Correspondence SectionAdministrative
Section
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Center Drive, PO Box i47
Cha,hassen, Minnesota 55317
Pho,e 612.937. I900
Ge,era/Fax' 612.937.5739
E, gineering Fax 612.937.9152
Public Sari,O, ?'ax 612.934.2524
It~b wu,u:ci.&a,t, asse,.,,,.us
December 15, 2000
Mr. and Mrs. Wm. Premo
8712 Flamingo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Premo:
Thank you for your letter of December 14, 2000. I am sorry to hear about the
annoying problems you are experiencing. I will be presenting your letter to the
City's Park and Recreation Commission on January 9, 2001. The Commission is
appointed by the City Council to make recommendations regarding the
development and operation of the city's parks, trails, and recreation facilities.
I anticipate that the Commission will make some preliminary decisions on the 9th,
but will table any action until the meeting of January 23rd, or later. This will give
them the opportunity to publish your request and notify other interested parties.
Typically, a neighborhood mailing is distributed notifying residents of the
Commission's intent. This process allows for additional input prior to making a
recommendation to the City Council. Copies of all correspondence relating to
your inquiry will be mailed to your home.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
TH:gmb
C~
Scott Botcher, City Manager
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director
Dale Gregory, Park Superintendent
G:\park\th\PremoLtr
The Ci0, of Cha,hasse,. A ~'owing community with ch'an lakes, auality schools, a cha,,i,e dow,tow,, thrivi,v b,si,esses, and beautiftd varks. A vreat /dace to/ive, work.
Skate Park Design & Construction
December 12, 2000
· Worldxvidc F~vcnts
Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
City of Chanhassen
Park and Recreation Department
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Todd,
Thank you for your support and feedback that you have continued to give TrueRide Inc.
since the beginning of the Chanhassen Skate Park. We feel fortunate to have established
such a great working relationship with you and the City of Chanhassen and we hope to
continue our involvement in 2001.
We have recently teamed up with the University of Minnesota and the Natural Resources
Research Institute and are currently working towards continued improvement and
development of our equipment. With the continued success and increasing popularity of
your existing Skate Park we have some great new design and equipment ideas for the
future growth and expansion of your Skate Park.
I look forward to working with you in the future.
Sincerely,
David J. Benson
CFO
TrueRide Inc.
Tru~Ride Inc is dedicated to building safe solid ramps that are true to ride!
Hoffman, Todd
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Potts, Dave
Tuesday, January 02, 2001 1:14 PM
'jmeggen @ aol.com'
Hoffman, Todd
RE: Snowmobiling
Mr. Eggen,
Todd Hoffman asked if I would respond to your questions about
snowmobiles in Chanhassen. Interpretation of state laws and city
ordinances is always an interesting task.
Allowed on city streets, but not on the side of the street boulevard
and sidewalk area).
Not allowed on county and state roads, must be in the ditch except in
certain situations, such as a bridge or other obstruction.
Allowed on public waters.
Allowed on designated trails.
Not allowed on any other public or private property without permission.
On Bluff Creek Drive, snowmobiles should be driven on the street, not
the side of the street. However, snowmobiles do usually drive on the
side of city streets; that's where the snow is.
Sgt. Dave Potts, 819
Chanhassen Supervisor
Carver County Sheriff's Office
937-1900, ext 122
dpotts~ci.chanhassen.mn.us
..... Original Message .....
From: Hoffman, Todd
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 8:34 AM
To: Potts, Dave
Subject: FW: Snowmobiling
Dave
Can you please respond?
Thanks
Todd H
..... Original Message .....
From: Jmeggen@aol.com [mailto:Jmeggen@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 9:15 PM
To: chpkdir@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Subject: Snowmobiling
Todd, can you tell me what the policy/ordinance/law is with respect to
snowmobiling on roads in the city?
