05-04-1981 Council Agenda//oc /Mct,-arZ
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, MAY 4, 1981, 7:30 p.m.
CHANHASSEN MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 690 COULTER DRTVE
CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance )
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OE MINUTES
I . 7:30 p.m. - Cornmission Minutes.
I]NFINISHED BUSTNESS
2. 7:45 p.m. - American Legi.on Club, Re-analyze Desire to proceed.
with Sewer and Water Feasibility Study.
3. 8:00 p.m. - 96th Street Sanitary Sewer, Consi.der Public Inputon Inclusion of Area in Federal 201 Program.
4. 8:30 p.m North Service Area Special Assessments, Requestsfor Reconsideration :
@
a
b
MacPherson Property, 3941 Chaska Rd.
Joseph Boyer, Boyerrs Sterling Estates
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
9:00 p.m
NEW BUSINESS
Council Procedures allow for the presentation ofitems. If action is required, the item will betabled to the next regular agenda to aIl_ow forpublication and review of items prior to finatconsideration.
5. 9:15 p.m
5. 9r45 p.m
7. 10:30 o.m
Zoning Ordinance Amendment /Cond i t iona I
Request for Establishment of a Driving
Pry zmus .
Use Permit
Range, John
Final Development Plan Review, Fox Chase Addition,Derrick Land Company (Request to Reconsider PreviousApproval).
Final Development
Lundqrcn Bro thers
PIan Review, Near Mountain Project,
Construction.
CONSENT AGENDA
8. 11:00 p.m.
b.
COUNCIL PRESENTATION
Lyman Blvd., County 17 to Lol, ResolutionApproving County Construction p1ans.
Final Plans and Specification Approval,T.H. 169 and 212 fmprovements.
9 11. : 15 p.m. - Coordinat
Actinq Ma
- Co,,r11:30 p.m. - Adjournme
ttee, Minnetonka Labs,
ux.^e--:Jr.^
ing Commiyor Nevea
A copy of the staff report and supporting documentation being sentto the City Council will be avaifili.-uit", 2:00 p.m. on Friday.
Item 1
MlNUTES
I
I
SPrcIAL CITY @uNCtL IIrNUIES - April 27 , LggL
A speciaL nEeting of tle clnnhassen city cor:ncil was calIed to order on l4cnday, April
27 , L98L, at 7:30 p.m. by Actjng l4ayor NeveatD<. TIre follcs/ing nErnbers \dere present:
Acting }hyor Neveau>a, Corncilnen Svrenson, C€virtg and Horn. Mayor HanLiltcn v,as absent.
Actjng lrayor NeveanD( requesterl a IrrnEnt of silence to wistr Mayor Hamilton r,,,e11 in tds
surgerlr.
OONDITIONAL USE PEF!4IT RENEWAL REQT]EST, DAI,E GREB{:A nDtion was rnade by Councilnnn
Cevi-ng and seconded by Councilman Hcrn to table actj-on on this itqn l]rrtil May 18,
1981. The followirg voted in favor thereof: Actjrg Mayor Neveaux, Councilren Srrenson,
Gevirlg and Horn. lio negative votes. I'Iotion carrj.ed.
DEVEIOPI.,INiI AGREM{ENI,PARK I PROPffiTY, INSTAI'II WEB:The City Attornqf revie!,,ed tle
outli.rle of the Proposed MenDrandrnn of Intent for Park one.
A noti.on r.v:as made Ly Cotrncilnen s\,ienson and seconded by Corlrrci]rttan llorn that tltis
lEfiDrardun of Int€nt should not be considered by t]e City Council ultil s(rre neetfug
dat-e after siqtjng of the Itaus Anderson/Blocnrberg @rpanies/InsEant Web co'rtracts
for tlre do,mtor,vn redeveloFlrEnt plan. Iqction witldrahln.
A rction was made b1, Cor.lnciJ.nral }trorn ard seconded by CounciLiran Gevlng to table action
on t}Ie Park One agirearent pending resolution of agreerEnt by t}le attorne%
Tfre fo1l*dlg voted j]-t favor tlrereof : Actjng Mayor litrevearD(, councilnEn str€nson,
Geving and }brn. Itro negative votes. I4ction carried.
taNlls DEVEIOPMB\II OONIRACT: The Assistant city Attorney presented his reporE dated
April 23,198I, to the City Council. The City @uncil discussed tleir desire for
adequate screening for tle tianrs outdoor storage a-rea and recalled previous actions
and discussions il regards to this issr.re and other conditions of previous alrEn&IEnts.
WEST 78TI] STREET ATiD I'DN|EREY DRTVE ,JIM BURDIG(:
A fit3tion was made by CourEilnan Horn and seconded bY CcrnEiLnan
-
S\^Enson to aI4)rove
ReccrmEndation No. 2 as outlined in the Assistant CiLy Attorneyrs report dated April
23, :rgf,L, stating ttrat staff be djrected to prepare alrEn&rEnt 1angn:age r.*rich uould
qUbshl"" provi;ions for fu1l screeni-ng fron public view. The folto,vi-ng voted in
f-.yor ther&f : Actilg Mayor Neveaux, 6ouncj-Ineq Sr,venson, @vi11g and Horn. No negative
votes. l4otion carrled.
CouncilnEn Sr,,enson and C€ving will r"nrk with staff to develop an apprcprjate screeJriIlg
plan for the open =tor.ge "r;..- Orurrg.= m6t be consistent witfr tfre usps in tlre zonjag
ordinance and the wertaf oistrict, oi il'<' f,/"*'' "/:' A''^':'-;--t r9't f-' '<'
"f.c. ^/i---. / Y--'' -a #tio., #"^GE"'n/c",tr1""" s',re.hson and seconded by 6ouncilman cering ttrat all
contracts requjjjrlg cowcil action, either by State law or under ordjnance ' must
;;g.,* pre-1xred-or ,."i.oa ana'approvea r,y trre ci-ty Attorney's office prior to
sr:Irnission to the city c"r."1. Tha ?orlcrvfuiq voted jn favor thereof : Actjrg l4ayor
Nevealx, CouncilnEn a'\*,1;;;-G"v;;-u"a i"Il'' ' [Io negative votes ' !4otion calried'
SlGN PERMIT FEQUEST,
DeveloprEnt D i-rector, Scott Martin revieved the srgn reque st wittr ttre C
CcnnunitYity Councit.
Arptionwasrnadebycounci]rnanrlornandsecondedlryCor.:ncilrnanC.evillgtoapprovet}e
Brrd-ick SiqI request contingent upon thq f:llT]Jlo conditions:
I . TI-'at t}re ;iA; bc rennved wtren al l ttte rots are sold '
2. The o^lner provicle najntenance and clean up around the sign'
(
.t
SPECIAL CITY @T}iCIL I,I.INI.ITES - APRTL 27 , L98I -2-
SIGI PEII4IT REQIJEST !.iESI 781H STREEI AIID I'IONIEREY DRT\E J]M BURDIq(@NIINUED:
3. The setback of the sigrr shall be 25 feet.4. That after the sale of all the lots !Ir. Burdick sutnit a
request for a di-rectiorial sign for the area to the Siqr
ConrLittee and tllat ttre o<i-sting Frontier l,leats sign be nDvedto a nore suitabLe Iocaticn on tlre private prolErq/ of Mr.
Burdick cn a tenporaqr basis r:ntil a perlrErent djrectj-onal
sign j-s erected.
The follc,wjng voted in favor thereof : Actjng Mayor Neveaux, Cor.nciLrEn S!ie!.rson,
Gevjng and Horn. No negative votes. I\4otion carried.
t
CIANHASSmi AI4ERICAII IEGION, SE[']ffi. AND W.CER E][D{SION: A nDticn was rade by Cogtciklan
on this j-tqn to }I,ay , 1981.
The follori-ng voted in faror tlrereof : Actirg l,layor Nevealrx, CounciLrEn S\Enson,
Gevjng and Horn. llo negative votes. Itlotion carried.
I98O F]NINCTAL STATM.4E\TI AND ATDIT REPOKI: Dcn EgneII and Joe Ftoehling frcrn
Iong and Ftoehling, Inc. r^rere present to discuss tjte 1980 filancial state(ent and
audit reporE. No action llas taken by ttle City @uncil.
I,AKE ANID SIXCRELINE ORDINANG REVIEI/1I: The Ci ty Council revieued recolrlEndations of tle
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Ibtion carried.
198I DISEASP TRE AI,ID LIBRARY/CITY HALL PIANTING PIAN:Giver the uncert-ajltY of
of the 1981 Diseased TreeState frmdjng, the City Council tabled act ron on revl-ew
Program.
City Brgjneer,BilI l4cnk uas present to discuss t]te City IIa 1I /Li-braq, Planting PIdI.+JNf, negative cqn(En ts \.Ere received frcrn tle City @uncil.Staff \"ri11 proceed w
plantjlg in accordance with tlrc plan and within ttE budget.
aI discussion
ith
T,{
RESOLUIION, @UNIY ROAD I8: Gener
ffiourrci.r
l_ous l"*i
, City of Chaska Carver @unty l-n regards to tle
construction and aligrurent of New @trrty Road 18.action was taken and, as such,
the previous @unciI action rsnains unchanged (Re solution 81-08) .
SIGIA@ FOR @l4I1tJN1 TY FACILITY BLIILDINGS:A nption was nade Lry cor':rrci]man slrerson
and seconded by Cor,rnc ilnran ceving to aPProve a budget arrEn&rent to jnclude signage
new m\rnicipal facilities not to exceed The follol.rjng voted jrr favor
&
for tj:e
thereof
vot3s.
Neveaux, C-ourtcilnpll S\'ren son, Geving and Horn -No negative
Act jng }4ayor
I4otion carried.
SPRING IOTJR OF MJNI CIPAL PROIECIS:The cj-ty Council set Saturday, May 2, I98l'
the date for the tour of rnunicipal Proiects.at 9 : 00 a.m. as
$5 ,000.
t--A notion was nade by courcilman Cevilg and seconded by Courrcilnnn Horn to adjourn
the neerillg. rne for ro"r"jli-'\rl*J- ir., iu*, rh"r;;; -i\"ti]lg !4ayor Neveaux, cor:ncihen
Horn, sr,enson ano cev:rrqf
''llo-negative votes: - Motion carried'
TL[4E: 12: 30 a'm'
Don AstniDrth, Ci-ty }4anager
MINUTES OF
CHANHASSEN
HELD APRIL
CHANHASSEN
THE REGULAR
PLANNING COI"!I4ISSI|]N 14EETING8, l98l , AT 7:30 P.M.
C ITY HALL
Members Present:
Members Absent: [,1
Staff Present: B
Site P'l an Amendment
Chai rman A.
Thomps on , L
Thomoson
Partr.i dge,
Conrad, H
C. l,latson, J.
Nozi ska and M
Thompson
Wai be l ,B. Foreman
Dayco Concrete, Inc.:Req uest,
Mr. l,lai bel told the Committee that in speaking
the representati ve from Da-yco Concrete he had expl ai ned
him that the City is planning to use alI high Dressure
Shi e l ded Amber Lighting and that should be in the plan
s ubmi t to the City Engineer.. Mr. l,la i bel also advi sed
sentati ve t hat he should orepare to file a Land Scaoing
so i t wi I I not de lay thei r bui ldi ng permi t.
wi th
to
Sod i um
he is to
the repre-
Bond soon
Ms. l'rlatson asked how the Site Plan change would effect ParkDrive? Would it become a dead end street? Mr. I,Jaibel explainedthat the changed site olan would change Dayco's access to Hwy 5
but that the site needed both accesses. Park Road woul d be the
main roa d to Dayco in the future.
Mr.
East wilI it
stated thatri ght of wa.y
F'l ouroware.
J . Thomnson as ked i f by movi ng the bui I di ng to the
af f ect vi sabi 1 i ty comi ng down Park Dri ve. Mr. l,lai bel
the Dayco bui I di ng wou 1d be setback 30 feet from the
and that the bui ldi ng is setback the s ame di stance as
Mr. J. Thomoson made a motion to recommend to
Council to aporove the new Site Plan drawn on 2/27 /B\
(P'l anning Commission Exhibit A) recommended by the Ci
December 22, 1980. Second was made by Ms. [,latson. Mall ayes.
Si te Plan Amendmen t Request, Lyman Lumber:
th
by
tyoti
e City
Bob Davi s
Counci'l on
on carri ed,
14r. l^lai bel oresented a drawing of the
The new bui I di ng wiIl not add to any run off
Thompson asked if the new site plan could be
Throhdahl, a representati ve from Lyman Lumber
Lyman Lunber wanted to buj ld a storage shed.
new si te
problems.
exolained.
plan
Mr.
Mr
M
P
poi nted outIt woul d be
that
an
4-8-8.I P lann i ng Commi ssi on Mi nutes
Page 2
aluminum si ded build
on thei r p r ope rty.
used for short term
that woul d match the rest of thbuilding woul d be 24' x 60' andage. Thi s bui I di ng was not in
i ng
The
stor
e bui1ding
woul d bethe ori gi nalor thatsite pl an because Lyman Lumber did not forsee the use f
much storage space when the pl an was first drawn up.
Mr. Wai bel stated that the new buildi
total ly screened, there is hi gh ground in the E
other bui 1di ngs are in front of this one. Mr.if the bui l di ng would be heated. It was answer
bui I di ng is just for storage and no heati ng wou
ng
ast
H.
ed
ld
would be
and the
Noziska askedno, the
be needed.
approva I of
by J . Thompson.
Mr. L. Conrad made a motion to recommend
thi s site pl an request (Exhi bi I 4/8/81). Seconded
Moti on carri ed, Ayes-6,
Ea s emen t Vacati on Reouest, Lots 7 & 8. Bl ock 3. Chanhassen
Estates
Mr. Randy Tri vol i a expl ai ned that Lots 7 & 8 had
been replatted. There was a property Iine disPute thatis cleared up now but would like to ask that the Com-
mi ssi on woul d approve his reques t to vacate the easement on thisproperty. Mr. A. Partridge explained some of the backgroundof this case. There is a building on top of the easement already.
The lot is able to meet all the setback requirements and wouldstill be a buildable lot. There were no problems with any of
the ne i ghbors .
Counci I
ment on
seconded
Mr. M, Thompsonto hold necessary
Lots 7 & 8, BIock
the moti on. All
made a motion to recommend to
publ i c heari ngs to vacate the3, Chanhassen Estates. Mr. H
i n f avor.
the Ci ty
ease-
Noz'i ska
tt h
h
Visitor Presentation. Mr. Rod Hardy, Lake Susan l,les t:
Mr. Hardy, a representative for Lake Susan I'Jest, withdreweir application for the Subdi vi si on at L ake Susan, and requested
at this jtem be tabled indefinately. No action was taken.
Chaska Comprehen s i ve Plan:
Mr. !,lai bel went thru the report of Apri I 6' l98l
4-8-8t
Page 3
Planning Commission Minutes
and discussing Land Use, Trans
and Utility Elements of their
Commission agreed that the Citin the review of the Chaska Plthe I ndustri a l area in the Sou
The members ofthey mi ght not be able
meeti ng.
ati on, Parks and 0pen
rehensi ve P Ian. The
Chanhassen should gos to havi ng concernsst corner of Chaska,
port
Compy of
an a
thea
Space
Planning
on record
about
the
com-
overa lI
I ati ve
of
coordi nati on of Parks and trai l facilities between bothmunities, the al i enment of North Jonathan B'l vd and the
compatabil ity of the Chaska Comprehensive Sewer Plan reto the 208 Water Qual i ty lllanagement pl an and the pl ans
Chanhassen.
0pen Di scussion:
the Pl ann ing Commi ssi onto make a quorum at the
indicated
Apri l 22,
that
'I 9 B',r
Di scuss i on, 0rdi nance Rev i ew:
The Planning Commission discussed ways in which to
revi se the Chanhassen Comprehensi ve Plan and the Zoni ng 0rdi nance.It was suggested that each member I ook over the 0rdi nance and
Comprehensive plan and come up with items that should be changed.
They shoul d bri ng thei r comments to the next meeti ng.
Adjournment:
0n motion by l4s. l.latson and second by Mr. J, Thompson,the meeti ng was adjourned at Il:45 p.m.
MINUTES OF
CHANHASSEN
HELD APRIL
CHANHASSEN
THE SPECIAL
PLANN ING C()!t.!I'lISSION MEETING
'I 5, l98l AT 7:30 P.M.
C ITY HALL
Members Present: Chairman A. Partridge, L. Conrad, C. llatson,J. Thompson.
Members Abs ent:
Staff Present:
Noziska
B. l.laibel, M
Mr. Ma rk Koeg I er presented a I etter to the Planning
Commission from Hinnegasco dated Aoril 3, 1981 requesting
MUSA 1i ne inclusion.
Mr. Koegl er di scussed the cIassification of Lyma n
Bl vd and New County Road I7 wi th respect to rel ati ve to
road i mprovement funds. If classifjed as minor arteri a I s
they woul d be el i gi bl e for funds whereas col I ectors they
woul d not.
The concenses of the PI anni ng Commi ssi on was that these
streets should remain classified as collectors. The Planning
Commission feels that it'is not necessary this time, county
has no DI ans to build west of 41 and east of l0l, and would
serve as a primary access to prooosed Iand fill site D.
The Planning Commission expressed concern that I anguage
concern.i ng upgradi ng Hwy 5 be drafted to emrihas i ze the needfor uogradi ng, They al so i ndi cated that Hwy 5 be shown on
the Comprehensive Plan as an intermediate arterial as opposedto mi nor arteri al.
L and Use Plan Discussion:
. Thompson, H
Koegler
discussed the orogress of the revi ew andof the Comprehensive Plan. 14ention was
i nterceptor status, and potent i a1 changes
Mr. Koeg ler
submi ttal statusof the La ke Annto MUSA Ii ne.
made
Discussion was made of inclusion of the 96th
i nto the MUSA as per the 201 study. The Pl ann i ng
concensus was to inciude the Minnegasco property
MUSA and 96th Street area if on line on ly service
to the existing ci ty sys tem.
Street area
Commi ssi on
i nto the
was Provi ded
M. Thomoson, l.l
Page 2
Planning Commission Hinutes
Apri l I5, I981
Caoital Improvements Program:
A request was made by the Chairman that more
deta i l i.e. oroject title be gi ven provi ded as to
issues I i sted on page 9 of the impi imentati on sect
proj
the
i on .
ect
bond
0pen Di scuss i on:
Mention was made of i ncl udi ng l anguage in the solar
access secti on that address deve loper demon s trati on of adopti ng
reasonable state of the art technoloq.v for energy efficiency.
AIso, it was recommended that a statement regarding
metropol i tan scaled landfills be i ncl uded in appropri ate
secti ons of the p1an.
aCITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937- 1900
IVIE!4ORANDUM
TO:
FROlrl:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Don Ashvroxth
BiIl Monk
May 1, 1981
Utility Service to American Legion
Th
an
me
d
et
Legion's executive board rneeting is not unti.l May 6, 19gLthey request this item be tabled until the May 18, 1991ing of the City Council.
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager, Don Ash$rorth
FROM: City Engineer, Bill- !,tonk
DATE: April 30, 19 8I
SUBJ: 201 Study - 96th Street
On April 20, 1981, Virginia Harris from the County planning and ZoningOffice informed the City Council that ,,failing septic systems whichcould be corrected vj-a extension of municipat sanitary iewer systems',are no longer eligible for federal funding. This directly affectsthose homes on 96th Street vrhich !,/ere proposed to be connected tothe sanitary sewer on Kiowa with construction of a lift station.Affected property owners were notified by the County (see attachedletter) of tonights meeting to consider the community drainfield
a lternative ,
Resolutj-ons for revision of the Carver County Joint ComnunitiesFacilities Plan to incorporate use of the community drainfield system
in the 96th Street area are attached.
2
CITY OF
EIIfrNHfiSSEN
4
be
re gards
I
7610 LAREDO DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
IIET{ORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City council_
FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth
DATE: April 20, 198I
SUBJ: 201 Study, Review Current Federal Funding, Virginia Harris
Virginia Harris from the Countypresent to discuss the effectsto the 20L Study.
Zoning office wilIfederal funding in
P lann ingof changes
and
in
I have not received materialsof this meeting and, as such,Virginia' s presentation.
from Virginia to distribute inI am unaware of the fu11 scope
advance
of
rt i-s my generar understanding that a cut back in federar funding hasdereted the erigibirity of taiting septic systems which courd be corrected.via extension of municipal sanitary sewer systems,'. The only areawithin the community which would fall into lhis category would bethose homes on W. 96th Street which were proposed to be correctedvia construction of a lift station which would pump to the municiparsewer system on Kiowa. As this area was also reviewedas a Fotential area which could be served by a common drainfieldsystem, it may be soleJ,y a question of how this area is "classified".The councir may wish to take tentative action with f inal- action beingdelayed until after a response can be received by the Council fromthe City Engineer. I would only hope that j.n the anxiety of attemptingto receive free federal doll-ars that the best solution ii not foreclosedin favor of the most expedient solution.
I<T
i-
C i
(
\
PLANN ING, ZON ING AND
ENVINONMENTAL SE RV IC ES
(012) 448.3435 EXT. 225
CARVER COUNTY COU RTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH
CHASKA, M INNESOTA 55318
COUNTY OT CABVTP
April 29, 1981
Dear Proper ty Owner :
We have been informed by the flinnesota Pollution Control Agency that
due to Federal funding cutbacks they will not fund the conventional sewer
I ines requested in our 201 sewer grant application.
Therefore, your City Councilwill meet Monday, Hay 4 at 8:00
to consider the community drainfield alternative for your area. T
facilities plan shows that this is also a cost effective method fo
correcting on-site sewer failures in your area.
lf you have any questions or would like input into the Counci I decision,
please attend the Counci I meeting.
Si ncere I y,
t/-r*""*'4 A.-,.-"
Virginia R, Harris, Director
P I ann ing, Zoning and
Envi ronmental Services
VRH: mo
P,m
he
r
Nli moln,e Acti<>i/F.quol Owot t.t^ily Etnploye/
I'/HEREAS' the city of chrnhassen, carvcr county, has entered into a joint powersagreement with other citics and torvnships in carver county to .onauat a step tfaci lity planning for areas-within their .lurisJicti.ons to identify on-site sewagetreatmcnt practices to compry with rocar, state and federar .tunai.Jl;-ana
I/HEREAS, the Needs Derermination phase of the facil ity planningidentified thirteen on-site sewage treatment-system failures; in anof Tll6N, R23!v, known as Bandimeie Heights, *iinin tl," boundaries ofChanhassen, thereby establishing a n."i foi ,ore for, "f ;;;;";;;r;
s tudy area; and ,
process
area of Sect ion 25
the City ofaction in the
I.JHEREAS, thC
eva I ua ted several
compa tab i I ity and
t/HEREAS, the
process sol icited
the mos t socially
a I ternat ives eva luat ion phase
a lternat ive corrective actions
cos t e ffect iveness I and,
City of Chanhassen has in the
pub I ic participation and inputacceptable to the cit izens of
of the facility
with rega rd to
p I ann ing process
env i ronmen ta I
course of the facil ity planningas to which corrective action was
t lre study areal and,
WHEREAS , the C i ty of Chanhas sen af te rcorrect ive action which proposed
carefu I consideration selected the
That the-homes arong r'/es t g6th street within the corporate rimits of theCity of Chanhassen, in Section .25 of TlfgN, nijw be connected to the Chanhassensewer system and on-site upgrade be proposed for the three houses on pion"..Trail as the arternative beit-suitea'to'providing a rorg-turm sorution to theon-site sewage treatment problems in the'siudy area; and
. ,HEREAS, the city of chanhassen now finds that the r,linnesota poautionAgency and the Envi ronmental protection ng"n"y ,i ll no longer allocate grantfor a conventional collection system; anal-'-' '
WHEREAS, the alternative proposing that corrective action which proposes acommunitv drainf ierd svqtem for tire hon'res atong west g6th street wiir.,i, ,r.r" corporatelimits of the citv of thanhassen, in s..iion-zi or rrio* nz:w ana"on on-site upgradefor the three homes on Pioneer ri"ir ii-"ii" ]6st effective under i"a"i"r guiderinesand is an arternative that wi, be.suited to fioviaing a rong term sorution to theon-site sewage treatment problems in tf,e sirai'ir.u.
N,r'/, THEREF,RE BE rr RESOLVED bv the city councir of rhe city of chanhassen,Carver County, Hinnesota, as follows:
l' The resolution a.dopted october 20, 1980 selecting a conventional collectionsystem for the \./. !5 Srreet study'arla is t"."Uy"r..inJ"J. - - ''
2' That the alternative proposing a community wastewater facility for the homesalong |y'. 96th Strcct and an on_sitc up grade for the tf,ieu no,les atongPioneer Trair be imprcnrentcd to neet it,. rong t.-., i"*ogI- t rI" ir"n t n".0.of the arca and imprernentation of thii arternative be contingent upon theavai r'-rbi ritv of state and fcderar f unds for si"p ir-"^i"ii.o'i'r , or ,r,uConstrUction G ran ts proqram.
Cont ro I
funds
The carver county Joint conrnunities Faciritics pran is hcreby amended tosubstitute this resolution adopted luv a, iggf io. tte resolutiondated-0crober 20, rg8o and found "n ttu i"9!-"ntitred ,'Exhibir g.BB. rPlan Sec t ion. ',
Passed and adoDred by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, this4th day of Hay, tl8l.
3
Thoma s llamilton,Hayo r
)
)
)
STATE OF H INNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARVE R
C ITY OF CHANHAS SEN
I , the unders igned C i tand State, hereby certify tot record in my office and4th aay of May, 1981.
yC
hat
du I
,:If ll "?O.for.the City of.Chanhassen, said Counrythe foregoing is a true and correct copy of resolutiony adopred by the City Council of said Ciiy on'itre
D on Ashwor th,C ity C ierk l'lanage r
WHEREAS - The City of Chanhassen has completed
treatment facil ity altcrnatives with
environmental compatabi I ity, and
rev iew of several wastewater
regard to cost effectiveness, and
WHEREAS - The City of Chanhassen, in the course of its review, solicited public
comment and input of acceptability of each alternative.
WHEREAS - The City of Chanhassen after careful consideration, has selected the
alternative which proposes construction of a community drainfield waste-
water treatnrent faci lity and a collection system to serve the !r. 95th St.
area and on-site upgrade of the problem systems on Pioneer Trai l as a
cost-effective, environmentally sound and socially acceptable method of
wastewater treatment for these homes, and
WHEREAS - A suitable location for the community drainfield wastewater treatment
faci lity will be required, and
WHEREAS - The final location chosen for the drainfield treatment facility is
contingent upon verification of favorable soi I conditions,
Nol,/ THEREFoRE BE lT RESoLVED - by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen,
Carver County, Hinnesota that the City of Chanhassen
wil I take all possible steps to negotiate an agreement
with the property owner(s) of an appropriate sites to
the end of acquiring a site for a location of the
community drainfield.
Passed and adopted by the City Counci I of the City of Chanhassen, this
4th day of I'tay , I !B I .
Thomas Ham i lton, Mayor
STATE OF H INNESOTA
COUNTY OF CARV ER
C ITY OF CHANIIASSEN
)
)
)
l, the undersigned City Clerk in and for the City of Chanhassen, said
and State, hereby certify that the forcgoing is a true and correct copy ofof record in my office and duly adoptcd by the City Council of said City on4th day of May, l!81.
Coun ty
resolut ion
the
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager
WILLIAI{ O, SCHOELL
CAFLISLE MAOSON
JACK T. VOSLER
- JAMES R OFIR
HABOLO E, OAHLIN
LARBY L, HANSON
JACK E, GILL
- THEOOOFE O, KEMNA
JOHN W. EMONO
KENNETH E, AOOLF
WILLIAM R ENGELHAFIOT
- R, SCOTT HAFRI
GEFALO L, AACKMAN
/.
^/1.
-
SCHOELL & MAtr)SON, INC.
ENGINEEFIS ANO SUFIVEYOFS
{612) 93&76{]'l . 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH . HOPK|NS. MTNNESOTA 5534A
April 27, 1981
City of Chanhassenc/o tttr . Bitl Monk, City EngineerP. O. Box l-47
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Subj ecl :
Gentlemen:
Pursuant
on the above
Boyer Site -
Assessment Appeals
Boyer and McPherson Properties
to your request, we herein transmitt our co[unents
named sites.
LolL 7 , Block 1, Boyers Sterling Estates
197 3
19 80
Assessment: l Unit = S4,689.00Assessment: l Unit = $5,477.86
The 1973 assessment \lras assumed to be levied for theof the lot with the existing structure. As can be seen onattached drawing, Lot 7 can be subdivided into two lots.would have 20,100 square feet and the other 22,aOO square
One would have 100 feet of frontage and the southerly oneapproximately 110 feet. Quite simply, the criterj-a is mettwo units.
