribute to the cost of only the impact the new development has on city streets existing capital facilities in the future;(5)the extent to which I and highways. The general "other public purposes" lan- guage the newly developed properties are entitled to a credit be- cause the municipalities requiring their developers or own- ers to provide common facilities. . .that have been provided I At the same time that the street impact fee bill, if by the municipalilty and financed through general taxation adopted, will extend a municipality's power to impose or other means. . .in other parts of the municipality;(6)the fees on new development, courts across the country are extraordinary costs,if any,in servicing the newly developed requiring development fees to face an increasingly rigor- properties: and (7) the times-price differential inherent in I ous rational-nexus test.The courts have both strengthened fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times.* and clarified the test. Michael Stegman,writing for the Urban Land Institute, I Although the burden of proof was reduced from the has summarized the basic requirements for the rational- "specific and uniquely attributable"test under the Jordan nexus standard as it exists now in the majority of states.To standard,the rational-nexus standard has not simply been satisfy the rational-nexus test, a development fee ordi- ' treated as a password for development fee ordinances.The nance must have (a) clear facility need standard, (b) fair need and benefit prongs of the test are being construed to allocation of facilities costs, and (c) accountability in the require a stiffer demonstration from the municipality re- use of the fees collected. Infrastructure standards serving ' garding the basis for its impact fee ordinances.In states like new development must not be higher or lower than ex- Florida and Utah, where the test is being applied in its isting standards, and the costs for the new infrastructure strictest form, municipalities must show that a particular must be carefully documented. The allocation of infra- development creates a need for expanded public infra- structure costs must be based on a formula that does not I structure. The impact fee, then, must be roughly pro- shift the entire burden of new public facilities onto new pro- portional to the generated need. After the need require- development. Also, the fees cannot be used to remedy ment is met, the impact fee must be shown to benefit the existing deficiencies in public facilities, or to make new ' development from which it was exacted. development pay twice by financing replacement of ex- isting facilities while also paying for the expansion of the In Contractors & Builders Ass'n v. City of Dunedin," facilities.Accountability and use of the fees must be based the Florida Supreme Court held that impact fees for new on the creation of specific funds earmarked for the needs I developments are permissible when (1) it is established that give rise to the fees in the first place,and on provisions that expansion of public facilities is reasonably required as that contain time limits for spending the collected fees and a result of approval of the development, (2) the fees col- giving refunds if the spending deadlines are not met."Z I 166 3 Minnesota Real Estate Law Journal , Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and the asserted that he hoped the"decision is an aberration,and I Future of the Rational-Nexus Requirement that a broader vision ultimately prevails."w On June 26, 1987, the United States Supreme Court The Nollans won by a bare majority, five-to-four, and handed down its decision in Nollan v. California Coastal the majority opinion was severely criticized by the dissen- ' Commission."This decision has the potential to make the ters for using an uncharacteristically demanding standard rational-nexus standard an even stricter test. to judge a police power action.Consequently,it remains to be seen how much weight Nollan will ultimately carry in ' The issue of whether the Nollans would benefit from future development exaction disputes. NoIlan may be- the condition placed on their building permit was not come an aberration, but whatever direction its progeny addressed; the question of whether the condition met a take, its exacting standard will be ammunition for those need created by approval of the Nollans'building permit seeking greater restrictions on a municipality's ability to I was the focus of the Court's attention.In the end,the Court levy development exactions. ruled five-to-four that the condition of granting a public access easement on the Nollans'beach-front property did The Street Impact Legislation and the Rigorous I not substantially further the governmental purposes of Rational-Nexus Requirements protecting the public's ability to see the beach,assisting the public in overcoming the"psychological barrier"to using The"need"prong of the rational-nexus test could argu- I the beach created by a developed shorefront,and prevent- ably be met by an ordinance based on the proposed Minne- ing congestion on the public beachs."The Court assumed, sota impact fee legislation,in spite of the Nollan decision. without deciding,that the coastal commission could have In Minnesota, need is determined by looking at the rela- denied the Nollans'building permit outright if the denial tionship between the development and the use for which I would have substantially furthered the governmental pur- the exaction is being levied. In MiddIemist v. City of poses and if the Nollans would not have been denied the plymouth,51 a recent case in which a developer challenged economically viable use of their land. Justice Scalia,writ- an exaction requiring the dedication of an outlot for a 111 ing for the majority, noted however: county road, the Minnesota court of appeals ppeals noted that [T]he lack of nexus between the condition and the original "some uses, such as freeways,major arterial highways,or purpose of the building restriction converts that purpose to area-wide sports facilities, may have such a negligible I something other than what it was.In short,unless the permit relationship to local developments that dedication may condition serves the same governmental purpose as the de- not as a matter of law, be required of a particular velopment ban,the building restriction is not a valid regula- subdivision.""At the other end of the spectrum, the rela- tion of land use but "an out-and-out plan of extortion."" tionship between new development and increased traffic on a community's roads and highways, particularly for In this decision,the burden of proof necessary to sup- large developments, is reasonable and well supported. port a nexus between a condition placed on a development Between these two poles,however,the proportion of need I approval and the public need or burden the development the new development generates,and consequently the pro creates is raised almost to the level of the"specifically and rata share of the costs it should bear, is more difficult to uniquely attributable" test. In its opinion, the Court first establish. looked at the elements of the taking clause,noting that land I use regulations do not constitute a taking when they"sub- Under the proposed legislation, communities must stantially advance legitimate state interests and do not establish a procedure for calculating the impact each deny an owner economically viable use of his land."48 building is expected to generate on city collector and arter- Next, I the majority assumed the commission's purpose was ial streets and highways. This impact is to be based on legitimate and conceded that the condition would be sus- multiples of a calculated household use rate for city streets tamed if reasonably related to furthering this purpose.The and highways."The street access charge may not exceed e condition,however,did not meet this reasonable nexus.In $750 for each multiple of the household use rate."A local deciding what constitutes"reasonable,"the court took the ordinance based on this method of determining impact same approach used in the majority of states (referring to would arguably be reasonable and would,therefore,with- the rational-nexus test), citing Collis and Jordan."' stand judicial scrutiny. I Writing in dissent, Justice Brennan characterized the An ordinance fulfilling all the requirements set by the standard used by the majority as"a precise quid pro quo of proposed legislation would most likely fare equally as well I burdens and benefits."48 He considered the "precise under the "benefit" prong of the test, despite the fact that accounting system in the case"insensitive to the fact that the legislation makes no demand that the fees be spent increasing intensity of development in many areas calls for within a certain radius of the development, other than far-sighted, comprehensive planning that takes into within the city limits."Benefits of the fees are not required i account both the interdependence of land uses and the to fall in the project that generates them alone. In fact, the cumulative impact of development."i9 Finally, Brennan development possibly would not feel the benefits of the I I , September/October 1987 167 fees as directly as other persons if the fees are spent in an where office space developers in California recently chal- area of the city away from the project. In Homebuilders lenged a development fee levied to offset increased public I & Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Board of County Com- missioners," transportation costs associated with their developments. the appellants argued that an impact fee was The California court followed an earlier case, Terminal "invalid because of the disparity between the people who Plaza Corp.v.City&County of San Francisco,ss where an benefit and the people who pay."This is a common mode impact fee ordinance was distinguished from a tax. The I of attack against impact fees, the court noted, but it is court, in Russ Building, concluded that fees that do not generally rejected. The Florida court held that the fees do exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service of the not have to be used exclusively or overwhelmingly for the regulatory activity for which the fee is charged,and which I benefit of the development.' In Call v. City of West are not levied for general revenue purposes, have been Jordan the appellant argued that a dedication ordinance considered outside the realm of special taxes. The court was invalid because the fees would not be put toward uses noted that the fees levied against the developer were not solely for the benefit of the development but would be compulsory but were exacted only if the developer volun- ' enjoyed by the public at large. The Utah Supreme Court tarily chose to create new office space."this contention, stating that it is sufficient if the improvements constructed with the fees imposed bore a A court following the decisions in Florida and Califor- ' reasonable relationship to the needs created by the subdivision.° nia would most likely find ordinances based on the pend- ing Minnesota legislation to be regulatory enactments rather than taxes. The Minnesota legislation calls for a The proposed Minnesota legislation is specific in re- five-year capital improvement plan that includes cost esti- ' quiring municipalities to demonstrate the use or benefits mates of city arterial and collectors streets and highways." for which the fees will be used. The fees are to be ear- The estimates,in effect,set a cap on the amount of revenue marked for a special fund that will be expended for the that can be generated through the fees.The legislation also I costs imposed on city streets and highways by the project." limits the spending of the generated revenue to the costs The benefit to the development would also have to be imposed on the city streets and highways by the project.7° demonstrated through the adoption of a city wide trans- Under the legislation,a city could not receive street access portation plans'One would be hard pressed to show,then, charges in an amount greater than the cost described in the I that there is not a reasonable relationship between the five-year street and highway improvement plan." ± expenditure of the funds and benefits conferred on one's project. A local ordinance properly preceded by reliable I traffic studies and a transportation plan based on the pend- ing legislation could pass the muster of a court using a POTENTIAL POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE rational-nexus standard.Given national trends to rigorous EFFECTS OF THE LEGISLATION I analysis, however, municipalities that take such action must be very careful and must anticipate legal challenge. Calculating the impact of a building will have on the road system of a municipality is not an exact science. An ordinance meeting the rational-nexus test is not free There are problems with determining an adequate number I from attack as an unconstitutional tax, however. The tax of parking spaces, let alone determining the number of challenge has been a popular means of attacking impact fee household trips generated by a particular development. legislation. In Homebuilders & Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Household trips may be too simplistic a way of assessing I Board of County Commissioners," the appellant main- this impact.A building may be rated as generating a certain tained that an impact fee for roads was in reality a tax.The number of household trips,but due to out-migration in the court ruled otherwise, distinguishing Homebuilders & community, a net increase in the number of household Contractors Ass'n from an earlier case,Broward County v. trips may not occur as a result of the new development."If I Janis Development Corp.,"in which such a fee was held to the projection for the growth of vehicular traffic in the be a tax. In distinguishing the two cases, the court noted community for the five-year period of the improvement that the subject of the fee(roads)was not important,but the plan is overestimated, a city may collect more funds than I fact that the ordinance involved in Janis lacked specific are actually required. Arguably, a city may want to set its restrictions on the use of the generated funds and that the cost estimates for capital improvements as high as possi- money generated from the fees"far exceeded"the cost of ble,so that it can collect the greatest amount of impact fees I needs caused by the new development gave the ordinance possible.There is no provision in the legislation requiring a general-revenue raising quality. The court in Home- the city to spend the funds within a certain time period or builders &Contractors Ass'n held that these features dis- to return unspent funds."Without such a provision,ascer- tinguished the fee in Janis from a regulatory act and made taining whether fees are being spent for the benefit of a I Y it more descriptive of a tax" development would be difficult. A developer, arguably, could challenge the fees as not being reasonably related to The tax argument was again raised in a consolidated the costs imposed on the city streets if the city funds are not appeal, in Russ Building Partnership v. San Francisco,ss spent within a certain period. 168 3 Minnesota Real Estate Law 1 ournal I Despite these weaknesses, the pending enabling leg- (3)city council sense of fairness;and (4)absence of neigh- ' islation has several positive features. The legislation is borhood pressure to avoid settlement.No one would bene- fairly specific in its requirements of local impact fee ordi- fit.Ultimately,the cost of the litigation would be passed on ‘ nances. The required capital improvement plan with cost either to the consumers of the homes to be built or to the I estimates, the detailing of the formula used in setting the general taxpayers in the community. fee,and the limitation of the spending of the fees to costs reasonably attributable to the development serve to protect What is needed,then,in addition to stricter criteria for the developer's interest and make the fees as equitable as determining reasonableness, is a general spirit of reason- I possible.Such specific requirements may help the parties ableness.A benefit of the exactions requirements is that it avoid costly litigation. forces everyone to think about all of the needs and conse- quent costs associated with growth.Municipalities are far Another positive point of the legislation is the require- from getting "free" public improvements through exac- ment that the developers be given the opportunity to pre- tions.Indiscriminate use of exactions not only can burden sent evidence relating to the determination.of the charge." new residents but also can burden current residents and This requirement provides another check against arbitrary the vitality of the community by slowing the provision of I action by the municipality. In the face of these require- new homes,a larger tax base,and jobs. An awareness and ments,a city, in fact, may be hard pressed to enact a road consciousness of the incidence of development fees must impact fee ordinance that would fully comply with the be created. Used in a spirit of reasonableness, with atten- I proposed legislation." tion paid toward direct and indirect costs,exactions can be a valuable tool in the land development process.The goal, CONCLUSION then, is to figure out the most efficient and economic way to deal with the burdens occasioned by growth. I A definite trend is emerging in judicial decisions to- ward a more rigorous test of rational, factual basis for ENDNOTES exactions,particularly if they are either for off-site lands or I for fees for capital facilities. But even with the more rigor- ous tests, no-win situations for developers, and conse- 1. See, e.g., McGrath, Twin Cities Deficits Reflect U.S. quently, for local communities, can easily occur. Trend as Municipalities Face Federal Aid Cuts, Minneapolis Star and Tribune, July 14, 1987. at 1A, col. 5 ,_ The developer of land for housing must deal with a 2. The terms development fees and exactions are used variety of factors beyond the subdivision ordinance, in- interchangeably throughout the article. 3. Stegman, Development Fees for Infrastructure, URBAN 1 eluding watershed districts,flood plain zoning,shoreland LAND, May 1986, at 1178. management, ordinances, critical areas ordinances, natu- 4. But see Bosselman & Stroud, Mandatory Tithes: The ral resource protection ordinances, the land use implica- Legality of Land Development Linkage,9 NOVA L.J. 381,407-8 tions of federal and state air and water quality programs, (Spring 1985) (new development does not create demand or I and environmental review on both the federal and state growth, but is product of it). level.All of the processes and demands of this system are 5. See,e.g.,Broward County v.Janis Dev.Corp.,311 So.2d another form of regulatory subdivision exaction.The costs 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975) (impact fee struck down, in part ultimately appear in the form of hard dollars, which are because money generated far exceeded cost of meeting needs I passed on to the home buyer.Thus,when a determination brought about by new development);see also Lafferty v.Payson is made on whether a particular dedication or cash require- City, 642 P.2d 376 (Utah 1982). - ment constitutes a taking, and focuses exclusively on a 6. Porter, Exactions — An Inexact Science, URBAN LAND INSTITUPTE, Jan.1983 at 34("Ironically these actions,which raise I particular statute,the legal system addresses the question the cost of new development are coming just when affordable from a myopic viewpoint. The test for a "taking" should housing and economic development are gaining widespread consider all of the factors just listed; the law, however, support from public officials"). pigeonholes the analysis. 7. Stegman, Development Fees: In Theory and Practice, I URBAN LAND INSTITUTE,Apr. 1987, at 4-5. Furthermore,in a specific factual situation,municipal- 8. Id. at 5. ities may often be relieved of their burden of proving the 9. U.S.CONST.amend.V;M.S.A.CoNs-r. 1974,art. 1,§ 13 I reasonableness of their exactions due to the economic 10. 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987). pressures on the developer.' A municipality's demands 11. 716 F.2d 646 (9th Or. 1983). may be clearly an illegal taking, yet the developer is con- 12. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV; MINN. STAT. § 462.358, subd. 2b. I strained by the need for approval,strict deadlines,and the 13. Parks, supra note 11, at 665. cost of litigation. In another context, where a developer 14. See,e.g., Call v.City of West Jordan,606 P.2d 217, 220 does have time to litigate,an out-of-court solution to major (Utah 1979). differences over exactions is highly unlikely without the 15. See, e.g., Subdivision Exactions: A Review of Judicial key ingredients of(1)a sophisticated planning department, Standards.25 WASH.U.J.or URBAN 8cCoNTEmi, LAW 269.280 nn. I city attorney, and manager; (2) large and flexible budgets; 60-62 (1983) (hereinafter cited as "Subdivision Exactions"). I ' 169 September/October 1987 I 16. MINN. STAT. § 462.358, subd. 2b: 904. 9 at Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable 41.42. Id.Id. at 9n, Development Fees: In Theory and Practice, portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the URBAN LAND INSTITUTE., APR. 4, 1987, AT 3, 4. I public or preserved for public use as streets, roads, sewers, 43. 107 S. CT. 3141 (1987). electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and 44. Id. at 3146-50. holding areas or ponds and similar utilities and improve- 45. Id. at 3148. ments. 46. Id.at 3146. I In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable 47. Id. at 3149. portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the 48. Id.at 3160. public or preserved for public use as parks, playgrounds, 49. Id. at 3161-62. trails,or open space;provided that(a)the municipality may 50. Id. at 3162. I choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the 7 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. standard App. 1986). applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated 52. I 51. 38 8 at 194(rational-nexus standard adopted in Collis was to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value reaffirmed; subdividers could be required to dedicate land as I of the land no later than at the time of final approval,(b)any result of cumulative impact of subdivision type developments cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by on municipal services; application of dedication requirements the municipality used only for the purposes for which the only to subdividers and not to other developers and uneven money was obtained, (c) in establishing the reasonable por- application of dedication requirements among subdividers do I lion to be dedicated,the regulations may consider the open not necessarily deny subdivider equal protection under law. space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities since differences in application of dedication requirements may which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, be reasonably related to particular needs generated by particular and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will subdivision). I need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of the subdivision. 53. Traffic engineering consultants disagree on a regular basis, however, about the extent to which nonresidential uses 17. MINN.STAT.