Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Administrative Section
1 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION Future Engineering City Council Agenda Items. 1 Letter to Rep. Willard Munger dated February 22, 1991. Letter to Marlow Peterson dated February 20, 1991. 1 Letter from Robert Lindall dated February 20, 1991. 1 Letter to Ms. Ann Perry dated February 26, 1991. Information re: 1991 Twin Cities Commercial Real Estate Exhibition. 1 Letter to Carl Ohrn dated February 27, 1991. Letter from Ms. Suzanne M. Donnell dated February 25, 1991. 1 Memo from Scott Harr dated February 26, 1991. 1 Information re: Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. vs. City of Chanhassen. Furture Engineering City Council Items re: Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade. 1 Letter to MNDOT re: MSA Systems Revision dated March 1, 1991. H.R.A. Accounts Payable dated March 11, 1991. 1 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Publication dated February 199: Memo from Gary Warren dated March 4, 1991. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 +� CITY OF CHANHASSEN FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS ENGINEERING February 25, 1991 ' - Approve Plans and Specifications for South Leg TH 101 Improvement Project No. 90 -20; Authorize Advertising for Bids - Authorize Update of Feasibility Study for Teton Lane and Lilac Lane Project No. 91 -4 - Authorize Feasibility Study for Improvements to West 79th Street from Trunk ' Highway 101 /Great Plains Boulevard East to Cul-de -sac March 11, 1991 ' - Approve Contract Amendment #1 for HNTB on Audubon Road South Project No.89 -18 - Approve Plans and Specifications for Street and Utility Construction Project No. 91 -7 - Trunk Highway 5 Improvements from County Road 17 to Trunk Highway 41: 1) Approve Joint Pacers Agreement for Preparation of Construction Documents 2) Approve Engineering Services Contract with Barton- Aschman - Approve Development Contract for Lake Susan Hills West 6th Addition Project 91 -7 - Approve Development Contract for Valvoline Rapid Oil - Approve Plans and Specifications for Public Improvements to Chan Haven Plaza Project No. 91 -2 - Receive Pavement Management Needs Report - Approve Plans and Specifications for Construction of Well No. 6 and Related Watermains and Appurtenances; Authorize Advertising for Bids, Project No. 91 -1 March 25, 1991 - Accept Feasibility Study for Upgrade Minnewashta Parkway; Call Public Hearing, Improvement Project No. 90-15 - Award of Bids for Construction of Well No. 6, Project No. 91 -1 - Award of Bids for West 78th Street Detachment Project No. 87 -2 - Approve Preliminary Plans for TH 5 from TH 41 to CSAH 17; Layout No. 1B, S.P. 1002 -88035 (5=121) - Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 1991 Sewer Rehab /Pavement Rehab Program 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN FUTURE CITY UNCIL AGENDA ITEMS CO ENGINEERING i Page 2 March , 1991 i - City Council Workshop: Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade - Project No. 90 -15 March 14, 1991 - Neighborhood Meeting: Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade - Project No. 90 -15 i April 8, 1991 - Public Hearing on Minnewashta Parkway Feasibility; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications - Project No. 90 -15 April 22; 1991 - Approve Plans and Specifications for 1991 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation , Program; Authorize Advertising for Bids - Project No. 91 -5 May 28, 1991 - Award of Bids 1991 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Program Project No. 91 -5 June 10, 1991 - Approval of Plans and Specifications for Upgrade Minnewashta Parkway; Authorize Advertising for Bids - Project No. 90 -15 June 24, 1991 - Award of Bids; South Leg Trunk Highway 101 - Inprovenent Project No. 90 -20 1 July 8, 1991 - Award of Bids Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade - Project No. 90 -15 1 IF 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS ENGINEERING Page 3 Future Agenda Items - Approve Amended Development Contract for Market Square - Adopt Assessment Roll for Audubon Road South Project No. 89 -18 - Adopt Assessment Roll for Frontier Trail Project No. 89 -10 - Adopt Assessment Roll for Country Hospitality Suites Project No. 89 -25 - Consider Feasibility Study for Extension of Dell Road from Lake Drive East South to Eden Prairie City Limits, Project No. 90 -7 (Joint with Eden Prairie) - Approve Plans and Specifications for County Road 17 Upgrade South of TH 5 Improvement Project No. 90 -4; Authorize Advertising for Bids (1/92) - Award of Bids; County Road 17 Upgrade South of TH 5 Improvement Project No. 90 -4 (Spring /1992) ' - Approve Plans and Specifications for North Leg TH 101 Improvement Project - No. 88 -22B; Authorize Advertising for Bids (1/92) 1 - Award of Bids; North Leg TH 101 Improvement Project No. 88 -22B (4/27/92) - Review Traffic Control Issues - Pheasant Hill Addition - Approve Cooperative Funding Agreement with MnDOT for Auxiliary Turn Lanes on Trunk Highway 101 at Sandy Hook Road and Choctaw Circle 1 1 CONSULTANTS PLEASE NOTE: Reports are due in Engineering no later than 10 days' prior to the City Council meeting date, i.e. Friday. Copies to: City Hall Department Heads Kim Meuwissen Karen Engelhardt, Office Manager City Council Administrative Packet Gary Ehret, BRW Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt & Associates Gary Warren, Acting City Engineer Jim Bullert, B.A. Leisch asm. 11 1 CITY OF 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 February 22, 1991 1 1 Representative Willard Munger Minnesota House of Representatives St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Representative Munger: 1 I am writing you in reference to your bill, House File No. 1, the Wetland Enhancement Preservation and Protection Act of 1991. On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I want to applaud your efforts in promoting enhanced wetland protection and improved coordination among agencies concerned with wetlands. In our view, state recognition of the no -net loss policy is long overdue and we believe it is beneficial for local government to have such an act to add credibility to our own wetland protection efforts. The City of Chanhassen has been a leader in wetland protection 1 efforts. Since 1984, the City has enforced an innovative wetland protection program with good success. We have coordinated these efforts with the local Watershed Districts, Minnesota DNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, County Soil Conservation District and Corp of Engineers. Our wetland protection program is based on what is a no -net loss policy and protects any size wetland from Type II to Type VIII. We have enforced this program through our development review process using a wetland alteration permit. We have always enforced avoidance of alteration for valuable and functional wetlands and have allowed mitigation in cases where the existing wetland is in poor condition and could be improved. Where wetlands exist on sites that are undergoing subdivision or development review, the City typically will require the dedication of a protective conservation easement over the wetland to avoid direct impact and will also take measures to ensure that water draining into the wetland is of good quality so as to avoid any indirect impacts. The City remains on the cutting edge of wetland protection efforts. We have recently adopted a Surface Water Utility District and have begun to collect funds from our residents that will be used to implement a coordinated water management strategy. Our efforts are three -fold, including a storm water management program, a water quality improvement program, and enhanced wetland protection based upon current state of the art 1 11 Representative Willard Munger February 22, 1991 Page 2 techniques. These objectives were jointly reviewed with DNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, our County governments and Watershed Districts - all of whom concluded that the City, given the resources available ' to us, were in the best position to be the lead agency. The City is also participating in a Metropolitan Council sponsored task force charged with the task of improving water quality in the Minnesota River. The information concerning Chanhassen is provided for two reasons. First, we believe it demonstrates our long- standing commitment to wetland protection efforts. Secondly, I hope it emphasizes the fact that Chanhassen, and many other metropolitan communities, are already undertaking any of the tasks that are included in your legislation. While I must emphasize that we do strongly support the intent of ' your legislation, your bill, along with "a similar bill in the Senate, poses several significant concerns for us. The first concern is that there does not seem to have been significant involvement of local city government in development of the bill. ' The bill places a heavy emphasis on county governments for enforcement. In our opinion, particularly in the metropolitan area, we believe this lack of coordination with local city 11 government is an unfortunate oversight. In Chanhassen's case in particular, I can state quite sincerely that our local wetland preservation efforts far exceed anything Carver County currently enforces or is likely to enforce in the future. We are able to successfully coordinate all interested parties and act as the main source for information. The oversight is of even more concern since, in the metro area, wetlands are threatened by development to ' - a much greater degree than from agricultural impacts. County governments have little or no involvement in development reviews which are typically undertaken solely by the local city government. Therefore, I would ask that your bill reflect the ability and desire of local city government to continue our long- standing and supportive involvement in wetland protection. We are comfortable with local city government having the primary role for wetland regulations. Another issue for us concerns the desirability of requiring protected wetlands to be acquired with public funds. As stated above, Chanhassen typically exacts wetland protection as a cost of doing development in our community. We did not put a wetland on a particular parcel and we believe our responsibility is therefore one of protecting what nature put on the ground, leaving the financial cost of that protection for the developer to negotiate with the property owner. This has been very successfully without ever having compensation brought up by the developer. In fact, the developer now realizes what an asset a wetland is. I also note that Chanhassen has a wetland alteration ordinance that would 1 II ' Representative Munger 1' February 22, 1991 • Page 3 prevent an individual property owner from filling a wetland 1 regardless of whether or not the property is proposed for development. We are concerned that the new bill has the potential II of altering the context under which we have protected wetlands in the past. Your bill also incorporates procedures that would greatly protract 1 and extend review times required for development. Not only is there an entirely new review process required in instances where wetland impact may result, but we believe that the requirement that I mitigative actions be approved and in place for one year prior to undertaking any wetland alteration is excessive. Essentially, a development that would have wetland impact will now have a minimum delay of approximately two years before any construction could occur. We appreciate the fact that this will make a developer think twice about impacting a wetland, but believe this is already the case with our present regulations. This will greatly increase I the cost of development, and more importantly, we do not think it is necessary to achieve the result of protecting the wetlands. Lastly, the review procedure outlined in the bill seems to be an II additional layer of government involvement over and above what we already undertake. We would recommend against any further increase in the complexity of wetland review which is already an extraordinary cumbersome process. 1 In closing, I again want to state our support for the fundamental efforts of your bill and of your own personal efforts on behalf of wetland protection. I believe that if our concerns can be addressed, the resulting bill will achieve the goal to which we all are striving. II Sin ly, aul gauss, AICP Jo Ann Olsen Director of Planning Senior Planner 1 PK:k cc: Mayor and City Council 1 Planning Commission 1 1 1 1 4 C ITYOF Via., r� i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 February 20, 1991 1 Northern States Power Company Attn: Mr. Marlow Peterson 1 5509 County Road 19 Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Certificate of Deposit No. 8414 I Dated: December 4, 1987 Principal Amount: $107,000 Owner: City of Chanhassen and NSP 1 Dear Mr. Peterson: Pursuant to our discussions, I contacted Kevin McShane, President of the Chanhassen Bank, as to the procedure which should be used to remove NSP's interests in the above stated certificate of deposit I (see attached letter dated January 28, 1991). As I noted in my letter to Mr. McShane, I would like to formally acknowledge NSP's release of its interest in this CD, at this time, rather than attempting to resurrect records in 1992 - the originally scheduled I inaturity date. Cindy Reese, Assistant Vice - President of the Chanhassen Bank, 1 contacted me yesterday stating that the CD could stay in place. NSP's name could be removed if they received a letter from NSP acknowledging NSP's agreement to the release. Since your office had originally established /approved the form of security, it would I seem logical that your office would be in a position to release such. I leave the decision as to who should sign the release and the form of the acknowledgement to you and Ms. Reese. II I would again like to thank NSP for its cooperation in our downtown redevelopment process. It is my understanding that the "pass back I policy" we developed has now become a state /regional policy for NSP, i.e. additional NSP revenues generated within a redevelopment area can be used to offset costs typically charged back to a city for undergrounding existing overhead service. Although the number II of meetings required to develop this concept involved minor conflicts (four broken chairs is still a minor conflict - right ?), I firmly believe that the policy developed will benefit our state/ II region. The process also shows the importance of developing 11 II Mr. Marlow Peterson 1 February 20, 1991 Page 2 positive "private /public relationships" which can produce II "win /win" results - concepts which both NSP and the city continue to strive for separately and collectively. Again, I would like to II thank you for your efforts to ensure that these policies became a reality. Additionally, as we are both Chanhassen residents, we can thank each other for saving each other $214,000 in taxpayer dollars II - albeit your NSP dividend may be slightly lower. Thanks again. Sincerel , ( g X ) I v II Don Ashworth City Manager 1 DA:k' • Enclosure II cc: Cindy Reese, Assistant Vice - President, Chanhassen Bank II Jean Meuwissen, City Treasurer /Mayor and City Council 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 C ITYOF CHANHASSEN 1041‘i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' January 28, 1991 Mr. Kevin McShane, President The Chanhassen Bank 600 West 78th Street ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Certificate of Deposit #8414 Dated December 4, 1987 Principal Amount: $107,000 Dear Kevin: ' The City of Chanhassen and NSP hold title to the above noted Certificate of Deposit. Such represented a security deposit by the ' City of Chanhassen pursuant to a development agreement between NSP and the City. Under that agreement, costs incurred by NSP in undergrounding their utility within the downtown area would be paid via increased revenues. These projections were made by the City of Chanhassen and the $107,000 certificate was, again, deposited should it be shown that the city's projections were wrong. Marlow Peterson of NSP contacted me yesterday stating that revenue projections were ahead of schedule and that the city had met it's commitments under the development contract. Accordingly, NSP is 1 prepared to release any interest in the above noted CD. Although this CD does not mature until 1992, I would like to formally acknowledge NSP's release of interest, at this time, rather than attempting to resurrect records "in 1992. The city does not wish to surrendor this certificate. Please contact me as to how we can acknowledge the release of interests by NSP in this certificate. ' Thank you for your attention. Sincerel , LO4SZ43 Don Ashworth 1 City Manager DA:k - 1 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION, INC. 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612 - 337 -9300 February 20, 1991 Mr. Todd Vlatkovich Larkin, Hoffman, et al 222 South 9th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Budget for Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition Our File No. LN400 -51 Dear Todd: ' At the February 13, 1991 Board of Directors meeting, the Coalition Board directed me to request that you provide us with -a proposed scope of services for the year which recognizes our $15,000.00 budget for the year, the amount already incurred, -a limit of no more than $1000.00 per month until further notice our desire to have you assist us in obtaining our proposed federal grant this year. For the time being, we wish to have you assume that you will not be our a liaison to MnDOT. I am sure that it will be difficult to pare down your level of services from last year. However, funds are hard to come by this year and we don't wish to obligate ourselves to a budget level which we are unable to fund. I would appreciate receiving your proposed scope of services within the next two weeks, if possible. Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you. You ver tr ,F4/(4 • Robert J. indall President ' cc: Board Members Gene Ranieri rL CEIVED FEB 25 1991 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION INC. 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 612 - 337 -9300 1 February 21, 1991 1 Mr. John Mullen, P.E. Vice President Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. 111 Third Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Re: Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition Contribution to Cost of TH5 Design in Hennepin County Our File No. LN400 -51 1 Dear John: At its Board of Directors meeting on February 13, 1991, the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition approved the payment of $14,986.10 to Barton - Aschman in settlement of amounts owed to Barton - Aschman for design of the widening of Highway 5 between I494 and the Carver County border, provided that the payment be 1 made as the Coalition's cash flow will permit, and provided that Barton - Aschman will agree that the Coalition's payment of this amount will fully satisfy any claim by Barton - Aschman against the ' Coalition, Hennepin County, Carver County, the City of Eden Prairie, City of Chanhassen and the City of Chaska for payment of your fees and reimbursement of costs to Barton - Aschman or any other party as a result of Barton - Aschman's professional services 1 in relation to this project. I propose that the Coalition pay Barton - Aschman $3,000 within 5 days after receipt by me of a copy of this letter countersigned by an authorized representative of Barton - Aschman agreeing to these terms and conditions, $3,000 within 35 days after the date of my receipt of the letter, $3,000 within 65 days after receipt 1 of the letter, $3,000 within 90 days after receipt of the letter and $2,986.10 within 120 days after receipt of the letter. 1 If the foregoing terms and conditions are acceptable to Barton - Aschman, please execute the bottom of this letter in the place provided to confirm acceptance by Barton - Aschman of this 1 proposal. 1 11 11 Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you for your cooperation. II Y.. - very, tr , 11 • J. indall President II RJL:jmc cc: Coalition Board Members II P.S. I will be gone from February 22 to March 6. If this is acceptable to you, please send the original to me and a copy to Darrell Sudheimer, D &J Furniture and Floors, 524 South II Elm Street, Waconia, MN 55387. He is the Coalition's treasurer and can issue the check in accordance with the schedule. 1 • Pursuant to the authority .of the Board of Directors of Barton- ' Aschman Associates, Inc. and on behalf of the corporation, I hereby agree to release the Southwest Corridor Transporation II Coalition, Hennepin County, Carver County, the City of Eden Prairie, the City of Chanhassen and the City of Chaska of any further liability for payment to Barton - Aschman for professional fees, third party costs and all other claims, if any, pursuant to II agreements under which Barton - Aschman provided engineering design services for the widening of Trunk Highway 5 to four lanes between I494 and the Carver County border, provided payment is II made to Barton - Aschman in the amount of $14,986.10. This release shall become effective upon receipt of final payment of that amount. II BARTON - ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. By 1 Its II II II II II 1 Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Revised December 5, 1990 Date: September 12, 1990 Invoice Number: 60116 Period Ending: August 24, 1990 Southwest Coalition 11995 Single Tree Lane ' Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Attention: Mr. Richard Feerick State Project No: SP 1002 -44 (TH 5) SP 2701 -28 (TH 5) Location: Trunk Highway 5 Total Billing Previously Billed This To Date Billed Invoice ' 1. Direct Salaries $ 176,963.10 $ 172,857.95 $ 4,105.15 11 2. Overhead @ 185% 327,381.70 319,787.17 . 7,594.53 3. Other Direct Non - Salary Costs 160,283.01 158,166.56 2,116.45 4. Fixed Fee 50,434.52 49.264.55 1,169.97 Subtotal $ 715,062.33 $ 700,076.23 $ 14,986.10 Totals $ 715,062.33 $ 700,076.23 $ 14,986.10 Total Amount Due This Invoice $ 14,986.10 ' I hereby certify that the above statement is just and correct and payment has not been received. Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. 1 ohn C. Mulla) ice President Client Copy CITYOF L 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 February 26, 1991 1 Ms. Ann Perry ' Director of Planning City of Minnetonka 14600 Minnetonka Blvd. • Minnetonka, MN 55345 Dear Ann: ' I am pleased to present a copy of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Chanhassen for your review. The Plan represents the culmination of over two years of effort on the part of the City Planning Commission and City Council. The document is an entirely new Plan rather than simply a modification of our 1980 Plan. This was done in view of the tremendous growth that the City has experienced and also due to the growth and issues that the City must address in the 1990s. The Plan incorporates a concurrent MUSA Line request. The MUSA Line request is being made since the City is fundamentally out of developable ground within the MUSA. By 1990, the City had already experienced population and employment growth that far exceeded what the Metropolitan Council had projected for our community for the year 2000. The resulting MUSA Line request is for 2,780 gross acres with 1,571 net acres remaining after land that is not developable for various reasons is excluded. The Plan was officially submitted to the Metropolitan Council for their review on Monday, February 25, 1991. As you are aware, the review process is likely to take a minimum of 90 days, during which time I would be happy to meet with you to discuss any aspects of the Plan you feel are warranted. Sincerely, _ ' Paul Krauss, AICP Director of Planning cc: Mayor and City Council Planning Commission Shirley Bruers, City of Chaska Chris Enger, City of Eden Prairie Bradley Nielsen, City of Shorewood Curt Oakes, City of Victoria Virginia Harris, Carver County David Clough, Chaska School District 112 Dr. Donald Draayer, Minnetonka School District 276 Attendance is open to everyone interested in the latest trends and innovations in the Twin City Commercial Real Estate Industry t'-e•J 3 - / / -y/ 1991 TWIN CITIES COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXHIBITION ' Sponsored By: • 7Y THE SOCIETY OF INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE REALTORS and THE ORGANIZATION OF COMMERCIAL REALTORS of the Minneapolis Area Association of REALTORS 1 1 Twin City Commercial Real Estate Exhibition Sponsored by SIOR and OCR I 5750 Lincoln Drive Minneapolis, MN 55436 • 1 1 Don't Miss This Event! 1 1 RESERVATION REQUEST Twin Cities Commercial Real Estate Exhibition Wednesday, March 27,1991- 3:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Minneapolis Convention Center (The Ballroom) (Please Print or Type) ADVANCE TICKET: $10 I Deadline for Advance Registration: March 20, 1991 - Tickets after March 20, 1991 and at door $15 *Confirmations will be sent * Name badges will be at the door. Complimentary Hors Doeurve's, Cash Bar. I NAME: PHONE: COMPANY: ADDRESS; Make check payable to OCR -SIOR 1 Mail to: Cathy Lingenfelter, Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors, 5750 Lincoln Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55436 1 • EXHIBITORS: i Company Number Company Number 1 Ac'cent Properties 5 Palen- Kimball Co. 33 Bachmier Corp. 24 Richard Ellis, Inc. 11 1 Bay -West 16 RTC 56 Caliber Development 25 Ryan Construction 1 Car -Tel Communications 27 Shelard Group 102 1 Chicago Title 48 St. Paul Port Authority 21 City of Anoka 41 Steiner Development 9 City of Burnsville 17 STS Consultants 36 1 City of Chanhassen 14 Summit Comm'l Property 13 City of Chaska 51 Towle Properties 30 City of Eden Prairie 43 Trammel Crow 44 1 City of Maple Grove 7 United Properties 103 City of So. St. Paul 34 -35 VenStar 6 Coldwell Banker 46 Venture Mortgage 3 1 CSM Corporation 15 Welsh Companies 20-40 - Dahlen & Associates 18 Welsh - Allianz 19' Garfield Clark Associates 54 Westwood Professional Svc. 50 1 GME Consulting Griffin Properties 42 - Heitman Development 101 i a • "� Hoyt Properties 2 HORS of 29 1 30131 . Interspace 52 X10 JLT Group 4 SENHAR -- 0 ' 1 1 28 ' 32 41 ' � � ., Kraus Anderson 29 AREA k, 9 12 27 ' 33 42 , _ SEATNG AREA LHB Engineers /Architects 8 — 8 1 13 26 1 34 43 ' 1 Lot Lines i • Marfield, Belgard,Yaffe 12 1 14 25 1 1 35 44 51 MEPC —1 15 24 1 1 36 45 ( 52 Metro Building Systems 28 5 _ T `� 0 5 16 23 I -I 1 37 46 s3 Metro East Development 47 se -- 61 a �''� 17 22 �' 38 47 �' Midwest Environmental 23 —+ F-- --1 l i i 1 ST 62 3 18 21 39 48 BAR Minnegasco 31 --1 Minnesota Title 53 56 1----1 3 222 19 20 { 1 1 40 49 MN Real Estate Journal 26 55A ~ 1 � 1 101 1 102 I Moore Data 20 ss. . Mpls. Community Development 1oa So r i Nordquist Sign 37 a 1 Northco Environmental 10 i Opus Corporation 49 1 BOOTH LAYOUT 1 1 TWIN CITY COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXHIBITION OCR and SIOR are planning a major real estate marketing event that will keep you up to date on what is happening in the Twin City Commercial Real Estate Market. All major Twin City area ' developers, owners, and industrial, � d portfolio managers of industrial, office, retail and land have been invited to exchange ideas and information on plans, ■ prospects, and future ventures. More than 70 exhibitors will be i represented. MARK your calendar now! 1 SEMINAR: "Getting the Transaction g Closed " (Approved 1 hour Real Estate Credit) TIME: 5:00 p.