Mark McPherson Site LoL 7, Schmids Acre Tracts
portion
the
Onefeet.
for
197 3
r980
Assessment: None
Assessment: 5 Sanitary Sewer Units $11,320.00
The 1980 assessment assumed that Lot 7 could be divided as
shown on the attached drawing. Sanitary sewer exists along theentire east edge of Lot 7, and there is sufficient frontage alongthe east s j-de to qet five 100-foot lots. We assumed that a street,of proper right-of-way width, could be dedicated and constructedon the east edge of Lot 7.
It should be pointed out that the policy of assessinq a lateralcost v,/ithout street was used in other cases i-n the north area.The Kenneth Durr and Mork sites are close by examples. Ourassumption is that a road could be dedicated as we have shown on
City of Chanhassenc/o tqr. Bill Monk, City Engineer
Page Two
SGHOELL & MAtrlSON, INc.
Very truly
SCHOELL &
April 27, 1981
the attachedstreet) could
Highway No. 7
JROrr : mkr
enclosure
drawing. Access to get to the property (and
be obtained from the north, or possibly off the new
of
In aI1 cases where the assessment rate for ', lateral costwithout street" was used, we did assume a 1ayout in order toverify conformance with l-ot size. If the property would be plattedin a different configuration, the number oi units-couId change.
A1I things considered, we continue to recommend the assessmentbe left as is in order to be consistent with previously estabrishedcriteria for assessment.
yours,
INC.
1I
.n
\
e,
\t
qr
a
+\
J
-tt},
s<l\oELL d uqc,=o^>Acr.t(, tqAt
e |.,1
I h
*
/f
/'fl rlu luln \l
?1,2 ac re hact )? u; ,s-
+o+
v
S'
,11
v
LoI E
.;
ql
24/. t
,t20 . 7tLot 6
5{
\o:.r
h
$
h
\
+
o
,00f".\
L
o
f,ot g
6tt
,/.ot ,,
t
ro
!l
?nt'h
b
\.0$
I
,/1
I
N
)rr\ ; 2oo
-1
Lot z
0\
tt
rO'I-
{
c"J
4
LEGL N D
POSSIBLE Lc)T
POSS\BLE ZA.ROAD\'/\/AV
/€P-'
,
'|d")t
42?
.16.ooo 9r
4O.d 3F
)'
o'
J{J
4€l@ aF ,- al
!
'8
7I t
h
4oraoo,aF
4c,ooo tF
(
ii-l
-t
ti
ii
\(1
),.o t.
/.
"c,ooot
I
I
I
I
I
t
I,;t2
a
Io
e,tl
FIt-o!II
f-1
ei\
tlJlt.'.
JJ
.j.
afl
!(-IA96|nFI
;T{l-a
@2
oorto
FIu
at-l
ln
\I
. l:li{
.t
,'i;'
t
t
!
t
:*:ri
oatiias>!+t
11
z
1
it
li
-tl
3_
2Z
ila
OI 't*r.
ll
i
I
I
1
I:
a
c
6i
l!-
l:'l.-
I
.:I
t
!
I
i
(n
i:'i
I
-.tto'
l.t xt
i8.^:ir;
i:t:'i,
I I ut
i.\:--)IF=
F
tll".ll
;'1 :t li
,::\1,
:: i3 <'-
.'e!J.:ii"..l
ao
r
a
:
l,
o,
-
F
')i
9.,tltEI
r'
)
I
a
!-l.
*l
I
I
t\
L,4 rtdn t-t'.., a . \t/a.r.,
-
o
!---
.al
ir
;r:
a
al
-a_o
o
o
I
l'
I.NI
I
t
t
-i!
(,
t
1
at
\-I.l:JI
I
I
I
*oc
L*l.+-+,
o
,
a
a
-t---=
)!
D!,q
TDo
rrlT
.a
@
a
{
rnT
trz
6,
rrl
@
{
{
rna
\
\
rt,
\
I
\
a,
I
I
I
I
The assessments,with the policy levj.ed on this property ,throughout the project.are consistant
/o-)
Aciion i,y City Admifiistmbr
Eulcrscd--!---
tlo,liin d.._.--
CITY OF
CHfiNIIASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
TO : Don Ashworth , City lrtanager
FROM: BilI Monk, City Engj.neer
DATE: April 16, 1981
SUBJECT: llacpherson Assessment Deferment Request
The MacPherson property was assessed 5 units for trunk and lateraLsanitary sewer constructed along the entire east property lineand Highway 7 frontage. This assessment was levied unaei theNorth Service Area Reassessment project and $7as based on ultimateIand use wj.th the property having over IO0 feet of frontagealong Highway 7 and an R-I Zoni.ng, There is also frontage alonga cartway to the north, but access to the cartway for newlyplatted lots is questj-onable and would require a varj_ance.
There are permanent utility easements along the Highway 7 front-age of this property, but said easements would not restrictaccess. Materials supplied by Mr. MacPherson concerning accessrestrictions by the state Highway Department do not change theultimate use of t.his property although development may be delayed.
as
used
J/2zt-, -/.,.
F li: ,
D i|--_._.-
odt; S!i.1iit;J l,) C(xrmr5sic{l
D+ri l;u,tl i,,,.l ro lt)i:rE{
4-Z.t- 'i )- -
MEMORANDUM
Macpherson -Towne_Com pany
4900 Cedar Lake Boad
Minneapolis, fMinnesota 5541 6
Phone: (612) 377-0050
t3 April 1981
the City @uncil
City of Chanhassen
7610 Iaredo Eive
P.O. Box 147
ChartEssen, I\tinnesota 553r7
Dear @uncil l,lonbers,
In regard to my rcquest that ttre ser.rer and water assessrents for
rry property be deferred, I have enclosed copies of nraterial- I havereceived frcrn the rlep^-EEnt of TransportaEion of t}le State of
lutinnesota.
Ttris nraterial shcr^rs state llighway #7 to be a @ntrol1ed access hiigh-
!',ay west of Gmrch noad with rp operljllg for my propertl,. Iot 7 oiScttrnidtrs Acres tract does rpE-have access to state Hi$rw-ay #2.
In v:i*r of tlr-is fact I am again requesting t}tat the se\^rer and $raterassess[Ents for 3941 Ct[:rch Boad be deferred until t]ris property isdevelo@.
Sincerely,
IG-rk F. I4aq)herson
Enclosr:re
t\
A
Buildinq Rtitor.rtion /' Uuilding Preser!rrion / Tuck.PointingI EulldinB clerning / Pn€umdric Concrere / w.rlrrproolins / cJUlkrnr
+
iri,ri i98!
{#F
tr{innesota
Dcpartment of Tran-st)ortation
Transporlation Buildirtg
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Pll( )rl('296-3286
Aprll 8, 1981
Ith. . l{ark lvlacPhe rson
c/o l4acPhercon Torrne Co.
4900 Cedar Iake Rd.
Mlnneapolis, Minnesota 55416
In rEply rEfer to: 360
s.P. 1OO4 (7=t79)
Carver Cor.s-lty
Dear ltlr. MacPherson:
Enclosed find a print of our right of way map sfrowirlg a portion of T.H. 7
frcrn Church Road westerly, as you requested. Thls print shows the
controlled access afong the northerly slde of the highway with an openi.rg
approxi-rnately 600 feet west of Chulch Road. The contrclled access symbol
1s sho\dr 1n red for your convenience.
If you have any furtlrcr questions regarling this matter, feel free to call.
Sincerel v,
R. J. Dlnneen
Dirlector
Office of Right of Viay
tr.\3\r{ri.hiA
. A^ Eq..ol Oppotlunity Employct
'<glE
WILLIAM O SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T, VOSLEF
JAMES B ORR
HAFOLO E, OAHLIN
LAPEY L HANSON
JACK E, GILL
THEOOORE O, KEMNA
JOHN W, EMONO
KENNETH E, AOOLF
WILLIAM F. ENGELHAROT
B, SCOTT HARBI
GEFALO L. BACKMAN
-
ETGHOELL A. MADEON,INC.
6121 93&7601 . 5{] NINTH AVENUE SOUTH . HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
March J- 1 , 19 81
City of ChanhassenP. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, I,linnesota 55317
Attention: Mr. Don Ashworth,
City Manager
Subj ect :Macpherson Assessment Deferment
Request, 394I Church Road
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
I am in receipt of your letter dated March 9, 1981, concerningthe above mentioned assessment. In researching my file, I find a
September 15, 1980, letter concerning this property. At this sametime there were other changes suggested by Jean Meuwissen and JerrySchlenk of your office. I collated these suggested revisions and
responded to you on October 24, 1980. These properties were then
covered on the Council meeting of October 27 , !980.
Mr. Macpherson's property (Lot 7, Schmids Acres) does indeed
have sanitary sewer along the entire easterly property line. Whileit is true that this property does not have a roadway, the assessmentis based on the lower "do11ar figure" Iateral charge as vras the casein the "Dur::" property which also did not have frontage on a roadway.
The assessment policy for the l-ateral charge are:
$2,537. 00 with Roadway,/Unit
$1, 944. 00 without Roadway,,/Unit
Trunk Units/Units 320.00
1?
i{An l98t ATherefore, 5 lateral units5 trunl< units
Assessment without Interest
DLCampbell:mkr
enc 10sure s
@ $1,e44 =C$ 320=$ 9 ,720$ r,600 lJ)RECETVEDytuaototr
CHANH^A'Eltl xit
$11,320.00
Very truly yours,
scHoELL & MADSON, INC.
i4/
I/
ENGINEEFIS ANO S U RVEYO FI S
+
/. {-
NUSSELL H. LARSON
CRAIG M, MEFITZ
HARVEY E, SXAAR
MARX C, MCCIJLLOUGH
Ashworth
City Manager
MN 55317
LensoN & Mnnrz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
9OO FINST BANK PL^CE WEST
MINN EAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554OA
April 10, 19 81
North Service Area 1960
( Ho1loway,/noye r Request
,s
APR I9BI
RECEIVED
,)l3
o\
Donald W.
Chanh as s en
Box 147
Chanhas sen
q)
(r)
VILLAGE OF.C.)CHANH
6.J ASSEIY,
MI NN.
.-:)
Re As ses smentsfor Recons i.de ration )
Dear Don:
You have asked for our conment on a letter received from MarthaHolloway and a similar l-etter receiVed from Joseph Boyer. Both letterscontaj-n a request that certain assessments levied j-n 1980 on BoyerrsSterling Estates be removed.
Ms. Holloway is the owner of Lots 4,5,6, and 8, all in Block I ofBoyers Sterling Estates. Mr. Boyer is the owner of Lot 7 in Bl_ock 1 ofthat plat. (We are relying on the ownership information contained inthe 1980 assessment ro11, as we have not attempted to verify ownershipthrough the County Recorder's office. )
In 1980, the following assessments were
Owner Lot Block A.mount
imposed:
Des cription
Hol loway
Ho I loway
HolJ.oway
Boyer
Hol loway
1
I
I
4
5
6
$1,0r7.38
-0-
$5,477 .86
sr,or7.38
1 s.T.* & 1w.T
N.A
I S.T.,
1 w. L.
I S.T
2 w.L
1'7
8
2 w.T., 1 S.L
t 1 S.T- & 1 W.T
Attached is a copy of Dale Campbell's letter of March 9, 1981,
explainj.ng the 1980 assessments on the Holloway property. Ivtr. Boyerrs
1980 assessment was based on Schoe]I & Madsonrs finding that Lot 7 couldbe divided so as to create an additional homesite.
$s477 .86
1 w.T., I S.L.
* S=sewer, W=water, L=Iateral, T=trunk.
Donald w.
April 10,
Page Two
Ashworth
19 81
The reference is to the restrictive covenants which are dated January 26,
1966 and which were filed with the County Recorder on February 8, L966.
"No structure shall be erected, altered, placed, orpermitted to remaj-n on any lot other than one
detached, single-family dwelling. .. "
The property owners in question beiieve that this language would prevent
the further subdivision of any l-ots in the p]at. It should be noted,
however, that this language does not. prohibit further subdivision, it
merely specifies the nun f,er of residences whj-ch may be created on any
This language could be interpreted as merely prohibiting guest
houses, rather than prohibiting further subdivision.
A similar issue arose in connection with the f980 N.S.A, assessment
which was imposed on the Helmut Mauer property in l4eyer's Addition.
Mr. Mauerr s .l-ot is subject to an express covenant that Mr. Mauerr s
Iot "sha1l not be divided". That restriction expires on December 31,
2003. In 1980, Mr. Mauerrs property was assessed for three additj,onal
un j-ts ( $16 ,4 33. 59 ) because of the development potential of the l,laue rproperty. On May 12, 1980, the City Council consj-dered Mr. Mauer's
request that all three assessment units be deleted because of the
restrictive covenant. The Council by a 5/O vote declined to remove
the additional units. (one of the three unj-ts was ultimately deleted
because of a deficiency in street frontage.)
Mr. Mauer filed an assessment appeal in which j-t was argued that the
Mauer property derj-ves no special benefit from the project, because
of the private restriction against further subdivision. After receiving
an adverse court decision in the Massee l-itigation, the Council decided
to vacate the 1980 assessment, inElud1nq Mr. Mauer's assessment, as to
all parties who filed timely assessment appeals. A new assessment ro11
will be prepared and the Mauer tract will be on that new assessment
ro1l. We assr.me that Mr. Mauer will again file an assessment appeal,
to litigate the issue of how prj-vately imposed restrictions on sub-
division affect municipal assessment powers.
Section 429.081 of Minnesota Statutes provides that assessment appeals
must be filed within 30 days after adoption of the assessment roll.
No assessment appeal has been filed in connection with any of the above
described Iots. Both parties are asking that the 1980 assessments be
removed because of the effect of certain restrictive covenants whichlimit the use of lots in the subject pl-at.
Section 1 of these covenants states:
Donald W, Ashworth
ApriI 10, 1981
Page Three
CONCLUS ION
Assuming that the assessment criteria have
recommend that no change be made in either
Boyer assessment because:
been uniformly applied, we
the Holl-oway or in the
a) the restrictive covenant in question is
b) no timely court appeals have been filed
c) the Councilr s apparent assessment policy
disregard privately j-mposed development
restr j-ctions of this type.
Very truly yours,
ambiguous,
and
is to
!-^-r-lnU
CRAIG M. MNRTZ
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
CMM: ner
enc
Acfion by Citt Administrator
Eniotsc4 /
Mcdrli,,i-
Rej€ut;d-
i)ii
Date S!lJrlilc,i lo Coiinrssion
Crlc Sri:,xiiied tc IJUncrl
t/,/-t o ,/,tr
t/ A.
/u &ar1oz
Residentio I Bui lding Controctor
18805 Highland Avenue, W.yzata, Minn.55391
Rel:Lot 71 81k 1, Eoyers Sterling Estatos
25 41 000 0007 000
Daar Si r:
ThLs Ietter is urritten concerning the property I or::n in 5terling Es!ates,Excarslorl ll11nn, carver county, and ths additionar seuJer and uater assess,-nentsthat uere placed on it.
t
I am enclosing a copy ol the BuiLdlng and Rsstriction Covenants thatI am governed by as to the gize and use oF my lot, and they do not permlt
mB to put more than one house on any one parcel of land in the d8vslopm8nL.Therefore I am asking that the 2nd seuler and uater agsassment that has beenplacad on my property - Lob ?r BIk 1, Boyers Sterlj.ng Estates, be lifLed.
Thank You,
Very Truly Ysur's,
OS E}N. Boye r
{?*"^ ,l
";t1 //-4,-^-^^,r-^-JtC--c.
e- J- &*-ECEIVED
CHANHAEgEr{,
/.4 F)ZC
a\,
78A6
MrtAoE ot
M INN.
APR 193I ilYlgt
Carver County Assessor
Carver County
Chaska, IYllnna s ota 55318
march 20, 19 81
^ff"-J A+^^-,J
t!
'! : ^ila .:.; :'i.! i. r .l^:tric'cioi1.
i::J: 1L!::i:l ?Y irill.j P.lll,:.iis, -'.r:1.. Jor-ph N. Boyc:.and :ilocr F. :o/c.,
husb.-:ld arl k-ifor hc:ci.n3t-!o:. !.efo!re.l ;o 3s Iorfiioi.s, rr r'osldcnts o-f i',c:ir. _,pir.
Coi:nr";',
.
liinno.ota, boliE tho ornlcr.5 of .rll. of tho lot. ln rolorre gicrlli.:l
E-sl1tos, a slrlrChislon of l.1nd li Clryc! County, ttinnosot-r' accordlnB to ti1'-.
pbt tholoof on fllo and of rccord h tl:o office of thc P.oa:l.tc! of -trodi in
ar"l for sald q,rver Co1ll1ty, and doshi.na to esta.blish thc r:..tu:,r of l'-e ua6 r..c
onJol,rnont of tho Lots ln sald p1at, Co h.reby dacla:.c slid .):.c:"i:. a. r--:i.ic-u 'r
tbo follol"l.ng c,'qpross cove:uiil:._, stlil.l:ions a:1d:.ei:::L1lc-1: .:, tr :.--- u:.. , rli.l
enjoj'riont thereof, aIL of rillich a:o to .o consta[ci ar ie5tiiii.L!. .:,yo::1]tr:
running ltlih tho titlo to sai<i prc:;i.sc:; and uith c.'.c:: ..!:e e1i,j:-i rr:i.t a!:d n:arrl
thereof, !,'hlch covcaants chel!:ur nr.ill J.1nu:n/ 1r 199Cr a'i:.::cj. ::,r lc u,rc:'.
covcnanLs sha11 be auto::]tical:./ eraLc.li.d fo! a-'r additi.oi:3:. pc:.-ic,i o:' )-.c--. v.:z-..,
ard succoarlvo\. theloaiter lor' additioht:- p6:iods of tEn ye3:s, r::ic.;c, r.1---.-
one:-"oh'Lh of t-ro bogl-ar1;,3 of sucll pc:iod of ton ye:rs, by ac-".:'L:e cr;re:: oj
tlo Out Lt 1, duly corlrified, a:lC locotded, it Ls agrced tc !eiu.3 *":--. :lr.!i-n
'of l'"ho sald covonants Ln Nholo, oa ln prrtS
1. All. lots and tlaci6 shr-lL be li:o',m attd doscdbed as !..i:de:ltlJ lo._.s.
=__{ stntcturv shaal bo oloctod, a1ter6d, placod, o! por.d?ted to i.e::!r
--'+=d; ary Iot oth6! tlr^ar one do'"ached, slngle-f.j::1ly d,rcllli:d, rr,:,.: prlra.-:
gatago, and or"her outbulldj-nls iiiciCe:1fu-L to th.r 1.r;i<....i,:-_ .je o-- ";.r
lot. !16 DlnLnuj! sizs of c..3h rosliiehiia-l strrc"JJrc (sr.;l..: ii,--:; !o:.ji 3t1j
gala6c shal1 bo a I'.r-cor sr:r. .: 21000 squaro feot Lor - r(.rl-do.ilJ)
stfuctule havi::a do-:€ :l:a:: c:-a.toor aoova g?o_L!':d, 1ev.*, trt:-l -,-CC ---,. :.,
fGot fo: a i.er.iC.n'uia1 str'nct:ro haldn8 o:--o flcor abcvi !:-o* .i lcy.r-.
Gi!a-.:s r,.irt bl: no'" lc.rs ',ha.1 !i:o-ciL:. siae.
. No bt)j.ldjncs shrla ba croc'.cd nr placoC on :ny 1ot in th:s :-..-ii,..:. .
ur:tI1 t:o bulli;rn3 li..]1s, ,D ri1:icrt:on., and ?Lo: p:r:: :.,: ..: ti
1oc.'.::o:1 of ::c.l Lil -l:-,=c ):--: i,cen i-pir:'o1-cd :.1 r,1.it-. . ;r,j'.. .:
Eoyc'-. a::d EL_r,:on l. :.).r1., o:. i-r.r::' rutlc:i:cd }cprc... r.rj. i -., _ -t--
confornlty and h:rrnony of cxtcm.1l dosign dth od.stlng ctructurss 1:1
thls rubdl,rlsLon And as to tho locatdon of Euch bullding with lospoct
to proporly a:d buildlng sot bick ILDe. If th6 etorosaid Jo5.nh l{.
.nd Ells€n F. Bofor' or thclr authorized reproscntatlvos ' iaIl
aPplovo or disaPprovo such doslgn and locatlon rlthln thirty (30)
days aftor such plans hev6 boon submltted td +"henr or If no srdt to
or onjoin tho oroction of such bul.lding or tho malCng o!
such altoratloi hes been comcnccd pr{or t tho colrplctlo:l thorco:,
such dDproval, ',.i11 nct bo lcqui:cd.
No no)dous o! foul or olfensivo trads shaI1 bo ca:dod o:: upo:l at1Jr
l-ot noa sha11 anylhJ.ng bo dono tSoreon which sha1l constltu+-e g
. et.octsCr used, or oecupiod for resiCoaco purpgsos. ,111 str1:c:,.:r.e sia:l
be corplotely finishod on tho extcdo:- r.lthin nine (9) nonli'is ete:
colllmonco:nont of the excavatlon o! constructiolr tiloroof.
5. No sodt soi1, sand, gravcl or t1:ib6i sh311 b€ sold or :e:1cvcd :ici 5.1C
pleidses oxcoDt fo: 'uhc purposo of excavatirg foa the conatluctlor': oa
altoratlon of r residenco or an ippurtcnarlce ther.oto or io: ..Lr Droloa
. grading lhercof, ezccpt by poi.,Lisslor of Josoph Il. yor o: D.1.c.'r a.
Boyot obtaLncd j.a !,?iting. ArJr Bracoss of sucir Eatur3L nstc::aIs slr.Il
b6 givon to Josoph N. Eoye! ahd Eileon F. Boyer foi. uso upon other
land in sald subdivi sio:l.
5. the bullain; sei:-bacl( and aldc-yai.d require--reltti as estabLj.shsd a:.ojl
tlno t tine by tho To.^.r5hlp of Clunhossen, or lts successor., sir1l
to oUsorvea by lndlvldu3]. 1ot oirnors or thoLr ag6nas on evoty 1oi, hut
1n no'caso shc,lL any butl.dlng, or part, thereof, be wlthLn forty (t+O )
fs6t 6f tho fror,t lino of tho 1ot, or wlthin flft'toen (15) f,cct o: c:lv
I
sido.o! bacir Llno of t}o Lot,
I
No tra116!, bEsenent, tont, shack, gerage, barn or outbrdlding ereci.6d
on tbe prcrdses shall be used et ar$. tLue for e rosidcnce teii?o:.ar11y
ot pelrraiendly, not sha11 any stluctule 01' a tonpora4r cll:.acte he
-2-
J-x,?-
:li " 4I*#IdtA',". ''.31*"4
effoct
l
7. iio srlril3-Ls or fo-;l shalf b6 kcpt upoa any of sald Lois cxccp.. faj-li7
poto, and no Dioro thxn two (2) of any gonus and spoclos,
8, lb lencc sh3LL oxcoed 42 inchos tn hoight oxcept any fcnc€ upoi tho
perlnBte! of Grrt lot i(o. 1. All feDcos shal1 bo of suLtablo a:1d
attr^ctlve dosi8n and nate.lal and shal1 be prope::Iy and ettractivoly
aeLntalned.
9. If any pa!.ty shaI1 vlolcte o, atte:npt to wl.olate eny of the cc,ron..nts
or rosttLctions horoin, lt sha11 b9 lalrful for. an/ palty or partj.c.
of inle:'est ln aI]y Lot, p3rce1, or plot 1!r such subdle,Lsj.od to instlt,r.re
and p!.osecuto plococdin3s et 1aw or cquity ag3}.st tho ptr.tlcs ,f.iitfrg_'
o! etl,oapting ta v1o1at6 theso coyeiants o! lestlic-.iotis, such sul-.
-_-*-- t€1nB elth6! fo: the purpose of ple,rentj.ng th6 yiolali.on o. of lscolred::e
danages, or both,
10. I alldatlon of ajy oxe o! nore of these covoi:ants o! restrlcij-or:s b,
Jqdg ont o! Cou.r| Orde: shall l]ot af:ect th6 vElldLtjr. 5.i1d exi5:6ncj oi
the o*.hor covatants o! rostrictior:s shal_l reaain 1n fu1]- forcc er.i'
, Datod
(]"..-'.r
Ecc--"be! -?t r 1955
fn th€ Prosonco oft
.ttSTJITE 0F ylNNE5011)
' i ss.
muiiTl 0F lgtnirPlx)
f.1lir€IlA xOnol
Nclrry PL:ri.; honnei:i Ca!:l!. !,ti
li, Conr,n,:s,on a\pi.r JJn. i2, 1..;:.
^.,L Q.*-,"on tids ..((, day of Dcoc:teri L966, beforo Ee, a lb+"a1y Pu:iie ^i:.lull j::!
sald Ccunty, per'soia11y appoar.od JossDh N. Boyor and S.lee:1 F,3oycr, \.:s:i:.1.:
'-,l.fc, to re Lnc,,rn tD bc ."ho p.!!so:rs descrlbo,l ln elld H1lo
Soin: lnstruneii s:ld i,rho aclooirLedge .!h.:t they executoil the so-c.) as i....i: a-.r,,
act and de,rd.
ir-13d:oa :'rccfii oil the 10 iay o{ l:ov .l|D LE66 at 3:.10 orcloc:< f.:.t.
^./,
V
I
I
CITY CF
EIIANHISSTN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE ' P,O, BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANN I NG REPORT
DATE: Apri l I7, 1981
T0: Planning Commission & Staff
FR0M: Bob l'lai bel , Ci ty Pl anner
St,B,rECT: Condj ti ona l Use Permi t Reguest,a Dri vi ng Range, Lots 6,7 & B,
Devel oomen t Park
APPLICANT: Drive Fore I
Peti ti on
establ i shment of
B lock l, Fron ti er
The aopl i cant is pl anning to establ i sh a dri vi nq range onthe subject proDert.y to wi t a Condi tional Use Perm'i t and/or
ord i nan ce ame ndmen t for a Condi ti onal Use Permi t is reoui red.
Backoround
l . lprytq ljl]l Locqtjon: As shown i n encl osure
?. El.istilg Zoning: The subject DroDerty is oresently zonedI-l, IndultiiaT District.
3. Utilities: Sanitar
#l, the sub.iect
west of thePlains Blvd,
yS ewer and l,luni ci Dl e l,later are ore-
he subject property.iently
Comments
available to t
As stated previously, and as menti oned in the Noti ce of Publ jc
Hea ri ng, the subject reoues t ei ther reoui res an ame ndmen t tothe I-l Dj stri ct provisions of 0rdi nance 47 to allow a drivinq
ranqe as a Condi ti onal Use, and/or i f consi dered a temporaryuse, a Condi ti onal Use can be i ssued for a peri od of one year
in accordance wi th secti on 23.0'l subsecti on 5 of ord i nan ce 47.
Section 23.0.l subsecti on 5 states that Condi ti ona l Llse Permits
may be issued "to permi t the Iocati on in any djstrict of ternD-orary uses which wi lI not continue for a neri od of mo re than
1 year. For good cause shown, this Vi 11age Counci 1 may renew
any such temoorary oermi t" . If oosi ti ve acti on on the sub.iect
DroDerty i s I ocated aporoximately 700 feet
'i ntersecti on of wes t 79th Street and Great
on the north side of tlest 79th Street.
request is being comtemnlated, this office recommends thatthe TemDorary Use aooroach be aoolied as opposed to 0rdinance
Amendment. Due to site defi ci enci es, the Temnorary Use aporoach
impl ies that sl nificant Vari ances to the height of f encerequi remen ts o 8 feet r,ril I be necessitated. This office bel ievesthat these deficiencies proDose a si tuati on of extreme hazardin tha t a restrai ni ng fence of co ns i derab 1y hi gher than 8 f eetwill be needed to ensure that balls would be reta ined on the
oremi ses. The acti vi ty on the site wou'l d
res tri cted in that 1) retai n ing fen ces wou
back an addi tional foot from the nropertyfoot exceedi ng 8 feet , 2) that a siqnificawould need to be uti I i zed for nrovision of
be
'I d
'I in
nt
of
further more
need to be set-e for everyoart of the sitef street narking
and ol acement of the oroposed uti 1i ty shed.
AI though soeci fi cati ons for dri vi ng ranges ha not been ableto be o bta i ned, thi s offi ce s trong I y feels that, as oreviouslystated, t hat the subject pronos a l oroposes considerable safetyorobl ems to vehi cl es and Dededtri ans on t,les t 79th Street, andto future uses on the orooerty to the eas t and, for thos e reasons,
recommend that the Planninq Commission recommend that the City
Counci l deny this reouest.
Should the Planning Commission contemolate possib'l e oositiveacti on on the subject reouest, I recommend that the P lanni ng
Commission cons i de r the fol I owi ng issues.