My read of city ordinance 12-34 is that it is prohibited, especially if
it
abuts a sidewalk or private property, (except that snowmobiles can cross
a
street or highway). However, other parts of the ordinance (12-32 and
12-34c}
suggest a cenftict with the stated prohibition by: 1) referring te
"operation upon...streets" and 2) establishing a 10 mph speed limit fer
snowmobiles on roadways.
The referenced Minnesota statutes are also confusing to me. Mn Statute
84.87
~subd 1 states that no person shall operate a snowmobile on streets
except as
provided in Mn Stats 84.81 through 84.90. Then these sections don't
seem to
give any exceptions.
I assume that this has been interpreted previously.
in
city hall have the answer? Please advise.
Do you or someone
Thank you, Jim Eggen, 445 5060, jmeggen@aol.com
CITYOF
11 December 2000
690 CiO, Ce,~n' Driv~. PO Box 147
Ch,,ham,. Min,em~ ~5317 TO:
Pho,e 612937.1900
Ge,eral Fax 612.93~ 5739 FROM:
~)~gi, eefi~g Fax 612 ~32 9152
h~bh'c Sari.O, Fax ~I2.934.2524 SUB J:
~3b u,~.u~ ti. cha,hasse,, m,.
Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation
Susan Marek, Rec Center Manager
CRC Monthly Report - December 2000
Angela Rosati, a resident of Excelsior, will continue her watercolor
exhibit at the Rec Center through the Christmas Holiday as a
previously scheduled artist canceled her exhibit. Vicki Cave, a
Minneapolis artist, will exhibit landscape oil paintings beginning in
January. Ms. Cave's paintings are realistic with a bit of
impressionism.
2. Staff schedules are complete through May 2001. I may need to hire a
facility supervisor as the schedule is light on Monday evenings.
3. The Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce and Rotary hosted their
annual Breakfast With Santa on December 3.
4. Happy Holidays!!
The City of Cha,hasse,. A zrowi,z community u,ith ch, a, lakes, aua/it~, schooh, a cha,,i,e dow,town, thrivine bmi,esses, a,d beautiful oa,3s. A great a/ace to live. work.
CITYOF
690 Cig Center Drive, PO Box I47
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
]'hone 612.937. I900
General?ax 612.937.5739
Engineering Fax 6J2.937.9152
]'ubh'r Safe~y tax 612.934.2524
Web www. ci. chanhassrn, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager
FROM: Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works,Director/City Engine,~
DATE: December 11, 2000
SUBJ: Limited Use Permit for TH 101 Bike Path - Project Number 97-12-3
Attached is a copy of the comments received from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT) concerning the limited use permit application made by
the City of Chanhassen.
Following receipt of the comments, HTPO and I met with Mn/DOT to discuss the
comments. Based on that meeting it was determined that Mn/DOT was willing to
reconsider its denial of the request if the questions outlined in the letter were
addressed. Addressing the comments would require detail design of the project.
Even with detail design, there would be no certainty that that limited use pernfit
would be approved.
Also, Mn/DOT has stated they believe changes they have recommended will
increase project costs to approximately $1 million. For estimating purposes,
detail design can be assumed at an additional 10% or $100,000.
Discussion of the comments has tentatively been scheduled during the
worksession on February 26, 2001.
G:\ENG\TERESA~staffreports\correspondance 12-I 1.doc
The City of Chanhassen. A growing community with clean lakes, qualiv/ schooh, a charmin~ downtown, thrivinv businesses, and h~,,,r;~,l ~,,~ ~ ..... / ..... ~: ......... ~- -.. ~' ~-.
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
November 20, 2000
Teresa Burgess
City of Chanhassen
Public Works Director / City Engineer
690 City Center Drive, PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 937,1900 ext. 156
Re: Limited Use Permit for TH 101 Bike Path ( Project No. 97-12-3 )
CiTY OF CHANHA$,~EN
NOV 2 ? 000
ENGINEERING DEPT;
After reviewing the TH 101 Trail Concept Plans, Mn/DOT has decided to deny your request for
a Limited Use Permit (LUP) for the following reasons:
Mn/DOT Detail Design Comments:
1. It would seem much more cost efficient, cost effective, practical, safe and aesthetically
pleasing to do the trail project along with a roadway upgrading project.
