CC Agenda 06-01-1981 (2)AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCfL
MONDAY, JUNE 7, 1981 , '7 230 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)
nt
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
- PUBLIC HEARINGS
fficationRequest,Lot7&8,B1ock3,ChanhassenEstates,
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FiTSt AdditiON.
7:30 p.m. - City Council Minutes dated l,lay 4, 1981. (nevised)
City Council Minutes dated May 11, 1981-.City Council Minutes dated May 18, 1981.
Commission Minutes.
UNFfNISHED BUSINESS
-1eGreenCondi.tiona1UsePermit,Highway5and
Galpin B1vd.
3. 8:00 p.m. Final Development Plan Revj-ew, Fox Chase Addition,
Derrick Land Company (Revises Previously Approved
Development Plan).
4. 8:30 p.m. ILem Deleted from Agenda-*
VTSITOR PRESENTATIONS
low for the presentatj.on of items. If action
-Ls requS-red, the item will be tabled to the next regular agenda to
allow for publication and review of items prior to final consideration.
- NEW BUSINESS
5. 9:15 p.m. Review Waste Control Commissj-on/Metro Council
\- procedures and Hear Public Comments re: Sludge
Compost Application - Halla Nursery'
6. 9z4O p.m. 1981 Bond Sale, Authorization to Call for Bids-.%5p.m.-ParkandRecreationCommissionAppointment.
- B. 10:30 p.m. Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Review
Procedures for Filling Vacancies '
F CONSENT AGENDA
-
s' 10:45 p'm'
: ;:::::"'"";,"","::,::", ;".::",::,.:1ln'o"'*'"'project, Ac6ept Feasibility Study and Order PubIic
Hearing.
CITY OF
CHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROIvI: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: June L, 1981
SUBJ: Easement Vacation Request, Lot 7 and 8, Block 3, Chanhassen
Estates First Addition
The public hearing notice was published in the Carver County Herald
reflecting that this item would be heard this evening. However,
this item did not appear in Karenrs Corner as a part of tonightrs
agenda.
This item has appeared before the City Council during two other
previous Council meetings with no one being in attendance in opposition.
This office would suggest that- the Mayor open this item with a question
- to the audience as to whether'any person is in att,endance in opposition
to this item. If no one is in attendance opposing the item, approval
of this item will be considered as a part of the consent agenda later
r : this evening."
Should any person desire to speak in opposition, I would recommend that
' their statements be read into the record and note that action will be
- tabled to June Lsth
q
$-,
!,
,(
Pl anni ng Report \
Page 2April 6, 1981
Pursuant to Chanhassens administrative procedures and State Iaw,the PI anni ng Commi ssi on i s to determi ne through i ts staff thatthe proposal will not be detrimental but ratherbe in the public interest. The Planning Commission is to submitits recommendations to the Council who upon receipt of such sha'llhold a public hearing.
Recommendat-_i on:
This office has reviewed the
Engineer and find that thereit. The Planning Commission
Council hold necessary public
Uti I i ti es Easements al ong the7 & 8, BIock 3, of Chanhassen
subject request with the Cityare no detriments associated withshould recommend that the City
hearing to vacate the Drainage/original property lines of Lots
Estates , Fi rst Addi ti on.
Addendum to Planning Report - ytay 29, 1981
As shown on the attached minutes, the Planning Commj-ssionduly reviewed the vacation request and reconmended that theCity Council hold the necessary public hearing for saidrequest. Additionally, attached is the proposed resolution
necessary for filing at the County recorders office.
D u,Ef. Y.il,I Lr.ftD
i
1OOI EAST CLII JAO
EURN SVILLE. MINN ESOTA 53337
PHONE: (al2) 8907750
(,}t DrI \JIr, l-t-''-^rr.rv v v ^-^ -
809 NORTHEAT
. .OURTH STREET
GBAND RAPTL ,INNESOTA 557.I{
PHONE: (21813206528 tr
r'
Certificaie'of SurveY for:.Mn. Kooe
16.5
v*-r l/..f.aott
I
!-II
xll+-+7
qr43
't)lilftL.ba Y\*.o -((l?-'t-tl'j(T
-.lNV..=a263 1+:t
T/
oo
d
Lt
T**,vl./ ^: .. 7 -.--.-_ --H.lo r5A&)zi]l.\\\1 ,{ r( ---_:- trlIr lqrrv-"o h-;
:I\;,;A-Y'*": l---=.+
'J'g'+.4
br -s '-'4t%5r aaTxe? /i-rfrf7-z{\s>;
at elZ\
tb#q7.+o -\ it -
-1** z1!1
111r?]7883t;i" iHSriq=,i(
Er'r;v'-'!rv'- il1"'-;1";;-i,-ai".ant 3o'oo'reet norEb'l
tqzqZ)??O?OgeD bA<Lb1-- of said sorittreasE corng.r of-Lot 7; and
'dQ7;rY"'e"o17o Ji--'Fuoo< ;;";;-i"i.i.,"ting- '', r': :. -::-. .:):-. ' a .' l.r: ..: -., .:-' .:. .j
.i:,:::;[#-f rf
-T
Il.
. N I il\;^iZ;"ry'i.' ih* c,f f ic.q of the
T t \ 'i"""*\se{taet'; HennePin countv'N #i:";l*-;':;,:l"ii6::::i:"::it-"7
T ..r_->ot r or .n" r"iiLing, describe<l line:
, o DeNorE4, troN lAg{oMENr . _-\ 1 B"eir,r,il*'"; i 'p"i:l^ol tot sotrth lina
TC oero.,ti+ ioiroi c.rn"['ix?errquf) of Lou z] ai'."nr rr9':' reeE uesL or
Tq<o.s o?-\\oTe, EXr:(tN<" iriueftotJ the sotrthe':t :otl":-:: LoE 7; ttreace
lr<+r.o) rrra$oTe, "<o?92"{;;ivnrtou northeas,te:'I t:.:,:l}'lollnt.}!"i"il'o
- t t:reby certiry that this is a trua aod correcr representation or a-surv:y ol lhe.boundarics of th.' above describett tand' and ol lhe localior
I u,' buirdines.,n.,lllj.i,li".r rlioi';;"'-";;;;'ii unv' ttom ot "'::t:' [!.-*.-r.. t,=o-",- - . R,| - '' Jt:'-w ts-DQ\ As surveyed by mr this'rRD da'! ol- ,W - | -- l>=a€
d*.o _p;N Z#;..> {r+.r [r(2
u4
"trD
.F.4
rtl
--;_ igh'N,.Y(;l ,.d 2 vJ
F-)
$
SB$ffi:.ryii\\
-.-<.a':e
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AIiID IIENNEPIN COTJNTIES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLTC HEARING
FOR A PARTIAL EASEMENT VACATION
FOR VERNON C. AIID BARBARA A. HUSEMON
AIiID ROBERT H. IIIASON INC. ,
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
NoTrcE rs HEREBY GryEN that the city council of chanhassen,ivlinnesota wi-II meet on Monday, the first day of June,1981, dt 7:30 p.m. at the City Hal1, 690 Coirlter Drive,for the purpose of holding a public hearing to considerthe vacation of the easterly 110.61 feet of the drainage,/utility easement forming the prj-or coflrmon boundry betweenthe following described tract of land:
Lot 7, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates First Addition.
A plan showing said vacation is avaj-Iable for inspectionat City Ha1I. All persons interested should appear andbe heard at said time and place.
BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMI\fiSSION
Don Ashworth
City Manager
(Published in Carver County Herald, May 20, I98t)
MINUTES
.l
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL I{INUIES - I,tay 4, 1981
The regular meeting of the Chanhassen City Council was called to order
on Monday, May 4,1981, dt 7:30 p.m. by Acting Mayor Neveaux. Thefollowing members were present: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen
Swenson, Geving and Horn. Mayor Hamilton was absent.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: A motion was made by Councilman Neveaux and
@1manHorntoapprovetheagenda.Motioncarried.No negative votes.
APPROVAI OF MINUTES: The following amendments were made from theffites:
Under the Development Agreement, Park One Property, fnstant Web the
second motion should be changed to read - A motion was made by
Councilman Horn and seconded by Counci-Iman Geving to table actionon the Park One agreement pending resolution of agreement by theAttorney. The followj-ng voted in f avor thereof : Acting l4ayorNeveaux, councilmen swenson, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes.Ivlotion carried.
Hanus Development Contract the motion made by Councilman Horn shouldbe amended to read...to prepare amendment language which wouldclarify provisions for ful1 screening from public view
Motion made by Councilman Horn should add the words ft should be
brought to the attention of the various neighborhood association
members involved and an article should be put in the paper.
A motion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by Councilman
Horn to accept the minutes of the City Council with the above amend-
ments. A11 i-n favor. l4otion carried.
A motion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by Councilman Horn
to accept the minutes of the April 8, 198I Planning Commission
meeting. AII in favor. Motion carried.
A motion was made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilman
Geving to accept the minutes of the April 15, 1981 Planning Commission
meeting. All in favor. I"lotion Carried.
Don Ashworth explained that the April 13 and 20, 1981 City Council
minutes are forthcoming. Jean, the regular City Council secretary
is on vacation.
AI,IERICAN LEGION CLUB: A motion was made by cOuncilman swenson to
rtheMay18thmeeting.SecondedbyCounci1man
Horn. A11 in favor. Motion carried.
gTTtl STREET SANITARY SEWER: Mrs. Virginia Harris from carver county
d to the Council and the homeowners a pro-
posal for a community sewer system to be placed on 97Ln' street'-So*" discussion was made about the cost, how the system works,
community system vs. individuat systems and how long the system will
work.
WiIl need an easement from each of the owners for the maintenance
of this system. The City is responsible to maintain this systeln'
I
l
-l
Page 3 - l,Iay 4, 1981
1. Temporary Use permit for 1 year2. A letter from the owner of the property stating that he
knows what the appllcant has proposeC for his property
and is in agreement with it.3. That insurance wj_th a 9I,000,000 coverage be taken out.4. That the applicant provide 15 off street parking spaces.5. There will be no electricity for late/early hours.6. Signage must meet the criteria set up by the sign committee,7. The ball shed must not exceed 8 x 16' and be constructedof suitable materials.8. A11 partners have a st,atement in writing that they will be
responsible for any accidents.
9.
10.
11.
Prepare a final map of t,he site to be a
A sign proposal needs to be submitted.
An esgrow account of $500 to cover cost
engineering services.
in favor. Ivlotion carried.
part of the permit.
of legal and
A11 voted
I
FINAII DEVEIOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, FOX CHASE' DERRICK LAND COMPANY:
a UOffOW We"S MADE BY Councilman Swenson to permit Mr. Derrick to
make presentation and others to comment. However, action will not
occur this evening to altow the Council an opportunity Lo consider
comments made tonight, to respond to written questions recej-ved
from the neighborhood dated May 2r 198I, and to have the attorney
place his opinion as to legal status of the JuIy, 1980 council
action into written form.
The council received comments from the planner (staff report and
Planning Commission action), the proposal as presented by Mr.
f,aughinghouse and 1,1r. Derrick (as the developers), and comments
from general public. Motion was withdrawn.
Ivlr. Laughinghouse, a representative from Derrick Land Co., presented
the ptai foi fox ihase.- They have changed the plan to have 52 units,
the Lompany is very interested in preserving atl the trees that
they can. Lot 4 ia larger than the rest in order to save more trees.
Mr. Laughinghouse stated that they will do everything they can to
keep the run off from going into the lake'
The Mayor requested that the attorney read the recent state law
which would appty to the legal status of the plan as approved in
JuIy, 1980.
The Council expressed concern about the future owners of the pro-
perry if the lind will be buildable with atl the proposed fill'
Mr.Laughinghouseexplainedthattheyarewillingtopayanythingin order to have theie rots iirr.a right. The process that they
are going to use is u,., ."""pi"Uf" metfiod that has been used for
years.
Acting Mayor Neveaux indicated that the city has.had.trouble with
plat developers who have h;;-their engineeri review the land'
Ivlayor Neveaux requested th;a the City-Engineer review the plat after
the filling.l
-.1
Fage 5 - May 4, 1981
FINAI, DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, NEAR MOUNTAIN PROJECT, LUNDGREN BRoS.:
A motion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by Councilman
Horn to table this item until 7:30 p.m. at the meeting of May 11, 1981.AlI in favor. It[otion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: A motion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by
ffitoapproveoftheitemsontheconsentagenda.Thefollowing voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Geving
and Horn. Councilman Swenson voted no. I'Iotion carried.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Acting Mayor Neveaux suggested that a
e be made to work with Minnetonka Labs in
order to keep communications clear. Mayor Neveaux suggested that
the followinb U" on the committee along with himself, Art Partridge
a Planning Commj.ssion member, Don Ashworth, City Manager, Bob
Schultz, ind Mark Koegler. Suggested that they meet on a regular
basis and they will not be a poticy setting committee, it is just for
the purpose of communication. Councilmen Geving, Swenson and Horn
all agreed that it was a good idea.
Acting Mayor Neveaux also suggested a Government Operations Committee
to take the complaints about-[.fre staff . A1I agreed that this is
a good idea.
A motion was made by Councilman Swenson and seconded by Councilman
Horn to adjourn the meeting. AII in favor. Ivlotion carried'
I
-_]
.REGI'LAR CHANHASSEN CITY COI]NCIL MEETING },IAY 4, 1981
The regular meeting of the Chanhassen City Council was called to order on Monday,
May 4, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. by Acting Mayor Neveaux. The following members were present:
Aeting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Mayor
Hamilton was absent.t
L APPROVAL OF AGEMA:A motion was made by Acting Mayor Neveaux and seconded by
Councilman Horn to approve the agenda. Motion carried. No negative votes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Amend the April 27, 1981, Council minutes under the DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, PARK ONE PROPERTY, INSTANT LIEB the second motion to read: A motion was
made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilman Geving to table aetion on the
Park One agreement pending resolution of agreement by the Attorney. The following
voted in favor thereof : Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councih{rornan Swenson, Councilmen Geving
and Horn. No negat.ive votes. Motion carried.
Amend the motion under HANUS DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT in the April 27, L98L, Council-
minutes to read: A motion was made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councllwoman
Swenson to approve Reconmendatlon No. 2 as outlined in the Assistant City Attorneyrs
rePort dated April 23, 1981, stating that staff be directed to prepare amendment
J-anguage which would clarify provlsions for ful1 screening from public view. The
followlng voted in favor th reof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson,
Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Amend the notion in the April 27, 1981, Council minutes under LAKE AND SHORELINE
ORDINAI{CE REVIEW as follows: A motion was made by Councilman Horn and seconded by
Council-man Geving to instruct the City Attorney to place the revisions into final
ordinance form and instruct the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the Lake
and Shoreline Ordinance as well as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding
beach lots. It should be brought to the attention of the various neighborhood
association members involved and an article should be put in the paper. The fol-lowing
voted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
A motion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by Councilman Horn to approve
the April 27, L981, Council minutes as amended. The following voted in favor:
Acting ldayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Counci-Imen Geving and Horn. No negative
votes. Motion carried.
A motion was made by Council-man Geving and seconded by Counciluran Horn to note the
April 8, 1981, Planning Commission minutes. The following voted in favor: Acting
Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
A motion hras made by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilman Geving to note the
April 15, 1981, Planning Commission minutes. The following voted in favor: Acting
Mayor Neveaux, Councihronan Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
Don Ashworth explained that the April 13 and 20, 1981, Counci-l minutes are forthcoming.
Jean, the regular City Council secretary is on vacation.
AMERICAN LEGION CLUB: A motion was made by Councilwoman Swenson to table this
@thmeeting.MotionsecondedbyCounei1manHorn.Thefo11owing
voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Counci-lmen Geving and
Horn. No negative votes. MoEion carri-ed.
T-
r
I
Council Minutes May 4, 1981 -3-
Temporary Use Permit for one year.
A letter from the ouners of the property stating that he knows whatthe applicant has proposed for his property and is in agreement r,/ith it.That insurance with a $1,000,000 coverage be taken out.That the applicant provide 15 off street parking spaces.There will be no electricity for land/ear1y houis.
Signage must meet the criteria set up by the sign committee.The ball shed must not exceed Br x 16t and be constructed of suitable materials.A11 partners have a statement in writing that they will be responsible forany accidents.
9. Prepare a final map of the site to be a part of the permit.10. A sign proposal needs to be submitted.11. An escrow account of $5OO to cover cost of lega1 and engineering services.The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, councilwoman swenson, CouncilmenGeving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
FINAL DEVELOPMEM PLAN REVIEW, FOJ( CHASE, DERRICK LAND COMPANY:motion was made byCounci1womanSwensontopermitMr.nnandothertocomment.
However, action will not occur this evening to al1ow the Council an opportunityto conslder cortrnents made tonight, to respond to written questions received fromthe neighborhood dated May 2, 19Bl-, and to have the attorney place his opinion as to]-ega1- status of the July 1980 council action into written form.
The Couneil received comments from the planner (staff report and planning Commissionaction), the proposal as presented by Mr. Laughinghouse and Mr. Derrick (as thedevelopers), and conments from the general public. Motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Laughinghouse, a representative from Derrick Land Company, presented the plan forFox Chase. They have changed the plan to have 52 units, the company is very interestedin preserving all the trees that they can. Lot 4 is larger than the rest in order tosave more trees.
Mr. Laughinghouse stated that they will do everything they can to keep the run offfrom going inEo the 1ake.
The Acting Mayor requested that the attorney read the recent, state law (Laws 19g0,chapter 566, Section 30) which would apply to the lega1 status of the plan as approvedin July 1980.
The Council expressed concern about the future owners of the property if the landwill be buildable with all the proposed filI. Mr. Laughinghouse explained rhar rheyare willing to pay anything in order to have these lots filled right. The process Ehatthey are going to use is an acceptable method that has been used for years.
Acti-ng Mayor Neveaux indicated that the City has had trouble with plat developers
who have had their engineers review the plan. Acting Mayor Neveaux requested that
the City Engineer review the plat after the filling.
Mr. Derrick stated that if Fox Path was moved to the east there will be poor
visibility, Fox Path will also be used as a cortrnon drive with the Osgoods. Nancy
Osgood, the adjoining property ordner to the east indicated that their driveway wasput in in 1867 and they have been using it si.nce 1967 and they have no problems
seeing.
Councilman Horn asked why the staff doesnft have any answers to the questions being
brought up. Requested that they do more investigation into this item.
1
I
1
Council Minures May 4, 1981 -5-
Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Actlng MayorNeveaux, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwoman Swenson voted no. Motion carried.
CollNcIL PRESENTATIONS: Acting Mayor Neveaux suggested that a Coordinating Comrnitt,eeffinnetonkaLabs.inordertokeepcommunicationsc1ear.Acting
Mayor Neveaux suggested that the following be on the committee along with himself,Art Partridge of the Planning Comrnission, Don Ashworth City Manager, Bob Schultz,
and Mark Koegler. Suggested that they meet on a regular basis and they will not bea policy setting comnittee, lt is just for the purpose of conrnunication. Councilwoman
Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn all agreed that it was a good idea.
Acting Mayor Neveaux also suggested a Government Operations Commi.ttee to take thecomplaints about the staff. A11 agreed that this is a good idea.
A motion was made by Councilwoman Swenson and seconded by Councilman Horn to adjourn.The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
(
T
r
SPECIAL CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING },IAY 11, 1981
f:
Acting Mayor Neveaux called the meeting to order at 7230 p.m. with the following members
present: Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Mayor Hamilton was absent.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda as presented r^rith the
I,@:UpdateoftheGovernmentoperationsCornmittee,Pa;rmenttoBoarmanArchitects, and Natural Green Litigation. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The
following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving
and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
AI^IARD oF BIDS - WELL //3: Four bids were recelved ranging from $11'908 to $14'463' The
1r" @innesota ComPanY.
Councilman l{orn moved to accept the Low bid from Layne Minnesota Company in the amount of
$11,908.00 for the rehabilitation of Well //3. Motion seconded by Councilman GevJ.ng.
The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
1
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - NEAR MOIINTAIN: Herb Baldwj.n, Peter and Mike Pflaum $rere Present.fthefina1deve1opmentp1anwiththefo11.owing
conditions:
1. That the final development plan be subject to final city engineer approval when
utility plans and specifications are received.
2. The development contract include provisions that would enable the city to activate
its trail system through the Near Mountain property at any time.
Council members discussed the street access to Pleasant View Road as outlined i-n
the City Engineerrs letter of April 21, 1981. The reason for the proposed design
of the j-ntersection (difficulty to turn west onto Pleasant View Road) is a result of
neighborhood objections to additional traffic on Pleasant View Road.
Phasing of the project was discussed. The Engineer reconmended Phases 1 and II be
combined to complete a circle road for snowplowing. Peter Pflaum suggested that a
temporary cul-de-sac could be built to solve the snowplowing problem until additional
phases are completed. Council members expressed concern with the necessity for a
second access, through phases 6, 7 or 8, into the property.
Acting Mayor Neveaux requested verification from staff that Section 15.05, subsection 5,
A., B., and C have been completed.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to approve the final development plan as presented, (Planning
Commission Exhibit A dated April 22, L98L, Preliminary Plat of Single Family Lots
prepared by Schoell and Madson showing 134 single faurily lots) subject to the
ip.ti-fi"a rnodifications and condj-ti-ons in the staff recommendations of 1-11 of
Ntvember 30, Lg7g, and as modified on December 3, 1979, and direct the City Attorney
to prepare a development contract and return it to the Council on June l' 1981. Motion
seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux,
Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved to rezone the subject property from R-lA to P-l. Motion
seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux,
Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
l Further discussion was held on the
stated that the street was designed
Council members generally felt this
detailed plan of that area.
street access to Pleasant View Road. Herb Baldwin
to make a right Eurn difficult but not impossible.
was satisfactory but would like to see a more
REGI]LAR CHANHASSEN CITY COI]NCIL MEETING
Acting Mayor Neveaux ca11ed the meeting
members present: Councilwoman Swenson,
was absent.
I'IAY 18, 1981
to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmen Geving and
with the following
Horn. Mayor Hamilton
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the agenda as presented with
@ions:EdinaFoundationandReschedu1eTourDate.Motionseconded
by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilhroman
Swenson' Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Mot.ion carried.
MINUIES: Councilman Geving moved to approve the April 13, 1981, Council minutes.
Moti-on seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor
Neveaux, Councill7oman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion
carried.
Amend the motion in the April 20, 1981, Council minutes under DOI,INTOWN CLEAN UP
ORDINANCE as follows: Councilman Horn moved to approve an Ordinance Providing forthe Collection of Charges for Performance of Services Relating to Sidewalks, Weed
Elimination, Removal of Public Health or Safety Hazards, Water Service Lines, Dust
Treatment of Streets, Tree Care and Removal and Street Lighting. Section 3,O2,
Special Assessment Procedure, should have the date of August 1st inserEed. Motion
seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton,
Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motioncarried.
Amend the first paragraph of the April 20, 1981, Council minutes as follows:
Mayor Hamilton ca11ed the meeting to order in the new municipal building at 690 Coulter
Drive for the first meeting of city government in their ner^r facility with the following
members present: Councilwoman Swenson, Counci-lmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn.
Amend by adding the following in the April 20, L98\, Council minutes under LIQUOR
LICENSE APPLICATION, PONY EXPRESS BAR: The applicant, Don Kallestad, was present
to discuss the problems involved in the license renewal. After discussion with
Mr. Kallestad, Councilman Neveaux moved that the licenses requested by Kallestad
Enterprises, Inc., dba Pony Express Bar,Off-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sa1e Intoxicating
be renewed from May 1, 1981, to April 30, L982. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved to approve the April 20, 1981, Council minutes as amended.
Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor
Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion
carried.
Councilman Geving moved to approve the May 4, 1981, Council minutes. Motion seconded
by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman
Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
ESTABLISHMENT OF DRIVING RANGE, FRONTIER DEVELOPMENT P RK_, JOHN PRZYMUS_: Representatl-ves
of Dri\re Fore were present. fire City Att.orney reviewed the documents that have been
submitted. He noted that the lots Eo be used for the driving range are Lots 6, 7,
and 8, Block 1, Frontier Development Park and not Lot 5 as originally proposed is not
a part of this proposal. The drawing as submitted by Mr. Przymus shows an approximate
length of 800 feet for the driving range buE the plat of Frontier Development Park
shows 575 f.eet along the railroad tracks and approximately 707 feet along West 79th
SEreet. A lerter has been received from the Schneider Agency, Inc. stating that
insurance coverage has been initiated for the business. Off street parking sPaces
have been provided. An escrow deposit of $500 has been paid to the city.
-.1
l
-_J
I
Council Meetj-ng May 18, 1981 -3-
SHOOTING BAN C0MMITTEE PRESENTATION: Members of the committee were presenE to
e council. Captain A1 Wal1in, Sheriff's
Department' was present. The following changes to the proposed amendments rdere
discussed:
2. Section 1.03, delete the word I'adjacent" and add landowrrers within 500 feet.
3. (g), Section 1.04, delete the word "carbon".
4. Section 1.05, add training of dogs with pistol with blanks.
5. Section 3, delete "pistol with blanks".
The word "varmits" should be defined in the definition section. Schools should
be excluded from the ordinance; i.e. track meets.
Councilwoman Swenson suggested that the permit fee be raised to $25.00.
Councilman Horn moved to accept the Citizens Ad Hoc Committee recommendations in regardto amendments and additions to City Ordinance 9A and place it on first reading wi-th
changes as discussed this evening. The City Attorney to place this into compatible
language with the existing ordinance if necessary. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving.
The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved to set the date for the final reading of the proposed ordinancefor June 22, L98L at 7i30 p.m. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following
voted in favor: Councilman Geving. Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilhroman Swenson and
Councilman Horn voted no. Motion failed.
Councilman Horn moved to set the date for the final reading of the proposed ordinance
for June 15, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following
voted i.n favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilwoman
Swenson voted no. Motion carried.
See Council Action later in these minutes.
DOI4INTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, BLOOMBERG COMPANIES: Bill McRostie was present.
nies contract with its most
recent revision on pages 17 and 17A dated April 15, 1981, and authorize the Mayor or
Acting l"layor to,,sign the contract. Particular attention being paid to page 2l of the
Bloomberg Companies contract regarding covered walkways. MoEion seconded by Councilman
Horn. The following voted in fdvor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, CouncilhToman Swenson,
Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, KMUS-AMERSON INCORPOMTED: Councilman Horn moved
to approve the Kraus-Anderson, Inc. contract and authorize the Mayor or Acting Mayor
to sign the contract. Particular attention being paid to page 2L of the Kraus-
Anderson contract regarding covered walkways. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving.
The following voted in favor: AcEing Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
INSTANT I^TEB PURCHASE AND RE-BUILDING AGREEMENT: ThC CitY AttOTNCY diSCUSSEd ChANgES
nge on page B, to add a paragraph
C (1) stating that any interest earned on invested escrow funds sha1l be paid to
owners from time to time. If escrow funds are t.o be invested said funds shall be
invested in U. S. Government obligations selected by the or^iners. Staff had no
objectlon to the proposed change.
Page 10, line 3 to be changed; only changes in the construction contract which change
the completion date therein specified or which in the aggregate reduce the cost below
an aggregate construction cost of $3.1 milli-on may be made only upon the Agencys prior
written approval. Staff accepted this proposed change.
I
_-J
Minutes
Park and Recreation Commission
May L2, 1981
A regular meeting of the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Cormrission was cal1edto order on May 1'2, 1981 at 7:30 p.n. The following members were present:Phyllis Pope, Tom Schoenecker, Mary Muelhausen and jack Mauritz.
MINLIES: A motion lvas nade by Tom Schoenecker to approve the minutes of the lastneeTlng with the following additions:
1. Merk Kgeglerts Prgposal: ,The proposal was to prepare concept developnentplans for these three park areas: Chanhassen Estites park, Lake Ann park,
and Lake Susan park.
2. frlake Susan park to remain Lake Susan parkf'.
Motion was seconded by Mary ltuelhausen. The motion was unanimously approved.
VENDING SERVICE IN LAKE ANN PARK: Mr. Dorsey Snith was present at the park anddiscussthepossibi1ityofsettingupavendingservice in Lake Ann Park. The service is to be controlied by tn" Iity and Mr.Snith was confident there would be no problems with advertising or liitering.
Tom Schoenecker made a motion that a recommendation be made to the City Councilthat Mr- Snithrs vending service be accepted on a one-year trial basis. Motionwas seconded by Jack Mauritz. Motion rrnaninousty apprbved.
REQUEST T0 BE MARRIED IN LAKE ANN PARK: A rnotion was made by Jack Mauritz toapprovettrecodinLakeAnnPark.Motionwasseconded
by Mary Muelhausen. Motion unanimously approved.
Staff was directed to notify the couple that the park would still be open to thepublic and to check arrangements for the gate fee and alternate plans in case ofinclement weather.
' RTcommNDATION TO FILL COMMISSION VACANCY: A motion rvas made by Tom schoenecker that
and Recreation Comnission. Motion was
seconded by Mary lrluelhausen and motion was r:nanimously approved.
Staff was directed to send a letter to Chuck Koivisto to ascertain if his business
responsibilities would enable him to remain on the commission.
LAWCON 1982 STATUS: The Commission was advised that the prospects for land acquisition
@ea looked excellent if any funds were available.
Staff was directed to send Mayor Tom Harni-1ton a copy of the agreement between the City
and the School district.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectful ly submitted,
Sherma Coombs
EXCERPTS TROM THE MARCH 25 1981 PLANNTNG CO}4MISSTON IVIEETING
DALE GREEN:
The applicant has been given a 5 year conditional use permitdated lvlarch 29 , 1971, this permit was renewed in 1976 ior a
Sod and Black Dirt Business.
This item has been referred to the Planning Commission by theCity Council for further discussion with the City AttorneyrsOffice. This is a request for a Conditional use permit renewal,
no discussion was made at the City Council meeting.
Mr. Mertz, the Assisstant City Attorney, indicaLed that the
Planning Commission should look at the conditional use permj-t
that was handed out to them. The application stated thatthe proposed. business on this property is the stock piling
of dirt, the sale of sod, the sale of fertilizer, sale of
seed and t.he erection of a pole barn. Mr. Mertz pointed
out that this type of activity is not a permit.ted use under
the zoning ordinance and j-s not a conditional use for thisproperty zoned R-IA. Why was this permit issued? This was
permitted under the Township ordinance and this predates
the adoption of the zoning ordinance. rhis is a non-conforming
use, meani-ng that they may continue what they were doing
before but may not expand their activities. Mr. Mertz calIed
the attention of the Planning Commission to page 2 of the permit,
item 3, which says that in no event sha1l this conditional
use permit go beyond 60 months from the date hereof. That
60 months was up in March of 1976. This permit was granted with the
understanding that the use not go beyond 60 months. The
City has the discression to terminate this activity not-
withstanding its St.atus as a "non-conforming use". Mr. Mertz
asked the Planning Commission if they wish to keep this type
of activity in an R-IA zone. This business on Hwy 5 and the
City Council's decision and the Planning Commission decision
was that they were not going to amend the ordinance to permit
this type of use in R-lA, and we have sued Natural Green
to cloie them down. If the Planning Commission does consider
renewing this conditional use permit they should consider
the terms of the renewal to be more restrictive limiting
them to the activities they have actually utilized and take
away what they haven't, utilized-
Mr. Butler, a representative of Dale Green, indicated that
he owns the same type of business j-n Eden Prairie and its
not against their ioning ordinance. Mr. Butler owns 89 acres
in Chanhassen. lar. Uerfz indicated that the City Council in
L|TL realized. that he owned a bigger parcel of land but wanted
to limit his business to a smatlei seltion of 1and. The property
was a junk yard before the condiLional use Permit was permi'tted
and Mr. Butler cleaned the area uP.