That off street Darki ng be ol aced s uch that all oarking
and man uveri ng areas do not encrouch uoon the rightof wa-v of l^iest 79th Street and be nrovided at a iatioof 2 spaces for every 3 tees. Said oarking facility
may be constructed of granu lar materi al on a standard
acceDtabl e to the City Engineer.
Th at retaining fences be constructed s uch th at they
be setback I additional foot from the DroDerty Iinefor every foot exceeding 8 feet. (Since this office feelsthat since a significantly greater hei ght of f ence
wi'l I be needed, it cou 1d h ave a blightino effect. )
That the hours of oDerati on be restri cted to thehours between sunri se and sunset.
That the ball bui lding not exceed 5 feet by l5 feet.
(T he aopl i cant has i nd icated that said building wi 11be constructed simi 1ar1y to standard yard uti I ity
sheds. )
That no vendi ng machi nes be permi tted on the Dremi ses .
2
3
4
5
(
Dri ve Fore
Page 2
I
Manage!'s qomments
A I'Stop Work" order was issued by both the Building Department as weII
as Pl-anning Department when initial grading was commenced on the property.
These orders appeared to have had little effect and, as can be seen
by visiting the site, the lot has been seeded, fence posts are in the
process of being instalted, tees have been installed as well as sodding
pJ.aced. Statements given by Mr. Pryzmus to the Planning Commission
included the facts that the driving range equipment has been purchased,
tractor delj.vered, and that the shed has been constructed and is in
Mr. Pryzmus' garage.
There is no question that thj-s community can benefit from a driving
range. This is not the question. The question is whether the location
pro;osed by Mr, FIlzmus is acceptable under the zoning code as well
as safety standards.
The planner's and Engineer's report relate to the zoning ordinance and
points raised will not be repeated. Although a Portion of.the require-
irents can be challenged, the points do relate to code requirements.
The major concern of this office is the potentj-al- liability issue
raised by the proposal. specificallyr the city and council-, Planning
Commissi-on and- stlff have been sued both collectively and individually
on issues ranging fio^7tt" right of the City to fev)' assessmentsl'
"stopping development rights; etc. These types of iss_ues _represen-tbasic "principle,' issuesto each of the parties and, alth::ough damages
may be -awarded, no true personal injury has resulted. This type of
suit is not desirable, to believe
that they would not occur is being naive. The point attempted to
be made -by myself is that the tyPe of suits encountered by the City
over the p.sl ="vera1 years are distinctly different from a_true personal
injury type of suit, i.e. a suit contending that the City did not
pr5perfy- ".rforce or review a liquor license and a resulting motor
vehicle accident resulted; a suit contending that the city ignored
typical engineering stand.ards in the design of an intersection, grades
o?- streets, etc. resul-ting in a traffic fatality, etc. The potential
loss in these types of cases is far more severe and cannot be easily
forgotten. addiiionally, should the suit seek punitive damages and
suci b" awarded, no insurance policy will pay any damages so awarded
either collectively or for the- individual. As such, the personal
exposure is significant.
The concern raised by the Pryzmus application is one of potential
liability which may Le incuried Uy eittrer Mr. Pryzmus or the City vj-a
the pote-ntiaI of plrsons accidently, inadvertently, or purPosely
hittinq golf balli onto West 79th Street. I believe this is significantly
different than the potential of a golfer being hit by a golf ball on
"-g"rt course. The golfer must simply recognize the potential danger;
f,oi..r.r, even in thi6 type of land use, the golf courses themselves
r.utti.i uses of the co-uise to only golfers playing golf and do not
al1ow young children. By contrast, a parent sending his,child to the
drj-vin'g raige should be ieasonably assured that the child can get
to and from the facility l'rithout being harmed, passerbys need not be
fearful, etc.
The above points may be contended to be absurb. However, it is important-to remember that the burden of proof on the appricant in seeking the c1ty,sendorsement for an intensi-fication of a Land use or a new rand use.The City need not prove that the use is safe, but, instead, makesfindings that the supportive information submitted by the applicantprovides reasonable justification that safety standaids can-ie met forboth the user as well as general publj_c.
This office concurs with the recommendations of the planner andEngineer that the applicant has not provided justification as tosafety of the proposed use and therefore recommend denial untilis assured. and the zoning issues are complied \dith.
the
suc h
1J
luca\,lt!
e"
CITY OF
EIIINHISSEI[
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX I47 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937- 1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: City }.lanager ,
FROI{: City Engineer
DATE: April 30, 19 81
SUBJ: Driving Range,John Pryzmus
Upon revielv of the petitioner's request, the following items deserve
comment :
-- No provision for parking is shown but on-site parking
is required for all permitted uses. Use of publicright-of-way for this purpose is not recommended,
even for an interim use.
It should be noted that the site development for thisproject has been j-n progress for some tjme. Staff isvery concerned that grading was done without a permit
and that any work started before review by eitherthe Planning Corunission or the City Council.
Don Ashworth
Bil l llonk
gh?n./
-- The aligrunent of the range and its proximity to79th Street raise serious concerns for pedestrian
and vehicular safety. As a min j-mum requirement, thescreening must be enlarged and the tees moved away
from the street.
(
F
9
I tl IIIIH:||Niqxr cc'J\lY/i J,..,..1. .,I
-aloo-_i
.?n. .. ,
':!i..,:,*:i .
':i2
- )
2
9
a
2
j
9 I
Lara ,L/SS,a
3
l,( o Pc'€ D
,{viil6
l..riloias.t L AKa
4
l!
-l;.cra/in i
6D
(2
\\
z,
€r--
s- : _-.--.
J
t
I
I
t
L
(
:'-. -E.
,I 9
I
I
I
'J/
)/
TIJC T L OlUS
LA KE
\
t1,i,l;.--I-!
IF
/- iol l-'v
+
I
I
.i
i
i
I
4
<.
\0
'.\- ,
iL
d"
F;-;.>--,Yt;tt'l
s
oJ
(o
- -:1a R-^'
€
(o
t1fo
,t
.t
,l
i
c
CD
v1
..1-
\-,.\('.'
.ti-\ -\*C
:-!
I qrj
d
GI)
\fi
@
*.ScJ--)
<_\trf,
c,<)
i
I
I
a
,oih
i
I
i
-l
I
e'Jl
-8-?
?\ TTEZONING PETITION
Date
CfTY OE C}IANITASSEN
CARVER AI,ID IIENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESO'IA
APPLICATION T'OR CONSIDERATTON OF PI-ANIIING REQUEST
Date of Application
Escrow Paid,
Received by--
Jd- /
Applicant:
Name:
Las t
Address:
Etr brE-
Firs t I nr. tr a t
oQ \rJ-g bh S-r fi4nStatezip Code
"Lc-t$"-q r Ti*r
N er and Street City
E.i6.a"'...,Q u'---
(J- Fo". io- Fr,+rt
Owner
oz-\\s \o\',ut kr In ]-t aILast
.llddress:
N
0q DA LLta--C-!
umb era nd Street ty
Address of Property to be rezoned:
,tj ,frL
Legal- description of property to be rezoned:
C l-State Ip Co d.e
o'* 5* 8 I t**t
Present zoning of proper Ey :
Present Use of property:
Proposed zoning of property:
Proposed use of proper ty:
CASE NO. REZ.
1l
!
'.
":,1':..l '
-j:;,i i j::r.:i' ,ii
l. l
t,,Eg
J
-a
S
J
3
{+s
JJ
4
j
e
{
J
q
6
o!
J
D
s\
\)\
\
,!
.-;,1.
a
:b
-)
G,c{
d
c,Jd
\=
oJ
E
ss
-P
\
=\P
a-tJ IAi-S\ si1
"l
)e
6
3
l-z
4F
,.J
-\
.1
t)
f
=
Jt
c
{
g
3
q
a
=r1-J
a:).
-960
+
)
,
at
5O3
)f,
d
+..,.:t "
-+<:,', , '
)'r ,
:$c ,
\),.;1 ..,. ,-. ,
. .:'. i :- ';i: l';l i
ttt
t
tt
I
+{.1+\/,$
Yq
.-)L
)\ff
J
4o-
Y=I
Cr-,
{
t{
si
)a^SIJ
)
fi
\
)
)r
\"j\
3
I
t
,i
I I I I I r I I t' I I tlltl
lliot ':o a
l/'
ca4
A+t 0"(
U'r,-
UJ*Jr"Q
\ ).t* !t,A,*--**-N )*Ltt6 tu
\),-**J .=I!,\ \.,) 0 t*8 -,il ,f/u
o-)
A/L
r(ra
,l
W Dr'toin7 3ontu"+
-|o.rn
(
(((--t'
I
a
,l
rt
L XE LUCY
.A
i
I
t_
E F
9 I
8
Iri 1.......i ,,I
I
I
9
I
3
I /l Eflt] CO.JNTY
:F
1- *l
\
LA
--ii
Z
?
c
r
f,
a
a
7
T ,t.
a
! LAKS sus,lN
(-
5..1 L AX E
!.o
t.}.-
I
I)/
I
3
/,( o PC'E D
,t:i/i,uG
i1,r'.i i
I
I
I
4-t
t;-
irt - - --- -l'ao
D5
LOfUS
LAKE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CHANHASSEN
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HELD APRIL 22, 1981 , Ar 7:30 P.M.
CHANHASSEN C(|UNCIL CHAMBERS
Members Present: Chai rman Artl.l. Thompson,
Noziska.
Partri dge, C. t,,latson, J.M. Thompson, L. Conrad, H
Thompson,
Staf f Present:B. l,lai bel , B. Monk, C. Hertz and B. Foreman
Zoninq 0rdi nance Amendme n t Reoues Estab li shment of a Dri vinqL
Ranqe in an I-l Di st John Prvzmus,Publ ic Hearin q
Bob Waibel i ndi cated tha t thi s request could either bea Conditional Use Permit or a TemDorary Use Permit as statedin Section 23.0.l s ubsecti on 5 of the Zoni ng Ord.inance, Hesuggested taht if the Planning Commission were thinking ofpositive action on this request it should be the Temporary Use
Permi t due to s i te defi ci enci es. Even wi th the Temporary UsePermit they would have to be given significant Variances'forthe fence height. Mr. llaibel recommended to the Planning
Commission to cgnsider the 5 items Iisted in the Planning Reportdated Apri I .I7, .I98.l. However, he noted that his overal I re-
commendati on was denial due to site defi ci enci es.
John Pryzmus, the apolicant, indicated that the Var.iances
recommended by l'lr. I.Jai bel as stated at thi s meeti ng was thefirst time he knew of the Variances necessary. Mr. Pryzmusfelt that the requests were unreal i stic. All the Iots in thearea are covered by vleeds and brush. Mr. Pryzmus indicatedthat this req uest woul d help to c'l ean up the area, and wouldnot create a bl i ghti ng effect, also the Dri vi ng Rance would
make more jobs for the kids in the community. As for the fencingsuggestion, Mr. Pryzmus felt that it was not Dossible for eventhe worst slicer to hit a ba'l I onto the road. The balls costto much and they do not want to loose any more than they haveto. Compari ng the proposed Dri vi ng Range t
on Highway 7, the Dri ving Range on Highway
220 yards from the tees , the o ropo s ed Rangefrom the tees. Mos t professional go I fers hyards not all in fliqht, most people hit oyards. Mr. Pryzmus explained that he has athe owner of the DroDerty that when the ownthat l'1r. Pryzmus r,ril I have to quit his busiindicated that off street par"kino would be
no one lives on the road or even uses the r
could be on street parki ng or in the cul-duparkino would be too expens'i ve for a temDor
Fore will be a very nice Driving Range, kep
o
7'
'sit
n
n
er
ne
UN
oa
.S
art
the Dri vi ng Ranges fence is about
would be 240 yards
approximately 256the average 200
aqreement wi thsells the propertyss. Mr. Pryzmus
neccessary becaused. A11 parkingac. 0ff streety use. Drive
up good, fenced
Page 2
Pl anni ng Commission Meeting
Pryzmus
in area for chi I dren wi3 sodded areas l8' x l8by the Staff ('l6' x 5,)It was i nd i cated th at tReport was just mi sread
th sandbox, range wi 1l e sand trap,' x 8' the proposed
work i n.
he Pianning
', and buildin
woul d be much
he 5' width in, should be 8'
g will beto sma I l
di cated i
hav
'I 6
tont
Mr. Partridge asked if all the oarking would be on thestreet. Yes, it coul d be on the I and but it woul d take a jot
of money and work for just a Temporary Use.
- Mr,-l.l. Thompson asked lrlr. Waibel what his reason.ing wasfor the 5 recommendations stated in the planninq Report ofApri I 17, l98l . Mr. Waibel expi ai ned: l) off street parki ng -the zon i ng ordi nance does not allow for any off s tree t parking,staff thought that granular would be acceptabl e. Mr. Hon kstated th at he was concerned about setti ng a precedence regard i ngoff-street parking. 2) Fences - variancei for a greater tre:gtrt -
of.fence was suggested to prevent any balls hitting the ped-
es tri ans or cars dri vi ng by. 3) hours - asked thai the hoursbe only duri ng the daylight for the reason that the aopl icanthad not presented the staff wi th a Iighting p1an. 4) ballshed size - size restri ctions were suggested to keep the drivingrange as a temporary use and to inform the commission of the materialsbeing u sed. 5) no vend ing machi nes - no vendi ng machi nes wasrecommended for the reason that it would prevent off hour traffic,It would be fi ne if the appl i cant wants to sel I Dop from thebui lding duri ng hours.
Mr. Pryzmus expressed that the hours and the vendi ng machi nereouest was reasonabl e but the fence will be made out of afine mesh and will not need to be higher.
Mr, ll . Thompson asked !1r. Pryzmus if he wasIiability insurance. Mr. Pryzmus indicated yes,taken care of b.y the owner,
It was stated by Mr. Pryzmus that there wi'l Irul es for the dri vi ng range, no ch i I dren al I owedthe tee area, there will be a secti on for them.
going
that
have
be
to
wi I I
. [1s. Watson expressed some concern about the request formuch off street parki ng. Ms. l,,latson fel t that ther e shoul d
some _off street parki ng but not as mu ch as reques ted by thestaff.
- _ Mr. l,l . Thompson made a mot.ion that a Temporary Use permitof 1 year be granted for a Driving Range I ocaied on Lots 6, 7
Bl ock I of Frontier Devel opment park, wi th the recommendationsof the staff from the Pl anni ng report, Apri l 17, l gBl be dis-regarded. Second was made by Mr. J. Thompson.
& s,
t-5
be very str"ictto run along
so
be
Le.nr<rN, Flol-nlreN, D.,r.r-y & LrxocHnm, Lro.
r6r2r B3s-3AOO
AT.rORNEYS AT LAW
ISOO NORTBWESTERN FINANCIAL CENTER
79OO XERXES AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS- M INN ESOTA 5543I
TELEPHONE l6r2l 435-3eOO
Re: Fox Chase
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
Sincerely yours,
HOFEMAN, DATY
ergr for
& LINDGREN, Ltd.
I]Je are atEorneys for Derrlck Land company, owner s and developers of the proposed
subdivtsion of Fox Chase.
pursuant to conversations with Scott Martin, Comunity DevelopEent Dlrector' and
with his concurrence, r^re request that city council consideratlon of the matters
tisted. in our clientis letter of April 15, 1981, which had been scheduled for
May 4, J-981, be continued. Pursuant to further discussions wiEh Mr' Marri'n ' we
..qrr."tameetingwlthyou,theCityAttorney,Mr'WaibelandMr'Martinatl:30p'm"
May O, fggf, At that meeting, we r^'111 dlscuss our client's requests and determine
the date for City Council consideratlon.
In the meantlme, if you have any questions or connents ' pl-ease give me a call'
Davrd u
LARKIN ,
si8
S
cc: Derric any
wasBrNGToN. o. c.2o()36
r202 ea3 9394
April 30, 198J.
Ctty of Chanhassen
Attn: Don Ashlrorth, CltY Manager
Chanhassen City Hal1
7610 Laredo Drive
Box 147
Chaflhassen, Minnesota 553L7
0^--e1
CITY(CF
frEflffiNflEflfiS583fr
6
7610 LAREDO DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: Apri I 17, 198.I
FROM: Bob Waibel, City Planner
SUBJECT: Final Devel opment
Addi ti on, Derri ck
Pl an Amendment Request, Fox Chase
APPLICANT: Derrick Land Company
PLANN ING CASE: P-614
The curvi ng of the street named " Fox Path" in the northern1/3 ot the devel opment.
The app li cant has submi tted the attached orooosed final devel -opment pl an for Fox Chase Revi sed Apri I 15, l98l for thePublic Hearing for the Planning Commission Meeting on Aoril22, 1981 . The major changes between this and the previouslyreviewed olans are:
I
J
4
5
The proposal for lot l, Bl ock I and Lot 3
have di rect access on Pl easant Vi ew Road.
The remova l of the
0pen space.
previously proposed outlot/common
The rel ocati on of the poi nt from
connect from the inter.ior street
tween Lots l2 & l3 of Bl ock l.
where the trai I wiilto the Iakeshore be-
The redu ct i on in the number of l ots from 54 to 52 as
recommended by the Ci ty Counci I .
The following are the comments of this office regarding the
poi nts ra i sed in the Apri I I5, 198.I I etter from Roqer Derri ckto the Mayor and Counci l. Addi ti onal staff commen ts to thesepoints are i ncl uded in the City Engi neers report.
T0: Planning Commission & Staff
Block 2 to2
P.6I
Page
4,
2
Derri ck
I. Number of lots
3. Previousl
At any tthis offthan 55
l me
i ce
uni t
th rouqh ou t the revi ew of the subject oroposa ldoes not reca l 1 any of the o'l ans showing mores. It was presumed that the aool i cant hadcalculated the pendino 69 unit assessment i nto his'l and use devei opment orooosa l s and chose to fo'l I ow amarket that would serve Iower density, Iarger lot development.This is unders ta nda b 1y oualif iable as to wh en the aDolicantmade his initial assessment search on the oropgrty.
In .determi ni ng the Land Use dens i ty for deve lopments ,and esoeci a1ly in the case of Planned Residential Devel -ooment Di stri cts, there is the need to make certa i nj udgemen ta l deci s i ons i nc ludi nq envi ronmenta l concerns,and reasonabie density standard. The planninq Commissionand Ci t.y Council in orevious reviews, although notsnecificall.y mentioning env.i ronmental constriints ofthe subj ect property, di d, based uoon the i nformati onavailable to them, find the orooosal acceptable at 49and 52 1ots respectably. At this time, this officefeels that the Final DeveloDment Density relative tothe 69 uni ts assessed is not germane to the planning
Commission consideration and it is recommended that thePlanning Commission not act to change the gros s densityestabl i shed by the Ci ty Counci'l unti I so i nstructed by-the Counc i l .
2. Street t.li dth
I n s t a I I e d A s s e s s me n t ss I ssue to be discusse wi th thePlanning Commission acti on necessar,y
Staff had recommended that the 36 foot width street forFox Path in order to mi ti gate the single access situationof the subject Droperty. No change ii recommended.
4. Road Ali nment
City Counci 1.. lloat this ti me.
proposed al ignment of Foxthe deve I oomen t. Thischanqe orovi ded said re-standards acceptabl e to the
ts s rn re erence to thePath in the northerly 1/3 ofoffi ce endorses the trooos ed
a'l i enment is constructed toCit-v Engi neer.
5. Conservation Easement
The Ci ty, in a oorova I of nrevi ous subdivisions andPlanned Residential Devel oDment Di stri cts, i.e. LotusLake Estates, Pice l,tarsh Manor, and Reichert Addition,have nl aced conservati on easements prohi bi ti ng structuralalterations to the Iakeshores. The assistant C.i ty Attorneywill be oresent [.lednes day eveni nq to exnl ai n in aetai tthe pl acement of conservati on easements as part ofsubdi vi s i on aoprova 1s.
P-6'l 4, Derri ck
Page 3
6. Public Imorovem ents
7. Bui ldin Permi ts s tated previously,
posed iot is oroposed to havView Road. Due to the grade
and Fox Path , this offi ce ha
bui I di ng permi t after the fihas been given by the City C
Dermi t on the southeasterlyI feel that a bui I di ng permithe City has recei ved an exefrom the applicant that woulwork would nroceed in an ord
undue del ay between the timerequested and the time in whstabi I i zed a n d/or bas e cours
8. Qladi ng Permi t
C otE rEilfi-TTTy Engi neers comments .
To be discussed between Derrick Land Company and the CityCouncil. No Planning Commission action necessary.
the northeas terl y most pro-e di rect access to Pleasant.:
di fferenti al betvreen this lots no probl ems wi th issuing anal devel opment pian approval
ounci l. As to a building1ot (proposed Lot .I9, Bl ock l)t should not be i ssued unti lcuted deve I opmen t contractd assure tha t the schedu le ofer th at would not present anthat an occupancy permi t would beich the road bed woul d bee of asohal t be instal led
As s ta ted oreviousiy, onexhibits has been the refrom Fox Path. The orevit to be travers i ng a we
home owners assoc.iation
oosed outl of area was tosedimentation bas in. Th
removal of said outl ot sthe establ i shment of a cis des igned to adequatelthe community. 3) The Ciof proper utility & dra i
the ma,i or changes to the devel opersof the out lot accessing the lakeconfi gurati on of the outl ot shou,,edarea vrith marqinal attri bute f or. Addi ti ona l1y much of the pro-tilitized for a drai naqe andfi ce sees no orobl em with thei) it had dubi ous oual it ies forarea,2) the Chanhassen Park plan
vi de the recreati onal needs ofgi neer wi I1 requi re the dedication
eas emen ts for the sedimentati on basin.
e of
moval
i oustland
usage
be u
i s of
ince
ommony proty En
nage
An other change to the apolicants exhi bi ts is thaeasement from Fox Path to Lotu s Lake has been mobetween Lots l2 & I3 of Block l. I find that thall imorovement to the pl an in that it traversesmore suitable to deve) opment of said trai l. Theresoonded to the neighborhood concern in preservof Pine trees on the northwesterl.v most Dort i onproDerty throuqh a proposal to have Lot 3, Block
on to Pleasant View Road. Devel oper has indicateconfiquration w'i l1 permit the olacement of residand drj veways that will minimize the remova I ofyou know, this Drotion of the subject orooert,y hsight di stance characteristics on Pleasant ViLwthe preservation of this s tand of trees is quite
i ng
of
tt
ved
is
ar
de
dt
ent
sai
AS
Roa
ap
he trailto an areais an over-
eas of soils
ve l oper hasthe standthe subject
access di rectlyhat this
i al structuresd trees. As
e x t r erne 1y p o o rd. Since
propri u1" 1q the
P-614,
Page 4
Derri ck
character of the deve"l opmen t and
des i gn is paramount, thi s offi ce
be mitigated either 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 theright of way of Fox Path to the westerly property line, and thepossibility of secondary access from the subject Droperty tothe south.In di scussions with the attorneys office, it was foundto be acceptab le to wi thdraw the dedi cated ri ght of way 40' to 50'from the western property line provided that a planning agreementbe fi led at the Carver County P,ecorders office stating thatthe adjoininq lots (Lot 22, Bl ock 2 and Lot 30, Biock l)wouldwaive any acquisition fees to the City if extention of saidri ght of way is needed in the futu re.
As to the i ssue of secondary access, the Ci ty Engi neer,feel s th at the prev i ous fi ndi ngs that that access wouldmarginal benefi t remal ns valid.
Bil l Mon k,
be of
I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Counci 1 aoprove the Final Devel oDment Plan of Derri ck Land
Company in accordance with previous City Council aoproval ofJuly 1980 with the additional condition that the density transferfor Lot 3, BIock 2 be i ncorporated i nto the Final Plat wi'l I main-tain , as best oossible, the integrity of the stand of treesin the northwest porti on of the Droperty.
Mana errs Comments
A copy of the City Council minutes of April ? (preliminaryDevelopment Plan Approval) as well as July 2I (Final DeveiopmentPran Approval) are enclosed. thi"s office-wourd recommend tiratany action on this item lnclude not only the conditions of thisamended approval, but also the conditions as established forthe original plat in April and .Iu1y of l-980.
PubIic Improvements:Mr. Derrick's letter makes severalrequests i.n regards to a 'betition for public improvements",
"ordering feasibility study", "specific method and years of
assessment", etc. civen the length of this agenda, this office
would recommend that discussion and actj-on on these types
of j-ssues be tabl-ed to a future meeting.
Location and Construction of Trail: As shown in the planning
report of JuIy 17, 1980 (item number 2) the previous approval
encompassed specific requirements as weII as optional construction
techniques for the trail through the proposed development.
As resubmitted, a third potential location has now been defined.
It is recommended that any aPProval be conditioned upon the
applicant resolving this issue with the.Ptanning Comrnission and
,.rr 1
RUSSELL H, L^R SO N
CFI^I6 M lcERT2
H^ RVEY E,5X^Ai
BARX C, MCCULLOUGH
Mark Koegler
Schoell & Madson, Inc.50 S Ninth AveHopkins MN 55343
Re
Dear I'lark:
The comprehensive plan
heLd on March 16, 198Igovernmental units andprehensive plan has notfor review because thegovernmental units has
L,rrrs<tN & Mrr n,rz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
r900 F'Rsr BANx o-ACE w€S'
M IN N EAPO LIS, MINNESOTA 5 5402
May I, 19 81
Comprehensive Plan
A-rnendmen t Reques t byMinnetonka. Inc.
Ehe
and
(6r2 ) 33s- 9 5e 3
mere
have to
it isthe proposeds. s462. 355
You have asked me to confirm j-n writing our telephone conversatj-onregarding procedures to be followed if the city bouncit aesires to amend.the- comprehensive pJ-an so as to alrow the construction of the Minne-tonka, Inc. facility at the intersection of Highways 5 and At.
was submitted to the public at a public hearingand contemporaneo us Iy was submitted to adjacen[.the three affected school districts. The com_been formally submi.tted to the Metro Councilsix-month revj_ew time afforded adjacentnot expi.red. ( See M. S. S473.858 (2, ) .
The changes requested by Minnetonka, Inc. cannot be viewed as"housekeeping" changes in the pLan j-nasmuch as the City wouldmake major revisions in the alignment of the M.U.S.A. iine, inLand Use PIan, and in its Sewer poLicy plan.
If the City wi-shes to entertain the l,tinnetonka, Inc. request,our recommendation that a new public hearing be scheduldd onamendments. The publication requirements are set forth in M.(2) .
Notice of the public hearing and a copy ofbe sent to aI1 adjacent governmentaf un:.tsdi s tri.cts which serve Chanhassen.
submission of this proposed amendment to the adjacent cities wilrhave the effect of extending the six-month revieri period provided in5473.858 (2) provided that these cities and the lchool iistri.tsfurnished with a copy of the proposed amendments and provided thatare furnished with notice of the new public hearing.
proposed changes shouldto all of the school
The
not
M. S.
are
they
Ma rk
I'1ay
P age
Koegler1, 198r
Two
when the City Council submits the final draft of the plan to thel'letro council for review, copies of the finar draft must be provided tothe cities and school districts. If a neighboring city is unhappywith changes lshich may have occurred between the time of Chanhasien,ssubmi.ssion of the original version of the plan and the time of formarsubmission of the revised plan to the plet.ropolitan Council, thatneighboring city's remedy is to demand medj,ation as set forth in M.S.
s473.17s (2) .
Conclusion:
If the City desires to a1low Minnetonka. Inc. to buildHighways 5 and 41 the following should be done:
at the intersecting
Schedule a public hearing before the planning Corunission on theproposed plan ievis ion.
Give notice of the public hearing as provided in M.S. 5462.355(2).
Serve notice of the public hearing and the text of the proposed
changes on adjacent governmental units and aL1 three schooldistricts by mail .
Very truly yours,
'VhnlL
I
2
3
CRAIG M. I4ERTZ
Assistant Chanhas sen City Attorney
Cl"1M: nercc: Scott Martin
Bob Waibel
Don Ashworth
ara
,.)
3
iilr.h,
?"!v161 61ttr
3OO Metro Square Building, 7th Street a,nd Robert Street, Sa,int PauI, Minnesota.55101 Area 612, 291-6889
May 1, 19 81
Dear Don:
This is to inform you that we met with Mr. Ron Whipperman ofMinnetonka, Inc. to review the planning and coordinating rolesand responsibi liti es between the City of Chanhassen and the Metro-politan Council as defined by the Metropolitan Land planning Act.This meeting was a followup to the ApriI 14 meeting between the city,the Metropo]itan Council, the l4etropolitan Waste Control Commissionand representatj-ves of Minnetonka, Inc. to review their project anddiscuss the local and regional planning problems which iL miy pose.
The Metropolitan CounciI, and I am sure the City of Chanhassen,wishes to work closely rvith the business community as their plansdevelop for plant expansion or relocation in the region.
