CC Agenda 08-10-1981 (2)l|
1
f,r,J
AGENDA
SPECIAI, CITY COT]NCIL MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 19 81
CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER DRIVE
1. 7:30 p.m. - Wetlands Ordinance, Establish Parameters and
Guidelines for Preparation of Ordinance.
2.8:00 p.m. - Preliminary Plat Review, Carver Beach Properties,
Inc., (Formerly Known as Quady Property) , 23
Single Family Lots Proposed on 10.7 Acres.
3 8:30 p.m. - Fox Chase (Derrick Land Development), Review
Construction Plans.
4. 9:00 p.m. - Lyman BIvd. (County Road 18) Aligrunent Studlr
Set Date for County, City of Chaska, City of
Chanhassen Joint Review.
5 9:30 p.m.
9:45 p.m.
- CPT Development Contract Rev j.er^r.
6 - I98I Special Assessment PoIicies, General
Discussion.
l0:00 p.m. - Adjournment.
er;t-*"
1r,
I
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROT4:
nl.nF .
CITY OF
EH[I'IH[SSEN
ilq
RE
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Scott A. Martin, Conmunity Development Director
August 6, 198I
Preparation of Wetlands Ordinance
w1 th the Soil
As instructed by the City Council on \Tuly 27, 798L, I have reviewed theWetlands Ordinances presented. to the Council on that date by the LotusLake Association. These ordinances are copies of wetlands ordinancesadopted by eight (8) suburban cities, al,l prior to 1978, and most duringthe first-half of the 1970's.
You have reguested, that I recommend a specific course of action thatthe City should follow if the City Counci.L wishes to adopt a local Wetlandsordinance. My findings and recommendations are as follows:
Available Wetlands Data
One of the most important aspects one must consider when developinga technical land use control ordinance, such as a Wetlands Ordinance,is the availability of hard data. In this case, it is critical thatthe wetlands protected by such an ordinance be clearly identified onan official City zoning map, since wetlands regulations are landuse regulations that are appropriately included in the City's ZoningOrdinance. The "model" ordinances provided by the Lotus Lake Associ-ation almost universally use "wetland districts" to identify andregulate wetlands.
Although the proposed City Comprehensive PIan j-ncludes a section on
Wetlands which contains a I'Wetland Conservation Basin', Map, I am
concerned that the map is too general or vague to be adopted as a
zonan ma I have been unable to verify the accuracy of this mapConservation Service and/or the I'linnesota Department ofNatural Resources, as staff members of these two agencies have either
been on vacation or rrout of the office".
Wetland Resource Material s
Asidc from the ordinances supplied by the Lotus Lake Association,I have been unsuccessful in Iocating additional models or professionalpublications designed for the protection and regulation of Wetlands.
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937- 1e00
L
-2-
I've been told that the Metropolj_tan Council is working on such amodel ordinance, but this is not yet available. I wi1l continue toseek information of this sort from the American planni_ng Associationand Urban Land Institute to assist us in preparation of a local ord-inance. Irm confident that substantial resource material is available;i.t's just a matter of Iocating it.
Recommenda t ion
With adequate resource materialq sufficient wetland data, anddirection from the City Council , I believe that City Staff isof preparj-ng a draft Wetlands Ordinance by November t, t9gI.if our Wetlands data is insufficient for regulatory purposes,project completion date may be impossible to meet.
c Iear
capabl-e
However,
this
Ordinance be reviewed _by the P l ann ingprovide citizento formal public
If additional Iocational data is needed, an outside consultant maybe reguired to assist with this project. fn any case, preparationof an of fj-ciaI zoning map for this ordinance will requiie draftingassistance.
I would further recommend that the draft Wetl-andsby the Lake Study Committee prior to consideration
Commission and City Council. Thi.s procedure willinput into the ordinance developmenl process priorhearings.
has been instructed to prepare a legal opinion con-ability to enact a moratorium ord.inance on wetlandsthe period that a local wetlands ordinance is beingof the attorney,s opinion should be included withthe City Council packet for August IO, I9gl.
The City Attorneycerning the City's
development duringprepared. A copythis memorandum in
Le'nsox & Mnnrz
ATTOR N EYS AT LAW
I9c)O IIRST BANX PLACE WEST
M IN N EAPO LIS, M IN N ESOTA 55402
August 5, 19 81
CRAIG M MERTZ
HAFVEY E SXAAR
MARX C. M<C(ILlOUGH
1612) 3tJ rsrr
DonaLd w. Ashworth
City Manager
Box I47
Chanhassen MN 55317
Re: Wettands Development Iqoratorium
Dear Don:
The City Council on JuIy 27, L98l , asked for a rePort on the
of the Cj.ty's authority to adopt an immediate moratorium on
development of shoreland areas and wetland areas.
e xtent
the
The best such authority we can identify is found in the Municipal
Planning Act (I4innesota Statutes 462.351 et seq) and in M.S.A. 105.485
which authorizes the adoption of "shoreland management" ordinances.
The latter statute defines "shoreland" as lands within 1000 feet of the
normal high water mark of a lake and within 300 feet of a stream.
The specific authority ftr a moratorium on develoPment is found in
M.S.A. 462.355 (4) which authorizes so-caIled interim ordinances. we
enclose a copy.
An interim ordinance may prohibit development for a period not to exceed
one year, and for additional periods as the City deems aPpropriate.
Such additional periods cannot. exceed 18 months. Thus no interim ordinance
to be in effect for more than 30 months total . we recolunend that the
Cor:nc il consider a moratoriun for the entire l2-month initial period
permitted by law.
The adoption procedure is the s ame as for the adoption of any zoning
ordinanie amendment, i.e., 10 days published notice of a public hearing,
adoption by the City Council on a 4/5 vote after having received the
planning commissionls recommendation. In addition, the Commissioner of-the oepirtment of Natural Resources should receive a copy of the notice
of heaiing at least ten days prior to the hearing. DNR regulation
Un84 requires this advance notice to the Commissioner. Vlhile vre can find
no statutory provision which authorizes the DNR to require such advance
notice, it seems a simple matter to comply and thus avoid unnecessary
controversy.
RECEI\/ED
AUG 6 19BI
CIIY OT CHANHASSEII
Certain pending development proposals would be exempt from any suchmoratorium. The final sentence of M.S.A. 462.355(4) provides:
Donald w.
August 5,
Page Two
The term "preliminary approval"preliminary plat approval rather
approval
As hwo rth
I9 81
"No interim ordinance may halt, deIay, or impede
has been given preliminary approval prior to thethe interim ordinance. "
a subdivison whicheffective date of
in the above quoted language refers to
than prelimj-nary development plan
Applying this definition to the situation of Fox Chase, whichreceived final devel-opment plan approval and preliminary plat approvalon JuIy 2I, 1980, it would seefr that Fox Chase would be exempt tiom anyproposed moratorium ordinance, because of the Iast sentence in S462.35E(4).If the Council feels that Fox Chase shou.Id be subject to the proposed
wetl-ands moratorium there are two alternative approaches by which the
exemption in the last sentence of 5462.355(4) couLd be avoided.
The first approach woul-d be to select one of the Metro Councilenvironmental protection ordinances for i.nrnediate adoption with the ideathat such an ordinance would be amended as needed this coming fa1l.
Under this approach, the. last sentence in 5462.355(4) woulcl not beapplicab-le to Fox Chase, because the new ordinance would be theactual ordinance rather than a mere "interim" ordi-nance.
The second approach involves a bit of statutory construction. The
Council will recal-I receiving our report some months ago regarding
M.S.A. 5462.358(3)(c). That statute states that for one year followingapproval of a pre.l-iminary plat no amend.ment to a so-calIed"offical control" sha11 apply to an approved platting application. Areasonable argument can be made that M.S.A. 5462.358(3) (c) and M.S.A.
5462.355(4) should be read together. Thus the exemption contained inthe last sentence of 5462.355(4) would protect pending plats only fora l2-month period commencing on the date of preliminary plat approval.That l2-month period has expired in the case of Fox Chase.
intended to be read together. Thus if his interpretation is-T5Ilowed,
Fox Chase would be exempted from the proposed moratoriun.
We have talked to the lobbyist for the League of Cities who wasinvoLved in the adoption of the two statutes in question duringSession. He was of the opinion that the two statutes r^rere not
The opinion of the lobbyist is just an opinion and wouldweight in Court. We believe that it is more reasonablethe exemption in the last sentence of 5462.355(4) is not
in tima telythe 1980
carry I i ttle
to assume that
perpetual .That being the case, it seems appropriate to apply thein 5462.358(3) (c) to Fox Chase.
one year time limit
Donald W. Ashworth
August 5, 19 81
Page Three
Assuming that the Council would be reasonably satisfied with one of
Metro's model ordinances, our preference would be that the Council adopt
such a modeL ordinance rather than adopting a interim ordinance, thus
avoiding many of the legal questions regarding the application of the
interim orctinance to pending develoPment proposals.
The Council was specifically interested in the preservation of so-cal-led
Type II wetlands. We could find no impediment to the inclusion of Type II
r^retlands within l-ands to be subjected to the development moratorium.
Conc Ius ion
The Council has the authority to enact immediate controls on the
devel-opment of shorelands and wetlands within the City. The Council has
the diicretion to either include pending developments or exclude pending
developments from such controls, depending on how the proposed
ordinance would be structured. The Council's options would seem to be:
a) adopt an interim ordinance affecting aI1 pending development
proposals, except those proPosal-s for which preliminary plat
approval has been received, regardless of the date of such
approval;
b) adopt an inte4im ordinance affecting all pending development
proposals, except those proposals for which preliminary
plat approval has been received within one year of the
adoption of the interim ord.inance; or
c) adopt one of the nrodel ordinances as a "final" ordinance
rather than an interim ordinance.
Any one of these approaches could be further modified $rith a Provision
foi variances. Variances, however, would have to be awarded on the basis
of some sort of objective engineering standards factually rel-ated to the
protective purposes of the ordinance'
The 'final' ordinance approach has the advantage of offering the City
more control over pending developmentl however, the City \'t'ould have to
treat a1I similar wetlands equally (i.e., non-discrinrinatory ) , meaning
that a final ordinance would have to have City-wide application.
The interim ordinance approach has the advantage of being capable. of
targeting only portions-of the City; however, certain lega1 and liti-
gation questioni are created regarding the status of pending development
proposal s.
DonaId W. Ashworth
August 5, 19 81
Page Four
The decision to enact a wetlands ordinance is a pol j-cy decision and nota 1e9al, decision. Similarly,the determination of the scope of anyexemption to be given to pendin s development proposals is a policydecision rather than a lega1 deci s10n.
v
RUSSELL H. LARSON
Chanhassen City Attorney
RHL:ner
enccc: Scott A. Martin
_-i -Y_1_, lnl.rln o.dtnrnc.. tt R rnunlclprlitl ls conduc og .tudtrt ornrx Irurnorr/r(l lr Flrxly to l,(, conit,,,tftl or h|lfl hol(t or h[x sfhodltlod a hcnrtng
-r,or thc f,rrrtxrrto 'rf,,orFtrl"rlrrr ,.rlrl,' on or $b(,nrlrnont nl n coipi:t err"lrcDlan o. ofllclsl c,,rrr,,ti ,rr it,.flrx.,t t,, srrton {{i:l.r}:t, *,,Uf "f*lnn-ii, n. f t
I: ::l:lllly Jor $l,r|"t, r,tdn( ,,r ,.ortrots lnvc not rn,n arroprorl ir onnererrro rl urrlrrlcltxrlilt, rh,. ll,'!r.rllltrll txxly (,1 tho tlllllllcttulltl rnny nrlopt an ln.le-rlm ordlnar(n uIt'ti,,rhlr to rI or l,,rrL ol ltF J,rrtvllction frr ttro i,rrrxrrof.protcctlrrg tllc t,li llrl,rx Irr.rr.sri llnd tho hr.ltlth. infctl Inrl tr.elfllre ol ltsj;111T:l: ^I.l," tnrr.rtr11.,,.,;1i^,,,.(, nraI r,.r,,rx!... r..rrrl(.! ,,r l,ri,r,il,it sny uso.
:,::-]"Lll:1'1. (,r x!,riIrirr,,,r $.trhi,r rh| J rIIIIi,.IL,II i,r ,r rrrr 0n rhorot,frur a ncrlorl I.rt t.' pt.i.r.(l o o ).,.|l. frlID |lte (llttr. lt tr clft\,tlro. trn(l tnrly ll..crter(hrt for such r r , I r I I | | | , | | | | I tr.rt,xts xr rtrc nrrrntciprrlitl ,",,r',i;;;;, ,,,1,.,,prlntt', n"t orcr{tIrN r r,,rnt td( lt,)rst rrrt,xt ot ii ,,i",,ii,_. 'i,, f"t,,"r,"ordlndnn' n,rv rrxrr, rrrr.v,,rr rrrrr*rrr.r,rrnItrri,,. ...l,irh h.H lx\.. tsrr{,rtp.ollnrlrnry rt't,r,,vrt prt,,r ro rho of?(,rlr.o (trte rf lho I,,r,.ri,,i u.,ifl|nu",..IJlw{ llxli. (. ti?O. I ;. r.ft. Jrrrr. t. r.iti. A|nr,rxl,rt f,, fr,,*." fOiO, ". lii, I Zf;off. .^t'rll:t. l!)?rij l,,r$." ,l);;.(.:tii. l,s. t.,,Br lIr,,,,...ril, l.ll.
$ 462.358 I'1..\ \ '\..l N(;, Z()'\-lli(;
,,r llr. '.\r.llri,,|L.f I r | , i , i . , I , I i . , t | . r,Xrrt.t|r,.trts nsr.lrrlng pcrfornrrtr(,. If |lx.n!rrl( it,xlitr f:ritr t,, ,r.flif\. ti,r,,t ,rt,t,r,r\xl l|{ !r n'rt lrorl, nll(l if rr .rt,t,ticirrl l rr ,r,llrt'lt,,l Nittr nlt ia!lltitt,,ll\ llIrt rorllllr.,nrexls, thc olrplll. llr,,, .t,Illln.rlt.rrrlrl lin,rtt! nt,t'r.r.al. irrr,l rtx,r rt..rnxI,l rtr.nrrrrkltltrllty rhrrll r.r,r.rrr,.n,trlilir:rld l0 lhll {.lf|r'l Att'.r firll:rl,prorrrl o liotrllylsion ttllly lr. fil,rl
Sulrd. 3c. Etlcct o, !ubdiii!ton app.ov.l. lir, ooo ,eor [ollo$itrti t,l,t..IlDrirxrr:'t,j,r,,\.hl rr,il r',,r l\,, tr,r,rr f,,ll,,Nit|r fin l |lItrrorlll, ||rl..r r.rrrlnli\ i,l,,r ,llrl ll(, rIlllIi. it'.rlirl. llArrr. r,tlrrrt,ls(. no llntCndtDr.lt! t,r ;1 ,,,,,,
l,r,.l!.tl.;\,. trL r t,r ,'lti,i,rt,,.r,r'..t .trirlt xt,r,l] ti, o. Itfrr.t tlrr'lllr...t,r,t,,t,.r',,r1 'l'.tl\ir". l,,t {iz'., t,,t 1.,\,,,rt. i,r .l,,rli(ltr,. r lrltrttlrrf rr'rt lr.ill i,r. l, rll,illr!l l,\ rtl,. lrt,t,r..\,rl , , I , I , I i , j i I i , , ! , ,,.,r.rrft,.r. I r\illllrt tr, ltr r'..(rt.tl,,,rr.ll,' ,r' 11i, i, rlrt! r,.,\ . \r,,,!t rt,,. tx.ri,rl t,l. .rl.r,r,|lx. t $.ltlr xr s0lnlt!i,lr,rrr,l i,rl,.j.rI t,, llt ,,t,I,Ii.,,LI,. I" rr,r||,.|lr.,, tr,I|||iri,,|Lr ltnrl rrrll l1.lll|.llts, r,.it rrr;rt rr"t,rir,. -rrlrrri .i,.rr .., r, ,,,.N rt t,li,.Iri,,rr rrll.ss :.$lrrll|IIIii,I t l'\.ir.rl!r,'tililr ri'l i0,r'.t',', r,1 1,,, ,ra,llr,!l ll, r..,.,r,lt,t,,r..llnllr.l..'rt ILI,,I|,I,L|\irIirt'l'li,':,ri.,|| rr'.1 ttr' . rlrri\,,t, | $r ,,rtt,. {rt,rt: r rl ftn,Ilr.l:rl ,h,r,,t,j,. rr.]
: , , ,
'
r | \ , 1 | r | , . ,
'
, , .,1 :r r,,r,,,r,r,,, r,r t,,:,,tnDt :, l|,.\r nt,l,lic:ttk t. lr ,r,r,t,r, I i,,ttirlr,! .","1r,r-'.,ll ,,,,lrr,- I,l.,r.r.,l ;,:,,1 -r.rtul ,lt.\ ,.|"I'tnoxt. Il ll ,trl,.il,llit.vrrj'I l,r F , 1,rri,,,, ,,r r.:r,,.r,r,.rrl r:r,,rl t1,,. ri-t,r. ft,fr,rrl\l t,r L,.n,lll l,,r \,r. tll" r',,,1. .,f r ,!. l,,r,.r I rl,:r,, ts., r,.ir: rhi, l, rk,trrnti|l{,s t., t.. rr.:r!.r.:,r,t..
nr',1 .,t |,r',|,I L,I,.
SPI.:CI.{I, CHANHASSEN CITY COIJNCII, MEETING JUL\ 27. I98L
Acting )layor Neveaux called the meeEing
members present: Councllwoman Srdenson,
uas absent.
to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following
Councllmen Horn and Geving. Mayor Hanilton
lJIirL.\.r"DS.DrSCUSSroN: John Nicolay, president of Lotus Lake Homeowners Association,presented a petition signed by some of the members asking that the city consider a,etlands ordinance that wourd appropriately protect the wetlands surrounding thelakes. crady Mann, formerly of the U. S, Fi;h and Wildlife Service, dlscussedbasic conservation philosophies and principles to guide sound long-term priori"ti.esfor developmenE of new Minnesota regulatlons or programs.l. tJerlands preserved and undlsturbed wlll renain as ',land insurance', tractsfor the future. If a wetland has an agricultural capabillty, that capabllltywill be preserved under natural conditions.
PUBLIC I{F-ARING
ESTAITLISILYENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
SOTITII I)F IIIC1MAY 5 AND EAST OF DAKOTA AVENUE
?. Redirect thinking on wetlands to the wetland complex and to zones ofvarying densltles rather than to isolaEed areas. TOe landowner, alone, carmoEprovide this broader perspectlve; that broader perspective and reason forregulatlon has to be supplled by resource agencles,3' lrinor changes ln a wetland complex can affeat r00 pereent of rhe utirltyof that coruplex for certaln wildlife spectes.4. The econonic penalty for an error in the directi.on of overprotection canalways be corrected' whlre the damage from resource abuse may be irreparabre.5. []re function of government relative to lretlands and their p,..rllr" .rr1r."shouLd be to define, assess, and protect values in the overriding publicinterest. Far too many agencies see their role as one of increalirrg tteeconomic well-being of a few at the expense of those same public var-ues. rhiskj.nd of rnission is ouLdaEed (Harmon, 1976). Decisions on controversi-al areas'horrd rest on protecting pub11e values in the overriding public lntu.""a.6. Rccognize that Minnesotans value independence __ but we "r.rrrot ,"irtai,tl)Jt independence without careful and sound natural resource ,"r,"!urana.Thar management derands renewed individual stewardship; and if stlwardship islacklng, strlcter controls and regulations to protect the broader pubJ"icinLurests,
The "'cti'g llayor read a leEter from Mayor Hamilton regarding the wetlands issue.'lilc (:ity Attorneyts office r,ri11 revi.ew the legal imprications of whether the cityean estab-Lish a moratorium, the time period a moratoriuu could exist and the affects()r- r noraEorium on existj-ng developments.
c.u.cirman Geving moved to tabre action until August 10, 19g1 at 7:30 p.m. at whichtine a fu1l staff report will be presented. Motion seconded by counciiman Horn. ThefoiL,,rring voted in favor: Acting Mayor Nevea,x, Councilwoman Sr"r,"oa,, Counci-l"menCcvinll Jnd Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
.\ctinii lrayor Neveaux carled the hearing to order \r1th the fotlowlng interested personsprcsent:
l'cter lleck, 7900 Xerxes Ave. So., Bloomington.lin I:ngler, 8100 Mitchell Road, Eden prairie.jlil I ]lcRostie, Bloomberg Companiesilulen Nemltz, 533 W, 78rh Screet
C.rurad Fiskness, 8033 Cheyenne
:;qorc )l.rtin gave the presentation. under consicleration ts the expansion of Taxl[crement Distrlct /12. The Plannlng corunlsslon has revlewed the pi-an and reconnendedrpprovrrl as it is consistent with the cooprehenslve pran. Mr. Maitln reconeendedthac Ehe councll continue the hearing to August 3 because of some late lnformation
CITY.oF
Offi&IflIIflS5EIfl
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Bob WaibeL, City planner
DATE: JuIy 16, 1981
SUBJ: Preliminary pl-at Revievr, euady property, public Hearing
APPLICANT: Carver Beach properties, Inc.
PLANNING CASE: 78-19 Subd.
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX ,I47 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
attachedprofiles,
For the purposes of your revj.ew for this public hearingplease find the proposed prellminary plat, grading p1an,and utilities plan as prepared by Land p1an, Inc.
Thc applicant is proposing to replat the subject 10.7 acres into23 single family building sites. The northerly 2/3 of thesubject development proposal contains 21 lots and the southwest-crly rnost low land area contains the remaining 2 proposed lots.is shown on the attached Planning Commission minutes of .fune 24,l9Bl, Lhcre was no approved motion by the Planning CoNlissionspeciiying to the developer a number of lots that would be
acccptablc.
The applicants plans indi-cate the proposed home sites on lots
11 and 12 of Block 2. Notvrj.thstanding that. the City Engineer
may f j.nd the northerly extention of Summit Drive infeasible andthat storm water ponding needs render these lots undevelopable,this office is conccrned that a precedent may be set through
the creat.ion of a lot of record on an unapproved public street(Lot L2). Provided that the City Engineer d.eems that the storm
r.r;r ter holding needs will not forclose development of Lot 12,r rcconmcnd that development on Lot 12 not occur until itrs
rccess is upgraded to municipal standards.
I lrrv,: <liscussed the subjecL plan with the County Engineer,
Do;r !'Je sniewski, with respect to access onto County Road #17,
.r:rd lrc has stated that. there are no problems with such.
{
J-.
