CC Agenda 06-01-1981 (3)AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1981,7:30 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 690 COULTER DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance )
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Easement Vacation
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Request, Lot 7 & 8, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates,First Addition.
7:30 p.m. - City Council Minutes
City Council MinutesCity Council Minutes
Commission Minutes.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
dated
dated
dated
May
May
May
4,
11,
18,
1981. (Revised)
1981.
1981.
2. 7:45 p.m
3. 8:00 p.m
4. 8:30 p.m
DaIe Green Conditional Use
Ga1pin BIvd.
Permit, Highway 5 and
Final Development Plan Review, Fox ChaseDerrick Land Company (Revises Previously
Development PIan) .
Addition,
Approved
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
Council Procedures allow for the presentation of items.is required, the item will be tabled to the next regularallow for publication and review of items prior to finat
NEW BUS INESS
Item Deleted from Agenda. *
Legion, Sewer & Water Public
Accept Feasibility Study and
If action
agenda to
consideration.
Improveme n t
Order PubI ic
5. 9:15 p.m
8
Review Waste Control Commi ss ion /Metro Council
Procedures and Hear PubIic Comments re: Sludge
Compost Application - Halla Nursery.
'F"-6. 9:40 o.mI @ to,.o /^1981 Bond SaIe, Authorization to CaIl for Bids.
7 10:15 p.m
10:30 p.m
Park and Recreation Commission Appointment.
Housing and RedeveLopment Authority, Review
Procedures for Filling Vacancies.
9. 10:45 p.m. - ca'. Vending Service Contract Lake Ann Park.
CONSENT AGENDA
American
Project,
Hearing.
-+:
C---
4t
C Carver Beach Drainage Report, Receive Engineer, sReport and Order Feasibility Study.
L-d: Fireworks Displ-ay Application,
Homeowners Association.
July 4, Mj.nnewashta
f!
1'.y
ul'/
.t^
?,
L--.€-
L*.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
New City HaII Building Usage Poticies.
Carver County Emergency Servj.ces Board,
Appointment .
Authorize Preparation of Report to Amend
Economic Development District', to IncludeSouth of Highway 5 (C.P.T. Property) .
o "Park One
Properties
Hanus Development Contract,
Councilwoman Shrenson.
Status Report
Open House Status Report - l'1ayor Hamilton.
Set Special Meeting Date - Shortsleeve Sessionre: Council/Staff Goals and Respons ibil ities ,Councilman Neveaux .
* r'0
^4ADMTN ISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
11:30 p.m. - Adjournment.
* The following
this agenda:
a
b
item was published and subsequently deleted from
"Final Development Plan Approval, Chaparral planned ResidentialDevelopment, Highways 5 and 17, New Horizon Homes,,,
4 u{'!..(- -.t.*\ / dvlt$*-t
3^lh, e"f
AJ*.t* fno-*.. O,-J--.-../? i'e/4-'-. f4-u,
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation beingthe City Council will be avail,able after 2:00 p.m. on Friday.
A
e
/
sent to
r-
10. 11:20 p.m. - Reschedule Special Meeting Date, Tour Vari.ous public
Improvement pro jects .
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
TO
MEMORANDUI'l
FROM:
DATE :
SUBJ:
Mayor and City Council
Don AshrrJorth , C ity Manager
June 1, 19 81
Easement vacation Request, tot 7 and 8, Block 3, Chanhassen
Estates First Additi-on
The public hearing notice was published in the Carver County Herald
reflecting that this item woul-d be heard this evening. However,
this item did not appear in Karen's Corner as a part of tonightrs
agenda .
This item has appeared before the City Council during two
previous Council meetings with no one being in attendance
otherin opposition.
that
be
This office would suggest that the Mayor open this item with a question
to the audience as to whether'any person is in attendance in opposition
to this item, If no one j-s in attendance opposing the item, approval
of this item will be considered as a part of the consent agenda laterthis evening."
Should any person des iretheir statements be readtabled to ,fune 15th.
to speak
into the
in opposition, I would recommend
record and note that action will
tu
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
<A
V'
t'CITY(CF
EHf,NH[SSEN
I "\
(,'
76.10 LAREDO DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANN I NG REPORT
DATE: Apri l 6, l98l
T0: Planning Commission and Staff
FR0M: Land Use Coordi nator, Bob l.lai bel
SUBJ: Easement Vacati on Request, Lots 7 & 8
Chanhassen Estates, First Addi ti on.
APPLICANT: Mason Construction Company, Inc.and Barbara A. Huseman
PLAI'II,I I NG CASE :
Petition:
Block 3,
and Vernon C
requesti ng the Planning Commission to
^of the Utilities Drai nage Easement as)
The appl i cants are
consi der a Vacati on
shown in enclosure
Background:
Comments:
Communrty Locati on: As shown i n the Communi ty Locati onGraphic, the subject property is Iocated approximately S0O'East of the intersection of Dakota Avenue and CheyennL.
Exi sti ng Zoni ng: The subject property and i ts envi rons arepresent ly zoned R-.l, Single Fami 1y Residential Di stri ct.
uti I i ti
avai I ab
es
le
Municiple l.Iater and Sanitary Sewer are presentlyto the s ubj ect property.
2
3
The requested action is a formality to the replat of the subjectproperty carri ed out by the Pl anni ng Commission Iast fal l.It has been di scovered that the repl at acti on, in and of itself ,di d not vacate the drai nage and uti I i ty easements al ong theprevious property lines and is thus the reason for this request.
(
.=
I
Pl anni ng Report
Page 2
Apri l 6, I981
Ptlrsuant to Chanhassens administrative procedures and State Iaw,the Planning Commission is to determine thnough its staff thatthe proposal will not be detrimental but rather
be in the public interest. The Planning Commission is to submitits recommendations to the Council who upon receipt of such shallhold a publ i c hearing.
Recommendati on:
This office has reviewed the subject request with the City
Engi neer and fi nd that there are no detriments associ ated wi thit. The Planning Commission should recommend that the City
Counci I hold necessary publ i c heari ng to vacate the Drai nage/Utilities Easements along the original property l ines of Lots
7 & 8, B'l ock 3, of Chanhassen Estates, Fi rst Addi t i on.
Addendum to Planning Report - May 28, 198I
As shown on the attached minutes, the Planning Commission
duly reviewed the vacation request and recorrnended that the
City council hold the necessary public hearing for saidrequest. Additionally, attached is the proposed resolution
necessary for filing at the County recorders office.
(
I1 I
((
.,'2
2
t
I
L OTUA
8
<
:< t-
AAAb F'rATE5
4
3
l.
I
KE IAC|
€v'4
Rtcf tt I AK€
:
-, i_
' ti r--
..1iI - -.T rrTi lillti
.-r ;-IKL
LNKI
JH 'LW';:
,o3 t* v
LATE SUSAII
I
I
I
3
L''(8.
ltrlEf
DUEf Y FJ -L \-,-S\) e{' l-'lr U!' .t rJ/J^\v
1OO1 EAST CLI| JAO
BUHNSVILLE, MINNESOTA 55337
PHONE: (6r2) 89o775o
809 NoRTHE{
GRAND RAPIt.
PHoNE: (218) 3266528
.OUNTH STNEET
,INNESOTA 557.T4
r as.
Mn.Kooe<r I>J1'r-4TC2el-\q'
Certificaie of Survey forr
I
!-
l-r-Fboll
I
.D
d)
'.J
,l s.5
ftL.b4x 111-47
h"qt4A ri 'l)).'l/.
-(O?- 11r:.-(7
11\1q)t.-.lNV.=126.iCt
F
t
r
c11 E.Ieattre
T/
Co
a
Lf.
"ft1
(2
-a'e
,/^
I
I
T
(l:'-- d I
T
z
f ""8.>zlr q7.+o
(L3 2-F
l)D!b,l - *qqEat;f COKTJFLOTT
r.\
TATF:S.
,q,w
\s>r.'{c
11\
76.
+ botqqe:.+\
l"=70'o PaNOfe4.TC OENOTE,
T
T
lloPse
F4sr'l f L,, y'R.E ,
o FOA VA'+fl6Y t 7, l"l.<'ck 3;
rding to ttr C,N file
and )'eC-('f r.n ttre <,ffice of tt,e
. Coun t o{der Hennepin CountY,
Hinnesota; exceP t that Part (rf, -said
Lor 7, )ilock 3 r'rhi ctr lies southeasterlY
of the follo'"ing d e-scribed I i ne:
Beginning :It-a Po).o L on the sorr r lr line
rti stant f f O-(r l feer uesE of
the south east corner of Lot ?; tltence
nor theas LerlY to a Pc,int on the east
line,oF l.ot 7'distant 30.OO feet no rEh
of said sorrtheasE corner o f Lot 7; and
there Ler.Dinatinlt-
darirg o, th, abov' de3ctiatgd ta^d. ,nd ol lhE loialio'
L
of Lot 7,
Ic+-s oeAorE
l4t+1.o) o=_$oTe,
Frr.r) ?<o(o+zv
IK.ON MONOMENT
iD?' ;i.'ZrlK B (-x<,en rur)
E)<ttTt{b ELEvAf(ol.r
?<o?oreo eLEVATIOI
FA:ZE}'AEN{(2LKLbAI
I
I
7a"rt.Z) ?<orO+eD
(a44-E)?Ko?o9eD Irr FLoOR-
I :!9.--b,J, certily thst thit i5 a ttus aod correcl reprca'nlttion o' a surv:y ol lha bou'r
alt buitdinor, thereo^, aDd alt ,;siuiJ e"lr"""t.ntnle, It any, Irom o, on said land.
As surveyed by mr lhis:so...-......_d 'y oL-)uE -'--198Q t 1ae
t>5qqReg- No
1 \)
*6
x
114.t -('tt5-o)
,
Leb7-:5.
'7 (q .tt+.1
(e*z)
116.0.o,\1j.)f.k
t-l
q1b.7 .
to
,.
9.
rtlJ.4
dl
511{
/-'9',.?2
<f11
nt1.k
/1
GE 'Y
s>AY
=)4!'wY-clr
7"J
qt
ar>-o>
xq74.b
-lor
rl.l
L
i)r.,lct
P
L" \..
q
I
I
I
I
I
I
,Dr.o
. - -' j:5:"-
4- 8- 8l Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2
alumjnum sided building tha t woul d match the rest of thon thei r property. The build.ing woul d be 24, x 60, andused for short term storage. This building was not insite plan because Lyman Lumber did not forsee the use fmuch storage space when the pl an was first drawn up,
e bui 1di ng
would bethe originalor that
Mr. Wai bel stated th at the new by screened, there is high ground inbuiidings are in front of this one.
sst
made a motion to recommendExhibit 4/8/81). Seconded
ui ldi n woul d be
and the
Nozi ska askedno, the
be needed.
app rov a I of
by J. Thompson.
otal I
therf the
t
o
i
b
the EaMr. H
uildi bui I di ng wou ld be heated. It was answeredng is just for storage and no heating would
Mr. L. Conradthis site plan req ues t (
Moti on carri ed, Ayes-6.
Easement Vacati on Request Lots 7 & 8 Block 3. Cha nhassenEstates:
(
Mr. Randy Tri vol i a expl ai ned that Lots 7 & 8 hadbeen replatted. There was a property line dispute thatis cleared up now but would like to ask that the Com-mission woul d approve his reques t to vacate the easement on thisproperty. Mr. A. Partridge explained some of the backgroundof thjs case. There is a-building on top of the easem6nt ilready.The lot .is abl e to meet alI the setback requi rements and wouldstill be a buildable I ot. There were no problems wi th any ofthe neighbors.
Counci I
ment on
seconded
Mr. M. Thompsonto hol d necessaryLots 7 & 8, Blockthe motion. All
made a motion to recommend topubl i c heari ngs to v a cate the3, Chanhassen Estates. Mr. H
'i n f avor.
the Ci ty
ease-
Noziska
Vi s.i tor Presentation Mr. Rod Hardy, Lake Susan [,lest:
their
that
Mr. Hardy, a representat.i ve
appl i cati on for the Subdivisionthi s i tem be tabl ed indefinately.
for Lake Susan l,lest, wi thdrewat Lake Susan, and requested
No acti on was taken.
Chaska C ompre hen s i ve Plan:
Mr. Waibel went thru the report of Apri I 6, l98l
t
L
CITY OF CIIANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COIJNTIES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC IIEARING
FOR A PARTIAL EASEMENT VACATION
FOR VERNON C. AND BARBARA A. HUSEMON
AND ROBERT H. MASON INC.,
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of Chanhassen,
Minnesota will meet on llonday, the first day of June,
l-981, at 7:30 p.m. at the City HaIl, 690 Coulter Drive,
for the purpose of holding a public hearing to conslder
the vacation of the easterly II0.6L feet of the drainage/
util j-ty easement forming the prior common boundry between
the following describedl tract of land:
LoL 7, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates First Addition.
A ptan showing said vacation is available for inspection
at City Hall. AIl persons interested should appear and
be heard at said time and p1ace.
BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING COM}4ISSION
Don Ashworth
City l4anager
(Published in Carver County Hera1d, May 20, I98I)
CITY OF CHANHASSBJ
CAR\IER AND HEINEPIN @UI:,lIrEq , MINNESOIA
RESOU]IION
Date Resolution No.Ibtion by CouncilrEr Seconded by Councilman
PARTIAL \ACATION OF DRAINAG TITILITY EASEVTENI ON TI]E
ORTGINAL PI, T OF I.O]S 7 AI,ID 8
BI,OCK 3 CT{ANIIASSEN ESTNCES FISST ADDII'ION
I,fHEREA.S, t}le City has received a petition frcrn the cnsrers of Iots 7
and 8, tsLock 3, Clnnlrassen Estates First Addition to vacat€ ttre drailage/utility
easejrEn! cn any or arl 0f tiat portion of said rots 7 and g nt)re parEicularly
descri-bed as tl:e:
That particufar 5.00 foot utility and drainage eassrE!'rt
dedicated on the recorded ptat of Chanhassen Estates, which
adjoins the south line of Lot 7, Block 3, jn said p1at.
That lErticular 5.00 fot utility and drai-nage easqrEnt,
dedicated on the recorded plat of GEnhassen Estates,
which adjoins tlre norlh line of Iot 8, Block 3, in
said plat.
[.{IEREAS, a public hearing was held cn said petltion on ,fune l, 1981, and
V,IIIEREA.S, said pulclic hearilg was preceded Lryr troo weeks' pr:lotished andpost€d notice as requjred by Section 412.851 of lLinnesota Statutes, and
!{HERELS, there is no public interest to be served [r t]re ccrrtjluedpublic oanerstrip of tlat porEion of the abcnre-descr jl:ed draiaage easarent, and.
WHEREAS, t}re City is not no,v usjng any porEion of the above-descri-bed
eassrEnt for arry of tle purposes set forth jn l,LiInesoEa Statutes 9462.358, Subd. 7,
and it is unliJ<ely that it will so use said easerEnt in ttre futr:re.
NC['{, THEREORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that anyr and all of t}rat portion of t}Ie
drairage easqrEnt on Lots 7 and 8, Block 3 of Granhassen Estates Fjrst Addition
nDre particularly descrj-bed as:
That particuJ-ar 5.00 foot utility and drajnage eassrEnt,
dedicated cn the recorded plat of Charhassen Estates, which
adjoias the souttr l-jne of I.ot 7, Block 3, in said plat.
That particular 5.00 f@t utility and drajlage eassrEnt,
dedicated on tlre recorded pl-at of (tanhassen Estates, l*tjch
adjojns tle norttr the of I.ot 8, Bfek 3, iI said p1at.
is hereby vacated.
Passed and adopted by tlre Council of the City of Chanhassen this lst
day of June, 1981.
EETEST:
CiLy C lerk /,larEger
l4ayor
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINIITES
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - May 4, 1981
The regular meeting of the Chanhassen City Council was called to order
on Monday, I4ay 4, 1981 , aE 7z 30 p.m. by Acting Mayor Neveaux. The
following members were present: Acting l,layor Neveaux, Councilmen
Swenson, Geving and Horn. Mayor Hamilton was absent.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:A motion was made by Councilman Neveaux and
agenda. Motion carried.seconded by Councilman Horn to approve the
No negative votes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The following amendments were made from the
April 27, 198I minutes:
Under the Development Agreement, Park One Property, Instant Web the
second motion should be changed to read - A motion was made by
Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilman Geving to table action
on the Park One agreement pending resolution of agreement by theAttorney, The following voted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor
Neveaux, Councilmen Swenson, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes.
Motion carried.
Hanus Development Contract the motion made by Councilman Horn should
be amended to read...to prepare amendment l-anguage which woufd
clarify provisions for full screening from public view.
Motion made by Council-man Horn should add the words - It should be
brought to the attention of the various neighborhood association
members involved and an article should be put in the paper.
A motion \^ras made by Councilman Geving and seconded by Councilman
Horn to accept the minutes of the City Council with the above amend-
ments, AII in favor. Motion carried.
A motion was made by Councilman Gevj-ng and
to accept the minutes of the April 8, 1981
meeting. Al-I in favor. Motion carried.
sec onded
P Ianning
by Councilman Horn
Commission
A motion was mad.e by Councilman Horn and seconded by Councilman
ceving to accept the minutes of the April 15, 1981 Planning Commj-ssion
meet j-ng . A1I j-n f avor . Moti on carried .
Don Ashworth explained that the April 13 and 20,
minut.es are forthcoming. Jean, the regular City
i.s on vacation.
AMERICAN LEGION CLUB:A motion was made by
the May 18th meeting.
Motion carried.
19 8I City Counc j.I
Council secretary
Counc ilman Swenson to
Seconded by Counc i lmantab 1e
Horn.
item untifin favor.thisAII
97TH STREET SANITARY SEWER: Mrs. Virginia Harris from Carver County
Planning & zoning present.ed
posal for a community seller
Some discussion was made abo
commun j-ty system vs. individ
work .
to the Council and the homeowners a Pro-
system to be placed on 97th street.
ut the cost, how the system works,
ua1 systems and how Iong the system will
Will need an easement from each of the owners for the maintenance
of this system. The City is responsibte to maintain this systen'
I-l
l
Page 2 - May 4, 19Bf
A motion was made by Councilman
Geving that the community sewerresolut.ion of May 4, 198I.
Horn and seconded by Councilman
system be approved as outlined in
WHEREAS, the alternative proposal for corrective acti,on provides fora corununity drainfield system for the homes arong west gath streetwithin the corporate rimits of the City of chanhissen, in section 25of Tf16N R23w and an on-site upgrade for the three homes on pioneerTrail is also cost effective under federal guidelines and is analternative that wilr be suited to providing a long term sorutionto the on-site sewage treatment problems in the strldy area.
The following voted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor Neveaux,Councilmen Geving and Horn. Councilman swenson abstained.carried.
wording for Resorution #2 shoul-d read that the alternative proposalfor a community...
councirman Geving made a motion that was secnded by councilman Hornto adopt Resolution #2 as amended above.
Mot ion
Russ Larson stated. that ',as City Attorney, I wiLl accept thisresolution with the addition that a hazaidous conditioi to publichealth, safety and welfare of the City is found to exist in thesesystems and that it is in the interest of the public that correctiveaction be taken to eliminate those hazards.,'
Councilman Geving amended his motion to include the Cj_ty Attorneys
recorrunendation s . The following,voted in favor: Councilmen Neveaux,Geving and Horn. Councilman Swenson abstained. Motion passed.
A motion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by CouncilmanHorn to authorize expenditure for soil borings on the subjectproperty not to exceed 9500 or reasonably cfose. The followingvoted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Gevj-ng andHorn. Councilman Sr,renson abstained. Ivlotion carried.
L
MaCPHERSON PROPERTY, REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATIoN oF ASSESSMENTS:A motion was mad e by Councilman Swenson and seconded by Council-
man Geving to adopt a resolution to defer Mr, Macpherson's assessmentbecause of inadequate street frontage. The deferrment is to occurfor 1981 and all years thereafter, for principal only (col-Iection ofinterest on the unpaid baLance must be made) , e/ith the conditionthat such deferrment is void and the assessment immediately callabl-eif platting or construction or improvement occurs on the property.
AII in favor. Motion carried.
JOSEPH BOYER, BOYERI S STERLING ESTATES:
motion to deny the request to remove theBlock I. Motion seconded by Councilman
Ivlotion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE A}{ENDMENT /COND ITIONAL USE PERMIT JOHN PRYZMUS:
Councilman Geving made a
assessment on Lot 7,
Swenson. AII in favor.
A motion
Swen son
Fore for
Block 1,
was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by Councilman
to approve a Temporary Use Permit as requested for Drive
the establishment of a Driving Range on Lots 5,6,7 e 8,
Frontier Development park with the-fotlowing conditions:
J.
I
Page 3 - I{ay 4, 1981
t)Temporary Use Permit for I yearA letter from the owner of the property stating that heknows what the applicant has proposej for his property
and is in agreement with it.That insurance with a 9I,000,000 coverage be taken out.That the applicant, provide 15 off street parking spaces.There wilI be no el-ectricity for late/earIy hours.
Signage must meet the criteria set up by the sign conmittee.
The ball shed must not exceed 8 x 16r and be constructedof suitable materi.als.
ALI partners have a statement in writj-ng that they will beresponsible for any accidents.
Prepare a final map of the sj-te to be a part of the permit.
A sign proposal needs to be submitted.
An esgrov, account of $500 to cover cost of legal and
engineerj-ng services.
.]
4
5
6
7
8
o
I0.II.
A11 voted in favor. Motion carried.
FINAL DEVEIOPI\4ENT PLAN REVIEW ,FOX CHASE, DERRICK LAND COMPANY:
A I\4OTION WAS I4ADE BY Councilman Swenson to permit Mr. Derrick to
make presentation and others to comment. However, action will not
occur this evening to alLow the Council an opportunity to consider
comments made tonight, to respond to written questions received
from the neighborhood dated l,ttay 2, 1981, and to have the attorney
place his opinion as to legal status of the Ju]y, 1980 council
action into written form.
The council received comrnent.s from the planner (staff report and
Planning Cornmission action) , the proposal as presented by I"1r.
Laughinghouse and Mr. Derrick (as the developers) , and colunents
from general public. Motion Lras withdrawn.
llr. Laughinghouse, a representative from Derrick Land Co., presented
the plan for Fox chase. They have changed the plan to have 52 units,
the company is very interested in preserving all the trees that
they can. Lot 4 is larger than t,he rest in order to save more trees.
Mr. Laughinqhouse 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
which would apply to the legal status of the plan as
JuIy , 1980.
state law
approved in
The Council expressed concern about the future owners of the Pro-perty if the land will be buildable with all the proposed filt.
l,tr. Laughinghouse explained that they are willing to pay anything
in order to have these lots filled right. The Process that they
are going to use is an acceptable method that has been used for
Acting Mayor Neveaux indicated that the City has had troubfe with
plat developers who have had their engineers review the land'
Mayor Neveaux requested that the City Engineer review the Plat after
the f j.lling.
.t
Page 4 May 4, I98I
I,1r. Derrick stated that if Fox path was moved to the east there wil1 bevisibility, Fox Path will also be used as a common drive with the
Osgoods. Nancy Osgood, the adjoining property owner to the eastindicated that their driveway was put in in 1867 and they have beenusing it since 1967 and they have no problems seeing.
Councilman Horn asked why the staff doesn't have any answers to thequestions being brought up. Requested that they do more invest-igat j.on into this item.
pool
1
t
One of the neighbors asked if his tax money willpay for the roads being put into Eox Chase. Mr,indicated that Derrick Land Co. is paying for itrequested that the feasibility study be startedFox Chase is approved they will not have to waitthe feasibility study.
be helping to
Laugh inghou se
all. Ivlr. Derrick
so that when and if
any longer for
Councilman Sr^renson made a motion that Schoel and Madson d.o afeasibility study on Fox Chase and that the developer should notthink of this action as an approval of the p1at. Second by Council-man Horn. All, in favor. Motion carried.
Councilman ceving requested that more soil borings be taken.
Councilman Swenson indicated that there are areas that she wouldIike looked into before approval i.e. the egress to the south.
Mr. M. THompson, from the planning Commission, indicated that theyhad made a motion to move Fox Path to the easterly property linefor better visibility.
councirman Geving indicated that he feers the conservation easementis important and that he likes the plannj-ng Commissions recommend-atlons. Councj-Iman Geving stat.ed that he is not ready to appLoveeit.her plan and doesn't want to proceed until, the Council hli heardmore from the City Engineer and more about the road. to the east.
Councilman Swenson indicated that she concurs with CouncilmanGeving and that she would like to have more answexs to questionsbefore approving anything.
Mr. Derrick
item tabled
Councilman Horn made a motion to table
Seconded by Counc j-lman ceving. A11 in
had
but
indicated before the meeting that he wanted thisthe notices had already gone out.
Mr. Derri-ck i-ndi-cated that he i-s for the Conservation Easementbut does not like the idea of no docks. What does the Councilthink about the docks on the lakes. Councilman Geving explainedthat the Council is interested in securing the lakes while they
have an opportunity to do so. Boats are alright as long as theyare put on the lake from the publj.c access. Docks are just anotherstructure on the 1ake, when they are put in, the 1i1y pads will
have to be dug into, the Council wants to conserve the lakes asbest they can.
this request until June 1favor. Moti-on carried.198r.
J
I
I
Ilage
FINAL
5 - May 4, 1981
DEVE LOP MEN T PLAN REVIEW ,NEAR MOUNTAIN PROJECT LUNDGREN BROS . :
A motion was made by Counc j-Iman Geving
Horn to table this item until 7:30 p.m
A1I in favor, Motion carried.
and seconded byat the meeting
Counc i l-man
of May 1I, 1981..t
CONSENT AGENDA: A motion was made by Councilman Geving and seconded by
Councilman Horn to approve of the items on the consent agenda. Thefollowing voted in favor: Acting l,layor Neveauxr Councilmen Geving
and. Horn. Councilman Sr"renson voted no. l,loti-on carri-ed.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Acting Mayor Neveaux suggested that a
Coordinating Committee be made to urork with Minnetonka Labs in
ord.er to keep cofiununications c1ear. Mayor Neveaux suggested that.
the following be on the committee a1on9 with himself, Art Partridge
a Planning Commission member, Don Ashworth, City Manager, Bob
Schultz, and Mark Koegler. Suggested thaL they meet on a regularbasis and they will not be a policy setting committee, it is just for
the purpose of communicatj.on. Councilmen Geving, Swenson and Horn
alL agreed that it was a good idea.
Actj-ng Mayor Neveaux also suggested a Government Operations Comrnittee
to take the complaints about the staff. A11 agreed that this is
a good idea.
A motion
Horn to
was made by Councilman Swenson and
adjourn the meeting. AII in favor.
seconded by Councilman
Motion carried.
.REGI'LAR CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 4, 1981
The regular meeting of the chanhassen city councll rras called to order on Monday,
May 4' 1981' at 7:30 p.m. by Actlng llayor Neveaux. The following members were presenr:Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councllwoman Sr.renson, Counci.Lnen Geving and Horn. Mayor
Hamilton uas absent.
1 APPRoVAL OF AGEMA: A motion was nade b y Acting Mayor Neveaux and seconded by
Councilman Horn to approve the agenda, Motion carried. No negatlve votes.
APPRoVAL 0F MINUTES: Amend the A pril 27, 1981, Councll minutes under the DEVELOPIIENT
ACREEIIENT, PARK ONE PROPERTY, INSTANT WEB Ehe second morlon to read: A motion was
nade by CouncLlman Horn and seconded by Councilman ceving to table actlon on the
Park One agreenent pending resolution of agreement by the Attorney. The following
voted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Counei-lworaan Swenson, Councilnen Gevlng
and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried,
Anend the Eotlon under llANus DEVELOPMEM coNTRAcr in the Aprll 2i, 198L, counci.l
mlnutes to read: A motion was made by councilman Horn and seconded by cormciJ-woman
swenson to approve Recomnendatlon No. 2 as outlined in the Asslstant city Attorney'sreport dated April 23, 1981, stating that staff be dlrected to prepare amendment
language which would ctarlfy provlsions for full screenlng from public view. Thefollowlng voted ln favor th reof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson,
Councllmen Geving and Horn. No negaElve votes. Motlon carried.
Amend the motlon ln the April 27, 1981, Counci.l olnutes under LAKE AND SHORELINE
oR-DTNANCE REvrEw as follows: A motion was made by councilnan Horn and seconded by
councilman Geving to instruct the clty Attorney to place the revisions into final
ordlnance form and instruct the Planning CommissLon to hold a public hearing on the Lakeand Shorellne Ordinance as well as an amendment to the Zonlng Ordinanee regarding
beach lots. It should be brought to the attention of the various neighborhood
association members involved and an article shourd be put in the paper. The following
voted in favor thereof: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Uotion carrled.
A motion was made by Council-man Geving and seconded by Councilman Horn to approve
the April 27, I98L, Councj.l minutes as amended. The followlng voted in favor:
Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councllwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negatlvevotes. Motion carried.
A motion was made by Councj.lrnan C,€vlng and seconded by Councllman Horn to note theApril 8, 1981, Plannlng CorDmission minutes. The following voted in favor: Act.lng
Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Sr.renson, Councilmen Gevlng and Horn. No negative votes.
Motlon carried.
t
A motion was made by CounciJ-man Horn and seconded b
Apr11 15, 1981, Plannlng Commission mlnutes. The f
Mayor Neveaux, Couneilwoman Swenson, Councilnen Gev
Motion carried.
ouncilnan Geving to note the
olring voted ln favor: Acting
and Horn. No qegative voEes.
yC
o11
ing
I
AMERICAN LEGION CLUB:A motion was made by Councilwoman Swenson to Eable this
item until the I'lay lSth meeting. Motion seconded by councilman Horn. The following
voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Ceving andHorn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Don Ashworth explained that the April 13 and 20, 1981 , Council minutes are forthcomlng.
Jean, the regular City Council secretary is on vacatlon.
May 4, 1981, Council Minuces
96TH STREET SANITARY SEWER: Urs.
and Zoning presented to the Counci
sewer system to be placed on 96thcost, ho!, the system works, conunun
long the system will work.
Virginia Harris from Carver County planning
1 and the homeomers a proposal for a conununitySt.reet. Some discussi.on was made about theity system vs. indi.vidual systems and how
Will need an easement from each of the owners for the maintenance of this systen.The Ctty is responsible Eo maintain this system.
A mollon was made by councilman Horn and seconded by councilman Geving that thecommunity sewer system be approved as outlined in Rlsolution of Uay +l :-lal .WHEREAS ' the alternative proposal for correctlve actlon provides flr a conmrunttydralnfleld system for the homes arong west 96th street within the corporatellmLts of the city of chanhassen, in section 25, Tll6N, R23w and an on-siteupgrade for the three homes on ploneer Trail is also cost effective underfederal guidelines and is an alternative that ki11 be suited to p.o.riJir,g "long term solution to the on-slte sewage treatment probrems in the studv area.The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, counellmen c""i"[-."a uo.rr.Councllwoman Swenson abstained. Motlon carrled,
l,Iording for Resolution /12 should read that the alternatlve proposal- for acommunity. , .
Councllrnan Geving made a motion that was seconded by Councilman Horn to adoptResolutlon /12 as amended above.
Russell Larson stated that "as city Attorney, r will accept thls resolutiontr'lth the addition that a hazardous condition to public treitttr, safety and welfareof the clty is found to exist in these systems and that it is 1n the interest ofthe public that corective aetlon be taken to eliminate those hazards.,'
Councilman Geving amended hls notion to j.nclude the City Attorneyrsrecornmendations. The foll.L,lng voEed in favor: Acttng Mayor Neveaux, councilmenGeving and Horn. Councilwoman Swenson abstained. Motlon carrled.
A motion was made by councilman Geving and seconded by counciJ-man Horn to authorizeexpendlture for soil borings on the subject property not to exceed $500. Thefollowing voted in favor: Actlng Mayor N""earo, councilmen Geving and Horn.Councilwoman Swenson abstained. Motion carried.
MACPHERSON PROPERTY REQ UEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ASSESSMENTS :made by Councilwoman Swen son and seconded by Councilnn n Geving toresolution to defer Mr.MacPhersonrs assessment because of lnadequfrontage. The deferrmen t is to occur for 1981 and all years thereprinlcpal only ( col1ec t i on of interest on the unpaid balance nustLrith the condition Ehat such deferrment is void and lhe assessmentcallable if platting or construction of improvenents which would upart of the special benefit derived from the assessment occurs onThe following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, CouncllwomanCouncilrnen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motlon carried,
JOSEPH BOYER, BOYERIS STERLING I'STATES:Councilman Geving moved to deny the7, Block 1. MoEion seconded by CouncilvomanActing Mayor Neveaux, Councilwornannegative votes. Motion carried.
A motion was
adopt a
ate st ree t
after, for
be made) ,
irnmediately
tilize all or
the property.
Swenson,
requesE to remove the assessment on Lot
Swenson. The following voted in favor:
Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No
ZONING ORDINANCE AMEND}IENT /CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - JOHN PRZYMUS:nade by Councilman Geving and seconded by Councilwoman Swenson to ause permit as requested for Drive Fore for the establi.shment of a Don Lots 5, 6, 7, & 8, Block 1, Fronti.er Developrnent park wlth the fcondi.tlons:
A motion was
pprove a temporary
riving Range
ollowing
L-
Council Minutes May 4, 1981
FINAL DEVELOPMEM PLAN REVIEW FOX CHASE, DERRICK LAND COI'IPANY:
-3-
I
9. Prepare a final map of the site to be a part of the pernit.10, A slgn proposal needs to be submltted.
11 . An escrow account of $500 to cover cost of legal and engj.neerlng servlces.The following voted ln favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Slrenson, Councll-menGeving and Horn. No negatlve votes. Motion carried.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Councilwoman Swenson to permit Mr, Derr ick to make a presentation
Mr. Laughinghouse stated that
frour golng into the lake.
they will do everything they can to keep the run off
A motion was made by
. and other to cotrment.However, action !1111 not occu! thls evening to arlou the councir an opportunityto consider coltrnents made tonlght, to respond to written questions received fromthe neighborhood dated May 2, 1981, and ro have the attorney place his opinion as rolega1 status of the July 1980 councll action into written form.
The Councll recej-ved comments from the planner (staff report and planning Commisslonactlon), the proposal as presented by Mr. Laughinghouse and Mr. Derrick (as thedevelopers), and comments from the general public. Motion rras r^rithdrawn.
Mr. Laughinghouse' a representative from Derrick Land company, presented the plan forFox chase. They have changed the plan to have 52 units, the company is very interestedin preserving aLr the trees that they can. Lot 4 is targer than the rest 1n order tosave more trees.
I
The Acting Mayor requested that the attorney read the recent sEate lawChapter 555, Section 30) which would apply to the lega1 status of thein July 1980.
The couneil expressed concern about the future o$rrers of the property if the landwill be buildable lrith all the proposed fi11. ur. Laughinghouse expiained rhat rheyare willing to pay anythlng in order to have these loEs filred rtght. The process thatthey are golng to use is an acceptable method that has been used ior years.
Actlng Mayor Neveaux lndicated that the city has had trouble with plat developers
who have had their engineers review the plan. Acting Mayor Neveaux requested rhatthe City Engineer revierr the plat after the fllling.
Mr. Derri.ck stated that if Fox path was moved to the east there rrill be poorvisibillty' Fox Path will also be used as a cortrnon drive r,rith the osgoods. Nancyosgood, the adjoining property owner Eo the east indicated that their driveway wasput in in 1867 and they have been using it since 1967 and they have no problemsseeing.
councilman Horn asked why the staff doesnrt have any anslrers to rhe questions beingbrought up, Requested that they do more investigatlon into Ehis ltem.
(Laws 1980,
plan as approved
L
. Temporary Use Permit for one year.. A letter from the owners of the property staEing that he knows whatthe applicant has proposed for his property and is in agreement !r1th lt.. That lnsurance with a S1,000,000 coverage be taken out.. That the appllcant provide 15 off street parking spaces.. There will be no electrlcity for tand/early hours.. Signage must meet the criteria set up by the Sign Conmittee.. The ball shed must not exceed 8t x 16' and be constructed of suitabLe nalerlals.. All partners have a statement in writing thaE they will be responsibre forany accldents.
Council MLnures May 4, l98I _4_
One of the nelghbors asked if hi-s tax money will be herping to pay for the roadsbeing put into Fox chase. Mr, Laughinghouse indicated that Derrick Land co. ispaying for it all. Mr. Derrick requested rhat the feasibility study be srarredso that when and if Fox chase is approved they lri11 nor have io watt any longerfor the feaslbility srudy.
council-woran swenson moved that schoell and Madson do a pub11c inprovemenEfeaslbility study on Fox chase and Ehat whatever costs and risks are involvedfal1 with the developer because of the developer's request to proceed rrilhthe feasibllity study on an unapproved pran. Motion seconded Ly councirrnan Horn.The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson,Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Geving requested that rnore so11 borings be taken.
councllwoman swenson lndlcated that there are areas that she would like lookedLnto before approval, i.e. the egress to the south.
Thompson, from the Planning Corunlssion, indicated Ehat they had made ato move Fox Path to the easterly property line for better vislbility.
t'
Mr, U.
motion
Councilrnan Geving
and that he likes
stated that he ls
until the Council
to the east.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEI"'NEAR }IOUNTAIN, LUMGREN BROS . :
indlcated that he feels the conservation easement ls inporEant
Ehe Planning Comnissions recomnendat ions . Councilman Gevingnot ready to approve either plan and doesnrt want to proceed
has heard more from the City Engineer and more about the road
councirwoman swenson lndlcated that she concurs with counc man Geving and thatwhe would rike to have more ansr4Ters to questions before approvirg anyihi.,g.
Mr. Derrick had indicated before the neeting that he wanEed this item tabledbut the notices had already gone out.
Mr. Derrick lndicated that he is for the conservation easement but does not rikethe idea of no docks' htrat does the council think about the docks on the rake.councilrnan Geving expLained that the council is interested in securing the rakeswhile they have an opporEunity to do so, Boats are alright as long "f tn"yare put on the lake from the public aceess. Docks are iust anothe; structureon the lake, when they are put in, the lily pads will hive to be dug into, theCouncil wants to conserve the lakes as best they can.
councilrnan Horn moved to table this request until June I, r9g1. Motion secondedby Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux,Councilwoman Slrenson, Councllmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. MoEioncarried.
Councilma
at the me
Councilwo
carried.
n Geving and seconded by Council man Horn to table Ehi.s
A motion was made by
item until 7:30 p.m.
Acting Mayor Neveaui,
votes. Motion
eting of May 11, 1981 . The following voted in favor:
man Sr\,enson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative
CONSENT ACEMA: AcIin
discuss any item on th
Councilrnan Geving move
City Manager .
g Mayor Neveaux asked if any Council member r^rished toe consent agenda. There being no further connents,d to approve the consent agenda as recommended bv the
a. L1.nan B1vd., County Road 17 to IO1, Resolution Approving CountyConstruction plans.
b. Final Plans and Specification Approval , T.H. 169 and 2L2 Irnprovements.
t_
L
.Council MinuEes May 4, 1981
COI]NCIL PRESENTATIONS: AcIi
be rnade to work r,ri.th Minneto
Mayor Neveaux suggesEed that
Art Partridge of the Plannin
and Mark Koegler. SuggesEed
a policy setting cornmittee,
-5-
ng Mayor Neveaux suggested that a Coordinating Comllittee
nka Labs. in order to keep comnunicaEions clear. Actj.ngthe following be on the committee along with himself,g Cornmission, Don Ashworth City Manager, Bob Schultz,that they neet on a regular basis and they will not beit is just for the purpose of comnunication. Councilwoman
Motion seconded by councilman Horn, The following voted in favor: Acting MayorNeveaux, councilmen Geving and Horn. council\,/oman Swenson voted no, Motion carrled.
t
-t
Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn all agreed that it was a good idea.
Acting Mayor Neveaux also suggested a Government operations commiltee to take thecomplaints about the staff. A1l agreed that this is a good idea.
A notion was made by Councilwoman Swenson and seconded by councilman Horn to adjourn.The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, counciluroman srrenson, councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Meeting adjourned.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
T
r
I
(
r
I
SPECIAL CHANHAS SEN CITY COIJNCIL }METING MAY 11, 198I
Actlng Mayor Neveaux ca11ed the meetlng to order at 7:30 p.n. lrith the following members
present: Councilwoman Swenson, Councllmen Gevlng and Horn. Mayor Hamilton was absent.
APPRoVAL OF AGENDA: Councilnan Horn moved to approve the agenda as presented r,rlth the
following addltions: Up date of the GovernmenE operations Commlttee, PaymenE to Boarman
Architects, and Natural Green Litigatlon. Motlon seconded by Councilman Geving. The
following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwonan Swenson, Councllmen Gevlng
and Horn. No negative votes. MoEion carrled.
AWARD 0F BIDS - WELL //3: Four bids were received ranglng from $11,908 to $14,463. The
low bidder being Layne Mlnnesota Company.
Councilman Horn moved to accept the 1ow bid frou Layne Mlnnesota Company in the amount of
$11 ,908.00 for the rehabilitation of Well il3. Motion seconded by Councilman Gevlng.
The following voted 1n favor: Actlng Mayor Neveaux, Councllvroman Swenson, Councllmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. MotLon carried.
FINAL DEVELoPMENT PLAN - NEAR MOUNTAIN: Herb Baldwin, Peter and Mike Pflaurn were present.
TEe Tity Planner iEcomendeil approvaJ- of the flnal developnent plan with the following
condltions:
1. That Ehe final development plan be subject to flnal clty englneer approval whenutllity plans and specifications are recelved,
2. The development contract include provisions that would enable the city to activateits trail system through the Near Mountain property at any tlme.
Council members dlscussed the street access to Pleasant Vlew Road as outlined in
the City Engineerrs letter of April 21, 1981. The reason for the proposed designof the intersection (dlfficulEy to turn west onto Pleasant Vlew Road) is a result of
nelghborhood object.lons to additional trafflc on Pleasant View Road.
Phasing of the project was dlscussed. The Engineer recouurended Phases 1 and II be
combined to complete a clrcle road for snowplowing. Peter Pflaun suggested that a
temporary cul-de-sac could be built to solve the snowplowing problem until addlti.onal
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, subsectlon 5,
A., 8., and C have been completed.
Councllwornan Swenson moved to approve the final development plan as presented, (Plannlng
Commission Exhlblt A dated Lpr LL 22, 1981, Preliminary P1a! of Single FaEily Lots
prepared by Schoell and Madson showlng 134 single fanlly lots) subject to the
speclfied nodiflcations and conditions in the staff recomendati.ons of l-11 of
November 30, 1979, and as modified on December 3, L979, and dlrect the City At.torney
to prepare a development contract and return it to the Council on June 1, 1981. Motion
seconded by CouncJ-lnnn Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux,
Councllwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes, Motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved to rezone the subject property from R-1A to P-1. Motion
seconded by Councilwoman Slrenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux,
Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carrled.
Further discusslon was held on Ehe sEreeE access to Pleasant vier^, Road. Herb Baldwin
sEated lhat the street was designed to make a rlght turn difficult but not irnpossible.
Council members generally felE this l,ras satisfactory but r,rould llke to see a more
detailed plan of thaE area.
1
l
Council Meeting May 11, 1981
FINAI DEVELOPMENT PLAN - CHAPARRAL ON LAKE ANN:
-2-
The Councll discussed thls proposed
s meetj.ng. Council members generally
the development should be
mise of 170 slngle family homes,
g Frank stated New Horizon would
pl ali on April 13, 1981, and tabled actj.on to rhi
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS COMMITTEE:Councll members discussed possible eharges ofthe eonmittee.
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMEM PROJECT:
t'
agreed that the number of slngle family hornes inincreased, Councilman Gevlng suggested a compro
78 tlrin homes, 152 quads, and 200 8-plexes. cre
sEudy this proposal .
councilman Gevl-ng moved that the changes diseussed thls evening are more inagreement with standards of development for this particular plece of propertythan the presented plan but that before final development plan approval can begiven the council needs to look at that configuratlon put into a plan. Actlonbe tabled to June L, 1981. A conceptual drar.rlng wilr be presentei includingoutlot A depicti'g the 200 units as welr as a display or elevaEion drawingsof what an 8-plex w111 look 1ike. park dedlcation and/or park charge wilt bedlscussed on June 1. Motion seconded by Actlng Mayor Neveaux. The folrowing voted.Ln favor: Actlng Mayor Neveaux, councllrroman swenson, councllrnen Geving and Horn.No negative votes. Motion carried,
The Ciry Manager reviewed the progress of thedevelopment contracts.
councilr{onan swenson moved to adjourn, Motion seconded by councilman Horn, Thefollowing voted In favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, councilwoman swenson, councirmenGeving and Horn. No negative votes. Meetlng adjourned at 12iOO.
Don Ashworth
CiEy Manager
REGIJLAR CHANHASSEN CITY COIJNCIL MEETING }TAY 18, 1981
Acting Mayor Neveaux called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. wlth the following
members present: Councilwoman Stenson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. Mayor Hamilton
was absent.
APPROVAI OF AGEMA: Councilman Geving moved to approve the agenda as presented with
the follorring additions: Edina Foundation and Reschedule Tour Date, MoEion seconded
by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman
S\renson, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
MINUIES: Councilman Geving moved to approve the April 13, 1981 , Council minutes.
Motion seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor
Neveaux, Councilwornan S\{enson, Councilmen Geving and Horn, No negative votes. Motion
carried.
Anend the moEion in the April 20, 1981, Council minutes under DOIat'{TOhr}i CLEAN UP
ORDINANCE as follows: Councilman Horn moved to approve an Ordinance Providing for
the Collection of Charges for Performance of Services Relating to Sidewalks, Weed
Elimination, Removal of Pub1lc Health or Safety Hazards, Water Service Lines, Dust
Treatment of Streets, Tree Care and Removal and Street l,ighting, Section 3.02,
Special Assessment Procedure, should have the date of August 1st inserted. Motion
seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor llamilton,
Councilwoman S\nenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and Horn, No negative votes. Motion
carried.
Amend the first paragraph of the April 20, 1981, Council minutes as follows:
Mayor Hamilton cal1ed the meeting to order in the new municipal building at 690 Coulter
Drive for the first meeting of city government in their new facility with the following
members present: Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn.
Arnend by adding the followlng in the April 20, 1981 , Council minutes under LIQUOR
LICENSE APPLICATION, PoNY EXPRESS BAR: The applicant, Don Kallestad, was present
to discuss the problems involved ln 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 fron May 1, 1981 , to April 30, 1982. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negati-ve votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Horn moved to approve Ehe April 20, 1981, Council minutes as amended.
MoEion 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, L98I, Council minuEes. Motion seconded
by Councilnan Horn. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman
Swenson, Councllmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
ESTABIISHMENT OE DRIVING RANGE, FRONT]ER DEVELOPMENT PARK JOHN PRZYMUS: Representatives
of Drive Fore were present. The City Attorney reviewed the documents thaE have been
submitted. He noted that the lots to 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. Przlmus shows an approximate
tength of 800 feet for the driving range but the plat of Frontier Development Park
shows 575 feet along the railroad tracks and approximately 7O7 feet along West 79th
Street, A letter has been received frorn the Schneider Agency, Inc. stating that
insurance coverage has been initiated for the business. Off street parklng spaces
have been provided. An escrow deposit of $500 has been paid to the city,
t
.t
f.
I
I
councilwoman swenson moved that this agreement will be entered into upon thesatisfaction of Drive Fore ol'mers arriving at a lease agreement with Mr. LesRenner for Lot 5, Block 1, Frontier DevelopmenE park for inclusion into thepermit for a driving range. said permit being granted to the partnership ca11edDrive Fore. Motion seconded by councilnan Horn. The following voted in favor:
councihnoman swenson. Acting Mayor Neveaux, counci.lmen Geving and Horn voted no,Motion failed.
councilman Geving moved that as a condition of approval of the conditional usepermit the council requires a letter from Mr. Les Renner for the permitted
adjacent use of the driving range on Lots 6 - 8, Block 1, Frontiei DevelopmentPark in the event that bal1s land on Lot 5. This would be a letter of agreementbetween Mr. Les Renner and the partnership and nade a part of the conditionaluse permit. The fence as delineated in the agreement fa11s along the propertyline between Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. Motion seconded by councilman gorn, Thefollowing voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, councilwoman swenson, councilmenGeving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
section 3' subsection 6 will be amended by adding: ln the event that funds arenecessary to complete restoration, a special assessment will be placed againstLot 8, Block 1, Frontier Development park.
councilwoman swenson moved to approve the conditional use permit, for a golf drivingrange' as amended, betr,reen the city and the partnership of Drive Fore. MoEionseconded by councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: AcEing Mayor Neveaux,council\{oman swenson, councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
AMERICAN LEGION POST FEASIBILITY STUDY: The Council previously app::oved
coqrpleEion of the feasibility study. The Legion had asked that the councilreconsider their decislon but after a meeting with the city Engineer they arein agreement to order the feasibility study. No action was taken.
i
Council Meeting May 18, 1981 _2_
council members expressed concern over the cityrs liabilitv if a fence isconstructed on Lot 5, Block 1. The city Attorney answered that it would beextremely remote because the permit is limited to Lots where the city hasverified either a lease or ownership. rf someone trespasses either with a golfball or in person, just because the city has given a permit for Lots 6, 7, and g,
a court, in the Attorney's view, would be hard pressed to fine the city 1iab1e.
council members discussed the provisions of the proposed conditionar use permit.councilman Geving moved to eliminate section 3, subsection 3,"sate11ite" provision.Motion seconded by councilman Horn, The following voted in favor: Acting MayorNeveaux, councirwoman swenso[, councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes.Motion carried.
councilman Geving moved to amend section 3, subsection 7 as follows: wire meshfencing supported by wood/steel posts shall be erected along the West 79th Srreetside, said fencing to be six feet high for 150' from the driving tee area andeight feet high for a disEance of 150' lrith the remaining distance four feet highto the southeast lotrine between Lots 5 and 6, B1och 1. said fencing shall beplaced 20 feet inside the lot lines of the premises. Motion seconded by councilmanHorn, The folrowlng voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, councilwoman swenson,Councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Council Meet.ing May 18, 1981 -3-
SHOOTING BAN COMMITTEE PRESENTAT lON:Members of the comrnittee lrere present to
discuss thelr recommendations wiEh the council. Captain A1 Wallin, Sherlffrs
Department, was present. The following changes to the proposed amendments lrere
discussed:
2, SecLion 1.03, delete the word "adjacent" and add landornmers within 500 feet.
3, (g), Section 1.04, delete the word "carbon",
4. Section 1.05, add training of dogs \.rith pistol with blanks.
5. SecEion 3, delete "plstol wlth b1anks".
The word "varmits" should be defined in the definition sectlon. Schools should
be excluded frorn the ordi.nance I 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 Conmittee recornnenda t ions in regard
to amendments and addltions to City 0rdinance 9A and place it on first reading with
changes as discussed this evening, The City AtEorney to place this into compatible
language with the existing ordinance lf necessary. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving,
The following voted in favor: Acting lIayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. MoElon carried.
Councilman Geving moved to set the date for the f1na1 reading of the proposed ordinance
for June 22, L987 at 7:30 p.m. llotion seconded by Councilman Horn. The folJ.owing
voted in favor: Councilnan Gevlng. Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson and
Councilman Horn voted no. Motlon failed.
Councilnan Horn moved to set the date for the flnal readlng of the proposed ordinance
for June 15, 1981, at 7:30 p.m, Motion seconded by Councllman Oevlng. The following
voted in favor: Actlng Mayor Neveaux, Councllmen Gevlng and Horn. Councllwonan
Slrenson voted no. Motlon carrled.
See Council Action later in these minutes.
DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, BLOOMBERG CoMPANIES: 811McRostie L'a s present.
Councilman Geving moved to accept the Bloomberg Companies contract qrith its most
recent revision on pages 17 and 17A dated Aprll 15, 1981 , and authorLze the Mayor or
Acting Mayor to slgn the contract. Particular attention being paid to page 21 of the
Bloomberg Cornpanies contract regarding covered walkways. Moti.on seconded by Councilman
Horn. The followlng voted in fAvor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councllwoman Swenson,
Councilmen Gevlng and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carrled.
DoWNToWN REDEVELoPMENT PRoJECT, KRAUS-ANDERSoN INCORPoRATED r Councilman Horn moved
to approve the Kraus-Anderson, Inc. contract and authorlze the Mayor or Acting Mayor
to sj.gn the conEract. Partj-cular aEtention being pald Eo page 21 of the Kraus-
Anderson contract regardlng covered walkways. Motlon seconded by Councilman Geving.
The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilworran Slrenson, Councilmen
Geving and llorn. No negative votes. Motlon carrled.
INSTANT WEB PURCHASE AND RE-BUIIDING AGREEMENT: The Clt y Attorney dlscussed ehanges
nge on page 8, to add a paragraph
C (1) stating that any lnterest earned on invested escrow funds sha1l be paid to
owners from time to time. If escrow funds are to be lnvested said funds shall be
invested in U. S. Government obligations selected by the ora.ners. Staff had noobjectlon to Ehe proposed change.
Page 10, line 3 to be changed; only changes ln the const.ruction contract which changethe completion date therein speclfled or whlch In the aggregate reduce the cost belor\,an aggregate construction cost of $3,1 million may be made only upon the Agencys priorwritten approval . Staff accepted thls proposed change.
-t
L
PARK ONE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DI STRICT AGREEMENT: Due to the lateness of lhemeeting this item was tabled to June 1, 1981- .
SHOOTING BAN COMMITTEE:
reconsider the date set
Horn moved to reconsider
and set the date for Jun
Swenson. The following
Councilmeq Geving and Ho
Don Ashr{orth
City },l,anager
An attempt will be rnde by the shooting Ban cor,mittee to notlfy lnterested personsof the change ln the date.
BrLLs: councilwoman swenson moved to approve the bil-ls as presented lrith theT6E6iing exceprions: check 16488 to niw rn rhe amounr of 91,050.75 and check16490 to BRW in the amount of $2,290.98. Motion seconded by councilman Gevlng.Ihe following voted i.n favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilwonan Swenson,Council-men Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motlon carried.
council members questioned check 15495 to Bright Equipment Sales for an AirCompressor and requested a written response.
A motion was made by councrlman Horn and seconded by councilman Geving tothe remainder of the council agenda to June 1, 19g1 . The following votedActing Mayor Neveaux, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Geving and iorn.negative votes. Motion carried.
councilwoman swenson moved to adJourn. Motion seconded by councilman Gevrng.The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, councilwoman swenson,couneilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Meetlng adjourned at 1:30 a.m
A1 Klingelhutz lras present asklng the Council tofor final readi.ng of the Shootlng Ordinance. Councilmanthe date set for final readlng of the Shoollng Ordinance Ie 29, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. Motion seconded by Coincilwoman Lvoted in favor: Acti.ng Mayor Neveaux, Councllwoman Swenson,rn. No negative votes. Motlon carrled.
table
ln favor:
No
Council Meeting May 18, 1981 -4-
changes in the lease were proposed, sectlon 12. That lenants sha1I not assign thrslease or sublet except to existing tenant Animal Fair, rnc. This would granr tolnstant I.Jeb the authority to sublet a portlon of the prerntses Eo Animal Fair.The city Altorney suggested an addition to limlt the terrn that lnstant web isallowed to renerr' the lease to Animal Fair and also to linit the square footage,Animal Fair is currently leasing 9,000+ square feet. Jerome carlson stated thatthe lease has to be restricted to the same ldentical restriction as rnstant web.The issue before the council is whether they vrish to a11ow Animal Fair to stayon as a tenant of lnstant web not to exceed 9,000 square feet and allow rnstant webto continue to collect the rent for a limited period of time not beyond the termof 15 rnonths. scott Martin suggested that the lease wlth An irnal Fair be rimitedto July 1, 1982' to make sure they are out of the buildi.ng prior to rnstant web'smgve' councilman Geving suggested that the lease be terminated J"1y 3i, 1982, andthat the leased space not exceed 9,100 square feet. The Clty Attorney,s officewill prepare the necessary changes.
councilman Horn moved to approve the contract and lease with rnstanr I"Ieb andauthorize the Mayor or Acting Mayor to slgn the contract and 1ease. page 15,item c will be changed to reflect the aame wording as in Kraus_Anderson andBloomberg companies contracts refrecting the bond sale at 9\.11, Moti-on seconded bycouncilnan Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, councilwornanswenson, councilmen Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
A regular meeting of the chanhassen park and Recreation comnission was caLledto order on May 12, 1981 at 7;SO p.m, The following menbers were present:Phyllis Pope, Ton Schoenecker, Mary Muelhausen and Jack Mauritz.
MINUTES: A motion was made by Tom Schoenecker to approve the ninutes of the lastmeeting witn the following additions:
Minutes
Park and Recreation Comnission
May 12, 19 81
1. Mark Koe ler' s Pro osal :
pl ans or these three park
The proposal was to prepare concept developmentareas: Chanhassen Estates Park, Lake Ann park,
y Snith was present at the Park andpossibility of setting up a vending
be contTolled by the city and Mr.
ms with advertising or littering.
and Lake Susan Park.
2. 'rLake Susan Park to renain Lake Susan parkr'-
Motion was seconded by Mary l,fuelhausen. The notion was ruranimous ly approved.
VENDING SERVICE IN LAKE ANN PARK: Mr. DoISe
Recreation Cormissi
service in Lake Ann
Smith was confident
on meeting to discuss thePark. The servi.ce is to
there would be no proble
Ton schoenecker rnade a motion that a recomrnendation be made to the city councilthat Mr. smithrs vending service be accepted on a one-year trial basis, Motion
was seconded by Jack Mauritz. Motion unaninously approved.
REQUEST T0 BE MARRIED IN LAKE ANN PAX,K: A notion was rnade b y Jack Mauritz to
approve the coupl es request to be matried in Lake Ann Park. Motion was secondedby Mary Muelhausen. Motion unanimously approved.
staff was directed to notify the couple that the park would still be open to thepublic and to check arrangenents for the gate fee and alternate plans in case ofinclenent weather.
RECOMMENDATION TO FILL COWISSION VACANCY:A notj.on was nade by Tom Schoenecker that
and Recreation Commission. Motion waswe ask Mr. Joseph Warneke to join the Park
seconded by Mary Muelhausen and motion was rmanimously approved.
Staff was directed to send a letter to Chuck Koivisto to ascertain if his business
respons ibi I i ties would enabte him to renain on the commission.
LAI{CON 1982 STATUS: The Commission was advised that the prospects for land acquisition
were avai lable.for the Lake Lucy area looked excellent if any fimds
Respectful ly subrnitted,
Staff was directed to send Mayor Tom Hanilton a copy of the agreenent between the City
and the School district.
Meeting was adj ourned at 8:30 p.n.
Sherma Coombs
EXCERPTS FROM THE MARCH 25, 19 81 PLANNTNG COMMTSSTON MEET I NGDALE GREEN:
The applicant has been given a 5 year conditional use permitdated March 29, I97L, this permit was renewed in 1976 ior aSod and B1ack Dirt Business.
This item has been referred. to the planning Cornmission by theCity Council for further discussion with the City Attorn6y,sOffice. 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, indicated that thePlanning Commission should look at the conditional use permitthat was handed out to them. The application stated thatthe proposed business on this property is the stock pi11ngof dirt, the sale of sod, the sale of fertilizer, sale ofseed and the erectj-on of a pole barn, Mr. Mertz pointedout that this type of activity is not a permitted use underthe zoning ord.inance and is not a conditj_onal use for thisproperty zoned R-IA. Why was this permit issued? This waspermitted under the Township ordinance and this predatesthe adoption of the zoning ordinance. this is a non-conforminguse, meaning that they may continue what they were doingbefore but may not expand thej-r activities. Mr. Mertz calledthe attentj-on of the Planning Commj-ssion to page 2 of the permit,item 3, which says that in no event shall this conditionaluse permit go beyond 60 months from the date hereof. That
60 months was up in March of 1976. This permit $ras granted with theunderstanding that the use not 9o beyond 60 months. TheCity has the discression to terminate this actj.vj-ty not-withstanding j-ts status as a "non-conforming use,'. Mr. Mertzasked the Planning Commission if they wish to keep this typeof activity in an R-IA zone. This business on Hwy 5 and theCity Council's decisi-on and the Planning Commission decisionwas that they were not going to amend the ordinance to permitt.his type of use j-n R-1A, and. we have sued Natural Greento close them down. If the Planning Commission does considerrenewing this conditional use permit they should considerthe 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 creen, indicat.ed thathe owns the same type of business in Eden Prairie and itsnot against their zoning ordinance. Mr. But1er owns 89 acresin Chanhassen. Mr. Mertz indicated that the City Counc j-I in197I realized that he owned a bigger parcel of Iand but wantedto limit his business to a smaller section of land. The property
was a junk yard before the conditional- use permit was permitted
and Mr. Butler cleaned the area up.
Ms. Wat,son indj-cated that other requests have been made andfor the same type of requests in the R-IA dj.strict and they
have been denied. Maybe this is a good time for Mr. Butler to
move his business over to his other area in Eden Prairie.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 25, 1981
Page 2
Mr. Butler indicated that the pole barn is existing already.
Mr. Waibel stated that before any consideration be made of aconditional use permit for this iequest further study and investi-gation shourd be made for a number of things i.e. deiign oiiented,land-use oriented, how it fits in the Compiehensive p1in, etc.
This property is outside the MUSA line.
Mr. M. Thompson indicated that it is time for Mr. Butlersbusiness to be opening, what is going to happen if he has towait for Mr. Waibel's report.