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. _ 1 TOPIC: 4 C: Program panelists will discuss current requirements and trends I in closing commercial real estate transactions. SPEAKERS: Chuck Hoyem - Attorney, Minnesota Title 1 Hugh Maynard - Attorney, Leonard, Street & Dienard Ross Ohman - Vice President, Environmental Services, 1 Midwest Environmental Control Corp. 1 PARKING: b we( ■ ....�:.. I K E Y / , ‘4..... ^ -:,:4 �1i NCIPA PARKING 1 Y L NG RAMPS � � /,. R LA M A>. ! We. :11 151".71 . ft, * P 1; ' .\\: w +•e � / ! .5. 9 ..ra. OTHER PUSLIC RAMPS - - •�\ ( -64" !T i � - ."`- Convention Cent �r _4i 0 Lam ' SURrA PARKING LOTS Ballroom A • 600 s • • • � �•••�" +�+ ♦ �� ' • R••R 1:::: R•• :•: a 2 L..J " li 1 • or s►Accs (Amex.) 1.44e •:!!:' .*•:•"' !:— _ CD' a. T 1991 Commercial Real Estate Exhibition Committee Tim Igo, Welsh Company 829 -3497 Don Opheim, Northco Corporation 332 -2212 1 Fred Hedberg, Welsh Company 829 -3421 Dennis Panzer, The Shelard Group 944 -7100 Brent Sullivan, Towle Real Estate 347 -9365 Larry Chevalier, SIOR - Towle Real Estate 341 -4444 Garfield Clark, SIOR - Garfield Clark Co. 935 - 6699 John Gabrielson, SIOR - The Chase Company 525 -1000 1 Wally Kolsrud, SIOR - Kolsrud Company 890 -6517 Jim Maciej, SIOR - Ac'cent Real Estate 896 -1101 Harry Miller, SIOR - Boblett & Associates 333 - 6515 Jim Miller, SIOR - The Shelard Group 944 -7100 Bill Traiser, SIOR - Traiser Company 892 -5535 Twin City SIOR Members 1 Bud Andrus, Andrus Agency James Benson, The Chase Company 1 Bruce Bermel, The Chase Company Helen Brooks, Towle Real Estate • David Bruce, The Chase Company Lary Chevalier, Towle Real Estate Garfield Clark, Garfield Clark Co. John Gabrielson, The Chase Company Bob Greenan, General Mills Mike Hoffman, Towle Real Estate 1 Wally Kolsrud, Kolsrud Company Jim Maciej, Ac'cent Real Estate Jim Miller, The Shelard Group Harry Miller, Boblett Associates Jock Ramaley, Jr., Thorpe Bros. Jim Wenthold, Boblett Associates 1 Don Woodward, Boblett Associates Member Firms of the Regional Commercial Industrial Exchange A.G. Real Estate Resources Linda Berquist, Broker ERA Muske Company A.L. Johnson Investment Co. Realtrac, Inc. Accent Real Estate, Ltd. Martin E. Campion & Assoc. The Commercial Connection ICjensen- Schneider Realty World TCF Realty Accent Realty, Inc. Robert Bohlen Associates Eberhardt Company Ronald W. Johnson RE/MAX Elite Executives Adams Assocates Century 21 Johnson & Assoc. Copperwood Investment, Inc. Kruger, Gallery of Haines RE/MAX Realty Speciality Allied Realty Century 21 Brighton Realty Deemer Co. Griffin Real Estate The Realty House American Commercial Properties Century 21 Northwest Corp orate Real Estate Jebco Properties, Inc. RE/MAX Realer American Family Realty Century 21 Pearson w Star Realty Hemline Twin City Realty World Barthel ' American Real Palate Century 21 Perfection Fahey Sales Agency Integrated Real Estate Serv. Nome Management Co. Anchor Commercial Properties Chain of lakes Real Estate Fahey Sales Agency Haney Hansen Re/Max Advantage Andrus Agency The Chase Company First Minneapolis Realty Lake Region Properties, Inc. Northco Corporation Anoka Co. Assoc. of Realtors P.C. Christopherson Realty Clyde Fish Realty Lent's Realty Co. Progressive Real Estate Avalon Real Estate Clapp- Thomuen Co. Clyde Fah Realty Lenusch Company Northwest Industrial Realty 1 Baillon Company Coldwell Banker Four Star Realty John E. Mannillo & Assoc. Realty World Bruggeman BC Properties, Inc. Coldwell Banker/Keller -Rymer Frauenahuh Companies Ron Manning Realty Co. Realty World MN State Bell Real Estate, lnc. Coldwell Banker Commercial Gardner Real Estate Medical Resource Group Realty World Pauky /Johnson Benco Realty The Commerce Co. Garfield Clark & Assoc. Meyer investment Aaaoc. Realty World Lund Boyum Realty Conunercial Realty ' Gem Real Estate Co. Steve J. Michel - Broker, Inc. Red Rose Realty Bradbury Fischer & Co. Ray Connelly Realty General Growth Center Co. Miller Real Estate Rem Realty, Inc. 1 Brendsel Properties, Inc. M.S. Cook Realty Bruce Goldstein & Assoc. Minneapolis Area Assoc. Reahon J. Scott Reline Brentwood Commercial Corridor Properties, Inc. Gribbk Realty MSP Real Estate, Inc. The Rice Company Bright Development Services Counaelor Realty, Inc. Griffin Real Estate MTR & Associates Ted Risk Realty Co. Brook Park Realty Counland Real Estate James M. Grobe, Inc, Nationwide Realty Riverdale Realty, Ltd. Burnet Realty, Inc. The Crag Company HawQwme Realty Earl Netwal Realty Rollin & Associates 1 C.R.A. Realty, Inc. Century 21 Famungton Heritage Realty North Star Services Realty Rothschild R. E. Co. Cabs Realty co. Century 21 South Country High View Inveatmeats Action Propert Management Royal Management Calhoun Realty Co. Dakota Central Ltd. Hineline/Johnson Kathleen Nye SB Real Estate Services Caliber Development Co. Darkenwald, Inc. Hollander Associated Prof. N stedt Enterprises, . Schwab Realty Co. Cambridge Group Davern Real Estate Home Finders Realty .,P Corporation The Shelard Group Cannon Realty & Mgmt. Davis & Lagean, Inc. Home Leasinagg & Saks Partaato & Assoc. Russell Smith Aisoc� Inc. rm iates, Inc. Cardinal Development Corp. Mark A. Davis & Assoc. Hot Line R ealty Patrick Companies Wm. F. Smith Co. 1 Confirm! Realty Co. Kenneth A. Dayton Realty Hoyt Management, Inc. J.F. Penniston Allen Snyder Career Realty, Inc. Thomas 1. Delaney o. Hoyt Properties, Inc. Y Neal A. Perlich Realty Co. Sp ''ni Lake Park Realty Centennial Real Estate Delta Realty, Inc. Independent Property Sem. A.B. Petit Co. Star 7 Realty, Inc. Cen trum Coordinators, Inc. Diversified Commit Brokers Inland Realty, _Inc. Pierce Realty Steiner Development, Inc. 1 Century 21 Baker Realty Robert E. Dowden, Ltd. Investors of Minnesota, Inc. Portfolio G inn, Sternfels & Co. Ceniury 21 Borden Realtors Edge Comm'I Real Estate Investment Real Estate Co. 'lie Profeuiotals, Inc. Stuart Corp. Century 21 Charcon Realty ERA Bohl/Helgeson, Inc. Investment Services Group Profeuional Ventures, Inc. Summit American Development Century 21 Christian Realty ERA News Realty Ivy Ridge Real Estate Prudential Devion Realty Summit Realty & Inv. Century 21 Investor's Mk lc ERA Conrad & Cowed Jontao Properties Quest Development, Inc. Summiu Commercial Realty Century 21 Lang Agency, ERA Pratt/Boo Wayne L. Johnson & Assoc. James M. Raddatz Res! Estate Sundial Realty 1 Century 21 Levenng Hamlet Eden Realty Harold H. Ksull & Assoc. untrue Realty, Century 21 White Dove Rity Edins R Kalman V Properties Inc. Thorpe Bros., Inc. David C. Be11 Real Estate ERA M.B. Hagen Reeky Kuether Real Estate, Inc. R�'X Real Estate Guide • Towle Real Estate Co. g Y hose A. Johnson Really RE/MAX Towne & salty W.H. Traiser Co., Inc. G.A. Carlson Homes, Inc. Bruce D. Egerton & Assoc. Y Y Realty World TCF Rsahy Trapp Realty Welsh Companies, Inc. 1 Twin City Commercial Real Estate Exhibition March 27, 1991 The Minneapolis Convention Center 3:30 p.m. to 8:00 I p.m. P P jil r• de. i •-t: • - de. • • . .„ , r . . . _ ........... — . .... • T _ • Mil CORM& - "id -0.• - - Alk- ,.. .. . i nos , , i - . 'a; .• _ 1 lur -...._ 7 k - . own!! .11 • ; 1— i 4 .:.-. - • -21,- .•_ • -7 . , ....k. .. •= / 1 "pp ...- • -. , , •:.-...u.=-- • " - "V`. iN . t ..., t ' ' r !".■ •1 _ ..., -• ilit 4; • 4 .- • 4 ,,, III „ • ; 1 - — ..._ •00 ,,,,,, 4 ,. - .,. ..• 4S. . ` • a 1111 , , - , • o!••'• ; W . , • 1 1 ' ' `i4. 4 4, 1 1 .. set I 1 ‘• A • - CV' - ' '1...1. • ; ..-• • i -1 7_ .4 i ill i tV ; • '., , _ . P - a - ,.• .- ow ..... t. •'....• - -• _ ••_ ..... . 21 7 . ,. •-- , ..„, .. g _ , ,...... ... - • -.., 1 . gm. ' 2 1 ... • Tte projental ProPetY 0 - m ove .,.p TO The Rod( _ • • ._ . . . riontum. Di .'1 '".,':'' C :! ' -71 % -_ a..t. -!,- .,.•.:(J, -.:, - ' ' '---!...-. - .1 '- _T .••••- I • - - -- - - - - - - - - .r - - -- - i rile's" 71•11 i :_ . .. - 1. .- • : , ,....:, ,. -4P 4 V _ . ,- . 41 1,...„r ...,,_„. • .., .:: i ly ...•_. _, • A I '.-- • i _. • WI \ '! . ... _ ... , .}.., : ._ • 1 I II v ,.: ,tt • i t t 1 l . , . . •_ ",,t• ti • it 1 4 4., - - •r" t •A. t ,..• . go. • - - r .,- 41 -••• .. ago. ft ••• $ ..- ....- ''' • EQUITABLE BE hL VSTATE ' e - • - / . - IAL GROUP. INC. - — _. • Ai si‘tt \ i ■•■••. \•,; mi., 1. (0\th.ss . ... r . . .... . r O..- - -. ,.,... ,s. ..... 4 ; ..,,s,.:.. • it ..: • tr i -T-------z.r.=... . _„,—" 31E '7' • z f•--_.-:' T .. .t ■. •-■•=-- .;". Mill : ' ' - --;:. ‘ . I .: i . t - . . . . ... 4 .... ........._..... IC , fil!:!.•'t i - ---z.4--- ' . . . .• , ' • • • , . . -- • ' ,--witv-kfit,-- - i.r.- -, 0 - i.o.l•- s-'-;- 1 V -,_ .' .. 't 0 , . . :c.; • -1- 'A •• - i _ l 4 ....,-... 75 , .,. ,-.,-.•.\•,:i _ „..._ , _ ‘ 111:1 , . _,..,,-1. ..:44., - - V , .; , • 1 . C, , '-'-' . .:! -=•. - , O. ;T" . t- 1 i .,', b y t . . • t 0. ..„,.. : ." '-- .• % .--- - --- -.' ■ =•.- 41444; A - - - a__ ..al Ali ________._-Z---.-... - .`,.... . 44 ..... .4. - ' . . '" iii:i . :7 .. ' _ - .t. :." . : v . • . . . . - - . . , . . . . . _ . .. .. .. untik,,,,,,,. -:. ..,- • 1' •,....„--i__.---- Ann:twi ---- - -. k ' . -‚ P -3, • - elk ii- Flop,.. ,,. .... .....4.... . ' 4,4 • . - .- • -..... I. L , _it, ._.. :: • , .. , ..,._ ,. • _________,____._____ 1 . _ 10 0 ......w. . .....,....„ _..._ k . vs vs _ _..... . _.... .‘.. ,..‘., 0 ,;.. . ._ , ..., :.... 11,p • : ; r-- • I - * .,..... •• - ..- . . tL ' '1' -. :-. f • I . 1 411* , _ • .- . - — _ •• • 1•_. • ...... - :' -•'-' - 164- ...7. - :•,1 i . • ,.„„ .;....... ...\ . , 4 , • -...• ,, . . . . . .• ., ......... . SA IL ` t z i i . It MINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS° Organized In 1887 5750 Lincoln Drive, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 -1694 • 612/933 -9020 REALTOR 1 February 22 , 1991 Todd Gerhart ' City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Todd: 1 Thanks for agreeing to exhibit at the Twin City Commercial Real Estate Exhibition. It's going to be an outstanding property marketing event. 1 Here's more info 1. Check out the attached brochure. You can see where your booth is and who is around you. Note locations I of the various bars and hors' doeurve tables. Booth set up starts at 10:00 a.m. 2. Attendance: We expect a good many of the 780 commercial Realtors in the Twin Cities to attend, these are people who work with buyers and tenants every day. Also hundreds of corporate real estate people and business owners are being invited. In addition, invitations are being sent to community leaders and the Press. The event is open to the public. 3. Promotion: Advertising: The Minnesota Real Estate Journal will carry a special 12 page section on OCR -SIOR and the event in the March 4th issue. A floor plan and exhibitor list will be included. Display ads are also planned for the Minnesota Real Estate Journal, CitiBusiness and Minneapolis and St. Paul papers. 1 Direct Mail: Two flyers have been developed for an extensive mailing list - one is attached. Press Conference: SIOR is sponsoring a Press Conference at 3:00 p.m. in the Seminar area on the Exhibit Floor. The first 20 minutes of the conference will be devoted to a discussion of the SIOR Market Report - a national and local analysis of the real estate market. The remaining 20 minutes will feature a discussion of the exhibit and how various exhibitors see the market. We would like to have a spokes person from your firm to be present and meet with the members of the Press and be part of this Press Conference. I 4. Promotions in your booth: Our goal is to provide a lively fun atmosphere and special promotions are encouraged. Some photo copy picture ideas are enclosed from the Dallas Commercial Real Estate Exhibition. Let us know your plans. 1 5. Booth Services: Brede is the official exhibit company. They will be sending you a packet of info regarding other services and items available that you may require. 6. The base booth fee includes: a draped 10' x 10' booth, 7" x 44" sign, two chairs and a skirted table. In I addition, two exhibition admission tickets are included in the cost of the booth. These tickets and exhibition badges will be available at the front check -in counter. Brede's number is 331 -4540 - Convention Food service number is 335 -6045. 1 Please call if you have further questions. Best regards, 1 .,....,:i) Bill Traiser - Tim Igo 1 Commerical Real Estate Exhibition Committee 1991 OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS Charles W. Adams Brian Duoos James B. Nunn Lee Doucette I Sandy Patterson, President Jeffrey C. Anderes Daniel C. Fazendin Gerald E. Otto Exec. Vice President 1211 Sherman P. son, erson, President £/err Danese A. Anderson Todd R. Grill Nancy L. Seabold William Gerst Kenneth J. Brooks Terri L. Jenstad John S. Smaby u,...ONS h G Celia A. Eames, Secretary SJaJJ Vice President FO Paul L. Svobodny, Treasurer Sharon A. Cassen Kenneth Johnson Louis J. Tanner OP•OATLACTV David L. Christensen Jean Leake Beverly J. Wiese Judy Puhl James T. Dattalo Nancy Norlander Staff Vice President CITYOF it 11 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNE OTA S 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' February 27, 1991 Mr. Carl Ohrn Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre Building ' 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Dear Carl: Several weeks ago, you and I had a telephone conversation regarding Metropolitan Council Rural Area Policies relative to the City of Chanhassen. As you are aware, we have been avidly following the development of the new Rural Area Policy document and are generally supportive of much of its content. This letter, however, is written to specifically address a matter that is peripherally related to the Rural Area Policies, but came to our attention during their discussion with Metropolitan Council staff. In 1986, as a condition of the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement, the City of Chanhassen was obligated to revise our Zoning Ordinances in several areas. As a result, we adopted current state of the art 11 standards for on -site sanitary systems in the rural areas, including a requirement that alternate drainfields be provided. Additionally, the City revised the ordinance to allow a maximum density of no more than one home per ten acres. As a final measure, we were required to raise the minimum lot size to 21 acres. The ordinance revisions required under the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement remain in place and have been faithfully adhered to. However, as a result of discussions on the Rural Area Policies, we became aware that shortly after the City was obligated to establish a 21/2 acre minimum standard in the rural areas, that a one acre standard was accepted as the standard by the Metropolitan Council. ' Further, we note that the current Rural Area Policy document proposes the elimination of minimum area standards preferring to rely on the actual ability of local soils to allow for the proper functioning of on -site sanitary disposal systems. In light of this new flexibility, the Chanhassen Planning Commission and City Council have directed me to formally request II Mr. Carl Ohrn February 27, 1991 II Page 2 that the Metropolitan Council agree to a revision in the Lake Ann I Interceptor Agreement that would eliminate the 2 acre minimum lot area requirement. Our purpose in doing this is not to increase the density of development in the rural areas. We are fully supportive of the 1 per 10 acre rule that has been applied over the past four II years. Rather, we seek design flexibility so that more environmentally sensitive subdivisions may be created. We also note that Chanhassen is currently in the process of requesting II Metropolitan Council approval of a new Comprehensive Plan and MUSA .. Line amendment. Work done on this plan indicated problems with the regimented 21 acre minimum standard relative to the future II incorporation of these subdivisions into the City's normal development pattern as the community grows. It is hoped smaller lots could avoid this problem while being more environmentally II sensitive. Attached you will find a copy of the staff report and packet concerning this request. You should also be aware that this was 1 discussed again with the Planning Commission in January of this year, where they clarified that they wished to have the minimum lot area requirement totally deleted so that in some instances the II potential of a cluster disposal system could be investigated for use. I am also attaching a copy of revised language for the Lake Ann Interceptor Agreement that has been prepared by our City Attorney that would bring about the requested policy change. li I realize that this request is somewhat out of the normal context of municipal /Metropolitan Council activities. I appreciate your II willingness to assist Chanhassen in seeing that this request is brought before the appropriate individuals at the Metropolitan Council. I would happy to discuss this personally with you or II other members of Metropolitan Council staff at your convenience. (:;/;;;'' Sincerel II 42- 4* Paul Krauss, AICP II Director of Planning PK:k I Enclosure • cc: Mayor and City Council Planning Commission 1 II II OF .- 1 ' ;, _', DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AMA I B5 STATE CAPITOL (6i 2) 296 � 7 r um, 4 MEM 4 I STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SAINT PAUL 55155 II February 25, 1991 II • II Mr. Scott Harr Director I Chanhassen Public Safety 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 II Dear Mr. Harr: Enclosed please find your certificate for successfully completing the Civil 1/ Defense Systems, Programs, and Policies (G245) course which was recently con- ducted at the Arden Hills Training Center on February 12 -15, 1991. II You achieved the following score on the final exam: Final Exam 36 out of 38 II Total Score 95 I want to commend you for your hard work and the fine effort that you demon- strated while a participant in the civil defense course. Thank you for your 1 interest in emergency management training. I look forward to seeing you at future course offerings. II Sincerely, Lloyd A. Lund II Acting Director ' 14 , 4 ' % ''-41--- Suzanne M. Donnell II Training Officer LAL:SMD:jb II Enclosure II II AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY FMPI r1YFR `.�.'rf : . •{'. ;':. .:.. .�!it . ^ :•<.•M!y�y', <:•.•• , ' �/ ` v, 4 �•a�\tir r.�. V w : tiY . :';',.•�^ 4 •:q. > e4i ' ✓:+ �` . iii. >r ' : � 4•V ;�i'i<•`,' r,,,, g .. d . & :: % .. .., :c ti , , ;v , 7, " : , ' Vi=a' ::p ,_',: ,`Gr 'ti "•� ,. F•" ; :6 r ti .F: - d, , .iii:•.• . w•*- • `u . :e ✓a'� ..' K+. ' 3•.;. t :' � :! .: ..+r -.: ;:f .,- , r :c. .. 1:0; c ti. ..•, 7: , fi l'57 e y, w sr. '.t.J •�:�i' i:A , c . , y a ,!';� �e. . : . % y � � " • �: :. � � ,` s ,s (i ?` • a f i:•, _ � M ' " „ h p+".' 'i fr: `' • � ` : 1 . :�+\ "' > 4 'i" .'/£�. .I�y °`- '.''- 4'=cs. '•4'ys:�_�. a -Si . 040 _ t "•' � - -- •�r s - ^;. 4f.;� .s`MM! �ip''.. � ;i�• __. � l �. ." . :., - _ ,.� fi rte• ,.�.••, j t: t .. (rt MIN - ,1 : ri. W H _ _ NN.z .. 1 .0, .' `_7 ?-e fi� � W» I i � .; r _ sL:�i , ' ,�f.. q: F. - - ., „ �.r ., ss _. � -' '� w :!` + •.sa••±g _' ((((N B, � � i ). .: � .. ••1. "' e:. -: •: r' e : ,• ° �'kr- +�e:�. ir= " �*rr• ,s:�... :1•.! M �. r.. _ �`fs . s`.4`i \ . nY : r-� = • xn.-- e - a=ix._ - _ _�L.. y ' - _ �•rssl _ _ ..ssf �_ - �: `'s ;_'�'= � :< t . - -'7%.$077-7- ��_ -) i - r _ __ s -- v.= .?: -_7f •.-i -: : :3r ..I I f v ';'• Q .4 a,f 0 wee ww' M ~ rj e �.tF.,r a \ � , �. + 6 } is':. ' 44:;`=' o- ,, tg:."P :i I NNES0 E 4 4 j . i s.'° . t 'g';'rr. + <..CI !. �� •rte , {trf' '• � :. • [ tt it !g • \ .a a �: \' 4 t49 F 1 7 ,. - - _& - . s.•t:lt 4; � �y � � F'=:'tt�� i CrvFa. 1 j#"'i ::f? -'^' 'ter ice y �`G:,' .~e�•)- E; t-q.kr.,3 ',' :Vit" ■ ff „?r��l' =1 .: — � a•0lrtil1lfah`� !!%)' ~ to o f Training i,: ka - - =-• o-> K x ” p resented to . / 1 :. a N. TI: ?.',,,-....' "i01;1 r ftt t . ;= . i SCOTT H ARK ' ° , $y ��k ' ,:'.'1,.:."77-', 4 I' = ,, btu Y k`T x _ . �' Vii: i�Z s�•.1-...!2:: - This certificate acknowledges and affirms a dedication ( k e . r�. "4,i'i i'k• • �} r'' .- `i to emergency preparedness through professional �.' 4. S a: .. :� ''-'`' °�` deve lopment and satisfactory completion of ¢ � ?' � '; kI > - the Civil Defense S stems Programs, • I `o=r r = and Policies (G245) Course 1 (0-41";44k i' , t .H '{::C / ' .(---- 051 a: February 15, 1991 L , 1-..W-1,1 �g I r �r ?: y I e / . i' _•[ l C "-t4 - %t- C' a;:' •. f i g ' V'71.:' t v i:ti 114.' ! f 4-P Date In t . z y r 1 p -y.:; _ L + t.•Y- l ; 4 ` � itAt „ � ays j1i � . '� _ Director, Division of Emergency Management � �� w. , i -t + C _ Department of Public Safety ►` 4 v`�"•r � Minnesota D Sa ty `� " '8 � iliti -04:;,*, - 72,,:i g [ r. All � _ � _ :r,� ; ; Training Officer, Division of Emergency Management � : �� � . �� S - ''' • . �_ _ ._ _ —_ ' - '1.2� •`z GGM Y•G•G::y.:.....E•bd•G.G:. ..�.i, ... ' 4 E -` y , t _J , nL.y •'5��' -- • `_ � "_ _, J .. __: s; , a. <`� y p�Y _ ...: . ... >.. • ; _ s r ! .ss - 3.:. . :t� < __'r= ' M - ai• _ "`= L _- -• �,• _ ,g _ _ -1,--...._%77, �. , i, ` • � > .� .., s t{„ ��fr = ...�i'•°it; �y � +� ,� J`�_ � � '��s / > MI n'� �? s� 'u n^•_ 4 a a�{ : _ � > •z �_.. i�. , l 7 _ ..`` a r'- it 1, : c. .: " T x4, ,4 . � :i. _ <d, ti t'E'siT,, :r- �:x: 'A .,f ,, Y' , �-4 =r 1 �,S'�'¢tt�• . '' `� _ _ .1p�` � � r a of • : 4, �Inut d .._.1 . -,1' Sc 3 ,. . Ift, u .. r. �•.. � .< �+L.� - zr •., ' ♦ - 's r : _ < r ' /� Q�=4 • p `. _ �•. 'v ..� :,. .� � �f ie'•• {: }. n;: �.L - ` .~a , �.� •�:. �.._J 5i '.,'•.1. + b 'a<a•°.Wi.T"yw4p ^`a . A •t' �L,. . t s,e -: ": rsa�;,'. y , tea .:,, ; •4 , ; c.. ;r: ' � ; .,. . , v _ 3 \ ' .-•, : • v .�' y°' .; . �.... - G +_• . �<o., 'c P ,�,., 4>' '•s uer., fi e ,. . � "`+u:..o�=: " '' r... . .._. ��• f vr . : :. . a! . - 'r..a .� , , 'sA�c - s •v.^4c . .. s� F a+.. ,Er .' � 'i, na i ce ; I 1 C ITYOF CHANHASSEN • .. ��`�� • mac— �+' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Carl Barke, Mechanical inspector o FROM: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director DATE: February 26, 1991 SUBJ: February 1991 CPR Training I would like to take this opportunity to commend you for success- fully completing the CPR training that we recently sponsored. Not ' only is this a skill that will make you feel confident should the need to use it ever arise elsewhere, but it means alot to the City of Chanhassen to have as many city employees skilled in CPR as we- ll now have. Good job -- and thank you for taking this training opportunity. cc: Don Chmiel, Mayor Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 Also sent to: Randy Debner, Mechanical Inspector Steve Torell, Building Inspector ' Dean Schmieg, •Park Department Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer Dan Remer, Engineering Department Deb Rand, Community Service Officer Duane Goetze, Street Department Bob Rojina, Street Department Charles Eiler, Park Department Charles Siegle, Street Department 1 Mike Wegler, Street Department Arnie Feltmann, Utility Department 1 1 K Are..., — z . 4. .4. JN AA_ /Voe 4174't - Tr,q) C o.$ 1 ) 71r (.e 1t.) S' O.J Th.: a 1 � 214rt"t ly Ali r TelE. 0. /1�r J a .3 7'V /4.4 .f'o.,,< � rE Sn . .0".< .0".< Wc.�/ /1 o l/Er yet /� ® rnr 3Grt- 14,c/ t, Ails/ Case Type: Declaratory Judgment STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc., Court File No. MC 90- 017965 a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN vs. SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION City of Chanhassen, Defendant. 1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY ' On September 26, 1990, Plaintiff, Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. ( "Plaintiff ") brought a declaratory judgment 1 action against Defendant, City of Chanhassen ( "City ") for an order declaring 1. That the Plaintiff's use of certain property located within the City for mineral excavation and mining is a valid, non - conforming use, and is therefore exempt from the regulations and requirements of the City's Ordinance 128 -- pertaining to mineral excavation, mining, filling and grading ( "Ordinance 128 "); and 2. That the Plaintiff's vested rights in the mineral excavation and mining operation on the Plaintiff's property, exempt the Plaintiff from the regulation and requirements of the City's Ordinance 128; and 3. That the City's Ordinance 128 is a violation of Plaintiff's constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law, and it is therefore illegal, invalid and void. 1 1 1 On February 6, 1991 the Court heard the City's Motion to Amend its Answer and to Assert a Counterclaim that Plaintiff is in violation of Ordinance 128. At the hearing, Plaintiff informed the Court that Plaintiff believed it had an agreement with the City to enter into a stipulation that would have prevented the necessity of bringing this Motion for a Temporary Injunction. (See also Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Amend (Exhibit A) attached hereto and the Affidavit of Anthony J. ' Gleekel (Exhibit B)). Plaintiff refers the Court to its Memorandum of Law and Opposition to the City's Motion to Amend and the Affidavit of Anthony J. Gleekel, for the facts ' and argument that illustrate the potential harm facing Plaintiff because it relied upon the City's representatives in not seeking temporary relief prior to the time Plaintiff could be held in technical violation of Ordinance 128. ' FACTS The Plaintiff and its predecessors in interest, have engaged in the mining of gravel, clay and other minerals ' from Plaintiff's property in the City for close to forty (40) years. (Affidavit of Thomas W. Zwiers attached hereto 1 as Exhibit C). The property is an approximately 80 -acre parcel located at 100 Flying Cloud Drive, between Highway 212 and Pioneer Trail ( "Property ").. The Property is within 1 � -2- 1 1 the City limits, but it abuts the Eden Prairie city line (see map attached hereto as Exhibit D). The Property lies 1 in an A -2 agricultural district. By its very nature, the mining and extraction operation on the Property has expanded since its inception, and 1 neither Plaintiff nor its predecessors have been required to obtain a conditional use permit, interim use permit or any 1 other type of license or permit, from the City (Zwiers Affidavit). In 1972, the City adopted a zoning ordinance ( "Zoning 1 Ordinance ") which required a conditional use permit for any mineral extraction that took place within the City limits. 