P IJnningJuIy 16,
Page 2
Report
r981
Quady
1\lt.hough topographic information is not availabte for the pro-perties north of the subject property, field inspection revealedthat there are no terrain features prohibiting to trre dedicationof right-of-way bet\^reen the east/west street through the developmentand said property to the north of the subject property. ttappears that right-of-way for a potential future street to theproperty to the north could be dedicated anywhere between lots3 and 8 of Block 1. Section 8.02 subsection b of subdivisionordinance #33 states that ',the arrangement of streets in newsubdivisions sha1l make provisions for the continuation of existingfuture streets in adjoining areas.', From a planning standpointI recomrnend that a 50r right-of-way be dedicated for futuretraffic circulation in the vicinity of Lot.s 4-6 of Bl-ock l-.
Said dedication should be incorporated without any affect ofit reducing the number of lots presently proposed in the north-erly portion of the subject plan. (This office was informedtoday that. a group of homeowners in the neighborhood will bemecting to discuss possible traffic circulation alternat.ivesj-n and around the subject property. Their inputcould very obviously havea signj-frcant impact on the preli.minary plat design, however,since their input is not yet available, the above cornments are
made with exclusive reference to the plans submitted by theapplicant and prior discussion of the Planning Commission
co:rc ern ing the subject proposal. )
It has been d.eterminei fy staff that the right-of-ways proposedfor vacat.ion for the subject development wilI need to receivePlanning Commission recommendation with a subsequent City CouncilPublic Ik:aring. As such, any recommendations of approval on theprclininary plat by the Planning Commission should include a
recon,,'nenda tion for vacation of certain right-of-ways. Foradninistrrtive purposes, the applicant should consider filinga joint applicant of vacation of streets with adjoining pro-
pe rt.y or,,/ncrs along the right-of-ways in question.
applicant has requested a 20' rear yard setback variance forI Block I. This office recommends that a lot shift or a series of 1ashould be incorporated into the plan that would el-imj_nate anyfor such a request.
Thc
Lotshifts
nccd
In Lhe absencc of any real neighborhood amenity on the proposedout.lot at the east and west, entrances to the development, thiscfficc is concerned about the long term maintenance. Ideally,for .rssurancc of maintcnance, these parcels shoul-d be associated
ry'i.Lil .rdjoining residents. Additionally, in order to accomplish
1-ir,r j3nvey:rncc of these parcels to adjoining residents, said parcel
.;irorr l-J not be assessed f or the pubJ-ic improvements necessary for
I l) -: ,lL \'.: I opmcnt.
(
P Iann ing
JuIy 16 ,
Page 3
Report
19 8l Quady
nccolrLrflcn da t ion
I recommend that the pJ.anning Commission recommend that theCity Council approve the preliminary plat exhibit for CarverBeach Properties, Inc. dated July 6, 198I, revised July 10,198I and recommend that the City Council hold the necessaryPublic tlearing for the right-of-ways proposed to be vacatedwith the following conditions.
l-. That. Iot 12, block 2 not be deemed developable at. thistime for reasons that it does not have frontage on animproved public street.
2. That a 50 I right-of-way be dedicated between the east/westroad through the development and the north property linein the vicinity of lots 3-7.
3. That a lot shift or series of lot shifts be incorporatedinto t.he plan that will eliminate the need for a rear yardbuilding setback variance as requested for lot 1, block 1.
4. That the applicant demonstrate to the Cj-ty adequate meansby which the long term maintenance of the parcels indicatedas outlots A and B will be accomplished.
5. 'that the applicant incorporate any and all of the concernsoi ihc City Engineer regarding the proposal j-nto their
i>r:opo sed p lan s .
Update-Auqust 5 l98t
The Planning Commission duly held a hearing on the subject pre-liminary plat on Ju)-y 22, l98l and moved to recommend that theCity Council approve Preliminary plat in accordance with thestaff reconunendations with the exception of condition #1 and #2of the Planning Report dated JuIy 16, 1981 and #4 of the CityEngineerrs Report dated July 17, 1981.
Since the public hearing.was held by the planning Commission,staff has received a petition for vlcation of stieetssigned by. the applicant and surrounding property ohrners forthe vacation,of Mapte Road, Summit Dri,ie Noitfr of 67th Street,Narcisus Road, and the 33' cartway forming t,he northeilt----boundary of Carver Beach West of iez perce. As shown ii tnereport from the City Attorney, the form of the petition isnot adeguate and, further, that any final actioi on thepreliminary plat approval should be tabled until thevacation request is properly documented.
Traditionally, one of the City Council cons j.derat j_ons forprcliminary plat revier^r is the developers obligation to the parkDedication ordinance. Staff reconmends that no park Dedicationcredits be contemplated for the subject proposal and that thestandard park charge be paid at the time building permits are issued.
CITY OF
OHffiB{}XfiF5EIil
690 COULTEB DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, i',4|NNESOTA 5S3i 7
(612) 937- 1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: PJ.anningConmission
FROM: City Engineer, Bill Monk
DATE: July 17, 1981
SUBJ: Carver Beach Replat (euady property)
Thc following recoflrmendat ion spart of the overall review of
4) \ jrght-of-way (50,) stuband 7 of Bl.ock I to allowas the area d.evelops.
nurnbered) were generated as aproposed p1ans.
4 of the plans
(as
the
S trce t s
Prc-rrninary street profiles are detaj_l-ed on sheetand ccrnply with alL appl1cab1e ordj.nances.
I) is noted on the cover sheet of the petit.ioner's packager-:l pltrns, this proposal requires exlensive right:of-wiyVacations. The overall scheme is acceptable but no poition ofh'cstcrn Drive (shown as 67th Street) should be vacatld atthrs t.ime. The petitioner does not need. this street vacatedto rnal'.e the plan functional and the city should not l-imit futuretraf f ic possibilities.
2) The south right-of-way line must be realigned bycorner of the llobbrs property to insure that thedoes noL overlap private property.
the northeast
right-o f-way
3) Thc souLheast corner of Lot l-1, Block 1 should be dedicatedas rj-ght-of-way to a1low for a proper (90") intersection for a
f utur:e northward extension of Nez pexce.
should be platted between lots 6for future traffic circulation
S i(n i LJ r..r !i crre r
As dLlL.rrlcd on sheet 5 ot the plans (proposed utilities) , sanitaryscwur is avaifable in the area and wilt service the lots throughl.rtcral extcnsions. FinaI construction plans will be required.rnC sh.rl1 meet City standards and specifications as approved bythis office.
P l.rnn ing Commission -2-JuIy 17, 1981
A note concerning approval of new plats in relation to currentproblems with the Metro Council and our Comprehensive plan wouLd
scem appropriate. It is the opinion of thi.s office and MarkKocglcr of Schoell and Madson, Inc. that areas servicable bygravity Iaterals are to be j.ncluded within the MISA. This approachwill hopefully meet the suggested guidelines of the Metro Council,
and to proceed otherwise would be inconsistent with aII past Citypolicies and goals.
l,Ja te rma ln
After reviewing the existing area watermains, I recommend that an8" watermain be constructed from County Road 17 to Nez Perce.This recorunendation is consistent with long range City plans and
should not cause the developer undue hardship.
D ra ina e
Existing site drainage flovrs to the northeast and southwest cornersof the site. From the northeast corner, the drainage continues
overland in an eastward direction towards Lotus Lake. The
drainage flowing to the southwest ponds in a low]-and partially on
Lots ll and 12, Block 2, then flow through a long culvert. under
County Road 17 and continues vrestward to Lake Lucy. The major
por-lion of bhe proposed sj-te drainage wifl be directed to the
southwest, A series of catch basins are J)roposed to outlet into
swalcs as detailed on sheets 3 and 5 of the plans. This system
r,rill be reviewed as final plans are prePared to determine if
additional piping is required.
I) The area designa't.ed as Lots II and 12, Block 2 exists as
)art of the lowlands i.nto which existing runoff is diverted.
Since the proposed plat is to contribute additional runoff
:o this area, I recommend this area be platted as an outlot
unLil downstream storm sewers are constructed that wilI accePt
area runoff so these lots can be filled.
(
.USSELI H L FsON
CRAIG M, MERTZ
}TAFVEY E SKAAR
MARX C. M'CI.'LIOUCH
Donald W. AshworthCity Manager
Box 147
Chanhassen MN 5 5 3l-7
Re:
Dear Don:
Reference is made to theabutting Carver Beach as
development plan.
Llnsorrr & Manrz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
I9OO IIRST BANX PLACE WESI
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
1612) 333 r5rI
August 5, 19 81
CON FI DENTIAL
Street Vacation
Carver Beach Properties
Quady Property
proposed vacation of certain streets in anda part of the proposed Carver Beach Properties
We note in particular the proposal to vacate the btreet, identified
solely as "Road.", Iying northerly of the pl-at of Carver Beach andabutting Lots 7, 8 and 9 of the plat of VineLand. This "Road" is nota part of the pl-at of Carver Beach, and although we have not examined theplat of Vineland, it appears to us that it was platted as part of Vineland.
We are j-nformed that Carver Beach Properties has secured an option to
purchase the "Road" from the owners of Lots 7 and 8, Vineland on the
assurance that road access will be given these lots from the south by
Carver Beach Properties. We have not. been furnished with a copy of any
document which verifies this understanding, nor does the proposed platfurnished us show any such road access to Lots 7 and 8, Vineland, fromthe south.
Our specific concern is that by vacating the road abutting Lots 7, 8
and 9, Vineland, lrithout the express written consent of the feeowners (and any encumbrancers) of said lots, the City may incur liabilityto these owners for the taking of a property right without adequate
compensation. The fact that the may or may not have been
improved or used is not material in our view.
Any document expressing the consent of the owners of Lots 7,8, and 9,Vineland, to vacation of the "Road" should be reviewed and approved bythis office and placed of record with the County Recorder or Registrarof Titles, as the case may be.
RECEIVED
AU G 6 19EI
CITY OT CHAIiHASSEI,
Donald l^1.
August 5,
Page Two
Ashtrorth
19 81
We recommend that no action be taken by the City to vacate this "Road"until this office j.s satisfied that there is no liability exposure tothe City by the vacation.
Very v
RUSSELL H. LARSON
Chanhassen City Attorney
RHL r ner
t
o
LJ
ItJ
U
lri
u.
a:nlYl.rarral li:reru a.t^rv)
EffiilImliil:rlEBli
("^"""-I
i.T,EiIEJ1,.'\il: tr [o l.t \;E E3li
i
i:
!
ji
{i
,l
i
-,i
5rl
):
ta
rt
6t
r"Fi, 8,
tBsr
?'d I ii(. 1.!9& Pjlvvr:;il{il$f
HI#39
.,trfSUs,
E
P..
11'4Iil
Itlill
,1
H
rll16.{
5i
IIJl.! rit,rll!!
.\'
ll
'lq
.rl
I
!
lr
l-1 0;\6gtrrl rrlllj i,iE) !:r
t,l lllt'l tj
P-i ,t,)
,i$ ,uii
9i gl,$
:) ,.F':gi ui#
'.? D,l ill,;I R
bi hj
ril
iiii
li,j
1,.-,i
.--[
0;
ln
Iol Ir- I
1-r(t;l
t:
LJ
_ ll
hrl
i..t
t:,,rt
el-=.
?.I
-I
r
t;
L-:
t.L
R
TJl
.r,liI t --
I
1
,t
t\i
))
i
t-:cUJ6
cD=ct (rorr') d
, C:t
==.2.,=
==C,(J
z.
li.J<A(r)
-z.
-(.)
l.l-o
-
,tJ
t-,
(
r*
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
r-
T
I
It
il
I
i,trrj
t)tN
Ir., lir.t t,
E tri1 rl
,.4 'i
ril ' ti,id i,
lr s: :. fl
ti', t;'[,i t,.'
it{ i,ii, '' ,1
'i:r:,
I
Ir
i.
lo 06r
t:r.tliarouJ lr3t lt Yr^tva("^',..,-z
[" I .\ [;ls ffi ';trllN;n EnS ffi EI-iffi iii$lt&ffi ';T r.\ [;15 E
ot
:i
\
a,
Tt
IL
I
t-
I
I
T
l-
I
I
I
r
I
i
I
T
I
l
-T
IrBi
$fl
li$x
I
IItI
,t
-1I
I
-l
t-
lt
0
53-
-l
'1
J
hrrq
r'l
r-
-rh
:li
lrr
,]il',
l-,
1l
t,j
ll',
ii
i
t:
(,
l.L,
, ,1,
d ..r I .i
.r .d- n{ {t r a'a .l c r: I1"i iiltt Ir [ .
$ili 'i I it$Ii
"r*H F i f
SsuE l$. i r
1ri{ii}uliI
dt
eI
s
s-
tr
+
.ts
a_+{
t
4
$
tBr
\F?gtl
trq
tilJ
'li
t
9+
]q
dti
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
F
T
]it
:l{o
9-?J
rl
I .t
t:
t- t"Ltr
i
.,1Ict
011
il
\:{
b
E
b
"1
I
"I
I
)
B3r r ur.r()u.J H3vlU llg^!v3( ""-
i .\ \ifl tr [o I .' \ia B';t]i'iE;;EilEffifiIts';Hl1'8lffiU
.i9{
5
t
t
ri
'.,:
tt.{
E;
!i/
itii
(I
s,
,!!
{..)
fi
fr
',''+/ti.i^
I
ll
,1i
I"rl
.r!
I
Ei
F;Ir
"tl
*t
1
\
.,|
\j
I1
Itl
I
.n
l
/
i)
I
il
.{
\
d
I
,' l
lliid
i*
:
l!i
.N
'.t
('l
,
fltu''
($
iri
I
'i.
/'1
I
ll
ti
i
,l
"1
/
I
l
I
/
I
i
II
I
E
Xr!l,l
t.a'
It
ar
't'
l.
lr
I
t,
t_
JI-[
T
.rI
I
l
i'
rt
r)
t.
3
1IIi
h.l,
Ti
i't
I
T
I
tt
I
I
t
I
iEr/
r
It
r
I
li
ri-
I
E
,.,..irril I
I
i fr, ,'
ilf**
IiifI
i-
i
I
i
j
I
i
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:
)
I
I
i
I
I
I
-J-
g
$'l
i
tl
t!
,
I
t'
lr.,],'
l.-t
ri
ll
Ij
t
rl
:l
,
"/
v
- :!=-
aaltlr:rrou.r ,lcvlu trll^ra vc
-\\ \;tl tr [o l.'LiA Fi'Jtri'imffiElEriilImilHllmffiilH
llillt
rl,t
.,1r:l
liof'l\ :r'.ti:!
rI, l,'rri({itl lr ,'
t:\ r: Illr t
ttl, I I
('
!it
{
tll
I
.J
I
,I
ill.l etlr
.ll
:l Uif
lil
i$Itll
.t .,
tt.!t
t:i I
I
ii
ilri
ii
ti
:l
li
rit
iii
lr
;,1
r)lit I,l'i
ti
I
aI
I
I
r,
I
I
il'i
tl;,li,,iiii{
I
t
I
t
d
I
a
I
:l
I
t
I t'
i.j"' i: : : ii :'i',ll
{
I
T
\\
f
:1.
t(
l{
IL
rl
:
r)
J
d
$
0
l:
.,
j
I
1
t
j
I
,ll
:l.;
.1ir.lt:;r:
!
;
1
II
t
'1
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
i'+ i
I
il t
))
, *..': -.." .tllr
'i I
I
!.l!
I
I
I
I
II
i
i.l
:
:,
ir
I
I
i
t,
I
I_t,l
,:
:.:
I
lIt
I
;
I
I
:ii
I'
rii
t.,.
::
I
Il-:.
li :
i
1H
lI t:'t:l'lt,''ii:;lrIlii:li .
It1
I
1r.'
:"
-t
!
!
1
I
'J:
tI
i
I
{
l.
I
li
l
:,
il
,l
i
t,
t
i.
l:.:i
I
I
I
lr
l
!
t:t:
lr
Ili
ll
It
I
lr
ir
li
ti
l:t
I
I
I
i
I
il
i.:I
I
i
I
I
I
I
t
tIIIt.;'|,i
i1
li
I
I
'lr
I
:
I
!
i
:.
i
,I
:l
I
,l
.t
;l
I
i.i
I
I
lr
,l
I
fi
.l
't'
r.L
,.1 i
I
I
I
t
t
(".,.-"-:i
I
i,i
:i.t
a
il
.,1
.,1
ar r u'r..oaa-a tllirjlu ura^lv3
,., [;l] l= [o I J \;A EliilI T I3 ;T EI S' fii il TMilEil{ 8MG ffi
ii;.L
io
/r
{
I
I
I
I
I-t
0\
1'
o
o
dJ
'l
I\
r.:.s
-_-l
[-r
i-r'
l
;
(;
t;-ii
i'
;l
I
I
I
/i
:l
,l
;ul
u-)
:,
J'
1.1
I
j
t-.
I
tt
tl
)t
L
l
l
l
i_I
tJ
+
1.,)
d)
h1
,,1
I
I
I
d,
\i
ltN
.-,t
'I
t'
,'
;.i
.l,lf-ll--r I
t'
rl
' i*-t /it;l
,i4l
'lQ: Cirirnssen Planning Comrliss ion
Prorn: iohn Johnson-6694 Nez Perce
Subject.: Carver lleach Deve.l-opnent
Dr
Plan
Dear Sirs
I have reviewed the plan put forth by the developer and f eel- that ifthe quality of Live for the current residents is to be maintai.ned,certain
change.s in hhe plan lnust be made.There are three problem area's with thepIan.I i]ave Iistcd these problem area's belo!,r:
i iiez Perce avenue shouLd not be
Po\rer s blvd (Carver County 17).
put through to
2. i'lo space aLlocated in plan f or tot lot.
3 . Er ont, back , and sides of proposeo homes at east
end of oevelopment lrould look into the back yard
of Rotnfuss resioence on the 66 huncireci block of
Nez Perce
I te.:r. t.haL t.he probl-ems mentioned above can be sol-ved by making thefolloxrnca changes to t.re plan.
I.Roao propcsed oy the cieveloper shouLd CUl-da-sacr\t easL e u oy R.oLirf uss residence.Iiez Perce nas aivrays
iJeen a.Oeao end.To continue this street out.to Powers Bl-vd
v;ouid oestroy the normalLy quiet nature of the sireet. 1tirouli also i.ncrease t.raf f ic flow on the stree! anci
i-ncrease saiety hazards t'o chilciren in the area
2.Ehe developers plan woul-tr add 23 homes to the Carver
ijeacir area.Since a typical American family consists of2 adulLs and 2 children,lhis means t.hat, 46 children would
be acrded to the cornf'un i Ey . Those ciri.Ldren wj.11 require
some Kitrd of playgound in the area to meet there play
neeis.Carver Lleach park does not itave the facilities to
neet. LI)e ngeds of an additional 46 children, t,here for
t-hose nceds nust be meet by the developer; since it is his
crcveloprnent that is responseabile for Lhe burden Ehat is
Lrcinii created.The developer should not be alloweci to make
.1 lu:rp sum payment,-to t.he city in lieu of t.oE Iot
Jevcl-oplnenL, un-Less :rll rnoney paid is ear markeci f or
Irnpl:overnents Lo the Carver Beach park.
3.Cuid-De-:;ac tl1e east. enci of oevelopers roaci.This would
.r.l-Ior.r t.he ucveloper t.o place houses along the Culd-De-Sac
.uru thus cnsure thaE tire backyard of alL homes in the
(reveiof)ment and surrounding areas butted up to aach
oLhcr.
(
I uo
aft..fr
these
lcel t.hat. t.lle
reaLiing t.his
p roDlents .
I have presented here areLhat you to are convinced
impor tant, and I hopeas to the importance of -
porntsletter
a*A_-_
(
S incerely
v,a
PlinningJuly 22,
Page 5
Commission Minutes
19 81
Noziska stated that the proposed development would be a goodlocation for earth sheltered and passive solar homes.
Noziska made a motion seconded by Watson on Outlot A,IValdriprs Addition plan dated vtay 27, 1981 and received June 17,1981, Sheet 28, be accepted for Preliminary plan approvaland that the applicant sha1l proceed with steps requiredfor Final Development Plan. The staff recommendations of July 17,I981 by the City Engineer be included with the exceptionthat Section 2 be deleted and the last one being that as anOutlot and the City Planners reconrmendations of July 20 and 21,I981, zero line setbacks be negotiated between City Staffandthe applicant also negotiations with developer and staff regardingthe relocation of the parking lot and the public road front.A11 voted in favor and the motion was carried.
Prclininary Plat,Pub11c Hearing, Carver B each lroperties, Inc.
Ti-re Public Hearing for Carver Beach PropertiesorCer by Chairman Partridge at 10:00 p.m.
was called to
tlaibel read a l-etteI'that he had receivedfrom John Johnson, 6694 Nez Perce Drive.
prior to this meeting
Hess indicated that the road would be 28 feet wide and thatthere will be a 50r right-of-way.
LcRoy Berg, a neighboring property owner, stated that theirwater pressure was very 1or4, and that the new homes would makeit. vorse. Monk indicated that he would have to look into this,hc thought that the water pressure was low because the areais at the end of a pipe.
Lal,gor] Paine, another property owner from the area, indicatedthat lots 1l and 12, Block 2 has problems with drainage and
l.ranl-s t'o know what the developer is going to do with it.
Iless e:<plained that they will raise the edges and controltho i. lor,v, creating ponding to help the drainage. There willalso bc a controlled overflow to the south.
IE
tha
1.ras asked what the sizc of the lots will beL thc smatlest j,s 15,000 square feet and upe is approximately 16,000 square feet.
Waibel stated
The average
l1r. Hess, a respresentatj.ve for Carver Beach Properties,gavc a brief history of the property. He presented mapsof Cifferent alternatives of developing the property andwhere the houses would be on the lots, etc.
P I ann ing
JuLy 22,
Page 6
Commission Minutes
r9 81
Cherl,l }Iobbs, an adjoining property orrner, expressed her concernfor the road access onto #17. She stated that it is a danger-ous place to put the road. Partridge explained that Hess
was asked to align the road up with Lake Lucy Road. Trondelindicated that the point r,/here the road j-s accessing ontoCounty Road #17 is the highest point on the hill.
I.r. Thonpson made a motion seconded by Noziska to close thePublic Hearing. A11 voted in favor and the motion was carried.
W. Thompson stated that he doesn't feel that a road. needs togo to the north. Waibel explained that dedicating a roadwayfor the future development of adjoining land is a standardplanning principle, the adjoining property owner may use theproperty until such a time as the road woul-d need to be putin.
IIess stated that if
would take up one
made smaller.
he dedicated a roadruaylot. The other lots to the north it
would have to be
I4onI: made some suggestion for this devel-opment:
1 There are extensive street vacations being requested.
l'Ionk has no problems \rith any other except for one.Ile does not believe that ! of Western Drive should bevacated at this.point simply because it is not being used.
The right-of-way in the area of the Hobb's property willhave to be worked out with the developer and the Hobbs,or a slight realignment will have to be worked out soLhat there is no overlapping of right-of-way on private
proper ty .
A smal1 piece of Lot 11 , Block 1 should be dedicated sothat if Nez Perce is ever extended to the north than wecould have a 90o angle to turn onto Nez perce.