Mr. M. Thompson stated that maybe the pranning commission shouldrenew this permit for a set amount of time. Ms. watson indicatedthat she d.oes not want this item approved. because it is a non_conforming use. Mr. W. Thompson indicated that the plannj-ng
commisssion is making it to hard for someone who has an exiitingbusiness to stay in business.
Mr. Waibel indicated that he feels thatit will be setting a precedent.if this request is granted
Mr. Butler indicated that to keepevergreen trees on 2 sides of his they havethe dust down
property .
A motion was made by Mr. J. Thompson to continue theuse permit as it was originally drafted until such athe City redefines the zoning ord j-nance on such uses.made by I,1r . Noz iska .
cond itiona Itime as
Second was
toMr, W. Thompson made a motion to amend. the previous motionread for 30 months. Both motions were withdrawn.
Mr. J. Thompson made a motion to continue this condj_tionaluse permit as it was originally drafted not to exceed two years.
Second by Mr. Noziska. Ayes: Mr. J. Thompson, Mr. W. Thompson,
Mr . H. Noz iska . Nays : l4r. Conrad , Ms . Watson , !,1r. partridge ,and Mr. M. Thompson. Motion denied.
A motion was made to recommend to the City Council to renewthis conditional use permit for a period of 2 years for thereason that the Planning Commission is going to review the
ordinances and determine the usage. Mr. W. Thompson secondedthe motion. Carried,
2
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937- 1900
T{EMORANDUM
DATE3 May 14, I9B1
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Bob Waibel, City ptanne, /.//
SUBJ: Conditional Use permit Renevral Request, Dale Green Company
APPLICANT: Laverne ard E. But1er
PLANNING CASE: P-089
CITY OF
EIXRIfiIfi$$8ffi
At-the Planning corunission review of this item, verbal comr.entsand recommendations by the Assistant City Attorney and myselfwere delivered. The position of this ofiice was ind stiilremaj-ns that due to the precident setting potential of thisrequest, no renewal and/or issuance of a conditional usepermit be contemplated until a detailed site pl_an and Ianduse analysis, specific to the request, can be carried, out.
The Planning Commission felt that the inability of Mr. Butlerto utilize the property until a land use polic! analysis wascompleted wouJ-d pose an undue inconvienience on 1"1r. Butlerand thus moved to reconmend that the City Council renew theconditional use permit for a period of 2 years.
I
I
ll
EI
Ht
il
fit
il
::la
U
!t
at
e
il
RECEIVED
L|AY I 5 lgal
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
FU55E!I H L^ F SON
cp^r6 a sEFr:
H^iVEY E, SXA^F
r^Fi c. M.crJ!Lou6H
L,rnsox & )fr:nrz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
'9OO.rESr B^Nx PLACC wE Sr
MINNEAPOLIS M IN N ESOTA 55402
May 14, I98I 1612r al3-a5G3
most exp.l-icit on theThis section provides
Donald w.
Chanhas s en
Box I47
Chanhas sen
Ashworth
City Manager
MN 553I7
Re:Dale Green Co.Conditional Use Permit Renewal
You have requested this office to render an opinion on the zoninq statusof the DaIe Green Co. conditional use permit.
The permit. r^ras granted on March 29, 197 1, under the provisions of the
former Chanhassen Township Zoning ordinance, Thereafter, on March 9,
1972, the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance (No. 47) became effective,
whereupon the use became a non-confolming use in an R-IA District.f.
in,
.i{'1:-
Section 20.04 of the present Zoning ord.inanceissue of the termination of a non-conformingas f oIl-ows:
Ls
use.
.....20.04 Termination of Use. In the event a non-
con use is disEontinued for a pe-iod -E one (1)
tr1.
!!.
tl
i
il
il
lJ
year,
con fo
or if a non-anEotmi @rminguse, any subsequent use of the premisesshalI be in conformi-t ti.Eh tEe us e re uIEEIons
f ort ed r strr-n which such use isSec1ct
ocate Emp as t-s SupP
We are of the opinion that there has beenfor which the permit was granted and thattermination provisions of Section 20.04.
a non-user of
this non-user
the premises
invokes the
In other word.s, the DaIe creen Co. has not used the premises forpurposes intended which thereby causes a termination of the non-conforming use status. Incidental- and trivial use by the companynot sufficient, in our opinion, to prevent the termination.
the
is
The proposed use could conceivably be allowed as a cond.itional- use inan I-I Industrial District.
I
RUSSELL H
uVytr
RHL: ner Chanhassen
LARSON
City Attorney
,il-
l-:,,r.
Dear Don:
+#L
L
L
' The DALE GREEN su'
IrACX DtrI - tEAl ' soD ' SIED ' tEIIltlzrRS
7751 Fishwrt N.. te9 lhrar 9ll'2:!2t
tDEN llallll, |rlNNESolA 35{a
January L2, 1-9BI
b.
ilhanhassen Village Cor.rncil
[_ihanhassen, Minnesota
, +{ernbers o.f the Cormcil:
!v" ,orrLa Like to rene!, the Conditional Use permit
+hat has been in effect for the last 5 years, and
i xpires March 29, 198L. This permit is for ourE-flct Dirt & Sod'business on the former Kelm. farm
on the corner of lfLLT & /i5 in Chahassen.,]
I ntr business is owned and operated by LaVerne Butler
TBA as the Dale Green Co.
YH;:3 B,tt-
LaVerne BuEler
t_
t_
t_
l_
.t
L
.,t
t_
L
L
t
L
Manaqerrs coments:
As can be seen from the attached material, the conditional 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 co;ditional use permit simply because no activity presently
occurs on the site. However , if Cor-l-rcil nernbers are aware of the
black dirt operations of Mr. Green in Eden Prairie, you should
reasonably "isume that at some point in time this ten acre parcel
will be the site of black dirt (peat) and sod deliveries,
manufacturing and distribution.
Similar to the Oakmont and Sinnen rezonings, the City does have
an opportunity, at this Point in time, to reassess the Potential'
effelts of this type of business and the specific location. once
permanent improvements or other major capital expenditures occur
on tlte site, this may not be possible.
The Council may wish to refer this item to the Planning Commission'
!
)t )
1 ..1'
' :-r. : '
Ilttl
J,,
.\
((., ';.,,1
_10'
The DALE GREEN CO.
Br,acx DrRl . PEAT - loD - gEED - ttrlluztRs
7751 H;gfiwoy No. 169 Phonr ,41.?322
EotN PRAIRtE, tatNNESOTA 55343
Chanhassen Village Council
Chanhassen, Minnesota
I,lembers o.f the Council:
We would like tothat has been inexpires I,lar ch 29,Black Dirt & Sod
on the corner of
This business is oin-ne d and
DBA as the Dale Green Co.
renew the Conditional Use permiteffect for the last 5 years, andf981. This permit is for ourbusiness on the former KeIm farm
/i117 & /15 in Chahassen.
January 12, 1981
operated by LaVerne Butler
Yours trulv-*l%; B,'*u-,
LaVerne BuEler
q)
4I
(-:)
tr)n _'i
JAN 1S31
D r /-I:t\ I=;)
V!LLAGE 5E
CHANHASSEII,
Mii\tN.
.+
I
J
J
J
l
I
.a;.'.i;"-'
(
CTTY OF CHANHASS ETI
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MJNNESOTA
RESOLUTION #76-27
Date March I 197 6
Motion by Councilman Neveaux
Resolution Number 76-21
DALE GREEN COMPANY'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMfT
RESOLUTTON RENEWING
FOR FTVE YEARS
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen
hereby renews the conditional use permit issued to the DaIe Green
Company on March 29, lg7t, for an additional five (5) years
according to the provisions of said conditional use permit.
Passed and adopted by the councir of the city of chanhassen
this lst day of March, 1976.
,."a2;.li'Li,.I q/ ,2i )i/,.
CLERK-ADM rnrsrnaton
--U-
IVIAYOR
NO
Mayor Klin ge Ihutz
Counci lman K urve rs
Co unc i lma n Shufstad
Councilman Neve aux
Councilman llobbs absent
Seconded by Councilman Shu I s tacl
YES
WHEREAS, application has been made by LaVERNE A. BUTLER, doing
business as THE DALE GREEN CO. , for a conditional use permit to conduct a
Iawn materials business upon the following described premises in the vilrage of
Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota:
Commencing at the intersection of the west right of way line of
County Road 117 with the south right of way line of State High_way No. 5, thence westerly along the south right of way line ofsaid Higihway No. 5, a distance of 660 fee| thence southerlyparallel to the west riqht of way line of said County Road No.ll7, a distance of 660 feet, thence easterly paraliel with the
south rigrht of way line of said Highway No. 5, a distance of
660 feet, thence norlherly along the west rigtht of way ]ine ofsaid County Road No. 117 to the place of beginning, and
WHEREAS, said premises are zoned as a farm residence district to which the
Village Councj.l has given due consideration.
Now, THEREFORE. in consideration of the foregoing, a conditlonal use permit
is hereby granted to said LavERNE A, BUTIER, doing business as THE DALE GREEN
CO., to conduct upon the above described premises the said lawn material.s business.
including the stockpiling, Ioadlng and delivery of bLack dirt, the sale of sod, seed
and fertilizer. the use of trucks and loading equipment in said business, and the
erection of a 40 foot bv 60 foot pore barn buirding, subject to the following terms
and conditions, all of which shall be complied with as being necessary for the
protection of the public interest:
The establishment, maintenance and operation of the conditicnal
use shall not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,safety. morals, comfort or general welfare,
l
..((
WLLAGE OF CHANHASSEN
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
((
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 VitlageCouncil for successlve l2-month terms upon application inwriting made at least 30 days prior to the expiration of each 12_
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 saidpremises, which consent shall be end.orsed in writing hereon.
The conditional use permit shall be personal to Laveme A. Butler,doing business as The DaIe Green co. , and sha not be transferibrewithout approval of the Village Council.
That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede thenormal and orderly development and improvement of the surroundingproperty for uses permitted within the district.
The excavation of soil for purposes of sale from said premises orany adjoining premises owned by applicant shall not be permitted.
The total number of trucks, tractors and units of loading equipment
4
used by appl- .nr,-icant on said premises at any time shall not exceed
, all of which shall be stored within completely
enclosed buildings when not in actual use.
The sale of fertilizer and seed shalt be limited to the applicant,s
lawn materials business. The sale of fertilizer and seed forgeneral 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 thelimits of above described premlses shall not be permitted.
Enlargement or outside alteration of any existing structure on saidpremises shall not be permitted without prior written approval ofthe Village Council. A-lI structures on said premises shali be
maintained in a good state of repair.
10.
It.
,)
.)
5.
8.
q
6
((
The terms and conditions of the conditional use permit shall beaccepted by the applicant, which acceptance shall be endorsed
hereon in writing.
Dated this 2 ?"'duu of././/tter/, 1977.
\TILI.AGE OF CI{ANHASSEN
t2.
13.
74.
1E
16,
The applicant shall comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations
and orders of the Village of Chanhassen, any Watersl.red Districts
having jurisdiction, and the State of Minnesota, including regula_tory agencies of the latter.
Payment by applicant of a fee of s35.00 to defray the administration
expense of the Village in processing the permit application; and
reimbursement by applicant of Village expense incurred in employingthe services of the Viltage Engineer, Village Attorney, and otherprofessional consultants in connection with all matters involvingthe conditional use permit,
The conditional use permit may be revoked for cause shown by theVillage Council. The applicant shatl be given a hearing befoie theCouncil to show cause why said permit should not be revoked.
Notice of the time, place and purpose of such hearing shall be inwriting delivered in person or mailed to applicant by certified mailat the address of applicant as last shov,rn by the records of theVillage,
ayor
ATTE
-3-
CI erk
The stockpiling and loading of black dirt on said premises shall
be so conducted as to prevent the erosion or silting of said
material into the natural drainageways serving the premises and
contiguous areas,
((
CONSENT OF OWNER
The undersigned owner of the aforedescribed premises hereby consents to
the condltlonal use permit herein granted.
a z/'/7'7-.
Dated this day of ,1971.
The undersigned permittee hereby accepts the terms and conditions of the
conditlonal use herein granted.
LaV eme A. Butler, doing business as
The Dale Green Co.
1_?
, 1971.
I
-4-
(
ACCEPTANCE
Dared this J!-o^ ", fu/a.ral'
Council MeeElng Februa '2, 1981 -2.-
The followlng voted 1n favor: Ilayor Haui.lton, Councilmen Neveaux, Gevlng, andSwenson. Corlnci.lman Horn voted no. Motion carried,
SIIBDIVIS ION .L\D VARIANCE REQWST, 6270 RIDGE ROAD:ilr. and llrs. John Ildwards
were present seeking approval to subdivide their property lnto t:r,r(, parcels.
A varl-ance is requesled as the property does not front on a public streel.Council menbers discussed the possibility of easement acquisition for the fuLure
constructlon of Ridge Road.
(r-
Council-man Neveaux moved to approve the request for subdlvision, planning Case
P-732, for the John Edwards property aL 6270 Ridge lioad and accept. t:he recouunendatioEof the Planning Conmisslon and lhe Land Use Coordinator; 1.e.1. That buLlding plans for any resLdence proposed on the subject property ona slope greater than 12 percent !e certlfled by an archiEect or e gineer
reglsEered ln fhe State of I'Linnesota.
2. ThaC a residenEial setback for the subject property be maintained aE a
dlstance of 55 feet fron the centerlj.ne of the Ridge Road easement.
3. That the applicant provide docutentation denonstrating the perpetual -.righE of access for rhe subject property that is found satisfactory to
the City Attorney's off ice .
4. That sewer and water unil assessnents be administered on the sub-iecE
properEy as per the norEh service area public improvement pro-ject 71-1 .5. ThaE the topographLc data requirenent in the subdivision ordinance tre waived.
Motion seconded by Councilnan Geving. The followlng voted in favor: )tayor
Hamilton, CounciLmen Neveau-x, Geving, Eorn, and Swenson. No negative votes.
Motion carried-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RENEI.TAL, DA,LE GREEN COMPAM: Mr. LaVerne BuLler was
presenE requesting renewal of a conditional use petmit for hls trlack dirt and
sod business located on the southwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Arboretum Blvd.
The City Manager suggested that the Council send this item to the Planning
Comnission for review of the basis under which this contract was originalJ-y
enlered into and current recorunendat ion s in regards to use. Mayor llamilton
requested that the Planning Conuaission review the verbage in the conditional
use perult with the Clty Attorney.
Counciluran Swenson moved to send this item to the Planning Commission for revierr
and reconruendat ions submitted to the Council. ltotion seconded by Counciluan
Neveaux. The following voEed in favor: t'layor HarDilton, Councilmen Neveaux, Gevj.ng,
Horn, and Swenson, No negative votes. I'lotion carried.
UOLIDAY STATIONSTORE CANOPY CONSTRUCTION RECONSIDERATION :Jerry Jensen was present
asking the Council to reconsider their action of June 2, 1980, to deny a conditionaL
use permlt a!0endment for the erection of a canopy over the pump island.
Councilman Horn moved to reconsider the option from the Holiday Stati.onstore to
construct a canopy and instruct Mr. Jensen to come back with aLternaEives forstaff and council revies. This Eotlon is not binding on this council . It ispurely a reconsideration and not necessarily a favorabLe vote of the council-
Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. The foLlowing voted in favor: llayor
Hamilton, Councilmen Neveaux, Horn, and Swenson. Councllman Geving voted no-
Motion carried.
SPECIAI ASSESSMENT RECONS IDERA,T ION REQUEST GORDON JULIUS: llr. and ]'Irs. Julius
were presenE requesting the council, reconsider the placement of assessments on tr.rolots in the Julius Addition, The Council acted to deny the request at a Jrrne 19,
1978, meeting. The Council took no action.
-€--
l
I
(
(
(
G
G
o
(.
E
{
h
(^\(
(
(
(
(
C
D
(D
o
L
(
(
((
Z-
Stokkpile area outlined in Red Pencil.
D.
x
cL}
$"/0-o
xo..
a'i
v
c:
0
0
b
o
0
-s.
14
a
t
!.
!au9
".-1 xa
__-,/ L
?4 /^./
....:
r-_l
(
CHANHASSEN VILLAGE COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 29, 797I -6-
BURDICK PARK ADDIT]ON (CONTD ) :A motion r,ras made by Mayor Coulterelhutz to amend the precedingand seconded by C ounc r-lman Xl ingmotion to r.ead that all notices be sent Certif ied I'lail- , returnreceipt requested. The following voted in favor thereof: tlayorCoulter, Councilmen Bennyhoff, Klingelhutz and Neils. No negativevotes. Motion carried.
The following voted in favor of the original rnotion:Coulter, Councilmen Bennyhoff, Klingelhutz and Nei1s.negative votes . l,Iotion carried.
OLD VTLI.AGE IIALL:
Mayor
No
The
by
fo}lowing ]etter from thethe Administrator:
March
Chanhdssen Fire
26, ]-97L
Department was read
TO: . Mayor, Councilmen, Administrator
The Fire Department would like permission to remove the firebel1 from the OId Village HaIl. We would like to displaythis be]L in the Fire Station as the first fire warning d.evice
used in the Village of Chanhassen.
The Council in 1899 has approved the purchasing of a firebelL at a cost not to exceed $10.00. In 190L, John Geiserpurchased this bel-1 for the Village at a cost of $2.75.
Sincerely,
Howard Meuwissen
Se cre tary-Tre asurer
It is the Councilrs intention
be maintained and kept in itsfuture for a museum.
that the OId Village llall- should
original state, to be used in the
ADI4INI STRATION ! A motion was made b y Councilman Neils and
4TH STREET: 4th Street wil,l be on the Agenda for the April 5
('
seconded by Councilman Bennyhoff that francene Clark's salary
be set at $495.00 per month, starting April 1, L97L. The
following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Coulter, CouncilmenBennyhoff, Klingelhutz and Neils. No negative votes. IUotioncarried.
meeting.
DAIE GREEN COMPANY: A motion was made by Councilman Bennyhoff
ana-Acdaaa-Ey Co-uncilman Klingelhutz to approve the conditional
Use Permit agreement as submitted by the village Attorney for
the Dale creen Company. The foflowing voted in favor thereof:
I.layor CouIter, Councilmen Bennyhoff, Klingelhutz and NeiIs.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
r
C}IANHASSEN VILLAGE COUNCIL I\IINUTES March 22, 197 |-4-
PARK AND RECREATTON COI'IIIISSION MINUTES: A MOtiON WAS MAdC bY
CounciLman Bennyhoff and seconded by Counc i lmarr I( linge f hut z that
the Park and Recreation Commission llinutes of March 16, 1971, be
noted and read. The f oIf or,ling voted in f avor thereof : I'Iayor
Coulter, Councilmen Bennyhoff, XlingeIhutz, Neils and I'IoIf - No
negative votes. Motion carried.
PARK AND RECREATION: A motion was made by Councilman Bennyhoff
and seconded by Counci lman Neil,s that the Park and Recreation
Commission be allowed to buy ice time at an indoor ice arena,
for the hocky program, in the amount of $25.00. :rhe folloh'ing
voted in favor thereof: Mayor Coulter, Counoilmen Benrtyhof f ,
Klinge1hutz, Nei]-s and WoLf. No negative votes. Iqotion
carried.
DALE GREEN COIIPANY: A motion was made by Councilman Bennyhoff
approve a Special Use
the agreement and Sringand se conc1ed by Counci lman Klingelhutz to
Permit. The Village Attorney to draw up
back to the Council for final approval.
COUNCILI'!*AN NEILS stated concern about individual retail sales
of seed and fertilizer from the property.She f6e1s that
a black dirt and sod farm would be. a good interim land use.
The foflowing voted in favor thereof: Ilayor Coulter, Councilmen
Bennyhoff, Klinge1hutz, Neils and !.1o1f . No negative votes.
I.lotion carried.
CHANHASSEN ESTATES - OUTLOTS 1 AND 2: A motion vras made b)'
Councilman Bennyhoff and seconded by Councl
approve the rezoning as per the Planning Co
(the following is an excerpt from the Plar,n
Iman Neils to
mmission recommendations
ing corTuni ssion llinutes
of March 9, l97L\: A motion was made by Arnie Ryba and seconded
by Tom Gabbert to recomnrend the Council approve the rezoning of
outlots I and 2 from Farm Residentiat to Commercial. The
developer agrees to abide by the conditions set forth in pro-
posed c-2 zoning District on Outlot 2 and proposed C-3 Zoning
bistrict on outlot I. ttotion unanimously approved.
The following voted in favor thereof: I\tayor CouIter, Councilnen
Bennyhoff, Klingelhutz, Nej.ls and wo1f. No negative votes'
Motion carried.
LIQUOR LICENSES: A motion was ntade by Councilman Xlingelhutz and
secdaea-Ey Councilman Bennyhoff to approve the on and off sale
intoxicating and the on and off sale non-intoxicatinq liquor
license applications submitted by Pauly's Bar, Inc., Jerry's cId
WesL.Bar anc the Chanhassen Dinner Theatre- The off sale in-
toxicating to Top of the Bluff, Recreation DcvcloPment' The
off sale non- intox i cati ng for Ed's Super Fair, Kenny's Iuarkct-
The on and off sale non-intoxicating for the Chanhassen Ar'erican
Legion P,JSI 5BO. Sunday liquor sales for --he -Chanlrassen Dinher
Theatre. The f ollowing- vot6c1 in f avor tl-'e :eof : Iulayor coulte): '
Councilmen Bennyhof f , ilingelhutz, NeiIs ' '.' r'Jol-f ' No neEative
votes. I'lotion <-: rr ied.
C
CHANII\SSE}I VTLLAGE COUNCIL }lINUTES I1a rch 22 , l9l1 -2-
Passed and
Chanhassen this
adopted by the Council of the Village of
2 2nd day of l"larch I l97l .
The following voted in favor thereof: Mayor Coulter,Councilmen Bennyhof f , Klingel-hutz, Neils and i,,Iolf . No negativevotes. Ilotion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING DALE GREEN COMPANY
A motion was made by Councilman Klingelhutz a'nd seconcle'd byCouncilman Bennyhoff to open the pubLic Itearing on the Dal_eGreen Company. 'the fol1owing voted in favor thereof: MayorCouIter, Councilmen Bennyhoff, Klingelhutz, NeiIs and WoIf.No negative votes. Motion carried.
The following persons teere present: Mr. Butler and IUr. and
!1rs . I,Ii11ard Johnson.
The Village Administrator read the official notice of thePubl-ic Hearing,
MR. BUTLER gave a report on what his plans are and
pIan.presented a sketch
The Village Administrator read the recornmendat ions from thePlanning Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission.
There was general discuss j-on
questions from the f l-oor and
on this proposal and both
the Council were asked.
A motion.was madg by Councilman Bennyhoff and seconded by
Councilman Wolf to adjourn the Public Hearing. The followingvoted in favor thereof: Mayor Cou1ter, Councilmen Bennyhoff,Klingelhutz, NeiLs and Wolf. No negative votes. Motioncarried.
PUBLIC }IEARING - CHANHASSEN ESTATES - OUTLOTS 1 AI'ID 2
The Public Hearing vlas opened on Chanhassen Estates, OuttotsL and 2. The fol-lowing persons were present: Mr. Ouist,I'lr. and Mrs. WilLard Johnson, Conrad Fiskness, Robert Nlason
and Vern Husemoen.
The Village Administrator read the official notice of thePubIic llearing.
I'lR. QUI ST
Highway 5
g ener ated
stated that he was very concerned about the
entrance and the added traffic that rvould. be
by this rezoning.
:: :..i.
'-':.3;if,: ' .,t.:r,I r
':..,:.a:.(
PARi( tlt D S.eCliIt;1ti 0Il COIiliL3SIoi'l i;EIT.i ll(l
.Iar:.rsry 19, l9'ii - 3 p,rn.
Charrhase c,n V11.i t,ge !'la).1
!:! -'!
'
-
- .
-r.:I,'.i.
": .
,..:
'.'.. The EeotinA \'rFrs ca11ed
, ''" tisine:.eli irch.
l{eqbcrc Li'a?!cntl: l)i'n01d li3
iii-}liilt?]' J?ffi iirl F i sirn eo s,
aLso p:'eaent, bttt alirce tho
could r, ot be 'roln in . )
}ESn-!: G1aC.1'c licCe-r-;rGuectn: Iir" LeVei'n Butler',
ffiEfo:r, S'leve li'o].f, FPitz
1:'rr:rclt li'ch ,, Siri).,- .::;Lenccy, ilt)b
D:ls tiilsr.rrr. ( Oi,:.rn i.:.t S --.-Cnail iias
AonrIr].r- rr t:,' & ;c:''r.' :.1.i'l i] o i rr63en L,
laLe G:'een tlo - ; .1!'n01il SIba' Bob
Cc,-l1t,er.
oi.ii r:r. by t,he Cftalvme::,. {rlau)-d
n
!iIIIUIES : .!l motL on trBa trErde bir Qonr^5 Flslilter's Lhg''
[t?E?f- i;he :rectlng of Januor;/ 5. 19'fi.. 'ctr rrpprr:r.'ed,
tfllson seeclderl tf.c noLion " i4ctlon cal'.'1+il .
the nrin-
Ds,l'.3
REOUEST FOn COI'IOITIO!,iAL USI PERI.:].lt: ( J.a- trerr:r SrILi?r) :'lr'.
Eimel- ,ieecrtocC iiie prbposori rrtcriigr'r oi' t-r.l-5*k- 'iir'! *ld r.he
so$inE oi so(l oi:r lsnd iotrr'itrcl at the .IL"ne?,i cir of [f i6irr;liys //5
anO #i.f ?. Ai'tor cilLscussion, the Pa;:l: enc i-i,:cre;-L1:n Gonsls-
etcn E u'!Cl e "5i: rst.f 6r'JinB !'ec o!l:mend i.li:- c\i't !.n uhc ?i)rril of e uctlon
by Ecb Fcr;.'I'ie1d, eccc;:di,d by Conrad Fioli::c:r;: .'
The Psrk and Fi ecreatlon Coniro t s e :'- on l,rc on::'i iir d li "'3 i:Ile coulell
lhr:t a Co:1 rJi i;r (,rl ge I'ci:'m 1 t bs erar:i(jrl io j,,:i\,':--.:'n S,; i,i er
.:i
.1..--
,--: ',: :
I
'-. I ^:.,-:,. .'-
-.-''.
- .-, ...
': ...',. .,
;.'(:'l'
, . t:1,:" -
lor 3'ioring. dlrt, and 61"o";1ir19 ood.
l,loti cn c r,rr1ed "
pREsl.tirt i'f i oN or siitr;*l c H PL Atil,ON AIII'LO,].ID -,-\vll A i'!-llP. o-lEli'rj: ts <rbffi ffiri,t--;',c't:fr';EE -eT;riE6i-.t1J-i:li:i'J'Tt:jn-55Toc:'ea'
or,r:e5 bg lrir. R-Yba adjacent t.o Lhc Lrice Lnl Dc:,'ciopusit.
ilr" Rybir 1a trylrrg 'co Es',:ch La.ke Ann.app.Lica'ulcn stcp b]' 6tep,
1r:clucjing modlfj.catlons ao arlgp;eoted. ac 'ciisr-'i', eiiol''ia ff"e
coo:.oinatcti. Bo'tt, al'e at Bi(etch pIc; stage" i': l"--': ub C'i- r i a 1on
pLeh traa alEo dlE,cue$ed, Fle uouLd l.-l!ic: tc b: al'ie +.o pi-essnt
hls plc-no to engii:eers at -,he sarne i,i"ne us tl:a LLr-':i i ln:1
De"elopei'6, irnd el.ac ai the 3.rcle Plibllc IIile-ri'(l[i.
In en 1nf orio el C18cua61orl, the Perlt an,i iig-g:'''oat i on' Counl s el on
exprease': 1n+.eros'L 1n ha'J5.[6 a p19ji a:'*e Cevelope'l , r"occSelz-
1::e:. ti-rat 1t c &i?not c ome c$t o:i' t ile 5 aci'e 1:er:'cei c:rncil by
lir" ttybe.. Jt r::re ELcc 1'3c(j?:nlzeLi tll.:.t 1f ,"he t''Li'ip or- land
j.n tire -t i. i1.,,; itt Cecjl,:rr'c-d, i;hi s l.rcuid itrl-i'i -r J i-l r'.j 'z'equotri aado
if tiro d e-i c1 opi:::,
p}a ! oi.r:; e tl bY :,;l-.. RYb a r'r as
11o t,ed .
The si|e'"ch Pfan for the 5
r.j! ici'rca snd:'Io ob,l ec tl ort s
ac r?
tr 9r(+
(r
CIIAIJHASSEI{ ESTATiS SgCCliD /it;i)i.Ticll:p'rbli c heart-rg on this lle reci
I'h'. lob r'.le.s(rll :t,a:; i)I.'rs2.1t )E.i.J.es:"ii:! auests lbur fcat ;arj.;n.: .s r:: l.rr Ls :13, Lb..k line. The p-tat r,ircr..l; a rj:oposed street to
right-of-u:gr a,lcelis to tii: -,:ft, s-Ltrtion.
l' 0111(:i' io r Fj-rrrni ni; Cor:i.:.s s-'lcn ;:mceiure
a-ad 15, Bl.ock 2, aj: brri l.riing set bae
the area on the lrest aLsc a 50 fooL
l'1r" i.iason requests !o cs S..Llrr Blocl.. !, i:scon:e j-o+,s E.-L), Illock lr ani LoLs 2?-211,8lock 5.. becone Lots 22 ctd 2), illock !, eJ.in:inatlng t!,o -t.c-13 j.rr o::da:' 'ia
increase the size cf thesc eighL lots.fcr dcut'l,e bui:gelo.,:s" T.,h::se 1ots e.ruIdsewe aa a buffer ba'".,;een Arbcrc lrurn -q-r-vd, and the sifigl.e It,Li.\. Iron..es.
A motion rras ntade by Amie {tba and seconded by r{ard Passe to p:'crceed tc public
hearing on Chanhassen Estates Seccn.l /rridition ar,;ti a i-equest for ;r clrange In
zoning fron RIA to propcsc,l RL of al.} 1c: ts in saj.i eLrditior-r e):cept lpts 22 2nd 23,
Eloek !i an<i lots 8-il, Elcck !r as dcltneatod tn czerlay tr sajd aiiditioodated Decenber 11, 1970" Said 1oi;s wifl be r€questoi L-^ be aonr:C propcsed
R2 for the pu:'po"e of double bu.ngelcrrs" The Piarutj,ne [k,;ir:lssior: epprc-res
salci plats and requests a public lrearing be set cn i:=b:ua:y 9: 1971, a::r: ln
acidltion variamces be granted for l"cts 11, &r anci j-5r lll-c 3k 2, as pt-e{icus\y
considered at Pl-anning Conr..ni.ssion $eer-ing of O: [obe.c i3,. L97O- ].b'oion
uranirmus]y a.Eproved "
DALE GIItrEN CC}IPA}IY:
rl e Lo edoa'-hiii)e.ts l,-r-rI.rs .-'
at the southrrest corner of lrbot-eturrr Bl.vd. and Oalplo !t1vd.. T:re bi,erc-\ d:rb
vsuld be tnrcked in, sto:.ed, and hauled ai.ray. lio dir! uculd be er:cavated atthe f arm.
llick .,'ar'rtz stated 'nrlis uculd be a good tenporarJi iar-rC i:s.,.i -
A notLon Has made by Dcan .'j:heff ard seconded by Tcn Oahr;:rt that insofar asthis is a purely j-nterim LanC use, thc Pleruning Conndssion requsrsts the Councii.
grant a Conditionol Use Permit forbhe purposes of Fi:c r-i.ng dj.r't sn.i grcrling
soC to Dale Gr:een Conpany" Itcticn unanimous\r appr.-oveC.
CItAIEI'La.ll : Ton Oabbert ncninated Jchn ileveau< as Cirairnan. ii:n ll:e]-ke seconded
TEF6fr3iation. A rxoiion r:as madr: ir;r Ji:n irielke ar:ij secor.le(l b;v .ra:d Passe to
cl,ose nonrirations" i.lctiorr unanimous.l-y airlJroved" Joi:n i:ereaur.- ri."-s declareri
Chairnan"
VICE CHIIR.I-^-Ii: Arni-e
Oonditi-ona-l- Use Pe
seconded the nomi-nati
Gabbert to close noni
r.ras decl-arrei Vice Cha
iml
yir. Butle:', or"trr3 !'. l.ras pr€sen.+, reci:es1-i-ng apc:oval 1'o:- ai '-c operato a b-].ack dirt tuslxess auu r.od far:l Loc:r+;ed
ilrta norrr-iuated llick .Jaritz as VicB Claj- l:':an " D:an .Scheff
on" ;r. notion rias macle by .)a.rd Passe arrj secondeci by ?om
nations" i.o tion unartiruously ar-,rrovec- ilj.cL ;','ari uz
i-r:nan"
iIOBSPT EULGS 9F OPlin LI'il; {UClRUt;: ir.:r:oti"on w?.s rrai;: iry lian .':.:he ff ani sec3nded
and forrf mgnbers of tho i'lanning l.jom ij. s:;i<,rt wil.I ,:c:t,;.,j.L),r:c ,a .ltl() r":lrt Ll.:ro LlI.rr.
actioa by the Flanning Co:,ur[ssion otr a'ty issuc shar.:. r'cquira a- Ltajorir-y vo Le o f
the enti-re GrrnTri-ssion" llct:r-on unaniinousL:r' aplrlovcd
,I
Elaming Cc;r,mssion ;,iinuicr;, jal:u.1,j. 12, lr?l. -?_
a1t4 rnatiTe. Tiris pLnl coes rrct ri:.et appro',,al or' er:ough ., ..rir,'rj.l1,: ccrirrllssj-onraenbers to Froceed " iiotion u;ianinorts).y ap;rror.,ed.
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX .I47
' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 5531 7
(612) 937-1900
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Mayor and City Council
Don Ashvrorth, City Manager
June 1, 19 81
Final Development Plan Review, Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
Land Company (Revises Previously Approved Development Plan)
The purpose of breaking the report into four distinct sections is toallow the City Council the greatest amount of flexibility in determining
how to proceed with this issue. Specificatly, should the Counc j-I deter-mine that tonightrs session should only concentrate on the responses tothe Kathy Schwartz report of May 2nd. A11 enclosures relative to thatresponse have been accumulated. as a part of Section III. Should theCouncil 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 Mrs. Schwartz, report *4,such has been included. However, as this office did not receive thisreport until the day of writing this report to the City Council, nostaff comments are included in this section.
This office would recommend that the Council proceed with the reviewof this item as an amendment to a previously approved final developmentplan. Should this recommendation be considered, hopefully, enclosuresj.ncluded under Section II are a1I inclusive allowing for final actionthis evening.
MEI4ORANDUM
The following report has been divided into four sections:
I. Status - JuIy 21, 1980 PIan Approval
II. Status Report - Final Development Plan Amendment Request,
Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
III. Kathy Schwartz Report of May 2, L98l and Responses to Such Report
IV. Kathy Schwartz Report of May 26, !981 .
Legal Status
Fox Chase
ATTORNEY I S REPORT
Legal Opinion
- July 2L, 1980 Approved PlanAddition (Derrick Land Co. )
This report was not received for enclosure with this packet.It will be distributed at the meeting Monday evening.
I
I
I
SECTION I
Status JuIy 21, 1980 PIan Approval
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
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 CounciI. Stated another rrray, the developer
must meet the conditions of the final development plan approval prior toasking for preliminary plat approval and he has the one year period oftime, 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 21, 1981 to meet theconditions set by the City Council. Attached pl,ease find a listing ofall conditions that were set as a part of the ,July 21, 1980 approval.Although discussion may have occurred by Mr. Derrick in regards to a
number of the points, basically a majority of the conditions set by theCity Council have not been met. It should be recognized, however, thatMr. Derrick still has until July 21st, 1981. to complete these conditionsand that some of the conditions relate to work that would be necessaryafter preliminary plat approval was given. Therefore, conditions
assocj-ated with specific construction plans or the actual constructionitsel-f would typically become a part of the preliminary plat approvaland incorporated into the development contract but logically would notbe completed prior to preliminary plat approval.
Conditions of April 7, L98O
1. That the applicant receive approval of theirgrading pIan, drainage plan and erosion controlfrom the
Soil Conservation Servi ceMinnesota Department of Natural ResourcesRiley Purgatory Creek Watershed District
That said approvals be recej.ved prior to the matterbeing resubmitted to the City Council for preliminaryplat approval.
That the pedestrian and conservation easemant poationof the proposed development must be shown by tireapplicant to have such soil conditions as would aI1owfor the development of such facilities, and that theapplicantr s soil condition evidence is to be reviewed.by the City Engineer.
That the applicant prepare cuI-de-sac plansroadway portion in the vicinity of l_ot 20,and Iot 24, block 1. Said plans are to beand approved by the city engineer.
p 1an
)
3
4
6
for theblock 3
revi ewed
Paved street surfaces are to be 36 feet wide andpaved cul--de-sacs are to be 32 feet in diameter.
That the Park and Recreation Commission reviewalternative trail locations between pleasant ViewRoad and the conservation easement and is to submita recommendation to the City Council.
SECTION I
Status - JuIy 2L, 1980 Plan Approval
Conditions of Jlrlv 17. I98 0 ( items ,2 d 4)
The location of the trail is still- uncertain atthis time, i.e. whether along the back lot Linesor abutting the street on the north end of thedevelopment. In meeting $rith the park andRecreation Commission, the devel-opers have statedtheir desire to have this decisio; withheld untilgrading is commenced and park and RecreationCommissioners afforded an opportunity to walk bothpotential locations. This suggestion appears tocreate some problems in preparation of a developmentcontract (outlining two potential location are.i1,but no other reasonable ilternative appears to exist.However, _in accepting the final develoiment plan,it should be clear that the outlot are; is Uling'accepted as a conservation area and, as such, n6park credi.ts are being given. Further, that itis _to the advantage of ihe developer to have theI foot trail through the co.r"errralion and, .r/rhether
such be wj-thin this conservation area or partiall-yadjacent to the road, that developers agree to gr;deand install wood chips for the trail in accordance\"rith the recommendations of the park and RecreationCommj-ssion as a part of their overall grading pIan.
As a part of both the East Lotus Lake project andNear Mountain development proposals, signlficantdiscussion occurred in regardi to the clty's abilityto assure that public improvements are deiigned andinspected to City standaids. In conformance withthese di scussions, it is recomrnended that the developerbe required to use the Cityts engineer for preparatiinof- plans and specifications and all staking- anbinspection.
The above conditions are in addition to those outlinedby the Land Use Coordinator in his reports of July 9and 17, and the Engineerrs report of July 7--suchdisregarding those variances ipproved by the CityCouncil during preliminary development llan appr6va1,i.e. length of cu1-de-sacs and stieet giia"=.-
8
9
7.
10.That a conservation easement be established withinthe area below the 900 foot .iu"uti"" pursuant to theComprehensive plan and that within-said conservationeasement, a pedestrian_way easement be deaj.ciled- -.that is 8 feet eride vrith i* i".f-"" either side forpurposes of maintenance (the above would ""iii;y-;;.proposed 20 foot trail easement indrcated on theproposed preliminary pJ-at dated UiV fZ, fSeO, $riththe understanding. trrai trre ,r""u- -a'"=
".ibed easementwoutd be establiahed .rpor, .o*ll"ti"i ot a feasibleroute within the conseivation'e"semlntl .
L1'That the applicant and its contractors, including
lr:1:-luild:rs, carry out the consrruction ofl"mprovements and structures in accordance with therequirements set forth ly tfre
Riley purgatory Creek Watershed Districtsoil consirvation- s"r"i""-s";i;.;i"" Reporrdated June lg, 1980
(The City Council recommendation is that the approvalsbe obtained before their revi.el*--oi-tt. pretiminaryp1at. For qualification pu.p"".=l irr" hi"ruv- p"rgit".yCreek r^latershed District iras'gi;;; ; conditionalapproval in their y.y O, fgSO, coirespondence, ho*"rr".,the SoiI conservatior,
-
s"rvi"", ;;i;; "" advisorybody,.wi11 not given tsicl s uctr-upp i".r":. . Holvever,r betieve such may be satisfied tti""gl, ."rivi"g-o;ttheir recornmendations thar ;;;; ,i"-tIa in tr.,"i,evaluation report)
12.That extra precautions be taken so that removal ofexi.sting vegetation may be kept to a minimum duringcon s truc t ion -
tr.I?:-:"?::":.?f soil condirions and sropes, the buirdinoprdns ror alI residences proposea within if.r" ""Ui.lt-..,devel-opment should l" ""riifi"J-Ur'Ii architect orcivi_L engineer registerua i"-ti,.-3ti=t" ot Minnesota.
14'That the applicant be required to post sufficientescrows to assure that. the degree "f e"gi"e"ii.rg-and inspection is carried out -ai -recommended by theRiley purgatory Creek watershed oi=tri.t and theSoil Conservation Service.
15. Submit and receivebased on the plansuch to 52 .Lots.
Conditions of Ju 1y 9, 1980
Counc j- I approval ofas presented on JuIy development plan,21, 1980, changing
16.
Conditions of July 7, 1980
STTTEETS .
a res
. stree
fstree
The rigirt-of-rvay 'and street widths meet the ordinance foridentj-aI street. Iiovrever, it seems to me that the maint through the development rvilI ultimately be a coLlectort---thus a ryider street width should be ionsidered-
... _ rntersection racii are not shorvn and shourcl be indicated.'as -20 feet. Grade on street ,,A', exceed.s both the 7:r" maximu-nand 3% within 3O feet of cu1-de-sac ,,Dr'. Vertical curves oncul--de-sacs ,'E,' (ub-c=r end) and 'rp" (at intersection) are less"than 2o times the arg=braj-c difference as required by oid.i.rance -(cu1-de-sac 'rE, arso exceed.s the 5oo foot maximum J-enltrr- - ttremethod.of providing a ,,temporary,' cuI-de-sac at the !o.rif, encl of,,the mai.n street is not clear an& shouLd be shorvn-
L7.SA]'II TARY sEr'lEt{ -
WATER}4AIN.
Size of the t/atermain is notthe main street and 6-inch on thexE, is in excess of 5OO feet, weinternally within the devel-opment
Huron-
DRAINAGE WORK
shown. We recommend 8-inch oncul-de-sacs- Since cu].-de-sacsuggest the watermain be J.ooped, or looped to existing water on
. : :. .:.. j .i.:,... ::.: : iJrl Ii'"' 'l l -- r' - ' -.i.lr:":
_ Si": of the.proposed sani-tary server is not shown, butassumed to be B-inch- Easement for the sanitary s.,r". fiomexisting manhole to rnanhole in street ,,a,, (b,^trvle., l,oi.=-ii17, ELock 3) is not shorvn. Manho-Lcs in cul-de-sacs shouldextended to eJ.i.minatc serviccs Cirectly inEo the *o"froio=_
and
18.
19.
20.
S.
Pro_oosed drainage works appear to be adequatetion that the 3o-inch discharge pipe at 1.5% gradeincreased to 36-inch.
CONCLUSfONS:
We recom,.nend ap-croval. of the plans subject to the it6msspecificalJ-y noted. In terms of street grades, we recommend.waiver of the 7% ma:<inum grade rimitation in favor of the gradesproposed- The site sirnply does not faciLitate 7% maximuro gradesand we feel- the proposed grades are acceptable-
with tl.e
shou].d be
exceP-
I
2
UPDATED COMMENTS ON ABOVE CONDITIONS
StiII applicable
The applj.cant has received Water Shed District approval
on the previous plan. On the current plan amendment, the
Watershd District wants to reviehr a Final PIat approvedfirst by the City. DNR has reviewed and commented onthe plan amendment. It is possible that a DNR permj-t
wilI not be necessary.
Covered under plan amendment proceedings.
The City Engineer has recommended that the right-of-way
be dedicated to the Westerly property line. The City
Engineer wiII also review detailed construction plans
when prepared.
Still applicable.
applicant. )
(A change has been requested by the
The Park and Recreation Commissi.on wishes to review the
placement of the traj-1 and conservation easements at the
time when grading i.s taking place. Staff believes that
this is to l-ate and thus recommends the trail and con-
servation easement be provided as per the plan amendment
recommendations of the Planning conunission and staff.
Reference . c ornment #6 above.
Stil1 applicable.
Stil1 appLicable.
Sti11 applicable.
Sti1l appticable.
Sti11 applicable.
Stilf applicable.
Sti11 applicabLe.
Additional additions conditions relative to the plan
amendnent that are recommended by the Planning Commission
and staff are found in the Planning Report of April 17,
1981 and the Planning Commissj-on minutes of April 22, 1981.
3
4
5
6
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
L2.
13.
14.
SECTION II
Status Report
Einal Development Plan Anendment Request
Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
Status Final Development Plan Amendment Request
Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
After receiving final deveJ.opment plan approval, and recognizing thatvarious conditions must be met within a one year period, Mr. 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 proposeil by himself would be beneficial toboth the City as well as himself and, therefore, it made no sense toseek approvals from Soil Conservation Service, DNR, Watershed District,etc. if an amended plan would be considered by the Council-. I have notasked lhe City Attorney's office or City Planner to verify their calendarsas to when Mr. Derrick's initial request may have occurred, but it isgenerally believed that such r,ras approxj-matel-y the first of the year.Delays in his formalizing the request for a plan amendment primarilyreLated to questions concerning whether the City would consider such,procedures that would have to be followed if an amendment were to beconsidered, and what affects this amendment would have on the originalapproval. In any case, an initial review did occur at the planning
commission lever wherein the attorney verbally stated that his preiiminaryreview showed that a new public hearing would be required. Mr. Derrickwithdrew his request for further Planning Commission review. Mr. Derrickthen submitt.ed a letter to the City Council asking the City Council to
amend the final development plan. This item was considered by the Councilin April at vrhich time the Council noted that they would not waive thepublic hearing requirements and that they would reguest that the planning
Commj,ssion carryout such a hearing. Significant discussion occurred asto whether all potential issues would be considered in the public hearingprocess or whether such public hearing should only address changes in theplan in comparison the approved plan of JuIy 2l-, 1980.
The Planning Commission did hol-d a public hearing on April 22, l9g1- .A copy of the minutes of that pubLic hearing are attached. The minutesappear to reflect a Planning Commission recommendation of denial withspecific conditions. However, at the last City Council Meeting, Mr.Michael Thompson dj,d state that it was his belief that the motion reflectedan overall denial unless the various conditions were met. In essence,he stated that the-fr6Efo-n- vras to be considered a recomrnendation of appiovalif all of the conali-tions noted were met.
On May 4, the City Council considered the recommendation ofCommission and additionally considered pubtic comments. Assubmitted by Kathleen Schwartz was of significant lengthreceived for comments prior to this meeting, theCouncil acted toon this item to June 1, 1981.
the Planningreport #3,
and nottable action
Should the City Council desire
amended final development planto be resolved and incorporated
amendment approval.
to proceed with considering approving anfor Fox Chase, the fol-lowing issues needas a part of the final development plan
I would recommend that the Council followsthis section in carrying out the review of
sunmary reco[unendation from this office ofincluded at the end of this report. Bringlast packet.
the procedures set forththis item. AdditionalIy,the issues to be resolvedthe plans as enclosed in
IN
ais
your
There has been a great deat of discussion of the number of Iots tobe finally platted. We have never conceded that the City has the rightunilaterally to reduce the number of l-ots in the plat below that whichis permitted in single family residentiat zoning. This, we fe1t, wasdone arbitrarily when the plat was approved at the 21 Juty 1980 CouncilMeetlng and the number of tots was reduced from 54 to 52. Notincidentally, no consideration seemed to have been given to the 69lot units assessments which are pending.
AII of the above notwithstanding and in the spirit of cooperationin bringing this protracted platting matter to a satisfactory close,we are prepared to finarly plat 52 lots as shown on the encrosed proposedp1at, if we can come to agreement on the other items discussed heiein.
Planner's Comments:(April 17, 1981 ReportiReport, Section III):Also see May 2, 1981
1. Number of Lots
Developer I s Request dated April 15, 1981:
Developer's Reque s t dated April 15, 1981:
This matter was discussed in our letter of 25 March 19g1 toDon Ashworth. rf this street is constructed at 36' width it wirr beone of only three streets in the City of Chanhassen so constructed.REQUEST: Council reduce the street $ridth to 32 feet.
SchoeIl & Madson's Conments dated Ma 1981:
At any time throughout the review of the subject proposal thisoffice does not recall any of the plans showing moie than 55 units.It was presumed that the applicant had calculated the pending 69 unitassessment i-nto his land use development proposars and chose to fo11owa market that would serve lower densi.ty, Iarger lot development. Thisis understandably gualifiable as to when the appricant made his initiarassessment search on the property.
In determining the land use density for developments, andespecialry in the case of Pranned neside-ntial Deverolment uist.i"ts,there is the need to make certain judgemental decisions includingenvironmental concerns, and reasonable density standard. ThePlanning commission specificalry mentioning environmental constraints ofthe subject property, did, based upon the information available tothem, find the proposal acceptable at 49 and 52 lots respectably. Atthis time, this office feels that the Final Development bensity-relative to the 69 units assessed is not germane to ttre nlanniigCommission consj-deration and it is recommended that the plannini
Commission not act to change the gross density established by tieCity Council until so instructed by the Counc-il
2. Street width
v 13
concerni-ng the matter of a secondary access, r have the folrowingcomments. This applies to the issue of either an emergency access ora permanent access. f have expressed this view in the past, and feelstrongly about it as relates to the typical subdivision-. t do notbelieve there to be a great safety neLd to have a secondary access.The experiences that the city has had where farlen trees hive brockedthe road are unique to areas rike carver Beach. The normal residentiar
page -2-
subdivision does not have great potsential for storms blowing trees overthe road and thus blocking emergency vehicles. If it did occur, the
emergency vehicle (in a typical street section) could simply driveon the Iawns around the tree. Downed trees normally occur in thefoliage months so snow should not be a problem.
Please donrt 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 acqui.sition would
Carver Beach to make most of the proposed
be required in
connections.
City Engineer's Comments dated May 18, L981:
Based on safety considerations, Fox Path should be wider thanthe normal 28r because of the sweeping curves and steep grades. Evenwith double access, the street should be at least 32' wide. Fox path
is a proposed residentj-al street and excess width is not being requiredto make it an eventual collector.
Ci-ty Plannerrs Comments dated April 17, 1981:
Staff had recommended that the
Path in order to mitigate the singleproperty. No change is recommended.
width street for Foxsituation of the subject
36 foot
access
3. Prevj-ousIy Installed Assessments
Developerrs Request dated April 15, 1981:
We are advised that the property has pendj-ng 69In light of the fact that only 52 units are approved,
assessment should be reduced accordingly,
REQUEST: Council reduce the pending assessment to 52
unit assessments.this pending
uni ts .
Manager I s Recommendati6n 3 Deny Request
4. Road Alignment
Developer's Request dated April 15, 198L:
This question was discussed at length in our letter to Mr. DonAshworth (25 March 1981). By all measures, this is the best methodof instalLing the road. The homesites aII have a better configurationand Iess grading and soil correction would be necessary to prepare theproperty in this fashion.
REQUEST: Council approve the change in the road alignment.
Planner's Comments dated April 17, L98l and May 2, 1981:
This is inin the northerly
reference to the proposed alignment of Fox Pathl/3 of the development. This office endorses the
page -3-
proposed change provided said realj-gnment is constructed to standardsacceptable to the City Engineer.
It is the recollection of this of fi.ce that the cu.rved street
was presented as not being of any consequence to the prominent standof pine trees in the northwest portion of the property.
5, Conservation Easement
Developerrs Request dated April 15, 1981:
We learned at the staff meeting of 9 April 1981 that by
"conservation easement" the City means no structures including docksare permitted on the lakeshore lots; this was never previously sodefined and it is a groundless and unacceptable limitation, LotusLake is a GeneraL Development Lake. AIt riparian lots meet both Cityand Department of Natural Resources (DNR) standards in every respect;only these ten lots will have access to Lotus Lake.
REQUEST3 Council instruct the city attorney not to include in the
Development Agreement any extraneous provisions limiting useof riparian lots.
Plannerfs Comments dated April L7, 7987 and May 2, 7981 z
The City, i-n approval of previous subdivisions and planned
Residential Development Districts, i.e. Lotus Lake Estates, RiceMarsh Manor, and Reichert Addition, have placed conservation easementsprohibiting structural atterations to the lakeshores.
State 1aw does not permit the designation for trail andconservatj-on easements on the final plat document. The City hasconsistently estabLished such easement through the developmentcontract. The final plat document will need to have drainage andutility easements designated in compliance with subdi-vision ordinance33 and as per the City Engineer's recommendations .
Managerrs Comments dated April 17, 1981:
As shown in the planning report of .IuIy 17, 19g0 (item numberthe previous approval encompassed specific requirements as weII asoptional construction techniques for the trail through the proposeddevelopment. As resubmitted, a third potential location hai now beedefined. It is recommended that any approval be conditioned upon thapplicant resolving this issue with the park commission and that citcouncil concurrence and/or modification of any agreement between thedeveroper and Park cornrnission must occur prior to submission of thepreliminary pIat.
2l ,
n
e
v
Ivlanager' s Comments dated June 1, 1981:
Although the City Council has generally encouraged developers tocreate a conrmon outlot to be used by arl parties within a subdivision,there is no requirement for this under the ordinance. The plan aspreviously submitted did encompass a common outlot. The cuirent plandoes not reflect this.
, rn meeting with the developer, this past week, he stated they wourd _be wilring to accept the area as reconrmenaea uy the city pranner, includ- -ing trail easements and requirements of such, i,ith arr or the conditions
typicarry required in a conservation easement (no filling, crear-cutting,structures, etc.) with the exception that each individuat lot beallowed one dock. Mr. Derrick supports his belief that docks shourd beallowed through the proposed Lake Study Ordinance which aIlows onedock for each 1ot having at least lOOt in width on a lake. Typicalty,the Council would aIlow a common beach lot (if the plat were in the -
form of an outiot versus separate ownership, i.e. East Lotus Lake).However, exceptions do exj-st in plats such as the Reichert Addition,i.e. three docks were allowed for the 9 lots.
Recognizing that the deveJ-oper would betypical conditions of a conservation easementthe Planner and recognizing conditions of theoffice sees the issue of an individual dock foof l-00' at the lake, versus a sharing of a docmeeting the 100' requirement, versus one dockas solely a policy decision.
willing to agree to atlfor the area outlined bytrail system, thisr each Iot having a widthk for every other lotfor the entire addition,
6 Public Improvements
Developer I s Request dated ADril-15, 1981:
Manager's Comments dated.June 1, J.981:
The
action on
7. Access to Pleasant View and Buildin Pe rm I tDeveloperrsRequest dated Apr j.l
We request the City of Chanhassen install ordinary municipalutirity and street improvements in Fox chase. we underitand you mustorder a feasibility study, accept the feasibility study, and order thework. Because the City Engineer has already compl-ted the necessarydata for feasibility study, j_n this case t.he feasibitity study canbe ordered, presented and accepted at one meeting. We have alreadyagreed to pay for the actual drafting and preparation of the documents.hereby waive our right to a public hearing at that meeting and ask thatorder the work to go forward upon acceptance of the feasibirity report.rn discussions with Mr. craig Mertz we have proposed the assessments beanortized over fifteen years with payment in furr due in seven years.REQUEST: Council:a. Order and accept feasibitity study and order atl publicimprovements.
b. Assess all improvements to Fox Chase, with costs divided
among all lots equalJ,y. By this request, we waive publichearing of the assessments.c. Assess said public improvement costs over a fifteen yearamortization period with entire amount payable in sevenyears.
We
you
feasibiJ-ity study is anticipated to be complete thisJune 15, 1981. Therefore, no action can be taken at
week
thi s
for
time,
15, 198r:
Because the majority of the lots have been so.l-d to Lroyd Leirdahlof Minnesota century Builders rnc., and in that Fox chase is comprised
9f.lyg separate parcers, there would normally be permitted tr^ro residentiarbuirding permj-ts. Mr. Lroyd Leirdahr proposes to build two residences,on the northeasternmost and southeastelnmost lots of the plat. Theformer is to be a model for the parade of Homes in Augustl the latter wilLbe a private residence for Mr. Lei.rdahl. rt is underitood that occupancy-
page -4-
permits may be withheld until water and ser.rer are hooked up.REQUEST: council, permit two residentiar structures, moving one permitfrom Lot 11, Vineland, to Government Lot 5.
page -5-
PLanner I s Comments dated April 17, 1981 and M 2, L98t:ay
rt has been the recommendati-on of this office that no individuaraccess be given onto pleasant view Road for Lot 3 Brock 2 of the plandated April 15, 1981, and that a density transfer be contemptated inthe interior of the development. rn ef?ect this would redule thenumber of houses on pleasant Vi-ew Road to three.
City En gineer ' s Comments dated Mav 18, 1981:
As stated previously, the northeasterly most proposed 1ot isproposed to have direct access to pleasant view Road. Due to the gradedifferential between this lot and Fox path, this office has no problemswith issuing a building permit after the final development pran approvalhas been given by the City Council. As to a buiJ.ding permii on thesoutheasterly lot (proposed Lot 19, Block 1) r feel itit " buildingpermit should not be issued untit the city has received, an executeddevelopment contract from the appricant that would assure that theschedule of work wourd proceed in an order that would not present an unduederay between the time that an occupancy permit wourd be riguested andthe time in which the road bed woutd be- slabili,zed and/or bise courseof asphalt be installed.
access
exis t
access
Staff has aJ.ways upheld the position that Fox pathto Pleasant View Road from this subdivision. Lotas a buildable 1ot, but site distance restrictionsunsafe.
be the only
3 of Block 2 does
make private -
Lot 3, Block 2 could have improved site distance assuming somegrading and tree removal , _plgs driveway placement on the east edge ofthe 1ot- The advantage of the pleasan-t ti"* "cc"=s is that it aLdsthe effort of saving the pine tree stand on the subject lot, versusa driveway access from the southeast.
SchoeIl & Madsonr s Comments dated May 13, 1981-:
8. Gradin Pe rmi tDeveloper's Reguest dated ADril" 15,1981:
We are unsure what constitutes a Chanhassen grading permj-t onour development. we, of course, have the Rirey puigai"rf Ei.ux watershedPermit (copy attached).. In- fact, rhey have, ii eff6ct, ippioved bothroad alignments -- one in the original application and thL'iecono atthe renewal. we wilr obtain the necessary DNR permits before grading inDNR protected rand. Additionarry, we witl grade onry that proferty ihatis conmon to both road arignment; untir thaf. issue ii settrid. we havea firm agreement r^,ith. an eirth moving company, but the favorabLe pricewe-obtained requires that. the grading stait in ttay. rrre giiainq Lontractorwilr supply the bond reguired 6y the watershed oiitrict t5 insuie against -unwanted erosion damage .REoUEST: Permit to rough grade Fox Chase subject to:a. Terms of Watershed permit, including iequired bond;b. Necessary DNR permit;c. Not. grading area where apprication for street change has been mad.euntil final determination.
I
I
I
page -5-
Manaqer I s Recommendation dated June L 1981:Deny
9. Other Conditions
Planning Comission Recommendations of April 22, 1981?
A1l- Conditions previously applied and as set forth in SectionIi except where in direct conflict with action taken this
evening, in which case the June 1, l9SL condition would apply.
Confirm or Extend Completion of Condi.tions by July 2L, 798L?
b
c
d Other Conditions whj-ch appear necessary
Schwartz' report (s) and/or other public
as a result of Mrs-
comment ?
Manager I s Summation :
This office would recommend approval of the amended FinalPIan on the following conditions (see previous pages foron each of the following and recognize that disagreementvarious staff members).
Deve lopmen t
backgroundexists by
3
4
1. Number of Lots: 52
Street Width: 36 or 32
Reduction of Assessments: Deny
Road Alignment: Approve recognizing that approvalconditions set by Watershed District, S.C.S., D-N.R(as set forth in 10b., below) will app1y.
and
5 Conservatj-on Easement: Approve as a condition. Includesresolution of trail issue with Park Corunission andprevious conservation /trai I conditions as shown in L0b,below.
Public Improvements - Tabte to June 15th.
Access to Pleasant View and Building permit euestion:
- fpprove building permit issuance for Northeasterl],mostlot of plat
6
7
- No permit approved for Lot 19, Block
- Lot 3, Block 2, allowed to access tosite distances can be achieved
Grading Permit: Deny request
Other Condi.tions:
1, until
Pleasant
pl at
View
completed.
if
I
9
a
b
Planning Commission recommendations deemed advisableby Council.
All conditions as applied in JuIy of 1980 and as set forthin Section I of this report.
.\
Page -7-
c
d
Counc i 1
Counci-1
decision -
decision.
CITY OF
EIIANH[SSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O, BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553,17
(612) 937- 1900
MEIV1ORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROI4 :
RE:
I tem
May 28, 1981
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Bill Monk, City Engineer
Fox Chase Grading Plan
The grading plan as submitted by the developer is unacceptable
because of an inadequate cross-section \arherein no provision is
made for grading the boulevards. A proposed cross-sectiondetail, as prepared by this office, is attached for review.
The reasons for grading the entire right-of-way are to controlerosion, provide an area for snow storage, and standardizethe street section throughout the City. I am aware thatthi-s does increase the area of land disturbed and the numberof trees to be removed, but I recornmend the City Councilnot waive this requirement.
Both the straight and curved alignment plans require ex-tensive grading throughout the plat but especially alongthe western slope where the excavatj-on does reach 20 r inisolated areas. The amount of site gradlng being proposed
is not unusual but will require strict attentj-on to the
maintenance and possible expansion of the erosion controls.