1 Plaintiff's excavation and mining operation was a pre - existing, nonconforming use by the terms of the zoning - 1 ordinance, and was therefore not required to obtain a permit under the Zoning Ordinance. The City has acknowledged that Plaintiff's operation is a legal pre- existing nonconforming use. (See January 16, 1990 City Memorandum (p. 2) attached hereto as Exhibit E). See also Minutes of City Council meeting where Knutson acknowledged that fact. (See Planning Commission Minutes of March 7, 1990 (p. 10), attached hereto as Exhibit F). 1 The City has adopted at least one extensive ordinance regulating mineral extraction (see Article XXVII (1987) 1 attached hereto as Exhibit G). Article XXVII required a 1 -3- 1 1 permit for mineral extraction. The Plaintiff was not required to obtain a permit under Article XXVII because it was a legal pre - existing nonconforming use. G &T Trucking ( G &T ' ), which shares common ownership with the Plaintiff, is the entity that operates the mining and excavation operation on the Property. G &T entered into a contract with Browning- Ferris Industries ( "BFI ") for clay to be used as fill at the Eden Prairie landfill. The clay was taken from the north part of the Property near Highway ' 101 (Zwiers Affidavit) (see also Exhibit D). Mining clay on the north end of the Property was a natural extension of the 1 mining operation. The Plaintiff had mined clay in the past. After G &T had mined and hauled approximately 60,000 ' cubic yards of clay to the Eden Prairie landfill, the City stated that the clay mining was not "grandfathered in and Plaintiff had to cease mining immediately. The Plaintiff, as a result of the City's demand, stopped mining clay for BFI. As a result, Plaintiff suffered great economic damage ( Zwiers Affidavit). Later on, the City admitted that mining on the north portion of the Property is part of the ' Plaintiff's pre- existing nonconforming use. ' For reasons not yet adequately explained by the record, the City began to draft an ordinance to specifically regulate the Plaintiff's operation (Exhibit E, p. 1). The idea for the Ordinance was instigated in large part by Terry -4- 1 1 1 Beauchane, one of Plaintiff's neighbors (Zwiers Affidavit). The City Planning Commission and City Council held hearings 1 during the winter of 1990. The Plaintiff objected to the City's proposed regulations, maintaining that any mining and excavation operation on the Property could not be subject to 1 regulation because of its nonconforming use status. There was no evidence that the Plaintiff's operations were in need 1 of regulation beyond that which then applied to it. On or about May 14, 1990, the City Council adopted 1 Ordinance 128, amending Chapter 7 and Chapter 20 (Article 1 XXVII) of the Chanhassen City Code pertaining to excavating, mining filling and grading ( "Ordinance 128 ") (attached 1 hereto as Exhibit H). Ordinance 128 makes mining, excavating, filing, and grading an interim use, by requiring 1 an Earth Work Permit for any excavation, mining, filling, and grading of 1,000 cubic yards of material or more in 12 month period . The Earth Work Permit is reviewed annually. 1 The application for an Earth Work Permit is processed in accordance with the same procedures specified in the zoning 1 ordinance for interim use permits. Ordinance 128 provides that existing mining operators, have to apply for an Earth 1 Upon, information and belief, Plaintiff's operation is the only commercial mining and 1 excavation operation in the City. 1 —5- 1 1 1 Work Permit within six (6) months of the effective date of Ordinance 128. According to the City, the six (6) month period lapsed on November 24, 1990. In order to obtain an Earth Work Permit under Ordinance 128, Plaintiff must meet requirements which include, but are not limited to: a. Plaintiff must reach an agreement with the City "to construct such required improvements and to comply with such conditions and approval as may have been established by the City Council ". Those conditions and approvals are not specified. b. Plaintiff must provide the defendant with an irrevocable letter of credit in an amount equal to the cost of complying with the agreement as determined by the City Council, to be reviewed ' annually. c. Plaintiff must meet minimum setback requirements. d. Plaintiff must provide fencing. e. Plaintiff must provide screening. 1 f. Plaintiff must comply with certain unspecified operation standards. 1 g. Plaintiff must meet certain unspecified restora- tion standards. (See Exhibit H). 1 The undersigned law firm was retained by the Plaintiff and commenced a declaratory action on September 26, 1990. From the outset, Plaintiff made it clear that it did not want to risk being closed down by the City before there was ' a final disposition of this case. The chronology of events and documents set forth in and attached to the Gleekel Affidavit, illustrates that the City's representatives 1 1 -6- 1 1 1 evinced an attitude of cooperation and a desire to avoid the costs associated with a motion for a temporary injunction. 1 As set forth in detail in Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to the City's Motion to Amend and the Gleekel Affidavit, the agreement to preserve the status quo without 1 the necessity of the time and expense of Court intervention was abrogated by the City's attorney (see Exhibit D to 1 Gleekel Affidavit (Exhibit B)). Had Plaintiff been apprised of the City's position before November 24, 1990, it is an absolute certainty that 1 Plaintiff would have moved for injunctive relief to prevent any claim that it was technically in violation of Ordinance 1 128. Plaintiff is now forced to bring this Motion for Temporary Injunction to seek relief from the Court to 1 prevent the City from enforcing Ordinance 128 on Plaintiff's operation until the final disposition of this matter. ARGUMENT , A. SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION Authority for this Court to issue a temporary 1 injunction is contained in Rule 65 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 65.02 provides: 1 (2) A temporary injunction may be granted if by affidavit, deposition testimony, or oral testimony in court, it appears that sufficient grounds exist therefor. 11 -7- 1 1 1 The object of a temporary injunction is: [T]o maintain the matter in controversy in its existing condition until judgment so that the effect of the judgment shall not be impaired by the acts of the parties during the litigation. Pickering v. Pasco Marketing Inc., 228 N . W . 2 d 562, 565 (Minn. 1975). The analysis that the Court should employ in ' determining whether a temporary injunction is to be granted is set out in MGM Liquor Warehouse International, Inc. v. Forsland, 371 N.W.2d 75 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985): 1. The relationship between the parties before the dispute arose; 2. The harms plaintiff may suffer if the injunction is denied compared to the harm inflicted on defendant if the injunction is granted; ' 3. The likelihood that the party will prevail on the merits; 4. Public policy considerations; and 5. Administrative burdens imposed on the court if the injunction is issued. ' Id. at 77; also Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321 -322 (Minn. 1965). The following is a examination of each of the five factors as they apply to the facts of this case. The Minnesota Supreme Court recognizes the need for ' injunctive relief incidental to an action for declaratory judgment to maintain the status quo until final determination of the main action, Town of Burnsville v. City of 1 111 -8- 1 Bloomington, 1 17 N.W.2d 746, 749 96 n action g 9 (Minn. 1 2). I an ac seeking a declaration on a municipality's annexation of a ' neighboring municipality's property, the Court in Town of Burnsville upheld the trial court's grant of a temporary , injunction during the pendency of a declaratory judgment action. The court reasoned that: } . . . whatever the rule may be with respect to the right to maintain a suit for an injunction alone, it is clear that injunctive relief is available as an incident to an action for a declaratory judgment where such action will lie, in order to maintain the status quo, if the facts are such as to warrant it. (Emphasis added) . Town of Burnsville, 117 N.W.2d at 750. 1 The only limiting factor noted by the Town of Burnsville court is where the defendant would suffer irreparable harm: ' While a temporary injunction granted to maintain - 1 the status quo during the pendency of an action for a declaratory judgment is permissible, it should be granted in the exercise of judicial discretion only when it appears that more harm will result from its denial than from its success. (Emphasis added). Id. The section of this Memorandum dealing with "relative ' hardship" illustrates that the City will suffer no harm if the temporary injunction is granted. If a temporary 1 injunction is denied, the Plaintiff will suffer great harm. ' Such harm will be irreparable. The Town of Burnsville opinion strongly suggests that the 1 MGM Liquor Warehouse, Inc. requirements need not be considered when a temporary injunction is sought in a declaratory ' 1 -9- 11 judgment action. The cases setting forth the five (5) requirements do not overrule or limit Town of Burnsville. This Memorandum will discuss the MGM Liquor Warehouse, Inc. requirements to further establish the necessity of a temporary injunction in this case. ' 1. Status Quo Ante Considerations. A 40 -year status quo exists in this case. Since the ' early 1950's the Property has been used by the Plaintiff, ' and its predecessors in interest, for commercial mineral mining and excavation. (Zwiers Affidavit, Exhibit C). Neither Plaintiff nor its predecessors ever held, nor were required by the City to hold, any permits or licenses to operate the mining and excavation operation on the property. Ordinance 128 is the City's method of disturbing the status quo by placing the Plaintiff's operation under a burdensome regulatory scheme. The 40 -year status quo will be maintained only by the ' issuance of a temporary injunction -- enjoining the City from enforcing Ordinance 128 upon the Plaintiff until a final determination has been made by the Court. Failure to ' grant the injunction will place the Plaintiff's business in great peril, forcing closure of the Plaintiff's operation ' until the Plaintiff obtains an Earth Work Permit. The temporary injunction will bar the City from taking action ' against the Plaintiff during the pendency of this matter. 1 -10- 1 1 1 2. Relative Hardship. • The relative hardship weighs in favor of granting 1 Plaintiff a temporary injunction. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if it is forced to comply with Ordinance 128 during the pendency of this action. The City at any 1 time during the pendency of this action may chose to force the Plaintiff to obtain an Earth Work Permit. The City is 1 likely to force compliance with Ordinance 128 as weather gets warmer, and the Plaintiff increases mining and excavating production. If the Plaintiff is forced to comply with Ordinance 128, it will have to cease operations, during' the I application process. Plaintiff would be forced to complete the extensive application and hearing process. This process ' 1 could take months and cost in excess of $35,000, and even then, receiving an Earth Work Permit from the City is not guaranteed. Closing the Plaintiff's operation down for an 1 indefinite period of time would cause Plaintiff irreparable harm which includes, but is not limited to, laying off or 1 discharging employees, extensive loss of profits, obstruction of and /or breach in performance of existing contracts, loss of future business opportunities, and loss 1 2 Waiting until such a time to seek a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction 1 would seriously jeopardize the Plaintiff's business. A wait and see strategy would be suicidal. 1 -11- 1 1 1 of ood will. The potential harm that would be inflicted g P flic ed on ' the Plaintiff, can be avoided if a temporary injunction is granted. See Town of Burnsville, supra. 1 The City, on the other hand, would suffer no prejudice ' or hardship if this Court grants a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction would produce at the most, an ' additional year of the status quo. No pressing issues exist as no substantial complaints regarding the Plaintiff's existing operation have been filed with the City. Moreover, the City publicly noted the professional manner in which the mining and excavation operation on the Property is performed by the Plaintiff (Zwiers Affidavit) (March 7, 1990 Planning Commission Minutes, Exhibit F). Granting a temporary injunction in this matter is analogous to the temporary injunction granted in Town of 1 Burnsville, supra. 3. Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits. It is no secret that Ordinance 128 was adopted specifically in an attempt to regulate Plaintiff's operation -- the only commercial mining and excavation operation in the City. The City's records of their hearings (Exhibits F and J through N) and memoranda (Exhibits E and F) indicate ' that regulating the Plaintiff's operation was the focal point of Ordinance 128. The fact that Ordinance 128 was specifically designed to regulate Plaintiff's operation r illustrates the necessity for a temporary injunction. 1 -12- 1 Plaintiff in all likelihood will prevail against the City in this action. ' a. Pre- existing Nonconforming Use. The Plaintiff's use of the Property for mineral 1 excavation and mining began approximately 20 years before the adoption of the City's zoning ordinance in 1972. The fact that the Plaintiff's operation is a valid pre- existing, , nonconforming use is not disputed by the City. In a memorandum dated January 16, 1990, Paul Krauss, the City's 1 Planning'Director, acknowledged the pre- existing nonconform- ing use status of the Plaintiff's operation: , Moon Valley operation predates any City ordinances that would regulate it and is therefore established as a nonconforming use. . . . As such, the Moon Valley operation is established as a legal nonconformity. 1 (Exhibit E). By its very nature, the mining and excavation operation on the Property has expanded since its inception, , and neither Plaintiff nor its predecessors were required to obtain a conditional use permit., interim use permit, or any other type of license or permit from the City. Because the , use of the Property has not been discontinued, it remains a nonconforming use. ' The Minnesota Supreme Court recognizes that a nonconforming use affords protection: , Defendant is entitled to continue his present nonconforming use in the same manner and to the same extent that it was operated at the time the zoning ordinance went into effect. -13- 1 i 1 1 County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 203 N.W.2d 323, • 327 (Minn. 1972) . See also, Hawkins v. Talbot, 80 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 1957) . The Plaintiff's operation existed before the inaction of the Zoning Ordinance and Ordinance 128, and therefore, it must ' be allowed to operate in the "same manner and to the same extent" it had operated in the past. Ordinance 128 would ' change Plaintiff's operation drastically. Additionally, the City had an existing ordinance (Article XXVII) (Exhibit G) that regulated mineral extraction. Article XXVII, as Ordinance 128, regulated fencing, noise, appearance, screening, and contained an t application and permit requirement. The Plaintiff was not subject to Article XXVII, so it should not be subject to Ordinance 128. Under Minnesota law, a municipality may not merely prohibit or limit the continued existence of a pre - existing, nonconforming use. Hawkins, supra. If a municipality has legitimate interests in restricting zoning activities, this interest must be balanced against the constitutional 3 F or example, Plaintiff required submit a detailed reclamation plan under Ordinance 128 o examp , P aintiff is q to p 128, along with a letter of credit. The reclamation plan and the amount of the letter of credit are subject to approval of the City Council. The City Council could approve only a reclamation plan that forces the Plaintiff to maintain a higher grade - thus limiting the amount of gravel,_clay and other minerals that can be taken out of the Property. Plaintiff also would be required to fence in its entire operation. -14- 1 1 i interests of the lawful, nonconforming use. The Minnesota courts balance the interest of the property owner versus the 1 government: An ordinance may constitutionally prohibit the 1 creation of nonconforming uses, but existing nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be limited by use of eminent domain. 1 Oswalt v. County, of Ramsey, 371 N.W.2d 241, 246 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) citing, County of Freeborn v. Claussen, 203 N. W. 2 d 323, 3 2 5 (Minn. 1972). Allowing the City to severely limit or discontinue the Plaintiff's nonconforming use under the terms of Ordinance 128, violates the rules set forth in 1 Oswalt and County of Freeborn, because the City would be permitted to severely limit the Plaintiff's nonconforming 1 use without providing compensation to Plaintiff. b. Ordinance 12 Includes an Unreasonable ' Amortization Period. The terms of Ordinance 128 state that: 1 Active earth work operations that predate this article that do not have a permit shall cease operations or obtain an Earth Work Permit with six (6) months of this Article. This portion of Ordinance 128 is an amortization provision , phasing out existing opera ions (Plaintiff). In other words, Plaintiff had six (6) months to operate in the manner the mining operation had existed for forty (40) years. 1 After the six (6) month period, Plaintiff was expected to alter its operation to meet the terms of Ordinance 128 and , apply for a permit or go out of business. -15- 1 i In determining he validity of Ordinance 128, the issue g y , e u is whether the six month amortization clause is unreasonable. Naegle Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 162 N.W.2d 206, 213 (Minn. 1968); see also Klickery State of Minnesota, 197 N.W.2d 434 (Minn. 1972). The determination made on the reasonableness of an amortization clause is whether the useful life of a nonconforming use is prematurely eliminated. If the useful life is prematurely eliminated, 1 then the property owner must be compensated. Oswalt, supra. In Naegle, the Court determined that whether an amortization clause was reasonable depended on whether the clause "equalled the value of the property interest remaining at the end of the period ". If the property interest was not extinguished before the running of the period, then the governing municipality would be responsible for providing just compensation for a taking pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In this case, the property interest or useful life of a mineral excavation operation is the period it takes to mine the entire mineral bed. Hawkins v Talbot, 80 N.W.2d 863, 866 1 (Minn. 1957). That period far exceeds six months, and therefore, under Naegle, the six month amortization provision of Ordinance 128 is unreasonable. See also Lauri v. Malfitano, 345 N.Y.S.2d 731, 733 (N.Y. App. 1973). 4 In Lauri v. Malltano, the Court held unreasonable a ninety (90) day period for an operator of a sand and gravel business to secure a permit. 1 1 c. Adoption of Ordinance 128 was an Invalid Exercise of the City's Police Power. The City acknowledges that the Plaintiff's operation is i a pre- existing, nonconforming use. Plaintiff anticipates, however, that the City will argue that it can regulate nonconforming uses pursuant to its constitutionally mandated 1 police powers. A municipality's police power is limited. Exercise of police power is valid only if there is a i justification in evidence that the interests of the public require interference. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U.S. 133, 137, 14 S.Ct. 499, 501, 38 L.Ed. 385 (1894) ; FairmontFoodsCompanyv. City 1 ofDutulth, 110 N.W.2d 155 (Minn. 1961) . There is neither sufficient evidence nor justification 1 for the City to adopt Ordinance 128. The specific requirements of Ordinance 128 which were not supported by t evidence include but are not limited to the following: 1. Set back requirements. 2. The requirement that an applicant must supply a letter of credit. 3. Paving requirements. 1 4. Fencing requirements. 5. Screening requirements. 1 5A ' A municipality's police power is also limited by the rule that it cannot legislate a business out of existence unless a court has determined that the land use constitutes a nuisance. Apple Valley Red -E Mix v. St. Louis Park, 359 N.W2d 313 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). 1 -17- 1 1 1 A review of the record indicates the requirements are not supported by the evidence presented to the City Council. In fact, evidence submitted to the City indicates that the Plaintiff's operation was not causing any problems. Review of the record illustrates that there was no evidence of justification for the requirement of Ordinance 128: 1. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff's operation caused a direct threat because of topography, demography or degree of urbanization. 1 2. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff's operation caused excessive noise and dust, or that it exceeded Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards. 3. There is no substantiated complaints regarding the Plaintiff's operation. 4. There is no substantiated evidence regarding traffic problems or access into or out of the _ Plaintiff's operation. 5. There is no evidence of damage to neighboring g properties. 6. There is no evidence that viable and safe roads did not exist. 1 7. There is no evidence of decreasing property values around the Plaintiff's operation. 8. The City acknowledged that the operation was run in an exemplary and professional manner. 6 1n response to the Plaintiff's interrogatory asking for all evidence submitted to the City to support adoption of Ordinance 128, the City referred to its official verbatim minutes of Planning Commission and City Council Meetings (see Exhibit 1, p. 8). 7 At the City's Planning Commission meeting on March 7, 1990 (Exhibit F), one of the Planning Commissioners stated that Mr. Zwiers "does seem to be taking reasonable care to maintain safe and well planned operations and we are impressed with his professionalism." 1 —18- 1 1 1 9. There was evidence submitted by the Plaintiff that it terraced the slopes for future development. The Plaintiff did not plan on removing gravel and clay to the road level, because it wanted to maintain a high "after value" of the Property. 1 10. There was no evidence that the Plaintiff's operation was a safety hazard and that it needed to be fenced in. (See the "Record" Minutes of Planning Commission and Council hearings, Exhibits F and Exhibits J through N). Moreover, review of Exhibit D establishes that there are only three ' residents extremely close to the operation, and that the operation and the neighbors (two of which supported the 1 Ordinance) are separated by the Teich property. The Teiches did not support the Ordinance, nor did they have any 1 complaints regarding the Plaintiff's operation (Zwiers Affidavit). Finally, it is a fact that the actual mining and excavating operation cannot be seen or heard unless one 1 is on the Plaintiff's property (Zwiers Affidavit). While it is true that a municipality does have police i powers there must be some threat to its citizens' health, safety or welfare for a legitimate exercise of that power. Plaintiff's operation does not warrant the requirements set 1 forth in Ordinance 128. The evidence on the record before the City Council does not justify the burdensome regulatory 1 scheme set forth in Ordinance 128, and therefore adoption of Ordinance 128 is an unreasonable exercise of police power. 1 1 -19- 1 1 1 Fairmont Foods Company, supra. Accordingly, Ordinance 128 violates the Plaintiff's constitutional rights of due process. 1 d. Plaintiff has a Vested Interest in Continuing its Mineral and Extraction Operation. 1 Plaintiff has a vested interest in continuing its mineral excavation operation in the same manner it has been operated for the last 40 years. Hawkins, supra; County of Freebor supra; Connorv. Township of Chanhassen, 81 N.W.2d 789 (Minn. 1957) . In Hawkins, the Minnesota Supreme Court specifically recognized limitations on governmental restrictions of a gravel extraction operation: One limitation traditionally imposed on the right of a governmental body to enact zoning restrictions is that such restrictions must be subject to the vested property interest of lawful businesses in uses already established within the zoned district. Hawkins, 80 N.W.2d at 865. The vested right to continue operating is a constitutional right. Connor, 81 N.W.2d at 11 796. Plaintiff has analogous vested property rights in its mineral excavation operation. Accordingly, Ordinance 128 cannot be applied to regulate Plaintiff's operation on the Property. 4. Public Policy Considerations. 1 Public policy and fairness considerations strongly suggest that a business that has been allowed to exist in a certain manner for 40 years be ,allowed to continue its 1 -20- 1 1 operation, while it challenges a regulation that will severely limit or terminate that business' future 1 operations. Basic fairness indicates that the City should not be allowed to enforce Ordinance 128 upon the Plaintiff's 1 operation until the Court has had an opportunity to rule on this Plaintiff's claims. There are serious public policy considerations 1 regarding a muncipality's use of an extensive regulatory scheme to regulate a single commercial operator. Apple Valley 1 Red - Mix, supra. It is undisputed that Ordinance 128 was drafted specifically to regulate the Plaintiff's operation. All the hearings on Ordinance 128 dealt solely with the 1 regulation of the Plaintiff. This is a serious violation of the Plaintiff's nonconforming use rights, vested rights, and 1 constitutional rights, and therefore, implicates important public policy concerns. 1 5. Administrative Problems. No administrative burdens would be experienced by this Court in granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary 1 Injunction. CONCLUSION 11 It is respectfully submitted that a Temporary Injunction should be issued enjoining the City from enforcing Ordinance 128 upon Plaintiff's mineral mining and 1 1 -21- 1 1 1 excavation operation, until there has been a final 1 determination on this matter. Dated: 9 ! SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER & DUFFY, P.A. By 'V Gerald S. Duf Attorney ID # 24703 Anthony J. Gleekel Attorney ID # 185395 Attorneys for Plaintiff Suite 1350 100 Washington Square Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 339 -7131 11 1 1 -22- '1 49022091 -1J- 17236 \001- 21.MEM I/ STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: 10 /DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 1 Court File No. 90 -27099 Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff, 1 DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN vs. OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR City of Chanhassen, TEMPORARY INJUNCTION Defendant. INTRODUCTION 1 Defendant submits this Memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction enjoining defendant frdm 1 enforcing an ordinance requiring plaintiff to obtain a permit to operate its mining business. Defendant also refers the court to its "Memorandum of Law of Defendant City of Chanhassen in Support 1 of Motion for Summary Judgment" on file herein. The summary judgment motion is scheduled for hearing on March 14, 1991. 