Ms. Watson indicated that other requests have been made and
for the same type of requests in the R-IA district and they
have been a""i6i. -l,f"VU,='this is a good time for lulr' Butler to
move his business o.r.i to his other area i-n Eden Prairie'
2.CITY OF
gtxfitfHfi$$Htsr
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 O CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
IITEMORANDUM
DATE: May L4, 1981
TO: Don Ashworth, City Ivlanager
FROIVI: Bob Waibel, City planner /.//
SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit Renewal Request, Dale Green Company
APPLICAIIT: Laverne cd E. Butler
PLANNTNG CASE: P-089
t
At the Planning Commission review of this j-tem, verbal comrnentsand recommendations by the Assistant city Attorney and myselfwere delj-vered. The position of this office was and stil1
remains that due to the precident setting potential of thisrequest, - no renewal and/or issuance of a conditional usepermit be contemplated until a detailed site plan and land
use analysis, specific to the requestrcan be carried out.
The Planning Commission felt that the inability of Mr. Butler
to utilize the property until a land use policy analysis was
completed would pose an undue inconvienience on Ivlr. Butler
and thus movedto recommend that the City Council renew the
conditional use permit for a period of 2 years.
a
I
a
' The DALE GRbEN se'
BIACX Dtnl . PEAT ' SOD - SEED tEIIttlIERs
7751 ll;ghwcy No. !61 Phoao 9ll.2ll22
EDEN PtAlalE, HINNESOTA srt€
January 12, 1981
5-ihanhassen Village Cotrncil
$jhanhassen, Llinnesota
. *tenbers o.f Ehe Cor:nciL:
[*" ]rouLd Like to renew the Conditional Use permit'
-$hat has been in effect for the last 5 years, and
h >rpires March 29, 1981. This perait is for ourE*fl.t Dirt & Sod'business on tire former KeIm.farm
on the corner of llLLT & l?5 in Chahassen
L'
f-r,i" businesstis owned and operated, by LaVerne Butler
DBA as the Dale Green Co.
b,
L
L
,.i::'.
t_
| --l
[_
...1
E_
Hm*&t-
LaVerne BuEler
. -,! r.t,:
,lL
.l
{-'
Manaqerrs Conrnents:
As can be seen from the attached material, the cond.itional use
permit for the Dale Green Company has continued over the past'
ten year period.
The City of Chanhassen has incurred no problems as a result of
this "ottaitional use permit simply because no activity presently
occurs on the site. However, if Councj.l nernbers are aware of the
black dirt operations of Mr. Green in Eden Prairie, Yotr should'
reasonably alsume that at some point in time this ten acre parcel
will be the site of black dirt lpeat) and sod deliveries,
manufacturing and d,istribution-
Similar to the Oakmont and Sinnen rezonings, the City does haye-
"r opportunity, 4t this point in time, to reassess the potential'
effects of this tyPe of Lusiness and the specific location' Once
p-r."""nt improvements or other major capital expenditures occur
-on the site, this may not be possible.
The Council may wish to refer this item to the Planning Commission'
L
rl
L
L
L
I
t_
I
l-i
Illll
,$'*o'f
(
CTTY OF CHANHASSEI.J
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTTES, MTNNESOTA
RESOLUTION #76.2L
Date March L, 1926 Resolution Number 75-2t
Motion by Councilman Neveaux Seconded by Councilman Shulstad
RESOLUTION RENEWING DALE GREEN COI\,IPANY I S CONDITIoNAL USE PER],IITFOR FTVE YEARS
BE rr REsoLvED, that the city council of the city of chanhassen
hereby renews the conditional use permit issued, to the Dale Green
company on March 29, r97r, for an additional five (5) years
according to the provisions of said conditional use permit.
Passed and adopted by the council of the city of chanhassen
this lst day of March, L976.
ATTEST:
e/
/:{-,-,d/i/'li'/;. /)/,D/
PIAYOR
NOYES
Mayor Klinqelhutz
Councilman Kurvers
Councilman Shulstad
Councilman Neveaux
I
Councilman Hobbs absent
'(
The conditional use shall not be injurious to the use and enjoy-
ment of other property, nor diminish or impair property values
within the immediate vicinity.
The term of the conditional use shall be for l2 months from date
hereof , and may be renewable at the sole discretion of the villagecouncil for successive 12-month terms upon application inwriting made at least 30 days prior to the expiration of each l2-
month term, but in no event shall the conditional use extend
beyond 60 months from date hereof .
The conditional use shall be consented to by the owner of said
premises, which consent shall be endorsed in writing hereon.
The conditional use permit shall be personal to Laverne A. Butler,
doing business as The Dale Green Co. , and shall not be transferable
without approval of the Village Council.
That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding
property for uses permitted within the district.
The excavation of soil for purposes of sale from said premises or
any adjoining premises owned by applicant shall not be permitted.
The total number of trucks, tractors and units of loading equipment
used by applicant on said premises at any time shall not exceed
- Q,t) - , all of which shall be stored within completely
enclosed buildings when not in actual use.
The sale of fertilizer and seed shall be Iimited to the applicant's
Iawn materials business. The sale of fertilizer and seed for
general agricultural use shall. not be permitted.
The conditional use shall be strictly limited to the purposes above
set forth, and enlargement or extension of the use beyond the
limits of above described premlses shalt not be permitted.
Enlargement or outside alteration of any existing structure on said
premises shal} not be permitted without prior written approval of
the ViIIage Council. All structures on said premises shall be
maintained in a good state of repair.
(
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1I.
-2-
(.(\
I
b
I
-
-
-
L
E
coNSENTpF OWNER
The undersigned owner of the aforedescribed premises hereby consents to
the conditlonal use permlt herein granted.
Dated ,hL" 3 ?day of n ' -, I971.
ACCEPTANCE
The undersigned permittee hereby accepts the terms and conditlons of the
conditional use herein granted.
Dated thr, J2l day or 1l , rs7l.
A. Butler, doing business as
The Dale Green Co.
-4-
- -!Ef,,".i {t
I
Stohkpile area outlined in Red Pencil.
(r \
. fl,
o--oo e e *froY r\
C
G
C
G
C
:tr(E\.-(
(
sq(@ij
o
q
a
:"b
;o
?r.i.J
o
)o
Io.
C
o
orlo
tt
(
(
L
t
L
r
CHANHASSEN VILLAGE COUNCIL I{INUTES - MATCh 22, 1971 -4-
PARK AND RECREATION CO}I}IISSION MINUTES: A MOtiON WAS MAdC bY
uncilman Klingelhutz that
the Park and Relreation Commission lvlinutes of March 16, l.971, be
noted, and read. The follorving voted in favor thereof : Iulayor
CoulLer, Councilmen Bennyhoff , Klingelhutz, Neils and I'IoIf ' No
negative votes. Motion carried.
PARK AND RECREATION: A motion was made by councilman Bennyhoff
cilman Nei}s that the Park and Recreation
Commission be illowea to buy ice time at an indoor ice arena,
for the hocky program, in the amount of $25.00. The following
voted in favor th6reof: Mayor Cou1ter, Counoilmen Benfirhoff,
Klingelhutz , Neils and WoIf . No negative votes . Intotion
carried
DALE GREEN COI,|IPANY: A motion Was made by Councilman Bennyhof f
ffinci1manK1ingeIhutztoapproveaSpeciaIU?epermit. The V-itlage Attorney t; draw up the agreement and bring
back to the Council for final approval'
COUNCIL}I.AN stated concern about ind.ividual retail sales
ffiilizer from the ProPertY'She f6els that
interim land use.
/'
a black cllrt and sod farm vrould be a gooC
..:,.
, .riThe f ollowing voted in f avor thereof : Ilayor Coulter ' Counciln'ten
S-nnyfroft, XiingelhuLz, Neils and lrlolf . I'lo negative votes'
Motion carried.
CHANHASSEN ESTATES - OUTLOTS 1 AND 2: A MOtiON WAS MAdE bY
ouncilman Neils to
approve the rez-oning as per the Pla-nning commission. recommendations
(the following is .r, "*".=ft from tlu lranning commission ltlinutes
of March g, ]g71) : A motiln was made by Arnie RYP" and seconded
by Tom Gabbert to recommena- trr" council approve !h? rezoning of
outl0ts 1 and 2 from Farm Residential to commercial' The
developer agrees to abiae ily the_ conditions se-u forth in pro-
posed c_2 zoning orstrict.o'r, ortlot 2 and proposed c-3 zoning
District on outiot 1. Motion unanimously approved.
The f Ollowing voted in f avor thereof : t't-ayor coulter'' councilmen
Bennyhoff,Ktingelhutz,NeilsandWolf'Nonegativevotes'
Motion carried
LrouoR LrcElJSEs: A motion was nade by councilman Kringel-hutz and
ffici1maneennyhofftoapprovetheonandoffsaIeintoxicating and the on and off sale non-intoxicating liquor
license .ppri"aIi;;; =,ru*itt"a uv Pauly's Bar, Inc-, Jerry's cId
west,.Bar ano the chanhassen oinn-er rheitre. The of f sale in-
toxicating to Top of the niurr, Recreation Deveropment' The
off sare non-intoxicating for Ed,s super Fair, I(enny's I'larket'
The on ana off -;;i; .ro.,-irrtoxicating ior the Chanhassen AIr'err'can
Lesion posr iaO.--i,-,r,a.y ;i;,f;i-;.i6= r"t :he chanhassen Dinner
Theatre. The f ollowing t'o[;a in f avor
- Lrt" :eof : Iulayor Coulter '
councilmen Bennyhof f , KIi;;;irr"lr, lleils -i,: l'Jo]-f ' No neEative
votes. I"lotion r-:',rr i€d '
NEILS
f-f-,.
PARI( A:'iD nEcl-lfti:TiOil col.:liLSSIOi{ :.:EET:Ll{G
Januar;' L9, l-g'ii- 'S p, inr
, Cherrhasscn Vli.--it:ge llaii
,. :
.' itr.g!pSg*..Eigr:-91li.: Arnolcl l'Jelri:rr:rclclrclir SaiJ..,' i.-.i,enecY, ilob
Fayfieiti, coni:iO Fisllneos, Da.ve iJilsou, ( tl:,irn!-:) St,eCman ngs
aiBo pi'ee errt, btrt, sLitce 'ch'a Acintlrl.l-r:t::aIct' '-','lLil iio L p::etent, '
, .' . ,qte1rqllt: Glarlyo i,lcCer;r ,
EG;t,B: i.lr, LaVei.n Butle.r", Da.l.e Green Cc.i .irr:oid fiFba, Bob''"
- -l{,: SffrE6::u S'leve lf o]-f , Fritz cc'uite;.' . .
.
a
.t , The neOting r,;ae calLe,J iC or.'ilr)t- by the Ciralr'm$: ' f:rao)-d
'': 'rieineralilreh
;t IiIliU?[Sr !, motlorr waa oerde by Conrai Flsl(ttess 'cnu'L ihe nin-
ffibtf i;he reet,lng of Janua'r;/ 5, 19'Ii.. i:c a-opro'.red' Ds';e
|f11-son seccaded 't,l:e nro'Llon " itctLon ca,ri'i-ail ',
&gl-ii*qI--I98.JilILI.pJ3"tQi:r&*-_-UiiEjS[giI.q: ( La tlerri i]u'L j er ] l'!-l' - .EltE6?.reFfTi.-e*n*iru''et".po",>rI-'Elcirrg,." o'i ir.!.r'ek 'iir':, and r-hs
sov!.ng ol= sod oi,l lsnci- iota';t.-il at th6 .Iu'.nct'ici'r of fligi:rzeiys -ii5*O +i.f|. Ai'tor clirseusislon, the Pil.;:k end il,iere[;'L'1)l? Coeuls-
' elCn ua:.c'le 1he lO1iouing i'eCo$melldl'r'r,iOn !'n the ?or;'': oi e uctlon
', by Ec'e Fa;"iield, ecec;:ti'.rd by Conr"ad Fioiresi'E' l
'. the Par,le and fiecreat!o4 cor:iq-t-gg:1."-oi1-.1:gconiii'il-d.i----Yq-iii19, cqgaeli.
rhgr a co;1[f1iiciilEt"-ii?;*i6rfrf'L'5; Sreii't<l J-fo i-,:i\,!.,:'n S':'i'ier
'. for atorlng diri, and 6roltii:65 sod'
. [!otion cs,rrled "
' : -,r
p R ESlf lEjgIsJ--QL-l. Lig .c+-P+4ij-- g [-EILo]-U-8-19 ]-SJEqFEUU' : ts o b
rjcriclei. ar:c i,ilio-ic-T.,frT";frFI6E-thJTLai:n io, r!.e 5-ac'es
Ii#.i*fy'-ii;.' irb; ac'iacent. t'o the,L:::cg llT^l;l::':?::t;.ir" -*ri; i; "rrii"e-il is'c*tt La.ke i"l -eppll::":i::-:'l:f :I^ot",'Grfrting, mo6fii.citfone as eugp;eoted. ao i;risri: e!'iogta are
eoorclnate<io Bo'ch at'e at eicel'cfr pl"ei sta'ge- i. I"=-'=ubdlelaLon
;i;-;;i "iio tiigJcussled, tie r1oulb l-l!re' tc b: al'ie 'io preeent
hls plano to "niir,"u"s.et- i,he sanie 'i;ine as il:a Lr:lio Ann
Developei'e , rni"elac at, the 3a{$e i)tilrLlc I{oeri-ti6:,o
In en lnfornai .jlecuaslort, i,he Parlt and i?eci'ea?ion'Conniselon
expreasec fnr-err"i 1n ha',,,1n8 ? Pl-e',-a:-i:a crevelop*'i, t'oeogalZ-
lng. 't,na?, lt cai?noo- eome cu'L o'i' tte- 5 agi'e i:a;'cei o"'rireil by
l"1r"Ryba..f';v;asalsoteeQ?',nlzecithet'1f';iretrL::1pof1anr1in the iliti,r io e ut:i':a?-s:rl ' i'Y': tt "+cuic itr l-'r":i -r 1 '!;Lre reiluotrt' nar)'r
lr ti':e 6ezelope'r.
The s'ire&,-eh Plan for ihe 5
fevlerur:C sl"rci nc obJectloris
i:
a:cr? irl-a'i o\'!lieii by It-': ilyba r'ras
vere troLetl . .
I
CITY OF
EH[[I HISSEI[
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1e00
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ivlayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: June L, L98L
SUBJ: Final Development Plan Review, Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
Land Company (Revises Previously Approved Development Plan)
The following report has been divided into four sections:
I. Status July 2L, 1980 PIan Approval
II. Status Report - Final Development Plan Amendment Request,
Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
III. Kathy Schwartz Report of May 2,1981 and Responses to Such Report
IV. Kathy Schwartz Report of lvlay 26, l-981.
The purpose of breaking the report into four distinct sections is to
a1low the City Council the greatest amount of flexibility in determining
how to proceed with this issue. Specifically, should the Council deter-
mine that. tonight's session should only concentrate on the responses to
the Kathy Schwartz report of May 2nd. A11 enclosures relative to that
response have been accumulated as a part of Section III. Should the
Council determine to concentrate only in terms of what was previously
approved, enclosures relative to this are encompassed in Section I-
Should the Council desire to concentrate on ivIrs. Schwartz I report #4 ,
such has been included. However, as this office did not receive this
report until the day of writing this report to the City Council, no
staff comments are included in this section.
This office would recommend that the Council proceed with the review
of this item as an amendment to a previously approved final development
plan. Should this recommendation be considered, hopefully, enclosures
included under Section II are all inclusive allowing for final action
this evening.
L
L
L
L
L
L
ATTORNEY I S REPORT
I "egal opinionL
t "'n;:*':f;::: ;.9*I"3'i,133?.ini::I"3":1""
This report was not received for enclosure with this packet.
I ft will be distributed at the meeting Morrday evening.L
IL
L
IL
L
L
L
L
L
t
t
SECTION I
Status July 2L, 1980 Plan Approval
SECTION I
Status July 21, 1980 Plan Approval
Attached please find a report from the City Attorney's office which,basically, states that the developer has one year in which to completeconditions set by the City Council. Stated another way, the developer
must meet the conditions of the final development plan approval prior to
asking for preliminary plat approval and he has the one year period of
ti-me, from final development plan approval to complete these conditions
and request preliminary plat approval. In the specific case of Fox
Chase Addition, the developer has until July 2L, l-981 to meet the
conditlons set by the City Council. Attached please find a listing of
all conditions that were set as a part of the JuIy 2L, 1980 approval.
Although discussj-on may have occurred by Mr. Derrick in regards to a
number of the points, basically a majority of the conditions set by the
City Council have not been met. It should be recognized, however, that
Mr. Derrick stilI has until July 21st, 1981 to complete these conditions
and that some of the conditions relate to work that would be necessary
after preliminary plat approval was given. Therefore, conditions
associated with specific construction plans or the actual construction
itself would typically become a part of the preliminary plat approval
and i-ncorporated into the development contract but logically would not
be completed prior to preliminary plat approval.
Conditions of April 7, 1980
1. That the applicant receive approval of theirgrading pIan, drainage plan and erosion control plan
from the
Soil Conservation Service
I"linnesota Department of Natural Resources
Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District
That said approvals be received prior to the matter
being resubmitted to the City Council for preliminary
plat approval.
That the pedestrian and conservation ..t.*.r,a portion
of the proposed development must be shown by the
applicant to have such soil conditions as would allow
for the development of such facilities, and that the
applicantrs soil condition evidence is to be reviewed
by the City Engineer.
That the applicant prepare cuI-de-sac plans for the
roadway portion in the vicinity of Iot 20, block 3
and 1ot 24, block 1. Said plans are to be reviewed
and approved by the citY engineer.
5. Paved street surfaces are to be 36 feet wide and
paved cul-de-sacs are to be 32 feet in diameter.
6. That the Park and Recreation Commission review
alternative trail locations between Pleasant View
Road and the conservation easement and is to submit
a recommendation to the City Council-
2.
3.
4.
\
Condilions of July 9, 19gO
,a.-.,
'. ":
lg.That a conservation easement be established withinthe area below the 900 foot elevation pursuant to thecomprehensive plan and that within said conservationeasement, a pedestrian-way easement be dedicaiedthat is 8 feet wide with r+ foot on either siae forpurposes of maintenance (the above would nulfiiy theproposed 20 foot trail easement indicated on ahaproposed preliminary pla_t dated May L2, I9gO, -*itn
the understanding thal trre above dlscribed easementwould be established upon completion of a feasibreroute within the conseivation easementl.- . ---'
11.That the applicant and its contractors, includinghome builders, carry out the construcai";--;;-improvements and stiuctures in accordance with therequirements set forth by the
RiJey purgatory Creek Watershed Districtsoil conservation service Evaluation Reportdated June 19, 19gO
-(The city councir recommendation is that the approvalsbe obtained before their revie\* of the preli.*ii"iyprat- For qualification purposes, the irir.y e"ig"t"rycreek watershed District has given a conditionalapproval in their r"lay 6, 1990, correspondence, however,the soil conservation service, being ln advisorybody, will not given [sic] such appioval. Howeier,r believe such may be satisfiea tiriougn carrying outthei-r recommendations that were noted in theirevaluation report).
l-2.That extra precautions be taken so that removar ofexisting vegetation may be kept to a minimum duringconstruction.
13-For reasons of soir conditions and slopes, the build.ingplans for all residences proposed within irre subjectdevelopment shourd be certified by an architect 5rcivil engineer registered in the state of Minnesota.
14.That the applicant be required to post sufficientescrows to assure that the degree of engineeringand inspection is carried out as recommended by theRiley Purgatory Creek Watershed District and tleSoil Conservation Service
15. Submit and receive Council approval ofbased on the plan as presented on Julysuch to 32 lots.
development plan,
2L, 1980, changing
UPDATED COIIMENTS ON ABOVE CONDITIONS
1. Sti11 applicable
2. The applicant has received Water Shed District approvalon the previous p1an. On the current plan amendment, the
Irlatershd District wants to review a rinal PIat approvedfirst by the City. DNR has reviewed and commented onthe plan amendment. It. is possible that a DNR permit
will not be necessary.
3. Covered under plan amendment proceedings.
4. The City Engineer has recommended that the right-of-way
be dedicated to the Westerly property line. The City
Engineer will also review detailed construction plans
when prepared.
5. Stilt applicable. (A change has been requested by the
applicant. )
6. The park and Recreation Commission wishes to review the
placement of the trail and conservation easements at the
tj:ne when grading is taking p1ace. Staff believes that
this is to late and thus reconmends the trail and con-
servation easement be provided as per the plan amendment
recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff.
7. Reference comment #6 above.
8. Still aPPlicable.
9. Still aPPlicable-
10. Still aPPlicable-
11. Still aPPlicable.
L2. Still aPPlicable.
13. Still aPPlicab1e.
14. StiII aPPlicable'
Additional additions conditions relative to the plan
amendment that are recommended by the Planning commission
and staff are found in the Planning Report of April L7,
198I and the Planning Commission minutes of April 22, I9B1'
SECTION II
Status Report
Fina1 Development Plan Amendment Request
Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
Status - Final Development Plan Amendment Request
Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
After receiving final development plan approval, and recognizing that
various conditions must be met within a one year period, Mt. Derrick
approached the City asking that this final development plan be amended.
His contention was that although final development plan approval had
been given, that changes proposed by himself would be beneficial to
both the City as well as himself and, therefore, it made no sense to
seek approvals from Soil Conservation Service, DNR, Watershed District,
etc. if an amended plan would be considered by the Council. I have not
asked the City Attorney's office or City Planner to verify their calendars
as to when Mr. Derrick's initial request may have occurred, but it is
generally believed that such was approximately the first of the year.
Delays in his formali-zing the request for a plan amendment primarily
related to questions concerning whether the City would consider such,
procedures that would have to be followed if an amendment were to be
considered, and what affects this amendment would have on the original
approval. fn any caser drr initial review did occur at the Planning
Commission Ievel wherein the attorney verbally stated that his preliminary
review showed that a new public hearing would be required. Mr. Derrick
withdrew his request for further Planning Commission review. Mr. Derrick
then submitted a letter to the City Council asking the City Council to
amend the final development plan. This item was considered by the Council
in April at which time the Council noted that they would not waive the
pubtic hearing requirements and that they would request that the Planning
Commission carryout such a hearing. Significant discussj-on occurred as
to whether all potential issues would be considered in the public hearing
process or whether such public heari-ng should only address changes in the
plan in comparison the approved plan of July 2L, 1980.
The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on April 22, 1981.
A copy of the minutes of that public hearing are attached. The minutes
appear to reflect a Planning Commission recommendation of denial with
specific conditions. However, dt the last City Council Meeting, Mr.
Michael Thompson did state that it was his belief that the motion reflected
an overall denial unless the various conditions were met. In essence,
he stated that the-J6ffi was to be considered a recommendation of approval
if all of the conditions noted were met.
On May 4, the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning
Commiision and additionally consj-dered public comments. As report #3,
submitted by Kathleen Schwartz was of significant length and not
received foi comments prior tp this meeting, theCouncil acted to table action
on this item to June l, 1981.
Should the City Council desire to proceed with considering approving an
amended fj-nal development plan for Fox Chase, the following issues need
to be resolved and incorpoiated as a part of the final development plan
amendment approval.
I would recommend that the Council follows
this section in carrying out the review of
sunmary recommendation from this office of
included at the end of this report. Bring
Iast packet.
the procedures set forth in
this item. AdditionallY, a
the issues to be resolved is
the plans as enclosed in Your
page -2-
subdivision does not have great potential for storms blowing trees over
the road and thus blocking emergency vehicles. If it did occur, the
emergency vehicle (in a typical street section) could simply drive
on the lawns around the tree. Downed trees normally occur in the
foliage months so snow should not be a problem.
Please don't misunderstand that I am opposed to secondaryaccesses. I am not, except in the case where it is difficult toachieve. I believe that to be the case in Fox Chase for these reasons:
1) The Carver Beach road system is poor at best.
2l Additional trees would need removal.
3) There are grade problems depending on which connection wouldbe used.
4l Additional right-of-way acquisl-tion would be required in
Carver Beach to make most of the proposed connections.
City Engineer's Comments dated May 18, 1981:
Based on safety considerations, Fox Path should be wider thanthe normal 28'because of the sweeping curves and steep grades. Evenwith double access, the street should be at least 32'wide. Fox Pathis a proposed resi-dential street and excess width is not being requiredto make it an eventual collector.
City Planner's Comments dated April 17, 1981-:
Staff had recommended that the 36 foot width street for Fox
Path j-n order to mitigate the single access situation of the subjectproperty. No change is recommended.
3. Previouslv fnstalled Assessments
o"reloper's R"ques t
We are advised that the property has pending 69 unit assessments.
In tight of the fact that only 52 units are approved, this pending
assessment shoutd be reduced accordingly.
REQUEST: Council reduce the pending assessment to 52 units.
Manager' s Recommendation3 Deny Request
4. Road Aliqnment
t
This guestion was discussed at length in our letter to lvlr. Don
Ashworth (25 March 1981). By all measures, this is the best method
of installing the road. The homesites all have a better configuration
and less grading and soil correction would be necessary to prepare the
property in this fashion.
REQUEST: Council approve the change in the road alignment.
Plannerts Comrnents dated April 17, 1981 and May 2, 1981;
This is in reference to the proposed alignment of Fox Path
in the northerly L/3 of the development. This of fice end,orses the
page -4-
typically required in a conservation easement (no filling, clear-cutting,structures, etc.) wiLh the exception that each individual lot beallowed one dock. Mr. Derrick supports his belief that docks should beallowed through the proposed Lake Study Ordinance which allows onedock for each lot having at least 100r in width on a lake. Typically,the Council would aIlow a conrmon beach lot (if the plat were in theform of an outiot versus separate ownership, i.e. East Lotus Lake).
However, exceptions do exist in plats such as the Rej.chert Addition,i.e. three docks were allowed for the 9 lots.
Recognizing that the developer would be willing to agree to aIItypical condj-tions of a conservation easement for the area outlined bythe Planner and recognizi-ng conditions of the trail system, thisoffice sees the issue of an individual dock for each lot having a widthof L00'at the lake, versus a sharing of a dock for every other lotmeeting the l-00'requirement, versus one dock for the entire addition,as solely a policy decision.
6. Public Improvements
Developerrs Request dated April 15, 1981:
We request the City of Chanhassen install ordinary municipalutility and street improvements in Fox Chase. We understand you mustorder a feasibility study, accept the feasibility study, and order thework. Because the City Engineer has already compiled the necessarydata for feasibility study, in this case the feasibility study canbe ordered, presented and accepted at one meeting. We have alreadyagreed to pay for the actual drafting and preparation of the documents. Wehereby waive our right to a public hearing at that meeting and ask that youorder the work to go forward upon acceptance of the feasibility report.In discussions with it'tr. Craig Mertz we have proposed the assessments beamortized over fifteen years with payment in fuII due ln seven years.
REQUEST: Council:a. Order and accept feasibitity study and order aII public
improvements.
b. Assess all improvements to Eox Chase, with costs divided
among all lots equally. By this request, we waive public
hearing of the assessments.
c. Assess said public j-mprovement costs over a fifteen year
amortization period with entire amount payable in seven
years.
Managerrs Comments dated June 1, 198L:
The feasibility study is anticipated to be complete this week for
action on June 15, 1.981. thereforer I1o action can be taken at this time.
7. Access to Pleasant View and Building Permit
Because the majority of the lots have been sold to Lloyd Leirdahl
of Minnesota Century Builders Inc., and in that Fox Chase is comprised
of two separate par-els, there would normally be permitted two residential
building permits. Mr. Lloyd Leirdahl proposes to build two residences,
on the northeasternmost and southeasternmost lots of the plat. The
former is to be a model for the Parade of Homes in August; the latter will
be a private residence for Mr. Leirdahl. It is understood that occupancy
Access to Pleasant View an@
page -6-
Manaqerts Recommendation dated June L, 1981: Deny
9. Other Condi-tions
a. Planning Commission Recommendations of April 22, 1981?
b. A11 Conditions previously applied and as set forth in Section
T; except where in direct conflict with action taken this
evening, in which case the June 1,1981 condition would apply.
c. Confirm or Extend Completion of Conditions by JuIy 2L, 1981?
d. Other Conditions which appear necessary as a result of Mrs.
Schwartz' report(s) and/or other public comment?
Managerr s Summation:
This office would recommend approval of the amended Fina1 Development
PIan on the following conditions (see previous pages for background
on each of the following and recognize that disagreement exists by
various staff members) .
1. Number of Lots : 52
2. Street Width: 36 or 32
3. Reduction of Assessments: Deny
4. Road Alignment: Approve recognizing that approval and
conditions set by Watershed District, S.C.S., D.N.R., etc.
(as set forth i-n 10b., below) will apply.
5. Conservation Easement: Approve aS a condition. Includes
resolution of trail issue with Park Commission and
previous conservation/trail conditions as shown in 10b,
below.
6. Public Improvements Table to June L5th.
7. Access to Pleasant View and Building Permit Question:
- Approve building permit issuance for Northeasterlymost
lot of Plat
- No permit approved for Lot L9, Block l, until plat completed.
Lot 3, Block 2, allowed to access to Pleasant view if
site distances can be achieved
8. Grading Permit: DenY request
9. Other Conditions:
a. Planning Commission recommendations deemed advisable
by Council.
b. AlI conditions as applied in JuIy of 1980 and, as set forth
in Section I of this rePort'
\
CITY OF
EH[![H[SSEI{
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) e37-1900
II1EMORANDUM
DATE: May 28, 1981
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROI4: Bill Monk, City Engineer
RE: Fox Chase Grading Plan
The grading plan as submitted by the developer is unacceptable
because of an inadequate cross-section wherein no provision is
made for gradi.ng the boulevards. A proposed cross-section
detailr ds prepared by this office, is attached for review.
The reasons for grading the entire right-of-way are to control
erosion, prOvide an area for snow storage, and standardize
the streel secLion throughout the City. I am aware that
this does increase the area of land disturbed and the number
of trees to be removed, but I recommend the City Council
not waive this requirement.
Both the straight and curved alignment plans require ex-
tensive grading throughout the plat but especially_along
the west6rn slope wheie the excavation does reach 20' in
isolated areas. The amount of site grading being proposed
is not unusual but will require strict attent'ion to the
maintenance and possible eipansion of the erosion controls'
In comparing the two plans, the quantity of overall site
;;"ail; reqfiired is substantially less on the curved align-
frent. -Thi; is due almost entirely to the reduction of sub-
grade correction necessary because this plan allows for move-
ment of a portion of the ioadway-and some house pads-out of
an area of poor soils. It snouid be noted that the final
quantity of giiai"g and coriesponding area t,o be disturbed
wi1l only U" a"t"rriined when tile extent of subgrade excavation
is establisned drriing the actual grading operation'
The developer,s engineer has computed-earthwork quantities
for site developm"ttt. They are as follows:
Item
Common Excavation
Subcut Excavation
Straight
Aliqnment
130 , o0o
22,O00
Curved
Alignment
99 ,000
10 ,000
/zru.L
Riley- Pu rgato ry Creek Watershed District
A
o 8950 COUNTY ROAD S4
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55343
(
(.'"..