In comparing the two plans, the quantity of overall sitegrading required is substantially less on the curved align-ment. This is due almost entirely to the reduction of sub-
grade correction necessary because this plan allows for move-
ment of a portion of the roadway and some house pads out of
an area of poor soils. It shoufd be noted that the finalquantity of grading and corresponding area to be disturbedwiII only be determined when the extent of subgrade excavation
is established during the actual grading operation.
The developer's engineer has computed earthwork quantities
for site development. They are as follows:
S tra i ght
AI ignment
130,000
22 ,000
Curved
Al ignment
99,000
I0 ,000
I
Cornmon Excavation
Subcut Excavation
tq
I
R,
s(>'
J'ropsorr
SOO OR SEED AS DIRECTEO
BY ENGII]EER
tb'
CONC. CURE A GUTTER
B -618 0R D-4t2ELEV SANIE AS TOP OF CLNB
FOR B-6tA
€. ElEv o.z" HIGHER THAN Toc
FOR 0-4r2
IG
j
+200"/.
3,.T O P SOIL
MN. OO
NOTE:I
2" 8r-ruMNorJS wEAR couR sE
TACK COAT
2.' BIT, BASE COURSE
AG(;REGAT E BA5E, CLASS 5
URBAN STREET DESIGN
rlttttttttttttttttt
,
I
I
I
tII
{,
l
--\
E
_r,'t
)
Riley- Pu rgato ry Creek Watershed District
8950 COUNTY ROAD :4
EOEN PRAIR IE, MINNESOTA 55343
The District will require that the tI,,o teoPorary sedioentation basins
to be located along the north-south roadway be constructed at the
initlal stages of Srading oPerations and remain functlonal durlng
the site grading portion of the Project.
May I980
Mr. Greg Kopishke
West\rood PlanninB and Engineering
7 415 llay zaEa Boulevard
Mlnneapolis, Iltnnesota 55426
Re: Site Gradlng for the Sunrise
Beach DeveloPnent: Chanhassen
Dear Mr, Kopishke:
The Board of Managers of the Riley-?urgatory Creek watershed District
has reviewed the plans and grading and land alEeration Pernit aPPlicatlon
for site grading for the Sunrise Beach Developuent in Chanhassen. The
Managers are extremely concerned with the steeP grades on the development
site and r.,ill require a continuous inspection of Ehe proposed erosion con-
trol measures- to ensure that they are properly uaj-ntained and functional
until the altered areas on Ehe site have been restored- To ensure thaE
Ehe erosion conErol neasures are properly uaintained, the District will
require that the developer posE a performance bond or letter of security
in Ehe aEount of S20,000 prior to the coEmenceEent of land alEeration.
with the above not.ed, the ManaSers aPProve of the grading and land
alteration perElt for site grading on this development subjecE to the
following condirlons:
The Distrlct r^r'ill requlre that all erosion control measures' 1.e.'
staked hay bales reinforced r^rith snou fenee, be install-ed prior to
the conmencement of land alEeration and be Eaintained untl1 all-
areas al,tered on the siEe have been restored. Once these erosion
control measures have been instal-led, the Districtrs engineering
advisor must be notified prior to the coEtrencement of land alcera-
tion. Land alEeration cannot begin until a fleld insPection of
the eroslon control measures has been made by Ehe DisErict rs
engineering advlsor.
6
(
t
I
r--:---->
C,
The areas
vith seed
1980.
Mr. Greg (opishke
P age 2
I4ay 6, 1980
2 Due ro the alEeration of steep slopes on the site and the Potential
of a serlous erosion problem occurring if erosion control neasures
are not proPerly rnaintained, the developer must Post a performance
bond or letter of security in the amounE of $20,000 Prior to the
conoencement of land alteration. This security Eust be submitEed
and approved by the Districtrs lega1 advisor. If needed, thls
perforroance bond wlll enable the DistricE to restore altered areas
or to lnstall additlonal erosion control measures to ProEect the
public waters of the District from areas that have not been restored.
A1I areas altered due to slte grading with the exception of the
street rights-of-way, must be restored wlth seed and mulch and./or
sod n'ithin 2 weeks frou tbe comPletion of land alteration or no
lat.er than September I, 1980.
Those areas alEered vith a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored
r^,ith sod or wood fiber blanket wlthin 2 weeks froo the comPletion
of land alteraEion or no later than Septeuber l, 1980.
3
(
altered vithin the street rights-of-way must be resEored
and nulch and,/or sod or be hard surfaced by September 15,
4
5
A detailed storn sewer plan must be submitted to the District for
revj.ew and approval. If storm\rater is co be discharged to Lotus
Lake, an MDI.IR Chapter 105 lJork in Public Waters Permit will be
reqriired.
The 100-year f l"ood elevation of Lotus Lake is
will require that all homes to be constructed
have minimum basex0ent floor elevations 2 feet
flood elevatlon.
899. The District
adjacent to the lake
above this 100-year
If you have any questlons regarding the Distri.ctts comtents, Please
contact us at 920-0655.
sincere v,
Ro ert C. Obermeye
BARR ENGINEERING
Engineers for the District
Approved by the ard of l'Ianagers
RCo/ rr-l
cc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
EY-PUR EK ERSHED DISTRICT
Conrad Fiskness
Frederick Richards
Bob Weibel
Date:
Secretary
Srri rc l-J9
6 )0 Frrrrrcc Avenrre Soith
Iijna, |ii rrnesot:r 55t,35
Name of App
I{ I I.EY-PURCA'i'() i(Y CREEK UA'I'T:NSIIED I)ISTRtCT
GRhDINC Aiit) EAll'IiLl0v I NG PiiRMlT
AppI ication for perml t, Perlnit, notification of cornPletion
and certification of cornplellon
l icflnt 0errick Land ComP any
Address
Na ture
Locatio
I770 Shelard Touer;Minneapolis, MN 55 426 'fclephor.e 5 46 -??7 6
of lio rk Gr ad inq of a sinqle family subdivisi.on 27t acres
n of llork l"lest of and ad.iacent to L otus Lake
llun ic ipa li tY Chanhassen,l'[nnesota
Proj e cEcd Duration of t'Jork J months
and Sedirnentation Strau baLe dikesProccdures To Bc Used to Control Erosion
construcLion;as necessary durin seed or sod as necessar for ermanent
c over an erosaon con ro
ff addiEional sPace is
the informatlon to this
attachrnents.
needed to provide the lnformation requested above' at.tach
applicaEion and in the space below brtefly describe the
(
ao(o<5 t)
Date
Ig1_19gf_rttg__C_o1!p_q ny___
Pernit applicarion
regq-
Alt pork sha1l be comPleted bY
nature of collateral req uircd
received by the tratershed District on the 25 day of February
This permit aPplication is hereby (;Dni-d /a Pproved) by
Septeuber, 19 80. The anount and
the Board of
l9jq sulrjecE
Mav 7, 1'980'
llanagers of
to the condi-
the
is $20
15 day of
the Harershed District this 7 day of May '
tions conrained ln the attached correspondence dated
This permlt is permlssive only and does not release the perrnlEtee
11ty or obligation lmposed by Minnesota St les, Fede Law r
froo any liabi-
locaI ordinances.
Board of llanagers
llotice
hereby
of:
given
completion of uork authorized ;
to Ehc District on this dry
expiraEion of
of
grading peroi t
19
ls
Permit tee
Certiflcation
tlris day
rhe satisfactory complctlon of work authorlzed is hereby oade onof
of 19_.
Inspector
Authorized aq
Applicant
ent - I.Jest\uood Planni.nq &
000
(',
u-
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed Distri t
8950 COUNTY FOAC-'.
EDEN PBAIRIE, MINNESOTA 5: I.
Re(
March 4, l98l
Mr. fran llagen
Westwood Plannlng & Engineering
7 4L5'iayzata Bouleward
I'finneapolls, Uinnesota 55426
Dear Mr. Hagen:
The Board of Managers of the Riley-Purgatory Creek watershed DlstrlcE
has reviewed the revised plans and request of January 27, L98l for an extension
of the Districtts gradlng and land alteratlon perDit for the Sunrlse Beaeh/
Iox Chase Development in Chanhassen, The Managers apProve the permiE extenslon
request untll September 15, l98l subject to the followlng condltlons!
1. A11 condj.tlons sEipulated in the DlstrlcErs original correspondence
of l4ay 6, 1980 remaln appticable.
Because of the alreration of steep slopes on the sl-te and the potentlal
of a serj.ous erosion problerr occurring lf erosiou control measures
are not properly maintained, the developer must Post a perfornance
bond or letter of securLty ln the arnount of $20,000 prior to the
cosmencement of land alreration. This security musE be subnitted
and approved by the Dl.strictrb legal advlsor. If needed, this
perforroance bond will enable the District Eo restore altered areas
or to install addifional eroslon control neasures to protect the
public waters of the District from areas that have not been resEored.
The Distr1cE requlres that addltlonal erosi.on control oeasures, 1.e.,
staked hay bales relnforced with snow fence, be lnsEa11ed betr^reen the
proposed sedlEentation basin and Lotus Lake. T'hese erosj.on control
measures must remaln in place until all altered areas have been
res tored.
A detailed storm selrer plan musE be submitted to the Distrlct. for
review and approval.
2
(
3
4
.D
9
B
Permit Extenslon Request - Sunrise Beach/
Eox Chase Developuent: Chanhassen
Mr. Fran Hagen
Page 2
March 4, 198I
RCo/ 11r
c: Mr.
Mr,
Mr.
5 A11 areas altered because of stte gradlng must be reslored r'rlth seed
and dlsced mulch, or sod, or wood flber blanket, or be hard surfaced
rrithln 2 weeks after comPletion of land alteration or no later than
September f5, 198f .
A11 alEered areas w1th a sloPe of 3:
wlth sod or wood fiber bLanket withl
land alteration.
r Sreater DusE be restored
weeks after completlon of
1o
t2
The Dlstrlct loust be notifled 48 hours Prior Eo com[encement of land
alteration.
If you have any questions regarding the DistricE's coEmenls, please
call us at 920-0555,
6
rely ,ceLn
(
----
, ,' ,!,'' ,,'''i/' Fl"tr e/;,,',
Robeirt C. Obermeyer
BARR ENGINEERING CO. '
'.{'l
Frederick Richards
Frederlck Xahr
Don Ashworth
Engineers for the DistricE
Approved by the Soard of I'lanagers
RIIEY-PURGATORY CREEK WATERS DISTRICT
C,resident
Date:3 //l tl
)
CITY(CF
frEflffitfltifr$sEi{
6
76,10 LAREDO DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: Apri l 17, I98.l
T0: Planning Commission & Staff
FR0l4: Bob Waibel, City Planner
SUBJECT: Final Devel opment Plan Amendment
Add i ti on, Derri ck
Request, Fox Chase
APPLICANT: Derri ck Land Company
PLANNING CASE: P-614
The app 1i cant has submi tted the attached oroposed fi nal devel -gpment plan for Fox Chase Revi sed Aori I 15, I9gl for thePublic Hearing for the Plann.ing Commission Meeting on Aoril22,.1981 . The major changes between this and the previouslyrevi ewed pl ans are:
The curvi ng of the street n amed1/3 of the deve l opment.
" Fox Path " in the northern
L
,,
4
The proposal for Iot 1, Bl ock I and Lot 3have di rect access on Pleasant Vi ew Road.
Block 2 to
The removal of theopen space.
previously proposed outlot/common
The relocation of the poi nt fromconnect from the i nteri or streettween Lots l2 & l3 of Bl ock i.
where the trai l wi lIto the I akeshore be-
5. The reduction in the number of lots from 54 to 52 asrecommended by the Ci ty Counci 1 .
The fol I owi ng are the comments of thi s offi ce reqardi ng thepoi nts raised in the Apri l I5, l98l Ietter from iioqer"Oeriictto the Mayor and Counci I . Additional staff commenls to thesepoints are i ncl uded in the City Engi neers report.
I
(
P-614, Derri ck
Page 2
'I . Number of lots
3. Previousl
T r s r ssue
Instal I ed Assessments
nment
ference to the
At any time throuqhout the review of the subject oroposalthis offi ce does not reca l 1 any of the olans showi ng morethan 55 uni ts. It was presumed that the aoDl i cant hadcal cu lated the pendino 69 unit assessment i nto his
I and use devel opment DroDosa ls and chose to follow amarket that would serve I ower densi ty, l arger lot devel opment.This is understandably qual i fi ab le as to wh en the aooj icantmade his initial assessment search on the oroperty.
In .determining the Land Use densitv for developments,and especi al ly in the case of P l anned Residential Devel -oDment Di stri cts, there is the need to ma ke certai nj u dgemen ta I deci si ons i nc ludi ng envi ronmental concerns,and reasonabl e density standard. The Planning Commissionand City Counci I in orevi ous rev i ews , a l thouqh notsoecifically mentioning environrnental constra.i nts ofthe subject property, di d, based uoon the .i nformati onavai I abl e to them, fi nd the orooosal acceotabl e at 49and 52 I ots resoectab ly. At thi s time. this officefeels that the Final DeveloDment Density relative tothe 69 units assessed is not germane to the Planning
Commission consideration and it is recommended that thePlanning Commission not act to change the gross dens.i tyestabl i shed by the Ci ty Counci I unti I so i nstructed by'the Counci l.
2. Street WidthStaff hJd recommended that the 36 foot width street forFox Path in order to mi ti gate the singie access situationof the subject Droperty. No change is recommended.
4. Road Ali
to be d scussed wi th the CityPlanning Commission action necessar.y at Counci I .. llothi s time.
proposed al ignment of Foxthe devel opment. This
chanqe nrovi ded said re-
standards acceptabl e to the
ts s tn re
5. Conservation Easement
Path in the no rther I y 'l /3 ofoffi ce endorses the orooosed
a'l i enmen t is constructed toCit-v Engineer.
The City, in aooroval of orev i ou s subdivisions andPlanned Residentia'l Deve'l boment Djstricts, i.e. LotusLake Estates , Pi ce I'tarsh Manor, and Rei chert Addi ti on,
h ave placed conservati on easements prohi bi ti ng structuralalterations to the lakeshores. The assistant City Attorneywill be oresent Wednesday eveni nq to exol ai n in detailthe pl acement of conservation easements as part of
subdi vi sion aDproval s.
P-5'l 4, Derrick
Page 3
6. Publ'i c Improvemen tsTo be discussed between Derrick Land Company and the CityCounci l. No Pl anni ng Commission acti on necessary.
7. Building Permit
As statEllrevTous ly, the northeaster'lposed Iot is oropos ed to have di rect accessView Road. Due to the grade differential beand Fox Path, thi s offi ce has no problems wibui ldi ng permi t after the fi nal devel opmenthas been given by the City Counci 1. As to aoermi t on the southeaster'l y 1ot ( propos ed LoI feel that a bui I di ng permi t shoul d not bethe Ci ty has rece i ved an executed developmenfrom the appl i cant that woul d assure that thwork would oroceed in an order th at woul d noundue delay between the time that an occupanrequested and the ti me in whi ch the road bedstabiiized and/ or base course of asohal t be
y moto P
tvleeth i
p lan
buit II
issut coe sct rlrcyp
wouinst
st pro-
'I easant..n this lot
ssui ng a
approval
'I di ng
, Block I)
ed unti Intract
hedu le of
esent an
ermi t wou ld be
i d be
al I ed
As s tated oreviously, one of the ma.ior changes to the devel opersexhi bi ts has been the removal of the outl ot accessing the Iakefrom Fox Path. The orevi ous configuration of the ouil ot s howedit to be traversing a wetland area urith marqinal attribute for
home owners association usage. Addi tional ly much of the pro-posed outl ot area was to be utilitized for a dra i naoe andsedimentation basin. This off i ce s ees no oroblem wi th theremoval of said outl ot since l) it had dubi ous oua li ti es forthe establishment of a common area,2) the Chanhassen park planis des i gned to adeq ua tel y prov.i de the re crea ti on a I needs ofthe community. 3) The City Engineer wi l1 require the dedicatjonof proper util ity & drainage easements for the sedimentation basin.
8. Gradin Permit
nge to the apol i cants exh i bi ts is tha t the trail
om Fox Path to Lotu s Lake has been moved to an areas I2 & l3 of Block l. I find that this is an over-
Another
easement
between
chafr
Lotall imorovement to the pl an in that it traverses areas of soilsmore sui tab le to devel ooment of said trail. The deve I oper hasresponded to the nei ghborhood concern in preservi ng the standof Pine trees on the northwesterly mos t Dorti on of the subjectproDerty throuqh a propos a 1 to have Lot 3, Bl ock 2 access di rectly
on to Pleasant View Road. . Devel oper has i ndi cated that thisconfiquration wi l1 permit the olacement of residential structuresand dri veways that will minimize the removal of said trees . Asyou know, this protion of the subject pronert.v has extrernely poorsight di stance characteristics on Pleasant ViLw Road. SincLthe preservation of this stand of trees is quite appropri 61s 1s the
Covered in City Engineers comments.
P- 514, Derri ck
Page 4
character of the devel opmen t and
des i gn is paramount, thi s offi ce
be mi ti gated ei ther by a densityportion of the proposed p1at.
that subdivision safety
recommends that thi s probl emtransfer of Lot 3 to another
In conversations with various property owners near the subjectproperty, I have been asked to comment on the extention of theri ght of way of Fox Path to the westerly property line, and thepossibility of secondary access from the subject Droperty tothe south.ln di scussions with the attorneys office, jt wai foundto be acceptabl e to wi thdraw the dedi cated ri 9ht of way 40' to 50,from the western property f ine provided that a planning agreementbe f i led at the Carver County P,ecorders of f ice stati ng thatthe adjoininq 'l ots (Lot 22, Block 2 and Lot 30, Bl ock I) wou ldwaive any acquisition fees to the City if extent.ion of saidri ght of way is needed in the future.
As to the i ssue of secondary access,
feel s that the previous fi ndi ngs thatmarginal benefi t remalns valid.
the City Eng i neer,
th at access wou'l d
B i I I Mon k ,be of
I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Counci l aoprove the Final Deve lopment Plan of Derri ck Land
mpany in accordance with previous City Council aoproval of'ly I980 with the additional condition that the density transferr Lot 3, Block 2 be incorporated i nto the Final Plat will main-in , as best oossible, the integrity of the stand of treesthe northwest porti on of the Droperty.
Manager t s Co[unents
Co
Ju
fo
ta
in
A copy of the City Council minutes of April Z (preliminaryDevelopment Plan Approval) as welI as July 21 (Fina1 DeveiopmentPlan Approval) are enclosed. This office would recommend tiratany action on this item incl-ude not only the conditions of th j.s
amended approval, but also the conditions as established forthe original. plat in ApriJ. and JuIy of 1980.
requests in regards to a 'petition for public improvements",
"ordering feasibility study","specific method and years of
assessment", etc. Given the length of this agenda, this office
would recommend that dj-scussion and action on these types
of issues be tabled to a future meetj-ng.
Location and construction of Trail: As shown in the plannj'ng
report of July 17, 1980 ( j-tem number 2) the previous approval
encompassed specific requirements as well as optional construction
techniques for the trail through the proposed development.
As resubmitted, a third potential location has now been def j-ned'
It is recorunended that any approval be conditioned upon the
ippri.^r,t resolving this issul wj-th the.Planning commission and
Public Improvements: Mr. Derrick's letter makes several
that
any
mu st
City Council concurrence and/or modification ofagreement between the developer and park Conmissionoccur prior to submission of the preliminary plat.
P age 3
Planning Commission Meeti ngr
Pryzmus
r"1s. l,latson made a motion to amend the oreviousto read that the Dri vi ng Range sha11 provi de 'l 5 of fparking and some on street oarking. 3econd by Mr.Six members a ye, J. Thomp s on opooied.
mot ionstreet
Noziska.
Fi nal Devel opment Pl an Amendment Reouest, Fox Chase Addi ti on,Derri ck
- .l\4r. tlaibel presented the planning Renort to the planning
Commission, ]isting the 5 changes from the previous olans sub_mi tted ( see Pl ann ing Reoort Apri 1 17, IS8l). Hr. Uai bel a.l soread the Staffs comments on the number of lots, street width,previously installed assessments, road a1i gnment, conservati oneasement, pub'l ic imorovements, building nermits and qrading Dermits.
14r. Partridge indicated to the planninq Commission thatthe number of assessments and the Dublic imnrovements are afunction of the City Council and that the planning Commissionshould let them act on those items.
l,!r. Derri ck, the aool i cant, exD'l ai ned to the planning
Commission that if the road was changed he would have to iemove
s ome. Ma p 1e tree s and vrould have to shave ground rat he r thanto fill, or if the road was moved it woul d make 2 I ots smal I erand less des i rab le. 14r. Derri ck has reduced his plans from54 uni ts to 52 units.
!
I
I
th
an
to
s
Dli
athy
iqhbgfibo
to
at the nd the ne
l'lrs.
bri ng
K
ei
p
Schvrartors hadrs agree
the Pl an
z, a nei ghbori ng Droperty ovrner,gotten toge th er and met wi th [1r.d upon 7 poi nts that they woul d
ni ng Commi ssi on at thi s time:
tated
erri ck
ke
u
I They woul d Ii ke to
and they don't I i ke
Vi ew Road.
ol at drawi ng wi th 52 units
densi ty cl ose to Pleasant
see a
such
3
4
Regardi ng the access to Pl easant Vreouest that Fox Path be moved to
I i ne for safety purposes.
It was reouested that 14r. Derri ck chanrleof Fox Path from 36' to 28' to match thePleasant View Road.
r ew
the
Roa d - neighbors
East oronerty
the wi dth
w idth of
Vt
0n the first pl an Hr. Derri ck had prooosed 3 lotsalong Pleasant View Roa d now he is present i ng 4 lots.The ne i gh bors would like to propose that he returnto his first prooosa l of 3 I ots al ong Pleasant View.
2
P age 4
Planning Commi ssion Meeti ng
Derri ck
5 Reouested that the Planning Commission consithe soil condi ti ons in the subject area. This just be'l ow the s urface in the meadow area
Mrs . Schwartz ores en ted a map s howi ng the hitab I es in the pas t, The nei ghbors ai ked thaHonk, the Ci t.y Engineer, take a closer IookDroperty.
the DNR and the Corp of Engi neersand that they shoul d be noti fi ed.
de
e
ght
at
r
water
water
Mr.
the
6
7
It was brought up the
have not been noti fi ed
The neighborsreinstated.also req ues ted that the Outl ot area be
. John Edwards, a neighboring oroperty owner, indicated thatin the past he felt that the neighboring Droperty owners reouesthad been i gnored. The pl an approved 2 yeirs ago- had 49 unitsthen 50 uni ts then 52 uni ts. Mr. Edwards stated that theproDerty could be well p.1 atted withou_t destroying the areamaybe if Iess density. Mr. Edwards also exo16ssed his concernwith Fox Path dead ending into the adjoining Droperty.
M
coul d
Dut a
r, Waibel suggested to the Commission that Fox path
be-made to stop 30 - 4O' from the prooertV Iine inJcul-du-sac on it.
Mr. Jim Meyer, neighbor,in the subject property. ltr,
I ooked at the soi I and it wasbui ldabl e and that it was not
i ndi cated concern over theDerri c k replied th at he hadpossible to make all of thea comol i cated process.
soi l
'I ots
Mr. Derri ck in rep)y to the nei ghbors orevi ous list ofreo ues ts i ndi cated tha t he had tri ed - to wori< wi th ihe n.i gt lo"r.Mr. _Derri ck explained the he had ch anged the plat trom Sq";nitsto 52 uni ts ' removed the out r ot and cIanged ttre -ioad. nir-in"l ots are over the l5,000 square foot minimum lot s iie, ti,. '
reouest that Fox Path be made smaller was agreeabl e wi th Derrick.
. _Mr. W. Thomps on . s ta ted that 2 years ago the feel i ng ofthe Planning Commission was that in" the fuiur" it "-p"opE"iVshou'l d have a second access and also requested a 36, wi att "
in order tha t the road wou ld have a safety z one be fo re enteringP Ieasant v iew Road. At that time there was a recommendati on
.that..having Fox Path on the east orooerty be looked into. -
Hr. tl . Thomoson indicated that from all ihe "eiponie iiom tnecrourd that there needs to be more changes and tha t this i temcannot be recommended to the City Couni.i 1 yet.
Mr. J.i m 0rr, from Schoel'l & l..,ladson, indicated that thesecond access will end up cutting down i or" t"ees and there
IiI].-?. a.grade orobtem. Fox paIn wiil have aUort OO,-piuifo.,Detore enterj ng P leasant View Road, both views of the rbadare reasonable. If Fox pa th were moved to the east, it would
Pag'e 5
Pl anni ng Commi ssi on Minutes
Derri ck
crea te a
the east
road
wi I I
Ms. I,latson asked how the olatf orrn will look, will thedroo off on both sides? Mr. 0rr i ndi cated ihat the roaddrop off some but the looks will be a'l right.
a
Mr
in
Mr. M. Thompson i nd i cated that Mr. Derri ck has proposed
10.8 grade 'l evel on Fox Path wi th a 3% grade on the p latform.. Monk expl ai ned that there is a maximum 7% grade 1eve1the ordinance, The 7% is for safety in the winter time.
Mr. M. Thompson asked 14r. tlaibel if the staff were the
onl y ones who are in favor of the deadend street into theBennett property. Mr. llaibel indicated that Mr. Derrick hadproposed Fox Path that way and that oniy l ately was it everbrought up to end the road 30- 40 ' from the property line andput a cul-du-sac on it. Fox Path was recommended to be 36'
wi de for the reason that that the road is a l ong si ngl e accessroad. Mr. M. Thompson asked Mrs. Bennett if anyone had approachedher con ce rn i ng Fox Path endi ng on her property line. Mrs.
Bennett answered no,
Mr. Frank Kurvers, a property owner, as ked about the
outl ot and the s edi men t pond , what is goi ng on wi th this item?Mr. Waibel i ndi cated that the pond is requi red for run off.Mr. Monk expl ai ned th at the outl ot is not requi red for drai nagebut the outlot was to be for the property owners in Fox Chasein order that they could all have use of tpond is a different thi ng. Mr. Curt Laughitive for Mr. Derrick, stated that ini
pond was pl anned to be in the outl ot. Thefor recreat i ona I use. Now the propos a1 is
p laced in the backyard of the Iake front I
has been disgarded.
he I a
i nghotiall
outl
thatots a
ke. The sedimentuse, a represent-y the sedi mentof was planned
the pond be
nd the outlot
Mr. Kurvers asked if all of the work on the lake shore
was go ing to damage the soil and if there woul d be any runoff
i nto the I ake. Ms. tr.lats on as ked Mr. Derri ck if he understoodthat 20' al ong the I akeshore was to be designated to the cityfor a Conservation Easement. Mr. Derri ck answered that this
was the first he knew that the eas emen t was to be along thelakeshore. Ms. l^la ts on as ked why no docks were permitted.
Mr. Craig Mertz, the City Attorney, expl ai ned that the Conservation
Easement first c ame up when the Park & Recreati on Commission
cons'i dered the sketch plan on March 20, .l979. They recommendedthe Conservati on Easement and throuqh the deve loDment processit was requ i red to have a Conservati on Easement. That was
i ncoroorated into the City Counci 1s a oprova 1 of the olat inJuly of I980. The Conservati on Easement that apnl i es tothis community means that you can't dig on the lake shore orfi lI on the I akeshore, you can't cut the vegi tati on and youcan't construct structures on the I a kes ho re, if you can't con-
site problem to the east. Not changinq the road tois an economi c oroblem.
struct structures that means no docks. Mr. l.lai bel i nd i catedthat on the plans the Conservation Easement is shown to stirtbetween Lots l2 and l3 and then along the lakeshore. ThetJti 1 i ty Easement and the Conservati on Easement are i n thesame p1ace. Mr. Derri ck i ndi cated that he is against theconservation Easement if it prevents the lakeshore home ownersfrom havi ng docks.
Mr..Derrick explained to the planning Commission that if troad (Fox Path) would be moved to the east rrrooerty f .ine iwou'l d create a lot with 2 road sides and that wouli make t'I of undesirable. There are nice trees that woul d h ave totaken down and it would mean an extra 100 feet of sewer an
het
he
bed roa d.
Paqe 6
P lanni ng Commission Meeti ng
De rri ck
Mr. I.l. Thomoson made
Second by Mr. L. Conrad.
opposed.
a motion to close theVote: 6-ayes, I -nay.
Ms . Nancy 0sborne , a property owner, expressed concernover Fox Path. She feel s that in the wi nter there will notbe enough of a run to make it up pieasant View Road.
Publ i cMr. M
Hearing.
Thompson
Mr. Mertz expl ai ned th at the pl anni ng I tems tha t thePlanning Commission should discuss and reiommend to the CityCounci I are the street width, 2nd acces s , road a1i gnment, '
number of I ots and the Conservati on Easement. The-rest ireAdministration i terns such as building oermi ts , previously instal ledassessments, gradi ng and publ i c imDrovements.
movi
12'thisstatto t
shou
that
Mr. _J-Thompson expressed concern of alI the filling andng of Iand east of Fox Path that is proposed to be ip toin height. The Planning Commission iras been told thltprocess is the problem of the builder but Mr. J. Thompsones that as the planning Commission they have a responsibilityhe people. who are going to buy the property, and tirisld be I ooked i nto more carefully. Mr. J. Thompson i ndi catedhe likes a combination of the last two proposals, maybed take out lot 26 of Exhibit A and make ihat for futuie-i derati on for an easement to the south. Mr. J. Thompsonested that the road be cunved more gently and the 32,h of the road was expressed. The C6nservati on Easementecessary.
coul
cons
sugg
w'i dtis n
Page 7
Planning Commission Mi nutes
Derri ck
t&
to
of
Mr.
LO
52
is it
than
f eel s
be a
i de a
Iots
have
l^latso
wou ld
conce
orote
Ittr. Ladd Conrad indicated that he would like to see Lots2 of Secti on 2 taken out and make the road access f urtherthe east. He Iikes the idea of an outlot to the souththe Droposed property until a road access is necessary.
Conrad felt that the cul -du-sac is imoortant and the aor 32' street wi dth is acceDtabl e. He wou ld li ke to seeIots instead of the 54 presented on the fi rst plan.
Mr. H. Nozi ska stated that he is concerned about the landbui I dabl e? A1so, he felt that there are to many unitsthere shoul d be comoared to the terra i n of the I and. Hethat 36' street wi dth is reasonabl e because there won,tsecondary access for some ti me. Mr. Nozi ska Iikes theof the Conservati on Easement and feels that the number ofshouldn't be more than 52 units.
Ms. Watson i ndi cated that she waccess maybe in the south, could be
needed as an acces s, and felt that a
like to see a secondary
over to the eas t not on 1y for the reason that the street would
an outl ot until32' s treet wi dthwas acceptable. Ms. llatson felt that the road should be moved
as
or
ou ld
used
28',
bettern is ve
I i ke trn for
sight but the grade is better to the east. Ms.ry much in favor or the Conservat i on Easement ando see the outlot back again. It4s. l,latson expressedthe movement of all the dirt in the area, who willlake and what wil l rrrevent the Iakeshore owne rs fromct the
dumoi ng thei r ferti I i zer into the I ake as eros i on occurs.
Mr. Mi ke Thomoson i ndi cated that he woul d I i ke to preservethe meadow and feel s that there are better way s of olanningthi s Dl at. Mr. M. Thomps on stated that the envi ronmental'imoact of this area is fairly good. Th.i s proposal is not in
keepi ng wi th the narti cul ar area. Mr. M. Thompson expres s edhis concern for all the moving of dirt, demuckin'g and fil lingand is concerned for the effect on the I ake. He would Iiketo see the access moved to the eas t the hill is to s teepthe sight is poor. Mr. M. Thomnson did not like the 36'vridth, too wide, and the grade standards are violated bytoo steeD of a road. He also i ndi cated that he did notthe i dea of Lot 3, Bl ock 2 access onto Pleasant View Roa
He expres sed his mi xed feel i nqs about the Conservati on Easement,if a 'l akeshore owner shoul d be abl e to have a dock or not.Mr. H. Thompson i ndi cated that he does not Iike the 52 untts
would rather see 35 but 52 have been approved. 1"1r. M. Thompsonasked hor.r a I ot i s made bui I dabl e, woul d they have to demuckthe whol e Iot or just the bui I di ng site? Mr. Derri ck statedthat the whole lot would be buildable, fill it wi th propersoil. The muck is taken out and repl aced wi th good soil, then
comDacted and then filled aoain if needed. Have to raise thelots because of the water tible and to keep the grades down.
l''lr. Jim Meyer asked if any bui lding permits could beissued before the Fi nal Plat aooroval ? Hr. Mertz i ndi cated
and
street
having
I i ke
d.
Page 8
Pl anni ng Commission Minutes
Derrl ck
th at one bui Iding
no more than that
permi t coul d be issued as one l arge lot but
l'1r. J. Thompson stated that with 52 Iots and Iooking atthe 1ay of the I and in keepi ng wi th the rural area in thispart of Chanhassen Mr. Derrick could develope this land veryattractivel.y without alI the grading by utilizing the combinationor clustering and single family homes. He feels that theproperty would be more desirable and energy efficient and
wou ld be a rea'l plus for Chanhassen. Mr. Conrad asked if Mr.Derrick was beyond the point of chanqing his plans. l"lr.Derri ck stated that he has been worki ng on thi s plat for along time and that any other city that he has worked in hasnot had to make thi s many changes. !.lhen Mr. Derri ck boughtthe l and he Iooked at it before and had i nvesti gated what
coul d be done wi th the property. The ci ty has accessed theproperty as 69 unj ts.
Mr. Art Partri dge i ndi cated that he feei that theremoval of the out l ot and maki ng it i nto lo ts is quite an'improvement. He is for the Conservati on Easement and feei sthat a souther)y access is important.
Mr. l,l. Thomoson indicated that the Planning Commissionshould get a consensus on the i tem presented.
Mr. J. Thompson made a motion to recommend
Counci I that Fox Chase access onto Pl easant View
moved to the easterly property 1ine. Second by6 ayes, Mr. Noziska nay, Passed.
to the City
Road be
Ms. l,Jatson.
Mr. H. Noziska made a motion that the Planning Commissionaccept the proposal to make a curb cut on to Pleasant View Roadfrom Lot 3, BIock 2 as shown on Exhibit A. Second by l,l Thompson.Mr. l.loziska, Mr. Ul . Thompson, Mr. L. Conrad - aye, Ms. tlatson,Mr. J. Thompson, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. Partridge - nay. Failed.
Mr. L. Conrad made a moti on to decrea s e the proposed roadwidth from 36' to 32'. Second by Mr. M. Thompson. 5 - ayes,Mr, Noziska and Mr. J. Thompson - nay. Passed.
Mr. H. Noziska made a motion that the Planning Commissionadopt the street al ienment of Exhi bi t A subject to the firstmotion about mov i ng the cu rb cut east and no accesses fromany I ots d i rect 1y on Pl eas ant View Roa d. Second by Ms. l.latson.5 ayes, Mr. Conrad - nay, Mr. J. Thompson sustained. Passed.
Ms. l,latson made a moti on that therequest that the devel oper ded i cate a r
P Ianni nq Commission
i ght of way 50' in
poss i b1e future 2ndaye, Mr. Noziska,
Passed.
wi dth between Lotsaccess. Second byMr. Partri dge, Mr.
& 27, Bl ock I for. M. Thompson. 5
Thompson - nay.
26
Mr
w.
Mr. Conrad made a moti on that t^te maintain the Conservati on
Easement, this Conservati on Easement will not allow the al ter-ation of lakeshore and i nstal I ati on of structures incl udingprivate docks. Second by I'lr. Noziska. 6 - ayes, Mr. M. Thompsonnay. Passed.
, Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the developer be requiredto ded icate a trai I easement ori gi nati ng o0 the southerly 1 i neof the plat within the Utility easement commensing at thesoutherly edge of the property and lying norther'ly to the southline of Lot .l2, Bl ock 'l accordi ng to Exhi bi t A and runningwesteriy at that point to tts poi nt of i ntersecti on of FoxPath as desi gnated in Exhi bi t A thence conti nu i ng northeriy wi ththe riqht of way of Fox Path to intersection of Pleasant ViewRoad. Mr. W. Thomoson seconded the moti on. Ail in favor.
1,1r, J. Thompson made a motion that the P'l anning Commission
recommend to the City Council that the 0utlot may be incorporated
i nto the i ndi vi dua l properti es as shown in Exhi bi t A sincethey have virtually no utility as an 0utlot. Second by [1r.
Nozi ska. All in favor.
l'1r. tl . Thompson made a motion that the Planning Comm
recommend to the City Counci l that the Exhibit A, (4-22-8
be accepted but the Planning Commissions recommendations
such be subject to the modi fi cati on previously approved.
Moti on was wi thdrawn.
Mr. Con ra d made a moti on that a permanent cul-du-sac
recommended on the west end of Fox Path. Second by Mr. M5 aye - Mr. l.l. Thompson and Mr. Noziska opposed. Passed.
be
Thompson.
Mr. tl . Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commissionpresent to the City Counc i 1 app rov a I of Exhi bi t A to includethe recommendations to the sub.ject property as previously
approved. Second by Mr. Noziska. Mr. W. Thompson and Mr.
Noziska - aye,5 - nay. Failed.
Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the Planninrl Commission
recommend to the Ci ty Counci I to reject the proposed pl anned
dev e lo pmen t (Exhibit A) based on the previ ous I motions untjlthey are met. Mr. Conrad seconded the moti on. 6 in favorMr. l.l . Thompson abstajned. Passed.
'rsslon
'r)
for
Page 9
Planning Commission Mi nutes
Derri ck
REZONING AND SUBDIVTSION R EQ UE ST RICE LAKE MANOR TIANSEN , KLINGELHUTZAND MCI,IULLEN PROPERTIE S, CONTINUED:A motion was made by Counci lmanPearson and seconded b y Councllman Swenson to a pprove the 8 residentiallot subdivision l-ocate d off West 86th Street wi th the conditions setforth in the Land Use Coord i nator's report of April 1, t9go, and asclarified in the above noted mlnutes. Motion approved. Ayes All.
I Tha t
lake
from
' I %?==XRELTMTNARY DEVELoPI4ENT PLAN REvrEw, suNRrsEBEACH, pITRrcK !tY?,-cgI =",,, representi-ng Derrick tEnE-company. the proposir- i.--a-sz resi,dentiar. 1ot.ri. - subdivis ion . lying south of preasint view-Roid and west of Lotus Lake.'- This subdivision, has.been derayed during ttre course-"i tnu past year-1,,. to i-nsure that the ci.ty reis-nluiy-cons iaered all arternatives for';r. potential street patteins getting to and being extended trom the proposed';i '. -subdivision.
-i;:..':'
A motion was made by counci,-man Gevj-ng an. seconded by councilman swensonthat the subdivision and preliminary ievelop*errt fian'of. Derrick Land
t
.*.}--t- ..
-.fl.il t_.l-r:.-.:--,
l'-i :"
-.!.:).' '
L:'
there be a conservation easement along th6 entireshore; and
the.re be a trail along the east line of the platPleasant Vi.ew Road to the conservation easement area.
The-folrowing voted in favor: councirmen Geving and swenson. The_following voted against: Acting l,layor Neveaux and councilman pearson.Motion fai 1ed .
A motion was made by Councilman pearson and seconded by CouncilmanSwenson to rezone the subject premises to p_l and to .;p;;;; the 521ot preriminary development- prin- as depicted on the weitwood planningpreliminary ptat dated April 1, 1980, subjecr ro rhe f;ii;;i"g condir
That the applicant receive approval of their gradingp1an, drainage plan and eros].6n control plan irom tie SoilConservation Service, the Minnesota Department of NaturalResources and the Riley purgatory Cree-k Watershed Oistrict;That. said approvals be-received pri-o. to the matter beinoresubmitted to the City Council ior preli*i""iy -pr.t-iipi".,r"r,
That the pedestrian and conservation .i=u*.r,t portion ofthe proposed develooment must be shown by the ippficini-tohave such soil conditions as *"ura "ii"i for the developmentof. such facilities, and that the applicant's soil conaiiior,'evidence is to be reviewed by the bity rngineer.That. thc. applicant.prepare "-,.r1-du-=.a'plans for the roadwavporEaon ln tne vrcl-nity of lot 20, block 3 and lot 24,block 1._ Said plans are to be reviewed and upprolr.d by thecity engineer.
Pavcd street surfaces are to be 36 feet widc and pavedcul-de-sacs are to be 32 feet in dianteter.That thc Park and Rccreation Commission review alternativetrail locations betwecn pleasant View Road and the "o.,1--
-servation easement and is to submit a reco[unendation tothe Ci ty Counci1.
2
1.
2.
3.
6,
IONS:
Motion approved. Ayes - AI1.
CJ'!Y COUNCIL M1NUTES - 'rprrl 7, 1980 -4-(
t
r
Corncil lleeting JuJ-y 2) 1980 -2-
CONDIfi ONAL USE PERPIIT.IgruS IAKE EST\TES BEAC]I IOT AND E\IIRANCE SIGN \ARTAJ'CE:-:i1': Msnbers of the Lob-rs Iake Estates tbmeo\^/ners Assoc 1a n are requestirg al)proval-to establish a beach lot between Lt 35, Block 2 and lot 9, Block 1. Theyproposirg to INS talf a sand blanket six irches deep ard also install tlryo canoeracks.
@urcilnan Neveaux moved to approve a carditior:ar use perrnit for a beach lot
corxii tioned upon:1. that the beach 1ot consist of a sard. blan)<et, swim area, ard tr^ro six capa.citycaroe racks as strown on the site plan, City Counci 1 E&ibj_t A, dated July 21, 19g0.2. That the svim area be marked with a nrinimr-rn of tlrree "swim area" buoys tnatare in accordarce with the Uniform Waterway Marking S).stsn.3. Ttlat the swirn area be marked by t].e above anchored buoys at a reasonabledistance frcrn shore.
I,loLion secorded b,y Courlci]nan cs/irq. the follor,iirg voted in favor: I4ayor
Hobbs, Councilmen PeErson, Neveaux, Gevirg, ard Swerson. No negaLive votes.l6tion carried-
The hcrneorrner's associaLion is requesting a sign po:n-it to erect a! entrancesign at Chocta\^/ Circle ard Chanhassen Road. The proposed sign wI-I1 not beJighted ard wil-1 be nrade of h7ood. staff ar.d the sign celrlittee reccrnnerded
alT)roval- of a variarre.
councilnan swenson moved to grant a variance for the instal-laLion of an entrancesign in the public right-of-way. i.bt-ion secorded b[, Counci]nan NeveaLD(. The
fo11o.dn9 voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, @uncilmen pegrson, Nevear.tx, Geving, ard
Swenson. No negalive votes. Irbtion carried.
FII.IAL DEVEIOPI,E}JI PIAN - FOX G{ASE ADDITTON (DERRTG( IAND CCI4PAIIY) : John Shardlo$/
was present to scuss the proposed plat arn answer ques
IJE.RTA}.TCE RDOUEST, IfrIS 653-558 , 683-688. C-AIVER BEAGI: l4ike Sorerson isseeking two 1ot area variances of 3,000 square feet each. The Board of Adj us trnentsard Appeals r ecormerded approval provided tllat lots be cqdrined as lnrceI one
be ing Iots 653-658 ard parcel ttuo being Lots 693-688.
Councilnran NevcaLx< moved to accept the p-Ianrrirg rcport of July 16, 1980, and theBoard of Adj us tnents ard Appeals rcccnmerdaLion and the rand use CoordinaLor's
msnorandum of July 1I, 1980, fioints I-3. Motion secorded by Counci l,.nan Gevi.ng.the folloairg votcd in favor: Mayor llobbs, Counci lmen pearson, NeveanN, Gevirg,ard Swenson. No negative llctcs. tr4otjon carricd.
I.OT AREA, T'RCNT YAru), r\ND RII\R YAITD SETBACK \4\I{[ANCES,IOIS L9 AND 20, RED CTDAR
t
counci,lman Nevear:x nDved to approve the firal- developnent pl-an based upon the'configuraLion of 52 lots as presented to the eity council" april i, r9gb. Molion
seconded b1z Councilmal Gevirg. The follovirq voted in favor: Councifmen pearson,
Nev@ux, C,eving, ard Sv/enson. Mayor !trcbbs voted rrc. l,lotion carried.
Co:ncilnan Neveanx moved. to approve the final develognert plarr for Fox ClaseAddition subj ect to i.tsrLs 2, 3 ard 4 of the City MaragertJ report dated July 17,1980, and itsns 1-5 in the Iand Use Coordinator's report of July 9, I9gO. pOtion
secorded h/ co:ncilman Pearson. Ttre followirg voted in favor: counci]men pearson,
Neveaux, Gevirg, ard Svenson. Mayor Hobbs voted rD. MoLion carri-ed.
POINT: Ron arxl SI re]rry Ytzen are rcqucs t-irg an 8,000 square foot lot area varrance,a 25 fcot rear yard setbJck var:iance to the shore.lard ManagcfiEnt ordirnnce, ard afront yard variarce of l-4 feet in order to buird a hcrne. rhe exisLirg cabin witrbe dsrclished.
(
t
L-, ItY \,[-
I
ffi[EffiBtrHflffiffiffi;ffi$T
7610 LAREDO DRIVE OP.O. BOX 147'CHANHASS;N, MINNESOTA 55317
16121. 474.8885
. ME}TOPENDUM
; ii-l' Y t '-r'
''l*iltis, .ru1y
'e-:-Tor - citv
FROM: Land
l4anager. Don Ashwort
Use Coorilinator, Bob l.Iaibel
Pinal Development PIan Review, Fox Chase Addition|'-':;'sunJ:
. APPTICANT: Derrick LaRd Co.
I ..Tr'ir.:praruxrNG GASE: P-614I.'*=.
I -*P.lett."hed please find the planning materials sent to the PlanningI r**r?Q6ngnls s ion for their rewiery of the subject final development plan
and the minutes of that review.
ffhU r"" rvilI note in the attached planning report of July 9, 1980,
this office had indicated to the Planning Commission thaL the
ffiof 2 lots over what the City Council had approrred at thej.r'F-preliminary development. plan revierv. The Planning Corunission,
'*-.- . as noted in the rninutes of JuIy 9, 1980, had discussed this issue,
Eiligand voted to approve the final development. plan as propcsed.
il$dilattfrough . it is not certain from the minutes that the specific:i. .-, reason for the tr.io neqative votes rvas th e subsecTuent addition of ttro
;L;tots, they_ (the voEes)- vrere relative to the propdsed density of thetfriiFfgevel.opment. 11 ::- ... 1..'1T- f,d". comment dqlivered verbally by the City Engineer at. the Planning
.--'- Commission review,'vrhich is not included in the record, is that the
ffi:#i;I.rngineer recorqmends an, 18" grave} equivalency for'sLreet stana-
:fl*
'r,,:i!:.*'
:rt /J--/
E: *++:€I_=!emTe!Fn: rn . reviervins staf f , Plarrning commission, city'"',I'rsngLneer's and Attorney,s reports on this itcm, this office belieizesthe following conditions should additionally be cstablislred:
1). 55 lots were proposed by the developer cluring skeEch pla1revicrv- FoLrorving discussion rvith the pr.rnnirrg commi'ssion,neighborhood, etc- a revised plan reflccting 4i lots-wasapproved by the pLanning Commission .et the pretiminarydevelopment plan hearing. The City Council approved the
.rJ Li r -.,rdi:r,v
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
_l
A_
-i p-reliminary development pl.an, although staff notcd thatthe developer had increaied if-r" "u*lJ.-of lots from 49 to52 foll-owing p1anning Commission con siaerat i;; .
.. -T;'"= i .,
developer nors seeks iinaf aevei"p*""t plan rdvierv and jhas increased the number of rots ro 54: --ir,"ipi]""iiii co.^i"approved this change with two members voc].ng against suchon the basis of density. rrris oitic" t"= "6rr"E.irliii"._,_,this overarr process. i'" tt "t-tr.,"-p..ii*i"";y";;;;i";iIii. _.plan stage is the point where"i-aln=itr"s, nature an.general Location oi rgadways. ,o":."g, open areas, etc. areestablished- After this p-oint, tf,"'a"r.:.op".-pio.u-JJ= ::with specific enqineering^ in format iori' recognizing thathe has cone to a6reement wilh the City r.n regards to theseoverall 1and use-issues. lliner shifti in roarl alignments, .lot 1ines, erc- can occur as a resulr "i-'"p"Iirii-Eiigiii$.h.data; however, densiti". .fr""ia-"oi-J. "r..rg.cl by either the-9ily.:r the applicanr. rr ti,i" G-aiiorr.a to occur, ..^_-slmrLar to the wav in which j_t has, what i= -tfr"-p"ip"Jit
preliminary devellpment plan_hearings or attempting to ._come to agreement as to development issues ata heari-ng stage-. :The developer should be reguirla t" i"a""" th" ;"r,bH-;;=Lots to s2 (qg appears ius€itiaurei.---_:- . ,',.';;;l_4"
The location of the trail is sti1l uncertain at this .:ti-ure, =_,..i.e. whether atong t.he back f"t ii"o-o, abutting the .jr.-street on the north end of the development. ^In meetin! _with_the Park and Recreation Commissi"",-tf;" d.evelopers have .:_.,.stated their desire to have this decision rvithheld ""tif ..grading is commenced and park and Recreation commissi"".ri?,iafforded an opportunity to walk both potential locations._ lriThis suggestion appears to create somL probLems in --l^.
preparation of a development contract (-out.lining trvo' .':;:. .,.-. Ipotential location areas), but no other reasonable _-_. ,-* ilalternative appears to exist. However, in acc"pli"g tiie ..:=-.::f inal development p1an, it should be cLear that the ", "*ioutloE area is being accepted as a conservation area- jiid, ;€l.as.such, no park credits are being given. . _FurLher, ,t}tai Hlit is to the advantage of the deveioier to have the 8 ^foorTl!trail through the conservation area e"d,-rfr"ti,", ;;.;;;--;ffiIwithin this conservation area or partially adjacent, to th; qroad,. that developers agree to gride and instilJ- wooa_bhips ,rifor the trail in accordance witfi the recommenc]ations ot.lti:eElPark and R'ecrcation Commission as a part of their orr"r.i1 . --t!grad.ing pran. '*-lj
:
T
t'l
I
:
l-r
ril
Jr
Jil
i
,,
aI
jil
li
)
2).
3).
4).
lll.
i!
lil
til
!l
II
(:)
As a part of both the Dast Lotus Lake project anMountain development proposals, significant <1iscoccurred in regards to the City's ability to assthat public improvements are designed .rnd inspecCity standards - Irr conforn'":nce with these discuss
is reconunended that the developer be rcguired tothe City's cngineer f or preparation of pl-ans anclcations and al1 staking and inspect.ion.
d Near -" ll,.I!
ussion ' :-!
::: ..-.:fi
.Lon s, J.E
specif i- --.-.!
The above conditions arc inLand Use Coordinator in hisEngineer's report of July 7
6f t5"X33.8V" t|"t94 lnrSf; $ tfi i3
acldibion to those ouElined Uy -tlel
rcports of July 9 and 17, and.th€fl
- iuch disregaiding those variance
f dBliu.eS:] l*".1a=.3E:?',;IIe3:.F
-'.'-':-----.---'-'
l
':'.
'1...
'<.;- '.
T/c R\TER ECONO}IIC COUNCIL - FARMER' S I"IARKET
Bob l.Iaibe e his comments and recommendations.
'.ch airman Horn ope the public hearing.
s Blvd,- wa concerlle d about:Gayle lgolf f , 7508 GreaL
I ", body, not onIY the Prie
I of oPening in the Carve
P
Co. Her
,be con ted about this ancl
*,.- David Pease, representing Scottr/Car Economic Counci
:,,; they had sPokenwith Fa xnorr of St- Hu t's Church.
explained the P rocedu the Econo
, and, I.IaIter Thompson seconded to se the public
t-he advisorythe notice
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1, stated
He further
mic Council-
1, ' rorr Iramil
'''- hearing.
Lon mo
;..,-:;filir Th son moved,,Llike Thompson second.ed tso aPpxove the condi nal
-.-- use t request subject to Bob Waibel-'s conditions- llotion ca
iraousJ.y.
I'OX CILASE _.FINA.]L DEVELOPMENT PLAN
-f#',p:p lfaibel presented the review anil his recommendati.orrs -
Fran Heigen illustrated the p].an to the commission.
*i;ir 1'1r.r. was discussion on the size , and change Of rlurnber of lots, grade
. of approach to Pleasant View' Road, the right-of-lvays, pedestrlan
+#iway -e-as ement, use of trail and the cond.itions ancl terrns of staf f .
-js:h:,; .-..
.:"' , I.Iaiter Thornpson moved., Jin Thompson seconded to accept the proPosed
-... Fox Chase plat dated llay 12, 1960, revised l4aY 22, 1980, as a final
l.Efl developneni plan and that the comments and recornmenclaLions made by
.fF-staff Le lnciudetl
| '''r..gwegative votes: Mike Thompson and, Art Partridge' aue to density-
6 ,,itli*,ihi:
E
':'{rt+{i-.
-:?",_
and responsibilitie s
-' -:. '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-/ iLi,r,:rr-l
J[-YIIU
7610 LAB EDO DB IVE. P.O. BOX,I 47. CHANHASSEN. MINNESOT/T 55317
(6'r2) 474-8885
r: -' -TO
DATE:July 9, 1980
Planning Commission and Staff
Land Use Coordinator, Bob llaibel
Final Development Plan Review, Fox Cha se Addition
FROI,I:
::-.-- suBJ :
eIHA ffi nElris m etffimhH
u r$s&\J $t,ffiH ffi,hia\l
"ni",'i=,: ::r
PLANNING REPORT
I errt*,.N.BLrCANT: .Derrick Land Company
| .i.i;.,c... .iPLANNING CASE: P-614 ,':i:i..r'..1
I :e.:.'-" ,i '*
I "*ElL'1'}r" foltowing is this of f ice'= rl"$Lrr=" to the Assistant city Attorney r sletter of June l-7, 1980 and the City Engineerrs 1etter of OuIy Z,
I :fi+,:- . I 9 8 O and the overaL l action at hand-,l" li.I;;*' :
As you have probably noted, the subjecL proposal has increased from
I *,*.,*, 52 single f amily resiclential, lots to 54. This of f ice f incls that
I "*{}]{rtlxe density proposed fal-Ls within the most restrictive guidelines'",.--of the ordinances of Chanhassen and that any reduction in this shoul6
, -. be substantively validated, on reasons of loca1:. physiography.
I J*+;e--r.' L.lini"5n response to the city Engineer's letter'of July 7, 1980, the issuesof wider streets, and the 7t plus grades were. covereil in the City
| ,E<*+.. Council revierv of April 7, 19-80, wfierei.n the city Council recommlnded,l; _IIFA itha t the street surf aces be 36 f eei wide,' an<l the the paved portionof the cuL-de-sacs are to be 32 f eeE. in diameter - The.r..onlv concern
| *, thac this office iras is that the rccommended roi6'ia]'.l6i-::l '"uf-ae-i"c
I i+9jll''diameter by ord.inancc 33 is 80 feet- I rccornrnend. -ti'rat ttre applicint' "rrr:iinclude in their final construction ptans, remediation for the
I - vertical curves on cuL-de-sacs E and D, the temporary cul-d.e-sac'
| -,.,'r,,t,- design plans at the southerly end of the p1at, sanitary servers and''. I1-i,!, watermains as recomrnended in said enqineerrs rcporL with addit.ionalconsideration for the loop,ing at the end of the ternporary cul-de-sac-
II i,:-,.' In response to the Assistant CiLy Attorney's lettcr of June 17, 1980,I recommend the f oI lor.ring special conclitions and con s i<'lera tion s f orI inc.Iusion into the dcvelopment contracL on the subjcct proposal:1..'' r':1::: :. I). Tlr:lc .r coni,?rr,.rtion LaJsement be cst.rblished rviEhin
l- tttc arca below the 900 foot clcvation pursuant to the
I , Conprchensive plan .rnd that rvithin sai<l conservation
. -: +1.ti -'.
21 .
3). That extra precautions be takenexj-sting vegetation may be kept
construction.
-2-July 9,L980 +
easement, a pedestrian-way easement be dedicatedthat is 8 feet wide with I+ foot on either sidefor purposes of maintenance (the above would nuLlifwthe proposecl 20 foot trail easement indicdted on thlproposed preliminary plat dated May 12, 1980, rviththe understanding that the above d.escrj-bed easementwould be established upon completion of a feasibleroute rvithin the conservation easement) .
;
{,.i
{,
+
t
t
.t
t
That the appli.cant and its contractors, includinq
home builders, carry out the construction of "'' '"' i'!
improvements and structures in accord.ance with the :'.requirements setforth by the Riley Purgatory Creek .'!
Watershed District, and the SoiL Conservation ServiceEvaluation Report ilated June 18, 1980, (The City Councilrecommendation is that the approvals be obtained beforetheir review of the preliminary p1at. For gualificationpurposes, the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed Districthas given a condi.tional approval in their May 6, --,
1980, correspondence, hotvever, the Soil. Conservation :.:.Service, being an advj.sory body, will not giwen such ---, -,
approval - However, I believe such may be satisfied
through carrying out their recommendations that were '. ..
noted in their eval-uation report) .s
tso that remowal of
to a minimum during
4)For reasons of soil conditions and slopes, the building
plans for a1t residences proposed rvithin the subject .,:--.-
development should be certified by an architect or ' ''i
civil engineer registered in the State of llinnesota. -...
!'r
4I
li
ii
li
rj,
suff icient'- , -r '.'r';!rt
escrows to- lssure that tlie degree 6f engineering '':
.' i -l '- - .'-
and inspection is carried out as recommended .by the .::.qi.. '' -.:Riley Purgatory Creek i'/atershed District and the .:,':':: ,r-l:qSoiL Conservation Service. .. ._, _.
:.: . il-t ',:iq
q
q
q
q
{
Planning Report 1
s).
.*{,.) '
.,1.;:.
I^IILLIAM O SCHOELL
AFLISLEJIUAOSON
_qCK T, VOSLEN
JAMES R. ORR
UAFOLO E, OAHLIN
ARRY L HANSCN
.'ACK E, GILL
FOONEY B GOPOON
-HEOOORE O. KEMNA
OHN t/r,,. ElllONO
-ENNETH
E, AOOLF
WILLIAM N ENGELHAFDT
.BUCE C. SUNOING
,. SCOIT HAFFI
TENNIS W. SAARI
GEFALO L BACKMAN ,
:farlir :" p' '
'1.:,
,A :- .-j':-1rsl:^:jjL;d-r--i:;
-'::dja.
:;:EjI.\E*g- scHoELL & MADSoN,INC-;,-F-l
'lr!;r.l ENG.N EEFrs aruo sunve*ons
\*i{iv
City of Ctranhassen
c/o llr - Bob Waibe]., Assistant
CitY llanager
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
612) 938-760,I . 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH . HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
OFFICES AT HURON. SOUTH OAKOTA NNO OENTON. TEXAS
JuJ.Y 7, 1980
Derrick Land ComPanY
Sunrise Beach (I'ox Chase )
Prelinr:inarY PJ.at Revierv
Subj ect :
T
I Hll""lemen:
We herein Lransnit our Plan
are
review, in terms
above named PRD -
of compli.ance
Results are
l'ff,1:.
with the CitY Ordinance, for the
as fo].]-ows:
STREETS.It*gl rr -
- aJ;-I.
I +gs;#,stre
stre
The rigirt-of-rvay and street widths meet the ordinance for
sidentiSl- street. Iiowever, it seems' to me ttrat the main
"t-tirt""gt the developrient ivil1 ulti.rnately be
-
a col-Iector
et---thui a rvider str-eet width should be considered'
il&* "., o' ?!3i1"'3',:3"'::' :,?:: ""?i,'"1.?::&9"
:l"iiS H i'Sil*"-
, i**.""a 3% within 30 feet of cul-de-sac 'rD". vertical curves on
rf' ;;i-;;-;;;;-"s' 1up-Dar end) and "p" (at intersection) are less
i ir^#,- tf,u"-iO-ii."r tfre -aigeUrarc difference as required by ordinance'
- +{{;;i-d;-";; ;;'' also 6xceeds the 5oo foot maximum length' Th9
r- *"tf."a oi-pt"tiai"g a "temporary" cul-de-sac at the souttr end of
I &,,int main s^treet is not clear and should be sholvn'
SAI.IITARY SEI,ER .
1
I
Size of the proposed sanitary server
assumed to be B-inch- Easement for the
existing manhole to rnanhole in street "A
17, Blo;k 3) is not shown. Manholcs in
extendecl to eliminate services gircctly
is not shorvn, but
sanitary server from
" ( betlveen Lot s -I{>
cul-de-.sacs should
into tlre manholes -
}S
and
be
I i)...-$-;
t
(
-i.idi:..
S(jHtJELL tt. MAoSoN, INC.\
WATERI,LAIN.
Huron-
JROrr:sg . .'
cc: Derrj-ck Land Company
Westwood Planning & Engineering
., ,,;,J",4:.::;a9;l.4 n
Cj-ty of Chanhassen
c/o l4r. Bob Waibel, Assistant
City Manager
Page 2
JuJ-y 7,I980
, ,.,'...:.:,, , ._ . .-. €!t-,,..,..:.:.;.