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff is a Minnesota corporation which operates a mineral 1 excavation and mining business on an approximately 80 -acre parcel 1 of property located at 100 Flying Cloud Drive, between Highway 212 and Pioneer Trail in the city of Chanhassen, Carver County, 1 Minnesota. (P1. Complaint, para 2.) The property was being used for mining and mineral excavation 1 purposes at the time Chanhassen adopted its zoning ordinance. The 1 1 1 business has been permitted to continue as a nonconforming use. (P1. Complaint, para. 7.) On May 14, 1990, Chanhassen adopted Ordinance No. 128, effective May 24, 1990, regulating "earth work" operations, which are defined a "excavating, mining, filling or grading" activities. (P1. Complaint, para. 10.) A copy of the ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit "A ". The ordinance, with certain exceptions, requires a person to obtain a permit before engaging in earth work activities. Existing 1 operations, such as plaintiff's business, had six months until November 24, 1990 to either obtain a permit or cease operations. Plaintiff has not taken either step. The express purpose of the ordinance is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community by establishing reasonable _ uniform standards and controls for excavating, mining, filling and grading activities within the city. The ordinance requires the applicant to submit various types of information about its operation, including a site restoration plan. It also sets forth standards for setbacks, fencing, appearance and screening, methods 1 and times of operations and restoration of the property. The ordinance permits deviAtions from these standards for existing operations, when it is not feasible to comply because of preexisting conditions, when because of topographic or other conditions it is not possible to comply and when alternates that accomplish the purpose and intent of the standard are agreed upon by the City and the operator. 1 1 -2- 1 1 Plaintiff has never attempted to obtain a permit; rather, 1 plaintiff commenced this action in which it makes the following claims all of which are premised upon the property's status as a 1 nonconforming use: First, in Count I plaintiff claims that the ordinance is in violation of plaintiff's "valid nonconforming use rights "; 1 Second, in Count II plaintiff claims that it has "vested rights" to operate its mining operation in the same manner it has , been operated since the early 1950s; Third, in Count III plaintiff claims that the adoption of the ordinance was arbitrary and capricious, and therefore in violation 1 of plaintiff's rights to due process. Finally, in Count IV plaintiff claims that the classification of plaintiff's use of the property for regulation by this ordinance is a violation of plaintiff's constitutional right of equal 11 protection. Chanhassen has initiated a Counterclaim seeking a judgment enjoining plaintiff from operating its mining operation without the 1 required permit. Chanhassen has not threatened to take any action against plaintiff during the pendency of this matter. 1 ARGUMENT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR A TEMPORARY INJUNCTION BECAUSE THERE IS NO THREATENED ACTION BY THE CITY TO ENJOIN. Rule 65.02, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, permits the 1 issuance of a temporary injunction when it appears that sufficient grounds exists. The party seeking the temporary injunction has the ' 1 - 1 1 burden of proof. AMF Pinspotters, Inc. v. Hopkins Bowling, Inc., 260 Minn. 499, 110 N.W.2d 348 (1961). A threshold factor is the existence or threat of irreparable injury, loss or damage to the plaintiff if the injunction is denied. Edin v. Jostens, Inc., 343 N.W.2d 691 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). The threatened injury must be real and substantial. Ind. School Dist. No. 35 v. Englestad, 274 Minn. 366, 144 N.W.2d 245 (1966). Here, Chanhassen has not threatened to take any action to enforce this ordinance against plaintiff prior to a determination on the merits. To the contrary, the only action taken by Chanhassen is the request in its Counterlcaim that plaintiff, after a decision on the merits, be enjoined from operating its business without a permit. Even then, the city is proposing that the execution of any such injunction be stayed for a period of time to 1 give plaintiff the opportunity to apply for and obtain the permit. Chanhassen has not threatened to take any action against plaintiff's operation of its business during the pendency of this action. There is no threatened action to enjoin. The request for a temporary injunction should be denied. 1 I . THERE I8 NO LIKELIHOOD THAT PLAINTIFF WILL PREVAIL ON THE MERITS. 11 In order for a temporary injunction to issue, plaintiff must establish likelihood of success on the merits. Defendant has 11 served and filed its summary judgment motion herein which is scheduled for hearing on March 14, 1991. Any decision on this 1 -4- 1 1 application for a temporary injunction should not be made prior to the court's decision on defendant's summary judgment motion. In its summary judgment memorandum, Chanhassen outlines why r there is no merit to plaintiff's legal position. Plaintiff has not applied for the earth work permit; therefore, it is unknown what conditions, if any, may be imposed upon its continued operation. ' As outlined in the summary judgment memorandum, there is no legal support for plaintiff's position that it cannot be required to 1 obtain a permit because it is a nonconforming use. CONCLUSIONS ' Plaintiff's request for a temporary injunction should be 1 denied because there is neither any threat of irreparable harm nor likelihood of success on the merits which has been demonstrated by plaintiff. _ Dated: February 26, 1991. - 1 Respectfully submitted, , CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOT & FU HS P.A. 41 By: Itt A i• Th•...s M. Scott, 98498 Att -rneys for Defendant 3460 Washington Dr., Suite #202 Eagan, MN 55122 Telephone: (612) 456 -9539 1 1 11 -5- 1 11 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF CARVER FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: 10 /DECLARATORY JUDGMENT Court . File No. - 90 -27099 Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF LAW I OF DEFENDANT CITY vs. OF CHANHASSEN IN SUPPORT OF MOTION City of Chanhassen, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendant. INTRODUCTION This is a declaratory judgment action. Plaintiff requests that a Chanhassen ordinance regulating mining operation by requiring a permit to engage in such activities be declared inapplicable to plaintiff's business because it is classified as a nonconforming use. Chanhassen, in its Counterclaim, requests 1 injunctive relief ordering plaintiff to cease operation of its business because it has not obtained the required permit. Plaintiff makes a facial challenge to the ordinance. It has never made application for a permit. It is therefore unknown at this time if any modifications to the operation of plaintiff's business may be required by the City as a permit condition. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff is a Minnesota corporation which operates a mineral excavation and mining business on an approximately 80 -acre parcel of property located at 100 Flying Claud Drive, between Highway 212 1 1 1 and Pioneer Trail in the city of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. (P1. Complaint, para 2.) The property was being used for mining and mineral excavation 1 purposes at the time Chanhassen adopted its zoning ordinance. The business has been permitted to continue as a nonconforming use. (P1. Complaint, para. 7.) 1 On May 14, 1990, Chanhassen adopted Ordinance No. 128, effective May 24, 1990, regulating "earth work" operations, which r are defined a "excavating, mining, filling or grading" activities. (P1. Complaint, para. 10.) A copy of the ordinance is attached 1 hereto as Exhibit "A ". The ordinance, with certain exceptions, requires a person to obtain a permit before engaging in earth work activities. Existing 1 operations, such as plaintiff's business, had six months until November 24, 1990 to either obtain a permit or cease operations. 1 Plaintiff has not taken either step. The express purpose of the ordinance is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community by establishing reasonable 1 uniform standards and controls for excavating, mining, filling and grading activities within the city. The ordinance requires the , applicant to submit various types of information about its operation, including a site restoration plan. It also sets forth 1 standards for setbacks, fencing, appearance and screening, methods 1 and times of operations and restoration of the property. The ordinance permits deviations from these standards for 1 existing operations, when it is not feasible to comply because of preexisting conditions, when because of topographic or other 1 -2- • II conditions it is not possible to comply and when alternates that accomplish the purpose and intent of the standard are agreed upon by the City and the operator. Plaintiff has never attempted to obtain a permit; rather, 11 plaintiff commenced this action in which it makes the following claims all of which are premised upon the property's status as a nonconforming use: First, in Count I plaintiff claims that the ordinance is in violation of plaintiff's "valid nonconforming use rights "; 1 Second, in Count II plaintiff claims that it has "vested rights" to operate its mining operation in the same manner it has been operated since the early 1950s; Third, in Count III plaintiff claims that the adoption of the 1 ordinance was arbitrary and capricious, and therefore in violation of plaintiff's rights to due process. Finally, in Count IV plaintiff claims that the classification of plaintiff's use of the property for regulation by this ordinance is a violation of plaintiff's constitutional right of equal protection. ARGUMENT I. 1 SUMMARY JUDMMENT I5 MANDATED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF'S FACIAL CHALLENGE TO THIS ORDINANCE ' HAS NO LEGAL BASIS. Summary judgment shall be granted when there is no genuine 11 issue as to any material fact and a determination of the applicable law will resolve the controversy. Rule 56.03, Minnesota Rules of -3- E Civil Procedure; Abdallah, Inc. v. Martin, 242 Minn. 416, 65 N.W.2d 1 641 (1954). Here, plaintiff challenges the city's right to adopt an 1 ordinance requiring it to obtain a permit. Since plaintiff has not applied for the necessary permit, any conditions which may be 1 imposed by the city are unknown. Plaintiff's Complaint is premised on the legal position that the city cannot require it to obtain a permit because the business 1 is classified as a nonconforming use. No fact issues need be addressed to decide this issue; it is a legal question appropriate 1 for the entry of summary judgment dismissing the Complaint. II. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S STATUS AS A NONCONFORMING USE DOES NOT MARE IT IMMUNE FROM THE CITY'S POLICE POWER REGULATIONS Plaintiff's use of the property for mining purposes does not conform to the requirements of the Chanhassen zoning ordinance. It is therefore a nonconforming use. The business is allowed to continue because it existed at the time the Chanhassen zoning ordinance was originally adopted. Nonconforming uses are subject to reasonable regulations by a 1 municipality under its police power to protect the public health, safety, welfare or morals. City of Ruthland v. Reiffer, 124 Vt. 357, 205 A.2d 400 (1964); 81 Am. Jur. 2d, Zoning and Planning, 1 § 157, at 484 -485. A nonconforming user is not immune from safety regulations. 4 Anderson on Zoning, § 6.73, at 529 -530. See also Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, N.Y., 369 U.S. 590, 82 S. Ct. 987, . . . I/ -4- 1 II • • 8 L. Ed. 30 (1962); Cranberry Lake Quarry Co. v. Johnson, 95 N.J. Super. Ct. 495, 231 A.2d 837 (App. Div. 1967), cert. denied, 50 1 N.J. 300, 234 A.2d 407 (1967); Shaw v. Byram Tp., 86 N.J. Super. Ct. 598, 604, 207 A.2d 570 (App. Div. 1965), cert. denied, 45 N.J. 1 35, 210 A.2d 780 (1965); Town of North Hempstead v. Colonial Sand & G. Co., 14 Misc. 2d 727, 178 N.Y.S.2d 579, 583 (Sup. Ct. 1958); 1 Lizza & Sons v. Town of Hempstead, 19 Misc. 2d 403, 69 N.Y.S.2d 1 296, 298 (Sup. Ct. 1947), affirmed, 272 App. Div. 921, 71 N.Y.S.2d 14 (App. Div. 1947); and 2 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, 1 § 11.66 (1968). A zoning ordinance may impose limitations upon a nonconforming use where those limitations bear a substantial relation to the purposes authorized by the zoning statute. McQuillan, Municipal Corporations, 3rd ed. revised, Vol. 8A § 25.182, p. 18. The 1 purpose of allowing nonconforming uses is to prevent the injustice of forcing retroactive compliance with a zoning classification and 1 not to protect nonconforming uses from reasonable regulations. Watanabe v. City of Phoenix, 683 P.2d 1177 (Az. 1984). 1 As is true with all uses of land, a quarry, conforming or 1 nonconforming, must observe reasonable police regulations. 2 Anderson, American Law of Zoning, § 17.56 (1968). In Dock Watch 1 Hol. Quarry Pit, Inc. v. Tp. of Warren, 361 A.2d 12, 20 (N.J. 1976) the court stated: 1 . . . Although the fact that the quarry is a nonconforming use may protect it from later zoning restrictions, its status as such does not render it immune from reasonable regulations pursuant to the police power in the interest of the public health, welfare and safety. Nonconforming uses are clearly subject to the preservation of the environment and protection 1 of ecological values. Id. at 20. -5- - _ _ . . - - - 1 In Goldblatt, supra, the landowner had been operating a sand and gravel pit as a nonconforming use for over 30 years when the municipality adopted an ordinance prohibiting any excavation below the water table. Even though the ordinance effectively precluded any further mining on the property, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld 1 the town's action on the basis that it was a valid exercise of its police powers. In Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Township, 42 Pa. 1 C.L.R. 458, 401, A.2d 392 (1979), the court held that a nonconforming quarry is not relieved of the obligation of fencing its property, notwithstanding that the fencing ordinance was adopted after establishment of the quarry. In Teuscher v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 154 Conn. 650, 228 1 A.2d 518 (1967), the court held that the municipality, as a legitimate exercise of its police power, had the right to require 1 the landowner, who had been using his land for the removal and sale of gravel for 30 years, to obtain a permit. 1 There is absolutely no support for the proposition that Chanhassen is precluded from regulating the manner in which plaintiff goes about operating its mining business because it is 1 classified as a nonconforming use. Plain and simple, the City can impose reasonable regulations upon the use of property for mining 1 purposes. CONCLUSIONS Chanhassen has the authority through the exercise of its 1 police power to regulate the manner in which plaintiff- conducts its mining activities on the subject property. -6- 1 • Plaintiff has not applied for the earth work permit required 1 by the ordinance. Any conditions that may actually be imposed upon the further conduct of plaintiff's mining operation are unknown. 1 All of plaintiff's claims are premised on the erroneous legal position that any regulation of a nonconforming use by this permitting process is impermissible. 1 The ordinance required plaintiff to obtain the permit by November 24, 1990. Plaintiff has not complied. Chanhassen is 1 entitled to an order enjoining plaintiff from operating its mining business on the subject property. Dated: February 26, 1991. ' Respectfully submitted, CAMPBELL, K NUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A. �� By: I; t2- l . Scott, 'M , # 98498 Attorneys for Defendant 3460 Washington Dr., Suite #202 Eagan, MN 55122 1 Telephone: (612) 456 -9539 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HE NEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 128 AN ORDINANNCE AMENDING C.gAPTER 7 AND CE IPTIR 20 . 1 OF TEE CEANEASSBN CITY CODE PERTAINING TO EXCAVATING, = I2NG, FILLING, AND GRADING ' The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter .7 of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended by adding Article III to read as follows: ' • 7-30: PURPOSES AND. INT°.,..T' T. • The purpose of this article is to promote the health, ' safety and welfare of the community and to establish reasonable uniform limitations, standards, safeguards and controls for • excavating, mining, filling, and grading within the City. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading permits for more than fifty (50) cubic yards, but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve (12) month period may be processed administratively. Excavating, mining, filling, and grading of one thousand (1,000) cubic yards.of material or more in a twelve (12) month period shall be processed in the same manner as an interim use permit. 7 -31: DEFI2IITIONS. The following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings respectively ascribed to theta: Earth Work or Work the Earth: Excavating, mining, filling or grading. Excavating or Xining: 1 (a) The removal of the natural surface of the earth, whether sod, dirt, soil, sand, gravel, stone, or other matter, creating a depression. (b) Any area where the topsoil or overburden has been removed for the purpose of removing earthly deposits or minerals. (c) Amy area that is being used for stockpiling, 1 storage, and processing of sand, gravel, black dirt, clay, and other minerals. • r05/15/90 EXHIBIT A 1 11 Tilling or Grading: To change the contour of the II land. Overburden: Those materials which lie between the II surface of the earth and material deposit to be extracted. Restoration: To renew land to self- sustaining long- term use which is compatible with continguous land uses present I and future, in accordance with the standards set forth in this article. Topsoil: That portion of the overburden which lies closest to the earth's surface and supports the growth of • vegetation. . 1 7 -32: ' PERMIT REQUIRED. . • Except as otherwise provided in this article, it shall be unlawful for anyone to work the earth without having first obtained a written permit from the City authorizing the same in accordance vith this article. Active Earth Work I operations that predate this article that do not have a permit shall cease operations or obtain an Earth Work permit within six (6) months after the adoption of this article. Current permit I • holders. shall come into compliance with the terms of this article no later than the renewal date of such permit holder's Earth Work permit. 1 s 7 -33: SZEXPTIONS PR0X PERMIT RZQIIIREMZETS. . - . • . The following activities do not require an Earth Work 1 permit: . A. Excavation. for a foundation, cellar, or basement of a . 1 - building if a building permit has been issued. B. Grading a lot in conjunction with building if a building I permit has been issued. • C. Excavation by the federal, state, county, city, or other government agencies in connection with construction or 1 maintenance of roads, highways, or utilities. D. Curb cuts, utility hookups, or street openings for 'which 1 another permit has been issued by the City. E. Excavation or filling of less than fifty (50) cubic yards in I a calendar year. II II _z_ II - . __ . _ F. Plowing and tilling for agricultural purposes. 11 G. Earth work in accordance with a development cont=act approved under the City's Subdivision Ordinance. If the development 1 contract requires that a letter of credit or other security be posted, the letter of credit or other security must be posted before any excavation takes place. 1 7 -34: BZSBT BARTB WO31. • Earth work that is exempt from obtaining a permit 1 pursuant to Section 7 -33 shall: • A. Comply with the City's erosion control standards. 1 B. Maintain natural or existing drainage patterns. 1 • C. Comply with the City's other ordinance requirements including tree preservation and wetland protection. 7 -35: APPLICATIONS POR ZARTS WORK PBRXITS. . A. An application for an Earth Work permit shall be processed in -accordance with the same procedures specified in the City Code relating to interim use permits except that earth work of more than fifty (50) cubic yards of material but less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve (12) month period may be approved administratively. B. An application for a permit shall contain: 1 1. The name and address of the operator and owner of the land,. together with proof of ownership. If the operator and owner are different, both must sign the application. 2. The correct legal description of the property where the activity is proposed to occur. 1 3. A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners owning property within 500 feet of boundary of the property described above. 4. Specifications of the following, using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: _ a. Proposed grading plan. stockpile b. Proposed ckp ile sites. c. The physical relationship of the proposed designated • II • site to the community and existing development. 1 • ..3- II II .. • • II d. site topography and natural features including location of watercourses and water bodies. II e. The description and quantity of material to be excavated. f. The depth of water tables throughout the area. 1 g. The location and depth of wells and buried garbage, vater, and fill. 1 5. The purpose of the operation. • • 6. The estimated time required to complete the operation. . 7. Hours and months of operation. • 1 8. A tree survey indicating the location and type of all trees over six (6) inches in caliper. In a heavily wooded • area only the boundaries of the tree areas must be 1 indicated on the.survey. 9. An end use landscape plan and interim screening plan for 1 • the operation period. . 10. The plan of operation, including processing, nature of the processing and equipment, location of the plant, _ 1 source of water, disposal of water and reuse of water. 11. Travel routes to and from the.site and the number and . • . 1 type of trucks that will be used. - . 12. Plans for drainage, erosion control, sedimentation and dust control. , 13. A restoration P lan providing for the orderly and continuing restoration of all disturbed land to a I condition equal to or better than that which existed prior to the earth work. Such plan shall illustrate, using photographs, maps and surveys where appropriate, 1 the following: • a. The contour of the land prior to excavation and proposed contours after completion of excavation and II after completion of restoration. b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of 1 topsoil and overburden.' c. A schedule setting forth the timetable for excavation 1 of land lying within the 'extraction facility. 1 II • • d. The grade of all slopes after restoration, based upon proposed land uses, and description of the type and quantity of plantings where revegetation is to be conducted. e. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve II final restoration as well as intermittent • stabilization. II A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure compliance vith the permit conditions, method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a II result of complaints. 15. Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules, an environmental assessment worksheet, if required by the City. II 16. A wetland alteration permit, if required by the City • Code, which shall be processed concurrently with the II excavation permit application. • 17. Other information required by the City. . II C. Applicants for Earth Work permits involving less than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material must only furnish II the information specified in Section 7- 35B(1) , (2) , (4a) , (5) , • (6) , (7) , (8);(12), (13) , (16) , and (17) . . 7 -36: PROCESSING 01P WTI *0RX PERMIT APPLICATIONS. II A. Except as otherwise provided herein, City shall review the Earth Work permit application and shall approve II the permit if it is in compliance with this article, the • City's Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable laws, ordinances, and regulations. - ' I B. A permit may be approved subject to conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements and purpose of this II article. When such conditions are established, they shall be set forth specifically in the permit. Conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the II proposed operation, require the construction of structures, require the staging of extraction over a time period and require the alteration of the site design to ensure compliance vith the standards in this article. ' C. Earth vork of sore than fifty (50) but less than one .thousand (1,000) cubic yards of material in a twelve (12) month period II may be approved by the City Staff. The applicant shall submit the fee required by Section 7 -39 of the City Code. Upon receipt of a completed application, the City Staff shall II review the application vithin ten (10) working days and shall notify the applicant of the decision by mail. The City Staff may impose such conditions as may be necessary to protect the . -5- - • i • II • public interest. Bonding may be required in an arsount II sufficient to ensure site restoration should the applicant default. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision may appeal the determination to the City Council. . 