Loading...
Admin Section 11 ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION ' Letter from Gary Ehret, BRW, dated April 5 , 1988. Letter from Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative dated April 4 , 1988 . ' Memo from Gary Warren dated April 7 , 1988 . Letter to Roger Gustafson dated March 28, 1988 . Letter to Al Krueger dated March 25, 1988 . ' Letter from Roger Knutson dated March 25, 1988 . Letter to Soo Line Railroad Company dated March 28 , 1988 . ' Letter from Soo Line Railroad Company dated April 6 , 1988 . Letter from Gary Warren dated March 29 , 1988 . ' Letter from Steve Keefe, Metropolitan Council, dated March 30 , 1988. Letter from Leonard W. Levine, MnDOT, dated March 22 , 1988 . HRA Accounts Payable dated 4-11-88 . I I 1 1 1 I 1 11 !e 40,,,/N Sfiv ♦i dilI/a e I int;w PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE IBENNETT, RINGROSE. WOLSFELD, JARVIS. GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 April 5, 1988 1...-i4� g4 — /"-- CE ' 1 Shafer Contracting Shafer, MN 55074 IAttn: Mr. George Mattson I RE: Chanhassen Downtown Redevelopment Project CP 86-11 Dear George, IEffective immediately, you are hereby directed to stop all work associated with the Heritage Park area (Old Town Hall ) of the above-referenced project. II am aware that your subcontractor(s) may have ordered materials, specialty items, etc. While we do not necessarily want all orders cancelled, they must Ibe put on hold until further notice. Please confirm this stop order with your subcontractors and suppliers as soon as possible. Advise me as soon as you can of the potential ramifications of this Istop order. Sincerely, IB ETT RINGROSE 0 -JARVIS-GARDNER, INC. Iary A. tfiret PE -4qL- Project Engineer IGAE/sk I cc: Mr. Gary Warren !' Mr. Don Ashworth Mr. Greg Roy Mr. Don Ringrose I APR 0 6 1988 L. 1 Y OF CHANhASSEN I DAVID J.BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E JARVIS LAWRENCE J GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN DONALD E.HUNT MARK G.SWENSON JOHN B McNAMARA DONALD L CRAIG RICHARD D PILGRIM DALE N.BECKMANN DENNIS J SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX I ae . Am !-'ACler i . ,i 'i,'lag , j Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperati 1 : _ `t ; 20425 Johnson Memorial Drive, P.O. Box 125 �� Jordan, MN 55352 (612) 492-2313 I April 4, 1988 I ) r p�0 c0 BOARD OF DIRECTORS '� l 1John Wagner 1 Gary Warren, City Engineer President City of Chanhassen New Prague j P.O. Box 147; 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Melvin Ische Vice President Norwood :i Dear Gary, ' Edward Halloran I want to thank Todd and yourself for spending some time Secretary/Treasurer ; day. to my notes, you were with me the other da Le Center According q in- terested in further information on Minnesota Valley Elec- ' Raymond Jabs tric Cooperative' s street lighting cost both for the typi- Jordan cal high density residential development and areas platted Thomas Graham for 2 1/2 acre lots. Henderson IRodney Marek Our Coordinator of Developments, Ron Jabs, has prepared Montgomery some information on this for you -- see attached. Please do not hesitate to contact him or me should you have some 'George Stauff comments or further questions. Kilkenny John Carlson Incidentally, a meeting has been scheduled with Northern •Henderson States Power Co. in the next week or so to discuss the Lake Susan Hills issue. I' ll keep you informed on our Donald Frankhauser iirs here. Savage 'GENERAL MANAGER Sincerely, Roger Geckler i<IINPIESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVi=: I ge--C-12-711.-"/,,� IRoger Geckler General Manager I .. cc: Todd Gerhardt, Adm. Assistant t: enclosures IRWG/ek I I RPR051988 Ij �I I 1 kit CHANHASSEN IVY`- , , , Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative ' .� '''t 20425 Johnson Memorial Drive, P.O. Box 125 ' f_ ,t 1 Jordan, MN 55352 (612) ',"'--2: .1:'-'. ►' T (612 492 2313 IApril 4, 1988 Gary Warren. City Engineer I ! City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 690 Coulter Drive BOARD OF DIRECTORS ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 IJohn Wagner Dear Mr. Warren: President New Prague • Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative offers three basic lig2- ' Melvin Ische i designs for street lighting purposes. The most common reques Vice President ' is for decorative lights within the plat and a cobra head ligl^ Norwood at the entrance of the development. Please refer to the attach IEdward Halloran ment for varieties offered. Secretary/Treasurer Le Center Usually the Developer covers the installation charges and th IRaymond Jabs City pays the monthly rental fee of 58.75 per month for a type Jordan ical 150 watt high pressure sodium light. The present Develop Thomas Graham ers' cost is $300 per installation, plus 75¢ per foot whe Henderson installed with the development's electrical distribution sys Item. The contribution from the Developer helps to keep th Rodney Marek City' s monthly charge much lower than it would be without th Montgomery Developers' assistance. IGeorge Stauff Kilkenny Developer's reauests for lights vary from preferring none t John placing them very close together. Upon receiving plans for • Hendersonon new development, MVEC will typically lay out a proposed syste and send it to the city for review. Naturally, the need fc Donald Frankhauser lights will vary depending on the size of the lots, traffic an Savage pedestrian volume, street design and city policy. Typically GENERAL MANAGER lighting all intersections with more spaced 250 to 400 fee apart is a good guide. We encourage review by the City becaus RogerGeckler ultimately it's the public that benefits from the lighting an Ipays the monthly bill . In the few cases where the Developer is not involved or obli gated to pay the installation cost, the City will be charge I for the street lights at the rate of 5300 each, plus installa tion of wire. I We hope this information is helpful and we encourage you t contact us if you need further information. We look forward,t working with you to obtain the best lighting system we ca provide at a reasonable cost. ISincerely, /�' ✓ / 1 r, J/-�G2....2_, 1 (/ , • Ron H. Jabs I, MVEC Coordinator Developments/Large Com' l Acc'ts Ienclosure RHJ/ek J • I: '.'iT. '„ ') �� •r,... • ., i !... 11.'.!. 1 -,./I IIFT:77 I,1A i;:1,.1. ,:I:rI J+lll�if.^ II' ::{t 177 7�1/ i. I ;'i i J I. 1 t�11 1 •1.a'• 1I_/.• .':ir; ji I. '1,1'i:,.�'' I I. •I:'::.i. ;� .�+., tr l:, l >i I i�. ..t ;1`�( r1�' ��:L�i:J(r }' A'�!11 :r. :;i':; ,ill`.'r(',iil. ..-3 ' i { J * , TI'I l' , ; ;,•.,i a + -J �}r � � .,,) i 1y,1 1 {, f• ,. > / 7IY '1�;4 I 1 ;.iL ll Jr 1` }�r \� II:f l I ;t, .∎, ..>AIP, ,.,' '1 11 '} ,17..,ITI (, I�'• SI ! r1 L.1!1, 4.:v, ;lY l�,.t.11, , ..,.1 {�(%,114:. OW/ I, ,„.:11.,;:.1.-.;:i.',41:(I ; •� :r,i, `y;� ,4,,.•,,. 1 f Il• ItU > ; . "1. 1 .'.,:,: ."- .# I+>Yi%,,k'•:V ,',I ,. i T.-_ i1 L?I,j. Y�� .I�- �f11: IJ:�., �.{'I i't 5.� - .�i �• F r� _ ,' '.I� > i A'/ li- ;1-4.11"wt"•`• �,,f:i, f`.`�r•q,,t-• Q�'04•f - ,•P• 1 k �.1 l i7I 1 t:'1 ,yYl!h, -- — `lr j` t' ;•,�i ��f �p , i, ' .17x,.1 Iw it i tru{frn• a, . ..Y .•y*i'..- ; ,�•»�1�3t,y, ..,1�1 11:+ �]1$�� � � .,'ij[,( , I t IL'. 1 + 1,�.,�( .�eft r• t:1-4.;i: .�SA�d1 ,��•;, ;i.yr.;�n ii...