May 6, 1980
Mr. Greg Kopishke
I^lestwood Planning and Engineering
74L5 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
Re: Site Grading for the Sunrise
Beach Development: Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Kopishke:
The Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory Creek l{atershed District
has reviewed ghe plans and grading and land alteration permit applicati.on
for site grading for the Sunrise Beach Developuent in Chanhassen. The
Managers are extremely concerned with the steeP grades on the development
site and will require a continuous inspection of the proposed erosion con-
trol measures_ t.o ensure that they are proPerly maintained and functional
until the allered areas on the site have been restored. To ensure that
the erosion control measures are properly uaintained, the District will
require that the developer post a performance bond or letter of security
in the auounE of $20,000 prior to the cormencement of land alteration.
With the above noted, the Managers aPProve of the grading and land
alteration pernit for site grading on this development subject to the
following conditlons:
l. Ihe District will require that all erosion conErol IDeasures, i.e.,
staked hay bales rej-nforced with snow fence, be installed prior to
the commencement of land alteration and be maintained until all
areas altered on the site have been restored. Once these erosion
control measures have been installed, the District's engineering
advisor must be notified prior to the comencemenE of land altera-
tion. Land alteration cannot begin until a field inspection of
the erosion control measures has been made by the DisErict I s
engineering advisor.
The District will require that the two temPorary sedixoentation basins
to be Iocated along Ehe norEh-south roadway be constructed at the
inifial stages of grading operations and remain functional during
the siEe grading portion of the project'
k
Stritc 339
5 J0 l'rirncc Avanrre Sorith
ll-i'ira, Ii'tnrresoLa 55tr35
r.h. ii
I(1I,EY_PURG,i'i'oiTY CREEK WAI'L:RS}IED I)ISTRICT
GR/.DINC A.iil) EAil'iiDiOVING PiIRMI-T
Appl ication for permj t, perrnit, noEif ication c,f cornpletion
and certificat.iorr of co;npletion
Name of Applicn.,t Derrick Land Compan
Address 177O Shelard Tower; Minneapolis 55 426 Telephone_jA_6 -22f_6_
Narure @ a sinqle family subdivision 27t acres
Location of lrrork [.Jes t of and adjacent to Lotus Lake
llun i c ip a li tY---! l-t 3 n ft e ssen,nnesoEa
ProiecEe<I Duration of I'Iork f monLhs
Procedures To Be Used to Control Erosion and Sedimentation Straq bale dikes
at f aclrrilents.
as neeessary durl!g _conetructj!nj__teSd or sod as neeessary f or'permanent
If addiEional space is needed to provide the information reguested abover. attach
the information to this application and in the sPace below briefly'describe the
(
al aEl a.
Date I Applicant
[ul!9_r_i_z_99_SS_"_q!-_-__t{Zg!_r_o_o_9_llqtlf_r'g-j__rlg!l9g-r_ils_!_oIgg!!y___
Perr'riE aPPlication received bY
1990 .
All pork shall be comPleted bY
naEure of collateral required
t'.
the l^Iatershed District on the 25 day of February
the 15 day of
is 520.000
JTtembgu 19_9,9. The anount and
Tlris permit application is hereby (dpxripd/approved) by the Board of ltanagers of
the WaEershed Disrrict this .7 day of. Mav' ' 193!L subject to the condl-
tions conEained ln the "tto.I?Id "orrespond"tce dated l'tav Z.' f'gSO' .
"
not release the perniEtee frorn any liabi-This permit is permissive only and does
11ry or obligaEion lmposed by Minnesoca Lay,/Pr l-oca1 ordinances.
Board of }lanagers
grading pernit
t9
,lsllotice of :
hereby given
completion of work
to the District on
authori zed
this
sr Ees, Fede
; expiration of
day of _t
Permic tee
Certiflcation of tlre satisfactory completlon of vrork authorlzed is
,19
lrereby oade on
tlris day of
Inspec tor
Mr. Fran Hagen
Page 2
liarch 4, 1981
6.
If
call us
5. All- areas altered because of slte gradlng must be restored wlth Seed
and dlsced mulch, or sod, or wood fiber blanket, or be hard surfaced
wLthin 2 weeks after conpletion of land alteratlon or no later than
Sept,ember 15, 1981.
A11 altered areas with a sloPe
with sod or wood fiber blanket
land alteratlon.
Ihe Dlstrict must be notifled 48 hours prLor to comencement of land
alteration.
you have any questloas regarding the Districtrs cornments, please
ar 920-0655.
of 3:l or greater must be restored
within 2 weeks after comPletlon of
(
BARR ENGINEERING CO.'
Engineers for the District
Approved by the Board of Managers
RCO/111
c: Mr. Frederick Richards
Mr. Frederlck Rahr
Mr. Don Ashworth
\'"i''
esident
P-6.l4, Derrick
Page 2
I . Number of I ots
ffiroughout the review of the subject Droposa'lthi s of f i ce does not recal'l any of the p'l ans showi ng more
than 55 uni ts. It was presumed that the appl i cant had
cal cu'lated the pendi ng 69 uni t assessment i nto hi s
I and use devel opment proposal s and chose to fol I ow a
market that urou'ld serve'lower density, larger'lot development.
Thi s i s understandably qual i fi abl e as to when the appl i cant
made his initial assessment search on the property.
In determining the Land Use densit.y for developments,
and especi a1ly i n the case of Pl anned Resi denti a'l Devel -
ooment Districts, there is the need to make certainjudgemental decisions inc'luding environmental conceFnS,
and reasonable density standard. The P'lanning Commission
and Ci ty Counci I i n previ ous revi ews , a'lthough not
sDeci f i ca'l 1y menti oni ng envi ronmental constra j nts ofthe subject property, did, based uoon the informat'ion
avai I abl e to them, fi nd the DroDosal acceptabl e at 49
and 52 lots respectably. At this time, this office
f eel s that the Final Devel oDment Dens'i ty rel ati ve tothe 69 units assessed is not germane to the Planning
Commission consideration and it is recommended that the
Planning Commission not act to change the gross density
establjshed by the City Council until so instructed bythe Counci I .
2. Street Wi dth
SmTf-mA" recommended that the 36 f oot wi dth s treet f or
Fox Path in order to mitigate the sing'le access situat'ionof the subject property. No changle is recommended.
3. Prev.i.ousl.y Instql'led Assessments tfre Ci ty Counci'l .. llo
Planning Commission action necessar.y at this time.
4.Thia ii in reference to the
Path in the norther'ly 1/3 ofoffice endorses the oroposed
a'l ienment is constructed toCity Engineer.
proposed al i gnment of Fox
the devel opment; Thi s
chanqe Drov'ided sai d re-
standards acceptable to the
Conservati on Easement of Drevi ous subdi vi si ons andlllg \,lLyr lll ot.rtrlvYqr ur l,l
Planned" Resjdential Development Districts, i.e. Lotus
Lake Estates, Pice Marsh Manor, and Re'ichert Addition' '.
have rrl aced ionservati on easements proh'i bi ti ng structural
al teratj ons to the I akeshores. The assi stant Ci ty Attorney
wi I I be oresent Wednesday even j nq to exrrl a'in i n detai I
the p1 acement of conservati on easements as part of
s ubdi vi s'ion aDprova I s .
P-6.l 4, Derri ck
Page 4
character of the deve'lopment and that subdivision safety
des i gn i s paramount, thi s offi ce recommends that thi s prob'l embe mitigated either by a density transfer of Lot 3 to anotherporti on of the proposed pl at.
In conversations wi th various property owners near the subjectproperty, I have been asked to comment on the extention of theright of way of Fox Path to the westerly property line, and thepossibility of secondary access from the subject property tothe south.In discussions with the attorneys office, 'it wai foundto be acceptable to withdraw the dedicated right of way 40'to 50'from the western property I i ne provi ded that a p'l anni ng agreementbe filed at the carver county P.ecorders office stating thatthe adjoininq lots (tot 22, Block 2 and Lot 30, B'lock 'l ) wouldwaive any acquisition fees to the City if extention of saidright of way is needed in the future.
As to the issue of secondary access, the City En-qineer, Bill Monk,feels that the previous findings that that access would be of
margi nai benef i t rema'l ns val i d.
recommend that the Pl anni ng Commi ssi on recommend that the Ci tyCouncil approve the Final Develonment Plan of Derrick Land
company i n accordance wi th previ ous ci ty counci'l approval ofJuly .l980 with the additional condition that the density transfer
f or Lot 3, Bl ock 2 be i ncorporated i nto the Fi nal Pl at wi I I ma'i n-tain , as best Dossible, the integrity of the stand of treesin the northwest portion of the property.
Ir{anager's comments
A copy of the city council minutes of April z (preliminaryDevelopment Plan Approval) as well as July 2L (Final Deve-lopmentPlan Approval) are enclosed. This offj-ce would recommend, thatany acLion on this item include not only the conditions of this
amended approval, but also the conditions as established forthe original plat in April and July of 1980.
Public Improvements: I"1r. Derrick's letter makes several
to a'petition for public improvements",
"ordering feasibility study" r"specific method and years of
assessmeIlt", etc. Given the length of this agenda, this office
would recommend that discussion and action on these types
of issues be tabled to a future meeting
Location and Construction of Trail: As shown in the planning
. 2) the previous aPproval
encompassed specific requirements as well as optional construction
techniques toi tne trail through the proposed developmen!'-.
As resubmitted, a third potenti.at locltion has now been defined'
It is recommended that .iy "pptoval be conditioned upon the
applicant r"=of.rirrg this i==irl with the Planning Commission and
,'u^, !,
Page 3
Planning Commission Meetjngt
Pr.yzmus
Ms. l,Jatson made a moti on to amend the Drevi ous moti onto read that the Driving Range shall provide l5 off streetparking and some on street oarking. second by Mr. Noziska.Six members d.ye, J. Thompson opoosed.
Iinal PevelopLent-Plan Amendment Reouest, Fox Chase Addition.Derri c k :
Mr. I,laibe'l presented t!.'e p'lanning Renort to the pjanning
commission, 'l !rting the 5 changes from the previous plans su5-mitted (see P'lanning Reoort npii 1 17, l98il. -N". -urulu.t alsoread the Staffs comments on the number of iots, street width,previous'ly insta'l led assessments, road al ignment, conservationeasement, publ i c imorovements, bui i di ng nermi ts and oradi ng oermi ts
14r. Partridge indicated to the p'lanning commission thatthe number of assessments and the publ i c imirovements are afunction of the City Counci I and that the Pianning Commissionshould let them act on those items.
11r. Derrick,-the apfr'li.cant, explained to the planning
Commission that if the road was changed he would have to iemovesome Mqpte trees and urould have to shave ground rather thanto fill, or if the road was moved it would make 2 lots smallerand I ess desi rabl e. Mr. Derri ck has reduced hi s p'tans f rom54 uni ts to 52 uni ts.
property ou,ner, stated
and met with Mr. Derrickthat the.y would likeat this time:
l.They would like to see a
and they don't like such
View Road.
pl at drawi ng wi th 52 uni tsdensity c'lose to Pleasant
2.
Regardi ng the access to Pl easant Vi ew Road - nej ghbors
reouest that Fox Path be moved to the East property
I i ne for safety purposes.
It was reeuested that Mr. Derri ck chanqe the wi dth
of Fox Path from 36'to 28'to match the width of
Pleasant View Road.
,./,
t.: .
/.
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
]
I
l'!rs. Kathy Schvrartz, a nei ghbori ngthat the nei qhbors had qotten toqetherand the neighbors agreed upon 7 6ointsto bring up to the Plannfng Commission
0n the first plan 14r. Derrick had prooosed 3 lots
al ong P1 easant Vi ew Road now he i s presenti ng 4 I ots.
The ne'ighbors woul d I i ke to propose that he returnto his first proDosal of 3 Iots along Pleasant View.
3.
ffi
Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes
Derri ck
create a si te probl em to the east.the east is an economic oroblem.
Not changing the road to
Ms . !latson as ked
road drop off on bothwill drop off some but
how the ol atform wi I I I ook, wi I I thesides? Mr.0rr indicated that the roadthe I ooks wi I'l be a'l ri ght.
Mr. M. Thompson indicated that Mr. Derrick has proposed
a lll.8 grade level on Fox Path with a 3% grade on the platform.
Mr. Monk expl ai ned that there i s a maximum 7% grade 'leve'l
in the ordinance. The 7% is for safety in the winter time.
' M". M. Thompson asked 14r. tlaibe'l if the staff were the
only ones who are in favor of the deadend street into the
Bennett property. Mr. I'laibel indicated that Mr. Derrick had
proposed Fox Path that way and that only l ate'ly was i t ever
brought up to end the road 30-40'from the property line andput a cu'l-du-sac on it. Fox Path was recommended to be 36'
wide for the reason that that the road is a long sing'le access
road. Mr. M. Thompson asked Mrs. Bennett if anyone had approached
her concerning Fox Path ending on her property I ine. Mrs.
Bennett answered no.
Mr. Frank Kurvers, a property owner, asked about the
outlot and the sediment pond, what is going on with this item?
Mr. Wajbel indicated that the pond is required for run off.
Mr. Monk exp'lained that the outlot is not required for drainage
but the outlot was to be for the property owners in Fox Chase
in order that they could all have use of the lake. The sediment
pond is a different thing. Mr. Curt Laughinghouse, a represent-
i ti ve f or Mr. Derri ck, stated that i ni ti a'l 1y the sediment
pond was pl anned to be i n the out'lot. The outl of was p'l.anned
ior recreitional use. Now the proposa'l is that the pond be
placed in the backyard of the lake front lots and the outlot
has been di sgarded.
Mr. Kurvers asked if all of the work on the lake shore
was goi ng to aaruS. if,. soi I and i f there woul d be an.Y runof f
into the I ake. Ms. Watson asked Mr. Derri ck i f he understood
that 20'a'l ong tlie lakeshore was to be designated.tg.the city
for a Conservitlon Easement. Mr. Derrick answered that this
*i, the f i rst he knew that the easement was to be a'long the
I akeshore. Mt. -Wiiion asked why no docks were permi tted'
Mr. Craig lleri;, ih. Citv Atto.iqv,. elplained that the Conservation
Easement f i rsi-iur.-rp ,i.n if,. piit< & Recreati on Commi ssion
considered th; if.ich plan on March 20 , 1979. They recommended
the Conservati on Easement and throuqh the devel onment process
i t was requi red to have a conservati on Easement. That was
incorDorated 'i nto the City Councjls aoproval of the olat jn
Juiy of I g80. The Conservatj on Easement that aonl i es to
this community rn.ins that you can't di9. on the lake shore or
fill on the lakeshore, yoi-iani t cut tne vegitation and you
can' t construct structures on the I akeshore, i f you can't con-
Page 7
P'lanning Commission Minutes
Derri ck
Mr. Ladd Conrad indicated that he would'l ike to see Lots'l & 2 of Secti on 2 taken out and make the road access f urther
to the east. He 'l ikes the idea of an outlot to the southof the oroposed property until a road access is necessary.
Mr. Conrad felt that the cul-du-sac is imoortant and the a
28'or 32'street width is acceptable. He would like to see
52 I ots i nstead of the 54 presented on the f i rst p'l an.
Mr. H. Nozi ska stated that he i s concerned about the 'land
is it bui'ldable? Also, he felt that there are to many units
than there should be comDared to the terrain of the land. He
fee'l s that 36' street wi dth i s reasonabl e because there won't
b'e a secondary access for some tirne. Mr. Noziska Iikes the
idea of the Conservation Easement and feels that the number of'lots shou'ldn't be more than 52 units.
Ms. t,Jatson i ndi cated that she woul d 'l i ke to see a secondary
access maybe i n the south, coul d be used as an outl of unti'l
needed as an access, and felt that a 28'or 32'street width
was acceptable. Ms. Watson felt that the road should be moved
over to the east not only for the reason that the street would
have better sight but the grade is better to the east. Ms.
l,latson is very much in favor or the Conservation Easement and
woul d I i ke to see the outl of back agai n. Ms. l,latson expressed
concern f or the movement of al I the di rt i n the area, who wi'l 'l
protect the lake and what wi'll prevent the lakeshore owners from
dumoi ng thei r ferti I i zer i nto the I ake as eros i on occurS .
Mr. Mi ke Thompson i ndi cated that he woul d I i ke to preserve
the meadow and feels that there are better ways of o'lanning
thi s p1 at. Mr. M. Thompson stated that the envi ronmental
impact of this area is fairly good. This proposal is not in
kebping with the oarticular area. Mr. M. Thompson eIp!9::9d
his'coicern for ait the moving of dirt, demucking and filling
and is concerned for the effect on the lake. He would 'l ike
to see the access moved to the east the hill is to steep and
the sight is poor. Mr. M. Thomnson did not like the 36'street
vridth,"too wide, and the grade standards are violated by-faving
too li..rr of a ioad. He il so i ndi cated that he di d not 'l i ke
ih; iaei'of Lot 3, Block 2 access onto Pleasant View Road'
f .-.ipr.tiea-f is mi xed f ee'l i ngs about tl'e Conservati on Easement,
i f u i ukeshore or,{ner shou'ld be abl e to have a dock or not '
Mr. M. Thompson-inAt.ated that he does not like the 52 units
would rather i.. 35 but 52 have been approved. Mr. M. Thompson
asked hor^r a toi-it made buildable, wou'l d they have.to demuck
the whol e I ot-or just the bui I di ng sj te? M"' Derri ck stated
ifrit if'. whote loi would be buildiUte, fill it with proper
soi I . The *rit i s taken out ind repl aced wi th good so'i I . then
comDacted ana-ifren filled again if needed. Have to raise the
lots because of the water tiUle and to keep the grades down'
Mr.JimMeyeraskedifanybuildingpermitscgul.dbe
i ssued before the Fi nal Pl at aporoval ? Hr. Mertz i ndi cated
Page 9
Planning Commission Minutes
Derri ck
Ms. Watson made a motion that the Planninq Commissionrequest that the developer dedicate a right of way 50' in
w'idth 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, thi s Conservati on Easement wi'l I not al'low the al ter-ation of lakeshore and installation of structures includingprivate docks. second by Mr. Noziska. 6 - ayes, Mr. M. Thompsonnay. Passed.
I Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the developer be requiredto dedi cate a trai I easement ori gi nati ng on the southerly I i neof the plat within the Utility easement commensing at thesouther'ly edge of the property and lyi ng northerly to the south'l i ne of Lot 12, Bl ock I accordi ng to Exhi bi t A and runni ngwesterly at that point to its point of intersection of FoxPath as designated in Exhibit A thence continuing northerl.y withthe right of wa.y of Fox Path to intersection of Pleasant ViewRoad. Mr. l,l. Thomoson seconded the motion. A'l 1 in favor.
Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Counc'il that the 0utlot may be incorporatedinto the individua'l properties as shown in Exhibit A sincethey have virtually no utility as an 0utiot. Second by Mr.Noziska. AII in favor.
Mr. tr.l. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council that the Exhibit A. (4-22-Bl)
be accepted but the Pl anni ng Commi ssi ons recommendations for
such be subject to the modification previously approved.
Moti on was wi thdrawn.
Mr. 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. Noziska opposed. Passed.
l'1r. tl. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission
present to the Ci ty Counci I approva'l of Exhi bi t A to i ncl ude
the recommendations to the subiect property as previously
approved. Second by Mr. Noz'iska. Mr. l.l. Thompson and Mr.
Noziska - dye,5 - nay. Fafled.
Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Counci I to reiect the proposed planned
deve'lopment (Exhibit A) based on the previous 9 motions untjl
thev are met. Mr. Conrad seconded the motion. 6 in favor
Mr.-',^1. Thompson abstained. Passed.
Council Meeting July 2J l9B0 ( -2-
COMITIONAL UStr PERMIT, ITTIUS IAKE ESBTES BEAGI IOT AND EIIIRANCE STGII \ZARTA}CE:
M
to establish a beach 1ot between Lot 35, Blcck 2 and I.ot 9, Block 1. -they areproposing to install a sand blarket six irches deep ard also install tr^o canoeracks., :: '-:
@uncilman Neveaux moved to approve a cordiuional use perrnit for a beach 1ot
--... '. conditioned utrrcn:
, -. , 1. That ttre beach lot consist of a sard blarket, svim area, ard, trpo six capaciercanoe racks as sLrornrn on ttre site p1an, City Courrcil D<hibit A, dated July 21, fg-AO.e mhat the s,vim area be marked with a minimrm of three "s\ndm ar@." buoys trrat
.-1' are in accordance w-ith tlre Uniform Waterway Ivlarkirg Systan.',. ." 3. That the svim area be marked by ttre above anchore& buoys at a reasonable
,"i'.,.i:,' , distance frcrn shore.F,-' IbLion secorded $ Councilman Gevirg. ltre follcrrdng voted in favor: I"Iayori',.;' . Hobbs, Cor.:ncilmen Pearson, Netleau<, Gevirg, arri S^reison. No negat.j-ve votes.''.;":-:' I,lotion carried,. l
-,The honecn'neer's association is requestirg a sign permit to erect an entrance;;,' sign at Chrctar^r Circle and Chanhassen noad. it " proposed sign will not be,--,..'i lighted ard will be made of wood. Staff and the sign-Ccnrnittee reccnmerded..,;1,.1..;., approval of a variarce.
' rii'::;'' Councilrnan Swenson moved b grant a vari-ance for tLre installaLion of an en6ance
:i' ' sign in the public right-of-way. tr4otion secorded by Cor:ncilrnan Neveau<. The'i'.;;;'. follorvirg voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councj-1men Pearson, Nes./eaLD., Geving, ard
1-,.i, Swenson. No negrative votes. tr4oLion ca:ried.
-r!t.*i.{'-,.fil:: . FII'IAL DEVEIOPI,ENT PIAN - FOX CTiASE ADDITIoN (DERRICK IAND CCT'4PA}TY): John ShaTdLq^I-" L-' ',"1i,. . was present to dj-scuss tl:e proposed-l' *;;''':
,. +:a', , Councifman Neveaux npved to approve tJ:e firral develotrment plan based. utrrcn t1-eiff'-:t .,'configr:ratj-on of 52 lots as pr&ented to ttre City Cor:nci1 April 7, 1980. MoLion. 1::.' seconded by Councilman C,evirg. The follo^ring voied in favoi: @uncilmerr pearson,
'lxri'.':. Neveaux, Geving, arrd Swenson. Mayor Hobbs voted. rn. Motion carried.,;{*.:; .':rlfl :i lji:-,.; Councilman Neveau< moved to approve the final develotrment plan for Fox Chrase-#;:j,','r'}qldon sr.rbject to itsrs 2, 1-and 4 of the City uarriger's report dared July 17,
{,;j: '1980, and j-tsns 1-5 in ttre Iand Use Coordinatorrs relnrt of July 9, 1980. l,totion:+;:..\;'.=-'t, .' '' Secorded LY Co:ncilman Pearson. The follouirg voted in favor: Cor-:ncj-lmen pearson,l *' ''.;,'' Neveanrx, dvirg, ard Swenson. Mayor Hobbs voted no. Motion carried..
!=-'i'rru-. _avn.1.b -,-:. ,.;ii:;?...,...I7ADT^nTr-Eit)rY1IrDCml/\FoCE1tcoZo.roo^inthhhnn-".rr:1-^.^..^--
\A.RIAIICE REQUEST, I,CITS 653-558, 683-688, CAR\ER BEAGI: l,Like Sorenson is,:r'::i.. - vflYn\Urj rtUU.Lb'1', ]ljl'ti b)J-b5U, bUJ-bUU, (ARVLIR BEACFI: MLKe SOrerEOn iS
l].'a;' seeking two loC area vari fr. The Board of Mjustrnents
ard Appeals reccnrnerded atrproval provided that lots be ccnrbined as parcel one
beirg Iots 653-658 and parcel trao being Iots 633-688.
Councilman Neveau,x moved to accept the Pl-anrLirgl re1rcrt of July 16, 1980, and the
Board of Adjustrnents and Appeals reccrnnerdation and the Iand Use Coordinator's
msnorandum of July 11, 1980, points 1-3. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving.(he follor,ving voted in favor: l4ayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson, Neveatx, Gevirg,
ard Swenson. No negative votes- Motion carried.
LCrI' AREA, trl{f,\[ YnnD, r\ND R&fR YARD .SETtsACK \Z\R[ANCLS, LOTS 19 AIID 20, Rm CFnAR
POINT: Ron ard Sherry Ytzen are rcquestirg an 81000 sguare foot lot area variance,a-F-foot rear yard settuct variance to the Shorelarrl l,tanagorent Ordinence, and a
front yard variance of 14 feet in order to build a hqne. The existirg cabin will
be dsnclished-
t
rc19 \j Z
Pf"liminary development pl1n, although staff noted thatthe developer had, increa^sed the numb6r of rots from 49 to52 following planlirg commission consideration. The . .
:developer norv seeks iinat development-plan rGvierv and ;.has increased. the number of rots to s4-. Ther plarrrrirrg commis.approved this change with two members voti"g "gii"=t suchon the basis of densilv. This office has concerns with *:_..this overarr process i; that the preliminary deveropment -..plan stage is.the point whereat dLnsities, i"t"r"-lr.,ageneral location oi roadrnvayg, zoning, open areas, etc. areestablished. Afrer this p6int, the-devllop"r-pi""J"a= :.yit.hspecificengineeringinformatiorirecognizingthathe has come ro asreement with rh; -ait-y in ;;;;;; io trreseoverall land use issues. Miner shifti il ;;a-"rii"nents, :-lot lines, etc. can occur as a result of "p."itic-Engineerincdata; however, densities shourd, not be crr"ig".r-;y ;-iil;;-i;;=city or the applicant. rf this F"ii"wed. to occurr i..^_,.-rsimilar to the way in which it has, rrrit is-trre-p"=p"=" orpreliminary development plan hearing= or attempting'to - -_come to agreement as to development issues at i rr*ri.ng sEage- - .:The developer should, be reguirla to ieauce _tl-e number--of ._ _-.lots to 52 (49 appears iusfitiable). . --t"-.-,.--'_-a.--t.._
2).The location of the trail is stil1 uncertain at this..timer.I::r.,i.e.whethera1ongthebackIot1j.neorabutting.the..j:cstreet on the north end of the development. ^rn meetinf-_witrr_the Park and Recreation commission, tire deveropers have ...r:::,stated their desi-re to have this decision rvithheld untS.f -:-:;_.;-grading is commenced and Park and Recreation CommissionerE?,iafforded an opportunity to walk both potential locati"r...J.lThis suggestion appearl to create some problems in _--..,,..,., - --l -preparation of a development contract (outlining tr.Io'].1,:.,,, -::1.-',,f
potential location areai) , but no other reasona6le _*. .:_-:t
-.' .',',H1alternative appears to exist. Howeverr' in accepti.rg'd,iie -.:sr+.iifinal development p1an, it shourd. be ciear that thel. ,.,....-ffi'ioutlot area is being accepted as a conservation area a aruas suchr rro park credits are being given. ..Furtherr..that :it is to the advantage of the dev"iofer to have the I Jooulitrail through the conservation area and, whether..such-1b".*=r,ulwithin this conservation area or partially adjacent !q -t1" l$jroad, that developers agree to grade and, install wood.,bhips_--.ifor the trail in iccordince with the recommend,ations "f.-.tfr.TEPark and R'ecreation Commission as a part of their overall .-:'r"- I
grad,ing plan *',:
3).ear .* ];f!As a part of both the East Lotus Lake Project and N,
Mountain development proposals, signif icant <liscussio.n
-_
''.li
occurred in regiards to the City I s ability to assure -'-"+l
that public improvements are dLsigned an-d. inspected to-: -.-l.E
City standards- In conformance rv-ith these discussions, It i:
is recommended. that the developer be required to use --.'=l
the City's engineer for preparation of plans and specrrt---'="E
cations and all staking and inspection d
4'r. The above cond,itions are in addition to those outlined b{=tA
Land Use Coordinator in his reports of July g and L7, o"1.tj
Engineer,s report of July 7 - -such disregiaia:-trg those variancq
E rr;"xFs.Bv" t: "i9* !r. SsU tfi i3, uBr i u.p Is] i**Ra z.i:::' ;?IE3: .$I
I
U
EIB ffiIHA
HIil EI EI hT Efrffiffiffiffi$T
f, fl Y ,')t-
7610 LABEDO DRIVECP.O. BOX l4TOCHANHASSEN, MINNESOT/T 55317
(612r- 474-8885
I --..},a., ..PLANNI NG RE PORT
| "t'- .''*-ATE: Jury g , rggo
I i,' "*o-: ,,, f,lanning commission and staff
FROM: 'Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel
| :'{-::',''r-^' :
| :;:-,--. SUBJ: Final Development PIan Review, Fox Chase Addition
1 Iii,-.r-35u.=.IPPLICANT: . Derrick Land, Company
| ' ';#,,!;:.
ir\ J' : ' L'er r r'L:Jt
!
_*"+'iLANNTNG cASE: P-614 ,:i:l
l,Lg';-i1.*1r-.. fi *l "EE;t-;n" following is this office'=.3"f,1r,"" to the Assistant ciry Attorney,sletter of June L'l , 19BO and. the City Engineer's letter of July 7,
| -r6gi.1980 and the overall action at hand
t"'**.S;":= , .
As you have probably noted, the subject proposal has increased from
L-*-o, 52 single f amily residentialr, lots to 54. This of f ice f inds that
I .""ff}^t:i,the density proposed falIs. vrithin the most restrictive guidelines
, - be substantively validated on reasons of local.-physiography.
| +&<+q r-f" ffii*i'Sn response to the City Engineer's letter'of July 7,1980, the issues
-,, , of wider streets, and the 73 plus grades were. covered in the City
l,**o-o. Council review of April 7, 1980, wherein the City Council reconrmended.
li'&ffi,r"that the street =rr?r""r be 36lf eet wide', anct the the paved. portion,'."'"bf the cul-de-sacs are.to be 32 feet in diameter.,. -Th.er,gnly concern
I -, that this of f ice has is that the recommended roahr.iiS'i6-f "6 Cul-de-sac
li'Hr+p..,,diameter by Ord.inance 33 is B0 feet. I recommeld..,that the applicantt'' lisl.rr,i1rr"1rr6. in their fi-naI construction p1ans, remed.iation for the
vertical curves on cul-de-sacs E and D, the temporary cul-de-sac.
l:.J:;^;l::.. d,esign plans at the southerly end of the p1at, sanitary sel'rers and'I, i*;ii, ,ateimains as recommencled. in said engineei's report rvith additional
consi4eration for the looping at the end of the ternporary cul-de-sac-
It ..,:i.I Fi,.t, rn response to the Assistant city Attorneyrs letter of June 17, 1980'
I recommencl the follorving special conclitions and consiclerations for
inclusion into the clcvetopment contract on the subject proposal:
1), That c1 conscrvation easement be established rvithin
the arca belor., the 900 foot elevation pursuant to the
Comprehensive Plan and that rvithin said. conservation
l.
I ,",aa,o* o scHoELL
' AHLtsLEjMAosoN
-ACK
T. VOSLEB
i JAMES R. ORR
! -aRouo E. oAHLIN, AFFY L, HANSUfN
-ACK E. GILL
i Rooruev B. GoRooN
| -neooone o. KEMNA
' oHN w. EtvloND
-ENNETH
E. AOOLF
- WILLTAM FI. ENGELHAROTt 'Ruce c. suNotNGr .. scorr HAnFt
.JENNIS W. SAAFI
i cenalo L BAcKMAN . '-
I r;s.J:lxr,' :,|'j;)';'
SCHOELL & MAtrlSON, tNC.