§394.25,subd.7(specific controls pertain- generate, intercept, or divert vehicle trips. Thus, there are a ing to other subjects incorporated in comprehensvie plan or number of questions that will arise in arriving at the use rates and I establishing standards and procedures to be employed in land that could easily rise to the level of legal challenges. development including,but not limited to,subdividing of land 54. S.F. 1084, proposing to enact§ 471.573,subd. ). and approval of land plats and preservation and dedication of 55. See,e.g.,City of College Station v.Turtle Rock Corp.,p. 6 80 6 streets and land for other public purposes and general design of S.W.2d 802, 807 (Tex. 1984) (court ruled that benefits of exac physical improvement). tions must be considered along with need for them, otherwise '; 18. Bloomington City Code § 16.09, subd. 2B. city could place park so far from particular subdivision that 19. Development Fees:Standards to Determine Their Rea residents would receive no benefit). Isonableness, UTAH L. REV. 549, 559-60 nn 75-79 (1983). 56. 446 So. 2d 140 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983). 20. Subdivision Exactions,supra note 15,at 282 nn.70-74. 57. I at 143. 21. 22 Ill. 2d 375; 176 N.E.2d 799 (1961). 58. 600 6 P.2d 217 (Utah 1979),rev'd on other grounds, 614 22. Id. at 380; 176 N.E.2d at 802. P.2d 1257 (Utah 1980). I 23. Subdivision Exactions, supra note 15,at 284, n. 90. 59. 606 P.2d at 220. 24. Id. at 283, n. 79. 60. S.F. 1084, proposing to enact § 471.573, subd. 3. 25. 137 N.W.2d 442 (Wis. 1965). 61. S.F. 1084, § 471.573, subd. 2. 26. Id. at 447. 62. Supra Note 56. I 27. Id. 63. 311 So. 2d 371 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1975). 28. 246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1976). 64. Supra note 56, at 144. 29. Id. at 26. 65. 234 Cal. Rptr. 1 (Cal. App. 1987). I 30. Id. 66. 223 Cal. Rptr. 379 (Cal. App. 1986). 31. Id. (emphasis added). 67. Supra note 65, at 5. 32. The author participated in the drafting of the 1980 leg- 68. Id. islation in an effort to balance competing public and private 69. S.F. 1084. I positions on the issue. 70. Id. 71. Id. 33. Collis, supra note 28,at 26. 72. See,e.g.,Collis v.City of Bloomington,246 N.W.2d 19, 34. S.F. 1084, 75th Leg., Reg. Sess. (1987). 35. MINN. STAT. § 462.358, subd. 2b. 23 (Minn. 1976) (court stated that showing that subdivision I 36. 329§ 394.25, subd. 7 (emphasis added). created need for public infrastructure can be contravened by 37. 329 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1976). evidence that,prior to opening up of subdivisions,municipality had"acquired sufficient lands for school,park,and recreational 38. Id. at 320. 39. Cf. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 55 purposes to provide for future anticipated needs including such I U.S.L.W. 5145 (U.S. June 26, 1987) (where "need" for public- influx,or that the normal growth of the municipality would have made necessary the acquisition irrespective of the influx caused access easements was not substantially related to public pur- by opening up of the subdivisions";by analogy.court's reason- poses served in building permit requirement);Parks v.Watson. 716 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1983) (where "need" for dedication of ing could be extended to situation where new developments do I geothermal well was not rationally related to granting of street not have greater impact on road systems other than that occa- sioned by "normal growth" of community) (citing Jordan v. vacation). Village of Menomonee Falls,137 N.W.2d 442,447(Wis. 1963)). 40. 631 P.2d 899 (Utah 1981). 170 ' 3 Minnesota Real Estate Law Journal 73. See,e.g.,City of Fayetteville v.IBI,Inc.,659 S.W.2d 505, foundation according to the original site plan or its re- I 507,508(Ark.1983)(Arkansas Supreme Court invalidated park- moval from the property.After summary judgment hear- land exaction ordinance because,among other things,ordinance ing, the trial court remanded to the city planning divi- contained no time limit for spending funds and had no provision for refund of unspent funds;without such provision,court stated sion based on an agreement under which the landowner I there would be no way of assuming that purchasers of lots in promised to have the dimensions he claimed profes- subdivision would benefit from increased prices of lots they had sionally certified. On his failure to do so, the trial court to pay because of exactions). granted summary judgment to the city. The court of I 74. S.F. 1084. appeals reversed and remanded for trial to resolve clear 75. See,e.g.,Stegman,Development Fees for Infrastructure, fact issues related to the height of the building and to URBAN LAND INsTrrumrE, May 1986,at 2. Stegman discusses the permit the landowner to respond to the nuisance issue. difficulties facing a municipality in creating a fair and equitable No further proceedings were to occur, however, until I development fee ordinance, the landowner provided the certified dimensions he had 76. Developers may accept invalid development fees if the costs of litigation outweigh the costs of paying the fees. promised. ZONING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, I Case Notes INJUNCTION, AND CLASS CERTIFICATION MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS State ex. rel. Neighbors Organized in Support of En- ' vironment v. Dotty, 396 N.W.2d 55 (Minn. Ct. App. ZONING: PROCEDURE ON REVIEW 1986) The court of appeals affirmed denial of certification of a Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 395 N.W.2d 719 I (Minn. Ct. App. 1987) class of real estate owners in Breezy Point who objected to the operation of a trap and skeet club that had re- In a declaratory judgment action seeking an adjudica- ceived a conditional use permit. The court found that a I tion that a city had arbitrarily and capriciously denied a class of real estate owners who"object"to the club is too landowner's application to subdivide his residential lot, broadly defined to ensure typicality and that formation of an organization to seek an injunction against the club the trial court had granted the city summary judgment I based solely on the record before it, rejecting the argu- indicated that joinder of all members of the purported ment that the landowner was entitled to present addi- class would not be impractical. 1 tional evidence relevant to the issues before the city council,and ignoring the landowner's motion to compel The appeals court also affirmed denial of a temporary I discovery.The court of appeals reversed and remanded, injunction against the club. The court held that the ruling that the landowner was entitled to pursue discov- criteria for an injunction under the Environmental ery and present additional,relevant evidence.The court Rights Act did not apply to temporary injunctions and I held that in a review of a zoning matter, the parties are that the criteria for a temporary injunction—inadequate entitled to a trial, the evidence being limited to that remedy at law and irreparable harm—had not been met. presented before the municipal body and new or addi- tional evidence relevant to the issues raised before the Finally,the court rejected the plaintiffs'argument that I municipal body.The trial may not be required where the the club could not be operated by a lessee under a conditional use permit issued to the owners. It noted parties agree or acquiesce in a review of a clear and complete record and the P g arties are°allowed to au ment that a conditional use permit is not a personal license. I Rather, the permit runs with the land until violated. the record with any new or additional relevant evi- dence.The right to a trial or record augmentation cannot be denied merely because an accurate, verbatim record �MECHANIC'S LIEN FORECLOSURE: DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF CROSS-CLAIM I of the municipal proceedings is before the court. Lampert Lumber Co. v.Joyce, 396 N.W.2d 75 (Minn. >► ZONING: FACT QUESTIONS ON REVIEW Ct. App. 1986) ICarlone v.City of St.Paul,395 N.W.2d 723(Minn.Ct. In an action by a supplier to foreclose a mechanic's lien, App. 1986) based on amounts overdue for materials it supplied for construction of an office building on the landowner's I A landowner sought judicial review of a denial by a city property,the trial court dismissed without prejudice the council of an amended site plan he had submitted per- landowner's cross-claim against the general contractor, taining to the permissible height of a foundation he was for negligent breach of contract, after all parties had installing on which he planned to place a house he had submitted their cases. The court of appeals affirmed, P I moved onto the property.The city filed a counterclaim, holding that the trial court had the discretion to dismiss alleging that the house on temporary supports was a the cross-claim without prejudice after final submission nuisance and seeking its placement on a permanent of the case. The appeals court further ruled that the trial /7s, • The Chanhassen 111 a • e r City Manager er Don Ashworth City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 February 16, 1988 Dear Don, I wanted you to be aware that we have added the non-55317 addresses you so kindly gave to us last month, and have thus increased the circulation of the Chanhassen Villager to approximately 4,300, including store copies. Please, do not hesitate to call us if there appear to be other areas of Chanhassen which are not receiving the newspaper; together I 'm sure we can rectify whatever problems arise. Again, thanks for your assistance. Sincerely, WSJ Mark Weber Publisher I I I FEB 17 1988 CITY OF CHANFHASSEN I P.O. Box 99 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 934-5000 f r.f'r=" Zd it February 15, 1988 To: SW Corridor Transportation Coalition From: Dick Feerick Subject: Coalition Meeting: Guest Speaker Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe ' Date: Tuesday. February 23. 1900 - 7:30 AM Location: Chanhassen Dinner Theater Buffet Breakfast - $6.25 per person Senator Majority Leader Roger Moe will address our Coalition this Tuesday ' regarding highway funding and significant issues before the 1988 Legislative Session. ' The sponsors for this breakfast meeting are the Chambers of Commerce of Chanhassen, Chaska. Waconia and Eden Prairie and the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition. The doors at the dinner theater will be open at 7:10; two serving lines will be used to handle the expected attendance. and the meeting will be concluded by 8:45. We had an excellent meeting with Governor Perpich last week on the same day ' the highway funding bill was passed in the House Transportation Committee. The Governor was most impressed with our commitment of $225,000 to expedite the design and upgrade of Hwy 5 to four lanes past Chanhassen. The Governor acknowledged the importance of this project and directed MnDOT personnel to respond to our initiative. More specifics will be provided at our meeting. Our collective efforts and our commitments to highway funding are key elements ' in our efforts to improve our area's highways. Thank you. ty) 1 FEB 17 1988 CITY OF CHANhPb .t • ■ 1 JAMES P LARKIN ARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LIND DAVID JACK F L HOf IMAM LINDGREN, LTD. I E.DI I JACK i OALT FRANCIS E.OIB[w30h D.KENNETH LINDGREN MICHAEL T.MRKIM ANDREW w.DANIELSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHARLES R.WEAVER WENDELL R.ANDERSON HERMAN S.BRANOi GERALD H.FRICDELL ROBERT B.wHITLOCK VINCENT G.ELLA TRACY R.EICHHORN-NICK! ALLAN E.MULLIGAN 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER ANDREW J MITCHELL ROBERT J,HENNESSEY JAMES C.ERICKSON JOHN A.COTTER E°WARD J.DRISCOLL 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET BEATRICE A.RorHw FILER JAMES R MILEY PAuL B.PIUNKETT GENE N.FULLER BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 AM Y DARK GRAY (DAVIO C.SELLERGREN ALAN L.KILOOW RICHARD J. KEENAN TELEPHONE 1612) 835-3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 KAr"LEEN M PICOTTE NEWMAN JOHN D.FULLMER CATHERINE BARNETT.y LSON• R 338-1002 TELECOPIER 16121 835-5102 TELECOPIER 16121 338- JEFFREY C.ANDERSON OBERT H.ARV HARVEY DANIEL L.d0`NLES dOYLE I RANK RICHARD A.FORSCHLER TODD M VLATKO CHARLES S.M NUS ODELL TIMOTHY J. CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN JILL I FRIr OERS JOHN R.BEATTIE GREGORY E KORSTAO LINDA H.FISHER CRAIG A.PETERSON THOMAS P STOLTMAN Reply to Minneapolis LISA A.G R A Y STEVEN O, GARY A. FOR REST O.NO WLIN THOMAS H.WEAV ER MICHAEL C.JACKMAN SHANNON K MCCAMBRIOGE JOHN E.DIEHL MICHAEL S NCOHEN JON S.SWIERZEwSMI DENISE M VAN CLEVE THOMAS J.FLYNN JAMES P OUINN MICHAEL B.BRAMAN T000 I.FREEMAN JOSEPH W.OICx EA STEPHEN B.SOLOMON JACQUELINE F DIETZ PETER BECK ROD N L. PETER K E H.xAHNK[ GAL N Y D..IVES ES SHERRILL OMAN KURETICN JULIE A.WRASE GERALD L.BECK CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL JOHN B.LUNDQUIST RONALD M.STARK.JR. °AYLE NOLAN SHARON L.BRENNA THOMAS B.HUMPHREY.JR. OF COUNSEL JOSEPH OITIS February 16, 1988 JOHN A.MCHUGH RICHARD A.NOROBYE WLSO AOMITTEO IN HAND DELIVERED WISCONSIN II The Honorable Rudy Perpich 130 State Capitol St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 , Dear Rudy: We would like to thank you for meeting with members of the Southwest I Corridor Transportation Coalition on Wednesday, February 10 , 1988 . The Coalition is extremely pleased and encouraged by your comments that you II will direct Commissioner Levine to give design and construction of TH 5 highest priority. As you heard at the meeting, the Coalition has demonstrated to the Minnesota Department of Transportation the critical need for the TH 5 improvements and the TH 212 realignment. In terms of I economic impact, safety, absolute need and national image (the U. S . Open) , these improvements must have the State ' s highest priority. Again, on behalf of the Coalition, we extend our appreciation for your II time and consideration in this matter. The Coalition looks forward to working with your Administration and the Legislature regarding adequate highway funding legislation during the 1988 Session. I Sincerel James C. Erickson, and II/aG Todd M. Vlatkovich, for II LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Commissioner Leonard Levine Mr. Bill Crawford, District Engineer FEB 17 1988 I TMV:BH4:ges CITY OF CHANHASSEN II G c- A Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission ' 443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-5539 /✓� ' February 11 , 1988 ' Mr . Don Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen L 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , Mn . 55317 ' Dear Mr . Ashworth : Enclosed is a memo I have sent to member cities of the Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission . I have ' included your city in this mailing as we share the same cable system and operator , and I would expect some common concerns . ' The program mentioned in the memo, "The Cable Act Revisited : From Promise to Reality" , contains valuable information which should help bring any viewer up to speed on both national cable issues and the concerns of our metro neighbors . I hope that you will pass this information on to your City Council and/or Cable Advisory Board and they ' will have an opportunity to view this program . Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions ' regarding this letter or the program "The Cable Act Revisited ; From Promise to Reality". Sin erely y urs ,y4A Holly sen Administrator ' HH/pcw 1 FEB 121988 ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN I Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission 443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-5539 M E M O TO: LMCCC CITIES 1 FROM: HOLLY HANSENc'f , RE: UPCOMING CABLE TV PROGRAM ' DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 1988 1 At MACTA's (Minnesota Association of Cable Television Administrators) 5th Annual Conference, Nick Miller, attorney with Miller, Young, and Holbrooke, I Washington, D.C. , gave the Keynote Address on Friday evening, January 29th. Mr. Miller represents cities all over the country on cable matters and is an extremely knowledgeable and interesting speaker. Cable Access St. Paul video- taped Mr. Miller 's speech and a question and answer dialogue with the audience. The program, entitled "The Cable Act Revisited: From Promise to Reality", runs one hour and six minutes and has been scheduled on Dowden's Channel 20 for the following dates and times: Monday February 15 7:30 p.m. Thursday February 18 5: 15 p.m. Monday February 22 9:00 p.m. Saturday February 27 9:30 a.m. Monday February 29 9:00 p.m. Wednesday March 2 3:00 p.m. Please post this notice and inform your City Council members of this program and encourage them to watch it. If you have members who are interested in the program but are unable to watch it at the scheduled times, please contact me and I will make a copy available for their viewing. CITY OF C�- CHANHASSEN A 1/4),;, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ` (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council 1 FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: February 18 , 1988 SUBJ: Meeting with Lotus Lake Homeowners , Staff, Department of Trade and Economic Development and Department of Natural 1 Resources A meeting has been scheduled for 10 : 00 a.m. on Thursday, February 1 24 with Lotus Lake homeowners, Department of Trade and Economic Development, Department of Natural Resources and the City. This meeting has been scheduled at the homeowners' request to discuss 1 the policy change at the Lotus Lake Boat Access ( see attached) . Staff has met with the DTED and DNR earlier this month and their position remains the same; closing the boat access when the 1 parking area is filled violates our LAWCON agreement. They have offered their assistance in developing other means of boat traf- fic control through water surface zoning. As homeowners are 1 interested in control measures, this will likely be the main topic at this meeting. 1 This is to invite the Mayor and members of the Council to the meeting if they desire to attend. 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ CITY OF .:1 1 i ' CEANEASSEN �l_ =„ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager IFROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: August 10 , 1987 IISUBJ: Lotus Lake Boat Access Policy Change I It has come to my attention that there has been a change of policy with the Metropolitan Waters Access Task Force. This policy affects Chanhassen in that we are no longer able to close the Lotus Lake Boat Access when the parking area is filled. I Attached please find a letter stating such from Sue Gunderson. Ms. Gunderson is with the Department of Trade and Economic Development, (formerly DEED) who administers LAWCON/LCMR Grant Ifunds. It seems that closing the access when the parking area is filled I is discriminatory against lake users who do not wish to use the boat access parking area. State law prohibits discriminating against non riparian lake users . In addition, the Task Force regulations state that the access is to be open sixteen hours per I day. Closing the access during the day is in violation of this policy. Although we have made a very good argument that addi- tional parking is not available and that parking problems will I most assuredly arise from this change, the state is adamant. We have been informed that if we do not change our policy as soon as possible, DNR will pursue the opening of their own access on the east side of the lake, which will have unlimited parking and be Iopen twenty-four hours a day. DTED has informed me that the Chanhassen Lake Ann Park Expansion I Project has been approved for a 1988 state LCMR grant. However, they have made it clear that failure to comply with this policy change immediately, it will result in the discontinuance of Iturther consideration for federal or state grants . Although this is not the way the City would like to operate the access, I have discussed this item with Jim Chaffee. Jim has I indicated that we will be able to control trailer parking throughout the South Lotus Lake development and along Highway 101 with proper signage and frequent patrolling. We would recommend I that a gate attendant remain on duty at peak times to re-enforce parking restrictions. Don Ashworth August 10, 1987 Page 2 There is no action required on this item, as there is no choice , but to comply with state law, similar to other situations, such as the requirement to pay sales tax on park entrance fees . We may not like it and we may disagree with the change but as a I state law we are required to comply. 1 1 I 1 t to partmeat oti ommunity Development Division m ;,"TiadesandaonomicsDevelopment 900 American Center 150 East Kellogg Boulevard July 24, 1987 St. Paul, MN 55101-1421 I 612/296-5005 Fax: 612/296-1290 I Ms. Lori Seitsema Park & Recreation Coordinator City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive IIP.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IIDear Lori: This letter is in response to your request for clarification of the Lotus Lake boat access I issue. Apparently, there has been a continued misunderstanding by the City of Chanhassen of the policies in regard to if a boat access can be closed when the parking lot is full. The Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) is a member of the Metro Waters I Access Task Force and, as such, enforces those policies established by the Task Force in regard to the operation of LAWCON/LCMR assisted boat accesses. Specifically, please refer to page 10, which provides information regarding the required hours of operation. IThe intent of these policies is to provide reasonable public access to area lakes. The City of Chanhassen's current practice of closing the boat access at Lotus Lake as soon as I the parking lot is full is in direct violation of the stated policies of DTED. While I understand that overflow parking is an important safety concern, the City must deal with that issue through methods other than closing the access. II The City of Chanhassen must immediately change its policy of closing the Lotus Lake access when the parking lot is full. Normal hours of operation should continue even when the access parking lot has reached -capacity. IIFurthermore, the DTED will not consider funding of any of the three FY '88 Outdoor Recreation Grants submitted by the City of Chanhassen until the City has changed its IIpolicy in regard to the Lotus Lake access. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. II Sincerely, II .6 Sue Gunderson Planning Grants Analyst, Sr. II /dh L XXI/18-CP Icc: Kathleen Wallace, Regional Administrator Department of Natural Resources IArnie Stefferud, Planner Metropolitan Council An Equal Opportunity Employer The Task Force recommends that its three member agencies adopt the following standards as mandatory for all pro- jects using state or federal funds. Local governments should be encouraged to follow these standards when operating public access sites which were not acquired and developed with state or federal funds. Group one, two, three and four lakes. ' a) Open at least 16 hours a day between 4 a.m. and 12 midnight* b) No fees charged for launching any craft c) Where an access is provided within a park, uniform fees shall be charged all users, regardless of residence d) No special regulations that do not apply equally to the riparian boater 7. Water Surface Regulations Currently the power to regulate the use of a lake's water surface rests with the governmental units within which the lake lies. If a lake spans two municipalities which can- not agree on controls, the cities may petition the county to adopt regulations. While many metro area lakes currently receive levels of use that create undesirable conditions, few municipalities have enacted surface regu- lations. Often, lakeshore owners have used the lake in an unrestricted manner and feel their rights as property owners transcend the rights of the general public in using an access site. Consequently, restrictions sometimes have the intent of controlling the public boater for the con- venience of the lakeshore owner. *The Task Force recognizes that there are a few specialized situations which make adherence to this standard extremely difficult. Boat launch ramps located within state, county and/or regional parks, which have established opening and closing hours, are a case in point. While the 16-hour minimum is still the desired goal , the Task Force recognizes problems agencies might have in staffing contact stations earlier and later than the normal operating hours. However, it is the Task Force's understanding that where such circumstances exist, the responsible agency will be flexible enough to respond, should the public demand an extension of launching hours. The Task Force policy is to negotiate the most reasonable opening and closing time possible with cooperating agencies. Access hour negotiations which result in less than the recom- mended 16-hour minimum will be accepted, providing that all other cri- teria are met. However, these sites will be considered inadequate, allowing for the establishment of another site on the affected bodies of water to provide additional hours of use where deemed necessary. 10 � 1 The lack of restrictions may also result in discrimi - ,t;,,,, ac rict certain users. Currently about 75 percent ' ,1 all licensed boats in Minnesota have motors smaller than 20 horsepower or are not motorized . ' Without surface use management, the 25 percent of boats having larger motors can "consume" the entire lake surface. In fact, the present policy of non-management results in the 25 percent accounting for 75 percent of ' public access use. The greater space consumption of boats with large motors results in lower capacity on a lake. The effect is discrimination against those using small ' boats such as fishermen and canoeists, resulting in lower use and reduced public benefit. Metro area lakes will be used heavily enough to result in ' a certain amount of self-imposed user rationing. This results from the user's perception of overcrowded and unsafe boating conditions which prompt boating elsewhere ' or at. another time. This dramatizes the point that metro lakes will function as a system whereby a change in use on one lake will have an impact on the use of others. ' Because of the heavy use expected on most metro area lakes, the Task Force recommends that public agencies not depend solely on the judgment of the user. Rather it pro- poses that local units adopt reasonable surface regulations which optimize conditions for promoting public safety, providing high quality recreation for the greatest number ' of users and protecting the lake resource. The Department of Natural Resources has statutory authority to work with local governments in designing and enforcing water surface regulations and is directed by law to promulgate regula- tions for the management of surface use. The Task Force urges the DNR Commissioner to fulfill this directive and actively promote the local adoption of appropriate manage- ' ment techniques for metro area lakes. The DNR and local governments should base their approach on: ' a) Physical characteristics of the lake; b) Levels of current use and the additional pressure created by a public access site; ' c) Surface use management techniques preferred by both resident and non-resident users; and d) User impacts on other lakes created by the management techniques. ' 11 6 MCAR 1.0220 - 1.0223, adopted in December 1980, provides guidelines to local governments covering a range of manage- ment approaches including: a. Zoning parts of the lake surface for different , use ; s b. Zoning the lake surface for particular uses at par- , ticular hours of the day or days of the week; c. Limiting motor size or type; ' d. Limiting speed; e. Limiting the type and size of watercraft including ' eliminating all boats with motors; and f. Establishing mandatory traffic circulation patterns. ' 8. Access Site Maintenance The anticipated heavy use of metro area public access ' sites and their close proximity to residential areas makes the operation and maintenance of access sites an important consideration. Local support for access sites will depend largely on the degree to which area residents are satisfied with the maintenance of a site. Site maintenance and the enforcement of regulations are two of the most important considerations for riparian owners and access site users alike. A coordinated, multiagency approach to maintenance is ' required in order to take advantage of the operational capabilities and location of each of the involved units. In some cases, the DNR has contracted with a variety of agencies including counties and municipalities for the maintenance of State access sites. Maintenance of addi- tional metropolitan public accesses has been handled by the agency owning and/or administering the access. Enforcement efforts, too, should be approached on a coor- dinated multi-agency basis. 9. Fisheries Management Fishing is one of the most popular recreational activities on metro area lakes. An increasing urban population, in tandem with high fuel costs associated with fishing outstate, could combine to exert fishing pressures beyond the natural reproductive capability of area lakes. The DNR has responsibility for managing fish populations in public waters of the state. Within the metropolitan region there are approximately 200 potential fishing lakes. These lakes, along with portions of the 12 ' S T A T E O F M I N N E S O T A `( DE' RT BENT OF ENERGY AND ECO`IOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I Amendment to X j Land and Water Conservation Fund (LW) i i State Natural Resources Fund (NR) IIState Outdoor Recreation Grant Fund (OR) I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY (Local Unit of Government) (County) LW 27-01089.2 LOTUS LAKE PARK I (Project Number) (Project Title) This Amendment to Project Agreement Number LW 27-01089 is hereby made and agreed upon by the State of Minnesota through the Department of Energy and Economic Development pursuant to: I rt. Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 78 Stat. 897. (LW) E[ Minn. Laws 1965, Ch. 810 and subsequent applicable laws, and rules and guidelines of the Department of Energy and Economic Development. (NR) II Er Minn. Laws 1977, Ch. 421, Sec. 2, Subd. 2, 3, and 4 subsequent applicable laws, rules, and guidelines of the Department of Energy and Economic Development. (OR) In mutual consideration of the promises made herein and in the Agreement identified above, the parties hereto do 1 agree to amend said Agreement as follows: TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FROM NORTH LOTUS LAKE PARK TO SOUTH LOTUS LAKE PARK AND TO ADD A BOAT ACCESS RAMP TO THE PROJECT SCOPE. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS AND FUND AMOUNT WILL REMAIN THE SAME. II The Grantee shall comply with 43 CFR, Part 12, Subpart B - audit requirements for state and local In all other respects, such an Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and is hereby reaffirmed. governments APPROVED: ORIGINAL SIGNED BY LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT I Commissioner of Administration For City of Chanhassen / SEP 1 7 E35 7 "- 7tY7ICOUnCY/By Date By `�''',� �.,,,.` I RB:;;Y -=''� v Mayor or Chairman Name Title Mayor ATTORNEY GENERAL Date gust 13 , 19 8 5 ^rigIn,si 'i^ ,cd CY 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA _ ��--f��, 8 }�r I Y Clerk or Auditor Name ttorn Ey :.,;,,;;rai Title City Manager ITitle Date August 13 , 1985 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION THIS i/ DAY m`f`r — - SEAL AFFIXED il `' OF , 19 ,5 APPROVED: I Commissioner of Finance Oriclmal 5:::-rtc_ci *•`, STATE OF MINNESOTA by and through the Department of BY w� ,, Energy and Economic D- •lopment. II pate By , I II ..J..0 :_ .. . Encumbered Title Deputy Commissioner LAWCON III/72-1 Date 57 - 2. — cl,5"----- ii I i 1 SUMMARY OF SOUTH LOTUS LAKE BOAT ACCESS 1987 SEASON The first season of use at the South Lotus Lake Boat Access proved to be a successful one. The parking space available proved to be adequate in all but a few heavy use periods . From the time the access opened through July, cars were turned away when the parking lot reached capacity. This practice was discon- tinued; however, in order to comply with Department of Trade and Economic Development regulations governing this access. The gate monitors were then instructed to allow access to all vehicles, ' but to continue enforcement of parking limitations. This change did not effect the boat access this year; however, since the parking was filled to capacity only 3 times , all occurring in ' early spring around the opening of the fishing season. The demographic usage patterns of the access is fairly well defined. The majority of the vehicles using the access origi- nated from the Chanhassen/Eden Prairie area. Looking further, a distinct corridor develops showing the next heaviest usage is coming from neighboring cities to the northeast continuing to the ' downtown Minneapolis/St. Paul area. This suggests that people from densly populated areas seek recreation in outlying areas and normally choose the shortest or most convenient route. Very few users come from areas farther out of the metropolitan area simply because they have access to other lakes which are more con- venient. ' The description of the users themselves is more diversified than their origin. The graph indicates a fairly even distribution curve starting with the largest group of users being two or more men and falling to the lowest category of users being women. The category "other" represents any combination of users not listed. Other information which was evaluated was the type of watercraft being launched through the access . The majority of use was divided between speed boats and fishing boats . Even though speed boats ranked slightly higher, the numbers still indicate that the ' fishing is the primary objective for launching a boat. This is reasoned since the number of speed boat users who also fish is disproportionately high. Other uses were evenly divided among canoeing, sailing, and jet skiing . I II ORIGIN OF VEHICLES USING ACCESS II Eden Prairie i Chanhassen I IIMinnetonka Minneapolis I Bloomington I II 9 + Hopkins 1 p ns I Richfield f Prior Lake II Edina St. Paul II Inver Grove Heights IIShakopee Burnsville I Waseca II Other Vehicle Origins : Chaska Fergus Falls Sauk Rapids I Sartel Plymouth p Winnebago y Winthrop g Eau Claire Roseville II Mounds View St. Bonifacius Montgomery New Hope Brewster Willmar Carver Apple Valley Golden Valley Oak Grove Savage White Bear Lake II Eagan Brooklyn Center Maplewood Tonka Bay Delano Lakeville IIand numerous out of state vehicles II II II i ' USER CLASSIFICATION Men/Group ' of 2 or more -. .-- Family or ' Component of Individual ' Man Couples Other Women/Group of 2 or more ' Individual woman 111 (The category "other"egory other" includes all other combinations of the above listed groups . ) TYPE OF WATERCRAFT Speed Boat Fishing Boat Sailboat ' Canoe IJet Ski I IN3SSVHNVH3 40 XLI3 8861. 8 83A I 60•T ...... „-,., £6 g9.£ ge.'8I Otr• os. ()V• i:-.; ANId NdAHIZAON I004T 88'T P7.* T. OE*9 £?• T £C 17:" 00'F; ()T I:I v:31.1-rilla II 1:IVI:H1.1, SM.• 0 F.•T 91• • (M:3" OZ.;' T 09" 1: O .' T I:I V:::11-1-1-111g issi VI ON a 00* OF' ZO' ov- i. T ', OZ T 1T-IJIVO lANNVHD EZ•S zn.v. ze. 0T .t. 00.z 894T OZ' T 6sAVO IIVTIIDW mvImaw JAR >1.ad ,mon0,4 NvIff-aw mk..ITITT4 1.-12 wad daa:NriN 0 T.aipa :II V..I S Sa N110.:1 -11.-1.11.3.1. NOT 0 :id ..3.311:11 !.... *.:1:::1R3-11 IN -IV.I.0.1 ::3:13: vs/oz/n Dlvil: NOIIV!..idt. ji.!:i 1.T! d1:-..1d.1 '...:, :S.I..::IN :11, — IC19' o!:' (MY.• T 08 7 01)'i,' Oo' 1*. or''2 111: :::13:,::1.::1 V Z:10 ..1'.:11:1-11/1 00• 65"• q 0• T OT •i7 00' .1:2..• 00'tx 8 AIddWA3 BITHM :31..::INCIS -TTE0.3f na Illt.T.:• S:117• ()E• 0',1"• ?:"..ty., 0 5:: V C.:( HI 11 01,40d V.-1 /.9• T(:7,I' • T ()()*3 00' : ()T '.*:1 (.!..4'(..;I: 6:;: VI ):::1: 1,-.:1 1107 111). t*T +9 F9°g OS' T 00.2 0t7" .. 2..9";::: 00' • 'i: A'Aid NdAHAAON Irk'. 02..' q6" 06' T 02.." 6T ' T 00' T Z avAHlina mul-TaA qA. T 0A. TT4 02 ' BS"P 0g," T Oq' T ,:' av3Hilna Novla oz. OT " 08.7 09•f.; 0E' T :,..::'(::' 0'..1' :1:::11,1:1:HS N:F.111-100 I2947 on., T 01: •9 0F.zT 00"!::" 0e.' T 00' a i., dzAVO VICIAW NVITAN Els >5:1,1 P.a.NriOd HHTUAW INO-7,r1aDH IAS ';!:1Ad >aDawno OTO2P1 D.J.k....) , Pxlmnild -1,,:luu NOTE1-.1N -1.1.".1"," :::ipaNfIN -IYIGI S:::1:1:03 d S 178/0Z/n 7.11 ‘.40 NO I.1 v!-1:::11..LA I.I. .t.:::IN -1-1 I!.:.I Z :31:IN! I5.irlNk.47. f-Tr-An7-1 T-ITL*1 NOTc-30:1:::: ":1,13-1,':11.S .::l::I1'111>: L1 4::311.1V.D ONIZV,-19 14H:1 CO!.' :: t -.:N,.aln.110d do/IINv Nuls0.6.:J I (.4. 010 u "ionvi ua0mic IVi l ;ffAIVM) 1J0,2"Z :0Sla IHOOM, AJIVA0 dAIWI I "-TT.: 1 A0 awa ISAMRUJON KSATII1I0VJ ONYWNd ON) SSA30V OIland:AIMIGISS3.03V I +7 0 0 OT 0 0 T 0 Nom-4 AV10 Ilis aNvs -1AVd0 il.Ind WilOR N3d 0a.1 ----------S710VIN3Mnd lIOS HALVM -IVOH9------------- I ssTS ! mw-invd Is o(:'(:) '- 2..6?. (ZT9) :DNOHd 3AV AlismlinINn LTT H33 iNawno0a AIVIS VIOSANNIW WOdA AlUV1IVAV : iv SdVI W Amv1 68o0o:a1 dVW 0E3 :aaddvw )1ViA . . • 4. 0 4 1 0 4 4 0 0 4 + v 0 4 4 0 4 0. 4 .4 4 4 I .I..:1 :1-1.1.::1:::1131 NV:1:rizIW IA 05.,.: 21-1..1 ,:1:::10: Hi 1!.I:1:X VW aTHMMINDD :INAWAOVNVW Iii 00-51.3 ID9NV:..1 000....9TT:dIX2rdINAD :1V3I00-1003 - SNOIIV0IAISSV10 ANVI 9000-0T :ON KdOINAANI SdAIVM AO AIG NAAHV3:AINI100 N33SVHNVH0 PJVAN sniaTrawkm •N '1 I ******************************* *******,Y-N**** * * * 1:'.10,:i:TA NOTIVWHOANI ANVI * I ,)f. •)t• SardAilEd...:i AO NOTIOAS AJI-101TM aNV HSIA .:10 * SAMMOSAd ivdnikm AO IN3WIHVJAa )t. 111 . .x. I . **,....***4***** **4.k*.g.*:;',..*W**-...4-4-Wk,AX.**,..!:Y*4:.4,A**** I[ --E� N[T9: 5 - -- -- . 1[\ I/�FOP�iAT ION - - -------- DA7[' CI cS TOTAL NUMBER STATF REGION TOTAL POUNDS STATE REGIOts YELLOW PERCH NUMBER PEP SET MEDIAN MEDIAN POUNDS PER SET MEDIAN MEDIA� N� WALLL 'E 2 . 40 1 ^50 ^`''} ^20 ^04 ,26 . 10 N� LARn[ /OUT�� BASS 1 ^20 050 ^�`� 2^50 ^50 ,96 ,61 �'| ��iyK^H�[ED SUNFISH z 420 ^5a `� / ^40 .o8 ,�5 ~14 . 7 ^60 I ,9� ~ ^00 ^30 ^06 55 26 I BLUEGILL SUNFISH 496 99,� 11 .6? 1`^80 80^40 16008 2^99.20 WHITE CRAPPIE 26 5^20 2, /4 - 7 /^o ^ � 1 4O ^48 3+ 16 BLACK CRAPPIE 23 4,60 2,67 6.65 5^71 1 ^ 14 ^�4 ^4O .97 2. 10 I -------- -- - - --- --- FIELD NOTE INFORMATION ------------------ SPECIAL PROBLEMS AND CONDITIONS: ---------'-- 1 ) PUBLIC ACCESS WITH ''NU PANNING" SIGS ALL Ic: O V[R, NO PLACE TO PARK. ^' (2/ WINTERKILL WINT[RrILL OF 1,;6+-65^ (3) HEAVY ALGAL BLOOM 8/23/u4^ ��N� ADDITIONAL FIELD NOTES: ( 1 ) GILLNET 1 SET IN 9 TO 10 FT OF WATER^ GILLNET 2 2[T IN 9 FEET OF uAT[R. f,2\ YELiUW LOTUS UDSEPVED IN suAfTERED PATCHES I THROUGHOUT THE LAKE. (3) AN(' P[9MTT N</MBE� �4-50u? I,:)9UED IN 1984 TO CONTPOL SUBMERGED VEGETAT ION BY USING H191' DUUPUN I � PRESENT FILL POPULATION STATUS: CARP DLACy 'BULLHEAD, BKuWN bULLHED' NUR [H, PIKE I WA LEY' PiMF N INS[ED 1-1M0 8LA' N '`' APPIE WERE FOUND AT BELOW LEVEL oLDIHN LEVELS, OLDEN ',HINER' YEL- LOW CULLHFAD' YELLOW PERCH' *LUEGlLL AND WHl7E ICRAPPIES WERE SArPi [D At LEVEL, ni•iGVE / n ' LuCrL �i[oT�N 'lA\ URHL ,.[PRUu| icT1u.4 u' 1... L.n»0 ! 1-1 oo :iS WAS CONFIP0F0 I%i'f `.HUk[ LINE �L1NlNu' ; LIE 6OURC[ uF rHi.ImHLL .aI'F ,| f ��n| i. ^ '/ I. me L . "i:; /-op / HLH4 I PIrsE ARF FFyi 10 i/ i /r[ :0 (- uF Ln/6L ..,1,..E "Hu 1;. E- PRF�EUTED :2:Y rH [� L,* '.�',� :.)c :.7^ H/)Ki !iERH r1;.� 1-IPE FF/ / TM /Mr!:-P'.7 ^ H ( /, , o``�!:.. ' l�L . .Oo L'pi::Si:-:-N / [D I , \ ' ;F; E ' LAx CL^,S E, 114F 'v.,LL,... . 0 ,:)oii- LLAJ 1.:, [ Ku- B(Di Y H'::: ;'• �/ '/ ) ` ' ' L. ' ' / , FP / . (']c``iN6 HLCHoU- GH Ifl ACT: 6GL'� ,iu | Co::. / ..�).! . i | D"iL^ ii/E NUMm[kC (X ,LR'.H ; sr.SGL ( ;Po«IDEs :DLuo / L , uR*6E I FOP LAF1.4 F NI_Jh8L K:.' uC L'K[Dn ^ :61...bt: aILLs vLxE Fn' |A{/ IN ' '[Ri . 'IuH . /(|dBLR!, "@D '..HALL on[. H SIGNlF lCANT Ti;.1 [ *S!: lN NUMBFPS / /V[R [HE 1974 HND N� 1179 ■![ 77I/:,�^ Al :IiiIL,,k CHL 1Y54 i�E [TIN� �� CPAPPIE NUMD[PS HAW P[MAINED FElnTIVEL ` ,7ADL^ SINCE 19T',^ CARP AND 'OULLH[A0 NUMBERS WERE FOUND TO �� : oW ��!D 01/M»r �'` ' \F CARF' aPF I«.WN FP(Vi 1`` '?, ----------- '-- 'A /la. INn u nTh f ' :h , / H, ` x , . ` ` /LAk' ' YEAR SPLCI[' ^: l i .:U, -F -''H ' ------------ I 86 WALL[Y[ F6L 11 .62';' ),ST-ZE = FISH STOCKED IN LANES SHORTLY AFTER HATCHING FROM EGG ` IrPY GL = FINGERLING (FISH HARVESTED FROM REARING PONDS AFTER ONE SUMMER � YRL = YEARLING (ONE YEAR OLD FISH) '' ) "L = ADULT (FISH OVER ONE YEAR OLD TRANSPLANTED FROM OTHER LAKES) zizzfrir CITY OF de pAni himi6,0t CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner DATE: February 3 , 1988 SUBJ: Enforcement Action Plan This is to follow up on my previous memo dated January 7 , 1988 , 1 regarding the Planning Department' s progress with identifying all types of permits which would require enforcement action. Below is a list of permit processes by department: Planning Department Variances 1 Conditional use permits Subdivisions Planned unit developments Vacations Zoning ordinance amendments Rezoning Site plan review Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendments and Text amendments Sign Permits Wetland alteration permits Moving permits Engineering Department Utility and grading plan reivew and specification review Grading and excavation plan review Administration of development contracts Utility and trenching permits Building Department Building permits Septic permits 1 Demolition permits Well permits Plumbing permits • Mr . Don Ashworth ' February 3 , 1988 Page 2 ' Park and Recreation Department Park dedication fees Trail dedication fees ' Lake Ann Park permits Group use of city parks Public Safety Department Burning permits Gambling permits ' Handgun permits Solicitor permits Administrative Department Dog and cat licenses Liquor licenses Cigarette licenses Garbage haulers licenses Stable permits Kennel permits The next step is to review recent and pending cases in each department, conduct field investigations if necessary and deter- mine violations . Each department would then coordinate with the Code Enforcement Officer for follow-up action. (As an example, attached are the cases that the Planning Department has processed since the city began keeping planning files . ) After this process is completed, the next step will be to identify procedures to insure compliance, retrieval techniques , and means to establish future work items . I i II VARIANCES 77-21 Murphy, Steven 11 L ' 77-22 Berg, Harvey 77-23 Setzer , James B. II 77-24 Ritter , Robert 77-25 Swenson, B.E. 78-1 Scheider , Agency I 78-2 Swanson, Paul 78-3 Woitalla II 78-4 Andrus , Bud 78-5 Kerber, Larry 78-6 Walsh 78-7 Lobitz II 78-8 Gherity, Majorie 78-9 Klein 78-10 Thompson , Roger II 78-11 Morrill 78-12 Keeger 78-13 Tock 78-14 Stenerson I 78-15 Hoops, Gregory 78-16 Daul 78-17 Austad, Kermit I 78-18 Brookside Motel 79-1 Guertz I 79-2 Prochek, Lumir 79-3 Goetz , Donald 79-4 Reymold 79-5 Smith, Roger I 79-6 Schluetter 79-7 Chin . 79-8 McKinney I 79-9 Anderson , James H. 79-10 Evans, Brian 79-11 Hieberg , Thomas 79-12 Gongdon, James II 79-13 Sorenson , Patrick 79-14 Schoen, Douglas 79-15 Scholer, Robert II 80-1 Booth, Charles 80-2 Roos, Roman II80-3 Sorenson, Mike 80-4 Ytzen, Ronald 80-5 Rademacher , Steven 80-6 Nicholay, David 80-7 Volk, Merle II 80-8 Durst , David 80-9 Goodwill Industries II 80-10 Schmeltzer, Donald L. -6- I I/ I Variances IL 81-1 Wirtz , Val 81-2 Kreatz , Kelly 81-3 Feece , Warren I 81-4 Willis, Michael 81-5 Empak/Flouroware 81-6 Coulter , Frank I 81-7 Leirdahl, Michael 81-8 Binger , Wynn I 82-1 Parsons, L.O. 82-2 Freiberg, Lawrenc 82-3 Rosen, Terry 82-4 Welter , Susan I 82-5 82-6 Julius , Robert Naegle, William 82-7 Stefonic, Frank I 82-8 82-9 Kerber, Harry Olson , Paul 82-10 Edward, John 82-11 Peterjohn, J. D. I 82-12 Parsons, L.O. 82-13 Dungey, Gary 82-14 Wegler , Michael I83-1 Cronister , Stanley 83-2 Emmings, Steven 83-3 Pokorny, Paul 83-4 Burke, Steven & Kathleen 83-5 Schrupp, Sally 83-6 Beukhof , Martin I 83-7 Foster , Timothy 83-8 Frerich, Hames 83-9 Proschek , Lumir C. . I 83-10 83-11 Ytzen, Ronald Woitalla, Louis 83-12 Isaacson , 83-13 Roeser , Ronald I 83-14 Mulligan, Arthur W. 83-15 Swenson, Jack & Monica I 84-1 Landin, Ronald 84-2 Dattilo, Gregory G. 84-3 Tichy, Brian I 84-4 Ortlip, Steven 84-5 Foltz , Brian 84-6 Kreuter , Paul 84-7 Ches-Mar Farm (house-moving) ' 84-8 84-9 Lotus Lake HO Assoc. Hanson, Sharon 84-10 Cameron , Bruce 84-11 Sunny Slope HO Assoc. 84-12 O' Brien , Terrance ■ - -7- II II II Variances 84-13 Landin, Linda II 84-14 Hanson , Sharon 84-15 Lincoln Properites II 84-16 Adams , Todd 84-17 Heiberg, Thomas 84-18 Hemple, David II84-19 Andrus , Bud 85-1 Landin, Ronald 85-2 Obermeyer, Keith - (6697 Horseshoe Curve) II 85-3 Gunderson, Dale - (815 Creekwood) 85-4 Arseth, Wesley - (20 Hill Street ) 85-5 Koehnen, Harlan - (Lots 1348-1352 , -Carver Beach) II 85-6 Scholer , Robert 85-7 Estrem, Theresa - (96 Shasta Circle E. ) 85-8 Diethelm, Thomas - (6800 Ringo Drive) 85-9 Havlik, John - (513 Chan View) II 85-10 Carlson, Evie - (93 Shasta Circle E. ) 85-11 Turner, Wm. - (BMT, Inc. 7315 Hazeltine Blvd. ) Non-confor 85-12 Degenstein, Lester (8002 Erie Ave, ) 85-13 Plocher/Geske - (boat slips - Leach property) 85-14 Flom, Otto - (6590 Chanhassen Road) 85-15 Fox, Alan - (7300 Laredo Drive) I 85 -16 Naab, Paul - (801 Pontiac) 85-17 Dorweiler , Albert (1565 Bluff Creek Drive) 85 -18 Hawley, Kathy - (2821 Tanagers Lane) 85-19 Novaczyk, Todd - (Lot 4, Block 1 , Christmas Acres ) I 85-20 Bauer, Linda - (36 24 Red Cedar Point) 85-21 Siebenaler , Ed - ( 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. ) 85-22 Murphy, Jim - (6665 Horseshoe Curve) I 85-23 Kelzenberg, Reuben (7604 Iroquois Ave. ) 85-24 Felker , Harlan - (20 Sandy Hook Road) 85-25 Greenwald, Craig - (6290 Audubon Circle) I85-26 Pedersen, Clifford (3713 So. Cedar Drive) 85-27 Vanderlinde , Larry (3643 So . Cedar Drive) 85-28 Lutterman Homes - (4071 Kings Road) II 86-1 Halverson, Craig - 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. 