�:r �,��.:, i:ar�1. .f�tTiil . V ••�-,°A 1 I rY'r l: �-'I'i r' `•• 4 ,61,-1''lt rr• ,I 1 11�+?X`wT,iy :`t.�'ft•Q •s'.:}kll• ?� P�k�2'::1•-.h ri..`� L A .,I�t. '-1 - �. ;' — - --- i-lx.-, 4. - ,f ,1 i1g •!kr.'17,1 ,i, .l.d'.i y r•-iii. 1•�• ''• ;}:.1t1 x'` . i' t i.l�- .. , .,-3,,1. 4:t1• ice_ _ r 'i�'.:i• a�', ;f) �r4'•,tit'".'.'rI .11> "W� ;;:; ti..:: _"`ty ,. 1fr 11 ir_ _ -- _ ;'j`:� 1 ..l`i I,F.I1�I '^i"•�. ":L �7. 1,'FII ;' 'A _1,, ,::.' _ :':1:.1:.. .,�_ i,,�[ }. �f'V- -----,,--- ,4 i) 7•1•IN,.�'�.l�i Ndy .. "~ .. (( '' � ;.1.11,.;+-} •�•lali ii:ilii••...IiI•i!., :1�?°i1r.: l - Ir� ih. 7 .. - r y.• l t.-1,s ., I,.((( _ .!ii�i,li.as �;',i'� i::,.�.r• :r1_irr j y-r•dfa::,A::.. � {y,,,n -j^ .� �`�-.1 �jj:. jI, ."4 1-:r - .,d' .I:I 1' ;,;ill I 1''. - _--__- 1 ..'' 1. :iHS ' p J n:I_..r.: d11. I 7:. :, r.` r .. .-7" �.. r.,l;yt1 : u• t I! •Ili' 1 r.^Ji� 1:1� :f'. _.+; .. i ti,,,f `"!- •Ft7. 4 '•s t• 9 '1 1:r/_i .I r tt' ''i 1I:ii,l.l.'i.'...Si11•t,i '. , , ,---,---,--r.--1-, - ,1 ~•. 11..f ,•.»4 ,I I. -'- 1.. ''?,,' .1i:.qi.,..`:i ,I� 1. ,,'•'..i„ •11,1.,I;,.,....:_4--i-7-...,1 l `y+: .b'. �• t sot __.L,.u:d :' '': .. ,�r• 1 _ „w -•`^>r>•� -.i:al,•:' Si' •f J�1' ...ill. - -_ __•I:'.': "1 I _ n. •.,' .- i'1 j • y�' --I��('�!,_{1L{'�• 1_ ' /� - ( , , , :.;�Iii•••V—"`•' r}L .• 1 II �a 4,t,,i T,. .,r/JCS+" .�.rvsrA t �`. -o.,,� 7����� ',1 : r 1 ti` ), ;�,,�,",,,:;,;:. Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative {[ f' :" 20425 JOHNSON MEMORIAL DRIVE ttt al { , �t''1 y P.O. BOX 125 I 1r - 5/ r` ?" 'y Ap JORDAN, MN 55352 m 1 ;'1i,;µ, `',;3 I RONALD JABS , COORDINATOR OF DEVELOPMENTS (612) 492 2313 AND COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS I DECORATIVE LIGHTING TYPE : 150 Watt high Pressure Sodium Light IMounted on 18 ' Fiberglass poles set 4 ' deep. ' INSTALLATION : $ 300 each location , plus $ . 75 to $ 1 . 50 per I foot for underground wire installed . Underground runs are subject to additional • cost when road crossings or restoration is involved . IRATE : Monthly charge ; $8 . 75 I ' ' I ' • ` I 'i) ,•;1r"{.:(.j .n' 100 W UPS Security Head (long mast arm; ;.r ! ,y..,1; ,•.;... ;,;,ii'.: 11 300. 0 f. �I '...v.;!_;-.1).:':40.-1, I Ins to a lion,: $ 0 each e,�,ro..,I t '••;1;�.,, —s 11 ,'r1,•141s^,I;t i; Overhead Secondary. • '." /: ) '\ \: ,;f.n:: t .i,.l; -p)u $ .50 per foot. i .''i ��.' t, ;`. ("`-\'a,'�i•i,•` :Underground. Wire.• .; : %i:',::tii c'w `2 $ .7 5 - 1.5 0 per r. 7—;mo ,`.- ,:I:::;"' $ p foot i:: ' (:'•, is•ij''i'.';°' f'�;,fis :,. _ .x t!;I;::t'Ai';; ,V.-.,,,ra MONTHLY RATE: $ /100E1PS y---�-�� ] 7.4 0 7 (I , ,'Al..�;. .j ups t)r■c Ah 1� l' I -: ' r 'c,'../...1;.7,..Y.•i';1�r•,i?r,..�� i ,1 ,I t �1 , I- y •k: :•: 1,;1.,.. .;. :i '.A;,'..lor::. it.i'-.T;t'r ,.•-.+.:�. ;�I,..��:I!� :•r: " oA.,f ':1 , :,.I', :v.I.a,.. n'. nff`�•1tu^4•:%41ni.iy∎;.k r •'�'ji^ '1 ' ''!i :; ir:5} dl:' xi d• Kl ; Nb s; :r -,-.p::'f. tom: !t. ,'',,',.'4••:-?- ` ' ••i I -z' '�'^. ''';; .;'' ;! 'f.;.•:.i••••:-.;....:- -I _ .�;: .:,.,.:- 150 + 250W IIPS Cobra Head• 1` . . - i, ,- Installation: $300.00 each LOC T'oa 1 —7)('ly - l Overhead ::::1:a:5•!.,,�:•_ - 1,�.:,..,_.• ' :' - _-� ; per foot , _ `//'•.� _ Wire: . �( t/• ; ;,,- :Underground W ) is `t ,ti''. . ,n` ` \\, r. 1 :7r ;' : a $ .75 - $1.50 per foot ' _ MONTHLY RATE: $8.75/150W HPS ; T..;-.',..);:7-1.:',': , r:+"I.,,• 1-'7' ; , $11.50/250W HE'S -[1,-.K.;:i. 1.*-,-!.:',:. ,1,,,, i"-A,'::1:78P.i,I,VV;;...:1,...',', ;,1 I; , i;,; _ f 150W IIPS Decorative Light 'ki0J14. ill. ',Si!'` Installation: $300.00 each torar,o,., � t��' i''1'7l ry,.,A�,{� VIS r}'''`, ka;,►c a > '.b?�� d s,�b�� `r ,l u s $ .75 - $1.50 per r, ''' `« '! ;�_'.,,,c I *For underground wire It. � a ' !,,,,,,p,,i MONTHLY RATE: $8.75/150W LIPS• 1 I s,tf� ','';11ic li F' •I . ;'A7.;� 'fr .;,[1.,,s.,' ' : Underground runs are subject to 4efq I additional cost when restoration 4.,,!"' or road crossings are involved. • *All charges subject to change without ', notice. • CITYOF 1/411t1) - CHANHASSEN \ j 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer AO DATE: April 7, 1988 • Ail SUBJ: Saddlebrook Parkland Purchases File No. 87-15 (pvt) I Just a note to advise you that the closing documents appear to be ' in order and a closing has been scheduled for April 14 , 1988 at 1 : 00 p.m. at City Hall for the Saddlebrook land purchase and parkland purchase specified in the development contract with ' Builder' s Development, Inc. (Rick Murray) . The two parcels in question are the area known as Kerber East and the Outlot A parkland area located just off of Butte Court on the north side of the plat ( see attached map) . Roger Knutson is reviewing the closing documents . The compensation for this property has been computed in accordance with the development contract conditions as approved by the City Council, i .e. $70 ,000 for Kerber East and $23, 423 . 95 for the parkland. The parkland cost is actually less than the $27,500 specified in the development contract since the acreage of the park is actually 1 . 98 acres and not 2 .5 acres as originally proposed. ' Acquisition of these parcels, especially Kerber East, at this time coincides well with our upcoming Kerber Boulevard improve- ments since we intend to wind a trail through the Kerber East property. ' Attachments : 1 . Map cc: City Council Administrative Packet date April 11, 1988 ' Jean Meuwissen, Treasurer MANAGERS COMMENT: Financing of "Kerber East" occurs through the Kerber Blvd. improvement project while "Kerber West" is from park acquisition funds. Both are within original estimates . r, I I ) i Z3 1 LI21 s , 4, .. da„" ' ' ' 4 11.VA:tit& \ 1..11 Wham .. algo∎ 1 avmc 1'!i �- :.i.V4%---ft,' ( . . v� ` � � 1W" HIL RU ,�� IIlOR. 1 L G 74 VirMarrat - I RR°R liii 6 " :0,74 dibtesA?,4 Is vir,rdi EN :Ns "?'::,., 10. EN mg raar.z. =4140 Ts1414 Arab N •/.7f,,�, �a IIIIIH� `►� NCI fa, egva: tf LA lifillialUt i VGj� ' �lam alb ■IPPRI,41004011111111 I •' " fibar t;* 11 weilselts.40- RP , Nv ON 11111/x► - ■ o a •--,/ •-• (IN It ow p• mop to 1\ 1 -- olvt0-.. #4.* LT, ralloto,4„v ,%4elia• 4„,,, Iff it, ■ cd, Si fa -Or II kaita,‘,,, I No Ili inn (ailialatitilialla• tItalis , .. . . 0 .,:. woo um, .o. , . tee, ■ #• ow ,‘, ___ f - swim n narml Erni,. : ) ! ..,, / ,______,---- rt Alle te-;;;I: - girliv■ in no eau: It4 ON A W •■1 Ellia v.— vilmmill.4dirc wli int:.�� , a Ift■Arl67 w .. le - F.AAVFEErie LICA 0 ou/ 1© am ■m r � � �� � O �� ltd NM co —J OM ILA loci mum I 4 L% IIIIIIIIIIIII am iv •�� �� Mil ■N�� �oo��way RI IIw 8I V1 r 0 ‘;;;:7-:- .z. id r CITY OF C C pcc% vQ / ,f`d. . 