1 7-37: TERMINATION 0? PBSt'QT. • A. An Earth Work permit may be terminated for violation of this I article or any condition of such permit. No Earth Work • permit may be terminated until the City Council has held a public hearing to determine whether such permit shall be II • terminated, at which time the operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the termination. The City Council may establish certain conditions, which if not complied with, will result in immediate suspension of operations until the • I public hearing to consider termination of the permit can be held. - B. It shall be unlawful to conduct earth work after a permit has been terminated. II 7 -38: . ANNUAL PERMITS. . A. Earth Work permits shall be renewed annually. The purpose of II the annual permit is to monitor compliance with the conditions of approval. The City Engineer, after consultation with appropriate City, staff, may issue renewal permits upon satisfactory proof of compliance with the issued permit and II this article. If the City Engineer denies a renewal permit, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council by • filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk within -ten (10) II ' days after the City Engineer denies the permit. B. Request for renewal of an Earth Work permit shall be made sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date. If application or renewal is not made within the required time, all operations shall be terminated, and reinstatement of the permit may be granted only upon compliance with the I procedures set forth in this article for an original permit. C. An Earth Work permit which is limited in duration cannot be I extended by the City Engineer. Extensions must be approved by the City Council. • I 7 -39: ISSUANCE 0? PERMIT IMPOSES 310 LIABILITY ON CITY= - RELIEVES T33 1 0? NO RESPONSIBILITIES. Neither the issuance of a permit under this article, nor compliance with the conditions thereof or with the provisions of this article shall relieve any person from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor II shall the issuance of any permit under this article serve to impose any liability on the City,. its officers or employees for any injury or damage to persons or property. A permit issued -6- • • • II pursuant to this article does not relieve the permittae of the responsibility of securing and complying with any other permit which nay be required by any other law, ordinance or regulation. 11 7-40: MIS.' 1 A schedule of fees shall time to determined change such by resolution of the City Council, which say, change uch schedule. Prior to the issuance or renewal of any permit, I fees shall be paid to the City and deposited in the general t 7 -41: AGREEMENT: 1US390C3313 LETTER 07 =EDIT. I Prior to the issuance of an Earth Work permit, there • shall be executed by the operator and landowner and submitted to the City an agreement to construct such required improvements and I to comply with such conditions of approval as may have been established by the City Council. The agreement shall run with the land and be recorded against the title to the property. I agreement shall be accompanied by a letter of credit acceptable to the City in the amount .of the costs of complying with the agreement as determined by the City Council. The adequacy of the I letter of credit shall be reviewed annually by the City. The City Engineer may direct the amount of the letter of credit be increased to reflect inflation or changed conditions. The City may draw against the letter of credit for noncompliance with the ' agreement and shall use the proceeds to cure any default. . 7-42: SET3ACT.8 . ' • Mining for the purpose of selling sand, gravel; black dirt, clay, and other minerals shall not be conducted within: I A. One hundred (100) feet of an existing street or highway. . B. Thirty (30) feet of an easement for an existing public - • 1 utility. C. Three hundred (300) feet of the boundary of an adjoining I property not in mining use except that aggregate processing that'creates objectionable noise and dust, including but not limited to crushing, must be set back one thousand five I hundred (1,500) feet from the boundary of adjoining property . not in mining use. 7 -43: 78NCI G. During operations permitted under this article, any 1 area where excavation slopes are steeper than one foot vertical II to one and one -half (1 -1/2) feet horizontal shall be fenced,. `i unless the City determines that 'they do not pose a safety hazard. ' Water story p a basins shall also be fenced if the City determines the basins pose a potential safety hazard. Unless otherwise II by the City, required fencing shall be a minimum six (6) .7- - • • 1 1 foot high chain link fence meeting Minnesota Department of I Transportation standards for right -of -way fencing. An initial fencing plan must be approved by the City Council. The City Engineer may subsequently authorize changes in the plan to accommodate changing conditions. 7-44: 1lPpFAR7►ECS AND SCREENING. 1 The following standards are required at the site of any operation permitted under this article: . 1 A. Machinery shall be kept in good repair. Abandoned machinery, inoperable equipment and rubbish shall be removed from the - site. • 1 B. All buildings and equipment that have not been used for a period of one year shall be removed from the site. • 1 C. All equipment and temporary . structures shall be removed and dismantled not later than ninety (90) days after termination of the extraction operation and expiration of the permit. D. Where practical, stockpiles of overburden and materials shall be used as part of the screening for the site. • I E. Where the City determines it is appropriate to screen off - site views, the perimeter of the site shall be planted with coniferous trees, bermed, or otherwise screened. Trees shall I be at least six (6) feet in height at the time of planting. F. Existing tree and ground cover shall be preserved to the I extent feasible, maintained and supplemented by selective • cutting, transplanting of trees, shrubs, and other ground cover along all setback areas. • I C. Noxious Weeds shall be eradicated. 1 7 -45: OPERATIONS; BOISE; HOURS; EXPLOSIVES; DUST; WATER POLLUTION; TOPSOIL PRESERVATION. 1 The following•oprating standards shall be observed at the site of any operation permitted under this article: A. The maximum noise level at the perimeter of the site shall be I within the limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. I B. Earth work shall be performed during only those times . established by the City Council as part of the permit unless otherwise provided in the permit. Such activity may only take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday I through Saturday. Such activity is also prohibited on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Christmas Eve Day, and Christmas Day. II -9- II . _:. • • C. Operators shall use all practical means to eliminate vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation. D. Operators shall comply with all applicable city, county, ' state and federal regulations for the protection of eater quality, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and . Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the protection of vater quality. No waste products or process residue shall be deposited in any lake stream or natural drainage system. All waste eater shall pass through a sediment basin before drainage into a stream. E. Operators shall comply with all City, County, State and Federal regulations for the protection of wetlands. . • F. Operators shall comply with all requirements of the watershed where the property is located. G. All topsoil shall be retained at the site until complete restoration of the site has taken place according to the restoration plan. H. Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount • of dust, smoke, and fumes caused by the operations. When II . atmospheric or other conditions make it impossible to prevent dust from migrating off site, operations shall cease. • • I. To control dust and minimize tracking sand, gravel, and dirt IF onto public streets, internal private roads from a mine to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt or concrete for a distance of at least three hundred (300) feet to the • intersection with a public roadway. All internal roads shall be swept and treated to minimize dust according to a schedule established by the City. The City may approve alternatives to I • paved internal streets that accomplish the same purpose. J. All haul routes to and from the mine shall be approved by the II City and shall only use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic. 7 -46: RESTORATION STANDARDS. II The following restoration standards shall apply to the site of any operation permitted under this article: ' A. The plan must be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. B. Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after the extraction operation has moved sufficiently into another part of the extraction site. 1 • 1 i - • • C. All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the II restoration plan submitted with the permit application. D. Slopes, graded areas and backf ill areas shall be surfaced I with adequate topsoil to secure and hold ground cover. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until it is self - sustaining. . • • 1 E. All eater areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon restoration of the site. In unique instances where the City Council has reviewed proposals for water bodies at the I time of approval of the overall plan and has determined that • such would be appropriate as an open space or recreational . amenity in subsequent reuse of the site, eater bodies may be 11 permitted. • F. No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an elevation I lower than the minimum required for connection to a sanitary or storm sewer. The City may waive this requirement if the II site could not reasonably be served by gravity sewer notwithstanding the proposed operation. Finished grades shall also be consistent vith the established plan for the property restoration. . I G. Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation, ground cover, wetland restoration, and other features. 1 7 -47: WAIVER. . The City Council may allow deviation from the I standards set forth herein: A. For operations that existed prior to the enactment of this 1 ordinance when it is not feasible to comply because of pre- existing conditions. I B. When because of topographic or other conditions it is not possible to comply. II C. When alternates that accomplish the purpose and intent of the .• standard set forth in this article are agreed upon by the City and the operator. . I . SECTION 2. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by amending Article 7CXVII in its entirety to read: 1 20 -1351: XINING. Xining is only alloyed in the zoning district where such use is delineated as an allowed use. In addition to I complying with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, all such uses shall comply with the Chanhassen excavation and mining ordinance, Chapter 7, Article III, of the Chanhassen City Code. . 1 . -10- 1 - • . • SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately • upon its passage and publication. Council of the City ADOPTED by the City tY of Chanhassen, this 14th day of May, 1990. • • ATTEST: • Don Ashvr.. oh, QLager Donald J. el, Mayor • (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 24 , 1990). • • • • • • • • 1 • • • • 1 • 1 1 -11- ' . 1 cc /./..-/J CITY OF CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING FUTURE CITY COUNCIL ITEMS MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY UPGRADE PROJECT NO. 90 -15 March 4, 1991 - City Council Workshop Re: Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade - Project No. 90 -15 March 14, 1991 - Neighborhood Meeting 1 Re: Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade - Project No. 90 -15 ' March 25, 1991 - Accept Feasibility Study for Upgrade Minnewashta Parkway; Call Public Hearing, Improvement Project No. 90 -15 April 8, 1991 - Public Hearing on Minnewashta Parkway Feasibility; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications - Project No. 90 -15 ' June 10, 1991 - Approve Plans and Specifications for Upgrade Minnewashta Parkway; Authorize Advertising for Bids - Project No. 90 -15 July 8, 1991 - Award of Bids for Minnewashta Parkway Upgrade - Project No. 90 -15 • 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 March 1, 1991 1 Minnesota Department of Transportation Attn: Mr. Charles Weischelbaum District State Aid Engineer Metropolitan District /Golden Valley Office 2055 North Lilac Drive Golden Valley, MN 55422 Re: MSA Systems revision PW 004 1 Dear Mr. Weischelbaum: In accordance with State Aid procedures, the City of Chanhassen wishes to submit 1 for consideration the following additions to the City's state -aid roadway system: 1. East -Vest Connector between Galpin Boulevard (CR 117) and STH -41 located approximately 3/4 mile north of STH -5. Approximate length =3600 feet. 1 2. Galpin Boulevard between STH -5 and #1 above to provide continuity. Approximate length =4300 feet. 3. Loop connector between STH -41 to STH -5 in the Northwest corner of Section 16 from a point } mile south of STH -5 on STH -41 to a point 2000 feet east of STH -41 on STU-5. Approximate length =4300 feet. i 4. East -West connection between #3 above and Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 19) south of STH -5. Approximate length =2700 feet. 5. Frontage road south of STH -5 between Audubon Road (MSA 106) and CSAH 19. From a point 1000 feet south of STH-5 on Audubon Road to 300 feet south of STH -5 on Galpin. Approximate length=5000 feet. 1 6. West 78th Street (MSA 113), extend MSA designation from Kerber Boulevard to Market Boulevard. Approximate length =500 feet. 1 7. Market Boulevard from *6 above to STH-5. Approximate length =1600 feet. 1 1 1 Mr. Charles Weischelbaum March 1, 1991 Page 2 8. Market Boulevard from STH -5 to Lake Drive (MSA 107). Approximate length =800 feet. 9. Market Boulevard extension fran Lake Drive (MSA 107) to "officially mapped" STH -212. Approximate length =4500 feet. The enclosed map will help locate these proposed additions for you. The City ' currently has 4.428 miles (23,380 feet) of undesignated MSA street mileage based on the recently submitted 1990 Certification of Mileage (see attached). The above pro- posals total to 27,300 feet so there will need to be sane adjustments after you get a chance to review. We would appreciate your thoughts on all of these proposals at this time however, since the City is obviously in a growth mode our MSA mileage should continue to increase next year and beyond. After your review we will prepare the specific "Needs" sheets as necessary and obtain the appropriate City Council resolutions to officially add these segments to - ystem. We look forward to reducing our mileage surplus considerably with this and hope you can support us in this matter. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 4 1' 14/(1f21214 ° 1 Gary GLiWarren, P.E. Acting City Engineer - GGW:lap c: Don Ashworth, City Manager Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer C.C. Administrative Packet 3/11/91 1 Enclosures: 1. Map 2. 1990 Certification of Mileage. 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III1 I I 1 1 1 I 4- 4 ..„.„, 1 • ' I I . ,I441111111 1 1 A 4. icalp": tv IIPW: it-i '.0.4••-- sl - - . aryl - /=,, I . ,AMPA I l r E ‘54;4 ri.#1. 'la - . ' 41111;41.:'-'57.7 -r- p I." hi: '^' ' 4" - • 1---- - ; , !'"1 1 ` e 7 "i Ir. .0. jig r, NO wad --.,:1'. : A.........- - -L.u..e-- --• . ...es , pi wa r 6.- -r.... 2 - ••-11-.. - i 'zr . . .1:=. _.„....-„,‘,.., ...., 0 4 / sef, • '''' 43 '.. gill I I r 41'1 .411 WII,V;, • * .4ra..1;1 — I Mr.- 7 . _ Aow. 1■11, ' ' 1 I ? i. : 71111eXIC.....: ■ W V --wee • MINIMI0 , 1. irri s•,,V ..v. ...- .. • . . Ir.. • r .,.. , _____ PPIIIPm ft„..... •- s-Vi'l . ali_h 1 .■-•*- . - s - A . • l Ir., ,.., ____.•• . _ Xi IP) 411-1111111 p ita „. .11 _ ... • & t. Mr* . 4p iiimil m 4131 -:,,,,1 ''' ' ,= ■,.., -A ar .... _ mt -- ; ....:4wa _,-.,: *- • - ....-,..1.v. J r, • -4.....b;- - .117 4 a +' .- • ir :4 4. 0 I A III 4t) .... ____ -= ' • IR I in-A - : a _A 1 ___ . 1r , ,... -.51,01. 4 4 . • 1. r wes #: i ii:7 7 , f .. i-,7.- t•-',Erai . , „,,..„.:'-' -__ I ...,—. ' .........„__ - — _ ................---- _ —____._„______ ■-..,-.....„,„:. T'.'&.:-.1„...... i '" ' __ 2 C> --- 0 VIWThilly IP lr a7 •Sy. ,--- gl 3 ______ or . . _ _ ,, ._ - ■111.1 ril _ 4if ... _ _ - 4.4___.--1---, % N Y • '':all''' , ' ■ 1 • ... ''' c.: ' : ‘. -- ..0,: • - .,,a__ 'P ..w.4.. ,.,..- • , , ___.- ---- ----- - 1 IMMO 4 -. 1 ritk- i - ilifii 1 i I _ . ,:. ■ .. , .. 1 ■ I . .. 4. CITY OF f ; ' M Agg 1 g ku i 1 IIII ,.• g , ....„, , .. I awssev - I rapr wpm Ea ___ — 1 , . r , • pr iv ii.,., suer _ I Recommended ....___ _ System .... ..... ...a.■11..a., . , _.., ...___ Major Routes 1 ........ - I _ •_, ..._ ._... ..._ 1 • Interchanges _ ".• • ILL . _; ! -.. - • ' l''' ' ' lirAior `" I . Vihilligilikailliffir•4111111- ■.- .- .. f • , g ..... .. L -.....• - _ _ .... ..... ■ - Min ...:7:-. I • —1. -.. ,... . - _ - III! f 1 IIII I i Pi ......... 0 DAM IMP Irmo am. Isis 1 . CITYOF CIIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' January 15, 1991 1 Minnesota Department of Transportation ' Attn: Mr. Chuck Weischelbaum District State Aid Engineer Metropolitan District /Golden Valley Office 2055 North Lilac Drive 1 Golden Valley, MN 55422 Re: 1990 Certification of Mileage ' PW 033 Dear Mr. Weischelbaum: Please find enclosed the City of Chanhassens' Certification of Mileage as of December 31, 1990. Attached to the Certification is the City's itemization of Roadway Improvements and Municipal ' State Aid Street Improvements along with a current tabulation of the State Aid street segments within the City of Chanhassen. As you will note, there are a few minor changes which will be documented accordingly with the forthcoming submittal of the 1990 MSA Needs Study sheet. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Charles Folch Assistant City Engineer CF:lap c: City Council Administrative Packet (1- 28 -91) with Attachment. 1 Attachment: Certification of Mileage Form Itemization of Roadway Improvements r 1 CITY OF CHA HASSEN ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF MILEAGE 1 1990 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 1/11/91 II "Other Local Roads and Streets" II .Project # Project Name Miles 1 88 -24 Reed's Orchard Ridge (64th Ct.) 0.06 89 -1 Country Oaks 0.33 1 89 -27 Vineland Forest Addition 0.23 1 90 -14 Lake Susan Hills West 4th Add. 0.39 *90 -16 Lake Susan Hills West 5th Add. 0.12 II *88 -6 Minnewashta Highlands 0.03 *90 -12 Zimmerman Farms 1st Addition 0.13 1 Total "Improved" Streets 1.01 miles II Total "Non - Existing" Streets 0.28 miles II Total Increase in Local Street Mileage 1.29 miles II "Municipal State Aid Streets" 1 Mileage ` Original Change New II Project# Section Segement Project Miles Improved Mileage 89-6 / 110 030 Lake Drive East 0.39(improved) -0.06 0.33 89-6 110 040 Lake Drive East 0.31(non- exist.) +0.31 0.31 1 Total 0.70 miles + .25 0.64 miles II 1 *Demotes platted subdivision with non - existing streets. 1 1 • 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STATE AID STREET SYSTEM ` 1990 11 DESCRIPTION SECTION SEGMENT MILEAGE II Non - Existing Lake Lucy Road 101 010 ' .61 Lake Lucy Road 101 020 1.21 II Kerber Boulevard 101 030 .81 II Kerber Boulevard 101 040 .63 Saddlebrook 102 010 .19 II Bluff Creek Drive 104 010 .66 Bluff Creek Drive 104 020 .66 II Audubon Road 106 010 1.52 II Non - Existing Lake Drive East 107 010 1.00 Lake Drive East 108 010 .63 II Non - Existing Pleasant View Road 109 010 1.52 Lake Drive East 110 010 .47 II Lake Drive East 110 020 .04 II (Revised Mileage) Lake Drive East 110 030 .33 (Per Const . Plan) (Improved 1990) Lake Drive East 110 040 .31 I Non- Existing 184th Street 110 050 .10 II Minnewashta Parkway 111 010 1.30 West 78th Street 113 010 0.32 II Lyman Boulevard 112 010 ' 0.61 Lake Riley Boulevard 112 020 0.40 II TOTAL MILS 13.30 miles II Non-Existing = 21 mil 3. s e Improved = 10.09 miles II 13.30 miles as of 1990 (State Aid) , 1 II Mo� /qUt I'll 2' 172 0l 110.19) Municipal Mileage - _- - -- Revisions During - Municipal Mileage as of Dec. 31, 19 Current Year (+ or -) as of Dec. 31, 19 ANNUAL CERTIFICATION v 1 OF MILEAGE _°c �° �° z ° h 4 0 ,,,,• ° o a 1 11 �m myl ylll x XI Xll 1. Trunk Highways 10,4 18.4 , 18.43 18.43 2. County State Highways 1.95 8.28 10.2; . 1.95 8.28 10.23 3. Co. Municipal State - Aid Streets ---- 4. Municipal State - Aid Streets 3.52 9.84 13.36 0.31 - +0.25 - 0.06 3.21 10.09 13.30 5. County Roads via 3.7 --. lig 7 5.07 8. Other Local Roads and Streets 73.7 0.28 +1.01 +1.2:10.28 74.78 8 75.061 7. Total Improved Mileage Previous = En 9 Adjustment = (+ or _) +1.26 Current = 115.35 MAXIMUM STATE -AID MILEAGE COMPUTATIONS • ' . 8. Trunk Highways (Line 1, Column X1). 18.43 • 8.28 9. County State -Aid Highways (Line 2, Column XI). 10. County Municipal State -Aid Streets (Line 3, Column XI). 0 . 11. Total Deductions (Total of Lines 8, 9 and 10 above). 26.71 12. Basic Mileage For Computation (Line 7, Column XI, Minus Line 11). 88.64 13. Percentage Limitation. x .20 14. MAXIMUM MILES ALLOWED FOR M.S.A.S. DESIGNATIONS 17.728 15. Total Municipal State -Aid Street Designations (Column XII - Line 3 Plus Line 4) 13.30 18. Total Miles of T.H. Tumbacks Included In Line 15 • e 17. Municipal State -Aid Street Mileage Over /Under Maximum Allowed. 4.42R - I hereby certify that the total Improved Street Mileage in the Municipality Chanhassen 90 115.35 of --- , as of December 31, 19 _ _. is Miles. Wi _ dig; __..._____,„ . I= ow r REVISIONS DURING CURRENT YEAR MUNICIPAL STATE -AID STREETS COUNTY MUNICIPAL STATE -AID STREETS MILEAGE CHAN + OR — R£ v4IsEIN O TE NUMBER MILES U MILE S �Now um. Ew REASON ATE OHIO. MILEAGE CHANGE +OR — REVISED DATE IOE 0 1 pE NUMBER MILES �p��- OR NEW OF REASON £XI6TW M OMNOV0 110VD TOTAL MIE p EI(19TWG�lgp Ow TOTAL MILES CHANGE 030 .39 -.06 -.06 .33 9/90 New Const. i f d 040 .31 +.31 +.31 - _ .31 9/90 New Const. 1 TOTAL NET CHANGE COUNTY STATE -AID HIGHWAYS • • TOTAL NET CHANGE +I • 5 +0. 0.6' le TOTAL NET CHANGE z Jan. 1, To Dec. 31, 19 9 ° MUNICIPALITY MB NM MI NM 1 NM MO NM OM MO 1 1 NM ME 1 • N MB IIMI CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 03 - 11 -91 PAGE 1 CHECK # A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E 033577 1,620.00 KRUGER PHOTOGRAPHY PROMOTIONAL EXPENSE' • 033620 545.00 VAUGHN'S INC PROMOTIONAL EXPENSE 033623 10,000.00 DAVID AND JULIANN LUSE LAND - PURCHASE + IMP 3 12,165.00 NECESSARY EXPENDITURES SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING • • CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 03 -11 -91 PAGE 2 CHECK # A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E 042968 54.60 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, FEES, LEGAL 042969 58.00 TODD GERHARDT TRAVEL + TRAINING AND - MILEAGE 042970 737.64 HOISINGTON GROUP, INC. FEES, SERVICE 042971 190.70 HOLMES & GRAVEN FEES, LEGAL 042972 7.87 MINNETONKA PHOTO LABS SUPPLIES, OFFICE 5 1,048.81 CHECKS WRITTEN TOTAL OF 8 CHECKS TOTAL 13,213.81 • INN IMMI 1111. .1.1 I I I M MI I= MI IMM M .1111 111.1 111111 111111 1 I ^ ^ association of metropolitan 1 municipalities 1 February, 1991 183 University Ave. East, St. Paul, Minn. 55101 No. 35 1 City Services are People Services: 1 In Defense of People I By Larry Bakken, President People, not cities, are hurt when proportionately on the level of govern - state government changes its mind - - - ment closest to the people and the and refuses to make good on earlier, most prudent of state spenders. I promises to provide state aid to local ` Common Goals government. Because of the recent City officials are attempting to pro- state action reducing LGA payments 4, i. vide a unified front to the Legislature to cities for the current fiscal year, t during this session by concentrating I many people will be impacted nega- ! on the commonalities among cities tively. ' rather than dwelling on the differences One of the most unfortunate side as has happened in the past. This is effects of the recent state cuts targeted not to say that Greater Minnesota at cities is the presumption that cities cities and metro area cities do not can adjust their spending more easily have legitimate differences, but be- than other local governmental units. It , cause of the importance of the state's was suggested that cities have been City officials are prudent spenders involvement in local government fund- big spenders recently and therefore and watchful stewards of taxpayers' ing, AMM is attempting to work as could afford to make the cuts. As a . mone Between 1980 and 1988 city closely cities received a dispropor money. Y y as possible with all cities I tion t share of the budget reductions. spending increased only 3.3 percent through the League of Minnesota per capita, compared to increases of Cities. Since all cities will be impacted, Precedent Spending 18 percent per capita for county spend- all cities must work together toward a It is extremely important to recognize ing and 22 percent per pupil for common cause —or goal —at this time. that city services are people services, schools. AMM Policies even though they somewhat differ City spending has increased only at In addition to addressing the budget from the kinds of services one might the rate of inflation for the last 10 problem during this legislative session, think about from counties (such as years. From 1980 the per capita cost AMM also is addressing its six major I welfare payments), school systems of city spending was $426.30 and in legislative policy priorities. The central (such as delivering educational ser- 1989 this per capita figure had in- theme of these priorities is that cities vices) or state agencies (such as regu- creased to $427.39, or an increase of need flexibility, tools and resources to I latory oversight activities). City services only $1.09. Finally, city employment respond to human needs and to people are as important. In fact, one might per capita has decreased while state services that must be provided at the suggest that city government is the employment has increased. For the local level. segment of state and local government latest period, 1987 -89, actual city Our AMM priorities are: I that provides the most services to the employment has decreased by 627 • Preservation of LGA and HACA most people. City services frequently employees statewide while state em- payments to cities should be are taken for granted and we as repre- ployment increased by 1,494 em- continued or a similar program sentatives of cities do not hear from ployees. created. I our citizens until those services are City officials recognize there is a • The Legislature should remove curtailed. Cities are major contributors budget problem statewide, but cutting levy limits or provide sufficient to the state service mix and are respon- all city aid will not solve the problem— modification to give cities the I sible for seeing that the bulk of the and if state aid to cities is eliminated, latitude they need to deliver their state's citizens receives the services devastating consequences may result. services. that are needed to function on a day- Quality of statewide services will be to -day basis. greatly impacted and will fall dis- (DEFENSE, continued on page 4) 1 This newsletter is printed on recycled paper 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 and fiscal