2. It appears there are already many drainage problems with the current TH 101 in this area.
This trail project will probably just worsen the drainage and erosion problems.
It looks like they are thinking of using bituminous spillways in some areas. From my
experience, these spillways do not work very well and often do not even do the job intended
unless the contractor takes great care to direct the runoff to the center of the spillway and the
bituminous is carefully shaped to handle the runoff. Also, there is the problem of what to do
at the bottom of the spillway where the runoff is flowing at high velocity. Riprap will
probably be needed in large quantities at the bottom.
The proposed bit curbs and bit spillways seem to me to be so temporary and the bit spillways
often tend to be an eyesore after a few heavy rains. If the trail must go in before the roadway
upgrading and will be in use for a couple years, then the use of bit curbs and spillways is
probably appropriate to save short-term costs.
5. The Concept Report and Plan needs to have an index map to show just where this project is
located. The Concept Report needs to have page numbers.
6. The Concept Plan is very small and hard to read.
The Concept Report seems to point out many of the likely problems the proposed trail
design/construction will encounter. However, then it seems to rule out the problems, but
does not address resolution or mitigation of them.
An equal opportunity employer
;
10.
11.
The "Slope" narrative in the Concept Report is confusing. What does maximum 3:1 slope
mean? Does it mean that slopes will not be steeper than 3:17 Or does it mean that 3:1 will
be the flattest slope that will be able to be constructed given the constraints of the R/W and
the topography? Looking at the cross sections, there appears to be many proposed slopes at
2:1, 1-1/2:1 and even 1:1 (using H:V nomenclature). These steep slopes will create serious
and significant erosion and sloughing problems. The "Slope" narrative also mentions
"backslopes from Hwy. 101 to bottom of ditch". I think they mean "inslopes" here.
If they are serious about using very steep slopes, they should add smooth-faced fencing or
railing at the PI of the trail slope to prevent bicyclists, rollerbladers, and even pedestrians
from falling down the steep slopes. As Bob Brown is quoted in the Concept Report (under
Project Process), Mn/DOT's primary concerns are maintenance of drainage during and after
construction and the clear zone/hazards along the trail. If the trail project becomes a reality,
the design of guardrail will likely become a top priority to prevent vehicles from encroaching
on the trail and from encountering the very steep slopes. I do not believe the design speed or
even the posted speed was mentioned in the Concept Report, so hard to know just what
guardrail may be needed.
The cross sections indicate that much current ditch capacity will be filled in by the trail
construction. This may well cause downstream flooding or even flooding on the TH 101
roadway.
The cross sections should clearly indicate where the edge of the roadway is so that reviewers
of the LUP can see the location of the trail relative to the TH 101 roadway. Show edge of
bit shoulder or edge of bit turn lane on each section (and label enough to be understandable).
Mn/DOT Water Resource Comments:
As stated in Highway 101 Trail Concept Plans there are erosion problems in the area and this
project will exacerbate them. Most of the project consists of filling in the ditch and placing a
bituminous trail on the fill. The bituminous with cause the runoff to flow faster and cause
more erosion problems. Modeling of both the existing and proposed drainage area~ will need
to be conducted. They will need to provide these computations before WRE can approve a
permit.
There appears to be several wetlands that will be impacted by this project. Mn/DOT is the
LGU for all wetlands within our right-of-way. The wetland impacts will need to be
delineated (including acreage of impact and type of wetland being impacted), depending on
the amount of impact sequencing will have to be addressed, and appropriate mitigation will
be required. Boardwalks or other structures in the wetlands may be considered as impacts
and require mitigation. Appropriate agencies including but not limited to the Corps of
Engineers, DNR, BWSR, SWCD, and Watershed District will have to be notified regarding
wetland impacts and mitigation.
