CC Agenda 05-04-1981 (3)&"*//o/cer,&4,
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCTL
MONDAY, MAY 4, 1981, 7:30 p.m.
CHANHASSEN MUNTCTPAL BUTLDTNG, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
+PPROVAL OF MTNUTES
1. 7:30 p.m. Commission Minutes.
UNTINISHED BUSTNESS
2. 7:45 p.m.
3. I :00 p.m.
4. 8:30 p.m.
@
American Legion crub, Re-anaryze Desire to proceed.with Sewer and Water Feasibility Study.
96t.h Street Sanitary Sewer, Consider public Inputon fnclusion of Area in Federal 2OL program.
North Service Area Special Assessments, Reguestsfor Reconsideration:
a. MacPherson Property, 3g4L Chaska Rd.b. Joseph Boyer, Boyer's Sterling Estate.s
VISTTOR PRESENTATIONS
9:00 P.m. Council Procedures allow for the presentation ofitems. If action is required, the item will betabled to the next regular agenda to alIow forpublication and review of items prior to finalconsideration.
NEW BUSINESS
9:15 p.m. Zoning Ordinance Amendment/Conditional Use Permit
Request for Establishment of a Driving Range, John
Pryzmus.
9245 p.m. Final Development Plan Review, Fox Chase Addition,Derrick Land Company (Request to Reconsider Previous
Approval).
10:30 p.m. - Final Development PIan Review, Near Ivlountain Project,
Lundqren Brothers Construction.
5.
6.
7.
Item 1
MINUTES
I
SPrcIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - April 27, L}BI
A special meetilg of the Chanhassen City Cor:nci1 was cal-Ied to order on trtrnday, April27, LgBl,, at 7:30 p.m. by Actilg Mayor Neveau<. The follcwjng mernbers were present:
Acting Irhyor Neveanx, Cor:ncilnen Sr€nson, C,evilg and Horn. Mayor llarniltsr was absent.
Actlng Mayor Neveau< requestecl a ncnent of silerrce to wish Mayor llamj-1ton weII in his
surgery.
@NDITIONAL USE PERMIT RENEIIAL W: A nption was nade by Co:ncilman
on this item r:ntii May 18,
1981. The follcrdng rrcted il favor thereof : Acting Mayor Neveanu<, Cotrrcilnen SIr€DSon,
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. I\,lotion carried.
DEIIEIOPMENI AGREM{EM, PARK I PROPffiiY INSTANI WEB: The City Attorney reviewed the
outline of the Proposed Menorandun of Intent for Park One.
A nrction was rnade by Cor:ncilrran Sraenson and seconded by Cor-lrcilrnan Horn that tttis
l6nprandunr of Intent should not be considered by the City Corarcil tnrtil scne neeting
date after sig:ilg of the Kraus enderson/Blocnrlcerg @rpanies/Instant Web cqltracts
for ttre domrtorvn redeveloprent plan. l'lot'ion w"ithdrawn-
A nrctj-on was nrade by @uncilman ltrcrn and seconded by Cor:rrcilriran Geving to table action
on the park One agreenent pending resolution of agreenent by the aitorney. an+pena:-ng
r.
TLre fol1owilg voted in favor thereof: Actjng Mayor Neveau<, Councilnen Swenson,
Cieving and Horn. No negative rrctes. l4otj-on carried-
HANUS DE\IEIOPMENI @NIRACT: The Assistant City Attorney presented his retrrcrt dated
Cor:ncil. The City Cor:ncil- discussed tiei-r desire for
aOeqr-rate screening for tLre llanus outdoor storage area and recalled previous actions
and discussj-ons il regards to ttrj-s j-ssue and other conditions of previous anen&nents.
A nption was made by Cor:ncilnran Horn and seconded by Cor:ncilman-Sv'enson to approve
Reccnnendatj-on No. 1 as outljned jrr the Assistant ciLy Attorney's report dated April
23, L9gL, statilg that staff be djrected to prepare anen&nent langiuage vtrich r'lo-uId
qgbEfijt"t provisions for fulr screening frcnr puuric view. The follcndnq voted in
favor tlrereof : Acting M,ayor Neveaur, Cor:ncitrnen Suenson, Geving and Horn' No negative
votes. Ibtion carried.
cor:'cilnen sr,rcnson and cevjng will r,vrcrk with staff to develop an approp.i.!" screening
plan for tfie operr storage area. -o.urrg"= rm-rst be consistent w:-trr trre uses in the zoning
ordjnance and. ttre Overlay. District,. .-,t t1*- f/;---,& d"-,iE-)l t9-t -€'
o #;1", -##A./-fuT,,!,.,=Jn una segonded by cor-,cirnran Gevins that arr
contracts requiring cor:ncil action, either by state law or r:nder ordinance' musL
be eitlrer prepared-or reviewed *rd'"ppt9t1ta.Ly trre City Attorney's office prior to
sr:bntission to the Citlr Cor:ncif . ffre ioUowjng t'"i"a j-i ftt,ot thereof : Acting'l4ayor
Nevean:x, cor:ncilnen s"r,"orr, c*.r:-ig-;;-6''t. - ,i;;&;*;i""-t'"t""' I'lotion carried'
,r* n*, *uo**, E", l',H,iH%; r?rtH#tl.
@,scottMarl
A notion was rnade by ccr:'cilnran Horn and seconded by cor:ncilman c'evjlg to approve tte
Burdick sign resuesi conti-ngent ;pon th9 fSuollne condj-tions:
,. til; ;TJ:ia^ue-ierrovea \^trEn all the lots are sold'
2.Thec,\^,nerprovrder.rai.ntenancearrdclearruparoundthesrgn.
,
(
I
I
MINUTES ()F THE REGULAR
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMI
HELD APRIL 8, I98I , AT 7:
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL
SSI(]N HEETING
30 P.M.
Members Present:Chairman A.
Thornpson, L
Thompson
l.I. Thompson
Partridge,. Conrad, H
C. l,Jatson, J
Noziska and M
Members Absent
Staff Present:B. l,lai beI , B. Foreman
Site Plan Amendment Request, Dayco Concrete, Inc.:
Mr. I,la i belthe representati ve
h'im that the City
Shi el ded Amber Li g
submit to the City
to'ld the Commi ttee that i nfrom Dayco Concrete he had
i s pI anni ng to use aI I hi gh
hting and that should be in
Engineer.
speaking with
expl ai ned to
oressure Sodi umthe plan he is to
. Mr. I,{ai bel aI so advi sed the repre-
sentative that he should prepare to file a Land Scaoing Bond soonso it will not delay their bui'lding oermit.
Ms. Watson asked how the Site Plan change wouldDrive? WouId it become a dead end street? Mr. Waibelthat the changed si te Dl an woul d change Dayco's access
but that the site needed both accesses. Park Road woul
main road to Dayco in the future.
Mr. J. Thompson asked i f by movi ng the bui I di ng
East wi I 1 i t affect vi sabi I i ty comi ng down Park Dri ve.
stated that the Dayco building would be setback 30 feet
ri ght of wa.y and that the bui l di ng i s setback the same
Flouroware.
effect Park
explainedto Hwy 5d be the
to theMr. tllaibe'l
from the
di stance as
CounciJ(Plannin
De cember
al I ayes
Mr. J. Thompson made ato approve the new Site
g Commi ssi on Exhi bi t A)
22, 1980. Second was
Site Plan Amendment R-equest, L.yman Lumber:
14r. waibel oresented a drawing of the new site plan.
The new nuitainSl wiit not add to any run off pro!lems. Mr. M.
Thompson askea it the new site plan- could be exo'l ainqd' Mr' P'
Throhdahl, a representative from Lyman Lumber rrointed out that
Lyman Lumber wanted to build a stoiage shed. It would be an
motion to recommend to the CitY
Plan drawn on 2/27/81 bY Bob Davis
recommended bY the CitY Council on
made by Ms. l^latson. Motion carried
4-8-81 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
al umi num si ded bui'ldi ng that woul d match the rest of the bui 1di ng
on their property. The building would be 24' x 60' and would be
used for short term storage. This build'ing was not in the originalsite p'lan because Lyman Lumber did not forsee the use for that
much storage space when the plan was first drawn up.
Mr. l,lai bel stated that the new bui'l di ng woul d betotally screened, there is high ground in the East and theother buildings are in front of this one. Mr. H. Noziska askedif the building would be heated. It was answered no, the
bui l di ng i s just f or storage and no heati ng wou'ld be needed.
Mr. L. Conrad made a motion tothis site plan request (Exhibit 4/8/ Bl ).Motion carried, Ayes-6.
recommend approval of
Seconded by J. Thompson.
Easement Vacation Request. Lots 7 & 8. Block 3. Chanhassen
Es tates :
mission would approve his request to vacate the easement on thisproperty. Mr. A. Partridge explained some of the backgroundof this case. There is a building on top of the easement already.
The lot is able to meet all the setback requirements and wouldsti l1 be a bui ldable lot. There u,ere no problems wi th any of
the ne i ghbors .
Mr. Randy Trivolia explained
been replatted. There was a property
i s cl eared up now but woul d 'l i ke to
Mr. M. Thompson
Council to hold necessary
ment on Lots 7 & B, Block
seconded the moti on. Al I
thatLotsT&8had
I i ne di spute that
ask that the Com-
made a motion to recommend to the City
publ ic hearings to vacate the ease-3, Chanhassen Estates. Mr. H. Nozi ska
i n favor.
Visitor Presentation, Mr. Rod Hardy- Lake Susan West:
Mr. HardY, a rePresentative
thei r appl i cation for the Subdi vi si on
that this item be tabled jndefinate'ly.
Chaska Comprehensive Plan:
for Lake Susanat Lake Susan,
No action was
West, wi thdrew
and requested
taken.
Mr. Waibel went thru the report of April 6, 198.l
4-8-81 Planning Commission Minutes
Page 3
and di scussi ng Land Use, Transportati on, Parks and 0pen Space
and Utility Elements of their Comprehensive Plan. The P'lanning
Commission agreed that the City of Chanhassen should go on recordin the review of the Chaska Plan as to having concerns aboutthe Industrial area in the Southeast corner of Chaska, thecoordination of Parks and trail facilities between both com-munities, the alienment of North Jonathan Blvd and the overall
compatabil ity of the Chaska Comprehensive Sewer PIan relativeto the 208 l,later Qua'l i ty Management pl an and the pl ans of
Chanhassen.
0pen Dis,cussion:
The members ofthey might not be ab'le
meeti ng.
the Planning Commission indicated thatto make a quorum at the April 22, 19Bl
Discussio!, 0Idi nan-ce Review:
The Planning Commission discussed ways in which torevise the Chanhassen Comprehensive PIan and the Zoning 0rdinance.It was suggested that each member look over the 0rdinance and
Comprehensive plan and come up with items that shou'ld be changed.
They should bring their comments to the next meeting.
Ad j_ournment:
0n moti on by l,ls. l,latson
the meeting was adjourned at Il:and second by Mr. J
45 p. m.
Thompson,
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL
CHANHASSEN PLANNING C()14MISSION MEETING
HELD APRIL 15, 198'l AT 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Staff Present:
Chai rman A.J. Thompson.
M. Thompson ,
B. Waibel, M
Partri dge , L
l,l. Thompson
. Koegl er
. Conrad, C. l.latson,
, H. Noziska
Mr. Mark Koegler presented a Ietter to the Planning
Commission from Hinnegasco dated Aori'l 3,'198.l requesting
MUSA line inc'lusion.
14r. Koeg'ler discussed the classification of Lyman
B'lvd and New County Road 17 wi th respect to rel ati ve to
road improvement funds. If classified as minor arterials
they woul d be el i gi bl e f or f unds whereas co'l I ectors they
would not.
The concenses of the Planning Commission was that these
streets shou'ld remai n cl assi f i ed as co'l I ectors. The Pl anni ng
Commission feels that it is not necessary this time, county
has no pl ans to bui'ld west of 4'l and east of '10'l , and woul d
serve as a primary access to prooosed I and f i'l 1 si te D.
The P'l anni ng Commi ssi on expressed concern that I anguage
concerning upgrading Hwy 5 be drafted to emrrhasize the need
for uograding. They a'l so indicated that Hwy 5 be shown on
the Comprehensive P'lan as an intermediate arterial as opposed
to mi nor arteri a'l .
Land Use Pl an. Di scussi on:
Mr. Koegler discussed the progress of the review and
submittal stitus of the Comprehbnsive Plan. Mention was made
of the Lake Ann interceptor status, and potential changes
to MUSA line.
Discussion was made of inclusion of the 96th Street area
into tf,. UUSn is p.r the 201 study. The P'l anning Commission
concensus was to include the Minnegasco-property into the
MUSA and 96th ii"""i a""a if on liie only service was provided
to the existing cit.Y sYstem.
L
L
L
L
L
Page 2
Planning Commission MinutesAprit 15, I98I
Capital Improvements Program:
A reguest was made by the Chairman that more ProJectdetail i.e. project tltle be given provided as to the bond
lssues listed on page 9 of the lmplimentation sectlon.
0pen Dl scussl on:
lrlentlon was made of lncluding Ianguage tn the solar
access sectlon that address developer demonstration of adopting
reasonable state of the'qrt technotogy for enefgjr efflclency.
I nlso, it was recommended that a statement regardingL metropolltan scaled landfills be included in approprlate
sections of the plan.
IL
L
L
L
L:
L
t
L
L
L
L
L
e*.
CITY OF
EH[I[H[SSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDT'Iq
TO: Don Ashworth
ERO!I: Bill Monk
DATE: May L, 1981
SUBJ: Utility Service to American Legion
The Legionrs executive board rneeting is not untir May 6,19gLand t'hey request this item be tabred until the May 18, 1991meeting of the City Council.