86-2 Bloudek, Tim - Lot 9 , Block 1 , Pioneer Hills II 86-3 Sunny Slope/Burke, Steven - Homeowners beachlot 86-4 Woitalla, Lewis - Lots 1927-1931 , Carver Beach 86-5 Robinson, Curtis - 202 West 77th Street II 86-6 Bloomberg Co./Matuszek - 7001 Sandy Hook Circle 86-7 Discher, Brett & Betsy - 6728 Lotus Trail 86-8 McAllister, James - 620 Fox Hill (WITHDRAWN) 86-9 Cook, Terrence/Trinka, Francis - Lots 977, 1002-1006 , Carver B11c 86-10 Kurimchak, John (Barnes , Jack) - 7791 Erie Avenue 86-11 Kosmecic, David - 3960 , 3966 , 3970 & 3976 Linden Circle 86-12 Reese, Frank - 6200 Chaska Road (WITHDRAWN) ' 86-13 Marathon Management - Chan Meadows Apartments IV V 86-14 Hayes, Marvin - 1071 Chaparral Court 86-15 Allison, Barbara - 6681 Horseshoe Curve (WITHDRAWN) II 86-16 Feriancek, Michael - 6640 Deerwood Drive 86-17 Bass, Gary - Lots 1992-97, 2042-46 , Carver Beach 86-18 Heuer, Leslie - Frontier Trail II 87-1 Collver, Keith - Lots 452-467, Carver Beach 87-2 Pierce, Robert - Lot 1, Block 1, Piper Ridge 87-3 Allison, Barbara - 6681 Horseshoe Curve 87-4 Douglas, Donald - 6687 Deerwood Drive 87-5 Merz , John - 3900 Lone Cedar 87-6 Dungey - 1910 Stoughton Avenue 87-7 Sandcon, Inc. - 740 Canterbury Circle ' 87-8 Boyer, Dale - Lake Riley Blvd. 87-9 Woitalla, Lewis - 6830 Yuma Drive 87-10 Schlener, Richard - 3601 Red Cedar Point 87-11 Prchal, Mark - 6410 White Dove Drive ' 87-12 87-13 Klingelhutz , Al - 8408 Great Plains Blvd. Johnson, Linda - 3629 Red Cedar Point 87-14 Olson, James - 6691 Horseshoe Curve ' 87-15 87-16 Heiberg, Thomas - 3725 Red Cedar Point Wegler, Mike - 6680 Deerwood • r o v 1 I 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS II 70-1 Twin Hills Stable 79-1 Ford, Eileen II 70-2 Top of the Bluff 79-2 Apostolic Church 79-3 Murphy, Russ 71-1 Dale Green Canpany 79-5 Kitchen Expansion Chanhassen Dinner Theater II 79-6 Lotus Lake Estates Beachlot 72-1 Valley Auto Parts 80-1 Pryzmus, John 73-1 Carlson, Lowell 80-2 Scott/Carver Econanic Council-Farmer's Market II 73-2 Meadows Car Wash 73-3 BMT 81-1 Drive Fbur 73-4 Ware, Leonard 81-2 Morgan, S. Thomas II 73-5 Gripentrog, Wally 81-3 Americinn - Chanhassen Inn 73-6 Denum Wenzel, Nancy 81-4 Holiday Village 81-5 Nylander, John II 74-1 Taylor, Lois 74-2 Instant Shade 82-1 Dolphin Construction 74-3 Hanus Properties W. 78th St. 82-2 Greene Stable permit 74-4 Wausau Hanes 82-3 Peterson, Guy I 74-5 Smith Greenhouse 82-4 Apple Valley 82-5 Stefonac-Driving Range 75-1 Chanhassen Child Develop. Cent 82-6 Frontier Trail Assoc. Beachlot II 75-2 Minnewashta Regional Park 75-3 Nbinau/Duber 83-1 Ray's Auto Sales - Stewart 75-4 Cravens/Klingelhutz 83-2 Auto Parts Machine Shop (Belden) II 75-5 Woida, Clifford 83-3 Mtka Jr. High School Reuse-Gardneer 75-6 Larson, Bradley Stable permi 83-4 Holy Cross Lutheran Church 75-7 Parish of St. Huberts 83-5 Chanhassen Inn Addition (Zamor) r-5-8 Cathcart Park 83-6 Prairie House Restaurant (Korzenowski) � II.5-9 Chan Lawn & Sports 83-7 Retail Building (Thang) 75-10 Knights of Columbus Project Ne 83-8 Car Wash - Gary Brown 76-1 Adams/Cameron 84-1 MCI Air Signal, Inc. II 76-2 Pauly/Koltyk 84-2 Lotus Lake Betterment Assoc. 76-3 Peirce, Dawn - Stable permit 84-3 Ray Brenden, Commercial Stable 76-4 Tessness, Adolph 84-4 The Dale Green Co. I 76-5 Susemihl, Eugene 84-5 American Legion Farmers Market 76-6 Standard Oil 84-6 Sunny Slope Recreational Beachlot 76-7 Hanus, Donald W. 78th St. 84-7 Severson Horse Stable II 76-8 Midamerica Baptist Social Cent 84-8 Lotus Lake HO Assoc. 76-9 Pauly House 84-9 Chanhassen Inn 84-10 - Frizzell, James II77-1 Sorenson, Michael 84-11 Kerr Canpanies 77-2 Mother-in-Law Apartments 84-12 Lincoln Properties 77-3 Reuteman Grading permit 84-13 R & W Sanitation 84-14 Volk, Merle II 78-1 Adams, Dave 84-15 Kerber, Larry 78-2 Erickson Petroleum 84-16 Sorenson, Mike 78-3 Bakke, Ray 84-17 Landin, Ronald 78-4 Brambilla, Jack 84-18 Buck's Excavating II 78-5 Mobil Service Station 84-19 Carlson Excavating 78-6 Natural Green 84-20 Bentz, Theodore 78-7 O'Leary's Kitchen I L -9- II II I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS lir 4` 85-1 VanHoff, Mark - Wholesale Nursery I 85-2 85-3 Stockdale, David - Contractor' s yard Carver Group Home 85-4 Bush, Marjorie - Bed and Breakfast 85-5 David C. Bell Investment/Gary Kirt - Reuse of I. Web Bldg. I85-6 Adams, Todd - Boat storage building 85-7 Peterson, Guy - Taco Shop addition 85-8 *Combined with 85-3 (Carver Group Home) I 85-9 85-10 Plocher/Geske - Red Cedar Cove Beachlot Plocher/Geske - Red Cedar Cove Boathouse 85-11 Kirt, Gary - General retail, office, restaurant, grocery I store uses in CBD 85-12 Novaczyk, Todd - Tennis court 85-13 Craig, Scott - Christmas tree sales 85-14 NSP - Bluff Creek substation/transmission lines I I86-1 Jedlicki - Sorenson Building - Cold Storage Warehouse 86-2 Blue Circle Assoc. - Hidden Valley Outlots I 86-3 Burke, Steve/Sunny Slope Homeowner ' s - Beachlot-dock 86-4 Nelson, George/Gagne, Verne - Lake Riley Woods North 86 5 Peters, Dan/KSMM Transmission Tower I 87-1 Volk, Merle/Gardeneer - Contractor ' s yard 87-2 Brown, Gary/Dungey, Gary - Mini-storage warehouse 87-3 Theis, Jim - Amateur radio antenna 87-4 Lakeshore Equipment, 7904 Monterey Dr. outdoor storage I 87-5 Westside Baptist Church - Park Road 87-6 Windfield Develop./CHADDA - Retail West 87-7 Pemtom/Worm property - 3430 Arboretum Blvd.- Beachlot I 87-8 87-9 Prendergast/Mary Patrick - 10360 Heidi Lane - Tennis Ct. Obee, Donald - 3530 Hwy. 7 - Private stable 87-10 Perusse, Ted - Auto Dealership (Hwy. 212/169 "Y" ) I 87-11 Northwestern Bell - Equipment Building 87-12 Kurvers Point - Beachlot 87-13 Near Mtn Lake Assoc. 650 Pleasant View Road - Beachlot 87-14 D & L Specialties - Radio tower I 87-15 Barke, Roy S. - Amateur Radio towers 87-16 Schmitz , Marion - bookstore ( temporary) - Galpin Blvd. 87-17 Pierce, Robert - Beachlot ( Stratford Ridge ) 87-18 Blood/Lee - Contractor ' s yard I (— II SIGN PERMITS 76-i Brown ' s Standard C 76-2 Animal Fair 76-3 Animal Fair 76-4 St . Huberts 77-1 Superamerica 77-2 Lutheran Church/Living Christ 77-3 Dunn , Ed 77-4 City Identification Sign 78-1 Riviera 78-2 Natural Green 78-3 Hanus I 79-1 New Horizon Homes 79-2 Gedney, M.A. 79-3 Eberhardt Company 79-4 Lyman Lumber 79-5 Zachman Homes 80-1 Klingelhutz/Cravens , 80-2 Klingelhutz/Cravens 80-3 Murphy Machine Company 80-4 Meyer , R.J. Motors 80-5 Knutson Insurance 80-6 Kerrick Land Company 80-7 Frontier Meats 80-8 Pony Express 80-9 Lyman Lumber 81-1 B.C. Burdick 81-2 City of Chanhassen Signage 81-3 Cenex Service Station 81-4 Family of Christ Church 81-5 Vernco Maintenance , Inc . 81-6 Empak/Victory Envelope 81-7 Odegard Outdoor Advertising 81-8 ERA - M.B. Hagen Realty Co. 81-9 Happs 1st Addition 81-10 Automated Building Components 81-11 Americinn - Chanhassen Inn 81-12 Chanhassen Professional Building ,'_: -, �' " -- 81-13 Amoco Oil Station 81-14 CPT Corporation 81-15 Dayco Concrete 82-1 Automated Building Components 82-2 Iven ' s Sinclair Service Station 82-3 Northwestern Mutual Likfe 82-4 Bluff Creek Golf Course 82-5 Dr. Kristionson 82-6 American Home Bakery 82-7 MGM Liquor -2- 1 I II Sign Permits 83-1 Chanhassen Video C83-2 Sun Life of Chanhassen I 83-3 Opus Corporation 83-4 Photo Equipment Center 83-5 Willard Eggan & Son I 83-6 Instant Web 83-7 Merlin ' s Hardware 83-8 Minnetonka Tub & Stoves 83-9 Union 76 (Loren Anderson ) I 83-10 Erich' s Country Cafe & Ice Cream Shoppe 83-11 Curt Ostrum, Pleasant View 83-12 Chanhassen Secretarial Services I 83-13 83-14 Near Mountain 2nd Add. American Family Insurance 83-15 Near Mountain 83-16 United Mailing, Inc. I 83-17 Chanhassen Inn Motel 83-18 Attorneys of Chanhassen 83-19 Fine Impressions Art Gallery & Framing 1 84-1 Prairie House Restaurant I 84-2 Wells , Byron A. (Art Gallery) 84-3 Creekwood Homes , Model Home (6901 Redwing Lane) 84-4 Thompson Enterprises , Chaparral Addition 84-5 McDonald' s 84-6 Dolphin Construction 84-7 Landco (Merit HVAC Inc. ) 84-8 KSMM I85-1 Prairie House Restaurant - Korzenowski 85-2 D & J Auctions - Duane Harter 85-3 Westermann ' s Art & Frame I 85-4 Chanhassen Taco Shop 85-5 Chanhassen Office Plaza 85-6 New Horizon Homes I 85-7 85-8 Opus Corporation/Fitness Master Chanhassen Mall 85-9 Landco - Kitchen & Bath Remodel (530 W. 78th Street ) I 85-10 Holiday Station Stores 85-11 Bowling Center/Filly ' s Lounge 85-12 Merit H. V.C. Inc. (1450 Park Road) 85-13 Minnewashta Church I 85-14 St . Hubert ' s Church 85-15 Chanhassen Saddlery 85-16 Near Mountain/Trappers Pass I 85-17 Chanhassen Bait & Tackle - Thomas Johnson 85-18 Safari Tannin Hut - Lois Keim 85-19 Licensed Public Accountant - Darrell Lorenz 85-20 American Legion Post I85-21 Professional Building - Dr. Tester 85-22 Opus Corporation Chanhassen Lakes Business Center ' - -3- II II SIGN PERMITS II 86-1 Your Majesty' s Valet Cleaners ( 410 West 78th St. ) 86-2 The Press - Nordquist Signs II 86-3 Hidden Valley - Brookhill Development-Hemphill Northern 86-4 Merlin's Hardware 86-5 Chaska Investment - Arbor Park 86-6 Pheasant Hill - Tom Klingelhutz II 86-7 Terristrial Design - Tauer, Wayne (Hidden Valley) 86-8 Chanhassen lakes Business Center II 86-9 Lake Drive East Shopping Center ( see 86-1 Site Plan) II 86-10 Karpet Kingdom - Alan Overline ( 421 W. 78th St. ) 86-11 Realty/Chiropractor (Chanhassen State Bank - 680 West 78th St. ) 86-12 Quattro Club - Frank Beddor (18790 W. 77th St. ) II 86-13 PMT Corporation - 1500 Park Road 86-14 Holasek, Earl - 8610 Galpin Blvd. 86-15 West One Properties - Doug Hansen (7904 Monterey Dr. ) 86-16 Malibu Tan & Travel Now - 320 Lake Drive East II 87-1 Chanhassen State Bank - 600 West 78th Street II 87-2 Victory Envelope - 1000 Park Road 87-3 Dominoes Pizza - 330 Lake Drive East 87-4 Chamber of Commerce - City Directory II 87-5 Component Engineering - 7850 Park Drive 87-6 St. Hubert Church - Cemetery Entrance - W. 78th Street 87-7 Redmond Products II 87-8 Chanhassen Hills - Meritor Development 87-9 Saddlebrook 87-10 DataSery II II II I II II II II I/ SITE PLAN REVI_ 69-1 Burrill Property j Gedney, M.A. 73-1 Post Office Building 73-2 Meadows Apartments 74-1 Minnetonka Alliance Church 75-1 Apple Valley Red-E-Mix 75-2 Lutheran Church/Living Christ ' 75-3 Chanhassen Holding Company 75-4 Pauly ' s Office Building 75-5 Brandon Corporation ' 75-6 Bowling Center/Chan Estates 77-1 Wilch/Barnes 77-2 Country Clean Addition ' 78-1 Animal Fair 78-2 Park One ' 78-3 Roos Professional Building 78-4 Burdick Park - Industrial Development 78-5 Cannon Ball Kitchen 78-6 Feed Mill (old) Property 78-7 Animal Fair 79-1 Country Kitchen IF ) 79-2 (Baltic) Cermak Office Building/Highway 7 79-3 Burdick Office Building 79-4 Burdick Office/Warehouse ' 79-5 Murphy, Russ 80-1 Fluoroware 80-2 Dyna Graphics ' 80-3 Dayco 80-4 Energy Controls 80-5 Chanhasen Professional Building 81-0 Instant Web 81-1 Sorenson , Michael ' 82-1 United Mailing, Inc. 82-2 McDonald ' s 82-3 The Press Expansion 82-4 Opus Corporation Li-i-t a . L.i 7 83-1 Dunn/Roos - Twin Pine ' 83-2 Interstate Detroit Diesel Allison , Inc. 83-3 Chanhassen Meadows Apartments 84-1 Donald DeVoe, Innovative Industries (18791 Arboretum Blvd. ) II 84-2 Sunnybrook Development Group 84-3 United Mailing Parking lot expansion 84-4 Empak, Inc. 84-5 Park Court Plaza (Roman Roos ) -12- .' Site Plan Review r A, 85-1 Redmond Products , Inc. - Ryan Development 85-2 Eckankar I 85-3 State Bank of Chanhassen Addition - 680 W. 78th Street 85-4 Opus Parking Lot - CLBC 85-5 Victory Envelope 85-6 Sunnybrook Development - Country Inn II 85-7 LSR Properties 85-8 Reuter, Inc. 85-9 Moultrie Complex - Paisley Park I 85-10 Beddor, Frank - Auto Garage 85-11 Opus Business Center II - Office/warehouse 85-12 State Bank of Chanhassen - 600 West 78th Street II 86-1 Blue Circle Association - Hidden Valley Outlots 86-2 Tomac Development - Shopping Center (Hwy. 7/41) II 86-3 PMT Corporation - Iverson, Alfred 86-4 Component Engineering Company (CLBP) 87-1 Industrial Information Controls - (L 2 , B 1, CLBP 4th) 87-2 Jacobson, Bill - West Village Heights Townhomes 87-3 Retail West - Winfield Develop/CHADDA II 87-4 Reese, Frank - Auto repair, mini storage, retail r 87-5 Town Square Apartment - CHADDA - 1st American Develop. 87-6 Building Block Day Care Center - Herb Mason II 87-7 West Village Shoppes - James Company II II I II II 1 II II II 1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 0-00 P-District Review 68-1 Briesdorf 69-1 Oakmont 69-2 Western Hills 1st and 2nd Addition ' 71-1 Woodhill 72-1 Nodskov 73-1 Hesse Farm 73-2 Scott , Neil Development ' 74-1 Minnewashta Woods 74-2 Bailey & Associates 74-3 Lyman Lumber Yard 74-4 Gabbert Industrial Property 75-1 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 75-2 Laredo Lane 76-1 Project Newgate 76-2 Chanhassen Shopping Center ' 76-3 H & K Housing for the Elderly 76-4 Colonial Grove 2nd Addition 76-5 Lake Ann Park & Expansion ' 77-1 Saratoga Addition 77-2 Santa Vera 77-3 MTS Amendment of Biersdorf ' 77-4 Keelynne 77-5 Ken Beirsdorf ' 78-1 Chaparral Addition 78-2 Bloomberg , Davis 78-3 Minnewashta Creek 1st Addition 78-4 Carver ' s Point 79-1 Christmas Acres 79-2 Near Mountain 79-3 Chaparral West 79-4 Fox Chase 79-5 Lake Susan West & South ' 79-6 Western Hills 3rd Addition 80-1 Lotus Lake Development 81-1 Park Two 81-2 CPT 81-3 Autumn Woods - Chaska 83-1 Pheasant Hill - Klingelhutz 84-1 Fox Hollow on Lotus Lake . 3- �/� PUD 85-1 Hidden Valley - New American Homes 85-2 Chaparral 4th Addition - Laukka/Schroeder 85-3 Eckankar 85-4 South Lotus Lake - Bloomberg Companies 85-5 Red Cedar Cove Townhomes - Plocher/Geske (Leach property) 85-6 Chanhassen Hills - Meritor Development 86-1 Chanhassen Vista - Enterprise Properties 87-1 Town Square Apartments ( 60 units) - CHADDA 87-2 Whitetail Ridge - Paul Palmer 87-3 Lake Susan Hills West 1 II Subdivisions 66-1 Pleasant Acres 67-1 Highland Park 68-1 Auditor' s Subdivision I 68-2 68-3 Bluff Creek Highlands 1st Addition Frontier Development 69-1 Frontier Development Park II 69-2 Bandimere Heights lst-2nd 69-3 Minnewashta Park - Lot 4 69-4 Minnewashta Hills 71-1 Bluff Creek Highlands 2nd Addition I 71-2 Char Lynn 72-1 Minnewashta Heights Lot 2 & 3, Block 2 72-2 Red Cedar Point I 72-3 72-4- Western Hills 3rd Addition E 3 73-1 Burdick Park 73-2 Minnewashta Heights - Lot 9 I 73-3 Bangs Acres 74-1 Glen Subdivision 74-2 Sparks , Lucian I 75-1 75-2 Berkey, Don Cranbrooke, George 75-3 Carlson, Gary I 75-4 Wilson, David 75-5 Sorrinson , Michael 76-1 Gray/Wickenheiser If- 76-2 Hesse Farm Replat ` 76-3 Swiger, Elizabeth 76-4 Olmstad 76-5 Thompson, Rodney I 76-6 76-7 Woitalla, Lewis Schimmelphinning, Daniel X 76-8 Reichert' s Addition._ 77-1 Larson, David A. ` I 77-2 Scholer 77-3 Huntington Park 77-4 Neft, Charles I 77-5 77-6 Gray, Allen Dunn, Ed 77-7 Sommer, Robert F. I 77-8 Hunsinger, Proposal 77-9 Bloomberg Replat 77-10 Lindsmeyer, Peter 77-11 Johnson & Peterosn I 77-12 7�-13 Anderosn , Donald T- , . ) 77-174- Saratoga-Lane-(Vae-mt±on-) I 77 15 BurdicR-Park-lVacdtion) 7 7- 6 8-th-Street--Wae t ion.)- �fs S- Va-1h lla Str e-t-{-'tfdcdtTon) 1 77-19 Murphy, Thomas 78-1 Schevinius/Smith '�.- 78-2 Jacobson, Cliff I 78-3 Wickenheiser, Tom 78-4 Reed, Gary - Lot G Bardwell • 78-5 Sommer, Robert - Lot C B.A. I -14- - • SUBDIVISIONS (continued) 78-6 Jacobson , Cliff-Elm Tree 78-7 Sunnyslope Addition Beachlot 78-8 Metzig , Frank 78-9 Julius Addition 78-10 Cleveland, Walter I 78-11 Gallagher, T.E. 78-12 Meyer, Dr . James 78-13 Ross , Bruce 78-14 Ersbo, Richard 78-15 Sommer, Robert 78-16 Anderson , Harold J. 78-17 Degler, Dean 78-18 Sorenson , Micheal 78-19 Carver Beach Estates-Quady 78-20 Way , George 78-21 Tiech, Roy-Agri Land Split 78-22 Oakmont Redesign 78-23 Centurion Company 79-1 McGinn Request 79-2 Hendrickson , 79-3 Thompson/Daniel-Frontier Trail 79-4 Jackson Request ' 79-5 McMullen REquest 79-6 Cunningham, Pat 79-7 Maxwell Request 79-8 Fisher Request 79-9 Molnau Request 79-10 Colonial Grove-Gallarnen Replat 80-1 Larson/Rivier 80-2 Kochnen/Harlan 80-3 Buesgens Request 80-4 Rossing Replat-Carver Beach 80-5 Edwards , John 80-6 Waldrip Request 80-8 Johnson , Ida 80-9 Fair Acres Addition 80-10 Dypwick, Jeffrey 80-11 Harvieux, Ronald 81-1 Almich, David 81-2 Durr Request 81-3 Jacques , Helen-Lot split (L._crEkl eptAC.r-,� o) 81-4 Rogers , Robert 81-5 Schmidt , Michael 81-6 Ostrum, Curt 81-7 Jockey Club, Inc. 81-8 Stoddart , Russ 81-9 Leudahl , Lloyd 81-10 Wirtz, Valentine C. =,` 81-11 Street Vacations in Carver Beach -15- II Subdivisions k ' 82-1 Chan Haven Plaza 82-2 Sathre, Robert I 82-3 82-4 Zamor, Larry Frey - Lot Exchange of City 82-5 Windor, Arno I83-1 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park (Replat Lots 3-5 , Block 2 ) 83-2 Minnewashta Park 83-3 Parson, L.O. II 83-4 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park (Replat Third Addition) 83-5 Song, Charles & Irene 83-6 Stout, Richard C. (Murray Hill, part of Lots 19 & 20 ) I 83-7 83-8 Bloomberg (File combined with 85-4 PUD) Sampson, Lulu - Carver Beach 83-9 Hanisch, David S . 83-10 Zamor, Lawrence I 83-11 Savaryn (SW$ , Sec. 9-116-23) 83-12 Bandemere, Arthur (Swenson) W. 96th Street 83-13 Sunnybrook Inn - Sunnybrook Development Group I 83-14 83-15 Barnett, Arda (Tourist Park Addition) Coey, Ted 83-16 Kettner, Otto I83-17 HRA property - 7901 Great Plains Blvd. 84-1 Happe, Maynard r 84-2 Hillside Oaks (Klingelhutz , Brian/Neil) 'r- 84-3 MCI Air Signal, Inc. 84-4 Conform Building Systems , Inc. 84-5 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park (Replat of Lots 3 & 4 , I84-6 Maple Ridge (Barth, Duane) Block 5 - Third Addition) 84-7 Pioneer Hills (JCB Partnership) I 84-8 Piper Ridge (Herman, Randy) 84-9 Volk, Merle 84 10 Jacobson, Dennis 84-11 Curry, Jim - Section 23 I 84-12 84-13 Curry, Jim - Section 14 & 23 Saratoga First Addition - Outlot A 84-14 Crystal Springs Pond (Klingelhutz , Brian) I 84-15 Moore, Dennis J. (Metes and bounds) 84-16 Fox Hollow Second Addition (Builders Development) 84-17 Rogers Addition (Rogers, Robert) I 84-18 Orchard Hills Addition (Replat of Waldrip' s 2nd-Outlot A) 84-19 Klein, Lawrence 84-20 Bentz , Theodore 84-21 Hilloway Corporation (Fenning, Jim) 184-22 84-23 Eickholt Addition (Eickholt, Bob) Woitalla, Lewis 84-24 Fransdal, Wayne 84-25 Finger, Valette I84-26 Kolbinger, Richard I -20- Subdivision II 85 Administrative Subdivisions - Dolejsi , Jay I C ) Stockdale, David Searles, 85-1 Johnson, Jeff - Admin. I 85-2 Koehnen, Bruce 85-3 Owens, Todd/Larson, Tim II 85-4 HRA/Instant Web Building (Kirt/Dorek/Baden) 85-5 Park Two Second Addition 85-6 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 4th Addition (Opus) 85-7 Minnewashta Gate - Tomac Development (Hwy. 7/41) I 85-8 Meneffee, David (2961 Minnewashta Bay Road) 85-9 Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5th Addition 85-10 Hagman, Wayne - Admin. I 85-11 Bartz , Keith - Admin. 85-12 Gunderson, Dale 85-13 Fox Hollow 4th Addition - Hulet, Dawn 85-14 North Lotus Lake - City of Chanhassen II 85-15 Leach, Roy 85-16 Sunnybrook Development - CLBP 85-17 Plocher/Kalkes - Admin. II 85-18 Reuter, Inc. 85-19 Lake Lucy Highlands ( Steller, Merrill) 85-20 Peterson, Robert J. (Metes and bounds) II85-21 Bluff Creek Greens (Berglund/Johnson) e- \ 86 Administrative Subdivisions .,� 86-14 .w> Fox Hollow 3rd Addition II 86-2 Chanhassen Meadows Phase IV - Marathon Management 86-3 Cedar Crest Replat (Buchheit, Roberta) 86-4 Wisely, William (Metes and bounds) I 86-5 Searles Plat (Searles, Wesley) 86-6 Burdick 2nd Addition (B.C. Burdick) 86-7 Schwartz Addition (Schwartz , Gordon/Kathy) 86-8 Agnew, James ( 7061 Shawnee Lane) I 86-9 Julius Addition (outlots) ( Stevens, R.D. ) 86-10 Koehnen, L. 86-11 James Company - Brose property (I- 1. /iLL .,g+s +- IU ) II 86-12 Blue Circle Association (Hidden Valley Outlots ) 86-13 Kuder , M. - Admin. 86-14 Lohr, Evelyn (Hummingbird) II 86-15 Klingelhutz , Al - Admin. 86-16 Hansen, David O. 86-17 Minger, P./Volk, M. 86-18 Wirtz , Val II 86-19 Park One Third Addition 5-e-e- g7-3) 86-20 Auditor' s Subdivision Replat Lots 15 & 16 (AndreFiscox) 86-21 1YC,,Estates ( Slather, Ted) II 86-22 I- _ �ja tS'S, A-Lcx-.1. - Wo o S u.+.�-�T � 86-23 Peterson, Sever 86-24 * HOLD * Delancey, Ted _ N°111 86-25 Nelson, George (Gagne property) ( j" '-' ' 86-26 Blackstad, Loren/Jacquet;, Helen (81-3 Sub. combined) 86-27 Otto, Wally (Galpin Boulevard) -21- II II 1 . Subdivisions 86-28 Old Slocum Tree Farm - Mancino/Wilson ( 6640 Galpin Blvd. ) II 86-29 Heuer, Leslie - Frontier Trail 86-30 Berglund, Audrey - 3241 Tanadoona Drive 86-31 Great Plains Estates - Halla 86-32 Buresh, Robert J. I 86-33 86-34 Christmas Lake Acres Brown/Anderson - Administrative Subdivision I87-1 Saddlebrook - Builders Development 87-2 Lake Riley Woods - Nelson/Gagne 87-3 Chaska Investment/Morehouse, Bob (TH 5/41) I 87-4 Jeurissen, Georgia - 750 W. 96th Street 87-5 Vogel Addition - Richard Vogel - R:t w Lam.- Ma-a60(0S 87-6 Whitetail Acres - Michael Klingelhutz (CR 117 ) I 87-7 The Greenery - Don Mezzenga (Lake Lucy Road/CR ) 87-8 Mackendale - Dave Stockdale 87-9 Laurent/Peterson/Jeurissen 87-10 Luse, David - WITHDRAWN I 87-11 Foster, Timothy - Tanadoona (Zimmerman property) 87-12 Worm, Edward - 3430 Arboretum Blvd. 87-13 Water Reservoir - Art Owens I 87-14 Kurvers Point - Chanhassen Road 87-15 West Village Heights - Jacobson, Bill 87-16 Sigel, Milton - Yosemite/W. 63rd Street 87-17 North Lotus Lake - Bloomberg Companies Ic 87-18 Winfield Development/CHADDA 87-19 Curry Farms - Centex Homes I 87-20 Shadowmere - Hilloway Corporation - Jim Fenning 87-21 Creek Run - Robert Engstrom 87-22 Lotun Court - Lotus Realty Services - Brad Johnson-`';2;3C„I T ,'_21:- 87-23 Buchheit, Roberta - 3861 Lone Cedar Lane I 87-24 Sommer Addition - Robert Sommer 87-25 Sunridge Addition - Rodney Grams 87-26 Kant, Ralph - Lot 4 , Block 1 , Cedar Crest Addition 87-27 King Addition - Edward and Karen King I 87-28 Building Block Day Care Center - Herb Mason 87-29 Harris, R. Lawrence - Lots 1, 4 , 5 , Block 1 , Pheasant 3rd 87-30 Kerber, Larry - 6700 Powers Boulevard I 87-31 87-32 Hiscox, Andrew - Erie Avenue Stratford Ridge - Robert Pierce 87-33 Qualey/Paulson - 82nd Street I 87-34 NW Bell - Chanhassen Hills - Administrative Subdivision 87-35 Morehouse/Chase/Chaska Investments 87-36 Ersbo Addition - Richard Ersbo - Lake Lucy Road 87-37 Sayer, John - Koehnen Circle I87-38 Lundgren Brothers/Rojina Property I I HUD 1 1 Housing and Urban Development II 2 701 Planning Grant Application 3 Flood Insurance II 4 Small Cities 5 Housing Progress II APPEALS I 85-1 Gunderson, Dale II WETLAND ALTERATION PERMITS 84-1 Piper Ridge II 85-1 Hidden Valley 85-2 Sunnybrook Development i 86-1 Chanhassen Hills 86-2 Chanhassen Vista I 86-3 Lake Riley Woods _r 87-1 Rivkin, Eric I 87-2 Saddlebrook 87-3 Lake Virginia Forcemain/Lake Ann Interceptor 87-4 Pryzmus, John (Golf range) I87-5 Worm, Edward 87-6 Curry Farms 87-7 Downtown Stormwater Pond (West 79th Street) 87-8 Kurvers Point I 87-9 Timberwood Estates 87-10 Doczy, Thomas 87-11 Sun Ridge (Grams) II 87-12 Vogel Addition (Richard) 87-13 Lake Susan Hills West 87-14 Blood/Lee 87-15 Miller, Brent (CR 17/18 ) II 87-16 Stratford Ridge - Robert Pierce II II r II L II II 44- , Animal Z/..z i,g I Humane Society I I 'F∎:;'";";,;'�,1.;tr, He A Voice For Those Who Cannot Speak I �• 845 Meadow Lane N. February 11 , 1988 I Minneapolis, MN 55422 Telephone 612-522-4325 I Honorable Mayor Thomas Hamilton City of Chanhassen I 690 Coulter Drive P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Mn 55317 IDear Mayor Hamilton: On behalf of all who are involved with the Animal Humane Society, I I would like to thank you and the City of Chanhassen for its outstanding contribution of $137 . 50 in support of the Society' s programs and services in this community. IThe City' s contribution will help the Animal Humane Society continue to be a community resource for both people and animals. Your willing- ness to participate in this important community service is very Imuch appreciated. Thank you again. I hope that you will extend our appreciation to I the members of the Chanhassen City Council, along with our best wishes! Sincerely, IC't.t,a,..