ENGTNEE,.S AN o =r*r=*too=
(612) 938-7601 r 5O NINTH AVENUE SOUTH o HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
OFFICES AT HURON. SOUTH
July 7, LgBO
DAKOTA ANO DENTON. TEXAS
I
t
11+{W..,,.r,
.i;,,.. citY of Chanhassen
.c/o Mt. Bob Waibel, Assistant
CitY Manager
'i*Fix - Charrhassen, Minnesota 553L7
Subject:Derrick Land ComPanY
Sunrise Beach (fox Chase)
Prelinrinary Plai. Reviervi :rt"::.ir,i,-.I - ?;-'.=:..:.
{l -drrt-ir:."
--
-1. with the City Ordinance, for the above named PRD. Results are
!l tfFifl--"= forlows:- *\-;r-. -
;-' STREETS
f ryg4*1,-.rr it*ros{,..,.. The right-of-lvay 'and. street widths meei the ordinance for
:.;' a r"tia"rrtial streei, Iiowever, it seems. to me ttrat ttre main
il.*o*r,,,,"tr""t through the developrnent rvi]] ultj:nately be-a collector
I ffig'#"4;;;a---thu! a rvider strlet width should be considered''
-,i.
fl ;'tq*.'..s..,, o- ?:: I: " ": ::3" =3i' l.?I3."?i,, *?3ff9" ;l"ii3 E i'Sil*""
]_iq-*and 3% within 30 feet of cul-de-sac "D". Vertical curves on
l!.-. cu1-de-r"."-;a; 1rp-o.t end) and' rrDrr (at intersection) are less
fl,ilW:tr,lt,""-zo times the aigebraic difference as required b)' ordinance-t #llit+l,;"r-a"-"". rrE,, also Sxceed.s the 5oo foot maximum length-- The
lr- *"tr."a of proriding a "tem;rcrary" cul-de-sac at t}-e south end of
fl +Xt,ale main s-treet is not clear and should be shorvn'
a-' sAr'{rrAR.Y sElvER
1d ;L.r.4 -..-1tr1:1i.- :__ ^c !1^^ *-^*^^^,1 -ani.F;rr )t shorrrn, l:ut is-, i*i,,' Size of the proposed sanitary server ls. n(
assumed to be B-inch^. Easement for the sanitary sewer fr9*
I- ;;r;r;g mantrore to rnanbole in street ,Arr (betrveen Lot's 15 and
t .;.i, iil"oit"r. 3) is not sho,.vn- I'tanhorcs in cur-de-sacs should be
' :a<';'- l"i""ala to eliminate services cirectry into the manhores-
!tI iL.I f,-bi..l*I -i6F?;.'
rlt
t:
I
t
>
May lJ, 1981
Chanhassen Clty Council
Chanhassen, Mn.
Dear Mayor a.nd. Councl1 Menbers,
I had the opportunlty to walk through the proposed, Fox Chase Developnenttoday rlth Fran callatra^n and. Kurt Laughlnghouse, the attorney forDe:rick Land. company. After seelng some of the proposed. chai:ges lnthe sewer Ilne, r feer that lt ls necessaqr for the entlre park
commlsslon to see the revlsed plat agaln before any pra^ns areacoepted., regardlng the pJ.acement of the traiI.
tJe could d.lscuss this at our June 2 neetlng.
Slncerely,.).f)\*,r -qrl-ir- r\" /x,--<-
Phyl1ls Pope
Park Comnlsslon Chalr
_i
_t
I
I
-b
I
-iF
I
_b
RECEIVED
tilAY 18 iggt
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
((
L.rtsox & Ivlrrnrz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
l9OO FrFrSt BAtrx PLACE wt:Sr
MINN EAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
April 2, 1981
TE LEPHONE
(Glz) 33!-9364
07 COuxscL
HARVEY E. SXA F
MARX C. McCULLoUGH
Donald W. Ashworth
Chanhassen City Manager
Box L47
Chanhassen MN 553I7
: Fox Chase
Dear Don:
on April 6, 1981, the city council is scheduled to consider therequest of Derrick Land Company to revise the proposed plat of FoxChase.
This development was last considered by the Council on July ZL, I9gO,when a motion was passed "to approve the final deveropment pranbased YPon the-configuration of 52 lots as presented to the City CouncilApril 7, 1980." under ordinance 47 the ',finaI development praniincludes the "preriminary plat" among other things" io dat6r thedeveloperrs have not submitted the final plat to the City for approval.
The revision proposed by Derrick Land Company consists of a realignmentof the street system and an increase in the number of lots from 5i to54.
The City Council has some discretion to approve minor changes in platsonce preliminary plat approval has been granted. For example, thelocation of a building pad might be moved. However, in the case ofFox Chase, the development review process has been completed for allintents and purposes. Accordinglyr w€ cannot recommend that the Councilreconsider its approval granted on July 2L, 1980..
Section 14.06(21 of the Zoning Ordinance does allow the City Councilto review proposed amendments to a final development plan; however,
such amendments can be considered only after a new public hearing.
A copy of S14.06 (2) is attached.
If the Council chooses to consider the amendments proposed byDerrick Land Company, it could take no formal action on April 61 1981,
other than to order a ne!., publj.c hearing as required by 514.06(21 .
If the Council does chose to direct the scheduling of such a public
hearing, it would be within the discretion of Council to limit the
scope of the public hearing to the issue of the proposed road
realignment and to the issue of the additional 2 lots.
RUSSELL H. LAFISON
cRAlc x. ta ERtz
-1
-I
t
t
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
-l RUsSELL H. LARsoN
II CRAIG M. MERTZ
I
OF COUNSEL
- HARvEy E. sKAAR
II MARX C. MCCULLOUGH
Le'nson & Mrnrz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I9OO FIRS? NATIONAL BANX BUILOING
Mt N NEAPOL|S, MtNN ESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE
(612) 33s-9s63
May 29, 1981
I Mr. Donald Ashworth
- Chanhassen City Manager
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Fox Chase
Dear Don,
t On July 21, 1980, Fox Chase received t'F.ina1 Development Plan
Approval" subject to certain conditions.
r On April 22, 1981, the Planning Commission, at the request of
Derrick Land Company, held a public hearing on several revisions to
the plan approved on July 21, 1980. You have asked. us to advise as to
' whether Derrick Land Company has somehow abandoned its plan approved
on July 21, 1980 in such a fashion as to prevent it from reverting to
the July 2L,1980 configuration and obtaining final plat approval for
' that configuration.
We are of the opinion that Derrick Land Company may revert to its
t JuIy 2L, 1980 approved plan if it can meet the conditions which the
City Council attached to that approval.
During the 1980 session of the legislattrre, 5462.358, subd. 3c
was added to the enabling act for local subdivision controls. That
, s€ction provides in relevant part:
',For one year following preliminary approval and for
, tvro years following final approval . no amendment to a
official control shall apply to or affect the use,
development density, lot size, Iot layoutr or dedication or
' platting required or permitted by the approved application.
I
I
,,iNlHt&E+4i!6,. i:qxlrifr-..-..
T Mr. Donald Ashworth -3- lray 29, 1981
t_
li- We believe that the one-year time limit rdas enacted by the
:- legisl.ature in an attempt to limit the constitutionally-basedt-I property rights of the developer rather than an attempt to dxtendL- to developers new rights not previously heJ.d by them. Accord.ingly,
r-, we are of the opinion that the one-year safety period afford.ed the
I a"veloper by the 1980 legislation is applicabLe to Fox Chase not- withstanding any teehnical questions regarding the intended effec-
;' tive date of Minnesota Statutes 5462.358(3c).
IL
Very truly yours,
L
",.1
1L
Cahv/q
Craig M. Mertz t'.
--r CMM: sas
L
t
t
[,
t
L
L
t
ti
:L
+.:
Ir r platto[t
''i.t:"
he publle bealth. safetv.nc le, and ssfe develoil'rD ; the avallabilltv ofllone levels, and to fe.
#x:f'r::"Jil.Ii",tr:.1 re establlshlns stai-
.a_: appnoval or dlsnn-rD varled provlslons iF'.ragqes or klnde ol sub.o nsg or klnd of sub.
:atTou of lts suhdlvlslon
,"'-"r"t'i"T:j-',ili"T,"T
1Ir ;allties bave bouad]
. cuntrol fhe eubdtvlslonrs-are& Ifowever, lf a.l . zonlngi regulatlonsc rnty board or townn6.-a .Jolnt board shntl] wlth one member aplo",rrnlng bodtes. Thistl s under lllinnesota,o .lthln two mlles ofne governlng: bodles tod srdJustmcDt for pur-D: ing tbe ilmc beforoul lvislon regulations
Pr,rrNNrNG, ZONTNG s 462.359
Subd' 2b' Dedtca,on. ,Trxr.rcgrrratio,s or.y requrrc thnt u rens',:rrrre por-tlon of nrry prr4ros0rl srrhlivision lr.,;k*il;;to.i to ilro prrlrlic 0r Jrrosr:rvtrI forp'blie uso ^s srr()ots. r.*rrs, scs'ors, ;i;;;i;;';--, nn(r wuter frrcirities, stormrvtrter drtirrIgr: nnd trrLlirrg ,,,.,.,,* ,,. ir;;;L..';i,;,1 sirrrihr utllitics rrrrrl lm,rrvc.rnents,
In ttlditlorr' tltc r.grltlttiolls tnlr, n.rlrrire tlrtt rt rtls.rrlllle gxrrtl.n o[,rryproposed srrlxlivislo, lre rlerlicnteri t,, ir,o l,,ii,ric n. 1,,.n*,,.n,,i ?n"'i,,,rru. ,,*uns purks, Jrln_r.grorrrrrls. trtils, or,,r,,,,, *i,i,",i-i"provirteil tlrlt (t) thc rnrrnleipnl_'itJi nl&.v choose t,,lccopt o, eqrrivarerit nnini,nt i,.rsh frorn ilre ut)plieartfor pn6 0r flrl of rha-portion .uq,,i.nJto jn rtr,rri.rrt.rr to srrcl Jrrrlrrie rrsosor prrrr)oses rr;rsr{r.n thc ftinnarkat,arric,,r tho rrrrrrl rro lnter trrnrr *t the!lt". gr-fln^t uJrDr.v^t, (rrr.,rrr-1'",oh il;;;;,;i* .,*r'ive.r slrrrp rx. ,r:rrrxl rrr rspaeinl f,nrt h.r' ilu' rrurnieipui,rr' .,"nii
-niii"in.
ttn I)rrrr)os(,s for *,lrr.h ilrelllotloy rvns olrtrtitr.tl. (r') lri ostirhlishlnx il"ro-rnrrsorr:rrrkl porilon to be rtedl-eate(,, thc rt'grrl,tirns,rnny eonsirter tlie opon s1,reo, ,*rk, recrentlorrnl, oreornuron nroris iln(l frreilitres.wrrir.rr trur ,,1,f iii,,,r,t rrrorx)s(,s to rcscrre f,r ttresttlxllvision, &n(l ((r) the nrunieipnrity.co.roniii,ry <teternrirres thot rt rvgr nc.rrto neq'tre th,rt rrortion^or trrrrrf rorir;';r,;;;;;,,."- st*ttrr in trris ,:rrrrgra,lr 'sn r-estrlt of nj4rroral of the srrlxlivisiorr. ' '
Srrhrl. l|. Itr,lx.rrlorl hy L:ts.s 19s0, e. ,i(i6, t ffi.
- su.bd' 3a' Ptaiitng. Tlxr. r.grrtrrtions r.lrJ' rerlrrire thst any srbrtivisionercating r)flreers, trrets, or rotsl srr*,, t" piiitt.o. 1.rro rl.grrrntions shnrr re-qttlrc thrt rtl srrbrtivisrorrs rvhieh
".nntn fir-n,rr nl()r(r hfs 6i p*rr.ols rvhi<,lrnre !!t/ *eres or ress rrr sizc sh^lr r,n rii*ttoi. The rogrrlntions sha[ ,ot cor-flie-t tvith the provisions of ehaDttr r,rfi-i,i,t'lr,.v trrrlrr.ss srrrrJeets simitnr antlnddltlonal to those ln thnt chnpier.
rt t:ttlnl ions ttll irrelrrtlc provisions
:ffi
;.,,,,,.:,,:::_::l:,,": jllit flDprornl or rlisupprovrrl of srrtxlivisi,rrs. t,roiinrirr*ry or
I
lo
I qulremcnts ln tbo
tlon, gradlng, and
flj||,-:ltll,:ll mily lx.gr*ntorl ,r rlcrrirxl f.r ptrts,f srrlxlivisirr, -,,,,f,j,1i'ii,,illrrr* r{r8lllllUoIIs rll:ly prt'scrill'fir.s srtfficiertt t.o rk.frrry llrr. costs irx.rrrrt,rl llytlre tntrnieipItity in tlr. rt'vicrr' ,rr,,l l,rr,,*iif,rtion .f unrl letiorrs lllx]1 sl..lr 1J]-ttlicntlons. 'l'ho regrrlut lrlns tntJ' ,fof ,.,a1ti.'iii,. llrttloril.y t9 rt.vlerv prr4xrsrrlsto the pkrrrrrirrg c.nrrrrissiorr, lrrit rinli np1,ii,r.,rr or rrts:rJrpror.lr slrnl Ix, trredceision of tlte govcrtrirrg botty of the rniiniciliulitl'urrlass ethers'isc provirlttlby l|rrv or t'lt:trter. 'l'lrc n'grriltions shalt .u,iiii... tllnt n Ilublic lrorrirrg slr:rllhc lrokl otr ttll sttlxtivlskrrr tPgrliclli,,n"-r,ir,r"'iu prr.lirrrinury rtppr,r.rrl. rrrrl.ss
:l:]j::ll'iI. lrrrryirk'rt lr5' rrrrv or r.lr,.rr.r,r. 'r'lur rr.,rrrirrg slrIll rx. rrr.rrr foilorvirrgIlllDllc'ltion of ttotirt ol lhc tttttt'ttntl plt<r.. tlrcrr.of lrr tllr offlr.ltl rurs'sIur1x:rttt letrst tt'tt tltt.vs lx'foro llrr. rtt.r of thc lrr,rrrirrg. r\t urc lrtrrrirrg, rrll;x.rsorrslntereste(l shall lx' givun ,.rr o;l;xrrturrity to rnlke t)reseltntions. A srrlxlir.i-slon rrpplicrrtion slrrril lx, prcliririrrtril.r.irplrrovcrl or rlisupgrrovo(l \r.ithin l:10tlays. follorvirrg dolivory trf rttr lpplit'rriirlri eonrg,lcterl irr conrplllrrr.c rritlr tlxrlnttniel;xrl orttitrancr. h.t' llrr. 1gr;llir.lrrt t6 tl16 rrrrrrri<:i;1rlity, irrrl,ss rrrr r:.ttr,rr.clon ol tlxr n'vit'rv 1x'rirxr hts rxtn *grctrl to by trro lpjrtic:rnt. \\'herr n drvi-slon or strlxlivisiorr to rvlriclr tho roi:rrlrttiorrs of tho rrrurrieilurlity (lo n(rt llPplyls pr-t'netttt'rt to tltt'city. tlto clcrk of tlre rntrrrir:lplllity slurll rvlilrin tctr (ltr!.scertify tlt:rt ilrt' sttlxlivisiott rt'gttlutions of tlrc lrrrrrriciJurlity r6 1.,t ulrpty tothe partir.ultr rlivisiotr.
.. If the ttttttricillltllly or iltc rt'sjxrnsilll('lB(,n(.!' of tlre rrrrrrrir.ipnllty f:rlls t6 pro-llnrlnnrily itl,l)rr)vc or tlisuJt;rrovc nn rtppliettliln ruithln tlrc icviciv pcrirxl, thenpplit'rttiorr slrrtll lxt rlet'rrtt'tl prclitrrinlrily tpllrore{1, unrl rr1xr1 tli.nranrt t5etnttttieiD:tlity slt:tll t'xt'<:ttte tt rr.rtifir':rtc to tlrlt effrr.t. IrollorvllA prellrlirrnr.rtrlrprovtl llrt.:rlrgrlic:rrrt run.l'r(\lut,st firrrrl:rpJrrrtylrl by tlrr.nrrrrrlr:iylulity, trrrrltt;xrtt suelt rtallll'st tltt'tttttttit'l;t:rllty slrnll cortll]'flnnl tJ4rrgyll rvltlrln (iOtluys lf tltt' ttJ4rliotttt lllrs e(,rrplir\l rvltlr ltl ,.,,u,llli,,,,* ,rlr,i ro,lrrlr,'r,rr.nts 6fttJ4rllcnblo rr.grrt:rtkrrrs lnd ult coruiltions trnrl rcrlrrlrcnlr.nts llJ)()n rvhleh theprellrtlltrtry tt;rDrovul ls erprt'ssly corrditiont.rl oitlrt'r tlrrorrgh pcrf,lrrntnre
{rcq tralls, walkways,
rg, sewers, electrlelty,;il r; actess to sotarllns, ahore lan<Is,cLand ccologte foa-s be eoneletent wlth
onlr;g ordlnanee. anrtrd he eomprehcnslvek: ls of eubdlvlslons
hEtslve plan and the,f ngrlcultural ltnets.r 'ts for any tracts,a rot been obtalned.
'r -r approval on the', gas, dralnage, ond. ^a ln lleu thereo?.il I cheek. tmcvorn-rr y aud eontilflons
d.llnprovements wili
.of.tl" munielpallty.r( ttB approvnl ont< :hc provklouc of:n-rdylng ttle terms
:ce Such ogretments
_,8 a
26 Min. S.A.-8
1960 P.P il3
J
'i!1,!e-rformnn.*. If nreI{r1!'. nnd-if trrr. :rsrjrti.
l" ", rrre applie:tti0rr .<htrlt[ .licil)ality sltrllt (,\t,cutel _OOlvlsion nr:ry lx. filtrt
'. i e year follorvirrg prc.'!f, aPProval, rrrrlt'ss tlrcn(_rmcndment to a conr-
'r {ffoet the u,{c, rtr:vr.krp-pk$tlng requlrcd or trur-rn rnt
-
to its rr.Arrlll iolrs,D( wlth the subrlir idcrrnrnntl re4trirctncrrts. or
rles_s substnutiat Irlrr..ictlrr .rrrce on the upJrroverltl: finaneial daru:rge ls)p,-Ation. In eonnujtion
clopment, a nrunicipllityfe :d to herein for srrt.lr)r neg .to be reitsorr:rhlrr
'onVCyanCG3. In il rrrrr.r lrclc and havo hceno reJiaDct of Inorl tor;rrded, lf tha lnnrt ts
by referencre to rln un-9f-tor to an trnalrprororlIl lorcgoingprovislorr
rr thc date of atloptton. ^?, rvhlehcver ls ilrolr ant to tr homc rulc
'y entcrcd lnto prtor toI
c -halt acres ln trrca
'es and having n rvkltht lult lu thc tllvislon
) | wbich ls Icss than
rcsTrictlons rvllt cnrnte
rot llnterfet! wlilr ilrol( y may walvo suchd re C.oDveyanc{! mnyvx of land who eon-
:hls suMlvlslon rhrrll:s )han g10O for enchr ch eonvcytrnec ot
t _: competcnt Juris-
d-pagc* A person
lcb, h:rs D{r! plgr ould constitrrte trulEtlons apply, shflll
laQle certlficutiorr bve 'rns do not nppli.:t o! borly, or that
I
I
PLTINNING, ZONING s 462.358
tho rostrlctions orr tlrc dlvision of tlxos tnd flling lrrd rccordlng lratc beerr
wtrircrl by rcsolutiorr ()f thc govorrrlng body ol thc rnunieiptlity in thls,r:nse
lrueuttse contplinttct rvill r.'rentc nn rrnneecssrlry lrlrrlship nrrtl frrllrrre to eom-ply will rrot lntcrfcrt'rvith tha l)rrrposc of tho regrrlntlons; or (b) s statement
rvltlch tttttnt.s ntut itlontifios the Lrerrtion of the tlrproprllttc rnunieipll offlt'cs
atttl ttrlvlsr.s tlrc grllrrtru thllt nruniclpal srrlxtlvlsion nnrl zonlng rogrrlntions
may restrict ihe rrsc or restrlct or prohibit thc tktvt'logtrrrent of thc psreel,
or r'ottstrtrctkur orr lt, nrrtl thnt tlre tlivision of taxcs and thc filing or rceord-
llrg ol the e()nv{r}rru(t ruty ln grrohibitcrl rvithorrt prior reeorrllble ccrtlfica-
tftrlr of tpJlrovul, rrorruppllenlrillty, or rvrtlver frorn tlre urrrnlelprllty. In nny
tretion eornnl(.rrrr.rl hy ir lrrrl't'r of srreh n pnret'l lg:rltrst tlte st.ller thereof, tho
nlsrrlrrr.sr,rrt:rtiorr of or tlrc frrilrrrt. to rllst'lose rntrtcrlnl fncts ln nceordttnr'e
rvlth thls srrlxlivislorr shrrll lx. grorrnrls for tlarungt.s. If thc buyer estnltlisht's
hi* right to (LlrntlgeN, n dlstrict eourt hearing the mntter tnay ln its rlist're'
tion also il$'rlr(l to tho lnrl'or rn unrount srtfficiertt to ply nll or nnJi l)art of
thc costs inerrrrtd in rrrtintrirrinE tho ,rction, Includirrg rolrsonnlllo ,tttornoy
fees, nnd lrrr nrrrorrrrt for prrrritire rlanrnFc.s not exeee(ling five Jrcr ccntlrrn of
tlte prrrehase priee o[ the lnnrl.
Subd. 4b. Rcstrlctlons on flllng and recordlng conYeyances. In !r mu'
nk'ilxrtlty lrr rvtrl<:h srrlxllrislon rt.gutnttons nre lu for(t ttnd ltttve beelr fllerl
or rr.eorrtorl ns glrovirlcrl irr thls soetlon, no eonl'(t!'lneo of ltrnd to rvhir:h the
rogrrlntions are lpplienlrlc slr:rll be fitod or rceorrletl. tf the lnntl is tlescrilrcd
in the cortve.v:ttrtt lt.v nretes rtld bottttrls or [y rtlfert'tle(' to ltn lln[pprove(l
registert.rl lnrrtl srtryt.v lrt:trlo nftcr.tpril 21, 1$()1 or to tln lltlol)provt'd plnt
mntle nftcr sueh regul:ltiotts becotne effcctiYe. Tlte lorcgoilrg proYision does
not rrpply to r cr)nv(,.vlrrrce if tha Ilrnd tlescritxxl:
(I) n'ns {r sopur[t{! pllrcrl of rernrd Alril 1, 1g*-r or the date o[ {tdoption
ol sulrrlivision regtrlutions utult.r Ln$'s 10-15, Chapter 2S7, rvhiclrever ls the
later, or o( tlre ntlt4rtiorr of srrtrdivlsion regulstiorrs l)urslrnnt to a htttne rttle
chnrter, (}r
(1!) rvlls th(r srrhjr.ct of n rvritton llAr(.{rlnont to cotlr'('l' olltere(l into prior to
snch titne.
(3) tvtrs tr s(.t1r1lto gttrrn.l of rrot k.ss thrtn trvo tttul ottr'-httlf n('ros ill lrrttll
antl li-() fct't itt rvirlth lrtt Jrttttt:try l, 1${i{i. or
(-l) tvns u sopnrutr'lllrccl of rrot lt'ss thrtn five uert's ltt nren ntttl 3(I) fu't ilt
u'ldth ott.lrrly l, ll)S(), rrr
(5) ls rt sirrglr. p:rrrtl of crrrnnl.rr.irrl or iurlrrstrirtt llrrrtl of trot lt'ss thlrn fire
ncrrs rrrrrl lr:rving:t rvirlltt of ltot luss ttlllll;l()(t ft'r't tltrtl its flrttvt'yttntr: tlot's
nt)t roslrlt itr lltl rtivisiort of tltt' ;utr<r'l lttto l$'o or trl()r1! l(tts or prtreols' trtty
ono of rr.lrit.lr is tt'ss rlrirrr fivt ll<,res irr rrreIr or:]u] fu-.t itt witltlt, or
(0) is a sitrgte p:rrccl rlf resitlerttitrl or nFrleltlturnl tnrrtl of not lcss thnn lll)
acrts arrrl lttr.ilrg lr rr.irlth of rrot k.ss tlurtr i'rfi) fr'r't:ttul its eoltve.t'nncc tlocs
ttot n.srrlt lrr tlu. rllviskrtr of tttt. prtrttt itttrl t\Y(l or tttorr' lols rtr lrtlrct'ls, ttny
0rul of n'lrir.lr is toss thttrr'j0 ttr.rr.s itr trrr,tt or ir(x) fu't irr $'i<ltlt.
Irr:rrry r.rrsr. irr \.lrieh cotrtpli:lttct, rvitlt ttrr. foregolng restrictions rvlll t'rtttte
,,rr ,,r,,,,i,r.**,,r.V lr:rrrlslrigt nritl fttilrtrr. ttt t'otttlll.V tltx's ltot itttorftlrC rvlth tltt'
Jlilrlxrs(, of tlrrJsrrlrlivi*i,rrr regrrl..tlotts, llto pl:tttltrK lllltll(]ritI ntny rvllrc stlelt
i.otrillli:trr,.,.lr.v lrrlopti6rr of tt rt.soltttiott lo tltttt l'ffttL trttrl lltt'<:ottvc!'itttco lll'ty
tlx.rr lx. filrrl rlr rt.ctlrtlt|t1. .\tl]. olvlt(rr 0r ttgt,tlt of tltt' rllrttor of lttnrl rvlttt
colro).s tr 1rt.r Jr:rrr.r'l irr vi,llrii.tr,f tltc ltr.visitttts rtf lllis strlxlilisl'rlt slt:rll
forf.it rrtrrl tla.\.t(l tltc nrrrrrir.ip:rlit.r:r lx.ttrtlt.v of ttrll. l0ss tllllll.$llx) for t'ttclt
lot rlr 1r:rrr.t,l s0 rrrnvr,yr.rl. A rrrtrrrlcip:rlitJ' Itrity t'ttjrlitt sttcll c()nl'ey:lIlco or
fit:t!' rl{'(l\'{'r *,,,'t lu',,,,ttfl ll1'rr civil 'it'tit"i i" lttt'v <r'rtrt rtf rttttlx'tt'ttt jttris-
rllct iott.
Subd.5.Permlts.lixcl'lllttstltlrt,rrvist.lrrrrvitlr:rllrythiss(.etiollnllr.lee.
trlc lttrl,{:rs (li\ll'ilrlltirttt litlcs or Jripitt|I' rtxtrtlv:t1's' t:ttrlrs' rrulks nll(l otlllr
sintilirr intlrrovr,rllr.nls sh:rll lrr. e.rtt*ta,tct",l ottll'rr11 ll stro('t,.llL'y, or otlr0r
prrlrlic s'ly or litst'tllotlt rvhich ls <llsigtllltt'rl oll oll ilJll)r('v('(l lllllt' or J)r(ll'r'rly
lnrliclrtr.rl .rr llu..it1.i,i nr,rp of tltl ntttttieipallty, or rvltlelt llns rttltr'ntis. lx't'n
ll5
l
I RUSSELL H. LARSON
] cnlrc M. MERTZ
Lensox & Mnntz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I9OO FIRS? NATIONAL BANK BUILOING
MIN N EAPOLIS, MINN ESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE
(612) 33S-9s6s
OF COUNSEL
--.1 HARvEy E. sxAAR
I
I MARK c. MccuLLouGH
I Mr. Bob Waibe1
Assi.stant City Manager
Chanhassen City HaIl
: Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
May 29, 1981
CONFIDENTIAL
Re: Fox Chase Soil Conditions
-l Dear Bob,
We have been asked to comment on the possible liabilities
-r arising if the City permits the platting of Fox Chase notwithstand-
ing the poor soil conditions present in that area" Our report is
divided into two sections: potential liabilities of the developer,
' and potential liabilities of t,he City.
I. Potential Liabilities of the Developer
a
: In L977, the State legislature enacted a mandatory housing
warranty 1aw, which became effective on January 1, 1978 as to dwelI-
' irrg units completed subsequent to that d.ate. All builders are deemed
- to have given the warrantj.es described in this legislation (,pt.S.
. S327A.0L to S327A.07).
One of the warranties is a mandatory warranty that the dwelling
, wi1l be free from "major construction defects" during a ten-year
period which conmences on either the date of the closing or on the
date of possession by the first purchaser of the new home' This
r warranty also covers subsequent purchasers who may buy the dwelling
.
durine
T.t::;"-";"":]"=..-".ion derecr" is derined as:
.
,,Actual damage to the load-bearing portion of the
dwelling, including damage due to subsidence, ex-
;
pansion or lateral movement of the soj.I, which
Mr. Bob Waibe1
It is believed that
for two reasons: first, to
facilities and public water
City Engineer in reviewing
construction of streets and
ted by the subdivider.
-3-
CONFIDENTIAL
May 29, 1981
this soil testing requirement is imposed
ascertain the need for public sewer
facilities; and second, to assist the
plans submitted by the developer for the
other public facilities to be construc-
Thus the question becomes: Does the muni-cipality become
liable to the ultimate home purchaser for structural d.amage to a home
within Fox Chase if such damages are caused by poor soil conditions?
As is explained. below, we believe that under present Mj-nnesota
law the answer to this question is in the negative. Our authority for
this opinion is the L979 decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in
Cracraft vs. City of St. Louis Park (279 lt.W.2d 801). That case con-
cerned the explosion of a fifty-five (55) galIon drum of duplicating
fluid at Benilde High School. This drum was located adjacent to the
entrance to the boys' practice football fieId. On October 2'1, L974,
the drum explod.ed, killing two students.
The storage of the duplicating fluid at that location was a
violation of the Cityrs fire code. The City's fire inspector had
visited the site on September 13, 1974. No citation was issued to
the school. Subsequently, the fire inspector stated that he did not
recaIl seeing the drum of fluid when he made his inspection.
The parents of the two deceased children sued the City, a11e9-
ing that the City owed the deceased boys a d.uty to exercise care in
enforcing the fire code, and that the City had breached that duty,
and accordingly was liable for the death of the two boys. The trial
court dismissed. the lawsuit against the City and the Supreme Court
upheld that dj-smissal.
We believe that the rationale utilized by the court in the
cracraft case is applicable to the Fox chase soil test liability
q""=tio". The Cracraft court stated that building codes, the
issuance of f,.ifaitg p"rmits, the carrying out of building inspec-
tions, fire codes and the carrying out of fire inspections are
designed to protect the public at large and are not meant to be an
insurance policy by which the City guarantees that a building is in
compliance with building codes, zon|ng codes or fire codes'
I tqr. Bob Waibel
I
-r
-5-
CONFTDENTIAL
May 29, 1981
; all "' .l:'::i;'::":;.3T"':;:"::"x'l: ;:il}":"ffi;::=::";n"ol:l::"
i factor (i.e., actual knowledge of a dangerous conditlon) involved
I danger of personal injury to persons rather than to property, we be--
I lieve that the potential municipal liability described in Cracraft
_i extends .to dangers to property as r+ell as dangers to persons.
-r The court cites only one example of the second factor (i.e.,
reliance) of the type necessary to create municipal liability. In
this example, a building inspector tells a contractor that a trench-l wall is "solid." Relying on that statement, the contractor fails to
shore up the trench wall, which ultimately collapses, injurj-ng a
. worker. In this example, the court says that the contractor reliedton the building inspectorrs assurance, thus the City is liabIe.