CITY OF 2
.hrE-
EH[![H[SSEI[
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 9s7-1e00
I\,IEMORANDUM
TO: City lvlanager, Don Ashwort,h
FROM: City EngS.neer, BilI Monk
DATE: April 30, 1981
SUBJ: 20I Study 96th Street
On April 20, 1981, Virginia Harris from the County planning and Zoningoffice informed the City Council that "failing septic systems whichcould be corrected via extension of munj-cipal sanitary sewer systems"are no longer eligible for federal funding. This directly affectsthose homes on 96th Street which were proposed to be connected tothe san j-tary sewer on Kj-owa with construction of a lift station.Affected property owners were notified by the County (see attachedletter) of tonights meeting t,o consider the community drainfieldalternative.
Resolutions for revision of the Carver County Joint Communities
Facilities Plan to j-ncorporate use of the community drainfield system
in the 96th Street area are attached.
/9vZr,,-/o-
\
PLANNING, ZONING ANO
ENVI'lON M ENTAL SERVIC ES
(6121 4a3-3a35 EXT. 22s
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH
CHASKA. M INNESOTA 55318
COUNTY OT CAPVEP
April 29, l98l
Dear Property Owner:
IJe have been informed by the Hinnesota Pollution Control Agency that
due to Federal funding cutbacks they will not'fund the conventional sewer
lines requested in our 201 sewer grant application-
Therefore, your City Council will meet Monday, May 4 at 8:00 p.m.
to consider the community drainfield alternative for your area. The
facilities plan shows that this is also a cost effective method for
correcting on-site sewer failures in your area.
lf you have any questions or would like input into the Council decision,
please attend the Council meeting-
S i ncerel y,
{.**''4 N-""
Virginia R, Harris, Director
Planning, Zoning and
Envi ronmental Services
VRH: mo
Allirmative Action/Eqtol Opportunity Etnplover
The Carver County Joint Communitiessubsti tute this resolution adopted
dated 0ctober 20, l9B0 and found onPlan Section.',
Passed and adopted by the City Council of4th aay of Hay, I98.t
Facilities plan is hereby amendedMay 4, l98t for the resolutionthe page entitled,rExhibit g.gB.l
the City of Chanhassen, this
3.
STATE 0F I'il NNESoTA )
couNTY 0F CARVER )ctTY oF CHANHASSEN )
I, the undersigned,city crerk in and for the city ofand state, hereby_gertify that the foregoing is a true andof. record-in my 9lli.u and dury adoptea-uy ihe-city counciItn'aay of May, l98l
Chanhassen, said Countycorrect copy of resolutionI of said City on the
Son-IElworifrl@
i
E
I
i-
WILLIAI\4 D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LABRY L. HANSON
JACK E. GILL
THEODORE D. KEMNA
JOHN W, EMONO
KENNETH E. ADOLF
WILLIAM FI. ENGELHABDT
R. SCOTT HARRI
GEFALO L. BACKMAN
/"
^/
t.
SCHOELL &.
ENGINEEF|S ANO
MADE|ON, Iruc.
SUF|VEYOFIS
(612) 938-7601 o 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH . HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
April 27, 1981
City of Chanhassenc/o Mr. Bill lrlonk, City EngineerP. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Subject: lAs="s=*ent Appeals
Boyer and McPherson Properties
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your requestr w€ herein transmitt our commentson the above named sites.
Boyer Site - Lot 7, Block 1, Boyers Sterling Estates
L973 Assessment: 1 Unit = $4,689.00
1980 Assessment: 1 Unit = $5,477.86
The 1973 assessment was assumed to be levied for the portion
of the lot with the existing structure. As can be seen on the
attached. drawing, Lot 7 can be subdivided into two lots. One
would have 20,J-00 square feet and the other 22,o00 square feet.
One would have 100 feet of frontage and the southerly one
approxJ-mately 110 feet. Quite simply, the criteria is met for
two units.
Mark McPherson Site - Lot 7, Schmids Acre Tracts
1973 Assessment: None
tg8O Assessment: 5 Sanitary Sewer Units = $11,320.00
The 1980 assessment assumed that Lot 7 could be divid.ed as
shown on the attached drawing. Sanitary sewer exists along the
entire east edge of Lot 7, and there is sufficient frontage along
the east side to get five 100-foot lots. We assumed that a street,
of proper right-oi-way width, could be dedicated and constructed
on the east edge of Lot 7.
It should be pointed out that the policy of assessing a lateral
cost without street was used in ottrer cases in the north area.
The Kenneth Durr and Mork sites are close by examples. Our
assumption is that a road could be dedicated as we have shown on
{i
lu H"rlrt Iare hact tl
-r*r.r)
Lot 6
-bI
,l
{qoooi' "'r, " iiili-,il:j:.. -tiili
-aoEo::r-
llili
ont' ^nC ,r':J)l)f,'.. ' uonf fit?
rJc. J ,,) /to t,
v
7
2
:CFIOELL ,
Aor:,a.
/.or €
Lot tS
6tt
Lot 2
t{ADS,ot.)
rqAl
+
ht ''
Po:f
-:r
tro$?c"
/.ot ,,\
+\
I
N
,
2O_0
5<
-t,\ =
trcsst6LE Lor
POSSItsLE Z&,ROAD\,^/A\7
ilo'
/
,),,(;
I,(o
,t,rl
'taJ.tcd'?
iOP-'Lot I
LEG END
CITY OF /ou,
EH*[NIIISSEN
76.10 LAREDO DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I\,IEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City I'Ianager
FROM: BilI Monk, City Engineer
DATE: April 16, 1981
SUBJECT: IvlacPherson Assessment Deferment Request
The MacPherson property was assessed 5 units for trunk and lateralsanitary sewer constructed along the entire east, property line
and Highway 7 frontage. This assessment was levied under theNorth Service Area Reassessment project and was based on ultimate
land use with the property having over 100 feet of frontage
along Highway 7 and an R-I Zoning. There is also frontage along
a cartway to the north, but access to the cartway for newlyplatted lots is questionable and would require a variance.
There are permanent utility easements along the Highway 7 front-
age of this property, but said easements would not restrict
access. Materials supplied by Mr. MacPherson concerning access
restri-ctions by the state Highway Department, do not change the
ultimate use of this property although development may be delayed.
The assessments, as levied on this property, are consistant
with the policy used throughout the project.
/';/n72,, - l/(-Action Ly City Administrstor
Enricrst'd 1
l,lorliiir'd*
Dlie---
Dat.: SdLrii..t;J tu Crx'rmlssiC.l
--:--l . - ^
Dite 5u,'iIiii;J ro li)i:nc{
'1:-7Q --i P ^.
i-q;-'1w -
r-- ti
ItF. . I{ark lvlacPherson
c/o lrlacPherson Towne Co.
49OO Cedar Iake Rd.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
Plront.296-3286
In'rrcply refer to: 360
S.P. 1OO4 (7=119)
Canrer County
i-v'
, Enclosed find a print of our right of way map slrowi:rg a portion of T'H' 7
fnqn Ctrr:rch Road westerly, as you requested. this print slrows tlte
,'Controlled access along tLre nortlrerly slde of the higtrway withr an openlng
-,,4proximate1y 600 feet west of Ctn:::ch Road. ltre contrrclled access q/mbol
.ls sfrown in red for yor:r com/enience." ' :l .', ..1,
If you have arXp f\.rrther questions regarrding tfris matter, feel
'
--:.^i:' ,i,:
at\Irt\t{-'lrrj\
R. J. Dirueeen
, '' Director '
i, ,Office of Rigfrt of Way
/.1-
RUSSELL H. LARSON
CRAIG M. MERTZ
OF COUNSEL
HARVEY E. SKAAR
MARK C. MCCULLOUGH
Le.nsox & Mnnrz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
'9OO FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
MINN EAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
April 10, 198I
TELEPHONE
(612) 335-9s6s
Dona1d W.
Chanhassen
Box L47
Chanhassen
AshworthCity Manager
l4N 55 317
Re: North Service Area 1980
(Holloway / eoyer Reques t for Reconsideration)
Dear Don:
You have asked for our comment on a letter received from l,lartha
Holloway and a similar letter received from Joseph Boyer. Both letters
contain a request that certain assessments levied in 1980 on Boyerrs
Sterling Estates be removed.
Ms. Holloway is the owner of Lots 415,6, and 8, all in Block 1 of
Boyers Sterling Estates. Mr. Boyer is the owner of Lot 7 in Block 1 of
tfrlt p1at. (We are relying on the ownership information contained in
the f9AO assessment ro11, Ers we have not attempted to verify ownershi-p
through the County Recorder's office.)
In 1980, the following assessments were imposed:
Owner Lot Block Ar.ount Description
HoIIoway 4 L $r,017.38 1S.T.*&1W.T.
N.A.
1 S.T., 1 W.T., 1 S.L.
1. w.L.
1S.T.,2W.T.t 1S.L.
2 W.L.
Holloway 5 I
Holloway 6 I
Boyer 7 L
Holloway 8 I
0-
$5 ,477 .86
$5477 .86
$1,017.38 1S.T.&1W-T-
* S=sewerr l,'I=water, L=Iateral, T=trunk'
Attached is a copy of Dale campbell's letter of March 9,198I,
explaining the fgBO assessmentl on the Holloway property' Mr' Boyer's
1980 assessment was based on SchoeII & Madson'i iinaing that Lot 7 could
be divided so as to create an additional homesite.
RECEIVED
As ses sm"".X.l!sl
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
t
L
L
L
L
L
I
L
Donald W. AshworthApril 10, 1981
Page Three
CONCTUSION
Assuming that the assessment criteria have been uniformly applied, we
recommend that no change be made in either the Holloway or in the
Boyer assessment because:
a)
b)
c)
the restrictive covenant in question is ambiguous'
no timely court appeals have been filed and
ttre Councilts apparent assessment policy is to
disregard privately imposed devel.opmentrestrictions of this type.
Very truly yours,Wu.g
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
CMIvI: ner
enc
Action by City Admlnirtrabr
enu*d {
Modilied-. ,, -
Rejected -
Date
Date Sulrnnilted to Coinmission.
L
Date Submitted to louncil
-$.
, ,
" :.j1,.. i
':ii;i'I
rj.i;i:,.ii':,
q-', -.. - .i.
iiOY:iit S :';'.;i:i.::iG iiSTATiili
l.:11e.'.:.:; a.nd. j::c l?c:tricLions
; .- t ,-l
'-'- , /" '. I,,
Kl'CrI ,1LL l.mN EY TilESri Pi*IiiiTS, r1er--; Joscph N. Boyer and Eilocn F. Ioyere
husband and wj.fer hercinefLor refored i:o as lorrnerslrr resi<ients of Hcnn.pin
Qoun[rr.llimcsota, bolng tho or"rors of cf-]- of tho lot: ln bTorrs 5ter1ir.3
LsLrtosp a subClvision of land in C;arver County, I,tin'nusot", accorciing to ttrc. :
plat *roroof on fI}o and of record in tho offico of the Ro;lstcr of -ood: 1n
and fo! said Carver Courtyl and doslring to establish the nitrre of tle uso a:id
onJopront of ilro Lots ln sald plat, do hcleby doclare said ;::r'cnlser: subjcct tc
ttro folJ.or.{ng e:(pross covenants, st5.pd.r-tions a:ld lestltcaions a: to :i:. uce ,';d
enjol'ment thereofr a]'l 6f uhic5 a:o '-o be const:ucd as resti.ictlvc covc:::m:
running nlth the title to said 5:rerei.ses and rith c:ci: an<i evcry p:r'u an<i p:rc:l
theroofl whlch coveaarrts sha1l run u:'riil Janucry L1 l99Ct a'c -.;H.ch trrre sucl
covenanLs shall be autoi::aticalllr exLcirded for an additj.o::aL period of ie:r !eaz'i,
ancl succossivoly ther.oafter for. adcliiionel periods of ten yeals, u::1ess, 'i:-::.
one nonrh of tire begi:oni'r,g of such pe:iod of ien y"."=, by ac-- ci'the c'.xe];': oj
the 0u'" Iot 1r drrly certifiedr a:li recorded, it is ag**ed tc reduc: '",:; :uri.;::
of tho sald covenants 1n :.*roler or in pari!
'
'-
j
1. Al]. Lots atxd tracis shalJ- be i<no',nn and describeci as :'ecide:1tia1 1o'..s.
lb stnrcturs shalI bo erectedl aitered, placcdo or pesdtted io:.'e'i:i::---=.-f,,in argr lot othor t'han one <ieiachedl singlo-fandiy ci:.'c""i'.:5, r:ii,:: prit'e'.:
garage, and other outbulldings incidenial to thc re;ic'er.t:-i: '':se o-' iie
1ot. fto nlninum size of eech :'oslcieatia]- struct^:le (o>:ch',ii:-1 po:'ca and
garage) shalL bo a flcor ar:e -'3 2r0C0 squars fee'c i'o:: - ri siien'.j-al
structure havilg no:a -Lhan c::a iloor above g"cu:1d 3-evci, :r:J !-rj00 --'."::'-'
feo'u for a lecidential siruct':ro having ono faoot above g:ou-d lcvei-
Garages :.ist be noi less ihan -siro-cai' Sj.ze.
2. No buildinSs shaLl- ba erecied or placoc on any 1ot in i.hi.s s-oiir:i- ..;-,-.
untii ths builii4 pl-:urse sp':ciiicationsl and p1o: pL::: s'-'c -'; '"i -
locr.ilon of ::c.r -o':i1i:r.3s'h:e L:en :-ppror;cti l,r ';:'it-:'-l :'''"::'5" h -l'
Eoye:: and Eiicon 3. Ic7er, o:'-Xi':l:'autho:'izcd }eprescr^lr''-! r *t-'
i#H"r;i.
_ 7. ilo ani:r:als or foia shaLL be kcpt upon any of satd lots cxcepi fa::r:.17
pots, and no r:oro then tuo (Z) of arry gonus and spcclos.