7 ' G 1 \ , ; 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 IMarch 28, 1988 1 Roger Gustafson, County Engineer Public Works Department I Carver County Courthouse 600 East 4th Street Chaska, MN 55318 IRE: Powers Boulevard/West 78th Street Detachment File #87-2 IDear Roger: As you are well aware, the West 78th Street Detachment Design is I nearing completion. On August 6 , 1987 you provided the City of Chanhassen with a memorandum listing ten items for review. On December 7 , 1987 you were carbon copied on correspondence from the City' s consultant, BRW, addressing these ten items . On I February 16 , 1988 , Mr. Philip Bergem of BRW met with you and your staff to go over the draft design plans. The results of that meeting were summarized in a February 19, 1988 letter to your I attention. This was further clarified by your letter to Mr. Bergem dated March 4 , 1988 ( see attached documents ) . Of the items listed on your March 4 , 1988 letter the only one I which is outstanding and needs to be resolved as soon as possible is the concern on the private entrance to Powers Boulevard. As you indicated, the County Board has not taken a position on the Iapproval of the private entrance. Since the County has the control as to whether this connection I will be allowed or not onto County Road 17, the City of Chanhassen hereby formally requests that this issue be taken to the Carver County Board of Commissioners for action to either permit or deny this connection. Since denial of this private I entrance has an impact on our design plans and specifications, we are holding progress on this project until this final question is answered. We would appreciate your placing this matter on the 1 very next County Board agenda for resolution. 1 1 s Mr. Roger Gustafson March 28, 1988 Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and if I can be of ' any assistance in addressing this matter to the County Board please let me know. ' Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 (k) G. y t Warren, P.E. ' City En• ineer GG^ : m ' cc: Gary Ehret Don Ashworth ' Attachments: August 6 , 1987 memorandum from Carver County December 7 , 1987 letter from BRW February 19, 1988 letter from BRW ' March 4 , 1988 letter from Carver County July 28, 1987 memorandum from Benshoof & Associates 1 i I 1 • , , /AA_ _.,,„,- CITY OF ccr.,/e At,-t \ te CHANHASSEN , . 1 - �� 4.t- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I . �, (612) 937-1900 IMarch 25, 1988 IAl Krueger 1600 Lake Lucy Road Excelsior , Mn 55331 IDear Al; II apologize for the delay in responding to your letter of March 4 , 1988 , regarding Windwalker Kennels and barking dogs. I was of the belief that Phil Mathiowetz ' s letter indicating II how he was attempting to take control of the barking dog situation provided a relief to your problem. Your letter indicates that it has not. I We will continue to do everything in our power to help you solve what you feel is a nuisance problem. As we have indicated to you before , however, is that you will need to 1 contact the Sheriffs Department each time the barking dog/s disturb you . Only then will we have the statistical handle on the frequency and severity of the problem. 1 You stated in your letter that a deputy did respond to your complaint and said that he would file a complaint. When we last discussed this incident you could not remember the date I nor the deputy' s name that handled the call . At that time I stated to you that it would be difficult to locate the complaint but that I would see what I could do. 1 I did identify the deputy that responded to your call of barking dogs on December 22, 1987 , and located the report that he wrote. The information was passed on to the I Chanhassen Animal Control Officer , Steve Madden, who investigated the incident and began to take steps to t- alleviate the problem. At that time he contacted both Phil 1 Mathiowetz and yourself in an attempt to work out a solution. Mr. Mathiowetz was very cooperative and has been working with us to prevent his dogs from barking and causing a disturbance. I Apparently all the remedies offered by Mr. Mathiowetz are not producing acceptable results and for that reason I am I 1 • ' suggesting the following course of action: 1 ) When the dogs are barking and creating a ' disturbance , please notify the Sheriffs Department. A Sheriffs Deputy or the Chanhassen Animal Control Officer will respond and take whatever action is ' necessary. This includes either a citation or formal complaint for violation of our nuisance ordinance. ' 2) When Mr . Mathiowetz renews his kennel permit, I will place it on the Council Agenda for discussion. A full report will accompany the kennel permit to ' include the information provided by you. In addition, I would highly recommend that you attend so that you may address the Council to voice your concerns and answer any questions that they may ' have. As always please feel free to call me if you have any ' questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, /kw im Chaff:e ' Public Safety Director cc/Don Ashworth/ Scott Harr Al Wallin City Council Phil Mathiowetz 1 I Il ' 1-1,r - - e.,.t LAW OFFICES IGRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECDPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR.- 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 ' VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE PATRICK A. FARRELL MICHAEL J. MAYER ' DAVID L. GRANNIS,Ili SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J. BERG ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 iMarch 25, 1988 I Mr. Don Ashworth City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 IChanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Don: II Enclosed is a significant decision just issued by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Our office wrote the amicus curiae brief for the League of Minnesota Cities cited in the opinion. IThe decision holds that if a City Council has a verbatim record of its proceedings in a zoning or subdivision matter, and II if the City' s decision is challenged, the court will not conduct a trial and hear evidence, but rather will make its decision based solely on the record created by the City. This should make resolution of land use cases quicker and less expensive. It will I also mean that an applicant can' t present to the court evidence that the City Council didn' t get the opportunity to hear. The down side, of course, is that the City can' t present new I evidence. If the City is going to turn down an application, it will now be more important than ever to have a complete record. I There will still be the right to a trial if a claim is made that the record is incomplete or inaccurate, or if a claim is made of violation of constitutional rights. V ry trul yours, 1 G NN S, GRANNIS ARRELL i _- .,✓ KNUTt, P.A.J r ---.._� BX - - R4gr N.,Knuts ' RNK: srn -�" _ [--°- . Enclosure I cc: Barb Dacy JoAnn Olsen Gary Warren II 1J; 1988 b�R 2 N ICt I'I ur CHANHASSEN ' STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT C3-86-782 Court of Appeals Wahl, J. ' Concurring specially, Popovich, J. Yetka, J. John F. Swanson, et al., Respondents, Filed: March 25, 1988 Office of Appellate Courts vs. City of Bloomington, petitioner, Appellant. SYLLABUS 1. The district court properly reviewed the municipal zoning decision on the record where the municipal proceeding was fair and the record is clear and complete. 2. The district court properly granted summary judgment to the city. ' Reversed; judgment of district court reinstated. ' Heard, considered and decided by the court en bane. OPINION WAHL, Justice. John Swanson and Danald Cadmus brought a declaratory judgment action in ' Hennepin County District Court challenging the Bloomington city council's denial of an application to subdivide a residential lot in the Timberglade 2nd Addition into two residential lots. Swanson and Cadmus sought to establish that the city's action was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and they requested an order that would compel subdivision or, in the alternative, would find that there was a taking. The district court, after a review of the record, granted summary judgment to the city. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that respondents were entitled to pursue -1- 1 ' discovery and to present additional relevant evidence to the district court. We reverse and reinstate the judgment of the trial court. ' The Timberglade subdivision of the city of Bloomington is unique in its densely ' wooded, secluded character and serves as wildlife as well as human habitat. Its single family homes are typically located on sites exceeding one acre. For thirty years, from the inception of the Timberglade subdivision until two or three years before the present suit was instituted, landowners there were governed by a restrictive covenant which prohibited subdivision of the large lots and protected its wooded, natural environment. Danald Cadmus is the fee owner of the real property at 15 Timberglade Road in the Timberglade subdivision. John Swanson is the contract purchaser of the property and has resided there since October 1984. The property consists of a residential lot of approximately 46,000 square feet with a single-family house. Cadmus applied for ' approval of a preliminary and final plat subdividing the lot into two residential single- family lots. The city council (hereinafter council) held public hearings and received ' written reports from the city's Director of Planning and the City Forester. The Director of Planning described the likely results of the creation of a new homesite- jeopardy to the vegetation on the lot, stress on the vegetation of the surrounding properties, increased possibility of tree disease and wind damage—and recommended that the subdivision request be denied. The City Forester concurred. A wildlife ' biologist, testifying on behalf of the the neighbors, similarly described the disruptive ' effect of clearings in the woodland area, loss of windbreak benefits and loss of wildlife habitat. A number of neighbors spoke opposing the subdivision. Speaking in favor of the subdivision were Cadmus, Swanson, and a landscape architect presented by Cadmus and Swanson's attorney. -2- 1 • • The city council based its decision to deny approval of the preliminary and final ' plat on section 16.05.01(e) of the Bloomington City Code, which provides: (e) In the case of all plattings, the Planning Commission or the Administrative Subdivision Review Committee, whichever is ' applicable, shall recommend denial of, and the City Council shall deny, approval of a preliminary or final plat if it makes any of the following findings: ' (1) That the proposed subdivision is in conflict with applicable general and specific plans. (2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is in conflict with applicable development plans. ' (3) That the physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, vegetation, susceptibility to ' erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, water storage, and retention, are such that the site is not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. ' (4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. ' (5) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. (6) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. (7) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court. 1 Specifically, the council made findings under paragraphs (3), (5), and (6) of section 16.05.01(e), concluding that the proposed subdivision would result in substantial destruction of vegetation on the subject site, creating a large opening which would not only be detrimental to the property in question but would also jeopardize existing -3- vegetation on adjacent properties. The council adopted the findings and memoranda of the Director of Planning and the City Forester and, on the basis of the significant destruction of vegetation made the finding in § 16.05.01(e)(3), that the site was not suitable for the type of development or use contemplated. The council made the finding in § 16.05.01(e)(5) on the basis of the environmental disruption to the site and to rthe entire Timberglade subdivision that would be created by approving the plat. Finally, the council noted that neighboring property owners were unanimous in their opposition to the proposed plat, and determined that the planned removal of trees and vegetation from the subject property would disrupt the overall integrity of the woodland and thereby have a negative effect on the general welfare of the persons residing in the Timberglade subdivision. On this basis the council made the finding in § 16.05.01(e)(6). Swanson and Cadmus brought this action in district court challenging the denial of the subdivision application. The city moved for summary judgment on the record before the council, including transcripts of the hearings and other evidence submitted. The plaintiffs moved for an order compelling discovery and asked to submit additional ' evidence which they hoped to acquire through discovery. The district court determined that because an accurate verbatim record of the complete hearing before the city council was available, it was proper to decide the case based on a review of the record rather than by conducting the trial required of the city in Bonn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 416 (Minn. 1981). To require a trial de novo in this case, in the district court's view, would infringe on the decision-making process of the city and weigh against the policy of judicial economy. The district court reviewed the record of the council, and, finding evidentiary support for the council's findings and a rational basis -4 I I 1 for the council's decision, granted summary judgment for the city. The court of appeals reversed that judgment on the single ground that Honn v. City of Coon Rapids required Ia trial de novo to give respondents an opportunity to present relevant additional Ievidence when the parties had neither agreed to nor acquiesced in submission of the case by review of the record, and held that the granting of summary judgment was Iinappropriate. Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 395 N.W.2d 719, 723 (Minn. App. 1986). We granted review to examine the matter in the context of our decisions in Honn Iv. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, and Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of IAfton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982), to harmonize our cases, and to modify, if necessary, the procedure for review of zoning decisions set out in Honn. Our review is Ifocused on two issues: first, whether a district court, in a declaratory judgment action challenging the denial of a subdivision application, may grant summary judgment based 1 on its review of a record consisting, in this case, of a municipal body's findings and accompanying memoranda, verbatim transcripts of hearings before the municipal body, Ias well as memorandum submitted by the applicant; and second, whether the district Icourt properly granted summary judgment to the city. I. IBefore we determine whether the district court in this case properly granted summary judgment on the record made by the city council, or whether Honn requires a Itrial in every such case, it is useful to reflect on our traditional approach to zoning I matters. In White Bear Docking and Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake, 324 th- N.W.2d 174, 175 (Minn. 1982), we considered the role of the judiciary in countermanding Izoning decisions reached by municipal officials and concluded that "[t]he court's authority to interfere in the management of municipal affairs is, and should be, limited I -5- I I I and sparingly invoked." We reiterated the rule we had set out in llonn v. City of Coon Rapids governing standard of review in zoning matters: "The standard of review is the ' same for all zoning matters, namely, whether the zoning authority's action was reasonable * * * Is there a 'reasonable basis' for the decision? or is the decision 'unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious'? or is the decision 'reasonably debatable'?" 