.- , L-.:i,i.r,-.-. - -;:_--tra,
, r:..: j.{:}tl.t:
. rl,: :;1:t-:g ,.1
-
Size of the iyatermain is not shown- We recommend 8-inch ""
',:;;31-
the main street and 6-inch on the cul--de-sacs. Since culte-sac r.':..i
"Eu is in excess of 5OO feet, we suggest the watermain be J-ooped .'1'l
internally within the development, or looped to existing rrater on ..:.
..
: :i-.
1+t -El
FI
t=
IE
n
>,!l
TE
i
BT
I
F,E
I.FT
In
I
m
I
EII
I
FT
ItrI
I
trr
I
DRAINAGE WORKS.
Pro_oosed drainage works appear to be adequate with t}. eti.on that the 30-inch discharge pipe at 1.5% grada shou.Ld beincreased to 36-inch.
excep-
CONCLUSTONS:
We recoirunend approval of the plans subject to the itb_rnsspecifically noted- fn terms of street graies, we recommendwaiver of the 7% ma:<imum grade limitation in favor of the gradesproposed. The site s i-.nply does not facilitate 7% maximum grades
and we feeJ. the proposed grades are acceptabJ-e.
Very truly yours,
SCIIOELL & MADSO}I,INC.
t
,".
;.t,l.t;-
.::.1 ;
.(.:.,.
-ai_::
(
.-'r'1.
-.'.
'.-irr +,:- {.. ._::.- - .:,. '- :.: ,,
!\:::; .
l,A }.4. .i,. :,:
Ilay IJ, 1P81
Chanhassen Clty Councll
Chanhassen, Mn.
Dear Mayor and Councll Members,
I had the opportunlty to l{alk through the ptoposed tr'ox Chase Developnenttoday wlth Fran Cal,Iahan ard Kurt Laughlnghouse, the attorney forDerrlck Land. Conpany. After seeing some of the proposed changes inthe sewer 11ne, I feel that lt 1s necessary for the entlre ?ark
Corunlsslon to see the revlsed plat agaln before any plans are
acoepted, regard lng the placenent of the tral1.
l,le could dj-scuss this at our June 2 meetlng.
Slncerely,
(- ,3vr0"- .\ /.,r;--<-
Phyl1l-s Pope
Park Conmlsslon Chalr
RECEIVED
lilAY I 8 iggt
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
A
Llnsox & Mnnrz
ATTORN EYs AT LAW
r9oo Frisr B^Nx P!^cE wEsi
M IN N EAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
Cri 'tl I <J.
(6re) !3s- 9 56s
-t
I
I
.l
I
iUISELL H. LARSON
cRlro ra. r. ERTz
HARVEY E, SKAAP
MARX C. T'CCULLOIJ(iH May 29, 1981
M!. Bob Waibel
Assistant City Manager
Chanhassen City Ha1l
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55 317
Re: public Hearing Requirernents for Fox Chase
Dear Bob,
You have asked for a 1egal opinion regarding whether the Citywas legalIy obligated to schedule a new public hearing for everyinstance in which the developer proposed a revision in his pendlngdevelopment pIan. Attached is a copy of our report dated April 2,1981, addressed to the City Manager. page 2 of that report dealswith this very question.
Very truly yours ,
'h"'''ru
Craig M. Mertz
CMM: sas
Attachment
l1
I
I
I
I
I
I
_l
l
I
I
,j
:ff:fi SEPI
o ^^^7
tr(rs satL k la'lsor
cFA16 k. B 6Et!
HARVEY E- SX^AF
M^ex c, r.<cuLLou6H
L.r rrsox & IrLtrrrz
ATTO R N EYS AT LAW
190c) ,,Fsr a^Nx PL^Cf wt 5.
M IN N EAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
April 2, 1981
(3r? I 33!-e53!
Donald w.
Chanhassen
Box 147
Chanhas sen
As hwor th
Ci.ty Manager
t{N 55317
Re: Fox Chase
This devel.pment was last consLdered bv the councir on July 2L, rggo,when.a motion was passed. uto approve tte finai -J."" r"p*I"i, pt unbased upon the configuration oi- 52 rots as presented to the city councilApril 7, 1980." under ordinance 47 the ,'finai ;;;;i";;"il pran.includes the " pre I iminary
.
pIat,, among other things. To date, thedeveloper's have not submitted the final plat to-the city-ior approvar.
The revis ionof the s tree t
54.
propose d
sys tem
by Derrick Land Company consists of a realignmentand an increase in the number of lots from 5i to
The ci.ty councir has some discretion to approve minor changes in platsonce preliminary plat approval has been giinted. r"r """.ii", ti.Iocation of a buildj.ng pad might be moved. However, in tn! case offll-!li"!, the developmenr review process has been .;*pi.a;; for altJ.nEencs and purposes. _Accordingry, hre cannot recommend that the councilreconsider its approval granted on'.]ufy 21, 19g0.
section 14.05(2) of the-Zoning ordinance does a110w the city councilto review proposed amendments to a f inar development -pi.ri -'l-rorr.raa,
such amendments can be considered onry after a i-r." prlii-'hlaring.A copy of SI4.06(2) is attached
If the Council chooses to consider the amendments proposed byDerrick. Land company, it could take no formal actiin ;;-A;rii 6, 1981,other than to order a. new public hearing as required by Sin.06(2).rf the council does chose to direct the-scheduiing of i,r.i, u pubrichearing, it \"rould be within the discretion of Couici.I to 1imit thescope of the public hearing to the issue of tire piolosea ioaArealignment and to the issrie of the additional 2- Iois.
((
Dear Don:
On April 6, I98I, the City Council is scheduled to consider therequest of Derrick Land company to revise the proposee-;i;t of EoxChase.
I
I
I
Donald W. AshworthApril 2, 1981
Page Two
CMM: nercc: Bob Waibel
Very truly yours,
the City was
T.he deveLopr'lent
1980, except
and the f irral
can only be
City Attorney
-l
I
Prior to July 21, 1980 final development plan approval ,required to hold only one public hearing on Fox Chase.review process for Fox Chale was compleied "" ,f,.,fy -i,
for the formalities of approving a developrnent co'ntractplat. Amendments to the heveloiment pian at this tj.memade as provided in SIa.OG(2) oi the Zoning Ordinance.
u1--r12n 74
CRAIG M. I'IERTZAssistant Chanhassen
l
l
_i
.t
((
I
I
I
I
on a rerated matter, some interested citizens have questioned thezoning Administrater as to rrhether the city i. ,.q"ir.a-io'no1a unew public heari'rg every time that a devel6per proposed a differentconfiguration of 10ts in a pending developmint ;1a;. - irris issue issiqnificant in the case of Eox chise because the devel0per has proposedapproximatery four different.rot configurations u"tr".n'iir" time ofsketch plan review and the time of finir deve r"p*."i -p-iun Jpprovat.The chanhassen zoning ordinance requires only one p"ri i.-'ir."ring ona pending p.R.D. The amendment of a developirent pi;; -;;.;;
=
i rares theschedulins of an additionar pubJ.ic hearing lnry-ii-liie"iiJio""aamendment is presented after final development- pfan appiovlt n."occurred .
similarty, the state statutes (M.S. S462.35g) from which Chanhassenderives. its power to regulate land subdivision iequiiu"""iiy orr"public hearing.
Although loca1 ordinance and state statute require only one publichearing, the city would have discretion to scriedule aaiitionar pubJ.i_chearings whenever it is fer't that the developer ir"" ^ia"
-" ign i ficantmodifications to his deveropment proposal. w. aiiigru.-rlii, tn"assertion rhar each and- eveiv modifitation in a p;;di;; iJ,I"rop^".,tplan requires a new public hiaring.
Conclus ion :
l
l
_l
l
LaRsoN & Mnnrz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I9OO FIRST NATIONAL EAN( SUILDING
M IN N EAPO LIS, MINNESOTA 55402FUsSELL X. L^RSON
CRAIG ',I. I' EFTZ (6r?,33s-9565
May 29, 1981
Mr. Donald Ashworth
Chanhassen CLty Manager
Chanhassen City Hall
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Fox chase
Dear Don,
On July 2I, 1980, Fox Chase received ,rFinal
Approvalr' subject to certain conditions.
Development Plan
H^FVEY E. SXAAR
MARX C. I,('CUILOU(iH
We are of the opinion that Derrick Land Company mayJuly 2I, 1980 approved plan if it can meet the conditionsCity Council attached to that approval.
revert
which
to its
the
"For one year following preliminary approval and for
two years following final approval- . . . no amendment to a. . . official control shaI1 apply to or affect the use,
development density, lot size, 1ot layout, or dedication orplatting required or permitted by the approved application.
On Aprl1 22, l98l , the planning Commission, at the request ofDerrick Land company, held a public hearing on several revisions tothe plan approved on July 21, 1980. you have asked us to advise as towhether Derrick Land company has somehow abandoned its plan approvedon Jury 21, 1980 in such a fashion as to prevent it from reverting tothe July 21, 1980 configuration and obtaining final plat approval forthat configuration.
During the 1980 session of the legislature, 5462.35g, subd. 3c
was added to the enabling act for rocal subdivision controls. Thatsection provides in relevant part:
I
I
I
-2-May 29, 19 81
Thereafter . . the municipality may require sub_mission of a new application unless substantial physicalactivity and investment has occurred in reliance on theapproved application and the subdivider will suffer sub_stantial financial damage as a conseguence of a require_ment to submit a new application.,,
I rt is betieved that the conditions attached by a city council toI a P.u-D. approval under its p.u.D. ordinance are an ',officiar control,',
-., ,1.. term- "preliminary approvalrr refers to approval of a preliminary
I nla_t. Thus, we concrude that the conditj-ons imposed by the city councit' on Derrick Land Company's July 21, 19gO final development plan approval
. may not be changed within a one-year period commencing on July 21, 1ggo.
] ,f the developer can satisfy all of those conditions, there is a legal' entitlement to final plat approval.
(rt should be noted that because of an unfortunate wording of thedefinition of "preriminary approvar-" in the 19g0 legislation, a strongargument can be made that the JuIy 21, 1990 approval was in fact a"fina1 approval" which then establishes a two-year safety period forDerrick under s462.358(3c). we can onry assume that Derrick would bewilling to litigate this interpretati-on question if forced to do so.)
There is a serious question regardi-ng whether the 19g0 legistationis effective as to Fox chase. No effective date is stated in the 1g80legislation for 5462.358(3c). There is a general rule of lega1 inter_pretation that in such cases the effective date is the following August.Thus, it could be argued that because Derrickts final deveropment pr_anapproval occurred in July of r-9g0 rather than in August of 19g0, it isnot entitled to claim the protection of the one_year safety. period. Inadditlon, the 1980 legisration contained another provision (Laws r980,Chapter 565, S34) to the effect that if the City had a subdivisionordinance in effect on June 1, 1990, the city is not obligated to comeinto compriance with any change in loca1 subdivision reguiations as maybe reguired by the 1980 legislation until such time u= itr" city nextamends its subdivision ordinance. Thus, it courd be argued. that therei's no one-year safety period for any chanhassen devel0per until suchtime as Ordi-nance 33 is next amenrle<i.
Mr. DonaId Ashworth
I
I
I
I
I
\
)
I
l
l
_J
c 7n
Craig M. Mertz
Mr. Donald Ashworth -3-May 29, 19 81
We believe that the one-year time limit was enacted. by thelegislature in an attempt to limit the cons titutional ly-based
property rights of the deveJ"oper rather than an attempt to extend
to developers new rights not previously held by them. Accordingly,
we are of the opinion that the one-year safety period afforded the
developer by the 1980 legislation is applicable to Fox Chase notwithstanding any technical questions regarding the intended effec-tive date of Minnesota Statutes S462.35g(3c).
Very truly yours ,
CMIU: Sas
S 462.358 pr,ANNrNc, zoNING
{62.358 Proc.duro ,or plan oftccluallon; aubdlvlslon rcgulallona
Sulxl. l. llolx,llryl l)j. Il\1s l$S0, e.,(;l;, i:I.i.
Subd. la. n uthorlty. To Irotcet nn{l pronrote the publtc he<h, s!rfets,
nrr,l gr,Ir.rrl \1.lfr(., lo IrovkI. fr)r lllo ofll(,rly, ccollomlc, lrnd sfife rlovololF
nrr'nt of I:r,ll1. l,r trrescrvo IAriIultrrrlll lnn(lr to promote the se&il:rhllity of
lllnrsinli rrffr,r'rLrl,l. tr, tx.r nr,. nn(l fnnllll0s ol trll lncome levels, nn{l to ln-
cllit,lto nrl{\tlllllo l,rr,!lsi')n frtr trnrstx)rtItioll, Nater, aewlrAe, atorm,lrnlD Ao,
schrn)h, Inr'ks. ltllrtArollllds, nn(l othor l)llblic scrvlces otld lAcilitles,It,lllt.
ri
rlr r,,or t
I rr(,vI girlrrl i us nl:!y con proy
$pcctinA, l,Inl lrc nrrrdr |tp|)licnLrlt. only to, ccrtrtin tlaasea or klnds of sub-
(livislonv. 'l'Io rc;.!lrlntions $lr:rll Ix) |lnlfortn for cnch class or kind ol 6ub-
divislon.
,\ mtlnicinxlitl'nuly hy rorollltion o\t.'lrl tho npplicrrtion o! lts sul)diyision
reAllliLtions l,r unlfir'(,rllortto(l tcrritori IocItcd Nithln t\vo Dliles of its llmits
ir lly (liro(tir'll hut not in ll t,rNI \vtrich lrrs xrlnltorl s lxllrision regullrtions:
Drorlrlrl lhnt $hl'ro l\vo or r r,to r(!r{{rrtlAlx|lls rn||tllcil,lllities hlrvo llound-
llrlt's lcs{ lhflrt fr,rrr nrilos IItrl, r.xch i$ [llttrorizo(l to control the suhdlvision
of Lrnrl crlull (listance froht lts boundrrics r\ithln this orct, Howcvcr, if n
mUnl('it)rllty crit(.nrls thc tl,Ilictltion 0f lts sul)dirision or zoning rcgulxtions
to tllrlnfi)r'lxrrnl(\l torrltort,, utxnr tLc tlctltlon ol lrny Collllty botrd or town
lxxrrrl offr.(tr.rl Ity tlr{. Nlllxlitliiolt (lr zotllI( rcgltl tlollr, [ ]olnt lx)urd shllll
lla i'stnhlislx.'l mnsisti l'l r,f :l thrce nI'nrlx.r corn0litt('c rrlth ona lrertllx-.r nD-
u,intt\l frorn on('h ot tlle nllrni(iptl, town rin(l county Fovcrni g l)odics. This
Jolrt ho rrl shllll rrlotrt zolllnE nn(l sllh{livision rcguLltiolls un(Icr ilinnesota
Stxtrrtt't, Sr{.tlolls.lli'..:.:l5l t0.lli:1.:l{i.l for tho ontir| nroll \vlthi two nrlk's of
tho clt, l('(:rtcrl $ithi torvn, rrrr(l rloslr:nntc onc of tllo ,aovetninA lxxlies to
sl.rt{.,ts th('tti,rrrni ,: lxxll nrxl lxntrrl of rrplx.nls lln(l (lJllstl ont fo. pltr-
pot{'s of soctlon$ {l;2.:I-,7 tt||rl .lri!.:|:\g wlthl|l Iltl, nroi. I)lll.ilrti thc tlrnc lx'forc
thc Joi,'t lxrlrrl nrlrtpts srrh(livlslon ri.,aultlions. tlrr. s b(lllislorl roArrlItlons
xhlch tho lllllllicipxlltJ hlls ('xtcnil('(l sllrrll ltppl]..
Suhrl. !. ltr'tx' l.(l h], L lrs l!)S0, r. 5ti(i, I:15.
Subd. 2a. Tormt ot regulatlonr. Thc rtlln(l,lrris In(l ro(tllircmcuts ln thc
regrrlttions rrIy ,rrl(l.r.Nr NithouL ll tltrtlou: thc sizr', loclltlon, F dinE, ond
inrnror,o!rx.nt r)f l.rls, strl|.trrros. Irrhlk. ,tr.orrr. strcotr. ror(ls, trnils. \ynlk\rny$,
crrtl,s nnrl rutlors, t!llt('r slll,tlly, lrtornt drrrllrlfc. liAlttlng, scivcrs, clcctrlelty,
lrrls, ,rn{l othIr lttllltles: llx'IlunnlnA lrnd rloxiAIr of sill.s: lrcccss to sollrr
('rrer|.y; nnrl llx. prot|'ctioll r(l consorylltLrn of floo(l Ilrrlns, shorc lInds.
8oils, rvntor, vr'g.tlltion, .n{..(.r., ltir rturrlitJ, lrrd F|.r,!oAk. tln(l ccoloKlc tca-
trlrcs. 'flx. ro,:|lIlttior$ sh Il r(rtllirt thnt subrllvlsions l)c conslsteDt wltlr
th{! ntrtr}icip,rlity'r{ officilll lll p if orr,o\ists I|rxl lts zoninE or{liDntrcc, ulrd
nlry rorluin. ronrlitot|.J rrlllr othr.r ()ffl(.l,rl controls nnd thc courproltonslt'c
Dllrrr. 'l'hc ri'nrl:rtl,rn$ n ll' trnthiblt (,r.rtIifl cl:rss('s or kinds of sutdirlslons
Itl llrclrs trlx.fl, Ir'.rlr il)i l l,nt is.onsistcn( \rlth the (,onltrrchenslvc phn:rlld the
lrtrpos(:..r1 thli s(rtiotr, Irlrtl(lllxrlJ tho I)r'osorvntioll ot lrgrlculturlrl Llnds.
'l'l,c rclirrLrtir'rr nllly l|rohil,it ,,,n ,*",,nn,r' of lnril(lix,i U'rurits for ^njr tttrcts.
I'rtx, or lrrr.r'ls for lthi{h rl!tllir({l srrlxli!isii,n r't}t,rr}rlll h s Dot t)oen ohtnlncrl.
'l'h(. r'r'rrrl,rll,'Ie rrny ti'rrnlr tlre rlnllk.ltxllltJ t.) r.onrlltl,,r lts {Irlrrornl on th{.
oolrslrurlior ,t,'(l lllrtllllxllol of H|'rv'.rH, rlror.lH. r.lralrii, ,{rri, rlftrlIrr,{o, nnrl
wrttor flt(ililkx, lllxl slllrllrrr lllllillcx rrrl lnrlrr'rsor'rcrlts (]r, In tleu tllcrcol,
0n tllc rr{1.i1't l,J' llrr. rnllrri( iIrlil!- r,f :t .nslr rl"t sit. cortifi('(l cllecli, Irrotoclt-
l,l, lotl.r "l rrillit. r,. llnrl in rrn tlI|ll|lrt 1rn(l $lth surcty lttld corrrlitl()trs
srrtfi(!irrl l,' xssr.o lll| nrr'i(ltrrlitJ,tlr:rt tl(r urililk'r nnd llnprovfirn'lrls rvlll
li'(r'rrslIlli l,rl ,,r inslrll'11 nrr!trrlirI t,' llll'stxtlllcrrllorr$ r,f th{' Irlrrlri('ll}]tllty.
'l hr. r it l,r 'l,llrlltlrxl ll{ ,lt}trr()\'lll on
.!'ll't,lirrn(.'\ r!it lr ('tlr.. r',rclnt('d to
'r.lU lo r.\r\.ulr, rI'volr rurcllt cotrtrncts ngt
,!'(l ,r)r',lil i,,r t .,r x t't!r,,rrl. 'l lx. xrrririt'll l) rrty I'll irrcc srtt.h llgrrr.llt( rts
c li.Nlll [rr(l cquit Ulc rc edles.
rrlolrL srrlxlirlsion regullrtions estnblishlnra
') l,t,n't,rllll
112
i
I
I
I
i
I
I r pta oi.
he publlc beltth, satety-n( lC, s-Dd safe derelo;E ) the ava[ablltv ;fncrre leeel!! and t; fr-ael,aSe, gtom dralnllartarrO fac l er, q miil5r tE establlshlnE Btnn-
_a_ approvnl or dto"i.rn vnrled provlstons rlrasqes or )alnds ot Aub-o nas o! klnd of sub-
,silan o! tts suhdtvlstoh
two mllee of lts ltml;ru Ivlsloh neRulsuonr.1Ii ,allties have 596161crttrol the ruhdlvlston
's ar.e& Ifoweeer, lf ar ' zoning rcglltr oD.c Dty board or tOEDor-! .JolEt boord sholl' Iglth one tnelnbcr aD.io",rrnlngbodles. Thtrtl s ulder lllDnesot!,a lthln tt9o mlles ofhe goverDlDla bodlea toLi adjtrstmeDt for pur-r) .ng the mc betororll lyislon reguiations
PT,AIiNING, ZONING S 462.358
Subd. 2b. Dcdtcxlton. Tlx. r,..ll,rtiolls n|lty rcrtltlr|j thllt u rcllsonlllre por.tlo.n..or rrJ pr(,rx,{rr s,,rrrivi-i,,n 1", rrerricrrr,.ri ,,, ir,"l,,,i,ii 1,,. i,....i..',,.,r r."lll].ll]: |.l-". ns srrools, ro:r{ts, scn.ors. clc(rri,j, l{rs, nnrr w,rter iniiiiii,,", *u,".rtirtcr.rlftlir g0 rrrrrt lroLlirrg rt.crs ()1. ltr)Irls nu(l sinrihr rr litir.s rrrrrl lnrl,rore-
In lxl(litl(rr. tlx' r'.A IItl(,t|1 rr,r! r(rluir.r, tlItt rl ro si,Irtl,lo lx,rti0Il ot ltnyIronoso(t s,rtxlir'ist,rr Lc rL,,ti(,nreri to ttrc I)ut)tic ,," 1irn.,,.r.,,,t,i." i,,,Uu" ,,o,nx Iurls. t,Lltl:rr'rllrls. trnil{. r,r,tr,r,I sltllcc: Irorillfil r t (lr) thc t llnlcip:rl_. ttJ' nt,t!' cho(,\. rr, !rcco!! nr o,1r,it,rtc,it _ri,,i,", i,i l^.r,'i,,l,n'ii,n",,,,,,,,",,,,aror Inrt or ltt ')f tlrn n.,rtiln r,!,liro(l t,, lr rt,atir.rrt(1t ,. ","f, f,,,iii",,*lor prrrlroscs l':r*(.rl .'tl tho frrir rnnikot rntltc (,f tlli. lrrrul rr,r l tcr tl,nr,lt thotime of .ftrrl x,r,r,,rnt. {t,r ,,r. cirsh J,nr.rro.rs ,,,,.i i:,i ,l;,,ii;;. i,i,,,,,r ,,, .sFocinl ,rrn.l hv ttk. r,lrotr.inriity rrsr,(t ontl. for thc Irrrtx,s{.s f". r,ir,fa, rf,nor'r,,,r',1t, t.) trr r.t,rrr ristr rrrx ti" "r,.,,i,"i, r,, 'ii"iir, ri' u, ilo ,r.rr-llll1l-,1," rr.xuhuons r nJ, consi{tor rho opon spllcc, txrrk, rocrclrtlorlnt, orcornrroit hrenr nnrt f:rc l os rvtrt(.tr tl(, uy,1,if,,rr,,1'1,r,a',,,1.r_ i" ",."..r..r'f,,. ,f,"slllxllvislon, rD(t {{l) thc tlIlrricipolify m;tson Il.f (htcrnriros thnt lt \!lll no{!lto ncqrrlft, th t t!)rtio of l|lrrrl for re IuIix,sos stlrkrl i ris t)llr (rnJrh lrx,l rcsrtlt of llIIrror.,tl of thc s||lnlivi{iol.Sulnl. :1. l(r,tx.lllorl t)y Lrr\.s tsr), c. j.iii(;. $ t;.
-_Su.bd.3a. Plal ng. Thc r|Elrlnti,rns rI y roit iro tLnt RnJ s lxli!isi,.)Ilcrcntirs t,rrrcotr, rn(.rr, or Iors. st,,rtt tr. FL;trl,l. rr* i ,,l,,iiiL,,* ..i,.rr *-
::,:.:,lu.:l _11'
yrrh.tiviiio,,s \r.trich crnrto iir.o ,,r nrr,.r, r,*i.i 1,ii.i.ni" ,,r,icr,
i11.[,ilj,TX i::",:,::,*:1";l;XlJ,i,,l'tllii;,,ii'i,iXl,:lliij[;:tlil"iilil:$l;n.ldltlohnt to row. tn th t ctrnrricr.
Subd. 3b. Rcytew
rogrr(ling tlx, contr.0l
proced ures. ,l'1x. ro lll,r li,,rrr shnll in( l r k I)rovisi()n$
nal ra'vicw nr(l ,rp|mrltl or.
Jltf nrl)divisions rrtlrl srn to:rAencics. Tl r{. rcrltlrtt
n"iiiFfinliT-ie rorls tIlitr I)r,)i.irlr, for te (1,lls(,lirl:rai(,rl
nl,provnl or rlisulDrov{l {)l sIltntivisi,,n
of tl(, lrr0li r iltrl rJ:
s. ['r(.lirtirI .J. (,rfiruLl npproe,tl nl}.r'l'ho r(,I{tltI'tI'rIls Il
)r, r.ftlntorl r)r (lc'Iicrl t0r tntrts ,,f slltxliI isi"h,rIt'li(!rt i0h:{.
l)rIlitI (lr ll0l I't)l).
| 'qutaemenh ln thc'o tloh, gr&dlng, andllili trallE, wtlkways,
r8, s€lvera, electrlelty,.l| .; acctss to solerI rln8, sboac ltrDd8,gl_and c.colosle fon-B bc conslsteDt Flthrnllg ordlDonce. lrndd he co@prehcnslvek. Is of subdtplstons
hEnslve phn aad thc,f ngrlculturtrl Lrnds.r ta lor Any tracts,a rot bcex obtalDcd.
| _r approvol oo thc', Bas, dralnnge, nnd^-r ln lleu thcreof_lf I chc*k. trmvrrn-rI y aDd con(ll ons
,l .lfn p ro vc nt c n tr.r wlll
.ollthe E)unlelDsltty.ri tta npnrovrll onk hc Drovlslous ofrlidylng the tcrms'c! auch agrcements
ry pr('s.ri)'(' fN:{ Rllfflct'ot lr, rtr.fftU, x.cdsrs ir r( llrr.rl l))tlro fiIr icipItitJ.iI thr. rcvic N tn{l llly.stl,i tir)I of rrrxl rr(.ti i,lls lltk' sll(h lltr-t)t i rntlonx. .l'ho roful)tl l.,ns lll,lJ (li,lr 'Enl(' tlx. nuthorltl. to rovl{,ry Ixttx)s lirkr tho l)LllrriIlg c,rlrtisslolr.hrt Iill l llllrrovrrl or rlls:lIIrr)! I sh ll ln, tlxt
sr! I,r,'ri(l{l t'-! tll\\.r,r r.lrr
i,rrts Irlor t(, Irl,litllifirrry rrl,tI.r,rnl. ullL.rr
I,rrbllct lion of n0tl'r.,,f lhI rt|tx.Il n(l t)h('l. thor.rl)l lI x,,,ftirtrrt rx.r\xt lc
(loeisior l of tho gorr.rfllnl! lx)(lJ ol t hc rnrrnicil)trlitl ltItloss ()thorI\.iso t)rotirlo(lb.l. lx\\,or (t:r rtcr. 't.lr{. rr,rtlI tir,n r slrllll rorluiro tlmt n t,uhlir hcrlr ing slr:rlltrr holl or |lll rlllnlir lstr)ll lrlt,lic:rl
f tlrc lx.rlrlllA .\t tll(' h('ItixA, rrll gx'rsonr
I nte ('stc(l sL:tll lx, ,'|iv{,n,ltr o l4x,rturity to rnIlkc pacsentlltiolls. A sul,(liri-Elon ,tDI,lic{tion sh;lll ll(.trr{.lillrinrrril1' lll)trr.,v({t or rtisrrt,t,r(,\{\l \\.ittriu t.-10duys lollo\viDA (lolivorJ rr lltrIlir.)rtion conlllot\l ln c(,l|rpllntx\: \vi l lll(r,rrunicll':! l i,rrtir:u(r, l,\. Idlor of rlx. rr.i j(.\r. tx.ri,nl llll s lx{n ncro(.rl to b, tlto [pl,liclrnt. \\.hcl n (livl.
rrt'Ili(r rt t tl!(, ll llriritxllit)., rrrrlcss rrrr rrrr('rr.
slon or sltlxllvisi.ll to $.tri..t!
llst tr.t| rln.vr lr.f n, ll, rltll.(]
rlr.r. 'l'h{! In.llrirrr slurlt ti. lll.Ll f.,llt,wi A
(lrt' rr;lulxtlorr of th,. rrrrrriicilg Irosc rr(l to t. city, roccrtity th:rt r{. s'rtnlitisi(,n
cl(!rk of thc r urri(.ltILIlty ilrrUl \vlthill tou (htl s
nrlil-v (1.) r0r llpt'l] torr.aulrti0lls of rll(.,lluIlIcilthc p{rrtl, ltlllr {lir.isi.ril
,,..11,.11l:],1,"',',,,',,,,'.r..rr rlx. ft.{rr,,r{ilrl(.tliol'(.1. .,f rtro rnu i,.ittlrlry fl r r0 rrro-rrrrrtrlnrrrJ rl,trr,,\'(, r,r (ristrr,r,r,,r{.nn ,.trr)ricrrtl()n r!ithin lhc rc,'iciv Jrcrrrxt, ttro
l::llill,,,lll sl'nlt..t\. ,tcl.,,,c,1 pr,.rirrtnxritl up1,.nl.n,r, u,i,i ,,r,,. 0i,r,,i",r tr,"Irlrl,llcrt'|lliiJ shjrll r.\r\.lrtr, ll r1.rtifi,,:ltI ti, tl lt off,.,.t. lfoll,[\.l E I,rellIri|lnrIallrrorll lh. xr4'ti.xll lurl. r,\t,r.sr flr,rt,rt,t)ro!lt l,l: tr,,. ,,,,,,,i.ig,,,ii,r. ur,f
lill:1,: ,:,11, r,arllr\r rh. rr,.ttr:rI(y st rtt cr,r r.r. rrnrrt rry,Irovrrl rr:tthrn rio
l]lll: ,i j',,. ''rrr,tirl rr tl,rs c,rI'rr,tiial r\.tltr ll ooIr t i.,,r ltr,i .u,1,rrr,.,u,,nr* ,,t
'rprrLi'nr'r" ri j:,,r:r i,rr ird n c,,rr tionn xr.l rr'(l,.rr.'nrrrts nIx;n ivrrlctr thoprollurirnrJ ,lIt,rovnl Is c\l,.r,ssty r.rnrlition('a l'irtrr.r tfrro,rxir porf,,.r,ra,,,t
26 V,..5 A.-6rr.oP' ll3
r--:'.;
s 462.358 I'LINNlNG, ZO.\.-lN(;
or tli,. r.lio.lllir'll ('f tpl]&'l]rirte 0grocmcnls llEsurlDI pcr!o!.lltx cr. It ttrcrnllri.i,):rtirI fllits tr) (,rtlfr. flnol iIDror.nl rr" _qo rrrrrrirr,rt, ,r,,i'ii',r,,. .,1,1,ri.rirr't tr:rs,r)rrt,li,.rl \vith rl)l condltlons ond rcqlllrcrncDts, rl,"
^ppfi,.,,ii,,,, ..r,,,rrl{' rktllrr(t firxtll xt'pr.ovcll, trn(l ltprxt tlenl lrl rt,c rn,,,,ict1,rli1'r]'_r,;;ii , .,,,,,,.ll ccrlificrlo lo rl, t offoct- lftor llnal npprovol a sul_rrtivtsloir,r,,,,.r,. fif,.,l
Subd. 3c. Eficct o, subdtvtstoll appr_oy-at. t'or ooe year lollo$irrs ;rrr__lirrrirrrrrr- .rllrrr,r:rl xlrt [,1. t\\1i Jorrrs t.lloqinE tinnf ,l,l,"o*,ii,',,,,i,.. trr.slrr'rlr\rl.,r: xl lt,r. I lllir.iI lit). xgrce otllcrwisc, no umcndDlctrr t0 rr .1,Ir.
I)r( lr'rr.r\,. t,l:r'r ,,r ,,ffi, i.rt ,r,lltrol ih|llt nt)pty to or lttfr,( thc usr., tL.\,.t,,t,-
::l:']ltjl,l,,.l].r I,,r si7'.. l,,r 1,,\,, r,0r.rtc(ricorion or ptottins rcqirireit ,,. 1,.r.tlrrtrl,rl l'!.rlr. irl,l'r'r,\rrl :rt't,li,rrti,rl. 'l'lr(.r(! ftcr, purstlxllt to its rr,l{rl:rlr,,tl*,trn' rlrrl,,rrrl)rtlit.( rr:rl'(,\tl,Irl tllo Icriod l)], ltgreerDent with the sul,(li\irl(,rIrntl srrl.j'r'r ti, lll :rl,t,li!.r1,1,, l,t rf,,rrnirrx.e "uridition" ll!rd requirrllorrs. orll rrr:'t'r'irr,rir',.."1Ir:-.ir'r' r,f;l r(.\r. llDl]licution nuless subst{ntiirl l))rt.ic:rlxctirilr' :,,1 ir\ostl,(.,1 lrits oc(.rtrr(rl irr rr,us,n:rlrlo rclirrx,c on x! tq,l r,,!c(llrl,l,li(.rrti.)n rIlr(l tlr(. slli(lit.i(lct. \r'ill slrft(,r slllNL ntllrl Iinaucial rlarir:rrr, rrs:r .c,rlrt,\trn r,1. r,f rr r,rIlirr.Ilr.rt t0 slrlrr)il :l lr{,\r lrlrIlic tion. lll .1)lllr,, !it,rl\!ilir i' ",,l li\i'i,,rt i'rr,,lri"( l,tll'r'r(rl:r rl str,:o(l rlci.ck_rpmcrrt, tr ntrlnicil)rrlit!rrlil! 1,.\' r's',l tioll.,r xErr\,llI.tlt fr l tlt(, riqlrts rofolr.(l to Ilercill for slll.lll(r1,nls i,f tiIr. Iu,r,ir,r thIr t\1o J..cirrs \.lri(ll it (lcterrli cs to be t.citso.'ill,torn(l I llltrr'Iri tr,.
Subd. 4. Rert.lctions on flltn, !nd reco.dlng conveyarces. In ir rrr.nicil,rlity irt rvhicll sul)divisiou rrElthltiolls nro in forco nn{l h vo lx\.rlfiLrl 111 111.,,,.,1,',; Is t)rr,\.itl(.(l in llrls s({lir,||, tll, c0|lyr,\.irn(\, r,f I I(l t,r\rlicll llll' r'r,gul;lti,,llr itr(.]tlrt,licnhlc slrIlll tx, filt.tl t,r rf'cor(lo(1, il tlx,Lrnrl lstlcscrilx\l irr lll(. (rrlr:!Jllll(.r, hl,ntct(.s n(l lxrullrlt or l)v rr.lcrcnce lo il rtn_:rIIrro!,11 r,.;.lisrr.r{\l lxr|(l srrrIL..r m:l{ln lt,.r.\t,ril :jl, l!ttit or t(, xn lr:rpl[.o\.ad
IrIrt nlrlrlo fl(.a ruch rrE llltions lx{rI c oli.ctiro. .l.hn lorr.goinA I]rovisionrlo,,s u)t It)t'l\,to rr (,l|nvr,J.I|l({, i( tl(, t n(l (l..scrilx\l:
-ll) \\':rs x srI): .:rto pjrrcr.t ot ri.(1,r(l April I, r.lj or lhc d:rr,r,,t (lop onof srrlrlitisi.,t| r.'.rrrl:rti(,D$ llt|(k.r l,:r\.s t!|'li, t.l|lrtrtr.r ]S;. $.IirirIr,r i: rolnl(,r, r,r,)l thc u(l,Ition of sut(li'.lsiorr ..x.1:rtlo,s 1,,,.",,,i,,t t, :r lrr,c rlrtoclurrtcr, or
1::l \ls tltc sul,ject of :r \\'rittcll uAr.rctn(.[t lo rourc.r tutct({ lrlto prlor tosucll ti|lr(.,
{:l) \r'ns u s(,tnrr:ltr, l)nr((.1 r)f not lt,ss thrln trvo urxl onc-llatf ttcrcs lIl xrn^llnd l5() fo(.t In rrirlth oll.rItllllry l, 1!(ifi, or
({) is jr sinrle I:lrccl oa lxDrl {rf not lNs th:tn fi!c llcros rrn(l hlryi|lli lr Nirlthol not loss thlrn ll00 fcot rrnrl its corrvoJ:ilnoc (lo(,s not rcs lt lll thc rtil.isionof tlt(t ll,lr(r'l i|llo t$,o or nrol.r lots or I,urcols, l||r)i onr, o! rvllich is l(,ss 1tl;[lfirl' cros i lr.c:r or:t(X) f(.ct lll rri(lth.In :lnJi cllso i|l \rhich ('ol lrlixhcc \\,lth rc fr,rr,Aoing r(.strictiot)s \r.l (.n.l|t(.llrr rrrnccrrssxl.J lr:lrrlsltiIl xtl(l fnllltfl. to (1,rt|Il], rl(n.s lr.)t int{.r1,,n. $..tt) ,..
lnrrlxrsr. of tLc srll'rlirisi()rl r(,Altllltlons, tlr, lllrt|ing t t tority mn]. tvnlr'|.slr(.hcorDI)lirn.o I'y :t{1(ltrllon of tr r(.solntk,ll to r:lt offc(t nn(l re fi,nr-oJ,xll(1.rnnJ
thr,n lx. fil'(l r)r r(\.or(l(rl. .\ny o\r' i.r oI ngrllt (,f !lrll owner of Irrlt(l lvho (,()!r_
YcJs ll ]ot or p:rrrtl ln \.lol,lti0n (,1 tIo I,t.ovislolls of tl,ls sulxlirlslot slLllforlcit :ln{l l):rJ. to tho nlll iclpltlit}. rr lx,nllt.v of not lcss thxn gl(X) for onchlot or Irrrrcrl sn consoJc(1. A tlllr iciIllit\. nurJ. (,njoiI slrch con\.(,.r.uucr_, orlrlirj'r('cor'(a s (,lt l,to:tltI by lt civil trclillll itl I J court of conrl)ctent jllrls-(llct ior.
Subd. .ln. Olsclosure by 30llcr; buyer'3 actloll ,or danagcs. .t tl(,rst,ll(r'r\iliL;.i x rr,\\ Irrr(1 1I't lntlrl \\.lrirlr, r,r 0x. l'lrrt f('r \\.Ilcll, hls t!,t l)ri,_\i!)||sl! lna,rr Iil(.rt ('r recorrl({1, arrrl rvlrich is lrxrt of or woul(l colrstirutc lrs'rl(livisi',,r t,, \\l'i(.lr tl(I,!tt,rl t|r|tricit'rrl s t'(lirisl('ll rr'*uLrttoDs Ill,t,l].. .1llrI
lrLtx(ir to tl(r itlstr tnrrrt of (1[rv(.].ut|rx.: {.ith(.r: (x) rc(l'rillble ccrti. xltl., tr}.(lrc !lcrl (,f Llr| lllllricilliLlity tl)flt thc srrtxliriiion rcgulutions rlo,lot l)Il)r,rrr tlrrL tlrr sIl)(livisiorr hlls b{rcn xIl,rr^.cd l,y thc govcrniDg lx)(!J, or tltnt
ll4
T
I
I
II
:16,.tl'",';:1"I,;,,,. il,,l,ll:re r, thc annti.ari,,,, .ii,,irn rlcitj lir). sl,.r II r.rl'crrtrit
-UrlivlsioI tD y lx, fitNt
., e year lolt,r*irrg ;rrtrt apDrovol. ul|k,ss th{!n(_tDtcndmclt to :r .r)h-,r aft('ct the uNe. (L,r,.t,,,,-pl$tlnA rcqulrcd or t,{.;.rn tnt to itl r,.rjIl;rtr,h\n( wlth rc srrlnti\ i(t(,;
'nJ-Ilnd rcqul l'l.ttl(,||ts. orrJcsrs substtDti , l,ht \icnlri 'rDoc on rc :tt)trr,lrft|:l: !lnincinl ,lnrrrar:o .*
'P-xtlon. II rr,ntrr.r,t Ii,Iclol)Elent, a D ti(iDitlit\.'c ,,d to heroirr foi.rr,.i,'r nos tO be r.:tson:llrlo
onvlyarco3. In il il||r.r lrd! and hllt.o hcenc relnnee of InD{l lor_lrded, Il tho Inn(l t$by refcrenc€ to irn lrn-:)l'-tor to {ll trnrlnro\,.,.1
-C: lorcgoing paoyislon
'r t}|c dute of udoD on^'17, rvhichcvcr ls rorl lrnt to lt hornc rltlo
Y CDtcrC{J rDto Drlor toI
c -holf acrcg Ilt arca
es aDd htvin8 n wlilthr rult llt thc (llvislon, , whlcb ls lcss tlan
-eirrlctions rvlll cronk.ror rlnterfcfi! \,10r rf( ,y Eloy I'airo su(.hil e ooDyeyxhco Innj.vH of lsnrl wlto cor.:hla subdlvkilon,ihlll{ rhon $100 tor cnchch conlcy[ncc ort ' coEpetcnt Juris.
l_rnagcr A person
lch, h:rs n(,t nh-r ould cons trrtc nrulEtlons opl,ly, sh:rlllable ccrtificuriol| L]I] ')Ds 1lo lrot :rppiy..t og body, or lhat
PLANNINC, ZONING S 462.358
thc rostrlclions rrr tlto dlrislon of txrr,r llll(l liling xr)d r(,(.ordirrA ltsvc beenI\ltl!c(l l,t r.sollltioll 0f tltc {olorlllIX I'odt of lhc tlruniciplllity in thls,{,tsel,r,eulrs('conrplilrIco \r'ill cmrrtc irn llnIlr,(.ossirJi Illrr(lshil, tll(l fxllrtrc to conl-
l)lt will r,rt lnt(.rf(.rr, \vith tho l,ur.posc of thc rcg lntions; or (b) Il st{rtcmont\vlllch rxtrnoH fill(l lrl,ntifirs thc Lc tion of tho rrl)ljrotrrltrtc nllrricilrnl offlccsnlxl lr(lvlsos th(] Fr !ltoo tht! nlllnlclplll slllxllylsio Iln(l zonlnF reAl,lntions
tnlly rostrict lhc lts('or restrlcL (). t)rohibit thc (lovolot)rncnt ot thc prlrcel,
or ror,stnrctlon on lt, nu(l thlrt tlle dlriBlon ol toscs and thc filing or record.lnl. of th(' c0rrr,r,.!llnrt1 x[lI. lro I,rr]ltil,it(\l \\.itholtt t)ri(lr r0cor(luhlc C(,rtlfiClr-tlorr of rr;4rrov:rl, Irnrxt,t)llcubility, or $xlycr from lho n lDiclplUlty. ln onyrction cofillrx' r,r\l h]' u hl,t1'r of sllch ll p{lrcol gjrillst tlro s(,ll{.r thcroof, thenllrro|lros(.rllltl(,r (,f ()r tllc f:tllur(.t(, illscloso lnlltcrlfll flrcts ln ncco.dltn.o\rlth tlthi a||lxliyislr[t shrrll u. grrrrrnrls frrr (llrtlllla(,N. If tlt(! l)lt].er ostnl)lishr.shls right to rlnmngrs, il dlstrlet colrrt heflrinE tho muttcr rnal: in lts discrc-tiotr x1*n ",t',a,, to tho l t.r'('r rtn trtltoltnt sltfficiollt to pitl. Ill or nnX pnrt ofthc c()\ls Incltrrad ln lntri tl1illitrg tho ^ction, inclu,ling relrsonnl)la,lttornoy
Itlcs, xn(l lll, s rollllt f0r pll itiye (ltntngcH not e\cee(lillg fivc por ccnturn ot
tho purchnso llricc (,f thc lnn(|.
Subd. ilb. Rcatrlctlor! otl lltlng end reco.dlng convcyances. In lr mll.nl(i|lllllty lrl rvllch sulxll\'islon r(.gutlltlons ^rc lr forcc,lnd llltvc l\.ell fllorlor rr.eor(l0rl Irs Irovl(lo(l l thls socrlon, r]o cor r l.(.J'tr r (.o of ltrlrd to \1]ti(.h tho
roAtrlntions nro:rlpllcairlc sh:tll he filt\l or rccor(lc(l. lf the llin(l is (lascril)cd
in the co!rv(rlnrr(r. l,J nretcs l r(l bo l(ls oa hy r{.forr'nc(. to ir llnnl)Drovc(l
lcgistcr(\l lnr(l r r\.(,y nr:rrlo trItcr At,ril:1, l0t)l or to (n uotDroved I)lnt
ma(le lftcr such .cAlrliltious lr(ornc effccti{e. Tlle forcgollt8 proyision doesnot npl)ly to ll coitvo-\. cc if the Ltn(l dcscrilxrt:
(l) rr'trs ll selnrnk. p&rtr'l of rcmr(t Al,rlt l, l0-ri o. thc alnte of l(toption
ot suhdilisi(xl reEll:rtioxs t,rrL.r Irurs lg{j, Chlptc. !Si, whichever ls thclster, or of tho n(loltiolt ot sllb(liylsion refulntiotrs pursurtnt to {I h( ne rrrlc
chlrrtcr. r,r
(:l) \rns thl! s[bjr.ct r,f n rvritlcn ltAt.ootltont to contl']. cntcrc(l into prior totllch titnc.
l:l) tvnl{ rt solnlr li' Irrr('{.1 (,f rr)t l(,ss tlurn trvo lrn(l 0lro.h lf n,.ro:r ill rrr{'fl
Irn(l l;0 f{.l.t in !vi(ltll (,n .l:Illll:rr]. l. lllt;rt. ('.
ll) \'fts n solxrrnto tlnrcol llf llot l('rr tlllltl fivo [ct.{,r in nr(.ri [n{l SlXt frot i
n'ldtll or .lUlJ I, t!rsrl. or
(5) ls rl sir)*lo l'rfl1,1 of (('l nrrr(,i,rl ()r lu(ll|stri l lI (l ol |lot lcss tltxu fivc
ncros Irl h'r\,ills x \virltll of ot kss r: t:Ixl fo(.t ll||rl ite c('llvo].nn(,(,rlor,s
noL.osrrlt iI llr|,li!iri,rtl of lho Illfi.ol l|lt,, t|\o r)r ||t(]r('l(,ts or lntrer'ls, Ilrr.r"
onc ol \rIi(.h is lr.ss thnI| fiv(. rr(,roH i[ |lft.r! (,a:lUt frr]t irr \'i(lth. or
(0) is { sinAlo lrrr({l r)f reiidcntirrl or nl..lcltltrtrnl Iln(l of not lcNs thnn !i)
trcros alrl hrrtilll:t Nirlllt of t!ot loss thllll:'01) lrt.t nnrl itr c(lllvoJlrnc(' (l(,cs
nttt rr.sllll lrt llt.rll\isilr' ',f tlo Ixrrr"l irrt.r t$1r or |l|l,r,'l,rts r)r lntrcrlr, n!-
otrr'.,t $hi,.lr is ll.sg thn '.|r) llcros ilr rrft':l or;tx) f(\'t ill llirltll.
IIr rlnJ rlrso il| \\'hi(.h (r,Illtlil r,(.\,ith thr'torogolnl{ rostrictions rvlll (.r(.llto
itn lrllrroc|si,lt.l lllrrlshit) n ll f:ril rr.tll collrt'lJ" rl(x.s U,'t illtorfr!rc $lth thl.
I'rlrlx,s(. "f lho slllnlivl\ir)n l.('IrrIrtl0 s. tlu. IllttlIE rtlrlhorit]. nrnr- |\-ll1r.. srlclr
rrrruplilrrrt. I'r :lrl,,t'ti,'L'f x rr.si)l tir,ll 1., thllt r.ffr!t t t.l tlr.c,,rrtrJ. llco It:t]
tll(.rr lx,fiL'rl i,t 11!'r,rrl(.r1. .\lrl. r'ir|t.r (,r',tll('|lt of tlll.o$.rx.r r'( h rl \r,hrt
cirrrYr.ts rr l,,t,'r'Irtr.t'l ir !i,rlrti,,n r)f llx't'r'orisi,,rs of lhi:r sulxli\lslor shrll
forf|it ||r'(l t,jll.t(, tlr urii.it,rlit.I.;r tx.rrltl (tf rI,t ,(.ss tltnr gtrx) f,rr c,lclr
lot rtr l':rrrr.l so rrrnvr'5r'rl. r\ l ullk.it'rrlitJ n|lrJ olljoitl sllch c{,n!r)xtrco o.
mrr)-. rr(1,r.,t srxh In.r:rltt'I'y n.irll iItior itnllr1'('rrrt of r$llrl,(.lr,r( j,rrir-
illct io
Subd. 5, Pe.mlts. liri.r'lrl Is ()tlrr.rsli' Irro\'kl.rl l,J this s('ctioll ,rll r.Iy]
trlc rlrrrl Hx\ (lisllil'uti{)rr llnIs or Iritrifi{. rr rl\\':r\'s, c rl's. \vnlks flr,l r,lhr.r
sinrilxr inrt'rr,r, roi |lls shxll l,{. conslrurtcrl or)lI ,,n x stfir.t. xll',J, or othr.r
prrl!lic \\'ir)'r)r r..rrr.nt,.It \\'hir.h ls {l,.silirrxtorl on nr! :rt,Il(,!(rl I,lrrt, r,r lrr,'tr.rlJ'Itr,licxtr!l Ill lhi','ill(.1lll nllrl ol lhr'nlu icil)flllty, or \vhlcll hIs olln'r1ti{'lN\.n
ll5
i !I I I
I
I
S 462.358 pLANNrNc, zoNrNc
lllli,I'11;;'i,lll,l,i';,ilii,llll'l"lill";,l),l1,ff;L#l"JXil'i'l,l"t"u(,o,,,,r ,,,, o,,,cin,
lf[,,ii i:,]';,,lit.,,1::l,Jl,iiil:,i,ii;"1"{"';;:l"xTiTiJ:Ji1"c:'"'ili-ilixi
;tlli:,ii,i't:,1;;.jl,,i,i:,1t;l:^.t1tffixlii;,l5i",iltr[;[t',i;,11":l,,xli',i:
irr,; r,,'rrDiri s'rnrr .or .r,l,ll to pt,rrrrii.tt;;;;i;p;;;;;, ;;;;.;lT'iiJ,:J, .,, '*''-trrr'xrr- 1,,,rs,,i,,,r r., ir( ? ..r- ordirnncr,. x. .p""n, ri'.iioii i*'il"i;: i:;";llcrxr\tlrrcti"n .,f :r l,rit{tirjl (,r nnI lot or porccl- conrcycriin""i"i"ll"
"r,u,.Drorlrions (,f ,is s,r.t i,,r,
Subd. 6. Varl:rnccs. Sulxtirisirrt fi:glrIltiorrs mlly Ircvl(lc for 11 p1114.-rlrrft'l(,r rrrrtirr ttrr. t.r.;.iltt tii,|ls * trI..lppty to spoel(ic prol,crtlcs whr.rrr,rrl uurrrirt Irrrrtst,il or rtx. trnil r.\isls, t,,ri' ,i,ri,, n"c"
-mn-v 'ni,*'.,i^,,,,, r,,,.,tx,t tln' {t',...ifir. ;.ir.,,rrrts s,,r r.r.r i, t,r. rcgrrlittio,s. .U",illi,li..r*l,,li]li,
].ll:].:::l*, ,'1,, i{ ,,r tiDrirrlt r(,, i,rx(rrrlI tr, !(.c(.ss ro (lircet suntight for s(!lxrt,rll.r.;:.1. s.f N(l,lts.
Subd. 7. Vacalton. ,I,hr.ror.rt,iI( I nl\.r,f a Irunicipnllty tnny vacatc nI|rl)rrLlir.l_v o\rr .rl ,tititr r.;rsr.rri.,rt .r lx,rl,.r.rrrrl rcsr.r\ir. or nry p..ri"n-ili.rilliirvtri(h 1r.,.rut lx.inl,l rrsilt r,,r s,.lr.r.r. rtrxir:r,:(., (,tr{tr.ip, f"ti,'lirpl,,";,.t,.r,f,n,,,,.girs rlrt slc:ul tnrrtxrsr.s (,r for tx,rrI_r:lrrl
".o.rr.,,f,,,.po..o", ii- iiio'*,,r,,, ur",,-rr(,r os \'lcirli()n proc(\.dinKs trc corkluctcrl r,,, *t.""t", "ttci" uriai "" pu,,ri"$1rJ's rl,t,l,.r l Ii,rx. rrrl.ch:rrt,.r r,r urt,, r 1,.,,r i.i,,rr*,,i i;;.'.
_ --- "..,
A lx,U l.vlt r,l r,.sr,rvr,,rr.ilrrs nn,srr,'cr ror rr,,. r',,,r,,,",, ,,i ,,.i,;i;;rllfil:'"'t Ist^l'lisln'rl rrtlinccnt to r dc(lic,rru'l
r'Iifh :rrc, I'. ,i,.ili,,rt",l ,,,i'li,l{'rrrrrr;'
('lnrrr sI:rr1 rr(ljno'nt lo thc str'r'i't :rrit
_ :ior. t. p,., "r,."',li ,"Ji;';lill',,i,ii:', .{i,,;l;;l},,;:"il,1::ili, ,_ ,,, ,.crrlrslrrr\l ns u l;tIir;ltrllI (,n ,,,:dltIorltv r,f IllllItIilxlitir,s r!hi(.h Iltvr. lrot
;l,l,,I,t,rl
srrl,rllris;,rr r,.,.iul tll,n{ ti, itlrlrr{,\(, lrtlls flrft.r itrrl.(,thr.r pro\.isi(,lr ol
Subd. 9. Unptnttcd Inrcats. S,rlrli!iri., r,,jr,rlrrlr,,r,{ L,t,,t,t,rl l,\. I I I I r I I r ( , i t , r I I i -lr'{,rrl r't,t.}.t,, I,;rri1.t. \.tri,tr ,rrr.,,,*,,,, ,"r,,,,,.,,i,,,*..;;];;:;:,:i,i,i,.,.,,.,, ,,,i;Il1,,,ili ,ll:' ;JI,il;,:,:lf,i;llii,;l:,,, ,,". * ,', .,,,,,*
'..i,i',,ir't;i,,,:; ;; :;;;;i:i,ii.
,rrrrIrIi:rr,,r.r\. rr, .,,rnrir,\i,,,, *-,,,:,'l;;,ll''' r'r rrIr'Irrrrr'|'rs s{' 'iriri'l,rl, I 'rrlinx
....:.:.oo' 'n LrmitaUons. ,\,'nrirx .rr rrris s({rl',rr srr:rlr rx. c,,rsrrrri\r to t.r,.rlt lrt i IT (,r1,:rlilt. t,, t.(,rUt:rt.
;,.r,i.r, .r, i" ,,,,ii,,,:i;:.,;';,;';tili,:;;,:'ili:,ill;1,I1i,111,,1" ronr,,,(. ,,,r s,,r,divi"i,,,,s
r.I\\.s l!ri;, i.. rj:lt, \ \. r.ff.,t: r t. rjr;,t...f,,..,,,f,"f L] I.:r\\s t:r;t, c. s l:.:, I t,' rl..lrl'r,. i. tI;t. Lr\\s t!ri:t. r, r:;, i r:_t,:rrl's r:,;,,.,]. i;i,. S i,.i.1,ir. ,,,r.,,..:,s, $ l: t.ur\s t:,;ti, (.. t\t. {..:: trr\{ l:,7s,..;*,,..i ti,,.j; .,.fi.
ni,.i,',,, ,,,r",/, r\s l!,sI, r.. .,r;rr, I ti: l.ir$.H Ils , r,.;tjti, $l::.:, f,,:fi
]^:co ro.hcr !t .?t.18_ril.tl
^Id {il.3lt.
,r,ij.l,"t.,ii"Ili,ll: ,,,.#i",",f ,,ii,.lliiI
Ii,,jli.;",lti,,l,lii,,i;,,,I,ir,,:,.",,i::iiIii,.tT,,l
li,i;itilffii**:"m -rulli*.lr $tdi,,H "'ffi
fi$fiffi[ffiils*fitffi
1973 Am.ndtr,.nr. rr'tr,nl.lln.lll! s ot,lr,n. rn tirri r,( th,.
iii;liliii "lllll l;liilii;;'ii i"'"i1::i i|;illl;::':li, ir"Iirll,.iiLl'ril;lrr;,"r; :ll,;.'rr".r,"'i^rFI"n
'',.""""'^" ""'"': ;iiilri'l'l*i|t':::;r;l;lu'''l:';ll"i';:'";i:,r,,rri rh.'r lI ntil{ol,.r.rtI r,r,,r, or "*,,i
iili::ll,iiii;r,:ll,;lliriii:,.,..li,ttil *ili{il,ii;lttiJtJi"l:}t#:*ll6
197l(r) ((r
l9i
r978
19
l,t I
L.
2h.
ly.
niclP{
the tl
(iqlt
I
T
rr!--ftk
a
i
i
-'1
I
r
La.rrsoN & Mnnrz
ATTOR N EYS AT LAW
I9OO FIRSI NA.rIONAL BANX BUILOINC
M IN N EAPO LIS, MINNESOTA 554O2Rt,,SSELL H, l-AR5ON
CRAIG I', MERT2
HARVEY T.5XA^R
(6ra) !35-9565
May 29, 1981
Mr. Bob Waibel
Assistant City Manager
Chanhassen City Hall
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
CONF TDENTIAL
Re: Fox Chase Soil Conditions
Dear Bob,
We have been asked to comment on the possible liabilitiesarising if the city permits the pratting of Fox chase notwlthstand-ing the poor soil conditions present in that area" Our report isdivided into two sections: potentiar li.abilities of the developer,
and potential liabiLities of the City.
I. Potential Liabilities of the Developer
In L977, the State legislature enacted a mandatory
warranty Iaw, which became effective on January 1, 1979 asing units completed subsequent to that date. AII buildersto have given the warranties described in this legislation
S327A.01 to S327A.07) .
One of the warranties is a mandatory warranty that the dwellingwill be free from "major construction defectsi' during a ten-yearperiod which commences on either the date of the closing or on thedate of possession by the first purchaser of the new home. This
warranty also covers subsequent purchasers who may buy the dwelling
during the ten-year period.
The term "major construction defect', is defined as:
"Actual damage to the load-bearing portion ofdwelling, including d.amage due to subsid.ence,
pansion or lateral movement of the soit, which
the
ex-
hous i.ng
to dwell-
are deemed
(M. s.
l1r. Bob WaibeL -2-May 29, 1981
CONE IDENT TAL
affects its load-bearing function and which vitally
affects or is imminently IikeIy to vitally affect
use of the dwelling for residential, purposes. 'l.lajorconstruction defectr does not incl_ude damage due to
movement of the soil caused by fIood, earthquake orother natural disaster. "
rn the case of Fox chase, the builder will then be guaranteeingsoil conditions. Hovrever, as can be seen by the definition of ',majorconstruction defect" the buirder could attempt to escape from liabilityin the case of damage due to a "100 year storm', by claiming that a
" flood" has occurred .
The Act
are relevant to
sets forth certain exclusions tothe Fox Chase situation:
this warranty whi.ch
There is no warranty as to driveways;B
c There is no vrarranty as to soil- conditions
homeowner has other insurance covering this
1os s ; ancl
if the
type of
D There is no vrarranty
home buyer supplies
erects the dwe 1l-ing.
conditions, if the
which the builder
to soil
land on
as
the
If. Potential Liabilities of the City
By ordinance (Ordinance 33, 59.11-), the City requires a sub_divider to test subsurface conditions ',to determine the nature andextent of subsurface soi1, rock, and water.,, The ordinance provi-des:
"If subsurface conditions exist which in the opinionof the Village engineer may be detrimental to the health
and welfare of the subdivision, the ViIlage may requirethe installation of neighborhood sanitary sewer and. watersystems to serve the subdivision.,'
A. There is no warranty as to retaining wa11s which arenot necessary for structural stability of the dwelling;
Mr. Bob Waibel -3-May 29, 19 81
CONF IDENT IAL
It is believed that this soif testing requirement is imposedfor two reasons: first, to ascertain the need for public sewerfacilities and public water facitities; and second, to assist theCity Engineer in revi.ewing plans submitted by the developer for theconstruction of streets and other public facitities to be construc-ted by the subdivider.
Thus the question becomes: Does the municipality becomeliabre to the urtimate home purchaser for structural damage to a homewithin rox chase if such damages are caused. by poor soil conditions?
As is explained beIow, we bel-ieve that under present Minnesotalaw the answer to this questi.on is in the negative. our authority forthis opinion is the 1979 decision of the Minnesota supreme court inCracraft vs.City of St. Louis Park (279 N.W.2d 801). That case con-.cerned the explosion of a fifty-five (55) gaIlon drum of duplicatingfluid at Benilde High school. This d.rum was rocated adjacent to theentrance to the boys' practice football fie1d. On October 27, 1974,the drum exploded, killing two stud.ents.
The parents of the two deceased children sued the City, a11eg-ing that the City owed the deceased boys a duty to exercise care inenforcing the fire code, and. that the City hail breached that duty,
and accordi-ngly was liable for the death of the two boys, The trialcourt dismissed the lavrsuit against the city and the supreme courtupheld that d j.smissal.