8. lb fence sha1l excoed 42 inches ln hoight oxcept any fence upon t5o
.r!:r":rj--.:ir.-j ::.: Oe:'L:r:eter of O,rt Iot iio. 1. All. fencos 5hr]'l !s of su5.tabl.o and
attrac'ulve dosign and natorial and sha11 be properly and attractively
. i nalntained..- !_I! '' 1'!i '1' " ;
i r?F\:: {!.'!;: { . ..
9. If any party sha1l vlolate or atte:'apt to vlolate any of the cc..'er.:.nts
''-' ,'.,.. .. . of inte:'est ln argr 1ot, parccL, or plot in such subdlvision to 1nsiiiu",e .,
procoedings at lavr or oquity agair.st the partles oi"iittr.g-'.. r and prosecuto procoedings at lavr or equity agair.st the pa
. - or attenpting to violate these covenants or resirictionse such sui-",:{
_-----n- ...-.'telna either fpr the pur?ose of preven'uing tbe violation o: of recoveri:3":"*'-|
-- , , , r..::-rE.: daE;rges, or both.. :,
ln i--^al l-!! -- ^4 ----10. Invalrdatloa of aiy o:re or nore of these covenants or res',rictlor,s by
- Judgilont or CoEi: Cxior shal] not afject !h's y:1id1!r and, exls'-encs o:-
- .Lrriii:;{^Gij;&-\ii;:;-;;;afi.-,:t'' -'.
the other covenants ol rostri.c'ui.cr.s sh,'11 renaln 1n fuLl fo:c.; ar,i'
effect.
a1' (- 'b''tu+1';'i : htsd 6cet;cey eL , L955
on tirls ab'L a^y.fXffif 1955, bEr'ora reol a liotary Pu'clLc'^l'tli.r: anc
.. for 9.a1d County, p6lson,11y appoared Josoph N. Boyer and Xileee F. Soyer'p htsba:ri
, ..:rw- anC 'ldfc, to ne !,-nc,*n ta be the p3rso:rs <iescrlbod l-n and eho exeeir--,rC'..ri':'r:':-
going lnstrmen! and -,uho aclsro:rleCge iha', tirey executod the sac.: as ;l:-'i= i-'c; .
f.li,RrETIA \Ci"l
NclJ.y F!:ric; naic.',1:i Cc!::i. '
iiy Con:.i:J5roa itPiiJs .,lin. 1i:, l -
act and dee'1.
Commun i ty Locati on :
proEerTr-I s TocaTAdintersection of west
on the north side of
CITY'CF
As shown in enclosure #1 , the
apDroximately 700 feet west of
79th Street and Great Pl ai ns
West 79th Street.
h
EHINHISSEI{
7610 LAREDO DRIVE ' P O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING REPO&T
DATE: Apri'l 17 , l98l
T0: Planning Commission & Staff
FROM: Bob Waibe'l , City Planner
STJBJECT: Conditional Use Permit Request, estab'l ishment ofa Dri vi ng Rarge , Lots 6,7 & 8, B'lock I , Fronti er
Devel ooment Park
APPL I CANT: Dri ve Fore I
Petition
The aopl i cant i s p'lanni ng to establ j sh a dri vi nq range onthe sub ject propert.y to wi t a Condi ti onal Use Permi t and/or
ordi nance amendment for a Condi ti onal Use Permi t i s reoui red.
Backqround
1.subject
the
Bl vd,
zoned2. Existing Zoning: The subiect property is Dresently
I-.I, Industrial District.
3. Utilities: Sanitary Sewer and Municiple l,Jater are Dre-
sent-ly available to the subiect property.
Comments
As stated prev'iously, and as mentioned in the Notice of Publ jc
Heari ng, the subject request ei ther reouj res an amendment to
the t-i-Oistrict provisions of 0rdinance 47 to allow a drivinq
ranqe as a Conditional Use, and/or if cons'idered a temporary
use, a Condjtional Use can be issued for a period of one year
in accordance with section 23.0.l subsection 5 of ord'i nance 47 '
Section 23.Ol iubsection 5 states that Cond'i tional tlse Permits
maV Ue "iisued "to perm'i t the location in any_di.stli ct of terno-
ori"y uses which r^rill not continue for a Deriod of more than
i yeir. For good cause shown, this Village qouncil.may renew
ani such temoo"i"V oermit". it positive action on the subiect
Managerrs Comments
A "Stop Work" order was issued by both the Building Department as well
as Planning Department when initial grading was commenced on the property.
These orders appeared to have had little effect and, as can be seen
by visiting the site, the lot has been seeded, fence posts are in the
process of bei-ng installed, tees have been installed as well as soddi-ng
placed. Statements given by Mr. Pryzmus to the Planning Commission
included the facts that the driving range equipment has been purchased,
tractor delivered, and that the shed has been constructed and is in
Ivlr. Pryzmus' garage.
There is no question that this community can benefit from a driving
range. This is not the question. The question is whether the location
proposed by Mr. ffizmus is acceptable under the zoning code as well
as safety standards.
relate to the zoning ordinance and
Although a portion of the require-
do relate to code requirements.
The Plannerrs and Engineer's report
points raised will not be repeated.
ments can be challenged, the Points
The major concern of this office is the potential liability issue
raised by the proposal. Speci-fica11y, the City and Council, Planning
Commj-ssion and staff have been sued both collectively and individually
on issues ranging from'the right of the City to levy assessments l'
" stopping development. rights, etc. These types .of iss-ues -represerttbasic "principle" issuesto each of the parties and, alth:ougn oamages
may be -awarded, ro true personal injury has resulted. This type of
suit j-s not desirable, to believe
that they would not occur is being naive. The point attempted t9
be made Ly myself is that the type of suit,s encountered by the City
over the pasl several years are &istinctly different from a true personal
injury type of suit, i-.e. a suit contending that the City did not
pr5p"ify-Lnforce or review a liquor license and a resulting motor.
izehicfe- accident resulted; a suit contending that the city ignored
typical engineering standards in the design of.an intersection, grades
of streets, etc. iesulting j-n a traffic iatality; -etc' The potential
loss in these types of cases is far more severe and cannot be easily
forgotten. aaailionally, should the suit seek punitive damages and
such be awardedr Do insurance policy will pay any damages so awarded
either collectively or for the indiiriauat'- as such, the personal
exposure is significant-
The concern raised by the Pryzmus application is one of potential
Iiability which may be incuriea Uy Litfrer Mr' Pryzmus or the City via
the potential of persons ac-iaentiy, inadvertently, or purposely
hitting golf bal1i onto West 79th Street. I believe this is significantly
different than the porentiir or a golfer being hit by a gorf k'alr on
a golf course. The golfer must siiply recognize the potential danger;
however, even in this type of Iand use, the golf courses themselves
restrict uses of the cour="-["-""1y goiters playing gorf "19-q".notallow young children. By contrast, a parent-sending his child to the
drj-ving range should. be reasonably assured that the child can get
to and from the facility witrrout 6eing harmed, passerbys need not be
fearful, etc -
CITY OF
EIIINHISSEI[
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) e37-1900
}4EMORANDUM
TO: City Manager,
EROM: City Engineer,
DATE: April 30, 1981
SUBJ: Driving Range,
Don Ashworth
BiIl Monk
John Pryzmus
Upon revj-ew of the petitionerrs request, the following items deserve
comment:
-- The ali-gnment of the range and its proximity to
79E}:. Street raise serious concerns for pedestrian
and vehicular safety. As a mj-nimum requirement, the
screening must be enlarged and the tees moved away
from the street.
No provision for parking is shown but on-site parking
is required for all permitted uses. Use of public
rj-ght-of-way for this purpose is not recommended,
even for an interim use.
It should be noted that the site development for this
project has been i-n progress for some time. Staff is
very concerned that grading was done without a permit
and that any work started before review by either
the Planning Commission or the City Council'
,/gIZ4,./<-
: i{.,,ti,:
I
a\
(ol
-t
I
,OYh
rr\4r
\r,
\i ta.{' J
5" : r s
I.'' =. \6 \3
\ ta
b i\\ @u\' *c
b
lVt*s*.i l? i i
)
e4 c, g*-
A{{B6t, Wd-0.*a
c
b
t.rt&
4^"+ OL@.
I&nvv&i,'
fe, ;"*,L0 J-.{.-
,. T )q' pratL ,9u*! ,"*-0 G+J 4 fu
-
,i'19
.t .'.,.,.sB:+
E
ooE
I
.- #+dtE.*4tr'-(r
t (-/
/,loPcse D
I *:i t/ i,u (,
{ :'L'i I
oo
I
HITIN
r
,i
I
l-_
I
Iffi'-
,ji.'
r) ...t,&as..;- '
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN
PLANNING C()MMISSION MEETING
HELD APRIL 22, I 98.| , AT 7: 30 P. M.
CHANHASSEN C(|UNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present:Chai rman Art
t,J. Thompson,
Noziska.
Partri dge, C. l,{atson, J. Thompson,
M. Thompson , L. Conrad, H.
Staff Present:B. l,la i beI , B. l'4onk , C. Mertz and B. Foreman
Zoni nq 0rdi nance Amendment Reouest. EstabI i shment of a Dri vi nq
Range in an I-l Dist, John Pryzm-us, Public Hearing:
Bob l,lai be'l i ndi cated that thi s request coul d ei ther bea Conditional Use Permit or a Temporary Use Permit as statedin Section 23.0.l subsection 5 of the Zoning 0rdinance. He
suggested taht i f the Pl anni ng Commi ssi on were thi nki ng ofpositive action on this request it should be the Temporary UsePermit due to site deficiencies. Even with the Temporary UsePermit they would have to be given significant Variances forthe f ence hei ght. Mr. l,lai bel recommended to the Pl anni ng
Commission to consider the 5 items listed in the P'l anning Report
dated Apri 1 17, l98l . However, he noted that hi s overa'l 'l re-
commendation was denial due to site deficiencies.
John Pryzmus, the applicant, indicated that the Variances
recommended by l.{r. l^laibel as stated at this meet'i ng was thefirst time he knew of the Variances necessary. Mr. Pryzmus
fel t that the requests were unreal i stic. Al I the I ots i n the
area are covered by vleeds and brush. Mr. Pryzmus indicatedthat this request would help to clean up the area, and would
not create a bl i ghti ng effect, al so the Dri vi ng Range woul d
make more jobs for the kids in the community. As for the fencing
suggestion, Mr. Pryzmus felt that it was not possible for even
the worst slicer to hit a ball onto the road. The bal'l s cost
to much and they do not want to loose any more than they have
to. Compari ng the proposed Dri vi ng Range to the Dri vi ng Range
on Highway 7, the Driving Range on Highway 7's f"!9e is about
220 yirds- from the tees, the Droposed Range's would !. 240 Y!1ds
from- the tees. Most professional golfers hit approximate'ly 256
yards not all in fliqht, most people hit on the average 200
yards. Mr. Pryzmus expl ai ned that he has an agreement wi th
tfre owner of t-fre property that when the ol^/ner sel I s the property
that l'!r. Pryzmus r,rill have to quit his business. Mr. Pryzmus
indicated tirat off street park'i ng would be unneccessary because
no one lives on the road or even uses the road. All parking
coul d be on street parki ng or j n the cul -du-sac. 0ff street
parkinO would be too expens'ive for a temoorary uSe. Drive
Fo"e witi be a very nice Driving Range, kept up good, fenced
Le.ttxrN, Hornr'rex, D-rLy & LrNocRErrr, Lro.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
4324 I DS CENTER
MI NNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554O2
TELEPHONE (6r2) 435-3eOO
April 30, 1981-
IIOI CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W.
wASHINGTON, D. C.2OO36
TELEPHONE 1202) 223-9394
JAMES P. LARKIN
ROBERT L. HOFFMAN
JACK F, DALY
O- KENNETH LINDGREN
ANOREW W. OANIELSON
WENDELL R. ANDERSON
GERALO H. FRIEOELL
ROBERT B. WHITLOCK
ALLAN E."PAT,' MULLIGAN
ROBERT J. HENNESSEY
RONALD R. FLETCHER
JAM ES C. ERICKSON
EOWARD J. DRISCOLL
JAMES P. MILEY
GENE N. FULLER
STEPHEN B. SOLOMON
JOSEPH W. ANTHONY
OAVIO C. SELLERGREN
JOHN D. FULLMER
ROBERT E. BOYLE
FRANK I. HARVEY
ROBERT T. MONTAGUE, JR.'