; In connection with the fourth factor (i.e., the use of due
care to avoid increasing the risk of harm), the Cracraft court stated
that the failure of St. Louis Park to remove the i1lega1 drum of fluid.l from the school grounds did not have the effect of increasing the risk
that the drum would explode
t Applying these four factors to the Chanhassen subdivision
ordinance, we do not believe that the collection of soil data creates
an "assumed duty" running in favor of future residents of Pox Chase
I unless:
1. The soil tests reveal an actual danger of bodily
injury ar property damage; or
2. The City by its actions, or in its contracts with
the developer, indicates its intent to guarantee
soil conditions, causing private parties to rely
on such actions, rather than taking other steps
to protect themselves i or
3. The City in its ordinances, or in its development
contracts, indicates that it is voluntarily assum-
ing a duty to guarantee soil conditions; or
4. The City by its actions is somehow increasing the
risk of damage to Fox Chase residents-
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
Mr. Bob Waibel -7-
CONFIDENTIAL
Recommen.dation and ConclusionITI.
Thirdr ES a part of the
the developer to
less from damage
conditions.
May 29, 1981
I
While the City cannot deny a property owner the opportunityto develop his property because of the fear of soil-related damageclaims being brought against the city by potential home buyers,several steps could be taken to mj-nimize the city's exposure:
Firstr &S a part of the development contract, require
the developer to remove bad soils from build-
ing pads and to fill and compact the pads to
the Proctor Density required by the City
Engineer.
Second, in order to avoid the "reliance" factor
described by the majority in Cracraf!, insert
in the resolution approving the final plat a
disclaimer of any municipal warranty as to
soil conditions. (fnis resolution will be
recorded and will appear in the chain of
titIe. )
development contract, require
agree to hold the City harm-
claims resulting from soil
I
I
a
I
a
t
Fourth, the City may wish to refrain in the future
from soliciting soil reports from the soil
conservation servicer dS i-gnorance as to the
existence of dangerous conditions is apPar-
ently a defense under the majority rule.
It is clear from the Cracraft case and the Hage case that
the City of Chanhassen, if it chooses to do sor could undertake to
guarantee the suitability of all soils in the City for buiLding
purposes. Ue doubt that the City of Chanhassen has the bud'getary
resources to voluntarily issue such a guarantee for even a fraction
of the developable land in the City.
.--llil be rcaebed
It rhall state
_rDlgDt recelve
es re.qrrlred by
- ooy Jurls<tlc-r.fully rcturrr
apllcutlon shall
rg the 8€curcd
-Jt requlrtd by
rll proetx.d ln
rcrly, alul tbc
'Ilsfylng nny of
rnt ol a moblle-\ln flte days
me ls loeutcd
-m the mobllo
-1
'n debtor, maY
ectlon 327.(N.
rrrettrs trrirler
lEbte costs, not
orce the sccur'
'islong of thls
ln of the tno-
.default arlses
: wastr.. of lhe
D repossesclon
-
I
I @mtlrerelal
Iiirnlns lrosst-'i-
ae moblle hotne
I
t
I
I
I
IYANRANTIES ON NEW HOUSING S 327A.02
oHAPTER 327A. HoustNG STATUTORY WARRANTTES [NEW]
Sec.32?A.01 De!lnttlons.
iili:3i 8,,11t :!#":"'ran t rcs.
3374.0{ \\'alr.er nnd modlftc!,tlonIted.
See.327,\.05 Rcnrcdlee
-3?? .(,6 oiiiii -ivii-rantree.
.. 327A.uZ Var,latlon!.llm-
327A.0t Doftnlilonr
subdlvlslou r. As usctr rn sccrons s2TA.,l to 33TA.07, the terms rn thrs sc,"-tlon shall htro thc nrcanlngs ,.*isun,i i;li;;;;.sulxl' 2' "llurrrlrng- stantlurdsii ,u"uo" it,o structurar, meehnnreat, cloetrr-eul, and quulrty st*nrr'nrs of ttra lronie rruilirrng rndrstry ror the geographicarea tn rvhlch the dnc,lllng ts sltullted.
. sulxt' 3' "I)rve,rns" m(r*,s a no*; rrurrrrng, n,t ,revrorrsry oeeugrterr, <-rn-structed-for illc Durpose of lrubrtutron; b,,i rro,," not rnerrrdc appurtenant rec-retrtlonsl faeilltlcs, <tetachrxl Barrrgr:s, A"iio*rl.*, rvalkways, p&tlos, borrndaryrvalls, retatning walrs not neeessaiy ior tha srructurut stabitity of the dwell-ing, landseaping, fcnces, nonpcrmanent eonstructton materlals, off-stte lm-prolements, anr-l all othcr sltnllar ltems.suM. 4. "Initrar vcnrrcc" mon,s ,. po."on who first cutructs to purehasea drvelllng from & vendor for thc pu"po"o of lrurrit:rtiou and not f,r rcsuroln the ordintry eour:s(! of trudc.
. subd. 5. "llaJor construction tlcfc'ct" means oetuar damage to the load-benrlng Dortlon of thc rtrvoiliuc, tn"tu,rirs ,inin,,ro rrrre to s,bsrrtenoe, cxpnn-slon or lntenrr molcrnont of ilrc soir, wtricti ,itr..ets rts rono-bciiiins iunctionand-rvhleh vlt.lry uffccts or is rrnrrrirrc.rtlj' litrcry to vrtaly affaet rrse of thcdrvclling for restderrtrul purposes. ..-rr".lo"" cp'rrscruction defeet,, doas not rn-eludc durnagc due to Bovenlcnt of the soil caused by frood, enrthquuke orotlrer naturat dis$ster.
suM. 0' "Yendc+" m(r*ns nry Jrrrrehnscr of n drvelring anrr inelrrdes thelnltlrtl vcodee tnd lny subscrlucrri liurclrtscrs.subrd' ?' "Yendor" rn(trns .ry pcrso,, firrn .r c$q)orntion which cron-strucls drvellings ror thc pllrpose of sutt., incrurtirrg the cyrnstruetron ol dweu-lngs on lunrl onnetl by veurlecs.
_
Subtl. 8. "ll'srrrnty dutc" mc.tns thc dlte from anrl after whleh tbestatutory -$srrantles providorl rn sectron 82?,t.02 srrull be cffceilve, anrl rs thecrrliest of
(a) The date of the tnrtt'r ventrce's frrst oceup:rnr:y of the drvelring; or(b) The drte on s'rrlch tlrc intttal vondcp t*kos legul or equitaillo titteln tlre drvelllng.
L:rws 1977, c. 05, ! 1, eff. Jaa. 1, fg?g.
327A.02 Statutory rrarranilor
Subdivlsion l. In cvcry s,lc of r *,rprctcrl rlwelling, and rn every con-truet for dle sale of n drvclling to be conrpletcd, the rondor shall warrant tothe Ierrdc{} thut:
- (rt)- Drrring thc onc yclr lxlriotl frour nnrl uftcr thu wlrrmuty dntc tlledtt'elling slrtll lx' fret frotrt rlcftrts cuuscrl by frrulty rvorknrunslilp 1nd de-fectlve nr:rteriuls drrc to nont'orupliurrct rrittr brrlklilrg sturrrlurrls;
- (b)-During thc trvo your ptriorl froln nntl ,lftor thc rvlrrrlruty dlkr, thedlelllng shall trc lrct frotn rlefccts euust'rl by f[ulty tnstlllrtlon of plurrrb-
lng, electricul, he&ting, antl coollrrg systcrns; and
(e) During thc tcn ycur grrior.l frorn nrrd sfter thc $'rrrruty d8tc, thc dNell-lng shall lx. frec from rurrJor construction defocts.
Sulxl. 2. 'l'ho sttrtutory rvrtrruntlcs Jrrovlrl.rt lu thls s(.ctlon u5ull surrlvcthe passlng of tcgul or erlultubte tltle ln the dwelling to the vend€,c.
Larvs 1977, c. 0.5, t 2, eff. Jan. l, lg?8. .-i
Llbrary RcterGnce.Contracts C=205.C.J.S. ConGacrs !! 32?. S{2.
2?S
t-
'et8'lE8 !! srcBltuo) .s.t.c, . igSP_;li,i],1:3,.,
.g!Bt ,t 'ullf .rJa ., $ .g0 .c .2161 8.$B.J.zo.\rleg uollJos ut rluo, ?os snlJunrrrr,$ ,(.rolntrts orn XqFrpl'.oJo sn oilprro.l 0q1 01 srroll).rl0rrl orurx or11 .(11',1lrrrr1sqns lsual ]r, sJtlJJouoll[ltra^ aql ,ullsonbar roprra.r alll Io ruBriorrl r(]uu.r:r.n iq1 y1 gi.y!a{: pu,e0'YlZg suollcas Jo suoJs!^ord arll urorJ suoJtrtrn.r .ZIr0.gI ."ijrJS i.-o,,,1*1g
alosouurlrJ ol ?rrBnsJnd aaortl(ru .{uu uotltrJ?s-lurrtlpIl Jo Jouotssrururoc aqJ
rcz
su0llBlrEA lo.vLzE
' zt 8' LzE ! qn".rr's ""i9"-s".3
raaueJ9raU xJEJql-I
.g16l 'I .rrBf .rra .0 ! ,90 .o ,lr,6f 8.t81
'Zo,yLZt, uoltro$ f,qpas.d,I EanuruJB.r rJo?nl,l' arll Jo r{cuoJq rrodn p.rlncrqr.rrl-10u-uo1po ,tun rrisalpouar oql ,ulllulll su ponJlsuoJ oq lou llurls g3.y!ag uollJos ul popl^oJdsalpaEar aqJ 'luauraoJtu Jo aB[ .(q posodury BaJIuBJJBAI Joqlo IIl, ()1 uoll-lppu ul aq ltrr{B Zg.yLZt} uol?cos -ut ro, poplaord sallutrrBa X.ro1n1u1s oq;,
selluBrrsarcqlo go.vlzt
'g!6I 'I .EBt .ria .9 $ ,!! .c .ll6f slAa-I
?roJop oqt q11,* iu111o.np arll Jo onlu^ aqt puBparap aql ?noqlJ^r tugllaarp aql Jo anlB^ aql uilo.$loq aJuoraJJlp orlJ, (q)
.ro I qauanq Jo parap orll f,F)uroJ o1 I.rRssacou lrnloula ollJ, (u)
:al polluttt oq IIBr{s sairurag .a)u8ruroJJad clJlJJds Jo, Jo .r{Jtro.lq
aql lo lno 3u1e1lu saSBuBp JoJ JopuoA oqt li..ulura uollc8 Jo osnBa a o.lurl
IIUqB epuoa aql 'zo'VlUg uolllos dq pasodru! .{1u,u.r.ru.t Xuu ;o rlcBolq uodn
rslpeut0u g0.vzzE
. .zrs ,LZt tqn"rrr"S1l?"ir;f,8
rarueJrlag ,(JlJql1
'B16f 'f 'uof 'JJr 'F $ '!! 'o .ll6t s.sB.I'proJor JoJ ra^la.r aql ollJ tlurlH oqa sollll Jo ruJ]s!8ar Jo topro}oJ
{lunoc aql rlll,ra SulproJor roJ pollJ ssJlun a.rllJ.UJr oq lou llrqs roAln.$ orlJ,
'luggonrp a ur l.)Jrop uoltJnJlsuoJ JofBtn ouo uBql oJourol trlddu lou trBur uot8l^lpqns $lrll ol Tunrrsrnd ol p,mrtr Jo.rlasr otruls y
-lt^r oarr p.,tr 'Jopuo^ oql 'epuoA aql Jo sorruurrjrn oql puu i.raaluar ffi":l
o.lpuaa oq? Jo 1trJBurx, ilrn irulll.).trl) arll Jo troll(llJ.)s.-r[r prtol ottl :pol.)l(lluG)
au.[ uot]JnJliruo., orll rlllp oql I rrorlcnpor oJlr(l oql :oopuoA oql .fq palDt
-rs uosJad alqrOipOlmOurl f,1.ru11ur1s Ja(llo Jurr Jo Ji)orrlrrrr .JolsnfpB i\)uoJnsut
'lopBJluG) 'Jaslurddu ?uopu.xhput un .tq o1 llius,)lt[ pur lDuluuolop s[ ,]Jq
-op orn qlle'
'ullt.)^rl)
oql ,o antu.\ .)rll pltr l.)q,)p otll lnoqlt.$ SulJto.\p oql
,o anlB,r atn uJornlilq a)urrJoJIJ, i)rll :].)iUop JlJlJixls otll :lfnl,ilp ul q}toJ
nas qJltl.t ?uourrulftul uo .((l ,l$J.)p clJlaad8 i)rll Jo ornsolrslp Jluo t|nJ JUJrr
luourrulflul JoAltr.a oql ul prlrttu,rl)l lJ.)r,)p iull ro, lhr.rlurn ixq .{uru (J) osltult
LO'Y' LZE s CNTSOOTT ArsN No sar&Nyuuytil
't uolFtAlpqns 'Z0f
B IO OIrE orJl (,1 JOIJ.
'LO'YLZ[: uollaas ;
<ln oql orlnhor ll
.(r1 ol poo.rStrr uot{
sonullJJB.n J:olnlt,
SutrorJo aolluarrB.ll
oq llrrls uotllrDlrlpo'
r$r)U atll ,O 8EJa1
aql ltulop ul tlltq
rral Jo ozls mnllllul:
.(q .(1uo polrlpout ro
-ru.t f:otnlrls aq{ -
-uo s; 3u111aaP r I
-l^ttxlns nl papt^ord
f,;1pout ro oAIBr$ 1^
.fq potJJporu ro Pa,r[
'uotlros qqr Jo I il.
I
lsapuodapul orrnof
uodn ouop sl uollcl -
-BlslSaI ,(q Palusuad
tulpltuq qff,* ffUJ
-xa 'olunlrquBo Pd.
ll$r{'utrolsput.tr'ad
'tulptlpul 'PoC ,o I
-1rd posn ril8uol oq
ua{El 1ou sBq 'olql
:JlBdan Poos u1 3t{
L
oq1 punorB punoJE
uonBrallB 'o -o"[-
lualclJJnsut ol anp
I
8u[ta.sp otn Jo SulL
:orBurup fl.radold r
:uo1Po:1P s1q .ra[
al$lrr'rlilut :o'uolrr{_
olll lx)raAcrslp o.rEq
,unF.tr $ roPrro,r I
Ipualxa lou lloop pulr
ol pillutll f.l lo'Yli.
I
CNI5.
t
SECTION III
Kathy Schwartz Report of May 2, l-981
and
Responses to such Report
!*, "
CL
CONCERNS. OF'
IfEST PLEASANT VIEIV ROAD ASSOCTATION
May 2, 1981
Report
to
Chanhassen City Council
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. ORDINAI{CE PROTECTION TO DERRICK AND NEIGHBORHOOD.
Conflicting Ordinances?. . . . o . .... o. . ... .. ...... o. .. .. .
B. CHANGES rN FOX CHASE FROM July 2L, 1980 to PRESENT
Page
I
4
4
11
Common Space................ o.... o. ............... o... 4
Increase in Lakeshore Lots..... .................. 4
Trail Easement. . o. ... ... .. . ..... .. .... .. .. ... o. .. 5
Lot SiZeS................. ............. o.. o. 5
Straight Road Changed to Curved Road: Grading......... 5
Lots Along Pleasant View........... ... . o.......... 5
Private Access to Pleasant View............ .....o. 5
Fox Path Exit to Pleasant View.......... ......... 6
Street width and Secondary Access..................... 6
llinnesota Historical Society Letter of 8-20-79.... o... I
John VI. Shardl.ow Letter of 8-15-79 to
Chanhassen Staff and Planning Comrnission............ 9
15
I5
t2
13
20
2L
rL
(
City Council -2-May 2, 1981
The neighborhood feels protected by Ord. 47, S14.05c.
Approval of Lhe final development plan shal1not be granted by the Village Council unlessit finds the follorving: . . . (3) the proposed
uses will not be detrimental to present andfuture land uses in the surrounding area o . .(5) the planned development will not createan excessive burden on . . . streets and otherpublic facilities . . . (7) the planned developmentwill not have an adverse impact on the reasonableenjoyment of neighboring property.
The neighbors do vier.r Derrick r s proposed development
as "detrimental to present . . . land uses in the surrounding
area . fas creating] an excessive burden on our
streets . . . [and as having] an adverse impact on the
reasonable enjoyment, of neigb.boring property.'r
We do not interpret this S14.05c as giving the neighbors
the prerogative to inflict its personal wishes on
Mr. Derrick. The issue is not one personrs personal
tastes against another. The issue is whether a person or
corporation has the right in a single stroke to alter an
existing neighborhood as to permcr.nentl! change its
character. Besides tripling the traffic on Pleasant View,
the layout of this development. gives a definite urban
appearance in a distinctly rural setting
This neighborhood view is professionally borne out
by I*1r. Daryl Eort-ier of Korsuns)<y Krank Erickson, an
architectual and planning finn, in his November 15, L979
letter to Pliil Cctts (neighborhood attorney):
City Council -4-May 2, 1981
Conf licting Ordinances?
Mr. Derrick feels protected by the minimum zoning
of I5r000 square feet.
The neighborhood feels protected by ord. 47, S14.05.
The two apparently conflict
While Mr. Derrick dbes have ordinance rights, his
exercise of these rights shal1 not override the more
binding 514.05. This appears to be Proven by Ord. 47, 53.03:
Sect. 3.03. Where the provisions of this ord.inance
impose greater restrictions than those of any
statute, other ordinance or regulation, the provisions
of this ordinance shall be controlling .
B. CHANGES IN TOX CHASE T.ROI.{
July 2L, 1980 rO PRESENT
1. Common Space
August L979 Pub1ic Hearings plat show 3.2L acres of
conrmon space
July 2L, 1980, the common space has been reduced to
93r500 square feet--down from 3.21 to 2.L5 acres-
April 4, 1981, I measure the conmon space area to be
f.SA acres. QaZ decrease since final approval)
April 15, 198I, contmon space is entirely deleted'
Lakeshorc footage on this conmon space changed from
170r at final afproval to 50' April 6' 198I to presently
being clj.minerted.
2. Increasc in Lal<cshore Lots
Julv-zz lots imrrrediately adjacent
to the l.rkc.
At the public he.rring, August 1979, there had beerl 5.
b
City Council -6-May 2, 1981
April 15, 1981, Mr. Derrick has requested that
Lot 3 of block 2 (the mo.st northwesterly lot of
Fox Chase) have a private exit via the old Wilma
Thompson road. This exit is extremely dangerous as
it is on a blind curve with perhaps 20t line of sight.
8. Fox Path gxit to Pleasant View
ItE of the neighbors to have
Fox Path exit onto Pleasant View changed to a safer
Iocation. The dange.r of having Fox Path exit at itspresently planned location is that it is too closeto the foot of the hill--hazard.ous in w:inter.
To build the road as -planned now would. requireelaborate fill to support the road giving a dike-Iike
appearance with houselots in ravine-type areas oneither side of the road
Further, Derrickrs plans show that the proposed gradeof Fox Path exit onto Pleasant View is 88. Ord. 33 58.03(c)states,
Wherever feasible, grades within 30 feet ofstreet intersections shalI not exceed. 38.
Therefore, the neighbors request that the exit toPleasant Vievr be moved the width of one Iot to the east
and abut the Osgood driveway where the grade is gentle
and the line of sight better.
g. St::eet width and secondqry- access
, the neighbors went
away feeling there would be two roads and 49 lots.
April 1980, the Council approved 52 lots and I road.
No public hearing was caIlcd to announce these
substantial changes.
The single access into Fox Chase is shorvn to be more
than 1100 feel- long.
Ordinance 33, S B. 03 (g) states,
The maxintum length of cul-dc-sac streets shal1 be
500 feet. . . Each cul-cle-sac shall harrc a terntitrus
of ncarJ-y circular shapc rv-i th a nrinitntuu righL-of -\trctlr
cliarucl-cr of I20 fcet ancl a nrinintum roacltvay di;rrneter
of 80 fcct-.
(
City Council -8-May 2, 1981
In Roger Derrickrs letter to Frank Beddor,October 29, L979:
t'. we have a piece of property which islocated betvreen the Christmas Lake/pleasant
View Road and the Carver Beach neighborhood.s.This factor is further complicated by thefact that the portion of our property aboutwhich you are most concerned j-rrnrediately
adjacent to Pleasant Vierv Road is by far theleast desirable portion of the property. "
In Roger Derrickrs letter to the City Council onAugust 14, 1979, he states,
"As the enclosed plan reveals, this schemeprovided two means of access into the subjectproperty, which is d.esirable for publicsafety reasons. "
So the picture seems to boil down to this: Thattwo roads are safer than one. Even one cu1-de-sacoff of Carver Beach serving the woocls and onecul-de-sac off PleasanL View serving the meadow
and hillside are safer than one 11OO foot cul-de-sac.
But, to Derrickts financier, Carver Beach accessto Fox Chase is the "last thing in the world" theywant. Pleasant View makes a more impressiveentrance to Fox Chase. Sor dt a sacrifice toPleasant \rievr bearing all Fox Chase traffic andfor no safety reasons, but for aesthetics alone,Derrick plans to construct a road spanning
approximately 1100 feet across a meadow area toget to the woods rather than connect that same
woods with an existing Carver Beach road lessthan 200 feet from a Fox Chase cul-de-sac. Thereis hardly a question about whether Fox Chase rvould
have bccn connected to Carver Beach had that
area had the appearance of Pleasant View.
Wc discr.r.ss possibJ-c placeutcnt of a sccondary
access to Carver Beach later in this report.
10. t'iinncsota IIis bor:ical Society Icttcr of B-20-79
"1L i..; our op.iniorr thaL a::clracoloclical
sit-cs rnay cxist ruithin thc projecL arca.
Iiloreovcrr wc bclicve that this projcct,
(
City Council May 2, 1981
in valley floor, you only scoop out where houseswill be placed. rBuilders canrt just put the
house anywhere on the lot they want to. I Into
this scooped out hole goes fill. This fillj-s compacted by pounding on it. How much
compaction? rDeveloper has to show city what
sguare footage of houses are going to be;that determines amount of compaction to begiven. This compaction is carefully monitored
and measured at grading time tby city
engineers?].
It is possible for Derrick to now submit houseplans by virtue of the fact that he and LloydLeardahl have, in effect, been in business together
on this specific project the entire period Derrickhas 1egally owned the land.
In the case of excavation in the meadow area, it
would be mandatory to have t'footprints" and squarefootages (vreight) of proposed houses in order tocorrectly ready the lots for sa1e.
Unless Derricli is made to comply rvith S14.05regarding final building drarvings and specifications,
and final site plans including a landscape schedule,it rvould appear that he enjoys the exemptionsinherent in being a land developer while engagedat the same time in a quasi-home builder's business.
When I discussed this point rvith Jim Orr and Bill
Monk Ivlay 1, 19Bl in Ji.m's office, Jim suggested
that I was "vray ahead" of where we are at this
phase of the development. After some discussion
where I sited this ordinance requirement, both Jint
and Bitl informed me that it was not Derrickrs
responsibility to ready these lots.- Struggling
for a summary of what they were trying to tel.l mer.
I said, "So, yourrc sayiug these lots are atbuyer bewarct situation?" Jim agreed. Bill said,rrlrm afraid lio.t' Thcre is more discussi-on on
"buyer bcr^rarc" fatcr in this rc'port-.
-10-
City Council -L2-May 2, 19BI
His report is 19 pages. The last 15 of those 19 are
forms, but Mr. Berg underlined in red those parts pertaining
to F.ox chase. on the page describing Glencoe soi1s,
Mr. Berg underlined:
Building Site DeveloPment:
Shallow Excavations: Severe--ponding
Dwellings without Basernents: Severe--ponding
Dwellings with Basements: Severe--ponding
Local roads and streets: Severe--pond'in9, 1ow
strength, frost action
Larvns, landscaping: Severe--ponding.
permeability z 2/Lo of an inch of water in t hour.
Building, therefore, in Glencoe soils would be nothing
short of building in a permanently wet soil--or one r'Ihere
it would {:ake 5 hours to move 1 inch of rain through it.
D. EROSION
Bob obermeyer for Riley-Purgatory creek lfatershed
District writes in his May 6 t 1980 letter:
The lvlanagers are extremely concerned with the steep
grades on the development site and will require a
continuous inspection of the proposed erosion control
measures. . To ensure that the erosiou control
measures are properly maintained, the District rvill
requirc that if,"- dcvlJ.oper post a performance bond
. . . of $201000 prior to Llle colilmcnccmetlt of land
alteration.
In Don I3ergrs sc.ril atrd l,latcr couscrvatiotl Rc1:orL of
June IB, 1980, he rvritcs,
IL is vcrl/ cl-illficr'rlt- L:<-l builcl hottscs ancl roacls oll l-lrc
l6-251; (Ej slopcs, ancl al'nrost impossil>Ic t-o dcvclop
thc 25 to 40t lr.) s1o1-rcs, as slroivn on the attachccl
soils lllap atrcl ou t5c ilcvclopcrs contour nlap' witSottt
City Council -14-May 2, I9B1
While it is true that the last 15 of these 19 pages
are basically forms, the last 5 pages are on the soils in
Fox Chase with an attending map color-coded. parts per-
taining to the Fox chase deveropment, Don had underlined in
red. A11 of this was missing from Bobts fiIe.
r brought this report to the attention of the pranning
commission and later discussed this with Jim orr. He said
soil conservation service reports were a ,'bunch of bolognE,"
that they 'tdonrt have a planr" that Derrickrs "grading plan
is quite a bit d.ifferent now,,'that Don Berg didnrt get
his information from borings on site; that ',soil and l{ater
corrservation used to r,rork for farmers but they ran out of
work so they let them get involved in this kind of thingr',
"theytre ger:eralistqr" "I dontt put any stock in itr,'
rrscs doesn't have any authorityr" and that he [Jim] had not
seen the report.
I thought it curious that the report our city
employee had summoned, our hired engineers refused to look
at calling it a I'bunch of bologna." I asked Jim if I could
pass along some of his comnrents to othcrs. IIe said, "You
sure can; thoy I::e the trulhl "
In the face of Jintrs contntents, I asl<cd Don Ber:g rvhy
hc thought.it \.,,as thal- we would bol-hcr hiur for a rcport
tirat rvc rvoulcl l-rcat- as a "bunch of bologlra." The anst{cr
escapcd him too.
City Council -16-May 2, 1981
In addition, the road stability will probably bethreatened if all of the sediment is not removedbefore pavinq. In any event, details should beprovided concerning aI1 berms, sumps and standpipes.
The 32" slopes along the west side of the property,
liere judged by Don to be nearly impossible to sustain
b bales of hay--that in a swift run off, the hay bales vrould
ro11 because of poor 1everage.
'- -;!
G. CONFLICT OF TNTEREST.-SCHOELL AND MADSON
When I first talked vrj.th Jim Orr (probably March 1991)
r was not aware that schoell and Madson were hired. by
Chanhassen. It was so apparent to me that he was
pro-Derrick, r naturally assumed he was hired by Mr. Derrick.
r was incredulous when r learned schoelr and Irladson
were our supposed. representatives. The following are some
recent examples to bear out my feeling of ilreir pro-Derrick
position:
1. When I spoke with Jim- Orr prior to the 4-22-gL
Pub1ic Ilearing, I apprised him of what the neighborhood
$/as going to present at i:lte public hearing.
f specifically recalI the conversation rclating to
OUr rccollullcllcl.tt--i-cltl that tvc hatre a secOtrdary arcceSS l-o
Cartrer lleach. I Lold lrinr I haci ival-llccl thc propertl, wlrcre
Fo:< Cltrrsc litccL:i Carvcr l](.:.lclt-
Aftcr scvcral ivhat-I-unclcrsl-ood-to-bc-defensive
conutcnts about trcc rcmoval and grading that would bc
I
t-
CiLy Council -18-May 2, 1981
I felt it a bit disconcerting that Derrick and Orr
had in effect misled both the neighbors and. planning
Commission on this issue and brought it up to Jim: f said,
"You notice Roger didnrt point out wha'L the degree of rise
would be after grading." Jim said,, ,,Of course not." To
which I replied, "And may I Sdy, neither di-d you?"
3. Fox Path has consistently been shown as ending
abruptly at the Bennett property line. Everyone knows that
the neighbors have been concerned about this because
Mrs. Bennett has said both privately and pubricry that she
feels threatened by this road ending at her property 1ine.
She does not want to seII and plans to pass her property
to her chilclren.
April 22, I98I the Planning Conmission voted in favor
of the neighborhood and passed a motion to establish a
permanent cul-de-sac approximately 50 feet from ti:e Bennett
property 1ine.
This is my concern: From the point of the'how-permanent"
cul.-de-sac to thc Bennett property (SO fcet) there is a
45o rise. It is a question in my mind horv a potcntial road
in the future up a 45" rise could ever harre becn considered
bcyond a rough drafL sLage.
l.los;i: rlisilltrsiotrj-ng is to hcar thc Iirtc: of dcfctrsc:
on this issuc by boLh Bill. I'lonk ancl Jiru Orr. BiIl points
l-
E
I
i
City Council -20-May 2, 1981
H. IIBUYER BEWARE'I
I pointed out the severe erosion behincl one of the
1og cabins on Lotus Drive in Carver Beach. Here, d.irt
has caved in 6 or more feet avray from tree roots and
backf ill has caved in next to ret.aining walls.
Bill informed me that this issue is eurrently under
legal dispute and that apparently the city is absorved from
all responsibility because the culvert above this sunken
property has been in its present location for 20 years
(longer than the cabins have been there). This seemed to
portend Lhat any future Fox Chase landorvner wil1 find
himself with a potentially similar problem, but with no
city or developer assuming responsibility.
The West Pleasant Vierv Road Association finds it
unconscionable for our city councit to permit Derrick to
se1l either meadorv land or hillside on a "buyer beware"
situation. IVe regret that sone of our city staff or those
hired by our city, feel "buyer beware" is an acceptable
practice. We urge our City Council to set the high
standard that we will not knolingly participate in allorving
the sale of any lanc1 in our boundarics rvhich is noLhing
less Lhan a trap for tlrc ul)suspccting.
I
.\eet/vrros uv ,rCi L .y J_g(f SanCView Road Association-fett5/2/8L from BoQ Waibel
1.
Draft
Land Use - pages 1-3
The report of the west pleasant view Road Association haspresented the position that the Fox chase pran constitutesa misuse of the subject property',in the sense of creati_ngmassive erosion problems threatenj-ng Lotus Lake. . . lvlisuse inthe sense of urban-type rayout in a rural neighborhood..',rt further states that "these probtems can be solved withoutdenyi-ng Mr. Derrick his rights of deveroping his property."since these issues "re contiderably subjictlve in'nalure,the only way r feer that they can be addressed is to give anoverview of h9* development rights can be consistently appliedwithin the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance,-and-theeffects of t,runk pubric improvement construction on ihedevelopability of propertj-es.
rn essence what has given this property and surrounding proper-ties developability status for an urban resid.ential stindarais the i-nst.allation of trunk sewer servi-ce. This servicewas installed to correct existing and eliminate future sanit-ation problems associated with failing on site systems.rn recognition that sanitary sewer avaj-Iability does imprycertain developability status, the city has consistently -
accepted applications for development review. through therevj-ew process development plans are approved. or disapprovedrelative to their compatability with the comprehensive plan
and city ordinances.
As to questions on land use, which urtimately resurt j.n finaldevelopment design, the following section ordinances andplans are most applicable.
19.13 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
1. A11 proposed land developments and aII applicat,ionsfor rezoning which contain in excess of 25 singlefamily zoning lots, or in excess of 24 multiple dwelling
units, or in excess of 10 acres for proposed commercial
or industrial use shall be submitted as proposed planned
unit developments and shaIl be governed by the regulations
thereof.