324 N.W.2d at 176, quoting Honn, 313 N.W.2d at 417. We said that, except in those rare cases in which the city's decision has no rational basis, "it is the duty of the judiciary to exercise restraint and accord appropriate deference to civil authorities in the performance of their duties." Id. White Bear Docking involved a special use permit which had been denied by the city of White Bear Lake. Plaintiffs obtained a writ of mandamus from the district court directing the council to issue the permit. We reversed the order of the district court ' and quashed the writ, finding that the grounds for denial of the permit assigned by the council constituted a rational basis for the decision and were well within the criteria set forth in the city's zoning code. 324 N.W.2d at 177. ' II The first issue is whether a district court, in a declaratory action challenging the ' denial of a subdivision application, may grant summary judgment based on its review of a record consisting of a municipal body's findings, memoranda submitted by the parties, ' and verbatim transcripts of all hearings. We determined in Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills that the scope of review to be used for zoning matters would be the same as that used for state ' administrative agency decisions. 281 N.W.2d 865, 868 (Minn. 1979). We indicated that the review would be of the record made before the local zoning body. That is, the -6- I Ireview by the district court would be made on the municipal record and the supreme court would make its review on the same record. We said, quoting Reserve Mining Co. Iv Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824, "[n t is our function to make an independent examination Iof an administrative agency's record and decision and arrive at our own conclusions as to the propriety of that determination without according any special deference to the Isame review conducted by the trial court." Id. Then in Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, we were presented with a case, appealed by Ithe city from an adverse decision below, where the record before the trial court was Icompletely inadequate. In that case we held that review on the record was not appropriate. 313 N.W.2d at 418. IBonn involved a declaratory judgment action in which the court required the parties to agree upon a record of what had occurred before the city council and present Ithis "agreed-upon" record for review. Based on this after-the-fact record, the district court found the city's action in refusing to rezone the plaintiff's land from single family Iresidential to multiple unit residential and commercial to be arbitrary, capricious, and Iunreasonable. On appeal, we found the "agreed upon" record required by the district court to be inadequate for judicial review and remanded the case for trial. Honn, 313 IN.W.2d at 419. Concerned that city councils and zoning boards did not ordinarily make records of their proceedings as complete and as 'formal as those of a state agency, we Iset out a procedure for review of zoning matters which permitted use of a declaratory I judgment action in which the parties are entitled to a trial. Id. at 416. t- Honn did not directly overrule Northwestern College and, under its own facts, was Ia proper decision but its broad language, mandating a trial in every case may go beyond what is necessary in every case. It is not unreasonable, nor unfair, where a city has -7- I I failed to make a complete and adequate record of its proceedings in zoning matters to ' require that city to prove the basis of its decision before a district court. We are persuaded by amicus curiae League of Minnesota Cities that Bonn has had a salutary effect.' Amicus advises this court that, in reliance on Ilonn, many cities have borne the expense of verbatim transcripts of their proceedings. These cities have ' carefully made findings supported by transcribed evidence so that their zoning decisions, if challenged, would not be decided by a district court on the basis of ' evidence never considered by them. According to amicus, one city hired a state hearing ' examiner to take evidence in a zoning matter which resulted in a 15-day hearing and 3,487 pages of hearing transcript. ' It becomes clear that this effort and expense would be wasted if every property owner whose zoning request is denied can demand that the case be retried in a district ' court. Such a procedure, if rigidly followed in every case, could lead to the result that ' a property owner, knowing the composition of a particular city council, might withhold part of the relevant evidence, knowing it could be put in when the matter came before the district court on review. Thus, a city, making every effort to afford a property owner a full and fair hearing and to produce a complete record of the basis of its ' council's decision, could he thwarted in exercising the power granted it by statute to ' determine and plan the use of land within its boundaries. Minn. Stat. § 462.351 (1982). The court of appeals, in reversing the decision of the district court in the case ' before us, relied on Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982). We held in Hubbard the district court properly conducted the review of certain 1 The League of Minnesota Cities is a cooperative organization of 782 member Minnesota cities. -8 1 . permit denials on the record because the record in that case was very clear and complete. Id. at 761. We noted "[w]here 'city councils and zoning boards do not * * * make records of their proceedings as complete and formal as those of a state administrative agency or commission,' the proper procedure for review before the ' district court provides that [n]ew or additional evidence may be received at trial.' Honn. v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 415-16 (emphasis added)." Id. at n. 3. It was important to the Hubbard court, in determining the fullness and fairness of the hearing before the city council on the permit denial issue, that the plaintiffs had the opportunity, by order of the district court, to augment the record by stipulation or motion, an opportunity of which they did not avail themselves. The holding was grounded, however, on the clearness and completeness of the record on which the city council based its decision. Our conclusion that both parties acquiesed in the district court's determining both the permit denial and the constitutional issue on the record went particularly to the constitutional issue. Even had Hubbard not acquiesced, the ' city had already suggested a trial on the constitutional issue in its memorandum in support of its motion for partial summary judgment on the permit denial issue.2 323 N.W.2d at 761-762. ' Hubbard, then, does not stand for the propositon that a permit denial may never be reviewed on the record absent acquiescence of the parties. Nor do we believe that Honn requires a trial or augmentation of the record in every case, especially in light of the response of Minnesota cities to our concerns in that case. Rather, we have P- 2 ' No constitutional issue was raised on appeal in Swanson's case, only the issue of whether on review of a city council's zoning decision parties are entitled to a trial or to agument the record made before the city council with additional relevant evidence. 