Ilonk has severe reservations regarding the drainage ofLots I1 and 12, Block 2. There is a lowland situationin that area. The watertable is high. Monk would l"iketo dcsignate this area as an Outlot until this couLd beIooked into further.
Uoziska indicated hj-s concern regarding Lots 11 and 12, Block 2,\Iso is concerned thc right-of-way to the north, he feelsciLh..:r rvay just so that it is worked out. He leans towardsnoL h.rving a road to the north. Lot size is better.
lJ.rtson is opposed to the roadway to the north, there is noproposal for t.he property to the north and there are otherlvays to develope the property without placing a roadway tothe north.
)
3
.l
Planning Commission MinutesJuly 22, 1981
Page 7
Conrad stated that the developer has met with what the planning
Commission has asked for. Still he is concerned wi_th thedrainage on Lots 11 and 12, Block 2.
Conrad made a motion seconded by W, Thompson to approve thePreliminary Plan for the Quady Property with the recomrnend-ations made by the staff with the exception of #2 and mod-ifications to #1, Lot 1t and 12, Block 2 not be developedat this tj-me until the Engineering is resolved. AIso deleting#4 of the Engineers Report. Al-1 voted in favor and the motionwas carried.
Variance Request Michael Wi11is, 6841 Hazeltine Blvd.:
No one from the public or the applicant was present.
There rvere no objections from the Planning Commission-
Partridge made a motion seconded by w, Thompson to recommend,to the City Council approval of the Variance Request by Michaell.Jil-lis. A1I voted in f avor and the moti.on was carried.
Skctch PIan Review, 2l4L Melody Hill Road, Curt Ostrum:
Ilotion by Watson, seconded by
Coru:ission minutes of JuIy 1,favor .rnd the motion carried.
Noz j-ska to approve
19 81 meeting. AIl
the Planning
voted in
i.lotion by Watson, seconded by Partridge to approve the minutesof thc July 8, 1981 meeting. Watson, Partridge, I^1. Thompsonand Conrad voted in favor, Noziska abstained and the moti.on
rva s carried.
Uotion b), t'Jatson, seconded by Conrad to approve
Comnrission minutes of the July l-5, 1981 meeting,
Conrad, Partridge voted in favor, Noziska and I{.abstaincd. The motion was carried.
the Planning
Watson ,
Thompson
The applicanl was not present.
Partridge made a motion seconded by W. Thompson to tablethis itcm. Al-l- voted in favor and the motion was carried.
Approval of Minutes :
The mecting $ras adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
-56-
VACA'IION OF STREETS
CAStr I'IO. VAC.
City of ChanhassenCarver and Hennepin Counties. Minnesota
APPLICATION FOR CONSTDERATTON OF PLANNING REQUEST
rAKI-Dat.e of Applicat-ion
Received by
Fic'lltc fgf l7oo. a'eApplicant
LaS T E ITS fn a
jrcldress:E*=7
r-P
Wc., {^e ildoy,1v.A t (qd
)l:lr::. r\ddrcss and. Sighatu
yacriia^ oY t\e 4ro4y, iudidA d^ tV ^*d,tA ?fiibre of Abutting Propert v
$s---/u-
Nunber and StreeE C t State
- r'lho/r.- ,[L"**,/-'"
7
3.
o
(l
10.
It.t t_t<
rz. \UirrXi
t.5 .
1"i?4--A r/d<-
5
6
7
b
,,.CL*
(ilr;,:,',rlititional tihet:ts)
5;-- ilt*t,-a7
/
,,V L'
(
"P'
,.1- , 7 0-*J
2- \
u,4*t
a-/ /1 t''' -
s5
*G)N^\
r\
I I ltiL'qr;
^Jtt
etrrA',,!1
t
In ()8 r.,uM(' t t ul/s=tiu3dLld H3V=s
.\,,...,.rr,1
a
.€=:=[- r-_ . .li (n^rr0 pl|otr
t'3AHV3
Xl'ikil
..[!
t-
L;j3 E [u IJ \;l fg[is3f ?:]H';{t
V . ..J I
()
4 iil
=6-4
l1
lr -t
a
CI
$
e
I
$
r;
-/-
_, - -.1
!t-j(
s4.k
7'
a
3tL
IL
Ot
liil I
I
t
,1
,
1Hn
,l-e o
rr I
0
-rfl--
d
!A
tr,
joJ
tr
)<
tstt&
-F--_
T--
--'-tra
,
Il,l
h
r,.-'Fa
EF
I o
t(
,.-l---
d o
u-lql
'
T
T
1
-1
I
I
I
I
{$
.l)
ll --a16
T
--l--:--_
F-
IIII"
C'S\\t\!
I
I
ILt'----
t- -.--trjJ
Cr
lr.lJ(9 rr
U
+'l
.l
.l
't
I
:.t
)
r
I
,l 9,t
I Vrl I lhltot '.,t A/d
t,,) i :.'
,. ..r Ll
3l
l t\:---f 16d'29 vB
rr - iI -! E,,.1 . - i..-.r
l
I
it
I
9
t
it
trtl
.{7'
I
rt
I
I
I
I
I
!:I
_l
I
t
,1,
0(
I
I
I
,l
19i
II
I
q
.rJ
o
I
t
-r.T-._,1_-.--l-
I
I
!
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
I
--l
f,
.i.tu vlos3Nta,.,t
s=tru=((-dd 'N:tssvHHVH+
HCYSg U],,1HV:
_J I'. T;: I$[JffiflTTm r-d
" I ol/
ol.r
Ia"4
.Ir\r;
o
o
rtI
t-
--
fs.
(l:
["JrJ!
r\.1l.t ll-
{-.,i
r -lt|:J'
o.i}
[{ii
s(l-r
ft-$il
trrz
I
./-at-
JilA
I;
rrl
t
t?/#.N-*\l
;
ils
dl*
itlh
&tul
1
(,
ltr
rl
tr
;
_)
(r
olrci
(-)
ot
sl!\t
l
a
o
z
q)
s
,ft
ffid\
i[
iil2It-l-AD
F
,.,r1.rd ilg
.i
'1:
,l
\'t
..
'.t I
\$
ltll I
8[l;n!
rlr
LrJ
J
o
LrJ
J
.c,
,1
t,
F_
+I
I
i r,
406'
/ e 0
I
t
I
I
^-092
.i
-l
I- ,,|
s
.l
I'/o\-.:'& \.
\
?r
ixli II
i
: r-. -=.-_
i-I irq
UJf 16t',,r,ri1
b 3 i'tj -'lVd : l0 Vd
.t o,)
<rv
-3
tr.,
-0oZ I
-':ftr-r:- *
:r.IXiikil-
-r.--;
;
I
I
I
ft-
(.g
i
I
I
.,4
I
I
t'
;.I
VACA'| ICN OF STNEETS
-56-
CASE NO. VAC.
City of ChanhassenHennepin Counties, Minnesota
CONS TDEPGTION OF P1ANNING REQUEST
Carver and
APPLICATION FOR
trf{- 'hu Date of App
Received by 1,1i catio
Fic t'rtl C pS_ 1' lro o. o o
rrst
-22tySta
Numbe randS tree t
q,9
me, Addres san d
furr),e-y
(l
Applicant
Name :
Las t
?\ddress:
f
fn 1 t l-a
Z r-p Coc\.tl
1.
.l-*\a o^dor nr)(oqoo,* \a;;f
Sighature of
of'th" afre4; \vd,cil;i t\c a*uhal 6rn,r,.
(/
t0t1
a4Atlutting property Owner s.
vtrl1ab,hil.$\,4Affii.azzly'tt:
((Ist:,^rdclition:rI StreteLs)
)
4.
5-
6,
7.
B.
9.
10.
I1.
l:: .
I l-
I ,i .
)',-
Gro deo ryarf".A' fK afu"r xtoutlig?7t arr"o)
CITY OF CHANHASSEIJ
Rtr.CEIVED
,ltJL 3 0 1981
COillI\,IUNIiY DEVELOPMENT DEPI
!-
a
c
tw ?.
DEPAFITMENT OF THE ARMY
ST PAUL DISTFIICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1I35 U S POST OFFICE & CUSTOM HOUSE
ST PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101
il rt'M.
-?s'I
5*{rJ
0
4
p
1
RTPLY TO
AIT'NTION OF:
Ncsco-RF (s/-,/c r z1- zt)
C ;-l / .,1 L- lt"tlti is(r1
c/4 ! ,/, Lvh itc I
('1 o e',ttl/a1 [nvL'
I o. t'^*
(. ltti n ha ssc ,r,,,/"1,,/ 55ttI
g"1 ffa ar-,rcnf
)n 5or-. Z,
/n.",/r.'/ '^
z') J.,l/ l?c/
,€ {',// n,ler-,, f
7 i/t -t/, K2.3 i'/,
.., u,/ e fl,a,l;,'c't
l,l)
2 I:rc -[
,\s s ia ccd
;)f.tr,rlin,t j,rn: ] j ::' /',J,,1-' :.)
il, :ri',i, r.'1 "t
'o'J ilave any questions, please call
oF Carver Co,tullt /Ll/
-"1- /'-lrJ--l-J <-\ t, (-ztl Lt'
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
AU.l 3 1981
COMMUNIIY DEVELOPMENI DEPT.
lu'n, hq l,
::,. r.i..,c reviewed the lnfornation provided us eoncerning Ehe abover,-,:-.r"lr:ed project. The work you propose at the locaEion stated above:; ,ur.r.]rized by an existing nationwide Department of the Arny permit,
ro,..icr,.d tire work is accornplished in cornplLance v,rith the lnclosed,:.':1(i-i'. i ons and management practices.
'irir; ,ruc.er[ination covers only the project referenced above. If therit:si;:r, -oci]f.j.on, or purpose of the work is changed, you should colltactus Lo ;:r.rke sure the work;would noE resulL in a vlolatlon of Eederal 1aw.
'Jur re-Lcpirone nunber is 612-725-7 558,
It i.; '..our iesponsibiliLy to insure Ehat the vrork compu-es vith the ter,s.)' i-i]i].i ACILCT ANd ThE iNCIOSUTCS. PLEASU NOTE T}1AT THIS CONFIRMATION LETIERDo:s :.or LLIITINATE TIIE NEED FOR STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
S lnce ly
],D [. TACGA
Chr-cf , Regu la to EuncEions Branch
Con s E ruc t ion-Opera tions Division
(
iIN\TJ]hITOItY AN
(
trVAI-UA:TICN
SOIL AND \,VATDR RESOUJTCI'S
FON TIIE
CABVER SOIL & }IATER COIISENVATION DISTNICT
COUNTY OFFICE BUILD]NC
I{AcoNrA, MTNNESoTA i53BT
CARVEN BEACH PROPENTIES INC.
PI,ANNING CASE NO, 78-19 SUBDIVISION
CITY OI' CHANHASSEN
REQUESTED BY:
BOB WAIBEL, CITI PI,ANNEN
590 couLTER DRrvE, P.o. Box llr?
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
"3].7
REVIEWED BY:
DONAID C. BERC, DISTRICT CONSERVATIOI{IST
USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
COUNTY OI"FICI BUILDINO
WACONIA, MINNESOTA 5'387
JULY :t0 , l9B l
scs-coNs-5
l0-75FtLE COO E CO NS-14_s '( '1ii I'J..,[I f;^]fs^1.,,.."',y8 E
INVENTORY & EVALUATION
OF LAND, WATER, AND RELATED RESOURCES
R EQUESTED BY 803 I,{A I B EL I,ANN
ASSISTED gY DONAID C. BEBG DISTRICT CONS IE ST
CAT ION HANHASSENC A
1981
E INDIVIDUAL E cnoup E uru rr oF GoVERNMENT
SITUATION:Bob Wai Citv P I anne Chanhas reque hat th e Carverr for
Soil and Water Cons ervati.on Dlstrict rev i. ew,conunent and na.ke r
problerls on the 1O.T ac
ing soil and tater conservation
ecoxomendat i.ons regard-
re subdiyision request pro_
pos€d to t he city arver Beach pbvcxopexties fnc.(i.tann].n g Case No.78-19 subd,).
SUGGESTED SOLUTION(S)
the sttached color code d nap,
II clen loam:sl-opes r angi nB from 2-6%, uar een s1o es ran from 5-72 H 2
]-e11oH; s1o s ran n from 12-18 HaD r d d I S 2-blue.
Terril 10 iLl lt ;TeB,2-6% sto This sol :i
ShaLlo,/ De&Prn, blue linest:
Glencoe si 1tv c13y 1o.ln;
. ee rLtached Soil fnt,e
Ge, red lines
rpretation Shcet s with building si te develo pnen! limitation
I i;ec!:e\i !,/ith red pencil.
: ,;i l _ros10n ui11 be a ve
* Choct opp-p.iorr cor.9o.y
ry se rious problem durin g road gradin g and preli.min ary
JULY 20
(
PAGE 2
CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES INC.
landscape alterations shovn on the proposetl p1a.D, especielly on lots 1, 10
and outl,ot 3 on the south side of the proposed roed. ant! l-ot 11 on the [orth
side of the "oad. Outlot A, lots L, 2 3 and parE of l+, north siale of the
road, and part of lots 3, }+ and 5, south side of the road, are subJect to
moderate erosion.
SoiI vetness, ponding erltl ergq4ic sq!!s are a. very serious prob].en on ].ots 11
3nd 12, south side of the road" &nd there nay be wetness problems 1n the Terril
soil areas on lot 2 and 3, south side of the road.
?he developer shoul-d provide the clty l,ith a.n eroslon control plan that
t/i1l keep the sediment produced during gradi.ng on ttreir property. When it is
necessary to remove existlng vegetation for grBdj.n& these areas should be fer-
tilized, reseeded and nulched as soon as possible.
'Ule city should require that lf houses are to be built ln the vetland '-,ii?that ihey wi.l]- be safe from wetness, soil shrin\age snd subsidence.
IIas the city assigned a value to the 8ea11 vet18,na1 underlaln by aleep
!ggL, receirring the drainage from the vest end of the property? Bunoff and
sedinent from the es.st end of the property €.pparently drains north to the
nei;;i1i,or, then east down through the proposed Fox Chase property to Lotus ta}e.
((
JuZy 20, tg|l ffi,ir-,T*t*3_€*?"if*l**
i{i,ii:i#i;,#v"'tff x;.*,
.. u. BOr 74,Cizothassenl'W ssgl?
:i!!':-i;i!:;;W'i##,{;trrfr*#.f-r,;W^."*zoi"ff o,
ii,F;:;i;!tri;{"Y#?',Friio*,7ro'v-u?n.:t:i"':z:#i,i::ff #i:,#ffi{i;it{t::f;:r,rryi.;i#:-,
i:*::"':i ?d;i*z,,z.trx"Jk k!T:n,ooouo,.,e do not
fgtns#
Re: i,Pr***%;?ff:
Dea" i1". tr'atbel:
t;
t!tr1;1o1y,o Pt'ope z,ties, rnc.
/ 'R.c,, 'trtf-i,
:.it:.::: i_ c
:',tc lai Llu
''ill'.]ffruS*
rn 2 i lgBI
CStrIMUNiIY DiVilOPMENI
DEPT
F
I
/,///eroi2
-: \
1\\'ll
rI
I
j
I
!_
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
(Thi.s development proposal has been und.er consideration fora significant period to aI1ow for review of various potentialsketch plans. The following informatj_on relates to Lhoseoptions).
ClTY'JF 5J'
ffiEifiI\IHASSEIil
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING REPORT
The applicant has submitted the attached "concept plan GI as
a result of the discussions at the Iast Planning Corunission
Meeting on the subject item. Additionally, the aPplicant had
preparcd concept plans A-G which wilI be available for your
rcview at the Planninq Commission meeting. In meetings with
the applicant, it was'agreed that, for the time being, concePtplan G is a significantty preferable plan from the standpoint
of proposed 1ot layouts and traf f j.c circulation. Concept
pl.rns A-E show numerous 90 degree turns within the develoPment
which would be unacceptable from a planning standpoint. Eor
the most part, concept plan G does incorporate all the comments
and suggestions presented by the Planning Coruflission at their
May 13, I98l sketch plan review.
Thc following j-s a list of considerations that this office feels
importanL to be addressed in the PreParation of the preliminary
plat.Due to
I. Slope constraints, thorough analysis wiLL need to be
made for the designing qf the intersection with Nez
Pcrcc. If grades permit, the most approprj-ate design
for Nez Perce appears to be a 90 degree intersection.
2.llD Carver Beach PIan indicates that Maple Road is to function
as a pedestrian trail. (I4aple Road extends west from
Nez Perce along the southern property lines of proposed
Lots 13-20) In light of the east/west street as proposed
in concept plan G, I believe that a pedestrian faci)'ity, -such as that planned for Maple Road, would be best suited
I
lr
DATE: June 19, 1981
To: Planning Comrnission and Staff
FROM: Bob Waibel, City Planner
SUBJ: Continutation of sketch plan review, Quady Property
APPLICANT: Carver Beach Properties, Inc.
PLANNING CASE: P-54 3
Planning Report
Quady Property
Page 2
if placed along the new.ly proposed street connectingwith. Lake Lucy Road.Iftttis coicept would be "pp.or.dby the-Planning Commission and City Council, iricationof Maple Street could occur with tie existing rigirt_;fway. being conveyed back-to property owners .aioi-iingboth sides of Maple Road.
The applicants plan indicates that Sunmit Dxive rightof way be vacated. (Summit Drive extends north fromthe-westerly terminus of West 67th Stxeet. ) Unti1preliminary plat information is available regardingsubsurface soil condi.tions, it is staffs position ihatneither the vacation of Sunmit Drive nor l,he vacationof _the westerly extension of West 67th Street be con_sidered at this time. This present position implieithat the number of lots within the pioposed devLlopmentwill need to be reduced slightly to- stilI accommoditethe afore mentioned right-of-ways.
{Concept plan G indj-cates the dedication of a 4Ofootright-of-way for the proposed east/west street throughthe development. The subdivision ordinance standardis for a minimum 50 foot street right-of-way dedicationrvhich may additionally reduce the density slightly ofthe proposed development..
Due to slope constraints as the east/west street inter-sects vrith Lake Lucy Road, it appeaxs that there wlIIbc no traffic circulation from the property north ofof the subjcct property to Lake Lucy Road. As part ofthe preliminary plat cortsiderations, a possible exten-sj-on of summit Drive north of the subject property inthe vicinity of Lots 5 & 5, nay be contemplated. -
)The subject property is unusual in that it has a welLdefined tree.line on i-ts northern border which willform the rear yard.s of lots 1-L2. This situation is ofno planning consequence and due to the site 1j-mitations,there does not appears to be any practical alternativeto this situation.
Due to the alteration of storm water runoff from therurbanization of this land, the applicant should be advisedthat both off site and on site drainage irnprovements maybe necessary as part of this development.
1
the prcsent proposal docs permit protentiaL access from
Lhe existing residencc south of outlot A via the east/lvest street as opposed to its existing access. Such
rnay be considered at the Public llearing.
(
3
6.
Planning
June 24,
Page 3
Commi.ssion Minutes
19 81
Ilobbs, a neighboring property owner, indicated that he would l_iketo see t.he lots about the same size as those in the area. He likeshow the proposed road is going to line up with Lake Lucy Road.
M. Thompson indicated that he would like to see larger lots becausemorc of the area around this property is larger lots. He askedif I'1r. Hess had talked with any of the neighbors. Mr. Hessindicated that he hadn 't.
Mr. Iless indicated that if Sumflit Drive were vacatedtake out lot 20 and make the other Lots some larger.road were not vacated he would be loosing a lot pluspay for another road..
he coul-d
If the
having to
Iicss explained that because of the cost squeeze there is a trend
coming rvith smaLler lots and larger homes.
u. Thompson indicated that the area has at least 20,000 squarefeet and up, he would like to l-8,000 square feet minimum.
Iless stated that economically he didnrt know about fewer lots,but he indicated that. the area with the 111700 square foot lots
would not. look bad because they would be shaded with trees.
l.Iacson stated that she would like to 20,000 square foot l-ots.
Conrad lvas concerned about Lots 25 and 26 if they are buildable?
Noziska indicated thaL lots 25 and 26 woufd have to be lookedat by the Engineer.
:,1. Tho;npson made a motion to al-low
and 2 more if the south section isIack of a second.
the north port j-on
Motion died from
16 l-ots on
buildable.
Conr.rd made a motion to a1low 18 lots on north section. Seconded
by 'riatsson. Conrad, Watson and J. Thompson - ay€, Partridge,
Noziska, w. Thompson and M. Thompson voted nay. Motj-on failed,
J. Thornpson made a motion seconded by W. Thompson to alIow 20
lots on the north section with an outlot. J. Thomspon,
Noziskar Partridge and W. Thompson voted aye and Watson, Conrad
.-lnd il. Thompson voted nay. I{otion carried.
Revic\.' 208 vJater Quarl j-tv Management Plan Amendments:
r'laibcl indicated that the Mayor is going to send a letter
rcq:rding this matter to thc Chairman of lrletro Council.
rcad Lhe Planning Commission parts of vrhat is goinq to be
Lhe I c tter.
Wa ibe I
in
Thc i')IJnning Conunission cndorses Lhe letter being sent.
r
I
(-x*uot-oz oot oF+.Jo
;I\;&l=[.].\\;lISt6f,tl NW'.!sr]\pM prou i.uMot 109
\1
;\
i-- I
lrlli
:1
I
t
I€
.o
2(
J
G
F
0.
r{oz
o
o
.I
6
I $i.iEao^t
r'. s' ll
E 5r
Eei
$EE\ r5{5r
Iili-i: 9l-..9-'lo
{r{
$IE
t$E
s
}l
EIol
t.
t-{
$
f
8
F
It
sd-
I
$ stta 5
H.H(: $$
sBi$$*s $g
A
+
lfl
o
F
s'
:
^l
N
I
.J
[.r
I
s
s
nl
f
!
EIF
o
-l p
$sIt
$.r
I
t ito
+, +l
{*q!
GU
oo Soll
60 lrlsq$8 SfiR
nat.j tti-f.i
n
N
l-
o.t
tst_ql F
{lt__.1
vlosg tltyt , t{3ssvHxvHcsStIU3dOUd HCV3S Utnuvc
6ISEUEliifrC.TSiEEil
|,. ,'*:rr. - --- ..--i.r:dj.J----.,* .
s
o
ol.
Planning Commission l{inutes
June 24, l98I
Page 2
Conrad asked if Victoria! bike paths will line up with ours? Waibelstated that Chanhassen doesnrt have any bike trails planned forthat area and there are no plans to join them.
J, Thompson made a motion to have staff send a letter to Victoriaincluding the comments from the Planning Report. Second by M.Thompson. All voted in favor and the motion was carried.
Reviar., Proposed Amendments to Carver County Comprehensj-ve PIan:
Waibel indicated that with
Regional Parks.
this plan Chanhassen can use their
'iiaCson stated that Carver County sho$rs Hwy 5 as a minor arterial ,
Chanhassen would like to see it as an intermediate.