JAMES M. STROTHER
EMBER O. REICHGOTT
CHARLES S. MOOELL
RICHARD A. FOFSCHLER
LINDA H. FISHER
THoMAS P,.'TI M, STOLTMAN
STEVEN G. LEVIN
CHRISTOPHER J. DIETZEN
PETEF K. BECK
RICHARD I. OIAMONO
JOHN R. BEATTIE
JON S. SWIERZEWSKI
MICHAEL S. MARGULIES
SAMUEL L. STERN
STEVEN J. SHAPIRO
THOMAS J. FLYNN
RODERICK I. MACKENZIE
MICHAEL D. SCHWARTZ
FoRREST D."DtcK" NowLr N
JAMES P. OUINN
MICHAEL C. JACKMAN
MARY E. CUFTIN
DANIEL A. OUINLAN
JEROME H. KAHNKE
TODD I. FREEMAN
CATHY E. GORLI N
JOSEPH T. GREEN
ANDREW J. MITCHELL
OF COU NSEL
JOSEPH GITIS
LI NN J. FIRESTONE
ISOO NORTHWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER
79OO XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
M I N NEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 552+3I
TELEPHONE (6r2) e35-3AOO
iPRESENILY aOMltrED ONLY lN PENNSYLvaNIa
City of Chanhassen
Attn: Don Ashworth' CltY Manager
Chanhassen CitY Hall
7610 Laredo Drive
Box L47
Chanhassen, Minnesota 553L7
Re: Fox Chase
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
we are attorneys for Derrick Land companyr owners and developers of the proposed
subdivision of Fox Chase.
pursuant to conversations with Scott Martin, comnunity Development Dlrector' and
with his concurrence, we request that city council considerati-on of the matters
listed in our elientis letter of April- 15, l-981, which had been scheduled for
May 4, 1981, be continued. Pursuant to further discussions with Mr' Martin' we
request a meeting with you, the city Attorney, Mr' waibel and Mr' Martin at 1:30 P'n'
May 6, l-981. At that meeting, we will discuss our clientrs requests and determine
thl date for City Council- consideration'
rn the meantime, if you have any questions or comments, please give me a call'
Sincerel-Y Yours '
LARKIN, lIOFtrMAN, DALY & LTNDGREN' Ltd'
sic
cc:
s";mP
I CITY(CF 6
frEfl&IflEflA$FEIfr
7610 LAREDO DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: April 17, I981
TO:Planning Commission & Staff
FROM: Bob lllaibeI, City Planner
SUBJECT: Fina'l Development P'lan Amendment Request, Fox Chase
Addi ti on , Derri ck
APPL I CANT: Derri ck Land Company
PLANNING CASE: P-6.I 4
The applicant has submitted the attached prooosed final deve'l-
opment p'lan for Fox Chase Revi sed Apri'l .l5, 198'l f or the
Pub'l ic Hearing for the Planning Commission Meeting on April
22, '198i. The major changes between this and the previously
revi ewed pj ans are:
't.The curving of the street named "Fox Path" in the northern
1/3 of the deve'lopment.
The proposa'l f or 'lot I , Bl ock 'l and Lot 3, Bl ock 2 to
have di rect access on Pleasant View Road.
The removal of the previously proposed outl otlcommon
open space.
The relocation of the point from where the trail will
connect from the interior street to the lakeshore be-
tween Lots 12 & l3 of Block l.
The reduct'ion i n the number of I ots f rom 54 to 52 as
recommended by the CitY Council.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The fol I owi ng are the comments of thi s offi ce regardi ng th9
pointi riised in the April .l5, lgBl letter from Roger Derrick
io the Mayor and Counci I . Addi ti onal staff comments to these
points arL included in the City Engineers report'
S.ry5*'-
P-61 4, Derri ck
Page 3
6.
7.
lgbl i c Im.provemgnts
To be discussed between Derrick Land company and the citycounci'l . No Planning commission action necessary.
Puilding Permit
As stated previ ously, the northeasterly most pro-posed I of i s oroposed to have di rect access to p'teasant.:
view Road. Due to the grade di f f erential betr,reen thi s 'lot
and Fox Path, this office has no problems with issuing abui 1di ng permi t af ter the f i na'l devel opment pl an approvalhas been given by the City Council. As to a'buildingpermit on the southeaster'ly 'lot (proposed Lot 'r9, B'lock r )I feel that a building permit shou'ld not be issued until
!he ci ty has recei ved an executed devel opment contractfrom the appl i cant that woul d assure that the schedul e ofwork would proceed in an order that would not nresent anundue del ay between the time that an occupancy permi t wou'l d berequested and the time in which the road bed would bestabi I i zed and/or base course of asohal t be i nstal I ed
8. Gradi n Permi t
Covered i n Ci ty Engi neers comments.
As stated previously, one of the major changes to the developersexhibits has been the removal of the outlot accessing the lakefrom Fox Path. The Drevi ous confi gurati on of the outl of showedit to be traversing a wetland area r,lith marqina'l attribute for
home owners association usage. Additionally much of the pro-
posed out'lot area was to be uti I i ti zed f or a drai nage and
sedimentation basin. This office sees no problem with the
removal of said outlot since l) it had dubious oualities for
the establishment of a common area,2) the Chanhassen Park Plan
is designed to adequately provide the recreational needs of
the communi ty. 3) The Ci ty Engi neer wi'l I requi re !he dedi cati on
of proper uti i i ty & drai nage easements for the sedimentati on basi n.
Another change to the apol i cants exhi bi ts i s that the trai l
easement from Fox Path to Lotus Lake has been moved to an area
between Lots 1? & 'l 3 of Block l. I find that this is an over-
al l imorovement to the p'lan i n that i t traverses areas of soi l s
more suitable to development of said trail. The developer has
responded to the nei ghborhood concern i n preservi ng !h. stand
of Pine trees on the northwesterl-v most oortion of the subiect
proDerty throuqh a proposal to have Lot 3, Block 2 access directly
onto PlLasant View Road. Deve'loper has jndicated that this
confj qurati on wi I I permi t the ol acement of resi denti al structures
and aiiveways that witt mjnimize the removal of sa'id trees. As
you know, t'hi s proti on of the subiect proper!Y hgt extreme'ly poor
ii ght di;tance characteri sti cs on Pl easant Vi ew Road. Si nce
the preservatjon of this stand of trees is quite appropriate to the
a
Biley- Purgatory Creek Watershed DistricL
S9SOCOUNWBOAD #,
EOEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 5534\.
NOTIClE
OF
A}I}IUAL RILET-PI.'RGATORY CREEK T{ATERSHED DISTR,ICT TOI.TR
The Rlley-Purgatory Creek [,Iatershed DLstrlct Board of Mauagers rl11
conduct a tour of the Watershed from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturday,
llay 9, 1981. various proposed and existlng deveropnent areas will be
reviewed lncludlng:
The Presenre
Ilustadrs Bl.uffs Developnent
HighwayT-Eighwayl0l
Lake Susan IndustrlaL Park
Western Chauhassen Area
Westera Bloomlogton Area
The tour w11L begin at 8:30 a.m. at the Eden Pralrle Clty llall, 8950
Eden Pralrle Roa<i and w111 teturn there at L2:00 noon. .Please call Barr
Engl.neering Co., 920-0655, before 12:00 noon, Thursday, l{ay 7, 1981, lf you
plan to attend.
!
IL
I
I
L
tt
L
I
lF
l-
L
It-
L
I
L
I
L
Il-
1
\-
i-L
It-
L
inmune from liability under 42 U.S.C. Sf9g3 and that
not a'person" r{rithin the meaning of said statute.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment of the Court
1. That the relief sought by the Defendants in their
Petition for writ of Mandamus and countercraims be in arl
respects denied.
4.
2-
complaint.
3.
seem just
Dated:
Affirmatively alleges that the plaintiff is absolutely
Plaintiff is
as follows:
That Plaintiff be granted relief as set forth in its
For such other and further relief as to this Courtmay
and equitable, with costs and reasonable attorney fees.
I
L
LARSON & MERTZ
by
Crai-g M. Mertz-Attorneys for plaintiff
1900 First Bank place WestMinneapolis MN 55402(6r2) 335-9s65
't
L
CITY OF ilL* ,Sdt
- oa2-c.'- I
4l,tlYtEEflSrflIlfr$$EI[
7610 LABEDO DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317(612) 937_1900
Ms. Sally Belgum
141 West Lake StreetExcelsior, MN 55331
Dear Sa1ly:
,
This letter is to confirm youf employment as the receptionist forthe City of Chanhassen efflct,iv" ap=ii-fo, 1981.
The- star!1.9 salary for your position is $g20.00 per month. Twoweeks paid vacation is earned after one full y".r'oi emproyment,but one week may be taken after 5 months of sitisfactor! sirvice.All other personnel policies appry to your posj_tion. ri you haveany questions relative to these potic:_es, you shourd contact theCity Ireasurer, Kay Klingelhutz.
Your position is directly responsible to Karen Engelhardt,. If you haveany problems or questions, please contact her.
You will be required to undergo a city paid employment physicaras a condition of your employment with the City. Xaren-w:-tt make thenecessary arrangements for you in the near future. r see thisrequj-rement as a benefit to both yourself and the "tll:I would. like to welcome you to the City staff and wish you the bestof luck in your new job.
April 29, 1991
SincereJ'v,a_M
Don AshworthCity l,lanager
DA: k
cc: Personnel FiIe
Kay Klingelhutz, City Treasurer
,/i, . -.!
'7'7'//t' - -/
IRiley- Pu rgato ry Creek 1V'atershed District
April 27, l98l
Mr. Don Ashworth
City of Chonhossen
7610 Loredo Drive
Chonhossen, Minnesoto 55317
Deor Mr. Ashworth:
The Annuol Riley-Purgotory Creek Wotershed District Tour
Soturdoy, Moy 9, 1981. The Chonhossen City Council, City stoff,
citizen committees ore cordiolly invited to ottend.
.^ -- Anyone plonning to ottend, pleose coll Borr Engineering Co.,
l2:00 noon, Thursdoy, Moy 7.
8950COUNryROAD #4
EDEN PRAIBIE, MINNESOTA 55344
will be held on
ond members of
920-0655, before
Engineers for the District
RCO/ilr
enc.c: Mr. Frederick Rohr
Mr. Frederick Richords
RECEIVED
VILLAGE OF
CHANHASSEN,
l'-t__-
3. Denies paragraph rr of count rhree except admits that
the then chanhassen city planner and the city Buirding rnspector -.may have spoken with Defendant David K. Luse and/or his represen_
tatives and that said city planner may have expressed an informal _opinion as to the regarity of Defendants' proposed use based on
the information then supplied by the Defendant David K. Luse
and,/or his representatives
4. States that it is without knowledge sufficient to form
a belief as to the averments of paragraphs rrr and rv of count -
lhree.
5. Denies paragraph V of Count Three. _
6. Affirmatively alleges that Defendants and/or their
representatives misrepresented or omitted material facts as to
their proposed use of the property and as to the nat.ure of the
business to be conducted thereon in the conversati_ons alreged to
have taken place bethreen the Defendants and,/or their representatives
and the Chanhassen City planner and Building Inspector.
7. Affirmatively alleges that Defendants' Count three E
is barred by M.s.A. s466.05 by reason of Defendants' failure to
give not,ice of their alleged claim. _
8. Affirmatively alleges that plaintiff.is immune from
liability on Defendantsr countercrainsby reason of M.s.A. s4G6.03,
Subd. 5 and 5.
vr.
As to Count Eour of Defendantsr Counterclaims:
1. Unless admitted or otherwise qualified herein, denies,
each and every allegation of Defendantsr Counterclaim Count Four. E
2. Except as othervise admitted in pargaraph V denies
Paragraph I of Count Four. -3. Affirmatively realleges Paragraph V, I-8, incJ.usive.
VII.
L
As to Count E ive of Defendants' Counterclaims:
1. Unless admitted or otherwise qualified herein, denies
each and every allegation of Defendants' Counterclaim Count Five. -t
2. Except as otherwise admitted in Paragraph V1 denies
Paragraph I of Count Five. -
3. Affirrnatively reallege Paragraph V, I-8, inclusive.
-6-
a
5. Affirmatively alleges that the subject premises was
-
first'zoned R-lA on February g, Lg72, and that the establishment _of the restrictions in s6 0f the chanhassen zoning ordinance pre-
date Defendantst acquisition of the subject premises by more
than five years. -
IV.
As to Count Two of Defendants, Counterglaims: -
1' unless admitted or otherwise gualified herein,denies
each and every arlegation of Defendants' counterclaim count r\ro. b
2. Except as otherwise admitted in paragraph If of this
Ansrrer, denies paragraph I of Count T!ro.
3' Admits praintiff, by action of its councir on pebruary 20,
1979, effectively denied Defendants' application for a conditional
use permit or a re-zoni-ng, chosing instead the arternative of -
enforcing the ordinance, except that no enforcement action hras
to be taken prior to Novenber 15, 1990, provided that Defendait -
Natural Green, rnc. file with the city a deposit of $r,5oo.oo to
pay legal costs incurred after Novemlcer 15, I9gO, should it be _
necessary to commence legal action after that, date to compel
termination of Defendant,s' landscapi.ng business on the subject _
premises
4. Alleges that by delaying enforcement of the Zoning i
Ordinance until November 15, 1980, plaintiff was attempting to -
ameriorate any hardship which Defendants might incur in terminating
their use of the subject premises for purposes of an illegal
landscaping business.
5. Alleges'that conditioning the delay in enforcement of -
the ordinance upon Defendants making a $1,500.00 deposit with the
City was a ).egitimate exercise of the police powers and zoning
pohrers of the Plaintiff.
6. Specifically denies Paragraphs III and IV of.Count. TWo.
-7. Affirmatively alleges that the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance
was amended in 1974 by adding a S19.lB reading as follorvs:
4- Admits that on December 27, L978, the pranning commission
unanihousry recommended that ue city council issue a conditional r,
use permit to Defendants,/Petitioners under S23.01(5) which states
in pertinent part that a conditional use permit may be issued: _
"...5 To permit the location i.n any district oftemporary use which will not continue for more thanone year. For good cause shown, the VillageCouncil may renev, any such temporary permit." _
5. Alleges that said December il, lJ lA Planning Commission
recommendation was not based on Section 6.04 of the Chanhassen b
Zoning ordinance.
6. Admits that the Chanhassen City Council at its meeting
of February 20, Lg1g, after having reviewed the reports of its -
staff, considered the following options:
a) re-zone the subject premises to C-3, or -
b) amend Section 6 of the Zoning ordinance to
allow landscape businesses in the R-IA zone, or
c) create a new zone for landscaping businesses ' -
into which the subject premises could be placed, or
d) issue a one-year temporary conditional use permit
under 523.01 (5) , or -
e) enforce the ordinance as then written.
7. Admits that the City Council at said Februaty 20, 1919
-
meeting effectively denied Defendants',/Plai'ntiffsr apprication'
chosing the alternative of enforcing the ordinance, excePt that
no enforcement action was to be taken prior to Novemlcer 15, 1980 , -
provided that Defendant Natural Green, Inc. file with the city
adepositof$l,5oo.00topaylegalcostsincurredafterNovember
15,Igso,shoulditbenecessarytocofiunencelegatactionafter
thatdatetocomPelterminationofDefendants,Iandscaping_
business on the subject Premises'
8. Admits that Paragraph xI of the Petition for Writ of
-
Mandamus contains a t.rue and correct partial extract of the
Minutesofthechanhassencitycouncil'smeetingofFebruary20'-
L979.
g. SPecifically denies in total the allegations of Paragraphs
-XII and XIII thereof.