SECTION L4. P-l PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
14 .01 Objectives:
The ViIIage being confronted wj-th increasing urbanization
and acknowledgin that technology of land development and
demand for horlsing are undergoing substantial and rapid
changes intends:
I. To provide the means for greater creativity and flex-
anility in environmental design than is provided
under irr" strict application of the zoning and sub-
division ordinances without compromising the health,
safety,order,conveni.enceandgeneralwelfareofthe
ViIIage and its residents:
-3-
6. the pranned d.everopment will not create an excessiveburden on parks, schoors, streets and other publicfacilities and utilities which are proposed Lo servethe development,
7 - the planned deveropment will not have an adverseimpact on the reasonable {njoyment of neighboringproperty.
Subdivision Ordinance 33
8.06
a. lll:nimum Lot sizg. The minimum lot area and dimension@fied in Lhe respective zon:.nf ai=tri.t"of the virlage Zoning ordinance, and in ad.dition, thefollowing standards shalI apply:
a (1). _lrlater and Sanitary Sewer Areas. In areas servedby pubric water and sanitaiy sevrer svstems, the maxi-mumnumber of lots to be permitted in a plat.sharl be computedby subtracting from the total gross area of the prat Lhetotal dedicated street right-of-way and dividing the arearemaining after said subtraction by 15,000 to determinethe maximum number of lots permit,ted in said p1at. Inno event sha1l a Iot contain less than r1rz00 square feetnor have a frontage of less than 90 feet at the buildingset-back line. No 1ot sha1l be larger than twice theaverage si-ze of lots in said plat.
Comprehensive Guide PIan
The attached Comprehensive Guide PIan Map indicates thesubject property to assume and maintain a single familyresidential identity.
-4-
rn accordance with section 19.13 of ordinance 47 the Derrickproposal was reviewed as a planned Residential Developmentunder the provisions setforth in section t4 of ord.inance 47.
rt is quite crear from num erous professional planningsources that historically, the planned districi concept wasdeveroped for purposes of proviaing a means to incorporatemore immovative design and creativity into new developmentthan was previously afforded by conventionar subdivisionand zoning ordinances. The frimework by which this is accomp-lished is typically found in a goals or objectives statementsuch as adopted in sectj-on 14.01 subsect,iois 1,2,3, and 4 ofordinance 47 . -ry interpreting these ob jectives it'is apparentthat the_onry objective which could posliuty imply that-Lheplanned development concept is to be more iestiiEtive thanthe subdj-visj-on ordinance is objective #r wherein greatercreativity and flexibility in invironmental design is tobe provided for. ttowever, since all conventional 15,000square foot, lot subdivisions of one acre or more are subjectto the same watershed district review for purposes of impts-menting adequate soil erosion control and drainage measures,it is dlfficurt to reason that the planned devleopmentconcept is to be applied in a more restrictive mannerespecially with regard to density. Regardless of theprevious comments, it should be kept in .mind that the pox
chase proposar is at a gross density of t.5 units per acreas opposed to the 2.9 units per acre gross densJ-ty permiss-able in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Questions have been raisedin the Pleasant View Road Associationletter concerning whether or not the subject development wouldbe detrimental to present and future uses of surroundingproperties and that the Derrick proposal would ,,alter
an existi-ng neighborhood as to permanently change it,scharacterr" and that the subject development would suppossedlytriple the traffic on Pleasant View Road. Regarding thequestion of the character of the surrounding property, again,it should be kept ip zuind that the subject development is at
a gross density of'1.5 units per acre as opposed to 2.9 unitsper acre permissable in the subdivj-sion ordinance. Until any
ordinance amendments or plan amendments are carried out, the
surrounding property owners are in a situation whereby they
could develope their property to a greater degree (2.9 units
per acre)than the Fox Chase proposal (1-5 units per acre).
An exception to the above 2.9 units per acre criteria is
Carver Beach wherein certain cirCumstances variances have
been qiven for buildable lots as low as 10,000 Square feet.(4.: u-nits/acre) .
For purposes of this response, a detailed verification
of whether or not the traffic on Pleasant View Road will
triple, will not be gone into. However, as everyone involved
9.
7-
John w. schardrow Letter of 8-15-79 - rtem 11 - page 9
This item addresses the final development pran submittarsof architechturar renderings of proposed slructures andrandscaping schedules. rt had been crear from the outsetof the review of Fox chase that the homes would be custombuilt. rn simurar situations such as Lotus Lake Estates,Reichert Addition, Near Mountain, and, Minnewashta creek2nd Addition, it was clear that the city courd not influencethe architecturar style of singre famiry homes beyond what,was required in the building code. Typically the covanentsand restrictions for such proposals includ.e an architecturalreview by a committee established by the developer and/orthe home owners association. rn the sample covenants andrestrj-ctions submitted by Derrick Land Company for FoxChase, such a provision exists. Situations in which thecity has received architectuar renderings have been primarilyfor tract housing developers with a limited number of singrefamily styres and variations, and for murtipte and commercialand industrial structures.
In the past the City has not requj-red landscape schedulesfor single family homes since such would interfer withindividual owners preferances. Landscape schedules have
been required for mu1tip1e, commercial and industrialstructures to i-nsure that a minimal land.scaping effort is
made.
Soil Sectj-on C - page 11
The soil anc water conservation service inventory andevaluation reports si:nply indicate to all partils in-volved in a development, the conditions as they existon a large scaIe. It points out areas of synptcrnaticsoil and slope conditj-ons were, &acceptable correctivemeasures should be taken to render them developable.
Erosion - Section D - page L2
Traditionally, the City has depended upon review by the liater
ShedDistricLandthecityEngineertoinsurethatpro-per erosion control measures will- be implimented in the
devleopment and construction plans. In order to receive
a land alteration permit, the appticant must prepare and
submit a satisfactory erosion control plan, and in the
case of Derrick Land Company, they must post a perform-
ance bond of $20 1000 to assure that erosion control
measures are properly maintained. It has been the concern
of this office tirat iufficient monies be posted to cover
',111}..1;iri*
L
L
The
had
the
the
and
-9-
first sentence ol page 14 implies that the city councilnot seen the soils map for Fox chase. a reviei ofJuly 21, 1980 City Council packet indicates thatnarrative_portion of the scs inventory and evaruationthe attendant soil map was included f6r their review.
L
L
Ll
t
L
L
IL
L
L
Don Ashworth
Page 2
When discussing secondary access from the south, the following items
should be noted:
The Roadway system in Carver Beach is marginal at best andadditional traffic is to be avoided.
Fox Path could become a collector if Carver Beach traffichad this northerly escape to Pleasant View Road.
Right-of-way acquisition outside this prat wourd almostcertainly be required for a street connection.
Grading and tree removal would be extensive but no worse thanon proposed roadways within the p1at.
Paqe L0 - Section 11
Comments concerning the "Buyer Beware" issue stem from conversationsabout the Cityrs responsibility j-n the area of buildable lots. Istated the City is not responsible to render all lots buildable asa conditj-on of the plat approval, but the City did have a responsi-bility to ensure aII structures were built to code as a part of thebuilding permit process.
Paqe 11 - C. Soils
Based on available test data and visual field j-nspection, f am concerned.about the poor soil conditions in the lowlands because I understandthe extaordinary construction and inspection that will be required. f
am convinced a roadway can be built to serve this property althoughsite development costs will be extremely high.
Paqe 12 - D. Erosion
Erosion control will be an important facet of this project both during
and after construction. Compliance with Watershed District conditionsconcerning this matter is a requirement of the City on all plats.
Should those conditions or a contractorrs compliance be found deficientat any tj-me, the Watershed Distrj-ct and/or the City shal1 require
immediate corrective measures.
Page 18 - Section 3
A cul-de-sac should be platted where construction of Fox Path is toterminate as a part of this project, and the City should retain the
remaining right-of-way to the west for possible future use. There is
no question that extensive grading wiIl be required with the westwardextension of Fox Path.
Paqe 19 - Section 5
The L2" culvert mentioned shall be
the potential for such exist, they
this project.
reviewed. If drainage problems or
would be corrected as a part of
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLEFI
JAMES R, ORR
HAROLO E. DAHLIN
LABRY L. HANSON
JACK E, GILL
THEODORE D. KEMNA
JOHN W. EMOND
KENNETH E, AOOLF
WILLIAM P, ENGELHAROT
B. SCOTT HARRI
GEBALO L, EACKMAN
€iGHOELL &.
ENGINEEFIS ANO
MAtrlSON, INc.
SUF|VEYOFlS
(612) 93&7601 o 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH o HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
May 13, 1981
Cit.y of Chanhassenc/o Mr. Don Ashworth, City l4anager
590 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Subject: Kathleen Schwartz Report of
May 2, 1981
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your requestr w€ herein wish to respond to theabove named letter dealing with the Fox Chase development.Mrs. schwartzrs letter was 21 pages long and r wish to commenton engineering related items only.
Mrs. Schwartz's letter was negative toward me and our firm.It had allegations of conflict of interest, and questioned my
competence and integrity. I do not wish to enter into a confron-tation with Mrs. Schwartz, oE to address each of her commentsherein. ft seems to me that the issue here is the Fox Chase
development, not what Mrs. Schwartz or myself feel about eachother's respective motives or ro1e. Mrs. Schwartzrs letter has
some inaccuracies, misstatements, and has taken comments anddiscussion out of context.
Following are responses on certain engineering related items:
Page 5, Item 7:
Lot 3, Block 2 could have improved site distance assuming
some grading and tree removal, plus driveway placement on the east
edge of the lot. The advantage of the Pleasant Vj-ew access is
that it aids the effort of saving the Pine tree stand on the
subject Iot, versus a driveway access from the southeast.
Page 6, Item B:
The Pox Path entrance onto Pleasant View does not have an
eight percent (Aa1 intersection with Pleasant VEw noIa. As I
have told Mrs. Schwartz and shown her the Plans, the intersection
SCHOELL & MADSON,Iruc.
City of Chanhassenc/o Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
Page Three May 13, 1981
Page 10, Item 11:
My comments about the buyer being aware of the rot soilconditions were attempting to convey that the city cannot anddoes not warrant soil conditions of a building site. The platreview process addresses concerns over soj-I conditi-ons on thepublic right-of-way where city streets and utilities will belocated. The City obviously has a direct interest in those items,but in terms of soil conditions on the 1ots, this is between the
4eveloper and the buyer. To suggest the cityffil-n some way grants approval of soil conditions where a buil<lingis to be placed is totally unreasonable and is not done in any citythat r am aware of. Nor from the citysr point of view, should. itbe.
Page 11, Item C:
My general comment on I"Irs. schwartzts allegations of notrecognizing or using the SCS and Watershed District reports isthat they were used, and the City gounc+f's qpproval was conditioned
recognized by us, and the Plans and specifications prepared forthe j-mprovements demonstrate this fact.
Page 14:
Mrs. Schwartzrs comments on this page are totally out ofcontext and contain some false statements. (Example - we did not"refuse to look at" the scs report as she says.) A question wasraised as to the relationship between the SCS, Watershed District,Corp of Engineers, DNR, and City reviews. f was attempting to
explai-n this, and the considerable overlap that exists in thisprocess, and that irregardless of the other agency's review, theerosion and soil problems are considered very seriously in theCity's review. I have since talked to Don Berg about the matter
and we agree on the above mentioned information.
Page 15, Item F:
As I have repeatedly explained to Mrs. Schwartz, there are
completed construction drawings and specifications for the proposed
street and utility work. Continual reference is made to preliminary
and outdated drawings that don't represent what is being proposed
in terms of drainage facilities, grades, and erosion control.
In terms of design criteria, the drainage facilities are
designed for a ten-year frequency storm - normal municipal design.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
County 0ffice Buil-ding,Waconia, Minnesota j5387
I4ay 28, 1981
Mr. Tom Hamil-ton, Mayor
City of Chanhassen
7690 taredo Drive
Chanhassen, I4innes ot a 553L7
Dear Mayor Ha:nilton:
r a-n r.rriting this letter at the request of Kathy schvartz. over thepast few veeks, she has requested information from me relating to theJune 18, 19BO Inventory and. Evaluation of Soil and. Water Resources ofFox Chase, Chanhassen, by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District.
I revieved. the January 28-30, 1980 preliminary plan of Fox Chase, visitedand' valked over the site twice, d.iscussed it with Steve Wid.uta, formerstate soil conservation Board. Representative, and Justin Jeffery, soilConservation Servi-ce Area Engineer, and vrote the report for the Soil andwater conservation District, as requested by the eity on June 10,1980.Copies of this report vere sent to Bob Waibel and Dennis Marhula onJune 19, 1980. As of this date, r have not reviewed an updated. pJ_an andf do not know if soil- erosion and soil wetness problems have been resolvedto the satisfaction of the city planning eommission and city council.
f read' Kathy Schvartzt May 2, t9B]- twenty-one page l-etter to the Chanhassenci.ty council t'Concerns of West Pl-easant View Road Associationt', and. I amaware of a seeond letter being d.rafted. at this tine (:-e5-Br-).
Sineerely,b^
Dona1d. C.
District
cc: Kathy Schvartz
Don Ashworth, Chanhassen
ALfred Fischer, SCS Area
Justin Jeffery, SCS Area
- RECEIVED
MAy z 9 l98t
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
illIrEFla're:-" :1rc-{F;i*r1gi&&;li+j-:3::-'
City Planner
Conservationi. st
Engineer
SECTION IV
Schwartz Report of May 26, 1981
1
:,
REPORT FROM
WEST PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATION
May 26, 1981
TO
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
I
-.i
I
I
290 pleasant View Road
I Chanhassen, MN 55317
IJ May 26, 1981
I
I+
Members of City Council
r City of Chanhassen
-r 7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55312
Dear Councilmen3
' Fox Chase Development, your pile p-6I4
;.-' This is the fourth report by the West Pleasant View i
Road Association submitted to Chanhassen. The previous
three are included in the Appendix.
Material in this report has either not been previously
,
discussed or is presented now in a different light.
DE\IELOPER' S RESPONSIBILITIES
Mr. Ivlarlin Grant, President, Marvin endersori
-' Construction Company was guest speaker at the May 13, 1981
Planning Commission meeting in Chanhassen. It was here
that I heard Mr. Grant tell of his immediate return from
_ Washington where he had attended the Spring Board Meeting
of the National Association of Homebuilders. There,
b economists had stated that it was their belief that the
>
housing industry would remain in the present depressed state
-1-
)
City Council Iiay 26 , 19 81
1.l'L)
I
L city council
)
-5-May 26, 1981
It! When the road hras constructed at the cul-de-sac area
I in Far HiLl, excavating remains were shoved into the adjoiningt
wooded area and left in a stipshod fashion resting several
IL feet up the trunks of trees and'creating an unsightry
-, dropoff to the woods. This occurs next to the one of 20
I
Ih lots that has been sold and built upon
l:L
L
L
L
L,
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
I
City Council -7-l'Iay 26 , 19 81
an April 7, 1980 motion?
There h,ere 6 conditions attached to the 52-1ot
preliminarl development plan approval, one of which was
to be met before the matter hras resubmitted to the council
for preliminary plat approval (Append.ix) . That condition
was not met.
Condition 1 reads:
That the applicant receive approval of theirgrading pran, drainage plan and erosion controlplan from the
a.Soil Conservation Serviceb.Minnesota Department of Natural Resourcesc.Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District
Condition 2 reads:
That said approvals be received prior to thematter being resubmitted to the city council forpreliminary plat approval
a. SoiI Conservation Servi:ce
You recall in our report of May 2, I9B1 to the City
b Council (p. 13) that the Soil Conservation Districtrs report
was requested by Bob waiber June 10, r98o, received,
June 18, 1980 and deemed "too rate" to be considered.
- n May 20, 1981, l{E. B"fg stated to me ,,if it was the
intent of the city to get my approval or disapproval, they
L d.o not have it. "
I had called l'1r. Berg (t"tay 20, to discuss the
- April 7, 1980 Council motion. He said that while they do
)\
iJ
iJ
I
I
I
IJ
i
City Council -9-l'1a1, 26 , 19 B I
emergency water would be diverted.
3. Paragraph 2, page 2.
will_the proposed sediment basin adjacent tothe rake provide adeguate water detention timeand sediment storage? The runoff from allthe graded areas in the construction areaneeds to be directed through the sed.iment basin.
basin, provisions to clein out the sedimentshould be made part of the plan.
on the l/28/8o Grading ndp, I"1r. Berg is not satisfied
that the proposed sediment basin will provide adequate
water detention time and sediment storage. Hers not
satisfied that the runoff from arl the graded areas in the
construction area will be directed through the sediment basin.
rf the city desires, Ivlr- Berg would be wilring to review
the engineering design of the sediment basin. Mr. Justin
Jeffery, Area Engineer for soil and water conservation
District, explains, ,,In order to reviewr we would need
design criteria and calculations.,l
who will be responsible for operating and maintaining
permanent sediment basin?
4. Paragraph 3, page 2.
Why does the plan show two outlet concepts betweenthe sediment control device and the lake? Oneis 2 - 24" RCp and the other is a ditch.
I)
City Council -11-Itlay 26 , 19 81
B. Paragraph 2, page 3.
The two diversions above the cu1-de-sacs willbe ver1z difficult to construct and, withoutstable outlets, may cause more problems thanthey solve" Permanent retaining waIls may berequired to stabilize steep slopes.
I"1r. Berg states that he has never seen diversions
built on so steep a slope as 368.
9. Paragraph 8, p. 3. In addition to the severe
problem of erosion which Mr. Berg has cited above, he states,
The second building site limitation problem
is the wet Glencoe soils in the low area
adjacent to the 1ake. The subsurface seasonal
water table rises to within,one-foot of thesurface at least once a year . the bearing
strength of the Glencoe soil needs to be
determined. Basements would be designed toprevent continuing water seepage problems
and also foundation cracking due to low soil
strength and fros.t action.
A soil testing company would have to investigate the
bearing strength of the Glencoe soils prior to construction.
10. Paragraph 2, Page 4.
The remaining alIuvial soiI, Terril loam,
ranges from 7 to llt slopes, has a moderate
soii. erosion hazard and has an inherent variable
seasonal wetness Problem
we are talking here about a continuing water seepage
problem into basements built in these areas unless home-
owners are alerted to this problem before building.
)
I
-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
Citl, Council - 13-l'1ay 26, 1981
Summarv and Recommendation
Because no April 1, 1980 plan can be Located (on which
April 7 motion was based), and because Conditions 1 and 2
of that motion were not metr w€ submit that the April 7, I9B0
motion to approve the 52 lot preliminary development plan
has not been fulfilled to date. Therefore, it does not stand.
cITy couNTIL MEETING OF JULY 21, 1980
To our understanding, staff should not have allowed
Fox chase to appear on the council.agenda until the motion
of April 7 had been satisfied.
Because the April 7 motion was not satisfied (and
to the present day, still is not) r dDy motions made on
July 21 on the Final Development PIan are nu1l and void.
. At any rate, without researching, two of the B
conditions attached to the JuIy 21 motion appear not to
be satisfied. I refer specifically to items I and 2 of
Bob l^Iaibe1rs memo of JuIy 9, 1980: " (1) ?hat a conservation
easement be established within the area below the.900 foot
elevation." Since the ordinary high water level for
Lotus Lake is 896.3 and since DNRrs letter of April 7,198I
states, "The d.rainage and trail easement.is inappropriate
as it is placed below the OIIW, " there appears to be a
contradiction which would not allow the motion to stand.
l
City Council -1s-Irlay 26, 1981
I'1r. Obermeyer has stated to me that the only thing
their office is concerned with is "IIow is it going to
affect the water resources of the d.istrict?" As f under-
stand it from his and my conversations, the District does
not have jurisdiction over whether soil conditions are
acceptable, whether or not lots are buildabler or whether
there are proper soils for roadway construction.
Not knowing the limits of Watershed Districtrs
jurisdiction on Fox chase, r posed engineering questions
to see if their agency acts as a check and balance against
Schoell & Iuladson. Mr. Obermeyer sbated that 958 of my
questions come under the jurisdiction of the city. He said
that if a plan doesnrt work, itls the engineer's
responsibility; they [Watershed] dontt check on other
engineers. Ueither does the Watershed District review
whether the pipe sizes on SchoeII & Mad.sonts designs are
adequate to take the runoff to Lotus Lake. This last point
surprised. me because the criteria for pipe design would
directly affect the proper operation of the sediment basin
which, in turn, would affect runoff to Lotus Lake.
Furthermore, if I as buyer are first man in and build
in the meadow, f need to know that storm sewers are adequate
and that there are overf low provisions r .or I will have
erosion from subsequent builders uphill from me ending up
in my yard.
City Council -1 7-I.lay 26, 1981
1. Severe slopes--erosion
2. overland emergency flow exceeding storm sewers
3. Detention time in sediment storage; amount ofrunoff from graded areas
4. outlets between sediment control device and lake
5. straw bales to control sediment from reaching lake
6. Order of construction
7. Surnp areas in roadway
8. Diversions above cul-de-sacs
9. Glencoe soils bearing strength
10. Seasonal wetness of a11uvial soil
11. Soil Survey Interpretation
rn the watershed permit retters, g points are raised.-
(permit letters in Appendix.)
1. Steep grades
2. Hay bales
3. Sed.imentation basins in roadvray
4. $20r000 performance bond or letter of credj-t
5. site grading restored with seed and mulch; 3:l slopesrestored with sod
6. Storm sewer plan
7. Basement floors must be at 901 elevation
8. District to be notified 48 hours in advance ofland alteration
On only 3 points do the SoiI and Water Conservation
- Report and the Letters of Permit from the Watershed. District
appear to overlap: (1) severe grades, (2) hay bales and
i' (3) sedimentation basins in roadway- On the third point,
the two reports apparently disagree with each other.;
City Council -1 9-I'1ay 26 , 19 B1
PETITTON OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEIGI]BORS
In the minutes of the April 4, 1979 Planning Commission
meeting, there are 4 pages (see Appendix) of transcript
discussing the petition with 80 signatures, but there is
a page missing: the page on which motions would appear.
The argument is heard that the petition for 40,000 square
foot zoning came in too late
One of the basic issues surrounding this whole
development process has always been density. The West
Pleasant View Road Association has consistently striven to
show by petition, fact and 1ogic, that high density is out
of character with the existing adjoining neighborhood.
Nevertheless, by default we appeared to be saddled
with 52 instead of 49 unitsr so.the best we could do rvas
to see that it was done right. It was this motiva'l'-ion
of wanting Fox Chase to be done right that brought about
such extensive research as we have engaged in from
February 1981 to now.
This was as I stated it to Jim Orr on May II, 1981
when he asserted that he knew I was. trying to stop the
project. When I corrected him saying it was not the case,
that we were trying to see that it was done right, he
j-mmediately began talking about density, zoning and 52 lots'
City Council -21-Ilay 26 , 19 81
Because the information given at public Hearing,
_ August 1979 was 49 lots and 2 roads and later increased
to 52 lots with one road with no notice to neighbors by
- public hearing,
Because we have shown through research and fact
innumerable instances of staff inefficiencies, eng:ineerrs
._ (Schoell & Madson) conflict of interestr {nd less than
_ '""":::.:::"::':,::1",:"J;':;:.T:: :,::T,:";, ,,,0 ,
_
Council motion was based) can be found,
Because the April 7 motion with conditions for
_ approving 52 lots have not been satisfied,
Because the July 2L, 1980 Council meeting should not,
therefore, have been called on this issue,
Because the JuIy 2L, 1980 motion, in any event, has
not been satisfied either,
We submit that from August L979 to present, the entire
process in the Fox Chase development has been defective.
_ That except for the period February 1981 to present, the
neighborhood has basically been deprived of its right to
- participate. We, therefore, ask that the City revoke the
Special Use Permit issued to Derrick Land and send this back
to the Planning Commission where we can start the entire
process again--this time, correctly and under careful
scrutiny
April 6, 1981
Honorable Thomas Hamilton, Mayor
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, I'lN 55317
Dear Mayor Hamilton:
Re: Fox Chase Development, Your File No. P-514
Ivlembers of the West Pleasant View Road Association met with
Roger Derrick, I{r. Laughinghouse and lv1r. Leardahl April 4--just two days ago.
There, Roger Derrick suggested that the changes he would
request tonight from the Council were: (1) realignment ofthe interior street, and (2) two unplatted outlots which
would be platted in perhaps a year.
Yet, from my own personal study, f find that far greater
changes exist than lv1r. Derrick might lead one to beliewe.
Before I list these changes, I give .a slight chronology on
Derrickrs plat plans since final approval.
August 2L, 1980. Craig Mertzr letter to Prank Beddor
states, "the preliminary plat was approved by the City
council on JuIy 2L, 1980 conditioned upon a reduction
in the nr:mber of lots to 52."
December 18, 1980 (5 months later). Roger Derrickrs
letter to Bob Waibel, "As you know we have obtained
Council approval of our preliminary plat for Fox
Chase. " He then discusses his desired road change
as',not a major change and it should. not be necessary
to appear beiore the Planning Commission and Council
agaii:- to obtain the same approvals that we have obtained
over the past two years . lf you and the rest of
staff co.rlorr w€ witt instruct Egan, Field and Nowak
to prepare the final plat based on the road modification
. and sutmit it for processing. . . ."
February 11, 198I. Planning Commission meeting
discussing Mr. Derrick's nnot major change." -Advisedthat such changes would require a public hearing
where all would start anew, IVII.. Derrick withdraws
his request.
April 4 | 1981. The neighborhood invites Derrick to
' Edwards' home in anti6ipation of this April 6 council
meeting in an attempt to reconcile disagreements by
Honorable Thomas Hamilton -2-April 6, 1981
compromising with each other. This effort, however,
was thwarted when Derrick insisted that the compromise
begin from the premise that he had 54 1ots. Several
efforts were made to reason with him that he had,
in fact, only 52 approved by the Council but to noavail.
I then took home the plat drawings and compared the
two and noticed the following changes between the
final approval and the plan the neighbors saw April 4.
Changes by Derrick beyond what he suggested to neighbors:
1. Common Space
@public Hearings plat show 3.21 acres of
common space.
July 2L, 1980, the common space has been reduced to
931500 square feet--down from 3.2L to 2.L5 acres'
April 41 1981, I measure the Common space area to be
f.Sg acres. This means thaL from final approval to
today, there has been a 26* decrease in common space
acreage.
Lakeshore footage on this conrmon space changed from
ffiroval to a present 50 t. This is a
TLeo decrease in lakeshore footage of the common area.
2. Increase in Lakeshore l,ots the outlot as well as
lakeshore frontage meant that two additional house
lots (over what ias shown at final approval) -cou1dnow be sold as lakefront lots. In other words, what
was at final approval the common property on-all the
homeowneis has |art1y gone to form two more lakeshore
private lots.
3. Trail EasementJ'
ffimitted July 21r.1980, the words arong
the shor"ii"" read, " (pro-posea) 20 ft. Drainage and
UtilitY and Trail Easement"'
ontheplanshownApri14,l98l,-thewordsalongtheshorelin;-;";a-""fV- "Oiainage and Utility Easement"'
"Trail Easernent" has been deleted'
Honorable Thomas Hamilton -4-April 6, 1981
"substantially diminish and impair property valueswithin the neighborhood. "
This view is shared by Mr. Daryl Fortier of thearchitectural firm of Korsunsky Krank and Erickson.In his letter of November 15, 1979 to phil Getts, he' writes:
It is our opinion that the Derrick Developmentproposal for the lalilma Thompson property is not incharacter with the neighborhood and will have anegative impact.
The PleasanL View Road neighborhood is well defined,with a definite low density rural character.Presently there are 24 residences on over 72.8 acresof land for a density of O.32 units/acre. TheDerrick Development is proposing 52 residenceson 28.43/acres of land for a density of 1.83 units/acre.
The contrast is very evident. A review of theirplan and the natural topographic and ground coverconditions, Iead us to the inescapable conclusion
that the Derrick Development cannot complimentthe existing character.
With lot widths of one hundred feet typical, the
size of residence, building material, and distance
between residences will be a sharp, unwelcome
contrast. With the amount of construction will eome
wholesale changes in topographic and ground cover,
with an estimated loss of over 508 of the wooded'
area. Vehicular traffic can be expected to triple.
In developing this Property, we believe better
alternaLives are available. This development can
potentially be in harmony with the neighborhood
and remain responsive to the lake front.
C. Conflictilrg. Otditt".r""=Z cted bY the 151000 square
footage minimum and is, I think, ga]led by the fact that
thougf,:he pays for 69 se!{er assessments, he has approval
to build only 52 lots
The neighborhood feels protected by sections 14.05,
14.06 and. 23.07 of ordinance 47.
790 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen , IoI 55 317April 20, 1981
Mr, Art Partridge, Chairman
Chanhassen Planning Commission
6280 Hummingbird RoadExcelsior, MN 55331
Dear Art and Commissioners:
CONFUSION
@-ggo the Council approved Derrickts plat withthe straight road, 93 r 500 square foot outlot with 170feet of shorefront, 20 foot drainage and utility andtrail easement and three lots abutting Pleasant View.This approval was made contingent upon Derrick reducingthe number of lots from 54 to 52.
April 22, 1981, 9 months to the d.y, we have yet toreceive a copy of the plat showing what was approved
July 1980
While it is true that April 22, 1981 Derrick has come
forth with a plat showing 52 lots, ironically, all the
other things mentioned above and approved July 1980 have
now been changed.
The result is that when one discusses the straight road
vs. the curved one, the outlot, the trail, or the three
lots on Pleasant View vs. the four now shown and one tries
to make comparisons, there is nothing to comPare with. This
may sound simplistic to even point out, but it is next to
impossible to teI1 where you are going when you canrt
say where you came from.
1. Therefore, we request a plat drawing of what
was approved JuIY 2L, 1980.
LOTS AIONG PLEASANT VIEW ROAD for three house Iots
abuttin-g Pleasant v1Lw. It has always been neighbor concern
that Derrickrs high density is adjacent to our rural setting'
Further, lvlE. Derrickts current plan shows 4 lots on
Pleasani View with the fourth exiting privately onto
Pleasant View. This exit is extremely dangerous as it is
on a blind curve with perhaps 20-30 foot line of sight.
Art Partridge -3-April 20, 1981
to Chanhassen via Kerber Road for shopping.
4. Therefore, we request all roads in the Fox
Chase development be reduced to 28t wide.
And ask that the secondary access be betweenLots 26 and 27 of Block 1 (p1an dated April 15, 1981).(This is the sarne location as between Lots 16 and i--l ,of Block 3 of plan dated May 22, 1980,)
SOIL
ffiEattached reports from the DNR, Riley-purgatorywatershed District and carver soil and lvater conservationDistrict discuss the soil and erosion problems of Fox Chase.
The part that has always confused the neighborhood is
how one could possibly build in a meadow where water isso near the surface.
In fact, it is because of this poor meadow soil thatthe approved straight-shot road has been realigned. Itis secondary, but not incidental, .that the road realignment
does make everything more attractive in the eyes of many.
But the question inevitably arises: where the soil was sopoor that a road could not safely be constructed, how
could a house instead now be placed there? One needs
only to check soil borings and Look at the grading map to
ascertain that water lies very close to the meadow surface.
In the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District report
of June 18, 1980, Mr. Berg writes,
"The second build.ing site limitation problem is the
wet Glencoe soils in the low area adjacent to the
lake. The subsurface seasonal water table rises
to within one foot of the surface at least once a
year. To control the wetness problem in these
lreas, the maximum flood leve1 of Lotus Lake would
have to be known, the seasonal high water table would
also have to be known, and the bearing strength of
the Glencoe soil needs to be determined. Basements
would be designed to prevent continuing water seepage
problems and also foundation cracking due to }ow
soil strength and frost action."