We believe that the rationaLe utilized by the court in theCracraft case is applicable to the Fox Chase soil test liabili.tyquestion. ?he Cracraft court stated that building codes, theissuance of building permits, the carrying out of building inspec-tions, fire codes and the carrying out of fire inspections are
designed to protect the public at Iarge and are not meant to be an
insurance policy by which the City guarantees that a building is in
compliance with building codes, zoning codes or fire codes.
The storage of the duplicating fluid at that location was aviolation of the City's fire code. The Cityrs fire inspector hadvisited the site on September l-3, \974. No citation was issued tothe school. subsequently, the fire inspector stated that he did notrecaIl seeing the drum of fluid when he made his inspection.
I
I
-t
I
Mr. Bob IVai.bel -4-t'lay 29 , 19 81
COI.IFI DENT IAL
The court stated that the city did not owe the deceased studentsany duty of care merely by the fact that it had adopted a fire codeinspection ordinance. such a duty of care arises only when there areadditionar indicia that the municipality has undertaken responsibirityof not only protecting itself, but also undertaken the responsibilityof protecting a particurar class of persons from the risks associatedwith fire code violations.
If there is evidence that the Cityduty to individuals, j-t can be held 1iab1e
"assumed duty. "
duty? "
tors in
How does one determine vrhether the
The Cracraft court indicated that
voluntarily assumed a
any breach of that
has
for
City has created
it would consider
an " as sumed
four fac-answering this question:
First, actual- knowledge of a dangerous condition;
Second, reasonable reliance by the injured
the municipality,s repre sentat j.ons
party on
and conduct;
Third, the assumed duty is described in an ordj-nance,
which sets forth mandatory acts clearly for theprotection of a particular class of persons; and
l
_J
l
_l
Fourth, the
the
City must use due
risk of harm-
care to avoid increasj-ng
The court held that none ofCracraft, and accordingly, the Cityheld liable.
these factors were present
of St. Louis Park could not
in
be
The court stated that fire inspections are not undertaken forthe purpose of assuring that a building is free from a1l- fire hazards,just as the staters issuance of a driverr s license is no assurancethat the ]icensed person will be a safe driver.
Thus, a distinction is drawn between ',public duties', owed tothe public at l-arge (which cannot be the basis of a negrigence suitagainst the city) and "assumed duties" owed to individual members ofthe public (which can be the basis of a suit against the City).
-l
-'l
,--.l
I
_t
I
--l
Mr. Bob Waibel -5-
CONFIDENTIAL
Three of these four factors merit further discussion. Al-though
al-1 of the examples cited by the court as being examples of the firstfactor (i.e., actual knowledge of a dangerous condition) invofveddanger of personal injury to persons rather than to property, we be_lieve that the potential municipal liability described in cracraftextends,to dangers to property as r.reIl as dangers to persoiE.
The court cites only one example of the second factor (i.e.,reliance) of the type necessary to create municipal liability. Inthis exampre, a building inspector tells a contractor that a trenchwa1l is "solid." Relying on that statement, the contractor fairs toshore up the trench wa11, which ultimately collapses, injuring aworker. rn this example, the court says that the contractor retiedon the building inspectorts assurance, thus the City is l_iab1e.
care
tha t
from
to
the
the
the
fn connection with the fourth factor (i.e., the use of dueavoid increasing the risk of harm), the Cracraft court statedfailure of St. Louis park to remove tfr"-if:""g;f drum of fluidschool grounds did not have the effect of increasing the riskdrum would explode -
I
I
Applying these four factors to the Chanhassen subdivisionordi-nance, we d.o not believe that the collection of soil data createsan "assumed duty" running in favor of future resid.ents of Fox chaseunless:
The soil tests reveal an actual
injury or property damagei or
danger of bod j-1y
The City by its actj,ons. or in its contracts withthe developer, indicates its intent to guarantee
soil condj-tions, causing private parties to relyon such actions, rather than taking other stepsto protect themselves; or
The City in its ordinances, or in its developmentcontracts, indicates that it is voluntarily assum-ing a duty to guarantee soi-1 conditions; or
The City by its actions is somehow J-ncreasing therisk of damage to pox Chase residents.
1
2
3
4
May 29, 19 81
I
I
I
I
I
.t
I
I
Mr. Bob Waibel
Ifhi-Ie Cracraft is th
caveat that it may not be th
There are only nine justices
Cracraft deci s ion was approv
Another fire inspection case
similarly decided this ye ar.to 4 to continue to enforce
more justice shifts his posi
longer va1id.
A
May 29, 19 8I
C ONF IDENT IAL
e rule in Mi-nnesota now, we must add thee 1aw in tr innesota on any long-term basis.on the Minnesota Supreme Court. The
ed by a 6 to 3 decision of the justices.
(Hage v. State 304 N.w.2d 283) was
However, the vote in Hage was only 5the Cracraft rule. Obviously, if onetion, the rule in Cracraft will be noI
-l
l -The four justices who voted on the minority side in the Hage' case indicated that the distinction between ',public duties,, ..,d
-i .':"=yed duties,' is in reality a form of sovereign immunity, which
I th"_ J.egislature has attempted to abolish by legislation. The minoritywould have al10wed the cracraft parents to bring their rawsuit if the1 parents could establish:
I
I
That the injury suffered by the deadof such a nature as r^ras contemplatedfire inspection ordinance, and
boys was
by the
B That plaintiffs were within
intended to be protected by
ordinance.
the
the
class of persons
inspec tion
These two factors apparently would be interpreted broadly forthe benefit of plaintiffs, as the minority stated as an example thatelectricar codes are designed for the prolection of pe=sor,= within theambit of the danger involved in improplr electrical wiring. simiLarJ-y,the minority states as a furthet .*.rnp," that a law requiring the firemarshal to carry out periodic inspectj.on of hotels is designeo to pro_tect persons r^'ho rent sleeping accommodations. Forrowing i.his ratr,onare,it would be easy to conclude that home buyers constitute a cr.ass ofPersons intended to be protected by soil test review procedures util-ized in the plat review process; "r,a it wour-d be easy to concrude thata sinking house foundation was the type of damage coitemplated in theso j-l test review procedure.
_l
I
_J
l
l
-6-
I
I
Mr. Bob Waibel l{ay 29, 1981
CONF I DENT IAL
ffI. Recommendation and Conclusion
while the City cannot deny a property owner the opportunityto develop his property because of the fear of soil-related damage
claims being brought against the City by potential home buyers,several steps could be taken to minimize the City's exposure:
First, as a part of the development contract, requirethe developer to remove bad soils from build-ing pads and to fill and compact the pads tothe 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 adisclaimer of any municipal warranty as tosoil conditions. (This resolution will- be
recorded and will appear in the chain ofrit1e. )
Third,as a part of the
the devel-oper to
less from damage
conditions.
development contract,
agree to hold the city
claims resulting from
requ ire
harm-
soil
Eourth, the City may wish to refrain in the future
from soliciting soil reports from the soil
conservation service, as ignorance as to the
existence of d.angerous conditions is appar-ently a defense under the majority ru1e.
It is clear from the Cracraft case and the Hage case thatthe City of Chanhassen, if itEoose. to d.o so, co,r1d .*dertake toguarantee the suitability of all soils in the City for buildingpurposes. VIe doubt that the City of Chanhassen has the budgetary
resources to voluntarily issue such a guarantee for even a fractionof the developable land in the City.
-7-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
l
l
l
Mr. Bob Waibel
CMIq : sas
-8-
CONF I DENT IAL
May 29, 19 81
The term "buirdability" has been often used in connecti.onwith the Fox chase discussions, as if "buirdabirity,' was some sortof scientific factor which courd be objectively identified by theCity Engineer, who could then give a ,'yes', or ',no,' opJ.nion. Wesubmit the buildability is merely economic feasibility. subjec_tivery viewed from the standpoint of the developer vrho must decideif his pockets are deep enough to bear the cost of soil preparatj.on.
Very truly yours ,
C 7^-V1/la*r7
Craig M. I{ertz
14ayor
Members of the City Council
Mr . Scott l{artin
Mr. Donald Ashworth
Mr. Bill I{onk
'l; be r€acbed
It Ehall Btate
_mlgbt ro(trlvc
.IVANRANTTES ON NEW IIOUSING S 327A.O2
S.c,
32rA.0t
!27A.0?337 .03
3!7A.0a
Sif,tutory wrrran .!l;t.lu.,6ir.\\'aher rnd mod[tcau.n
327,\.053!? -|6
3??A.07
()rlr.r warrdntle!.
!,s rcqrrlrcd by
- oDy Jurhdlc-
'cfrrllJ &'turIl
-rllctrtloD ahall
lg lh(! iecurcd-Jt rcqulrcd by
rll procr\:d lll
)crtJ., lnd tbc-ilstllrB tny of
rDt ol a Eoblle_\ln flre days
me ls lo(utcd
Hm thc tnolrllo
' s dobtor. moy
ectlon 3:17.&1,
trtcllrs llDdcr
:Able costs, Dot
otce the sccu r-
'lslons ol thls
1n of thc lrro-
-k,frult arlsc8
: B tstrt of thc
D repossesslolr
3274.01 D6tlntttoni
. Subdlvlslo[ l. As uscd ln sccdons 327A.0t to 3g?A.07, thc ternrs In thts sec-tloo shall hrrr'e tllc llx,nntltEs uRslllrx.rl to tlcrn.Sulxl. :1. 'ltlrll(llt|;: ritundnrds,. nr(.uDs thc structural, mcch{lnlenl. i.loetrl.cul. ond _qu,rltty strnltrnls of thc honro r,,,rr,rrrc lr,ii,Jtry"l;'t'#'*_*.oru,"nrofl ln \'hlch rc (lrs(.lllnA ls sltuIto(tSulxl.. 3. 'l)r$r,Ilnf.' m(. ns o ncN l,u ( na, not t)rovlolrsty oocltJllerl. r.on.utructcd-for thc purposc of hubttu ou; bur doc:{ Dot Inelud,, ipnunliront
"ooHlrlioDtrl trrciI csr rtct:rch(tl rn.xi!cs, drtrcrvtls, .roff*rj.", pr-''ii.", f_,,rO.ayNolls, rctstDtnR wels not nmr_.ssrry for thc s;ructurut "iifril iii "i'ti,. a*oll-tng,. laodscaplnB, -rcnc!s, no.l,crmdnent cgnstructlon ,oaterlals, olf-8tte l,,-Dror.cmeDtst and all Other slmllar ltcms.SuM..t. ',Inlthl son(lar" mctlls tl Dcrson B.ho fi rst (lntructs to purchosca d'lrclllnK frorD n IcD(ior for thc Durposc ol llsl,itlltio! ond not ,o. rcsflleIn tltc ordlnnry (Y)Urs{ of trtd(!_
. Su.t l. 5 ".\[alor corrstructk)n defr.ct,, mcons [ctu:rl domage to thc loa(t-bosrlag nortt,,n o! thc d\vr.Iirs, lnr.lu,ting rtrrrn:r,.t-c ,i,," a'-.,,f.fa""""*'"_n^"-alon or.lnrnnrt rnoycrlcnt of lho s{rit, rvtrtctr rrfniis-trs i." a.f*".irr'iu n"t,onaod.\vhlch vltIllt]. rff(.crs or ts IrnDrir(:rrrtJ, fixcry r" ,itaiii, itr.*i'i,* or tt,"d*ollin8 for rcsklc,tlul purposcs. .,]IsJor c.o,struc on (lefcct,, doos not In-ctudc durn8*-c due ro Drovrnrcnr of thc sojl "r;;
-i;-
f i";;'"^"-i,,iurun o.othcr nlrturrl tllsustor.
. .Subd 6 "yoDdc(," ,no[ s ru]i l,lrr(hosor of & drr,elling an(l iucltrdcs thelnltlIl tondcc rrrrd llny subscrlrrcrtt I,ur,,hrr*,.rs.SuUl. 7. "\'r.nrlor.. ,n",,u" ,,,,1j l)crsol, firnl r)r G)nlorntion tvhlch trnl-slructs d\\'clltntis lor !l,c Iruq)o.r. ,l "trk., inclrrrlng tr,u -nJ"u"ifo"'oi ,r*otl-lnEs oD lunrl o$.nc(l b) r:o (lc.cs.
_Sub(I. S. ,,l\,ltrrllnt], d[tcr, m(,llns thc d,tc fronl sn(l Aftcr whlch tbestlltutory rear.trntles pro!ldcd ln scc on 32?.1.02
"r,uir Ir., orroliii.o, onJ l" ,r,ur,urlicst ol(!) Thc datc ot thc lnltl,rl vcndce,s first occupjrrx,y of tlc dwcli!)g: or. {b) T'he drtc on wtrtctr rhc txlltul rcnaoc i,,tos r.sri -oi
"q;i;irl,, rrtr"ln tlre drvelllng.
Laws lg7?, c. (}5, l l, e!!. JaD. I. tgi8,
327A,02 Stltutory w!trrn c!
. Subdirlsloo l. In cr.cry s{lk! of.o mnlplct(\l dweutng, 8Dd lD cvcry con-trnet for d* sato of n d*.c,ins to bc @nr;tetod, rh-;,,;";;"il ,ro'.'"nn, ,otlro r'ctrdLr'!hut:
, 0rl..lJltrixI lllc r)|lr. Jr,rlr tx,rirnl froru lt(l nfrcr thc wrrrralltJ (htc Ure'l\rclling Nlxrlt tx.frr{ frorr dcfr\"rs cllus{.d Uy f,rulry r..rrt<n[in.*;-it]'rind dc-fcctlYtr.nlxtcrl l$ dt(, to nolr(,otnl,li|l o, rr.ittt trirltrlirrg .strrrr,lrrr,ts; '
, (D,.LurrnE tltc t|1'o )rnr p(,riod froln nnd trftor thc \.{rrll;lty (hto, thcdrvelllng shull bc lrc1. 11orn dcfccrs clused by frrulty lnsttltaiiori ni-pr,,u,rr-lllg, clcctricll], hcutlDg, axd cooliug sJstcms: {nd
, (c). D!rirrE thc ton y(,:l r lx.riod fro|lt ntd uftcr tltc o.n."nrty ,tut", thc d\.oll-lng sh[ll h.frcc fmnt t llj!,r construc on dcfctcls.
,,.:,lul : 'I'ho st^rrrtor). rv rftl|rtic$ provtrt{.rl Iu thls s(,c on Bhull surltvcrrc po{r lg ot ktgal or fttultllblc tle l tho d$.(.llin* to rc vcndcc.L{r'B l9??, c. Sli, ! 2, cff. Ja.o. 1. lUZ8.Llbri.y R.rcr..co.uohr.ocrs c>t05.c.J.S. Conrract€ tl 32?. !t2
279
r corntacl{lol
Ttr-rnlnx possrs_
ie mobll(. holne
CHAPTER 3274. HOUSTNC STATUTORY WARRANTTES INEWI
I
S 327A.03 wAnnANTIES oN NEw IIoUSING
3274.03 Ercls.lonr
Thc llnbttltt of the vcndor undc! scctionlr 3!7'f'01 lo 32?,\ 07 lr llmltcd to
tlu .i,lii"-iii'rt" ""t lorth lu sectlons :l"l?'4 01 lo ll:':?4 07 und doca not oxleDd
to the folloNln8:'"f^i'L*"
"i i*-n8c Do! roportcd by thc vcnrlN! to -thc vend-or ln wrltlng
*l,i;;-;ii m<rlrtrs attcr the vcutle'c rilstttcrs t't shorrld hotc dls'$vcrod the
loss or d&IDoSo:
(b) Irss or (IlrlnaSe ctlused by dcf('cts ln d('slg'll, lnstnllotlon' or nrfllerlals
*fii"f, *" vcnrtt'e sipptiorl. lDstull(d, or h d i Ftnll'd under his dlrccllon:
(c) Sccondfiry loss or dllnurg('such ns l]ersounl irJury or DroDerty dfltuoge:
(d) Loss ot dnlntBc frour norlnrll \r'o!r ond l'rtr;
(c) Irss or dtmugc trorn Dornlul 6hrllrkog(' ctrust'd l), drJlng o( tlle d$'elllnx
rvlthlu tolcrnncls of butl{lluE stlrndards;
(f) Irss or dtmlrge lrom dturpoeas lrnd coDdt'nsrttlon duc to ln6ufflcieDl
ventllutlon l\ltor occtlPoncY :
(g) LoIis or d[nrogc from ncgllgcllc!, lmproper moiDteooDce or slt4rolloo
ot thc dirclllng by prrtk's oiht'r thlro th(' len(lor;
(h) I-oss or dousge froto chotlscs ln F ldl'18 o! the SrouDd oround thc
drclllos by partlc6 olllo! thon thc rendor;
(l) LtDdscdplDt or losect los-s or dnmrSe;
iti L""..'ari"us" fronr tullurc to Intrttrtaln the dwclllog ln good rcptrlrl
iil i."" o" dumtrge rvhtch the lcodce' whencri''r loxsiblc' hlrs not tlken
thDcly uctloD to lnlulllllzc;-'ffl Lo"" or d&qroSic wblch occurs otter tbc dirclllng ls no tonger tlFed prl'
hsrlly ns s r.sldcnoc;
(m)-lcctdcut'll loss or (l[nruge usrlallt (loscril)cd lrs ects of God' -lncludlnE'
brri irot lhultr'd lo: ,ito, oxpk)slolt, sinokc, r*rllcr cscrllx" win(lstorln' huil
oi_ttgtrtntllg, f:tlllllS trees, uircrult lllrd rehlclcs. flood' lrnd ctrrthqu'rke' cr'
;ra;h;" iit" to"" o" dumugc is cruscd bv f llurc to complv with btrlldiu
dtaldords,;'ioi r,u"" o" dlnru8o lrom soll tlldvotllcrt \rhlch ls c'ompcnsritc(l by legiEla_
tlon or eoYorcd bY Insuraucc;' 6) Loss or d[murc duc to soil conditions shcre constrllction lq donc tlpon
toiot o,"ne<t hy thc tcotlcc u$(l obtlltlod by hiDl f'om lr soure
'BdcDcnrleDtof thc vondor.
Laws 10?7. e 05. ! 3, c!1. JsD. 1, 10?8.
Llbrrrv B.lcr.nc.!contiac(s G20S.c.J.s. contra4t. ll 327.312.
327A.04 W.lv6a and lnodltlcatlon llmll6d
Suull!lsioll l. E:ict'l)t rts prolltlcd in sulxlll'isl('ns I ttnd 3 of thls sectlon'
ttciirovf"toos ol scctlorrs 3f?4.01 to 3:i'! oi trtnnr)t lxj \vxi\,cd or nrodifi(d bl
corrtroct or otllcr\'lsl. ,\uy rlSru'olcnt u'hlcll J)llrports to lvltivl].or modify
il,o-iito"r"ror" of scctlorrs 3ri-rt.ul to 3:?'{ o?, crLtpt ns l)rovi(icd ln sulxliri
sloni ! nud 3 ol this lrt'ctlon, slull lx'Y('id'
Sutxl. 2 At un, tilDc ltltcr lr Nrnt'rrct for thc sulc r]f i drrelling ls cD'
tcred lnto by oort'bctset'u n Ycxdor llnd o vcDd(t' uD' of thc atatutory $rrr'
"onJ""
'ir"o*iaoa lor ln sectlolr 3'J?I'02 moJ b{j o\clrrtl({ or lro(llfl('d oolv hy
n i".ri,*u lttstrutrlctrt, r,rilltc(l iu l$ld flrcJ trl'o ol 8 nrininl\tru slzE of ten
priri",
- t rri"rt ts sigrici uy tho t('udce rnd ivlrlcll sctr forth ln -dctlll tlre
-uuir,ruty trrtotr'(\t, tht' conscllt of tho tcnrl(t' uDd tlrt' tcnns -o( thc ne$
osta".r"i,, conlrllncd lo thc irrltirrli r.-o citclrrsr"D or nrodlfk'rttlun shllll lx!
iii(..tl"o ,,r,tn*" tho vctxlof l)rorld;s sul,s tutc (.rprc{i,s $lrrtntlcs ofterlnB
"tt*uii,if,,ffy lhc suDr!' Irot(rtlolrB to tht' \'('ntl(\' nlt thc ntxtutory \vnrrontlcs
L,-i"",rt fi scctlou 3:1i]|.o9. Arry Inodlflcrrti(ttr or ctcluslort rtgrccd to b'r
tcDd(\: otrd tcl(lor l)ursulrD! to tirix srrlxllvlslun xbull Do! r(rlllirc tll{' utr_
p..t"i "i-ifr" coor"t".inuc" ol ndtulnlstrrltiotl l)ursllnllt to s('ctloll :tzi'LOi'
Sutxl. 3. lt lr ln:Uor constrocttotl dl'lt.tt is (lisor'('rd lrior to thc suh ol u
d$cufDg. ttrc Etulutory $8!ruut} sct fortL ln scctloa :]!?^'U:l' subJlllsloD 1'
230
lAi*}ri,dAa'!.
clauac I
after , I
torth lo r
the d\f,elli
fect. E
'1,lnsura c
lected u,
coEpleted
aoasea
A Blnglr
more thalt
Tbe '!
Itcord
LaFs ru?i
3274.05 :
up( 0:lltve cl
breacl, or
(a) Tbe
(b) )e
aDd t v
Lows lgl:
327 A,
Tbe 6tr
tloE to uprovl I
l[ un rc
by secoor
I/a!e8 19?'
C.J C,
3274-
Th c-o
SLrtutes,
oud 3l?-{
ollllr-oL
by tl- str
Las6 .9i
C-J E
C.J.' Cc
:iNG
'-)7,/\.07 lB llrnlted to
WARRANTIES ON ND\Y IIOUSING S 327A.07
clnrric (c) ntlly li. $. lIt\l ,or Ux. dIfrrt lrl{rltfk,d tn thc, wolvcr lnHtrumcnt,lftr.r fult orll dtsct,,{rrru of ttr.sDuclflc dof(ft, by un fr*ti,_r..n t'*i,i"t, "o,"torth lx d,.Lull: rtrr! stx.clft,. dutr,(,1 ; ro r ffcrr,ncr,, Ix,twctn tlle \rtue ofthc drrcllnB $ilhout rtr) (t,.foct,rlld th(,v,rtue of tfr",f*"fiirC *-if,'U," Oofcct, us dcrcrmtn(l urd xr!r.sr(,(l ro l,y ,u tn,t,1x:nr1,nr
';ip;;;il,;;;"""1"r,
lnsuruDci' ud]ustor, erstnc(,r or rn1. ortrcr *t,,,uo.ty trruwilj!;;r,;;;;*" ".-lt'clcrl hy thc ven(lcr'; lhc prlcr. rortucrrr,rr: rr,n iru,,. rr,,.
-1,r,*i.ul'i ,f, *n,{.oxrttlotcdi tlrc IuBrl ihsr.rttrr[,, (,f tlrr! rtu.(,lltnr; tli,, ,,r,"*,,rt'ri 'i'fr"'
,"o,f"uto tbc sut*cr: rDd rho slsnrrrrrca or rne ..or,ioo, ;i,;;,;;i;;: tj"irro *",.nesseS.
nd dor,lt rot (,rtcnd
voll(lor lD $'dtlIl[
lisrc dis.otrore{l thc
duc to h$ufflcl0Dt
-f tloD. or rrl l0rllrla
r hl8 dlrcctloo;
r propertt (lnmagc:
llns
of thc rlrvertrnr
J"Dcc or alterotloB
.-_1 "]:r*'o lsolrcr lrgrrt.d to nursuunt ro ttrls suMlvtFton Eay Dot nppty tolnore thfln onc rllojor ConstructloD (h,t(\,t iE O dtveUlnE.
Thc Nalvcr shxll not Lo olfcc rc unl,ss-illcd for rea,or(llE8 wlth the couDtyrccordcr or rcsistrnr o! tl(.s who rholl fllc rho "rf"". ioi..""o.i.""' 'Lass 197?, c. 05, ! .t, eff. JaD. l. l9?8.
Llb...y acl.r.nc.!qontmct! €=ZoE.(j.J.s. conrrdct. Il 32?. !a2.
3274-05 R6mcdt!i
..-Upotr brcoch of any warrfltrty imnosod by s(\"tlon 3:?1.02, the vcnde€ shnlllltr'c a eausc of nction acrinsr rhr. vr.nrlor fo. arar**"l.f "io*'ouT o, ,n"brcach, or for spociftc pcrrormxnc.,. uo.oq."
"hr
- -t. ';,;i;"d L:".(a) The smorDt ne(rssury to rcrncdJ the dclect o! brencb; oa(lr).The dlflerence t!(t$,.\,n the value. of tbe dwelling rvithout the delcctand the-rnlue of thc d\rellinli with thc dcfcrt.Lal9B Is77, c.6J, ! 5, ef!. JsD. t, 1g?8.
327A.06 Oth.r wrrran0.s
., Tbo stotutory warrnntics prorldcd tor lri secrlon 32?A.03 shull be ln nddl-tion.tu.ull othcr wrrrunties lmposcyl l)y lu., o. ns."oao, tl_'iit e'ro16",l iesprovidcd In secrtoo S:?A.os Hr):rI not tr: ".,r*r.,,,d ;" li;;tin* ini ."."u,*in uny trcrlun oot nrcdicurcrl upou breach or ttrc rtatuiory wa;,;;i;"'i;*"".,bY N(ctlon J27,1 01
Laws 1977, c.85, t 0, e(r. Jatr. l, l07g.
LIb.rry R.f.rGnc.rConrr&crs eZU5.c.J.s--conaracrs Il 327. 3{2.
grouDd around the
I"
10 lon8rr urted Prl-
.i of God, lnclrrdtng,
pe. wlnd6torrn, hlrll
'od canh,tullkc. er-
lnDty wlth bulldlha
I
pcn6atcd by lcglsla-
Icrlon ls done rrlrru
fourct lurJcx'nrteot
I3 of thls tirction.
lvcrl or nrorlllitrl t-,1:
J walvc or rlrodlly
provldod Iu Bulxllvl-
la dwelllog ts cn-
Lhe ststrrtory wsr-
or modilk'd only by
,lnlmuln slz-. ot te,l
brth ln dctnil tho
terDa ol lhc ntw
.udlflcrtluu shull lrc
wtrrrsntles ollcrlDt
'ttulorJ worruDtlcs
flon uxrtr:d to 1,5,
It rc,lulrc thc up-
Bectlon ll27A.0?.
rlor Lo tlrc sulc ot a
L(}2- uubdlrlsloE l.
.t
ln sood rr'p!ir;
lblc, has hot tokcn
3274,07 Varla ons
.. The conrurlssioncr ol odutinistrotlon nlrly l|pltrove pur6ulut to trIDncsotaSt tutca, Sccrlou 15.0-1t2, ,r.urlutlon! frorl itre lirovlsto-ns "i-""",i.r*i:,r.0..0:rnrl J::74.03 tf re rr.urrlrot' I,rogrtrru ot t[e vendor ".,qu*f.* ij,., ""i"fu,f",
uff(.rs rr! 1,.:rsr sutNt 0tiir J. ttro sJrIIo Irot(.ctior," ru tfr, **,,,iI* r* j.orfa,-*t
l.,y tllL. st:rtutorl. t\. rrlrutlrs Ar,t fortL lll sr.ctloll J..,:iA,02.Lows 19?7, c.85, ! ?, cfl. Jun. 1, 1D?8.
Llbrrry R.t..e.c..
Corr l rAcls C>!0S.q.J.S. Conriuc!s ll 3_.?. 3{:
I
231
E
Kathy Schwartz
Responses
SECTION II]
Report of
andto such
May 2, 1981
Repo rt
((
/e
L;-tJ-
0
t'
,t
L.
CONCERNS OF
I{EST PLEASANT VIEIV ROAD ASSOCIATION
May 2, 1981
Report
to
Chanhassen City Council
!"
(
TABLE OT CONTENTS
A. ORDINAIICE PROTECTION TO DERRICK AND NETGHBORHOOD.
? age
1
4
4B. CHANGES rN FOX CHASE FROM July 2I, 1980 to PRESENT......
Conmon Space.
Increase in takeshore Lots.
rTre. i I F 5 d^h^h+
Lot Sizes. ......Straight Road Changed to Curved Road: Grading. . . . . . . . .Lots Along Pl-easant View.Private Access to Pleasant View..
Fox Path Exit to Pleasant View..Street Width and Secondary Access.
Minnesota Historical Society Letter of 8-20-79
John Vl. Shardl.ow Letter of B-l-5-79 to
Chanhassen Staf f and Planning Comr.iiss j-on.
Conf licting Ordinances?
C. SOIL.
D. EROSION.
4
4
5
5
5
5(
6
6I
9
11
l2
13
15
16
20
2T
E. DON BERGI S R.EPORT OF JUNE 18, 1980.
E. DON BERG! S VISIT APRIL 30, 1981 with K. SCHI,IARTZ
CONFLICT OII INTEREST--SCHOELL AND MADSON.
I' BUYE R BEI{ARE "
SUM'{ARY.
G
H
I
.J.I
(
790 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
May 2, 19 81
City Council MembersCity of Chanhassen
7510 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55 317
Dear Counci-I Members :
This report is a compilation of the letter from the West
Pleasant View Road Association of April 6, 19g1 to Mayor
Hamilton, its letter of April 20 to Art partri.dge, and findings
between April 20 and May 1. This report represents aI1 neighbor_
hood concerns known to me.
The West Pleasant View Road Association d,oes not oppose
development of the Wilma Thompson property. At issue is vrhat
we feel is misuse of this property. Misuse in the sense of
creating massive erosion problems threatening Lotus Lake.
Misuse in the sense of urban-type layout in a rural neighborhood.
Both of these problems can be solved without denying Mr. Derrj_ck
his rights of developing his property.
ORDINANCE PROTECTION TO
DERRICK AND NEIGHBORHOOD
Mr. Derrick f eel,s
square foot minimum lot
protected by the ordi.nance of 15,000
size.
I
City Council -2-May 2, 1981
The neighborhood feels protectcd by ord. 47, SI4.05c.
Approval of the final development plan sha1Inot 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 . . .(6) the planned development will not createan excessive burden on . . . streets and otherpublic facilities . . . (7) the planned deveLopmentwill not have an adverse impact on the reasona61eenjoyment of neighboring property.
The neighbors do viet, Derrickrs proposed development
as ldetrimental to present . . . land uses in the surrounding
area . . . [as creating] an excessive burden on our
streets . . . [and as having] an ad.verse impact on the
reasonable enjoyment of neighboring property.r'
We do not interpret this S14.05c as giving the neighbors
the prerogative to inflict its personal wishes on
I,1r. Derrick. The issue is not one persont s 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 permanently 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 vicw is professionally borlte out
by I1r. D.1ryI liorLier of Korsunsliy Krank Erickson, an
archit.cctual ancl planning finn, in his Novcmbcr 15, 1979
lcttcr to PIti] Cetts (ncighborhood attorncy) :
((
Cit)r Council -3-May 2, 198I
As a design professional, our opinions of developmentimpact often does, and indeed typically must, look
beyond the Limits developed by zoning ordinances"This is primarily due to the fact that zoning
ordinances establish minimum requirements acceptableto the community at large. Such items as density,edges, texture and material- vocabulary are critical
elements which vary greatly from neighborhood toneighborhood within a community. These items providethe character; the warmth, charm, and appeal of aneighborhood...
It is our opinion that the Derrick Developmentproposal for the Wilma Thompson property is not incharacter with the neighborhood and will have anegative impact.
The Pleasant Vierv Road neighborhood is well defj_ned,with a definite 1ow density rural character. presently
there are 24 residences on over 72.8 acres of landfor a density of 0.32 units/acre. The Derrick
Development is proposing 52 residences on 28.43acres of land for a density of I.83 unitsT'acres.
The contrast is very evident. A review of theirplan and the natural topographic and ground coverconditions, lead us to the inescapable conclusionthat the Derrick Development cannot compl_iment theexisting charactet:.
With 1ot rvidths of one hundred feet typical , thesize of residence, building material , and distancebetween residences will be a sharp. unrqelcorne contrast..With the amount of construction will_ come wholesalechanges in topographic and ground cover, with anestimatcd loss of over 50E of the wooded. area.Vehicular traffic can be expected to triple.
In developing this property, we believe betteralt,crn.ltivcs are availablc. Tl:is devclopment canpotcn Li.1l l), bc in harmonl' wj.th tile neighborhoocl .rndrcmain responsive to the 1ake front-
((
City Council -4-May 2, 1981
Conf licting Ordinances?
Mr. Derrick feels protected by the minimum zoning
of 15 r 000 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 shal-l not override the more
binding S14.05. This appears to be proven by ord. 47, 93.03:
Sect. 3.03. Where the provisions of this ordinance
impose greater restrictions than those of anystatute, other ordinance or regulation, the provisions
of this ordinance sha1l be controlling . . .
B. CHANGES IN FOX
JuIy 21, 1980
CHASE FROM
TO PRESENT
1- Comnon SDace
Augus t
conrmon
Hearings plat sl-row 3 - 21 acres of
July 2I, 1980, the conrmon space has been reduced to
93,500 square feet--down fron 3.21 to 2.15 acres.
April 4, 1981, I measure thc conmon space area to be
1.58 acres. (26t decrcase since final approval)
Aprj-I 15, 1981, conrmon spc-rcc is entirely deletcd.
Lakcshorc footage on this common space changcd from
f70'at final approval to 50r April 6, I98I to presently
bclng c l j.nti r).r Lcd.
2. Incrcasc in Lahcshorc L,oLsJuIl, 21, 1980, thcre wcrc 7 lots
to thc l.rli c .
imnediatcIy adj accnt
At tl)c public hc.rr:iDg, August 1979, there had bcen 5
1979 Public
sPace.
3
City Council
ApriJ-
April
Trai I
On JuIy 2L, l9B0read, " (Proposed)
Easement. "
4. Lot Sizes
6, 19 81, there were
15 , 19 81- , the re are
E a s ement
-5-May 2, 1981
o
10.
the words along the shoreline. Drainage and Utility and Trail
p1at,
20 fL
April 6, 198I, the words along the shoreline read only"Drainage and Utility Easement.
April 15, 198I, the wording has dj_sappeared altogether.
ged to curved road: GradinIn JuLy l9 80, th est ra.r g ht roa
beg an
a ].gnment: gradingon the westerly hillside approximately 420 feetfrom Pleasant Vierv.This left the stand of pines untouched.
Almost eVery boundary of every lot has changed betweenthe plan of July 21, 1980 ancl April 15, 198I. In thecase of the most southeasterly lot. it has changedfrom 31,810 (July 1980) to 36,750 (April 15, I98I)--a 4,940 square foot increase.
April 15, 198f, with the curved road alignment,approximately 400 additional feet of hill-side is scheduledto be graded, all but elj_minatj.ng the stand of pines.In addition, gouging appears to be more severe witl:the curved road than with the straight. With thecurved road, gouges go 4 to 10 feet into the hillside;whereas with the straight road, grading appears to bemorc of a f illing in of l-ril-lsidc dips. - allo, onthe curved road grading plan, ancl additional 2-4t hasbeen taken fronl the cul-de-sac area on the southea"t"rfyportion of Fox Chase -
6. Lots along Pleasant Vicrv21, )_The July 9 tl0 approval was for tltrce house fotsabut t-i.ng Pleasant Vicw.
April 15, 1981, thcre are 4 house lots. Accenl_uatcs cicnsitl,.
7. Pr:i.vatc acccsslrr ,J uIy' 21,
to Plcas.rnt Vic-w
19 [i0 r'rorrtt of l-lrc: l-lrLce ltouscs werc shorvnrviLh privatc cxil_s t-o plcasant. Victr.
5, Stra t road ch
City Council May 2, 1981
April 15, 1981, Mr. Derrick has requested thatLot 3 of block 2 (the most northwesterly lot of
Fox Chase) have a private exit via the old Wilma
Thompson road. This exit is extr:emely dangerous asit is on a blind curve with perhaps 20 I line of sight.
8. Fox Path Exit to Fleasant ViewIt has been a constant concern of the neighbors to haveFox Path exit onto Pleasant View changed to a saferlocation. The danger of havi.ng Fox Path exit at itspresently planned location is that it is too closeto the foot of the hill--hazardous in wj nter.
To build the road as'planned now would requireelaborate fill to support the road giving a dike-Iike
appearance vrith houselots in ravine-type areas oneither side of the road.
Further, Derr-ickrs plans show thatof Fox Path exit onto Pl-easant Vi e\^rstates,
proposed grade
8t. ord. 33 S8.03(c)
of
the
Wherever feasible, grades within 30 feetstreet intersections shal1 not exceed 3?.
Therefore, the neighbors request that the exitPleasant Vievr be moved the .;idth of one 1ot toand abut the Osgood driveway where the grade isand the line of sight better.
tothe east
gent 1e
9 Str:ee t width and secondary access
April 1980, the Council approved 52 l-ots
No public hearing was callcd to announcesubstantial- changes.
and I road.
these
Thc single access into Fox Chase is shown to be mor-ethan 110 0 f eet l-ong .
Ordinancc 33, S4.03 (g) states,
Thc maxinrum lcngth of cul-dc-sac strects shall- be
500 feet. . . Each cul-dc-sac sh.rll havc a terniltusof ncarJ-y circrrlar sihi:rpc t,r.i. tl) a urinirnunr righL-of -r^ra1,dialtctcr of 120 fcct ancl a nrir.riurunr loackvay dj-arnctcrof U0 fcc L.
(
-6-
At the August 1979 Public ttearing, the neighbors went
away feeling there would be two roads and 49 lots.
City Council -7-May 2, 19 8I
This diversion from Ordinance S8.03 of 500 maximumcul-de-sac to alfow an 1100 one v/as apparently
com.pensated by the fact that the road would need tobe widened from 28r to 36t.
a 36r is a collector street. It is three lanes wide.For 36r to go off from 25-2Bt wide pleasant Viewwill make Fox Path look like a highrvay in comparison.An even more glaring contrast rsould exist betiseenFox Path and the single-lane..road directly adjacentto it, Ridge Road. Ridge Riiad would be I,/3 a; \,rideas Fox Path.
Secondly, a collector street would naturally betargeted for future use as a col-lector street.That subject has already been settl_ed. To againopen the possibility for a collector road in thefuture would create a traffic vol r.rme that r^rou1dforce the widening of Pleasant Vierv--a factor rvhichwoufd have a definite negatj-ve effeet on theproperty values along Pieasant View.
c. Third, nothing more than a 28' streetif there are two aciesses. Abuttingas Fox Chase does, it is a natural toa second road to Carver Beacl-r.
b
t-s necessary
Carver Beach
conne ct
This has been a much-debated issue about a roadinto Carver Beach. Always there has been discussionof road grading and tree removal or traffic loadon Carver Beach roads. yet, the follorving pointsto \^/hat the neighl:ors feel are the more honestreasorls for not- rvanting a secondary access intoCarver Beach -
In a lctter from Richard B. Thonlsotl as Derrickrs"financier" to frrank BecJ.dor, August 23, Jg7g,
"As you know, Carvcr ltcach Addition is norosel:ud, an<l it is difficult to knotv prccJ.sell,whaL c.1libcr of l:omes somconc ruill choosc to -
build this close to t.hnt ratltcr junky arca _ ,,
In Ut:. Thoruson I s lc l-t-cr to Jin l.lcycr, Ocl-obcr I , I9 79 :
"I lropc sourconc rvill <luickly rcalizc that. Lhc
J ast Lhing in rc workl wc rvant is an acccssto Carvcr Be.lch . "
((
There are several reasons why the neighbors object toa 36r wide street:
-
City Council -8-May 2, 1981
In Roger Derricl'.ts fetter to Frank Beddor,
October 29, !9792
". . . we have a piece of property which islocated betvreen the Christmas Lalcer/Pleasant
Vievr Road and the Carver Beach neighborhoods.This factor is further complicated by thefact that the portion of our property aboutwhich you are most concerned iinrlediatelyadjacent to Pleasant Vi ei.r Road is by far theleast desirable portion of the property.'t
ln Roger Derrickrs letter to the City Council onAugust L4, L9'19, he states,
"As the enclosed plan reveals, thj-s schemeprovided tlvo means of access into the subjectpropcrty, which is desirable for publicsafety reasons . "
So the picture seems to boil down to this: That
two roads are safer than one. Even one cul-de-sacoff of Carvel: Beach serving the woocLs and onecul-de-sac off Pl-easanL View serving the meadow
and hillside are safer than one 1L00 foot cul-de-sac-
Butr to Derrickt s financier, Carver Beach accessto Fox Chase is the "l-ast thing in the worId" theywant. Pl-easant View makes a more impressive
entrance to I'ox Chase. So, at a sacrifice toPfeasant \ri er,.r bearing all frox Chase traffic andfor no safcty reasons, but for aesthetics alone,Derrick plans to construct a road spanningapproxinately 1I00 feet across a meadow area toget to the woods rathcr than connect that sanle
woods with an existing Carver Beach road fess
th.rn 200 feet from a Ilox Chase cul-de-sac. Thereis hardly a question about wheLl-rer Fox Chase rvould
h;rvc bccr.r conncctcd to Carvcr Bcach had thatarea had the appearance of Plcasant View.
l,Jc discuss possibJ.c placeurcnt of .r sccondary
access to Carver Bcach later in this rcport.
10. Iiirrncsotra IIi:j t-oI:icaI Societl, 1t--ttcI of B-20:79
"IL i:; our opirrion that- .-rrcltacolo(,ical
sit-cs rnay cxisl- rviLirin tl)c project- arca.
Iuor:covcr, wc bclicve t-hat this pro j cct,
((
City Council -9-
by its nature, is likely to affect
archaeological sites.
Conscquently, vle reconfnend thatarchaeological survey of the project
be conducted . "
May 2, 1981
these
an
area
As of 4-22-8I, the }4innesota Historical Society
had not received a survey or reply to its letter.
11. John W. Sharrllow letter of 8-15-79 to Chanhassell
Staff and Planning Conuni s s ion
Final DeVelopment PIanb. The f inal- development plan sha11(2) final building drar,rings and(3) final site plans including a
s chedule .
include:
specifications
l ands cap e
Mr. Shardlow explains in his
can not conform to the abovePreliminary Development Pl-an
letter why
regul ations
Review:
De rr i cll
in the
"The primary reasoll [we are unable tofor reviervl is that Derrick Land Co.in the home building business- "
submitis not
On December 30, 1980, Derrick and I.lil_ma Thompsonclosed on the Fo). Cltase proper-ty. Derrick, hastherefore, orvned the property for 4 months.
In a neighbor-hood meeting April 18, I98I, Rogertold me that Lloyd Leardahl (bLri.lder) had r.rorkedclosely with him on thc anended plat proposal
"sincc befora the first of thc year.', (apparcntll,,Lcardahl is thc orvncr of 30 fots r,,'ith opt_iolls onthc remaining 22.)
April 29,30, l9Sl, I spokc wittr at ]casL sixdif f crcnt cxc.rvation cstinr.rtors. Throe of thesc
h;rpp<:nccl to bc amotrg thosc r.rho bicl on thc Fox Ch.rscpro jcct-. Ily onc tvho bj.d on thc projcct, I rvas toI.loI clcvr:J.o1.,crr r--(lriponsilti I iLics rvorking ttril; way:
ITlrt: discusl;ion rvas on thc proccss of corrcctirrgsoif conditions irr mcaclorv al:ca to rcncicr houscIots l)uil(lnblc. I Ilal-hcr th.rn scoop out all nluck
(
In Ordinance 47, S14.05, we have:
Yet this no longer appeat:s to be the case.
-t 0-May 2, 19 81
in vallcy floor, you only scoop out where houseswi1] be placed. tBuj-lders canrt just put the
house anywhcre on the lot they want to. r Intothis scooped out hole goes fill. This fillis compacted by pounding on it. Holv much
compaction? tDeveloper 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 [by city
engi-neers ? I .
In the case of excavation in the meadorv
ruould be nandatory to have Ifootprints"
footages (vreight) of proposed houses in
correctly ready the lots for safe.
area. it
and squareorder to
Unless Derricli is made to comply rvith S14.05regarding final building drar"ings and specifications,
and final site plans including a Iandscape sclledule,it rvould appear that he enjoys the exemptionsinherent in bej-ng a Iand developer while engagedat the same time in a quasi-home builderrs business.
When I discussed this point ivith Jim Orr and Bill
Monk }4ay l-, 19BI in Jimrs office, Jim suggestedthat I was "vray ahead" of where we are at this
phase of the development. After some discussion
where I sited this ordinance requirement, botli Jim
and BilI informed me that it was not Derrickrsresponsibj.Iitl, 1o ready these lots.- Strugglingfor a summary of wllat they were trying to tel-l me,.
rbuyer bcrvarcr situat.ion?" Jim agreed- BilI said,
" I Im af raid so.'r Thcrc is rnore discussi.on on
"buycr bcrvar-c" Iatcl: ir) Lhis rcport-.
City Council
It is possible for Derrick to now submit houseplans by virtue of the fact that he and LloydLeardahl have, in effect, been in business togetheron this specific project the entire period Derrickhas legal1y owned the fand.
City Council l4ay 2, l98l
C. SOIL
The attached reports from Riley-Purgatory Watershed
District and Carver SoiI and Water Conservation Dist.rict
discuss the soil and erosion problems of Fox Chase.
The part that has always concerned the neighbors is
how one could possibly build in a meadow where water is
so near the surface.
In fact, j-t is because of this poor meadow soil that
the approved straight road has been realigned. It is
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 so
poor that a road could not be constructecl without excessive
cost, ho\^r coulcl a house instead norv be pl-aced 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.
fn
report of
the Carver Soil and I{ater Conservation District
June 18, 1980, Don Berg writes,
Thc secolrd building sitc limitation problen is thewet Glencor.-- soils in thc ]ow area ad j accnt to thelakc, T.'l'rc sulrsrlr-f acc scasonal rval-cr t:abIc riscsto rvithin one foot of the surfacc at l-easL once ayear, To cor,trol tllc vcl,ncss prroblcni in thcsearcas, thc ma:iinlr.m f lood 1evel of Lotus L.fke wouIclltal,c Lo bc krr<trvrr, tl.rc s;c,as;onal Ir.lcyh \sartcl: LJI)1c rvoul(laI:;o lrirrrr-: t--o bc kl)()\rll , arrcl thc Itc.arirrg st.rcngth ofthc Cl.cncoc soil nccd:; to be cleLcrmini:d. Bascntenl_$wottld bc dc:;ic;nc<l to prctrcnt conl_inuincl tratcr sccpagcproblcms anrl also foundation crncking cluc Lo lowsoj-l- strcngth and frost act.ion.
((
- 11-
City Council -12-May 2, l9B1
His report is 19 pages. The last 15 of those 19 are
forms, but Mr. Berg underlined in red those Parts pertaining
to Pox Chase. On the page describing G1encoe soi1s,
Mr. Berg underlined:
Building Site Development:
Shallow Excavations: Severe--Ponding
Dwellings without Basements: Severe--ponding
Dwellings with Basements: Severe--ponding
Local roads and streets: Severe--ponding, low
strength, frost action
Lai./ns, landscaping: Severe--ponding.
Perrneability: 2/10 of an inch of water in I hour.
Buildinq, therefore, in Glencoe soil-s woufd be noth i ng
one r,Ilte reshort of buj-lding in a permanently \,ret soil--or
it would take 5 houl-s to move 1 inch of rain through it.
D. EROSION
Bob Obermeyer for Rilcy-Purgatory Creek lVatershed
District writes in his May 6, 1980 letter:
The llanagers are extremely concerned with the steep
grades on thc developneut site and will require a
continuous inspection of the proposed erosion control
neasures. . . . To ensurc that the erosiotr control
measures are properly maintaincd. the District ruill
requirc that the dcvcJ-oper post a performance bond
. . . of $20 r 000 prior to tlle columcnccmct'tt of latrd
al-Lcr.rtion.
In IJorI
June I8, I9u0, he writcs,
liergr s Soj.I and i,Jatcl: Coltscrvation RcporL of
.l.L i:r vcr]
L ri- 2 5r, (!r)
tlil: I icr.rIL Lo btlild ltottscs antl roacls oll i-lrc
:;Iopcs, anrl aJ.nost imposs;ibIc to clcvclop
40'l (1,') sloi-rcs, as sltorr,n on thc atLaclle(1
cncl on tllc (lcvclopcr:s contoLrr ntal>, wit-hottl-
thc 25 Lo
soils ut.r 1.r
((
City Council
erosion and sediment delivery into
May 2, 198I
severe soil
Lotus Lake.
When the
from thecuts and
the areas
to severe
present tree and grass cover is removed18 to 25? and the 25 Lo 4OZ slopes, andfills are made for the roads and houses,of steep exposed soil wil1 be subjecterosion during heavy rainfall periods.
The area to be developed needs a detail_ed soilerosion control plan to shorq how the sediment fromroad and utility construction and land grading wilIbe prevented from reachj-ng the lake.
Jim Orr has not seen this report.
E. DON BERGIS REPORT OF JUNE 18, I98O(Soi1 and l,Iater Conservation)
I{hen I first began looking into the report referred
to above, Bob Waibel told me that Donrs report had not
been considered in the Derrick project because ,,it came j-n
too l ate.
In reading Bobrs file, I found that. Bob requested
the report June 10, 1980. He received it g days later.
At the time Dob told me it had been received too 1ate,
I saic1, rrBut it isnt t too late norv.., To rvhich lte replied,
IBut it, would cost a fortune for Derrick to comply with
that rcporL now; yourvc got to consider that too.',
l^ihen I contact-cd Don Berg to discuss his rcport,
he volunt-cercd sencling nrc a copy. It is when f got my
copy directly fr:om l)on (19 paqcs) thaL T rcalizecl Itob cii<ln't:
havo irny ruorc l-lr;rn t'lrc f i l:s l- f onr pagos of th.is rcport in
his f ilcs.
-r3-
City Council -14-May 2, 19BI
While it is true that the last 15 of these 19 pages
are basically forms, the last 5 pagcs are on the soils in
Fox Chase wi-th an attending map color-coded. parts per-
taining to the Fox Chase development, Don had underlined in
red. All of this was missing from Bobrs fi1e.
I brought thi.s repoit to the attention of the planning
Commission and later discussed this with Jim Orr. He said
Soil Conservation Service reports were a ,'bunch of bo1ogna,,'
thaL they "don|t have a plan, " that Derrickts ',grading p]_an
is quite a bit different nowr,' that Don Berg didn't. get
his information from borings on site; that ,,Soil and I.tater
Conservation used to work for farmers but they ran out of
work so thelz Iet them get involved in this kind of thingr,,
"they're generalj.stq," "I don't put any stock in it,',
"SCS doesnrt have any authority,,t 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 somc of his comnrcnts to othcrs. IIe said, "you
sure can; tlicyIrc thc truth!"
In thc f .rcc of Jint I s commcr:ts , I .-tsl(ed Don Bcrg rvhy
hc thouqht it r"as tha L wc wouIcl bot-.hcr hiur for a rcport
l-hrl- rvc \.roul(l t_rcat_ as a ,,burrch of boloqna.', Thc ansjr.rcr
es ca1: ccl him t.oo.
City Council
It was
time I spoke
Conse rva tion
home.
F
-t 5-
DON BERGiS VISIT APRIL 30, 198I
WITH K. SCHI,'IARTZ
sheer coincidence that only
with Jim Orr about the SoiI
May 2, 19BI
two hours from the
and Water
Report, Don Berg r'ras scheduled to come to my
He brought his fiLe on E'ox Chase with him. In it
were a nurnb er of maps of the Eox Chase area--one grading
plan of 1-28-80. Others, with great detail showing total
vegetation, otlers col-or-coded to show outlines of different
soils. I shorqed Don the I-26-8L grading plan and asked
him for his opinions.
He pointed out t\!ro low spots in the main road, Fox
Path. Aware that the gradirig plan was showing only
temporary drainage, he wondered what would happen during
grading when potentially massive erosion could occur down
the slopes. WouJ.d the pipe be able to take all the \.rater
load? If not, the roadway itself would become a sediment
basin or mudhole through which cotrstruction traffic woulcl
pass. This sautc collcern is borne out in a lett.er to
Don Berg f rom SLcl>hcn I,l j.dut-a, Board RL.p resent.rti-ve of
thc Soil. ancl l,laLel: Conserl'ation floard, Junc 13, 1980.
Thc tt,o slnal-l.eu scdimcnt basins locartcd on thc major
t:o-rr]rv:r1' nl)l)e al: Lo bc lirj.:rpIJCc(l . 1,rap1-rl11cJ :;ctl j_nrcrrt itra pro1,'os;r 1 roadr.r.ry is urtr.,,isc sincc rautilrolcs r.,,i II1i):cl1, <1cvelop, hampcring colrstructj_on traffic.
(
City Council -16-May 2, 1981
In addition, the road stabifity will probably bethreatened if aII of the sediment is not removedbefore paving. In any event, details sl.rould beprovided concerning all berms, sumps and standpipes.
were
bales
The 32o slopes along the west si.de of the property,
judged by Don to be nearly impossible to sustaj.n
of hay--that in a swift run off, the hay bales vrould
because of poor leverage.1l-ro
G CONTLfCT OP TNTEREST--SCHOELL AND MADSON
When I first talked vrith Jim Orr (probably March 1981)
I was not aware that SchOell and Madson were hired by
Chanhassen. It was so apparent to me that he was
pro-Derrick, I naturally assuned he was hired by Mr. Derrick.
I was incredulous when I learned Schoell and I'Iadson
were our supposed repre sentatives . The following are some
recent examples to bear out ny feeling of their pro-Derrick
position:
1. When I spoke with Jim. Or:: prior to the 4-22-gI
Public llearing, I apprised him of what the neighborhood
was going to present at the public hearing.
f specific.-r11y recaIl the conversation rclating to
ouI rc conultc trcl.L t-:i- <.l n that rvc have a sccondary i-rcccss to
Carvcr llc.rch. I EoId hillr I haci walllccl thc propcrty wlrcrc
Eo:: Clrirsc Iit(rc L:i C.rrv{-r ll(:.lclI.
Af Lct: l;cvcral rvha t- I- un(lcrs t-oocl- to-bc-ttef ens ivc
commcnts about- Lrcc rcnroval and grading that would bc
City Counci1
Dec€sSc1r! I he stated that
IJim Orr] considered to be
When this issue then
Jim went to the map to show
the road from Carver Beach
-t 7-May 2, 1981
of course Lot 26 was what he
one of Derrickrs best lots.
came up at the Planning Commission,
the negative of connecting
to the leardahl property (Lot 19).
He pointed out the very steep grade that existed between
Carver Beach and ],ot 19.
I had to step fon/ard to shorv that we were not asking
for that particular location. We were asking for the
road to be put at the 920 leve1 bet\,reen Lots 26 and 27.
He conceded.
2. Another point about Lot 19. Both Roger and Jim
have tried to prove the impossibility of connecting Carver
Beach to Lot 19 by citing the 30r elevation difference
between the cul-de-sac in fox Chase and l,lohawk in Carver
Beach, They show the 30r elevation over a 138r span,
calculate that to be a 22t rise and draw the silcnt concl_usion:
clearly prohibitive.
I.lhat- ncithcr IioEcr nor Jim point out is that in the
grading plan, a 14r slice is schedulcd to be taken off thc
top near Lot 19. Th.is gcts inter-csting, bccarrse now,
instead of thrrrc bcitrq a 30' risc in that I3Br span,
thr:r-c's norv on11. u I6' ri::c. .J,hat wotrlcl arnounL l-o a Il. 5i r-il;o.
11.51 is morc r,,. j- th irl t:cason sincc Dox path is currently
shown to be 10.79t--sc"rrccly a diffcrellce betweetr thc two.
I
I
''l
(
City Counci1 -IB-May 2, 1981
Orr
sa id,
ri se
TO
I felt it a bit disconcerting that Derrick and
had in effect misled both the neighbors and Planning
Commission on this issue and brought it up to Jim: f
[You notice Roger didnrt point out what the degree of
would be after grading." Jim said, rrOf course not.rt
which I replied, "And may I say, neither did 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 saiil both privately and publicly that she
feels threatened by this road ending at her proper-,y line.
She does not want to se11 anil plans to pass her property
to her children.
April 22, l-981- the Planning Conmission voted in favor
of the neighborhood and passed a motion to establ-ish a
permanent cul-de-sac approximately 50 feet from the Bennett
property Iine.
This is my concern: from the point of the 'hovr-permanent "
cul,-dc-sac to thc Bennctt property (50 fect) there is a
45" rise. It is a question in ny mind horv a potential road
in the futurc up a 45o rise could evcr havc becrr considercd
bcyond a rough draft sLagc.
tlo:;t- tliriif 1r.r:;ionj,ng is Lo ltcar t:hc liltc of dofctrsc
on this issuc by boLl: llill tlonk .-rntl Jim Orr. BilI points
(
City Council - 19-May 2, 19Bl
there is no question that a great deal of grading would
need to be done if Fox path ever connected, s/estv/ard.
Yet what f before calculated as llg rise from Carver Beach
up to Lot 19 (BiII Monk calculated it to be 14?), is a
project of such proportion that it should be avoided.
4. When I questioned Jin Orr on the two low spots
in the road and learned that the intake pipe rvas 4g,,
and then asked him how they knevr that could handle the
amount of water coming down off half the Fox Chase project,
he tofd me Lhatrs why [Chanhassen] hires engineers. yet
it is on this very issue that Don Berg has raised questions
in his unread report.
5. I asked what measures had been taken to connect
the 12" cul-vert near the old Wifma Thompson road (near
the Idhiteman house) to the drains. Gordie Whiteman te1ls
me that when it rains. water from the uplying hiI1s
collectivcly gushes through ris cul-vert 'rlike a fire
hydrant" dorun onLo thc hilLside. After sonc discussion,
I lear:ned thaL thc drain for ris cultcrt is at the bottom
of thc hil-1.. I was Lold that it is not Derrickrs
respon:;ibi.li Cy to taltc carc of iL; that it is a ',buyer
bcrvar:<:" sil,u.lt-ion r.'l.r c rc l-hc buycr has to bc sur--c it
drains arva1, f rom his lrascmctrt.
i (
City Council -20-May 2, 19 81
I{. IIBUYER BEWARtr''
I pointed out the severe erosion behincl one of the
1og cabins on Lotus Drive in Carver Beach. Here, dirt
has caved in 6 or more feet away from tree roots and.
backfifl has caved. in next to retaining wa1Is.
Bill informed me that this issue is eurrently under
1ega1 dispute and that apparentl-y the city is absolved from
aII responsibility because the culvert above this sunken
property has been in its present location for 20 years
(j-onger than the cabins have been there). This seemed to
portend that any future Fox Chase landoryner wilI find
himself with a potentially similar problem, but with no
city or developer assuming responsibility.
The West Pleasant Vielr' Road Association finds it
unconscj-onable for our City Council to permit Derrick to
seII either meadorv land or hillside on a ',buyer beware,'
situation. IVe regret tltat some of our city staff or those
hired by our city, feel "buyer beware" is an .rccepi:able
practice. Wc ut:ge our City Council to set the high
standard that r,{e wil-I not kr:orvingly participate in allorving
l-hc salc of anl, .Iatrcl in our boundarics which is noLhirrg
Iess thaD a tr-ap for t-lrc unsuspccting.
((
City Counc i 1 -2I-May 2, 19 81
I. SUi.{-I,IARY
t/ _,
tc//-{-h.it.,
(urs. ) xadrrt
f or the l^le st
Vi.ew Road As
{t. t, ti ,1,
t?een S ch\../ar
PLeasant
soc iation
(
We have tried to bring to light facts which show the
neighbor:hood is not against a development that would be
in keeping with the existing neighborhood. This proposed
developnent appears to misuse the property to such an
extent that severe erosion threatens Lotus Lake and tot
placement threatens the existing rural neighborhood.
-^-\:J}/v4os _ uv Yr(-,:5L t,Iqcrsdntvrew Road Association .Lett5/2/8L from Boh Waj.bet
]Land Use - pages 1-3
The report of the West pLeasant View Road Associatj-on haspresented the position that the Fox Chase plan constitutesa misuse of the subject property "in the sense of creatingmassive erosion problems threatening Lotus Lake... Misuse inthe sense of urban-type layout in a rural neighbortrooa, ';
-
It further states that "these problems can be solved withoutdenying Mr. Derrick his rights of developing his property.,'Since these j.ssues are considerably subjective in- nalure-,the only way I feel that they can be addressed is to give anoverview of how development rights can be consistently appliedwithin the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance ,- "nd- th"effects of trunk public improvement construction on thedevelopability of properties.
In essence what has given this property and surrounding proper-ties developability status for an urban residential stindardis the installation of trunk sewer service. This servicewas instaLled to correct existing and eliminate future sanit-ation problems associated with faj-ling on site systems.In recognition that sanitary sewer avaj_1abi1ity does implycertaj-n developability status, the City has consistentltaccepted applications for development review. Through thereview process development plans are approved or disapprovedrelative to their compatability with the Comprehensive plan
and city ordinances.
As to questions on land use, which ultimately result
development design, the follo$rj-ng section ordinancesplans are most applicable.
in f inal
and
19.13 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
I. AIl proposed land devefopments and aIl applicationsfor rezoning which contain in excess of 25 singLefamily zoning lots, or in excess of 24 multiple dwellingunits, or in excess of 10 acres for proposed comrnercialor industrial use sha1l be submitted as proposed Planned
un j-t developments and shall be governed by the regulations
thereof .
14.01 ob jecti.ves:
The ViIIage being confronted h,ith
and acknowledgin that technologY
demand for housing are undergoing
changes intends r
increasing urbanizat j,on
of land development and
substantial and rapid
I To provj-de the means for greater creativity and flex-
ability in environmental design than is provided
under lhe strict application of the zoning and sub-
division ordinances without compromising the health,
safety, order, convenj-ence and general welfare of the
Village and its residents:
Draft
SECTION I4. P-I PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPI{ENT DISTRICT.