-2-
#k&e,''
+.: .
'b,;s4Fi .-,,rf-.hD-di.. -,
arbit'iry capricious and unreasonable nature ot pruiltir*s actions, is int0tal actionable under 42 u's'c'51gg3; that Defendants are therefor entitredto actual, norninal and punitive damages as well u, utto.n"y, faur.
H',EREF.RE' Defcn<Jants pray for juagnrcnt of the court as forows:'l . Denying the rel ief sought by pioint.iff .
- 2. Deternrining that Defend..rnts, use of the property is permitted underthe Ordinance, or
3. 0ctermininq that thc clcrrior of thc abovc. set forth apprication fora conditionar use pernrit was arbitary, capricous, discriminatory, confiscatory,il lcaal , unconsti tutional and void. ,4. That a t'rrit of r'randamus be issued directing that praintiff issue
a conditional use, pernrit for the use of thc surljcct, propcrty identicar to
Defendants, use of said property, or
5. For judgnrent for actual, nominal and punitive dan'ges under counter_
claims i through IV.
6' Renroving this nlattcr to thc UniLc, staLes District court in the
event the court finrrs it has no juris<rictio, over craims brought under 42
uscS 1 983.
l. For Defendants, costs and disburserrrcnts herein, includirig reasonable
attorneys fees.
g. For such other an, furthcr rclief ds the court deerns equitable.
r,i, -'-{...:-,ir. - ,,:t _'.."...,-...,,i
Michael A. Youi-qYTTtorney Et LawP.0. 67, 400 Chy'stnl,tzSt.iel
Chaska, t"tinnesota 5'5:iBsJ^u, rrtttrls)ut(6r2) 44S-3121
/-B-
r;
I,L
C0UNTERCLAfi'1S '
As alternativcs, jointly an<l sevcr.ally, to thc petition for Urit, of I .
Handamus asserted above, Defendants statc as follor.rs: i'J
, Rea'l lege paragraphs I throujh XII of thc t)ctition for a l.lrit of !4andaaus.
I
IIt. iE
Al1ege that a justicablc controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants
Iinvolving thc riglrts.rrrd liabiliLi('s of t.lrc p,rrtics under the Zoning Ordinance It/sct forth abovc.
r ,r. l,
Al leges tha't therc is no are'a othr.rr r.harr R-lA Agricul tural Residence LJ
Diltrict for whiclr the use referrcd to above is pcnnitted, and that accordingly
the Pjaintiff has cffective,ly zoned DefcndrnLs out of business v^,ithin the
city of chanhassen rrhich consLilutes a taking of private property without
just conrpensation first paid and secured, contrary to Article I, Section
13 of the Constitution of the State of l.linncsota.t
Reallege paragraphs I through xll of the Petition for a llrit of Handamus. I ,
II. TP
Affinnatively al'lege that the City Council repeatedly refused to conslder
Defendants' request for a conrlitional use pernrit unless Defendants' agreed
and deposited the sum of $1,500.00 with the P'laintiff to be used for legal
expenses to en.l Dcfendants'current use of thc property should legal action
be necessary " ., r .
III.
That said dernand l.ras not legitiilurte urrdcr any'-ection of the Zoning
r1
Ordi nance.
IV'
That said action constitutL's atLetnpturl cot:rcion within the nteaning of
M.S.A5609.27 Subd. l(2) and (3).rntl l'l.S.A.\6()9.275, Lhur crrLitlirrg 0efendants
to compensatory, nonrin.rl and punitivc tlanugcri-
t
too
_c.qu{L.qtti-
I.
COUNT Tl^lO
I.
lrLJ
L
t
t
t
t
IL
i,
tL
J,
L
_rc
oc
''l.lithin an R-lA Agricultural District, ilrc,follovring uses nraybe allovrerJ buL only uporr Urc 5c.cLrr.irr3',,i o Conctitional Use permit:
4.
'1.P.rrks and recreatiorrr I ufgr: r.l.rnlrl. flrrrl operatcd by govern_tucnLol units and rcs.idcntial rrcigtrl,urltoo[ assocjations.Non-profit schools, incluriing coitc,;ci,"ilaving a regularcoursc ot study accredi r-ed rry ttr,r siate oi t.li,r,,esota.Govcrnrrierrt owncd and opcralci civi,: an<! irt tr.at institu_tions includjnq, but noL I ini rltl tri, oJ,ninistrative officcs,'I ib'aries, public s;!-cLy bui..l ,Jirrq:,'uuJ lri'u.u, of ,rssernbly.Golf r:ourscs, trut nor inclLrtti,,i; ij;iri;; [u..r,.ungur, r"tniniatur'c ytll l' cour.:,cs o1;,e r.oLLr,i fo,. corrrmc,rcial purposes.Ceiltetat'ics.
Coiturrcrc i.r'l rad i <l ancJ tt: I cv i s i r.rrr Lr.,rrrsnii ss i on sta li orrs.Livinq rltrar-ter-s fc,r 1lep59ns, r,,rrployrtil on ih" prcnrises ofthe ;,tur-rrri ttcd usu.
2.
3.
R
6.
7.
iill"rr'ra, '
*:+t i+* .;-:*Iii{i^};l.**ird/r{: r.::;i i;r-+: : ;:r: i: . . :. l,
8. Greerrhrluses, tOol
'orr:,,:S
arrd :,rrtr i.i ar Strur_turCS aCCCSSOTyto ,: pr.ivrtc rcsidcnt tul u:a.
!i'
Sectiorr 23 crl thr: 0r.clirrlnce, trrti tit,,J
Ifortlr [c'requirerlicrri.: anJ st,jnJ.,,.ds frrr. tlr,.
pcrnrit. Dcfurrdantr;-peti tiorrer: .rpgt1.i t;ri trrr.
and contpl ied r.r j lh .r I I r.cqrrcsts r[adc lry thr:
and paid al l fces rcquestL:d by the planning
x.
That on Decernber 27, 1978, the Planning corrurrission unaninrously recommended
to the City Council that it grant the conditional use permit.
Further, Section 23.06 of the Ordinance statcs as..fo]lows:
"23.06 stand.rrds. No conditionar use.slrail be recommended by the. Planning Conrrnission unless it shal.l find:
1. That the estabrishnrent, maintenance or operation of thecohditionar use wi|r not be detrirncntar lo o,. enainqer the
- public health, safety, nrorals, corriforr, o. genoiii ui.tfu.u.2. That the condirionar use will nor be rn:uri6ui-to'tiie ,sea^nd enjoynrent of other.pror)erty irr thc iuu,cdiatc-vifinityfor the l)urposes already perriiLed, no. rrt sii"iiiii,dinrinish arrd inrpair properry varues within-i[e-neiq'huorhooa.3. That the'cstabr ishr'cnt oi ttri concri ti.nar-rr. ,,ii'i'iotimpede the norrrral and orderly dt-.vcr<lpnrent inJ irprorerentof thc surrounding propcrty ?or uscs pcrrnitted in the district.4. That the conditionar usc s-harl, irr .rri otnor:-ieip"iti, contormt0 the appr icable regur.rtions of Lhc dictrict i^'wrrich it is
I oca terl .
XI.
The city council considered i.he application at its mceting of February
20' .l979. The city council, wiilrout nrakinrl any fin<Jings or giv.ing an-v reason
for its decision, ncither grantcd nor dcnir:d uie appiication. It d.id, however,
cffcsgivllly deny rhe.pplication lry t.rkirrg tirc follo*ing action, as quoted
f rorn the Ci ty Counc i I rr.i nutcs of [:r:trr.u,r r.y :]0, .l979:
!:. : :,i r::::, . .:
rt-^ ., .
l;.:.!.
.Wj 1 1-'{.
"1l€?4i?l*:' ,":
F?'dia;.' i-?:=Yi. :
g:- -. i l"'
-l:,s*. |"-- -,:'.'
"Cc,rrrl it-iorral tJ:e Perrrrits,, scts
i:'iuancc of o condr'tional use
'-uch a conditional use permit
l)l,rr:rring Corrllission for inforination
Co;,irri ssi<ln.
that thc Plarrnirrq (.orlrrissiorr of 1,1,, irrLi I'f r.r,r-urnrrrcndc,rl that the City
council of Plaintil'f grant suclr a condit.ioni,l usc pcrririt; that the city -
Counci I fai led .rnd r.cf used to ,,rct on 0cf e rrrj,-,rrts, appl ication, and that i ts
failure to act t'/as unreasonablc, drbiLrir'/.:nd capricious and in violation of_
Deferrdants' Icaal arrd corrstitutionaI ri,;ht: as rDre par.ticularly set forth
in thc Countc,rclairrrs below.
0
Aff irrrntivcly al lege that
Ordinance is uncorrstitutional ly
@
VII.
tlre rlcfinition of Agricultural under the
vague.
vt ir .
Affirrrativr-'ly allcae that- l)rior to pur.chuse of tlre subject property
Dcfcndants adviscd Plaintiff, througtr I)l.rintiff,s agcnts and employees, of the
intended use df tire property; thaL 0cfc'rrrlarrts then specifically inquired as to-
vthether or not Lhcre rras atry llroblcrrr r.rlr.rtsue'rcr vrith thc intended use and
vrere adviscd by Piaintiff that tliere n.rl rro ProLrlenr with the intended.use; and_
that Plaintiff is thereby estoppccl frorl sccking thc relief denranded in the
cornplaint and has thereby !,aived any right it ruay have had Eo such relief.
IX.
Affirmatively allege that Plaintiff's tlairns are barred by the doctrine or
laches. -
x.
Affirnratively allege that tlre City Council of Plaintiff failed and refusec-
to acu on Defenclarrts' application for a conditional use permit unless Defendants
deposited vrith Pla'intiff the sum of $1,500.00 to be used for Phintiff's atton /'
fees shou'ld Plaintiff find it necessary to institute action to.ternrinate
Defendants' use of the property; that such a requirement is not found within
Plaintiff's Ordinance, that such a requirement is arbitrary, capricious, un""o]-
sOn.rble and unlarvful; rrnd furtlter that such action forecloses any equitable
rel icf for Plaintiff.
I'ETITION FOR PERtI4P'IORY IiRIT OF MANDAI,IUS
Defendants-Pclitioners, for ttreir pct'i tion for a Percrrtptory l'lrit of
!'landamus, state as follorvs:
I,
Thal Defendants-Petitioners Luse al.c the ovtncrs of certain real eState
located in the City of Chanh,rssun, Count.y of Carver, State of Minnesota
E.r t!
o
Exlr ibi L Il
Pagq 2 of 2
l; a pri,utl':::?::;ii.i"3l"houses and similar strucrures accessory
9. churches, but only if (a) the subject property liesentirery wiilrl?_:h: metropoiitar, ,irr".- service area, ds definedfrom time to time by the itetroporiti.,-'councir of the T\nrin citiesin its Dever?pTstt cuide, pursuant to section 473.L45 0f Minnesotastatutes; and (b) the subiect propeiiy-auuts a hard-surfacedstreet which is clesignate6 as ; *inoi'arterial street or correctorstreet on the city's Transportation prinr ds that term is definedin S4 62 . 352, Subd. 7 ;i- prin.,esota Statutes, and (c) the sub jectPropertv is designated as residenti."i Jn.the City,s ComprehensiveilHi:i5t: Stii;.:].Ih.t rerm is a"iin.J in s462.tsz, subd. 5 or
::,r
W:'
,;:),. ,
-tl-i;'-,F.
ts1,rr;!Gtit:.ir:i ,
:6:i\::..-
'::.:.i.:"'" ".
-r,
, ::i'
..":", -,.. -. .:
.?"t- "'
:lirgr r,.f':
'j;\,.Je?(.
.j;:1.'.:-," - .^ .r'; .,
,-rs.i-- :-
.- i.:r-: .,
:r-.)l
Uxlr ibi t A
That part of the Southeast euarter of the Southeast euarter ofSecLion 10, 'l'owrrship II6, Il.rnr;c 23, Clr-vcr CoulLy, l,lipnesotadescribed as forrows : iieginni;ig at'a -foi't o' the south rineof said Sourheas t euartei of tlic Soutircast euarter ciistant I95. O0fect West of t,hc SouLlreast corncr thcrcof; ihon"u West along saidSouth line a clistance of 361 . O0 f eet; - tirence ttortherly paraIIeIwith the uasr r inc of said^!.ut_hcast euartcr of Lhc southeastQuart.er a distance of 593.20 feet; tnJnce deflecting to the Right.at an angle of 62 degrees,.00 ,ninrtes,"OO secondi-i,airtance ofI50 feet more or rcsi to Lhe center ii,-,u of a creek; thenceEasterry arong said center l ine of th" -"reek to its intersectionwith a rine of a creek; thencc.Dast_crry arong saicr center rineof the creek to its i.ter section with a rine drawn l.rortherryand pararrer uriLh said East. Iine from ttre point oi-'uegir,ning;thence southerrl, along s.1id pararrei rino= to the point ofbeginning.
dr
::t' i
-. ;.,.;:.." : ,
, 1: -,. ',
:.',:'.'
.,.1..i;
,t' I '-l
't:
..:'r-!
..::: -
ltrdf r.
-: 1i:n
i*e,**
' I ::: ''-'i r .,-:lil :. .