I felt that the meeting with I,Ir. Whipperman was very productive,particul-arIy the revi ev, of the decision-making process undertakenby Minnetonka Inc., to select their currently proposed site. At oursuggestion, a followup meeting will be arranged between Minnetonka,Inc.rs engineering consultant, the Iqetropolitan Waste ControlCommission and the Metropolitan Council staff to review in detailavailable and programmed capacities within the metropofitan sewersystem serving the subregion in rvhich they wish to remain. Thecompany is anxious to know where they stand in relationship to thelocal and regional planning processes, and certainly would beappreciative of a timely response.
During the interirn, while the city's plan is being finalized, theMetropofitan Councj-l and city staff should work cooperatively topursue those issues and concerns discussed at the April 14 meeting.As suggested during this meeting, an informal review of the currentdraft of the comprehensive pl_an would be extrerely hetpful infacilitating this process. Because of timing and rimiied availabl-eCouncil staff resources due to the current conrnitment to completeformal plan reviews, f would further suggest that the informafreview be limited to the following areas:
_<.
RECEIVED
,rlAY 4 l98t
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Mr. Donald Ashworth, ManagerCity of Chanhassen
7 610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 5 5317
\n A{<elrcy (.]roal.ed to Coo.(lItIxto t h( 1'l;rrrnirrg rrrrd DeveloI)rn,rr\t ()f theTwiD Cities Mutropolittrn Arett Conr prrsing:
_,noka Courrry u Carver Courrty (, DaLora Counry ,) I{€rrncpin Counry . j llslnsey Counry ._, Scort County I Wa^ghingioIr Courray
I
2
l,lr. Donald Ashurorth 2 May 1, 19 81
Review proposed timing and staging of development of five-yearincrements (1980-85, 1985-I990), and extensions of the 1oca1
sewer facilities to serve development.
Review the cityrs documentation to be used as a basj-s forrequesting additional sewer service to support its population
and employment projections (which I understand are higher thanthe l4etropolitan Council's) .
This review would be completed within one week by the Councili thus,
Placing us in a better position to review the Minnetonka, Inc.
proposed site, and to provj,de more information as to what potential
problems they can expect to encounter so that they can prepare their
own plans accordingly. This informal review should not delay your
own timetable for completing the plan prior to July I, 198I, a final
due date established last year by the Metropolitan Council. Ifthese j-ssues can be resolved or further refined through the exchangeof information bet\^reen the city and the Metropotitan Council or asolution negotiated, it wilI greatly expedite the formal review
Process when the comprehensive pfan is submitted to the MetropolitanCouncil for formaf review.
Meanwhi.le, until the plan is reviewed and the comprehensive sewerplan is approved by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commj-ssion, no
serrer extensions can be approved other than those previousty approvedlast fa1I as part of an amendment to the city's interim comprehensive
sewer plan.
The procedures that I offer have been successfully used in other
conmunities as a means of addressing similar issues. It is my feelingthat with continued candid discussions between representatives of
Minnetonka, Inc., the City of Chanhassen and the Metropotitan Council,a course of action can be defined leading to a timely resolution ofthe issues that are before us.
Sincerely,
3
t-.--
Janes
.J,oca 1
. Barton, Manager
lanning Assistance
JEB : im
Review total area allocated to development within the city'sproposed 1990 Urban Service Area.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact
me at 291-6417.
Ron l\rhipperman, Vice President, Operations, l4innetonka, Inc.Wilfiam Sando, Metropolj-tan Council District 15
R
M
ctry
ECEIVED
AY 4 I9BI
OF CHANHASSE
May 1, 1981
I',,]Ii' ]NETONKA, I[iC
N
Don As hwor th
C ity of Chan has s en
590 Cou I ter Dr ive
P0 Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 5531 7
Dear Don:
As requested by the Chanhassen City Council, Minnetonka has made anindepth study of secondary sites in the City of Chanhassen for our
Campus Faciiity. ln this writing, I am confirming our previous verbal
cornmunications as to why these secondary sites would or would not
meet the necessary criteria for the erection of the l.linnetonka Business
Campus Faci I ity with its anticipated future expansion,
Enclosed piease find a map denoting sites ,'A,r through ,,0't as submitted
by yourself, City Staff, and other City Advisors. Also find site "D,,which Minnetonka considers as the only remaining secondary site acceptablein the City of Chanhassen other than the primary site on 5 and 41.
The reasons for accepting or rejecting the secondary alternative sitesare as fol lows:
s ite ,,A,,Does not have major arterial frontage
Does not have favorable typography necessary of
campus des ign
Does not have favorable utilization of natural
energy sources
)
)
I
2
(3)
Si te "B" (1)
(2)
(3)
si te ,, c,,
Does not have a favorable secondary access for
t ruck traffic
Does not have favorable typography for a campus
des ign
lf natural energy sources were to be utilized,
the abi I ity to have major arterial frontage
exposure would be eliminated.
Does not have sufficient major arterial frontage
Does not have favorable typography for a campus
design
Although this site permits natural energy utiliz-
ation, it minimizes campus building exposure to
major arterial frontage
(3)
o O tsoxrA |"linneroneo N'lnrasolo 5534JiPiepl()neol2 i48.4181
(1)
(2)
(4) Necessary truck entrances would not be possible
do to Galpin Blvd. road construction
site '|
rD|'I ) Ooes not have sufficient acreage
2) Does not have major arterial frontage
3) Has only one access road
4) Does not have favorable typography for a campus
facil ity
Does have favorab I e typography
Does allow util ization of natural energy sources
Has major arterial frontage and exposure
County Rd, 17 is constructed to permit truck usage
ln closing, l''linnetonka finds that the land on 5 and 4l is by far the
best site suited to the requirements for the erection of a business
campus facility and the only other site that would be considered to meet,
somewhat favorably, to a campus plan would be site "E".
lf either of these two selected sites would not be considered favorable
by yourself, City Staff, City Planning Commission, or City Council, for
the erect ion of Minnetonkar s Bus iness Campus Fac i I i ty, please I et me
know as soon as possible so that l'linnetonka can implement major planning
changes.
Sinc
Robert G. Schul tz, Jr.
D i rec tor
Corporate Eng ineer i ng
RS/dmp
enc.
(
(
(
(
(r )
(2)
(3)
(4)
s(,
5'
(I
\
i::=1\'IniL
-.,]L-
(D
t,I
\--
N-
i\
:-.'. 6
0{
I
.t
i
l,
)\
cl'
I) {)s
q)
{
F
\t
l..-'-'
-r--
=trlr/,U'
.Iz
E(J
o
e3
==;l
:f.J/\:
f"-
L,ll
n>
I
[;,
,+--
ii
0
o
T
:
I
!
I,i
.,. l -|
';ll
,
i
, .-, , ;'ll
I
i
-;=.
li
i
I
I
(
,
t-
I
I -o
-{
t
I
A95O COUNTY FIOAD *
EDEN PHAIRIE, MINNESOTA 5534-
NOTICE
or
ANIWAL RILEY-PURGATORY CP.EE( $'ATERSEED DISTRICT TOI'R
The Riley-Purgatory Creek watershed DLstrlct Boald of ltlanagers v111
conduct a tour of Ehe Watershed fron 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturday '
)tay 9, 1981. Varlous proPosed and existlng development areas wLlI be
revlewed lncludlng:
The Preserve
Hustad| s Bluf f s DeveloPmeot
HLghwayT-Hlghwayl0l
'Lake Susan lndustrial Park
Western Chanhassen Area
Westerq BlooElngton Area
ltle tour w11)- begln at 8:30 a.In. at the Eden Pralrle clty HaU' 8950
Eden Pralrle Roari and w111 reEurn there aE 12:00 noon. Please call Barr
En8lneerlng Co,, 920-0655, before 12:00 noon, Thursday, !{ay 7, I98I' lf you
plan to attend.
ap
I
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed DistricL
t,:..
Riley- Purgatory Creek W'atershed ictDistr
."/
as50 couNTY FroAo #4
EDEN PRAIFIIE. MINNESOTA 55344
April 27, l98l
Deor Mr. Ashworth:
^ The Annuol Riley-Purgotory creek wotershed District Tour will be held onSoturdoy, Moy 9, 1981. The Chonhossen City Council, City stoff, ond members ofcitizen committees ore cordiolly invited to ottend.
.^ ^^ Anyone. plonning to ottend, pleose coll Borr Engineering Co., 920_0655, before
I 2:00 noon, Thursdoy, Moy 7.
Mr. Don Ashworth
City of Chonhossen
761 0 Loredo Drive
Chonhossen, Minnesoto 55317
RCO/ilr
enc.
Mr. Frederick Rohr
Mr. Freder ick Richords
R ert C. Obermeyer
B RR ENCINEERING o
Engineers for the District
Yerncil
',,i|L//I
?
?
+
APN 19BI
RECEIVED
VILI.AGE OP
CHANHASSgN,
d
c\.t
MINN.
(,n
tr
B
C:
ffiEflF-IflEflfi$5EI[
il\r,
naz-c." l'
l l4lvt
7610 LAREDO DRIVE . P,O. BOX .I47 ' CHANHASSEN, T/4INNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
April 29, l98I
Ms. Sally Belgum
L41 West Lake StreetExcelsior, MN 55 331
Dear Sally:
This letter is to confirT-y"yT empLoyment as the receptionj.st forthe city of chanhassen efflctiv" apiii-fO, 1981.
The. starting salary for your position is S8ZO.00 per month. Twoweeks paid vacation is eirned'artei one- fu1l year'oi "*pi"vrn""t,!g! "": week mav be taken after E-;";Ii" ot siti"tictoii-"ir,ri"..All other personnel !?l:"i:.= "ppiv i"-V"ur position. --ii yo, fru"uany questions relative.to thes6- p6:.i.i'"", you should contact theCity Treasurer, Kay KJ.ingelhutz
Your position is directly responsible to Karen Engerhardt. rf you haveany problems or questions, please contact her.
You wi ll _be . required to undergo a City paid employment physicalas a condirion of your emproyment wir.fi irre cit!,. 'iii"".rLri-ilixu *,.::::::.:y ar.rangemenrs. for you in the near futirre. r """-ti,:."requrrement as a benefit to both yourself ana tne Cityl-- -"
I would like to welcome you to the Cityof luck in your new job.
"'ru:'eb
staff and wj_sh you the best
Don AshworthCity Manager
DA:k
CITY OF
Personnel File
Kay Klj.ngelhutz, City Treasurer
\z<1 ..74<-*
4-6 1L aJ uz
.JA &
zT*
I ^<
q"61-
*/*'
l.j\*-
tbr
a Jr.* **
-)
4. Aftirnatively alleges that rhe plaintiff j.s absolutely
imnune from liability under 42 U.S.C. S1983 and Chat plaintiff is
not a herson,, wj.thin the meaning of said statute,
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment of the Court as follords:
1. That the relief sought by the Defendants in their
Petition for lilit of Mandamus and CountercLaims be in aII
respects denied.
2. Ahat plaintiff be granted relief as set forth in its
complaint.
3. For such other and fulther relief as to this Courtnay
seem just and eguitable. rrith costs and reasonable altorney fees.
LARSON E I4ERTZ
Dated:b
Craig M.MertzAttorneys for plaj.nti ff1900 First Bank place WestIlinneapol is MN 55402(612 ) 335-9565
-7-
3. Denies paragraph II of Count Tjrree except admits that
the then Chanhassen Cj.ty planner and the City Building Inspecto!
may have spoken with Defendant David K. Luse and,/or his represen-
tatives and that said Cj.ty planner may have expresseal an inforrnal
opLnion as to the legaLity of Defendants. proposed use based on
the infornation then supplied by the Defendant David K. Luse
and/or his representatives
4. States that j.t is without knowledge sufficient to forn
a belj.ef as to the averments of palagraphs III and IV of Count
Three.
5. Denies paragtaph V of Count Three.
6. Affilnatively alleges that Defendants and/o! their
representatives misreplesented o! ornj.tted material facts as to
their ploposed use of the ploperty and as to the nature of the
business to be conducted thereon in the conversatj.ons alleged to
have taken place betveen the Defendants and/or thei! lepresentatj.ves
and the Chanhassen City planner and Building Inspector.
7. Affirrnntively alleges that Defendants, Count Three
is barred by M.S.A. 5466.05 by reason of Defendants, failure to
give notice of their aLleged claim.
8. Affirrnatively alleges that plaintiff is inunune from
liability on Defendants, CountercIaitIE by reason of M.S.A. S466.03,
Subd. 5 and 6.
vr.
]ls to Count Four of Defendants, Counterclairns:
t. Unless admitted or otherwise quaLified herein, denies,
each and every allegation of Defendants, CountercLain Count Four.
2. Except as otherrrise admitted in pargaraph V denies
Paragraph I of Count Four.
3, Affirhatively reaLLeges paraglaph V, I_8, inclusive.
VII.
As to Count Five of Defendants, Counterclaims:
I. Unless admitted or otherwise qualified herein, alenies
each and every allegatioh of Defendants, Counterclaim Count Five.
2. Except as otherwise adnitted i.n paragraph V, denies
Paragraph I of Count Five.
3. Affirnatively realLegE paragraph V, 1-8, inclusive.
-6-
"Section 19.I8 Depos i t Costs,
Prior to cons idera tion b the Counc i I Pl-anningCollunisson, or any tyo cla an application fora variance, cond r t ion aI use l)ermi t,rezonj.ng, ordeterminationre I evaI t to the admin i s tra t ion ,atnorenorcement o 5 0r nance,Zon Lnnistrator ma re u].re cant to sit !{i thtts cst mate )'e Zon n9 ]'nistratortoe su .LC ent to defla al1 Cit ense .]'nproces s n9 sa apP cats ton, rnc ln ut wi thout
a n./
l ica-
Iimi tation to, C ity staff adm n strat on costs, andenginee!ing,fees. Any b
plann ing ,Ieqa I.,efa-o and soil consultants'sit remaining afteralance of s pocompletion of proceedinqs onrefunded to the appl ica; t, ,,
rh e appfication shall beEmphasis suppl i.ed. )
8. Affirnatively alleges that S23.LO of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance provides in peltinent part: ,,That the applicant shallpay ...2 AI1 direct erpense of the VilLage incurrealo! expended uv i! il the.processing oi,irr; conaittonaluse perlnir u""r,:::-i:n: including iuUii"uti"r, mar-Ling,Iegal and engineerr.ng costs.
n...3 At the time of the fillng of a conditionaluse perrnit application, the zoning. AdrniiiJi.uto. .uyrequire t.he appticant ro deposir iiir, lii"-iirrug.tunds estimated by the zoning aa.i"i.ti.Ioi o u.sufficient to defiay aIt viliaqe;;;;;;-;;processing said applicatio". ,iny ulii".e-or saiadepos j.t remainir,g- if te. ""*pr.Ii6n-J?-pil"f "air,9"on the applicarj.6n sharl rr"' i. ir"i"i't5'IiE uppri.ant.,,
9. Affirmatively aLl.eges that Defendants have not made
the deposit of S1,5OO.OO described in paragraph 5 above.
I0. Affirnatively alleges that the Chanhassen City Council
Eeconsidered Defendants, appl.ication on Novenber I7. 1980, and
directed the City Attotneys to take the necessary steps to enforce
the Zoning Ordinance.
11. Affirmatively alleges that offici.al actj.on taken by the
City to enforce its Zoning Ordi.nance is not ,,coercion,, wi.thin the
meaning of f.t.S,A. S609.27 or M,S.A. S609.275.
As to Count Three of Defendant.s, Counterclaims:
1. Unless adhitted or otherv/ise qualified herein, denies
each and every allegation of Defe[dants, Counterclaim Count Three.
2. Except as other!,rise adnittcd in paragraph II of this
Answer, denies palagraph I of Count Three.
5. Affilmatively alleges that the subject premises was
first zoned R-lA on pebrualy B, Ig.l2t and that the estabLishment
of the restrictions i.n 56 of the Chanhassen Zoni.ng Orailnance pre-
date Defendants, acquisitj.on of the subject premises by rnore
than five years.
IV.
As to Count Th,o of Defendants, Counterclaims:
1. Unless admitted or otheririse qualified herein,denies
each and every alLegation of Defendants, Counterclaih Count IVo.
2. Except as othervise adnitted in paraglaph II of this
An6wer, denies paragraph I of Count T\do.
3. Admits plaintiff, by action of its Council on Feblualy 20,
1979, effectiveJ.y deni.ed Defendants, applicatioh f,or a conditional
use permit or a re-zoning, chosing instead the alternative of
enfoEcing Che ordinance, except that no enfolcement action was
to be taken prior to Novembe! 15, 1980, provided that Defendailt
Natural Green, Inc. fj.Le with the City a deposit of $L,5OO.OO to
pay Legal costs incurled afte! November 15, I9gO, should it be
necessary to cofiunence legal action after that date to cohpef
termination of Defendants, Iandscaping business on the subject
premises.
4, AlLeges that by delayj.ng enforcement of the Zoning
Ordinance until November 15, 1980, plainti.ff was attempting to
ame.Iiorate any hardship which Defendants mi.ght incur in terminating
their use af the subject plenises for purposes of an illegal
landscaping bus iness.
5. AIIeges that conditioning the delay in enforcenent of
the ordinance upon Defendants making a $I,5OO.OO deposit viLh the
City was a Legitinate exerci.se of the police powers and zoning
powers of the pLainti f f.
6. Speci.fically denies palagraphs III and IV of Count IVo.
7. AffirmativeLy alleges that the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance
l.as amended in 1974 by adding a S19.I8 reading as follorJs:
-4-
10. Affirmatively afleges t.hat conmercj.al Iandscaping
businesses are neiEhe! a permi.tted nor a condi.tionar use in the
R-lA dj.strict unde! otdinance 4? and that Defendants, use is an
illegaL use in such a district and that, thelefore, Manatamus cannot
issue.
' 11. Affirmatively alleges Chat the City Council is not bound
by the lecomnendations of the pIanni.ng conmission, and that under
Sect.ion 23, S23.OS of ordinance 47, the City Counci.L is required
to independently determine whether the conditions preceatent to
i.asuance of a conditionar use pernit exist, and that a deternination
lras made that a landsqaping business uas neither a permitted nor
a conditional use in an R_1A district.
12, Affirmati.vely aLleges that the plaj.ntiff,s actions did
not deprive Defendants of the reasonable use of their propelty,
nor did it interfere wi.th the ownership, possession, enjoyment
Or value Of said property.
13. Affirmati.vely alleges that the plainti.ff is irmune froh
tiability under 42 u.s.c, S1983, and thar pl.aintiff is nor a
"person'. lrithin the meaning of said statute,
III.
As to Coune One of of Defendants, Counterclaims:
I. Unless admitted or otherwise qual,i,fied he!ej.n, alenies
each and every allegation of Defendants, Countercl-aim Count One.
2. Except as otherwise admitted in paragraph II of this
AnsHer, denies paragraph I of Defendantsr Count one, and denies in
total Paragraphs II and 1Il thereof,
3. Affirmatively alleges that SII.O4 of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance plovides for certain uses by conditionaL use
permit in the C-3, Corunercial Servj.ce District, one of the
conditionaL uses permitted being: ,,...2. commercial greenhouses
and Iandscaping businesses...,, and that certain Cracts of land in
the Cj.ty of Chanhassen are so zoncd.
4. Affirmatively alleges that Dcfe.dants, property has at
alL times been zoned R-IA, and that plaintiff has not dcprj.ved
Defcndants of the reasonable usc of thei! property and has not
inlelfered $rith Defendants' olrnership, possession, enjoyment or
value of said ploperty.
-3-
4. Admits that on Decehber 27, lg't1t the planning Colunission
unaninousLy recohmended that UE City Council issue a conditj.onaL
use pertnit to Defendants,/Petitioners under S23.OI(5) which states
in pertinent part that a condj.tionaL use permi.t ,nay be issued:
"...5 To permit the location in any district oftenpolary use uhich i.rj-ll not continue for more thanone yeat. For good cause shown? the ViIIageCouncil may rene!, aDy such temporary permit-,'
5. AIIeges that saj.d Decenbe! ir, tsla planning corunission
recorunenalation vas not based on Section 6.04 of the Chanhassen
Zoning Ordinance.
5. Admits that the Chanhassen City CounciL at its heeCing
of February 20, L979, after having reviewed the reports of its
staff, considered the following options:
a) re-zone the subject prenises to C-3, or
b) atuend Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allor,, landscape businesses in the R-IA zone, otr
c) create a new zone for Iandscaping busj-nesses
into which the subject premises could be placed, or
d) issue a one-year temporary conditional use pernit
unde! S23.01 (5) , o!
e) enforce the ordinance as then written.
1. Admits that the City Council at said Februaly 20, L979
meeting effectively denied Defendants'/Plaintiffs' appLication,
chosing the alternative of enforcing the ordinance, except that
no enforcement action was to be taken prlor to Noven cer 15. 1980,
provided that Defendant Natural Green, Inc. file with the City
a deposj.t of $1,500,00 to pay le9a1 costs incurred after Novenber
15, 1980, should it be necessary to conunence legal action after
that date to compel cermination of Defendants' landscaping
business on the subject premises.
8. Adnits that Paragraph XI of the Petition for lirit of
Mandamus contains a true and correct partial extract of the
Minutes of the Chanhassen City Council's meeting of February 20,
1979.
9. specifically denies in total the alLegatj.ons of Paragraphs
XII and XIII theleof.
-2-
Plaintlff City of Chanhassen, for its Anslser to Defenatantsrpetirion for wrir of Mandamus ana c"on[ei"iii;; il;;." as fo].Iows:
I,
unress adhitted or othen j.se qualified herein, deni.es each and every
aLlegation of the petition for Wrj.t of Mandamus and CounLs One
through Five of Defendants, CountercLaims.
II.
As to Defendants, petition for wrj.t of Mandaftus:
l. Admj-ts paragraphs I through VIII, thereof, except that
it alleges that a) the !o1e of the planning commission unale!
appli.cable state statutes is to advise the City Council rather
than to assist the City Councll in governing the nunicipality,
and b) 56.04 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance was anended in 1977to include ,.churches,, as an allowable conditional use j.n the
R-lA zone.
2. Admits that Ordinance 4?, Section 23 sets foreh the
purposes, procedules, standards and requirements for obt.aining
a condirional use pelnit and that De fendan ts,/peti tioners applied
for a conditionar use permi,t and that De fendants/pe titionels
cooperated ,rith City sraff in processing said apptication.
3. A&nits that paragraph X of said petition fo! writ of
Mandamus accurately recites the text of Section 23.06 of the
chanhassen zoning ordi.nance, cxccpt that said s23.06 was ahended in
1974 to incLude a fifth required finding as follolrs:
,,That the conditional use is compatrble with thepernitred use authorized *i.r,i" it.-liitiiJi.,,
STA"E OF MINNESOTA
COUNI| Y OP CARVDR
City of Chanhassen, a Minnesotanunicipal corporation,
plaintiff,
Natural Green, Inc., a Minnesotacorporation, and, David X. Luse,Juirann Luse, husband and wife,
Defendants.
DISTRICT COURT
FIRST JUDICIAI DISTRICT
CITY OT' CHANHASSEN 'SANSWER TO DEFENDANTS I
PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND COUNTER-
CLAIMand
Fi 1e No. l?275
!E*
,61....'fi||r$*,
c0
I:iarbifary capricious and unreasonable nature of plaintiff,s actions, is intotol actiondble under 42 u.S.C.ql9g3; that Defendants are therefor entitledto actudl, nornjndl and punitjve damages as vrell as attorneys fees.
HllEnEfonE, 0cfcndants pray for judgnrcllt of the Court as foliows:
l. 0enyjng thc relief sou0ht by plajntjff.
, 2, Dctenlinin(t thnt Defcnd,rnls, usc of.thc property is permitted under
the ord i nance, or
3. 0etermjnilg that thr dcninl of thc above set forth application for
a Conditional Use per-fli t wos arbitnty, c,)pricous, discriminatory, confiscatory,
i llcaaI, unconstitutjonal and void.
4. That a l,lri t of l,landamus be issued dirccting that plaintiff issue
a Conditional Usel peroit for the usc of the subjrct propcrty identical to
Defendants' use of said property, or
5. For judgnent for actual, nominal ond punitive danEges under Counter-
cl a ims I through IV.
6. Rcmoving this njattcr to thc Unitcd Stntcs Oistrict Court in the
event the Court finds it has no jurisdictjon over claims brought under 42
il
usc0 r 983 .
7.For Defendonts' costs nnd disburserlc']ts hcrein, inc.ludirig reasonable
attorneys fees.
g. For such other and fu!.thur rclicf ds the Court deems equitable.
ItT,ER & SJODIN
\
ctr E
l;
I'IE L
a.I
ey
ree
e cP.0.67,400
Chaska, l'linncso
(612 ) 448-3t 2
a5
:
-8-
t
B
o,
COUII I TIIRII
Rcallege par.rqraphs I throurlh XII of thc pctition for a l.lrit of ihndanrs.
lt.
That prior to the purchose of the subjccI l,roperty Defendants advisedPldintiff, through plaintiff,s dgcllts and cnrpisyss5, specifically thc Clty
Planner and City Building Inspector, of thc intandca use of the property;
that oefendants then specifically i quircd as to v/hether or not there wasany probleo whatsoevef with thc intcnded use and v/cre ddviScd that there
'ra
s n0 problefl.
llt.
That thereafter Dcfcndants closed orr the sJlc and l)roceedcd to expcndin excess of $25,b00 for iflf,rovcnEnts to thc pr.opcrty before they rere advisedthat a conditional use pennit ight be necessary. Further, these costs wlllnot l)e recovcrab'lc o resalc of l"lll.. l)ropcrLy.
IV.
That if it is necessary to r
Defendants nilr inclr "or,, ,n "ton'"''
thc pl'operty froo its present use
and that these costs will .". 0..:::: :',,10,000
to restore the property
rccoverable on resale of the property.
v.
That such action constitutos act.ionable lllisrepresentation on the partof Plaiotiff to the damage of Dcfendonts.
That such action constitutcs gross n0gljUcncc on thc part of plaintjffto thc da,nage of 0efo,)dnnts.
COUNI IOUN
Reallege paragrophsl through lV of Count Three.
II,
ReallegL, poragrphs I through lV oi Cou,rL .lhrcc.
Allege that this dct.ion, conbinltd u.ith pt.rintiff,s refusdl to act unless0efendants depositcd Sl ,500.00 to dcfrny lcg,rl cxpenses, co rbined with the
ll.
-7-
,/
coultl vr
I.
o
C0UllTal(CLi i i.t,
A5 .ItcrflJtiv,r!, joirrtly ,Jrd sevr.,,'a11y, to thc t)ctitjon for !,lrit of
l4andarua a5jcrl-cd rbove, 0cfcrd,jnL: rt,irc .r,, follo!/::
c(lu:rl 0ili
l. .
Redllege parngrnphs I throu!h Xll uf tlrrr l,otition for,t l,,rit of l,la domus,
II,
Allege thJt a jutticJble controversy cxirts bctween Plaintiff and 0efendants
involviflg thc ri1]lrts !lld ]jdhilrtt, s of llrr i,,r'tics undcr. the Zoning 0rdinance
s(!L forth r5uvr.
Ilr.
,Allc.Jes lh.l Lirurc is no ,rr0,l otll ,r' l.]rurr it-lA A!r.jcultural Rcsidence
0i!trict for vrhiLlr t)re usc refcrrcJ tu .ibove i, pcniittcd, and that accordingly
the Plaintiff has !ffcctivcly ronL,(l D(-.f(.rrdrrLr, out of bu!iness vrjthin the
City 0f Ch,rnhJ.,scrr t/hich co stiluL.r. ,r Lnkjr,l of prjvate property v/ithout
just corrpensation first pa'id dl]d 5ccur.d,.ortrdry to Article I, Section
l3 of the Constitution of the State of ilinnc:ota.
COUNT TIIO
I. ..
Reallege paragrnphs I through Xll of th,r l)ulitjon for a llrit of Mandaaus.
. II.
Affjnratively ille!c that thc City Councjl |epeatcdly rcfused to consider
Defendants' requcst for a conditional u5c pcnllit un'less Dcfcndontsr agrecd
and depositcd tne su"r of 91 ,500.00 \vith the Plailltiff ro bc used for legal
expenses to en,l Ociendants' c!rrent use of the propcrty should legdl action
bc necessary.
III.
That sdid dern[d \.rn: not legitinute urdrl. arly,-cction of the Zoning
ordinancc.
tv.