1 -9- I ' concluded that a district court should establish the scope and conduct of its review of a municipality's zoning decision by considering the nature, fairness and adequacy of the ' proceeding at the local level and the adequacy of the factual and decisional record of ' the local proceeding. Where the municipal proceeding was fair and the record clear and complete, review should be on the record. Where the municipal body has proposed formal findings contemporaneously with its decision and there is an accurate verbatim transcript of the proceedings, the record is likely to be clear and complete. ' When the review is conducted on the record, the district court should receive ' additional evidence only on substantive issues raised and considered by the municipal body and then only on determining that the additional evidence is material and that ' there were good reasons for failure to present it at the municipal proceedings. The standard of review is whether the municipal body's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary ' or capricious, with review focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for the ' reasons given. Where the municipal proceeding has not been fair or the record of that proceeding is not clear and complete, llonn applies and the parties are entitled to a trial or an opportunity to augment the record in district court. The meaningful review to which ' parties are entitled requires no less. ' In Swanson's case, the trial court properly based its review of the city council's zoning decision on the record. The record consisted of verbatim transcripts of the ' public hearings on the matter, including statements by experts on both sides; written reports by the city director of planning and city forester; and contemporaneous written findings by the city council on which the council based its decision. From this extensive ' record, a satisfactory review can be made. The record also demonstrates that the -10- I 1 ' proceedings were fair. The matter was considered at four meetings of the city council: May 20, June 3, June 10, June 17, 1985. Swanson, Cadmus, Waters (Cadmus' attorney) ' and Ed Hasek, respondent's landscape architect, were all allowed to testify without any ' apparent time limits. Hasek's testimony alone covered four transcript pages in small print. Swanson's witnesses were allowed to answer questions and react to the testimony of other participants. Finally, they were given every opportunity to present relevant material. At oral argument, plaintiffs' attorney implied that certain photos and graphics were not allowed at the hearing and, therefore, should have been made available to the district court. A review of the transcript reveals, however, that plaintiff's own expert ' voluntarily withheld the photos. Hasek stated: "Perhaps in lieu [sic] of the late hour, I'll go through the graphics for you and if there's any further explanation needed, we'll rpull the slides out." Further, both Hasek and Mayor Lindau commented on the limited usefulness of the graphics which apparently became distorted on projection. Consequently, Hasek described their content in great detail; and this verbal description, contained in the transcript, was available for review by the district court. Swanson and Cadmus argue that, under I-Ionn, in all cases challenging municipal decisions in zoning matters, parties should be allowed to augment the record with additional relevant evidence. They claim that they were denied this opportunity. Although they do not challenge the accuracy of the council's verbatim transcript, they argue that the record does not show the extent to which the council's decision was a response to neighborhood opposition, nor does it disclose data on similar prior applications for subdivision. As to the first argument, the transcript contains all of the testimony given by the -1 1- I 1.. I Ineighbors. Beyond that, we do not believe that evidence on the extent to which neighborhood opposition played a role is relevant. While neighborhood feeling may not Iconstitute the sole basis for a zoning decision, it may still be taken into account. INorthwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d at 869. Here, the city council's resolution described the reasons for its decision and made clear that Ienvironmental concern, not neighborhood opposition, was the major reason for the denial of the subdivision application. IAs to data on similar prior applications for subdivision, no claim of unequal treatment is set out, and on these facts, there would seem to be none. Swanson is not Ito be compared with any person ever requesting and receiving or being denied an Iapplication for subdivision in Bloomington. He is to be compared with other property owners in the Timberglade 2nd Addition of Bloomington, the unique environment of Iwhich is here at issue. For 30 years, from its inception until two to three years before Swanson's request, that environment has been protected by a restrictive covenant which Iprohibited subdivision of large lots. Furthermore, the moratorium on the new zoning Iordinance was lifted while the council debated this subdivision application. Thus, it is unlikely that similar prior applications for subdivision have been granted. IWe hold that the district court properly reviewed the municipal zoning decision on the record where the municipal proceeding was fair and the record is clear and Icomplete. I III. The second issue is whether the district court properly granted summary judgment Ito the city. Since review is on the record, the question is whether the city council's decision was reasonable or whether it was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. Honn 1 -12- I I v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d at 417. The city council is required by the Bloomington City Code, section 16.05.01(e)(5) to deny approval of a preliminary or final Iplat if it finds " that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage." The city's Director of Planning, the ICity Forester and a wildlife biologist all described the likely environmental effects, including loss of trees and other vegetation both on the lot and on adjacent properties, Iwind damage and loss of windbreak effect. The city council's finding of a likelihood of Isubstantial environmental damage is thus supported by the evidence and provides a rational basis for the municipal decision. Such a finding is sufficient reason, under the Iordinance, for denying the plat application. We hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the city. We reverse the decision of the court of appeals Iand reinstate the judgment of the trial court. IReversed; judgment of district court reinstated. I I I I I te I I -13- '1 • POPOVICH, J. (concurring specially). While I agree with the result in this matter based on the facts here, I am concerned ' that by implication Honn. v. City of Coon Rapids may be considered overruled completely. In my opinion, that would be an inappropriate conclusion. 