L
vI .
that thc chanh.rssc' zoring orcrina,ce, originarry .aopteal
February 8, 1g.72, zoned the SubjecL l)r.crnises "lt-1A,,, Agricultural i-J
rtesidence District, and trre subjcct prcmiscs continucs to be so I
Izone<l .,.., ,.,:ti:.:. -.1 a. ... r.::,. . , . . _...,,.--i.., a .. LJ-'*' --..; { -'l .:..,,.'.-. 'i . $'ri-:l;.. ..' -.-.: - :. . -. 'i;+.-..'.,: j. - .'-.,-,:.:-.. -. .1..
i.,,.;'rt,,'-.=:.: That Scctions 6.02, 6.03, qrro 6.04, and the defi;itions l_i' of ,re tcrnr " agricur t,urc" as sct fr:rtlr i' scction 4 .02 0f the
, ,rjcr'u"nussen zoning ordinancu: "olrr:= of whi.ch sections ur. uaa."rr.ulr,,'' hereto as Exhibi.L B, set fort't'c only land uses which arel
,;, ,,, allowable in the R-IA zone. .r, ^: .r , .,...,-: -,.,.;-,,i.;..:,;,iil, ., .:,.i., I
' ..:". _- :;:
and consent of defendants Luse, is using the Subject premises tr
for the following pruposes, all in violatiorr of the Chanhassen
IZoning Ordinance:L
a) the sale and storage of agricultural products I. not produced on thc prcmiies, urra--- I
b) tlic sale and storagc of non_agricultural products, .H
,, c) the.storage, fabrication, siles and repair of. L. . sprinkler-systemi, -ina
Ig
d) the storage of exc.avating equiprnent and lrucks, and- . e) thc _storage and sale of rock products and wood . , .l. ..-. . producE,s, and .. .:.,.:.,!._ - . ,t I.,..:':..i:. ,. !!l
. . - .j .ti*a+,j..,--:,.:-! I
--1. .l ., . .- IX. .... , i. -'". :.: .. : i ,i.j
That the operationsof defcndant Natural Green, fn.. 1,,,t ..
upon the subject.r)remises cro not constitute an arlowabre use in I
ofi sccrion 'i.oz
," i. o, ';;i'i.'oi ' \;
Ix.:l*
Tl'rat to date, defe^dant, Natural Grcen, Inc., has not'r:
lterminated it.s use of tlre Subjcct prumiscs for corrunarciar
landscape and construction busincss lrurl,oscs
o
li" "r3;Ui
.ili: :' ,-
:rlF,:iI.r:l
;i;i1,i:'tilt:I:
, a:'j:-I-ISia:,49- !lt:,a.aq. .-"
1t
i
L
L
FIUSSELL H. LARSON
CRAIG M. MERTZ
OF GOUN3EL
HAFIVEY E,5I(AAR
MARK C, MCCULLOUGH
Dolliff, Inc.
2500 Dain TowerMinneapolis MN 554OzAttn: Daniel Hoffman
CMM:ner
enccc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
L..rnsoN & !funrz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I9OO FIRST BANX PLACE WEST
MINNEAPOLIS, M INN ESOTA 55402
April 22, I9BI
TELEPHON E
(6ra) 335-956s
Re: City of Chanhassen vsNatural Green, Inc. et a1
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
Enclosed you will find a copy of a counterclaim which was served
-!Pon tlt. City of Chanhassen in the case entitled City of Chanhassen vsNatura1Green,Inc.eta1.Thecounterc1aimsa11
-
th ts incurred damages as a result oi negligentmisrepresentations by City staff regarding zonj-ng regulations ippiicauteto the R-lA zone of the municipality. Enclosed you wi1l find l-copyof the Answer which r have interposed on behalf oi the city ofChanhassen as to these counterclaims.
While it is not clear from the counterclaims, I believe that theconversation, wherein the alleged negligent misrepresentations weremade, occurred during the period commencing in mid-summer L977 andending late in 1978. The counterclaims also pray for damages as aresult of an alleged attempt at criminal coercion and an attempt toviolate Natural Green's civil rights as protected by federal 1aw.
Because of the mixed nature of the counterclaims, I assume that your
company will want this office to maintain the defense of the'counter-
claims.
Very truly yours,
CRAIG I'1. MERTZ
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
.itl#,..ry':,
Donald W. Ashworth
Gity Manager
Page 2April 28, 1981
tr\rther, this letter does not constitute and is aot
intend.ed. as a wai'r/er or arrJr undisclosed, existing or
future violations of any other terms of the policy
contract.
It is r.rnderstood that attorney Mertz has already answered
the petitions for Writ of Mandamus and Counterclain and
will-take whatever actions are necessarJr to protect your
interests.
Sincerelyt,W
Suit Supenrisor
]Jff/Lg
cc: Irarson & Mertz
Attorneys at Traw
cc: Carver CountY AgencYAttn: Bob Vaodenbranden
l,!
lrLJ
L
L
!
L
i
liiJ
t.,,
t
T
L.
IL
I
Itr
Il'J
t.J
Donald W. AshworthApril 2L, 1981
Page Two
Countersuit Count I - Chanhassen has in effect taken defendantsl
Zoning Ordinance does not allow landscaping
businesses anywhere in the City.
Comment -Landscaping businesses are allowed in the C-3 zone.***
Countersuit Cggnt II - The Council's requirement that a $1,500.00
deposit be
the state
-TifeE-wlEfr the City constitutes "criminal coercion" under
criminal code.
Comment - In Eebruary of L979 the Council attempted to ameliorate
me Eardship of defendant's move from the subject premises, and
arguably should be allowed to attach reasonable conditions to any
time extension granted to defendants.***
Countersuit Count III In July of L977 Mr. Pankonin misrepresented
use regulations which govern use of R-lA
properties.
Comment - It is believed that defendants omitted material facts
wfren-A^escribing the nature of defendant's business to lt4r. Pankonin.
Countersuit Count IV - In July of L977 Mr. Pankonin was negligent in
neIandusere9u1ationswhichgovernuseofR.IA
properties.
Comment - It is believed that defend.ants omitted material facts
ffien-aescribing the nature of defendant's business to lv1r. Pankonin-***
countersuit count v - The city, under color of Iaw, acted to deprive
ffi civil rights
comment - The Iaw is in a state of flux regarding whether
-
-...munrcl-pall-El-es are "persons" whg may be- Sued' under the Federal Civil
Rights act. In any Lvent the matter will turn on whether the Court
believes Mr. Pankonin or believes Mr. Luse concerninq the July L977
informal discussions regardin, ani*l=e of the subject premises'
We assume that Mr. Luse will want to settle this matter based on the
grant of an extension of time to remain on the property for a further
period of years. The City Council's position seems clear' Accordingly'
we will reject any such proposals and. attempt to get the matter on the
trial calendar as soon as possible'
Vqry trulY Yours , D,-.
:,-'.. -,u-, -):t -t4la,
CRAIG M. MERTZ \
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
#"-jffi
Minnesota Department of '[ransportation
District 5
2055 No. Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, N'linnesota 55422
,/o //--Los.P. /o/<-28
L
(6 r 2)545-376r
city fur rb:to--
Attached is a final plan and.proposal al-ong with a resolution for your
council's approval.
We must have one certified copy bearing the cityrs seal prior to
Kindly retu:n the certj-fied and sealed resolution to:
C.E. Weichselbaun
Pistrict State Aid Engineer
llinnesota Department of Transportation
2055 l{orth Lilac. Drive
Goiden 'y'alJ-ey, llinnesota 55422
An Equal OqPorluttitY EmPloyec+@
I
-
li
Attention: O t
(Mn/DOT 2521 (8/78)
Counciluan
RESOLUTION 81 - 068
FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL
At a meeting of the City Council of the City o1 Chanhassen
held on the 16th day q; March , 19 81, thefollowing Resolution wasoffuredby
D,a1e Gevlng
secondedby Councl.lnan Clark Horn
to wit:
WHEREAS the Commissioner of the Department of Transportation has prepared a preliminary layort
for the improvement of a part of rrunk Highway Number-Lrenumbered as Trunk Highway 11o. 212
within the corporate limit of the City of
West Corp. Lfunlts tO Er ct llara f .{'{ r o
Cttanhassen from thc l.Iorth
; ild seek the
approval thereof, and
WHEREAS said preliminary layouts are on file in the Office of the Depanment of Transportatim,
Saint Paul, Minnesota, being marked. labeled, and identified as layout No. 1A S.P. 1013-38-,
(212 --51) fr€rn 0.2 M1. East of T.H. 41 to Chanhassen Easterly Corp. LlnLrs.
I
(
NOW. THEN, BE lT BESOLVED that said preliminary layour for the improvement of said Trunk
Highway with the corporate limis be and hereby are approved.
Upon the call of the roll the following Council Members votd in favor of tfre R6olution
Havor Hanllton. CouncLlnen Gevlng and Horn
The following Council Members voted against its adoption:
whereupon the Mayor and/or the presiding officer declared the Resolution adopted.
Dated 16th Day of M4!sh
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
CITY OF
ol ChanlLassen
day of March , 19 8l , at which a majority of the members of said Council
\ivere present, the foregoinq resolution was adopted.
Calarer
ls.
)
)
)Chanhassen
I do hereby certify that at said meeting (of which due and legal notice was given) of the City Council
, Minnesota, on the ]!g
C
Given under my hand and seal this 3rd
-
dav of Anrll , l9 81.
BEt.q!_ur.l_9.r.
WHEREAS, the County of Carver has submitted to the Commissioner of Transportation
the plans and specifications for the improvement of Lyman Boulevard (CSAH #18)
from C.R. 17 to T.H. 101.
WHEREAS, state-aid funds will be expended on the improvement of this street,
and
WHEREAS, the approved state-aid standards as applicable to this proiect Iimit
and restrict all parking to that which is paral1el with the curb.
Nohl, THEN, BE IT RESoLVED that said City of Chanhassen shall require that parking
of a'll vehicles within the corporate limits on this County State-Aid Highway be
parallel with the curb in accordan.. ,ith the State-Aid Standards.
Dated
State of Minnesota )
County of )ss
City of
I do herebY
copy of a resolution
Chanhassen, Minnesota
day of
said meeting in mY Possession.
certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct
presented to and adopted by the counc'il of the city of
at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the
, 1981, as shown bY the minutes of
, 1981.
Mayor
Attest
Cl erk
( SEAL )
City Clerk
\s
_t L__
CITY(CF
ffiEflffiBflEfl&$5EE{
690 COULTER DHIVE . P.O. BOX 147 O CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: City Engineer, BilI l"lonk
DATE: April 21, 1981
SUBJ: Near Mountain
comments from a review of the preliminary plat are as folrows:
Streets
The access from this plat to Pleasant View Road has previously been
reviewed ano. discusseo in detail, but in terms of vehicular safety and
road maintenance .uhe proposed intersection is unacceptable. A standardtrTri intersection is cresirable but an increase (softenj-ng) of the westradius is a minimum requirement.
The intersection ac Town Line Road should be shifted to the east as
far as possible. This will a1Iow a greater separation with Vine HiIl
Road and mininize possj-b1e traffi-c conflicts for southbound. traffic.
Utilities
No utility plans were submj-tted with the plat so it is difficult to
make speciflc comments. The feasibility is not in question but the
construction of sanit,ary and storm sewers will have to be reviewed by
this office in relation to the proposed staging plan.
General
Iroquois shoulcl not be vacated as a part of this plat but' instead
remiin dedicated until the development of Outlot A.
The phasing plan review is base<l on traffic flow and elimination
of lonq aeia-ends for acccss and street maintenance.
Phases I ancl 2 should be combined'
consideracion siroultl be givcn to developing ph:ses 6 , i
and B next to allorv for ihe double access as soon as possible.
g/rnl r.._iL
il
s
BI
Eil
Eil
g
g
g
g
Mr. Don Ashrvorth -2-November 30, Lg7
I
!
Staff Recommendation
r recommend that the city council approve the preriminary deveropmentp1an, rezoning, and subdivision for^ih; subject proposal with thefollowing conditions:
1- That outrot B in the Near Mountain preliminary plat datedAugust 24, r979, be dedicated easement for pedestrianwaypurposes' lhat pedestrianways plarured, ;i;"; street sectionsbe separated from the street-. - - _-
2' That the street referred to as Near Mountain B1vd. whichextends north into the shorewooa portio" "i
-trre
development,and the road extending from Near Mountain Brvd.'be proposed,condominium area on Near Mountain, t;-;;nslructed, withdriving surfaces 36 feet in width: -- :---- -
3' That the applicant receive an environmentar assessmentworksheet reviero and approvar from tha-il;fronmentareuality Council.
4- That the appricant.receive all necessary approvalsof the-Riley.purgatory creek watershed, District fortand alteration pennits.
'5' That the proposed covenants and restrictions are foundto be.acceptable by the planning Commission, City Counciland City Attorney's office
5' That the clty.Engineer finds the later phased constructionof the condominium and townhome area not to be detrimentalto the earlier phased construction and. the surroundingproperty with regard to utillties, grading and drainaje.
7 - That the applicant dedicate outLot B, and satisfactoryportions of outrot A for purposes of rinear pedestria-n
8. That the applicant be required to to instalr concretecurb and gutters on all streets within the plat.
9 - That the appricant be required, to dedicate sufficientright of ways determined by the city engineer to accoinmod,atethe pedestrianway as shown on exhibit e-or the pranning
Commission meeting of October 17, L97g
10- That the final plat, and./or clevelopment contract delineatethe protection areas in the vicinity of Near 1lountainryhere development is prohibitecl-
11- Tha h the ;rpp Lic-rnt prcvide pro j cctccl traf f ic volumes forthc intcrsection of I1TII l-01 .1od pleasant vierv Road.