__T„j777:—,,,j,LC Alan T. Stensrud IExecutive Director ATS: ss I FEB 17 1988 CITY OF CHANhASS N I A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION DEDICATED TO THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS • ft„ I. C I TY OF cc. fir ' - 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission City Council FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner DATE: February 11, 1988 I SUBJ: Scott County Lumber Company vs. City of Shakopee Attached is the Court of Appeals case syllabus regarding the above-referenced litigation. It is being forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council for your information. The case reaffirms basic policies in reviewing conditional use permit requests . These policies are as follows : 1 . In order for the City to deny a conditional use permit, I substantial evidence and facts must be proven to show that the conditional use permit would have an adverse impact on the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding area. 2 . The City Council cannot base its decision to deny a con- ditional use permit solely on adjacent property owner' s desire not to have the use within the neighborhood. I have spoken to the City Attorney about this case in relation to recent applications processed by Chanhassen. He states that the City does have adequate standards and measures to use in eva- luating conditional use permit requests . He also assured us that if an application met setback requirements or other conditions imposed by the ordinance for specific types of uses, he noted the City would still have the ability to deny the conditional use if facts could be presented to show that it would be detrimental to the surrounding area. I I I 11 • '8 •FINANCE'end'COMMRRCE'• . Couii of ADPeRIe/Clvll 6pinions FRIDAY,JANUARY 15,1988 III _ original judgment and decree divested the court of ju[lsdle- t ton to modify - maintenance, results in a retroactive application of law to the 1981 decision, divests his of vested rights, denies his in February 1986 the trial court held that it had juris- due process, violate, the separation of powers clause, and diction to modify spousal maintenance. After-a hearing on the unconstitutionally impair,his contract rights. III issue of maintenance, the court found that Prima Karon vat In Hartnett v. Nacdini, 414 e.X.2d 181, 196 1987), "unable he obtain employment in the swam field and under the the supreme court addressed the locus of retroactive(Minn.. 1987same conditions," that her Income had substantially decreased, applica- tion of the maintenance statute, holding that the amendments and that It was "questionable whether she will ever.be able to did not change the authority of the courts on the issue of III maintain an income similar to that which she enjoyed" prior to maintenance, but merely clarified the law. Id. Moreover, the fall of 1984. In February 1987 the court awarded Prima el nneeota law does not recognize a vested right to an Karon $1,500 per month permanent maintenance and $1,000 in unmodified award of maintenance or support, because the court attorney's fees. ' ' ' ' ..0 .,. retain, authority' to-modify such awards. Minn. stet, Howard'Karon appeais-•the-''court's'exerClse'•of juriedic-•" 5 518-64[ tee ialao=McClellend1•v. McClelland, 393 N.W.2d 224, lion. Prima Karon appeals"ths'amounts of maintenance"and.-; :• .227.(Minn.'''Ct.-^App:`3986), Pet:.:•for'iev. denied (Mtnn. Nov. / attorney's fees awarded. - 17, 1986). The modification-order violates no constitutional Issues rights. - •- • - 1. Did the trial c<urt•eic'in-modifying the amount and Finally, because' Minn. Stat. $518.64 expressly provides III duration of spousal maintenance7'`"'- ' ''' "" 1 _ - for modification nt spobadl'malntenance'awards under certain 2. Did the trial—court abuse its discretion in awarding foreumstances,"the principles of tea-yudfcata'do-not prevent $1,500 per month permanent maintenance and Ulu000 in alter- reopening the original'judgrent and-decree-to modify the award ney's fees?' „ ,..i of spousal maintenance. • ANALYSIS " - The trial court violated no constitutional rights and • I _ .� Minn. Stat. 8 518.6/'119861 provides'broad general a properly exercised',Its jurisdiction to' modify'Prima Karon', aurher= apoueal'maintenance award: ity to modify a previously entered order'for'maintenance. In ' +' "'iI ' Eckert v. Eckert, 299 Minn. 120, 216 N.W.2d 837' (1974), the Prima.Karon Claire the trial court'abused its discretion supreme court held that this power did not extend to rein- _ by not awarding.her $3',500 per tooth permanent maintenance and statement of maintenance after expiration of the payment $10,279.25 in attorney's fees. period. Although Eckert limits the Court's statutory author!- Under. Minn. Stat. 6 518.64, a trial court modifying a ty by requiring that motions for -modification be brought 1 maintenance award must coneider the factor, listed in the I before the date on which ordered maintenance payments are to maintenance statute, Minn. Scat. S 518.552 (1986). After terminate, it aces not preclude modification in this case, as considering these'factors and examining itemized lists of Prima Karen's motion was brought while the w still receiving monthly expenses from each party, the court found that Prima maintenance payments. While the parties remained obligated Kacon'a reasonable expenses amounted to $2,000 per month and under the original order, the court retained the power, under that she could reasonably be expected to earn $1,000 per n. Stat. 5 518.64, to "make an order respecting (mainte- nance month." The court'then ordered Howard Karon to increase his l which is might have made In the original proceeding." monthly payments'to $1,500, based on Prima Karon's increased see also Plante v. Plante, 358 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. Ct. App. need and Howard Karon'e increased ability to pay. The court 1984), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 27, 1985) has broad discretion in awarding maintenance. O'Brien v. Howard Karon also contends that (1) principles of waiver, O'Brien, 343 N.W.2d '850: 852 (Minn': 19841. Because trine estoppel and release prevented Fri Karon from bringing her Karon', total income 1111'exceed her needs by $500 per month, motion; (2) mine. star. 5 510 ie.61 is unoonatltu(tonal ap- the c urt'a award is not an abuse of discretion. plied because it violates the prohibition against impairment Finally, although Prima Karon requested more than $10,000 of contracts, the due process clause and the separation of in attorney's 'fees, the court awarded $1,000. The amount powers provislonscl and (3) cos judlcata bars this action.te awarded does not constitute an abuse of the trial court's t. Although the required notice was filed with the attorney broad discretion, and we will not disturb this award on ap- gene[rvenal'e office, the attorney gone[el elected not to peal. Sea fluade V. Suede, 367 N.W.2d 87, 89 (Minn. Ct. App. ne 1985), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. July 11, 1985). Howard Karen's claims that the stipulation conaticuted a •D 8'C I S I 0 e _ '+°......�m��,� waive of Prima Karen's tights, estopped her from further Affirmed, litigating the issue, and released him from further oblige ' STATE OF MINNESOTA tions are based primarily on a contract theory„ as In his . , IN COURT OF APPEALS assertion that the application of section 518.64 unconstitu- tionally impairs that contract. However, in Minnesota, dissolution proceedings are not Scott County. -C6-87-897 Huspenl, Judge- governed by contract, but by statute. Sal Minn. Stat. ch. , Scott County Lumber Timothy R. Thornton 518t _ also sessions v. Sessions, 178 Minn. 75, 77-78, 226 vs Company, Inc., et el., Sue Halverson III Hart, Bruner, O'Brien 6 Thornton N.W. 211, 212 (1929) Although stipulations may be helpful to -Appellant,, 1221 Nicollet Mall, Suite 700 the c o urt in resolving disputed issue., no stipulation between Minneapolis, KC 55403 the parties, even if adopted by the court, can contractually City of Shakopee, Phillip R. Kress bind the court or prevent the eubaequent modification of a Kress 4 Monroe chartered Respondent. 327 S. Marschall Road-suite 300 III award.ward. Mark v. Mark, 248 Minn. 446, 450, 80 P. 0. sox 216 Shakopee, MN 55379 N.W.2d 621, 624 (1957). This result does not change merely because the incorpoc- Filed: January 12, 1988 Office of Appellate Courts aced stipulation purported to dives[ the court of jurfadictlon III to modify maintenance. See Erickson V. Erickson, 181 Minn. ..S Y L L A B 0 S f 421, 426, 232 N.F. 793, 795 (1930) (discussing with approval. 1. The denial.of a conditional use permit must be supported New Hampshire case which held that a court has no power to by legally sufficient reaeona. • make an alimony award final and not subject to revisionlc tee 2. A derision denying a conditional use permit is without also Adler v. Adler, 373 Ill. 361, 26 N.E.2d 504 (1940) (court rational basis when it is bated only upon neighborhood III cannot divest itself of the power to modify)[ Goldman v. opposition and expressions of concern at the expense of 558cm Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296, 26 N.E.7d 265 (1910) (although agree- opinion in favor of the proposed operation. sent might bind partle., terms could not limit statutorily Reveceed. conferred jurisdiction to modify). ,. ,. Heard, considered and decided by Nuspenl, Presiding Judge, III Howard Karon also claims that the application'of Minn. Stdgvlck,Judge and Lomrm,Judge.• Stat. 6 518.552 (1986), as amended in 1985 to provide that • temporary maintenance should not be favored over permanent Acting ea judge of the Court of Appeals by appointment _ • _. _ pursuant to Minn. Cons(. art. 6, 5 2. _ FRIDAY,JANUARY 15,1988 Cpurrol'Apbe01s/41vt1Opbtons '^,FINANCg,apdCOS4M$RCE. , , , O P I N I O N ' , hearings. .It also,received testimony from all the vltneaeee who nuseemx, Judge(Hon. Robert Breunig, District Court Trial Judge) had appeared at the public hearings. In addition, an appraiser Appellant, Scott County Lumber, applied to the Shakopee city appointed by the city.eppeared:for the first,time before the council for a conditional use permit to extract gravel for a 130 trial court.,.excerpts from.the transcripts and testimony s more tract of land in the city,of Shakopee. After the request sot cut-below., . F: - .:. was denied, Scott County Lumber appealed to Che trial court. The testimony of the experts, t • The trial court affirmed the decision concluding that the city- Merila 6 Aseucletes, theengi neerawho prepared the appli<a- council resolution contained legally,eatficlent reasone,to lion for the conditional use-permit-eo.behalt of Scott.County• support denial of Cha permit. Scott County Lumber appeals Lumber, testified:at all three-hearingc,..opining-that the requesting review of the city council's decision. Cu reverse. , proposed plan.set,.the-crlteela-:set.out.by.the Shakopee city code and'the.city'plenner. -Tha„testlmony indicated that the proposed Scott.County Lumber nyss a t,lOvecreltrapt of land-in,.vs aria:,. ' plan rill+span aavamteen.ysara, that the mining depth will be Shakopee c unty, purchasedLln,}v934._y?h!If".is a„riphigravel,,s;..AI' ; between-ISn,,eed twentyrfive.teet.en4 that,during.the seventeen deposit,in the aoli. Ilia lagd,ftltuated,{esa than,ypm,mile /rpm. : year peciodrantoyerege of;75.-trvcke rill leave-the site between I the Canterbury Doane r.,oetraoh, is surrounded s, ,gg,thFamldea by, the hours 069100 a.m..and 9100.p.m. [soh day.-The gravel tracts of privately owned land and on the fourth.side by.a ,,,,,, , extraction is planned.to occur in.thr..;phases,.the activity highway. One neighbor operates,a thirty on.„horee_livery,and,.,LI will be,.screeped,by,ter•,tootfg;assy-berms,f anted with trees, a riding stable. A second.prcpsrty,i.opsrated•as.a,smell tare,L.,._ 'twenty-five foot stockpile will.accumulate,,, nd each section-of- housing in recent years one.hundred.hogs..gd ten cattle. The ”:,. land will:be-.re claimed;for.agriculturelf,uss.after a phase is _- third tract is subdivided•with_.realdencee.op some+loti. Permis-. completed.,,,NOne'of•-the:drilling or;ether'act'lvities will be slop has been granted for the construction of a.by-peas through5'•- : conducted.within 100.feet,of•edjecent-property'lines or within . the subdivision. ,t e,,..,.,.h, , ., S00 feet of any,residence.,,Merilatesti,fled.that the noise The area in which Scott County-Loebsr and its.immediate, :-. - level management testa indicated the noise from the crusher neighbors are situated is zoned as an Agricultural Preserv.Lion,-.".n. . -would no longer;bs;endible,iust,s;d.istance,of ens-eighth of a mile District pursuant to section 11.24 of;the Shakopee city code. A. ' .. from the.machine..and,that•the noise from.tM.ba<k-up beepers on: gravel pit is a permitted use under this classiLiestion. The .v. „ :.the trucks eould,_ba;eliminated.•,A atop ewer leadinginto• code lists the conditional uses of land permitted.by,the city, local-lake will drain the,land, and,storage ponds will prevent Before a landowner may put the land to a,00nditional use, a flooding at,-the neighboring land. The gravel rill be damp when permit must be obtained from the city council. extracted,.but water s ra in p, y q;v111 be used to.control dust. The Gravel extraction is a condltfonal,use,for which a permit is water for.this.purposa.will,pa.trmneported onto the site by required under the Shakopee city coda.. On September.31, 1984, thermos. The-engineer states).thst the,estimated.gravel pit Scott County Lumber applied fora conditional use permit to traffic amounted to 1.81,of;the.etisting.traffic at.the date of extract gravel from its land. The next month, the city hired a the triel,.that.a highway access permit required for the pro- consultant to assess the project, prepare an environmental '— posed gravel'entrance was one of the twenty conditions laid down assessment worksheet and make recommendations regarding the by the city planner, and that's right turn lane and extra long granting of a permit. In December 1984, sound teats,were entry acceleration lane.were planned to-meet the requirement. conducted by experts at the site of a project similar to the Dr. Alfred Caldwell,.a univereity.professor and expert soil proposed plan. Both the environmental asaesesent worksheet scientist,'opined that soil.eroeion-would be minimized by the recommendation and the sauna tent results favored the granting„ + proposed extraction. Based-on hie expertise in the field, he of - ; l-..,- u-,w-s..e...s-ooe.w,..w'•.t�r«w�ra-,.,saava..r+..... ......... a permit to•Scott County-Lumber. Y testified that the soil in the Shakopee area in below average to Subsequently, the application was referred to the city poor, that it is not prime-agricultural-land-and that although a planning commission for its decision. Section,11.04,-subd. 6 of f good soil manager could produce high.yields, the level of pro- the Shakopee city code sets out twelve criteria which the , „ , duction could not be maintained.'Caldwell stated that in his planning commission must consider when determining whether-to. experience careful soil segregation during extraction followed grant a conditional use permit. The application must-satisfy , , by surface soil replacement would restore the soil to a'levei the twelve conditions, if applicable, before the permit may be •approximately es good ae it ever was from an agricultural granted. The city planner recommended granting the permit , standpoint.. ' conditional on Scott County Lumber satisfying twenty further Mr. Rudolf Hoagberg, an environmental geologist, testified conditions. The conditions set stringent;etendarde for, among " that a study conducted'by him for MN/DOT-in 1979 indicated that I other items, dust, noise and traffic control. Scott County there was a shortage of gravel in Minnesota, that the Scott Lumber agreed to take the action necessary to meet all twenty County Lumber 130 acre tract was a "very good deposit" and that conditions. If the applicant was to subsequently fail to the operation would make a 'highly significant"contribution to maintain the standards required by the planning commission, the , the gravel supply in the Brea:'He opined that if the-gravel city could revoke the permit. operation was.properly managed, it Would have no adverse effect in May and June of 1985, the commission conducted a public on the local water supply because the water table was so deep. hearing and received comments on,the proposed.gravel pit. After Hoagberg said that in his experience of working with •hundreds" considering the environmental encasement worksheet recommends- , of gravel operations, noise could be effectively controlled by I tion, the results of the sound tests, the city planner's racoe- ' the uae'of,berme and trees. - ', ' ;+-" . ' mendetione and the•statemente of the witnesses, the commission John Shardlow, the landscape architect and city planner who refused to grant the permit. ., prepared the environmental assessment worksheet for the city, Scott county Lumber appealed.the planning commission's testified that the conditional'use permit would out be locos- dnninien to the city council. In July 1985, •second public aistent with the comprehensive plan and that he believed there hearing was conducted by the city council. The city council had wee no inconsistency between•the excavation of gravel and the before it all the recommendations and testimony which the plan- ' purposes Of the zoning code: Sherdlow testified that he ning commission had considered, In addition, the city council , understood from'the city planner that the"application was a , heard testimony from expert., appraisers and landowners. The cOntroverelal and political laaue" and that he therefore advised city council denied Scott'County Lumber's request for• "'+T the city planner .to de''a good solid profeealonal job of conditional use permit. reviewing the environmental impact"and to develop conditions ocett County Lumber appealed the denial to the district which in her profeealonal judgment would mitigate those court. All the documents considered by the planning commiselon " Impacts." He stated that the-tventy additional conditions and the city council were presented to the'trial court'. These placed on the permit were on the •strict aide•and that he could were the environmental mesesmeent norkeheet, the staff recom- : identify no environmental impact Which could not be mitigated by mendation from the city planner,.the appraisal report by 1 the condition. imposed. ` Hagemeleter a Associates and the'1981 appraisal report with t - vt . '. Y Jerome Hagod Ker, a profamdonal appralwr.�Nstl[1ed that I ` accompanying updated recommendation from Ken Lewis&Associates. i the city council hired him to determine whether the property All recommended granting the.permit:•".. ........, 'values In the Killarney Hills subdivision and other'propertiee The trial court also had before it the transcripts of the 'I'. c wrrounding the proposed gravel operation would decrease in . 1 } •....+.v[.n and Lomas/;M,. court of Appeals/Civil Oinl p ons FRIDAY,JANUARY 15,1969,,1 a•ti7.4W:Ma.vrar 4.f{:{.,Io1.[ _ value if the permit was Granted. He said that no comparebles would dlminl.h and that the gravel trucks would create a traffic were used In drawing up his appraisal because he was not asked hazard as they entered the highway. by the city to place a value on the proportion,. Hage.e Seter 'Anne P1tch testified that she on the Pitch property stressed that in this case the value of the lend w•constantly with her brother and a friend and that she ran the horse farm. changing due to the relocation of the 169 by-pass, the �'�" '� ' r a •' " Pavinq She eta tad that horse forme were never sited next to gravel pits I and upgrading of highway el and other roads and the development, _ and that'•s'he helleved duet caused disease in horses but admitted of the racetrack. He said that in his opinion the - , .'; f. .- i , p gravel' she had no experience of ouch 111ness 1n horse.. She admitted operation would not result in devaluation of the surrounding that a veterinary associate, who tended the Fitch hot..., wrote propertiee, that the city would have a greet.deal of control to the city alleging the gravel operation would cause health over the operation through tie twenty stringent condition. problems in horses,'that the associate's two principals contact- ' imposed on the granting of a permit and that this control would ed the cicy`councll and conGCadteced their employee stating result in increased the values in the eras.. there would by.no iertoui health probleir resulting from gravel Bradley Larson, cM county highway engineer,•testified that pit.6irovIdeI'hi r'e..e.no eiceeit've'-CUetesnd thereafter that In his opinion the anticipated truck traffic-would not cause ,',v-• that vitec'lnii'y=aiio'cl'ito k'h"'I,d�e'`it'fhe�rea I for:ad Cha city I traffic problems highway 03. He stated that a county road, eouncl lr tfiita she'hed'no:erpK 1e,,ci'rlthl dui t-related'i ll entrance permit was required of Scott County Lumber and that as• in horses:' Ahn.'Fi t'ch conceded thity sh:considered the gravel •pare of the a •permit long acceleration lanes would be pit "d/etaatoful 'and'Snconslstent'i,Ith the'horseysee that looks Installed to overcome the problem of slow-moving trucks entering ' for style.when'thay toms to•t he property.• She opined that it the traffic flow. •• would be'imposalble'to'control dust 'When you have bare-sores I The testimony of the landowners. that v111 blow on your'lind.' f Bert Notereeo, one of the owners of Scott County Lumber, —The Mutts own land'which abuts the proposed gravel pit and testified that he had lived in the city of Shakopee for-eighty- was purchased•seventeen years ago."