J. Thornpson made a motion, second by M. Thompson to have staff
send a letter to Carver County and j-nclude the comments in the
Pl.rnning Report and the cornrnents by the Planning Commi-ssion.ALl voted in favor and the motion was carried.
Sketch PIan Review Continuation, ouady Property, Carver BeachFroperties, Inc. :
I{aibcI read the Planni}g Report to the Plann j-ng Commission.
:.1r:. llL,ss, representative f or Quady Property, stated that they
do not. have a topo for the property yet but it will be done in
.rboul i rveeks.
h'arbel explained that Lots 25 and 26 are prominant run off areas.
Wtribcl suggested that Lots 25 and 26 could have a man made stormholding systcm put in or the lots could be left as is with no
develc.rpment and be used as a natural holding pond. AIso erosioncontrol wiII have to be look into.
WaibeI suggested that the pedestrian path should be vacated from
wcrc it. i-s now and moved to be next to the road. Then laterthe paLh could be joined with the paths on Kerber Drive.
Ilcss i-ndicatad that thcre are sewer assessments on Lots 25 and 25
.rnd drainage could be put in. Also there is a road access to
Lhcrr. llcss has a 40' right-of-vray on the sketch but it could
b^ ch:ngcd to 50' if that/s what the Commission wants.
IJ.r Lsolr sta l-ed that she f eels Lhere are
sucir .r small area. lless indicated that
1a;uci 29 lots norv he only has 25 lots.
t.o many proposed Iots for
originally he had pro-
(
CITY'CF
u[flffirfrExA5sEI[
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937- 1900
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: May 13, 1981
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Bob Waibel, City Planner
SUBJ: Sketch Plan Review, Quady propexty
APPLICANT: Carver Beach Property, Inc.
PLANNING CASEr P-54 3
As can be seen from the information submitted on this item,there has been extensive consideration given to the futuretransportation circulation for this property and its surroundingproperties. Additionally, as mentioned in previous planning
Reports, Lhis office sees that there is a significant constraint,in the cost effective, placement of an east/west road throughthe subject property due to the relative narrow nature of theporperty and the fact that without construction of connectionsto Lake Lucy road and Nez Purce at the outset of development,Enc proposal should be deemed premature.
The applicant has indicated that it is his desire to promuluate thedcvelopment scheme shown as sketch 2 on page 18 of the Land
PIan booklet. Although this sketch does incorporate much ofthe transportation concepts recomrnended by staff, it does have
apparent problems for placement of reasonably sized lots inthe northwes/3and in the extreme northeast part of the property.
It appears unavoidabl"e, that for the time being, in order to
make the Langents for t'he Lake Lucy Road and future easterlyconncctions, a portion of the property will only attain singlesided benefit from the proposed east/west road. More specj,fically
thc ability to utilize northerly lots I-5 and 11 and 12 iscluest.ionable. With regard to lots ll and 12, the Planning
corunission should at this time state lheir preference as to
int-crsection alignnents of thc proposed east/wcst road withll,r:: !)crce.
r' L.riilr -Lirg i{eport , Pc 2
Quady Property l
May 13, 1981
This office feels that due consideration should be made tothe option that will provide for more flowing future streetconncction possibilities to the east. Although the futuret:::rf f ic uti-lizing thj_s road, if such connection is ever made,should not be significant, it is the feeling of this officethaL a more flowing traffic system would help to relievefuturc pressures on the western reaches of pleasant View Road.
As previously stated, the Carver Beach ptan suggests that thedevelopment of this area should be compatl.bfe witn the existingpatLern of development hrest of Nez perze. This pattern isbcst described on the aerial photo and the adjacent propertyolvners information on pages 3 and 5 of the Land plan booklet.Although this pattern largely consists of lots having gO-100'of frontage and 200' in depth averaging 18,OOO - 20,000 squarefeet in area, I feel that the applicant could possibly deJigna pl.an that wouLd satisfy the spirit and intent of the CarverBeach Plan through applying the criteria of Section B.O6 Sub-section A (1) of Subdivision Ordinance 33 to the afore mentionedsl-.etch #2. Section 8.06, subsection 8 (1) of Subdivision Ord.statcs "in areas served by public water and sanitary sewer systemsthc naximun number of lots to be permitted i.n a plat sha1l be
colx)utcd by subtracting from the total gross area of the pLatthc tot.al dedicated street right of way and dj-viding the arearcnaining after said subtraction by 15,000 to determine the
max j-nrun number of lots permitted in said p1at. In no eventsirall : Iot contaj.n less than 1I,700 square feet nor have a
f ront:r.ge of Less than 90 feet at the buiLding setback 1ine.llo 1c'; shall be larger than twice the average size of lotsin said plat. " ,
ilthorrgh, it is obvious from the above comments that the numbero! l\J:s in sketch ii2 will be reduced significantly, I recommendEhat thc Planning Commission encourage the applicant toprcD.l.rc more detai]ed plans based on sketches #2, B, or C (pages 19,I0 and 1l of the l,and P1an, Inc Booklet) that are compJ,iant
lvr E.il ;lle crl-teria of subdivision ordinance 33. The planning
Cr,runr-ssi<..rn should additionally advise the applicant that fortl: -.: r i-:lc being, aII the cost associated with public improvementsfor uhc subject development are to be borne by said development.
(
ctrY'oF
ffi[iffit{itfl55EI[
690 COULTER DRIVE . P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1s00
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: l,1ay 7, 1981
TO: Planning Commj-ssion and Staff
FROM: Bob Waibel, City Planner
SUBJ: Sketch plan review, Quady Property
APPLICANT: Carver Beach Properties
PL,\\NING CASE: P-543
Baci.,crround
Cornmunj-ty Location: As shown in the sketch plan prepared
by Land Plan Inc., the subject property is located in thenorthwest portion of the Carver Beach neighborhood and alongthc vacated section of West 67th Street, Maple Road, Narcissus
Road, and Summit Drive.
UEilitj-es: Presently there exists an 8" PVC sewer trunk anda 6" water truck betwecn West 67th Street and Maple Road along
t-hc alignment of Summj-tt Drive. These two l-ines continue west
.r lon<; llaple Road to the intersection of l{aple Road and SurnmitDri!'e and up to thc rear property line of the existing homes
.rbuttlng Powers Blvd.
I
Peti-tion
Applicant is requesting to replat the properties indicated onpage 4 of the accompanying booklet, prepared by Land PIan Inc.dated rebruary 3, 1981 into single family residential buildingsites. t
2, Existing Zoning: The subject property and its environsarc presently zoned R-I, Single Family Residential Districtwith Lhe exception of the property directly north of thesubject property which is presently zoned R-IA, Agricultural
Rcsi-dcnce District.
Planning Report
Page 2
Quady Property
4, Comprehensive PIan Proposal:
a Land Use: Pursuant to the Chanhassen Comprehensive plan
Up-date draft , the subject property and it.s environsare to assume and maintain a low density residentj-alidentity. The adopted Carver Beach neighborhood planstates "permit contj-nued development of detached singlefamily homes for l-and north of Carver Beach Road asinfilling to the present pattern of development.. Lot and
home site should be compatible with existing scale ofunits " .
Transportation: Pursuant. to the Chanhassen Comprehensiveplan update, the road adjoinj-ng the subject property areto function as 1ocal streets. According to the adopted
Carver Beach neighborhood p1an, Narcisus Road, Maple Road,
and Summit Road are to function as mj-nor collector, pedest-rian trail, and loca1 street respectiveLy.
C o:TL'nents
As meDtioned in the cover letter on the sketch plan submittedb), Land Pl-an Inc., previous reviehrs on the subject property
had been carried out with specific reference to the alternativeskctches found on pages 9-I2 of the Land Plan Inc. submittal.
AL thc last review of the subject proposal, it was the feelingoI thrs office that no fugther resolutj_on cou]-d be attainedrrnti-I tl)cre was an u4derstanding as to how the potential costof .rh east. west street would affect surrounding property owners
Eo Lhc north and west. As mentioned in Mr. Hessrs cover letter,it i5 Lhe desire of the applicant to submit this plan in order
t.o d('rronsLrate how the surxounding property owners could be
shelc,:red from the cost of needed public irnprovements. It is
brsc<i upon Lhe receipt of this new information that the reconsider-
it L j.on is taking p1ace.
b
For
and
Apr j- l
pagcs
i,our rcview purposes are attached excerpt of the May 5, 1978i,:,::i] 15, 1980 Planning Reports on the subject property. The
15, I980 report js:ndirect reference to sketches A-D, on
9-12 of the Land PLan report.
!-urtlrcr staff comments and recommendations on this item \4ti11 be
dcIi"'crcd under separate cover. -
(
(
The following are excerpts fromregarding a similar proposal on
May 5th, 1978
subject property.
the
the
1. This particular pl-an hact previously been delayed from planning
Conmission until the City Engineer and myself reassessed the futureof Narcissus Road. As mentioned above, l{arcissus Road. vras planned
as a minor collector, which, specificalty ca11ed for a cross sectionof 80 to 120 feet with 4 12 foot wide driving lanes. This proposal wasbased on the expectation of extending a direct access for Lake Lucy
Road traffic to the C.B-D. It was agreed by the Engineer and myselfthat:a- Tl:at Narcissus Road be classified and designed as alocal street frorn a point East of Sunmit Road.
b. That llarcissus Road. should not, at this tirne, becontinued lvest of sur.unit Road.
c. That Surunit Road be constructed connecting l,Iest 67thStreet to liarcissus Road for circulation.
d. That I'laple Road become a pedestrian trail pursuant tothe Carver Beach Pl-an.
The prj.r.rary I'eason for points a, b and e of the above is that the CarverBetrch Plan preceded. the planning for 1,,1. SA. I01. It is anticipatedth;Lt I.1.5.1. 101 and Por.rers Blvd- (Co. Rd. 17) should be arnple to
accornnodate the Lake Lucy Road to C.B.D. traffic- The pl_an toutilize Narcissus Roacl for this purpose would potentially bring about
cos Ll-y l:elocation along the route beti,/een the C-B-D. and the Easternend of lla!-ci s s us Road.
3. Thc Planning Comrnission
coni'r.-.n L:; Lo the cons is tency
pl an:; for zoning r.rtilitics,
aL this time shoulcl dircct theirof thc sketch plan rvith tlte Cit).'s
Iand usa, .rncl transportation.
I,Iirnn.]r' 3 ilccornnendaLion
I r..re()::i:cn(l t-hat t-lr() Plannin<1 Corrnission encouragc the appLicant topr, ir,il:,.] Irreliminary dcvclopn.{:nt plans taking into accolrnt the conmenLs
a:':r: r ccoriln,::nda t ion; of thc Pl.rnning Comnission, Pl.lnner and City
Lr: ri i rrircr -
Com,'nen ts
e. That a cul-de-tac be utilizeC for access to the propertiesIlest ot- SuF,nit Road.
2. The applicantrs sketch p1.u denotes the Southern portion of SununitIlo;rd as 1-,edes;trian trailrvay. This should be revisecl to function as al-oc.r1 :i trce t.
si-ncc the above report was urritten, certain overalr- transportationissucs in the vicinity of. the subject property arose which were 1)llo'.'/ to accommodate a- northerly egress irom carver Beach as proposedin the carver Beach plan; 2) how-to best provide for i """"i.,auiyrvestcrly egress from the northern carver Beach area other than carverBeach Road; and 3) how to best plan for overall transportationcirculation in the area between carver Beach Road and pleasant viewIgud. A.s you mgy know, some of these issues were discussed duringthe northeast chanhassen collector street study of rasi year wrrichwas disapproved as to the possibirities of conitruction 6i i co:-tectordesign street between Lake Lucy Road and Townline Road in the north-easterly most corner of chanhassen. Albeit that the collector studywas disapproved, this office feels that there remai-rr" u .ra"d to con-sider the above three points on traffic circulation wtren ieviewingany development proposals in this portion of Chanhassen.
Due to this perceived need to investigate overall traffic circur.ationin the general area of the proposed development, there frarr"- U""r,se,zer:1 meetings between staff, the develoler, and surroundingresidents of the subject property in order to draw up a devel5pmentschene for the property that would be most reasonabli and functionaland thus the four options (referenced attachments A-D) weredevel,oced and submitted by the applicant.
Beiorc entering into discussion on the individuar- schemes, it isnecessary to point out that the applicants owtership only extendsas i:rr north as the southerly right of way line for Narcissus Road(not.e some of the skeeches show development on both sides of NarcissusRoad) , and that the portj-on of the proposed sketches shown asproooseci corl-ector street is a misnomer in that the collector streetstudy ,,va s disapproved, however, this is not necessariJ.y nullifiedas a possj-ble street. alignment. Addi,tionally, it is tie feeling ofthis o:fice that in the process of choosing -or selecting a freferredCc',,elolmcnt plan from the four submitted, [.hat proper m6asuies betii:cr) '.o allow for the provision of tangents thit ;ilr permit theintcrsect-ion at powers brvd. juxtaposi-n! Lake Lucy noaa'ina-a flowingconnec:ion to the vicinity of the Lempoiary cul-dL-sac in the southwestcorncr of Sunrise Bcach.
/ i't:t t I i;1 /'/'/l)
Ad.-.i It 1- :l (-S
I
The following is a brief discussion of the four sketches and theirvarious attributes and pitfalls:
Skr-ltch A:
IIas total dependcncy of individuar. access onto interiorst.rcct systcms of the dcvelopmcnt and will promote the samedeveLopment scheme on the properties diiectly to the northof the so-ca1l.ed collector strcet.
ilakes the juxtaposing inLersection with Lake Lucy Roadmore efficiently attainable through the utilization of asomcl./hat straight strect alignrneni. betrveen the Lake Lucyiio.rd intersection and the southwest cul_de_sac at SunriieDcach.
{
I,SkeEch A, Cont--rued
D i s..1dvantage s
Sketch B
Advan tage s
It is not all contained on the applicant's propertyand thus would necessitate certain negotiation witfrproperty owners to the north.
ho 1d ing s
the
2 Will be somewhat of a departure from the developmentpattern of Carver Beach directly south of the subjectproperty, however, such departure would be minirniied bythe significant expanses oi open space between existin-gstructures and the subject property.
May possibly bring adjoining property owners to the northinto a special assessment situation lhrough tfre necessiiycreation of the east/r"rest connection between Lake LucyRoad and the easterly edge of the subject property.
I
2
lvi 11 reciprocate the developmentportion of Carver Beach.
I,Iould not necessitate anyadjoining property or^rners
pattern extant in this
I
Disadvantages
llould have individual accessesnay be a minimal drawback whento Powers BIvd. and to Sunrise
Could potentially create a permanent inordinantly 1ongcu1-de-sac situation at the westerly terminous o? N"r6issusRoad,,however, as previously recomrnended, every effort shoutdbe made to secure proper tangents to make the mostoptimal intersection at por^/ers B1vd. (such could be additionalameLiorated ly the requirement to connect the south centralcul de sac of the proposal development to West 67th Street.Such could be accomplished with a temporary access alongthe alignment of Summit. Drj-ve untit the welterly conneciionto Powers BIvd. could be made) .
t{ould possibly involve the properties adjacently northof t.he subject property in a special assessment situationfor the improvement of Narcissus Road..
acquisition orto the north.
property from
onto Narcissus Road whichand if this road connects
Beach.
3
5KCLCI) U
Advantages (Same as Sketch B).
l)isadvantagcs (Same as Sketch B -Dctectable differences are.1 sl j"cltrt realignment of Summit Drive resulting in the reduction.,i onc lot i-n the arca east of Summit Drive and reorientation()i' l'-l)o tr./o lots in thc southwcst corner of thc intcrsection of:'larcissus Road at S urnrni t Drivc).
j*jE---4-4
r.
,)
2.
Sketch D
Advan caqes
1 trould have individuat accesses utilizing interior streets of theclevclopment. (It seems. highly-unlikeIy that this "d;;;a;g;-will be rear-ized from the standpoint t-hat such a configuiiiionprecJ.ude double frontages on the northern tier of tots-wnich wouranot be the most cost-effective or practical way in wir:.ctr iiregeneral area should develop) .
I Ivou.Ld have the same disadvanatages as Sketch A in thatimply acquisition of additional land to the north.
llou]d have the same disadvantages as Sketch C and B inspecial measures wouLd have to be taken to insure thatsingle access does not become permanent.
rn revierving the development options for the subject property, it doesbecome apparent that much of the appl j.cants capa6itity oi aeizelopingthe property lies not with the city in as much- as it -cloes with his -
abillty to provide access to the subject property and the apparentr)cgotiation that must be made with adjoining property o*rreri- provides.-rid access. As previously mentioned, frcrn overalr area plarnillg standpoints,therc should be a reasonable through connection from p6wers gtva. -
at L;iie Lucy Road to the southwest porti-on of the sunrise Beach property.In light. of this and the points addressed in this report, I woutdrecc;::nend in decendi-ng order of preference: Sketch C, Sketch B andS):etcn A.
D isadvanta qes
Recor:.nend a t ion
2
it would
thatthe long
r recomrnend t.hat the planning commission encourage the appl-icant toi)ursuc his cevelopment plans in line with sketch c and/oi sketch Brs subrnitted for this meeting. The planning commission shourd advise:he aI)i)Iicant that before proceeding r,/ith said development plans,thc an1>J-icant should present to the planning commissi6n subitantivedocu',-.n t.:r l-ion for Planning Commission review that would reflectthe cconotnic f easj-bility of construction of east./rvest access in andaround the development in light of the obvious potential publicinprovcment cost concerns of adjoining property ovrners.
1i /)t'"/.1
Ga.
(
Planning
I'lay I 3 ,
Page 2
Commis s i-on Minutes
r981
(
Sketch Plan Review,Ouady Property,Tonka West Properties Inc.:
Mr. I.IaibeI read his ptanning Report to the planning Commission,It was indicated that this request first came up in May I97g andthen revised in ApriI 1980. The planning Corunission shouldreview the intersections of the different proposals.
!1r. Hess, the developer, stated that he would like to get theinputs from the Planning Commission to see how they feel abouthis request before he goes on $rith the p1ans.
Mr. Hess explained that in Vie!,, B the tight,s r.rouldn't shineinto t,he windows of the house at the end of the street, plan
4 doesntt create unusual shaped lots, has a steep grade butcould attach to Nez Perce. Plan #4 has a T intersection
sholrn to discourage fast drivers. I4r. Hess stated that he
wouLd Iike to move Narcisus' center line to the south to makeIots I-5 larger .
ilr. il. Thompson asked
Ilcss answered 29 lots
ilr. Partridge asked if the jog
Lraf f ic .from going 50 mph. Mr
how many lots hrere being proposed?
on 10! acres.
No adjoining property owners came to the Planning Commission
meeting tonight.
Mr. t'Jaibel indicated,that this street could take some of thetraffrc that uses Pleasant View Road to get to Hwy. 101.
The Pl.rnning Commission want this street to be a city street.
and not a collector street. Mr. Waibel explained that any-
road that has 1,000 trips times a day is classified as a
co I1.c tor .
in the road was to prevent
Hess indicated that it was.
I'lr .
Lo
50'
i,l. Thompson asked staff what the road width would have
bc. I1r. Waibel indicated that they would have to have a
right.-of-way'.,,
The request would be considered a
thc property is platted already.rcplat s ince
ilr. il. 'Ihompson askcd why the plan shows the neighboring proPerty
in i.lr. Ilcss's p1an. Mr. Waibel indicated that the reason is
Lo show the possibilities for the future. Doesnrt want to
1;icr.Lc a street that wiIl impose hardships for the other property
ii :irc1' want to develop their propcrty in the future-
(
L
I
Ma'r 13. 198IPas":
Quady Property
Ur. Prreridge asked staff if it made any difference if theproposed road was lined up with Lake Lucy Road or not? Mr.l'Jaibcl indj-cated that whenever possible they shouldmatch uD roads,aligning the proposed road to Lake Lucy road
tvouLdn ' t necessarily creat.e a negative impact.
The conccnsus of the Planning Commission is that 5 members
\vant the roads to line up and Ivls Watson indicated she is againstthe idea.
ilr. lloziska indicated that he would like to see a
bctween the two proposed plans for the attachmentt'iants to see a 90o intersection.
comDrotn]. se
to Nez Perce.
:1r. iicss asked if he could connect Nez Perce wi-th Narcisus to
ha...e a curve instead of an intersection. Might possibly haveto modify the end of Nez Perce somehow.
hc Pianning Commj-ssion is not looking at this road as a
r L'.'c :'or the western half of Pleasant Vi-ew Road.
saftey
Mr. P.rrtrj-dge indicaCed that he would like to
l;.rtson asked how deepaic .rpproximately 130
the lots are? Mr.feet deep.
14r.
the
t.h e
beL
'.h c
?artridge asked Mr. Hess if it would be possibte to connecti',io cul-du-sacs. I"1r. Iless replied that it would be expensive ,sorl is bad and there are underground sewer pipes located',.'.cn them.
T
(
less lots.
indicated that
i,lr . ii. Thompson asked what
o:il; l.rincd that the terrain
so::r,: is wooded.
l"lr. llirss
housus.
the
is as
wi.th
Iike?
sone
Mr.
open
Hes s
space,
terrai-nrolling
stat-ed that a custom builder would be building Lhe
a5
lJatson suggested
t-h r oLhers in the
that the lots be somewhat sim.rl,ar in size
area. The frontages are the same.
i,lr. .l.rj-i.)e I askcd that the Planning Commission encourage the
Jpplici)nL to work with the staff on this request.
r,I.r L l{c uest, LoLs 16 l6 L7, 27 and 28
ent, lnc . :
Iulinnervashta Creek
plan review,
asking thc
instead.
l;r, i .',ddition, Remarco Dcvelopm
1lr:. :.l.rt.:: cxplained thit this item is a sketch
Llr,r JDi)Licant has approval for duplexes and is
r'1 .rr,:riirg Commission if he could have townhouses
m
FI
ErdI
p
H
H
ro
BZo
fi
H
H
F
a
N
@
EIo
@xa,
GoE
tstoI
e
oo
m
@
M # a eq E m@ H E E B El tr!:\
"*
I :JH [l,L*
U
I
rE--
-I
-
T
february 5, I98I
Donald L. gess
Iad.les & centleEn,
Ihe proponent, C6rvs! deach Proir€lties of IO55 E, Wayzata Blvd., Eayzata, ltN
55391, oirned by Adliar T. ;Iohnson r requestsP-I ateslgnatlon for the subjectprolerty to enabfe a rcle fl,exi5l6 design and planning basis froD which toaccorctlate neighborhoodl goals .nd objectlves as proviiled by t}te coq)rehenslvEplan of Chalihassen.