-2-
To encourage the more efficient allocat,ion and innovativeuse of conmon open space adjoining residential buildingsin order that greater opportunities for better housingand recreation may be extended to the residents of theVillage:
To provide for the establishment of regulations andprocedures for planned residential district develop-
ment designed to meet the need for moderate and lowcost housj.ng, including the utilization of preconstructed
and preassembled dwell-ing units of a permanent naturewithout sacrificing quality construction and assem.blystandards and tax base; and
To provide administrative procedures which can rel-ate aplanned development district to a particular site andwhich may encourage the disposition of planned develop-
ment district proposals without undue de1ay.
L4-02 Permitted Uses
3
4
within a P-l Planned Residential Development
no buildlng or land shall- be used except for
use :
District,the following
Single family dwellings
Two f amiJ.y dwellingsMultiple dwellings
Townhou se s
Approval of the final development plan sha11 not begranted by the Village Council unless it finds the
fo l lowing :
The proposed devleopment is not. in conflict with theComprehensive Village p1an,
The proposed development is designed in such as manneras to form a desirable and unified environmentwithin its o$rn boundaries,
the proposed uses will not be detrimental to presentand future land uses in the surrounding area,
any exceptions to the zoning and subdivision ordinancesare justified by the design of the development,
14.05 (s)
C
I
2
3
4
5 the planned development is of sufficient size,composition and arrangement that its constructionoperation is feasible as a complete unit without
dependance upon any other unit.
and
2-
1.
2.
1
4.
-3-
the planned development wifl not create an excessiveburden on parks, schools, streets and other publicfacilities and utilities which are proposed to servethe development,
the planned development wj_lI not have an ad.verseimpact on the reasonable lnjoyment of neighboringproperty.
Subdivision Ordinance 33
6
7
a(I). Water and Sanitary Sewer Areas. In areas served.by pubJ.i c water and sanitary sewer systems, the maximum
nunber of lots to be permitted in a plat shal1 be computedby subtracting from the total gross area of the plat thetotal dedicated street right-of-way and dividing the arearemaining after said subtraction by 15,000 to determinethe maximum nurnber of lots permitted in said p1at. In
no event shall a lot contain less than 11,700 square feetnor have a frontage of less than 90 feet at the buildingset-back l-ine, No lot shalI be larger than twice the
average size of lots in said p1at.
Comprehensive cuide Plan
The attached Comprehensivesubject property to assumeresidential identity.
Guide PIan Map
and maintain a
indicates thesingle family
8,06
a. Minimum Lot Size. The minimum 1ot area and dimensionsha-il-E as specTfied in the respective zoning districtsof the Village Zoning Ordinance, and in addition, thefollowing standards sha1l apply:
)
taaaaI.t
t
!I
I!II
IIl!
ll
!lti
taaaiaIt-aaIiala
,:''.
,aat"-a
I
la
Ia to
I!
I
III
T
aI
IIIIIItIiIt
ItaIt!
7dnl
I\|
.t
a
ftr
a
a
rrrltsa a,ta
II
tt
t
'I
I
It
a
Ia
rtt,tt
Ia,
a
atiIaa
tIaa
itII
a
III
6
I
-l_
a aaI5
:,$l-at aa lltllq
o
aItt4
tt trrrJalrtriaira
a.
'.&-i
aa)))aa' 'a',
+:-
IiIr t
a
IIIII
rt ,a
:t'I
I
-l
I
1
1
oII
Ii
I
i,
IIII
II
.l
I
J
a
I
I
a
ialatr'I"I
tIa
!II!
aI
aIt
I
&
B
f"'.-...,.,......
II
aIII
aIII
,I
a
t
a
rl
I
a,
,-t t
i
!afn,.,-.."\:ll
,..
J
I
irll
t1
il
I
II
I
-4-
In accordance with Section 19.13 of Ord.inance 47 Ehe DerrickproposaJ- was reviewed as a planned Residential Developmentunder the provisi"ons setforth in section r.4 of ordinaice 42.
It is quite clear from num erous professional planningsources that historically, the planned districL corrc"!t wasdeveloped for purposes of providing a means to incorplratemore j.mrnovative design and creativity into new develbpmentthan r,ras previously afforded by conventional subdi.visionand zoning ordinances. The framework by which this is accohp-lished is typically found in a goals or objectives statementsuch as adopted in Section 14.01 subsections 1,2,3, and 4 ofOrdinance 47. In interpreting these objectives it is appaxentthat the only objective which could possibly imply that- theplanned development concept is to be more iestiictive thanthe subdivision ordinance is objective #I wherein greatercreativj-ty and flexibility in invironmenta I design is tobe provided for. However, since all conventional 15,000square foot lot subdj-visj-ons of one acre or more are subjectto the same watershed district review for purposes of irple-menting adequate soil erosion control and drainage measures,it is difficult to reason that the p]anned devLeopment
concept is t.o be applied in a more restxictive mannerespecially with regard to density. Regardless of theprel,ious comrnents, it should be kept in nind that the Fox
Chase proposal is at a gross density of 1.5 units per acreas opposed to the 2.9 units per acre gros: density permiss-able in the Subdivision Ordi-nance.
Questions have been raisedi.n the pleasant View Road Associati_onIetler concern j-ng whether or not the subject development wouldbe detrimental to present and future uses of surroundingproperties and that the Derrick proposal would "alteran existing neighborhood as to permanently change it,scharacter," 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 ia zuind that the subject development is ata gross density oi 1.5 units per acre as opposed to 2.9 unitsper acre permj-ssable -rn the subdivision ordinance. Until any
ordinance amendments or plan amendments are carr j.ed out, the
surrounding property owners are in a situation whereby they
could develope their property to a greater degree (2.9 units
per acre);fi3p the Fox chase proposal (I.5 units per acre).
An exception to the above 2.9 units per acre crj-teria is
Carver Beach wherein certain circr.rmstances variances have
becn given fo.r buildable lots as Iow as 10,000 square feet.(4.3 units/acre) .
For purposes of this response, a detailed verification
of whether or not the traffic on Pleasant View Road wiII
criple, will nots be gone into. However, as everyone involved
-5-
Lots along pleasant View - Item 6 page 5
It had been the recommendation of this office that noindividual access be giv en onto pleasant View Roadfor Lot 3 Block 2 of the plan dated April 15, 1981,and that, a density transfer be contemplated in the inter-ior of the deveLopment. In effect this would reduce thenumber of houses on pleasant View Road to three.
7 Fox Path exit to Pleasant View Road - Item g - page 6
The concept that the entrance to Fox Chase from pleasant
View road be moved to the northeasterly property linewas preli-mj.narily endorsed verbally by this office atthe PLanning Commission meeting of Apiil 15, and theCity Council meeting of May 4, 1981. Thj_s concept wasal-so recomrnended by the planning Commission at itsmeeting of Apxil 15, 1981.
8. Street width and second.ary access Item 9-page5
18, 198I.
reports.
Reference City Engineer,s response of MayAdditionally covered in previous planning
Minnesota Historical
page I Society }etter of A-20-79 - Item 10-
The response received in the subject correspond.ence istypical of what has been received. on past dlvelopment
EAW reviews. prior to this EAw, the City Council hadbeen apprised of the similar responses and there wereno archiologj-cal surveys required as part of developmentapprovals. If a policy change is contemplated,
whereby such surveys are to be performed, it should be
made clear as to who would pay for the survey and at
!^rhat stage of the development review process shoul-d the
EAw review carried out and archiologicaf survey
subsequently conducted.
6.
-7-
9. John W. Schardlow Letter of g-I5-79 - Item Il-page 9
This item addresses the final development plan submittalsof archj-techtural renderings of proposed structures andlandscapj-ng schedules. It had been clear from the outsetof the revi-ew of Fox Chase that the homes would be custombuilt.. In simular situations such as Lotus Lake Estates,Reichert Addition, Near Mountain, and Minnevrashta Creek2nd Addition, it was clear that the City could not influencethe architectural style of single family homes beyond whatwas required in the building code. Typically the covanentsand restrictions for such proposals include an architecturalreview by a committee established by the developer and/orthe home owners association. In the sampLe covenants andrestrictions submitted by Derrick Land Company for FoxChase, such a provision exists. Situations in which theCity has recej-ved architectual renderings have been primarilyfor tract housing developers with a limited number of singlefamily styles and variations, and for multiple and comnercial
and industrial- structures.
In the past the City has not required landscape schedulesfor single family homes since such would interfer withindividual owners preferances. Landscape schedules have
been required for multipIe, commercial and industrial
structures to insure that a mj.nimal Iandscaping effort is
made.
SoiI SectionC-page11
The Soil and Water Conservation Service inventory andevaluation reports simply indicate to aII parties in-volved in a development, the conditions as they existon a large scale. It points out areas of s )firpt. dnaticsoil and slope conditions were, &acceptable correctivemeasures should be taken to render them developable.
Erosion - Section D page 12
Traditionally, the City has depended upon review by the Water
Shed District and the City Engineer to insure that pro- ?
per erosion control measures wiIl be impli-mented in the
devleopment and construction plans. In order to receivea land alteration permit, the applicant must prepare and
submit a satj-sfactory erosion control pIan, and in the
case of Derrick Land Company, they must post a perform-
ance bond of $20,000 to assure that erosion control
measures are properly maintained. It has been the conccrn
of this office that sufficient monies be posted to cover
-8-
the need for thorough inspection as th j.s developmentis beins constructed. Aaaiai;;"riv,-"J"" of rhe cond_itions of approval is that the buj_idin! p]ans forstructure proposed in the development 5e certified byan architect or engineer registeied in the State ofMinnesota.
At the time when I dj_scussed the subject report withMrs. Schwartz, most of my comments were reflex responsesbased upon a vague recollection of what transpiredapproximately one year ago. That vague recollectionwas based upon a rememberence of som6 very odd circum-stances under which the subject SCS reporl was generated.which are as follows:
Don Bergrs Report of June lg, 19gO Subsection E - p9 13
On June 6, 1980, a Ietter was received from Mr. Don Bergstating that a Mr. Dennis I'larhul_a v/as requested by thePlanning Commissj-on to review the plans of fox Chise.l4r. Be.rg also indicated that any such reviews should berequested by the City in writing. This presented aconsiderably puzzling situation in that there had beenan SCS report done as part of the EAW process a yearbefore this particular request, based upon which Derrickhad prepared final development p1ans, and also thatthis office had not requested another review nor hadany knowledge of any planning Commission requesting sucha review. Without investigating as t.o who may have requestedthat the SCS take a second look at the development, Idid send a written request on June 10, 1990. Thejrportant part of this issue is that final developmentplans had been developed before the receipt of thissecond SCS report. Since the second SCS report didnot appear to require significant modification to the
f j-na1 development plans, and that many of the erosioncontrol, measures recommended in the report were appro-priate,considering the terrain of the Derrick property,this office recommended that construction of imprbvem-entsand structures be carried out in compliance with thesubject SCS report.
With regard to the absence of the last 15 pages of theSCs report, these were removed from the origlnal asthis report was being prepared for the City Councilpacket. Inadvertently, these pages were not returnedto the file. Since these pages are simply data sheetssupportive to the narrative portion ot LfrL report, andthat their technical nature would be of marginal benef j-tfor council review purposes, staff has not includedsuch in the City Council packets for this or any other develop_ment proposals.
-9-
The f j-rst sentence on page 14 implies that the City Councilhad not seen the soils nip for f6x Chase. A review ofthe July 2l , )"980 City Council packet indicates thatthe narrative portion of the SCS inventory and evaluationand the at,tendant soil map was included f-or thej.r review.
EHINHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE ' P.O. BOX ,147
' CHANHASSEN, I/INNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DATE :
SUBJ:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Bill Monk, City Engineer
May 18, 19 81
I'ox Cha se
The following is in responsea report titled,,Concerns ofdated May 2, L98I- .
to the engineering
West Pleasant View
items as Iisted in
Road Association " ,
Pa Item 5
Paqe 5 Item 7
Paqe 6 Item 8
Page 6 ftem 9
e5
I am presently reviewing the grading plans for bothproposed alignments as prepared by the developer. Ito answer detailed questions concerning sile gradingmeeting on June L.
the approved andwill be prepared
at the Counc i l_
access
doe sprivate
Sta-f f has always upheld the position that Fox path be the onlyto Pleasant Vieh, Road from this subdivision. Lot 3 of Block 2exist as a buildabre rot, but site distance restrictions makeaccess unsafe.
There is no question that fill sha1l be required to construct FoxPath near Pleasant vier,, Road. The grade on Eox path at the preasantview Road intersecti-on wilr not exceed 3t and shart meet ordinancerequirements. If the e-ntrance to the plat was moved to the east,the grade on preasant view would be bet.ter for exiting traieic uutsight distance to the east wouId be reduced. From an-enjineerinq view-point, the intersection as- proposed is icceptable, althoirgh theeasthrard shift would also be acceptable.
Based on safety considerations, Fox path should be wider than the normal28' because of the sweeping curves and steep gradds. Even with doubleaccess, the street shourd be at least:z' wiae. rox path is a proposedresidentiar street and excess width is not being required to maxe itan eventual collector.
CITY OF
Don Ashworth
Page 2
When discussing secondary access from the south, the following items
should be noted:
The Roadway system inadditional traffic is
Fox Path
had this
Ri ght-o f -waycertainly be
The 12" culvert mentioned shall bethe potential for such exj.st, theythis project.
margi.nal at best and
could become a col-lector if Carver Beach trafficnortherly escape to Pleasant View Road.
Carver Beach isto be avoided.
acquisition outside this pLat would almostrequired for a street connection.
Grading and tree removal would be extensive but no worse than
roadways within the plat.on
Page 10 -
propo sed
Section 11
Corunents concerning the "Buyer Beware" issue stem from conversationsabout the Cityrs responsibility in the area of buildable lots. Istated the City j-s not responsible to render all lots buildable asa condition of the plat approval, but the City did have a responsi-bility to ensure al-l structures were built to code as a part of thebuilding permit process.
Page 11 C. So ils
Based on available test data and visual field inspection, I am concernedabout the poor soil conditions in the lowlands because I understandthe extaordinary construction and inspection that wilI be required. I
am convinced a roadway can be built to serve this property althoughsite development costs wiIl be extremely high.
Page 12 D. Brosion
Erosion control wilI be an important facet of this project both duringand after construction. Compliance with Watershed District conditionsconcerning this matter is a requirement of the City on aII plats.
Should those conditions or a contractor's compliance be found deficientat any time, the Watershed District and/or the City shall requireimmediate corrective measures.
Page 18 Section 3
A cul-de-sac should be platted where construction of l.ox path is totermj-nate as a part of this project, and the City shoutd retain theremaining right-of-way to the west for possible future use. There isno question that extensive grading wiII be required with the westwardextension of Fox Path.
Page 19 Section 5
reviewed. If drainage problems or
would be corrected as a part of
Don Ashworth
Page 3
Pa e20 H. Bu er Beware
The City's responsibility varies greatly in differentLegal clarification of the "buyer beware" issue shallCity Attorney.
s i tuations .be left to the
avt."/--
-.---.-_a..
WILLIAM O SCHOELL
CAFILISLE MAOSON
J4CK T, VOSLEH
JAMES F ORN
HAROLD E DAHLIN
LARRY L HANSON
JACK E, GILL
THEOOORE O KEMNA
JOHN W EMONO
KENNETH E ADOLF
WILLIAM R ENGELHAROT
FI SCOTT HAFRI
GEFiALO L BACKMAN
-
SCHOELL & MAI]SON,INC.
ENGIN EEFIS ANO SU FIVEYORS
(612) 93S7601 . 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH . HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
May 13, 19 81
City of Chanhassen
c/o 'l,tr . Don Ashworth,
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota
City Manager
55317
Subj ect :Kathleen Scherartz
I4ay 2, 1981
Report of
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request, we herein wish to respond to the
above named letter dealing with the Fox Chase development.Mrs. Schwartzts letter was 21 pages long and I wish to commenton engineering related items only.
Mrs. Schwartzrs 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, or to address each of her commentsherein. It seems to me that the issue here is the Fox Chase
development, not what Mrs. Schwartz or myself feel about eachotherri respective motives or role. Mrsl Schwartzts letter has
some inaccuracies, misstatements, and has taken conunents anddiscussion out of context.
I'ollowing are responses on certain engineering related items:
Page 5, ftem 7
Lot 3, Block 2 could have improved site distance assuming
some gradj-ng and tree removal-, plus driveway placement on the east
edge of the lot. The advantage of the Pleasant View access isthat it aids the effort of saving the Pine tree stand on thesubject lot, versus a driveway access from the southeast.
Page 6, ftem 8
The Fox Path entrance onto Pleasant View does not have aneight percent (8C) intersection with Pleasant V-few Road. As I
have told Mrs. Schwartz and shown her the Plans, the intersection
I
SCHOELL EL MAOSON,INc.
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr, Don Ashworth, City Manager
Page Two
is a three percent (38), or less, grade fromPleasant View to a point 80 feet south whereof the vertical curve exists. I{er statementcompliance with Ordinance 33 is falsel
the southa point ofthat there
May 13, 19 8I
edge of
inter s ec tionis non-
Concerning the issue of location of the intersection of FoxChase with Pleasant View Road, the best location with respect tosite distance is where it j_s proposed. On the other hand, if theCouncil and developer wish to change the focation to the east, anysite distance problem can be corrected.
Pa e 5, Item 9
Concerning street width, I vi.ew that as a policy matternot an engineering issue in a residential area.
Concerning the matter of a secondary access, I have thefollowing comments. This applies to the issue of either anemergency access or a permanent access. I have expressed thisview in the past, and feel strongly about it as relates to thetypical subdivision. I do not believe there to be a great safetyneed to have a secondary access. The experiences that the Cityhas had where fallen trees have bLocked the road are unJ-gue toareas like carver Beach. The normal residential subdividion doesnot have great potential for storms blowi-ng trees over the roadand thus blocking emergency vehicles. If it alid occur, theemergency vehicle (in a typical street section) could simply driveon the rawns around the tree. Downed trees normally occui in thefoliage months so snow should not be a problem.
don't misunderstand that I am opposed to secondary
am not, except in the case where it is difficult tobelieve that to be the case in Fox Chase for these
PIease
accesses.
achieve. I
reasons:
I
1) The Carver Beach
2\ Additional trees
3) There are grade
would be used.
road system is poor at best,.
would need removal.
problems depending on which connection
4) Additional right-of-way acquisition wouldCarver Beach to make most of the proposed
be required in
connections.
EiCHOELL & MAESON. INc.
City of Chanhassenc/o Mr. Don Ashworthf City Manager
Page Three
Page 10, rtem 11:
My comments about the buyer being aware of the Iot soilconditions were attempting to convey that the City cannot and
does not warrant soil conditions of a building site. The plat
review process ad.dresses concerns over soil conditions on thepublic right-of-way where city streets and util-ities wilI befocated. The City obviously has a direct interest in those items,but in terms of soil conditions on the lots, this is between thedeveloper and the bu yer.To suggest the City approval of a platin some way grants approval of soil conditions where a buildingis to be placed is totally unreasonable and is not done in any citythat I am aware of. Nor from the Citysr point of view, should it
Page 11, Item C:
My general comnent on Mrs. Schwartzrs allegations of notrecognizing or using the SCS and Watershed District reports isthat the were used, and the Cit Council ' s a roval was conditioned
u on such. The so I cond I t tons an d eros ron potent IA l- are we 11I
recognr- ze d by us, and the Plans and Specifications prepared forthe improvements demonstrate this fact.
Pqgq t4q
Mrs. Schwartz's corunents 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. I \"ra s attempting toexplain this, and the considerabl-e overl-ap that exists in thisprocess, and that irregardless of the other agency i s revielv, theerosion and soil problems are considered very seriousty 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 proposedstreet 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 conLrol.
In terms of design criteria,
designed for a ten-year frequency
the drainage facilities are
storm - normal municipal design.
May 13, 19 81
The a]Iegation of conflict of interest is a common phraseused when trying to discredit another party' s integrity. We areworking on this project in accordance with specifi- initructionsof the City Council-. we have always been loyal to the City, andwould be fools to jeopardize our relationship with the City bydoing something not in the City's interest. I.fe attempt to do thebest_ job we can in providing good engineering service regardlessof who we work for. perhaps a part of the pioblem is thit we haveapproached our assigned work from the point of viehr that Derrickhad an approved p1an, and that many of the controversial items hadalready received policy decisions by the City CounciI. Mrs.Schwartz's approach has been to go through the decision makingprocess again,
EICHOELL B. MAOSON, rNC.
City of Chanhassenc/o Nlr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
Page Four
Page 16, Conflict of Interest Charge:
Page l-8, To p Para graph :
Page 20, Buyer Beware :
I take issue with the statement that I misled aactual facts related to possible grades of a secondaof Lake Point are a 13.5 percent grade would be requbased on the actuat plans. The hi1/s slope is 17 perequiring filling to achieve the I3.5 perlent grade.done, but it does create some problems.
nyone. Thery access offired. This isrcent - thusIt can be
f have previously commentedexplanation of the City,s limitsof Mrs. Schlyartz.
Surunary :
We have tried herein
engineering related itemsof May 2, 1981. We trustin understanding the realprovide any assistance toin order to resolve this
on
on
this, but would suggest a 1egalresponsibility for the benefit
to present information and response toreferred to in Mrs. Schwartzrs letterthat our point of view will be heJ-pfulfacts. Our desire and intent is tothe City or its residents that rre canproblem. P1ease advise as to questions.
Very truly
qcHoELL &
\;-
_)
yours,
uAPSoN,(\ \\
JROrr : mkr
INC.
May 13, 19 81
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
County Office Building, Waconia, Minnesota 55387
1,1r. Tonr Hamilton , Mayor
City of Chanhassen
rbyu Lsred.o urfve
Chanhassen, Minnesota 5531?
Dear Mayor Hamilton:
I an writing this letter at the request of Kathy Schvartz. Over thepast fev veeks, she has requested information from ne relating to the
June 18, 1980 Inventory and EvaLuation of Soil and Water Besources of
Fox Chase, Chanhassen, by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District.
I reyieved the January 28-30, 1980 preliminary plan of Fox Chase, visited
and valked over the site twice, d.iscussed it vith Steve Widuta, formergtate Soil Conservation Board Representative, antl Justin Jeffery, Soil
Conservation Service Area Xngineer, and wrote the report for the Soil and
Water Conservation District, as requested by the city on June 10, l-980.
Copies of this report vere sent to Bob Waibel and Dennis Marhu_Ia on
June 19, 1980. As of this d.ate, I have not reviewed an updated plan andf do not knov if soil erosion and soil rretness problems have been resolvedto the satisfaction of the city planning commission and city council.
I reed Kathy Schvartzr May 2, 1981 tuenty-one page Letter to the Chanhassencity council "Concerns of West Pfeasant Vieu noad Association", and I am
avare of a second letter being drafted at this time (r-25-81).
Sincerely,
Donald C, Berg
District Conser on]' s
Kathy SchLrart z
Don Ashvorth, Chanhassen City PJ"anner
Alfred Fischer, SCS Area Conservationist
Justin Jeffery, SCS Area Engineer
RECEIVED
l'lAY 2I l98l
CIIY OF CHANHASSEN
May 28, 1981
SECTION IV
Schwartz Report of May 26, L98l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
1
L
L
l
REPORT FROM
WEST PLEASANT VIEW ROAD ASSOCIATION
I'lay 26, 1981
TO
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
I
I
i.-
f
i
1
I
I
I
.t
l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEVELOPER ' S RESPON SIBILITIES '
CITY COIJNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 7' }980
a. SoiI Conservation Service" "':':
i. lfirrrr"="ta Department of Naturaf Resource
c. Riley eo.gttofi CreeX watershe'l District
P age
I
6
7
12
L2
]3
t3
14
I9
20
20
22
I
I
Summary and Recommendation '
CITY COI'NCIT MEETING OF JULY 2I' I98O'
OVE RLAP OF WATERS}IED DISTRICT AND SOIt AND"';AA; cousrnvatroN DrsrRrcr? ' ' ' :' '
PETITION OF PLEASANT VI'EW ROAD NEIGHBORS'
SUMMARY.
1
I
I
I
WE SUBMIT.
CAN COUNCII, CHANGE ITS MIND?
La
-.1
-l
-l
I
790 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
May 26, 19Bl-
Members of City CouncilCity of Chanhassen
7 610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Councilmen:
Fox Chase Development, Your File P-614
This is the fourth report by the West Pleasant View
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 1ight.
DEVELOPER, S RESP ONS IB IL I TIE S
Mr. Marlin Grant, President, Marvin Anderson
Construction Company was guest speaker at the May 13, 1981
Planning Commission meeting in Chanhassen. It was here
that I heard Mr. Grant teII of his immediate return from
Washington where he had attended the Spring Board Meeting
of the National Association of Homebuil-ders. There,
economists had stated that it was their belief that the
housing industry would remain in the present depressed state
-1-
-)
City Council -2-I'iay 25, 1981
for another 2-l/Z to 3 years before rcturning to normal.
Further, the National Association of Homebuilders was
advised that if a developer were to file for bankruptcy,
they should do so under Chapter 13 which aLlows one to
return to his same line of business afterward.
Does it not seem prudent in the face of this
irnpersonal data that the City have some assurance from
I{r. Derrick that he is financially capable of finishing
this project once he starts?
Under normal conditions, one might not need such
information because the market would provide the
incentive for a developer to finish. But if the market
is depressed, what incentive remains? what protection
does the city have that it wilt not be 1eft with a
half-baked eyesore? (we are not talking here about the
S20,000 letter of credit reguired by the Watershed
District. )
The foll_owing are some photographs of Mr. Derrickrs
Far Hill development in wayzata. tlie first three show
where a dike-Iike roadway has been constructed to reach
houselots from the lowland meadow area. Judging by its
ravt state and the eroding banks alongside a sma11 water
ho1e, one might conclude that it is work in process, but
it has apparently lain in this state fo! the entire year
since the roadway was constructed..
I
I
I
-l
I
l
l
I
I
Iia1, 26, f 981-3-Citl'Council
n L.1 \,.
-,,,: \'ti"l,'
)
,J L.'"
_/-a*')[r
))
u
-'t
I
I
I
l )
City Council l'lay 26, 198I
The large hil,lside on which three houselots are said
to exist was previously dcnse woods but has now been
stripped bare of every tree. I could not measure the
angle of this very steep hil1 (picture) , but it is clear
that it is not sodded. Apparentl-y, it has remained this
way for a year as weII.1
I
I
l
I
I
I
l
City Council -5-l'la], 26, 1981
When the road was constructed at the cul_de_sac area
in Far Hi11, excavating remains were shoved into the adjoining
h,ooded area and teft in a slipshod fashion resting severaL
feet up the trunks of trees and creating an unsightly
dropoff to the woods. This occurs next to the one of 20
lots that has been sold and built upon.
)
Cj-ty Council -6-l'ia\' 2 6 19 81
I
-t
I
1
J
l
_t
l
Surely, the Cj.ty has the right to protect the rights
of surrounding landowners by requiring in its permit a fand
ileveloping schedule including policing powers to enforce it.
CT?Y COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL ?19 B0
At the Preliminary Development plan Review on
ApriJ. 7, J.980, the minutes read,
A motion was mad.e by Councilman pearson and secondedby Councilman Swenson to rezone the subject premisesto P-l and to approve the 52 lot preliminaO' -- ----
development plan as depicted on tile westwoot planningpreliminary plat dated April 1, 1990, subject tothe following conditionsi . . :.
On May 20, 198I, f cal1ed Bruce Grivna of Egan, Field
& Nowak, Fran Hagen of Westood planning, paul B1ais of
Howard Dahlgren's, Jim orr at schoelr & Madson and none of
them knew of or had a plan dated Apri1 I, I9gO.
Some said they had preliminary plans dated in
January 1980, but then it skipped to lrtay 12, I9gO. Jim
Orr stated, ,,It is my understanding that we have a copy of
all originar versions [g] and there is none that is dated
that lApril ]., l-9801 . o
It appears unlikely that at an April 7 Council meeting
they would be talking about a plan dated 4 weeks hence
from that meeting. yet the ',May 12, 1990, Revised, May 22,
1980ft is the one presumed to be subject to approval. By
what authority do we use the May 12, 1980 plan to interpret
f
l
I
I
I
-.1
I
-.]
l;
IJ
City Council l.lay 26, 1981
an April 7, 1980 motion?
There were 6 conditions attached to the 52-1ot
preliminary development pJ.an approval, one of which was
to be met before the matter was resubmitted to the Council
for preliminary plat approval (Appendix). That condition
was not met.
Condition 1 reads:
That the applicant receive approval of theirgrading plan, drainage plan ind 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 Councit forpreliminary plat approval .
a. Soil Conservation Service
You recaIl in our report of May 2, IggI to the City
Council (p. 13) that the Soil Conservation Districtrs report
was reguested by Bob Waibel June 10, 1990, received
June 18, 1980 and deemed "too 1ate" to be considered.
On May 20, 1981, Mr. Berg stated to me ,,if it was the
intent of the City to get my approval or disapproval, they
do not have it. r,
I had calIed Mr. Berg (May 20) to discuss the
April 7, 1980 Council motion. He said that while they do
-7-
)
City Council -8-I-lay 26, l9El
approval or disapproval now, he would be
an opinion if the City requested it.
discussed issues that he raised in his
report paragraph by paragraph.
L. Paragraphs 1,2, page I
-t
1
I
I
not have
happy to
We
June 18,
his
give
then
19 80
It is very difficult to build houses and. roadson the 18 to 25t (E) slopes, and almost impossibleto develop the 25 to 408 (F) sLopes, as shown onthe attached soils map and on thL developerscontour map, without severe soil erosion andsediment delivery into Lotus Lake"When the present tree and grass cover isremoved from the 18 to 259 and the 25 to 408sLopes, the cuts and fi1ls are made for theroad.s and houses, the areas of steep exposedsoil will be subject to severe eros-ion luringheavy rainfall periods.
1"1r. Berg said these paragraphs are statements of facts.
That grading and building on these .Ig to 25t and 25 to 40U
slopes should be avoided if possible because of potentially
severe soil erosion and sediment delivery into Lotus Lake.
2. Paragraph 3, page 1. -
The area to be developed needs a detailed soilerosion control plan to show how the sedimentfrom road and utility construction and landgrading wiIl be prevanted from reaching the 1ake.The plan should also sho\r.overland emeigency flowfor storms that exceed the storm s"or", 6upu-"ityor if the storm sewer inlets are plugged Lr fr;zen.
I'1r. Berg has not seen a detaited soil erosion control
plan; only the preliminary one. The preliminary rGrading
and Erosion Controlt plan does not show where overland
l
I
.l
I
l
City Council -9-t1at, 25, ]9EI
emergency water \rouf d be diverted.
3. Paragraph 2, page 2.
Will the proposed sediment basin adjacent tothe 1ake provide adeguate water det6ntion timeand sediment storage? The runoff from aI1the graded areas in the construction areaneeds to be directed through the sediment basin.. . . As this wiII be a permanent sedimentbasin, provisions to clein out the sedimentshould be made part of the p1an.
On the l/28/80 Grading. map, Mr. Berg is not satisfied
that the proposed sediment basin will provide adequate
vrater detention time and sediment storage. Hers not
satisfied that the runoff from alL the graded areas in the
construction area will be directed through the sediment basin.
If the City desires, Mr- Berg would be wiJ.ling to review
the engineering design of the sediment basin. Mr. Justin
Jeffery, Area Engineer for Soil and Water Conservation
District, explains, ',In order to review, vJe would need
design criteria and caLculations. ,r
Who will be responsible for operating and maintaining
permanent sediment basin?
4 Paragraph 3, page 2.
Why does the plan show two outl-et concepts betweenthe sediment control device and the lake? Oneis 2 - 24" RCp and the other is a ditch-
Il
City CounciJ.
The
shows two
of that
devi ce
- 10-I'ia1, 26, 1981
Preliminary Storm Sewer pl-an of 4/25/gO sheet 3,/5,
24" reinforced concrete pipes. But the cross-section
same area shows the outl-et for the sediment control
is not pipes, but a ditch. Which is it?
5. Paragraph 4, page 2.
The straw bales shown on the plan are not veryeffective. for controlling sediment from l-argeiconstruction areas. . . .
I1r. Berg does not approve of some of the uses of straw
bales. In some areas, they are fine. In others, he
disagrees that they wiII do the job intended.
5 Paragraph 6,
The firstbasii.
page 2.
construction would be the sediment
It is clear that unless an adeguate
constructed first, any grading woul_d be
washed into Lotus Lake.
Paragraph 1, page 3.
I f the two srmp areas
needed., they should bebasins and the storagethe road to eliminatetraffic problems.
shown in the road aledesigned as sedimentarea should be belowroad. construction and
sediment basin is
susceptible to be j-ng
l
I
i
I
If these s ump areas are to control sediment, the road is
to col1ect sediment. What are these sump areas for?a poor place
I
l
-..1
Ii
I
-t
City Council
8. Paragraph 2, page 3
Mr. Berg states that he
built on so steep a slope as
The two diversions above the cul.-de-sacs wilIbe very difficult to construct and, withoutstable outlets, may cause more problems thanthey soIve. Permanent retaining wa1ls may berequired to stabilize steep slopes.
- 11-
has never seen
368.
divers ion s
Terril 1oam,
has a moderate
an inherent variable
Ilay 26, 1961
seepage
home -
problem of erosion which Mr. Berg has cited above, he states,
The second buj.lding site limitation problemis the wet Glencoe soils in the 1ow lreaadjacent to the ]ake. The subsurface seasonalwater tabl-e rises to within one-foot of thesurface at_least once a year . . . the bearingstrength of the cleneoe soil needs to bedetermined. Basemehts would be designed toprevent continuing water seepage problemsand also foundation cracking aue io low soil,strength and frost action.
9. Paragraph 8, p. 3. In addition to the severe
A soil testing company would have to investigate the
bearing strength of the Glencoe soils prior to construction.
The remaining al1uvia1 soiI,ranges from 7 to llt slopes,soiL erosion hazard and hasseasonaL wetness probtem.
We
problem
owners
are
into
talking here about a continuing water
basements built in these areas unl-ess
are alerted to this problem before building.
I
10. Paragraph 2, page 4.
)
Ci t1, goun. J.-t2-l.iay 26, 19E1
1l-. The remaining 15 pages of his report, specifically
the last five pages on the Soil Survey Interpretation,
!1r. Berg would be happy to discuss at the Councilis wish-
b. Minnesota De pa rtmen t of Natural Resources
On April 7, l-981 (exactly one year to the day after
the Council motion), Xent Lokkesmoe of DNR h,rites, ". . . this
office has reviewed the proposed Fox Chase development plans
dated May 12, 1980 and revised May 22, 19g0, which were
submitted to this office by Mr. Kurt Laughinghouse on
April 3, 1981 [my emphasis] .,, As Of today, DNR has not
given permit approval to the Fox Chase development. This
was confirmed to me by Kent Lokkesmoe of the DNR.
c. Riley Pur qatory Cr eek Watershed Dis trict
Approved May 7, 1980 (see Appendix for copy of
May 6, 19 80 letter).
Conditions 3-6.
Of the 4 remaining condj.tions in this April 7, 1990
motion, three require more research before commenting.
I
I
I
I
J
l
l
l
Citl'Council -r3-l'lay 26, 1981
S umma ry and Recommendation
Because no April l, 1980 plan can be located (on which
April 7 motion was based), and because Conditions l- and 2
of that motion were not met, we submit that the ApriJ- Z, 1980
motion to approve the 52 fot preliminary development plan
has not been fulfil1ed to date. Therefore, it does not stand.
CITY COUNTIL IUEETTNG 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, sti1l is not), any motions made on
July 21 on the Final Development plan are nul1 and void.
. At any rate, without researching, two of the g
conditions attached to the July 2l motion appear not to
be satisfied. I refer specifically to items I and 2 of
Bob l^laibelrs memo of July 9, I9g0: ', (I) That a conservation
easement be establ-ished within the area belolr, the.900 foot
elevation." Since the ordinary high water leve1 for
Lotus Lake is 896.3 and since DNRts l-etter of April 7, 19gI
states, r'The drainage and trail easement is inappropriate
as it is placed below the OHW,I there appears to be a
contradiction which would not a11ow the motion to stand.
-'-.
Citv Counc'1
n (2) That the applicant and its contractors, including home
builders, carry out the constructj-on of improvements and
structures in accordance with the requirements set forth
by the . . . SoiI Conservation Service Evaluation Report
dated June 18, 1980." (This 1ast statement appears to
exonerate Mr. Waibel of his statement to me that the Soil_
Conservation report came in too late to be cons.idered. )
Whether one respond.s to the April 7 motion deeming
the July 21 meeting Iegal or il1ega1, the July 21 motion
has not yet been satisfied either. So however one chooses
to look at it, Mr. Derrick does not appear to have approval
for 52 lots at the present time.
OVERLAP OF WATERSITED DISTRICT AND
SOTL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT?
I get the impression from many that there is a general
convicti.on that these two agencies overlap. Further, that
because the lvatershed District is the one with permit
authority, the Soil and Water Conservation is even 1ess
vita1. Yet in comparing the Vlatershed permit letters
of May 5. 1980 and March 4, 1981 with the Soil and l{ater
Conservation Report of June 19, 19g0, as wel-I as conversa_
tions with Bob Obermeyer of the Watershed District, I do
not feeL these agencies entirel"y overlap.
I
I
I
-t
l
_t
l
_t
J
I'iay 26, l9EI
I
City Council -15-t'lay 26, 1981
!1r. Obermeyer has stated to me that the onty thing
their office is concerned with is "ltow is it going to
affect the water resources of the district?,, As f under-
stand it from his and my conversations, the District does
not have jurisdiction over whether soil conditions are
acceptable, h,hether or not 1ots are buildable, or whether
there are proper soils for roadway construction.
Not knowing the limits of l^tatershed Districtr s
jurisdiction on Fox Chase, I posed engineering questions
to see if their agency acts as a check and balance against
Schoell & Madson. Mr. Obermeyer sbated that 959 of my
questions come under the jurisdiction of the City. He said
that if a plan doesnrt work, it!s the engineerrs
responsibility; they [Watershed] donrt check on other
engineers. Neither does the Watershed District review
whether the pipe sizes on Schoell & Mad.sonrs designs are
adeguate 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, woul,d affect runoff to Lotus Lake.
Furthermore, if I as buyer are first man in and build
in the meador"r, I need to know that storm sewers are adequate
and that there are ovelflow provisions, or I wiLl have
erosion from subsequent builders uphi11 from me ending up
in my yard.
I
I
I
l
I
City Council -16-llay 26, 1981
Mr. Obermeyer stated that the Watcrshed has a very
limited budget of $100,000; that they serve a 43 sguare_miIe
area; that the District cannot afford to reanalyze every
storm sewer pipe that is designed. He said they have to
fall back on the person who designed it, f find this
curious since both of Mr. Obermeyerrs permit letters
(May 6, 1980 and March 4, 1981) request "A detailed storm
sewer plan must be submitted to the District for review
and approval.,, Mr. Obermeyer said they do review storm
sewer plans, but that city ordinances dictate sizes of
sewers and that the watershed District has to trust the the
engineers have complied with city ordinances. Whil_e f can
appreciate that the District cannot be held responsible
for knowing various city ordinances, it would be interesting
to know how one can say he has adequately .reviewed a storm
sewer plan if he does not know vrhether pipes such as those
affecting Lotus l,ake are correctly sized. This is a poignant
issue since the meadow in Fox Chase is a water collector
for approximately two city blocks r worth of hi1Is to the
lrest and virtually all 35 acres of Fox Chase.
In the analysis of the Soil and Water Conservation
report, r4re have sited Il issues raised by Don Berg.
Briefly, they are these (page g of this report for details):
I
I
l
I
City Councit -17-
€._rJ5ft__b
llay 26, 19t1
1
2
3
4.
(
R
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Severe slopes--erosion
Overland emergency flow exceeding storm sewers
Detention time in sediment storage; amount ofrunoff from graded areas
Outlets between sedirnent . control device and lake
Strav, bales to control sediment from reaching lake
Order of construction
Sr]mp areas in roadway
Diversions above cul-de-sacs
Glencoe soils bearing strength
Seasonal wetness of aIl"uvial soil
Soil Survey Interpretation
the i,latershed permit ]etters, g points are raised.
letters in Appendix. )
Steep grades
Hay bales
Sedimentation basins in roadvray
S20r000 performance bond or 1etter of credit
Site grading restored with seed and mulch; 3:1 slopesrestored with sod
Storm sewer plan
Basement floors must be at 901 elevation
District to be notified 4g hours in ad.vance ofland alteration
In
(Permit
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
7
8.
On onJ-y 3 points do the Soil and Water Conservation
Report and the Letters of permit from the Watershed District
appear to overlap: (1) severe grades, (2) hay bales and
(3) sedimentation basins in roadway- On the third point,
the two reports apparently disagree with each other.
l
City Council -l6-l'1a1, 26, 1981
On the issue of the S20,000 pcrformance bond, we are
interested j.n knowing the Itratershed District's ability to
quickly respond. For example, the I,Iatcrshed states in its
permit that 3:1 or greater graded areas must be sodded
"2 weeks after completion of 1and alteration. " (We are
talking here about the hillside along the Bennett,
Cunningharn, I^rhj.teman properties. ) If Mr. Derrick leaves
raw lanil exposed in Fox Chase as he has in Far Hill (Wayzata),
how long will it take for the Watershed to respond (and at
whose fieldwork investigation?) by hiring a sodding firm?
In other words, how long might one .be concerned with
raw, exposed 32-45t slopes? This question has a direct
bearing to the threat of sediment into Lotus Lake"
!1r. Kent Lokkesmoe of the DNR told me today that the
Soil and Water Conservation District are ,'more expert in
control of erosion than myself or my staff." For this
reason and because we feel the Watershed and SoiI and
Water Conservation District do not entirely overlap, the
I'lest Pleasant View Road Association asks that the City
Council seek Soil and t{ater Conservation approval of Fox
Chase grading p3,an, drainage plan and erosion control p1an.
I
I
-t
City Council Iiay 26, 1981
PETITION OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD NEICI]BORS
In the minutes of the April 4 , 1979 planning Commission
meeting, there are 4 pages (see Appendix) of transcrj.pt
discussing the petition with 80 signatures, but there is
a page rnissing: the page on which motions would appear.
The argument is heard that the petition for 40,000 sguare
foot zoning came in too Iate.
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 units, so the best we could do rvas
to see that it was done right. It was this motivaiion
of wanting Fox Chase to be done right that brought about
such extensive research as we have engaged in from
February 19 8l- to now.
This was as I stated it to Jim Orr on May Il, 19g1
when he asserted that he knew I was trying to stop the
project. When I corrected. him saying it was not the case,
that vre vrere trying to see that it was done right, he
immediately began talking about density, zoning and 52 1ots.
-19-
City Council -20-I\:ay 26, 1981
I inferred from his cofiuncnts that something "done right"
on this property would necessarily mean 1ess density. That
is, in order to accommodate 52 lots on this particular parcel'
of 1and, you just about have to grade it to death. My
conclusion vras that the only way one could avoid the massive
erosion problems that Soil and Water Conservation District
point to would be to have less density, thus less grading.
SUM}IARY
WE SUB,I.IIT
I
't
l
I
I
''1
'1
l
I
Because the 8o-signature petition by pleasant View
Road homeowners has an insufficient record. on which to base
findings,
I
A1I data on Fox Chase appears to boil down to this:
I. That the neighbors were too tate with their petj-tion;
2. That. research has apparently borne out that this
piece of property is overweighted because in order to
accommodate 52, it would require alteration 1ike1y detrimental
to Lotus Lake.
3. That Roger Derrick bought this piece of property
with the understanding that zoning was 15,000 square foot
lots. That Roger has spent time and money because of this
understanding.
City Counci I - 21-I,1a1' 26, 1981
Because the information given at public Hearing,
August 1979 h'as 49 lots and 2 roads and 1ater increased
to 52 Lots with one road with no notj-ce to neighbors by
public hearing,
Because we have shown through research and fact
innumerable instances of staff inefficiencies, engineerr s
(Schoe1l & Madson) conflict of i_nterest, and 1ess than
re1iable presentations by Derrick land to Chanhassen,
Because no April 1, 19gO plat (on which April 7, 1980
Council motion was based) can be found,
Because the April 7 motion with conditions for
approving 52 lots have not been satisfied,
Because the JuIy 21, Lggo Council meeting should not,
therefore, have been calted on this issue,
Because the July 2I, IggO motion, in any event, has
not been satisfied either,
We submit that from August I9?9 to pxesent. the entire
process in the Fox Chase development has been defective.
That except for the period February 19gl- 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 l,and and send this back
to the Planning Comnission where we can start the entire
process again--this time, correctly and under careful
scrutiny.
City Council
mind
his
The
and
to
-22-I*lay 26, 19BI
question of the
rezone after a
CAN COUNCIL CIIANGE ITS MIIID?
Councilts right to change its
developer has on good faith begun
Process
in the
by spending time and money appears
case of Kiges v. City of Saint paut.
deve lopi ng
be sustained
The. Supreme Court, Nelson, J., held that obtainingof-building permit, incurring of obligationsand-expenses preliminary to actual corlstruction, andsurface preparation and excavation did not createvested right in plaintiff precl-uding applicationot cl-assification of new zoning regulationprohibiting erection of building wf,ere work doneprior to enactment of amend.ment was not sufficientto constj.tute actual existing structure above ground.
I
This case proves that the City Council has the right
to change its zoning regulation on a parcel of property
even after someone has bought, and expended time and money
to develop it, up to and including the laying of foundations.
We, therefore, request that in addition to this issue
going back to the planni_ng Commission and beginning again
that we reconsider rezoning this piece of property to
conform to the existing neighborhood.
Sincerely,
(Mrs. ) Kathleen Schwartzfor West Fleasant View
Road AssociationApproved by the West pl,easant
View Road Association May 26, IgBl_.
cc: Staf f , City of Chanhassen Ga.-- d-r". )Craig }tertz, larson & Mertz'Delrick Land Development Co.Don Berg, Soil and water Conservation DistrictBob O be rme er, waters hefx-^-t /<d District
I
1
April 6, 19 8I
Dear Mayor Hami l ton :
Re: Fox Chase Development, your pile No. p-614
Members of the West pleasant View Road AssociationRoger Derrick, Mr. Laughinghouse and Mr. Leardahljust th,o days ago.
suggested that the changes he wouldthe Council were: (1) realignment ofand (2) two unplatted outlois which
Perhaps a year.
Yet, f rom my oi^rn personal study, I f ind thatchanges exist than Mr. Derrick might lead oneBefore I list these changes, I give.a slightDerrickrs plat plans sj-nce finai approval-.
August 21, f980. Craig Mertz t 1etter to Frank Beddorstates, "the preliminary plat h'as approved by the CityCouncil on Juty 21, fgBO conditione-d upon a ieductionin the nurnber of lots to 52. ,'
December 18, l-980 (5 months l-ater). Roger Derrickrsletter to Bob Waibel, ',As you know we have obtainedCouncil approval of our preliminary plat for FoxChase." He then discusses his desirEd road changeas 'rnot a major change and it shoul-d not be .,""eisaryto appear before the pl_anning Commission and Councilagain to obtain the same approvals that $re have obtainedover the past tvro years . . . If you and the rest ofstaff concur, we will instruct Egin, Field and Nowakto prepare the final ptat based on the road modificationand submit j_t for processing.
February 11, 198I. planning Commission meetingdiscussing Mr. Derlickrs ,,not major change.', Advisedthat such changes would require I public-hearingwhere all r,rould start anew, t'tr. Oeirick withdrawshis request.
met with
April 4--
There, Roger Derrickrequest tonight fromthe interior street,would be platted in
April 4, 198I.
Edwards' homemeeting in an
far greater
to believe.
chronology on
The neighborhood invites Derrick toin anticipation of this April 6 Councilattempt to reconcile d.isagreements by
Honorable Thomas Hamilton, MayorCity of Chanhassen
7 610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Honorable Thomas llami lton April 6, 1981
compromising with each other. This effort, however,
r^ras thwarted when Derrick insisted that the compromisebegin from the premise that he had 54 lots. Severalefforts were made to reason with him that he had,in fact, onl-y 52 approved by the Council but to no
avai 1.
Lakeshore footage on this170'at f i-EI approval, to
718 decrease in Iakeshore
On the plat submitted July 21,the shoreline read, " (Proposed)
Utility and Trail- Easement. "
conmon space changed
a present 50 r. This
footage of the common
from
is a
area.
2. Increase in Lakeshore Lots
The re uct ron r-n acreage in t he outlot as we1l, aslakeshore frontage meant that two additional houselots (over what was shovrn at final approval) could
now be sold as lakefront lots. In other words, what
was at final approval the conrmon property on al-1 the
homeowners has partly gone to form two more lakeshoreprivate 1ots.
Trail Easement3
19 80,
20 ft the words along
. Drainage and
a1on9 the
Easement. "
On the pJ-an shown April 4, 1981, the wordsshorel-j.ne read only "Drainage and Utility"Trail Easernent" has been deleted.
I then took home the plat drawings and compared thetwo and noticed the following changes between thefinal approval anil the ptan the neighbors saw April 4.
Changes by Derrick beyond what he suggested to neighbors:
1. Common Space
August 1979 Publ-ic Hearings plat show 3.21 acres of
colrmon sPace.
July 2I, 1980, the common space has been reduced to93,500 square feet--down from 3-2L to 2.15 acres.
April 4, 1981, f measure the coimon space area to be1.58 acres. Thj.s means that from final approval totoday, there has been a 26t decrease in common space
acreage.
Honorable Thomas Hamilton
Al-most every
between theIn the casel1r. Leardahl
has changed
l-ncrease.
ORDINANCE 47: Answers
boundary of every fot has changedplan of July 21, l-980 and April 4, I98L.of Iot l0 on the lake (the ]ot on which
-himself plans to live), the sguare footagefrom 3I,800 to 36,750--a 4,950 square foot
-3-April 6, L981
Tu rnin g
A. I
for answers to the above, I found:
first found \^rhat addressed Mr. Derrickrs changes:
Section 14.06 Amendments. Changes in uses, anyrearrangement of Iots, blocks, or building traits,any changes relating to common open space areas,and aI1 other changes in the approved'finaldevelopment plan may be made Uy'tfre ViJ.tage Councilonl-y after a public hearing . 1 .
Then, those sections addressing our neighborhood:
Section 14.05c. Approval of the finaL developmentplan shall not be granted by the Vil]age Couiecilunless it finds the followirg, . . . (j) tf,eproposed uses wil1 not be detrimental to presentand future 1and uses in the surrounding .i.. . -(6) tfre planned development will not create anexcessive burden on . . . streets and otherpublic facil.ities . . . (7) the planned developmentwill not have an adverse impact b" tir" reasonaLleenjoyment of neighboring property.
Section 23.0G.2. That the conditional use willnot be injurious to the use and enjoyment of otherproperty in the immediate vicinity . ... norsubstantiaLly diminish and impair property valueswithin the neighborhood.
B
You are
propos ed
area, " a
aware that the neighbors do view Derrickrsdevelopment as ,'detrimenEEl to the surrounding"burden on [our] street,, and that ii uriff
4. Lot Si zes
Honorable Thomas Hami lton
I'substantially diminish and
wi thin the neighborhood. ,,
April 6, 19 81
r,mpal-r propcrty values
-4-
This view is
a rchi te c tura 1In his Letterwrites:
shared by Mr. Daryl Fortier of thefirm of Xorsunsky Krank and Erickson.of November 15, l9j9 to phil cetts, he
ft is our opinion that the Derrick Developmentproposal for the- I,Iilma Thompson property is not incharacter with the neighborhood and-wifi have anegative impact.
The Pleasant View Road neighborhood is well defined,with a definite low density rural character.Presently there are 24 residences on over 72.g acresof land for a density of 0.32 units,/acre. TheDerrick Devel_opment is proposing 52 residenceson 28.43/acres of tand for a density of 1.g3 units/acre.The contrast is very evident. A rei,.iew of theirplan and the natural topographic and ground cov-rconditions, lead us to the inescapable conclusionthat the Derrick Development cannot complimentthe existing character.
with lot widths of one hundred feet typical, thesize of residence, building material, ind distancebetween residences wil1 be a sharp, unwelcomecontrast. With the amount of conltruction wilI comewholesale changes in topographic and ground. cover,wrth an estimated loss of over 509 of the woodedarea. Vehicular traffj-c can be expected. to triple.
fn developing this property, we believe betteralternatives are available. This development canpotentially be in harmony with the neighLorhoodand remain responsive to the lake front.
Conflictinq Ordinances?
. feefs protected by the l"5rO00 sguareimum and is, I think, galled Uy ifre fact thatays for 59 sewer assessments, he has approvally 52 lots
C
Mr. Derrick
footage min
though he pto build on
The neighborhood feels protected by Sections I4.05,14.06 and 23.07 of Ordinance 47.
Honorable Thomas Hamilton
Do we solve thisSection 3.0 3?
-5-April 6, l9 B1
apparent confl-ict by turning to
Section 3.03. I,lhere the provisions of thisordinance impose greater restrictions than thoseof any statute, other ordinance or regulation,the provisions of this ordinance shal1 becontrolling...
llhat we are saying is rthis: We would l_ike to perpetuatethe comradarie our neighborhood now enjoys by working withthe developer of this land. Frankty, many of us have rEEfEwe find our adversary relationship we now have h,ith thedeveloper to be repugnant to our natural way of doing things.We feel it is logical and based on fact thal we reguestanothei public hearing so that we may start again, hopingthis time to be successful- at working together.
Thank you for the time you have given this question.
Sincerely,
't
I
(Mrs. ) I(athleen Schwartzfor the West Pleasant View
Road Association
790 Pleasant View Road
474-5051
JuIy 21, 1980 the Council approved Derrick.s plat withthe straight road, 93,500 square foot outlot witfr fZOfeet_ of shorefront, 2O foot drainage and utility andtrail- easement and three fots abuti.ing pleasant View.This approval was made contingent upoi Derrick reducingthe number of Lots from 54 to 52.
Mr. Art Partridge, Chairman
Chanhassen Planning Commission
6280 Hummingbird RoadExcelsior, MN 55331
Dear Art and Commissioners:
CONPUS ION
April 22, 1981,9receive a copy ofJuly 1980.
LOTS ATONG PLEASANT VIEW ROADThe July 21, 1 80 approval wasabutting Pleasant View. It hasthat Derrickr s high density is
months to the day, we have yet tothe plat showing what was approved
While it is true that Aprifforth with a plat showing 52other things mentioned above
now been changed.
The result is that when one discusses the straight roadvs. the curved one, the outlot, the traif, or tf,e threelots on Pleasant View vs. the four now shown and one triesto make comparisons, there is nothing to compare with. Thismay sound. simplistic to even point out, but it is next toimpossible to te1l where you ire going'when you can,tsay where you came from.
790 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, IOI 553t7April 20, l-981
22, l98J- Derrick has come1ots, ironically, a1l, theand approved July 19BO have
for three house l-otsalways been neighbor concernadjacent to our rural setting.
on
onto
as it issight.
Further, Mr. Derrickr s current plan shows 4 1otsPl-easant View with the fourth eiiting privatelyPleasant View. This exit is extremel,y- dangero-uson a blind curve with perhaps 20-30 foot 1ine of
l-. Therefore, we request a plat drawing of whatwas approved JuIy 21, 1980.
Art Partridge -2-
In addition, this latest plan would bring thathouse up onto the flat area near the ol-d tr'i 1maroad; r*hereas, the July 1980 plan had the houseIot down in the meadow east of the pine trees.
ACCESS TO PLEASANT VIEW ROA
Therefore, we request returning to the JuIy 2I, 1980plat design of 3 house lots abutting pleasant View.We specifically request that under no circumstanceshould a private exit be permitted onto pleasantView from the old l^li Ima fhompson road due to itsterribly dangerous blind exit.
April 20, 198I
fourth
Thompson
on that
2
DIt has b
Fox Path
foca t i onthat cur
een a constant concern of the neighbors to haveexit onto Pleasant View changed io a safer. Neighborhood stories abound of the danger ofve being at the bottom of the hill in the winter.
Further,_Derrickr s plans show that the proposed grade ofthe Fox Path exit onto pleasant View is' gg. yetordi-nance 33 Sec. 8. 03 (c) states,.
"Wherever feasj-bIe, grades within 30 feet of streetintersections shall not exceed 3g.,,
Therefore, we reguest that the exit toVi ew be moved the !,ridth of one l-ot toand abut the Osgood driveway where thegentle and the line of sight better.
P l eas antthe eastgrade is
STREET WIDTH AND SECONDARY ACCESSAsdiscussed in t e Public Hearing August 1979 and ashrequested by the city council, we request a secondaryaccess to this property providing all roads in the F-oxChas e - deve l-opment do not exceed 2gt. The current requestof 36t would make such a glaring contrast to the pre6ent28r width of pleasant View, thai by contrast Fox pathwould look like a highway--certairriy a collector road.
In additj-on, the road which now dead-ends against theBennett property should be made into a cul-de-sac. Whilewe understand that future pi.ans may have been to deveLopa road westerly across the Bennett property at such tirnlas it would be so1d, the entire neigfrbornood agreedthat not only is the loor drop betw6en the edg6 of theBennett property and the current Fox Chase roid anunfeasible one to connect, but that a second.ary road isneeded now. A secondary road leading into Carver Beachwould mean Fox Chase residents would have direct access
Art Partr j-dge -3-April 20, 1981
of those 19 arethose parts pertaining
Glencoe soils,
to Chanhassen via Kerber Road for shopping.
4. Therefore, we request aII roads in the Fox. Chase development be reduced to 2gr wide.And ask that the secondary access be betweenLots 26 and 27 of Bl-ock 1 (plan dated April f5, 1981).(This is the same location as between Lots f6 and 17,of Block 3 of plan dated May 22, tgg}.)
SOI],
The attached reports from the DNR, Riley_purgatoryI'latershed District and Carver Soii and lvater ConservationDistrict discuss the soil and erosion problems of fox Ciru"..
The part that has always confused the neighborhood ishow 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. ftis secondary, but not incidental, .that the roa6 ."afignmuntdoes make everything more attractive in the eyes "f *;;t. -
But the question inevitably arises: where the soil *u" iopoor that a road could not safely be constructed, howcould a house instead no$, be plaied there? One needsonly to check soil borings anb Look at the gradint-map toascertain that water Iies very close to the meadoi "lrifu"u.fn the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District reportof June 18, 1980, Mr. Berg writes,
"The_second building site limitation problem is thewet clencoe soils in the 1ow area adjicent to thelake. The subsurface seasonal water table risesto within one foot of the surface at least once ayear. To controL the wetness problem in theseareas, the maximum flood level of Lotus Lake woufdhave to be known, the seasonal high water tabte wouldalso have to be known, and the beiring strength ofthe Glencoe soil needs to be determin6d. Basementswould be designed to prevent continuing water seepageproblems and aLso foundation cracking 6ue to lowsoil strength and frost action.,'
His: leport is 19 pages. The last l-5forms, but Mr. Berg underlined in redto Fox Chase. On the page describingMr. Berg underlined:
Art Paltridge -4-April 20, 19BI
Building Site Development:
Shallow Excavations: Severe--ponding
Dwell-ings wj.thout Basements: Severe--pondingDwellings with Basements: Severe--pondingLocal roads and streets: Severe- -pondi ng , Iowstrength, frost action
Lawns, landscaping: Severe--ponding.
Permeability: 2/lO of an inch of water in t hour.
Building, therefore, in Glencoe soils would be nothingshort of building in a permanently wet soil--or one whereit would take 5 hours to move l_ inch of rain through it.
I was told that this report was receivedconsidered for the Derrick project. TheJune 18, 1980. yet the letter from thisrequesting this report was dated June 10,the nature of this report, it would seemnot in good conscience ignore it. .
too Late to bereport was d.atedstaff office1980. Due tothat one could
The neighborhood is strongly opposed to any thought ofselling lots on a buyer-beware basis as a matter ofsocial responsibility to future Chanhassen resid.ents.
I,1r. Derrick states that it is his responsibility to renderthose low-lying building sites buildable before selling them.I{hat this means is that he will scoop out muck of 2-20 feetdeep and replace it. But more than that, add to thatreplacement another 12 feet bringing soil 1evel- to 912.One has only to stand on pleasant View looking down intothose 900 and 902 elevations to be staggered by theprospect of raising it all to 912.
We therefore suggest Bill Monk, our CityEngineer, consider the ramifications of thismeadow-1evel rise: the aesthetics of it, thesettling problems fron it, the sodding of such
mammoth ploportions two weeks following completedgrading, and the erosion problems of that l_r'cliff which wiLl then be standing next to thewetlands and marsh areas -
PERI'lITS-ElfE-app ar en t from talking with the DNR, the Corps ofEngineering, the Watershed District and the Soil- andt{ater Conservation that they have not always been apprisedof the changes after Derrick has once had i permit.- -
For example, while l^latershed District has issued Derricka permit January 26, l98J- , 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 1981 which was that sameevening withdrawn by Derrick. Likewise, the grading ptanused by the Watershed District was dated l/26/gt--whL;hhas now been superseded.