I I
i
-1
I
-T
I
l
T
I
I
I
I
T
:I
e,,,y euusLvLl J1 t)lJ -4-
conrnents l{ere receiveu, councilrnan lleveaux moved to u{urore the fol'lo,;ring iiems'pursuant to the 9itV l4anager,s recommendations:
0"3;,ull'i3,ti;il':r^i:3rs;:;: uno Lr;a;;-P;,1..t 71-1, set special r4eetins Date
c. Develooment Contract Approval, Richard Ersbo, Lake Lucy Road.d. set sobciar Ma;ii;;-o.i5,"oec6moei e,-rg-)9, at 9:00 a.m., rour r979Public Improvement proj.iti. --'
Motion seconded by councilman Geving.' The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs,Councilmen pearson, Neveaux, Ge;ing]'una'l;.;;;;. No negative vores. Motioncarried.
i
NEAR MOUNTAIN' ?RELii4lNARY DEVEL0PI4EIIT PLAN: Council members modif ied two ofitsiea tn ,ul", niiiriunt Manager/t_UC,sreport of November.30, 1979. .. :2' Approve the.preliminary-development plan-including the subdivision withthe condition that n9 silg].-family ioi u.-i*uil.. than-.11,700 square feet.5. That the street widlhs as sh-own on:tnl .*r.,iuii b; ;;;;pi.a.,
councilman Pears.on.moved to approve the.preliminary development plan as amendedthis evening. Motion seconded'by counciirin iir.rron. The following voted infavor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen pearson, N.r.uux, Geving, attd Swenson. Nonegative votes. Motion camied.
REASSIGNMENT OF CITY EASEI,IENT FO I, ZAPIOR ADDITION:
horizing _the l4ayor and city r4anager to execute a quitciaim aeba..r"uring Lot r, Brock rfrom the sign easement. Resolution t..o,iJ.i-uv c.rr.iri,.r-ir"nion. The followingvoted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, councirmen pears-on, Neveaui, 6;i;g, and swenson.No negative votes. tr4otion cirried. - v, arru Jwerrson
f
councilman Neveaux,moved to adjourn. l,lotion seconcied by Councilman s;enson. LThe follorving voted in favor: -Maygr Hobbs, couniiirJn-"p.i.ioi, n.r"aux, Geving,and swenson. No negative votes. Motion ci.ii.a. r'r".tirg'iijir.n.d at l'l :45 p.m.
I
Don Ashr^rorth
Ci ty Manager
L-
..C: ,..
- Fii:
ifi,.' increased to 36-inch.
-:,.4:,-r-.
',i!,;1..: CONCLUSIONS:
.:a-tar '-
\ , SCHOELL Et MAtrlSON,trvc.\
')ii{.:,i:;;;; city of chanhassen,,,,,'*. c/o Mt. Bob I^Iaibel, Assistant
!:,., CitY }{anager
;'.).;.:;;' Page 2
',Sl.T:.i . .',,
'':'+i'.:..
,,i1 ..- ": WATERMATN- r""::
''>rt'tu--
. . r.r. . .,'.1:r : :. 1_11.-;f, i' :..:'iir .:,.i. , ,'r,r, r:.iii".:.,.' Sj.ze of the rva-uermain is not shown.' We recommend. 8-inch on ':il*'-&Sf.Ze OI ttl€ lV&-uefmal-n Ls nOE snOwTl- we recommenq. t1-f,-ncn On ";x.etZ:fr--=
ttre main street and 6-inch on the cul-de-sacs. Since cul-de-sac 't.':.-ri,.,E t
'rErt is in excess of 5OO feet, we suggest the watermain be looped '.:'..'-
internally within the d.evelopment , or looped to existing teater on ' ' -t r - -t""t
t"t' - 'r' i '''''iir'1;-t't;*!-1
DRATNAGE woRKS ' 'r ''u ':t- 't'.i'lt
"it'--;'-':'t.'
-
: :.: ...... .. .:-..=.*f,;r'-.l
;:::. Pro^oosed d.rainage works appear to be ad.equate with tfr" o"Lp- :-*E !
1:,-:!,,':, tion that the 30-inch dischargl-pipe at t.5% grade shou].d be :::':, ..
.:--l: increased. to 36-inch : :'tr-E
' .: : : :-:i iii a. ., .;.::',1
we recommend approval of the plans sub ject to tl.e itbms , , .''l' :'
tl-'E
-E
specifically noted. In terms of street grades, WQ recommend - -l
waiver of the 7% maximum grade limitation in favor of ttre grades. j i-a,:..-.r':'E-t
proposed- The site simply does not facilitate 7l.maximrrra grades ..* F g
-landwefee]theproposedgradesareacCeptab1e:....:''..:'.
very trury ,o,,'=", ' ,i- ' .r.'-
t t t
l. l' 'm
---\ '' ::,- i '-lsc*oELL & Iv^DsoX"it
" it';,11'' -' ;'*ET
"---'. . . --l
'.....: .-.:..-. _,
. .- \'-.! !,.ill r '
:-r. ..'
- i.t,';j-
l
- :ii :i' .'-.. t-'
';":,ti..
.- r i. -.-r\ llrt
Planning Report (-2-
easement, a pedestrian-way easement be declicated,that is 8 f eet wide \irith I+ foot on either sid,e -''. t
for purposes of maintenance (the above would nullifvthe proposecl 20 foot trail easement indicAted on th;:proposed preliminary plat dated May 12, 1980, withthe understanding that the above described. easementwould be established upon completion of a feasibleroute rvithin the conservation easement) .
2l . That the applicant and its contractors, incl-uding .'-..:.-home builders, carry out the construction of 'r'-t!- ... improvements and, structures in accordance with the i';1"' : .
requirements setforth by the Riley Purgatory Creek "!r l
Watershed District, and the Soil Conservation Service . :Evaluation Report dated June 18, 1980. (Th'e City Council
recommend.ation is that the approvals be obtained, beforetheir review of the preliminary plat- For gualificationpurposes, the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed Districthag given a conditional approval in their May 5, -'*':" ."1980, correspondence, however, the Soil. Conservation ::'j.-Service, being an ad,visory bod.y, will not given such -*-.".
approval. However, I believe such may be satisfied,
through carrying out their recommendations that were '.. .,-
noted. in their evaluation report).
i r Jury g, lggo I\r
._5,-
n
v
-*
G>
aF
3). That extra precautions be taken so that removal of : ':'.
existing vegetation may be kept to a rninimum during i ..
.'5 \p
{
A',t -
s).
For reasons of soil conditions and slopes, the building t--
plans for all residences proposed rvithin the subject- ..,-.,-. 3development should, be certified by an architect or I ':'l: I
;irii-L.,gir,."r registered in the state of }linnesota-,..';,.,.,, .,,-,
: ' ' '-'"-:-. ^'-'. ..."rtt
That the applicant be required to post sufficient .,:..- ;-"}-"i.'C I
escrows to assure that tlie degree of engineet:tg--:l'"i-'' ;1:'- ';. 11'
and inspection is carried, out as recomm6ta.a .by-the-r;:*;xi',ii1i,:q
Riley Purgatory creek lrlatershed District and, the -;.:,_!; '',',::.*lii ISoil Conservation Service-
i
*r -<.
.:
i
1
E
=
/CARVER ECONO}IIC COUNCIL - FARMER'S IVIARKET
Bob l,'Iaibe ve his comments and recommendations.
)
1
l,
I
T
t.
tI
fl
1[
l:
It
l
li
t:
'l
nn'
I i)tanairman Horn the public hearing.
l.like Thompson seconded
subject to Bob Waibel's
6oncert:ed about
ted abouL this atrcl
Scott/Car Economic Corrtrcil,
Knorr of St. H t's Church, He
and, responsibilities the Economic
i.t''Tom llami]'ton mo
,/
, and Walter ThomPson seconded to
""'hearing-
the advisorythe notice
r *=:*.David Pease, rePresenting
I ,,.rr theY had, sPokenwith Fathe'| "4- ;;;i"i;"a-it" Pioc"ay6
stated,further
Council,
PubIr.c
iox cgasE -'rrN4L DEvELoPTYEN" PIAN
to apProve
conditions-
ttre conh L*q
carIvJotion
I #.f:p lfaibel presented' the review and his reconlmendati.ons-
.FranHeigenillustrated'theplantothecommission'
| ff[i"re was d.iscussion on the size, an. change of number of ,ots, grade
l-*t*ii$ray easement, use of iraiL and' the cond'itions and terms Of st'aff-
':'",- iiilter ThonPson moved', Jim,Thomps<
l,*_.il3i'A;;-;i.i a.t"q ir,"r-iz, ,.gbo,, revised. t4ay 22, legor BS a final
i #S-f developnrent plan ,na {f.it the comnents and recolnmendations mad'e by
- rff'+taaff be tnclud,ed'.
. '-il- , ..
I.,m:ftive votes: Mike Thonpson and' Art Pa1-tr_idSer d'ue to density
| ='rrr***r-"' -+a:,r*7,?a-1 +.. .
.l
I .if1i:,.,-,-!.E?q-Y/..j-. i.... . ..
I t','.,',
.'--.*..... .-
---------- :--::3
L-I I Y l |.-
ffi ffi? L-\fl
H,heu
a:
7610 LABEDo DBrvE op.o. ,?J;rl;:#fl*orsEN, MTNNESoTA 5s317
A
Ftffi
eru
I
i
T
II
{
I
. II4EMORANDUM .," .1.
'ii.:**'- '' fj'".."t#'ile'ig: '',rury L7 , I glc
.}l.TO z ' '. City Manager, Don Ashworth
. -s'f: -..,iii--;"* *d..-,.,.;'- -..'.- .,..,., ,: .. ...:.
FROM: - Land Use Coordinator, Bob IfaibeL . .. .-
*-..{,y,:r j .^
:*:'.:.:1SUg.f: Final Development Plan Review, Fox Chase Add,ition
APPTICAI{T: Derrick Land, Co.
,ffi3ramlrNc cASE: P-6L4
:=' ,:-Xpr':Attached please find the planning materials sent
###gem,missioi for their revi.eir of the subject final
and, the minutes of that review.
to the Planning
development pl.an
'HfiHJ vou rsill note in the attached planning report of Jul}' 9, 1980,
w-.,-*thiE office had indicated to the Planning Commission that the
proposed. final development plan for Fox Chase showed' an increase
ffi;i-i-i"i=-"ver what tire city council had approrrecl at theirHf:Irtieliminary development, plan revierv. The Planning Cornmission,
'ir.-.is noted i; the minutes of .fufy 9r 1980, had discussed this issue,
,#d*raand, voted to approve the f inal d'evelopment plan. aS propcsed ';S.S65itir""gf, . it i's'not certain froro the minutes - that the specific I
;:::-;;;="rr'io= the two nesative votes was tfie subseguent addition of trvo
_:':.r,IotJr-tfrey (the 'votes)- were relative to lie proposed d,ensity of the
--ffi{if-aevelopment .. )"i'r": . ' ;. :'"' ':
*F+rlE; -;;;""r derivered verbarty by the city Ensinesq at the Prannins-i;( ;;;d;;;"r;;il*l;"rrri;h-i; ,,"ot in"ruded in rlre re'corc], is thar the
*,fr:tt.i,qilv i"gj-"eer reconlmends .an rB" gravel equivarency for street stand'-
v"'a & '<r.iri{.il, afcls.
',.. . ., ;wfr/-Jli/
ia":.'.:....Manager's Comments: In revierving staf f , Plauning Commission, Crl ty..;r';*@rney.sreportsonthisitenr,tlrisofficebe1ieves
th; following conditions shoul-d additionally be established:
55 Iots were proposed by the developer during sketch plap
revicrv. Follbrving discussion rvith the Planning Commission,
neighborhood, etc. a revised plan ref lecting 49 lots rvas
appioved, by the Plarnning Commission at the preliminary
development pJ-an hearing:. The City Council approved. the
-rJ lti z --:ls}:tli
::'l
{-i^' ''
\
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - \pril 7, 198O -4-(
* LINGELHUTZAND McMULLEN
Pearson ..-ra.eyll:3X.:: :;;.:;3..i1 8"I::ii3ilr-
*::_;"?: tI*: r:l-,1":: :.: :I L ya : f-iio *, -It;:. ;",i|f; .;il: ::;. 1.i:; :"::i:i::1,i:^.1: :i:d-y:: c:::9i";a;,;; -;";;;;="r-inlii,,i, "i;B;:':l; ::clarified in the above noted *i""t.".--i"i'I" Iinii"il."il;r"l"oii.
VIEW, SUNRTSE
sent,yg.\r\*9r\Udtll/L\JrvrrANY:t(o9erperrickandJohn@se
liffi?i'?lpi"v:-il"-nroposa1isa52residentj.a11ot;*:,:::^t?:. lylln- :?":h of -p rlasi"t view-R;;; -;;a*i"I."ir' ililI"iii: .
::_1i:::: :k! ln" 9]., ,".=o.,ibrv .o""idered all iri"r,i"Irffi"rli
::ff?:i:l^:.r... patterns sertins to and beins extenJea from rhe proposedsubdivision.
1- That the applicant receive approval of their grading. plan, drainage plan and erosion control plan irom the Soir" Conservation Service, the lvlinnesota Oepartment of NaturalResources and the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed Distrj.ct;2. That said approvals be received prior to the matter beingresubmitted_to the City Council ior preliminary plat appioval;3. That the pedestrian and conservation easement poition 6ithe proposed development must be shown by the ipplicant tohave such soil conditions as would a1low for the- developmentof such facili-ties, and that the applicant,s soil conditionevidence is to be reviewed by the City Engineer.4. That the applicant prepare cur-de-sac plans for the roadwayportion in the vicinity of lot 20, block 3 and lot 24,brock 1. said prans are to be reviewed and approved by thecity engineer.5. Paved street surfaces are to be 36 feet wide and pavedcul-de-sacs are to be 32 feet in dianreter.6. That the Park and RecreaLion Commission review alternativetrai-I locations between Pleasant View Road and the con-servation easement and is to submit a recommendation tothc Ci-ty Counci1.
llotj-on approved. Ayes - AIl.
t--
:.i:..
.,!._ ..
'ti-:.- +i; :)?. ..