In as nuch as intla-neighborhooal clrculatioD capabllitles havB been previouslyldentlfled as the alontnaht Deighborhood planning concern. the attached e)dlLbltshiv6 been ptovialed to reviee and adalress this conc6tn. you,Il find botnpEeviois plan ing e:dlblts ba6ed upon a abllinajlt collector. roaah{ay concept aa
w611 aa r€ceDt pLanning exhlbits prepared by ,,rndplan Inc. 1116 cur!6nt erahlbits,
aa llou rill note, feature intra-ne-lghborhood through t,ay capabillties vla pro-
POSed lrino)i street connection.
It is ilq)ort&t to state at thts poirt of "sketch plan levlew" thaC th6 plannlnE
d.tagrac pro\dded by Landplan Inc.:
l) Do not propolt to e)ipress Eny neigtiborhood concensus yhtch layo! eay not exist crElentLy regarding tlre stualy area.
2) Do on the other hanal proviale Ist st€p input upon which theproponent, city staff. ard affected reighbors can atteq)t to
resolv€ problens l,hlch affect the tlEly replattlng of the
aubject site whiLe proyiaLtng a l.ogicaL basis for futuretlevelopEnt of aaljacent plopertles.
3) Do not proport that the proponent has control o! a tlcsire tocontlol r11 of the land aleas shorrn oD the attacheal eldtiblts.
/
4) Do€s atteq)t to exhi.bit exaq)les of alevelopEent patterns whichhopefully vould be affoltl,a.ble to produce anal atesireable as aplace fo! future lesialents of Charihassen to 1ive.
Elnally, the proponent recognl.zlng the pol1tica1 rasiflcations of justiflng nesa6sessEnts or requlrlng lanA dedlcations fron adJacent land oirnerg not wlshlngto alev€fop in the near futule, elshe6 to erqrless his very real alesire to faBhiona scherE of tievelopmnt which shelters adjacent opners frorn the flnancl.l butdensof adjacent tie\relop@nt at t}ILs tIIrE.
Please do not hesitat-e to call at arly point during the reviep process for anawrrdto you.r qrEstions or to add your lnput j.nto the deslgtr pLanning of th6 subject
and area.
tfully pre
Ianaiscape Architect-PIanner
ISNDPLAN Inc.
FA5EASEEII"!@IIEEBIEE r:\ I l,l J rL\III
-
PlalrnLng CorElssion A Staff
c,/o city offlces
Chanhassen, !61 553I7
401 Town.r Road W.yt.r., MN 55391 473 it '
rrr
ri IZ
ilit
S
a
r--I <r-r-----3j..J 0
g,
CI
,{
m
I
:?
.D
r ilt lHtfBH co-
CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES
:ltalfi.tas3Ex, xlllxEsoT^
I
+
MgIATE Elf:@[IEEBEtr r:\ I I o) ;J 4r\ I r,
40l Towr.t no.d l,lr.y!.rr.. MN 55391 4735111E
[.t-
I
(^(nB
&
B
ts
t
a
II.1" .1.
I
*)
(n:l
n{
='Eh
5opz-
t
I
r
!
trx,ftllril1 ilvi
I
D
q,
IrtI
I
I
ItIII
IllIlll
7/i
<lifitnii
7--t : I. il
ffisH
trIF=ri i\-;gi
Elxtrtis"d
affEiitiK <;ga6
t o
E
7-/ a
7..lil:
Ll"uttT
l,
EXISTJNG CONDI-I]ONS
3
:I
trI
I
Iil
I
l
./Tsr E
.,.G3.l8
ttrlttttttttttIII
I
:
I
rlrl,rrllrlttrrl
l
ed
a hEI 11z
qo
cIrt
TP
.i!6
A
*
t"
.lt
:o
om
q
3
-13
?50
PAUL P PALMER
EX 62, P9t
v9 -r__
I
17
-.1
COURT
,lond Driv.) t
.._.- l/-Y a.t COUr,lIy nwy Oipr-
1'+.,rt
E
16
rl,,Q n
l-1---l- ,
zo
-
tI (r\mc\t
--r-a-r-.---,-{
M gIAffi EIn@HtrEEIEtr J:\ r'CARYER BEACH PROPERTIEScH^raxastEx, rlxraEso?a
rl=JIr\II
I
-g
!
d
ro'
(r,
T
o
!,
o
tr
--
lrr-
lt
11
l
)
I
,l
+
1
r
+
lirltl
1!lta
,-:ur--
'--
\
40r TowEr Fod W.yr.r!, Mlt 55391 a7357IH" *"*")
I
I
8
1
-I.--.--.-i.-i
,
I
F
D5;f-ft.fflr-rrLrrrrr
-L-t
I
E
m
@
CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES
CHANHASSEII, llllrEsorA
N,
o,
OJ
la
o
@
t
$
(nt-t
(n
il
E
)jc\rnz
-{
frt
I8E'U
-= fTI6rro
{+oIo3{
z.rn7(n
(E}
!,o
E gl8ffitrn@[IEEE3Etr r7:\ I trl J ?:\.'1
(n
40'l fowtrrr fiond W.yzrh,MN5539r 4/J5711
I-Jfi, +.eRn+
\
N,
I
]
a
$H
-o
o
L)
-:q,
+
(n
6
..-.r-.r--r.{r!!ig:. ..i!-..
<|_--...-;r;-.<
I
It
I
lI
I
I
T
:
I
II
IIIr
1. Arthur Owens
6535 Peaceful Leoe
Ch&uhasseD, xN 553L7
2. Joseph Troendle
1015 Pleasant Vlew Lane
Excelsio!, MN 55331
Xalte. tlays
6691 Pou/ers Boulevard
CherbasseD, UN 55317
Layton Paine
1092 trest 6 7thExcelslor, UN 55331
R. J. & Betty Angetucci
3317 Arthu! St. N. E.tr{ihneapolis, MN 55418
9. cerald Boucher
1020 fiestertr Drlve
Chanhassen, llN 55317
16. Cbln Vao Nguyen
9OO Xesterd D!1ve
Chanhessetr, lrN 55317
I?, John f. Johnson
6694 Nez Perce Drlve
Chanhasseo, MN 553I7
l' Bennett
r rl ot, UN 5533!.
12. Wl11ard Shoberg
980 Western Drive
Chanhassen, lfN 55 31?
1.4. Gregoly Peppersack
940 [estern Drive
Chanhassen, l[N .55317
18. Kiln D. & N. Rothfuss
6680 Nez Perce D!i ve
Chanhissen, MN 55 3I7
z:
;
i
6
7
8
l.:.'
7/,
7.li
?I
a
7/
<ti
R
V'ktdt
KI
trI
'T\-g
ti
ffitEt4.4
RZksl,lItsiRIV
4 Walter llobbs
6671 Po*ers Boulevard
Chanhassen, llN 55 317
. 19. Todd Owens
6651 Nez Perce Drive
ChaDhasse! , MN 55317
20. Vernon Beckma.n
66?0 Hopi noad
Chanhaasen, llN 55317
5. Mar:garet CoudroD
6681 Po9ers BoulevErd
Chatrhassen, MN 55317
15. SteveD Ray
920 WestelD Drlve
Ctratrhassen, EN 55 317
ADJACENT
PROPERTY OWNER5
i
I
1
11. Gerald E. & Sharon LuDd
99O featerE Drive
Chalhassetr, XN 55317
13. LeBoy Belg
960 Western Dlive
ChanhasseD, MN 55317
10. LeoDard Duso6kl
1000 Westertr Drlve
Chanhassen, MN 5531?
6
lt ttltl Ilt rrrll ,l
l-ffrlllr-r.l-l-lrrr
.(g.
€\,(D
lzsp
(
o
\F
E.
_+
G\
-oc
@dlo.<rr-sd
fgr$$,$*.o.- (! Oi ([ \ "'t (D
.o-.t- 6, .> ..... o- 6eil e-*SG a
+: EEt_t $6-6 Uli!- U\ -tnU\ \'
TJ
.o6
POF#- SE
aooOEETljN
(n
o-to(n
o
Io
b{
dv$$$5r'
NM
FTl$tr(n io
^*
o\
TDc.
o_
%allt:bd
='a'-
oJ(D
f
zr\a)
Q ol
E ofiRFiFr
Esh.coI I
ItI
i,sf;ifr
u$E
5BE
BH$\sq
3q9
Es3$6#
**
R*.E
ft\^
W
(,\
(D
(b
e
I
No*+
NF't\
E
$urN
E}-l st
N1
a$.3O
lti I
=i<trIir$r;
$s
\r| Etl,
E*
(nIt-(r)
3
Y
(nil[tttrfl
=rJri{5 $ $ $ $*'BiR q'e+'rrr.* L o cix
-\ O 5- o-
Bfl- * LLg
\_J
KAEIAffiHI]@IIEIECIEtr r:\ r'lr) J r7r\ I I= -
4ol Town.r Bcd W.vr.u- MN l';391 r73 57! I
(D
hatFttN-*\ s sN *$
ffrlllfrlfftrrr
T
Rrn
r
-I
Fp
rnF
,n T$lP!
SroIsrdl5rR
H,6T
P
6
Fl
t
n
L,
fip,JUI
'4 --1r, Jlr''+r xr
ldh{
tv
F
..t
I
T
iJ
n
Li
ft z.)\
/
a
.*--*.r
D
T
,a
CJ
Ii
c)c\tn
(,(n
@
_o
,H
6l.t!
b
I$
$E
oi
nnTI
EU EIEffiEln@nEEEllEtr J:\ r'I .) J r:\ I rGCABVER BEACH PROPERTIEScHAt{l{assEl{, [tt{xEsoTA
iBIt;I
gI
sI
-1
!II
F
q
A
t
7
t
40! Towtrp! Hord W,y.rr.,MN55391 4735711
Jffj. -NeR+rD
couNtY___3D_-do._Jz__
l
i*
L:
TIITTTIITTTIITI
lxl
t_il
"fit.,.:]fl
b'I
t!
Eg=
g FFfr
HdJE
E'ilH",Fi,,
-o
-.*d-r--r-r-*-i
MgIAfiEEnElIIExE Etr rr\ I Irl J 1\ I r,
401 To{ 11 nd,d w,vr.r.. MN 55391 473 57r 1CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES
cHAl{HASSElt, If,tNllEsOTA
I
-rreRfl+
orh.
>\nmB
ts- l.qp
Ahl
xo7
-Jl'., .- -.]IL_-
I
I I
I
I
I
o\
r,;
.-l
l},fffffIIIlrlflI
r
.:
:
5EH,.:i
>ds
f;ET
r^. Fb
o
AE
D:
\D5
$d
h1l i
Hq
---..*ai.-r*'ji;*i
401 Town.r Rord t rv.dr., MN 5539i 473 5r! ICARVEB BEACH PROPERTIESCHAI{HASSEX, f t[taEsoTA
I
I
I
I
I
I
i".
l-r
i;
I
1,,,
IBln
l''
I
_l
EPo-EP+
gE5fi
s$<d
fi.:E;
.TFS \
6X"
-t
i
i
I
o
M#AffiEm@EIElEelEtr r:\ I lrl .J lr\.\ 1
fffj. -i.en++[)
i
I
I
I
I
-_.1.__.S[;,UJ! ;r_ Rp -iy.'..-.._:i_-__. -__.
I
-.1I
I
I
.--.l.
--l
I
I
__l
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
l
l
il
i"li- I
i
r\
r
c
.,',
rrl!.ii; -.-'V.'.',|'
JJ'J :-
5:
iri
l
I
I
I
f:ITIT!IIIITl-f-}i
l-r
:
401 Tdwn.i Rond lrJ"y.nr,. MN 55391
oo
:18
=Eii-- <, \fl !l:s *E'"
fi6' B* sd* pi hl
l.r rn '-tnri '.,.F
I
{-€_..E9:--8l-..d
CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES.HANHASSEN, MINIESOTA
-ll
: 11 lSl
r:{l'i tHr
' | -:_.1'i lsi
i--t-:-=1lJo!
I1t i$
lEi H:..1
I
)
I
I
o\l
I
-.-,
@-a
$8.
fr9\{dKq*+ -
Ei$":zsffli'z
s,
=
I'r
MnD3fr,qEn@nEEelE!tr J:\ r'l rl ;J J:\.\ I,
4/35711lJ;|" -.-"+r')
i
:
'_,-l
-- ' t rt - ._
.'-?::., \-
,t' ''
!
n
l-t
b-JF'JE
tr
T
5I
fi
- " - t'+l
/t 1-
[."r,{ril-l
L\. I/ 'r-J
I
___J
C^' I\lr--|rF !
ri-lr---J
l- - -.{tul
r)l
PI
fiill
ott
701l---{I Sl
i;-l
t--Jl"iI
ql
\\
Po
oP r,
qEqfr
w du+62 u _rtI
6J 'A CJ#oY
SpB
6dU
=s)
00
,-:rr----lrNl
tI -..,1
-,-[-r
--Jtr I--Jsl
---J*t-;l
r*aaf, J.f..{-iffir.t+Gai+.
.-*i:..Errffi.n .-t;*jA.n
tr
Mg:AffiEn@nEmelEtr r:\ I lr);J r:\,.\,',
CARVER BEACH PROPERTIESc3-q{HASsEl{, i NI{ESOTA
40r Town.l no.d li1J.yzJr.. MN 55391 47357!ljffi" -NeR+r+)
IIT
..-.
Bq3lr
--T{.;'.I
:i*-r
r9
v.
Y
't
I
-li{rot
3l
B{
I
:.:-. -
I
I
I
I
I
ar
z:
i
?
3
?
f;
o<s5
:r util=
BiEc
Eo
ttlEz
U
c,glrl <>aG'd:
C'O
l.::
7/
7i'
?t
a
7/
.ti
L]
wRKI
EI
EI
FTt-
ts
Ei
El5t!,{alrIE.
KilIA
LAKE LUCY RD.
I
I
I
rlI
I
rlrr
Ittrrr
r
67 TA. STREET
GLENDALE
f
aq
GR055 S|TE = 6.41 aa.t
GAI1VER Br\gt+ll trXENNG 5ff7- AREA,3
?
,I
rI
,i
I
I
{
'I
SE'TE +3.18 ac.r3.23 ac, 1
r------l
L-
ROAD
t
I
I
ii
I
I
I
7.1i
2:
3
t\
I
I
'1
'l
I
{
1I
t
t- __-
/,N
+
$
o
E
11, <ttt i
LC''-IIIfi=
t=cq
I(,
uloiItc2lll <>=E--
6E
i';I
a
7/
7.ti
L]
VA
EnlEll
KI
EIElil
EX
EiE
rEi
l{,rcK'
fzNttNiKIEJ
fm Ziq'/ n/.?//1ZA/7? Z o, m tom .r, f7trtz ZZ Cni? tr.izf7a.'
i a* % ',o(o"".')
,. .),. 'r/nc(oloo.t1
|.. -i y7 Ltt,,Z!-/.'_ f ii:-/ t_.. a U7i/ZtzZz <!,t, '1 Le (o'st"')
lf-F (au*t),7
'*rp.,=o{: , ,.1- [-6 (olt t^.t)
I
I
I
Iir
I
Igf ADJU5TED GRO55 SITE
VACAT?ON C-G
EXI6fIN6 EITE
-rorAL
l.24aal
6.4leqt
'7.65aa!PROPOSED ADACENT
SITE \ACATIONS :1
I
I
I
I
I
_1
i-
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
,
LAKE LUCY RD.
__ -_-' : ----
rtttrrtt tlll tttll
t
I
lI
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
7-/i
7'.tla+
;I; I---:9t i+
E
zzi
7t.l!r:
lJ"g,
-H (o.83".,
;[;,,,);)
LAfiD riE=oED ra, rc"taLe.r cal$CaR
o..lO crc-r c.3 fuAKe uucy nr,. 't/',/,/./ ,/ ,/.,/ ,/ ,/,// //,/,///,////.,/,/// /.,/ /,/,/ /,/,/,//.A tPROPA,''D PI/UrJ ZJz ,--: !.1 ,2.lL_J (o.62)
5t1E
.1.t4./-a14/2rL/4.,/_4t.r-4/z-/, . r, .! 4 /J,tJ.a-?-.t_r.,t- ,1 Zz U 2.ad
I
I
SITE
CONTEIIPLATTP LA
PURCH A5C5
RCHAsS (t.3 Tq,rS)
I
f
II
tlt
rINAL
-------7
ADJUSTCD cRosg SlrE=
= 7.65act
= l.37aoa
l.45o.t
1O.47""x
ffisH
trIFTrrHili;tsf
Eixtrt
f.p-l E t''!,'al u
NN Etr?a llJ tllrlETE;
15 Eo" E
\s\\\
I
rllrttttltttt
I
I
I
i
I
I
,'
a,; 1!1
,t a, I .,
I6fADJUSTED GRO55 SITE
?ROrc9ED PURCHA3E
ADDI'IIONAL YACATIONS
H = O.83 a"t
T.= O.62o.x
I
II
l.:: =ariz'.tiE+
il;E
r--'t i I. i"
.rETR
iiff
L]
YA
Elnr
IXIE E
HE=ta;gE
ffH
[,8" d
xtfr I
E:t iq5i
rI
Irrrrrrr
I
I
Ir
I
LAI(E LUCY I
FINAL ADJUSTED GROSS SI'TE
EX|SfiNG 3t1E 6.41 x,?
VACS6NS C-I 2,6i aot
IA}ID PURCHAgES l.37oo!
TOTAL lO.47a^t'CONTEI1flATEO
PROJECT LIMITS t6
I
III
I
;
I
\
\\
tlllllll
{
,l
I rttl II
(10.41e,l)stTE
il
l)
Ez
l-ln
@l
}I
sl
r]fi3.2
o.?
I
$
t2n
i\
o\-{t
o
_-l
(n
7.
\r1
alI
l.-
LJcq tr,1(n r-
Edf;o:1
5rEt- O. +-+rrzo ti-cr d'n
at
H
;
fno
r
a_f,
fit
Itl:t
tirJ{
r) J fl\ r.\ I=
Wry.rl., trN 55391 ar357l I
+{eFE+
MgIElffi EIf:@[IEEelEf U:\,.' I
CABVER BEACH PROPERTIEScHA]aHASSElt, BtitxEsoT^
---
ftE
I>a,n:.p
zG
83
.o
F
o\p
t,
{r
ar\
s
o\
o
:',0r
(F(,1 '
oI-?l
I
co
HP SHm$e$ l*uE E
xq lirii* ilgl nE
S " hd; ,ii;':),j oi m i I''*r CI
l
P
Hf,
I,rl fl!rrrrrrr-
r
E
m
C
e
.ooo
ai;:3 =-TlF iE "qiErqii tiiH ir r;il*:.€ r,i$v. i"T.r )'0,(
SsB: psr 6q l;
Bt$, H"[9 :"5 c;!
Sq 5"-, "'t : *' ;Irl'rZ I'l
I
I
I
r
I
;D
frl7
*
?ast
:to
)lrsiTD
EnT
p
E
Y-,.i-.i a<.*la.-).r<i.d,..
{'t
\
!-N)
-,o@-< 14 I-,,_:t=(^
t s:'muJ o\;At- s=ir*rtr. -- grilI\)foAo-d
6F 7
gn8lffiEn@[ItrEelEtr ?:\.'lr] I J:\ r.\ 1
401 TDwn.r Ho.d w.y a. MN 55391 473 571ICARVER BEACH PROPERTIES
CHANXASSET{, mt ESOTA lffj" -"-".")
r\
i
MIr
G,,
,.tl
.i)
{.lr
--elnS
Itrrrl-rl-f-r-rrr II
<- a. 11 l,,t7
*.ff i..r-Fl-!ar.-.-.i:-rdr.-
<-4. . -*<
@-(
r
zIat-g
L
.o
-o
,-
$tr-Eili_$fr @_ _II&E_-EEtr ;rt r' I rl ;J ;1\ .r I,CARVER BEACH pROpERTIES ,,0, ,"y* *io w.y,n,r. MN 553e1 :r73 5r rcr{a*HAssEN, urxx=sori ffi. _.-"_")
L--"-..-.- _*
s
-+o
B
, .!i
\1=\
t
t+t
*
o
E
o4nr5
;r lrr
ut=
t=
GA
-o
llloj
lrl
c?tul<>r
<i(Jo
7/
.tl
TI
a
7/
.tt
L]
VAkrttei
KI
EIEIt-gti
EI
rtx..j
it.''ra,tINi
K\Tv
z:
,
!
3I
It.
t7
^
r{
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
ItItIttI
s\,}
t_i
o
\,t-](,
I I
I
4?, I a-
N
E]FF,OtECld
0
\)
i r: r-l Ll
r
I|EIGHBORHOOD gKfrCl+'3' /topo.
2q LOTS, NO COLLECTOR
STREET 2-3 .8r
BY LANOpUan, tNC.
I
'l
iI
I,'
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I.
I
ttttlrll
20
I
Ilflrf-r-fl-r=r-r-]f-r,
..-.*8i,.{r...-.{ai-/a.ti,-i..ir.3
.;
rl0l lown.! Ao..l Wiy. ., MN 55391 4CARVER BEACH PROPERTIESCHANHASSEN, fI ESOTA
0t
-l
F
Z.![
G)
=tnon
EoU
(/)
iz\tr}d
=.F
s
6t
T
l\J
R,nb
5Gf;
E,f"_ (;P
d*Hd7 l_l-F..-
It-
\r\::
13 57tI
MnAffiEIn@gEffiEgEtr I:\ I lrl J r:\
E
lrJ;|. +""*)
l
J
-{
ln
I
i.--d r-i,t--'ri--r
I
E
I
Y lr
rJ
11
\)
J{
I
l
I
l
I
Tfli IIt-
,iI
:
,
' ,' ..:
z
Z
,
.1
I
r---a'rri;r-..ial-a; ia -i'.jr!
.--a---i.i,i
lJ
,J
-
EZEtAffiEn@EItrEelEf I7r\ I I ,) J r:\.\ I,
:+ni:S"F:r"x pnoprnrEs ilii-1"-U#;;, .,3s7,,
T
I
I
t
(n
x,
x
=
{
s-0
o
L]q q:
'- ihD- m:i
3 r--
Er;-- d'P
daF
c,7
t'/
-a
J
I
t ai
II
l"
I
n
.-e!
'.fl
.,!J,.
luF.
trlTf:
I
''1
:
I
{
r
-t
r_i
E
r'l1!
ri
l;
tl
I
,-
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
It
I
l"
I
.3
ij(-
i)
.+-l(,|'
Z.m
6\r
i
,In
o 7Ii1..
:!.t
.1.n
I
l-I
i
I I I a>-J-f-r-r-El-r=r
I
E
r.U
+\
I
z
!
ir'i
f
f
c
'--1..:r
--lri-it .llr-Jitl
.t l/__t /a1:-
'.1
,
(.