-TAey t•stified that in their three years, and was concerned about running on operation which I' opinion the proposed gravel operation should be surrounded by a " I was acceptable in the community.. He explained that thls'va. I one mile:buffer aoke,'!hit grass would net grow on the berms, hie second application for the permit to extract gravel from hie that erosion could occur and grass duet problems and that the tend, that every effort hqd been aerie to provide the city with 4' tend could not be'reclaimed for agricultural purposes. John properly researched and well-planned proposal and that the- L Butt conceded that he"had raised one hundred hogs on his lend application had proved to be a very coetly'exerciee. / eithout-required"permits. He voiced his concern that the berm. Raymond Fitch, a Minneapolis lawyer who owns property would interfere with his view of Canterbury Downs, but conceded abu icing Scott County Lumber land, testified that he bought the that if Scott County Lumber planted a tree farm, his view would land in 1981, not as a residence for himself, but'f or his similarly be obscured: H.'edmirted that his sole experience daughter to operate as a horse ranch. Pitch admitted that he with real estate was the purchase of his land in Shakopee. His was on notice In 1901 that gravel extraction was a conditionally opinion that the gravel pit would devalue his land to "almost permitted use in the area. He conceded that although he did not nothing• s based upon 'Just more or less common sense.' have the required conditional use permits, he increased the Herold Schneider, who owns evenly-eight scree in the number of horses on his land from five to thirty-one. Fitch vicinity of the Scott County Lumber land, admitted raising two I stated he waa concerned that the peacefulness and beauty of his d hogs and^ons hundred and [t[tean cattle without-t-, property would be destroyed by the no i.e, duet, beano and hundred permits. He testified that he o ned too rental stockpiles created by the operation, that the value of hie land hundreproperties on his land and said that in his'vlew the rental revenue would fall if the permit was granted. He believed the • r ,.proposed beret would"be.tnentY-L1vw'Ceet'h lgh"Ill th"a [our to one ntag r•ty gradient and would ruin hie land. (Various experts testified at • all three hearings that the berme would be temporary, ten feet Objectivity • high with a gradient of ten to one making them almost indistin- guishable, that the berms would be planted with grass and shrubs I P rofes s i o n a I i s m• These are the qualities you need in a financial advisor— and that the berme need not be constructed if the nelghbora preferred trees alone./ Roberta Schneider teatif led that there were other sources of for you your business or clients. grays!which should be researched and that the gravel from the proposed pit was not exclusively for use in These are the qualities of the Minnesota Certified Public Shakopee. Accountant. The testimony of the city council members A CPA can assist you in: Mayer Alden Reinke, who'voced to deny the permit, admitted • Business valuations that he based his decision regarding potential traffic problems • Taxation consulting exclusively on the ten tlwony of pro ' • Auditing party owners the area. He stated that in his opinion the extraction of gravel l from Scott • Business and personal financial planning • Accounting County Lumber's land wa. "absolutely prohibited• and presumed • Financial that the property owners would sue the city for diminiohing I • Computer Support . , property value,and"probably receive compensation.' Reinke Call a professional who can provide objective advice.Call testified that the operation would create a noise nuisance, but a CPA. admitted that the condition.attached to the permit would require noise control to be within the law. He conceded that CPA Referral Service the Scott County Lumber application was singled out for I The CPA Referral Service is a confidential, no-fee, no enforcement of noise regulations and subjected to stricter obligation service provided by the Minnesota Society of regulations than the law required, and that no ocher proposed Certified Public Accountants—the professional association development in the area had been treated in this way. Reinke of nearly 7,000 CPAs in Minnesota. opined that duet could not be controlled, admitting that this I We will provide you with the names and phone numbers was hie personal feeling and that he had experienced successful of three CPAs who are c ex eriened in meeting your p g y particular need. enforcement of dust control regulations during c nstructlon at Canterbury downs. _ 831-2707 i City council member John Leroux voted to deny the permit, \�//,',{ ti CPA Referral Service admitted'g'lancl ingl" et the environmental aase..eent worksheet, I -•+\ said that-it did not influence his vote and that he based hill C decision on landowners' testimony. He admitted that neighboring 1 MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ' landowners were biased against the permit, that the city planner 011.11268. _CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 1 was objective, out that he discounted her'recommendation because I mm,,_____.,, . I _ i she did not live neet to the proposed pit. m•dheccanled the —- testimony of all the experts on the same basis: 1 - FRIbAY,JA■UAItY 15,'1989' ' •--- --- --Court of AppcaIs/Clvl OPIM01iA FINANCEaod"COMMERCY; '- ' ' ." .... •. . 11 City council member Gloria Vierling testified that her Vote When a city council states its reasons for denying the • to deny the permit was affected by the opinions of Hutt, Fitch Permit, we are required to'mess the legal sufficiency of the I/and Schneider. She stated that she relied on her own personal reason.given and to determine whether, if legally sufficient, feelings, that her home was next to a gravel pit, that she would they had,factual beets. C.R. Inveeteentq, 701 N.N.3d at 325. prefer all gravel trucks be kept if the road and that she _ It the denlsl of arperwlt is not ore soneble, arbitrary or believed a conditional use permit to extract gravel should be capricious', It will be upheld on appeal. noon v. City of Coon . prohibited if there watt a residence nearby. Vierling conceded papide' 3]7 N.W.2d t09, 116-17.(Minn. 1981). Thle.cou[t must, that Fitch's testimony could be biased and agreed that the-city therefore, whether the city council's action in planner, the city engineer and.Shardlow,all-city employeeq, denying,the permit in this partleular case was reasonable. were objective. No not('that the setting aside of rou tine,elty council I City council m.ebee Jerome Nampach teat fled.thatl the ,-•,,, ■ decisions le reserved for-those mare instances in which the environmental aaseanmenG wockaheetr did not rintluence h}e•vgtf.tr , city's decision.has no.[atlonel.bisls.! LXCeptin such cases, a . ' :.1f «111:.,1 .4,-,(sik-..yt.a:^'C::..:, He admitted that}he"went ptlmnrj n Y mt,tpt pit was,gpin9.tp,t reviewing court has,the duep tp 9xerelse`nstratt and accord .. . tY.:Y.,CA. (.. .,e ea- •,, obr�•r�+,ll1.,t; is��,a Past-� ^ , do to the lrodownerae and that he only_llscened,tO4the,petgh-„,v,,, appropriate deference to the city counoil_ho the performance of born' testimony. Nampach,eatil:ied_thet,j,e dlemiased,.the-eity, ,,, its duties. White Bear Docking v. City of White Bear•beke. 726 planner',¢ recommendation because she did not iive next to.the. N.W.24 176, 176 ; 82) pit. He indicated hie concern ab ut 0the big hole•le Et In the ere a zo i 9 ordinance specifies;standards which must be ground,•about the dust, about the health of people and _ plied`ip.determining rhetheC Of not to grant a conditional us* ` animals'and about property-values. Nampach conceded'that he permit, and the a pplicant.fully eoapllee vlth_the eperifi*d ' 111 �� could point to no basis in the record for,hi. fears.'The record' standards, a denial of the permit is erbitrery�as•utter of I indicates that Nampach believed that when the topsoil was _ Hay v. Township of Crow, 296 Minn. 1,�5, 206 N.W.2d 19, 22 removed from the site, it could never cower the land after the, (1977). It la uncontested that Scott County Lumber has complied } gravel was removed. _ } . with the lengthy and expensive requirement*of the Shakopee city 1 .. , in .,. City council member Dean Coll lean-atlmi[Gd that he had authors ties In mek logs'this application t0 extract gravel from 'little idea at the time of the hearinge•,-re0arding-the use of - its land:,,Appellant employed.experts.to,design a project which the land adjacent to the proposed pit. no admitted that he had would meet the twelve,requlrements for obtaining a permit which no idea what the environmental assessment worksheet concluded, were leid.down in thejShakopee,city code. In this case there to feeling'sorry' for Hutt and that this influenced his vote. were,tren0y further conditions to the granting of a-permit He stated that the standard of duet control was that which would imposed upon appellant. - satisfy adjacent landowners and 'the gravel pit has too much - The expert testimony, the city planner, the.environmentei } f dust' to meet hie approval. Goillgan believed that the Fitch assessment worksheet recommendation and the appraisal report all horse business would be curtailed.by the duet and noise. indicated that thc,appiicatlon met the twelve criteria laid down The testimony of the city's appraiser by the Shakopee city code. Furthermore, it,Es.uneontroverted Finally, the trial court heard testimony from an appraiser that appellant agreed to comply with the twenty additional con- appointed by the city. He admitted that he had looked at the ditions imposed`byithg city upon the granting of a permit. Upon land once, that he had not seen the environmental assessment a th0gough,review of all the evidence before the trial court, we I worksheet, that he did not know that twenty conditions had been cannot,conclude that the city council acted-rationally when it placed upon the grenting of the permit, that he did not know denied ths.,eondltional use permit. what the city planner had recomeended,,that he had not seen'the The event);additional conditions imposed by the city planner - applicant's proposal.jegarding duet and noise-abatement,.-that he”-, '•?er"-"plate d-'e tringmnt"pontrol n,on'noiew,.,dust'end'treffic:'-The-`-"`-" • did not know of the reclamation plan and that he did not know if record reveals that the city,,placed stricter controls on this the noise levels would violate the city ordinance. He conceded - application fo..a condltignal_-uee permit than on any other that he'spent only eight hours reviewing all the documents and proposed project 1n the area. 'The engineers, the,landecep• that he had many clients in Shakopee with land use different - architect/city planner, and,the'count •hlghwayengin•er all from the proposed use. He testified that in his opinion the i. testified that the,twency cpnditionanaitigated.any environmental granting of a conditional ens permit to extract gravel would i impact', in the fors`of neise,'fduet and water pollution and substantially diminish the value of the surrounding properties. s. prevented traf(le.hazarda. The record indicate. that the twenty The trial court affirmed the city's denial of the condition- conditions provide the city with adequate control-over the al use permit. It found that the planning commission had given Project to.ensure that the gravel operations would have a minimum impact -}„ s hearing to all Interested pantie¢and that the city council pact upon the environment: The record indicated that resolution contained legally euffici•nt reasons to support there are several phases to the proposed plan for the gravel denial of the permit. In addition, the trial court found that extraction and'that when each phase is completed, the land will the proposed gravel pit would create• traffic hasard, would I be reclai•ed for agricultural use, , have a detrimental effect on the use, enjoyment and value of An expert soil scientist Indicated that the,land could be neighboring properties, and would not be compatible with the use reclaimed and would approximate to it.present'value as of other properties in the arse. The applicant's motion for i agricultural land. This expert also indicated that the Shakopee amended findings or alternatively for a her trial was denied. land was Oct price agricultural land. Other expert s•t•stified ISSUE .t-r•..- thet,the reclaimed land could have a mych higher value than at Nero the city council'', reasons for denying the conditional Present. The expert appraiser stated'that 1n his opinion the I use permit to extract gravel eopDorted by legally sufficient operation would not devalue the neighboring land but "' rather that these properties would incr•ees in value. facts? ANALYSIS pore appea l from a trial court decision affirming ' The environmental geologist, an expert,in Minnesota's gravel I U nevda and reeournes, testified t0 the'shortege of gravel in the g+city council's denial of a conditional use permit, the reviewing state. Hie'testimony indicated that the gravel deposit in the court must independently review the record which was before the proposed project would provide good quality, less expensive trial court together with the rity'a decision without affording gravel in the Shakopee area. .s any special deference to the trial court's review. Northreetern , In contrast with the convincing testimony of the experts ' College v. City of Arden Hills, 291 N.e.2d 865, 868 (Minn. above, the city's appraiser was impeached by his admissions that V " 19791. he had made but a cursory examination of all the reports., test A city council has broad discretionary power to grant or _ results, proposals-end recommendations. He was neither aware of deny an app lication for a conditional use permit Co extract 7 the twenty rigoious`eonditione impo sed upon the application by gravel. Ivlka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 196, 167 the city nor of appellant's proposals to meet those condition.. N.W.2d 45, 49 11969). When, as in this ease, a zoning ordinance , ,1i. He c ended that h•`had clients in the-Shakopee area with expressly authorizes the proposed use by conditional use permit, i Interests which icoapeNd with thosi'oL appellant .Tot he ' - :t Y at.th • the city's health, safety ety an permit must D.for rmaaons relating , { Interests a ichfessional opinlon that the gravel;:!et he would public health, safety and gtnerel reltare.. S•B•,I nvFeteente. • seriously hen neighboring property value. -_ I Inc. V. Village of Shoreview, 306 N.W.2d 720, 324'(Minn. 1981). 'Neighboring landowner.'anpre..•d'snly.their-Own opinions w - _. 1 G •w 1� FINANE� Ad CO3F(tF RGE..i,:•) Court at,Pypeals/C4�U(Opfnlor�'(31,,; FRIDAY„JANUARY.19,1988 regarding '- •----- ----- re g ng the effect of the ravel 9 operation on the value of -Ace tl Can Pam[ly Mutual their land, on Insurance Company. Nark A. Owin pollution of the water, on hula.nuisance, on CouS Anderson,, xccu ire, sAaughneaeV dust problems and on the aesthetic impact of•the environment. ,Appellant.. a Su to Parkdale 2, Suite 108 They provided no expert testimony o support ,, 5402 Perkasie Drive Y pport that r:view.. A• „ Minneapolie, MN 55416 veterinarian who expressed an opinion regarding the impact of ,, P13ed: January 12, 1988 the gravel o Office of Appellate Court. operation upon the Pitch horses later conceded that t(,.a,,,, iv ',,:, .i.S . • -'SY LLABUB she had no experience with duet related equine disease. None of fThe•injurtes•.and death of an insured'. the neighbors could attest to expertise in real estate, spouse are not covered yet they by no-fault.automobile insurance whenthe spouse's abduction and atreeeed the devaluing impact of the gravel pit upon their murder•were not riaks•associated'With motoring and the injuries land. One landowner admitted that hie opinion on land value. did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle. was based only upon "common sense.” Reversed.. ;„ .;....t., r••_: ,: However, the city eouncl l'enebe[a admitted dlecounting the ',Heard,:,considered an d:deci dsd.b eri"Presfding Judge,of expert-testloonp'in'Eavoi'otthat`ot the'ne!hborio g Nlerangacten;:JUdgeand+Ramda llp'Judge., ".' '/'' - landowners. They admitted that'the neighbors were"b'iaaed'ehd"' ' ` •n)""('1 oa.h Vsr::+e..Cfp1 P'I NrI OWN..,,. ., that the experts,-some of whom were city employees, were NIERBNOA5TEN,•. Oudge-'(HOR.Robert'Bdren,'DSstrlcGCOUrt Trial Judge) objective in their recommendations. "Two of'the city council This le an appeal from a judgment-deolaring an insurance members admitted that they had not even read'the environmental company liable for'payment of no-fault-benefits. The insurer assessment worksheet and two discounted the city-planner's and contends the insur•d'a-epouse was not'covered by the policy, that the experts' opinions because they did not have their homes the injuries did-not.occur•while the-spouse was occupying the adjacent to gravel pits. No city council members expressed any behf cle, and that,the.lnjurlee did not iris.ant of the use of a doubt about the validity of the-experts' evaluation.•er taati- motor vehicle. ...reverse. . , .. cony. Each.eapreseed•only his or her fears of being sued by the t•iy.ai a.^' i,,: ',PACTS , • a' neighbors, ofedust, noise and water pollution, and of traffic ,-In JUly'1982 respondent Marjorie Peterson's husband, Thomas I hazards. One city council member admitted that he could not Petafien,..dcooe.hie:vlte!a ear Ants a Mieannmie roadside Wert polot to any basis in the record Which supported'Als•cencecos. area and asked-directions item-a-greup of teenagers. After community opposition to a landewnpr's'desire to use his - deflating and slashing-the tl rsa•on the.Peterson car, the property for•particular purpose is not a legally sufficient - teenagers.forced.Themes into•as assailant's car and drove several I reason for denying a conditional use permit. C.e,'Invast mots, milee.frue.the•,rest.area where they strangled Thomas and threw 304 N.X.2d it 325, Amoco Oil Company v. City of Minneapolis, 395 'i.hle.body,•into•nearby stream. The assailants-Were convicted of N.X.2d 115. I10 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)• The dental of•contl i- various crimes in connection with the abduction and murder. tional use permit must be based on something more concrete, Our Marjorie,Peterson.eubmitted a Claim. •thorough review of the documents and the.transeripte Sr the benefits under her automobile lnsuiance policy with tAmericanca, a three hearings together wfoth the testimony'of the city council' Family utual Insurance Company . • y P y (ASerlcan).. American denied embers leads we to eh•c ncluafon Chat the opinions o[ the coverage clsiming.Peteraon's;policy.did not provide coverage for landowners were preferred over those of experts without any "relatives"entitled,to: ersonal P In ju ry.proteetlon benefits under adequate supporting reasons. We not only find the reasoning of other pollclee:•,a-I.t.also.clalmad Thomas was not injured while the city council members unconvincing, but hold that the.grounds 'Occupying•a muter Vehicle and asserted Thomas' injuries did not for denying the conditional use permit arm-legally insufficient arise out of the use of a motor vehicle. .,and without any rational basin. - the district court ranted 9 partial summary judgment in favor • D e C I s.I O N . '-- of Peteteon,on thf.no {a e. ueetto I "an -.ors c,q. 4-nderAether,ehee Polley The city council's denial of a conditional use permit for provision excluding • 9 peceans covers d'untler oche['policies created the extraction of gravel was arbitrary because it vas not n absurd result'when applied to married person. living in the supported by legally Scott-County'reasons. The denial of the same household. The court opined that the exclusion p provision :permit fa reversed end the 9rentlnq of the'appropriate rood!- was void as against public-policy Because the provision purported [Tonal u P use permit to scot t,County Luber is'h•riby ordered. s to preclude stacking of no-fault coverage for which separate , Reversed. premiums had been paid and concluded.Thomas must be deemed an - insured person under his rit•'s policy with American. The court - noted that Minnesota.law requires insurers to providelbasic • economic benefits for-ali.losses-resulting from-injuries arising I STATE OP MINN69OTA i, - out.of the maintenance or use,ot,meeor.vehicles and therefore IN COURT or APPEALS. C7-87-1579 concluded American's,exclusionary'provieion is void because it only-covers persons-who ace injured-while 'occupying.motor Hennepin County Nlerengerten, Judge - veh/eles. Marjorie Hugo Peterson, Jerome B. Abrams Daniel J. Roth .' wa' The-court reasoned that'the necessary causal connection Respondent, Austin a Roth 715 No[thetac.eat 625 Marquette Avenue between the,use of the can and Thomas' injuries existed "solely Minneapolis, MN 55402 from the fact that.(ThomasJ stopped at,a-rest stop" designed, - . built and maintained for the convenience of.highvay travelers. i The court concluded Thomas' murder vas "at least a foreseeable ATTORNEYS - when overload work is /nritlent•which occurred becauea•Thumaa.raa driving the car and required, do you find you resort to a stopped at the teat area.. The district court granted judgment in Peterson's favor for • Expensive and inexperienced temporaries ? . $10,000 in stipulated damage.and American appeals. I "Adding equipment and making,space for added staff? issues • Extensive overtime with potential employee burnout ? Next time,callJAYE'SOFFICESERVICES.We'vebeen 1. Did the district court err by concluding the decedent's helping the legal profession for over 7 years with skilled injuries arose out of the use of a motor vehtclal secretarial and office/management services, including: 2. Did the district carsel arc by concluding the policy -- provision. excluding the appellant's spouse from coverage are •Legal Secretarial Support Office Administration Services against public policy and the[efoce void? Transcription - •- Telephone Answering ' _ ANALYSIS • Deposition Typing •Mall Handling I The parties dlepute only the district court's interpretation 'Legal Document Preparation • •Routine Correspondence i • of the insurance policy language and the court's application of a��we1 'Desktop Publishing a.rb� the law. Accordingly, this court need not defer to the trial t ' ' 'eve aye s Office Services court and "map determine whether the trial court properly 100 WEST FRANKLIN AVE. MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55404 - interpreted and,applied eleia•i∎ filee� applied the tar to the facts presented.. e(-�e�.!fae (832)870.8795 / NANCY JAYE Associated independent Dealers, I _. .flE 6010 KIOHWAY7 -ST•LOUISP ' Inc. v. Mutual Service (1915 Insurance f'�y w"' ARK,MN 55RY I roe , 304 M/na 179r 183-8 4, 229 N.M.2a 516, 319 (1973) (footnote (812)B28-8842 / SHELLY EMERY.....---'-- omitted). r eijr d - <.. /2.z. , • CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 • (612) 937-19W 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director „--- DATE: February 11, 1988 SUBJ: Public Safety Statistics - November/December 1987 1 Building Division: During the month of November, 1987 , the Building Division issued 1 15 single-family permits totalling $1,509 , 000 . 00 in valuation for an average of $100 ,600 .00 per home. During December, the Building Division issued 16 single-family permits totalling 1 $1,962 , 000 .00 in valuation for an average of $122 ,625 .00 per home. Total single-family permits issued for 1987 was 289 , which compares with 246 for 1986 . 1 Police Division: During November, the deputies/CSO responded to 335 calls for ser- vice and during December they responded to 342 calls for service. Total calls for service in 1987 was 3 ,966 for an average of 330 .5 calls per month. 1 Fire Department: The following data reflects tire department calls for service 1 during the months of November and December, 1987: November December 1 Rescue Medical 27 14 Gas leak 1 0 Structure fire 2 3 Grass fire 1 0 Car fire 2 1 Fire alarm 1 2 Other 0 1 1 1 t SHERIFF"S DEPARTMENT MONTHLY AREA REPORT 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ` • MONTH OF November , 19 87 II Analysis of Police Enforcement This Year Last Year '- This To This To Month Date Month Date I • 1. Traffic Violations 4'5 379 ,jet 'i 7a 2. Parking Violations .5' /loo /z6 I 3. Animal Violations CRIMINAL OFFENSES II1. Robbery / 2. Burglary -77- 'o .L p 3. Burglar Alarm II 4. Theft-Misc. , Felony di 40L .46 -'o.S 5. Auto Theft /o 3 /.1 6. Narcotic Drug Law 6 y II 7. Disorderly Conduct/ Dist. Peace 1 /5/ / 3 ijz. 8. Assault / /1 3 0 9. Sex Crimes 8 ' 10. Vandalism /1y /_s /72 I PROBLEMS II 1. Prowlers a. ,4LL 2 3 0 2. Animals ,,z7 1W cf /53 II 3. Family Quarrel a /4 .,- .38 4. Accident's P.D. 3/ 206 32 c.)/7 5. Accident's P.I . b l5 _ 444 6. Accident's Other y II 7. Medical Emergencies aZO /654 /3- /,f (. 8. Open Door at .s2. I -2.3.- 9. False Alarms /d. 129 /le /.s, I 10. Fire & Arson _. 3y 4 - 73 11. Motorist Assistance /! 77 _0 6)- 12. Miscellaneous, Nuisance Calls /0/ 1Ogg //3 /si,- II 13. • Misc. Traffic 55 6•/4 J.'g 690 14. Other Information • Vacation Checks I 7/ 7 I Hissing Person 5 A& 1 7� Abuse / /8 _4 // Forgery / /3 __ ITrepMSITT _--_.- _/ 1) 3 __/ Alcohol Al 6 -,_� - q -- Illegal Dumping_. i -___ NI 5 1/ ----- - ' ' fromocf�e Attempt / _- _ -______ Threats I (, 2. d. Fraud ----- o.-- 3 ---- % _______ I Exposing I / CCSO 149 A II Chanhassen November 19 87 1 TIME CHART ITIME NUMBER OF CALLS I12:00 to 1:00 A.M. .7H11 -/Iff /0 1:00 to 2:00 A.M. ill l3 I 2:00 to 3:00 A.M. -WV 9 3:00 to 4:00 A.M. S-- I4:00 to 5:00 A.M. I5:00 to 6:00 A.M. / I 6:00 to 7:00 A.M. 1 I7:00 to 8:00 A.M. -tilt- 7IlI //l/ is.- 8:00 to 9:00 A.M. 1/J J 1417 / /b I • 9:00 to 10:00 A.M. -/4 7 / /(o II 10:00 to 11:00 A.M. 1 ////f / c 11:00 to 12:00 -1/1/tie // I12:00 to 1:00 P.M. /Hi- - //11it///i 1:00 to 2:00 P.M. --/hli. illl is I 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. ##/ 10 „2.n 3:00 to 4:00 P.M. - 77,✓ /S-- I 4:00 to 5:00 P.M. r 1i /// I5:00 to 6:00 P.M. 4fif HI/ 0-//f 1 g 6:00 to 7:00 P.M. *-1////// t7:00 to 8:00 P.M. . 