The same type of situation exists with the DNR. KentLokkesmoe writes in his April- 7, 19BI letter to Bob Ialaibef :
This department did receive notice of the orioinalpublic hearing, but the notice was maifed to ifrewrong office and contained no plans- Withinadequate time to respond and no p1ans, thisDepartment made no comrnents. This was unfortunate,but regardless of these facts, a permit is stillrequired for work below the OHI.I.
The same t)'pe of si.tuation existed with the Corps ofEngineering whose jurisdiction is over wetLands. TheCorps was not even aware that Derrick had changed itspLans of years ago when there was a proposed tennis courtin the meadovr.
We therefore request afertness in keepingconcerned departments apprised of the progressof this project so that such crucial matters assoil erosion can be constantly monitored.
Art Partriige -5-
OUTLOT
In the August 1979 public Hearings, the outlot showed3.21 acres; in July 21. 1980, the plan showed a reductionfrom 3.21 to 2.15 acres. In April 4, 198I, the outlot hadbeen further reduced to 1.58 acres and today, the outlothas disappeared altogether.
5
7 We request reinstatement of the outlot ason the July 21, 1980 approval; i.e. 2.15
Sincerely,
shown
acres .
1.1,,-dr-.L
(Itrs. ) Kathleen Schwartfor the West Pleasant V
Road Association
(orr-\
z)
iew
April 20, 1981
I
.-*---'......-.:.--
T
I
City Council
r . SUIT,'ARY
May 2, 19 81
I{e have tried to bring to light facts which show theneighborhood is not
in keeping with the
against a deve,opment that would beexisting neighborhc
deveropment appears -" -., ",:-^'-:gnDorhood'
This proposed
extent that severe (
to misuse the property to such an:rosion threatens Lotus lake and Iotplacement threatens the existing rural neighborhood.
,1./,-,,,i".r */i 44.
(leen Schwa rtfor the InJ est Pleasa ntView Road Associati on
A motion was made by Councilman pearson and seconded byCouncilman Swenson to rezone the subject premises to p-_1
and to approve the 52 1ot preliminary development plan asdepicted on the l,testwood planning preliminary plat datedApril 1, 1980, subject to the following conditions:
City Counci 1Preliminary
Minutes, April 7, L9 BODevelopment Plan Review
L. That the applicant receivegrading pJ"an, drainage planfrom the
Soil Conservation Servi ceMinnesota Department of NaturalRiley Purgatory Creek Watershed
approvaL of their
and erosion control plan
Re s ources
District
to the matterfor preliminary
for theblock 3
revi ewed
2
3
That said approvals be received pri.orbeing resubmitted to the City Co-unci1pfat approval.
That the pedestri.an and conservation easement portionof the proposed development must be shown by tireapplicant to have such soil conditions as would al1owfor- the development of such facifities, and that theapplicantrs soil condition evidence is to be reviewedby the City Engineer.
That the appl-icant prepare cuI-de-sac plansroadway portion in the vicinity of Iot 20,and lot 24, block I. Said plans are to beand approved by the city engineer.
4
Paved street surfaces are to be 36 feet wide andpaved cuI-de-sacs are to be 32 feet in diameter.
6 That the Park and Recreation Commission reviewalternative trail locations between pleasant ViewRoad and the conservation easement and is to submita reco[unendation to the City Council.
City Council Minutes, July 21,FinaL Development PIan
I980
approve the final developmentsubject to items 2, 3, and 4dated July 17, 1980
Coordinatorr s report of JuIy 9, 1980.
C oun cI l-man Neveaux moved toplan for Fox Chase Additj.onof the City Managerrs report
and items 1-5 in the Land Use(Motion carried)
city
2
Manager's report July 17, 1980 (items 2,3, and 4)
3
The location of the trail is stil1 uncertain atthis time, i-e. whether along the back lot linesor abutting the street on the north end of thedevelopment. In meeting with the park andRecreation Commission, the developers have statedtheir desire to have this decision withheld untitgrading is commenced and park and RecreationCommissioners afforded an opportunity to walk bothpotential l-ocations. This suggestion appears tocreate some problems in preparation of a developmentcontract (outlining tr^,o potential location area!),but no other reasonable alternative appears to exist.However, in accepting the final development plan,it should be clear that the outLot area is lEingaccepted as a conservation area and, as such, nopark credits are being given. Further, that itis to the advantage of the developer to have theI foot trail through the conservation and, whethersuch be within this conservation area or partiallyadjacent to the road, that developers agree to gr;deand install wood chips for the trail in accordancewith the recommendations of the park and RecreationCommission as a part of their overall grading p1an.
As a part of both the East Lotus Lake project andNear Mountain development proposals, significantd.iscussion occurred in regards to the Cityrs abilityto assure that public improvements are designed andinspected to City standards. In conformance withthese di scussions, it is recommended that the developerbe required to use the Cityts engineer for preparationof. plans and specifications and all staking andinspect j-on .
4 The above conditions are in addition to those outlinedby the Land Use Coordinator in hj-s reports of Juty 9and 17, and the Engineerrs report of JuIy ?--suchdisregarding those variances approved. by the CityCouncil during preliminary development plan approval ,i.e. length of cul-de-sacs and street giades.-
Land
1.
2.
4
q
3
Use Coordinatorr s report of JuIy 9, 19BO
That a conservation easement be established withinthe area below the 900 foot elevation pursuant to theComprehensive Plan and that within said conservationeasemeDt, a pedestrian-way easement be dedicatedthat is 8 feet wide with 1+ foot on either side forpurposes of maintenance (the above would nullify theproposed 20 foot trail easement indicated on thaproposed preliminary plat dated May 12, 19g0, withthe understanding that the above dlscribed easementwould be established upon completion of a feasibleroute within the conservation easement).
That the applicant and its contractors, includinghome builders, carry out the construction of]mprovements and structures in accord.ance with therequirements set forth by the
Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed DistrictSoil Conservation Service Evaluation Reportdated June 18, I98O
(The City Council recommendation is that the approval_sbe obtained before their revievr of the prelimiiaryplat-. For qualification purposes, the iiley errrg'"toryCreek i,latershed District has given a conditionalapproval in their May 6, 1980, correspondence, however,the Soil Conservation Service, being in advisorybody,.wi1l not given Isic] such appioval. Howe-ver,I, believe such may be satisfied through carrying outtheir recommendations that were noted in their -
evaluation report).
That extra precautions beexisting vegetation may beconstruction.
taken
kept that removal ofa minimum duringto
For reasons of soil conditions and slopes, the buildingplans for al1 residences proposea within ihe subjectdevelopment should be certified by an architect 6rcivil engineer registered in the -State of Minnesota.
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 theSoil Conservation Service.
' r-
P|toN:.296-7
/s\
sNJT OF T.IATURAL I?ESOUI?CE5
l.letro Region llaters, J2OO llarner Road, .5t. Pau7, l.t 55106
i?!i] 7, 7987
ltr. Roberx l'laibeT
Land use coordinator
cixg of c,iSariassen
767O Laredo Drive
Clarlasser, lrinresota 55377
Deat llr - ty'aiDe-l:
Dzviil LeuXhe of ti:is offjce has revie,.ted the proposed Fox Crlase
Developnent p-lans dated Hag f2, l98O and reyised uag 22, 7990.
tthich vere su.bn jtted to Lljs otf ice bg lLE. Kurt Laug-ninghouse on
ApziT j, 7981. Sased on this zeivew, we offer the folTowing cotrtTtents:
.IJ Since odr .Iot size reguirements have been met in
a77 buX tero cases (which f trilT address beTow),
we consider tljis deveJop;renX t.o be a tegitfar su b_-
division, rather Xhan a plann"d unit deveTopmenX
requiiing approvaT of the Co:-;issioner.
2) The most significent problen r,ri th this proposaT
is that the Ordinarg High ttater LeveL ( Otfi.l ) of
Intus Lake is 896.3 (NCVD, 7929). ?he O$lI was
recent-ly dexernined (7978). A conpa:ison of
the OfiW to t}le ploposed pl.ans zeveaTs thaX alL
rjparja, Lots conxain some fend belov the o!w.
Land beTow the OIfil js .basica-Z-lg unavaiTabTe for
deveTopmenX and should noX be considered when
calculeXing Lot atea req,u ire;i?erts. Our requite-
nenX far structure setback on a segreEed Gelera-I
DeveTopnenx (cD) 7ox is 50 feeX and rrust De
measured from the Oilff-
3) IaXs 7 and 4 in BTock 3 (ripzrian ToLs) etouTd
appear Xo.be -Iess tl:an t}e 75rO0O squate feeX.we zequire tthen considering the OH|I of 896-j-
We wouTd teconmend chaaging the -lots Xo neeX
our reguire.zents.
4) ?he drainage artd trail ease;--ent is inappropria--e
as it is pTaced below the oiql.
5) ,Ihe pfans shoit a sedinentatjo;? basin and storm
sener out.Iet beTov the O ,,1. nlis activitg along
urith ang gtading, fi71ing, or excavation bcTow
896.3 etouTd recltire a pu'rrait ,=ro;a -.-lris Departmcnt.
This Depattncnt did receive notice of the originaT
public hearing, .but thc notjce uas ;x.rj]cd to the
wrong ottice and cortair)cd no plans. ilith ina.lc(luate,, t'
', kr':-rr
t'' 6)
AN EOUAL OPnOnTUNITY Et\iPt OYEI I i . t- . -Gi''' tt"',j.- r;L-
l'-'
.'i,' ;
llR- nOg5nf rtA,f DEL
APRIL 7. 1987 \
Page Two
7) The correspondence dated t4ay 23, lgeo fram ne' De.nnjs ltathula was reviewed only vixh zegardst-he adeguaca of the storm sewet ouX)eX pLens,
assumed t_he plar]s correct.lg r;fLected. the o1ttboundarg-
Xo
to
a,rd
?o assjst Xhis DeperXnent in providing xinelg co nents in t}e fuxure. fttouTd request xhat the cixg provide adeguate pTans vixh ar-z ,otices tilatreguire ouz review. p_Iease mai-? a-I-I nolices and pTans Xo the St. pau.IRegionaT office at L2OO wa,fj,ez Road. sx. pauL. Eiinesota 55jO5.
lf y?r_hrI: ang g.uestions oE connents, pLease feel free to contact t:r.uavJ,ct tJeuule ax gour convenience.
Xine to respoad and no plans, thjs Dcpartnent
made no con,rtents. Ihis ryas untortunate, butregardJess of tlese facts, a permit is stj.l-lreguired for uork be)ow Xhe OUr!. In ordez forti:is Departnent to issue suclt a perniX, the
proposaT nust ,be consjste,rt r+i th a-Il Departnenxel.stardards (which incTudes our standards for s.,:ore_
Tand nanagenent ). Also, jt js our u]?derstandingtiat jf significalt a-l.teratjors are made to thepTans over elhat vas approved .bg the citg, anot)terpubTic hearing arust.be l:e-ld. In tJrat case, thesecomneats would be ti,ne.lg.
SincereTg ,
*#-*u',o"
t?t
xtDFr.Tcn
Regional EgdroTogist
cc! Kurt Laughinghouse.
Derrjc& Land Conpang
Steve Prestin, LUILS
Dennis lrar,ltu 7a, Westttood
Planninq & Engineering
6
itiley- Purgatory Creek \Yatershed District
8950 Cf UNTY ROAO .-r
EOEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA 55 34:
I
{
I''J
(
ID_
uay 6 l9 80
Dear Mr. xopishke:681 g
fhe Board of Harragers of the Riley-Purgatory ek llatershed DistrlcEre
has revieved the plans and grading and land alEeration peroit application
for site gr
Hanagers ar
site and lri
adin f9 r-che-5 unr is e-3 e-ar}.-D,ev e 1 oqp ent in Chanhassen. The
extreoe 1y concerned r.r'i th the steeP gr ad es -o n the d evelopment
11 requ:ire a continuo Gs-fnEp? ct i on of the proposed erosion con-
trol Eeasures- to ensure that they are properly Eaintained and functional
until the aliered areas on the site have been restored' To ensure that
the erosion control Deasures are properly maintai.ned, the District rrilI
require that the d evelop er- pos-t-
ln the aoount of $20,000 Prior
.q!_c.e-bqad-o-r f,!!ter of security
to the cotr@enceEenE of land alteration
a erform
-)
WIth Ehe above noted, Ehe Managers aPProve of the
alteration pereic for sj'te grading on this developoent
following conditlons:
advi.sor uust be notified rior to the cowDencement
l. fhe DlsEricE \ri1I require that all erosion control measures, L'e',
staked hay bales reinforced with snow fence,be installed Prior to
rh cernents- of land alteraEion and be Eaintained until a1Ie collllllen
-a?EEE- attered on the site have been restored. Once these eros ion l!_lcontrol rDeasures have been installed, the Districc's engineering tt
tLon.I.an da IEeration cannoE begln until
has been made
grading and land
subject Eo the
of tand a1t era-
a field insPecEion ofir;-
I
tQ I t.1J'
L/t
-tIiEros lon conErol measures
engineering advisor.
by the Dis tr ]c
The DistricE v1]I require EhaE the
to be locaEed alonB the norEh-sout hr pay e cons
lnitlal s tages o-f grading opera lions
oad
and
.--tuoteorpoiai!-fliroen cJrion basins .-f
tructed -ar the
the site gra ng portion of the Projecc.
remaan funcrional during 2,- . J
t , nt)'-t'1j,"n'-**L' '*,r'5w
&
I
I
i
I
!Ir. GreB Kopishke
Westlrood Planning and Engineering
. 7415 Wayzata Boulevard
llLoneapolls, llinnesota 55426 -.\
Re: Site Gradin) for the Sunrise
Seach DeveloPmeut: Chanhassen
Paq
Hay
ureS ^oPlsrtr\ce2
6, r930
@ 6
Due to the alteratLon of steep slopes on the slEe and the PoEentlal
of a serlous eroslon problem occurrlng 1f erosion control Ereasures
are not proPerly maintained, the developer musE posE a performance
bond or letter of securlty in Lhe asrount of $20,000 Prior to the
coEoenceoent. of land alteration. This security l,ust be subrnitted
and approved by the Dislriccrs legal advisor. If needed, this
perforoance bond u1l1 enable the Dlstrict to resEore altered areas
or to instaU additlonal eroslon control Eeasures to Protect the
public uat.ers of the Disrrlct froo areas thac have noc bcen resLored-
gradlng vith the excePtion of the
restored with seed and rnulch and,/or3A11 areas altered due to slte
streeE rights-of-waY, EusE be
sod rrithin 2 ueek s froE-Ehe complerton of land alteration or no
1arei iIan Septeober 1, I98
Those areas altered with a slope of 3:I or grearer must
lllth sod oilciod fiber blanket wlthin 2 weeks froo the-?f-r-iia llteration or no later ttran'sipri.uEi l, 1980.
899. The Distri ct
adj acent to the lake
above thi.s 10 O-year
be resco 5-ed /
compl etion
-*,I
The areas
sirh seed
1980.
altered Eithin the street rlghts-of-way urust be reslored
and nulch aad/or sod or be hard surfaced by SePternber 15'
5
A detailed storE sewer plan must be s::bnitted to the DislricE for
revies and approval. ff stormsater is to be discharged to Lotus
Lake, an MDNR Chapter 105 t'ork in PubLic'lJaters Pernir will be
required.
I
The l0O-year flood elevation of Lotus Lake 1s
wilL require that all hoEes to be constructed
have minimuu basenent floor elevations 2' feet
flood e]-ewation.
If you bave any questl.ons regarding the Dj-strict's conooents, please
contact us aE 920-0555.
Sincere
Ro ert C. Obermeye
BARR ENGINEERING C
Engineers for the Distrlct
Approved by the B of l'Ianagersard
EEKRCO/ 1r1
cc: Hr.
Ur-
Conrad Fiskness
Frederick Richards
Bob l.Jelbel
RSHED DI STRI CT
Dat e:
_PIJRG
SecretarY
.,
IJesEwood PlanEfug & Engineeri-Eg
7415 WaY:ata Bou.IsvarC
}linneapolis, t{lEnesota 55425
Re: PeraLt ExEersioE Request - Sunrlse Beach/
Fox Ctrase Deve.loPnent: Charrlassen
Dear Hr- tsagen:
\-:4:e'-rVT..--
Riley- Purgatory Creeli \lratershed Distric
A95{) COUMTY FIOAD
EDEN PRAIRIE. MINNESOTA 55:
o
I^a rch 4, 1981
s
(
{p
{<
(o RECBVED(l-,
.CHi'NH-DSSEI,
)
c)
i *" Boaril of'Ilanagers of the Rlley-Purgatory Creek Watershed DisrrlcE
has re:rieued the revisld plans and request of January 27, I98l for an exterLsiott
of the DistrlcEts gradlng and land alierarion Perrit for the Sunrise Iteach/
Iox Chase DevelopEent in Chaubassen. The }tanagers aPProve the Perrit extension
requesE until Septeober 15' 1981 subject to Ehe fo11or'rlng condltions:
1. A-l-1 conditloEs stlpulaEed in the DistrlcErs orlginal correspondence
of I'fay.6, 1980 renaiu applicable.
a
3-
resEored.
A detalled storD selrer Plan musE be subnLtted to Ehe ptstrtcr for
revles and approval
Because of the alEeraEion of steep slopes on the sl.Ee and the PotentLal
of a serlous erosion Probleo occurring if erosion control measures
are not properly EaiD Eained ' the develoPer trlust Post a perforr"ance
bond. or.i"ai"= Lf securicy 1n the arDunt of $20,000 prior to rhe
"o*en.er"rr.t of laail alteration. Ihls security ,,usE be sub^i:t.ed
and approwed by the District's 1ega1 advlsor' If needed, this
perfoiaoce Una *iU eaable Ehe Disrrlct to restore alcered areas
Lr to lns tall additlonal eroslon conErol lreasures to protsec! the
publlc w'aEers of tle DlstricE from areas that have.nol been t*tottl-.
The DisErlcE requlres thaE adalltlonal erosion control oeasures' l"e' '-
stakeit hay bales re5nforced rrlEh snol,' ferrce' be lnsEalled beEueen the
proposed sedlEentaEion basin and LoEus Lake' Ihese eroslon conErol
,""".rt"" must reslain in place unttl -a11 a.lEered areas have been
4
G[ l-- -
0,
\
MIN}T
+
I;'iAR 1 981
,/<Mr. Fran Hagen
Page 2.
llarch 4, l98l
iall' us at 92G-0655.
f{6-rv
E-_
Al1 areas alEered because'of slre Sradlng must be restored r.'L th ieed
and disced uulch, or sod, or r.rood fiber blankeE' or.be hard surfaced -rrlthLu 2 Ueeks afEer cooplerlon of land alteratlon or no later than :-'
SepEeober 15, 1981. :.' .,._i-;:-;_
'- :'= ':AJ.l alrered areas r.rlth a sloPe of 3:l or SreaEer Dust be restored
vlth sotl or r,rood fiber bLan]<eE lriEhin 2 r.reeks afrer coopJ.etlon of
lanil alceraElon-
land ':'6. Ttre ilstrlct must be notlfiea 48 hours Prior to comoenceuent of
' alteraEion. :. -
' . -.r.'-'If you trave auy guesElous regarding the Dl-strlctts comeaEs, p1e'ase
,.: -
Si-ncerely,- : r: .
:::-..;:{
.- j.:,-:n ._
: ;.1'.J- *
. :-i':-' -'rr:..._:.-:-, :--'. .i: j:i .-=---
':.]:r:-.**r-:.
._-'...*F::
. aj..:-.-: _ ir-.t--iti
-' ::.. :r :
- ::. i,.::-,:; .
- -'.:,. 1 ^
E C. OberoeyererRob '/)/BARR ENCINI.ERING CO.
Engineers for the Dist.rict
;,- .-
Approv.ed by the Board of }lanagers
RILEY -P-IIRG.q,TO RY CR.EIK WATETSH-ID IISIRICTRCo/111
c: Hr.
' llr.
.'. Ur-
resident
DaEe:3//r yl
. :.: .... ,
:,-:
5
'j' . ,.
:.-).,1:
fPlanning Conu..ission t'leeting April 4, tgTg
craig Mertz
-4-
PETITION FOR 40,00OSOUARE FOOT LOIS: The City has received a petition,signeduya@iving;r}on9P].easantVi";i;;;;.-..,reguesting the Pl-anning comnission re-study thi zoninq rcqurations/for Chanhassen, in general, and in particular, north 6f Cirrr., Beach,raest of Highway 101 and east of county Road 17 to rezone this areafor 40,000 square foot tots. Approximately 25 persons were presen't.They expressed concern about the deveroprnents that are propoied forthis area, i.e. I'lear I'lountain, Derrick Land Comp2ny, an'a CirristmasAcres. The residents present felt these developments are not incharacter with the current residentiaL status. They asked forconsideratioi of a lower density type of developmeni. ir,e resiaentsare also very much opposed to the proposed collector street throughthe area.
Ilembers commented on the proposal for council consideration.Ma1 I'lacArpine - As developers come in here and they know that the l-otsize requirement is 15,000 sguare ieet or on a pUD,1ess, they are abiding by the city ordinances. Theyare doing exactly what the Iaw says they have to do.The fact remains, how much spot zoning do you do?Can you spot zone for me where f l_ive and say thatthe acreage around me wilL all be homes tha! are
$1s0,000?
Roman Roos - You have another issue to answer and that vrould be a1rthe land.owners in the aiea. Let's say that you did clo
some spot zoning and Iet's say that spot zoning encompassedeverything on pleasant View. There is a 1ot morehomeowners involved than just the 25 that lvere sittinghere. Can we force them into a situation where theyhave to have 40,000 square feet? How do you pick anarea and say the boundary is going to be here and hereand here and these will be 4O,O0O sguare foot areas?Jerry Neher - Letrs think about something else too. Every one ofthose people that are there presently that ire unCer40r000 sguare feet rvould be non-conforming just like I
am in my neighborhood. Every time I rn,anted to put awindow in my house or change a window or anything elsethey woul-d have come before the planning Cornmissionbecause they are no ]onger conforming. I can,t do athing. to my house except repair it without coming tothe city first for a variance.craig Mertz - That would also affect vacant 15,000 square foot Lotsthat are legal now.
Roman Roos - If you recall when pankonin was on the staff and thecouncil- charged us with finding a place for "estate,,type developments, 40,000 and up, there is some area
. in the north area that would be suitable for that, that
Sras waterrmaybe not sewerrbut the sewer is imminent.t- think some place in that north area by the comprehensivePlan there has to be an area of large "estate" typehomes but where that is I can' t ansr.\,er.- Mal , you are contemplating that you are just going topick out certain parcels in that quadranl tfrat tlrisepeople are asking about and rezone those?- No, I am not really in favor of spot zoning.Mal MacAlpine
Planning Conrmission ueeting April 4 , :-g7g -\ -5-
Craig I'iertz - You dor't like the iiea of having cif f ere:,t lo-. sizesfor dijferent areas in the city?
MaI ltacAlpine - Thatrs correct.
Craig Mertz - You wouLC like to have a cit1,-iai6u uniform minimum L1ot size.
MaI }lacAlPine - I{ith the exception I feel there should be ,'estate"
type areas but I think when somebody comes in anclbuys a home and they happen to buy out in thc coul)l_r-yand it happens to be underdeveloped, you are naivdif you think it's never going to be developed. Ithink you hope it lasts for your lifeti)ne but thatisnrt reality.
Roman Roos - I,Ie, on the Pl-anning CorTunission, without a doubt, f ee)that an area that is undeveloped and I am not talking' about Pfeasant View, I am talking about aD area thattsundeveloped, we could,without having the pro):1em ofspotzoning,saythatthisisgoingtobetha!typeof. unit. Now that's totally within the realm of ouroverall comprehensive plan. There is a definite needbut it's hard for me to relate to the need of thosepeople in that north area.
Ma1 MacAlpine - Speaking to this issue right here, I think it,s spot .zoning. I am not too sure it's the best land usage.
hrhere it may be good for the people that are presentlyliving there, I think it is limrting the people that
may want to move into Chanhassen that can onJ_y afforda 15,000 square foot 1ot. I think that the developersthat. are coming into Chanhassen are abiding by ourordinance and also it isn,t as if anything i1leqa1 Iis being clone. On the other side f -guess-f thiik I
these people that were here tonight shoufd knowexactly how far they can go to at least be heard.ff I vote against it or if the pfanning Commissionvotes agai,nst it, it obviouslv has to go to thecouncil, I think they should go to the council
because we are obviously not the last word. we canonly make a recommend.at-ion to the council and I thinkif I felt the way they felt I would go to the counciL.I think the Planningr Cornmission should determine. howit feels. If we alL feel- the same way then it'sobviously that we submit the petition to the councilwith our feelings.
Roman RooS -
MaL MacAlpine
Pat Swenson -
s
Let the council charge the Planning Cornmission as towhat they might want to do in respect to it.
- The council could turn it back to us and it willprobably come back to us and. say 1et's have a publichearing.f can understand their problem so well because it isindeed a unique piece of property in the city as faras the view is concerned. It would appear to me, Idonrt realIy understand how we can do anything until weknow what the recommendations are going to be on thiseast/west corridor because if there is any conceivabilitythat this could be changed into 40,000 obviously thiseliminates or it v,,ould seem to eliminate thisparticular area from any traffic thing.- There is going to be a 1ot of developments south ofthat. I think there is stiII goingr to be a need
(
l'la1 MacA1pine
Planning Con:i.issiol: _'etinq ADrII ,:1979 -6-
Pat
Ma1
Pat
Mal
Bob
f or a coLlector going somev.'here.
Swenson - The comparison that was brought out about the 40,000' square ieet in Shorer^:ood, not that r think we have t-ofollow Shorewood, all these things do weigh on myproblem and f guess maybe I arn not guj-te as 1iberalas you are,Iial. r just feel that sometimes noteverybody can afford to live in every neighborhoodthey vrant to. If there are areas that are set asidtilike that and one of the others can't afford to buyit then that's unfortunate, fortunately we are in a
- country where people can rise as f ar as they wani_.MacAlpine - I would agree with that if that area was Eeve],opedthat way;
Swenson - I am concerned about the fact that there has been so'- much work done already with three developments that' we have discussed and that these people have tried to ,rj1' conform. I would have to ask the council what their il' thinking would be on how can vre explain to them that llwe are suddenly backing off or thinking about backing \off.
MacAlpine - f thing there is a 1ot of people that 1ive there onlots 40,000 sguare feet and larger that have livedthere a good many years. They can only afford thatbecause they have owned that property a good manyyears.
I{aibe1 - One of the spin-off affects of this is r.rhen vou areIov:ezing the Censity aggregately on a netrop-otitu.,basis and the den:and for housing and corn::re rti a I isstill there, it nales for a push against the existingsewerecl area and it goes into another capital ex?onsionprogran for the city to supply that denand, yet :
there stil-I is the policy uncertainty o.. .
Roman Roos
Mal MacALpine
Craig },lertz -
I,lal MacAlpineCraig }4ertz
.f erry Neher
the Metropolitan I^Iaste Control Commission whichmay restrict any more extensi.ons of these facilitieseven within the MUSA Line as we have learned from the208 Study.Is not the assessments of the north sewer area right nowbased on what we feeL to be real- in terms of 15,000square foot lots and that's an important considerationalso.
- The peop)-e that live on the 40,000 square foot lot now'-that have been assessed, are they assessed for three?They were assessed.for one pl-us a square foot charge
based. on the area of the 1ot. If they came in tosubdivide it, they got a credit for their area chargebut were added units
- Somebody moving in now would. not have that same right.Risht.
Due to the fact that I have lived in Chanhassen as manyyears as f have and going through this petition, manyof them I know. I do know if they had to purchase 4O,OOOsquare feet today, 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 particutar reasons.
Number one is the spot zoning. Nunber two is,some placealong the Line those utilities in the ground are going
q
\1
Pla:i:ling Connission .-ie'.ing .rlpril 4 , L9 ,. g -7 -
to have to be paid for. If vc put a restriction of40,000 sguare feet on those lots you are going to slowdown the development by elinj-nating probaify oo t" ioi f-of the market that are bul,inq hornei ioday a-nC probabI1, \.
more to the point where the city is not goirrq to beabl,e to rneet the obligation of those bon6s and we wj l,l-be like New York City. I do sl,mpslhize witlr thepeople that l-ive out there. f once had a big piece ofproperty myself and I hope to get back to it when Iretire but it's not going to be ttris close to the city,You just g3n,t.stop progress and by limiting peopleeconomical_1y, it's not the vray to !o in rny opinitn,' and thatrs what you are in ef'fect a"irg..'uar MacAlpine - r also think ii we were to say rve are recommenrlinga 40,000 sguare foot and some-body thatrs tived there' for 25 years and the assessed valuation of the homeguadrupled equal to the new home that just went up,do you think they would accept that? fro way. rhly' just wouldn't. you can't haire it both ways- is whatf arn saying.Jerry Neher - rf at the time that these bond issues come due and thereis not enough development in thai area to pay up whatis due, does that go on the general tax?craig Mertz - rt either has to come out of the general fund or inthe alternative, the city council would have to hold areassessment hearing and divvy up the short fall amongall- of the people 1iving in tte project area at the timeof the reassessment. /.Pat swenson - At the time that the water and sewer utilities went in, t.-
the 15-,000 square foot minimum was enforce at that time,were the people in this area aware of the fact thatthe assessments were put in based on that type ofcri teri a?Craig Mertz - Yes.Pa: swenson - Then actuall-y the time to have made this petition wouldhave been at that particular time when a1i the adjustments -from thence on coulC have been mad,e-Bob waibel - Risht.craig Mertz - Inle are tarking about a standard that's been in effectfor ten years .Bob I.IaibeI - The colLector street the same way. That rs in thecomprehensive plan that nas adopled in l_98g.Roman Roos - r woul-d echo your senti.ments about spot zoning and ofcourse I would echo patrs sentinrents about. Shorewoodbeing 401000 square foot.. Without a doubt I think weneed an area of "estate" type, 40,000 square foot lotsor greater, but I don't think it shoul_d be in an areathat is developed such as the pLeasant View area. Ipulil like the council to be guite aware that those that _tr6re here tonight were soleLy located along pleasant' View. That the area that they are talking ibout isrunning_from County Road 17 to Uighway lOi. There area Iot of issues that, have to be answe-red before we coul-dtake a J.ook at the 40,000 sguare foot zoning issue but (I guess I erould have to say at this time f iould not goalong with that. we would havei to stick to the 15,000square foot that rve have at this time. I would like to. see the counciL note these cor,ments and note the pet.ition
:: -'j KIGEs r. cIT-r- or SANT I,/1uL
Citc n6 (I )i.\\'.!J J
rl,.rr rcsi(jirf,; thit pct;liorlcr rcllrnr.(l c;rch
lcrr lo llcll) tlrs Frcdcricks; thlt hc peid
thJ l)r.(lical cxpctrscs of llrs. Frcdcrick at
rlrr Ila)o Clir:ic in liocl,cstcr slrorll)' l)c-
iorc hcr dt.;rlh; n,r(l lh;rt l)c h:rd oftcn lraid
i,'r rqrril'rrrcrrt orr thc farrn.
Cora.Allcn tcstilicd hy dcposilior) lh11t shc
lrrr'r' the Frcdcricks drrring )907 and I90S
jx!l I'rior lo pctitiorcr's lrri\.nl at tlrcir
i,,,:nc; thit.al lh;rt tirnc thcl had rold hcr
rh.rt t)rcy "had agrc(.d to ;rJot)t Rrrrton"-
tl,itt thcJ,ucre "goin.g to lr.rllll, arlopt Ilur-
r,rrr" if thcy "could havc fnll cltargc',-ihxt
!lc)' \rc!c goilg to takc hinr as thcir os.n
.,rr: that in hcr prescrrcc and in th: pres-
rrrce oI Irfrs. Coon, aftcr. hcr arriyal at
i:;rulkton uith petitioncr in J;rnrre11, 190S,
,trrcdcnt had st:rtcd tlrat he "had agrecd to
:'!,rJrt Durtorr"; and that ir) 19.3S hc hacl
\:ilcd to hcr that he \r'as lealing,,a)l he
Lid" to pctitioner. ., .
ln op;osirion ro thc forc;oing, resp<.rrrd-
, nri stlrnr; ed tcstimon). that petitior)cr had
,l\r:r'\'s uscd tltrr nanrc "Brrrton Roe',; that
|c lud dcsigrrated his brothers;rnd sisters,. his "rrc-rt of kin" in his rvar risk insur-
rrr.0 policy; aDd that his brc,rher I{arrv
i ;,,1 siqncd thc \yl.,ttcn colsent rcquisiti
rLcrr hc enlisted in thc Navv in 1917.
Snl)rcir)c Court of )liDDcsolx.
. Dcc. 3l,.tCi3,
Action by prolcrty orr-rcr ag;rinstcit; arrd otlrcrs to havc brrildir:g pcrrl1ir clc-
tlarccl velid, to crrjoin iltcrfcrelce rvitlr
uork of cooslrlrctio)r prlrs nnt to brrilrling
pcrrnit, and to cnjoirr crrforce tclt o{ 2on-
ing ordiaencc. Thc District Court, Ramscy
Countl', Albiu S, Pc;,rson, J., entcrcd ccr-
tai:r ordcrs fat oraLlc to delcnCants and
plaiDtiff alpealcd. The Suprc:ne Court,
Nelson, J., he)d that obta:'ning ol bui)<Jing
pcrmit, irrcurring of otligations and.r_s-
pcnses Irrclirrinary to aclual colrstruc-
tion, ar)d surJice lrclirilion and exca\-a-
tion diil trot crcale \.cslcd ri3ht in plarrtrll
prcclrrdirg applicatiorr of classi6cation of
ncrr' zoling regrrleriotr prolribirirrg crtcrioloI LrrriJdi:tg rvhere rlork donc prior to en-
actrncnt of anrendn)cnt \\,as not srrfiicicnt to
coDstitute actual existil1g strL.cturc abrrve
ground.
LirrrL tn.
I(IGES
CITY OF SAINT PAUL ct il.
No. sr;6s.
:;. . ).,:[3] From the foregoing risumi of the
r r irtrncc, rve arc convinccd that thc findilrgs
. rl ju<lgrnert should bc afiirnrcd. It ap-
'' .,rs f r strongcr than that suLr;ittcd in, :rurrrbcr of likc cases irr rrhich tyc hcld'" .ridcnce \\.as sltFcicDt to support a'':,x;: thlt a conlract for adoptior ex-
'',,1, lrr rc Estatc of Fjrlc, 197 llir:n. 1,265: \' sls; Fiskc r'. Le\.ron, l2-l l\Iinn. S5,':l \.\\'.4.i5; Laird v. \'ila,93 llinn. 45;: r) \'.\\'. 6-(6; and, likcrvisc, in a nrrrn-'r .,1 cnscs \.herc tlrc slrprcmc court ofrlI l):rkota dctcrnriIlcrl a coirtract of'"ilr,,ll lo csist. \\'alsh r.. FirzgcraIl,6T'.lt r2.t, ?92 l{.\\'.,675; IihorJe
-v.
Farup,
.. ).1). 137,2r3 N.\V.6.12; Cr;r.r.nirr; v.',,r, 6l,S.D. lJ9, 252 N.\\,. 13.
.\riiln",r 1' '''' :l ;!l
5-"":' :i 1: ii 'j
: ,.,,.. : ::r':it; ISON, J., took no Dart in thc col-'' 'r',lx,u (rr rlccisiorr oI this casc.
i
i
:
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
A8'irmc<I. " ' '
l. l'l u n lcipal Corpora ons F60t(tO).625
. Ordirrlrrrces divirlirrg citics into rcsidcn-tial arrd busirress districrs and Iirniring useof rcalty in cach distrjct to ccrtaill uxr-
poscs rli)l Dot be dccl3rcd uncon stitut iorra I
unlcss it a6irmati\.cly irppears that reshic_tion is c)car.ll arbitrary an<i. lrnrcaso:rnblc
and rrithout any suLstantial rclation to Dul)_
lic hcalth, safct,v, morals, 1,.o.pcrity, o. !"n-cral \r'clfare. .lI.S.1\, S.{6?.1S. .., ;
2.. Munlclpal Corporallons e60t(7) " '. ,
.., . Zouilg or<lirnnces l.hich iLrc fair in
thcir rtqrrircnrcnls nre sltsteiltc(l as cxer-
cisc of policc pos,cr. IU.S.A. g 462.18.' i... .....:t.lil
3, Conslllullonal Law F70(3)
. li-rercisc of policc poscr is lcgislative,
and.lcgislatit.e policy in rcspcct thcrcto is
not Ior courts unlcss pcrsoDal or propcrt)r
301 .!llro. 62 NOlil'Il ll'IlsTllIlN nil'OLTIIR, 9,l SIITIIDS
righl s arc corrslitutiorr;rll)'affcctcrl Ly
exclcisc. trI.S.A. ! .162.13.
4.
^l
u n lclpil Corpor:illons F 122(2)
Irt <Jctcinrinirr; yirlidily of rirrrrricipel
zoning ottlirrercc, it is prcsurt:cd thxt lcgis-
latilc bod1, invcstig;rtcd and Iound tll;tt
contlitiorts rvcre such tltitt ordin:rlrcc \ras
appropriatc. lU.S.A. $ { fr?. 18.
_5. ilunlclpal Corporillons C=63(l).
: Actiorl of city corrncil in zoning 6cltl,
il oicrcisc of police porvcr, is legislativc.
rl.s.A. s -162.18.
6. Munlclnal Corpor:rtlons C>63(l )
If velidity ol Itgislative classi6cetion
for zoning purposcs is {eirly dcL::rtrblc, thc
lerislative jrrclr:nrcrtt nrust be allo\r'ed to
control. Ir1.S.A. ! ..i62.1S.
7. Irlunlclpil corporatlons_e601(15).
Failure to act on rezoning pctition
merc)y caused letition to expile rvith no
advcrse effect, and did not Lring into op-
eration prorision of zoning ordinrnce for-
bidding frrrther petitions to rezo e proper-
ty uithin six months alter rejection of like
pctition conccrning srme proPerti. I\'I.S.A
s .163.18.
8. Lunlclpal Corporatlo n3 F60l(4
trIire change of municip^l corrncil Poli-
cy u'ill not justify court in dcclaring lcgiti
nrate zoning ordinahce to be void. IrI.S.A.
$ 462.1S. :' -
9. M! nlclpal Corporallons €=601(18)
irlrrnicipal btrilding zone ordinance re-
quiring acquicscertcc of trvo-thirds of orvtr'
ers *'ithin 100 fcct 6f rcal cstate affccted by
pctition for rcclessification, rcqtrires acqui-
esccncc oI t\\'o-thirds of o\ttlcrs r'vithirr 100
lect of orrtcr pcrilnctcr of cntire arca of
land affcctcd by zoning provision. lrI.S.A'
s.J62.13. . .v ,:,
10. statulcs C-190
\\'hcrc langrragc' of stiltute crnbo,lici
dc6Dite nrcaning, corrrt sltould not Dullify
oL\.ious rcquircmcl)t by collstruction.
srcll ll. luunlcllxl Corpor^llons C::021.63
Osrrtr's .'ouilrlilg pcrrrit ltlicll 1..
r;rrirc<l rr ork to Lc (lorrc ehor'c forrrt,lrtr,rrr r,l
yrrc.rlrr.rscrl Lrriklirrg l itlrirr tLrcc nrorlllls irori.
rl:rlc of issrrarrcc lo Prcvcrlt cs1,ir.1',,,,,',
pcrmit cxpircd s,hslc tto srrch rtork \..,.
dorrc in tlrrce nrorrt)r fcrioJ lltcr is.rrrrrrr.
uot\! itlrs:;rIl(linf th:1t r:rilLrrc oI rc,lrirrr,l
constrlrctiotr !rogrcss \\':ls (Llc to rrl,(:rt..l
srrsprrsiort ordcrs issucd in cortrrcction lr irh
pctitior lor rczoning arce s ithin liicl prn.
poscrl builtling sitc rvas locatcd. trI.S.,\. ;
-r(.):, to. _
12. [t u nlcl pi, Corporatlors G,63(2)
Corrrt rvill not cxinrilc into goo<l iailir
of mrrnicipel council in procccdrlrs orr l4li.
tion tor ilnlcndnrerrt to zonir)g orriinarrcc rt.
qrrir-cments unless cour)cii procccdcd itl lln'
rcasorraLlc, a 1L,it r iry, or (liJcrirl)in,lL,rr
nlilrller un(ler cstablishcd )inritetions u1,ol
police pos'crs. I\f.S.A. S 462.18.
13. lu,J n lclpal Corporatlons G60l(3)
\\'hile all zorting rcgr.:lations nrtrst bc
in accord Tlith the gencral conlprchcrlsirc
'plan, thcy should bc made rvith Yicw to (rl'
courrging most ilpPropriatc use of larl'!.
IU.S.A. S.162.18.. . ..: | .,: .:. ..
14. constltntloflal La\r Gl0l
Obtainirrg of brri)dir,g pcrntit, irr' rrrrirrS
of obligations and expcnscs pre)inrirrerl to
actual construction, and surf:lce PrrPir:r_
tion and excaration did Dot crcatc vcsl'J
right ir pcrmitrcc precluding aPplication ol
clessification of new zoning rcgulation pro'
hibiting erection of l-ruilding.rvhcrc vorl
dor:e prior to enactmcnt of amctldmcnt \*il!
ilrsul]lcient to constitute actua[ e-\istilrJ
strucLule above ground. N'I.S.A' $ 462 1$
15. Munlclpal Corpo.ntlons @80
: City attorney is not member of cil,
potrncil an<l only acts in capacity of its lc'
gal advisor. .
16. Munlclpal Corporatlons e>621.13
Acts of nrunicipality rclativc to is:rl'
ancc of builtling pcrnrits undcr zonitr( ortli'
nanccs for construction of comnlcrcill or
lilclS y. CITY OI SAfNT PAUL
Clte r\ ti:., .\_.1\.,::d 3liil
-lU,rrn. ilC5
t-1i,lrncc I)ropcrl), fall s.ithin its govcrn_
:.r.rtirl rillllcr li)en I)ropriclar). futrctioDs
. rl .rtr)l,Pcl $ill nr,t l': :rg;rirrsr it Ior its
j.-:\ or thosc of its srrLorrlir;::cs prrfonrrc(l
,1 (.o nrctioD thcrcrvirh. IU.S,A. S l6?.1g.
t:. nt u n lclplIl CorDora ons F6?t.t3
I-cltci \rritten to ciil. council by cit-r,
J:lorIlc) rcgardirg qucstioDiLlc \.;llidit\. of
;.iitioD rcqucsting anr(lldD)ctlt to roniug
.,r,lir::rncc to prohibit o$rcr fronr LuiLlin!
r:,r..ufron fiis propcrt;,, and c,,lrlir:rrin.g sus_
i.rsion of or'..ner's builciirg llcrnrit, ,Jid rrot(\inl city Irorn further inlerlcrcllce \\.ith
"srcr's buildilg plan. trI.S.A. $ .162.1g.
tl. Appeal aId Error e544(3),.93t(t)
Slprc:ne Court must scarch rccord to::.r{,rtiin whcther an erroneous rrrlc of law
l:rs hccn applied and act accor(liDg,),, but,.:r al,pcal it rrrrst cor:sjdcr tclr;ntonv iD
l,i'ht nlost favorable 1o prcr.aili:rg party.
19. Appcal and Error 6t008(t), ,0t2(t)
\\'hrn action is tried Ll,corrrt u.irhoutr)'. h dlD!s of ract are er,titlcd to samecriflrt as vcrdict ol jur1, and rrill not bert,r(rscd on appcal urrlcss malr i festll, _ con_lrIrJ.to evidcnce.
-- 3t .St. Parrt Brrilrlilg Zonc Or<Jjn:rrrccNo. -q8{0, S f.t, as arrr,.rrrlctt, rllrich re-qurrcs rllc :rcr;rricscc,,cc bf trr.o-tlrjrrls of rhc.
I,rul)crt.\' o\!lrcrs rvirhirl lO,l Icct of t)rc ;rrcalo lrc rczolcd, rcfcrs to those orl.Dcrs \.jth-irr i0C Jcct of tlrc o,r/ir. fcr;,k.tcr oI ]1rccnllrc:lrci1 to bc rczorrcrl r.:lll)cr ll):tD iDdi-'!'irlrrrl arc:rs of nror( r.cstrictcd sizc \.ith-
rr) tltc lotil irea.
create a vested right in a pcrnriuce rrhich\vouid.prccludc the al,plicirrion of rhc clas_srncatron.ol a ne\l,zoDiltg regulalion pro_hrb,trng.lhc ercction of thc buildir)S Unlesstile $ork done prior to thc ct)itclmcnt oftllc arncndment rvas sufrlcicnt to co))stillrtean aclual e\isting structure aLovc thcground.
. 4. lrrrilding pcrrnit cspircs I,1, Iimi-tJtjoD iltcr thrcc rrro,lths tront the ditc o{:ssllnncc rtl)dcr St. prul I..irrildirrg Coclc Or_orrancc No. 7210, S 2,.i(c), and thc lim_,tatlorrs illld. rcslr ictions inrllicit in llrc pcr_n)it jtself, if no u.olk is donc ahor.e thefoulda.tiol of the proposed brrilding durilssrch thrr'e rolrths pcr:od jrrc: l,cctrtc ofthe faci th;rt tl:c fajlrrre of rcq::ircd con_strrcllon progrcss \\.a: Cllc {o rcncatcd sus-pcnl:on ordcrs issucd in conncction rvilh
Pclitions. for rczoning thc arca rr.irh:n\\'n)ch the proposed i,uildi:rg sirc is localcd.',i
., l. Tl" obtainins of a buitdirrg permit,Ine..rncurrtng o{ o[rligarions and E-\perrsesprelrmrDar) to actltal constructio:r, ;nJ sur-race prepar:rtjon aDd e\ca!.a:)ot) do,ot
Syllabus by tha Cou.t ' .: ::
. I. Zotring regulations arc to bc.sus_tririr(l as a legitirnatg cxercisc of tfie po-lr.c lo\\'cr in thc abscnce of a shorr.ing oflrlilrirr)., discrinlirratory, or uDreasonablc.;,i,lrcxtior) oI their rcstrictivc provisions.irr.',/. thc rc?oniI|g procedllre adopted bylLc St. I.rrrl citl courrcil in the insr;rnt casex;ls Icitller arbitrary, di5crin)irrator.y, or. U,r'(:rsouxble ill its application to thc prop_t,l) oI thc plaintiff. t j: .,,, .
,. 2. liailurc to'act on a rczoning pcti_I:i1r mcrely cf,uscs such pc,.irio to c.\pire\,.1h tlo adversc cffccts, illd docs rrot l),.jng
,,"]i ,utrctal;on the l)rovisiort oI .St. l.aril
t-,,,rtng Zo'1. OrdirLarcc No. 5$i0, $
;,l.is imcndcd, rvhicl Jorbirls Iurrhcr pe_
.,1',,,t to r"ror" prol)crt): $.irh;n six mo:rths-:(r rcjcction of a likc pctitio conce.nl-''I lllc Srrnc prolerty. . . .
_6.
-The acts of a ,nunicifality relalivcto tle issuance of l..ruilding pcrnlits urdcr azonrrrg ordinencc fall wjthin thc Eovcrr_mcnral rathcr than froprietary funcLio s ofsuch mu icipilit)., nnd in conscqrrcnce es_toppcl will Dot Iic agcinst it for rts actspcrfornted irt conncction thercrvith.
_ 7, On appeal this court must'cor;si;cr
thc tcstimon),and cli<Jencc irr thc ligllt mostfavora-Llc to thc prcr.ailing l:rrtr. \\,hcrcan actron is tricd b,v a court rvithorrt a jury,its.firdir:gs o{ Jact arc cntillcd to thc samc\vciF.ht irs thc vcrdict of a jrrr),i:rd \!.illnot lrc rcvcrscd olt apl,citl unlcss thc). arenranilcsily.contrary to thc cvidclcc. :.:i
3G6 IUlnD, 62 NOnTTI \y',xsTxllN LXpoIlTIlR, 2d SrIIXS
Jrlurnanc & Ilurnarre, St. paul, /or ap-
pc lltr nt,
f inrorlr; P. Quinrr, Cir.l Arr;., I-<,rris p.
Shc:rhel, Asst. City tty., St, l,arrl, for rc-
sponrlcnts.
NELSON, Justicc.
PlaiDtiff iDslirur.d suit ngiinst thc cityof St. Paul and ot)rers to have a brrildirrg
permir dcclilred r.alid, to crrjoin thc defcnd-
ants from intcrfcring s jth the rlork oI con_
struction pursrrant to a L,ui!din3 pcrmit is_
sued to him on Junc 15, l95e and to enjoin
enforcernent of a zoning ordinance adopt-
ed b1'thc city council oI St. paul on Feb-
ruary 6, 1951. Thc plairrtiff ol,taincci a lem_porary rvrit of injunction from thc districtcourt, Aftcr triil \\.ithorrt a jur)., rhe corrrt
h:rnded dorr.n firrdirgs of fact, conclusionsof latv, and ordcr for judgmenl in defcnd-I ts' faror and dissolvc<l tl)c rcmlorar), \\.rit
o, rnJunction. Follos ing the dissolutioD or-der thc plainriff made altcrnati\.e motionsfor amctrded 6ndings of fact, conclusionsoI larv, and order for judgment or for a
nc\.!'trial and also fiade a nlotion to l.acate
the ordcr dissolring the tcrnporary injunc_tiorL Thc court denied all nrotions of plain_
tiff and he 6led his appeal tl)crefrom.
Thc city of St. Paut, through its cr.ty
council, enactc{ a conrprehensir.e zo:ring
ordinancc lhich became cfiectile Augusi
?2, 19?2, knou:r as St, Parrl Euilding 7-one
Ordinalce No. 5SJ0. This s.as eoacted
undcr thc authority ol Ll92l, c. 217, rr-hichwas latcr arncudcd by L.1923, c. 364.
Ilrrildirrg Zorre Ordinancc No. _;SlO regu_
latcs tltc location bf tradcs and indr,rstrics
nnd thc location of Luilclings for spcciFcd
rrscs for thc gc,lcral pronrotion of public
hcalth, safcty, ordcr, co vcnicnce, pros-
ircritl, end gcncrtl \rclfnrc. It dividcd the
citS'of St. Parrl into si-,i classcs of rrsc dis-tl.icts; ninlelt, "A','rcsi<lcncc d;strict,,,8,,
residcrrce district, "C,, rcsitlcncc district,
cotnmcrcial district, liBht irrdustry district,
and lreavy inrlustry district, ancl pror.idcd
th:rt no brrildirrg or prcnliscs shall bc crect-
ad or uscd for an1. purposc oll)cr tl)llr aprrrposc pcrnli cd iD the usc <ljstrict in
rvhich thc building or prcrrriscs slr:rll bc lo_
citc,l is prori(lc(l in ;rp1,lic;,l,lc r(Fr,lrtr,..,l
lrcscriirc,l Ior sLrclr rrsc rlistrirls.
Drriltlirrg Zunc Orrlirra cc No. -qS.l(,,
2.1, as nrrrcrrrlr:rl, co,tl;ri,ts thc firllor
lisio,rs ror thc' rcclrrssi6catiorr ;i:":,'':l
t:rtc b, anrcrdutcuts:
"Whcncvcr.tllc oNncrs of 50% ormore oI tlte froltagc on anv strcct inan),district or pert thcrcof shall lrc.scnt a petition, <lul1. sigDcd arril e6-
knorllcdgcd, to tl)c City Corlrcil r(-qucsting ao lrncrrrlntcnt, supllcrDcIr,
changc or rcpcal of thc rcgllriiorts lrrc-scribcd {or such dr'stricts or prrt lI(r..of, * + * it shall be the dur). ol
the Council to votc upon slid pcririon
, r'ithiu 90 dals aftcr the 6ling of rlc
samc b)' the pctitioners rvith thc Ciry'Clerk; * * *,
'tr*ll
"Such anrendrnent s}all not hc pes:r,l
s,here it rvill altc. the regullrtions or
plans herein contained, llnless tl)c o\rn.
ers of trr.o-thirds of thc sevcr;rl dc-
scriptions of rcal cstatc situatcd Nirh.in one hundred feet of the rcal c!.tate affected slrall havc acqr:icrcc,t
thereirr, and unless two-thir(ls of lh.
full rnemt,ership of rhe Courrcil lorc rrr
fat.or thercol; + . +. .... ..
" * . * the propcr liling of a suf.- fcicnt pct:'tion for the anrendnrcnt of
t-his ordinarrce so that any district or
portio thercof sltall be thercby rc,cli.,
sificd and placed in a rnore rcstri(tc,!
district or a district of higher cllssi6cl.
tiorr, \\ith the rer;uisite $.rittcn icquic(-'' cence of thc o\\'l)ers of adjncc t I)r(rl,i:r.ty, pcndiDg thc detcrnlinirtion of th.
Courrcil thcrcon, shall bc decnrcd cfrcc.
tual to suspen(l thc right to ilritialc xn.r' usc jr) or upoD thc prcnriscs sorr(ltt Io l,r
rcclassi6cd or any portiorl [hcrrof
rvirich rvould not confonn to thc rctll:.
.. tions hercby prescribcd for thc 1,ro
poscd rcclassi6cation',
PlaintilT had prrrchascd lot 8, Lrl,xt I'
hlidsay Ilighlarrl Park A(l(lir;or, ir l '
I car I9.19 Ior thc sunr of g3,.q0o for tht t ,'
posc oI crccting and opcrating a ret:ril Jl,
EIGnS y. CITY OI S,/rtltT pAtIL
Clr. r\ ti:
^...\t..!il 3\;J
.Il lrrrL g6?
(1(.:lIli,);: cst;rl)lisl)r))ct)l lhcrcorr. Frortr Arr_ of lltc rccotllIll(. ,ltrtiorr of lhc lrorrd oIg.usl 22, 1922, r,ntil t'c !c:. l9li, l,rs I to z(,rri,ri: .rrr. ,,"r", lr;rrs,Di,rd to ll)c citj,l5 irrclrrsirc irr LIock .5, llirlrr.:rr. Ilillrl;rrrl ..n,,,.i1 ,,r,,.n,,.ir'1,,,, io, L_r llrriltling ZorrcI.:rrk r\rlditiol, had Lrccrr classifrcr.l as ..:\,, Orrlnr:rrrc" ']rirr.-5.s+O S Z.i -t.ha "ir_rcsidcrrcc district, sul,jcct to rll rcstricliors corrrrcil rlicl rrt t aci-t.cl,,sc ;; ,".";,,;ll]intposcd b)' I}rildilg Zonc Ortlirr:rrrcc No. dlriorrs of rfrc Uo;,r.a of zo,j,S \\.crc ,tc'cr5sl0 on prcrrri<.'< so cr;rssi6cri. In l92s rrrc srrrrnri.cd r" ir.-'i]i,,;r,;n s.as rror infornrcrigolclrrirrg nulhorilics of rhe cirl. of St. of thc Loard.s actlon,l'iiul, i t))istirkcll c)it)cclitictl of cornrncr_ci:rl (lcvclopn)cr)ts i:r thrt arc;r, anreD.lcd The pl:ri:rtiff hacl c Xrgcd a St. paul con-Brrilding Torrc Orrlin:rncc No. 5S..10 so lllnt lreclor, lr:rtlor GolrJc1sk3., rvho rs his agcntL)ts I to l5 irrclrrsi*c in Llock 3 of tlrc s:rid in corrrlrliaDcc rrirlr Rrilding Coa" Ci.a;-addition rvcrc rcclassi6crl fronr ,,A,, ,"sj- -r"ll.l- No.72l0 had applic<J arr,J pn;d Ior thcdcncc district to comD)crcial tlistrict in ,"- l-rtrilciing pcrnrit frorn thc .dcp:trtrr.rtt ofsl,cct to Iots I to S i,rclnsi\.c rhcrcof xIld pultlic trllildirrgs Junc 15, 19.(0. r\frcr ob-from "A" rcsidcncc <.listrict to ,,C,' rcsi- tait)iDg lhc permit, the contractor inrnredi_
dence district irr rcspcct to lots 9 to l5 in- atcr)' ordcrcd'stccl Lcan:s to thc r.alrre ofclrrsive. This \sas the situation csisting up S?.j0; a,5ut".r' \ras ri:ade -TLrnc 23, 1950,to and-.including JuDc I-i, I9-;0, u.hcrr thc costing $15; and on -Iuly 8, or jrst prio.pllirrtifi applicd for an<l obtaincd troro the thcrcio, aprorim:tely 2.J trecs .r,eie clca.redcitl ol St. I'rrrl a builcling lcrnrir for ,t," .ftol,l the premiscs. On -Iuly 6, thc prcnliscs
coDstruction of a proposcd corrrnrcrcial had l,eerr st:rIed olrt and trcDches tor foot-
brrilding lor usc as a rctaii c)carring csta5- ing.arrglcs dug. The plaintiff iltcnded tolishlncnt on his lot under a,rd sut,icct ro bcgirt cxc:i!ation -Trrl1, 8, 1950; brrt srrchthe pro\';sions and limitations ot Si. I,aul rtorli cc;rscd rvhen thc contractor, Goldet-!ui)tiing Code Ordinance No. 22l0 as then skl recei\,cd a Ictter fronl the cit],archircct,amcnded. datcd Ju)y 6, statilg that thc l,crmit rras' suspendcd u,rtil the city courrcil co,rld passOn Jun-e 27, 1950, pursuant to Building on the rezoning pctirion.
Zone Ordinance No. 5S{r, g 23, a pcli_tion for rczoning of land inclrrrling the A sccond pelition for rezorring of )rnd in-p)aintiffs lot, accompanied by thc requisite cludrtrg the lot of plaintiff Tra: fi1,:d and
acquiescc:tce of propcrty o'rners ryithin ,00 l:::"nt:d to-the city council orr Octobcr 10,
{eet, \ras prcscntcd to the cit). courrcil and 19J0. on this datc counscl ior r)re plain-
filed rrith the cit-,- clcrk. The first petitiorr t)lj appcarcd Ior thc purpose oI dirccrine
rvas drrll'rcferre<l to thc board of zoirins for tnc atterltlon of the city cou)rcil to the sla-invcstig^tio and a rcport'back to the citv tus oi the fitst Pctition; on thc samc datc a
courlcil \vithin 30 days, The "."" "o1,"r"i
$rthdra$al of the Frst pctition \vas filcd injncludcd lots I through 8, block 3, l{ia.rav llc oIficc oflhc city clerk. The sccond peti-
Highland l)ark. 'Ihe staff nrcmbcrs of rh: tio', callcd Ior thc rezc.rning of the area of
city planuing board conductcd an inYcsrir.r- litrrd loc;rlcd gcncra)11'both east ilrld wcst of
lion and reported to the l,orrd of zonins on clcvcland avcnrte and sorrth of Ford Park-
July 10, 1950, thirt thc sinRlin( o,rt of . t'^-1" consisling of ap|rosinralcly 51 acrcs
sirtglc Llocl: for rczolirrg inight 5c con- and_irtclrl(lirrg thc la:rrJ of the plairrtiff. The
strucd as arLitrarl', that thc zoning in , ._t"ll ot tltc cit) plantring rbo:Lrrl inforrncd
largc area rvas out of adjustmcnt,
",-ul ,hot 1"" zotttttg Lro:rrd thf,t thc most propcr 2on-
a cotnlrchcnsirc plan would bc morc apDro- lnS lor lllc arca \\'is that proposcd in rhcpriatc. Oo thc basis of tlis report the sccolrd pc.trtrorl and ,ccornrncndcd thlt it
Loard of zorring rccornr:rcrrtlcd that tllc first Dc gralltcd'
pctilion bc dcnicd but inrlicatcd th:rt thcy On NovcmLcr 29, l9SO, a lhirJ pctirion\vould cntcnain a pctition to rczolc lots rlas pr.r",,i"J;; J,J.ity "our.;t for thc re-iuvolvcd irr thc pctition rvith llrc c-rccprion zo,rirrg of f"r,: i".ir.f;,,8 ," lot of thc plain_of lot I bclongirrg to the pinintiff. A rcport tiff. i.l" ,""",,J rJii"n rr.as ncvcr acrcd
303 lI t |lD"63 }IOP.TII lYXSTf,RN RXPOIiTXII, rd SXI,IIXS
upon for or Dccrrnl,cr 6, I950, rlrc corrrr:ris-srorcr (,f fi i tcc r(lx l,J to lltc cit).c(,lrn-cil th:lt thc sccorrrl lrctiti,,rr ryas ilsrrllicicrrt.Thc tlrir,l I,ctirion toul: its rc.lrrllr corl sc,anu i'ts a rcsult ln anrcndetory rczr.rrtirrg
Olrlirrrrrcc No. 96i0 rlas "naclc.l li"hr,,"r!
6, 1951. I,lainriff rcco:nrncrrccd 1hc \:orli ofirrrproving his plopcrty Ly crrrployilg h;tndhbor. forJrarrd slrovrl tlrgqillg ft,r foorirrgsUctol)cr 10, Igj0. '.1's.o rncl \t.erc Irircrl ;tndpaid $1.53 pcr Irorrr. Thc s.ork \v:ls :r!,a,nstoplrcrl by l lcttci flo,r thc city architcctdatcd OctoLcr Il, 19.50. This occrrrrcdafter.thc exJ,iratiorr of tlre 90-day hruirationconta:ncd in g 23.