\.1
I
t
4-+
I'-lr
LL
ici
it
'ai-
(
nxo
m
:1-:
c
ZIn6
=wO70:troOU
(n;x.
rt1
dtq
N
dT
g,
mtno
;dF7{-
E- 's
ilp
=eH6q'd x
<)
11
NI
/',
,t
__.t-J
a
I
9
rl
i.N
t,g
lF
I
r-l
,
,
.i
11
I
E:
II)(r)
aol lo*n.r Rdid W.v,d.. MN 45391 4/3 57ltCARVER BEACH PROPERTIES
GHAI{HASSEI{, ttaNEsoTA
Li
KISIAIIEflEII|trHEIE[ ?:\ I I 'l .J J:\ .\ i
ff,j. -l'eR+r+I
_l
I
-_)
I
t-'
I
I
i
:!.
')l i
Li
nt-J
C *.4a-
!l
J__
o E,
IIIIfffffff+]I
i-Er<.a-...-.---a-.. _*
--.a*----..-r
CARVER BEACH P
CHANHASSEH,
\I\
!V,ryr,,r.', Mrt 55191 4,fj 5/r I
f-'--\t)\
l/
-t
I
z.
FI
c\&, 1-@oo 6
'-dE R5r9 5--'-OJ d((f
bXe q
=*H
s' d=r,(Jl
\ts\{dTo
K2E,:AEqEI Fr f,IEESEIEE f:\lrl ;.] fl\.\
BOPERTIES
0THHtt{itEsoTA
-
:',.
t
t/.
rl
I
"I
I
{
f
r,L
./
ll'
I
I
i.
--l
a
o
n
t_.t
I
C nxI
N
.:l
J
-,1
e
)-.
i
l
-(*
I
I
I
E
lr
r(
I
3t
ct
IL
i
I
'-'... llr
u
-""""r->
?
I
I
I
,.< 4*'l
tLo'lt
t"i,.
\
\4
o'
\
,o
t
s-.>
'(
(
t
I
,e
\.
h
'\d
s
I
CITY OF
CHINH[SSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937- 1900
MEMORANDUI\,l
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ :
Mayor and City Council
City lvlanager, Don Ashworth
August 10, 19 81
Fox Chase (Derrick Land Development), Review Construction
P Ians
I have received questions as to why this item is appeari
the City Councj.l agend,a. It is my interpretation of the
1981 City Council minutes that the developer would have t
authorj-ty to proceed with resolving questions such as stree
width, watermain looping, and cul-de-sac designi would have
the authority to proceed with preparation and potential
presentation of a devblopment contract; and authorization to
present the alternate design plan - all of which occurring during
the peri-od of potential approval or denial of the crerPs of engireers
grading and dra j-nage permits.
If the above interpretation of the City Council action is incorrect,
the City CounciL should address this issue prior to proceeding with
the attached comments from the engineer regarding the construction
plan issues of street width, water }ooping and cu1-de-sac terminus.
ng onJuly 20,
he
t
r
_L
I
RIICULAR CH,\NIIASSEN CITY COT]NCIL MEETINC JI]I,Y 20, 1981
Ilayor Hamilton ca1led the meetlng to order wlth the following menbers present:
councilwoman snrenson, councilmen Neveaux, Gevlng, and Horn. The meetlng was opened withthe Pledge Eo the F1ag.
APPRoVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Horn moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion
seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Harnilton, Councllvom
swenson, councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negati.ve votes. Motion carried.
MINUTES: Amend the fourth paragraph on page 2 under coNTrNUATroN oF BoARD oF REvrEw
I'IEETING in the June 29' 1981 Council mlnutes as follows: Councllman Geving moved toaccept the Assessorrs valuarion of 934,400 on parcel 25-42-ooo-0225 and leave parcel
25-42-000-OZL8 with an estimated market value of 995,700. Motlon seconded by Councilman
Neveaux. The following voted ln favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving,
and Horn. Councll\,roman Swenson abstalned. Motion carrled.
councilman Horn moved to approve the July 6, 1981, councll minutes. MotJ-on seconded by
Councilman Ceving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hanilton, Councilwonan Swenson,
Councilnen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative voEes. Motlon carried.
Council members requested clarificatlon of the last motlon under Quady Sketch plan
Review in t.he June 24, I98I, Planning Comisslon Einutes as to r{hether Ehe motion
passed or fa il ed.I
Counci.Lnan Horn moved Eo note the June 24, L98L, Plannlng Connlssion minutes.
seconded by Councilnan Nerieaux. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hanj-lEon,
Councj-lrvoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes.
carried.
FOX CH^SD IINAL DEVELOPIIENT PLAN REVIEi.I: The Council revieved the 20 condition
Motlon
Motion
S
I
establ-lshed by Ehe City in July 1980 regarding a proposed 52 1oE subdlvision by Derrick
Land Company on the north and west slde of Lotus Lake. The Councll generally felt that
condiEions I and 2 have not been completed as the Corp of Engineers has not acted onthe project. A pub11c hearing will be held by the Corp on AugusE 5ln rhe Council
chambers. condition 4 was felc not t.o be compli.ed with by three of the five counciL
rnembers. Thls condition deals with cu1-de-sac plans in the vlcinity of Lor 20, Block 3
and Lot 24, Block l.
Councilman Geving noved to approve rhe conditions that have been meE wlth the exceptions
ot liL, !i2, and il4 and proceed with the ldea that the Council wilJ- glve an exrension toIlr. Derrick on Ehc conditl.on that he would have a perlod not to exceed October I, 1981,
and if conditions /lI, tl2, atd, #4 have not been met ln thirt inEerim time then this wouldfail. I1r. Derrich would have Eo resubmiE his enEirc pliln and start the process over.
l"hen conditions /ll, /12, and /14 are completed the proposed plan wourd proceed to thenext stage where the Council would identify,for the developer, exac tly what the Council
!",aILs in thc development so that Mr. Derrick can go to hls architect and engiueer
ror c,-rnple t ion.
Cenero.l discttssion occrrrred. Coulrcilnran tlorn asked Councilman Geving if the motionis recomnendation 2c of the Clty Manager's memorandum of July 20, L991.
councilman Geving - 2c says, "An october t, 1981 time extension of the developnent
plan approval ls agreed upon by the Clty and developer, during
which Eine varlous approvals can be consLdered (plans/ speclf lcat lons,
;
counclrman Neveaux moved to approve the June 29, 1981, council mlnutes as amended.
Motlon seconded by Councllman Horn. The followlng voted 1n favor: Mayor Hanllton,
councilwoman swenson, councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No nega!1ve votes. Motj-on
carri.ed.
!
Council lteeting JuJ.y 20, 1981 -2-
p repara t ion/approval of the development contracE, submlttal/
approval of performance securltles, etc.); but in no case shal1the development contract or plat be signed until condltlonsof the Corp of Engineers have been met," and thatrs /11 , il2,
and /14. One and /12 certalnly and /14 ls somethLng that other
members of the Council felt that we need. I would agree that
item 2c is the motion that ls being nade.
Motion seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The fol-lowing voted in favor: Mayor llamll ton,
councilwoman swenson, councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negatlve votes. Motloncarried.
Councllnan
Councilman
Councllman
Counci.lnan
Neveaux - Yourre in essence saying that in October 1 we wL11 consl.der throissues. Dld the Corp of Engineers approve the prolect aod
do we have the resolutlon to the cul-de-sac issue? Additionally
we wlll have answers to the street wldths, the englnerlng
mickey-mouse of 6" or 8" plpe and whether the water system
should be l-ooped and ai.1 of the other condltions sole1y froma staff standpolnt.
Geving - A11 the staff work at that tlme would have been completed.If lt would have said by October 1, now thls could come anytlneafter August 5. We might declde on this Septenber 1. He could
accomplish this ln the next 15 days or 20 days after August 5
whatever t,lme it takes hlrn to get hls act together wlth staff.
A11 of the background work r"rith staff lrill have been completed
he w111 post hls $20,000 bond and we lrill be movlng along downthe road.
Neveaux - We are not necessarily looklng at the JuLy 20 conditions
an)rmore. We are looking at todayrs condltions. We are sayingthat he in essence has met essentially the July 20 conditlons
and now we are going to plug 1n todayrs condltions,
Geving - Thatrs. right. We havenrt agreed upon elther plan a or plan b.
Roger Derrick - Here we are in a situation where you are l-n essence saying you aregoing to approve or deny a plat because lhere ls a 6 or 8" pipe
depending upon which way the engineer wants to go or whether he
rlrants to loop the lrater or not. Those things are things that heis going to have to study and I concur tr1th thaE but they make
no difference about the p1at. Either ltts going to be approved oritrs not going to be approved and you can go on for another Ewo
lreeks or another two months and he can run back and say i.t,s
golng to be a 6" plpe, itrs got nothlng !o do with r^rhat we are herefor tonight and I wontt belabor the polnt an)more about the
Corp of Engineerrs approval and this cul-de-sac, everythlng has
been met. Why donrt you just glve the approval subject ro all of
those things because thatrs what you would normaLly do. Staff willger it done to your satlsfaction and if qre don't like lt we wlll
have to come back and see if we can get you to change it.
Councilman llorn - What I hear the extension being given for Ls the one year
requirenent and it was my impression Ehat the 2c recornrnenda tion
implics that the conditlons have all been met.
ll()n,\shlrortlL - Thatrs correct and itrs going to take a 30 to 60 day period for the
Attoroeyrs office to finish up that development contrac!. I seeat lcast tvro meetings to discuss polnts ln there. Flnal constructlon
plans and submlttal of those. I donrt see where the developer is going
to be slo\^red down.
Councilr,tan Ceving - I think you could start runnlng tomorrow.
Roger Derrick - If thatrs the case, fine, but I just want to make sure of two things
and I know we have other things to rrork out. A1l I an saylng is
I
{
I
t
Council )leetin€! July 20, 1981 -3-
we cantt go ahead on any more plans unless we know we have got someklnd of approval. In your notion you said that 1f we don't have approval
from the Corp by October 1 then we have to go back to zero. What tf
by October l they havenrt rendered an opinion then r.re are back to zero.
Councilman Gevlng - lle never really know who or what ls golng to occur 30 days from
now or whether an opinion Ls going to negate any prior decision.
I"Ie have no control over lrha t the Corp may belng ln on August 5.
Councilman Neveaux - Are there statutes that require the Corp ro render an oplnlon. wlthin so may days followlng a publlc hearing?
RusseLl Larson - I canrt anslrer that.
Councilman Horn - The optlon is not necessarlly that we would have to come back and
revielr. That optlon ls that is the t ime when we would have to
act again to eiEher extend or we cou1d, we donrt have to give the
extension at this point, we have the option at thls polnt of saylngthat July 20 is the end date on thls thing. What we are saying here
is ve are glvlng a certain Elme extenslon agaln and it will be reviewedat that polnt.
Roger Derrick - l,rtren are you golng to address the lssue of whlch plot plan you want to
go with?
i Don Ashworch - That motion incLudes that durlng this perlod of tlne the Councll can'| consider that.
t Councilrnan Gevlng - That eould be another council lssue the next tlme r,/e oeet or when
I we can get lt on the agenda.
*,P
CORDON FREEBURG: Mr. Freebur g asked that something be done about the erosion inTro1ls-Clen. Bil-l Monk r^rill neet r^riEh Mr. Freeburg on Tuesday, July 21.
FINAL D]:VELOPMENT AND SITE PI-A,N REVIEI,,, CPT: CPT is Te questing approval to
construct a 150,000 square foot llght a ssenb ly-rnanuf acturlng pJ-ant on 69.3 acres
along the souLh side of Hi.ghway 5 in Hennepin County, Peter Beck, Jerry Jenko,
Dennis )lcclinton, iJim Engl'er, John Torseth, Llnda Bank, and Ken Anderson, representing
CP?, were present. The proposed facility will employ 330 on the first shift and
approsimateLy 50 on the second shift. Storm r.rater run-off from the building and
parking lots will be directed to Ehe east to a retentlon pond. The building is
designed to be expanded Eo the east. Council members expressed concern about the
traffic on Dakota and Highway 5. Ken Anderson, Westwood Planning & Engi.neering
Conpany, has done a Eraffic analysis of the area and presented his report dated
June 16, 1981 .
Councilman }lorn moved to approve the preliminary and final development plan and
plan amendmenE for CPT wiLh the conditlons outlined under reconrnendat ions of July 1,
1981, from the City Planner and also the July 2, 1981, recommendatlons of theCity Engineer wlth clarificatlon of ltem /17 ln the July 1 report Eo include the toxic
substance inventory analysis and wlth the lncluaion of the City Managerts note on
iten i,lI. Motion seconded by Couneilnan Neveaux. The foll-owing voted in favor: Itayor
llami,lton' Councllwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveau-x, Geving, and llorn. No negatlve votes.
Ilotion carried,
PRIiLI}1[)]ARY DIIV!]LOP}IENT PLAN AND SITE PI-AN I{[VIEW, INSTANT I,IEB: Instant Web iS
1lroposi.ngtoconstr.,cta206@ng/warehousefacj.lity
.rn Jl P()rtion of Park Tuo east of County Road /117, The appllcants site plan iudicaEes
the poccnEial of sptiEting off a tot in the northwest of the parcel but due to problems
,)i Ehc final location ot'a pocential holdlng pond this is not to be consldercd at thlslinrc. l'he City Planner revlcwed his report of July 15, 1981.
Councilrnan Neveaux moved to rezone the property from R-lA to P-3 Planned Comnunlty
f)eve.l opr,rent for that portion easr of ne!, County Road 17, Planning Case 81-1 Site Plan.
Motion seconded by Councilman Ceving. The following voted ln favor: Mayor Hauilton,
Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Gevlng, and Horn. No negatlve votes. Motlon
carried.
r
I
I
t
7-
1_
CITY OF
EHINH[SSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth
FROM: City Engineer, Bill Monk
DATE: August 10, 1981
SUBJ: Fox Chase
On JuIy 20, L98]- , the City Council reviewed the !'ox Chase
development proposal in regards to plat compliance to the con-ditions of JuIy 2I, f98I. Three items that are detailed inthe prelininary construction plans were disucssed and vrarrantfurther clarification as stated in the attached minutes. Thosethree items inc lude :
Street widths .
Fox Path terminous .
watermain looping and sj-ze.
It should be noted that this office is accumulating the reports
and docrnnents submitted to the Corps of Engineers at theirpublic hearing of August 5 for review with respect to the
proposed grading and drainage p1an. The review of that data doesnot directly affect the three items listed above.
I). street widths
The conditions of July 2I, 1980, state that
Fox Path sha1I be 36 feet in width while all sidestreets be 32 feet in wi.dth. Safety (steep grades)
and emergency access were the st,ated justifications
for this condition. The developer, several area
resj-dents, and the ptanning corunission (on review
of the alternate plan) have aII since recornmended
a reduction in the proposed street widths due to
inconsistency rrrith existing area streets. This
office believes a width of 32 feet (minimum) on
Fox Path and 28 feet on the side streets would
be acceptable from an engineering viewpoint.
Typical street sections 128, 32 and 35') are
shown on sheet 11 of the attached plans.
I
b
Mr. Don Ashworth -2-
2\. Fox Path Terminus
The turn-around proposed by staff is detailed on sheet4 (lower half) . The T section was chosen because itaIlows for proper maintenance procedures on a steepgrade while disturbing only a small area during
construction.
Staf f did research the possibility of constructing
I-de-sac and requiled the developer to plat aorary cul-de-sac as shown on the attached draw-to allow the City maximum flexibility in choosingever type of turn around desired. A temporary
de-sac alIows that areas A and B woul-d be
eyed to the City as a street easement until the
et were extended (if ever), and at that time be
ted .
acu
temp
ing
what
cuI-
conv
stre
vac a
3). watermain Looping and S.ize
Attached are three possible schemes for J-ooping the
watermain. Routes A and B alLow internal looping
which provides only minimal- benefit within a dead
end system. Route C does provide for a connectj-on to
an existing system on Lotus Trail but an 800 foot
dead end still exists on Fox Path. If the extension of
Fox Path were to occur, looping of the watermain
would be provj-ded with a connection to existj-ng
maj.ns to the west and no looPing would be required at
this time- Elimination of a possible westward
connection would make Route C desirable. Estimated
costs are as fo I lows :
Route A
Route B
Route C
$12 ,000. o0
$21-,000.00
$]2 ,000. 00
The size of the watermain in Fox Path is also contingent
upon the feasibitity of the westward extension of
Fox Path. If extension of Fox Path j-s to ultimately
occur, an I inch watermain should be constructed to
allow for better circulation within the City water
system. rf the extension is ruled out, a 6 inch main
would suffice and reduce the Possibility of "skunky
water " .
August 10, 1981
I
I\_\d{s
)
{,p
It
J4l
I
t
I
!!-
fr
ti
I
\os
\'$k)
I
It\ks
\
\,
S
{\
\\s
{
fl
7
/7 ?@ st
---- t8
T\
\\
ssO)
I
\I
I
I ST
q(
o o 8;
/l5ao
t9
-a
o
$\\r
I
I
I
I
t.
\I
=-/
?9| 'nl
t
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
\
v R
I+60w
z:
.\
x
'-'t
\
Y
\
I
I
j
I
I
lit
Ur
zsIrl
4/
7@
(
'A(/ /l
,zI
tI
I
I
t
t
4-,
6
go32
\r9
f,,
!\
\
J
llo
l\
I
6\It
I t-
(f
b5 I .1
@,
v5I
kII@/,
\It9
k
,t
II
\
I
I
I 'l
t,!s:\
I
\
rl)h)o
I l9 o
-+-
frostf
I
If
.lI
I
5T
\
q,
I
,
\
,2
O€-
2 Itoa5Fn
W I
i\ilil
\
I
5z
I\\I
\
)
I
\
o/)l,'
I
\
t
I
I
l7
I
\
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
l-
t.
2a
I
\
I
I
90
(
I)
(
{
I
I
l5
t
I
i
I
\\
I
I
-r'
\
t
L
I
l5,aal -!
'f
\.,fi,!
\'.I(
l
I
i0.
a
(
(
\/Aso
?./\l
t
lO
\
s-\o
\.)
I
$
tti
<0 5(fl r
o ,l
\\t,'4 too tr)I
19,
.r$
-7
7 5
"?!6O
I \l' t6P
O0
t,
<-
7
./,
Lo t5
- /,r
h
1 03
I
(rL
3
Lb
,i..
?
_4..1
)
I
\
/I
I
t4
\t
I
.,.-./5
J--\
\
d-
I'
$
'/,
'/9
-1
I,s
t\
I
I
I
I
I
,"bro/
2
v
(
I
g
/
(.
)
\
=--=--
\
)1 tl
..1.
t\
ll.
\I
I1 t
If5
1
H
6
5I
t^"l'4-
l4
/ loJc
Ii.r
t--
(
J
i1tq.
22
6.t
1-i .-:.,
-'x
I
I\\rYr
)\
\\.
-=
t5
\__\t
p'\'
t.-(
$\.,2r
1., \
I5.o\<
',,r \l-r ,B
. \ /ro00
l'
w
I
'3-o
I
Is.f
I
(DNo5 6
tr0\
l
s\
-r-t--
'?t 1400 5.8 rt
/
)
\
)
..19 ti
500 5F ,'
'n":
t tg.
/?o
\
(
Q
t/6l)/boq
I
F
I{.o
Il'
I
\\ rz
)f1oo
-r.\"t
\
lf,t.
---n
t,o
-lg-
2I \
E,.onn c
\ .i/
./qs
i
I
\
7,|1
I
q
5
)--7
('
\
t58
t
x.
'{8,o9
/
I
7 )
t
0
\9
s.E
- rr'qL
'i-.\
+ l')
,
JI f)9
000-
t5o
{L
Jt
'f,i
JL,".7\...
\,..1r
.)-
l
..l
I
t
)-
lo,
i1
'I
I
I
\
^l-)zaoo
1
.-I
I
I
I
I
I
i
\
\\
, ,jro
./,.
->j
\
\
I
I
\
I
I
=\\,/0G ",
\
2
-.,(,
\
I
\
\
I
I
to
t6 '000
5 r
,\
6\\.
t--
\{\i-5,i d.\.!
-\
ta
B ),,
I
\
t\\5??
)s
z)Sr \
\!
.,0
IL.>
ur'ntn
I
\a(
)7 ,c''1 ,
l
!t.
7
?
GO
/.i
I
\
\
ibl'
tlf 7
,(
g
01IR
o
v,+
t_
h
obo
5a
.?
t.
{.{,_
. $,,_\
5 6:
I '1,'\
&b
i<\'\ r zc,
s
a1
3/o
)'l
t\
\
'\
ir' \
\
i'.,\
\
I
)
I
t,
\I
I
l
\'.\
'$'
5.t I
\.
\B,
\
t4
zoos.f.t/'
9.r'
'a
E
s\
-,\
I
I
-.-.- - /
o
\'l/.
(
--rr
,,I)
I
(1t- -'l
('
\:,
i\
s
$'
I
I
_1
9
L
t,,
34,s0!-s.E l'.lo ti
.l
(r
tneI,\
66
]59
/rc
t-^.-'l 4-t\,
I
t--
I
l"
11a
'I
ls'
l'r s\
r!)No
b
,, \6
t-
to, s'5
I
I
I
')11o\t-
\
7
0
l---
I
'--i
I
ao.1'
,l
6
0(,
\oj
I
r.l
I
)
0)s
1
3t,1.0
iE
.L
0 5,'
4
$,I
t
3
i
,.i
.-\t
>:.
4
5
24.?40 S F3.t
34s00
2d
F5
dz
I
I
l
I
I
I
>i.-6,,
tZ,ZOd ;
6.F.
/20i.'
(
.\,
It
I
I
I
I
S!
$\'
5
3
\ t, t9,ooo s.F.
-le--
,/o
v
I,BOt,0/
I
,l;
I
\\r
\
t5B
I
00
\.i. t7
!"
o s.Eii rpe
I
>B
\
\
$
\
'r--i
)5
.\
I
t
.,,
<-
\
I
l4
I
tla
000/,1-,4- -
a\
\
i
I
I
I
\
zs
)I,t/00
\'
I
\
, t,800 1.A
4
i .t
c
/
r\eq':q.
(n
z
75
Fa,/'
I
zo/u.ir
N
s\4
t4/
v.ft
I
I
I
I
I
I
zs2
{\
=
\F
..t
I
I
i
\
]
5JZ /oo
t5)
(
v' s.F ,
r6--
.. ,i..\
rr
N
\
I
I
\
I
i
I
{
\
i
!
!
I\9
j
o'
i
I
I
\)
865 /,,
I;
IR)
\\D
F
b 5
,ri
s
o)
s
O)
(:\T
(i;7,,:,/,,
,,!i,i,'
/ t'
{
(D
/
\
ii),,\*
t
f+
.//,
ooos.A
,/
a\t-
)
Illrl
9*
))It
P_
I
s\t
f ll$
,:((
t
&
\
1
\
I Cl6*
vi t
s\
\-/ /
.//
I
R
: //.4,<R/50.!
ra
R,ouTe e
J
r
I
q-
(
I
I
\
I
it
q
.I
\
I
\
\
,
I
I
I
/.