That sajd action constitutes n Llclrtrt(!(l coc|cion within the nleaninq of
1.1.S.45609.27 Subd. I (2) ,rnd (3) nn,l l'l.S.A.',6t19.275, Lhur crLitling 0efendants
to compcnsatory, no rjnnl and plrritivc d,rnD!c'i.
a
/
a
15, 1980, No tura I
l)ropc. ty. The
rrds duIi ng thc
i rcd to obtain antllc anlount ofn the calc that
Tlr0t this cFfe.Liv(, dcIiri l,y Ll|t I,lniIt iff of the a!pljcctior) for a
conditionnl !._c lrcrrirrt rra5 u|].r,.rrorr!1,]r., .,r.bjLr.rr.], cdl)ficiou5, .invalid andin violdtion of thL, lcq,tl dnJ c()rr.,IIL!rLr,,.,I rlllhts 0f 0efclld,lnts-trctitioners,
leq,rl dnd co,r,jtit(ition,tl rj:ttrt . lr lrJ, L, for ru follur.rinrJ rcasr.rrrs:
A. Thot Urc.,ut)ject t)roijrIty js rrti,c)y sLritc4 for tlre pg;ro.o
rl,(ltraSLc(l dr)d sJjd u!,r 1,, llr ii.lr.ir!fty l/jih Lh,r l)!ri)oSc Of thc
Jirt, icl r' , i,rc UrJ , Lr, .1.. ., r,,r,,t...
I
B. That !ajll u!0 is not dctrliirc tnl to fur_(joe! it endanger the
public hc,ilth, safcty, |rordls, co rfor t or gencrol welfitre.
C. That said uSe jS nut tnjuricut to thir use ,rnd anjoy rent of
other propeIties in thL. iiri rcJi,tLL. ricirrjty, nor docs it
diminish or inrpdir propcr.ty valuo. !./i rjI the neighborhood.
D. The use does not impede thc nor Jl orderly developnent of the
surroLtnd i ng propet.ty.
E. The u5e confonls to ali applicablc rcqu.lalions:
"Corrnci lnun lkveaux rrnvud Lhnt t), tiov,. ,l)itrrGrcen wi ll no longer bc in lrusjt)oss ofl thisUuSlnCSs Should not inlL, Sify fr.o t l./tr.,t iL
ll]9.9!9",i", sc,rson. Thc oli:lico,rr is rcqlrln!erest bcJIjn9 ccrtificnt(.ol rtrl:61;1 inSl '500-00-to p,ri for pos,-rrrl,r tc,l.ri ,:(,-Ls irc Dvat OI thL, Opcrntion i: r,c1.,.i..1,r."
o x .
o
That the effective denidl of the appl ication constitutes a taking
of private property without just compc0sation first paid and
secuied, contrary to Articie I, Section 13, of the Constitution
of the State of lilinnesota.
Thdt said action constitutes 0 violation of 0cfenddnts-;;titioners,
rights and privileges secured by the Constitution of the United
States of A.Erica and of tle laws, undcr 42 U.S.C.!19g3.
xUt,
That oefendants-petitiorrers havc ircurrc(l tnd will continue to incurcosts in connection |rith said property nnd riill further lose income, rrhichloss will be pernancnt if the relicf requcet(d is not grunted. If the condl-trorrdl usc pcr;riit 1s not qrnntL.d Dcfcrr llrrt!-l)|titionrrrs vill !uffer irrep,lrable
h,rro.
F
G
.-s,q.|n
c o
"lJiihin .ln Il-lA Agricul.ur.,tl Dr!tri1t, Ul(. folloering uSeS nraybc'ollov/ed t)uL olly upol LhL, :ccu.ir,!,rt a Uonditiorioi Uie p,ernrit;
5
6
7
2
3
Plrks.Jn(l rccrcotjo Jl arcils nr,,nr.,l i d opcr0tcd by oovorn_on Ld I uni t j and rc,! i dc,r t i,r t,,c i,.1r,r,o.r,ooi-iiioi,iiiiirl"'Non-p.olir !chools, in!lurirnj c"it,,;cs, h.;;;;-;-;;;i;"cours(' (rl Study,lCcfr.:dilcd l)J, thr, stntr of t,liirrcsoti.bov(|.nhEnt Owncd Jrrd opcrdttd Livi(: Jnd cul Lural instjtu_llOnS ln!luUlnq, but not linrirr,t tr), adrninisIa,]tivC OffiCCS,libl Jrret, lrubljc sJf!Ly builtr,,r:, ,rnd Dlaccs of ,rssornblv-botr (.r)urscs, but not in(lurtr,r,, il.rving tccs, ranges, or.DinlaLur1,,Jolf curr...cs r,p",.,,r..i tu,. .o,iru"iijf il;;;;";.CerEtnrics-
Colurcrci.rl radio nnd tIlc!irio!t Lril 5 l:Sion 5tations.Livtn(t ,tu,1r'tcrs fcr p"r5un< rrq)lr).,r J on tt," p""riiei-ofthe DL,fIri L tud usr, -
Greenh,Lr:;cs, tool ltou:,,t5,1nd .,lnriinr structurcs acccssoryto r priyntc rosidelrtlul u\i,
Section 2l ul tlre 0rdiIJ c!, {: Litlr,d,,Corklit.ioI.rl U:c perxrits,, scts
forth rCrequirerlrcrri! aIJ stdnJ.,r'd5 [or. L|! i!5r,]ncc of 0 conditional use
pcrnrit, 0cfcndd0ti-Pctitirjncr._ oppl ir-,\t Ior._uch,l conditional uSc permit
arrd conlplicd vith.rlr rcq.,csLs,rJdc by th,r l)l,rr*rin9 co*nirsion for inforination
and paid all fccs r-tqucstcd Dy the pl.rnnirirJ Coi,rxission.
x.
Th,rt on oecember zi, 1978, the pranning corrrnission unani[ousry recofit*nded
to the City Council thdt it grant Lhc conditional use pcrmit.
Further, Sectjon 23,06 of thc Ordinance statcs as.fo.llows:
"23.06 Stand.rrds. No conditional-usc.sh0ll bc reconnendad by thePlanning ConE ission unlcss it shall find:
l, That the cstablishnrent; maintcnancc or operation of thecfiditional use will not be detrirrrcntal to or endanqer the
^ public health, safcty, nprrts, comforr, o. gunoiii riiif".e.Z. That the condjtjonal use e/ill not bc injuri6us to the useand cnjoynrent of other.propcrty i,r ttrc irneoiitc-vicinityfor the purposes already penriiLcd, uo. srr.,itiriioiir'_ djflinish ard inrpair prbpcrty valucs within ifrc-,ieiotoorfrooa.3. That thc cstablishrrrcnt of the conditionai ,r" riii ioiimpede thc nonrnl and orderly drvclotxncnt i"a iroio"e,i,urtof thc sur.ounding propcr.ty ior. rror'p"",niituo ii ir,i airt.l"t.4. Thar the conditioiai ,rc iiori, i, i r i-"ir,".'Li i"ii! , "onro_t0 Ure apt)t icaUlc rcOulnrions of th,! district i"'*f,iifl it isI oc.r tcd .
xt.
Thc City Council conlidercJ ihc applj.ati,)n.t its nrcetjng of Fcbruary
20, 1979. Tlrc City Council, wit}lnut irakifl(t nny fjndirrqs or giving anv reason
for jts cl.cjsion, nrltlrcr grnntcJ nor. d.rii,rJ |,r ,jp!lic.tion. It did, however,
cffcctrv,:ly deny t,h,r,rjjpltcation l)y L,ri,i,r,l thr follo!/in! dciion, as qucted
froru thc Cjty CoUncrl r,rilutcs of I.l,ru,rr.y:t0. lr7g.
c
-4-
Go
d!.,iril)cd in Erhrt)iL A att,tct)(J lrr-r.,g0.,,,, r:..r,Jr.r p,.r
by virtrJc of a contr-J.L for (,rlLl (lJL.t.J /ir/lll,t ], 197jo thc officc of U,,: CJr.vcr Co!Ilty It!( u,.(,c|. in Uool,
33.
rt hcrcof, said ovnership
7, ,lnd filed for record
l4B of Dceds at page
Th,rt soid prot)urty is oLcr/pjoJ by itotur:.rl Gr.ecn, Inc., a l,ljnncsota corpora_tion, of lrhjch DLtendJ t Dnvid K. Lusc i! Lli(] solc sllilreholder.
lll.
Th,rt plajntlff-Rcsl)ondcrL, CiLy of Clr.nirdi.,{rr, is a duly organizcd nunjci-pdljty rjthjn t)rL, Cou,,ty of Cnr.ver, SLJtc of t.lj ncsotd, llllich nunicipalityi', !ovrrncd Ly .t ( I Lv C,,lrfc ii irs! t.,tJ,l lry ,r I l.r,r:l,r! Corl]t.ission.
I l./.
That said City of Chanhossel (harciftcr r.cfcrred to.s City) adopteda Zoning 0rdinance \lhich, vjth aDendrrents thcrcto, controls the zon.ing of0efendants_plaint.iffs,property and that under said ordinnnce the subjectproperty was zoned R_lA Agricultural Residence 0istrict.
Undcr Section 6.ol the purpose ol ,ut.f"srificotion is stated as fol.lons:
,i"#:i"r" iff .i: r)ffd:;idu*r "#_ii$_i_,i
,+#ilf
tcr thesc lands for extensioccurrencc of prella ture s.auneconooi ca I from the standand school s. .,
vI.
Section 6.02 of the ordinance lists thc following pcmi tted..trses .l. Si ngl e farnjly dwellinosZ, Agricul turo.
section 4.02 of the ordinancc n"lll", .r",.r,tr"c os, rottoor,
"Agricul turc t. thc cultivati0n
l::ll:i;"i*ii"i,"::::,i:ii,:lr or trro''"iI a'rd ar I activitiP<
uear ine a n i,u ii. .n.;'il,;#t ;iji iljrfiji:fl:;l;;'i? il:
LoI$rerc ] r I sInb]cs ot. lcnhcls-
ti.
V1J1,
As cond.itional uses in said,ljstrict the Ordinance lists, at Section 6.04,thc fol I owi n9:
__1
%,.rililtm&
--_.......-:: :::::j=i.
'a'-o
tlat thc Planrrirrg (ior issio of l,l,,intiff r.r,LUrfircndcd thnt the City
Council of P'lnintiff grant such a condit.ion;,i use pcrxrit; that the City
Council fo'ilcd.1nd rcfused to nct on Dcfc.,ln.ts, opplication, and that its
fnilura tO act uds unreaso nblc, ,rrbitrir/,:,ld Cap.iCious and in viOla on of
oefendants' lego'l and constitutional ri,,ht: ns rDrc pdr.ticulat.ly set forth
in the Countcrc l,r irrrs bc,lov;.
VII.
AffirlDtivcly allc!c thdt tlte rlcfjni,.irrl of Agrjcultural undcr the
ord r'nancc is uncoIstitutiondlly vague.
l/:II.
Afftrn:ativcly allcac that l)rior to pur.clrdse of the subject property
Dcfcndants ddvircd Plaintiff, through I)l.rjntiff,s agcnts and eoployees, of
intcndcd use df tlrc prol)crty: that DcfeI,tnIts then specific<1l ly inquired as
rrhcther or not thcre vas a y problclll \rlt,rtsocvcr with thc intended use and
ircre adviscd by Pl,rintiff that !here ud., no proUler with the intended.use; a
that Plaintiff is thereby estoppcd froflr sccling thc relief deflanded in the
Cornplaint and has thereby lluived nny right it loy havc had to such relief.
tx.
sonnLle and unlorvfLrl; ,1nd furtlrcr thit such ,rction forccloses any equitoble
.cl icf fur Pl,l i n: i l f .
i,ETITIOiI FOR PIRtI,IPl(lRY VIIIT OT MANOAI.IUS
0efendants-Pcijtioncrs, for tll{rjr t){'til.ion for,r Pcrcrrptory !lrit of
l4andnnu5, stJtc n5 fol'loNs:
I.
That Dcfend,lnt5-Petitionrri Luso ar c the oyncrs of certain real estate
locoted in the City of Chrnhn.-su , Counly of Corver, State of l,linnesota
Affiflnativcly allcae that Plajntiff 5 tl,lirns are barred by the doctrine ol
laches.
x.
Affirnr,itivcly illcAc that tlre City Courcil of plaintiff failed and refusec-
to ac! on DefendJni5' app'lication for,l conditionJl use permit unless Defendants
depositcd "/ith ilajntiff the sunr of $l ,500.00 to be used for PIrintiff,S atton_'
fce5 should l)l0intiff find it ncccssarj/ to instit!tc actjon to. tcrnlinate
Defendnnts' lJsc of the propcrty; thot such a rcquirenent is not found vlithin
Plaintiff's 0rdinance, tlr.rt such,r rcquirerrcnt is .rbitrary, cdpricious, unrea--
,/'
Ci ty of ChoIh,r.js!n, n l.ljrllc!ot,L
nlun ic i Ira I corporn tion,
t,lointifi,
a
lx ul STrl l cT counI
FItI5T JUOICIAT DISTRICT
JO IN T AII:I.]IR OF OEFTNOANTS ;fr.TITl0lr l0R [RIT 0F I'1AN0A,yUS;
c0U TERCLA I t.1S
o
SIAT[ 0r filrJ[rsor A
COUNIY OF CAIIVTR
Natural Green, lnc., a l'linlcsota
Corporation, .1nd, Dnvid K. Iuse n|d
Jul iann LLrse, husbJnd ond lri fc,
0cfcndnnLs
| 'i"''';' I
Dcfendallts, for thcir J(,irrL,,,r),.!/cr.tu Ule Corpl,rint of plaintiff,
state as follous:
Unless ndnitted or othcrr.rise qunlificd herein, deny each and every
al.egation of the Co plaint,
II.
Ad0rit Pnr,tqruphs I througlr lV, nnd VI.
l .
Adnr't thar the subject prciriscs dre utilized in a landscape buslness,
the general dcscription of .Urc busincss being that of a randscape contractor.
IY
Adr it as allegcd in ParJ,tr,rt)h X r,tt to dote Dcfendants have not terminat
their use of the subjcct prcr:riscs.
Affirir,rtivcly allcac th,1t Ure u: Iudc by oefendants df thc subject
premises is a!lIicu]tr.ual \ri Lhjn th(: rrrco inrt of lc appl icoblc ordinances and
is thus d perrli tted use.
vl.
Affinfotively allegc th,tt cvcn if the usc is not a per ittcd use, that
the usc is co rpntiblc l{ith tlrc pll'p(r!0 of thc Il-'lA Agricultrual Residence
District, ,tlld t,lus is cntiLlcd to o .(rlditjonal usc penlit undcr Sectjon 6.04
of the ordjnnncc. That ocford,lnt.e lr,rvc applied for such condjtional use perfii
.aa
Ix)ribiL t)
Page 2 of 2
lo . ori,utl"ili?;'xiiioi":l.l"".us and simirar srructures accessory
9. Churches, but only if (a) thc subject property liesentirely witl.rin the metropoii.t..,'rrfri,.,-"urrr..u area, as def inedfrom Eime ro rimc by llu n"ti"p"riili councit of the rvin Citiesin its Develot)mcnr 6uide., pri"I"it-io fectio., 4?3.I45 of Minnesorastatures; and (b) il.rg_lyoii.t-;;;;";;y""burs a hard_surfacedstreet which is designaccd us ! *i,,oi'arteriar street or colrectorstrcet on the City,s Transportati"r-prI", as that t.erm is definedrn S462.352, Subd. 1 2t r.rinnesota Stuiiru", and (c) the subjectPropertv is dcsiqnated as rcsidcnti;i-;".the City,s ComprehensiveMunicipal plan, as rhar rerm i, J;i;;"; rn 5462.352, Subd.5 ofl'linnesota Statut.es.,'
il
o
lixlt ib i L tl
Within an R-lAy be allowed but
and operated bvood associationi.
inw
of n
O.UJ
tEE_
I.
" 4 .02 De f ini cions .ccrta in te rnrs and woids
AGRICUL'TURI:soil and all activities
For
arc . tlre purpo-ses of Ehis ordi-nance,rle f i ned as fol lows:
include Lhe rais ing ancithe raising of frr r_beariacademies, cotnme rc ia I st
Agricul turc is thei nci dcn I thcr(: Lo.
f ecd itrg o f )ro<;:; byDg anrma l s nor Ehcablcs or kcrrncl,s.
cultivation of theSaid Ecrm shall notfeeding garbage the reto,o1:era tion of ridinq
I
"6'02 perrnit tu4_ Urs:. r.lit.hin an Il-rA Agricurtural District,?:ri:ii:;"3i;,"--$ili b. ;;;;"";:lc:1,r for onc or *o.u of th.
SingIc fam i ly
Agricul ture.hich farm animals, iol- lcss tlran I00 fee
An;' encJ.osurc, stable, or other buiJ.dingncluding bces, are kept shall be a distancet from any orhcr t.ot in " n."ilJ"Iil.-o'i"a.i"a
.r^*l
f
,l::-.:.-1.-il AsricurturaL Dj.srricr,
^.,L. dr:.or{ccl as accessory to the permitied use:
foI Iow
Accessor Uses
dwcIJ.ings.
sw rruning poolsthe res idcn ts
rng uses s cLI
I
Privct Le garage
2.the use
?S t ructures
4.
by the Stands forowner.
Priva te Iy_ownedand convenience of and tcnnis courts forof the permitted use.
an argicultural permitted Use.
products procluced on the premises
accessory to
agricul t.ura I
"6.04E!'iicuI
uPon th
1.
9OVernm
4.
or
rct, ttures
Uses b 9onditional U sc PernritaD1s tr e o ovrlng useecurrng of a Condi tio nal Use p
sma
ermi
. Parks.and recreational areas ownedental units and residcnri"i-;;i.J;;;;;
1:..-- - Non_-prof it. schools, .includinocoursc of srudy accrcdir.cd by aii;-;;;;:
1. Gove rnmc n t_owned and ot)crat.cdinstitutions, incluorng. but noL limircdlibraries, public safciy rr"irJi"g.,"',;,:I'
1gI.I.eSes, having a regularot Minnesota.
civic and c ul turalto, administrative
p)-aces of assembly.
on Iy
off ices,
GoIf courses, but not including driving tees, ranqesmrnrature golf courses opcrat;J iJi^.I*m"r.iaI purposes.
CemeEeries.
Coruncrcial radio ar.rd telcvis ion tratrsmission stations.
6
1
the . Living quarLers forpermLtted usc -
pcrsons cnrployed on the premises of
oC
@
l-::iril-.riL A
That part of che southeast. Qucrtcr or the soutlteast Quarter orSecLion I0, .l'r.>wrrslrip II6,.ltingc i:,-i.,.r". Coul)Ly, MitrnesoEadescribed as follows: ocginnl:il .i'.",r"i"a on t.he South Iineof said soutrlcas! Quartoi of tlic soutii,-rnst Quarter cristanL 1g5.00fccL West of Lhc Sourl)easL .or..,,o.- Lfr".."f , if,"^..-W""i-Iiong
"uiasouth Iine a disrancc of 361.00 i.;l;- i.r.,on". Norrherly paralIeIwit' Ll)e UasL I inc oI sa.i.,.t sruit,.]Ili'UJo.t., of t]rc Sout.heasrQuarrer a disLancc of 593 20 feca;-ii,Ll". aerreciing ." -.iu nign.at an angle of 62 degrees,.00 ruinutes,"OO seconds a disEance of150 fcct more or lcss Lo tlte centci ii,.,. of a creek; thencel:::ttiy along said center line of tnc creet to its intersectionwrrh a Irnc of "..o:ll :h:nce Uast.-iiy along said center Iineof the creek ro irs inLer section \.rirh a fine dr;;n-H"iif,".tyand paraIIeI wiLh said East tine fio^"the point of beginning;thence Sourherlv a.t ong said po.offoi fines to the point ofbeginning
I
I
o
Wllllltl:l Otiu, t,llinLrf I (l,.jI. r(lri -:rcjud!rnc'r)L on its cause of
action .1s fo I Ior,,s :
I. L.:nlorr,r|l(l (Ljfcr)Jrraturat crcli' "i;;]'-:;;'I;:l':: r)rvr(j r:' LL'ic' Juliann Lucc andpersens undcr Uroi. cont..1'"lr 'l)Plr':;' 'rssigrrs' lcssces, agents,
::;l*::.liii:Ii:., ll"iili::"1-:[:'i!iIi I:r ::ilTI:l:, ii:;"""""
:rl:iir.irtil:t"*{::..,ii,"ii:tl,,J::'it:,:,,:".,,::"t:;a;a:;;'----"=
stor.rgc of lron-n,tricufLur,rProducol "Il LllL' I']rcmiscs; sale and
a',a r.p..ii ;;'.;;i;;i;;":Jr. I)roducLr; ; !jtorase, rabricatiorL sale
and mainroinin! r)usin(.rs ;iiil":;. sLor'rqr: of cxcavaEing equi.pmenr
2. Enjoi ll i nq dcfand.oe.nt", pui=6i" ;;;;";-i;li;'"t"' thcir rrcirs' assions'
!:hc prcmiscs Llcscribed ,,, u1,.i?illIoJ 'rsd amPlovees-from
and made irr.e"i-r,i"li.'dr:1il::::"^r:li.;,X,:il:;.::""
Iessecs,
employingprohibited
3. Order r nq dc fcnd.ll;:t:fi's:j:tji.ll;;!:;;ulljr:i;"ii'yliii:':l :;^?;: 3lL,nu"""nalrowibre o. p;;,,,;;;.;"i; ";"i]: ii'::,i::: or improvcment i.s .,ot
:::ll ?thcr rclicf os L() rrris courrrrED costs oId rcasoD.tl)lc attorncy
. Fornd equitnblc
4
may secm
f ees .
I ust
IJlltso:t ! I,luRTZ
IDated d-))-t, /
Cra i9 M rtzAttol lr(.ji:; for pla j.nLif f1900 I:r rl;t IJank l)lacc WesrIll nncrpo I is I:t,J 55402(6r2) ll5_9565
STATE OI
COUN I'Y OF
MINNESO1)\)
) sscARVrjR )
vl]]il L IC..,1 IO:.1
ni>i.r-.ri-t-
he is the
Mi nncsota ,. ComPIa.int
of his own
and belief
Subscribcd a r)dbcfore me Lhi s
stvo rt) Lo
-!L dav
. 1981-
nobcrr h,aibel, bci,rq f jr:jLAssis1.,,,L cr.v n,",..,.i", -ii-.il:,L;;":? Ell,li".l:.ilr" .n..
Lhc plairrtifi ofrouJ-nor,"a,and krrorvs a;;-.;;;;;,!".;;:::. :irlt.ll:.has read the roresorns
kro\',1,.(rsc ;;.;;;'.r'i"''J''a( ()r; rrrrrt Lhc same is tru.
an<r as io suor',r.:t icif ;;"i;:.,I:;::.;,,:t",tcdbonrinrormarion
of
, /.t". J*ota ry c
My conunissiorr cxpiles : ,,to - // _ I,C-
I
,.,tt:,"r'l!ffi,
O
VI.
.. 1,hat Ll\c Ch.1nh.rr:rL-n Zo!in,J OrdirrJ cc, originally adopled
Februory 8, 197t, zonc.d ttre SubjccL I,r!)lniscs ,,tt_IA,,, Agricultural
l(esidencc DisLrtct, and lc Subjcct premiscs Continucs Co be sO
o
and
VII.
6.01, n,rd 6.04, and the defj-nirions
of tl)e tcrlt "J9ricu1Lurc., (ls scL for r in Scctiol 4.02 of the
chanhasscn zoni.ng ordinancc, col)ics of lrhich sections are attached
hercto as Exhj.brL B, set forLli thc only land uses v.hich are
alIow.lbIe in thc It_I,\ zonc.
VIII.
That dcfendnnt, N.lLuroI cr{ro , Inc., with the knowl.edge
and consent of deferdants l.usc, is usin(.J thc Subject premises
for the following pluposes, aII in violation of the Chanhassen
Zon j.n9 Ordinancc:
a) rfi e salc and storngc of ngricultural productsE PrOO\rCCd on th(] Pr(,rrises, and
thc s,rlc alld stor.lqc of non__agricultural products,
thc storagc, frbricaLion, sales and repair ofsprinklcr svstcms. and
thc storagc of.ex\rrv,tting equipment and trucks, and
thc storagc alld snlc of rock products and woodproducts, and
as its business officc-
IX.
That the opcrationsof dcfcnddnt Natural Green, Inc.Iupon thc Subject.l,remises do noL constitute an aIlowable use in
the R-1n zonc and .]re in violation of Suction 6.02, 6.03 anal 6.04
of the Charrhasscn Zonirrg Ordinincc,
:{.
'- Tllat to drte, dcfen(l.1nL, Niltural crccn, Inc.., h.ls nof
terminatcd its us,tr of Llle SuLjcct l,rcrI)i:;c:j for collun{rrcial
IandscitDc and construction Lr,ulincs:j V\rV)!;atj.
lro
-2-
b)
C)
d)
c)
f)
.:b
c
STAI'E OF MI IINOSOTA
coulltY or c^nvri,t
o
OISTRICT COURT
I'IRS'I' JUOICIAL DISTRICT
::::I:1. Grecn, rnc., a
^ri.,,esoLacurporat,ron, .ln,l, Dtvid K. Lusc r|ld.JulrJnn Luse, lrusbilnd and wrfc,
Dc fcnda n ts
City of Ch nh.rs:iorr, o IliDn,,soL,.lmunrc rl)al corl)oril Lion,
plailltiff,
;:si.HI. 3lli, i!^,1$3,,\i;,113
I
COMPLAI IJT
FiIe No
FOR
TiIE
I.
,$:"5;lYi:,"" Acl.roN AGArNsr rHE
Davis l(. LU:;(- is cithar Lhc sotc sharc_
holdcr ol_ NJLr)r.rl Grccn, Inc.
Thitt nt aII timcs hcrein nrurrtioned, plaintiff was, andstiII is, a nrunici.pal corpor,rtio,r or.l.lnizcd and existing undertllc Iaws of thit St..tte of u.rnnesota.
II.
l,hnt the dcfendnrrt, N.rEuril Cr(,cn, Inc., is a Minnesotacorl)ora t i on or,.j.lnr:cd nnd
Il.i.nesota.
cxrstin(' url'l.r tl)c 1a!'s of the state of
.I1I.
That thc de fcn.la
husrrand and !rif.,, arc thc
Davi'l ;i L'ss 3n6 Jurlann Luse,
purchiscrs of ir tract of I.ind (heleinafterthe Subj cc t prcnrrs.,:i) lyin
carvcr couDty, MinnL-sota a'''
arrd b!'inq in thc city of charrhasscn'
s d,.scriircd orr Itr-lribit A, att.:ched heretoand lladc a part lrcreof , un(
1977, and which is ,rrou ".1
a co.trncL for: deed datcd August.r.,
I rccord in Lhc of fj.ce of the CarverCounL), Recordcr nt Book I4U of IJce(ts, l).19L, lj.
holdcr or
That dc fcndan t
princ ipr I share
, That sulr:rcqucDL to Ll)c I),rrct)i,.o of tlro sul).by crcfcr(ranLs J,'..:.,., dcl.eD(l
Jcct Prcmiscs
ledge .1nd cons.',nL of .rofo,,,t'''L
ll'rtur 'rt cre(ri, r:,c., \'-iar Lho kno!r-
.l.lnts LLr.:(., ,)ccupicd thc Subjcct premj.sesand conwcnced using said pljernises to corr.juct a coruncrand construction business.
a conuncrcinf randscaping
LatsoN & Ifunrz
ATTORN EYS AT LAW
,90 O r rRsr BANK PLACE wES-
M IN N EAPO LIS, M IN N ESOTA 554c)2RIJSSELL H. L^RSON
CA^IC H A EFT:
B^RVEY E, SX^^F
iARX C M'CULLOUGH
was served
of Chanhassen vs
April 22, 1981
DoIliff, Inc.
2500 Dain TowerMinneapolis MN 55402Attn: Daniel Hoffman
Re: City of Chanhassen vsNatural Green, Inc. et a1
Dear I'1r. Hoffman:
Enclosed you witl find a copy of a counterclaimupon the City of Chanhassen in the case entitled which
Ci tyNaturalGreen, Inc. et al .rhi ngs, that the defendants
m1s representations by city sto the R-IA zone of the nunof the Ansvrer \^/hich I have i
Chanhassen as to these count
The counterclaimsincurred damages
ege, among ot herresuLt of negJ- i gen treguLations applicable
you will find a copy
al1asataff regarding zon i ngicipality.
nterposed onerclaims.
Enclosed
beha I f of the City of
while it is not clear from the counterclaims, r believe that theconversation, wherein the alleged negligent mis represen ta t ions weremade, occurred during the period commen-ing in mid-summer igzz anaending late in 1978. The counterclaims ario pray for damages as aresult of an alreged attempt at criminal coerlioi and an aitempt tovi-orate Natural Green's civil rights as protected by federir 1aw.Because of the mixed nature of the counterclaims, r assume that yourcompany wi-rr want this office to maintain the defense of the counter-claims.