3. It also appears that there will be several utilities that may need to be relocated for the trail
including gas and water lines and valves and fiber optic lines.
4. Specifically regarding the plans:
Page 1 - There should be a location map for the project. Where are the estimated quantity
tables?
On page 2 there is a gas main and valves that does not appear to be shown on the drawing.
There appears to be a wet area with cattails near Outlot B (potential wetland impact). This
area needs to be delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown
on the drawings. The ditch is being filled fi.om the start of the project to approximately
3+40. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area coming to this ditch and the
existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. The corisultant will need to
determine if some type of energy dissipator is needed near~3+40, where the runoff flows back
into the ditch, to prevent erosion. There appears to be 3 to 4 foot retaining wall for the first
230 feet next to the road, this is a concern from both a drainage and a safety perspective. The
ditch is being filled fi.om approximately 7+00 to 10+00. The consultant will need to
determine the drainage area coming to the ditch, the existing capacity and the proposed
capacity of the ditch. There appears to be an apron inlet at approximately 13+20. Please
provide details on material, apron, and guards, and size. We will need computations for the
proposed CB located at 13+70. There needs to be computations and plan and profile
drawings for the storm sewer system.
Page 3 ' There needs to be details and computations for the CBMH shown at 15+30. Where .
does the CBMH discharge? There may need to be riprap at the outlet. There are several
locations that indicate proposed bituminous curb and overland drainage between 16+00 and
25+00. Please provide computations that this will not cause an erosion problem. There
appears to be a CBMH at 26+00 but the pipe appears to go no where and suddenly end.
Please explain and provide computations and details.
Page 4 - From 26+00 to 42+00 the trail appears to be mostly out of the ditch bottom.
Missing page 11 to confmn this point. Please provide page 11 and computations to confirm
that ditch capacity is not being adversely impacted.
Page 5 - Potential wetland impacts between 45+00 and 49+00. This area needs to be
delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings.
Provide details, plan and profile drawings, and computations for CBMH's shown at 45+40,
47+80, and 49+70. Energy dissipator needed at outlet at 45+30 and 49+70. Swale at 57+00
is a bad idea, provide another design with appropriate energy dissipation. There is an
existing erosion problem in the ditch between Choctaw Circle and the stream that drains to
Lotus Lake. May need additional measures to handle erosion on those slopes. Provide
computations for CB at 58+10, possible need more than one CB at this location.
Page 6 - The ditch is being filled from 59+50 to Choctaw Circle. The consultant will need to
determine the drainage area coming to this ditch and the existing capacity and the proposed
capacity of the ditch. Several utilities at 63+00 including fiber optic lines. Long steep cut
fi.om 63+00 to approximately 65+00. May need measures to reduce erosion on slopes.
Draining area across trail using swale at 70+20 not a good idea, evaluate alternative design.
There appears to be a wetland between 69+00 and 73+00. This area needs to be delineated
by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings. Wetland
mitigation may be required for either a trail or a boardwalk.
3
Page 7 - There appears to be a wetland between 75+00 and 76+00. This area needs to be
delineated by a trained wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings.
Mitigation may be required for either a trail or a boardwalk. Draining area across trail using
swale at 77+50 not a good idea, evaluate alternative design. The ditch is being filled from
approximately 77+50 to 85+80. The consultant will need to determine the drainage area
coming to the ditch, the existing capacity and the proposed capacity of the ditch. Depending
on the purpose for the construction of the Pond at Outlot. A (87+00) there may be both a
wetland impact and a flood storage impact, both of which may need to be mitigated. Provide
drainage computations for the CBMH and culvert at 87+20 and 88+20, respectively.