I
I
I Z
I
i
\
)
\
\
\,\\
q-I
I
I
I
I
08'/6
PUALIC WOR KS OEPARTM ENT
(612) 4.r8-3i35 EXT. 255
Mr. Bob Wai bel
Ci ty Pl anner
C ity of C han has sen
690 Coul ter Dri ve
P.0. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: CSAH #i8 A1 ignment Study
Dear Bob:
Encl osed herewi
ilo.ao
s tud
sche
DCll: gdr
Encl os u res
CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST FOURTH STRE ET
CHASKA, M INNESOTA 553'18
COUNTY OT CAAVflP
July 15, 1981
Manag er I s Co[unents :
This item shoul-d be discussed
to determine whether a joint
meetj-ng (Carver County, CitY of
Chaska, CitY of Chanhassen)
is necessarY.
DA
3 and
#r17yof
dul ed
No.
and
th
o
.H
4
T
please find a summary of our findings on alternatesf the proposed CSAH #18 construction project between. 41, l,,le have completed a preliminary engineer.i ng
a1 ignments and we request your review. We have
meeting of Chaska, Chanhassen and Carver County
the two
a joi nt
st.1ff members for Friday, July 31st, 1:30 P.M., at the Courthouse to
d'iscuss any conments regarding the report.
lle feel another joint Chaska-Chanhassen City council meeting may be
the best route of action to select a specific alignment. Please
consider this idea and a possible tine for such a meeting.
I appreciate the time and attention you have given this letter. Ifquestions arise prior to our meeting, please contact me.
Sincerely,
'\,-I,*L.t C' rlv^"'-',-'L
Donal d C. l,Ji sni ews ki
County Engi neer
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RE(:EIVED
rril 201981
COMMUNIT\ DEVELOPMENT DEPT'
It ('O
IVES
-
All irmot L,., Ad nn / Equol Oppotn/nity Employe/
\ -'l
/,/ t
t/- /t'
I
Ghaska
WLLIAM M. RADIO
City Administrator
l-
r
r
r
I
r
t-
l-
r
r
i-
T
r
I
l
August 4, 1981
C ity of Ch anh a ss en
Flr. Don As hworth
Ci ty Ma nage r
Chanhas sen Ci ty Ha1 I
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Don:
The Chaska City Counci I discussed the time and place for anotherjoint meeting of the Chaska and Chanhassen City Counc'i 1s for the
purpose of discussing .the county's preliminary report on alter-
nates 3 and 4 for the routing of the 1982 section of County Road
18.
Last Friday, July 31st, Kermit Crouch, the Chaska City Planner
and I met with Bob Weibel from your staff, and staff members from
the County Public Vlorks Department to djscuss the preliminary
report and any other questions regarding it that we may have. Atthat time Bob tJeibel indicated that he thought the Chanhassen City
Council would be more in favor of the southern alignment becauseit more c1 osely met the criteri a of our joint resolution and also
because the property owners are reported to favor it.
In my discussions wjth the Chaska City Council, on Monday, August
3rd, they indicated a slight preference for alternate 3 or the
southern al ignnent and indicated that if this were Chanhassen's
preference as well, that perhaps we did not need another joint
meeting to reach that conclusion. Perhaps you could discuss this
he Counci I and see what their feelings are. If you or the
ouncil feel that another joint meeting is necessary we would
o extend an invitation to you to come to our Cl ty Hall the
evening of August 31st to discuss the matter and attempt to reach
a resol uti on of it.
Please let me know after you have discussed the matter with your
T?E(:EIVED
AUG 61$BI
ith tity C
i ke tC
I
City Of ChaSka Minnesota 2o5 East Fourth street 55318 Phone 6eITA0P$HNHASSEII
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 4, 1981
Page Two
City Counci 1 on August 10th regarding what actions we should taketo complete discussion and consideration of this issue.
Si ncerely,
A(P*Z-
William M. Radio
Ci ty Admi ni s trator
I,JMR: jw
cc: Pat Murphy, Carver County Engineer
Don l^Iisneski, Carver County Public Works
Jim 0lson, Chaska City Engi neer
Kermit Crouch, Chaska City Pianner
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
REPORT
ALTERNATES #3 & #4
. for
County State Aid Highway No. 18
Between County Road No. lL7&Trunk Highway No,41
In Chanhassen & C has ka
Mi n neso ta
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RE(:EI\/ED
rrrr 2 6 1981
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
Prepared By:
Carver County Engineering Staff
June, 1981
Donald C, W isni ewski
County Highway Eng i neer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I ntroduct ion
Property Severance and A1 ignment on
Section Lines and/or Property Lines
Page No.
1
I 2
7
9
II. Preservation of Scenic and Wooded
Area Cons i derati on
III. Location of the Route in Chanhassen
IV. Cost Ana lys i s
V. Other Consi derati ons
10
L2
13VI. Sunmary and Conclusions
VI I. Appendix
Exhibit A - Alternates #3 & #4
Aiternate #3 Map
A'l ternate #4 l'lap
Map of Common Segment South to Lyman B1vd.
14
15
16
L7
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
Al ternates #3 and #4
County State Aid Highway No. 18 (CSAH #iB)
Hithin the 'last two months the Carver County engineering staff has completed
a preliminary a'l ignment survey, soils investigations, made individual landowner
contacts, and developed a preliminary engineering cost analysis of the two
prefered al ignments of CSAH #18 between C.R. 117 and T.H.41 in Chanhassen and
Chaska. This report wi'l l sunrnari ze the findings and address the criteria setforth
by resolutions passed by the two affected citjes for the purpose of selecting one
prefered route for the proposed CSAH #18.
The criteria setforth in the resolutions are as fol'lows:
1. Property severance by the road should be kept to a minimum, fo1 lowing
section Iines and/or property lines wherever practicable;
2. Preservation of scenic and wooded areas shall receive the utmost
cons i deration;
3. The selected route shall be as far south in Chanhassen as possible; and
4. Cost effectiveness be considered.
L
I
I
I
I
1
I. PROPERTY SEVERANCE AND ALIGNMENT ON SECTION LINES AND/OR PROPERTY LINES
Beginning at a point 390 feet north of the Milwaukee Rai lroad trackage
and then extending north and west to T.H. 41, the estimated right of way (R/[,l)
and temporary slope easements requirements have been calculated and surrnari zed
be'low:
Alternate No. 3 South Aliqnment)
Length: 4525 feet
Permanent Ri htofWs
Additional R/I^l along C.R. #117 to provide an
80 foot R/l^l width:
New R/l^l along the alignment to provide an
B0 foot R/t^l width:
R/W required to provide a new connection
of C.R. #117 to CSAH #18:
Total Permanent R/l,J Requi red:
Ierpgrqrv-!isPg-EB:919!!9
Additional temporary slope easements are necessary
to accommodate construction operations and
backsloping. Estimated average of 25.0 feet of
width on each side of the B0 foot R/l,l band:
Six individual landholders wi'll be affected by the alignment:
Chaska Investment Co. (1st Nationa'l Bank of St. PauI )
Fluoroware I nc.
Westin Mfg. Co. (First Trust Co.)
City of Chaska
Merle and Jane Vo lk
Ear'l J. Holasek
0.02 Acre
B. L7 Acres
0.46 Acre
8.65 Acres
5.40 Acres
2
The proposed route would sever portions of property from four separate parcels:
Approximately 0.04 acre of a developed paved parking Iot would be severed.
In addition, approximately 0.65 acre of the paved parking lot would have to be
acquired to accorrmodate the roadway. Fluoroware officials have indicated that
they prefer to minimize the property taking; however, if construction can be
limited to a distance not c'loser than 100 feet fnom their building, the southern
a'lignment proposal would be acceptable,
t.lesti n Mf . Co.
Approximately 0.45 acre of presently undeveloped property t.rould be severed
from their tract. No contact with the company has been made to determine the
impact of the severance.
Mer'le and Jane Volk
Approximately 2.4 acres would be severed from the Merle Volk pronerty.
To avoid taking of the Ear'l Holasek qreenhouse complex, the aliqnment r;ras
shifted northward entirely on volk's land. In discussion with the chanhassen
planning department, it was determined that at 'least 90 feet of distance from
the roadway centerline to the Holasek bu'i'lding must be maintained. A 50 foot
strip of property is severed along Volk's south property line to maintain this
distance. In addition, approximately 0,65 acre of Volk's property is severed
to bring the alignment back to the conrnon city boundary, and another 0.65 acre
is severed to provide the proper C,R. #117 connection to new CSAH #18.
Prel iminat'y discussions with Mr. Volk seem to indicate that he prefers the
southcrn alignment over the northern aiignment due to the type of severance
encountered. The southern alignment has smal l strip and wedge takings as com-
pared to some severance and tree land which would be acquired along the north
alignment. No specific right of way acquisition discussions have been conducted.
Earl Hol asek
3
Floroware I nc.
A very small wedge of property, less than 0.01 acre, is severed in the
northeast corner of Mr. Holasek's property. Holasek has been nonconmittal
regardi ng either a l i gnment.
Chaska Investment Co,
This firm has contacted our office and has indicated that as a result of
their review of both alternatives they prefer Alternate No. 3 over Alternate
No. 4 as it affects their property.
Due to the curvilinear design imposed on the southern a1 ignment in an
attempt to avoid existing structures and mitigate disruption to wooded areas,
Alternate #3 only fo'llows property Iines for approximately 880 feet. The
type of severance encountered is not highly disruptive to existing land use
except for the F'luoroware, Inc. property.
Alternate No. 4 (Northern Al iqnment)
Length: 4295 feet
Permanent Ri I ht of
Additional R/W along C.R. #117 to provide an
80 foot R/W width:
New R/l,l along the alignment to provide an
B0 foot R,/W width:
R/W requirement to provide a new connection
of C.R. #117 to CSAH #18:
Total Permanent R/l,l Required:
and embankment slopes due
al ong the north a1igntnent.
o more rolling terrain
Ierpsrqrv-!1sP9 -Eq:e[e!!:
Additional temporary slope easements are necessary
to acconrnodate construction operations and
backsloping. Estimated average of 30.0 feet on
each side of the B0 foot R/[,l band. (The temporary
slope easement rvidth is increased for this
alternate due to anticipated longer backslopes
0,32 Acre
7.71 Acres
0.55 Acre
B.58 Acres
7.60 Acres
t
)
4
Three individual Iandholders wil'l be affected by the alignment:
Merle and Jane Volk
Dennis L, Moore
Chaska Investment Co. (1st National Bank of St. Paul)
The proposed route will sever a portion of property from one parcel:
Mer'le and Jane Vol k
Approximately 1.25 acres of pasture land with a small amount of trees
would be severed. The severed portion would be utilized to make the new C.R' #117
connection to CSAH #18. Mer'le Vo1k has indicated a preference for the southern
alignment. The north alignment places the roadway closer to vo1 k's buildings.
In addition, loss of tree land and the type of severance on the north alignment
is 'less desirable to Mr. Volk.
Dennis L. Moore
Mr. Moore has jndicated that he prefers the most southern alignment
practical so that the highway is as far removed from his buildings as possib'le.
C haska Investment Co.
This firm has contacted our office and has indicated as a. resu'lt of their
review that they prefer Alternate #3 over Alternate #4 as it affects their
property.
Alternate #4 follows property lines for approximately 1860 fedt' The
type of severance encountered is not highly disruptive to existing land use.
The pasture area wi'll be reduced on the Volk property'
Based on landowner contacts all three landholders prefer the southern
a'lternate. Two landholders, Volk and chaska Investment co., own property
on both alignments.
5
In surmary, the northern alignment impacts fewer people and severs
one parcel . The southern al ignment impacts more people and causes varying
degrees of severance on four parcels. Landowner consensus tends to fa'ror
the southern aligrunent; however, due to the severance, acquisition costs
along this route may be higher. The northern aiignment more closely
follows the criteria setforth in the city resolutions; however, at this
time, it appears that the 'least amount of landowner opposition would be
received with the southern alignment.
6
II. PRESERVATION OF SCENIC AND |,IOODED AREA CONSIDERATION
Wooded areas affected by the proposed Alternate #3 (south alignment)
are concontrated at the west end of the segment near T.H. 41 . The surveyed
'I ine was kept as far south as possible in the 40 acre tract owned by Chaska
Investment Company. Due to the location of the public street and paved
parking lot ovrned by .Fluoroware, Inc., the tree area could not be avoided
completely. It'is not feasible to p'lace the new alignment closer than 100.0
feet to the existing F'luoroware faciiity without adversely affecting parking
space and the receiving dock on the north side of the buiiding. The tree
encroachment area will amount to approximately 1.3 acres.
Alternate #4 (north alignment) affacts tree cover area 'in
At the west end near T.H. 41 , the same 40 acre tract of woods
Chaska Investment Company is impacted. At the east end, 'land
Mer'le Volk which is tree covered is also affected. The total
clearing would be necessary is approximately 3.3 acres.
two locations.
owned by
owned by
tree area where
Construction of the north a1 ignment wou'ld require a street connection from
the south which would cross the 40 acre wooded tract at some location. Uitimate
development of the 40 acre tract would require some type of road construction
into and possibly across the wooded parcel; therefore, inclusion of the tree
acres affected within the tract because of the needed connection to CSAH #18
has not been added to the total impacted tree areas mentioned above'
No other wooded area is impacted on the proposed a1 ignment east of T.H. 41 .
Future extension of csAH #18 westward from T.H. 41 at some time in the future
wi'l'l cause disruption of the wooded natural ravine running paral Iel with T.H. 41
approximately 1400-1500 feet west of the highway. Both a1 ignments can be
designed to cross the wood ravine near its narrowest width; however, additional
construction length would be necessary along the southern alignment to swing
north;ard and reach the narrow portion of the ravine system. The curvi'l inear
alignnrent required by Alternate 3 may have some impact on the ultimate develop-
ment of the property; however, the degree of impact cannot be addressed at
thi s t ime.
7
The only other remaining scenic area which must be considered as part
of this report involves the lowland area directly east of the large wooded
tract. Both alternates skirt the fringes of the 'lowland area and do not
adversely affect it.
Based on our findings, Alternate #3 does the 'least amount of disruption
to the scenic and wooded areas aiong the al ignment corridors.
-B
III. LOCATION OF THE ROUTE IN CHANHASSEN
sjnce Alternate #4 (north alignment) is located approximately 1300 feet
north of Alternate #3 (south alignment), then Alternate #3 meets the criteria
of selection of the route furthest south in Chanhassen'
A breakdown of the segment lengths within each city fo'l1ows:
Altermate #3 Approxi mate Lenqths
Al ternate #4
In Cha s ka
In Chanhassen
Aiong the Cornmon BoundarY
1250 feet
2755 feet
520 feet
Approxima te Lenqths
1280 feet
2695 feet
1320 feet
9
In Cha s ka
In Chanhassen
Along the Cornrnon Boundary
IV. COST ANALYSIS
Based on preliminary surveys and soils investigations the following
costs have been calculated for the two alternate a'l ignment segments of the
CSAH #18 project.
Al ternate #3 (South Aliqnment)
Termini: T.H, 41 to 390 feet north of the Milwaukee Railroad trackage.
Lengt-h: 4525 feet
Estimated Costs:
Grading Constructi on
Drai nage Construction
Pavement Construction
Turf Establ ishment and
MiscelIaneous Const, Items
$328,000
A lternate #4 (North Aliqnment)
Termini: T.H. 41 to 390 feet north of the Milwuakee Railroad trackage.
Length: 5295 feet
Estimated Costs:
Grading Constructi on
Drainage Constructi on
Pavement Constructi on
Turf Establ i shment and
Miscellaneous Const. I tems
$372,ooo
N0TE:Ali additional costs to connect either alternate alignment to Lyman Blvd.
are common costs to be added to both a'lternates and are not included in
the estimates given. See Map #3 for i'l lustration of the additional
construction along CSAH #117 to Lynran Blvd.
$144,ooo
l2,000
134,000
3B,000
$136,000
19 ,000
174,000
43,000
-10-
The south alternate encounters poorer soils and more extensive muck
excavation; holever, the longer length of the north alignment (770 feet)
tends to offset the increased construction costs anticipated on the south
a1 ignment. The difference in estimated costs is $44,000 with the southern
a'lternate being least expensive, Due to the fact that we are computing
estimated costs on rel 'lm l nar survey data, thiS differential is not highly
conclusive in terms of specifically identifying the most cost effective
alternate. Projection of estimated costs differing by an amount approaching
$100,000 would be more indicative; however' it does appear that due to the
shorter 'length, the south a'lignment is more cost effective from the stand-
point of contractor costs.
- ll -
V. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Intersect ion Siq ht Distance at T.H. 41
Questions were previously raised regarding potential sight distance
problems along T.H.4l where the two proposed alternates would intersect.
Sight distance north and south along T.H.41 exceeds minimum requirements
at both locationi. 51e would not propose to change the grade of T.H. 4l
as part of the csAH #18 project. Alternate #3 intersects T.H.41 at the
top of a slight crest and Alternate #4 intersects near the top of a slight
crest; however, neither location poses a problem of inadequate sight
di stance.
Access Connection to A'lternat e #4 from the Industrial Par k
FortheneartermcsAH#1Bwi].lserveasaconnectionbetweenthe
two .industrial parks north and south of the Milwaukee Rai lroad. construc-
tion of Alternate #4 would require use of T.H, 41 to connect the parks.
Increasing traffic volume on T.H. 41 are anticipated; therefore, a direct
connection from the western industrial park to Alternate #4 must be
considered to reduce potential congestion and traffic conflict on T.H.41.
A commi tment to construct the connection should be pursued. The city of
Chaska and Carver County will have to reach an agreement setting conditions
for timing of the connection construction to insure that future problems do
not occur on T.H. 41.
-L2-
VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
It is antic.ipated that this report wil'l be used as a basis for revjew
of the two csAH #18 a'lternates. l|le have attempted to provide factua'l
information pertinent to the criteria setforth by the chaska and chanhassen
resolutions regarding the selection of the preferred a'lternate. The table
developed below sunrmarizes our findings'
(Alternate most closely meeting criteria is marked "X"')
Al ternate #3
South
Alternate #4
North RemarksCri teri a
Property severance bY the road
should be kePt to a minimum,
fol l orvi ng section lines and/or
property 1i nes whereve practicable'
Preservation of scenic and wooded
areas shall receive the utmost
cons iderati on
The selected route shall be as
far south in Chanhassen as
possi bl e.
Cost effecti veness.
Landowners Prefer
southern ai i gnment.
x
x
,\
x Differentia l in cost is
not large enough to
clearly show a sPeci fi c
cost effecti ve route.
Lower construction cost
a'lonq the south align-
ment may be outwei ghted
by possi b1e i ncreased
right of way costs.
x
0ther Cons i derati ons
Sight di stance at the
T.H.41 i ntersecti on '
Most d i rect connection
betleen i ndustria l Parks.
-13-
xx Si te distance is adequate
in both i nstances.
North al ignment requ i res
a connection other than
T.H.41 .
Oi
.s\
-t){
-=r:--\*.(-li: Ir ?t\
'-'-\\-
1
\...-...-,/(
-"')I
I
----)
-\.\--.I ',]1
Y.Ern 10:l
(
)
/
..t'
ll
lt
ll
ll
+
N]SSVH ivHC
'
I -tr* '
lf'l
/,r1
)
7l
)
1
/
I
Z€
lF -r<S- ---rrs-
I
o
l--
m
:T
><
KJ
!
9
\;\.1, I
F
€(
L
(
V
v
ur
{
qU
I
I
t=l\{ ir*\*
f,I-A.\
\.r-r.r---:s.- -N-,\*\s I t.:-Y vllrot'-)l^ r ll- |tll
e
ll
:\
I
-t
J
0
ro
/
q
i9
4q.
i*,t
"+e
I
x
:
\
Ir
t---,,1al-..,.._-IL,:
h
r
i
{
C
\s.i'-
$\s
No.
'32
E
I
i
i
E
.')
P2
o5
r.l-
R
Dr\
)
r.
:i
l
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!.
E
aFc
E
2qr
lu
V F
^.4iii':
I
\
\")
,oL
i.it
'.-o
;E
AO
cO.
)
iJCi
D
t
I
I
,.:
U)oC-{
-
t-
oZ
mz-t
t
:P
l(
,"r",
fuO,
,i.,
,a
69
''l(n
'Yo
%
!
I "--i
-E,r;
I llll I III
I
A
il
o 200'
ALTERNATE NO4 NORTH ALI MgNT
i.
a cxrsxl rxva$rExt co-
-
-'-'-
II
(
,att'
.^"t
.at'
a.tt J
a>-
F cxls,r lvYtltrEir co.rt
l{
-!-
- 16 -
!t
1
u-
l
I.:
,
I
t
I
I
,I
q
'l
.\
I
I
I
I
I
I
:
l.
.l
IIi
,NORTH ALIGNMENT
iI
... ,1 '
'l
I
i
I
;
I
I
I
,1,
I
I
I
!
\
I
I
I
i
I
H
.\)\,
..:;
CONSTRUCTION SOUT
.TO LYMAN BOU L.F
::i:'-
I
I
,
oq
05 - 17 -
!!I
A
qr
rlr
ry
a
ti
?,
^d
b{
tlt H^trolilt !lt{x or SL tlul
ll
\
\
tlo-
3
,i
t?r
,l
o aod
fd 6
?r'
,td-
a
lBAola'c
"".-
\<.
){,.to
.-a a,'\".'<'
I
IIItlI
I
I
,l
I
1'l
I I
\ ..;
OF RAILROAD
VARD
.t
,o
)
I
CITY OF
CHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(6121 937 -1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor a.rrd City Council
FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth
DATE: August I0, 1981
SUBJ: CPT Development Contract Review
Attached is a copy of the development contract as prepared by theCity Attorney. The Comrunity Development Director and City Engineerhave reviewed this contract and recommend approval of same.
r'
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
CPT CORPORATION
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
PHASE T
THIS AGREEI4ENT, made and ent,ered into this
day of , 1981,by and betr^reen tfre CIS-o-t
Chanhassen, E Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter
the "City'), and CPT Corporation, acorporation (hereinafter UCPT').
WITNESSETH, that the City, in the exercise of itspowers pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 462.358 andother applicabl-e state laws, and CPT, in consj.deration of thernutual covenants herein contained, recite and agree as fol-lorvs:
SECTIO}I I RECITAI,S.
Preli:ninary 4n! !ina! Developqent P1an. CPT
has here€of ore made application to the City under the City
Zo;ring Ordinance for the approval of a preliminary and final
devclopnent plan for the construction of a 15O,OO0 square footIig;rt assembly-manufacturing pLant, utilizing approximately
851 for manufacturing and 15? thereof for office space, on a69.3 .rcre parcel of. land more particularily descrj-bed on Exhibit
A attached hereto and made a part hereof, which parcel ofland is referred to hereinafter as the I'premises;" said plant
to constitute Phase I of a proposed future development. of the
pr...::nises.