Very truly yours,
CNAIG I,'1. MERTZ
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
(€t,2) 33 5-9 5 6s
CMI,I: ner
enccc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
rus sErL H !^RsO N
cF^rG k. sEnrz
i^FVEY E, S^
^RM^FX C, BCCULIOUCH
L,rnsox & .\Ir rtrz
ATTOR N EYS AT LAW
i9JO FrF5r EA\x E-a!F
^Es-
M IN N EAPO LIS, MINNESOTA 5 54O?
(6r2) f3s- 9 s65April 22, 19 8I
Re: City of Chanhas sen
y of a counterclaim which was servedin the case entitled City of Chanhassen vsNaturalGreen, Inc. et aI.tII ngs, t at th e defendants
mis representat ion s by City sto the R-IA zone of the nunof the Answer which I have iChanhassen as to these count
Ilome Insurance Company
4 5I0 west 77th Street
Minneapol i,s MN 5 54 35Attn: Dennis Pond,
Claims S upe rvis or
Dear Mr. Pond:
CMIq:ner
enccc: Donald W
The counterclaims allincurred damages as ataff regard ing zon ing
ege, amongresult of
other
negl igentregulations applicableyou wiJ.I find a copyof the City of
Enclosed you will find a copupon the City of Chanhassen
icipali ty.
nterposed onerclaims.
Enc 1o s ed
beha I f
While it is not clear from the counterclaims, I believe that theconversation, wherein the alleged negligent mis repres en tations weremade, occurred during the period "o*ri".,6i.,g in mii-summ.i-rszz u.raendj.ng late in 1978. The counterclaims alio pray tor aamages as aresurt of an al]eged attempt at criminar- coercioi and an .it"*pt toviolate Natural Green's civit rights as protected by federal 1aw.Because of the mixed nature of the counterclaims, I assume that your
!?^lu"y will want this office to maintain the defense of the counter_cl-aIms.
Very truly yours,
CRAIG M. IVTERTZ
AssistanL Chanhassen City Attorney
Ashworth, City I'lanager
Further, this letter does not constitute and is not
intended as a waiVer or any r.rndi scl-osed, existing or
future violations of arry other terms of the policy
contract .
It is ulderstood that attorney Mertz has already anslered
the petitions for \r/rit of Maldamus and Counterclaim a:rd
will-take whatever actions are necessary to protect your
intere st s.
Donald trtr. AshworthCity Manager
D.aca )
April 28, 1981
DH,/1S
Sincerely,
Suit Supervisor
larson & Mertz
Attorneys at Iraw
Carver Coulty AgencYAttn: Bob Valdenbralden
@kx
THE HOME rxsunaNcE coMpANy
EDINA 0FFlcE CENTER . 7600 FRANCE AVENUE, SoUTH . MINNEApoLtS, MTNNESOTA 55435
TELEPHONE 1 (612) a3l -asOO
April 28, 1981
y of Chalhassen
90 Coulter Drive
ChanJeassen, MN 5511?
Attn: Dona1d W. AshworthCity Manager
De ar l{r. Ashworth :
Reference is made to:
A. tr'ile NumberB. Subject
Di scL aime rNatural Green, Inc.
Qn Ap1il 22, 198L, Craig I{. Mertz, Assistaat ChanhassenCity Attorney, forwarded to us the joint aJrswer d.efend.ants;Petition for 'ilrit of Maadamus; Counterclains, entitled Citlio_f Chanhassen,
- Plaintif f , vs Natr.:ra1 Green , i_nc. , and. Davib.K. Lruse and Jr:-l1a:rn Luse , husband a-nd. wif e i letenaants ,instituting arr action in District Court, Cirver County,State_of llinlesota, to recover demages ittegeaty sustiined.Ln L977 or 1978.
It appears upon examination arrd investigation of the factscomprising the cause of action that this a11eged. occumencearose out of intentional acts on your part or the part ofyour employee s.
'l'Ie roust dire ct your attention to the terms of your Institut_ional- Policy of insurance you c arry r,litir us, ii.enti-iiea tythe number I.3T 8462716, which a,non[ other statements uadeithe caption "Defj_nitions,, sets forlh the following:
rrOccutxence means exposure to persons or propertyto conditions which iesult in bodily in;uiy irrpropcrty damage; . provided such bod.j.1y in;ury orproperty danage,,is neither e:qlected nor int6nded.by the insured;
Because the alleJSations in the erossclainr only refer tointenti-onal acts, vre regret that r-re nust nece-ssarily disclainany and a1I coverage for thj_s accid.ent.
APR 19EI
RECEIVED
VILLAGE OE
CHANHASSE q
!ct
+303
MINN.
iHL I]OME OF INSURANCE oRGANTZEO 1853
Donald w.April 21,
Page Two
Ashworth
19 81
Countersuit Count I
property because the zon
Comrnent -1t is
thewhen descr ib in9
Countersuit Count IV -t ron o the
Chanhassen has
ing Ordinance
effect taken de f end.ants I
not allow l-andscaping
Pankonin was negligent in
which govern use of R-lA
in
does
businesses an1'where in the City.
Comnent Landscaping businesses***are allowed in the C-3 zone.
Corunent - In February of L979 the Council attempted to ameliorate
the hardsh ip of defendant's move from the subject premises, and
arguably should be allowed to attach reasonable conditions to any
time extension granted to defendants.
Countersuit Count fII - In JuIy of 1977 Mr. Pankonin misrepresented
the;aEure oT the land use
ProPertie s .
regulations which govern use of R-1A
h IS escr].p
believed that defendants omitted materiaf facts
nature of defendantis business to 1"1r. Pankonin.***
In July of 1977 Mr.
land use regulations
properties.
Comment - It is believed that defendants omitted material facts
frEEi-E6scribing the nature of defendant's business to I4r. Pankonin.
Countersuit Count V - The City, under color of faw, acted to deprive
defendants of their civil rights.
Comment - The law is in a state of flux regarding whether
munTc-ipal- ities are "persons" who may be sued under the Pederal Civil
Rights act. In any event the matter will turn on whether the court
believes Mr. Pankonin or believes Mr. Luse concerning the JuIy 1977
informal discussions regarding an:*I"" of the subject premises.
We assume that Mr. Luse will rrant to settte this matter based on the
grant of an extension of time to remain on the Property for a further
period of years. The City Counci.I's position seems c1ear. Accordj-ng1y,
we will reject any such proposals and attempt to get the matter on the
trial cafendar as soon as possible.
1)
Very truly yours,?+
EoF
)"\-4^-l1/t4P,? 198,
R ECE CRAIG M. MERTZ
V,LL4 IYED
c 4ss EN,
enc nnU)rg
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
countersuit Count II - The Council's requj.rement that a $I,500.00
@theCityconstitutes'.crimina1coercion.'underthe state criminal code.
I
7
lLlnsox & Mnnrz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I9OO TIRSI BANX F-ACE WEST
M IN N EAPO LI S, MINNESOTA 554O2
April 21, 19 81
lq lt
FUSSELL H, LAFSON
CRAIG M, gERTU
Re City of
Natural
Dear Don:
On Noverber 17, 1980, the Citylegal action to terminate the
Green property as a landscape
and complaint have been servedthe subject premises.
Chanhassen vs
Green, Inc.
Council directed this office to takeitlegal use of the so-called Natural-contractor's yard. The necessary surunonson the corporation and on the owners of
Enclosed is a co;-,y of
defendant's responsethe countersuit, theof money in damages .countersuit.
the Cityrs complaint. We have recej-ved thein the form of an answer and a countersuit. Indefendants are not asking for any specif i.c sum
We encl-ose a copy of the City,s anshrer to the
Answer - Defendantsr activities fit within the definition ofrEgriculture" and the City should be bound to follow the preliminaryinterpretation stated by City planner pankonin in July of L977
Our comments and Natural Green's response are summarized as follows:
Petition for Writ of Mandamus - Defendants met all of the pre-
Corunent - It is believed that I,1r. pankonin wil] testify thatt"trl-Tus e omitted material f acts when descrj-bing his busine'ss to Mr.Pankonin in July of 1977, leading Mr. pankonin to justifiably believethat the subject property would be used. as a growing range rltherthan the headquarters for a landscape contractor.
reguisites for the fssuance of a conditional use permit underS23.0I-of the Zoning Ordinance and the Court should order the CityCouncil to issue the permit.
Comment
zone and theto circumvent
Landscaping businesses
temporary use provis ionsprovisions for land*use
permissible only in
52 3.0I should not bethe R-lA zone.
are
of
in
the C-3
utiLi-zed
HARVEY E, SKAAP
MARI( C. MCCULLOUGH
Donald W. Ashworth
City l,lanager
Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55318
Correspond enc e
Thank you note
"I Do, I Do"
AD}4I NI STRATIVE PRESENTAT IONS
concerning Natural Green.
from Davj.d Andres and Sue Goppinger from
letter of Confirmation of Employment for Sa1ly Belgum.
un/Dot 2523 (8-78)1O11-2O (169=5)
St.te Prolec
F-
t
P.d Pro{. F-PIqS 012-2 (53)
At a Dc€tlng of tha Clty Couocll of tba Clty of Chartlassen
NE OLUTION
froD th. West Corp. lim1ts
, held on tha
19-:9]_, th. foLlostES ReBolultoa us! offcEed by
: aacoad.d br --_
to sit,
-&rof
ITIIERIAS the Co@fulLoDet of Treuportetl.oD fox th. State of UtDDcrot. hrs prcplrcd: pl.n ,
specLeL plovLrlols, .od spccr.flcrttotu for thc lBptov.oeat of frt.IDI( lflgtll,.y No, 5?
reor.@b.red ea ?rual Bl8hv.y tlo. 212 , ylth1n Ghc corpor6!! ltal,t! of th. C1t, of
212 &9
aod sa.kr tha lpprov.L thareoft
NOW, TflEN, BE rr RES.LVED that ield ple* .,,d .pccl.l plovrstona for the l*roveEctrt of srrdTruDk Elghrry elrhl'' 6atd corpor.t! llElc! of tie city, te aoa iereUy ".. .;p.;;;-i";i.;i;;lhc -elevrtlon! eod gilde. rr.borrD..!d coas.trt fu harcby gtvea io aay aaa rll ch.r8u hSrade occasloned by sald cosatructLon.
BE rr ruRTrER RESoLVED rh.t th. clty do.. hGr.by !8rcc ro requlrc rhe p6rktua of rr. vehlcles,lf Buch parklaS is pe'drred '.rrhitr thc "o.po."i" Lrrt" oi Jiii crty,-oo ".ia r.,rot E{g;;;;'to be-pare11e1 L{th th€ curb edjecenr to rhG hlghrey, a.nd sr tea.t 2b feet froE;t";;;;;iLoE all publl.c 6treetr r,Et.r6.ctLag teld trulf higln ri.
upoE th€ call of the ro11, tic folloci!8 corEclr b.Dberr voted 10 fevor of ihe Relolutloo:
th. foLloirlDg councll Eeeb€ra voted sgrinst the adopllor of the RcrotutloEl
rhcreupoo the Esyor end/o! the plesrdlng offlc.r decler.d the RcBolutron adopted.
Deted: , 19__-gL_,
H.ayor
Atte6t
Ccjwer
Clty Clerk
lei1_.
CITY OF
I do hereby cerrify rhlr at ssld Deerlng (of thlch du. and 1eaal nortc. iras gtveE) of rh!
Ctly Counctl of the Cl.ry of ,]r.,nhr,:r,n , fltnn..ota, on
the _ &y of 19_jL_; at rrhtch a bajortty of the Ecrbcr. of
seld Councll !ret. prescot, thc foregolDt Resolutlotr ras adopted,
Clven und6r Dy h.rd erd !e.l tht. _ dry o!
Clty Clerk
to
STATE OF XIN}IESOIA
COUNTT OF
)
)
)
)
)
OF
Mrnnesota Department of 'lransportation
District 5
2055 No. Lilac Drive
Golden Valley, I\l in nesota 55422
,/a//-k
(612)545-3761
/O /< -,/6
'T.H.2 ,/.2_s.P.
City
3E
&zu rOtt*-
Attention: Ot
Attached is a final plan anat proposal along vith a resoluLion for your
coulcLlIs approval.
we must have one certified. copy bearing the cityrs seal prlor to
Ls ?/
KinCly ret'Jrn the certified and sealed resolution to:
C.E. Weiclrselbaum
District State Aid Engineer
I.linnesot-a Deparunent of Transportation
2055 l,lorth Lilac Drive
Goiden vall-ey, llinnesota 55422
Aa E.;|jol Opportutli ty Employc.*&@
fld
O TA- DEPART]\,IENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IS
BITUMINIOUS
RUCTION PLAN FOR BITUMINOUS
FaoH O.T IIILE EAST OF JCT. T.B.
FRo JCT.
'12
rN CIiAIiHASSEN-
PAVEI\4ENT WID5NING, RESURFACING,
SHOULDERS, TURi,I LANES, AND BYPASS LANES
.I IN CHASKA TO JCT. 169 IN CHANHASSEN
r0 -0.6 MILE EAST OF JCT.2\2 IN CHANHASSENl0g
l3-39
F-PMS ot2-2 (s3)
16.* nLr r.?7{0., Rt I o,oo0.1- tl.tl 0.0026.?6 rtl.t 3,??{
- t0 Mttt P0INI
rrl ttt 5
l\r ttt s
lll Lt5
MLt S
lllttts
rlttts
il ttls
1\1tU S
STATE PRO,. ilo. rotr-20
MltlH. PRoJ. tto. r-?Ms 006-2 (?s)
cRo55 LTNGIH goag.ar EEI 0.570
8R|D6tS-[$IGIH 0.00 ruT. .0.00
EXCIPI loNS-LtNCTH 0.00 FttI 0,00
NEt I-EXCIH 3039.31 FltI 0,676
MITI POINT IO MII.T POINI
0
o
/,
J
I
EN rNN PBor. p-pMs oos .z[?91
END S.P. lol 1.20 H. t69
BEG. MrNN. PRO,. F-PMS OOs-2[79]
BEG. S.P. lOll-20 lT.H. 169
... j.. .END S.P. lOl3.39 lT.H.2L2
END MINN. PR or. F-PMS O 12 .2[531
FOR Pt,Ax5 A\r0 UI[tTr€5 sYr,taOL5 5EE IECH!EAt [!^riUAL
SIATE PROI. NO. ARTA JOB
loar:20
l0l3-39
i
o
4
taI
IF
il
0tslcI DtStCNATT0X
- 85OO D.sisn Sp.!d ;1pH. l?,41O 8a5cd on Sisht Oirtlnc.. 87O lleiBht ol !r. H.aBht ol obi.ct. 65 i D€srtn Sg.ed rot .chi.r.d .t:
- -.-ll 1 rrr ro rrr -rrx
lll- l0 Jrt rtll
P,ttr rtCt toCAil0N
C/:av€R (:i)I,'{l Y
JCLOEN VALLEY IJI"IN ICI
,,
I
II
II
I
I
I
:lil,I
i
I
t
I
I
,fa
!i'!
n
A
t
STATt PR0J, XO. iCl]- 39 (tH.2i2) |
RESOLUTION 8I -.9!!
FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL
At a meeting of the City Council of the City of Chanhassen
hetd on the l6th dav of March
lnran DaIe Cevlns
recondedbv Counctlroatr
to wit:
Clark Horn
, 19 -a . the foltowing Resotution wat oftur.d by
WHE REAS the Commissioner ot thc Department of Tranlportation has prepared a preliminary layofit
for the improvemmt ol a part of Trunk Highway Number_!]_r6numbered ai Trunk Htghway No. 212
wirhin the corporare limiR ot lhe Ciry of
Hest Cory. Llfi1ts
Cllanltassen , 176. 16" fdcrth
to E..r ..-J. r ti{ rq ; md !€ck! rhe
approval lhereof, and
WH E REAS said pretiminary tayou15 are on fite in th6 Office of the Oep.dmcnt of Trsnsportation,
Saint Paul, lvlinne.ota, being marked, taboted, .nd identiried as t-ayout Uo. 1A S.p. 1O1:t_3E
(212 =51) f.crn 0.2 M1. East of T.H. 41 to ChanhEgsen E€ster ly Corp. LlBlts.
NOW, THEN, BE lT RESOLVEO thar iaid prelimin6ry layouts fo; th6 amp.ovement of laid Trunk
Highway with rhe corporate limiB be and hereby are approved.
Upon the call oI the roll the foltowing Council Memb€c voted in favor of th€ Fle.olution
Uayor lanlllon , Council&en cevln8 and Horn
(
The following Council Members voted ag€inst ils adoption:None
whereupon the Mavor andlor the pre3iding oftice, decla.ed rhe Beaolution adopted.
Dated 15r Day of l.{a rch , lg 8t
Attest
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY oF calver
Ctl:rnhassen
I do hcreby certify that at said meeting {of which due snd legal notice wa5 given) of the City Council
ss,
CITY OF
ot Chirfiasscn
M.1rc h
lvere prelent, the foreqoinq resolutron was adopled.
Given undcr my hand and seal rhis I rd
, Minnesota,on the l6th
, 19 8l , at which a majority of the membed of said Councrl
, le __!.1I
(
C
-g,b-CITY OF
CHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
}48I{ORANDUM
TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth
FROM: City Engineer, BilL Monk
DATE: April 30, 1981
SUB.I: TH 169 & 212 Improvements
MnDOT has submitted construction plans and specifications for theupgrading of sections of TH 169 and, 2I2. The scope and locationsof said jmprovements are as follows:
Type of work: Bituminous pavement widening, resurfacing,
shoulders, tuxn lanes and by-pass cones.
This office has reviewed the plans and recommends approval of the attached
resolution.
j?//7'2.,
On March 16th, 1981, the City Council approved preliminary layoutplans with resolution No. 81-068. Final approvlt is recoirmended.
Location: In Carver County, on TH 159 from Jct. TH 2)-2
in Chanhassen to 0.6 miles east; and on TH 212 from 0.I
mile east of Jct. TH 41 in Chaska to Jct. TH 169 in
Chanhassen.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, plans for Project No. S.A.P. 10-618-05 (CSAH #18) showing
proposed a1 ignment, profiles, grades and cross-sections for the construction,
reconstruction or improvement of County State-Aid Highway No. 18 within the
l imits of the City as a State-Aid Project have been prepared and presented to
the City.
NOl^l, THEREF0RE, BE IT RESOLVED: That said pians be in all things
approved.
Dated thi s day of 1981.
CERTIFICATION
State of Mi nnesota
County of
Ci ty of
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and comect copy
of a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of Chanhassen
at a meeting thereof held in the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, on the
d.y of _, i981, as disclosed by the records
of said City in my possession.
(SEAL )
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the County of Carver has submitted to the Commissioner of Transportation
the plans and specifications for the improvement of Lynan Boulevard (CSAH #18)
from C.R. 17 to T.H. 101.
WHEREAS, state-aid funds wi'll be expended on the improvement of this street'
and
WHEREAS, the approved state-aid standards as appl icable to this proiect limit
and restrict a1 I parking to that which is para11e1 with the curb.
Nolll, THEN, BE IT RESoLVED that said City of Chanhassen shal1 require that parking
of all vehicles within the corporate limits on this county state-Aid Highway be
paral lel with the curb in accordance *ith tt'" State-Aid Standards.
Da ted ,1981.
l'1ayor
Attest
Cl erk
State of Mi nnesota
County of )ss
I do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct
copy of a resolution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of
Chanhassen, Minnesota at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the
day of , 1981, as shown by the minutes of
said meeting in my Possession.
(SEAL )
Ci ty Cl erk
City of
CITY OF 3,4
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P,O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
IllEI4ORANDUI4
TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth
FROI{: City Engineer, William Monk
DATE3 April 29, 1981
SUBJ: Lyman B1vd. (CSAIi I8) Improvements
i
Carver County has submitted construction plans for the upgradingof Lyman Blvd. from County Road 17 to Highway l-OI. The improvementsinclude a 24 fooL wide bituminous surface hrith graveJ. shoulders,and paved turn lanes at aII intersections. This office has reviewedthese plans and recomrnends approval (resolutions are attached).Constructi-on is scheduled for this summer.
\s
\
EO
t
I
H{A
-./4/ 30/81
ESTIMATED SEQUENCE OF DEVELOPI4ENT OF NEAR MOUNTAII,I
A. Premi ses
Phasing in relatively smalI development units is necessitated by
the uniertain economic cl imate. Phases may be combined if market
condi tions improve.
Establishing a strong single family identity should precede develop-
ment of attached housing areas.
Initial phase must provide visibility, easy access to display
homes, immediate awareness of natural and man-made amenities, and
a pathway for orderly development of the site.
B. 0rder of Deve l opment
Phase #l -- 33 Single Family Detached Units
Phase #2 -- 13 Single Family Detached Units
Phase #3 -- 13 Single Family Detached Units
'I
3
Phase #4
Phase #5
Phase #6
Phase #7
Phase #8
Phase #9
l0 Si ngl e Fami ly Detached
1i Si ngl e Fainily Detached
2l Si ngle Family Detached
26 Si ngl e Family Detached
6 Si ngl e Family Detached
36 Quadrami ni um Units
.l20 Condomi ni um Units
Uni ts
Uni ts
Uni ts
Uni ts
Uni ts
CITY'CF
G[3,8}tr8fl&$$EE{
690 COULTEH DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147 O CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553.17
(612) 937- 1900
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: City Engj-neer, Bill Monk
DATE: April 21, 1981
SUBJ: Near Mountain
Comroents from a revierv of the preliminary plat are as foLl_ows:
Streets
No utility plans were submitted with the plat so it. is difficult to
make specific comments. The feasibility is not in question but theconstruction of sanitary and storm sewers will have to be reviewed bythis office in relation t.o the proposed staging plan.
Gener a I
The access from this pl-at to pleasant view Road has previously beenreviewed and discusseci in detair, but in terms of vehicurar slfety androad mairtenance the proposed intersection is unacceptabre. A stlndard"T" intersection is desirable but an increase {softening) of the westradius i,s a minimum requirement.
The intersection at Town Line Road should be shifted to the east asfar as possible. This will al-l-ow a greater separation with Vine HillRoad and minimize possible traffic conflicts for southbound traffic.
Utilities
The phasing plan review is based on traffic flow and eliminationof long dead ends for acccss and street maintcnance
Iroquois should not be
remain dedicated until
Considcra cio;r
and 8 ncYt to
vacated as a part of this plat but instead
the development of Outlot A.
Phases I and 2 should be combincd.
sirou l,,l bc
aIIow for
givcn ho dcveloping ph.rses 6, 7
thc doubl,e access as soon as possible.
3/n/,"*/_
**l I,lover,rber 3O , tgl g
The action before the.City Council at this tirne is to formulate adec-sion approvinq, ais"pi'ovins*i.-,i"iitvirg in"-pirili;;ry developmenrptan proposed. Through tir. pi.ii.*i.r.i) au.'r.ropment plan reviewprocess ' the prooosal as "*.^ir,"d i;-;i" context or its compatibilitywith the overirr- comrunity, tr..-Iiiv Jlai.r"rr..=, plans, and policiesas welr as its viabir-itv ;; " i";;"i"I'ai.t=i.t: -;;;-6"ilIir,
tr,ro,.,er,:- ts prelinrinarv deveropment
. pran--;";i;"' wirr re - ai.i""ri],-g-'ii" applicant:;.*"TI":13"*iI".:"8:'::dl*U; j:.ii::1.g"i"-ro-iiIi.*i'r"'ii".";"
and transportation -Ii.r.,., rutio., ]-- "*"' r:egard' to land use, density
fi./lr,-L/
I
(
The appricant had requested. that the city councir consi<Ier a crari.ficaticof recomrnendation number 6 of the-;;";; recommendations above. Theintent of rhis office.in nrakinj tr.,iJ*i!."* enaationlas tJ'.ssure trratno prol0nged drainage,/ero sion frou:.ems-wourd occur by an extended;:ffifi;:'"n period for the """a"*i"i,L area at the top of Near
Act:on to be Taken
I
I
. Ur. Don Ashwor th
Staff Recommendation
4.
6.
o
10-
-2-
I recomrnend that the City Council approve the preliminary devel-opmentElil;-iii"li13;.ili" l'bdivi sion i";-i;; -
"";i;.i- ;;;;;;]i'*it,, .nl,
I. That outlot. B_in the Near Mountain preliminary plat datedAugust 24, 1979, be dedicateJ eas"*e.rt for pedestrianwaypurposes' That pedestrianwavs ptanned al.ng street sectionsbe separated from tne street'.
2. That the street referred to as Near Mountain BIvd. vrhichexrends north into the shorewo"a p".ti"n oi"ti! " i".r":.opment,and the road extending from tteir Uountain Sfve. Ue,proposeOcondominium .area on N-ar Mountain, be constructed withdriving surfaces 36 feet i"-*iatir.
That the finil pl.tt,tll c prohection arcaswhere development is
.-rnci/or dcvelopmentin the r"'ic i ni. ty ofproh ibi tcd .
November 30, Lgl
found
Council
contract clel ineat eNe.lr l\loun tain
3 That the appl-icant receive anworksheet reviers and approvalQuality Council.
envlronmental assessmentfrom the Environmental
That. the . applicant .receive aII necessary approvaLsof the Riley purgatory Creek watershed ilistrict forland aLteration permi is.
That the proposed covenants and restrictions areto be acceptable bv . he. planning-C";i!.i"n, Cityand City Attorney'i off ice.
5
7
That. the City Engineer finds the 1ater phased constructionot the condominium and townhom" ..a.-rrot to be deE.rimentalto the earrier phased construciio"-""I-ir.," =;.r;;;i;;"'*-property with regard to utilitie=, g."dir,g and drainage.
That, the applicant dedicate outlot B, and satisfactoryportions of outlot A for purpo."= Li'fl""ar ped.estrianeasements.
That the applicant be required to to instaJ.l concretecurb and gutters on alL jt.e"t= ,iirrii-'tr," pf.t.
That the applicant be required to dedicate sufficientright of ways detcrminea'ny ti,. -"r tv-iiqi.r"". to accommod.atethe pedes trianway as shorvn' "" ""f.,ifri. t-et or the pLanningcommission meeting of october li )-iiis'. rrorrrrrrr9
-1
i
I
I
T
I
T
r
Il.
I
Th.t thc ;rppLiclnt prc'ide Projcctad traffic volumestlrc intcrsccEion of tITtI 101 o.,i pf oo=".,t Vicrv Road.
for
8.
(
l CilTY UF t4b
ffiffiffiffi$f;ffiffiffiffiffirr
tI
I
7610 LAREDO DRIVEEP.O. BOX l4TOCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: November 30, !g7 g
TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth
EROI4: Asst. Manag er/LtJC, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Near Mountain, Prelimj_nary Development plan
of Previous Recommendations )
APPLICANT: Pflaumwell partnership
PLAMII NG CASE : P- 6 0 7
Review ( Conso Iida t ion
It
The following is a
Commission ad staff
subj ect prel iminaryto account for thein its past review.
Planning Commission Recofiunendation
sunmary of prior recommendations of the planning
to the City Council regarding the review of thedevelopment plan. This summary has been amend.edplan changes the city counci.I has recommend.ed
The P.Ianning
approve thefol lows :
Commission ritoved to recommend that the cityNear I'lountain project prelirninary devetopment
counci 1plan as
the pedes trianrvay
I
2
3
Rezone..:the subject property from R-1A, agri.culturalresidence district to p-1,, planned residential district-
Approve the preliminary dcvelopment pl-an iricluaing thesubdivision with the condition that no lot be smallerthan 11,700 square feet.
To amend. the preliminary developments plan to delete theaccess options A and B on the north side of theAmerican Lutheran Church property and endorse option Caccessir-tg onto plcasant Vieiv Road.
4 To adopt staff rccomrnenda t. j-on and ltave
separa E.cd from the street.
5
6
I th.rt tltc strcet rvidths as strorun on the plat be accept.cd..
Thn t. tlte prcliminaryPlanning Cor:unission
above condi tions .
plan bc acccpted as shorvn oncxhibit A (-1"0-17-79) subjcct to the
!-
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
rtt r, t)t.)
conments rvere receiveu, councirrnan Neveaux moved to u!r.or. the for l0rving iiemspursuant to the City l4anager,s recommenAationsi-
D.:;,b::'i8,si#;':rAi:3osfifi'a,a rrii;.-p..l.it 7r-r, set speciai r4eetins Datec. Development Contrasl Apppoval, Rjchard Ersbo, Lake Lucy Road.d. Set Speciat t4eetins.Daib,-D;;;#;."e,'rbii, at e:00 a.m., Tour 197ePubl ic Improvement projects.
Motion seconded bv councirman^Geving. The foriowing voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs,::lH:ll* pearson, Neveaux, eevingl'und';;";;;;. No nesative vores. Motion
NEAR I4OUNTA IN PRELiMINARY DE VEL OP I4EIIT PLAN:Counci I memberq modi fi ed two ofeanning Comm ss ton recommen otls as sted in the, Ass i stant Man ager/ L UC ' sreport of November 30 1979.2. Approve the pre 'li
m in ary devel o pment pl an incl udin g the subdivision withthe condi tion that no s ingi e fami l y I ot be sma'l I er than .l I ,700 square feet.5. Th at the street wr'd ths as sh oln on the exhibit be accepted.