1!' 7II 7//' l /// ,73 8:00 to 9:00 P.M. "/ 1 -61-19 RI lie /' .27 I9:00 to 10:00 P.M. t11/7- Mtilit O—it 10:00 to 11 :00 P.M. /77% I I - -ttt 11:0o to 12:00 // f;___ IMotorist Assist //fl i rf / TD%A1_ 33. Traffic/fftom yam/ t-ttr- 1I/l , -rrrr- tt Parking -tHH' Irrcn icn CHANHASSEN • 1 11=1-87 11-5-87 11-8-87 II 0221 1938 0134 117 N. of 5 Laredo Lane Hwy. 5 Acc. P.D. Domestic DWI II 11-2-87 11-6-87 11-8-87 1752 0705 0126 II W. 78th St. Chan Rd. Hwy. 41 P.I. Accident Theft PAD. Car/deer 11-2-87 11-6-87 II 1958 1858 Arboretum Blvd. Dakota Lane Runaway Vandalism I 11-3-87 11-6-87 1842 0748 Hwy. 7 & Church Rd. Sandy Hook Circle II P.I. Accident Vandalism 11-4-87 11-6-87 II 0522 1539 Hwy. 169 Hwy. 212 Car/deer P.D. Acc. P.D. Acc. II11-4-87 11-7-87 0752 1953 Hwy. 7 & Church Rd. Arboretum Blvd. II Property Damage Runaway 11-4-87 11-7-87 II 1557 1141 Cty. 17 & 5 Hummingbird Road P.D. Accident Theft 11-4-87 11-7-87 ' 1732 1349 169 & 212 Hidden Court II P.I. Accident Vandalism 11-4-87 11-7-87 1212 1802 II Frontier Trail Hwy. 5 Theft P.D. Acc. 11-4-87 11-8-87 II 1345 2200 Legion Club Arboretum Blvd. II Alarm-false Damage to property 11-5-87 11-8-87 1757 1754 II 14th Ave. N. Cty, 117 Acc. P.D. , Car/deer P.D. I II Chanhassen .1 11-9-87 11-12-87 11-16-87 11-19-87 0345 1730 0749 1717 Kiowa Trail Hwy. 5 Hwy 5 t Powers Powers Blvd. IAlarm-False Car/deer P.D. P.D. Acc. P.D. Acc. 11-9-87 11-12-87 11-16-87 11-19.-87 II2113 1731 1630" 1819 Bluff Creek Road Lyman Hwy. 101 17 F Kerber P.D. Accident Car/deer P.D. P.D. Acc. P.D. Accident I11-9-87 11-13-87 11-17-87 11-19-87 1130 0111 1909 1840 W. 78th St. Yosemite Conestoga Trail Linden Circle IIBurglary P.D. Acc. Theft Burglary 11-10-87 11-13-87 11-16-87 11-20-87 I1743 0814 2005 0940 Hazeltine Tecumseh Galpin Blvd. Chan Burglary Assault Alarm-false Theft I11-10-87 11-13-87 11-17-87 11-20-87 1549 2028 0721 0115 Audubon Rd. 101 S. of 5 Hwy. 5 & 17 Audobon Rd. 11 Vandalism DWI P.D. Acc. Damage to property 11-10-87 11-13-87 11-17-87 11-20-87 1006 2330 0957 1428 Audubon Rd. W. 78th Laredo Dr. W. 78th Vandalism P.D. Acc. Theft Theft ' 11-11-87 11-14-87 11-17-87 11-20-87 1217 1308 1319 1415 41 W. 78th Chan Hazeltine Car/deer P.D. Vandalism Theft Theft I11-12-87 11-14-87 11-17-87 11-20-87 0115 1339 1725 1619 Imay. 5 Shore Drive Hwy. 5 Hwy. 101 DWI. Theft P.I. Acc. P.D. Accident I11-12-87 11-14-87 11-17-87 11-21-87 0651 2341 1547 0822 Cty. 17 Lake Lucy Rd./Cty.17 Arboretum Blvd. Gt. Plains Blvd. Car/deer P.D. P.D. Car/Deer Alarm-false Property Damage II11-12-87 11-15-87 11-18-87 11-21-87 0741 0153 2212 1024 II5 & 41 Chan Business W. 78th 5 & Dakota Acc. P.D. Open Door P.D. H F, R Damage to property 11-12-87 11-15-87 11-18-87 11-21-87 I0817 1212 2216 1130 5 $ Arboretum Payview Place Linden Circle W. 78th St. Acc. P.D. Alarm-false Runaway Property Damage I11-12-87 11-15-87 11-19-87 11-22-87 1438 1810 1415 1224 • White Dove Dr. Hwy. 41 41 & 5 W. 78th IITheft P.I. Accident P.D. Accident Alarm-false II Chanhassen I 11-22-87 11-25-87 11-28-87 1321 1256 1101 II Arboretum Blvd. Carver Beach Rd. Flying Cloud Runaway Theft Vandalism 11-23-87 11-25-87 11-28-87 I 1145 1330 1912 Lake Dr, W. 78th Pleasantview-Cove Theft (gas no pay)_ P.D. Accident Alarm-false II 11-23-87 11-26-87 11-28-87 1506 2109 2022 II Hesse Farm Rd. Hwy. 5 E 101 Chan Rd, Theft P.D. Hit and run Attempted break-in 11-23-87 11-26-87 11-28-87 II 2321 2206 2057 W. 78th 101 S. of 5 W. 78th DWI-Juv. P.I. accident DWI II 11-24-87 11-27-87 11-28-87 0716 1020 2234 Sandyhook Rd. Park Rd. Frontier Trail II Alarm-false Theft Domestic 11-24-87 11-27-87 11-29-87 II • 0954 1049 1012 Hidden Lane Cascade Circle Chan Rd. Vandalism Property Damage Theft I11-24-87 11-27-87 11-29-87 2338 1141 104.1 78th St. Great Plains Blvd. Audubon Rd. II Theft Theft P.D. accident 11-25-87 11-27-87 11-29-87 II 0823 2049 1214 Frontier Trail Kiowa Ave. Fox Path Damage to property Theft (worthless check) Alarm-false 11-25-87 11-28-87 11-29-87 II. 0920 0045 1334 Hickory Rd. Ballroom W. 78th II Theft Theft Alarm-false 11-25-87 11-28-87 11-29-87 1026 0029 1504 II W. 78th W. 78th W. 79th Theft Alarm-false P,D. Accident 11-25-87 11-28-87 11-29-87 II 1236 0249 1702 Park Rd. W. 78th Linden Circle Alarm-false Open Door Runaway I 11-30-87 0829 II Great Plains Blvd. Theft II SHERIFF"S DEPARTMENT MONTHLY AREA REPORT CITY OF CHANHASSEN _ IIMONTH OF December , 19 87 1 Analysis of Police Enforcement This Year Last Year This To This To IMonth Date Month Date 1. Traffic Violations 3(P 1/47' 33 S0,3 II2. Parking Violations /7) /.3 /3. Animal Violations 1 CRIMINAL OFFENSES 1. Robbery / II 2. Burglary y 32 , ,51 3. Burglar Alarm 4. Theft-Misc. , Felony /$ '21'1 /1 .2/8 5. Auto Theft la _L / 1 6. Narcotic Drug Law I 1 o 4,2-7. Disorderly Conduct/ Disc. Peace l/ /i /)- /4c/ 8. Assault (X ‘.2/ .3 .33 I 9. Sex Crimes _ 10. Vandalism y /3) /2- L IPROBLEMS 1. Prowlers v2,4 / ' / 1 2. Animals oz� ,Z/5 y /�z 3. Family Quarrel �- ,y/ . ' 4. Accident's P.D. 3.2._ '',1Y /6y c)23 Y. 5. Accident's P.I . ,.5"o ' 1/i II6. Accident's Other y 7. Medical Emergencies /z/ 7$ � Z_-_42 8. Open Door -7--- / _2(.,, II 9. 7 False Alarms /04. I /1 '7 / " "L 10. Fire & Arson b ss g/ 11. Motorist Assistance ? /O 6 2 12. Miscellaneous, Nuisance Calls 83 1/7/ 97 icy/ 13. Misc. Traffic qQ4-. 76/. ) 956 14. Other Information IVacation Checks /) $ 3 Missing Person . a i/6 , Abuse /1 II Forgery-- -- -- ----Trespassing ---- o - I .,- _L -- Alcohol_ - _ --- _-_- -- __ _ __y _______ _____I1legalc tijm g 61-11-1____-- - y _- ----- ------ iamori r-e attempt_ - --�- --- __________ Threats 3 y II ---Fraud - __ _____________________3____________ __ ----- - Exposing 111 azza:GEAT 5 T44-4.--:__ i / , , Chanhassen MONTH December , 19 87 I TIME CHART I TIME NUMBER OF CALLS 12:00 to 1:00 A.M. 1111F -1111-- /M / i 1:00 to 2:00 A.M. _ I 7q f 1/ l� 2:00 to 3:00 A.M. -41-/f /i 7 I 3:00 to 4:00 A.M. s 1 4:00 to 5:00 A.M. / / 5:00 to 6:00 A.M. /1/ -3 I 6:00 to 7:00 A.M. 4H. / 6 7:00 to 8:00 A.M. / /c) 1 8:00 to 9:00 A.M. - 'I/! 2.3 9:00 to 10:00 A.M. //// /F 10:00 to 11:00 A.M. / / " / i6 I 11:00 to 12:00 •�7'1Jm' /I/ (g 12:00 to 1:00 P.M. -71.71:/i4.-71-tit-h1)---/// /f I 1:00 to 2:00 P.M. -'/!i /// 13 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. 1 /// 13 1 3:00 to 4:00 P.M. '1H�l /(l ig 4:00 to 5:O0 P.M. J / ,'; ; f-- / / 5:00 to 6:00 P.M. 0744 f/// / 4 I 6:00 to 7:00 P.M. 1-17!- 11 l 7 7:00 to 8:00 P.M. }ill {+' / /6 8:00 to 9:00 P.M. M// /// lb ���, . II 9:00 to 10:00 P.M. ----/# , -`11/ oZQ 10:00 to 1t :00 P.M. /l / 7 I 11:00 to 12:00 -(1/// /1// Iii] 01 Motorist Assist -i/H iil/ `T'(9TAL 312- 1 Traffic 1 777 ,TT x/77'7 /77-- A. Park in, ,m-#7'/// I Chanhassen 12-1-87 12-3-87 12-10-87 12-15-87 I 1213 1842 1752 0800 W. 62nd Cty. 18 Hazeltine Hwy. 212 (Seminary) Alarm-false Theft of wood Car-Deer acc. Acc. P.D. 1 12-1-87 12-4-87 12-10-87 12-15-87 1330 1139 1620 1010 Hwy. 169 Cty. 17 W. 78th Great Plains Blvd, IIP.D. Acc. P.D. Acc. P.D. Acc. Theft (12-3) 12-3-87 12-4-87 12-10-87 12-15-87 II 2304 1809 2057 1233 W. 78th St. Flying Cloud Drive W. 73th Hwy. 5 & 17 Assault Two Runaways Theft Acc. P.D./P.I. I 12-2-87 12-4-87 12-11-87 12-15-87 1855 1645 1000 1504 Galpin Blvd. Dogwood Ave. W. 78th Sandy Hook Rd. IICar/deer P.D. Theft Theft Alarm-false 12-2-87 12-4-87 12-11-87 12-15-87 2034 2220 1719 II H . 41 Chan Utica Circle 1526 78th Car/deer P.D. No p a Y-g as Burglary P.D. Acc. II 12-2-87 12-6-87 12-12-87 12-16-87 2219 1349 0828 1617 Hwy. 41 W. 78th St. Melody Hill Rd. Galpin Blvd. Car/deer P.D. Alarm-false Vandalism Alarm-false II12-3-87 12-6-8 7 12-12-87 12-16-87 0733 1442 1631 II W. 78th 1757 Sandy Hook Rd. Galpin Blvd. Lakota Lane P.D. Acc. Alarm-false Vandalism Alarm-false I 12-3-87 12-7-87 12-12-87 12-17-87 0719 1009 1518 1558 Powers Blvd. Powers Blvd. W. 78th Hwy. 5 f Dakota Break-in to vehicle Theft Vandalism Acc. P.D. ' 12-3-87 12-8-87 12-13-87 12-18-87 0815 0708 0136 0934 Hwy. 7 F, Greenbriar Yosemite Hwy. 5 101/5 P.D. Acc. Vandalism Burglary P.D. Acc, 12-3-87 12-9-87 12-14-87 12-18-87 I0904 0743 1717 1105 Pleasantview Rd. Great Plains Blvd. Murray Hill Saddlebrook Ct./Kerber P.D. Accident Theft Domestic Assault P.D. Acc. II12-3-87 12-9-87 12-15-87 12-18-87 1423 0813 0151 1248 I Hwy. 7 t Arbor Lakota Lane 169/212 My. 212 Accident P.D. Alarm-false P.D. Acc. Theft 12-3-87 12-10-87 12-15-87 12-18-87 II II 1442 0249 0702 1416 101 & 5 W. 78th Flying Cloud Dr. Great Plains Acc. p. 1. Theft H F, R Domestic Theft r Chanhassen 12-18-87 12-21-87 12-24-87 12-30-87 I 1505 1819 0827 0633 Piper Ridge Lane Cty. 14 Shadaumere W. 78th Vandalism Acc. P.D. Deer Theft Alarm-false i 12-18-87 12-23-87 12-23-87 12-30-87 1705 0328 1240 1027 Hwy. 7 & Oriole Galpin Blvd. Great Plains Blvd. '* 5 I P.D. Acc. Fire Alarm-false Acc. P.D. Acc. P.D. Deer 12-19-87 12-23-87 12-24-87 12-30-87 12 0026 1322 W II . 78th W. 78th Kerber Blvd. Hwy. 41 Theft Open door P.D. Acc. P.D. Acc, 12-19-87 12-22-87 12-24-87 12-30-87 II 0055 0002 1826 1530 Cty. 17 Lower Y 169/212 Hwy. 5/Minnewashta I DWI Alarm-false P.I. Acc, Acc. P.D. 12-19-87 12-22-87 12-24,87 12-31-87 1241 0907 2203 0953 I Lake Riley Blvd. W. 78th 41 Linden Circle Vandalism Theft P.D. Acc.Deer Runaway 12-20-87 12-22-87 12-25-87 12-31-87 I 0914 0910 0100 2137 18 FT Audubon W. 78th Galpin Rd. W. 78th P.D. Acc. Theft Fire alarm-false P.I. Accident/DWI II 12-20-87 12-22-87 12-26-87 12-31-87 0930 1429 1058 2330 I W. 78th St. Piper Ridge Ln. Great Plains Blvd. W. 78th Vandalism P.D. Acc. Theft Theft 12-20-87 12-22-87 12-27-87 12-31-87 I 1146 2006 0120 2206 Cty. 14/101 101 S. of 5 Hwy. 5/Fuller Rd. W. 78th Burglary Acc. P.I. DWI DWI I 12-20-87 12-23-87 12-28-87 1601 0806 1325 1 Audubon Rd. Hwy. 5 Shadowmerd St. P.D. Acc. Acc. P.D. Theft 12-21-87 12-23-87 12-29-87 I 0827 0956 0819 Frontier Trail Chan cemetery W. 78th Alarm-false Vandalism Vandalism I 12-21-87 12-23-87 12-30-87 1543 1752 0527 I 212 W. 78th 101 F, Pleasantview Acc. P.D. P.D. Acc. Acc. Deer P.D. 1 r I IDISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC , CRIMINAL AND PARKING FINES , FOR T1IE MONTH OF 77.,�-v 198 7 IMunicipalities Vendor # ' Amount Included $ for Parking ' I•II Carver City 156 ,;2_v - Chanh.ssen City 151 /6 3 ''-7. 98 '/ IChaska. City 170 a7 30 . $ � o . ICologne City 171 , 9U, 6 6 $ Hamburg City 407 /3 3_3 $ INorwood City 745 47 'I- y9 Victoria City 990 ,.S`3. . $ IIWaconia City 958 • . /. $. 3 ! . $ .-?Cl 00 II Watertown City 9Q1 /0 3. � $ /0. 0o Young America City 992 3 a d', 3 $ IINew Germany City 743 / J. 99 $ Mayer City 665 6. 66 I $ rHollywood Twp. 404 $ Laketown Twp. 560 3s7, y:L I Q Y San Francisco Two. 986 1 $ IIWatertown Twp. 988 $ Benton. Twp. 56 $ ' Dah1gren Twp. 238 $ IICamden Twp. 150 $ Hancock Twp. 392 $ IF—Lska- Twp. 154 $ Waconia Twp. . 987 $ Young America Twp. 989 $ ITotals 51S//, 42 a . e-ze.:Jo ce A, Vanl yll; II - . _ • Court Administrator DISTRIBUTION OF TRAFFIC , CRIMINAL AND PARKING FINES I' . FOR THE MONTH OF ,6LZwzc47)_t.4.—' 198 7 M.anicipalities Vendor # Amount Included $ for Parking r Carver City 156 f j,�Q , �c7 $ II Chanh:ssen City 151 /5 c7 ,-5-- $ /,7o.00 • Chaska. City 170 �`l� ,pO 1 , a QD $ X1{0 Cologne City 171 . (• 7 $ °, I,. 'c I Hamburg City 407 • /7/‘,44, $ /a.oe Norwood City 745 -7? / , $ /e,c 0 _ I Victoria City 990 $4// $ Waconia City 958 II$ Watertown City 991 • , SW, 7,/ ` $ 77 /76 ' 66r I Young America City 992 le"--c , G/ I New Germany City 743 73. 33 I $ I_ Mayer City 665 `—�C7 . O p ` $ - Hollywood Twp. 404 1 II $ Laketown Twp. 560 ( .2 9 , 99 ! $ to-G'O I San Francisco Twp. 986 ' $ Watertown Twp. 988 II c Benton. Twp. 56 $ II Dahlgren Twp. 238 $ Eamden Twp. 150 1 $ Hancock Twp. 392 $ Chaska- Twp. 154 II Waconia Twp. . 987 $ IIYoung America Twp. 989 $ Totals ,6 157. (-)3 96`°. ° ° 1 Al. . . , 6, . [2:,;A .____,. ourt Administrator 1 ` E,. I' . 9 QQ3122 ?fxDM9 NO. 060E-pD94r APPROVAL EXPIRES�6/89 FORM C-404 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 18.15-881 BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Period In which permits Issued I -. 1 NOVEMBER 1987 ` (Please correct any errors in name and address including IP Code) g "art I REPORT OF BUILDING OR • ZONING PERMITS ISSUED AND LOCAL PUBLIC .y ,:,4;,< CONSTRUCTION D40800 2T S 5120 D14 I 0'`" I .If your building permit system has changed, _ .. 26 9L D6 OFFICIAL 99 9 9 •-ia '3% :.' _"'P''sF Q R CITY OF..C N A N N A S S E N �• +.. ,': , r ,�smark(X)appropriate box below and explain 'In comments. •640 COULTER DR ek.il,. ..ti . R'r -"is;..r..•„iA;,1;•r`s . I . CHANHASSEN IAN .- -.. 5 , ❑Discontinued issuing permits ❑Merged with another system t.. ❑Split Into two or more systems ❑Annexed land areas I ❑ PLEASE COMPLETE AND MAIL 1 Had-other chartges-.-4--='-;. THIS FORM ON OR BEFORE'_ .. - ii- •' ''''''' ''4'''-1-. . I_ DECE�9ER i ""t96f If no permits were issued during Instructions are included.For this period,mark(X)in the box--1.11 THIS IS YOUR FILE COPY further assistance,call collect and return this form (301)763-7244. I 1. Sectionl'Y- NEW RESIDENTIAL PRIVATELY OWNED HOUSEKEEPING PUBLICLY OWNED'- Number of Item Number of Valuation of BUILDINGS No. Valuation of Buildings Housing construction Buildings Housing construction units Omit cents units Omit cents I led (bl Ic) Id) (e) If) ""(g) Single-family houses,detached _ Exclude mobile homes. 101 I 15c�QQ0 ''`" ^' Single-family houses,attached • -Separated by ground to roof wall, -No units above or below,and "- r . -Separate heating systems and utility meters. -» (Count each unit as a separate building) 102 Two-family buildings 103 I ` Three-and four-family buildings 104 Five-or-more family buildings 105 TOTAL-Sum of 101-105----e- 109 -te a I °Sectiot6111 NEW RESIDENTIAL PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED NONHOUSEKEEPING Item Number of Number of BUILDINGS No. Valuation of Valuation of Buildings Rooms construction Buildings coto Omit cents gs Rooms Omit t ructi cents le) 031 lc) id) lel If) Ig) Hotels,motels,and tourist cabins (transient accommodations only) 213 Other nonhousekeeoing shelter 214 , . I 'Section•IIP NEW PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED NONRESIDENTIAL Item BUILDINGS Number Valuation of Number Valuation of No. o f construction of construction buildings Omit cents buildings Omit cents ' lal (b) Icl (d) le) Amusement,social,and recreational Sal • Churches and other religious 319 , Industrial 320 i Parking garages(buildings and open decked) 321 I . Service stations and repair garages 322 _ "•-'Hospitals and institutional 323 Offices,banks,and professional 324 - Public works and utilities 325 I Schools and other educational 3Y6 Stores and customer services 327 Other nonresidential buildings 328 3 /4'Structures other than buildings 329 . Section IV' ADDITIONS, PRIVATELY OWNED r PUBLICLY OWNED i ALTERATIONS,AND Item Ite CONVERSIONS to Number Valuation of Number • Valuation of No. of .,.construction ,,‘' nmct . buildings of -"1- 9 _;Omit cents • buildings • ' sift e•I ,�• t, .. (s1 lb) _ _4-(c) -...,;'.. ` . , Residential-Classify dditions of r+ai+i _ . v t garages and carports ins item 438. 434 I : 4I /, 5� "' t'1: Nonresidential and nonhousekeeping 437 ( , 500 "t'�'. •- c%;i�rF! 4. Additions of residential garages and carports I (attached and detached) 438 I, OQO ,y• .. PLEASE CONTINUE ON REVERSE SIDE - • et _____. , .... ..___ ___________ - A _ . nn3172 Wilms NO. 0607-0094_ APPROVAL EXPIRES 6/I:.,,_ FORM C-404 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE I S la•6-Bal BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Period In which permits Issued i I I DECEMBER 1987 (Please correct any errors in name and address including ZIP Code) REPORT OF BUILDING OR - _ ZONING PERMITS ISSUED AND LOCAL PUBLIC , - ' CONSTRUCTION 040800 27 8 512C 019 1 0 26 - _ 9999 " - `BLDG OFFICIAL RON JULKOYSKI 1248 If your building permit s stem has chan ed, wA ;' mark(X)a y g 690 CIUY ER DHANHASSEN „x, { :r! ..;■ ppropriateboxbelowandexpleln 690 COULTER DR '"' `"�`In comments. �CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ❑Discontinued issuing permits ❑Merged with another system _ ❑Split into two or more systems❑Annexed land areas "' "�Had other chan es <.-- PLEASE COMPLETE AND MAIL �• •9 THIS FORM ON OR BEFORE ,U•p y-'4. 198 8 "-T"If no permits were issued during Instructions are included.F, this period,mark(X)in the box--∎0 THIS IS YOUR FILE COPY further assistance,call colland return this form 13011 763-7244, Sectionl� NEW RESIDENTIAL PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED . HOUSEKEEPING Item Number of BUILDINGS Valuation of Number of i No. Buildings Housing construction guildin s Housing coanstrucunits Omit cents g units Omit ce(a) (b) (c) Id) (a) If) '.(g), Exclude-family houses,detached 1 1^ /0 /-' 662 I 00 _ Tip Exclude mobile homes. 101 r l(J ( (!O WV • Single-family houses,attached -Separated by ground to roof wall, -No units above or below,and ^'!! -Separate heating systems and utility meters. (Count each unit as a separate building) 102 .--- • Two-family buildings 103 ` Three-and four-family buildings 104 , Five-or-more family buildings 105 ' TOTAL-Sum of 101-105-->. 109 '4 Sectiorr(IP• NEW RESIDENTIAL PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED NONHOUSEKEEPING Item Number of - -- Number of BUILDINGS No. Valuation of -r Valuation4 Buildings Rooms construction Buildings construction Omit cents gs Rooms Omit cents (a) (b) (c) (d) lel (f) (g) Hotels,motels,and tourist cabins (transient accommodations only) 213 Other nonhousekeepinq shelter 214 - NEW I PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED NONRESIDENTIAL Item Number BUILDINGS No. of Valuation of Number Valuation of construction of construction. buildings Omit cents buildings Omit cents la) (b) )c) (dl (el Amusement,social,and recreational 318 'Churches and other religious 319 Industrial 320 4i r • Parking garages(buildings and open decked) 321 Service stations and repair garages 322 Hospitals and institutional -- 323 Offices,banks,and professional 324 - Public works and utilities 325 Schools and other educational 326 Stores and customer services 827 Other nonresidential buildings 328 Structures other than buildings 329 1 Section IV= ADDITIONS, PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY OWNED ALTERATIONS,AND Item Number CONVERSIONS Valuation of Number -•Valuation of . No. of construction ti .. .construction iz^ buildings Omit cents --' buildings _ Omit cants -- - , .5i•(a) Ibl (0' -- - • tdl- k�� -•Residential-Classify additions of _ ply_ , $ t ;� y�nQ J"Fr. garages and carports in item 438. 134 17'� ' Nonresidential and nonhousekeeping 437 t '360 ObO •±. '"'; t a. -. •:•..,,*' Additions of residential garages and carports u (attached and detached) 438 `T1000 •4-_•.4 ays,,�4! I e I PLEASE CONTINUE ON REVERSE SIDE! - . . ICHANHASSEN FtJ?d,l-(' ) -•:= :'1': 't' ' , ' , ' ' , ..30 ACTIVITY ICHANHASSEN NOVEMBER, 1987 INumber of -44- Radio Calls IOfficer Patrol Self-Initiated -6- I Calls $ Taken In 55 . 40 $ Paid-to Chan Vet --- 1500- -- ------ Impounds Dog -2- Cat -0- I .- Warning Tags Dog -0- Cat -0- Other -4- Warning Letters Mailed Dog -0- Cat -0- Citations Dog -0- Cat -0- Other -18- ' Animal - - - ----- al Bites Dog 1 Cat -0- Other -0- DOA' s Dog -0- Cat -0- Other -0- IAnimals Disposed or Adopted Dog -0- Cat -0- Other -0- II Call Out Dog -0- Cat -0- - g Hours 0- Total Miles For The Month, Chan/Chaska . 1609 I I . . 1 . CHANHASSEN PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT II MONTHLY REPORT OF CSO ACTIVITY CHANHASSEN DECEMBER, 1987 II Number of -22- I Radio Calls Officer Patrol I Self-Initiated -3- Calls II $ Taken In 165. 00 $ Paid to Chan Vet 187 . 50 II Impounds Dog -6- Cat -0- Warning Tags Dog -0- Cat -0- Other -4- II Warning Letters ----- ----- --- --- --- - II Mailed Dog -0- Cat -0- I Citations Dog -2- Cat -0- Other -4- Animal Bites Dog -0- Cat -0- Other -0- II DOA' s Dog -0- Cat -0- Other -0- I Animals Disposed I or Adopted Dog -2- Cat -0- Other -0- Call Out Dog -0- Cat -0- Hours -0- Total Miles For The Month, Chan/Chaska 1545 I II II II CHA SKA POLICE DEPARTMENT IL ' 205 East Fourth Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 February 1988 Hello! Attached is the monthly report for the Chaska Police/School Liaison Officer Program for the month of November. Included you will find: *Narrative report of monthly activity *Listing of presentations given ' The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the program. If you have additional questions, or if you wish to observe the program, please contact me. Sincerely, %�f"-•-sue_ Officer Norman Prusinski Chaska Police/School Liaison Officer Chaska School Office: 448-2854, ext. 634 Chaska Police Department : 448-4200 NP/be Cc 1-0 - .- V ' FEB 81988 CITY OF CHANkgaytN CHASKA POLICE/SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICER PROGRAM NARRATIVE ' NOVEMBER, 1987 ' -ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS: I presented child abuse prevention and personal safety programs ' to the third and fifth grade students . Films were shown, and I also gave a personal safety talk. I gave a program on stealing to Mrs . Stein' s Chanhassen second grade class . A video called, That' s Stealing, was shown to the students. Mrs. Stein and I also gave a talk about stealing, what happens to you when you get caught, how the victim feels - about having something stolen, and the loss of trust. Mrs . Stein requested I give this program after she had numerous items stolen in her classroom by some of her students. Judy Schaaf, school social worker, and I gave a program on "Bul- lying and Bullies" to the Chanhassen fourth grade students. The Chanhassen fourth grade teachers requested this program because there had been numerous "bullying" and intimidation incidents involving some fourth grade students . I also assisted. Mr. McMillen, school principal, in setting up a discipline policy for students who bully or intimidate other students. I hosted another Dad and Me program for the Early Childhood ' Education Program. 911 and I made a presentation on the School Liaison Program to the Chanhassen Rotary Club, and the Carver County Multidiscipli- nary Child Protection Team. In November, Chaska Cable T.V. and I wrote and produced our own personal safety video entitled, "McGruff and 911 ' s Self Defense . Program" . This video will be used in the kindergarten classes . If you would be interested in viewing this video, please call me . CHASKA MIDDLE SCHOOL: I presented three segments of my Criminal Justice Study Program to the CAPS class . The segments included: The Police K-9 Unit, The Crime Scene, and The Prosecutor. The students were given talks by Detective Sergeant Warren Breezee of the Chaska Police Department; Carver County Judge, Phillip Kanning; Assistant Carver County Attorney, Virginia Palmer; and Chaska Police K-9 handler, William Noll and K-9 Rudy. The students also saw a video called, The Science of Murder. ' I helped chaperone the Middle School party in November. I investigated a child abuse involving a Chaska Middle School ' student. This case was turned over to Social Services for follow-up. ' Two students were referred to court for criminal damage to property, and three students for theft. Two students were issued juvenile warning notices for theft. ' CHASKA HIGH SCHOOL: Two students were referred to court in separate incidents for gross misdemeanor theft and criminal damage to property. ' I referred a student to court for possession of drug parapherna- lia. I also referred this student to the Chaska High School chemical abuse counselor, Claudia Finzen. A student was issued a juvenile warning notice for theft. 