His: report is 19 pages. The last 15 of those 19 are
forms, but I,1r. Berg underlined in red those parts pertaining
to Fox Chase. On the page describing Glencoe soils,
Ivlr. Berg underlined:
Art Partridge -5-April 20, 1981
For example, while l{atershed District has issued Derricka permit January 26,1981, it was a permit based on theplat drawing which bears no date but which has an outlotof 81,100 square feet. That was the plat submitted tothe Planning commission February 19Br which was that sameevening withdrawn by Derrick. Likewise, the grading plan
used by the Watershed District was dated I/26/Bl--which
has now been superseded.
The sarne type of situation exists with the DNR. Kent
Lokkesmoe writes in his April -7, 19BI letter to Bob Waibel:
This department did receive notice of the originalpublic hearing, but the notice was mailed to thewrong office and contained no plans. With
inadequate time to respond and no plans, this
Department made no comments. This was unfortunate,but regardless of these facts, a permit is stillrequired for work below the OHI^I.
The sarne t),pe of situation existed with the Corps of
Engineering whose jurisdiction is over wetlands. The
Corps was not even aware that Derrick had changed itsplans of years ago when there was a proposed tennis courtin the meadow.
5. We therefore request alertness in keeping
concerned departments apprised of the progress
of this project so that such crucial matters as
soil erosion can be constantly monitored.
OUTLOT
3.2L acres; in JuIy 2L, 1980, the plan showed a reduction
from 3.2L to 2.L5 acres. In April 4, 1981, the outlot had
been further reduced to 1.58 acres and today, the outlot
has disappeared altogether.
7. We reguest reinstatement of the outlot as shown
on the July 2L, I9B0 approval; i.e. 2.15 acres.
Sincerely,
/orr- &L*-o-(
(Mrs.) Kathleen Schwartz/
for the West Pleasant View
Road Association
F!t- ''
-l
L
,
I
I
L
I
L
I
IL
I
It
L
t
L
t
L
IL
L
L
t
L
L
t
City Council -2I-May 2, 1991
I. SUM,IARY
We have tried to bring to light facts which show theneighborhood is not against a devel0pment that wourd bein keeping with the existing neighborhood. This proposeddevel0pment appears to misuse the property to such anextent that severe erosion threatens Lotus Lake and lotplacement threatens the existing rural neighborhood.
l,/
,1aln ,Q,ri.o..rz
I5=:] x4h1""r, schwartlt_or the west pr""=i"f ' va-
View Road associaiiori
City Council l"linutes, July 2L, 1980PinaI Development Plan
Councilman Neveaux moved to approveplan for Fox Chase Addition subjectof the City l"lanagerrs report dated
the final development
to items 2, 3, and 4
July 17, 1980
and items 1-5 in the Land Use Coordinatorrs report of July 9,1980.(Motion carried)
City Ivlanagerts report JuIy L7, 1980 (items 2r3, and 4)
2. The location of the trail is stilI uncertain at
this time, i.e. whether along the back 1ot lines
or abutting the street on the north end of the
development. In meeting with the Park and
Recreation Commission, the developers have stated
their desire to have this decision withheld until
grading is commenced and Park and Recreation
Commissioners afforded an opportunity to walk both
potential locations. This suggestion aPpears Lo
create some problems in preparation of a development
contract (outlining two potential location areas),
but no other reasonable alternative aPpears to exist.
However, in accepting the final development plan,
it should be clear that the outlot area is being
accepted as a conservation area and, as suchr Do
. park credits are being given. Further, that it
is to the advantage of the developer to have the
8 foot trail through the conservation and, whether
such be within this conservation area or partially
adjacent to the road, that developers agree to grade
and install wood chips for the trail in accordance
with the recommendations of the Park and Recreation
Commission as a part of their overall grading p1an.
3. As a part of boLh the East Lotus Lake Project and
Near Mountain development proposals, significant
d.iscussion occurred in regards to the cityrs ability
to assure that public improvements are designed and
inspected to CiLy standard.s. In conformance with
thele discussioni, it is recommended that the developer
be required to use the Cityrs engineer for preparation
of. plins and specifications and alt staking and
inspection.
'l 4. The above cond,itions are in addition to those outlined
' - ;t the Land Use Coordinator in his reports of JuIy 9. and 17, and the Engineerls report of July 7.-such
disregarding those variances approved by-the City
Council durlng preliminary devLlopment plan approval,
i.e. length oi cul-de-sacs and street grades'
PIION:: 2-96-75-23
. l.Ir. Sobert 'ttaibel
Lancl IJse Coordinatot
CiXg of Chanhassen
767O Laredo Dtive
Chanlassen , t'linnesota 55377
ltt'
5
r=.-f,-:.#-'- ri.: :". 1-i.::;-;:r--.*.,., .-- _ .. :4.^F....-'.t r:..;Y srATE or
i/ /lrlruDstrs@ -A \
US\DEpARTMEr.tr oF i'.t ATURAL RESouRCEt-ja-- lletro Region llaters, 1,200 tlarner Road, st. Pau-l , tttt 55706
Frlo No.
apiiJ 7, 7987
Dear tlt.. WaibeT:
David treuthe of this' office has rerriewed the proposed Fox CJ:ase
DeveTopment p-Zans dated lLag 72, L980 and reyised liag 22. 7990,
vrhich vere submjtted to thjs office bg I,Ir. Kurt Laug'ninghouse on
IpriJ 3, 7987. Sased on t}rjs teivew, we offer xhe foTTowing.com,aents:
1) Sjnce orir -Iot size regujrements have been met in
a-?.L .but Xwo cases (which f r.ri77 address beTow),
we consider tJ:js deveTopnent Xo be a tegotTaT sjfb_-
.djvjsjon, raXher Xhan a pTann=d uniX deveTopmenX
-
reguiiing approval of Xhe Co.z;jssioner.
2) ?he most significant probTen vixh this p,76posaljs t}:at Xhe Ordinarg High Water Level (OHil) of
Iptus Lake is 896.3 (NGVD, 7929). The OHII was :
recentl.g deXermined (7978). A ccmparison of
the OH\I to t,lle proposed pTans reveaTs Xhat a7l
ripatian Jois conXain some Tand belav the OHW.
. Land beTow tJte Olll,l is .basjca 779 unavaiTabTe for
deveTopmenX and shouTd not be considered when
ca.Zcu-Zdtjng Lot asea reg,ujreaents. Our regujre-
menX fot structure setDack on a sewered GeneraZ
DeveTopnent (GD) -Zot js 50 feeX and musx be
measured from the OiIl{.
3) Ints 7 anit 4 in BTock 3 (ripz.rian -Iots 1 utouLa
appeat to be Jess than xhe 15rO0O squate feex
'we require vhen consideting the OHil of 896-3-
We would reconmend changing the fots to meeX
out tequitements.
4) The drainage and trail easenent is inappropriaxe
as jt is placed beTow the Oi{t;l.
' 5) The pTans slzon a sedjr:nentation .basin and sxorm
sewer ouXlet beTorl xhe OH'!{. ?llis actjviXg aTong
with ang grading, fiL7ing, ot excavation beTow
896.3 trould reclztire a perrait froin -Jtis Departmcnt.
r,, 6) ?'his Department djd receive notjce of the otiginaT
; pub-Zic hearing, but thc notice r.ras ;n.rj.fcd to the
wrong o{tice ancl contaj,ed no plans. Viitn inadecluate
.ar
',,
t,
hu'
.-f AN EOUAL OPNONTUNITY ENiPI. OYEIT
d-t
,.8t1[f,
,=q
\*
6__
It,iley- Pu rgato ry Creek \Yatersh ed District
&
8950
EDEN PRAIRIE.
CCUNTY ROAO -'I
MINNESOTA 5534:
IIay 6, 1980
Hr. Greg Kopishke
Westwood Planning and Engineering
7415 llayzata Boulevard
Mlnneapolis, [innesota 55426 -
Re:site crat for the
Beach Development.:
rfiN lgso
=",t;uqgFPl--'?'Ii"'riliffi5-"n' q
C,a
C^,Sunrise
Ctranhassen
f.llBtL
Dear Hr. Kopishke:...,,ffi
warershed Disrrtcr.Itre Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory
has reviewed the plans and grading and land alteraEion pe:mit application
for site grading -f-91..--Ehejun1,i5c Reaeh D-eve1O4U9n!-i! Jhanhassen- The
Managers".@edwiththesteeP85a!.es-onthedeve1opDenE
sit,eandwi11r@uS_inSPeitio-n.oftheproposederosioncon.
trol measures- to ensure that they are ProPerly uaintained and functional
until the altered areas on the site have been restored. To ensure Ehat
the erosion control- roeasures are properly maintained, the Districr rz-ilI
reguire that the developer-poF_E-_g_p_eE!-g.nneE-c-e-b-qn-d-o-1i^egter of security
ln the amount of $2O,OOb prior ro the corrmenceuent of land- afEeraETon)
-
''
I^flEh the above noted, the Managers approve of Lhe grading and land
alteration'pe:mit for slte grading on this developroent subject to the
following condiElons:
l. The DlstricE rrill require that all erosion controf, rDeasures, 1.e-,
staked hay bales reinforced with snow fence, be installed prior to
the coffiEnCemenfof land alteration and Ue roaintainealntif aff
-a?65E71iirea onTliE-siC"--fr"re U""r, r"=tored. Once these erosion -.-.A_l. control Eeasures have been installed, the Distrlg{.: engineering tt' tt'*-' .--
advisor Eust be not{leclR3rrl!--t-o- -t-\g. -co6E.E-renr -of land altera-' . o r o i "
t'
ffiE""or-#grn-until a fierd {=-=.l+JI Ur'fl"
-
Ehe erosion control measures has been made by E-EeTltsEiicE's
engineering advisor.
TheDistriccrriIlrequireEhaltheI@c;5.i91.P":_1l"...i
to be located along ihe norch-souc -eg-!ht-
.inltlal stages 9J grading operations and remain funcEional during 2'' _r,ffi[ porrion of the proj ect. t "*t'!'-ffio"n'-
4n5'
Riley- Pu rgato ry Creek \lratershed Distric
Bd(
r4
o -\
f te
B
8950 COUNfi FIOAD
EDEN PRAIBIE. MINNESOTA 5r
Harch 4, 198I w,/
..
Ilesfsood pt3gn{ng. & Engineeri-ug
7 415 TlaYzata 3ou-levaril
ltinneapolis, Hlnnesota 55426
Re: ' Perait Extenslon Request - Strnrise
. Fox Chase DevelopmenE: Charrbassen' : .-:_
Dear Mr. Eagen:
Snx'a
Beach/
3- tr'iAR198l , hrr
TTECilVED =.VIUA6-E rC6
: -- r
" -r-L-r^I *" Board oi'urrr"gers of the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed DlsrrlcE
has rerriewed the revised plans and requesE of Jartuary 27, 1981 for an exterusion
of the Distrlctts gradlng and land alterarion perait' for the Sunrise Beach/
Iox chase D"r"loprlnt in clarebassen. The uana.gers aPProve the peraiE exgension
reguesE unEil s"pa".u"r 15, 1981 subject to, the folLowlng condltions:
l .t.- . .... l .'' ,. :
ALL conditlons stiprrlated in the Distrlctrs original corresPondence
Because of'the alt;ration of steeP slopes on the slEe and the potentlal"
of a serlous erosiou problem o.",ririog if erosion'conEro1 measures
are not properly -aiaEained, the developer must post a perfognance
bond or'].ette= Lf "".urity in the ar@unt of $2O'000 prior to the
coErrtrencemenE of laod a-lteiation. Thls security musE be submitted
and approved by;;;-Di=iii".'s Iegal advisor. rf needed, this
perforoaoce bond !ril1 enable the DisrrlcE to restore altered areas
or to insEaII addif-ional eroslon conErol ureasures to protect 'the
public wagers ;-1;; Dlstrict fron areas that have noE been restored''
:
the DisrrlcE regulres that addLt.lonal erosion controL lDeasures' l't.''
sEaked hay bales.roinforced with snot,.fetce, be installed tleEween the
proposed="ar,.,,t..ioobasinandLotusl.ake.TheseeroslonconErol
measuresmustremaininplace-,,'..rraI1a].teredareashavebeen
resEored.
.=,8^. ^..
=_ ,: ij -.:
A detalled sEo:m sewei plan must b'e subrnttEed to Ehe Disrrlcc for
revles and aPProval'
2.
3.
4.
)
Planning Conrnission l"leet.ing April 4, 1979 -4-
PETITION fOR 40,00!€QU4RE FOOT LOTS: The City has received a petition,ving aloirg pleasant View iroadr, -r
reguesting the Planning Commission re-study thc zoning regr-rlationsfor Chanhassen, in general, and in particular, north of Carver Beach,west of Highway 10I and east of County Road l7 to rezone this areafor 40r000 sguare foot lots. Approximately 25 persons were present.
They expressed concern about the developments that are proposed forthis area; i.e. Near l.lountain, Derrick Land Company, and ChristmasAcres. The residents present felt these developments are not incharacter with the current residential status. They asked forconsideratioi of a lower density type of developr.rerrl. The residentsare also very much opposed to the proposed collector street throughthe area.
I'lembers commented on the proposal for council consideration.
I"1aI I'lacAlpine - As developers come in here and they know that the lotsize requirement is 151000 sguare feet or on a pUD,
Iess, they are abiding by the city ordinances. Theyare doing exactly what the Iaw says they have to do. ,The f act remains, how much spot zoning d.o you do?' Can you spot zone for me where f live and say thatthe acreage around me will all be homes that are
$150,000?
Rornan Roos - You have another issue to answer and that would be atlthe landowners in the aiea. Letrs say that you did do
some spot zoning and let's say that spot zoning encompassedeverything on Pleasant Vi-ew. There is a 1ot more
homeowners involved than just the 25 that v/ere sittinghere. Can we force them into a situation rvhere they
have to have 401000 sguare feet? How do you oick anarea and say the boundary is going to be here and here
and. here and these will be 401000 sguare foot areas?Jerry Neher - Letrs think about something else too. Every one of
those people that are there presently that are unCer
40r000 sguare feet rvould be non-conforming just like I
am in my neighborhood.. Every time I wanted to put a
window in my house or change a window or anything else
they would have come before the Planning Commission
because they are no longer conforming. I can't do a
thing to my house except repair it without coming to
the city first for a variance.
Craig Mertz - That would also affect vacant 15,000 sguare foot ]ots
that are legal now.
Roman Roos If you recall when Pankonin was on the staff and the
council charged us with finding a place for "estate"
type developments, 401000 and uP, there is some area
in the north area that would be suitable for that, that
B rnIii" I;il3'Xi "::'ri"If; Iiox:=:1"":::";r' ;":T:ffi l!i",,, i,,"
plan there has to be an area of large "estate" Lype.
homes but where that is I can't answer.
Craig Mertz - Mal, you are contemplating that you are just going to
pick out certain parcels in that quadrant that these
people are asking about and rezone those?
Ma1 l'lacAlpine - No, I am not really in favor of spot zoning.
P.lanning Co;rnission :e-.ing Ap=:1 4, LgTg -6-
for a collect,or going somev.'here.Pat Swenson - The comparison that was brought out about the 40,000' sguare ieet in Shorelood, not that f think we have Lofo]low Shorewood, all these things do weigh on myproblem and I guess maybe I am not guite as liberalas you arerl'ial. f just feel that sometimes not
:il:;'x::I ;:: "i;"1i.:: li:""i3"3"iil.":i3"3:l'33iu;like that and one of the others can,t afford to buyit lhen thatrs unfortunate, fortunately we are in ;country where people can rise as far as they wanl,.MaI MacAlpine r would agree with that if that area was hevelopedthat way;Pat Swenson - I am concLrned about the fact that there has been so,' , *:'l"yl'Srllxi=:1==3r.illln.il:;""::;;:"flH:.:,i:a..o /tconform. r wourd have to ask the council what their ilthinking would be on how can we explain to them that llwe are suddenly backing off or thinking about backing \off.MaI MacAlpine - f thing there is a 1ot of people that live there on :lots 401000 square feet and larger that have livedthere a good many years. They can only afford thatbecause they have owned that property I good many
Years' i--nf€ >f€aarBob l^Iaibel - 9t" of the spin-off affects of this is r.rhen you are
i::i:':3u'li"u;H::5 ?3i';3:::*; 3lu".li.l:::ili.il: 1 stirl there, it nakes for a pugh against the existingser^rered area and it goes into another capital expansionprogram for the city to supply that denand, yet l
there still is the policy uncertainty of .
the Metropolitan l{aste Control Commission whichmay restrict any more extensions of these facilitieseven within the MUSA Line as \de'have learned. from the208 Study.
Roman Roos Is not the assessments of the north sewer area right now
based on what we feel to be real in terms of 151000
square foot lots and that's an important considerationalso. - -
MaI MacAlpine The people-that live on the 40,000 square foot lot now'-that have been assessed', are they assessed for three?Craig.tlertz - They were assessed'for one plus a sguare foot charge
based, on the area of the Iot. If they came in to
subd.ivide it, they got a credit for their area charge' but were added unitsl{al MacA}pine - Somebody moving in now would not have that same right.'-
Jerry Neher {$Oue to the fact'that I have lived in Chanhassen as many-years as f have and going through this petition, manyof them I know. I do know if they had to purchase 401000
square feet tod.ay, with the assessments that are on it,they would not be able to afford to live in that area,I am very concerned. for three particular reasons.
Nunrber one is the spot zoning.: Number two isrsome place
along the line those utilities in the ground are going
;.-:: -'j EIGES y. CITY Of SAfNT I,AUL
Cire nr r'l N.\i'.:lJ J(.l}
ll jtrn- gC3
llrcrr rcsr'tling; th;rt petitioncr rctrrrrrctl c;rch
r.c;rr lo hclp tlre Frcdcricks; that hc paid
tlr. nlc(licil c-\pcnscs of Ilrs. Frcdcrick at
rl:c \l:r)'o Clirric in Jioclicstcr short15'bc-
i,rrc Ircr dt'ath; arrtl llt;rt hc hld r-,ftcn paid
ior cqrril,tncrtt on tlrc farrn.
Cora Allcrr tcstificd b1' dcposition tlrat slre
lrrrrr. the Frcdcricks drrrirrg 1907 and l90S
jr::t prior'to pctitiorrcr's arrir.al at tlrcir
iil',uc; that.at th;rt tinrs lhcl'had tolcl lrcr
rh.rt tltcl' "had agrecd to atlollt fl11p1en,'-
rhet thev u'cre "goin.q to Icgalt.v arlopt Ilrrr-
r,ru" if they "corrld havc frrll clrar.gc,'-ihlt
rhc)' \\'crc goirrg to takc hiru as thcir os.n
.,rn; that in her prescncc and in tht pres-
i:rce of I\[rs. Coon, aftcr hcr arriYal at
!:;rulliton rvith petitioncr in Januari, 190S,
,\.t'cdcnt had stited that he "had agrecd tb
:'!,rJrt Btrrton"; and that irr l93S he hacl
\:rrcd to her tliat he u'as Iea.r'ing ,,alt he
l.:rd" to petitioner.
In opposition to thc foregoing, respoucl-
,:rrs suhn:itted testimon-v that petitiorrcr had
,iri':r-r's used lh<: nante ,,Bt:rton Roe,'; that
!,c lurrl desigrratcd his brothers and sisters,r his "rrc-rt of kin" in ltis rvar risk insur-
a:rcg poli61'. and that his brt_,ther I{arrv
l:;r,l signcd tlrc lr,r.itten conscnt requi-*it-e
rlrrrr he enlisted in thc Nar,-v in 1917.
_ i.. ' . :-. . : ..:r ...,,. .- .) ., II3l From the foregoiig r€sumd of it,.
rritlrncc, we are convincid that the Iindirrgs
:':,1 jrrtlg'rnent shorrld bc allirn:ed. It ap-
" nts far stronger than that srrbrriittcd in; :iur)lbcr of likc cases irr l'hich l;e hetd
"
r' rlirlcnce *,as srrfficictrt to silpport a;,, !i:rg tlrit a contract for adoption ex-
':',1, lrr rc Est:rtc of Firlc, I97 Ir{irrn. 1,265', \\'. St.S; Fiske v. Larvton, lZ-l tr,Iinn. g5,l:l N.\\t. 4-i5; Laird v. Vila, 93 ltinn. 45,: 'l .r-.\\'. 656; and, Iikcrvise, in a nurrr-':l of cascs u,hcre tlre suprctnc.court of' 'tl!r t):rkota dctcrnrinc<J a contract of
"-';.ti,rrr to cs.ist. \\/atsh v..Fitzgcralrl, 67'.lt r,23, 297 N.\\r,,675; IUrorJc ,. t "rrp,- s.l). 137, ?93 N.\v. (r3Z; Gr^rning v.
'.,.,rr,6J.S.D. l3g, 2S2 N.\\,. 13.:'....,,. .'., .-.I'.. :I.;tl.\ !l rr rnC(l-
S
' ;;i'';
.'..,.tt ','t,'.'.,,..r''
::-i:)it:'rsoN, J., iooi no parr in tt.," .o,r-" r r.rtrr,lt or rlccision of this casc,
I( IGES
Y.
- ,\ !
CITY OF SAltrT pAUL et al.
No. 35;65.
Suprerrre Court of ]Iirrrrcsola.
. ncc. 31, .19:'g.
Action by propcrty o\\-,rcr against
city arrd othcrs to havc brrildir:g p"r,.,iit d.-
clarcd r':rlid, to err-ioin intcrfcrerrce l,itlt
u'ork of constructiolt l)rtrsuant to brrilding
pcrrnit, ar:d to cnjoin crrforcentcrrt of zon-
ing ordi;rance. Thc Disrrict Court, Ramsey
County, Albin S. Pcirrsorr, J., errtcrcd ccr-tain 6rdcrs favorablc to defenCants andplaintiff appealcd. The Suprcrne Couit,
Nelson, J., hcld that obraining of buildingpcrmit, irrcurring of obligatiorrs
",rd
. ex-
Pcnses I,rclirninary to actual co,rstruc-
tion, ald surface preparation and e_xcavi-
tion did l!ot creare r.esred right in plaintiff
precludirrg applicatiou of classi6cation of
nerv zoning regrrlatio:r proiribiting crectior)of brrildiug l,here rvork done prior to en-
actmcnt of anrendnrent \\,as not sufiicient to
coDstitute actrral existing' strrrcture above
ground.
Aflirmed. " ,;
'i
.t. Alunlcipal Corporailons C-60t(tO). 625
. Ordirrar:ces dir.irlirrg citics into rcsiden-
.tial and business districts and lirniting useof rcalty in each district to ccrtain pur-
poscs x'ill not be dcclarcd uncorrstitutiouat
unless it affirmatively appears that restric-tion is clcarll- arbitrary ancl rrnrc;tso:r:rblc
and u'ithorrt any substantial rclation to pub_ j
lic hcalth, safct-\', morals, I,rospcrity, or gen-
cralrvclfare. .II.S.A.$462.18. .,,, I
2., Munlclpal Corporatlons e601(7) " " '.' '
.,: Z<tning 'ordinances ryhich arc fair irr
thcir rc<luircntcnts arc srrstainccl as c-\er-
cise of policc pos'cr. I\I.S.A. S 462.18.
" i .'. , .t. -.'..1 -l)l
3. Constltutlonal Law F70(3)
'.' : Iixercisc of policc porvcr is lcgislativc,
and.lcgislative policy in rcspcct thcrcto is
not for courts unlcss pcrsoual or propcrty
,.ri,lcrcc t)ropcrt)' f;r'll rvithin its gor.ent-
;,:rrrllrl rlllter than propriclarl, frructiorrs
,.: I cstopPcl u'ill not l': :rf,;rirrst it for its
;.-:( or llrosc of its srrlrorrlirr::ics pcrforrnetl
r1 corrncct;orr thcrcrvith. II.S.A. S .162.18.
ti.
^tunlclpal
Corporatlons C=6?1.13
I.ettei irrirten to ciij.courrcil by cit-v
:ilortrc)' rcgardi,lg qucstiorr;rblc Yalidil_r. of
1,,.:iriorr requcsting anrcrrdlncnt to zotring
.,r,lir:errce to prol:ibit os.ncr fronr builrling
rlrrrc upon his propcrty, and continuing sus-
icus;on of ou'ner's builriirrg pcrrrrit, did rrot
(liop cit)' froln frtrther interfcrence tvith
(,\'rcr's.t1il{inS plan,. IU S.A. S 462.lq.
t8. Appeal and Error eS44(3), .93t(t)
Suprcrne Court'must scarch record to
:r\ccrt:lin rvhcther an erroneous n:le of law
!;:rs been applied arrd act accorriingll,, but
.,:r lrppcal it must cotrsider tcstinron_v in
,l:;'ht most favorable. to prer.ailirrg party.
19. Appeal and Error €t008(t), t0t2(l)
\\'ht'n action is tried b1, corrrt rrithout
jurl', Errdings of fact are entitlcd to same
nright as vcrdict of jury and s,ill not be
tcrcrsed on appeal unless matri{estl),. con_
lr;rr)'to eYidcnce.
Sl,lloDzs by the Court
XIGf,S y. CrTy Or SAINT PAUL
Cit(. ns t;:] )f.\\'.:ld 3r;:t
ground.
:
3. St. Paul Brrilding Zonc OrrJin:rnccNo.58{0, $ 2J, as;urrcrrtlcd, rvlriclr re-quircs tlrc acqrricsccrrct.bf trr.o-tlrirrls of thc
l)rol)crt.\'o\i'llcrs rvitlrirr I&l fcct of lhc lrrcalo bc rczt>rrcd, rclcrs to thosc os.ncrs rr.ith-irr l0C fcct of thc orrl,:r fcritttrlcr of thcentirc arca to bc rczoncd r;rther tharr irrdi-
vidtral arcas of nlorc rcstrictcd sizc rrith_
in tlrc total arca.
4. 'n L,,;t.t;,.,g perrnit expires l,y Iimi-
tation aftcr thrce rnorrths fronr the Jntc of
issuance trnder St. peul Iluildirrg Code Or_dinance No. 7210, g 2-3(c), arid tlre lim_
itations and restr.ictions inrplicit in the pcr_nrit itself, if no u'ork is donc abor.e the
fou-ndatiorr of the proposed brrilding duriug
such thrce months period irrcspcctive ofthe fact that the failure of rcquired con_
strtrction progress ,rvas <juc to repcatcd sus_pcnsion ordcrs issued in conrrection \\,ilh
petitioris. for rezoning thc arca rvjthjn
u'hich the proposed brrildi;rg sitc is Jocatcd.-'.i
5. Thc obtaining of a buildirrg permit,
the incurring of obligations and ""p.,,r.,preliminarl, to actrral constr.uction, and sur-face preparation and e-\cavation do no..
create a vested right :'n a pernrittce rvhich
rvould prcclude the application of the clas_
sification of a nev,, zor:irrg regulation.pro_
hibiting thc erection of the building unlcss
the work done pribr to.thc cnactmcnt ofthe amcndment \vas suflicient to constitutean actual e-xisting structure aLrove the
.Itllrrn g6s
l. Zoning regulations are to be.sus-
t;,iricrl as a legitirnate exercisc of the po-
hcc porvcr in the abscnce of a shos.ing of
:rLitr;rry, discrinrinatory, or utrreasonable
.,;';'licltion of . their restrictive provisions.tj,'ll. thc rczonirrg procedure adopted by
lhr St. Paul citl' cotrncil in the instant case
u;ts rrcither arbitrary, discrinrirrator),, or
u!:rcrrsou:tble in its application to thc prop-
tttl' of thc plaiatiff. . r . i: .,,i:
.:.
. 2. I;ailurc to'act on a iczoning pcti-
ti"rr mcr'ly causcs such pctition tc, cxpirer:rh 11s xd1's1se .cffects, and docs not [rringI'rlu opcration. the provisiolr of St. paut
t;rtrlrling Zolne Ordirrance No. 5Si0, S'.\ :ts amendcd, rr.hich forbids furttrcr pc-
::lr'a1s 1q rczone propert)' rrithin six mo,rihsr!!tr rejcction of a likc pctition concirrr-
'''ftltq5:rlnqproperty,. .. .: j .;..
' 6. The acts of a municipality retativc '
to the issuance of building pcrmits unclcr a
zoning ordinancc fall rvithin the govcrn-
mcntal rather than proprietary furrctions of
such municipalitl', and in consequcnce es-
toppel will . not lie against it for its acts
performed ilr conncction thcrcrvith.
7. On appcal this court must'corisidcr
the tcstimonl' and cvidcncc in thc light most
favorable to the .prc,r.ailing part1,. Whcre.
an action is tricd b.v a court s,ithotrt a jury,
its lirrdir:gs of fact arc entittcd to thc samc
'rvcight as thc verdict of a jury arrd:u.ill:
ttot bc rcvcrscd orr appcal. unlcss thcy are
rnanifcstly contrary to thc cvidcncc. .,:.:;
EIGIIS v. CITY OI sAtNT pAtIL
Clt('n( ll .r...\\..ltl 3riJ
clcattilrg cst;rblishnrcrrt thcreon. Fronr Arr-
{ust 22, 1922, rrnril rlrc vcar 1915, lots t to
l-i irrclusivc irr l,lock 3, )li,ls':r.r'lli;hlrrrrtt
Park Arltlitiorr, had becrr cl:rssificd as ..-.\',
residclrcc district, sulrjcct to all restrictit.rns
irnposcd lr;' Brrildirrg Zonc Ordinlucc No.
5S{0 on prcr:ris..s so classifir.d. In 193.i thc
golclrring authoritics of the citl,of St,
l'nul, in rrrist:rkcn cxllecl;rticn of corrrrrrcr-
cial <lclclopnlcllts itr that arc;r, anlcr)rlcd
Brrilding Zorrc Ortlinlncc No. .SS.l0 so that
l('rl.s I to l5 inclusive in bk-,ck 3 of thc said
addition rvcre reclnssi6cd fronr ,,A,, rcsi-
derrce district to Cornrn<:rcial district in rc-
.sI)cct to lots I to S irrclrrsivc thcrcof a:rd
from "A" rcsidcrrce district to ..C,, rcsi-
dence district irr rcspcct to lots 9 to 15 in-
clrrsive. This u.is the situation cxisting up
to and including Junc 15, 1950, rvhcn the
plaintiff applicd for and obtained from the
cit-r' of St. I'arrl a building pcrnrit for the
constnrction of a proposed conrn:criial
building for use as a rctail cJcaning cstab-
Iishrnent on his Iot under arrd srrbject to
the provisions and limitations of St. paul
Builtling Code Ordinance No. 7210 as then
amcnded.
Orr June 27, l9-r}, pursuant to Buikling
Zone Ordinance No. 5810, S 23, a peti-
tion for rczoning of land inclrrding the
plaintiff's lot, accompanied by the reguisite
acquiesccnce of propcrty owners s'ithin I00
feet, rvas prescnted to the citl' council and
filcd rvith tlre citl' clcrk. The first pctition
rvas drrll' rcferred to the board of zoning for
invcstigation and a rcport back to the city
council rvithin 30 days. The area covcred
jncludcd lots I throrrgh 8, block 3, tr{idrvay
Highland lrark. 'fhe staff nrcmLlers of the
city planuing board condrrctcd an invcstisa-
tion and reported to the board of zonin.q on
July 10, 1950, that thc singling out of a
sirrglc Lrlocli for rczouing rnight be con-
strucd as arbitrary, that the zoning in a
Iargc area was out of adjrrstmcnt, arrd that
a.cornprchensive plan would llc morc appro-
priatc. On the basis of this report the
board of zorring rccornrncndcd tlrat thc first
pctition bc dcnied brrt indicated that thcy
rvould cntcrtain a pctition to rczorrc lots
irrvolved irr thc pctition rvith thc c-xccption
of lot 8 bclonging to the piaintiff. A rcport
. lllurL 907
of tltc rccorrrrrrcrrrtrrtiorr of tlrc lror rd of
zrrrrilr.{ \\'as uc\.cr lr.rns,llittt.d to thc citvcorrrrcil irs lrrr-rlirlctl for b-v lltriltling ZoncOrrlirrrrrcc No. 5S.10, S 2.3. The cir1,
corrrrcil did rrot act bccausc thc rccorrrrncn-
d:rtions of thc board of zorrirrg \\,crc r)ct,cr
srrbnrittcd to it. Pl:rintif[ rvas rrot infornrcd
of thc Lroard's actir.n.