REASS iGNMENT 0 F CITY EASEI.IEN T FOR CITY SIGN LOT 'I BLOCK I ZAI,IOR ADDITIOII :RES OL UT rON #79-4:Counci I man Peai son moved t ea opti on o a resol uti on a uthorizingthe l4ayo r" and Ci ty l,lan a ge r to execu te a qui tci aim d eed rel eas i n 9 Lot 'l , Blo ck Ifrom the sign ea sement. Resol uti on seconded by Counci iman Sw enson. The fol lorvin svoted in favor:Mayor Hobbs , Counc i lmen Pearson, Neveaux, Ge ving, and Swenson.No negati ve votes l,lot i on ca rried.
tcouncirman Neveaux moved to adjourn. r,rotion seconcied by councilman s'enson.The forl0rvins voted in favor: -uavor uobbi]"cJincitmen i,.;il;;'ti;;"il;" Gevins,and swenson. No nesative votes. -Motio;-;;.;i;: r,r.liti.-i.;;l;r;;;":i il:45 p.m
Don As hr^ro rth
Ci ty l'lan a ge n
-4-
t-
councirman pearson moved to.appfove the preiiminary development plan as amendedthis eveninq' Motion second"h'uv corniririn'iir.nron. The for row.inq voted jnfavor: Mayor Hobbs, councitmen -p";;;;;; iii;;";;;, Gevins, and swens6n. Nonegative votes. Mot.ion carried. '---''
CITY'CF 7
ffiHABfr$NffiF$E}fl
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O, BOX ,I47 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937- 1900
DATE: Apri l 2l , l98l
T0: P lann i ng Commi ssi on & Staff
FR0M: Bob lllai bel , Ci ty Pl anner
SUB,IECT: Final Develooment Plan Review, Near Mountain
APPL I CANT: Lundgren Brothers Constructi on Inc.
PLANNING CASE: P-607
As mentioned in the memorandum from myself to the planning
Commission of Apr'i l 20, 19Bl the primiry concern of this "
office at this -stage of the review is t-he relationship-ofphasi ng to traffi c ci rcu lati on. Th roug hout the revi ew ofthis project, it was apparen! that the subject propertyhas a propensity to potential interum single atcess situation,Due to the magn i tude of the proposal and tIe subseouenttime. over which the project wi lI be built ou t, and theintrinsic traffic circulation deficiencies 6f the prooerty,I-find the app 1 i cants phasi ng pl an be adequate from ipl anni ng standpoint.
Recommendation
PLANNING REPORT
I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to theCity CounciI aoorove the Final DeveloDment plan for Nearllountain orovided that the preliminary plat and plans andspecifications information receives approvat Uy ttre CityEngi neer and that ali aopl icable previous condi tions plicedby the Council in the preliminary development revieware carri ed out in the devel opment contract. Addi tiona11.y,I recommend that the development contract include provisions
th at woul d enable the Cjty to acti vate its trail systemthrough the Near l"lountain Droperty at any time. S-uch wouldbe with the understanding that the easernents for the entiresystem be f inal ly estabf ished throughout the later phasesas they come in for Final Plattinq.
'f (.]HOELL t . MAOSON, tNC.\
. ,;r-iil.l:hrrt
City of Chanhassen
c/o Ntr. Bob Waibel, Assistant
City Manager
Page 2
WATERMAIN.
Size of the waierinain is not
the main street and 6-inch on the|'E'r is in excess of 5OO feet, we
July 7r, 1980
suggest the watermain be J-ooped
or looped to existing irater on
. .. . ., ".,\:..,_r;a,. ., :r.. .i g:{:na1.:
. ,.,,:r::;:,id l_j
-
shown- we recommend 8-inch or, ',il#-
cul-de-sacs. Since cul-te-sac : -::!-..
r::.-..: ) .,1':ir?}l-E
t
a
r,::ffiE-l
a
E
E
internally within the development ,
Huron-E
DRAINAGE WORKS.
' : rl 1
Proposed drainage works appear to be adequate with ttre excep-tion that the 3o-inch discharge pipe at 1.5"/" grade shouLd be :.
increased to 36-inch.
CONCLUSTONS:
We recoirmend approval of the plans subject to the itemsspecifically noted. In terms of street grades, we recommend
waiver of the 7% maxi:num grade limitation in favor of the grades
proposed- The site si-.nply does not facilitate 7% maximum grades
and we feeJ. the proposed grades are acceptable.
__t
'|El-l
=F-I
-l
E-EIrE-l
Et-l
EJ-l
trt-l
trt-l
trl-t
FI-l
trl-l
m
Very truly yours,
SCIIOELL & MADSOTI,INC.
/-,/L-*,oJROrr: sg
cc:Derrick Land Comoany
Westrvood Planning & Engineering
,..
(
,r?
.t].::.:i
tt.IN.LIAM D SCHOELL
ARLISLE'MAOSON
.JAft T, V1JSLER
JAMES R, OBR
-AFoLo e. oaxltru
qFRY L, HANSON
JACK E. GILL
BOONEY B, GOFOON
-.IEOOORE O KEMNA
oHN W. ElvloNO
.KENNETH E, AOOLF
WILLIAM R. ENGELHAROT
-RUCE c. suNolNG
. SCOIT HARFII
OENNIS W SAAR
GEFALO L MCKMAN .
y?r:" d'-:
a res
streestree
l
Itr'f:'lemen:I'Ie herein
!ff#::?":H*:i*
Subject:
transieit our PIan
Ordinance, for the
review. in terms
above named PRD -
of conpliance
Resu1-r-s are
l''i.t-lA:. ._-'':-l
F *l--:>-1F--*r-ii
-i-Ffl:Eg
w -
SCHOELL & MADSON.INC.
ENGTNEErtS aruo sunve*ons
612) 938-7601 . 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH . HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
OFFICES AT HUNON. SOUTH DAKOTA ANO OENTON. TEXAS
JulY 7, 1980
Derrick Land ComPanY
Sunrise Beach (Eox Chase)
Preu-minarY PIat Reviele
jt-' "* 'ty of chanhassen
.c/o I{1r. Bob waibe]- , Assistant
CitY Ivlanager
-1"f ctr.r,h.ssen, Mi-nnesota 553L7
I STREETS .
SAI.{ITARY SETTER -
l-f,ir.;
The rigiri-of-rvay 'ancl street widths meet t}.e ordinance for
identiiL street. However, it seems' to me that t}.e main
t tfr.""q], the developrnent rvill ultimately b= a collector
t---thuJ a rvid.er street width should be considered'
'"1.;;.,:.
!"'.Intersectionraciiarenots}rorvnand.shouldlreirrdicated
!i:.,Bi};as 2o-;;;1. Grade on street I'A" exceeds both the 7% maxirnun
-: *e- a.,d 3% within 30 feet of cul_de-sac "D.,. vertical curves on
s'. ""i-a"-"i". "8" (ub*oer end) and ,'p" (at intersection) are less
I+,i".r',.. tf,..r iO ti*"" the iigebraic difference as required by ordinance-
- di:'d Cul--de-sac 'tEI also ;xceeds the 5oo foot maximum length' The
i*.tr,oaofprovidinga,'temporary''cul-de-Sacatt}resout}rendofil-,:;.- the main street is not clear and should be shorvn-r .--; . ,.
Size of the proposecl sanitary sewer is n6g 5ft6rvn ' ):ut
assumed. to be B-inch, Easement for the sanitary server from
existing manhole to rnanhole in strcet 'tA" (b3t$'een Lot's -16
17, nlo6X 3) is not sho'.vn - f'tanholcs in cttl-de-sacs should
extendecl to eJ- jrinaic serviccs Circctly inf-o t}re manholes '
l-s
and
be
tl-l:i-.''
F .t.,..f
I
i
i
,
I
I
I
iI
l-.t"
\....'
Planning Report
3). That extra precautions be taken
existing vegetation maY be kePt
construction.
4) -
-2-JuIy 9, 1980
easement, a pedestrian-way easement be declicatedthat is 8 feet wide with L+ foot on either side .: ,
for purposes of maintenance (the above would nullifwthe proposecl 2O foot trail easement indicAted on thlproposeai preliminary plat dated May 12, 1980, withthe understanding that the above described easementwould be established upon completion of a feasibleroute ryithin t-l.e conservation easement).
That the applicant and its contractors, incl-uding .r,-,home builders, carry out the construction of "' '!
improvements and structures in accordance with therequirements setforth by the Riley Purgatory Creek "':
Watershed District, and the SoiL Conservation ServiceEvaluation Report dated June 18, 1980. (The City Council
recorroendation is that the approvals be obtained beforetheir revie!^, of the preliminary plat- For gualification
purposes, the Riley Purgatory Creek l,Iatershed District
has given a conditional approval in their May 6, --'"
1980, correspondence, however, the Soil- Conservation .::.
Service, being an advisory body, will not given such---.'-'
approval- However, I bel,ieve such may be satisfied
through carrying out their recommendations that were '. ,'
noted in their evaluation report) .
r
I
I
t
soto that removal of
a minimum during
t
the
Por reasons of soiL conditj-ons and slopes, the building
plans for all residences proposed r'rithin the subject .,-.-'
heve1opmentshou1dbecertifiedbyanarChitector
civil Lngineer registered in the State of llinnesota' .-,-'
.,-.!'
J
"I
{n
rt
T
FtI
I
,T
'l
1
't
That the applicant be required to post sufficien
escrows to- issure that the degree of engineering
and inspection is carried out as recommended .by
Riley Pirrga tory Creek I'Iatershed District and the
SoiI Conservation Service.-!.
tl.
'..;
:,:& l,_
.,
21 .
t
,-t
. i':,_:
( t': :
4,/JA4 -r'i'r ,'
U!Y )h
C
'lLiJ;ra,
76'iO LABEDO DRIVE.P.O. BOX l4TOCHANHASSEN, MINNESOT/T 55317
(6 r2) 474.8885
;;;;-;r..Pr,ANNING REPORT
+,*l}"i:.::,
DATE: July 9, 1980
-I:1...-3O: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel
:,.{\\1,,1
--:::. - SUBJ: pinal Development plan Revie$r, f.ox chase AdditionI
I :?.$",-,.Af.qrrCANT
: . Derrick Land. Company
srl:i ..
PLANNING cASE: P-614 i;i\..IE '3-r.q.-.,
. ,i' '"*.
.' 1)' 'r+:i+''The f orlowing is this of f ice's response to the Assistant city Attorney i sletter of ,fune 17, l-980 and the Citjr' Engineer ' s lett.er of Uuiy 7,g,g:.a.-1980 and the overall action at hand.
. ;i-Lrri;..
As you have probably noted, the subject proposal has incrbased from
"oro- 5? singre family residential l-ots to 54. rhis office f incts that-;ffq".density proposed falrs within the most restrictive guideri'es----of the ordinances of Chanhassen and that any reduction in this shouldbe substantively validated on reasons of loial:. phy siographyjt*r; e --.
' hairi:':rn response to the city Engineer's letter of July z, 1980, the issues. of wider streets, and.the 7t plus grades were. coizered in iue city
-lF{tH" council revierv of April 7, r98o, wherein the city councir recomm6nded.. tFe;."t1a!. the street surfaces be 36 feet. wide, ancl the the paved portion' or tne cul-de-sacs are to be 32 feet in diameter. Therlonly concernthat this office iras is thaE. the rciommended ."5affi%t'5-;"i:;;:;;.
.-l:.f ai"*"ter.by.ordinance 33 is B0 fcet. r recommend ti-,"[-tr,""ippii"ilI' '"-:.incIude in their final construction pIans, remediation for thevertical curves on cul-de-s.rcs E and D, the temporary cuI_d,e-sac..;.;;.. design plans at the southerly end of the plat, ianitiry servers and'rLt'-'.$raterma]-ns as rccom:nended in said engineer's rcport rsith additionarconsiceration for the J.ooping at the enci of the ternporary cur-<le-sac.
g'i'-'. rn response to thr,' Assistant city Attorney'is rettcr of June 17, r9go,I recommend the foIlorving spccial conclitions and. con s ic'lera tion s forinclusion into the dcvelopment contr.lct on the subject. propos.-rI :
'IItat .r conier:vJt tion c.rsemenh be cst.rblished wiEhintltc arca belor,v the 900 foot clevation pur.;uant to theConprchensive plan and that ruithiu said conservation
1) .
f-,',-:''".''
I
I
I
ffiEflffifl\Iffiffiffiffiffi$T
I
I
T/CAR\TER ECONO}IIC COUNCIL - FARMER' S I"IARKET
i
:-il
I
I
I
Bob I.Iaib e ve his comments and recofiunendations .
. '-ch airman Horn ope the pubtic hearing.
7608 Great P s Bl-wa Concerl)e d aboutGaYle I'Iolf f ,
| ' bodY, not on
I 'of oPenrng L
1y the priest, b e
n the Carver Co. Her
ted abouL this an<1
t-he ad.visory
the noticevd.
con
I
I
I
I
.-'-- David Pease, rePresent
:,;i: they had sPokenwith Fa
rn9 Scott/Car Economic Coutrc
Knorr of St. Hu trs Church.
to approve the co
conditions. I{oti
iI, statedIle further
omic Council.
nd a ona]-
on car d
exptained the Proced and re spons ibi I it i e s the llcon
antl Walter Thompson seconded to se the pubJ"ic
'-' rJ l-m
*'-: LISQ
'son moved, l.Iike ThomPson secon
t reguest subject to Bob Waibe].rs
u n imousJ.y.
Fran Heigen illustrated the Ptan to the corunission'
J; There was discussion on the size, and change Of nUrnlcer of lots, grad'e
. of approach to Pleasant Vievr Road, the right-of-rvays' pedestrian
:rt*lilrdY Llsement, use of trail- and the conditiolls and terms of st-af f '
. :&..'i. :-.
-.1.$J;ir--'.: -.:l-*i.i;it"r Thornpson movea, Jim Thompson seconded to accept t-he proqosed
-. Fox Chase plat aaiea fray 12, 19-80 , revised llay 22 ' 19 90 ' as a f inal.
l;, i i"""i"p.""i-pi"" and that the comrirents and, reconmendations made by
.If -staf f be lncluded
FOX CLqS E - PINAI DEVETOPTYENT PLAN
Lff.p-:p lfaibel presented the review and his recommenilati.or:s'
lXm}-:,g--:.tve votes: Mike rhonpson and Art Partritlge' due to density'
.''!':' 't <' -.-a +*_"* ii-..
(I
I
',' tom Ilamilton''' hearing.
I
I
-.,1:::.
(
JI
preliminary development pltnl- alt.hough staff noted thatthe developer had increased the numb6r-of lots frorn 49 to52 following planning conmission-'"o.,Jio.rotio.,. Thedeveloper nor"r seeks iinal deve lopm"., t -p:.on r6vier,, and :has increased the nu*u"i "i-i"t"-f"^^ia. The. pl-anning comrnisapproved this chanqe grith two members voting against sur:hon the basi.s of densiry. This ;i;i;; r,u" "6r,"Eir.,-.tiii-.1__.this overalr process. i.i trrat-lrr"-p."ii*i."u;y";;;;i";#;. -.pran stage is the point wheie.t-aEn"ilr"s, nature an.generar rocation oi roadways; -;";;;; -"pen areas, etc. areestablished- After th:,s p6int, tt.'a.r"foper proceeds :.with specif ic encrineering^ inf ormit ior.,:-recogn izing thathe has come to aireement-w-ith th; -a;Iy r.n regard.s to theseoveralL land use-issues. Iliner shif t's in roacl alignments,lot 1ines, erc- can occur as a resurt. "r_ "p""itii-E"iiiiJiiir.data; however, densities sfrouta-noI-i.'."n..rg"<l by either the-llll,:: the.applicanr. if ahi; ii=.iiour"a to occur, ..--.._srmlrar to the wav in which it has, what l= tfr"-p"iio=f tf113]ilinarf devel6prnenr ntan- hearing"--o. .tt"^pting to _ _come to agreement as to development -issues at. a hearing stage-..:The de'eI.per shou]d u" ."q"irl;'-t" iJi""".the number--of .f ots to 52 (49 appears iust:.tialfe) .--- -. - -'-'*._-_-li_
il
Il
I.t
I
I
I
2).
3).
The location of the trail is stiIl uncertain at this .:time, :*..i.e- whether arong the back l;a-iir;';, abuting thestreet on the north end. of the deveLopment. ._In meeting _r,rit]...the park and RecreaLi"" C"**:.=.;;;;-;fi;-a;;"i;";:-;;i,j3 "_-.stated their desire to have ttris Aecision rvithi:eia ""i:-f -.grading is commenced and park ""a-n"".."tion commisii"""r;? i;f l:.::3^::.?ll":_t::lry ro wark r"ti,-f,"t".,tia1 LocarioDs. _-_:;..,4rr-L> sug9esrl-on appears to create some probLems in
F::#li:i"i":i.i.:"1::::r";":"1:.3;i"J;I:l::ilg,:-_"_, ;. .,*,
I:1::i"i:.1y:_lppe?rs-ro erist. u","""ii i"-""iiliii.,s-'th" ._-.*.1,l-1,1r. q.everopment p1an, it should be clear that the . ...*--. .outrot area is beiirs accepted as u ."".Iiiui_i;"' #:"';ia.;$f.l=.:":h,.1o park ciedits-are being jiven. . furtf,"r. tfr.iit is to the idvantage of the develcper to have tfre a toouY_ jtraiL throuqh the conservation area i"a,-rn"tfrJ.;;.; ;;"Hlwithin this conservarion "ruu "i-f.rtiiify aalacent io.ti,t :::
Il3ol,lhij developers asree to srlde and instirr wootr.chips-Tror Ehe trail in accordance with the reconunend,at:.ons <if -.ti:e I!Park and R'ecrea tion comnrission "" i -p"it of their olr"ru.f f l.ll!
i,
As a part of both the East lotus Lake project anMountain development proposals, significant discoccurreC in regarcls to the City's aUifity to asst}rat public improvements are d-esigned ani inspecCity standarcls - In conforn rnce rvith these disc-ussis rccolTLnended that the developer be required tothe.City's cngineer for preparition of plans anclcations and all staking ind- inspection-
!d Near
ussion
ureted to
i
Eions. it
use
specifi-.-E
--],': 41 - The above concritions arc in addition to those outsrined by -thei
-r.. . Lancr use c"";Ji;;r;; in his rcporrs "r J,.;i;-; I"i^ii, ""t *tdl
: Engineer'-s report of JulLy 7 - iuch aisreqa'raing those variancc
-- fiiBfi"XE$.BY"t|"r9t lrrSBglfii3rd.,:IilA.pI:]i*jfie-j.::;:t;iffi3:. Olr.l
Ll
;
I
I
Ii
r,
1:)
\_-l f, Y \ rr
ffiBf,ffiBtr$flffiffiffi;ffiffi lI7610 LAREDO DBIVE.P.O. BOX l47.CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1612't 474.8885
I
DATE:.fuIy 17, | 98C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,*:rO: . gity Manager, Don Ashworth
FROM: .Land Use Coordinator, Bob l{aibel
.,-1,-:: .
'::,-.'.:: SUBJ: Final Development Plan Revierr, !'ox
- APPLICANT: Derrick Land Co.
I . I1I..., PLANNING CASE: P_6L4I t-is --
:!;rjiAttached please find the planning materials
.-f,.d:: g666is s ion for their revierv of the sub j ect
and the minutes of that review.
Chase Addition
senfina
tt
].al
o the PJ-anning'
evelopment pLan
"Ifl1hd you rvil1 note in the attached p)-anning report of JuJ-y 9 , 19 B 0 ,- - this office had indicateai to the Planning Commission that the
. proposed final development PIan for Eox Chase showed an increase
}3f**of 2 }ots over what the City Council had approrrecl at their'fi'';pre liminary development plan revierc- The Planning Commission,
'i:-' i.s noted in the minutes of July 9, 1,980, had discussed this issue,
fi;5;; and. voted to approve the final develoPment plan as propcsed-
€A;fltrrough . it is not certain from the minutes that the specific
'.-. , reason for the trvo neqative votcs was the subsequent addition of two---.Iots, they (the votes)- were relative to the proposed density of the-E?#"gevelopment. ?1 r r'-YdO"" comrnent delivereii verbally by the City Enqineer at the Planningi"' Commission r'eview,'vrhich is not included in the re'corcl, is that the
;{[ir:'iCity Engineer reeonlmends an IB " grave] equivalency f or sLreet stand-
rr-1:rjr ards -
d.
the following conditions should additionally be cstabl-ishecl:
:i.Y'.': Manager ' s Comments: In revierving staff, Pl.rnning Commission, City'';:r.,', Eng inee; ' s en(l-AEEorney's reporbs on this itenr, this of f ice belie-ves
55 lots \^rere proposecl by the developer during skctch planrevicrv. Follorving discussion rvj.th the Ptanning Commission,neighborhood, etc. a revised plan reflccting 49 IoEs rvasapproved by the P1;rnningT Commission at thc preliminary
development plan hearing. The City Council approved. the
1).
A_\,
'..t.- . ''
IqE}IORANDUM
I
I
:rat:r,,.
+:1:.',
Courcil Iueeting July 2l 1980 -2-
COTIDITTOI{AL USE PERNIIT, I.OTIJS IAKE ESBIES BEAG{ I.OT AND NTRANCE SIGN \IARTAICE:-)it': . Msnbers of t}Ie Iotus Iake Es tates fbmeo\,mers Assoc ta n are requestirg approvatto establish a beach l"ot beLween Lot 35, Blcck 2 and Lot 9, Block 1. Theyprolrosrngto install a sand blanket six irches deep ard also instalf tq;rc canoeracks.
FITAL DEVEIOPME\II P]AN - FOX GIASE ADDIIIT ON (DERRI G< IAND CCNIPANY) : Jol:n Sha-rdlc,v/
@unci-lnran Neveaux moved to approve a crcrditional use pernrit for a beach lotcordiLioned upon:1. r]at the beach Lot consist of a sard branket, svirn area, ard tr^ro six capa.ciecarrce racks as sho^m on the site plan, city counci I E{hjlcit A, dated.rury zt, toao.2. That the swim area be marked with a rninimun of th-ree '' s\^rim area'! buoys thatare j-n accordance with tlre Uniform Waterway l,larkirg Systsn.3. That tie swim area be rna-rked by the above anclrored buoys at a reasonabledistance frcm shore.
IbLion secorded by councilnan cevirg. rhe follovrirg voted in favor: l,layorHobhs, counci.lmen Pearson, Neveaux, Gevirg, arrl sverson. No negative votes.Itbtion carried.
The homovrner's association is requestirg a sigm pumit to erect an entrancesign at chocta$, circle arxi chanhassen Road. ,ihi proposed sign will noi beIighted ard wi]l be nade of vood. staff and the sigrr ccnnLitt6e reccnrnerdedeFproval of a variarre.
cor:ncilrnan sr.venson moved to grajrt a variance for the j-nstalraLion of an entrancesigm in the public right-of-way. I,lotion secorded by cor:ncirnan Neveaux. Thefollodrq voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, @ulcifmen peErson, Neveaux, Geving, ardSveJEon. Ilo negative votes. !,loLion ca-rried.
r,{as present to discuss the proposed plat ard arswer ques tior:s .
I,Crf AREA,FT..O:]'I YAI'D , ,\ND RE\R YARD SEII]ACK \'\RT,\NCES , I-O1S 19 AND 20 RED CMAR
@unci-lman Neveaux noved to approve the firnl deverolment plan based upon theconfiguration of 52 lots as presented to the city cou.ci-r irprir z, rgab. lrolonseconded LY councilnan C,evirg. The folrovirg voled in favoi: councilmerr pearson,
Nev@ux, Geving, ard Swenson. I4ayor Hobbs votd rp. l4oLion carried.
councilman Neveamx moved to approve the firnl dever"olment plan for Fox chaseAddition subj ect to itsns 2, 3 _and 4 of the city l4anager's report dated July 12,1980, and itqns t-5 in the rard use coordinatoJ s re$rt of Ji:ry 9, 1980. lbtionsecorded LY Co:ncilman pearson. The forrcwirg voted- in favor: councilmen pea.rson,
Neveaux, Gevirg, ard Swenson. Mayor Hobbs voted rrf,. I!trcLion carried..:,: ' '.
f, I4ike Sorenson isseer!-Lng f,iwo J-oL area varr-ances ot 3,000 square feet eEch. The Board of Adj ustmertsard Appeal,s recorrnerded approval provided that lots be conbined ". pur."r on"beirq IDts 653-658 a:rd parcel tr.D- being I.ots 6g3-688.
councilman Nevea.,i movcd to accept thc plarm-irg rcport of Jury 16, r9g0, and theBoa-rd of Adjustnents a-nd Appeal"s reccrnncnda tion and tne rand use coordirlator,s
1ono1a1!um of July 11, 1980, rroints r-3. Motion secorded by counci ]lrnn Gcving.the fo1lcn^ring votcd in favor: pjayor llobbs, Counci ]rnerr pearion, 1.f""""o*, Gevifo,al-!C S!./enson . No nega tive vo tcs . Ir4o tion carri cd .
POI N"T:Ron ard Slrerryf t zen are rctlucs Ling an 8,000 square toot Iot a-rca vrrrance,a 25 f@t rcar yard setbe ck variancc to the Shorelard Manrgcrnnt erdirnnce, ard. afront ya-rd variance of 14
be derDlished.
feet in order to bu.ild a hcrne. The existirg cabin will
(
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - \pril 7, L980
REZONING AND SUBDIVISION R EQUE ST RICE LAKE MANOR , TANSEN KL I NGE LHUT i
-4-
AND MCMULLEN PROPERTIES , CONTINUED:A motion was made by Counc i lmanPearson and seconded bylot subdivision located
Councifman Swenson tooff West 86th Street approve the 8 residentialwith the conditions setApril I, 1980, and asapproved. Ayes - AI1.
forth in the Land Use Coordinatorrs report ofclarified in the above noted minutes. Motion
1. mgtign was made by Councilman Geving and seconded bythat the subdivision and. prelimj-nary 6evelopment planCompany be approved contingent upon the foliowingi
t
t
, TT39IIN9I IUEPIVISION AND PRELTMTNARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, SUNRISEefeCH, DE ardlov, were presen.represeffipan!.rheproposir-is..,-lzresidentiaI1ot
.. - subdivision.lying south of pleasint view- Roid and $/est of Lotus Lake.'' This subdivision. has.been derayed during ttr" c"uis"-"i tn" past year*,,'', to insure that the citv rea soniriy-"o.,= iaered all alternatives for
:,"i.: . potential street patteins getting to and being extended from the proposed;.- ' -subdivision -
1
2
That
lake
from
there be a conservation easement along the entireshore; andthere be a trail along the east line of the platPleasant View Road to the conservation easement area.
Councilman Swensonof Derrick Land
The
Pearson.
The following voted in favor: Counc j_lmen Gevj-ng and Swenson.following voted against: Acting Mayor Neveaux ind Counci,lmanMotion failed.
A motion was made by Councilman pearson and seconded by CouncSvrenson to rezone the subject premises to p-I and to .ipror"1ot-preliminary deveropment plin as depicted on the we'siwooapreliminary plat dared April 1, 1980, iubject to the t"iforr:."
ilman
the 52
P J-anningg condit
t
-Er;: - ,
': | '
._:..
:-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Motion approvcd. Ayes - AIl.
That the applicant receive approval of their gradingplan, drainage plan and erosion control plan irom tfre SoiIConservation Service, the l.linnesota Department of NaturalResources and the Riley purgatory Creei< Watershed Di.strj.ct;That. said approvals be received frior to the matter ;;i;;-'resubmitted to the City Council tor preliminary pfit-"ppi"rraf;?hat the pedestrian and conservation easement poition oithe propo sed
. development must be shown by the ipplicant tohave such soil conditions as would aIIow- for the- developmentof such facilities, and that the applicant,s soiL conA:_iion-evidence is to be reviewed by the dity nngineer.That. thc. applicant prepare cul -de- sac- plai s for the roadwayportion in the vicinity of lot 20, bloak 3 and 1ot 24,block 1.. Said plans are to be reviewed and approved by thecity engineer.
Paved street surfaccs are to be 36 feet wide and pavedcul-de-sacs are to be 32 feet in dianreterThat thc Park and Rccrcation Commission review alternativetrail .Iocations betwecn pl-casant View Road and the con_servation eascment and is to submit a recommendation tothe City Council.
(
L
Page I l
Pl anni ng Commission Minutes
Mi nnewashta Hei ghts 2nd
Mr. Conrad i ndi cated th at the
Commission were negative but if theto app'ly for a public heari ng they
Commission feel they should go by.
feei i ngs of the Planning
appl i cants still wantcan, but the Planning
s chedu I e a publ i c hearing
2nd Addi ti on. Second by
Mr. Mertz i ndi cated tha t the outl ot is to be us ed f or
swimmi ng and picnicing.
for
Ms.