..,-,
A motion was made by councilman.Geving and seconded by councilman swensonthat the subdivision and prelimirr.ry d"v"top*ent pian of Derrick Landcompany be approved contingent upon the foliowingi----
That there be a conservation easement along the entirelake shore; andThat there be a trail arong the east line of the platfrom Pleasant view Road to the conservation easement area.
The- following voted in favor: Councilmen Geving and Swenson. Thefollowing voted against: Acting lIayor Neveaux ind Councilman pearson.Motion failed _
A motion was made by councilman Pearson and seconded by councilman f .
Swenson to rezone the subject premises to p-I and to approve the 52 L_lot preliminary development-plan as depicted on the westwood elanning -preliminary plat dated April 1, 1980, lubject to the following """aj-tions:
I.
2.
l
Page I 0
PI anni ng Commi ss i on Mi nutes
Near Mountain
Near Mountain. FinaI Plat:
Mr. I,laibel read the Planning Report to the Planning Comm-
i ssi on. Mr. l.lai bel recommended approval of the Fi nal Pl ansprovided that the City Engineer approves of the Plan.
, Mr. M. Thompson asked about the access onto P'leasant
View Road. It was indicated that at one time there was aproblem with the access but has been cleared up now. Theroad has been made so that traffic can only turn to go tol0'l to keep traffic off the major portion of Pleasant View
R,oad.
l,lr. l^l. Thompson made a motion to recommend to the City
Council approval of Final Deve'lopment Plan (Exhibit A, 4-22-81of Near Mountain with the exceptions of City Planner and
the City Engineer in the Planning Report dated 4-2.|-8'1.
Second by Mr. M. Thompson. 6 - ayes, Mr. M. Thompson opposed.
Mr. M. Thompson stated that he has never been in favorof this project.
Minnewashta Creek 2gd ASldition, B-each Lot-Dock Request:
Mr. Waibel submitted the planning report to the P'lanning
Commi ssi on. Mr. Mertz expl ai ned that there i s an outstani ng
condi ti ona'l use permi t on thi s propert.y stati ng that there
be no docks be permitted. The conditiona'l Use that is on this
property was passed by the City Councij July 1979 and no docks
were permitted then.
Mr. Terry Thompson,
they just wanted to get
smal l.
one of the applicants, stated that
a dock because the outl of i s real'ly
Mr. J. Thompson stated that with the conditiona'l use
Permit that is on the land already the applicants chances
are very n'i I I that they wou I d get thei r request.
Mr. Partri dge i ndi cated
dock wi th B s I ots . there are
?nd Addi ti on and 6 are duPl ex
guide used for this Plat.
Ms. !,latson i nd'i cated that i f they were permi tted the dock
they coul dn't keeo thei r boats there over ni ght beclYSe that
i s another condi ti on that there be no overni ght docki ng of
boats.
that the reouest is for a 50' x 20
36 I ots i n the Mi nnewashta Creek
I ots. Po1 i cY for Ri tters Pl at i s
Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes
Derri ck
Ms. watson made a motion that the planninq commissionrequest that the deve'loper dedi cate a ri ght of way 50' i nwidth between Lots 26 & 27, Block I for possible future zndaccess. Second by Mr. M. Thompson. 5 aye, Mr. Noziska,Mr. Partridge, Mr. l.l. Thompson - nay. Passed.
Mr. Conrad made a motion that we maintain the Conservation
Easement, this Conservation Easement wi'l 'l not allow the alter-ation of lakeshore and installation of structures includingprivate docks. Second by Mr. Noziska. 6 - ayes, Mr. M. Thompsonnay. Passed.
, Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the developer be requiredto dedicate a trai'l easement originating on the southerly lineof the p'l at wi th i n the Uti 'l i ty easement commens i ng at the
souther'ly edge of the property and lyi ng northerly to the south'l ine of Lot 12, B'lock'l according to Exhibit A and running
westerly at that point to its point of intersection of Fox
Path as designated i n Exhi bi t A thence conti nuing northe! l"y wi th
the right of wa.y of Fox Path to intersection of Pleasant View
Road. Mr. t,l. Thomoson seconded the motion. A'l 'l in f avor.
Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the P'lanning Commission
recommend to the City Council that the 0utlot may be incorporated
into the individual properties as shown in Exhibit A since
they have virtually no utility as an 0ut'l ot. Second by Mr.
Noziska. All in favor.
Mr. l^l. Thompson made a
recommend to the City Counci
be accepted but the Pl anni ng
such be subject to the modi f
Moti on was wi thdrawn.
moti on that the Pl anni ng Commi ssiI that the Exhibit A. (4-22-8t)
Commi ssi ons recommendati ons for
i cati on previ ous'ly apProved.
on
|v|r. Conrad made a motion that a permanent cul-du-sac be
recommended on the west end of Fox Path. Second by Mr. M. Thompson
5 aye - Mr. l'.l. Thompson and Mr. Nozi ska opposed. Passed'
Mr. l^,. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission
present to the Ci ty Counc'il approval of Exhi bi t A to i nc'lude
!f.r. recommendati oni to the subiect property as previously
ippror.a. -Second by Mr. Noziska. Mr. 1n1. Thompson and Mr.
Noziska - aye, 5 - naY. Fa'i led.
Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission
recommend to the' City Counci I to reiect the proposed p1 anned
aevel opment (Exhi b'i t A) based on the prev'ious 9 moti ons unti I
thev are met. Mr. Conrad Seconded the moti on. 6 i n favor
t'1i." w. Tnompion absta'ined. Passed.
Page 6P'lan!ing Commission MeetingDerri ck
struct structures that means no docks. Mr. Hai bel i ndi cated.th9t on !h" p1 ans the Conservati on Easement i s shown to startbetween Lots 1z and I3 and then along the Iakesh;.;.' Theutility Easement and the co4servation Easement are in thesame pIace. Mr. Derrick indicated that he ij againiI tr,"Conservation Easement if it prevents the lakesh6re fror. ownersf.rom havi ng docks.
Mr. Derrick explained to the planning commission that if theroad.(Fox Path)_would be moved to th; east Dropertv line itwould create a Iot with 2 road sides and that would make theI,ot undesirable. There are nice trees that wou'ld have to betaken down and it would mean an extra 100 feet of i.*." and road.
Ms. Nancy 0sborne, a property owner, expressed concernover Fox Path. she feels that in the winter there wiil notbe enough of a run to make it up pleasant View Road.
Mr. t,{. Thomoson made
Second by Mr. L. Conrad.
opposed.
a motion to close the Pub'l ic Hearing.Vote: 6-ayes , 1 -nay. Mr. M. Thompson
Mr. Mertz explained that the Planning Items that thePlann!!g commission should discuss and recommend to the cityCounci'l are the street width, Znd access, road a'l ignment,
number of 'lots and the conservation Easement. The rest areAdministration items such as building permits, previously instal'led
assessments, grading and public improvements.
Mr. J Thompson expressed concern of all the fil'l ing andmoving of land east of Fox Path that is proposed to be up to12'in height. The Planning Commission has been told thatthis process is the problem of the builder but Mr. J. Thompsonstates that as the Planning Commission they have a responsib'ilityto the people who are going to buy the property, and thisshould be'looked into more carefully. Mr. J. Thompson indicatedthat he 1i kes a combi nati on of the I ast two proposa'l s , maybe
could take out lot 26 of Exhibit A and make that for future
cons i derati on for an easement to the south. Mr. J . Thompson
suggested that the road be curved more gently and the 32'
wi dth of the road was expressed. The Conservati on Easementis necessary.
Page 4
Planning Commission MeetinqDerri ck
Mr. l.Iai bel suggestedcou'ld be made to stop 30put a cu'l-du-sac on i t.
to the Commission that Fox Path40' from the property I i ne and
5. Requested that the planning commission considerthe soi I condi ti ons i n the subject area. The wateri s just be'low the surf ace i n tIe meadow area. - -
Mrs. Schwartz Dresented a map showing the high watertables in the past. The neighbors aitea tha[ [4r.Monk, the Cit.y Engineer, take a cJoser looli at theproperty.
6. It was brought up the the DNR and the corp of Engineershave not been notified and that they should be n5tlfied.
7. The neighbors also requested that the 0utrot area berei ns ta ted.
John Edwards, a nei ghbori ng oroperty owner, i ndi cated thatin the past he felt that the neighboring property owners requesthad been i gnored. The p'l an approved z years' ago had 49 un i tsthen 50 units then 52 units. Mr. Edwards stated that theproper!y cou'ld be wel'l p.l attgd wi thout destroyi ng the areamqybe if less density. Mr. Edwards also exorEssed his concernwith Fox Path dead eirding into the adjoining property.
Mr. Jim 14eyer, neighbor,in the subject property. Mr.'looked at the soi I and i t was
bui 1 dabl e and that i t was not
i ndi cated concern over the soi lDerri ck repl i ed that he hadpossible to make all of the'lotsa complicated process.
Mr. Derri ck i n reply to the nei ghbors previ ous I i st ofrequests indicated that he had tried to work with the neighbors.Mr. Derrick explained the he had changed the plat from 54 unitsto 52 uni ts, removed the outl ot and changed the road. A'l 1 theIots are over the I5,000 square foot minimum lot size, thereouest that Fox Path be made smaller was agreeable with Derrick.
Mr. W. Thompson stated that 2 years ago the feeling ofthe P'l anni ng Commi ssi on was that i n the future the property
should have a second access and also requested a 36'widthin order that the road would have a safety zone before entering
P'leasant View Road. At that time there was a recommendationthat having Fox Path on the east orooerty be looked intoMr. 1^1. Thomoson i ndi cated that f rom al I the response f rom the
crovrd that there needs to be more changes and that th'i s i tem
cannot be recommended to the Ci ty Counci I yet.
Mr. Jim 0rr, from Schoell & Madson, indicated that the
second access wi I I end up cutt'i ng down some trees and therewill be a grade oroblem. Fox Path will have about 60'platform
before enteri ng Pl easant Vi ew Road, both vi ews of the road
are reasonable. If Fox Path were moved to the east, it would
Planning cornmissio(
Assessments
The question of assessnents onreport will be submitted to theaffect the preli.minary plat.
-*2/rJ*
(April 20, 1981
.Ll
tr
IJ
tt
!
U
U
tt
tl
Ll
Ll
tl
Ll
U
tJ
Ij
IJ
tl
U
final development contract is in effect.for DNR and Corp of Engineers permits-ioto both have been made. The aiplicationinvolves the City Councilr so ilain, itri"preliminary plat.
This would also allow timebe received since applic"tionfor an excavation pllmititem does not affect the
t!1" property is under study and aCity Councilr but this item does not
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
L5 April 1981
page 3
I
GRADING PERMIT We are unsure what constitutes a Chanhassen grading fermit ontr?E"ffipt*nt. We, of course, have the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed permit
(coPy attached). In fact, they have, in effect, approved both road allgnments --one in the original appllcation and the second at the renewal. We will obraln thenecessary DNR penrits before grading ln DNR protected land. Additl.onally, we w111grade oni.y that Property that ls common to both ro'ad alignments until that, issueis settled. We have a flrm agreement wLth an earth moving company, but the favorableprice we obtained requires that the gradiag start ln May. The gradlng contractorwill suPPly the bond required by the watershed distrlct to lnsure agalnst unwantederosion damage. : ,.,-,,. .r.l .
' . -; .-'.' :''l '-..:" .' 'i':'-tr'i.':'
REQUEST: Pernit to rough grade Fox Chase subJect, co: i '-'-:: : -1i::l':':i -'a. Terms <if Watershed perait, including required bond; i r. '.
b. Necessary DNR perudt; . ,, , ,
c. Not grading area where appllcation for street change has been -made until final determlnation-
Slncerely yours,;
..':-.., -'Roger
Derrick Land
riEk, President
Company
cc:FC/DF
Corres/AwtgRpls
Craig Mercz
Jim Or
Bob WaibeL
[)EHHIC!< LAND COMPI\NY
,177O SHELARD TOWER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55426
PHONE 612/546:2276
15 April L98l
MAYOR AND COTINCIL
ilrrv or cIIANHASSEN
c/o Mr. Don Ashworth
7610 Laredo Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, lli.nnesota
55317
RE: Fox Chase
Chanhassen, MN
Dear Mayor and Council:
We request thar Ehe Planning Commission consider, at the public hearing on 22 Aprl1
L9g1, and you consider aE rhe 4ltay 1981- Council I'Ieet,ing, the p1-at for Fox Chase'
including the changes and other consideraEions discussed below'
NWBER oF Lors There has been a great deaL of discussion of the number of lots
to #Ea1-1),-p1atEed. I"Ie have never conceded that the City has the right unlla-
terally to reduce the number of lots in the plat belors that rvhich is permltted ln
single family residenEial zoning. This, we felt, was done arbitrarily r'rhen the
plat was approved aE the Zl JulI 1980 Council Meeting and the number of lots was
reduced from 54 to 52. N9t incidentally, no consideration seemed 'to have been
given to the 69 IoE uniE,s assessmenEs which are pending'
A11 of rhe above noEwiEhstanding and in the spiriE of cooperation in bringing thls
protracEed platting matter to a satisfactory close' t{e are prepared to flnally plae
52 lots as shown on the enclosed proposed plat, if we can come to agreement on the
other lEems discussed herein
STREET WIDTH This matter i\ras discussed in our letter of ?'5 March 1981 to Don
ffifthisStreeEisconstructedat36'widEhiEwi1lbeoneofon1ythree
streeEs in the CiEy of Chanhassen so constructed'
REQUEST: Council reduce the sEreee widch to 32 feet'
q 5 I.Ie are advised rhat the property has pending
69 unit assessmenEs. In ligirtTf tn" fact thaE only 52 uniLs are approved' Ehis
pending assesslTlent should be recluced accordintsIy'
REQtlf:ST: Council reduce the pending assessmenE to 52 units'
LAND DEVELOPERS