Ttrc plairrtil"f h:rrl crrgagc<! a St. patrl con-
traclor, Is:rtlor Goldctsl:.v, rr.ho as his a.qcntin cor:rpliancc u.irlr Brrilding Cocjc Ordi_
nerrcc No.7210hacl;rpplicd arrd paid for the
brrilclirrg pcrnrit frorn thc rlcplrtrnc.nt ofpublic Lrrildirrgs -lurrt: 15, 1950. After ob_
taining thc permit, the cot.ltractor irrrnrcdi-
atel1, ordercd'steel bcanls to ttre valrrc of
$3.j0; a srrrvey u'as rnade June 23, 1950,
costing $15;'and on.Iuly 8, or just prior
tlrcrcto, aproximately 23 trecs u,cre clca.red
frorn the premiscs. On July 6, the prenriscs
hacl been staked orrt and trenches {or foot-
ing auglcs dug. The plaintiff intcnded to
bcgirr excav;rtion July S, 1950; btrt slrch
u'ork ceascd rvhcn the contractor, Goldet_
sky, recei'r'cd a tctter fronr the citv architect,
datcd July 6, stating that thc pcrmit rvas
strspended urrtil the city council coutd pass
on the rezoning pctition.
A second petition for rezoning of land in-
cluding the lot of plaintiff rvas filr:d and
prcsented to the city council on Octobcr 10,
1950. On this datc counsel for tlre plain-
tif{ appcared for thc purpose of dirccting
thc attention of tire citl' council to rhe sta-
tus of tire first pctition; on the samc datc a
n'ithdratval of the first pctition rvas filcd in
thc olficc of thc city clcrk. The sccond peti-
tiou called for the rezoning of the area of
land Ioqrrcd gcncralll'both cast and rvest of
Clcvelanrl avcnlrc and sorrth of Ford Park- r
rva-v consisting of appro-xin:ately 5l acrcs l
and inclrrtling thc land of the plaintiff. The I
stalf of the citl' planling ;bo:rrd inforrncd
thc zonirrg l-roard that thc most proper zon-
ing for thc arca rvas that proposcd irr thc
sccond pctitiou and rccomrncndcd that it
bc gra:rtcd.
On Novcmbcr 29, 1950, a third pctiriotr
\yas prcscntcd to tltc citl'council for thc rc-
zoning of land ir:cluding thc lot of thc plain-
tiff. Thc sccond pctition rvas ncver actcd
Duiklirrg Zone Orrlirrarrce No. 58-10. (1'hcrc
is rro <lisptrtc olt this ;,oint.) Thc pctition
u.ns;rcrluicsced iu b;'trvo-thirtls of the
o\r'Icrs of land $'itlrirr 100 icct of thc outcr
pcrinrctcr of lhc crttirc :rrcf, lo lrc rczoncd.
'l'hc zorrirrg board rect,rnnrcr:dcd r'.r:rrrlirrg
tlrc tlrird pctition orr Dcccnrbcr 13, 1950,
:rrrd frrllr,rvirtg srrclt rcconrrucndatiorr a hcar-
irrg bcforc all propcrty o\\'ncrs rvithin 200
fcct of tlrc propert,r'af{cctcd rvas lrcld
I)cccrnbcr ?7, 1950. Tlrc rccontmcndatiorr
s'as carricd by thc mt'nrbers of thc council
prcsent artd Yoting ur:aninrotrsly.
Plaiutiff paid 93,500 for thc tand rrnder a
land prrrchasc contract. The evidencc dis-
closcs that its commcrcial ralue tvas about
9.1,000 and its rcsidcntial value fronr 91,200
to $1,800. The plaintiff testi6cd that he
had engaged Goldetsk_r' as his contracior
and that arraltgcmcnts had been ,nade to
ercct a building costing in the vicinitl' of
$20,000. The total c\pcnscs up to ar)d in-
ch:cling Deccmber 8, 1950, incurrcd in srrch
preparation and excavation as had bcen
madc rrpon the lot rvere $754.03, and plain-
tiff testified at the trial that he had con-
tractcd for steel bcams at a cost of $230.
t1] l. The parent arrthorit-v for Build-
ing Zone Ordinance No. 5810 and the
amendmcnts thercto is to bc found in the
enabling act, L.l92l, c. 217, rvhich rr'as !ater
amcrrded by L.1923, c. .j6{, L.1925, c. 2S4,
and L.1937, c.239, codcd as lrI.S-A. S 462.1S.
In considcrirrg thc issucs we .ma)' procecd
from thc prcmise that it has becn establish-'ed by all the lcading authoritics that ordi-
nances dividing cities into rcsidcntial and
busincss districts and limiting usc of rcalty
in cach district to ccrtain prrrposes rvill not
be dcclarcd unccinstitutioiral unlcss it a{firm-
ativcll'appcars that the rcstriction is clcar-
ly arbitrary and unrcasonablc and rvithout
any substantial rclation to public hcalth,
safcty, mor:rls, prospcrity, or gcncral rvel-
[2-S) Zoning statutcs havc become
common and zoning ordinanccs rvhich arc
fair in thcir rcqtrircmcrrts arc gcncrally sus-
taincd as an cxcrcisc of thc police porver,
which is lcgislativc. Its policy is not for
G2 N.lV.zd-lt
ILIGES v. CITY Of SAINT PAUL
Clr(.ns 0..) N.\\'.:,:d id3
IllnrL J0C
thc colrrls. Orrly rr.lrcrr ils c.rcrcisc corr-
stitulitr:r;tll;. affccts pcrsotr:rl or prol)crt),
rights tlo thc c()llrts lakc cogrrizancc, arrrt
it is yrrcsrrrnctl tlrat tlrc lr'11isl:rtivc l-rotl.r. in-
vcstigatcrl and forrrrd conrlitiols srrch that
thc lcsisl:rtiorr rvliiclr it crr;rctcd \\.;rs al)-proprialc. f'hc action of a cit_r,couucit
irt thc zr.,rrirrg ficld, arrd thc c.xcrcisc of the
lrolicc porvcr b-y thc citl, corrncit, is l"gisla-f
tive. Thc rrcrrd of thc airthoritics is to-/rvard sustainirrg lcgislativc rcgrrlations
rvhich cxclu<lc r-rbjectionahle callings from
inlerfcring rvith the courfort and rvelfare
of thc conrrnrurit_r'clcn rvithorrt thc crca-
tion of a residcntilt district. As rvas said
tr-v I'Ir. Jrrsticc Dihclt of this corrrt in State
cx rcl. Reery v. Ilotrghton, l6,l trIinn. l.{6,
150, 20-+ N.\\r. 569, 570, 54 A.L.R. l0t2:
'r * :r * The police pos,cr, in its ,
naturc ir:dcfirrable, arrd <prickll' re-
sponsive, in the inlcrest of con:rnon
r1'clf:rre, to charrgirrg conditions, au-
thorizcs various rcstrictions rrpon the
use of private propcrty as social and
cconornic chalrgcs come. A restriction,
rvhich -r'ears ago u'orrld havc bcen iu-
tolcrable, arrd u'ould have bcen thought
an unconstitutional rcstrictiol of the
ou'ncr's use of his propcrt)., is acccJ;{.ed
nos'rvithout a thonght that it invadcs
a prirate right. As social rclations
bccome morc con:plex, rcstrictions on
iudividual rights bccome more com-
mon. \Vith thc crorvdiug of popula-
tion in the cities, therc is an active in-
sistencc t:pon the establishmcnt of resi-
dential districts from rvhich anrrol.ir,rg
occupations, and buildings undesirable
to the conrmunity, are e-xcluded.'l
t6] Sincc that decision in I{irurcsota,
ordinarrces tlrat comply rvith thc crrabling
act that gavc risc to zoning or<.linanccs in
cities of thc first class caunot be success- .
fulll' attaclrcd on constitutional grourrds '
unlcss thcre is affrrnrativc proof that thc
rcstriction is clearly arbitrary, discrirnina-
tory, and urrreasonalrlc arrd s'ilhout arry
substantial rclation to prrblic hcalth, safcty,
nrorals, or gcr.rcral rucl{arc, thus violating
corrstitrrtional inhibitions. Statc cx rcl.
Ilccry v. IIougl:ton, sulrra; Village of
Euctid, Ohio v. Anrblcr Realty Co., 272
r.oirl. l\larblehcad I-:rrtd Co. v. Cit.r'of
tf Arrgctcs, .sttpr:r.
It rvoulcl sccttr togic;rl ro ,..,,,,r. tlttt ih;
failrrre to ait'rvith rcfcrcucc to tllc first
pctition rncrcly causcd tlrc 6rst lrctition 1o
cxpirc \yith no advcrsc ciTr'cts. 1'lre plairt-
tiff had bccn notificd orr Jull' 6, l9.i(), that
thc builtling pcrnrit rvhich lrc had olrt;rirlcd
fronr tlrc city of St. l'aul rvas strspcrrilt-rl by
ordcr of the arrthoritics duc to the Lruildirrg
rczoning pctition. Sincc the courrcil rvas
acting under the police pon'cr and exercis-
ing its lcgistatite dutics, he slrould have
krro's'n he rvould be procceding at his pcril
urrtil the suspension was rvithdrarvn.
19;10] 3. Plairrtiff conten(ls that there
was not an acquiescellcc oI trvo-ihirds of
thc orvncrs rvithin 100 feet as reqrrired
by Buildirrg Zone Ordirrancc No. 5810,
$ 23, as an:cndcd. IIis corrterrtion Irrcscnts
the guestion shethcr this prorision reguires
the acquiesccnce of trvo-thirds of tlte os'tters
rviihin 100 feet of the outcr perinrcter of
the errtire area of land affected b-v that
provision or rvhcther it rcquires, as he
contends, the acquiescelrce of trvo-thirds
of thc os'ncrs rvithin 100 fcet of individual
areas of more restrictcd sizc rvithin thc total
area to be rczorted. I{e does not state
rvhat such individual arcas should be. If
plaintiff's contention \^'ere to be Iollos'cd,
nothing but confrrsion could arise rvllere
areas are to be rezoned under usc restric-
tions.. . This tnittter rvas utrdcr considcration
in the case of }lorrill Realty Corp. v. Ral'on
I{olding Cot'p., 2't1 N.Y. 26S, 172 N-E.
494, rvhcrc it rvas hcld that the board of
estimatc, in rcdistricting city urtdcr zoning
stattrtc, rvas not rcquired to procccd by
scparate resolutio:'t to zone block by block.
Ttrc trial court in the instant case a<Joptcd
thc..nrle tlrat thc provision requires the
acquicscetrce of trvo-thirds of thc oNners
rvithin 100 fcct of thc orttcr pcrirnctcr of
the entirc area of lantl affcctcd by thc
zorring provisions, and rve Lrelieve th:rt this
is:thc sour.ld rulc artd thc most logical cou-
struction of tl:e ordinartce. Whcrc thc lan-
grragc of a stattrtc sccms to e ntbotly a
dcfinitc rneatriltg, courts sltottld not rrullify
obvious rcquirctncnts by cortstruction. .Qp-
EIGXS v. CITY Of sAlllT PaIIL
(lilt. trs ti3 .r...\\'.lrl 3tJ
trlirr'L 321
pegaartl r'. Jloarrl of Corn'rs, l?0 )linn. {{3,
[1, l2] 4. 'J'hc pl;rintiff corrtcnds tlrat
thc lrrriltling Ircrntit rvas intprolrcrll' stts-
l,crrdctl bcc:rusc hc, as pcrrrrittcc, lr:rd madc
lrlalts arttl ibcgun irttprovct)lenls orr ltis prcnt-
iscs bcforc rcccivirrg ar)'noticc of srrspcn-
siorr arrrl also had rcccir,cr! his lrcrnrit prior
to thc frlirrg of thc 6rst l,ctition for rczon-
ing. Iirrildirrg Zorrc Ordinance No. 5S{0,
\ 23, provides:
" "That thc propcr 6lir:g of a srrff:ciertt
pctition for thc arncnrlrrrcnt of this or-
dirra.rrce so thit arrv district or portion
thcrcof shall bc thcreb-r' re-clxssif)ed'
. and placed in a nrore restlictcd district '
or a district of lrighcr classi6cation,
rritlr thc rcqtrisite s'rittcn acquicscence
of thc o\vrrers of adjacent p:'opertl','
pcnding thc dctcrrninirtion of the Coun-
'cil 1)rcrcon, sh:r'll bc deemcd cffcctual to
. suspcnd the right to initiate :rrr1' use in'
or upon the prcnrises sought to be re-
classified or any portion thereof 's'hich
s'ould not corrform to thc regr.rlations .:
hereby prescribed for the proposed re-
classi fica-tion."
\\'hen the above provisions arc considcred
rvith Building Code Ordinarrce No. 7210,
$ 2-3(c), and the lirnitations and rcstric-
tions exprcssed on the pcrrnit itsclf it ap-
pcars that, because of the suspcnsion or-
dercd by the city architcct, the building
permit had expired by lirnitation.
- Thc corrncil, after the filirrg of thc 6rst
pctition on Jurre 27, 1950, u'as itr the process
of classification as to rczorting certaitl
arcas; and it is not for thc court to ex-
anrine into thc good faith of thc courrcil in
such procecdings unlcss thcy proccedcd in
an rrnrcason:il-rle, ar.bitrary, or discrimina'
tory manrrcr.undcr cstablishcd limit:ttiorrs
upon thc police powcr. Thcrc is nothing in
thc rccord to indicatc arrl'thing done or any
act or conduct orrtsidc of thc sttspcttsiotr
,)oticcs, rvhich wcre givcn nrorc than oncc.
No atrthorities are citcd to strpport thc con-
tcntiou that the pcrnrit did not c.xpirc by
linritation cxccpt the arrthoritics rvltich arc
to thc cffcct that zonirtg stattrtcs artd ordi-
trallccs slrall bc strictly cortstrucd. Thc
rvorr'ld not bc passcd, or that, if lrasscd,
it rvas void, Ilavirrg talicn tlrat clrarrce,
it nr;r1' not now bc hcard to set up any
loss to it rvlrich alosc fronr its actions
oltcr it had krrol'lcdgc that thc ordi-
rancc \\'as bcirrg colrsidcrcd. Ilut cvcn .
if pl;rintiff suffcred sonlc danragcs
through thiugs occurring Dc/orc the
prolcst, finnrrcial loss, no nrattcr l)o\v
sclere, tlocs rrot of itsclf give partics
a testcd riglrt to continuc a busirrcss,
no malter horv lorrg it has bccn con-
dtrctcd, if thc Lrusincss is onc rvhose
location ntay be rcgrrlated under the po-
Iice power." . .
Sec, Flaclacheck v. Scbastian, 239 U.S. 394,
36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 3{S, Ann.C-as.l9l7B,
927.' ' .i,:..:.,;':.1::
.. : .. -'. -.;';J
[14] \\re are of the opinion that it does
not appear affirrnativcl-v that the ametrdatory
Ordirrancc No. 9670, enacted Iicbruary 6,
1951, u.as so unrcisonable, arbitrary,'and
discriminator-v that it 'r'r'ould have becn un-
corlstitutional if it had been ;tdopted before
thc plaintiff obtained the brrilding permit
and bcfore he had conrnrenccd an) prepara-
tion in clearing the grotrnd or excavating
for the building to be used as a retail clcan-
ing establishrnent. The argumer:t that thc
rczoning amcndmcnt rvas incffective be-
causc it had no retroactive effect on the
plaintiff's right to proceed cannot be sus-
lained'against thc police power invoked
Ptaintiff cites'9 Anr.Jur. Buildings, $ 8,
to support his argument that, having in-
curred liabilities for rvork and material and
haviug entcred upon constrtlction prior to
the adoption of the amendmcttt, hc had ac-
quircd a vestcd right of u'hich hc cannot be
dcprived. That scction, holvever, rncrcly
states that a building permit may not be
arbitrarily revoked rvhcre thc orvner has in-
cirrrcd ntatcrial exPense in rclialtce upon
the pernrit. A statcmcnt more Pertincnt to
thc qucstion hcre is in 58 Am' Jui., Zoning,
$ 185, rvhich reads as follos's: ' " :
' "A rrumber'of iases sustain ttrc ci-
prcss or irupticd revocation of a btrild-
ing. pcrmit whcrc, subsequcnt to its
tilGf,S r. CITY Of Sn INT PAUL
Cllt ns t'*.1 N.\Y.3d 3('il
lilun S?3
issulrrcc, the cit1,t)irsscs a r.alid ordi-
nancc rvhiclr lras the cflcct of lrr.olribit-ing thc crcction of a l-ruilding srrch as
. thc orrc in rlrrcstiorr, :rnt!, rrrrdcr somc
. dccisiotrs, this is true cvell thorrgh the
grar)tcc of thc pcrD:it has cntcrcd iuto
contracts, borrght matcrial, or itrcrrrrcd
othcr cXpc115ss. 'I'his rulc lt:rs lrccr: ap-
. plicd in thc cese of a strbscqrrent zorring
. ordirrance or amcndrncnt tlrcrcof, and
it is hcld that tlre grant o[ a pcrnrit or
. license docs not prcclude thc :rpptica-- tiorr tlrercto of a nc*, zorrirr.g rcgtrlation '
' prolribitirrg thc ercction of tl)e building'-: or the opcrai;on of thc busincss in the. particular zone. 'i . * Srrr/r ot alr- :
ltlicotiol of :oning proz,isions lrl.s bcrrt
hcld tot !o '.'iola!c couslitu.liona) rc-'.
- . stric!ions oqcinst the retroactive appli-
cat;on of Icgislation, or !lrc inl,airncn! '
of .aestcd riglils * * lndeed, the
. same result has been rcachcd in sorne
cases notNithstanding that the permit
holder had acquired title to the larrd,
assumcd obligatiorrs, and incurred e.x- i
. penses prelirnirrary to corrstruction, or
. had entered ir:to contracts for the con- .
' struction, and had actually cornmenced
- rvork thereon rvhen the ordinance or .
amendmcnt rvas cnacted, at least rvhere
the rvork done prior to the amcndrnertt r
..\'as not sufficicut to constitute an e>:ist- :
ing structure. A fortiori, exper:ditures
made and obligations irrcurred aftcr the
enactmcnt of the zoning ordinance or
-:.aoendment, althorrgh in reliance on.a
"..permit previously issued, are insufficient .
. to give a vestcd right to crcct a build-
ing in violation of the ordinance." "
(Italics supplied.) i
" It must also bc borne in mind that no
r*'ork had bcen done above tlrc foundation,
for a period of three months from thc time
of thc issrrance of the permit, See, Building
Code Ordinance No. 7210, E 2-3(c). Thc
n'eight of authority sustains defendants'
posilion that mcrely obtaining a building
permit and incurring'some €xpetlse atrd as-
suming oLrligations preliminary to construcj
tion, but proceedirrg no further than cxcava-
tion, as rvis donc hcre, is not sufficicnt to
crcatc a vcstcd rigltt to usc prcnriscs for
thc purposes planncd which cannot be cut
l_CITY(oF
TH[![H[SSEI'I
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I{EMORANDTJM
DATE: May 13, 1981
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ,
FRoM: Bob Waibel, City Planner E.%
SUBJ: Sewage S1udge Compost spreading proposal for Ha1la
Nursery property.
I was informed today by Margaret Bahr of MPCA that the proposed
Ietter of approval for the subject item was mailed yesterday.
This presently gives the City of Chanhassen until May 26 to
make its official response on the proposal. Ms. Bahr had
indicated that a time extention can be made if we inform her
in writing of a date when the City Council will review and make
recommenditions on the proposal. Please advise as to when this
can be scheduled for a City Council review so that I may make
the appropriate t,ime extention requesL to the PCA.
cc: Bill Monk
Russ Larson
t"lanaqer's Conments
The following point is germane to this item:
Procedure for Review - This is the first application of this
type to ue . This office would suggest that the
council as a partof this specific review, determine general procedures
to be followed for future "pplications. It would be the recommendation
of this office that the City not attempt to carryout a detailed review
on each of these applicationsTwe simply do not have the professional
(,
crrYtoF
EIIfiIIH[SSEI{
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX .I47 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1s00
lIay 18, 1981
Ms. Margaret Bahr
c/o l,linnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. County Road 82St. PauI, MN 55117
RE: Halla Nursery Sludge Compost
... Location
Dear Margaret3 , '
Due to the postposement of the City Council review of
the subject application, the City of Chanhassen here-
by requests an extension to the review period deadline
of tttay 25, 1981. As it currently stands, this item
will be resubmitted for Counci.l consideration at its
June L, 1981 meeting. Confirmat,ion of said June I, 1981
review will be made on Thursday May 28, 1981. If you
have any questions or comments on the above, please do
S j.ncerely,
,)
Bob Waibel
City Planner
cc: NancY Schumacher
Don AshworthBiII l,Ionk
Russ Larson
;.1:,i.-.'-,;;.',,i".ttr",. j*tir*.Sm:,1*)i. :'.:'-. .,::
l'l':r "
rt! Et IE$ t tlttl ffi'"rfri""i!
In the proposed letter of approval received today from the MpCA,it is noted that MPCA is relying upon the local governments tonotify potential interested parties. ff it is the desire of thecity Council to carry out such a notificatj-on it would be adviseableto request a review time extention until comments from any j-nterested
parties are received. Since the Carver County Board is to review
this proposal in the same manner as the City Council, the comments
and the conditions of the City Council on the request will be
forwarded. to the County Commissioners for their information.
In the review of a similar request for Sludge application to
the Fox property in southern Chanhassen, this office recalls
that there were questiorsraised by the Council with respect
to local drainage and water courses. The Chanhassen Wetland
Conservation Basins map indicates that the site in question
is entirely within the Bluff Creek Watershed with the except-
ion of the northeasterly most 5+ or minus acres which is in
the Riley Creek Watershed. The soils maPs j-ndicate.that the
slopes oi-, tfre site range from O-12t wj-th the majority of the
sitl having slopes of less than 6E. At its closest point,
the area upon which the sludge is to be applied is I,000 feet
from the Bluff Creek FloodwaY-
Unless the consent of surrounding residence is received, it
appears that. there will need to be a reduction in the area
f;; land spreading in the southerly portions of site 327 and
328 that witt Ue in compliance with table 2 oa page 10 of the
PCA recommendations for application'
The above comments on existing conditiorE oII and around subject
site have Ueen-frepared solely for general City Council inform-
ation. ror qo.iti-orr= and comments regarding !!e technical merits
of sludge "o*po"t application, reference should be made to the
attached mateiial supplied by MPCA and MWCC'
RECEtvEd '.,.,t,, -!
...,'rr
CIIY OF CHANHASSEry'I :'".':'
I:RO,'ii :
sui3i l,c?:
ffAY l t t96l:l
i'i/;ii-li"l,.*$i"ijii i,oliufii;it Cci":il.r:i 41;:irjCV
TO Ifhonn It l'iay Concc:rn
llod4c:1' E.glJfi"ssgl:, p. E.
Ch ji5 LttOrc)-;!lirll ilevetor:ment anrtiihci ritr,- il-et&+;r sec.t ionScrlict and \lazardous \'iaste I)ivision
Fi:oPosiiD LI:-T?4R OF AppItovAL FoU. LANDSPREADING
ir miTi mf]fI s rEfffm' -S
tl!ff 1.2 IiSl
Commissio:r
Conrni s s i.on
Ser'v i ces
o.f
L'tlclosu.d is a Cop5; of a Letter of Apprclval ilte llinnesotaPcrrlution contror Agencl, (IpcAl !.rgt-r"""q. t" issue to thelletropo11tan lt'aste Control Con,miEISnlTI,JCC) for Lanclspreaclilgof cbcmicaily and therinarly stal:ilized cornposted sludgLflo;:r the )letiopolitan r,','aster,;ater Tr.eatryient. plant 1.o thepri.r::rte lancl of llal1a i'{urseries, 25o Great plaj.ns i}rvd. ,Ci:as]<a, llinnesote for the purposc of suppl3,ing nutri.ents a.nclof ili-uiic m:.ltt.er for s;oi1 enrt.Lrhu)ent.
It -i.s olrl: hopu- tlia.t loca-1 offic-ra1s uri1l notif5' a)):,r pL1ferr1.iai15,itrtcies tecl palt ies.
.AnY c(,r,1:rents o]' ciues'Licrns concerni.ng this pi.oposed airirr.ovalslrorrrd be directtici L:o l,la:.'garei; .A. Bahr a.t torl: )zgz-i):z].6r';ithin il ci;rys of the clate of this lette::.
Il'nc-losure
Copi-cs of this no'tice atnd enclosure to:
Cieorge \i. Lushr-::t', ilietropc.r1.-Lt iin \Taste Con'Lro1It{s. }rebc:cca Floocl, LIetrol:olitau li'as1:r: Ccrntrol.
Lowel.L llhornpson, Li<;'Lr.opo1j-tan CounciI
Iia11a. Nrirserie:s, Chaska"-'"Vir.'gj.nia Helri.s, Ca.l:vc-r Cotrnt.!' flnviroilrneutal.,Bob \i'ai.ltc.l,, Ci.tv of Chanhasscn
Joselrh ltca.ton , C'hel i.rmau , Cat'r,cr Couitl.y Lioarcl.
Cotnr,t j. ss j ot-r c:-s- 'fr>rn Illrn j 1. Ion , ],I:L','or:, Ci i:y c;f Cirtnhasr-;en
lr,on.): (3'l2)za-l * 27 1 $
13-13 i'rtlt Ccu;lr, Ri;,:lJ ll2. llo:,et'iilrr, i'-4ii"ltresol:r 5':r'l i3
iii:r1:li'ritl ()i;t(ri)'i i)ulr,lt,'f,';:rpr...i.1;DCtroit Lai,cs.,liarshlrll fi.;cilt.r,lcr
[iqu:rl C;,porlr::',;ty f tnpicyer
--a:.
Iir. Ccorcle I^I. t,irL. ur
Pagt: '['r,'o
Nl'J i 2 iliii
If 1,of ir.:rve al))/ questiorrs
cc:t i:;art .i:.i::ga::c'l- .,-i . B;-rl:;: ir
Siit:cr:,r:ti.1",
lr.odney E. Iriassc;', ]-) " lI.
Cli:tci, irr t)ct:1arrl I-).:vcii,;-.nen+- .:r:'xl
Irac-i.i i L;r Revii.r'r f..:Ct..i.or:
So-tici i.trci ll;-,za-r:cir.r1rs irlas l:c I-)-i-r.,is j.o::
Ri.'iirli.:/: ii: i,r'.: i:
(4) compost shall not be ap;.rlied on sslopes exceedingsix percent until such time- it can be imme,ciateryincorporated into the soi-I. compost shal.l not b-esp::ead on tirat area of site 329 soil mapped as I{a1,c1enloam, 6-12 percent slopes (HaC2).
(?) Separati.on distances that are adequate to preventd.irect runoff into dr:ai-i'rage ciitches or rgatervrays shaltbe maintaitred ttrhen storing o;' appiying copJpost. Adistancc.of thrce hunclrecl feet musi. be m"rintained
L-reLr,:een compcst spreiiding an.; any Cry run.
(6) The fiiicc shaIl ensul:e tliat arr del-irre::ecl comn(intis prope::-l-y sprearo ou the applj-catiorr site as roon asfeasible and in accorclance r+ith site apprication plansand this approval. Duri-ng any temporary periocl oistockpilirg, appropriate measures shall be provided asnecessary to prevent runoff from the stockpile.
(71 If the compost does noL meet the temperaturerequirement for a Prc:cess to Further Reduce pathogens
(PFRP), public access to the spreading Sites stiali becontrollecr for one year from the time of srudge application.
(8) I'he is;st:a:.nce of thj.s ap1:r:orraI is indepcndent cfthc gr:atrtit:,_1 or noL gralnt-ing of necei_iF.ary irernits; crotiier righi--."; i-ry i.oc;rl- r.:.trii-s of ciovert',inent-. to tlic i)r:.r:i j.'L{..t::il
\'.'i-Ij-cl'i may l:c rcclujred bi' applicable -l.aw. Tire i..;sr.:.irr.t:of Lhis pc-:rri-i'; shal.1 ilct exer.1:t tl:e lli:::nri.ltee ilrc::r
ccr:li:l.ianc:'..,'.i-'Lh a:rry l.c-r.-:a1 t.ec1u.i-rii;lcni..s'..,'jiicl-r nray l:,,:
ai;i:J-icabl-e.
(9 ) llhis a.1:p::ovai e>:i.r-'i-r es Deeei;rlrer i7 , 1981..
t: r:l:a.r.-rL.i-nc
'* ::) j'j.-2'l .t.6
Llr -i. s n 1'rpt:o-.':-l j- I I-,Iea ,-' :r
!:,'-) - l."ilbcc;r.:. l''l-i-:ori , i:'.'. r.::'-'r.rc.1 i.t.;:i tiilr;i-ir
Lr-,1;r-:.i-I'J.'ilu:l:1::t::r, l :|l t. i-on():i .i- L-..lli Cot.ttr-::. -'
((1.;:rt,:.nu;,c1 Ott .l 'O j..1 <,,ir-i-:.rcj n.:ge)
:'. ,.-):-lCotn.i,-' ;
ApriI 3, 1981
Irir. Lorri s Breimhurst
Mi nnesota Pol I uti on Contro'l Aglericy
i935 l.lest County Road B-2
liosev'i I I e, Mi nnesota 55i13
The land is ot'tned bY:
)
Dear l'1r. Breimhurst:
The I'letropo'litan l,!aste Contr ol Coriimiss'ion requests pern:'ission to
appl.y ctie;'li ca1 1y and thamal ly stabi 1 i zed conrpo to j and
ut'ti,. site deslribed belorv. -
ii
The I and ciescri Pti on i s:
Sl{ % of Sect'ion 25, TovrnshiP
Carver Couitty
Chi cf A.cilni rii strittot'
Gl{L: IIC!' : Nl',!i: t lr
cc: l'iarEare t ii. [ic;l'ii", I'IPCA
Carver' 0oirntY Boarci
llal'la l'lttrst: t'.';
t'.t-,t ,i..' 7 i.-
tlal I a liursery
250 Great Plains Blvd.
Chaska, l'ii nnesota I:531E
o-''".]-,-,,r.,, i',,: :.-.
116 Nortlr, Range 23
,t I i,i,
r:: i -t
The appl icat'iqt'l i"ol'tr an.i cill6!' psrtinent infoi''l;atigtt
e,raliitte the appliiati0n i',aS irer:n at,tached to a copj'
and sent; to l"largarei. $ahi" of tlre MPCA'
^
resporrse i;o this apc:'ication iS requestecl as scol't
in ortler to put this pr"OErtrm intc effect'
Yours trulY,
l,lest,
lrecessa!'y t:o
o i= i;h'is I ei..te t'
as pc,s s i b'! e
-'-l f r.)
I
t-