Mr. Nozi ska made a moti on toa dock in Minnewashta HeightsWatson. All in favor.
Meeti ng was aj ou rned at l2:40 a.m
Pase l0
Planning Commission Minutes
Nea r Mountain
Near Mountai n Final Plat:
Mr. l/aibel read the Pl anni ng Reportission. Mr. l,Jaibel recommended approvalprovi ded that the Ci ty Engi neer approves
to
of
of
the P Ianni ng Comm-the Final Plansthe P Ian.
. Mr. M. Thompson as ked about the access onto p leasantView Road. It was indicated that at one time there was aproblem with the access but has been cleared up now, Theroad has been made so that traffic can only turn to go tol0l to keep traffi c off the maj or porti on of pl easanl View
R.oad.
14r. W. Thompson made a motion to recommend to the Citv
Counci 1 approval of Final Devel opment plan (Exhibi t A, 4-22-Al)of Near Mountai n wi th the excepti ons of City Pl anner andthe City Engineer in the Planning Report dated 4-21-8.l.
Second by Mr. M. Thompson. 6 - ayes, Mr. M. Thompson opposed.
Mr. M. Thompson stated that he has never been in favorof thi s project.
Mi nnewashta Creek 2nd Add iti on, Beach Lot Dock Request:
Mr. Wai be l submi tted the pl anni ng report to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Mertz explained that there is an outstaningconditional use permit on this propert.y stating that therebe no docks be permitted. The conditional Use that is on thisproperty was passed by the City Council July .l979 and no docks
were permi tted then.
Mr. Terry Thompson, one of the appl i cants , stated thatthey just wanted to get a dock because the outlot is real)y
smal l.
Mr. J. Thompson stated that wi th the Condi ti onal Use
Permi t that is on the I and al ready the appl i cants chancesare very nill that they would get their request.
Mr. Partri dge indicated that the request is for a 50' x 20'dock wi th B slots. there are 36 I ots in the Mi nnewashta Creek
2nd Addi ti on and 6 are dup'l ex I ots. Policy for Ri tters Plat is
gui de us ed for this Plat.
Ms. l.latson i ndi cated thatthey coul dn't keeo their boatsis another condi ti on that there
boats.
they were oermi tted the dock
ove r night because that
overnj ght docki n0 of
if
the
be
re
no
Page B
Planning Commission Mi nutes
Derri ck
that one buiIding permi tno more than that.could be issued as one l arge 1ot but
- Mr. J,. Thompson stated tha t wi th 5Z I ots and looking atthe iay of the'l and in keeping with the rural area.in thispart of Chanhassen Mr. Derrick could develope this land veryattractively without al1 the grading by uti lizing 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 pl us for Chanhassen. Mr. -Lonrad asked if Mr.Derrick was beyond the point of chanqing his plans. Mr.Derri ck stated that he has been work i ng on thi s pl at for along time and that any other city that he has woiked in hasnot had to make thi s many changes. l,lhen Mr. Derri ck boughtthe Iand he I ooked at it before and had i nves ti gated whaicould be done with the property. The city has iccessed theproperty as 69 uni ts.
Mr. Art Partri dge i ndi cated that heremoval of the outl ot and maki ng it intoimprovement. He is for the Consirvati onthat a s outh e r1y acces s is important,
_Mr. [,]. Thomoson indicated that the planning
should get a consensus on the i tem presented.
Mr, J. Thompson made a motion to recommend
Counci I that Fox Cha se access onto pleasant Viewmoved to the easterly property iine. Second by6 ayes , Mr. Nozi ska nay. Passed.
feel tha t the
I ots is quite an
Easement and feels
Commission
to the City
Road be
Ms. l,/atson.
Mr. H. Noziska made a motion that the planning Commissionaccept the propos a I to ma ke a cu rb cut onto pl easant View Roadfrom Lot 3, Block 2 as shown on Exhibit A. Seiond Uy W-ifrompson.Mr. l,loziska, Mr. l^1. Thompson, Mr. L. Conrad - aye, M;. kaison,t'lr. J. Thompson, Mr. M. Thompson, Mr. partridge-- nay, Fai.led.
Mr. L. Con rad made a moti on to decrease the proposed roadwidth from 36' to 32'. Second by Mr. M. Thompson'. b - uy.s,Mr. Nozi s ka and Mr. J. Thompson --
n ay. passed
Mr. H. Noziska made a motion that the planninq Commissionadopt the street al ienment of Exhi bi t A subject to'the f irstmotion about moving the cu rb cut east and no accesses fromany lots directly on Pleasant View Road. Second by [,!s. l.latson.5 ayes, l'1r, Conrad - naJ, Mr. J. Thompson sustainei. Passed.
Page 9
PI anni ng Commi ssi on Mi nutes
Derri ck
Ms. l.latson made a moti on that the Pl anni ng Commi s s i onrequest that the devei oper dedi cate a ri ght of way 50, inwidth between Lots 26 & 27, Block I for possible future 2ndaccess. Second by Mr. M. Thompson. 5 aye , Mr. Noziska,Mr. Partridge, Mr. [.]. Thompson - nay. Passed.
Mr. Conrad made a moti on that we maintain the Conservati on
Ea s emen t, thi s Conservati on Easement wi'l I not allow the a lter-ati on of I a kes hore and i nstal I ati on of structures i ncl udi ngpri vate docks . Second by Mr. Nozi ska. 6 - ayes , Mr. M. Thompsonnay. Passed.
, Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the developer be requiredto dedi cate a trai I easement originating o0 the sou therl y lineof the plat within the Uti lity easement commensing at thesouther)y edge of the property and lying northerly to the southline of Lot .l2, Bl ock 1 according to Exhi bi t A and running
wester'l y at that Doint to tts poi nt of i ntersecti on of Fox
Path as designated .in Exhibit A tlence continuing northerly withthe right of wa.y of Fox Path to intersection of Pleasant ViewRoad. Mr. I.l. ThomDson seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. J. Thompson made a moti on that the Planning
recommend to the City Council that the 0utlot may be
'i nto the 'individual properties as shown in Exhjbit A
they have virtually no utility as an 0utlot. SecondNoziska. Al1 in favor.
Commission
i ncorporated
s i nce
by Mr.
Mr. W. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commi
recommend to the City Council that the Exhibit A. (4-22-81
be accepted but the Planning Commissions recommendations f
such be subject to the modi fi cati on previ ous Iy approved.
Moti on was wi thdrawn.
Mr. Conrad made a motion 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.
Mr. tl . Thomoson made a motion that the Planning Commission
)
or
ssron
be
Thompson.
present to the City Councilthe recommendati ons to the s
approved. Second by Mr. Noz
Noziska - aJe,5 - nay. Fai
rova l of Exhi bi t A to includeect property as previouslya. Mr. l,l . Thompson and l,lr.
app
u b.i
'i sk
I ed
Mr. J. Thompson made a motion that the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Counci l to reject the proposed planned
deve lopmen t (Exhibit A) based on the previous 9 motions untj lthey are met. Mr. Conrad seconded the moti on. 6 in favor14r. r,.l . Thompson abstajned. Passed.
Paoe 7
PI anni ng Commission Minutes
Derri ck
1&
to
of
Mr.
28'
52
is it
than
f eel s
be a
i dea
lots
was a
over
have
l^latso
woul d
conce
0r0te
dumoi
t'lr. Ladd Conrad indi cated that he would I i ke to see Lots2 of Secti on 2 taken out and make the ro ad access furtherthe eas t. He iikes the idea of an outlot to the souththe proposed property unti I a road access i s necessary.Conrad fel t that the cu l-du-sac is i moortan t and the aor 32' street wi dth is acceotab le. He woul d like to see
I ots instead of the 54 presented on the fi rst plan.
Ms. l,rlatson 'i nd i cated that she wouaccess maybe in the south, could be usneeded as an access, and fel t that a 2cceptato the
like to see a secondaryas an outl ot untilor 32' s treet widthb1e. Ms. l,latson felt that the road should be movedeast not only for the reason that the street wouldsight but the grade is better to the east. Ms.ery much in favor or the Conservation Easement andto see the out l ot back agai n. Ms. l,latson expressedthe movement of all the di rt in the area, who will'I ake and what wi I I rrrevent the l akeshore owners fromir ferti l i zer i nto the lake as eros i on occurs.
td
ed
8',
bettern is v
'I i kern forct the
ng the
_. I'1r.. Mike.Thomoson indicated that he would Iike to preservethe meadow and fee ls that there are better ways of olanningthis olat. Mr. H. Thomoson stated that the e-nvironmental "
imDact of this area is fairly good. Thi s proposal is not inkeeoing with-the oarticular ar6a. Mr. t"t. thoirpson expi"sseJhis concern for alI the movi ng of di rt, demucki ns anJ'iiiiirgand is concerned for the effeit on the lake. He
-wou ia iif<eto see the access moved to the east the hill is to s teep andtlq:ight is poor. Mr. M. Thomnson d.id not like the S6', itieet
r,r'i dth, too wide, and the grade standards are v.iotaIea Uy nivingtoo steeo of a road. He a'l so i ndi cated that he di d not" I i kethe idea of Lot 3, Bl ock 2 access onto p leasant View Road. -
He expressed his mi xed fee li nqs about the conservati on Easement,if a lakeshore ou,ner should be able to have a dock or not.M..,I. Thompson i ndi cated that he does not like the 52 unttswoul d rather see 35 but 52 have been approved. t'lr. ll . f trompsonasked hor,r a lot js made bujldable, would they have to aemucithe whole lot or just the building site? Mr. Derri ck statedthat the whole lot would be buitd;ble, f i'l I it wi th proper-soil. The muck is taken out and repl aced wi th gooJ ioli. ttencomoacted and then filled again if needed. Ha vi to raise thelots because of the water tibl e and to keep the grades dor.rn.
- Mr. Jim f{eyer asked.i f any building permits could beissued before the Final Plat aooroval ? Mr, Mertz indicated
Mr. H. Nozi ska stated that he is concerned about the 'land
bui ldabl e? Al so, he fel t that there are to many unitsthere should be comoared to the terrain of the'l ind. Hethat 36' street wi dth is reasonabi e because there won,tsecondary access for some time. Mr. Noziska likes theof the Conservati on Ea s emen t and feels that the n umbe r ofshouldn't be more than 52 units.
struct structures that means no docks. Mr. l^lai be l ind.icatedthat on the pl ans the Conservation Easement i s shown to startbetween Lots l2 and l3 and then al ong the I akeshore. TheUti I i ty Easement and the Conservat i on Easement are i n the
same p1ace. lvlr. Derrick indicated that he is against the
Conservati on Easement i f i t prevents the I akeshore home ownersfrom havi ng docks.
Mr. Derrick explained to the Planning Commission that if troad (Fox Path) would be moved to the eas t DroDerty Iine iwould create a lot wi th 2 road sides and that wou ld ma ke t
'I of undesirable. There are ni ce trees that would have totaken down and it would mean an extra I00 feet of sewer an
het
he
bed road.
Ms, Nancy 0s borne, aover Fox Path. She feel s
be enough of a run to make
Mr. l.l. Thomoson made
Second by Mr. L, Conrad.
opposed.
operty owner, expressed concernat in the winter there will nott up Pleasant View Road.
pr
th
i
a motion to close theVote: 6-ayes, 1-nay.
Pub li cMr. M
Hearing.
Thompson
Mr. Mertz exp lai ned that the Pl anni ng I tems that the
Planning Commission should djscuss and recommend to the City
Counci I are the street wi dth, 2nd access, road al i gnment,
number of I ots and the Cons ervati on Ea semen t. The res t are
Administration items such as building oermits, previously instal led
assessments, gradi ng and publ i c improvements.
movi
12'
Mr
ng
in
. J Thompson expressed concern of alI the fiIIing andof I and east of Fox Path that is proposed to be up toheight. The Planning Commission has been told thatthi s process is the probl em of the bui I der but Mr. J. Thompsonstates that as the Planning Commission they have a responsibilityto the peopie who are going to buy the property, and this
should be I ooked i nto more careful ly. Mr. J. Thompson indicatedthat he likes a combination of the last two prooosals, maybe
coul d take out lot 26 of Exhibit A and make that for f uture
consideration for an easement to the south. Mr. J. Thompson
suggested that the road be curved more gently and the 32'
wi dth of the road was expressed. The Conservati on Easementis necessary.
Paqe 6
Planni ng Commission Meeti ng
Derri ck
create a si te probl em to the east.the east is an economic problem.
Not changi ng the road to
road
wi I I
Ms. llatson asked how the ol atform wi l l l ook, widrop off on both si des? Hr. 0rr indicated ihatdrop off some but the I ooks wil l be airight.
I I thethe road
- Mr. M.. Thompson i ndi cated that Mr. Derri ck has proposeda .l0.8 grade level on Fox Path with a 3% grade on thb piatiorm.Mr. Monk qxp 1a i ned that there is a maximui 7% grade 1eve1in the ordinance. The 7% is for safety in the winter time.
- Mr. lr!. Thompson asked 14r. Uaibel if the staff were theonly ones who are in favor of the deadend street i nto theBennett property. Mr. l,la.i bel indicated that Mr. Derrici tudproposed Fox Path that way and that only Iately was it everbrought !p.to end the road 30-40, from the property line andput a cul-du-sac on it. Fox Path was recommended io be 36,wi de for the reason that that the roa d is a I ong si ngl e aicessroad. M". f . Thompson asked Mrs . Bennett if anyone trad ippioachedher concerning Fox Path ending on her property 1ine. Mrs.'Bennett an swe red no.
Mr. Frank Kurvers, a property owner, asked about theoutl ot and the sediment pond, what is goi ng on wi th thi i i temtMr. i,laibel i ndi cated that the pond is ieq u i red ior rrn off. -
f4r, Mgnk exp lai ned that the outl ot is not req u i red for drai nagebut the outlot was to be for the property owners in Fox Chasein order that they could al l have use of- the lake. The sed.imentpond is a di fferent thing. Mr. Curt Laughi nghouse, a ieprei"nt_itive for Mr. Derri ck, siated that .init;itly the ,"ain"ntpond was p lanned to be in the ou tl ot. The out.l ot *as-piunn"afor recreationa'l use.. Ng, the proposal is that it'rii-poii-U.-p l aced in.the backyard of the I ake' front I ots and tnL outiothas been disgarded.
Mr. Kuryers asked if ali of the work onwas going to damage the soil and if there wouinto the I ake. Ms. Watson as ked Mr. Derri ckthat 20' al ong the I akeshore was to be des i gnfor a Conservation Easement. Mr. Derri ck answas the first he k new that the easement was tlakeshore. Ms. l,,latson as ked why no docks werMr. Craig l-lertz, the City Attorney, explainedEasement fi rst came up when the piik & Recreacons i dered the s ketch plan on March 20, ,l979.
the Conservatj on Easement and th rouqh ih. d",it rvas required to have a Conservation Easemei ncornorated j nto the Ci ty Counci I s aoprovalJuly of 1980. The Conservati on Easement thatthis communi ty means that you can,t diq on thfill on the lakeshore, you can,t cut ihe vegcan't construct structures on the lakeshore,
the
ldif
I ake shore
be any runo ff
he understoodated to the city
wered that thiso be along thee permitted.
that the Conservation
t ion Commission
They recommended
el onmen t process
nt. That wasof the Dlat in
aonl i es toe I ake shore or
i tati on and you
if you can't con-
Page 5
Pl anni ng Commi ssi on Mi nutes
Derri ck
Page 4
Planning Commission Meeti nrt
Derri ck
5 Reouested that the Planning Commission considerthe soil condi ti ons in the subject area. The wateris just below the surface in the meadow area.
Mrs . Schwartz oresented a map showing the hi gh wa ter
tabl es in the past. The nei ghbors as ked that Mr.
Monk, the Ci t.y Engineer, take a closer 'l ook at the
Droperty.
6 It was brought up the the DNR and the
have not been noti fi ed and that they
Coro
shoul d
of Eng i neers
be noti fi ed.
7 The nei ghbors
reinstated.also requested that the 0utl ot area be
John Edwards , a nei ghbori ng nroperty owner, i ndi cated thatin the past he felt that the neighboring property owners request
had been i gnored. The plan approved 2 years ago had 49 units
then 50 uni ts then 52 un i ts. Mr. Edwards stated tha t theproDerty couid be wel1 platted without destroying the area
maybe if less density. Mr. Edwards also exoressed his concernwith Fox Path dead eirding into the adjoining oroperty.
cou ld
out a
Mr. l.laibel suggested to the Commission that Fox Path
be made to stop 30 - 40' from the prooerty line andcul-du-sac on it.
Mr. Jim l,1eyer, neighbor, indicated concern overin the subject property. Mr. Derrick replied that helooked at the soi l and it was possible to make all ofbuildable and that it was not a compl i cated proces s .
the
had
the
soi I
'I ots
Mr. Derri ck in reply to the nei ghbors Drevious I.ist ofrequests i ndi cated that he had tri ed to work wi th the neighbors.Mr. Derri ck expl ai ned the he had changed the pl at from 54 unitsto 52 uni ts, removed the outl ot and changed the road. All the
I ots are over the I5,000 square foot minimum Iot size, thereouest that Fox Path be made smalIer was agreeabl e wi th Derrick.
Mr. l,l . Thompson stated that 2 years ago the feeling ofthe Pl anni ng Commission was t
should ha ve a second access ain order that the road wouldPleasant View Road. At that
n the fu tu re the property
so requested a 36' wi dtha safety zon e before enteri ngthere was a recommendation
hat i
nd al
have
time
tha t having Fox Path on the eas t DroDerty be I ooked into.Mr. l,l . Thomoson indicated that from al l the response from the
crovrd that there needs to be more changes and that thi s i temcannot be re commen ded to the City Counci I yet.
14r. Jim 0rr, from Schoell & l"ladson, indicated that the
second access will end up cutti nq down s ome trees and therewill be a grade Drobl em. Fox Path will h ave about 60' platform
before enteri ng Pl easant View Road, both views of the roadare reasonable. If Fox Path were moved to the east, it wou ld
Page 3
Pl anni ng Commission Meetinq
P ryzmus
Ms. t,latsonto read that theparki ng and someSix membe rs aye,
made a moti on to amend the orevious
Dri vi nq Range shal l orovide l5 of fon street oarki ng. Second by Mr.J. Thompson opoosed.
moti onstreet
Noziska.
Fi nal Deve loDment Pl an Amendment Reouest Fox Chase Addi ti onDerrick:
- .Mr. l,lai bel presented the planning
Commiss!on, isting the 5 changes froi
mi tted ( see Pl anni ng ReDort Apii I I7,read the Staffs comments on the numberprevi ous Iy instal led assessments, roa deasement, publ i c i mn rovement s, bui l ding
1
Reoort to the Planningthe orevious o'l ans sub-s8l ) . Hr. l.tai bet al soof lots, street width,
a 1 i gnmen t , con s ervat i on
Dermi ts and qradi ng oermi ts.
e Planning
have to remo v erather than2 I ots smal'l erplans from
.. 14r. Partridge i ndi cated to the p l anni nq Commission thatthe number of assessments and the nubl i c imorovem"nis-u"""i'functi on of the ci tv counci r and tirat the pi anning iorrii.ionshoul d I et them act on those i tems.
- . H", Derri ck, the aool i cant, exo lai ned to thCommission that if the road was chahged he wouldsome-Map1e trees and urould have to siave groundto f il1, or if the road was moved it woul i makeand less desirable. Mr. Derri ck has reduced his54 uni ts to 52 units.
, a nei ghbori ng Droperty owner,otten tog e!h er and met wi th Mr.
. upon / poi nts that they woulding Commission at this time:
stated
Derri ck
I i ke
l'!r sthat theand thg
. Kathy Schwartz
nei qhbors had onei ghbors aqreetl
up to the PIann
They woul d like toand they don't IikeView Road.
Dl at drawi ng wi th 52 unitsdensity close to Pleasant
to bri ng
see a
such
2 0n the_first pl an Mr. Derri ck had prooosed 3 lotsalong Pleasant View Road novr he is presenting 4 iots.The nei ghbors woul d like to propose that he ieturn -
to hjs first pronosal of 3 I ots al ong pleasant View.
Regardi ng the access to pl easant View Road _ nei ghbors
fequest that Fox Path be moved to the East ,"oneityI j ne for safety purposes.
3
4 It was reouestedof Fox Path from
Pl easant View Roa
14r. Derri ck chanqeto 2B' to match the
that
36'
d.
the wi dthwidth of
..1.
Planning Commis s io(( april 20, 19gl
final development contract is in effect. This would also allow timefor DNR and Corp of Engineers permits to be received. since ippli_cationto both have been made..-The apprication for an excavati.on peimitinvolves the city council , so again, this item does not afflct thepreLiminary plat.
As se s sments
The question of assessments on thj_s property is under study and areport will be submitted to the City Council, but this item does notaffect the preliminary plat.
CITY.JF
ffi[3ffi]flEI#-$$8ffi
7610 LAREDO DBIVE ' P.O, BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: City Engineer, BilJ- Monk
DATE: April 20, 19 8I
SUBJ: Fox Chase
Comments from the preliminarypetitionex's letter of Apr j_1
S treet s
plat review15, 1981, are
in response to
fo l lows :
and the
Because of the sharp roadway curves andproposed, it is desj-rabIe to maintain aFox Path.
steep street
36 foot wide
grades being
roadway on
The proposed street grades exceed. the 78 maximum, as specified inthe city code, in three locations: on Fox path neax pleasant viewRoad (7.53?), and at the terminus of Fox path (10.79t), as well as
^?L I11 court (8 -282) - These grades were revi.ewed. and discussed. on the\Jr-L91rrcrr rayout and are deemed acceptable onry because of the effortsto match the roadway grades as closery as poisible with the existingcontours.
Ut ilities
sanitary and storm sewer easements must be shwon on the prat whereverthe utilities forlow lot rines or cross 1ot.s. The easemint neededfor the sani-tary sewer connectlon to the south shall also be shown.The easement for the turn around at the end of Fox path shalr al-sobe included on the plat.
If the util-ity improvements are to be constructed by the Cj_ty, apetition must be submitted to the City Council for ipproval. Thj.sitem docs not directly affect the prelimj-nary plat except in thedrafting of the final development contract.
Grad in c
The developer could
excavation permit,
commence with project
I suggest this permit
grading with an approved
not be issued until a
(
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CITY OF CHANTL{SSEN
J.5 April 19 8I
page 3
GRADING PER.YIT We are unsure what consEltutes a Chanhassen grading lermlt on
We, of course, have the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed ?ermitour development.
Roger D. D r -L1C k, President
Derrick Land Company
cc:FC/DF
corres/AwtgRpls
Craig MerEz
Jin Orr
Bob Waibel
Slncerely yours,
(copy attached). In fact, they have, In effect, approved both road allgnments --
one in the origlnal appllcation and the seconC at the renewal. We wl1l- obtaln the
necessary DNR permits before grading in DNR protected land. Additlonally, rve w111
grade only that property that ls coronon to both road alignments until that Lssue
ls settled. We have a flrm agreenent wlth an earth moving company, but the favorable
prlce we obtalned requires thaE the gradlng start ln May. The gradlng contractor
w111 supply the bond required by the WaEershed distrlct to lnsure agalnst rrn "naud.. ..eroslon danage.
:.
REQIIEST: Permit to rough grade Fox Chase subject ro:
a. Terurs df Watershed permit, including requireal bond;
b. Necessary DNR pernlE;
. c. Not gradinS area where application for streeE change has been
made until f i-nal deternination-
':"..L
MAYOR. AND COUNCIL
C1TY OF CHAN}IASSEN
15 ApriL I98l
Page 2
This question was discussed at Length in our letter to Mr. Don
Ashvrorth (25 llarch 1981). By all measures, this is the best rnethod of installlng
the road. fhe homesites alL have a better conElguration and less grading and soil
correcEion would be necessary to prepare the property ln this fashion.
RXQUEST: Council approve the change in the road alignment.
CONSERVATION EASEI'IENT We learned at the staff meeting of 9 April I98l Ehat byt'conservatlon easement" the city Eeans no structures including docks are peroitted
on the lakeshore lots; this was never prevlously so deftned and it is a groundless
and unaccePtable llnitatlon. Lotus Lake ls a General Development Lake. A1l rlparlan
lots meet both city and DepartEent of Natural Resources (DNR) standards in every re-
spect; only these ten lots will have access to Lotus Lake.
REQUEST: Council instruct the city attorney noE to include in the
Developmen! AgreeEent any exEraneous provlsions llnJ.tlng use of
riparLau 1ots.
We request Ehe City of Chanhassen install ordlnary uruniclpal
uEllity and street inprovements in Fox Chase. We understand you must order a feasL-bility study, accept the feasibility study, and order the work. Because the City
Engi-neer has already compiled the necessary data for feaslbili.ty study, 1n Ehls case
the feasibillty study can be ordered, presenEed and accepted at one neetj,ng. We have
already agreed to pay for the acEual drafting and prepararion of the documenLs. we
hereby waive our right to a publj,c hearing at thaE meeting and ask lhat you order
the work to go forward upon acceptance of the feasibility report. Iir discussions wlthIIr. Craig MerEz we have proposed lhe assessments be amortized over fifteen years wlEh
PaymenE in ful1 due in seven years.
REQUEST:Council:
Order and accept feasibiu.Ey sEudy and order all public lmprove-
trlenfs.
Assess all improvements to Fox Chase, wiEh costs dlvided among alllots equally. By thi.s request, we waive publlc hearing of the
assessments.
Assess said public LmprovemenE:costs over a fiEEeen year anorEiza-tlon period l,rlEh enEire aEount payable in seven years.
b
c
Because the majorlEy of rhe lots have been sold to Lloyd Leirdahlof }linnesoEa Century Builders Inc., and ln thaE Fox Chase is comprised of Ewo separateparcels, there would nornally be permitted Ewo residential building permiEs. llr. LloydLeirdahl proposes to build two residences, on the no r Eheas ternmos t and souEheastern:rosElocs oE the plat. The former is co be a model for lhe Parade oE llomes in Aug,usE; lhelatEer will be a private residence for !1r. Leirdahl. It is understood that eccupancypernits may be rrithlreld until water and sewer are hooked trp.
RI,QUIiST: Cotrncil pernir tlvo residential
from Lot I1, Vinelaocl, to Covernmen! Lot
s truclures, noving one permit
5.
(
ROAD ALICN}IENT
PUBLIC IMPROVETIENTS
, BUILDING PEfuYIT
DERRICI< L.AND COMPANY
1770 SHELAFD TOWER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55426
PHONE 612/546-2276
15 April 19 8l
I,IAYOR AND COIJNCIL
CITY OF CHANIIASSEN
c/o Mr. Don Ashworth
7610 Laredo Drlve, Box 147
Chanhassen, llinnesota
55317
Fox Chase
Chanhassen, MN
Dear Mayor and Council:
We request that the Planning Commission consider, at the publlc hearlng on 22 Aprll
1,g81, and you consLder aE rhe 4 May 1981 Council Meeting, the Plat for Fox chase'
lncluding the changes and other considerations discussed below'
NUi,IBER OE I-OTS Ttrere has been a SreaE deal of discussion of the number of lots
to be finally platEed. We have never conce ded Lhat Ehe City has the right unlla-
terally to reduce the number of lots in the plat belo\" Ehat whlch 1s PermltEed ln
slngle family residenrial zoning, This, we felE, was done arbj-Lrarlly when the
plat was approved at Ehe 21 July 1980 Couneil MeeEing and the number of lots tras
reduced from 54 to 52. Not incldentatl,y, no consideratlon seened to have been
given to the 69 loE uniEs assessmenEs which are pending.
RE
A1I of the above no twj- Ehs tandlng and in the sPlrlt of cooperaElon in brinSlng
protracEed platting matter to a satisfactory close, we are PrePared to flnally
52 lots as shor.n on the enclosed proposed plat, tf we can come to agreement on
other Ltems discussed hereln.
thts
plat
the
STREET I,'IDTH
Ashr.,o rth. If
streeEs 1.n the
This natter was discussed in our leEter of 25 March 1981 to Don
thi3 streeE is constructed ar 35r viidEh lE will be one of only three
Cicy of Chanhassen so consfructed'
REQUEST: Council rcduce the streeE lridth to 32 feet'
PRI:vIoUSLY IIISTALLID ASsESsl!iiNTS l're are advised t h3 E
52
the
units
property has pend ing
are approved, th is59 ueit assessmenEs, In light of the fact lhac only
panrling assessnent should be reduced accordingly.
REQIIIST: CounciL rcduce the pending assessment Eo 52 units'
LAT{D DEVELOPEFS
((
that City Council concurrence and/or modification ofany agreement between the developer and park Comnissionmust occur prior to submission of the preliminary plat.
pP'