--The St. Paul Du:LJir:g Codc OrdinarrccN!. 7:10 t-hen in folcc bcc.rme effccrivetr{ay ?2, 1930, aDd suirjcct to ccrtain arncrd_ments thcreto has remaincd in opcr:rtiveforce and cffcct cvcr sirrcc. Scction ?_l(a)thercof contairrs the follorling provision:
arrd provisiorrs oI l:rrr cllactcd ilDdprt rrrul;.rtr,J [r;, nrrrricilr:,1, sl:rtc ir rl/ur,(rlcr.LI inrtllurit)., :rrrrJ nr;r;. I,c rclLrlcrllrlr(,,r. \iuljrtiol of lrrry of tltc ;rLovc
sl I I,lr,ir t;or ls."
-^O-rr llrc 7t\ irnrl grh d;r1.s of f)cct.nr!r;11950, solk \rls donc Ly thc lrlnrntifl incxcnt'ition of i bascnrcnt arca for thcproposcd Lrilding. 'l.his r.as morc thnnfive-arrd orrc-ltalf montlls ilrtcr thc issrrarrcroJ thc building pcrnrit and, if it rvas 5ub.jqq1ru .run,tillron as pro,,.iclcrl in thc brrikJirrq
code. ilsnn)cn(lcd, it rvas morc thirn t\yo an(lonc-half montlrs after thc LruiliJing pcrrrritissucd to thc plainriff l:r<l cxpircd. \\,r.rrklv^s aglrn stopl)ed ol Dcccmbcr S, )9i0,\tcD the-owners of Jot Z, Llock 3, in the.l\ru\r:r) IliShlar:LI park Ad,litio,r, locrtcrlrmn)cd,nlcl) aJjrccDt to errd sorrth of tltcpl.lrltrh's-lot, cornmcnccd a dist,jct courtac(lOt).ll] l{amsc), collnt). ag:riDst the pl:rirr_tr11, alleging in rlrcir terifrcd complainr,thet thcy had procrrred rh. ,itir.q ;i -r;;J
6rst pctirjon for rczonrng -1"r" :'2.-icio,lthat srrLsequcnt rczo:ring petitions t,r,l lr""r,filed; arrd thrt the plair)tift here had com-
"BeIore proceedirg rlith thc cxcava-tiofl, coustruction, cnlirgc:ncnt, altcra_
trOn. rcp;rrr, Or rcrno\.il of any Lrri)ding,
\-r_all, or s'.ructure t + * the orvrteror his agent shall fitst obtain a pcrmitfor such purposcs fronr the Dcpertmentof Public Er.rildings.,,
Section 2-3(c) conrains the follorvi:rg pro_vrslon:
, 'Any pcrmit or alproval rvhich maybe tssued b,v the Corr:ntissioner of puL
lic Br:ildinss, but rrnrler rvl.rich no rvorkhas bcen done above the {oundation,for a period of 3 months lrom the timeof thc issuance of such permit or ap_proval, sha.ll expirc by linritatiou.,,
The. brrilding permit issucd under theprovisious of thc zoni g ordinances asahended a,1d the LuikJilg code provisions
as aD)cndcd coutaius thc follorving linrita_tioDs and rcstrictions;
_ "To carry out tlc \^.ork spcci6ed inthrs ncrnlit on the follo$.i g tlcscribedpropcrly, subjcct to all rulcs arrd rcgu-
Iations of thc issuirrg l)rlrartrcnt, pro_
v,sroDs of thc llrrildirrg Code, all othcr
ordirrances of thc City oI Saint I,aul,all othcr applical-,tc rulcs, rcgulatiols,
merced construction of a brrildillg on lrisland .arrd asking for dcclaratory and jn-jtnctivc rclief. The district court pursu:1lLthereto issucd its tcmporar;, rcstrainirrgorder on Dcccrnbcr g, 1950, h:rlrirrg an!,urther \!.ork. I\o rvork of constructroll\ras dotle thcreaftcr. At no timc had titcrcocen aol tvork done abor.c thc founrl.rtiorrin rcspecr to thc ercctjon of pf ai,rtiff,slro_. posed_ commercial brrilding on thc lot itlqucstlon.
.. Fo)lowing the filing rvith the city clcrk oftre thrrd rczonillg pctition on Novcrnbcr 29,1950, tlre corporate counsel of the city oiSt. l'aul on December 6, I950, fi:rd adviscdthc. crl). colltcil tllat furthcr susl)cnsion ofpriuDtrfl s pcrn)it \roUId bc i)legel, and plairr-trll \\'rs allo\r'ed to procccd !rith construc-troD, conrplctirrg the cscavation on Dcccm_ber 8. Thc tltird pctirion rvas thc same asthe sccond peritioll cxccpt for tltc firct thirtIt cot.ercd lcss tcrrilory. It irrclrrrlcd:rn arcaon.\hrch.lhcrc tYis nolhing cxccpt rcsi-der)cc Luildilgs and it rvas si[ncd bji o\yn(rsol..\0IerccIt of lrorltilBc olt irll strccts in-volvcd, accordi g to t]lc rcquircments of
IilcES v. CITY Or sAINT rAULC . rs (i:i N,\\',:d iri3
}1 ir)rL J00
DrriLlirg Zonc Orrlirr:rrrcr No..5S10. ('l'lrcrc
ij Do rlrlprttc o this l,oi,rl.) Thc 1,'j1i1i,,1
\\'is irc(Iric!iccd iIr L1' trvo-thirtls o{ thc
or\',rcrs of llrrd r|itlrirr 100 Icct of thc orrrcr
fcrirlclcr of tlrc c titc;rrce lo bc rezorrcd.
l lrc zorlirrg lrorrd r(c('rnilc,r.l"d rlrerrtitrg
rhc third pctition on f)ccc:rbcr 13, 19S0,
: td follo\\'irg s ch rcconrr)rcndttio[ a hcar-
irrg bcforc all pro16;t), or|n..rs rr.ithirr 200
,('cl of tlrc fro|crt_\, ifTcctcd rr.as lrcld
I)cccrnbcr ?7, 19.50. Tl'c rcconlmcnd^tiol
ryis carricd h).thc rn('ntl,crs oI thc council
prcscnt aDd \.otiDg urrlni)Donsly.
Plairrtifi paid 93,500 for thc land under a
land prrrchasc contract. The eyidencc rlis-
closcs that its commcrcial l.aluc Nas about
${,000 and its rcsidcltinl vahrc {rom $1,200to Sl,S00. Thc ptairrtifi testi6cd that hc
hnd cngaged Goldctsky as his contractor
and that arrangcmcnts had bccn midc to
crcct a building cosring in the licinirl.of
$?0,000. Thc total c\l)c,rscs up to irn<! in-
ch:dirrg Deccmber 8, l9-i0, i1611r1",1 |n ,u"1,
nrcl):lretion and cxcn\.ation as had bcen
tnadc upon the tot \r'crc g754.0S, arrd plain-tiff tcstiied at thc trial that ie hrd con-
tractcd for slcel bcams at a cost of S230.
lhc coltrls. Orrll, rr.[cn its crcrcisc ctrrr.stit tio,r;rll). nff.cls pc,soll:rl or I,ro|(.rr),rii;hts rlo lhc c()ltrl( lnkc c(,Allizilncc, at|dit is prrsrrrncrl lhrt lhc l(.r:isl;ilitc br,rl\. in_\'csliI;ltcrl :rrrrl fourrd corrrlitiou< slrcll th:rtlhc Icgisl::tiort sliich it crr;rctcrJ las ap_prlJrriltc. 'I'hc action of a citJ, councilin thc zc,uing frrld, arrrl thc clicrcisc o, the
[1] l. Thc parent authorirr- Jor Build-irg Zonc Ordinance No. 5SJ0 and thc
amcr)dmcnts thercto is to bc fouDd in the
crrabling act, L.l92l, c.217, rrhich was !atcr
amc:rded by L.t923, c..i6{, L.192-i, c. 2Sj,
andL-1937, c.239, codcd as II.S.A. g 462.tS.
In con"idcrirrs thc issrrcs wc ma).proceed
lrom lhc prcmise that it has bccn estaLlish-
cd by all thc leadirrg authorirics that ordi-
nanccs divicling citics into rcsidcntial arrd
busi:ress districts arrd Iimiting usc of rcalty
nr cach district to ccrtain purposcs will not
Lrc dcclarcd uncoDstitutional unlcss it alErm-
ad$cly appcars thrt the rcstriction is clcar-
ly arbitrary and unrcasolablc an(l rvithout
any subst;rntial rclation to prrblic hcalth,
safcty, mor;rls, prospcrity, or gcDcral tvel_
forc.
l2-S) Zoning statutcs havc bccorne
common and zoDing ordinirnccs rvhiclr arc
fair iu thcir rcquircmcnts arc gcncrall;,sus-
taincd as an cxcrcisc of thc policc poNcr,
which is lcgislativc. Its polic), is not for
G2 N.lY.2d-rr
I)olicc po\r'cr t.r,thc city council, is lcltisla-tiYe. Thc rrcrrd of thc nulllorilics is to-'ttard sustainirrg lcgislatir.c regrrlationsslrict c,rcludc objectiolallc callings frominterfcring rvith thc courfort :rnd \relf;rrcof thc conrrnnrrit), e!cn rvithout thc 61s^-
tion of a rcsidc,lti;rl district. As \.as saidby I'Ir. Justicc Dib.ll of this court in Statccx-rcl. Rcery v. Iloughton, 164 llirrn. 1.16,
150, 20.1 N.\v. .(69, 570, 54 A.L.R. t0l2:
4. t r Tbc policc po.l,cr, in itsnaturc iDdcfinabtc, and <|riclcly re-
sponsivc, in tlrc )'nlcrcsi of coDlmonqclflre, to changing corditions, au-
thorizcs yarious rcstrictions upotl the
rrse of prir.atc nropcrty as socjal and
cconom;c cha gcs comc. A rcstriction,
which ycars ago rvould hatc bcen in-
tolc.able, aDd rvould have lrecn thousht
an unconstitutiona! rcstriction of the
o\\'ncr's usc of his propcrt', is accclrred
,o\y without a thorght that jt i:rr.adcsa pritate right. As social ,cl;triol!
bccomc morc compjcx, rcstricrions on
irrdividual rights bccomc rnore com-mon. \\:ith thc cro.rvding of popula_
tiorr in thc cities, thcrc is an acrivc in-
s,steDcc upon rhe establjshmcnr of resi-
dential dis:ricrs from l.hich annol.irrg
occupations, ard buildi,rgs un<lcsirabli
to the community, are c-<cludcd.,:
l
[6] Sincc that decision in Ilinnesota,
ordinances that comply rvith ttrc crrirtrlirg
act that gavc risc to roning or(lit)uDccs lncities of thc 6rst class ca!t,to! bc slrcccss-full), attackcd ol co.stitutional grour)ds
unlcss thcrc is aflirnrativc proof that thc
rcstricrion is clcarly arbitraly, <liscrirnina-
tory, ard urtreasoDallc autd \^,ithout atry
sul..rstantial rclatiotr to prrl-rlic hcalrh, safct;,,
nrorals, or gctrcral rr,clfarc, thus viol;tting
constitutiorral inhiLitions. Statc cx rcl.
J}cc1f v, )loughrol, slt,ra; Viltagc ofEuclid, Olrio y. Anrblcr Rcalty Co.,272
3?0 llilI 62 I\ionTll \\'xsTxnN fI]l'oITXn, 2rl SXnrxs
c-v dccm it
g it. These actions by
me, and a lncrc chan ge
ratc t c rcsu
-.--1F.
U.S.. 365, 47 S.Cr. I I.t, 7l L.EJ. .103, I.l.{.L.)t. l0l6 (a lc.rLlirg c:1sc or zurrrl;rti;rrlatio:rs).r,\rr crc!.llcrrt rr1,,,siriorr oillrc c\icnt o, Ih( c_\crcisc uf rLc IrrliccItorvcr-is iourrrJ irr 3 !)rrrrrrt.ll, llr;:. (.i rrJ.)S 160i. 'lhc arrrhoririrs r:rrii,rrrrl,1, surlul) Ihc rrrlc lo lr(.th:rl, if rhc r:,lirlir.1.of thcicirsl:rtt\c cl;rssilic:rti,rrr fcI uorrirra Prrr;,r,scsbc i:rir I-r. tlel-rrt;rl.rlc as it is ltcrc, tltc lclisla-tr!c judprct)t nlust llc illo$cd to corrtrol.
.. I7:U-] ?. Thc ptr,irrrilT conrcnds thirrInc I;rrlurc on ll)c p;rrt of lhc cit), coUrrcjlto act oD thc 6rst y,critiorr for rczorrirrgc<'n!til led a:ejtcriorr of such pctirioll aDdthat rhcrcforc slrch faiture must of ncces_sil)'- brir)g into opcrition that Frrtion ofIJrrilding Zonc Orrljnarrcc No. SS.IO, 5 ZS,as. arrtcndcd, s.hich ,:rolittcs lhat no pe_tltron to rczo c a ), propcrt.v shlll bc 6lcd
l'lairrtif[ corrrrrrrls thnt t,rc rcrlrirc,:rcnttlr.ll tl)c crt.v c.llrcil I;1ss orr thc Ir111ie1j\lllDtrr)() di),s Ilust Lc strictl.r. corr5lt.ll(rli'hJ tl):rt llrc rrr,l,rr|frrl Iailrrrc of t)rc cir;.trrrrrrcil t,,.<urrrl,l) rrilh tl:;rr prt,vi,ion o1,-
.(r.rtc5 in i;rs ils i d(r)i:rl of thc l,ctitioir.'lhc:l|:tlrorjrics citcd b, l)lJir)lifI for lhis
I'r(,lroslire]l rr)(,rcl.\. srrl4)urt thc g(,rcrill rulcol . lil\r. thal zoDiltg or(l,Djl,)ccs niust L,cslrictl)' cu,lslt Ucd. Ilc ,lrrthcr coDtcndslhll,.51',." rLr. colncil his r(jcctcd rhc firstpcttrron (h1. i acric.rr), Do otl)cr pctitiocoull hi\-c bccrr propcrJl, frlc<l rvithin sixtrlorlhs of such rcjcctio , IIcrc Ihe s(,colldantl third pctilions u.cre 6lc<J lcss tharr sixnronths-aJtcr thc erpiration of thc 90-<Ja1,pcriod follosing the 6tirg of the 6rst pcri-
tron-
or consi(lcrcd rr.ithin six months aficr thccouncil hes rcjcct.,d a ljlie pctrrion ro rczoneIlle samc prol)cn),. Threc pctitiorrs toitnclld lhc zouirrg orrlirrancc rr.crc 6lcd,I trc -hrst oI Jrrnc 27, 1950, lhc sccond onUctobcr lO, 1950, arrd rhc third on Norcm-I'cr ?9, l9.iO. plairrriff regards rhcsc d:rres;rs srs.nrtrcaDt in rhc light of thc buildingzollc. ordinancc s.hich prori<.les that afteiI)L'trtrons for rczoDi!)g arc prcscntcd to thccolrncil:
^ ". * . it shall bc thc dury o, rhcLouncil to \,ote upoD said petitioll \\.irh_ttt !D da)'s afrcr thc 6lins oI rhe samct)) thc pcritioDcrs s.ith the Crry Clerk;pro\.idc(l rhat no pctition to rczorrc anypropcrty shall be 6lcd or considcred\\llhIn six nrotlths aftcr tltc Col||lcilIr.1s rcJccrcd a likc petition to rczotrcsaid p16pq11)..',
.Wc bclicvc that plaintiff,s contenrion is\vllhout rrlcrit. Thc city council rc!icd
llil .,h: rcporrs .from thc cil), ptanriDg
cqmmtssion and thc zonilrg board bcforctakrDg actio,l. z\ftcr duc considcriltion
rhc) .dccided-not to rote on the first pcti_tron but to file a sccond and 6na[y a thirdpursrrant to such reconllendil:ions as theyrcccitcd from the invcsrigrrions of thcpl.rD Il)g commission and the zoning boarrl.Thc council did not determine to act on theplan submitted until thcy,cachcd the con_ctusron that the third pctitiorr rnet thc rc-qu,rcnrcnt! and orrJy thcD <.litl ththeir dut, to pass upoll thc petltron by cithcradopriDg or.cjcc!ilr
the council nrcrcly irtlolvcd changes oipolic)' froh tinre to tiof policy,horr.cr.cr urtfortttr
ria-l no JUStI )' thc coLlrl in dc-cl a rrng zonlng or(li narrces tthich are thc-l )II]e e.\cr-co po lc c potvcr to-lJa
I.onrL:rrrlo 1.. Cih. of Dlltns, Tc-,(.Cir.-1It,., .l? S.\\'.:':tt .l0i; Sr:rrc cx rct. Cflr.l.r \'. fJrflrr.r, IS..t \\.i\. I{S, t0d N..\\,.
l:,r.. :;l -r.l-.n. :(:U; ,\r,,.ric:,'l \\.oo(l
I,ll'n:'::':.l: .:. ('itr or .\ri:,,^:,r,nrir. s
1,,...\),,r[*:.:;l U.s.:i...:i. ri s.Ct. r.:,t, ?1l,.l)1. lU,-.I; Ir,.r,Dis \.. \.i :,iii, of,l.urrkx
lj:!, s^t],,, I;d .l:.:.:it (;;:.:i r,irl,r,!,r r..r.'r.r' ol ]li ',e,rtNIis. l).C.Iir,,,.. tG 1.,.si,r,r'. 'tot i Cirr. .,f 'Ji,rson , i;i"",,^.lll'lil,,',f: lj., .1ri,. .re;, ::ie t,. 0..r3;| ,r.I'c i\trrt.i Ilox rt IrxsIR! c^\\'r,irc, :,:iru t:.s. i;0,'ic'I.61] lli. st
l.llrl^-rr-!' Lce v. DctDronr. :._,S ltirn.1ol. 30 \'.\\,3it iJO: C.,rrr:lt ,j.rl|st Co.
l,:,
(.it;'..11 Ci',(in_rr:1ri, (;l or,ior\r,r,. 1Jc,-] .'] '-:-". { 'u: ,lrctt r'. l}uildrra Corn'rot Ir,,.titiIc, :;0 u.rss. 7::. I l; -\.I.:. :]0C(r' \l'i(I it \\jrs Lt,t,t ttr:rt it \!Is sirlriIr'c tnrI.r lro$.r oI rrrrrrrir.i|;rtirL (o crciror(srrl,ucc d-istrjct ir, \rjricl, oIllJ sirr*lc.I rrr'rIl d$(.llirrllri coul.l bc corr(tr,rctc,l);(;rntton r.. (:otltc. :;dJ I,i. 5?S. ?ij -\.:.jd3Sl; .llart,tetrrrrt l.urr Co- v. C,:r." orIir.-\n;i l.s, I Cir., 4? I.:J,l lt:S; rrox
ill':,"1)...,,11".t".": IDe. r'. c,rIc), j:;r Ar,p.lJrr. :iu(r. r:{.\_.r-.S. liS.
EIGXS v. CITY OI SAli]T I,.^ UL(lt. ns l;: N.\\'.!,1 J(J
lI lrrrr 3?1
[9, 10] 3. Plairtiff contends that ther.
iyas not an acor:icsc€ncc of trvo-ihirds of
thc otncrs rlithin 100 lcct as rcqrrircd
by Bui)ding Zone Ordirancc No. -iS{0,
$ 23, as anrcndcd. IIis cortention prcscnts
the question \\lrcthcr this prolision rcquires
the ircquiesccncc of trvo-thirds of rhe or\.rrers
rvithirr 100 feet of tlre outcr pcnnrclcr of
the eDtire area of land alicctcd b] that
provisiol or \\'hcther it rcquiies, as he
coDtendS, th€ acquiescetlcc of t\\'o-thirds
of thc o\\'ners rsithin 100 f,.'ct of irdilidual
areas of more rcstrictcd si2c \\'ithiil thc total
aree to be rczoned. Ilc docs not state
rvhat srrcb individual arcas should bc. If
plsintiff's contentioD $'erc to bc lollo\\'cd,
Dothing but confusiorr could arisc \!hcre
arcas arc to ije rezoncd undcr llsc restric-
tions.. This mirtter \ras undcr considcration
in the case of llorrill Realty Corp. v. Iial on
I{oldirg Corp., 251 N.Y. 26S, 172 N.E.
494, rvhcrc it rvas hcld that the Loard of
c!timatc, ;D rctlistricring city urrdcr zoning
strtutc, Nas not rcquired to procccd by
scprratc rcs(,lutiorr to zone block l-ry Llock.
Thc trial court in the ilstant case adoptcd
thc..flrlc that thc provision rcquircs the
acqrricsccncc of trro-thirds ol thc o\r.ners
rvithin 100 fcct of thc outcr pcrirrctcr of
thc cntirc area of lalld aflcctcd by thc
zoning provisioris, arrd wc Lclictc thirt this
is thc 6our)d rrrlc a d thc most logical cou-
struclion o{ thc o|dinarrce. Whcrc thc lan-
grragc of a statrltc sccms to cnrlrod)' a
dcfinitc nrcanirrg, courts slrorrlcl not rullify
oLr.i<rus rcquircmc[ts by corstructioo. .Qp-
U1,12) 4, 1'hc pl:rirrtif( co,rt(rrdj th:rt
thc lrrri)dilg Icrn)it \\'xs inrIro1'ct'ly 5115-
l,crrrlcrl Lccarrsc hc, as lrcrrlittec, L:rd nadc
l)l:rtrs iu(l Ucgrrrr irrrprovcrncnts r),1 lris I)rcnr-
iscs l-rclorc rcccilirrg arrl noticc of s!,sjlcu-
siorr arrrl also h;rrl rccr..ircr! hrs Jrlrrrrit prior
to lhc filing of thc 6rst ])ctitio Ior rceon-
irrg. Iirrilding Zorrc Oldirrelcc A'.o. 55.i0,
$ 23, protidcs;
' "That thc l)ropcr 6lir:g of a srrflicicrrt
pctilion tor thc ;rrncn(lnrcnt of this or-
dirrnrrce so thirt aDI' districl or lorlion
thcrcof shall Lc thcrcbl, re-classified
. and placcd irr a nrore rcstlict(d district
or a disirict of )ri-qhcr c)arsi6cation,
l ith thc rcquisitc rtrittcn acqrricsccncc
of thc orvrrcrs of adjaccnt properr)',
pcrr<ting thc dclcr:nitl:rtion of the Corrn-
'cil llcrcon, shl,ll Lrc detmcd (ffrctual to
suspcrrd thc risht to inir;atc atrl use in
or upon thc prcnrises sorrrht to bc re-
classi6cd or an, portion thcrcof rvhich
rvorrld not conJorm to thc rcgulations
herebl, prescribcd for thc prolrosed re-
cla ssifr cation."
\\'lren the abolc prolisions arc considcled
rvith Building Code Ordinance No- i310,
$ 2-3(c), and the lirnirations and rcstric-
tions exprcssed on the pcrrnit itsclt it ap-
pcars that, bccause of the susncr)sion or-
dcrcd by thc city architcct, the building
pcrmit had c-spircd by limitation.
- Thc corrrrcil, aftcr tlre frlir:g of thc 6rst
pctition on Jure 27, 1950, uas in thc process
oI classi6cation as to rczolting ccrtiin
arcas; alrd it is not for thc court to ex-
anrine into thc good faith of thc courrcil in
such procccdilgs unlcss thcy procccdcd in
an unrcasorrrblc, arbitlarl,, or discrimina-
tory manlrcr . undcr cstalrlisltcd limitiltiolrs
upon thc policc porvcr, Thcrc is nothing in
thc rccord to indicatc all) thing donc or any
act or con(luct orrtsidc of thc suspc,rs;ol
,)oticcs, rvhich wcre givcn nrorc thar) oncc.
No authorities arc citcd to support thc con-
tcntiol thlt the pcrnri! did not crpirc Ly
linritation cxccpt thc llrthoritics rr.hich arc
io thc cffcct lhat zoning stat!ltcs aId ordi-
nanccs shall Uc strictly corrstrucd. Thc
voirl. trlarblcicad I-anrl Co. v. Citl of 1lcg;l;rrJ r'. llorrrl of Corn'rs, l?0 llinn. .113,
tIi-A ngc)cs,.supra. l3!) N.\\'. 9J9, .13 L.R..\,,N.S., 9J6.
, ,l
Jt soulrl sccrn lr,gical lo assrurrc tL:rt'ihc
fiiilrrrc lo act sith rtlcrr'rrcc to tllc first
|ctition tncrcl) carrscd llrc first I,ctiliol lo
cxpirc l ith no ndlcrsc cil,'cts. 'l'hc plain-
tiff had bctn nolifrcd orr lrrlt 6, I9lr0, that
thc building prrnrit shiclr lrc had olrtairtc<l
fr'om thc citl of St. l';rul \yas slrsp.n(1.11 by
ordcr of thc:luthoritics drrc lo thc Lrrrikling
rczoning pctitiou. Sincc thc cor:rrcil rvas
lcting rrrtdcr the policc porrcr and cxcrcis-
irrg its lcg'islali\'. dutics, he slrould havc
knoun he rvou)d be procccdilg at his pcril
until the susperrsion raas \!ithdrawn.
Ai2 llno.83 NOIrTtr Wr]sTxRN nf,IOn1,XR, !(l sxllll]s
trial court vicrr ing thc sitlrjltion is l \vltolcllcld (ltlt tllc l.rrrilling Iclrr:it hrrl cxpircd L,r,Iinrit;rtiorr. \\'c corrcrrr rr.ith rhc holdir:g ofthc colrrt. Urrlcss thc ,,lairrtiff, throrrgh thc
J)rcpJralioD of thc |l;rns t(sti,icd to r d thcconstructiorl of thc lrrril,Jirrg as flr ns it hr,l
Eonc, h:ld giiDcd l1 \,(st(d ri;ht of rrhiclr
h.c coul{l not Lc de;,rired bl.tlre cl;rssifrcl-tion lhcn trrrrlcr corrsirlcr;rtion arrd subsc-qucrlt rezot)itlg, tIc consiclcration of .rvlrcrh-
". o.r. lot thc Luilrting pcrmir )rad crpircd\+ould bc moot. Ilis right to prcvarl hcrcmust hDd its blsis in a Ycsrcrl right r!'hiclrhc lras g.rincd an<J of rvlrjctr hc canrot Lc
liP'lI:9 b, rhc clcssification l..rcgr.rrr Jrrne
1/,,.19JU, and thc subsequcrrt rezoniIlg byordnrance amc;rdmcnt cnacted Fctrruery 6,t951.
l.rliox ro l,ulric Lc;rlrlr, s:rfcrli,
Fcttcrl I rr.t)flrrc, Gralton v.Pr. .s7ti, 73 n.zd JBl.
mor;rls, or
Cortc,36l
.5. Plaintiff contcnds that undcr the pro-lisi-ons of Bui)rJing Zone Orrlrlancc No.
-\S.10 and arncndincnts thercto thcre can bcno retrorctirc cllect orr his right to procccd
und^cr thc bu_ilding pcrrnit issr:ed Junc 15,l9){J,.appro)ii,nalcly trvelt.c da}s prior tothe hlrng of thc 6rst rczoning pctiiion. Itnl.-",1:1.U, been srated that thc pro\'isionsot 13uiiding Zone Ordinance N;. sS.tO, $2J, state in elf(ct that the proper filing oi asuthc,cnt petitiotr for lltc artrcrrdmcnr of tlreordinance shall be dcenrcd cfrccttral to srrs_pcnd the right to initiatc an-r.usc in or upon
th_e. prcmjses proposed for rcclassi6catjonr[hich rvorrld bc rronconfornting under suchrcctasslhca!:on
. [fS] Whilc a picccmcal rnetlrod of al-rerl)g. zonl,rg clissification may Ircquently
De undcsiraLle in practicc, it nra1,, ho$eYeribc the only \ra) of protcctins rights \hichnrust bc rccoglized; anrl rvhite all zoningregxlations rlust bc in accord rvith a genleral comprchcnsivc plan, they shouLi bemadc, as thc statutc providcs, $.ith a viervto eDcouraging thc hiost ilppropriatc usc ofthe I:rnd. Of corrrse, a zorring ordinanccmlrst Dot bc arl..ritrar;,, rrrrlc;rson:rblc, ordiscriminatorJ but 20rrir)g clrssifi calions arelargcl)' \!.ithin .the judgnrellt of the lcgis-l:rtrr,c body and thc escrcisc of that jr-r-rjg-n)cnt \\.ill not Lc int.rfcred rvirh bj, th-ccourts cxccpt in cascs rvhcrc it is oLviousthat thc classi6cition has no suLstatrtial rc-
* It rr-rs hr.lLl i,l Urcrt v, DuilrJing Corn,r oIBrooklinc, rul,rit, lh;lt a pcrsun to \,lrotl apcrr)),t for collstrucliorr of a trro-Irn:il),ds,cllil; hird Lrcen issucd ltdtl ,tn sl.ciolirottutti-t1.nlll \u;,s afl'cctijd Lry an amcu(l-rhcrlt.o, a zc.,rrin3 bl llr,rv Dot J,ctr itlil)- t\!.o-J:.nril; rlrvcllirr3s to Lc consrructcd ill thcCistrict though hc t)a(l slartcd \r.ork pnr-suallt to lhc pcrnrit, rr.hcrc lre had trot dollcenourgh rr.ork to havc acqrrircd a vestcdrr(ht; the fact tl:at hc hnd e[rcrcd ixto acontract \i,ith a tlliId pcrsorr Jor cotstruc-tron of tl)c Luildirrg did not iffect cor)strtu-troDelity of rhe 1,-r'law; and c)icivatiol andenginccrirrg Iork and forms conjtructcd djdnot constitrrtc an,,csisting srrrrcture,, u.ith-tn lhc lrolrsrol of thc statute c\cnr[tingsuch from zoninX rcstrictions.
..Il 9it-r.^o_f Trrcson v. Arizorra I,Ic,rtrrary,
3.1 Ariz. 495, ilt,2i2 p- 923, 9_.S, ur<icr asome$-hat similar set of circurnstances asto permit and reclassi6cation, it rras sai<l:
i' * . . As soon as the attcmpt was
]-r1o\r'n,
.
procccdincs wcrc i,rm.jirtely
rnrtiated and cnrrred forNard to cltab_Iish thc rcstricted district, To hotdthat uldcr circumstances like this thecity \vas estopped \vould mcan that thcgovernirrg authorities of municipelitics,
ullIess. they Iorcsarv in adraDcc ..,"ryco dirion u.hich rnight arise arrrl actedbetore thc coDtinsctlcy occurred, u.outdbe heiplcss thcrcaftcr to rhcet thcct)angedsituation.,, l
The court in thrt casc furthcr statedi ,
. "It is also corrtended that phintift :
nid rcstcd rights tvlrich rverc entitlcdto protcction. Althorrgh it.had pur-chxscd thc land itr qrrcsriorr ind Ict tltecontract for thc btrilrlirrg bcfore thcor(tl ntlcc ,rvls adoptcd, ).ct bcforc any -nlitcrial nntoutlt o{ constrrrc(iorr hada.ctrrally bccn donc, it rvas fr:lly adviscdthat tltc ordioancc tvas r,rr,ler co,ttcm-platiorr. InstenrJ of arrlitirrg lhc lctjonot thc council, it ipp:rrcntly proccc<Jcd:
on thc thcory cirllcr that tltc ordina cc
r(ould not bc p:rsscd, or that, if l';rsscd,
it \y;rs roi(1. ll;rrirtg takcn tlr:rt chir)cc,
it D)ir) nol rrorv l-rc hcerd to set up ^rrylols l(, il \\lri(h arosc JIorrr its ectiorrs
o//.l it )rld krrorllcdgc that thc ordi-
r;rrrcc \\'as l)cirg cOr)ridrrcd. Dllt cvCn
if pl:rintifi srrflcrrd son:c danra(cs
lhrouFh thinXs occrrrring Dc/ort thc
Irolcst, fiD:rlci:rl loss, no nleltcr how
scvcre, (locs rot of itsclf gir.e partics
a .rcstcd risht to coDtinuc a busiricss,
no Daltcr horv long it has bccn con-
ductcd, if thc Lusiness is onc rvLosc
locatiou nray be rcgrrlatcd undcr the po-
lice pon cr."
Scc, Fladachcck v. Scbastiau, 239 U.S. 39J,
36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed.3{S, Ann.Cas.l9l78,
927.. ..,: : .'. . '.'.
1fe] Ut are of thc op;,lion tt"t ;t ao.',
not appcar affirrnali\'c];- tl)1t the xme rrdatoly
Orrlirtancc No. 9670, enacted Iicbruary 6,
1951, rr_as so unrclsoDaLIe, arbitrarl., and
discr;minitor),that it \\'onld have becn un-
constitutional iJ it had l-reen rdopted beforc
lhc plairriil oblairred rhe !-rrrilding permit
and bcJore hc had conrnrenccd an).prepara-
tiol in clearing thc grorrnd or erica\.ating
{or the building to be used as a retail clcan-
ing cstab)ishrncnt. The argumeDt that thc
rczoning amcrrdmcnt rvas jncffectivc bc-
causc it had no rctroactire effcct on thc
plaintiff's right to procced canDot be sus-
tained against tlrc policc porver invokcd
herc.
Plaintiff citcs 9 Anr.Jur., Buildings, g 8,
to support his arg!mcnt that, having in-
currcd liabilities for rvork and matcrial and
haYirrg enrcrcd upon construction prior to
the adoption of thc amcr)dmcllt, hc had ac-
quircd a vestcd right of \r'hich hc cannot b.
dcprived. That scctl'on, howcyer, mcrcly
stales that a building pcrmit may not be
arbilrarily reyoked Nhcrc thc orvncr has in-
currcd nrrtcrial ex.pcnsc irl rclintrcc upon
thc pcrnrit. A stltcmcnt more pcrtincllt lo
tlrc qucstiorr hcre is in 58 Am. Jur., Zoning,
$ 185, rvhich rcads as follo\rs: :
"A nrrmLcr of cascs sustain thc ei-
prcss or inrplicd rcvocation of a build-
ing. pcrrnit vh.rr, suLscqucnt to its
llIGf,S r. CITY OI. S.^Irr-T IAUL
Cil. ^s
(l i.. \\' :d:lrx
issulrlcc, the cit;,passcs a valid ordi.
n;rncc rvLich lras rhc cflcct of prohiLit.
iDg thc crcction of a Lrriltling srrch as
. tl)c onc in qucstjon, nt)(j, lldcr sonte
. dccisiorrs, thi5 is lrrlc cr,cll thorrch thc
grnDtcc of thc pcrn)it has cnlcrctl ittto
corlracts, boltght matcrixl, or itrcrrrrcd
othcr cxl)cnscs. 'l'his rulc }lrs lrccrr ap-
plicd in thc casc of a snl,scqrelt zoling
orCirretrce or imcndrnc'lt thcrcof, altd
it is hcld rhat tl)c grint ol il l,crrnit or
, liccrrse docs not prcclrrdc thc appliia-
tior) thercto of a nc\r, zorlil]g rcgulltion' prolribiting thc crcction of tl)e building'. or the opcraiion of thc Lnsincss in the
particular zonc. x . . Srrc/r o,} of-
llicofiol ol zorhg protisions hos bect
lrcld tol !o .,iolotc co siihtl;ofial /c-. sta;cliotzs oadi,,J, thc rctroactiYe appli-
cation of lcg;slarion, or tlLe ;r fo;n\.l!
ol.lteslcd r;tiltls . a *. lndced, the. same result has been rcachcd in sornc
cases notr\,ithsrandi g rh;lt the J,ermit
holder had acquired title to rhe land,
assumcd obltgatiorrs, and incurrcd ex-. penses prclirninary to construction, or
had entcred into contracts for rhe con-
' struction, and had actually cojrmenced- rvork thcrcon \.hen the ordinance or
amcndmcnt \ as cnacted, at least Nhere
the rvork done prior to the amcndrnent
. \ras not sumcicnt to constitute an e]:ist- .
ing structure. A Iortiori, cxpenditurcs
made and obligations incurrcd aitcr thc
enactmcnt of the zonirrg ordinance or
-..aDccndment, althorrgh in reiiance on.a' .permit previously issucd, are insufficicnt .
to givc a vested right to crect a Lruild-
ing in violation of thc ordirrance,,,
(Italics supplied.)
It must also bc borne in mind that nortorli had bcen donc abovc thc foundation,
for a period of thr.e nlonths from thc timc
o, thc issualcc oI thc pcrmit. See, Buildirrg
Code Ordinancc No. 7210, g 2-3(c). Thc
weight of authority sustairrs dcfendants,
position that mcrely obtaining a building
permit and incurring'somc rxpensc and as-
sr:ming ol-rligations preliminary to construci
tion, but proceedi g no furthcr than cxcava-
tion, as r!is dorrc hcre, is not srrfilcicnt to
crcatc a vcstcd riglrt to usc prcntiscs for
thc purposcs planncd whidt cannot bc cut
-\
}lIDrL .-.:?
l37I fllrrn 62 NoIlTtr \\.xsl,I]nN ?,XtottTxn, !d SDRIES
;rccotrlingl), it ntrrst'orr al,l'cll co,r.;,lct llrc
tc5tiDrol). ill ll)c li{ht ,trost Il\orjrLlu lo l1;
I'rcr':rilru; l,^rl).. \\'hcn irl jrclion is tri(d
|-,) ;, c,-,ur t rlithout a jrrr1., irs frrrtlings olfacl arc cnrirlcd to thc sinrc rr.ciglrt:is tIcvcrdict of I jrrrl.and rr.ill not lrc rctr.15(.d
on.appcll ltr)less ihc). arc m:1r)ifcslly co1-trary to tltc evidcncc, a d srrch rrrlc a;rIlit5
lrhcthcr tle lppcat is frorl a jrrrlsnl(rt orfronr an ortlcr grilntirrg or dcrr-r.irrg a nc5,trial. I-ipinski v. Lipinski, 227 ltirrrr. 5ll.
35 N.W.2d 70S. \\rhcrc, as hcrc, thc qu15-
tion lyhctl)cr an ordinancc is arr rrnrcasorr-
ablc or irbitrar), rscrcise of policc porr.rr
is Iairl.l,dcb:rtirL!c, thc an)cldnletrt to thc
ordinance nlust bc upllcld as r.ilid,
- ft sccms to us that on this rccord lhc r
ordcr of the trial court rnust bc allirmcrl, for l
certainly the l,urdcn rvas on pljliIltiff to '
shou'that thrre was rro rcasoDablc basis for
this ordinancc,
A ifi rm cd,
ofI !y Snlrscqrrcut arncrrdlrcnt of thc ordi-
rratlcc. llrcrt r,. lluiltlirr.{ Corn'r oI !rook-
Iirrc, sttprl; Cir-r' .,f L:ltsirr; r.. l)lrvlcy, 217
Iliclr. 39J, ll5 .r".\\,. 500; Jror l_:rrrc Corp.
r'. -llarrn, 216 .{yr1r.Div. [i13, 2li N.\'.S. 3.].1;
Drrt y. Citr of Grrlfport, 1.17 lliss. i3l, I l3
So. l{1. It rr.;rs held in :llc IJirrt cnsc rhrr
a pcnuit cullld be arrnrrllcrl h), sul,seqlrcDt
passagc of a las. plohibiti;r!: a lh;ng
prcYiorrsty grirDtc(!, undcr thc l)olicc po\!cr.
[15-17] 6. 1'he plainriff conrcn(ls that,b;'virtuc of ii lcttcr rvriticn to rhc citl,
corncil by thc city irttornc), rcgrrdiDg lhe
qucstior)abic legility o, thc proccdlrrc fol_
lo$'cd orr thc 6rst pctitio and thc contirru-
ing suspcnsion of thc bnildjng pcr.mit, thccity \r.as cstoJ,pcd from furt).,cr ilttcrrcr-
cncc rvith his Lrrilding plarrs. The cit). at_
tonrcy is not a nrcrnber o{ thc city courrcil
arrd onll,acts in the capacit).of irs lcgal ad_visor. It is Ncll estaLrlishcd rhat thc acrs ofa ntunicipality rclati\.e to the issuancc of
buiJding pcrrnits urrder zoning ordinanccs{or the construction of conrmcrcial or
resjdcnce propertl, fall u,itlrin its govcrn-
mental rathcr than proprietar). frrnctions
and that in coDsequcncc esioppcl \!ill not lic
against it for its icts or tho5e of its sub-
ordiratcs pcrfornred in conncction there-
rvith.2 The situation llcre does not crcnte
an estoppcl against the city which 1\,as act-rng ln lts gol'ernmcDtal capacity at the
time.
). Th. t.inl cou;t found that the aincnda-
tory Orclinancc No.9670 *-as u,irhin the
scopc of thc comprchensiy€ plan Ior the dc_
vclopment of rhc city,of St. paul a d that,
as rcquircd by thc statute and !r:ildiDg
Zonc Ordinarrcc No.5S-{0, as atncudeci, rea--
soniblc co si(tcration \ras gi\.e to the
topograp:)y aDd chiractcr of the district in_Yoltcd and its suitability. for plrticular
uses.
If8, 19] \\'hilc this corrrt tnrrst scarch
thc rccord to asccrtain rvhcthcr arry crrone-
ous nrlcs of law hale.bccn applicd and act
2. $'. II. nnrhcr Co. !.. Cirr of Jlilnc^t,oti!,
2:)7 lli''rr. ?7. ii.t N.\\'.:,1 ?lO; .{t,.\^n(lcr
Co. r'. City of Orvnrdnnr,::.r.t tIinn.:112,. 3l li.\\'.ld 2IJ; Drr6t,v, Cit, ot lie[.irc.
CITY.oF
CHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDW
May 13, 198I
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Bob waibel, City Planner EZ
Sewage Sludge Compost spreading proposal for Halla
Nursery property.
I was informed today by Margaret Bahr of MPCA that the proposedLetter of approval for the subject item was mailed yesterday.This presently gj.ves 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 Counc j.I will review and make
xecommendat.ions on the proposal. Please advise as to when this
can be scheduled for a City Councj.l review so that I may make
the appropriate time extention request to the PCA.
cc:BiII Monk
Russ Larson
type to be received by the Ccouncil as a partof this spe
Q, N
,; l,'4*"o,' r'*t (/
J
I Jot
Managerrs Comments
The following point j-s qermane to this item:
Procedure for Review - Thi_s is the first application of thisoffice would suggest that thew, determine general proceduresIt would be the recommendationt to carryout a detailed revj-ewly do not have the professional
ity. Thi scific revieto be followed for future applications.of this office that the Citv not attemDon each of these applicatio-ns:we simp
t_
DATE :
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
\
(
expertise to respond to potential citizen questions regarding
chemical content of the sludge, harmful affects of spreading,analysis of soil characteristics , etc. Instead, this officewould recommend that the council use this application as a modelin reviewing the procedures used by the Metropolitan Council,Soil Conservatj-on, waste Control Commission, etc. in making adetermination as to whether a specific application should beapproved or not. Further, that the council establish a proceduresimilar to that used for kennel Iicenses and stable permits whereinthis office advertises that the application has been made and thatif any person wishes to protest the issuance of the permit, thatthey must notify city hall. This notification then would triggerthe specific application being brought before the city council.If no complaints were received the permit or license is issued (Inthis case the MWCC would be notified that the City had no negative
comments in regards to the application. )
Asthe City
copying
this is the first applicati.on of this type
and recognizing that MWCC officials will beall information received on this item.
to be receivedpresent, I am
by
EltrflI{H[SSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX .I47 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
May 18, 1981
RE Halla Nursery Sludge CompostLocation
Dear Margaret:
Due to the postposement of the City Council review ofthe subject application, the City of Chanhassen here-by requests an ext,ension to the review period deadlineof May 25, l-981. As it currently stands, this itemwill be resubmitted for Council consideration at itsJune 1, I98I meeting. Confirmation of said June 1, I9B1review will be made on Thursday May 28, 1981. If youhave any questions or comnents on the above, pleasE donot hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bob WaibelCity Planner
Nancy Schumacher
Don Ashworth
Bi I1 l,tonk
Russ Larson
--
CITY.OF
Ms. Margaret Bahrc/o Minnesota Pollution Control Agency1935 W. County Road 82St. Paul , MN 551L7
crrY'oF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937- 1900
MEMORANDUM
It{ay 14, 1981
Don Ash$rorth , City ,.r.n",
.., ,rl.
Bob Waibel, City Planner l; /
I"lunicipal Wastewat,er Sludge Compost Land SpreadingProposal, IIaIla Nursury Property
I
2
3
Attached please find the following received from MPCA
and MWCC regarding the subject item.
Proposed letter of approval
Specific application requests
MPCA recommendations for application of Municipal Wastewater
Sludges on land dated August 1978
Margaret. Bahr of MPCA will be present Monday evening to answerquestions the Council may have regarding the attached.
As f have indicated to you, the 1ocal governments have unt,il
l,lay 26, 1981 to impose conditions on the proposed application.
Ms. Bahr, in her Letter of April 15, 198I, has stated thatany such conditions are to be in accordance with article L0,473.5L6,subdivision 3 of the Waste Management Act of 1980 whereinimposition of conditions by local governments are to be madeonly in the manner and only to the extent authorized and
approved by the Metropolitan Council and t,he MPCA.
A brief descripticn d the request is that the Metropolitan
waste Control Commission will deliver sludge compost to the
Hal1a Nursery property to be stored at four various
Iocations on the property. The application and incorporation
of the compost is to be carried out by Hal1a in accordance
with the conditions of the permit on the land shown as sites
426, 427, and 428 on the attached aerial photos.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
In the proposed letter of approval received today from the MPCA,it is noted that I4PCA is relying upon the local governments tonoti.fy potential interested parties. If it is the desire of thecity Council to carry out such a notification it would be adviseableto request a review time extention until comments from any interestedparties are received. Since the Carver County Board is to reviewthis proposal in the same manner as the City Council , the corunentsand the conditions of the City Council on the request will beforwarded to the County Commissioners for their information.
In the revi.ew of a similar request for S1udge application tothe Fox property in southern Chanhassen, this office recallsthat there were questionsraised by the Council with respectto Local drainage and water courses. The Chanhassen Wetl-and
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 \rhich is inthe Riley Creek Watershed. The soils maps indicate that the
slopes on the site range from 0-12t with the majority of thesite having slopes of less than 68. At its closest point,
the area upon which the sludge is to be applj.ed is 1,000 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
for Iand spreading in the southerly portions of site 327 and
328 that $riII be in compliance with table 2 on page 10 of the
PCA recommendations for application.
The above cornments on exj-sting conditiorE on and around subject
site have been prepared sole1y for general city Counc j.1 j-nform-
ation. For questions and corunents regarding the technical merits
of sludge compost. application, reference should be made to the
attached material supplied by MPCA and MWCC.
(
l..ot',*'
5LLOCLS:-
ALt.a.
, i tt r-t (v() c) €tt& ** 2'A lllnci,;1:,t-ccttit nq r1
lnu*tosLuclXe,l.r\tls,- a to<L
/. Uc,t& lllanct c|t /.t U.rLT aci 4-/qqa
17_3. 5l G a-tcl.d-,u/t S L(.l'rl\3 (u D/\€tt r,.C
,ctc X
{
C opttlrif c.taL-!-o-<tJ --roi*Lt
-4 Y,1 / l->)4 (o1cLL+'l.o].J,.-LC 5/)C c
*-J--. - Co /tt- m e tL- - a* _ p to rcL& __QallL!1:_a;tpaLaL
-C./' o 5dQ .t)1eQ.(5 a-lL - /7P_CA_ _cLh:;ui--+1.4o_u_ ct_
L6tL: trt>1.acttcr- ,c- 1) L0 [)CPnCl -:Crl{c. - 1 --opprcu aL
U-TL aicl ctLl /{oumsl
r-tts ,tn%t dr'tr
Cr)t tltiq'l LL oQS. -flr^ .1)topo,x,! CLpf[VLl
n u.,rl +(-)]l.r
L ,J
r1r.(L )'l-pi c/ap-\ /Ll
t -).lAiLL{L
d cu-l,I
l)._7,1 (c)t
5 /o cahttru.+u-f
-t l>t cCC\ -LLr1
(L,p/> r 0u cr\
CL f-r /t,cL .+Y".,.0\
--bu,,- -:Ltsc{6,'irl -C/' co,./Lch cLLi. ._aLLtt^-rsk_ _lo ba_
---u4c(Uec/, //r- jl' ,ut ckctSOty L'cLp/)l61ta-2 fL d,e,ncctl
((
+
--D) -fr:>Cl-,:'f;(--
RECEIVED
tilAy 14 tg8l '
CIIy OF CHANHASSEN
TO
1L
i'/iii':i'te$fijtl Poliutir.:i'r Coi'tj'rcl Agonci,
1'IO.,1
Suili I ;CI: PitOnOStiD I-IITTIR Op AppROV II, fOft LANDSFREADIN
l,ru;it clt,..tt,r.rTl,n SI,L;DG]J COi'iP
iihcrm It IIay Concern
llod4cS' E.4-1,{;1ssq5.' , P.x.
ch i :5 !r,t/pT d i! /;1.r;/,.lev e t opmen t arr dIllcility lic(,/:+t7 Ser:tionSoli cl ancl Ilazarcibus \','astc DivisioD
i1.tlY 1 2 ll;:l
G
Inc.i osed is a copy of a Lettel, oPol Ir.ttion CoDtr<..r1 Agcncr- (llpc..', )
IU(} Lropol.i tan \iaste Control Coudnj.of cltcmical 1y ancl thcrintrlly stall
f Io;) the lletropolitan r,!'astcrrater
prirrnte lancl of llall.a ilurser.ies,(lilas,l(a,, l!irnesot i1 f or re purposoIiIi.',liic mit-ttCt: for s;oiI en1';.c:h:rrc.
f A1>proval the innesot a
roDosre s to issne to the
SSIOII i,l\l'Cc) f or. 1an dsp read i" r) gi l i zerl composted sludge
Tle atmell t. Plant 1.o tlie250 Olcr t Plai.ts illyd.c of supl:15'ing nr.rtrients a.rrdnt.
l
'I
i!')
s a)u l'
i'e ,s l; c ti
In'r,, c<.:r]inents clr tlues.Lio!1s concerlti.ng thissholrld be directetl to llar..garet A. Brihr at\ritlriu 1-1 da5,s of the (iate oI thj,s letter.
hopc. that 1oca1 officials rvi11paIt ies ,
not ify al):,/ pe'rtelrtiaLl j,
p:'crpc; s tt d lrf irlovir.l(61:l)2C7-:r716
Iin c,l osure
Copics ol this; uo L.iuc, :tncl enclosut,e to :
Ceot'ge 1i. Lrrsh<.r:', Mctropol.il au l,laste Con.LlolIIs. ],cbecca Floocl , iletropolitan .li'as 1:c Ccrntr.ol.
Lolve 1 l. Tlrornpsou, liett,opolitrn CouncilIIa11a, Nr.rr-series, Chaska'Yirgi-nta Hnr.ri.s, Cat:vc-r Countv Ilnviroirrnental
'8ob li'ai.bcI, C:'.iy of ChanhasscirJoseph }]caton, Chai.rmeu, Ca::vcr Ctouil1,y ljoal'd
Corn'rri.lt s i c,: r cls:' 'f()rn Ilrri j I ion , ,',lai.or:, C j i:y oi Cirxnl)a..jr.ien
Cr.;ntniss i o:r
Corruni s s i.on
Set vices
o.[
. .. (,:t2)'..::''/..27 lt',I 'r(,4'l \
1131, ,,rrr.l Ctu:,r,, pii);ij i-lt2, ll;.,t,r,,rrl.r ilinires(,1:r 5:.,1t3
li ,',.1,r;j; O;a,.j i)!,i,,1r,,,1i. r,-r(l,i_r-.!rClL:.i"..,,,1.1.]|:hi.Lrl._.(_rt,:.lCr
Fc; r; L;'1^"1r'1 1t ; "',';"r.'
...-..L,
lrlr. George l'i. LusherChief Administratorlrletropolitun l!'aste ContIol Commissj_on
35O IIet:.o Srlua:..e Bu j.1di n [i7t h 8; Ilober.t Strcets5L. Paul, i,linnesota S4101
ttI.Y 12 l)'il
therm:r115'
ile L r'<r
li(..nt :,it'. LLIShet' :
T!:i.s is in rt-spouse to )'our ploposal of A1.,ril 3, 19g1,rvhere j-n pcl:mi.ssion \,,.as reqt-lestcd to app11,- sludge compostf ron the IIe t1'o plant to the pr:i\rate fiiia'of rruirn llr^r""rvlocatcd in Section 25, Tor,;nship 116N, RallSc 23\1, Cit-v ofCharrhasscu Carver County. puriuant io ,.,Ii.r]nesoti srotries ,Chapl;e's 115 and 116, as amendecl , ancl in a.c.cot dance tvithpr'ovisions of I',iational pollutatrl: Dischar.ge EliminationS5'stern (NPDIS) permj.t Nunber niioO29B15, iuch approval isgr:altted sucjcct to the folloxing conciiiions:
(1) Compost to be app).iecl s;hal1 be aCequatelyItn(l clicl;'ticu,111. stabilizccl lirrd oi.rtaj.ticll irour t.irePl ant .
(2) Corrpost a-pr:liciition .slr:r1.1 l.rc -l j-n:itc.d toLlctropolj.tan'l\'rste Control Conrrniss i on (i!\{CC) .Sj.tes.:i26-?2?, tot,rling tiS acrL,s , as dcl j.ucatecl 1, ,1*nudated April 3, 1.981. or f i1e with the l!ir)nesota pollutlon
Clonrr-o1 Agcncy ( )IICA ) .
( 3 ) Tlre i\lt'JCC I:as c!etermiilecl the conceDtrat ion ofcaclnirrrr: and avaiInLlc ni t::ogcn of .e compost.Birscci orr tiris iir jlor.rrrrtion, lrppf ic:tt j oit l.:LLcs .sjrar.LL L,llirrij.1:od to tha-t qus.ntity of tornpost rvhich u.oul-cl supplyno_ mc\.1'e than 2. O lrounds ol cadn)itu/t per ircre . Bef orcdeli.,'r-,r1,, the IIli,CC s;ha1l no1;if y the ]lpCri oI the coml)osttluz',rr1;i-tics to l:c <.li_.1iver"cri, thL dEite of clelivr:r.1.,cornp(;.it r;"tcs to be appJ.iccl , and thc plopose(l clate o.tlitnds;1-,r'cadilg. '.lire l.lpC,l s;itall_ als;o i)e notiiicd of tl:cacLuoI dr"tc oI li."ndsprcad j.IU of colJll)osjL.
(
lir. Ccor!Te IV. l, rl
PagL-'l\,'o
Nrff i 2 l!3i
ar
(4) Compost shall ltot be app.rlied on slopes exceedingsix perccnt until such time it can be inmerliatelyincorporated into the soj_I. Compost sha1I not bespread on that area of Site 329 soil mapped as HayCenfoam, 6-12 percent slopes (HaC2).
(5) Separati.on distances that are adequate to preventd.irect runoff into drainage clitches or t,raterl,rays shalIbc maintaitled when stol:ing or applyinq compost. Adista:nce.of threo hundred feet must_ be maintainedbctr','eell corrrposl spre;.dingi ancl any dry rurr.
(C) The f,llcc shall ensu::e tl.lat aI1 clcliYercd conlr"rGr ti-s 1:roperly spre.re ol) the application site as "oo., osfeasible and in accordance \rith site apptication plansand this approval During any temporary periocl ofstockpiling, appropriate neasures shaIl be provicled asrlecessary to prevent runoff from the stockpile.
(7) ff tlle compost docs not. meet the temperaturerequiremenh for a process to Further Reduae pathogens
(PI'RP), pubLic access to the sprcading Sites shali l:econtrolleci for one year from the time of sludge application.
(8) The is;s;traitrcc of thj.s apl:rova1 is indepcnCel.iL cithc gr:alttin,1 r:r:' nol- gr;inLing <.,f necessary 1:c:rntit s; or:othcr: righ t'-..r by I oc;rl- r.,.tiiLs of gover,.:rnent. to tho 1..11::ii. i:r.t.rilr'rirj"ch IIray ]-r a rcclu j.rcd b1' applica]:1e 1ar.r. Tire is;s.irr:.rr:;l,of l-his pr-:rrii t shal.l t1ct. exerpt tllc I,.lr-nio.:tee jir<;::i
cc,rr j?l inncir r.;-i th e',try l-<..rc;.,1 r:erJuir-e cnt.r uiiicli ntay ):,,,rap;iJ-icab1e.
ff ]'or' hrrve a[y qriesti()rrs r:e:rarr,].j.ng thj-scoifir.:'r. :!J::garci: -r,. Ei1::r i,.'_ ,:).i'!-2'! -\.5 -
i,'l t(.j'l
aljr)t:(,'\':r i'- I plr:;r.. :.
fi:incr,':.,.i ,'r
lll'.12'i.r r:t,,--i-
l:j. ji.,Li,(;,.:. .lr;rrr,, ; :,tr-1 rri).1 i.t .tr l:ai:jL,r C.,lr l ,-._..i, Cot\,.' j : _,:.rLr,.;rr.l '.1'it.',:: i:.-._:1, lt,'t: -ull.) r.i.i:i::r Cor:,r:i-((lc riiriu;(i ct', .l oi lo;.:r; i!(j ),.)(l(r)
(9) I'his a.pprovai e>:ir-ir es Decerirl.,er
Ilo.llrcl' ll . niassr.)', )). l-.
Ch-i-6rf , l:r ()ctL-[ri I).]\rit-1,(,; 3n', ar;Irj
ri:t' j Ii l, .' llcVi- r, I :r;r- i <.t:Sc,lici i,lrii lla,za..,-ir(.),ir-: i,/a:.1j(- r) i-\,j i ii),)
!.1r. (i,:rrir.{c \i'
Plgt-. Thr<'r..:
I,u s, ir il r
ii: Itijiy 12
CC :ila11a Nur.series, Ch a sl<aVirginia ll:u.ris, Carver- Cout)tv Environnrcnta.l
Bob l';&ibel, City of Chanliassen
Joseph Ncnton, Chairman, Carver County lloarcl
Commi-ss ion ers
Tom llami I ton , !,{a.yor , C j-ty of Chanhasscn
Serv ices
of
Cor,nission
stabi I i zed
i ,i-.
-:C'Ii,.,!^./'' .'.,
] L:l C: : t
./i,,ll l, r! i : :
lil(':' if'lt \:
.'
i' :'ilir
i. r:.'-' ,-,
,1 -l :
April 3, 1981
i'lr. Lorri s Breirrrilurst
l'li nnesota Pollution Control Agerrcy
i935 l.lest County Roaci B-2
lioscvi I 1e, I'1i nnesota 55i13
Dear llr. Breimhurst:
The lk:tropol itan l,hste Control
app1.y chcnicaliy and tlr:,r'ma1 1y
{"i l: .'
t.:. .
re o Lros ts p erm ils i on
(: oill cst€d slux eto
r-i'
lt)
Ltu
, r.,."rr''lI\,.1
:, I t -:'. 'IL]r'l.",,. ,...- ..}l
,1,i.J.^ r - '"-'
to
landat tlre site ciescribed belor,r.
The larrd is ovneC by:
Ha11a llursery
250 Grea t Plains Blvd.
Chaska, I'ii nnesota i:5 318
Thc land descri p ti on is:
5ll .li of Sec t i on 25 , Toi,rnsh i p
Carver Courr ty
i16 i,lorth, Ilingc 23 llest,
The application forn en.J cthE)' pertincnt inforrr;atiorr nrlcessal'y i:o
eyalurte the appliiaiion has i,cr:n attached to l copj, ol' 1.his lr.,r;t.ci'
and serrt. to Ilargar'ei. 3.ihr o.: tir: i'lPCA.
A resporrse to thjs apuiication is requested es soon as 1;ossilrlcin order to put this proJrirn jnlc efiect.
Yours trul y,
L.t
c (-I !o u s hci"
[ihi r:i' A'-irrri r,i slt ,rlu"
CijL : Il C I' : iii',li : ','r
cc:I,l.1rE a rc i. li. lr,'l)', iilC,r,
Cair\,ar|' (l0.,rtl/ !a; l"(i
ll,r 'l ']., llLrr':ri./
I
,ll
L";i.i,\t)
(
API'!- ic,fi.]1
,iDni([5S
cOi;P0sT U flLl7
ST,ECiF]C I.i,Pi. i CATi O
l TTnr!
I o r nll-,''l_
Donr I d llalla, Il,rlla iiurseri,DATE April 3, i98i
250 Grcht Plain-c Blvd.
Chasl<a, I,1i nnesota 55318 (6'12) 4,iti-6555
'-126 3?.7 -)a't
?5 ?5 ac
1t6 t(116 N 116 iJ
23 t,l 23 r,,l LJ V.
1?)n 25 30
nLli'sery s i:0. k -
SITI }IUi,lBER
SECTI()N
TOTi,ISIIIP
RANGE
sIzE (ACrlES)
CROP
YiELD GCAL
PLAI|TJiiG DATES
Coirilos'i hPPLICA'II0il
D.4TIS
NEARESI I|OUSE
RES i nlrlTLr.L
Dilil.0Prl!EilT
ROAI)
llA't'IP. t!Er.L
SU'{FA[I IJATEII
Di'lAil,l;1GE DlTCll
-1 lr:e.i,-d"Y-lt Lir.[ji-d--
.1s, _1qr.1 1- 1, s -ngr1i j-!r I
> 200 ft.
50 ft. -_*--
> 200 ft.
.._---_-_.-
c1 'Llre i i'a d
Api)l.lC{T0p. Drrr,el d ljal ja
AP!'}LICii'ii0;l t';ti.i,,',li:t) it'i (i;i:(:C)ii.t t: c;, Sr ltrr:n.iclia-,r
'l2c:
1i6 ri
,1 t.t
_-)-
> 600 ft.