1 1 1 PRESENTATIONS NOVEMBER, 1987 I CHASKA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: I GRADE 3 : WHO DO YOU TELL - 3 CLASSES/ 138 STUDENTS GRADE 5 : PERSONAL SAFETY - 2 CLASSES/ 107 STUDENTS I CHANHASSEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: I GRADE 2 : STEALING - 1 CLASS/ 25 STUDENTS GRADE 3 : WHO DO YOUT TELL - 2 CLASSES/ 90 STUDENTS I GRADE 4: BULLYING AND BULLIES - 1 CLASS/ 113 STUDENTS GRADE 5 : PERSONAL SAFETY - 2 CLASSES/ 93 STUDENTS EAST UNION ELEMENTARY : I GRADE 3 : WHO DO YOU TELL - 1 CLASS/ 32 STUDENTS I CHASKA MIDDLE SCHOOL: I CAPS : THE POLICE K-9 - 1 CLASS/ 21 STUDENTS THE CRIME SCENE - 2 CLASSES/ 42 STUDENTS THE COURT - 1 CLASS/ 21 STUDENTS II EARLY CHILDHOOD FAMILY EDUCATION : I DAD AND ME - 13 FATHER ' S AND 26 CHILDREN MISCELLANEOUS CONTACTS (TALKING WITH STUDENTS ABOUT CRIMINAL CAS- I ES , FAMILY/HOME PROBLEMS, INTERVENTION WITH SCHOOL PROBLEMS) - 33 STUDENTS II TOTAL CLASS CONTACTS - 17 CLASSES II TOTAL STUDENT CONTACTS - 754 STUDENTS II I II 1 II f„4-. 1 Cc irk I B. C. (JIM] BURDICK 426 LAKE STREET • EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 February 11, 1988 PHONE [612] 474-5243 1 Ms. Barbara Dacy City Planner City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN. 55317 Dear Barbara, Thank you for your letter of February 10th. I particularly thank you for ' your clarification as to the fact that my 17 acres is in the tax increment district. ' We are waiting the arrival of the development contract so that we might grade this 17 acres. As things now stand we have received a lot of very positive interest and at least three business firms are ready to go ahead on part of the 17 acres. But we do not feel that we can enter into firm contracts as long as the grading of this property remains in limbo. I did speak to Mr. Jerry Schlenk about the snow. As always he and I got ' along very well. However, having a nice conversation with Jerry Schlenk does not reduce the damages that we are suffering from this snow as set out in my previous letter. In addition, our tenent on the adjacent lot, ' Mr. Steve Willette, has complained to us about the snow. He has been most concerned both about the distraction from his location and worriedn that when the huge pile of snow slowly melts in the spring it will harm ' his business. I have again examined the snow and the surrounding area and I must agree with Mr. Willette. Cordially yours, 1 B.C. "JIM" BURDICK ' BCB/clm cc: Roger Knutson ' Don Ashworth Gary Warren Brian H. Burdick FEB 16 1988 ' CITY OF CHANHASSEN I ITHOMSEN LAW OFFICES NYBECK SUITE 600, EDINBOROUGH CORPORATE CENTER EAST JOHNSON 3300 EDINBOROUGH WAY, MINNEAPOLIS(EDINA), MINNESOTA 55435 IBOUQUET 1����KT■T�7K�■ry_ C612)835 7000 •+�7��TCVA TKE`]URA+ GLENN G.NYBECK DONALD D.SMITH OF COUNSEL: OHNSTAD & GORDON V.JOHNSON MARSH J.HALBERG JACK W.CARLSON SMITH, P.A. JOHN K.BOUQUET DENNIS M.PATRICK RICHARD D.WILSON,P.A. JAMES VAN VALKENBURG PHILIP SIEFF STEVEN J.QUAM MARK G.OHNSTAD HELGE THOMSEN,RETIRED JOHN R.PRAETORIUS,RETIRED IFebruary 3, 1988 1 ...NA 1' .c 1- IIC .0 K N I Mr. Don Ashworth �' _ ( e�, I " City Manager City of Chanhassen II 690 Colter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 / //k Dear Mr. Ashworth: 1 As chairman of the adult forum committee for the Living Hope Lutheran Church in Chaska, my responsibilities include assisting in the selection of speakers for I our church adult forum. Our adult forum meets weekly for one hour before each Sunday church service. I Our congregation asked Scott Harr to speak to us concerning drug awareness with our youth. Scott was happy to volunteer and spoke to our congregation on January 3. I Scott's presentation was enthusiastically received by the congregation who found it most interesting. In fact, after Scott had finished his presentation, it was difficult to pry him away from questioning congregation members so the regular 1 church service could start on time. I anticipate that we will be asking Scott to volunteer again as we were so pleased with his presentation. I understand that Scott is the Assistant Public Safety Director for Chan- ' hassen. As a resident of Carver County, I am very pleased with the public service commitment that people such as Scott Harr have to our area. IIVery truly yours, 1 Marsh J. Halberg ' Attorney at Law IMJH:tjh cc Pastor David Beety FEB 5 1988 ICITY OF CHANHASSEN I r' C . i°t ` ,4 I LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL& KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: I DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR.- 1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH MICHAEL J.MAYER ; ' PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST PAUL,MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J BERG DAVm L. GRANNIS,III ROGER N KNUTSON TELEPHONE:(612)455-1661 • ` ' February 3, 1988 1 Mr. William F. Kelly Mr. Mark W. Kelly ; ' Attorneys at Law 351 Second Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 : 1 RE: B. C. Burdick vs . City of Chanhassen Gentlemen: . 1 Enclosed herewith and served upon you by U. S. Mail please find copy of respondent ' s Answer in the above-entitled matter. ' Very truly ours, G'_ ,,k RANNIS, FAR'EL IK' TSON, P.A. B .NI'on RNK: srn Enclosure - , cc: on Ashworth 1 I 1 iii.=i..�..w I FEB 51988 CITY OF CHANHASSEN I STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT 11 COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT B.C. Burcick, Petitioner, ANSWER vs. ANS WE R City of Chanhassen, Respondent. The City of Chanhassen for its Answer in the above entitled ' matter states and alleges: 1. Denies each and every allegation in the Complaint and Petition except as specifically admitted in the succeeding paragraphs of this Answer. 2 . Admits the allegations of paragraphs 2 , 3 , 4 , 6, 8, 9, 10, ' 11, and 36. ' 3 . That it has insufficient knowledge to form an opinion as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 1 and therefore denies the same and puts petitioner to his proof. 4 . Admits the allegations of paragraph 29, but states that the City has also refused to sign the plat for other reasons including ' execution of a Development Contract and furnishing the security required by it. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 5. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can ' be granted. � Y 6. The Complaint fails to state a federal taking claim Ibecause petitioner has not been denied just compensation through procedures afforded it under state law. WHEREFORE, respondent prays for the judgment of the Court: 1. Dismissing the Complaint and Petition with prejudice and 11 on its merits. 2 . Awarding it costs, disbursements, and attorney's fees incurred in defense of this action. 11 Dated: February 3 , 1988 . GRA NIS, G:.-NNIS, FA'R L TSON, P.A BY: /Mr ■ ' ROGE: N. ON orneys for Respondent 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 • Attorney Reg. No. 57186 1 '‘1s .1 -2- 464440:u.s„ 9414. . ,,.._ . 1 = z JAMES P.LARKIN DAVID J.PEAT 1 ROBERT L HOFFMAN DALY JACK LARKIN HOFFMAN, Q� I3 FRANCIS E.OISERSON F. , HOFFMAN DALY CY LINDGREN, LTD. MICHAEL T.McKIM D.KENNETH LINDGREN CHARLES R.WEAVER ANDREW W.DANIELSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW HERMAN L.TALLE W END ELL R.ANDERSON WILLIAM S.BRANDT GERALD H.FRIEDELL VINCENT G.ELLA ROBERT B.WHITLOCK TRACY R.EICHHORN-HICKS ALLAN E.MULLIGAN ANDREW J MITCHELL 1 ROBERT J.HENNESSEY 1500 NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER 2000 PIPER JAFFRAY TOWER JOHN A.COTTER » JAMES C.ERICKSON BEATRICE A.ROTHWEILER EDWARD J.DRISCOLL 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH 222 SOUTH NINTH STREET PAUL B.PLUNKETT JAMES P.MILKY AMY OARR GRADY GENE N.FULLER BLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTA 55431 MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 ALAN L.KILDOW DAVID C.SELLE RG REN KATHLEEN M.PICOTTE NEWMAN RICHARD J. KEENAN TELEPHONE 1612)835-3800 TELEPHONE 16121 338-6610 CATHERINE BARNETT WILSON. JOHN D.FULLMER JEFFREY C.ANDERSON 1 ROBERT E.BOYLE FRANK I.HARVEY RICHARD A.FORSCHLER TELECOPIER 16121 835-5102 TELECOPIER 1612)338-1002 DANIEL L. TODD M. BOWL ES TIMOTHY J.MC MAN US CHARLES S.MODELL .SOWL JILL I.FRIEDERS CHRISTOPHER J.DIETZEN GREGORY E.KORSTAD JOHN R.BEATTIE CRAIG A.PETERSON LINDA H.FISHER LISA A.GRAY THOMAS P.STOLTMAN Reply to Minneapolis GARY A,RENNEKE STEVEN G. 1 THOMAS H.WEAVER FORREST O..NOWLIN LIN SHANNON K.McCAMBRIDGE MICHAEL C.JACKMAN MICHAEL S.COHEN JOHN E.DIEHL DENISE M.NORTON JON S.SWIERZEWSKI GARY A.VAN CLEVE THOMAS J.FLYNN MICHAEL B.BRAMAN JAMES P QUINN JOSEPH W.DICKER TODD I.FREEMAN JACQUELINE F DIETZ STEPHEN B.SOLOMON 1 GAYLEN L.KNACK PETER K.BECK ROONEY D.IVES JEROME H.KAHNKE JULIE A.WRASE SHERRILL OMAN KURETICH CHRISTOPHER J.HARRISTHAL GERALD L.SECK RONALD M.STARK,JR. JOHN B.LU NOOUIST SHARON I..BRENNA DAYLE NOLAN THOMAS S.HUMPHREY,JR. 1 February 4, 1988 OF COUNSEL JOSEPH GITIS JOHN A.MCHUGH RICHARD A.NORDBYE WLSO ADMITTED IN I WISCONSIN Mr. Richard M. Feerick R. M. Feerick Associates 1 7103 Interlachen Court Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Dick: 1 I recieved notice from Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe' s office that he would be pleased and honored to address the Southwest Corridor 1 Transportation Coalition regarding highway funding as well as other significant issues before the 1988 Legislature. As you are aware, the date for this meeting is Tuesday, February 23 , 1988, at 7: 30 a.m. at the IChanhassen Dinner Theatre. I believe this will allow sufficient time for the Coalition to organize and coodinate this event . I look forward to further discussing this 1 event with you and the Coalition. Si c rely, 1 l� Todd M. Vlatkovich, for 1 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Senator Roger Moe 1 Southwest Corridor Members I scam:.:=.m::_L 1 FEB 81988 TMV:BG8:ges CITY OF CHANHASSEN I cQ,r, CITY OF c, ,‘,, \ I CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 r, (612) 937-1900 January 27, 1988 Soo Line Railroad Company P Y Attn: Mr. Michael M. Mullins 1 General Attorney Soo Line Building Box 530 1 Minneapolis , MN- 55440 Re: Crossing Agreements-North/South Connector and 1 Great Plains Boulevard Pipeline Crossing Permit No. 26455 File No. 86-11C-Railroad 1 Dear Mr. Mullins: It has taken some time but I believe we finally have the executed 1 documents necessary for the railroad to proceed with authoriza- tion for expenditure for the Great Plains Boulevard and North/South Connector (Market Boulevard) grade crossings. Enclosed you will find two executed copies for each of the 1 following documents : 1 . North/South Connector (Market Blvd. ) Crossing Agreement. 2 . Pipeline Crossing Permit No. 26455 ( 72-inch diameter storm sewer) . 1 3 . Great Plains Boulevard (Highway 101) Crossing Agreement. 1 Please find enclosed check number 031180 in the amount of $1, 350. 00 to cover the pipeline crossing permit fee as stated in Article 2 of that permit. I have also included a copy of the 1 MnDOT letter dated December 29, 1987 , which addresses Item 5 of the North/South Connector Agreement in which it has been deter- mined that automatic flashing light signals with gates will pro- vide appropriate warning for the proposed crossing and that 1 cantilever flashing light signals will not be required. 1 11 Mr. Michael M. Mullin January 27, 1988 Page 2 With these executed documents I trust that Soo Line Railroad will move forward with issuance of an authorization for expenditure and design of the signal plans. I would appreciate being kept informed of the progress on this matter. As you are aware, it is crucial that the City of Chanhassen have both crossings constructed in 1988 . Mr. Elliott Knetsch of the City Attorney' s office will be in con- tact with you in the near future to check on the progress of these agreements and to see that the submittal has been followed through to the State Department of Transportation. ' Thank you for your assistance in this matter and if there are any questions, please call. , Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN , v■ Gar 4401Warren, P.E. ' City - _ ineer GGW:ktm ' Enclosures : as noted cc: Elliott Knetsch, Grannis, Grannis , Farrell & Knutson Gary Ehret, BRW Don Ashworth, City Manager' Loren Sultze, Soo Line Railroad Ronald F. Mattson, MnDOT-St. Paul 1 I Ic c ( N•ye/e' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 _W. �.4 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director ••ll���� FROM: Frank Ellering 111 SUBJ: Resignation DATE: January 25, 1988 I wish to inform you that my last day as an employee of the Chanhassen Public Safety Department will be February 2 , 1988 . I appreciate the opportunity to work as a police officer for the city during this past year and although my ' position was cut from the 1988 budget, I will always look fondly on the experiences that I gained. 1 I am turning in my time sheet for the period January 14 through January 28 , for 12 hours. Please check to see if any severance pay is due me. Again, thank-you for the opportunity to serve the city of Chanhassen as a police officer. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Gr c J n I IIChanhassen, MN ("Le, . , ‘j IFebruary 2, 1988 I Mayor Thomas Hamilton 'Chanhassen City Hall Chanhassen, MN 55317 IRE: Access to Minnetonka Intermediate School for Area Residents IDear Mayor Hamilton: In a conversation with a neighbor on West 65th Street, I ' was advised there was a planned trail system which would provide access for the residents of West 65th Street, that would be constructed by the city at the city ' s expense, I across the back of three lots in the Murray Hill Court area. This sounded well and good for the residents of West 65th Street ; however , provided no access for the I .neighboring homes on Hummingbird, Melody Hill and Murray Hill Road. I called the city to inquire on this trail system and was I advised the issue is under debate and there are discussions of rerouting this trail behind and along side of a new home being constructed on Murray Hill Court on the northeast, I and tying in with city owned property that fronts on Murray Hill Road and includes the city water tower. I would personally like to offer my support for the second I alternative, for it not only accomplishes an access for West 65th Street, but also provides access for the children on Murray Hill Court, Murray Hill Road, Melody Hill , and IHummingbird to the school. I found it interesting, by explanation, that the original I proposed trail would provide access for the residents of West 65th Street, of which only one family has children attending public schools. The remaining children attend parochial schools and do not require such access. Further I based on the explanation I received and my understanding, the originally proposed access would not provide access to the school for the Murray Hill Court residents (whose land I this trail would be constructed on) without trespassing on their neighbor' s property, and should this trail be fenced, the Murray Hill Court residents would have no access at all. IIt seems to make more sense to me that by routing the trail system, as the new proposal outlines, across the back Rnd„_i v,..,_ Ialong the side the new home on Murray Hill Court and tying FEB 5 1988 I - CITY OF CHANHASSEN To: Mayor Hamilton February 2, 1988 I II into city property, more residents will benefit from this access and more than likely , the city ' s expense in constructing this trail and maintaining it year to year I very well might be less , for it appears that the trail system would be shorter in length and require less tree and stump removal and final grading. I I further understand that a resident of Murray Hill Court is protesting this construction on the water tower II property, and based on my plats it appears that property is 110 feet wide as it fronts on Murray Hill. If that trail system were constructed at the most northern edge of that property, this would place the trail some 100 feet from his I property line, which is a greater distance than any of the homes that have been constructed on Murray Hill Court. Further, a four to six foot walking path would not disturb II the pines that line Murry Hill that we all admire and appreciate. I feel it is only fair that as the city reviews this issue I they take all residents in the area into consideration. I further think the residents in the six homes on Murray Hill Court would find this second proposal more favorable by II providing access to them and more area residents without disrupting their homes and property. I am writing this letter anonymously, for I do not wish to II create any ill will with my neighbors. The access through the water tower property will certainly provide a better access per city dollar spent on a trail system. I Cordially, II Chanhassen Taxpayer cc: City Council Members I h.r 1 �7 - ile Cv/` •/by iv%c-lre.1 o c, c: f c .P'/iS /�2.��� f..-! C_o r..14-r<,,//C. 1-. .. ) / J+1 c../.. {'e....., e y n 7//',,./ O e/ (p�z S c 4.(n I ...L�� .OQ-/ ..✓t /�/ C,-,,/// .rt v.,- r.X VS.._C .i7 4,1. oe L G./,L n a.r2 G:.1/2. X 134 to // Q/ 'do "1,----./S 1,r'.b9 Cf-t..�C , r I //11 l� rn c t S (r/ i c..ci/�1 4, I 7..�1 /� ,�Q-/KJ- S1 Y`✓a �� I ,',r / e c—xt G.,,..I <,.,.L 4e 6tS .-; Ijt .'/`o fol+_.� -1 atriuk•_%..wzy '. cL1 ct, t' r,-_ .,/ / 7,V,IC L..a.> 1 /� 7 I tx,.-a 4, �e•vi C_e.-r� MC....1-o..e...[c c14/K„ Ic c paclt -A4 CITY OF \ 1 .411,,„ CHANHASSEN 1 \ALi , 1F. r A' e 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 v I \ (612) 937-1900 February 10 , 1988 I Mr. B. C. Burdick I 426 Lake Street Excelsior, MN 55331 IDear Mr. Burdick: Thank you for your letters dated February 3 , 1988, February 5 , 1988 and February 2 , 1988 . This is to respond to your requests Iin those letters . In your letter dated February 3 , 1988 , you requested clarifica- I Lion as to the location of your property in the tax increment district. Enclosed please find the downtown redevelopment plan which identifies Tax Increment District #1. The 17 acres of property adjacent to West 78th Street and Highway 5 is within the Itax increment district. Your letter of February 5 , 1988 , officially requested that a I development contract be executed in order to allow grading of your property. A copy of this letter will be mailed to the City Attorney' s office to begin preparation of that contract and to Imail a proposed contract to you when prepared. Your letter of February 2 , 1988, identifies your snow plowing concerns in and around your property. It is my understanding I from the City Engineer that these issues have been resolved with Mr. Jerry Schlenk. I Should you have any further questions, please feel free to con- tact me. Sincerely, - /( ccfa 1 I arbara Dacy ci City Planner BD:v I cc: Roger Knutson Don Ashworth/ IGary Warren II 1 Off,\NNESQ CC /11 IMinnesota Department of Transportation 3� �� Transportation Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 Iti' OFTio- 612-296-1611 February 17, 1988 Phone. 1 . IAll Interested Parties: Re: The Chicago and Northwestern's (CNW) Hopkins to Chaska Abandonment Approval IIn a decision served on February 10, 1988, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) , by a vote of 3-2, approved the I abandonment of this line. The abandonment becomes effective on March 11, 1988. I The ICC placed a 180-day Public Use Condition on the abandonment. The Public Use Condition allows any public entity the first rights at negotiating for the property. During this time, the CNW must leave intact all the right-of-way underlying Ithe track, including bridges and culverts. This doesn' t mean that the CNW is required to sell to anyone in I particular or that it has to accept anything less than fair market value for its property. The 180-day Public Use Condition will end on August 8, 1988, and then the CNW can negotiate with whomever it chooses. IIf you have any questions about this proceeding, feel free to contact me. ISincerely, IIsaac McCrary, Jr . Rail Abandonment Coordinator II Office of Railroads and Waterways II IIM:slh I I1 .;:. .,_IvLv I -Iii tgiwl Opporluniiv Eniplovrr FEB 19 1988 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �T (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Building Permit File No. 2167 ' FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer ! sv DATE: February 11, 1988 ' SUBJ: Driveway Access to Pleasant View Road Lot 3 , Block 2 , Fox Chase On February 11, 1988, Larry Brown, Stave Kirchman and I met with Jim Hansen, owner of Lot 3 , Block 2 , Fox Chase, and his builder to review the driveway access and site distance issue as I discussed at the City Council meeting visitor presentation of January 25 , 1988 . The purpose of the meeting was to determine the proper driveway connection location in compliance with the terms of the development contract which calls for maximizing site ' distance. Calculations prepared by the Engineering Department indicate that roughly 163 feet of site distance would be required for a safe connection to Pleasant View Road at this location uti- ' lizing a 25 M.P.H. speed. This was reviewed in the field after our meeting with Mr. Hansen and the conclusion of the meeting was that Mr. Hansen would move the existing driveway to the east such that the east side of the driveway was as near as possible to the telephone pedestal. The driveway would be 16 feet wide. In order to achieve the 160+ feet of site distance, it was concluded that Mr. Hansen' s contractor would remove a portion of the bluff side slope along the south side of Pleasant View Road to the west of Hansen' s por- t perty within the City' s right-of-way. This would help achieve the necessary site distance. Unfortunately, it appears that three oak trees would be removed as a result of this slope work. However, this is fewer than the number of trees which would be removed if his driveway had to connect to Pleasant View Road at the eastern property corner . Mr. Hansen agreed to have a sketch plan prepared that would indicate the proposed location of the ' driveway and also the slope work that would be done. He would have a registered surveyor accurately locate in the field the right-of-way line and the trees proposed for removal so that there will be no question that this work would be done on City right-of-way. Mr. Hansen anticipated this could be completed within the next two weeks and submitted to the City Engineer for approval . I Building Permit File No. 2167 February 11, 1988 ' Page 2 In the meantime, since this construction no doubt would have to II wait until frost was out of the ground, Mr. Hansen agreed that he would provide temporary signage to the west of his driveway to warn motorists of the hidden driveway and construction traffic. II cc: City Council Administrative Packet, 2/22/88 Development Contract File II Larry Brown Steve Kirchman II II II II II II II II II II II II II II low . .o, ..., 1988 il CHANHASSEN H.R.A. ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 02-22-88 PAGE 1 2 3 .0 t!- 1 4 -— -- ditck 4- A-mobdT CLAIMANT PURPOS g- 6 m ..., 1 I -------- --- 0-21776- -17,782- DoNALD ASHWORTH TRAVEL + TRAINING _ 8 029771 518.16 GRINNELL FIRE PROT SYST REP. + MAINT. ,BLDG + GND r , L ' 029772 623.75 HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. FEES, SERVICE 029773- -- 155.74 LYMAN LUMBER COMPANY MAINTENANCE MATERIALS 1 _ Id i .., 029174 510.00 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC REP. + MAINT.,BLDG + GND '--1-1 1 5 1,825.47 CHECKS WRITTEN — 51 • m -7- 1 ...' ,- r 2'7 . . --- 21 , 3 3 :4 [ _-_ [ 411 20 m m. _____ ______________ . _ ity 464, _ So 7 ,ii.v 57, or---------------------- ---- --- _._ ._. 'AI 1 fir 54 Er i ‘.., I _ . . . am am mom ... ..I I= mil E. I= ow mu NE =I I NE NE