and service relationships Alternative Dispute Resolution involving more than one city or unit of By Roger Williams, Director, Office of Dispute Resolution government." The committee is co- chaired by With the very real possibility of re- cation to local government situations Prosser and Roger Williams, New duced local government aids, local and the availability of dispute resolu- Brighton Council member and Director I officials are searching for new ways to tion services. Committee members of the Office of Dispute Resolution in achieve greater efficiency in delivering have discussed their individual expert- the State Planning Agency. Other com- services while remaining responsive ences with mediation and arbitration mittee members are Bakken, John to the needs of their constituents. To and have reviewed the services avail- Elam, Maple Grove City Administrator; I help address this situation, the Associ- able from various public, non - profit Bill Dixon, St. Louis Park City Manager; Mayor Joy Robb, R Park City ation of Metropolitan Municipalities and community dispute resolution ser- dale, Barry (AMM) is taking a leadership role by vice providers. - Johnson, Woodbury City Administra- developing and promoting methods The committee is currently defining tor; Steve North, Roseville Assistant I for cities to use in effectively resolving its mission and is developing a work City, Manager, and Gerald Wallin, Fal divisive and time consuming conflicts program to focus its activities during con Heights Council member. Nancy while conserving resources. the coming year. The tentative mission Walsh, Executive Director of Mediation In response to a recommendation statement is: "To prepare and imple- Center, anon- profitdispute resolution I from the AM M Mission Task Force, ment a plan for increasing the capacity service provider, is an advisor/consul- /club the Board recently authorized the for- of cities to effectively resolve con- tant to the committee. mation of a special Dispute Resolution stituent, administrative and internal, I Jim Prosser, Richfield City Manager and Committee to promote the use of new and intergovernmental disputes Dispute Resolution Co - chair, and Nancy dispute resolution processes at the through the use of alternative methods Walsh, Mediation Center Executive Com- local level. In forming this committee, of dispute resolution." mittee Director, assisted in this article. AMM President Larry Bakken said, Committee members are developing ' "As a Golden Valley City Council mem- broad scale plans for informing city AMM Has Connection ber for the past seven years and an officials about the use of alternative AMM Board member for five years, I dispute resolution processes. But more to New Administration have become very aware of the inordi- importantly, the committee wishes to Several of Gov. Arne Cartson's I nate amount of time and energy spent go beyond education and actually cabinet and high level officials have by city elected officials and city staff in develop models that cities can use to ties with the Association of Metro - resolving disputes and conflicts inter- institutionalize techniques for address- politan Municipalities (AMM). I Wally and externally at the local level. ing a broad range of city and consti- Carlson's chief -of- staff, former We as local government officials must tuentdisputes with efficiency and com- Minneapolis City Coordinator Lyall become more efficient and effective in passion. As pointed out by Co -chair Minnea zkopf, was an active partici- resolving such disputes as we live Jim Prosser, Richfield City Manager, pant on theAMM Revenue Committee I with the reality of providing vital ser- "Alternative dispute resolution should and Board of Directors in the 1970s. vices with fewer dollars. As an attorney, become an integral part of the way we He was the fourth AMM president, I am convinced that there are ways do business. Mediation services are serving from June 1977 through May other than costly litigation to resolve available to deal professionally with 1978. I such disputes. I strongly endorse the constituent disputes over such issues ADR (alternative dispute resolution) as nuisance pets, trees and noise. Use Mary Anderson, the ninth AMM president (1982 -83) and recent mayor processes and believe the AMM can of these services allows city staff to of Golden Valley, has been appointed I provide key leadership in advancing concentrate on doing their jobs. And, chair of the Metropolitan Council. appointed use of these processes." if we think creatively, I feel we can derson was a very active member of To date, the committee has met develop steps for dealing routinely the Board of Directors for five years twice to learn more about the field of with larger scale issues related to and served on various AMM commit - alternative dispute resolution, its appli- zoning, annexation, city administration, tees for nearly two decades. !! Effective Feb. 25, Sharon Klumpp AMM Has ployees helping residents in everyday leaves her post as Oakdale Admini- Video Available life. It also points out cities are not the strator to become Executive Director root of the current fiscal crisis and of the Metropolitan Council. Sharon ' The AMM has produced a video that further cuts in aids to cities has been on the AMM board since outlining important "people" services would mean layoffs, cutbacks in ser- May 1987 and an enthusiastic AMM that cities provide —from police and vices and increased property taxes. pa 1 987t since 1983. She most r I fire protection to street maintenance The video includes live footage from Gently served as chair of the Metro - to health inspections. It is available to Bloomington, Minnetonka, Maple cen ts served Agencies C hair of h member cities for $6 per copy. Grove and St. Paul. Dave Kiser, pro- The new Commi Committee. the De- The video may be used as a tool to duction manager at northwest Com- partment of Employee Relations is I emphasize either to legislators or resi- munity Television in Brooklyn Park, Linda Barton, former Burnsville dents the importance of city services handled the technical production. e th been active i s Linda manager. Li has b n in daily life and how people have The video runs approximately 6:45, man man policy process ha since her n th e I grown to depend on such services and is available in '/z -inch format. City City arrival in the mid- 1980s. being available. It stresses that city officials who want more information The AMM Board and staff congratu- budgets aren't merely numbers on about the video may contact Nicole late these AMM activists and wish paper; rather, they represent city em- Debevec at the AMM office. them well in their new endeavors. 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 II II 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AMM Board of Directors Staff 1 .. nologist in an area doctor's office, and I 2 I 1 has served on the staff of the medical - -•- school in Vermillion, S.D. Don and t .0010, I j Karen have three children, Steve, tom. - $,.,I 3 Stacey and Julie. Don's children have , I �' beer) active in sports and most of the _� ? ' Ashworth's weekends are consumed by sporting events with their children. C 1 41 i IS 4 . ` . %:,, fo giciett. . - ,...1'-• 1 ■ 1 . : .: ,.,, i .,. ..... .. ._ DON ASHWORTH let illik I Don Ashworth, Chanhassen City Man- NICOLE A. DEBEVEC ger, was elected to AMM's Board of Anew year brings a new permanent .directors in May 1990 Don has served ' > employee to AMM. on most of the League of Minnesota Nicole A. Debevec was hired as the I Cities committees during his 21 years AMM's communication and research in Minnesota, with the Revenue Com- director, effective Jan. 2. Her duties mittee and AMM functions being a BETTY McCOLLUM include overseeing the Legislative Con- , priority for the past several years tact Program, establishing and main - Prior to becoming Chanhassen's Betty McCollum, North St. Paul city taining contact with metropolitan area first city manager in 1976, Don served council member, was elected to a media, and writing and editing the as Assistant Manager / Finance Direc- two -year term on the AMM Board of AMM newsletter, news releases bul- ' tor in Maplewood, Minn (1970 -76), Directors during the Association's letins,actionalertsandotherinforma- and Vermillion, S D (1965 -69) During 1990 annual meeting last May. tional publications. his tenure as City Manager in Chan- Betty is in her second term as a Debevecearnedherundergraduate hassen, Don also serves on the adjunct council member from North St. Paul. and graduate degrees in journalism I faculty of Mankato State University, Besides serving on AMM's board, from Marshall University, Huntington, teaching courses in local government Betty chairs the Association's Trans- W.Va. Her minors were in political finance portation Committee. She serves as a science and natural science She was I Don's academic credentials include board member on the Minnesota a reporter for The (Huntington, W Va.) a bachelor's degree in mathematics League of Cities' Gopher State One Hera /d- Dispatch, The Charleston from the University of South Dakota, call in service. Betty is a board mem- (W.Va.) Gazette and a staff writer for and a master's degree in public ad- ber of the Ramsey County League of United Press International in its I ministration from the University of Local Governments. Charleston, W.Va., and Morgantown, Kansas. As a teacher and a student, The mother of two school -aged child- W.Va., bureaus. She also taught an his primary areas of interest are local ren, Katie and Sean, Betty has been introductory reporting class at the government finance andcomputersci- involved in School District #622 as a University of Minnesota and Marshall 1 ence. past chair of the district's finance University. In addition to his membership in the committee and is a member of the Most recently, Debevec was a ses- International City Management Associ- Cowen parent- teacher organization. sion writer for the House of Represen- ation, Don has been an active member She and her husband, Doug, partici- tatives Public Information Office. She I in the metropolitan and state manage- pate in local scouting activities. provided coverage for committees ment associations— currently being a As part of her platform, Betty is such as Commerce, Transportation, board member of the metropolitan committed to keeping and encourag- Local Government and Metropolitan association. During the time that Don ing business growth in North St. Paul's Affairs, Labor - Management Relations, I served as Finance Director for Maple- downtown business area. She also and Education. wood, he maintained an active position was instrumental in the completion of Debevec looks forward to the chal- with the National Finance Officer's the Highway 36 Department of Natural lenges of setting up a communications I Association as well as the local chap- Resources Park Trail and helped to office and contact network for AMM. ter, serving on the board of that organi- preserve Silver Lake's recreational She believes working for the associa- zation for several years. value. tion will give her a chance to expand Don also is active in local organi- Betty says her goal is to have a her journalistic background, work with I zations such as the chamber of com- responsive, open government with public officials and audiences, as well merce and athletic associations. greater participation at the grassroots as allow her to keep her hand in the Don's wife, Karen, is a medical tech- level. legislative process. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fiscal Disparities tian, Maplewood Mayor; Ted Bearth, idea or believed it was an inappropri- p Oakdale Mayor; Tim Bergstedt, Minne- ate activity for AMM. The AMM Board of Directors estab- tonka Mayor; Steve Cramer, Minnea- More than 120 city officials and I fished a special task force to deal with polis Council member; Ed Erickson, guests representing 44 cities and four the issue of Fiscal Disparities (FD) New New Mayor; Dan McElroy, Burns- metropolitan agencies attended the based on several members' requests ville Mayor; Neil Peterson, Blooming- annual policy meeting. to once again try to develop a common ton Mayor; Steve Quam, former Rich - I organizational position. field Mayor; Rick Reiter, Coon Rapids DEFENSE The task force membership included Mayor; Bill Saed, former Inver Grove (continued from page 1) II one elected official from each of 14 Heights Mayor; Jim Scheibel, St. Paul • Funding should be made available Mayor; Tom Seaberg, South St. Paul member cities: five significant contri- for cities that need to deal with butors, five significant gainers, and Council member, and Dick Wadell, deteriorating housing and four which could be considered neu- Shoreview Mayor. improving unlivable ' tral from a gain /loss perspective. The 1991 Policy neighborhoods. Currently many Board felt it important to have city suburban cities are confronted policy makers develop an initial con- Adoption Meeting with problems historically sensus on a philosphically acceptable associated with central or core I position, if possible, and then have The Association of Metropolitan cities. staff develop the technical elements to Municipalities membership met at the • The Legislature needs to commit support that position Ambassador Hotel in St. Louis Park on to the creation or restoration of The committee did meet several Nov. 1, 1990, toadoptAMM Legislative development and redevelopment I times. It reviewed current law and its Policy and set priorities for the 1991 tools so cities can foster job history, and the status or results of the legislative session. More than 100 creation and deal with blighted law to date. The task force also looked policies were adopted concerning a conditions in their own at the previous AMM position plus a very wide range of issues. These have communities. I lengthy shopping list of possible ad- been distributed to each manager /ad- • More emphasis needs to be dressable issues. ministrator and extra copies may be placed on tools and programs to A detailed and frank discussion en- obtained from the AMM office. help manage the solid waste _ I sued concerning the very real diverse The membership indicated prefer- stream more efficiently and results of FD on member AMM cities ence for the major policy issues effectively. and the divisiveness caused by pre- through a tear -off voting ballot. After • AMM cities need property tax vious policy. This divisiveness still reviewing the results, the Board chose reform which treats all regions of I would occur with any new position six top priority issues for 1991. They the state equitably. The AMM which might include significant con- are Levy Limit Repeal, Preservation of believes that aid formulas should tribution reductions, thus likely distri- Local Government Aid (LGA /HACA), - be based primarily on a uniform bution reductions. Property Tax Reform (including two level of specific services adjusted The task force concluded that there tier class rate for homesteads), to a degree by the tax capacity were many very important issues that Restoration of Tax Increment Finance and tax burden relative to income. the members commonly supported and Economic Development Tools, • Finally, AMM believes there ' and that all cities would benefit more Waste Management Activity Funding, should be relief for homeowners by concentrating AMM resources on and Housing and Neighborhood Liva- in the metro area who pay issues of agreement rather than to bility Issues. A detailed description of significantly higher property taxes diverting limited AMM staff time to an the AMM position on these issues may for basically the same type of I issue of known divisiveness. be found in the policy manual. Issue living accommodations than their The task force recommended and briefing papers are being prepared for country friends because of the the Board of Directors ratified that the distribution to the AMM legislative distortion caused by the three - AMM take no policy position on Fiscal contact representatives in each city. class rate system for homestead I Disparities for 1991either for or against In addition to the policy discussion property. the program or changes. The task and adoption, representatives from People are hurt when budgets are force did indicate that if there were the Metropolitan Council, Metropolitan cut and people are hurt when services major FD legislative activity, it would Airports Commission (MAC), Metro- they have come to expect cannot be I like to meet again for discussion. It politan Waste Control Commission provided by local government. Since also should be pointed out that under (MWCC) and the Regional Transit cities are prudent spenders and wise Policy V -O Metropolitan Tax adopted Board (RTB) discussed their views stewards of public funds, the Legis- by the membership, the AMM does concerning an AMM proposal to devel- lature should attempt to assist cities oppose using a property tax increase op a Metropolitan Agencies Appoint- and should NOT place a dispropor- to pay for proposed regional needs; ment Review Committee to comment tionate share of the blame or burden thus, the AMM would oppose taking on the various applicants for agency on this part of the service - providing I part of the FD pool for specific pro- boards. The proposed committee mem- community. Cities are not afraid to grams since this would effectively bership would include representatives share proportionately in the reductions cause a property tax increase. from various organizations concerned if they take place, but other parts of The committee was chaired by Clar- with metropolitan governance. The local government such as counties I ence Ranallo, Mayor of St. Anthony Metropolitan Council seemed to wel- and schools also should be looked and a professional mediator. Also serv- come additional input, while MAC, upon to participate in changes in the ing on the committee were: Gary Bas- MWCC, and RTB either opposed the Minnesota budget process. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 CITYOF 11111 BISSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Gary G. Warren, Acting City Engineer fild 9 DATE: March 4, 1991 SUBJ: Consultant Services PW 135 and PW 009 ' I have been asked to address fram a historical and policy perspective, the use of BRW for the inspection of developer installed improvements on private deve- lopments and also the continued use of BRW on the West 78th Street detachment ' project and the North and South leg phases of the Trunk Highway 101 realignment project. Let me say upfront that it has been the policy of this office to obtain the best professional services for the City for the dollar when dealing ' with all of our consultants and the only way that a consultant is allowed to continue providing services to the City is by providing competent professional services. The metro area is blessed with numerous consultant engineering firms ' providing a variety of services to the municipal sector. Our Public Works files alone contain qualification references for almost 20 firms. Any firm who has expressed an interest in providing engineering services to the City of Chanhassen is allowed the opportunity to present their credentials and meet with staff to discuss their abilities and experience. CITY INSPECTION OF PRIVATE DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Prior to 1988 the City of Chanhassen allowed private developers and their chosen engineering firm to inspect the public improvement projects which were being constructed as a part of their private development. I call this the "fox guarding the hen house" syndrome in that the consultant who was paid by the developer was caught in a potential conflict of interest when difficult construction decisions had to be made which had financial impacts to the developers' project. This is not to discredit the firms which provided these services prior to 1988 but nevertheless I believe it was asking a lot for them to make their decisions in the best interest of the City. In late 1987 City Council was approached by this office with a recommendation that the City provide all inspection services an private developments (roadways, sewer and water improvements only). This recommendation was unamimously ' supported by the Council. Due to the extreme magnitude of the development work it was impractical to staff up internally to accomplish these inspections. It was therefore believed most cost - effective to hire a consultant who could adjust to the peaks and valleys of the development demand. The inspections would be 11 Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager March 6, 1991 Page 2 done on an as needed hourly basis with the invoices for these services to be paid by the City and reimbursement made to the City by the respective developers. An additional caveat required the chosen consultant to agree not to provide any design services to private developers working in the city. In March of 1988 proposals were solicited and received from 8 firms who were interested in providing inspection services. These firms were interviewed by ' the selection committee who chose the firm of BRW, Inc. to provide these inspection services. Initially Mr. Alan Larson provided these services to the City. For the past two summers Mr. Ron Isaak has been providing these services. Fran the inception of this policy, staff and our consultant have been very careful to only charge for time spent while inspecting the various projects. ' Separate invoices in detail have been required such that the developer can be provided with sufficient documentation as to the legitimacy of the invoices. In addition a daily inspection diary is maintained by the inspector. I believe it's fair to say that the City is receiving a considerably better product as a result of this procedure and the services provided have been reasonable and appropriate. With the change from Mr. Larson to Mr Isaak the charge out rate for the inspection services was actually reduced. Periodically this office receives questions concerning the appropriateness of sane bills and charges however, in all cases since the inception of the program there have not been any sustained challenges to the invoicing testifying I believe to the reasonableness in the BRW approach to this professional contract. It is my understanding that most recently Mr. Paulson questioned the ' appropriateness of the inspection services provided by Mr. Isaak on his sewer - extension in the Chan Hills subdivision. In that particular case the amount of time required by our inspector was higher than what would have been normal. ' This however is a direct result of the caliber of contractor which Mr. Paulson had hired for the sewer extension. The City could have required Mr. Paulson to use a more experienced contractor for this sewer extension but instead we agreed at his request to allow him to use a firm that was experienced only in constructing lateral building service connections and had never done mainline work before. As a result, our inspector spent considerable extra time on site with the novice contractor to assist and see to it that this sewer extension was ' properly constructed to City standards.• With the continuing escalation of sanitary sewer user charges by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission the City must continue to strongly enforce and thoroughly inspect and monitor the installation of these improvements. WEST 78th STREET DETACHMENT /TRUNK HIGHWAY 101 REALIGNMENT ' on our more complicated downtown redevelopment and major transportation corridor projects such as Lake Drive and Trunk Highway 101 Realignment, we have used BRW, Inc. as our consultant. As you are aware there are a number of intricate phases involved in completion of these major transportation /redevelopment projects. Often times before a project even gets into the initial feasibility study phase there has been the need for much background work to be done with the State and/ or respective developers. This background and ability to work with the ' respective State agencies can be very vital in the successful and timely completion of projects of this magnitude. It is standard policy in this City as 1 Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager March 6, 1991 Page 3 well as in most others that a consultant is hired to be involved in all phases of the project from initial feasibility through to final construction completion and adoption of the respective assessment roles. This makes good practical ' sense in the fact that additional orientation time and expense would be involved if the City were to change consultants at each phase of the project and much continuity, detail and accountability would be lost along the way. ' Specifically on the West 78th Street Detachment project which was initiated in 1987, this project has gone through several modifications and alternatives relative to the Burdick property access and coordination with Trunk Highway 5 ' improvements. Not all of the time since 1987 has been spent in preparing contract documents obviously. Nevertheless the project has cane now to the construction phase and the importance of having BRW involved to inspect the design and to interpret their construction drawings is very necessary to the successful completion of the project. It is for that same reason that Howard Needles for example is inspecting the work that they designed on Audubon Road and why Engelhardt & Associates inspected the Frontier Trail project and why OSM inspected the Lake Drive East project by Dataserv. The coordination and communication between the construction inspectors and the design engineers is very important and necessary in providing the continuity and similarily keeping the chain of accountability in tact in the event that sane phase of the construction has a problem. If a different firm were inspecting the project than designed the project the City could be left with potential "pointing ' fingers" between the different firms should a problem arise. Using the same firm from start to finish provides the City with sole - source accountability and a smoother, more complete and less costly project in the long run. In the case of the Trunk Highway 101 project, BRW continues to be involved since this project was done under a master feasibility study prepared by BRW. Many of the layouts which were generated for the railroad crossing work at West 78th 11 Street were worked out with BRW's staff. Similarily the sensitive property acquisition scenarios and negotiations have involved BRW staff. Major projects such as these and the downtown redevelopment projects take years to complete. ' The completion of the construction is not the end of the line for the consultant who assists the City with the preparation of assessment roles, as -built drawings and warranty work. This office continues to support this "cradle to grave" concept. Not only does the City receive a better product by following this approach but also closes any loophole opportunities should difficulties arise in the construction phase. ' Similarily I do not believe it is in the best advantage of the City to have more than a few select consultants providing services of this nature to the City. As noted earlier there are numerous firms who would like to provide municipal ' services to canmunities. Cities are typically demanding with tough schedules to meet. To successfully meet these demands requires a strong catmittment and allegiance from our consultants. This in my opinion is achieved by striking a ' mutual relationship wherein the City provides the consultants with enough projects to allow them to keep a design team committed to the City on a regular basis. At the City these past 4 years we have struck I believe a fair balance between spreading the work amongst competing firms while still working with a select few to achieve this loyalty. This has allowed us to weed out the good firms fran the bad on a trial and error basis. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager March 6, 1991 Page 4 ' Currently there are 5 firms which regularly provide the City services. They are BRW, CAM, HNTB, Engelhardt and RCM. Depending on the quantity and magnitude of work which the City has for public improvements their work load will go up or ' down accordingly. I believe this distribution is healthy and keeps a competitive spirit while also providing these firms with enough City projects to be able to get their attention when we need them and keep their loyalties to the City high. I hope this dissertation helps to explain the past hiring practices of the City as it relates to consulting engineering services. I would be happy to meet to discuss this further with any interested parties. lap 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 II . 1 . 1 1 1 1 C ITYOF 11116 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer 1 DATE: March 11, 1991 ' SUBJ: Cooperative Agreements for Improvements to Trunk Highway 5 between the Eastern Carver County Line and Park Drive within the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. 11 At the end of this past week the City received two cooperative agreement documents for improvements to Trunk Highway 5 between the Eastern Carver County line and Park Road. The first document, Cooperative Agreement No. 68072, pertains to the cost sharing for the installation of new traffic control signals with street lights, interconnecting system and signing on Trunk Highway 5 at the intersections with County State Aid Highway No. 17 (Powers Boulevard), Market Boulevard, Trunk Highway 101 (Great Plains Boulevard), and at Dakota Avenue. This agreement is consistent with previous terms and discussions between the City 1 of Chanhassen, the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation and Carver County. The other document is Cooperative Agreement No. 67899 between the 1 City of Chanhassen and the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation pertaining to the City cost share for a storm sewer, utilities, special median and island, walk and trail construction on Trunk Highway 5 from the Eastern Carver County line to Park Road. This agreement is also consistent with previous terms and discussions between the City of Chanhassen and the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation. After receiving these documents, I have been contacted by Mike Spielman of MnDOT concerning the timing process of these - documents. Mr. Spielman informed me that it is imperative that these documents be processed as soon a, possible and returned to MnDOT so as not to jeopardize the proposed March 22, 1991 ' contract letting date. Otherwise the project letting could be delayed another two months. Therefore, presentation of this item could not be delayed until the March 25, 1991 Council meeting. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Don Ashworth, City Manager March 11, 1991 Page 2 It is therefore, my recommendation that both of these documents ► Y documents, Agreement No. 68072 and Agreement No. 67899, be approved so as ' not to delay the March 22, 1991 letting of the Trunk Highway 5 project from the Eastern Carver County line to Park Road. ' lap c: Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager ' Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Tech. Mike Spielman, MnDOT Dave Warzella, Barton - Aschman 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .�__. .. .___. _ _. . ..___,.ssi..:.i....us.i-aw 'a�s.r►... ...,tee • r r 1 II MINNESOTA TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL 1 AGREEMENT NO. 68072 1 BETWEEN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 AND THE COUNTY OF CARVER 1 AND THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN TO • Remove the existing Traffic Control Signals and Install new Traffic Control Signals with Street Lights, Interconnect and 1 Signing on Trunk Highway No. 5 (Arboretum Boulevard) at County State Aid Highway No. 17 (Powers Boulevard), Market Boulevard, Trunk Highway No. 101 (Great Plains Boulevard), and at Dakota Avenue in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. 1 1 S.P. 1002 -51 1 S.P. 10- 617 -13 F.P. F 014 -3(36) Prepared by Traffic Engineering 1 ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AMOUNT ENCUMBERED 1 County of Carver $16,327.32 None City of Chanhassen $32,654.63 Otherwise Covered 1 1 1 THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the I State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter II referred to as the "State ", and the County of Carver, hereinafter referred to as the °County", and the City of Chanhassen, 1 hereinafter referred to as the "City °, WITNESSETH: 1 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 161.20 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and 1 cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of construction, maintaining and improving the Trunk Highway system; 1 and WHEREAS, the State has determined that there is II justification and it is in the public's best interest to remove II the existing traffic control signals and install new traffic - control signals with street lights, interconnect and signing on 1 Trunk Highway No. 5 (Arboretum Boulevard) at County State Aid Highway No. 17 (Powers Boulevard), Market Boulevard, Trunk I Highway No. 101 (Great Plains Boulevard), and at Dakota Avenue; 1 and WHEREAS, it is considered in the public's best interest 1 for the State to provide one (I) pedestal shaft and base, one (1) master controller, and four (4) new cabinets and control II equipment to operate said traffic control signals; and II WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the traffic control signals with street lights and interconnect, and the signing work 1 is eligible for 76.75 percent Federal -aid Primary Funds; and II 68072 -1- II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II WHEREAS, the County, City and State will participate in the cost, maintenance and operation of the traffic control II signals with street lights and interconnect, and the signing as I hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: II 1. The County, City and the State shall prepare the necessary plan, specifications and proposal which shall 1 constitute "Preliminary Engineering". The State shall perform the construction inspection required to complete the items of I work hereinafter set forth, which shall constitute "Engineering II and Inspection" and shall be so referred to hereinafter. 2. The contract cost of the work or, if the work is 1 not contracted, the cost of all labor, materials and equipment rental required to complete the work, except the cost of II providing the power supply to the service poles or pads, shall II constitute the actual "Construction Cost" and shall be so referred to hereinafter. II 3. The State with its own forces and equipment or by contract shall perform the traffic control signal work provided I for under State Project No. 1002 -51 and Federal -aid Project No. I F 014 -3(36) with the Construction Costs shared as follows: a. Trunk Highway No. 5 (Arboretum Boulevard) at 1 County State Aid Highway No. 17 (Powers Boulevard). System "A ". S.P. 10- 617 -13. I 68072 1 -2- " II ' Remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with ' street lights. Estimated Construction Cost ' is $121,000.00 which includes State furnished materials. Anticipated Federal -aid share is ' 76.75 percent. Anticipated State's share is 11.625 percent. County's share is 11.625 percent. b. Trunk Highway No. 5 (Arboretum Boulevard) at Market Boulevard. System "B ". Remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with street lights. Estimated Construction Cost is $121,000.00 which includes State furnished materials. Anticipated Federal aid share is 76.75 percent. Anticipated State's share is 11.625 percent. City's share is 11.625 ' percent. c. Trunk Highway No. 5 (Arboretum Boulevard) at ' Trunk Highway No. 101 (Great Plains ' Boulevard). System "C ". Remove the existing traffic control signal and install a new traffic control signal with street lights. Estimated Construction Cost is $121,250.00 68072 -3- 1 1 1 which includes State furnished materials. Anticipated Federal -aid share is 76.75 ' percent. Anticipated State's share is 23.25 percent. d. Trunk Highway No. 5 (Arboretum Boulevard) at ' Dakota Avenue. System "D". Remove the existing traffic control signal and install a ' new traffic control signal with street ' lights. Estimated Construction Cost is $121,000.00 which includes State furnished materials. Anticipated Federal -aid share is 76.75 percent. Anticipated State's share is ' 11.625 percent. City's share is 11.625 ' percent. e. On Trunk Highway No. 5 (Arboretum Boulevard) from County State Aid Highway No. 17 (Powers Boulevard) to Dakota Avenue. Install f interconnect. S.P. 10- 617 -13. Estimated Construction Cost is $46,000.00 which ' includes State furnished materials. Anticipated Federal -aid share is 76.75 percent. Anticipated State's share is 1 14.53125 percent. County's share is 2.90625 percent. City's share is 5.8125 percent. 68072 -4- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4. The State shall install or cause the installation of overhead signing and shall maintain said signing all at no cost to the County or City. 1 5. Upon execution of this agreement and a request in writing by the State, the County and the City shall each advance ' to the State an amount equal to their portion of the project costs. The County's and the City's total portion shall consist 1 of the sum of the following: a) The County's and City's respective share (as specified in Paragraph 3) based on the actual bid prices and the estimated State furnished materials costs. b) Six (6) percent of each respective share [Item (a) above] for the cost of Engineering ' and Inspection. 6. Upon completion and final acceptance of the project, the County's and City's final share shall consist of the sum of the following: a) The County's and City's respective share (as ' specified in Paragraph 3), based on the final 1 payment to the Contractor and the actual State furnished materials costs. 1 68072 -5- 1 ' b) Six (6) percent of each respective final share [Item (a) above] for the cost of 1 Engineering and Inspection. The amount of the funds advanced by the County and ' City in excess of the County's and City's final share will be 1 returned to the County and City without interest and the County and City agrees to pay to the State that amount of their final ' share which is in excess of the amount of the funds advanced by the County and City. 7. The City shall perpetuate an adequate electrical ' power supply to the service pads or poles, and upon completion of said traffic control signals with street lights installations shall continue to provide necessary electrical power for their operation at the cost and expense of the City. 8. Upon completion of the work contemplated in Paragraph 3 hereof, it shall be the City's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to: (1) maintain the luminaires; (2) relamp ' the traffic control signals and street lights; and (3) clean and paint the traffic control signals, cabinets and luminaire mast arm extensions. It shall be the State's responsibility, at its cost and expense, to maintain the interconnect and to perform all other traffic control signal and street light maintenance. 9. Any and all persons engaged in the aforesaid work to be performed by the State shall not be considered employees of 68072 1 -6- r 1 ! the County or City and any and all claims that may or might arise ' under the Worker's Compensation Act of this State on behalf of said employees while so engaged, and any and all claims made by any fourth party as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work contemplated herein shall not be the obligation and responsibility of the County or City. The State shall not be responsible under the Worker's Compensation Act for any employees 1 of the County or City. 10. Timing of the traffic control signals ' provided for herein shall be determined by the State, through its Commissioner of Transportation, and no changes shall be made ' therein except with the approval of the State. 11. Upon execution by the County, City and the State and completion of the construction work provided for ' herein, this agreement shall supersede and terminate Agreement No. 59273, dated November 13, 1978 and Agreement No. 61391, dated ' April 26, 1983, between the parties. 1 12. Upon execution by the County, City and the State and completion of the construction work provided for herein, this agreement shall supersede and terminate Agreement No. 57928M, dated June 5, 1975, between the City and the State. 11 68072 -7- r 1 COUNTY OF CARVER APPROVED AS TO FORM: ' By County Attorney Chairman of the Board Dated (County Seal) RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: 1 By County Highway Engineer County Auditor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 68072 1 -8- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN APPROVED AS TO FORM: ' City Attorney By (City Seal) i By City Manager 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA 1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' By Assistant District Engineer Assistant Commissioner Operations Division 11 Dated APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION: DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION By Assistant Attorney General - State of Minnesota Dated 1 1 68072 r 1 II RESOLUTION 1 BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Carver enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: 1 To remove the existing traffic control signals and install new traffic control signals with street II lights, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 5 (Arboretum Boulevard) at County State Aid I Highway No. 17 (Powers Boulevard), Market II Boulevard, Trunk Highway No. 101 (Great Plains Boulevard), and at Dakota Avenue in accordance 1 with the terms and conditions set forth and contained in Agreement No. 68072, a copy of which 1 was before the Board. I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper County officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the County all of the contractual obligations contained therein. II CERTIFICATION 1 State of Minnesota County of Carver 1 City of Chanhassen I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a 1 true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Board of the County of Carver at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 1991, as shown II by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. 1 (Seal) County Auditor II II 1 RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen enter into an agreement with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to wit: 1 To remove the existing traffic control signals and install new traffic control signals with street 1 lights, interconnect and signing on Trunk Highway No. 5 (Arboretum Boulevard) at County State Aid Highway No. 17 (Powers Boulevard), Market Boulevard, Trunk Highway No. 101 (Great Plains Boulevard), and at Dakota Avenue in accordance 1 with the terms and conditions set forth and ' contained in Agreement No. 68072, a copy of which was before the Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City officers be and hereby are authorized to execute such agreement, and thereby assume for and on behalf of the City all of the contractual 1 obligations contained therein. CERTIFICATION 1 State of Minnesota County of Carver 1 City of Chanhassen I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Chanhassen at a duly authorized 1 meeting thereof held on the day of , 1991, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. (Seal) City Manager 1 1 1 1/ 1 PRE - LETTING STATE OF MINNESOTA AGREEMENT NO. SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION 67899 AGREEMENT S.P. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5 =121) Fed. Proj. F 014 -3 (36) I/ Agreement between AMOUNT ENCUMBERED The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and (None) The City of Chanhassen Re: City cost storm sewer, utilities, ESTIMATED AMOUNT special median and island, walk and RECEIVABLE trail construction by the State on T.H. 5 from 2000 feet west of $489,349.03 Co. Rd. 17 to the East Carver County Line in Chanhassen 1 1 I/ THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the "City ". 1 11 1 A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 67899 • WITNESSETH: 1 1 WHEREAS the State is about to perform grading, surfacing, storm sewer facilities and signal system construction and other associated 1 construction upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 5 from a point 2000 feet west of County Road 17 (Eastbound Engineer Station 966 +10) to the East Carver County Line (Eastbound Engineer Station 1064 +06.53) in accordance with State plans, specifications and /or special provisions designated as State Project No. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5 =121) and State Aid Project No. 10- 617 -13 and in the records of the Federal Highway Administration as Minnesota Project No. F 014 - 3(36); and WHEREAS the State has requested that the City participate in the cost 1 of the storm sewer, utilities, special median and island, walk and trail construction; and 1 WHEREAS the City has expressed its willingness to participate in the cost of the storm sewer, utilities, special median and island, walk and trail construction as hereinafter set forth; and 1 WHEREAS Minnesota Statute section 161.20, subdivision 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and 1 cooperate with any governmental authority for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. 1 2 <4° 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 67899 ' IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - CONSTRUCTION BY THE STATE Section A. Contract Award The State shall advertise for bids and award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder for State Project No. 1002- ' 51 (T.H. 5 =121) and State Aid Project No. 10- 617 -13 in accordance with State plans, specifications and /or special provisions which are ' on file in the office of the Commissioner of Transportation at St. Paul, Minnesota, and are made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. Section B. Direction and Supervision of Construction The State shall direct and supervise all construction activities performed under the construction contract, and perform all ' construction engineering and inspection functions in connection with the contract construction. All of the contract construction shall be performed in compliance with the approved plans, specifications and /or special provisions. Section C. Plan Changes, Additional Construction, Etc. The State shall make changes in the plans and /or contract 1 construction, which may include the City cost participation construction covered under this agreement, and shall enter into any 3 1 1 67899 necessary addenda, change orders and /or supplemental agreements with ' the State's contractor which are necessary to cause the contract 1 construction to be performed and completed in a satisfactory manner. However, the State's District Engineer at St. Paul or his authorized representative will inform the appropriate City official of any proposed addenda, change orders and /or supplemental agreements to the 1 construction contract which will affect the City cost participation construction covered under this agreement. 1 Section D. Satisfactory Completion of Contract The State shall perform all other acts and functions necessary to cause the construction contract to be completed in a satisfactory 1 manner. ARTICLE II - INSPECTION BY THE CITY The City cost participation construction covered under this agreement 1 shall be open to inspection by the City. If the City believes the City cost participation construction covered under this agreement has 1 not been properly performed or that the construction is defective, the City shall inform the State's District Engineer in writing of those defects. Any recommendations made by the City are not binding on the State. The State shall have the exclusive right to determine whether the City cost participation construction covered under this 1 agreement has been satisfactorily performed by the State's contractor. 4 i ' 67899 ARTICLE III - BASIS OF PAYMENT BY THE CITY Section A. SCHEDULE "I" and EXHIBIT "A" A Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" and color-coded coded EXHIBIT "A" are attached ' hereto and made a part hereof by reference. The Preliminary SCHEDULE "I" includes all anticipated City cost participation construction items and the construction engineering cost share covered under this agreement, and is based on engineer's estimated unit prices. EXHIBIT ' "A" shows all anticipated City cost participation storm sewer facilities construction covered under this agreement. ' Section B. City Cost Participation Construction All of the following construction to be performed upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 5 from Eastbound Engineer Station 966 +10 (2000 feet west of County Road No. 17) to Eastbound Engineer Station 1064 +06.53 the East Carver County Line) the corporate Y ) orate P City limits under State Project No. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5 =121). The construction includes the City's proportionate share of item costs 1 for computer equipment, mobilization, field office, field laboratory, maintenance and restoration of haul roads and traffic control. 100 PERCENT 1. All of the sanitary sewer and watermain facilities construction to be performed under State Project No. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5 =121). 1 5 1 cP( 1 67899 2. All of the construction of pedestrian curb ramp, bituminous walk and concrete walk and associated aggregate base to be performed along ' County Road No. 17, Market Boulevard, Great Plains Boulevard and Dakota Avenue. 3. All of the special surface treatment and special median (brick) 1 construction costs over and above that which the State pays. • NOTE: The construction in paragraphs No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 includes but is not limited to those construction items as described and tabulated on Sheets No. 2 and No. 3 of the attached SCHEDULE "I ". 46.5 PERCENT All of the storm sewer facilities construction as shown and /or ' described in "Orange" color on the attached EXHIBIT "A ". The construction includes but is not limited to those construction items as described and tabulated on Sheets No. 4 and No. 5 of the attached SCHEDULE "I ". 30 PERCENT All of the construction of bituminous walk and concrete walk and ' associated aggregate base to be performed along Trunk Highway No. 5. The construction includes but is not limited to those construction 1 items as described and tabulated on Sheet No. 6 of the attached SCHEDULE "I ". 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 67899 �i Section C. Construction Engineering Costs ■ The City shall pay a prorated share of construction engineering costs ' for field engineering and inspection, preparation of progress and final estimate reports, and material testing and inspection in ' connection with the City cost participation construction covered under this agreement. Those construction engineering costs shall consist of charges made by State personnel assigned to the construction contract and shall be recorded under State construction cost accounting code numbers appropriate for such construction 1 engineering activities on the forms "Time Report" (Form TC 30) and "Cost Distribution" (Form TC 32). The City construction engineering cost share shall be determined using the method and formula set forth in the attached SCHEDULE "I ". 1 Note: For the purpose of estimating the City's share of the construction engineering costs, the State shall use an amount equal to 8 percent of the estimated total cost of the City participation construction covered under this agreement until the final City 1 participation construction cost share is computed. Section D. Addenda, Change Orders and Supplemental Agreements The City shall share in the costs of construction contract addenda, change orders and /or supplemental agreements which are necessary to complete the City cost participation construction covered under this ' agreement. 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 67899 Section E. Settlements of Claims r The City shall pay to the State its share of the cost of any settlements of claims made with the State's contractor. All liquidated damages assessed the State's contractor in connection with the construction contract shall result in a credit shared by the State and the City in the same proportion as their total construction cost share covered under this agreement is to the total contract construction cost before any deduction for liquidated damages. i ARTICLE IV - PAYMENT BY THE CITY ' Section A. Estimate and Advancement of the City's Cost Share It is estimated that the City's share of the costs of the contract construction plus the construction engineering cost share is the sum ' of $489,349.03 as shown in the attached Preliminary SCHEDULE "I ". Upon award of the construction contract the State shall prepare a 1 Revised SCHEDULE "I" based on construction contract unit prices and shall submit a copy to the City. The City shall advance to the Commissioner of Transportation the City's total estimated cost share ' as shown in the Revised SCHEDULE "I ", be it more or less than the sum of $489,349.03, upon execution of this agreement and upon receipt of a request from the State for such advancement of funds. Section B. Final Payment by the City Upon completion and acceptance of the contract construction and upon 8 1 67899 computation of the final amount due the State's contractor, the State 1 shall prepare a Final SCHEDULE "I" based on final quantities of City ' cost participation construction performed, and shall submit a copy to the City. If the final cost of the City participation covered under this agreement exceeds the amount of funds advanced by the City, the City shall, upon receipt of a request from the State, promptly pay the difference to the State without interest. If the final cost of the City participation covered under this agreement is less than the ' amount of funds advanced by the City, the State shall promptly return the balance to the City without interest. 