1. I agree with the court of appeals' analysis of Honn to provide for a trial to ' review a zoning matter. This court now circumscribes a full trial as required by Honn when the record of a municipal proceeding was fair, clear and complete; finding under the ' facts of this case that occurred. That, of course, was not the law when the court of appeals considered this matter. Thus, this court now modifies Honn to the extent that a ' full trial de novo is not required in certain cases and the court of appeals could not have ' known when it decided this matter that Honn was to be modified, as we now do. It correctly applied the law as it then existed, in my opinion. New law and new ' interpretations are properly the function of this court. 2. I have no quarrel with this court's desire to reduce trials de novo in district court and to avoid courts' infringing on the decision-making process of municipalities. That is part of this court's function—to outline, circumscribe and guide the judicial system as part of its supervisory and law development powers. Honn had an inadequate record for judicial review, so this court remanded and set out a procedure for reviewing zoning matters. That procedure is still good law and still remains applicable in future cases, but ' this court now circumscribes a full trial when the record is fair and complete. 3. Thus, in future cases trial courts, before denying a full trial, must determine ' whether the record before the municipality meets this new criterion. A record before a municipality might be fully transcribed, but were the proceedings adequate, fair and complete? This involves determining: were hearing examiners utilized in appropriate proceedings? were witnesses subject to questioning by other parties? was there foundation CS-1 1 for opinions expressed? were offers of proof permitted? were matters outside the record relied on? were appropriate continuances permitted? was relevant evidence received? ' were complete contemporaneous findings made to suppport the municipalities' decision? and other such considerations. In other words, the trial court must determine whether the ' hearing itself was fair and adequate and if the parties had a full opportunity to present their views, or whether the proceedings reflected the will of the decision-makers and not ' their judgment (majority opinion at 10). ' 4. In the June 17, 1985, resolution adopted by the city council here, among other factors was a statement to the effect the council also relied upon its experience and ' knowledge of the area, without greater specificity. I don't know what that was. In the future, such general statements should be augmented by proper findings, joined in by a ' majority of the governing body. Parties should know exactly what the decision-makers ' relied on. The test isn't just verbatim transcripts and neighborhood opposition alone. Here, the rest of the record justifies the result expressed in this case. YETKA, Justice. I join in the special concurrence of Mr. Justice Popovich. 1 ' CS-2 1 1 CITY OF C NEASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 1 March 28, 1988 Soo Line Railroad Company Attn: Mr. Michael M. Mullins Soo Line Building Box 530 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Re: North/South Connector (Market Blvd. ) Agreement Revisions File No. 86-11A-2 ' Your File No. 154 Dear Mr. Mullins : Enclosed please find two initialed copies of the North/South Connector Agreement originally executed and sent to you January 27, 1988 . It is frustrating to learn of yet another delay in ' having this Authorization-For-Expenditure underway to say nothing of the $19 , 441 increase to the estimated cost for the installa- tion of the crossing and warning devices . You may be interested to know that the City anticipates incurring over $8 , 300 in additional costs for temporary detouring of traf- fic at the Great Plains Boulevard railroad crossing because the ' Soo Line Railroad has not carried through with construction of this crossing in 1987 as planned. The City' s public safety director and I are concerned, and I would think the Railroad ' would also be anxious to eliminate this temporary crossing con- dition and the potential liability risks that exist due to your delays . I sincerely hope the City will not be faced with a simi- lar detour condition awaiting the North/South connector construc- tion when our new Market Boulevard is completed this fall . Mr. Michael M. Mullins March 28 , 1988 Page 2 I would appreciate receiving from the Soo Line Railroad a task schedule that lays out Soo Line' s construction process and timing for both the North/South and Great Plains crossings . Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN dillb; Warren, P.E. ►gineer GGW:ktm tAttachment: Revised North/South Connector Agreement ( 2 copies ) t cc: Elliott Knetsch, Grannis, Grannis , Farrell & Knutson Gary Ehret, BRW Loren Sultze, Public Contact Engineer Jerry Nielsen, Vice President Engineering 1 I 1 I II ' Soo Line Railroad Company "' Soo Line Building • ' Box 530 1 ;, ..,.,� ,,,,/ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 April 6, 1988 (612)347-8210 Engr. File: MW 8440 Chanhassen MN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT II Project File Market Blvd. I '1;4.4! IIMr. Gary G. Warren, PE City Engineer City of Chanhassen CC 4 " "- S a'") II 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 4/Ii lee Chanhassen, MN 55317 IIDear Mr. Warren: RE: GRADE CROSSING AGREEMENT IIMARKET BLVD. (NORTH/SOUTH CONNECTOR) CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA II Attached is the City's fully executed copy of agreement dated March 31, 1988, covering installation of the new grade crossing, raising Soo Line's communication and signal lines and installation of warning devices at the proposed Market Blvd. 1 grade crossing. We are in the process of ordering the rubber crossing materials at this time. ' Our Regional Engineer will be in touch with you to work out a proposed construc- tion schedule for the crossing. Normally it takes about one year to complete the installation of warning devices. If the crossing is installed prior to installa- tion of warning devices and the City desires to open the crossing to traffic, the I City may petition the Minnesota Department of Transportation for approval of an interim stop order to install reflectorized crossbucks, stop signs and advance warning signs. II Yours very truly, II sie L. G Sultze Public Contact Engineer ILGS/asm Attachment cc: A. A. Raether II _ M. M. Mullins G. M. Short F. K. Cramer APR 0 r 1988 IT. M. Parsons Ci I Y OF CHANhASSEN I ' I I 1 .1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 1 \ki .. . " 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 March 29, 1988 I Re: Final Color Selection I Ground Storage Reservoir File No. 86-3 Dear Resident: IAs you are aware, on March 3 , 1988 , you received a letter from the City requesting your input on the color selection for the I ground storage reservoir located at Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. In response to citizen input requesting a color which would blend more esthetically with the sky tones, the City I Council at its March 28 , 1988 meeting officially selected a "cumulus" color for the reservoir tank. This is a very pale blue color and should blend quite readily with the sky. I For those of you who may not know, the City property in the imme- diate vicinity of the reservoir is scheduled to be a small, passive neighborhood park area ( i .e. picnic and natural area; no I ball fields) . In conjunction with the development of this small park, City staff at the request of the Council will be investi- gating the appropriateness and expense of painting the lower por- tion tion of this reservoir with a mural painting, the intent being to disguise this lower portion to blend in with the trees and such in the lower area. Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator, is responsible for the development of this park area Iand would welcome your thoughts on this park facility. Thank you for your input. We anticipate the reservoir painting Ito commence within the next 6-8 weeks. Sincerely, 1 CITY OF CHApHASSEN KJ &A-N...._-_-----,) I 4.100 nary Warren, P.E. Ci. , _ - . ineer IGGW:ktm cc: City Council Administrative Packet ( 4/11/88 ) / ILori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator r 1 Joseph & LuVan Troendle Conrad Eggan Todd & Sharon Novaczyk 1015 Pleasant View Road 6500 Peaceful Lane 6371 Pleasant View Cove Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Arthur & R. Owens Marlow & K. Peterson Frank Beddor, Jr. I6535 Peaceful Lane 1180 Pleasant View Road 649 Fifth Avenue South Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Naples, FL 33940 Boeck-Kevitt Partnership Lawrence & K. Kerber Centex Real eal Estates Corp. 7441 Jolly Lane 6420 Powers Boulevard 5959 Baker Road, Suite 300 IIBrooklyn Park, MN 55428 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minnetonka, MN 55345 IDonald Miller Johnson and J. L. Wilson, III Donelson Homes, Inc. Marion J. Johnson 9 Apache Ridge Road c/o Samuel Donelson 1040 Western Drive Santa Fe, NM 87505 19963 Irving Street 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Elk River, MN 55330 IIThomas McGinn Joyce E. Bennett Loren Blackstad 6671 Powers Boulevard P.O. Box 147 5820 Wooddale Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 Edina, MN 55424 II IIHenry and Margaret Coudron Gordon & Patricia Whiteman Jennie A. Hays 6681 Powers Boulevard 825 Pleasant View Road 6691 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II John Clark William P. Cunningham Kim Rothfuss II1215 Lake Lucy Road 865 Pleasant View Road 6680 Nez Perce Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IICounty of Carver Henry A. & Sharon Graef Layton B. Paine Attn: Public Works Dept. 855 Pleasant View Road 1092 Shenendoah Circle I600 East Fourth Street Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 IRosalee M. Dodd Allen LaBatt, III Gerald E. Boucher c/o Dorsey & Whitney 12901 Eagle Ridge Drive 1020 Western Drive 2200 First Bank Place East Burnsville, MN 55337 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IIMinneapolis, MN 55402 IIHelen Jacques Barry & Patsy Calhoon Leonard Dusoski 1210 Lake Lucy Road 6380 Pleasant View Cove 1000 Western Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Lynda Johnson Timothy & Theresa Foster Gerald H. & Sharon Lund II 1140 Pleasant View Road 6370 Pleasant View Cove Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 990 Western Drive Chanhao ,,., -- ___ Willard Shoberg Al Klingelhutz James Ravis 980 Western Drive 8600 Great Plains Boulevard 6720 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 35317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Helmer & Judith Heckel Henry Dimler Richard Ersbo I960 Western Drive 961 Western Drive 1251 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IGregory Peppersack David & Marilynn Cook Robert Petersen 940 Western Drive 941 Western Drive 6650 Powers Boulevard IChanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ISteven & Gloria Ray Mathias & Judith Jacobs Richard Ortenblad 920 Western Drive 921 Western Drive 1351 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I IChin Van Nguyen David & Linell Santella Wendall Gravlun 900 Western Drive 881 Western Drive 6270 Blue Jay Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Excelsior, MN 55331 I John F. Johnson Wallace Christensen J. Michael Maxwell I6694 Nez Perce Drive 1001 Western Drive 1010 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Todd Owens Ernst & Lois Herrmann Dennis Mathisen 6661 Nez Perce Drive 991 Western Drive 850 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 IRamona Beckman Steven P. Hayes James B. Stasson and 6670 Hopi Road 6690 Nez Perce Drive Mary Skelton I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 6400 Peaceful Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 IE. & V. Keefer John D. Myskevitz Terry Halvorson 6681 Nez Perce Drive 900 Hiawatha Drive James B. Stasson p Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1139 S. CLeveland Ave. ISt. Paul, MN 55113 ILewis & Juliabelle Woitalla Russell Kohman 6689 Nez Perce 6730 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Nadean Collver William Infanger I6686 Hopi Road 6740 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 '-. 1 Page two March 25, 1988 These goals are reflected in These transit and highway a series of 19 policies that address a broad ran$e oftr accompanying ghway issues, and are to be implemented b i will be ysng strategies. In addition, evaluation methods are einclud measure the success of various these strategies. included that The polio Sies. I y plan presents five broad strategies accomplishing a number of the that will assist in above. These strategies include: and attaining the goals identified ° Metering access on the system Metering western two-thirds of the metropolitan hi prevent short trips from clogging highways and slowing the long trips to re highway I regional resources. g down o Providing preferential access at metered r highway system for multi-occupancy ramps on the metropolitan Y vehicles. II o Adding special lanes for multi-occu purpose lanes wherever additional caacity is cy vehicles rather than p needed. general- 1 g traffic-mitigating Developing four to six LRT corridors focusing on the do ° Requirin wntowns. measures or travel-demand management strategies by local units of strategies to a government and the sector approving new regional transportation private investments. While the RTB conducts its review of the draft II several opportunities for plan, the Council will local planners will be people to learn more about the provide 10 and May held on May 6, while plan. A forum for Y 16. A formal public hearing Public meetings will be b0 held in late June. g on the plan and the RTB's on May For more information on these meetings, s COCarlts will mil of the Council's transportation planning staff at 291-6501. g , call Carl Ohrn A free copy 9 501. py of the draft plan may be obtained by calling the Council' Center at 291_6464. s Data Sincerely, Steve Keefe Chair p- .g ich