Page 8 - There is a storm sewer line that outlets at 89+90. There may need to be riprap at the
outlet. Provide details, plan and profile drawings, and computations for storm sewer line. A
pond is located in the northwest quadrant of Pleasantview Road and TH 101. Make sure to
include the pond discharge when sizing that portion of the storm sewer system. There may
be a wetland between 90+60 and 91+80. This area needs to be delineated by a trained
wetland delineator and the results need to be shown on the drawings.
Pages 9 to 16 - Missing page 11. Need to show TH 101 on cross sections.
Mn/DOT Right of Way Comments
1. Use a three dash symbology for the "Existing Mn/DOT R/W" line.
2. Construction will take place outside of the Existing Mn/DOT R/W line. The City of
Chanhassen will need to make some R/W acquisitions.
Mn/DOT Surveys Comment:
1. Identify any Mn/DOT monuments found.
Mn/DOT Detail Design Comments ( second reviewer from Detail Design ):
1. The trail plan is going to have serious effects on the ditches and drainage.
2. They will also need fence or rail in some areas because of drop-offs due to steep slopes or
walls.
Mn/DOT Traffic Comments:
1. It appears that the trail will be inside the "clear zone" which is not advisable without some
sort of physical barrier on this type of highway ( 45 m.p.h. ).
2. A 10' width is preferred for a trail expected to carry two-way bike and pedestrian traffic. 8' is
the minimum width we will allow.
A 3' trail as proposed in one section is not acceptable without us seeing the other options they
have looked at and eliminated. Maybe more effort should be put into getting this section
wider.
4. The trail should be as far off the shoulder of the road as possible. If the trail is within 10 feet
of the shoulder, a physical barrier should be provided.
5. Railing or fencing is required at retaining walls and board walk locations.
6. The grade of the trail should satisfy any ADA requirements.
7. There shall be adequate cross slopes and ditches to ensure good drainage.
8. There shall be sufficient clearing and grabbing to provide adequate sight distance.
9. Maintenance of the trail shall be the responsibility of the City. Maintenance of the path shall
not interfere with the maintenance (snow removal) of the highway.
If you have any questions, please contact John Isackson at 651 - 582 - 1273.
Sincerely,
John Isackson, P.E.
Mn/DOT Area Right-of-Way Manager
CC: File
Minnesota Recreation and Park Association · 3954 Bryant Avenue South · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409
Phone: 612/825-2200 · Fax 6121825-6201. Toll Free: 800/862-3659
December 5, 2000
Mr. Jerry Ruegemer
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Jerry,
Congratulations.t On behalf of the Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association, I would like to
inform you that you have been selected by your peers in the Recreation Sports Commission
(RSC) to receive a Meritorious Award due to your outstanding individual leadership and
commitment to the RSC's activities throughout the 3'ear. Each 3,ear one deserving individual
from each Section and/or Committee is selected to receive a Meritorious Award.
Ward Wallin, who submitted your nomination on behalf of the RSC, states: "Jerry was elected to
the RSC in 1997 and has been a very active Comlnissioner not only at meetings but also behind
the scenes. He is very well deserving of the award."
Your Meritorious Award will be presented to you by President Roy Sutherland at the MRPA Almual
Meeting on Friday, January 19. The Annual Meeting will be held in the morning and will precede the
annual Awards and Student Scholarship Luncheon at noon. Please plan to join us for the entire day ! This
event will be held at the Brooklyn Park Senior Center, located at the Brooklyn Park Community Activity
Center, 5600 85th Avenue. Information about making reservations for the luncheon will be included in the
January Keeping U.p newsletter.
Again, congratulations on a job well doue! Congratulations from all the members of the MRPA Awards
Committee.
Sincerely~.~.
Jan Ficken, CLP
Award Committee Chair
Minnesota Recreation and Parks Association
CC:
Todd Hoffman, Director
City of Chanhassen Parks and Recreation Departlnent
Ward Wallin, Associate Director
Duluth Parks and Recreation Department
RECE!V
CITY Ur ~JitAN~ASSEN