1 Pursuant to Minnesota Statute section 15.415, the State waives claim for any amounts less than $2.00 over the amount of City funds 1 previously advanced to the State, and the City waives claim for the 1 return of any amounts less than $2.00 of those funds advanced by the City. 1 Section C. Acceptance of City's Cost and Completed Construction The computation by the State of the amount due from the City shall be ' final, binding and conclusive. Acceptance by the State of the completed contract construction shall be final, binding and 1 conclusive upon the City as to the satisfactory completion of the contract construction. 1 1 9 .;(K' 1 1 67899 ARTICLE V - GENERAL PROVISIONS ' Section A. Plan Changes The City may request changes in the plans. If the State determines that the requested plan changes are necessary and /or desirable, the State will cause those plan changes to be made. ' Section B. Replacement of Castings The City shall furnish the State's contractor with new castings r and /or parts for all inplace City -owned facilities constructed ' hereunder when replacements are required, without cost or expense to the State or the State's contractor, except for replacement of castings and /or parts broken or damaged by the State's contractor. Section C. Utility Permits ' The City shall, within 90 days after the satisfactory completion of the City -owned utilities contract construction, submit to the ' Director of the State's Pre - Letting Services Section five copies of a permit application, including "as built" sketches, for all City -owned utilities constructed upon and within the trunk highway right -of -way. Applications for permits shall be made on State form "Application For ' Utility Permit On Trunk Highway Right -Of -Way" (Form TP2525). The City, through the State, shall submit to the Minnesota Pollution ' Control Agency the plans and specifications for the construction or reconstruction of its sanitary sewer facilities to be performed under 10 67899 the construction contract and obtain, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 1 section 115.07 or Minnesota Rule 7001.1030, subpart 2C, either a ' permit or written waiver from that agency for that construction or reconstruction to be performed by others under the construction 1 contract. When the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency issues that permit or waiver, the City will promptly furnish the State a copy of 1 that permit or waiver so that the construction or reconstruction may ' be performed by the State's contractor. The City is advised that pursuant to Minnesota Rule 7001.1040, a written application for the permit or waiver must be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.at least 180 days before the planned date of the sanitary sewer facility construction or reconstruction. Section D. Maintenance by the City ' Upon satisfactory completion of the Market Boulevard, Great Plains Boulevard and Dakota Avenue construction to be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of the roadways and all of the 1 facilities a part thereof, without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, snow and debris removal, resurfacing and /or seal coating and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate the roadways in a safe and usable condition. 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 67899 Upon satisfactory completion of the storm sewer facilities and City - owned facilities construction to be performed within the corporate 1 City limits under the construction contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of those facilities, without cost or expense to the State. Furthermore, neither party to this agreement shall drain any additional drainage into the storm sewer facilities that was not included in the drainage for which the storm sewer 1 facilities were designed without first obtaining permission to do so from the other party. The drainage areas served by the storm sewer facilities constructed under the construction contract are shown in a drainage area map, EXHIBIT "Drainage Area ", which is on file in the 1 office of the State's District Hydraulics Engineer at Golden Valley 1 and is made a part hereof by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 1 Upon satisfactory completion of the walkway and trail construction to 1 be performed within the corporate City limits under the construction ' contract, the City shall provide for the proper maintenance of the walkways and trails, without cost or expense to the State. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, snow and debris removal and any other maintenance activities necessary to perpetuate 1 the walkways in a safe and usable condition. Section E. Claims All employees of the State and all other persons employed by the 1 12 1 1 1 67899 State in the performance of contract construction and /or construction 1 engineering covered under this agreement shall not be considered employees of the City. All claims that arise under the Worker's 1 Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of the employees 1 while so engaged and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the employees while 1 so engaged on contract construction and /or construction engineering covered under this agreement shall in no way be the obligation or 1 responsibility of the City. All employees of the City and all other persons employed by the City in the performance of maintenance covered under this agreement shall not be considered employees of the State. All claims that arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on 1 behalf of the employees while so engaged and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of the employees while so engaged on maintenance covered under this agreement shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the 1 State. The City at its own sole cost and expense shall defend, indemnify, 1 save and hold harmless the State and all of its agents, officers and employees of and from all claims, demands, proceedings, actions or 1 causes of action of whatsoever nature or character arising out of or by reason of maintenance covered under this agreement including an 13 1 1 1 67899 action or claim which alleges negligence of the State, its agents, 1 officers or employees. Section F. Nondiscrimination The provisions of Minnesota Statute section 181.59 and of any applicable ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination shall be considered part of this agreement as if fully set forth herein. Section G. Agreement Approval Before this agreement shall become binding and effective, it shall be approved by a City Council resolution and receive approval of State and City officers as the law may provide in addition to the 1 Commissioner of Transportation or his authorized representative. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 67899 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have executed this agreement by their ' authorized officers. ' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN Recommended for approval: By Mayor By % rcA Director Pre- etting Service Section Date By By District-Engineer City Manager By Date Deputy Division Director Technical Services Division r DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION Approved: Approved: By Deputy Commissioner By of Transportation (Authorized Signature) Date Date (Date of Agreement) OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Approved as to form and execution: 1 By Special Assistant Attorney General 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r• E MINI MI M MI i I MO I M I r MS - r OM me PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE "I" Agreement No. 67899 City of Chanhassen Preliminary: January 30,1991 S.P. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5 =121) F 014 -3 (36) Storm sewer, utilities, special median and island, walk and trail construction performed under State Contract No. with located upon, along and adjacent to T.H. 5 from 2000 feet west of Co. Rd. 17 to the East Carver County Line in Chanhassen CITY COST PARTICIPATION From sheet No. 3 $308.791.84 From sheet No. 5 122,721.29 From sheet No. 6 21,587.82 Subtotal $453,100.95 (1) Construction Engineering Est. (8 %) 36,248.08 Total - City $489,349.03 (1) Final based on Actual Construction Engineering Costs - 1 - s MO NM r- I i r OM i MI w I r•• r UM all (1) 100% CITY 67899 (P) = PLAN QUANTITY ITEM S.P. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5 =121) UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST NUMBER ( WORK ITEM ( I (1) I (1) 0015.60]. COMPUTER EOUIPMENT LUMP SUM .09 5.000.00 450.00 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM .09 170,000.00 15,300.00 2031.501 FIELD OFFICE, TYPE D EACH .09 6,000.00 , 540.00 2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY. TYPE DX EACH .09 4,000.00 360.00 2051.501 MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF HAUL ROADS LUMP SUM .09 1.00 .09 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (SANITARY) LIN. FT. 525.00 7.00 3.675.00 2211.503 AGGREGATE BASE PLACED CLASS 5 (P) CU. YD. 205.00 9.20 1,886.00 , 0451.602 CRUSHED ROCK TON 10.00 15.00 150.00 0503.603 SANITARY SEWER SPOT REPAIR LIN. FT. 142.00 40.00 5,680.00 . 0503.603 SANITARY SEWER JOINT TEST AND SEAL LIN. FT. 698.00 10.50 7,329.00 0503.603 24" STEEL CASING PIPE LIN. FT. 160.00 60.00 9,600.00 2503.511 8" PVC PIPE SEWER LIN. FT. 270.00 20.00 5,400.00 2503.511 10" PVC PIPE SEWER LIN. FT. 255.00 25.00 6,375.00 0504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATER MAIN EACH 4.00 500.00 2,000.00 0504.602 REMOVE PLUG EACH 2.00 100.00 200.00 0504.602 12" x 10" REDUCER EACH 1.00 150.00 150.00 0504.602 12" PIPE PLUG EACH 2.00 200.00 400.00 0504.602 8" PIPE BEND 45 DEGREE EACH 2.00 200.00 400.00 0504.602 12" x 8" TEE FITTING EACH 1.00 350.00 350.00 0504.602 12" x 12" TEE FITTING EACH 1.00 400.00 400.00 0504.602 12" BUTTERFLY GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 5.00 1,350.00 , 6,750.00 0504.602 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX EACH 2.00 600.00 1,200.00 0504.603 , LOWER 6" WATER MAIN LIN. FT. 65.00 25.00 1,625.00 0504.603 LOWER 12" WATER MAIN LIN. FT. 200.00 30.00 6,000.00 0504.603 8" WATER MAIN - DUCTILE IRON LIN. FT. 531.00 24.00 12,744.00 0504.603 12" WATER MAIN - DUCTILE IRON LIN. FT. 805.00 30.00 24,150.00 0504.603 24" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACKED) LIN. FT. 140.00 110.00 15,400.00 0504.603 HYDRANT RISER LIN. FT. 10.00 150.00 1,500.00 2506.511 RECONSTRUCT SANITARY MANHOLES LIN. FT. , 5.00 170.00 850.00 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTINGS EACH 9.00 160.00 1,440.00 (CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET) - 2 - - - - - - - - - - . - - - 67899 ITEM S.P. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5 =121) UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST NUMBER I WORK ITEM I I (1) I ( 2521, 501 4" CONCRETE WALK SO. FT. 6,943.00 1.55 10,761.65 2521.511 2.5" BITUMINOUS WALK SO. FT. 6,144.00 .90 5,529.60 0521 602 SPECIAL, SURFACE TREATMENT (2) SO. FT. 60,335.00 1.90 114,636.50 0533 PEDESTRAIN CURB RAMP EACH 16.00 275.00 4 0511 604 SPECIAL MEDIAN (BRICK) (3) SO. YD. 1 X5.00 38,010.00 0563,601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM .09 35,000.00 3,150.00 TOTAL $308,791.84 r (1) 100% CITY - 5308,791.84 (2) THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE SPECIAL SURFACE TREATMENT CONSTRUCTED UNDER S.P. 1002 -51 IS ALL UNIT PRICE COSTS IN EXCESS OF 5 (54.15 - 52.25 = 51.90) (3) THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE SPECIAL MEDIAN CONSTRUCTED UNDER S.P. 1002 -51 IS ALL UNIT PRICE COSTS IN EXCESS OF 520.00. (555.00 - 520.00 = S35.00) - 3 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O O MO OM M r r M M O r- O r- O (2) 46.5% CITY 67899 ITEM S.P. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5 =121) UNIT QUANTITY COST NUMBER I WORK ITEM I I (2) I UNIT PRICE (2) 0015.601 COMPUTER EOUIPMENT LUMP SUM .05 5,000.00 250.00 ,. 2021.501 , MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM .05 170,000.00 8,500.00 , 2031.501 FIELD OFFICE. TYPE D EACH .05 6,000.00 300.00 2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY, TYPE DX EACH .05 4,000.00 200.00 2051.501 MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF HAUL ROADS LUMP SUM .05 1.00 .05 2104.523 SALVAGE CASTINGS EACH 1.00 80.00 80.00 2501.515 18" RC PIPE APRONS EACH 1.00 225.00 225.00 . 2501.515 21" RC PIPE APRONS EACH 1.00 250.00 250.00 2501.569 LIGHT DUTY SAFETY GRATE FOR 18" RC APRON EACH 1.00 415.00 415.00 2501.569 LIGHT DUTY SAFETY GRATE FOR 21" RC APRON EACH 1.00 460.00 460.00 2503.511 15" RC PIPE SEWER LIN. FT. 430.00 22.60 9,718.00 2503.511 18" RC PIPE SEWER LIN. FT. 1,058.00 25.30 26,767.40 2503.511 18" RC PIPE SEWER CL. III LIN. FT. 139.00 28.90 4.017.10 2503.511 21" RC PIPE SEWER LIN. FT. 8.00 30.00 240.00 2503.511 21" RC PIPE SEWER CL. III LIN. FT. 163.00 30.00 4,890.00 2503.511 24" RC PIPE SEWER LIN. FT. 169.00 35.00 5,915.00 2503.511 24" RC PIPE SEWER CL. V LIN. FT. 151.00 40.00 6,040.00 2503.511 27" RC PIPE SEWER LIN. FT. 563.00 42.50 23,927.50 2503.511 33" RC PIPE SEWER LIN. FT. 221.00 45.50 10,055.50 2503.511 36" RC PIPE SEWER LIN. FT. 580.00 58.30 33,814.00 2503.511 36" RC PIPE SEWER CL. IV LIN. FT. 60.00 65.50 3,930.00 2503.511 36" RC PIPE SEWER CL. V JACKED LIN. FT. 100.00 310.00 31,000.00 2503.511 42" RC PIPE SEWER LIN. FT. 201.00 72.80 14,632.80 2503.521 44" SPAN RC PIPE -ARCH SEWER CL. IIA LIN. FT. 85.00 88.00 7,480.00 2503.541 18" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 LIN. FT. 170.00 31.50 5,355.00 2503.541 36" RC PIPE SEWER DESIGN 3006 LIN. FT. 118.00 67.50 7,965.00 2506.506 CONST. MANHOLES DESIGN A OR F LIN. FT. 26.00 150.00 3,900.00 2506.506 CONST. MANHOLES DESIGN 54 -4019 LIN. FT. 6.00 200.00 1,200.00 2506.506 CONST. MANHOLES DESIGN 60 -4019 LIN. FT. 14.00 225.00 3,150.00 2506.506 CONST. MANHOLES DESIGN 66 -4019 LIN. FT. 8.00 250.00 2,000.00 (CONTINUED ON NEXT SHEET) - 4 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -■r - M - - r O MI MI OM I MO - O MO - MB - NM 67899 ITEM S.P. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5 =121) UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST NUMBER I WORK ITEM I I (2) I (2) 2506.507 CONST. CATCH BASIN, DES. C,G OR H LIN. FT. 3.00 150.00 450.00 2506.507 CONST. CATCH BASIN. DES. A OR E , LIN. FT. 40.00 150.00 6,000.00 _ 2506.507 CONST. CATCH BASIN. DES. C OR G LIN. FT. 59.00 150.00 8.850,00 2506.507 CONST. CATCH BASIN, DES. 54 -4019 LIN. FT. 5.00 200.00 1,000.00 2506.507 CONST. CATCH BASIN, DES. 60 -4019 LIN. FT. 11.00 225.00 2,475.00 2506.507 CONST. CATCH BASIN, DES. 54 -4020 LIN. FT. 8.00 200.00 , 1,600.00 , 2506.507 CONST. CATCH BASIN. DES. 60 -4020 LIN. FT. 58.00 225.00 13,050.00 2506.511 RECONSTRUCT MANHOLES LIN. FT. 13.00 170.00 2,210.00 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLIES EACH 33.00 250.00 8,250.00 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTINGS EACH 5.00 160.00 800.00 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III CU. YD. 16.00 32.50 520.00 2554.509 GUIDE POSTS TYPE B EACH 4.00 20.00 80.00 0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM .05 35,000.00 1,750.00 2573.501 BALE CHECK EACH 28.00 6.00 168.00 2575.505 SODDING, TYPE EROSION SO. YD. 26.00 1.40 36.40 TOTAL $263,916.75 (2) '46.5% CITY - $122,721.29 - 5 - O I UM OM - r- i OM r M M r O O O r OW M 67899 (P) = PLAN QUANTITY ITEM S.P. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5 =121) UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST NUMBER I WORK ITEM ( (3) (3) 001 .60_ COMPUTE' E• •MENT LUMP SUM .01 5 000 00 50 00 021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM .01 70 000.00 1 700.00 03 501 FI LD 0 FICE YPE D EACH .01 6 000.00 60.00 2031.503 FIELD LABORATORY TYPE DX EACH .01 4 000.00 40.00 2051.501 MAINTENANCE AND RESTORATION OF HAUL ROADS LUMP SUM .01 1.00 .01 2 5. 4 G• GA _ B.S. PLA ED •SS P CU YD. 002 00 9.20 9 218.40 25 0 _ 4" CON RE _ WA K 0 11M 1 • 1( ' ` 11• j •111 2 2 1 2.5" BI_UMINOUS WALK Ss. T. 49 150.00 90 44 235.00 0563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM .01 35 000.00 350.00 TOTAL 71 •59.41 3 30. CITY — 21 587.82 — 6 — I M s r- I M r• r MI MO r MO O r MI I A 67899 ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING COMPUTATION (Based on Total Contract Costs) COMPUTATION C = Total Contract Amount E = Total Construction Engineering Cost Amount Incurred P = Prorata Percentage (E C) x 100 = P (Percentage for Construction Engineering) - 7 - MI All MN MIN MI - MO - 111111 1■11 111111 MB as an Awl r my am as • / t j f,/, ., , .. \., .....,..,..,....-..-.;•--- \ :. .... f , ii . '. / w Ws 1 CS ci,c, ce c.f.-Or \ e „r.114 ?‘?' 1 N. Ct_ ,______I • , . 7F-- ,_ ot ,t4 I I l I MIN - ,v )1 ! 900 — MIN MOM 905 500.) - ,--4... --,..„.......-.....- ".•le• 4 T.II. 5 -- - tezcie,..._ ---- ■ WOW 5. 2'; - ,I5003 1 ....1.111----- LOW POINT 979.436 . maw ---- EL.• 947 5 912 3"pc 1 1 ; • , = 0,119911111111111111111111111111111.1.111111 t , 5 ---?r• .. 7 NiMillirilWa iimai ni... ' MilM111111" . 4 T. P. DRAIN PIPE _ , --- 5 ----------, a —4 I\ -- 979•10 5, 11 ^5 i I i twa 0 ........, 14. l'\W-. : 0 '• ii tg• RC I 1 , 1 1: A• ?taro ..•96. J . 1V 5C 1 ' ' / 1 ... ° • , I, 1 • : / j ov otA...., t:4 _ - - - - - f3 T coot g., 0 5 7: 7 c- /I ' foo' `-'''''' - - . 5,v `" 1 1 i 11 1 ......- ...--- .■ Agreement No. 67899 City of Chanhassen S.P. 1002-51 (T.11. 5=121) 53.5% State - 46.5% City 11.111111 Orange Sheet 1 of 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MI =Ill MB IIINII IIIIII MN 1.111 IIIIII MI MINII 1111111 MI INIII MI MI IIIIII MI 101111 all / ---... 6 ; L --, 1 d / / „'1 . „ I d / 1 ■ 1 :14)z;. .,:..... / uc• ! . I , . I -.■ . , f P `.... \ \ 1 I I .. j p C01,... 44' 4tt , ' „ ,. j . .... 449 - Sr 3"P:°- -----..../------;-,-;■, _ / i I .--,...,...,/ .prr„,----4'-'--- r) , I I 1 ; 0. •Teit /41' / 1 r \, .. / 6 : :,; . ... P . i- v4 Zc I 17 3 .,,, t _,/ ____---- ,, e ro,, 7bc:g./174,,, ______--- -• 4., ,, ,,,,c ; i ‘11- PA4 ''' / ''--..,....., ' N......._ J . ' • ''''..-,-:-- ''''' ' _ _ j L- : cP 3 . . .r.,, 1 Z al / ' , L. ' r ---\--- . • ■ k 1 mammft, L ' _. ----------- ',. ■ -- • ro 4; . , i , - - ___ ,••• #110,...---1.--- 5327 _ _ 1. - 1 .--1____ - Will. -a .... 1111M I I I en — - -, -_. -,...-- • / 114= --- ---_,_, Ag '''' ..1. ..........f,~--- _ffl "----...--- / .... amill1111 111111111111 ,037. - ----.---- "•00 kW. - ,e _______ _ ._____........ikk„ .._...,._ _____111111, -- -------- 111_--- , 532 :---'-' - ' - • . ,ftr a 1.• ---- --, -:.-_.: : :1 .. , - ,:.3 „._ 7 5 EL. • 948 57 _ • • ----- WIMINIIIPI-I.), _ . _ -;;-,;.„,,.. , 7 ::::::___ ___■...._____________ Eic 7 5308 — lie -----___T____ 1. 0 .....,"• / im , 4 "- ar mifir AN.• cot:I ,, ,1 p324 .....„,-----"-°' —,::: \ , _ .1- .: . - -...-,5e -77, . ----. ".••1 LOW PT. 1 026.46 • • if ---- - '- ''' , —.......„„rna EL • 949,88 Mt MI --- '--------- "-' : - -■ --' '----- ''''' -.-= - • Int ME • 9__ - 4r,-- 0 4-_-_ „- .:,,.. -- . \I c, ,---04-r 0 ,,,, - ,.... .......... - 4 kUle ' , Af ■ , i , p Mob 3', e N. 04/4, \ /1 e.• LI -r-i 0 gl $' / 'A' P, P8 - P a /4? Ca 3 a0 4/ PE.aeW v 'A • ''''? / S I-07 4-'?"47-,14 '4 ' 4, V‹,.1,/ i l'ie ---; ------ '.."•• 1 / 'F'3 EP6 Arcilvs , 1./A,A i f i ,• ■„ ' . ....., ir if ' ''• y , . y/' / • / / ' ///■ , / Sheet 2 of 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a II 4 3> I I � _ 1 a 4 'e I •I ! I ,, I p , a` P J ^ '� X,/ 0' I ` II✓' I 0:w • > 70 j ' ,r r - j I , ' rn� fi 62r I ‘, m o\ .p e,'?-1' { \\ o '°.3,A y y4� = ; i ii I d \ W.' 4, 4 n : 4 '� I \ T � � tea• �i I ;�' ( � \ / I1 1 � i ti \ �,, :ort lMF , , L O I II I � ^� , ', 1 I I Hi I i �P P� slze V.1.$ 1 a '� l : � f� i 1 & �I _ r. . 1 , I r. � ;I. 1 1 0 74 I !, I SI Z8 •Lb01 :16 SOLI O i d. J 1 m 1 ; �" OI f d 8 • n = —o y _ � j . \ m e I F I 1 Si 0, r - - Il E .3, : , , p / 1 _ _ M� I 9 i L , 7, Ti . ! is' fi i $ ,, , . .. I / t m ■ 1 \t 1 • J� I, I 1 1 ' : %\ t ' \ ` r 1 j / '� 1 er t, ( 1 I l 1 w IN °�°0 1 1 w -�' © I �� r : = J 1 144; 1 � \ 1 1� j 1 ` I ' �a �'1 I Ii I I I \ V { 1 j I/ 4' . \\\- '''- . \ y.. F., , , , i ii w I 1 lr,l '< I i - `�'� I a I I ,11� � 1 1 r7,.;,1,,,..,.1 oIII DI o `l 1 , yIi y ' T - m `., �i ` q�j l < } 1 w V r IA 1 % I K m _ __ $JI_ tJ1,-C-1. \ 11; ' I 1 �Q DAKOTA AVE • 1 7 n I I L11 �', 11 � < _r'< I �^'1`y \\\-\ 7 , , _ 1 I • . N ,, , • o !: I _ ; - Pig n4'� 'd Inr?� k 1 _ �? IS I q Y LI ' CARVER COUNTY NM, NI M I Lu. ' HENNE °IN COUNTY K al 'S 1 I; m �� 1 1 o l• I e w m O? j1 . ', POC. 1240 STA 1053.23 61 / 00�� r ^ m ^ I� n \ 'ENO v: a. CONST24 T1ON 5P 1002 -51 -m r-, �y1 1 ',ENO SP 2/01 -34 a COVNTT LINE / _ �a jl ( i• I III 1 e u' m n ' mm If 1 I \I 1 4 47 1 1 l ;� II i 1 \. / 1 INII NS NI 1 MS MI I MI M M IN MI MN NM MI NM NM ( STORM SEWER FACILITIES R S.P. 1002 -51 (1.0. 5 =121 I CONSTRUCTION PIPE SEWER j CLASS GUIDE 1 505009 BALE ' 3 71027. STATIO0 LOCATION CB PAY CASTING OF APRON POST 1 0020103 PIPRAP 011E0K hC. OR DESIGN HEIGHT A551 15 RCP 18' RCP 21' RCP 24' RCP 27 " RCP 33" RCP 36' RCP 42' RCP 27'RCP -A PIPE TYPE 1 1 j LL 111 MH G I ( LIN. FT. LIN. FT. LIN, FT. LIN. FT. LIN. FT. LIN. 07. 110. FT. LIN. FT. I EACH 1 EACH 1 00. 05) CU. r5. EA:4 104 ' C.R. 17 9 +46 38' RT_ CB C or 6 ' 4.1 B - 5 107 ill I _ _ _ u_ �.F. 17 9 +37 b9' L1. C6 C or G 3.4 B 5 5b III - -- - -- -- 5010 1.11, 5 E.B. 983 +81 75 RT_ - -- - - -- _I - ---- 1 - -- 013 T.H. 5 E.A. 979+00 52' RT. 170 3006 11 _ 21 _ 1 ; _ 12 _ 5014 T.H. 5 E.B. 977 +24 45 RT, MH A or F 14.9 A - 7 __ 60 IV -5014 T.H_5 E.B. 977 +25 45' RT. 60" 4019 6.5 - 5022 1 T.4. 5 N.B. 977 +60 78' LT. CB C or 6 4.0 30 11 _ 5023 T.H. 5 W.B. 977+73 51' LT. MH EXIST. (1) 6.3 A - 7 12 V i 5024 T.H. 5 N,B. 977 +52 18' R1_ CB A or F 24.7 M - 11 79 V ._-_ - _. 5029 i.4. 5 E.B. 976 +76 95_RT_ APRON -- 1 1 EXIST. T.H. 5 W.B. 1021 +87 68' LT_ 80 II _5300 T.H. 5 W.B. 1022 +60 33' LT. CB 60' 4020 8.0 B - 5 55 II 5300 L.H. 5 W.8. 1022 +60 34' LT _ 5501 • T,H. 5 N.8. 1025 +08 61' LT. CB C or 6 2.8 M - 11 86 11 p5302 T.H. 5 N.B. 1024+25 33' LT. CB C or 6 4.3 B - 5 163 11 " 5304 T.H. 5 W.B. 1022+62 22' RT. CB 60' 4020 9.9 B - 5 13 11 5305 T.H. 5 E.B. 1022 +90 =LT, CB 60' 4020 10.7 B - 5 77 11 5310 . T.H. 5 W.B. 1026 +14 33' LT. C,6 or N 3.2 B - 5 139 111 - 5312 T.H. 5 N.B. 1027 +55 33 LT. CB 60` 4020 4.0 8 - 5 36 II - - -_ • 5327 T.H. 5 N,8. 1039 +70 37' LT. CB C or 6 3.9 8 - 5 230 II _ 5322 T.H. 5 N,B. 1037 +40 37' LT. CB C or 6 4.9 B - 5 236 II - 5329 6R PLAIN BLVD 11 +51 52' RT. CB C or 6 5,S 8 - 5 8 II I - 5333 69 PLAIN BLVD 11 +48 45' RT. CB 60' 4020 6.1 B - 5 85 11 - - 5335 SR PLAIN BLVD 12 +61 10' RT. MH EXIST. (1) 4.9 118 3006 II 5338 T.H. 5 W.B. 1031 +80 13' RT, CB 60' 4020 9.3 B =5 100 V - 5341 1.9.5 E.B. 1031+63 56' RT. CB 60' 4020 10.3 6 - 5 207 _ II -- -- .- - -- - 5_4= GB PLAIN BLVD 7 +58 38' RT. MH EXIST. (1) 2.0 -- - - - - - - -- -- - 5350 T.H. 5 W.B. 1027 +56 3' RT. CB A or F 5.5 A - 5 96 II -_- -. -- - - -- 5404 T.H. 5 N.B. 1045 +65 33' L1. CB C or 6 4_2 8 - 5 200 11 - 1 54v5 T.H. 5 W.?. 1047 +65 33 LT. CB C or 6 5.8 B - 5 207 11 - - 54r,7 T.H. 5 W.B. 1049 +65 33' LT. CB C or 6 5.5 B - 5 202 _ II - -- - - -- -I - 5412 T.H. 5 4,B, 1051 +65 33' LT, CB C or G 5.1 8 - 5 80 - 11 - - 1 5414 T.H_5 4.8,1052+45 33 LT_ CA C or 6 5.2 B - 5 59 -1 - _ - - -I - _ 5415 T.H_5 W.B. 1053 +03 33' LT. MH A or F 11.2 A - 7 I - - I I 14 I - 5 I 5416_ T.H_5 N 1053!00_ _93' LT_ f 8 CB _5 28 �- II APRON 9 - - I - "- - - -- _ -- -- 54:! T.H. 5 E.6, 1053 +00 40 RT. A or F 10.0 ,- - - -'! - - - -- -- i - -- -'; -- - 5427 T.H. 5 E.A. 1053 +02 63 RT. CB 54` 4019 4.5 M 11 163 - -I! -� - - - -j - - - II `4:4 T.H. 5 E.B. 1054+60 55 RT. C6 54' 4020 7.0 _B - 5 _ - - - - -- - -i - - - -' - - 'I -- --� 54 :2 a 1.1+. 5 E.F. 10`,9+75 45' 4T. MR 54 40191 6.1 _ A =7_ 221 _ - - 1 - - --- -- - - 9071 T.h. 5 C.F. 1061. 45 RT_ MH 60" 4019 7.2 A - 7 _ 54 - - -- - - 180 11 `- -- -- '! --._ -� - I 1 -- _ 6S _ 110 I W.?. 1061 +37 1 LT. CB 60" 4019 - - -- - - -- 54,4TH_5 E.E. 1(61.00 _19 LT. 1 - _6 60_4019! 4.9 9_11 : 5 E.F. 1067 +c 4s F ? 6.2 M =li - -6 - - -- 1' ' - - - --- - c... - - , , - - -- -- - ` 1 - -I ` - -- r - - - - I - -- --- 9n 66' 4o19 9 A - ' - - - ! I I 11) RECON.TRUCT i I Sheet 4 of 4 _ 1 67899 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RESOLUTION 1 BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chanhassen enter into Agreement No. 67899 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to -wit: to provide for payment by the City to the State of the City's share of the costs of the storm sewer, utilities, special median and island, walk and trail construction to be performed by the State upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 5 from 2,000 feet west of County Road 17 to the East Carver County Line within the corporate City limits under State Project No. 1002 -51 (T.H. 5=121). 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City Officers are hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement. CERTIFICATION State of Minnesota County of Carver City of Chanhassen 1 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Chanhassen at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day of , 1991, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. ' City Manager 1 JI II State Project 1002 -51 (5 -121) Fed. Proj. F 014-3(36) II R E S O L U T I O N At a meeting of the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, held on the day of 1990, the following Resolution was offered by , ; seconded by - , _ _ - , to wit: WHEREAS the Commissioner of Transportation for the State of Minnesota has prepared: I plans, special provisions, and specifications for the improvement of Trunk Highway No II 121, renumbered as Trunk Highway No. 5, within the corporate limits of the City of Chanhassen, from 2000 Feet West of County Road 17 to East County Line; and seeks the II approval thereof; NOW, THEN, BE IT RESOLVED that said plans and special provisions for the improvement of II said Trunk Highway within said corporate limits of the City, be and hereby are approved including the elevations and grades as shown and consent is hereby given to any and all changes in grade occasioned by said construction. 1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City does hereby agree to require the parking of all vehicles, if such parking is permitted within the corporate limits of said City, on said I Trunk Highway, to be parallel with the curb adjacent to the highway, and at least 20 feet from any crosswalks on all public streets intersecting said trunk highway. Upon the call of the roll, the following council members voted in favor of the II Resolution: li _ . ______; and, the following council members voted against the adoption of the Resolution: II II II II II II