1.03.PIan A roval.The City Planning Commission dul-y
CPTheld a public he arr-ng on Ju y B, I9B1 on the application of
fo:: preliminary and final dovelopment. approval of Phase I of
it.: proi:osed devetopment. After due consideration, the Planning
Coirl(ri;sion rccommended to the City Council that the CPT Phase I
.rpplication be approvcd subject to certain conditions.
Tharcaftcr, Ehc City Council, on Jufy 20, 1981,
,ir.1nL(rd preliminary and final development plan approval for
i)l).rsc I development to CPT subject to certain conditionsi),rrainaftor sct forth and subject further to its execution of
t:irc wi Lhin agrcemcnt.
t. 01.
I-02. Ownership Interest. CPT represents that at present
its pioprietary-TAEe;est-E-EEIa-premises is derived from ipurchase agreement between CPT as purchaser and the fee owneras seller. CPT further represents that it will acquire feetit.le to said premises prior to the conmencement of construction
on sai-d premises.
SECTIOi'I 2
2.01.
and pEriorm allin co:rr:ection wpI.rnt, includinin accordance wnodified by the
a
IMP ROVEMENTS BY CPT.
Cons truction .
work ahd furniith the cons trug the installatith plans descrSpecial Condit
CPT agrees to construct, installsh all materials and equipmentction of the aforedescribedion of the following improvementsibed in Section 2.02 below asions set forth in Section 5 herein:
Grading, stabilizing and bituminous surfacingof all parking lot, access driveway and vehicl_emaneuvering areas.
Concrete curb and gutters abutting all parkinglot, access driveway and vehicle maneuv;ring ireas.
Storm and surface water drainage.
Landscaping.
crounds lighting.
b
c
d
e
2.C2.
e:< te r rEi-<ipl.rnt, the
I a:r ci s capin
foJ-Iorving
(.:.rchi tcc t
..'.. r i:r i tccts
Cc::ii t i.ons
.1I I
ani
thc
o:, tire
;:J(lc aoafice
imi-nssiteg shaplans.prepared by Armstrong, Torseth, Skold & Ryds/Engineers) and Wehrman Consultants, Inc. (L,anis, Engineers and planners) as modified by the Specset forlh in Section 5 herein:
fhe
uring
and
een, Inc,
capeial
Scope of Develo nt Governed Exhibits -l_ons o t e propose g t asse y-manu a
s radi.ng and drainage. utility ins tal- 1a ti- oI1be substantially in conformance with th
ct
n,
a
b
Schematic Plan, dated June 12, 1981.
Site Drainage, Utilities and Grading plan,
dated June 16, 1981 as revised on JuIy 2, Zg,and 29, 1981.
Landscaping P1an, dated June 16, 1991.
forcgoing plans are j.ncorporated herein bypart hereof, and copies of said plans areof thc City Zoning Administrator,
c
re ferenc eon file in
1.02.
'i n'l
Ph,::;e -i-6f th
',v i ilri n dcvel,o
i ro;n tltc Ri Ic,rn(j,irirding p
CONSTRUCTION.
Cons E.ruction.e prol:oscd deve
pmctl t- cor) trac ty-Purgatory Creermits from tlle
Liqhting pl.1n.
:;ucd ,rnci Ct,T shall pErTorm no
CPT may conrmence construction oflopment upon due execution of theand issuancc of the requisite permitek Waterslled District and building
Ci ty.
final grading plan has beenvcrifying that said gradingthe provisions of the rvithin
No permit for gradinggrading of the premises
reviowed by City forplan is in conformi tycontract. Said f inal"
Grndirrq ancl::r.rIl lc isu;rLiI CPT' s
D U::nO:;e s of
wrt-h al1 of
-2-
c F.'n r,.., _)
gra(iincJ plan sha11 include existing contours, proposed gradinge-Icval-ions, drainage confj-gurations , storm watLr drainai" co.,_figur:rtions, spot elevations, proposed. access driveway ioadprofiles, Iocation and candlepower of all illuminariel, andlocations of exterior storage areas.
1.03. Sign pLan. CpT agrees to prepare and submit tot.hc City a sign plan, which shaLl include location, type, anddin--nsions of aI1 proposed exterior signs. No exteri6-r signsshal1 be erected and. no sign permit shalL be issued until iftersaid sign plan has been reviewed by the City for purposes ofverifying that said sign plan is in conformlty wiltr ipplicableCity ordinances,
3.04.to thE-dty atype and diame
and locationsshall be issueafter said l-an
purcoses of ve1./iih all 0f th
Lands ca e Plan.f l-na an scape pters of proposed
of all screeningd and CPT shal1 pdscape plan hasrifying that saide provisions of t
tcrrDorarl/ dams, earthi.rorks, or sui:rciucij-r'rg the seeding or soddingnceicri, in the judgment of the Ci
',va s;ri ng, flooding, sedimentationrvitnin and outside the subject prconstruction. CpT shall keep alldcbris ::csulting from constructiotire subjact premises.
CPT agrees to prepare and submj_tIan which shalI include location,plantings, and description ofdevices. No landscaping permiterform no landscaping, until
been reviewed by City forlandscape plan is in conformityhe within contract.
No building
and
reviewed
CPT, at its expense, shall_ providech other devices and practices,of graded areas, as shal_l bety Engineer, to prevent theor erosion of Lands and roadsoperty during a1I phases ofstreets free of all dirt andn by CPT or its agents upon
pe r;:i t shall bespcci:ications,
:nC approved by
3 .07 .
P rep aration of Final Buildin P1ans.
1S SUe
incl- u ding building heights, have b
unt 1 1 fina u d ang draw an gs
Erosion ControI.
the City.
1.06.S cre.en j-ng.Al-1 outside storage areas, mechanicalequrument, compressprs and air conditioning equipment, includingroci Lop equipmen!, shal_f be screened from view from StateIIi--:::r.'riz li5, the Chanhassen Estates Additions, and the proposedrcsr.(r!nLial area lying southerly of the premises.
CDNIII?r\L CONDITIONS.
ri. 0I.P lrb 1 address sys temor ot.hcr auclio paging sys temsIel- 1 b-e utj-tized on the subj-cti)ro;)"rLy vrhich emits noisc in exccss of the standards set forth1 i:]i., Chtrnhasscn Zoning Ordinanca and all regulations amendator)'id :;ui)pl.cmenl-ar], thcrctc.:, which standards shall be binding upon
li
I
(ii
ic Addrcqs Systcnl. No public
-3-
s EC'i'IOi'r 4 .
Other Requlations. CPT shalln.1nces, state laws, regulations of(l.r).rr:nents and the Riley-Purgatory Watershed District.
thc CItt with
.rcquircd fee
4 .02.
ci-:..,o;aT
1.03
o:i 5
02.
ence satisfactory to the Cityto the subject property.
comply with allstate agencies and
that it furnish
has
Proof of TitLe.Upon request, CPT shaf l_
evi dtitle
4.04.
shal l-i6t cause
objectionalbe nto thc use and
impair property
Nuisance.the emis s ioise. The
enjoyment ovalues in
SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
The activities conducted on the premises
on of noxious odors, nor causeproposed use shal1 not be injuriousf other property, nor diminj-sh northe immediate vicinity.
1.05. Special Assessments and Taxes. No permit forgrading- or nuild@ has paid in fuIIaJ.1 unpaid special assessments for public improvements presentlybenefiting said premises, whether or not said assessmenti havebcen lcvied.
.{. ub.
Ci- ti' Foi-a11 co
r: I:nni ng and ad
co;rncc tion with
en;orcement of
b.,. CP T .
Reimbursement of Costs. CpT shal1 reimburse thests, inci-uding reasonable engineering, 1egal,ministrative expenses, incurred by the Ciiy inaI1 matters relati.ng to the administration andthe within permit, and the performances thereof
oi :
o;r ::
.t.a7.Legal Proceedings. The'-,r nction or proceedi-g at -faw oril-, i,,i l-hin development contract, tor:c ,..r i thin devef,-opment contract, or)r: r:roposed buildi-ngs in violation
.i i;irin contract.
City may institute anyat equity to prevent violationsrestrain or abate violationsto prevent use or occupancyof any of the terms of
suirjC(;L prcnrises shaIl
:ir i,:I-,l,:d high pressuretr;prcvcd by the City,
be accomplished
sodium I igh ting
Exterior Lighting. The exterior J-ighting of theby the installation of
f i xtul:e s of a type
';. tl3. Bcrmincl and L.rndscapinqr. Bermj-ng and landscaping:.,.,Ii t-i]-,:xLcncle@iimit of tf,e phase r plantri:.r ,Lnrl parl:ing lot arca as specified by the City for the:)ur;)o.r,t of screening the future residential area lying southerly,)i '.:)c Phase I development, provided that seiiC bermin; createstto odvcrse impact upon surface <lrainage, t.raf fic circulation or
-4-
i.,)i. Pedestrian Trail. CpT agrees that if the City::,.: :.::rirn-.s in tEe f uture- tEat a pedestrian trail is d.eemedrlu:;i:::rolc or necessary betrlreen Rice Marsh Lake park and ther;ou:ir liLate Ilighrvay $5 frontage road, CpT will grant to theCrii,, .r 1- no cost to the City, a perpetual easement for pedestrianL.l-ril ;rurposes, said easement to be situated in the arei of theC::in.rgc',vay in the southwesterly portion of the premises, thec:.:,rcr location and width of said easement to be mutually agreedtr',r;r itr:Lween CPT and the City:
5.05.ol .r burld
.-rn execute
Agcncy per
subs tances
inventory
I
Pol-lution Control Agency. Prior to the issuance
ng permit by thetity; CPT shall file with the Cityd copy of all necessary Minnesota Pollution Controlmits for the handling and storage of hazardous or toxic
, and shaIl furnish the City with a toxic substance
analys is .
Future Expansion and Develo ment.CPT shal- I not
deve 1oppropo s ed s quare oot p ant nor
I
5.07 .
^.^;-=E^.: rrcmises beyond the scale proposed by:r-'r Section 2.02 hereof untiJ- provision.-,ss Eo State Highway No. 5 by means of
the pl-ans setis made for athe extension
for th
secondof the
I tC
:ii St-ate Hj-ghway No. 5 frontage road easterly to its inter--.ion rvith l84th Street and the improvement of 184th Street
:r.-:r1y to State Highway No. 5. A perpelual easement f or all'r: rrght-of-way needed for said frontage road extension and
:.ieprovement of, 184th Street northerl-y to State High\,/ay No.
-l ,r i-: granted by CPT to the City at no cost.5
' . ) i . D.oi.rgg.gr.y._ lgES.elle . CPT shall grant to the:,' ic ;ro cost-ffim sewer d.rainageway,
-tr:.ii)or ilr)/ consl-ruction and perpetual- easements in the westerly
,:r'-i .joui:irlvesterly areas of the premises as the City in the exercise, ! i:.1 lja;rsonable d.iscretion deems useful or necessary for the
.,,-,:i i:ir, safety, !.reIfare and. convenience of the residents of
r:r:,, \,-i Lr'. Said easements sha1l include the right of ingress
Jn!, (lgrcss for construction and maintenance purposes.
Retcntion Pond. CPT shall construct and maintain5. 09.
L .llf-L:ICC lrat
n. i) 1..
er re tentr-on pon d southcasterly of the parking Iot
r:; ; ho',.rn on thc Sitc Drainage, Utilities and Grading Plan set
:,.r: :ii un(ler Section 2.02 hereof . The construction and nraintenallce.)l r Li.d retcntion 1:ond sha1l be as specificd by g6s Riley-Purgatory
iia.L,rrrircd Distrj-ct and thc City.
Iq
i,ioticJs. A1 I noticcs, certificates and other
;' .,rtr.Lr-r r (r.r i:i()nr Ircrcunclcr shall be suf f icicntly given ancl shall ber ..It.,,r ,ii'r,:n vrhcn mail-cd bv UniLed Statcs uaiI, postagc prcp:id,
.. r -l: :.:roper addrcss as j-ndicatcd be1ow. Un-less otherwise
;r',;','i,-1,:d by thc resl:ectivc parties, aIl notices, certificates,
.rnd ccmrnunications to each of them shall be addressed as follows:
CPT plans for future expansion.
5.04. Fire gafetylequirementq. The final building
i:I"rns-aid speci@ith and the plant
b r.r j- Icting shal-I be constructed in accordance r^rith the recornmendationsot- Lhe City Fire Marsha11.
5.06. Temporary Cu1-de-Sac. Prior to the issuance ofa certificate of occupancy by the City for occupancy of the CPTpIant, CPT shal1 construct a cul-de-sac at the easterly terminusof the south State Highway No. 5 frontage road for vehicle
:ur-:r:rround and snow removal. Said cu1-de-sac sha11 be constructedi;r accordance with City engineerj-ng specifications.
III SCELLAI.]EOUS .
-5-
To the City:
To CPT:
6 .02.benerrt oI and
,i. cJ.
:lUr-:anCOUSly
sh:iii be an
an.. tre same
Bindin Effect.
sha eb IN angrespective successors and assigns. Nothing in this agreement,express or implied, shal1 give to any person, other than theparties hereto, and their respective successors and assignshc-reuncier, any benefit or other 1egaI or equitable right, remedyor clai-rl under this agreement.
City of ChanhassenCity HaIl
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55 317Attn: City Manager
CPT Corporation
This agreement shaI1 inure to theupon the City and CPT and their
Execution of Counterparts. This
6.03 Severabilitv. fn the event any provisions of thisAcjr.en.nE. shafl be hdItl-f ntral- id, iIIegaI, or unenforceable byan.' court of competent jurisdietion, such holding shalI not
;.;i'.'-rf i(Jte or render unenforceable any other provision hereof,t.:r. r:eina j-ning provis ions shall not in any vray be af f ected or
i-;:::a r red thereby.
and
e xecutpd in severa1 counterparts,original, and al-l of which shall_ constitute but one
i-ns trument .
IIIIEREOF, the City of Chanhassen and CpT
development contract to be executed inas of the date first v/ritten above.
agreement may be si-
each of which
Corpora tiontheir
Li-i rccoroance with the larvs of
This agreement shal1 be construedthe State of Minnesota.
Construction.
IiJ l,l ITNIIS S
ira'.,: ca'.rsed thi- s
rcs I)c c 1- ive names
CITY OtI CHANHASSEN
-By
C
I ts lqayor
I l.: rl</1 1:rn.r t..1 cF
CPT COI1PORATION
its
-6-l-ts
ii. rr5.
By
AND
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and Council
FROM: Bob Waibel , city vlanner fiU)
DATE: August 6, 19 81
SUBJ: CPT Development Contract
Due to time constraj.nts for staff review relative to the appJ-i-cants
request to have the draft of the subject contract acted upon by theCity Counci-I as soon as possible, the following matter is not foundwithin the text of the draft.
This office is recommending that a provJ-sion be placedin ttre deveJ-opmentcontract that would require the applicant to post a letter of creditin an amount of llot of the estimated costs for installation of bit-
umanious driving and parking surfaces, exterior lighting, and land-
scaping as estimated by the City Engineer should the event occur that
an occupancy permit is.requested prior to the completion of the above
mentioned improvements. Additionally, said letter of credit wouldprovide for the cost of replacement of landscaping materials for a
peri,od of two growing seasons after initial planting. Representativesof CPT have been apprised of this recommendation during preliminary
development meetings.
Llnsor & Mrnrz
ATTORNEYS AA LAW
r9oo r.Esl aaNx FLACE Wa9r
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554OA
August 6, I9 8l
r612) lr! rsrr
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVHD
AUG ? 1981
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
iIU3SE!L X LAF !ON
cFAro r r.cFr2
HAFV'Y C, !XAAEI
BAFX C. iCCULTOUGH
Bi 11 Monk
Ch anhas s en
Box 147
Chanhassen
Enginee r
55317
City
MN
Re: CPT Development Contrac t
Dear Bill:
Following our staffattached recomrnendedwith street l ighting
Your comments wilI be appreciated.
RHL: ner
conference this morning, I have prepared theadditions to the CpT development contract dealingand off-structure site improvement guarantees.
v,ery v r
0*14^/\*
USSELL H.LARSON
Chanhassen City Attorney
enc
cc!Don Ashworth
Bob WaibelPeter Beck, Esq.
RECFtrrrtt
AUG 7 19BI
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
r--:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDED ADDITIONS
TO
CPT DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
PHASE I
Street Li htin CPT shall install street 1i gh tingaong the south State Highway No. 5 fronta ge roadons as designated by the Cit y. The type of streetbe approved by the City, an d the cost of suppl y 1n9rgy to said system shal] be borne by CPT for 12ng occupancy of the phase I construction.
5.10.at itE-ETpenseat such locatilighting shal1electrical ene
months foLlowi
5.11.City o-E-? certideli-ver to theto be estimatedcompleting thencluding l- j.ghtin
and survival ofinitial plantin
I rovement Guarantee. prio r to the issuance b y thecate o occupancy of the Phase I p1ant, CPT sha1 ICity an irrevocable letter of credi r.n an amounttby the City Engineer to cover 1I0t o f the cost ofuncompleted o ff-structure site improvements, j-n-g,parking Iot areas, concrete curb, landsca Pln9 rlandscape plan tings for two growing seasons afterg.
The form of said Letter of credit sha1l be approved by the CityAttorney, and shall be for a duration as detiimin"a Uy iir" cit-y.rn the event of the failure of cpr to complete saia oir-structuresite improvements, the City sha1l be auth;rized to aiaw upJn saiaIetter of credit for the purpose of completing said i*p.oi..e"t"by City forces or by independent contraitors selected by the Citythrough public bidding processes.
upon completion of sai-d off-structure site improvements by cpr andacceptance of completion by the city, said letter of credit strarrbe reduced to an amount_ eslimated uy'trre city Engineer io-cover tnecost of replacement of landscaping llants which iail to survive twogrowing seasons. rn the event of -tire failure of C;i io ."pf"""the non-surviving plantings upon demand therefor by th; -i[y, tneCity may draw upon letter of credit for the purpo"l "i-r"pil.i"gsaid plantings.
CPT
DEVELOPIVIENT CONTRACT
Report on conference 8/7/8L with Peter Beck, Attorney, CPT:
CPT RECOMMENDED CIIANGES:
2.02.Scope of Development coverned by Exhibits
PJIL 8/7 /81
(b) Site Drainage, Utitj-ties and Grading PIan,
dated June 16, 198I, as revised JuIy 2,
28, 29, 198I and Final PIan dated August 4, 1981.
3.01.Cons truct ion
Change to read: "and buildingpermits from the City. "
foundation and grading
3.02.Grad ing and Lighting Plan
DeIete last sentence in its entirety
Final PIan daXed 8/4/8L.
AS City has
3.03.S ign Pi.an
Add "CPT may, notwithstanding to the provisions of
this section, erect a temporary sign which may
remain on the premises during the constructon
of the proj ect. "
3.05.Preparation of Final Building Plans
Add "except that a building
grading permit may be issued
final building pIans. "
foundation and siteprior to receipt of
3.07,Erosion Control
Des ignate title as "Temporary Erosion
section as Permanent Erosion3.08.
ControI. "
Control toAdd this
read:
"3.08 Permanent Erosion Control. If cPT is required by
the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershe d District to
construct permanent erosion control Eeasures in the
drainageway Iocated in the westerly and southwesterly
areas of the site, and if the City thereafter
constructs similar improvements in said drainageway
v
4 .05.
RHL 8/7/81
and levies sfjecial assessments therefore, theCity shall give appropirate consideration to CpTrsprior measures and related expenses in determiningthe extent to which CPT is benefited and should beassessed for said similar City improvements."
Special Assessments and Taxes
Change to read: "CPT shal1 pay all
assessments for public improvementssaid premises, whether or not said
been levied. "
unpaid special
bene fiting
assessments have
s.01.Pedestlian Trail,
Add the fol lowing :
"Said easement shal,l, in any event, be no wider than20 feet and shall not be available for use by anytype of motorized vehicle, except City vehicles usedfor easement maintenance purposes. If said easementresults in increased vandalism to CpT's property orincreases in CPT's insurance premiums, the City shalItake reasonable measures, including but not Iimitedto the erection of protective fences, so as to eliminatesaid vandal-ism or increased insurance premiums.,'
5.07.Future Expansion and Development
Change to read:
'5.07.Future Ex ansion and Deve Io ment.CPT shall notfoot plant norexpand t e propose I50,000 squaredevelop the premises beyond the scale proposed by theplans set forth under Section 2.03 hereof untilprovision is made for a second access to State
Highway No. 5. Said access may be provided by meansof the extension of the south State Highway No. 5frontage road easterly to its intersection with I84thStreet and the improvement of 184th Street norLherlyto State Highway No. 5; other alternatives, at theCity's discretion, may provide said second access. '!
08.Drainageway Easements.
an easement through this area. My recollectionis that this easement is for sanitary sewer forcemainpurposes only and is now owned by MWCC. Therefore,a surface and storm sewer easement through this areawiII be required if the City is expected to do anywork there. After advising CPT of this position,the CPT attorney informed me that CPT was consideringa conveyance to the City of aII land in the areaIying below a certain elevation. The conveyance
contains l- imitat ions of usage by the City, i.e.,to be used only for surface and storm sewer andtrailway purposes.
5 CPT noted that thecity has
t
PJIL 8/7/8L
CAVEAT - To accept such a conveyance would cast
upon the City the problem of dealing hrith the
Watershed District concerning this troublesomearea, and relieve CPT of much of its presentresponsibility to deal with the drainage situation.
Retention Pond Add "Said pond may be replaced byalternative surface water management techniques
approved in the exercise of the City's reasonablediscretion at the request of CPT."
Street Lighting To be discussed and decided b y the
CounEIl .
5.09.
5 .10.
RHL
8/7 /8r
I
CITY OF
CHINHISSEN
b
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 ' CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Manager, Don Ashworth
FROtr4: City Engineer, Bill_ Monk
DATE: August 10, 19 8I
SUBJ: l98I Special Assessment Policies
Attached is the proposed assessment roll for IVISAS l_01 - Kerber DriveStreet Improvement. Preliminary review and discussion by the CityCouncil prior to the assessment hearing (scheduled for August 24th)is custornary. A verbal presentation by staff is recommended in place
of compiling a document package for this meeting.
MSAS - IOI KERBER DRIVE STREET TMPROVE},IENT
RuraI Urban
S tate
AidItem
Con s truc tio n
Eng ineering
Legal a Fiscal
$L72,862.30
29,t24.48
2,160.31
15 ,56 9. 36
$2L6 ,7t5 .47
36,520.73
2 ,708.93
20 ,777 .L9
$168,245.41
28,335.05
2 ,L)L.75
t6 ,L20.24Administrative,
Capi,tal ized Interest
and Misce I Ianeous
Easements 42 ,977 .50 24, r50.00 67 ,067 .50 $134,13s.00
TO TAI S $253,633.9s $300,872.32 $281,869.9s*$846,376.22
*$308,453.45 has been received from State Aid allocations
Tota 1
$557 / 823. I8
$ 93,980.26
$ 6,970. 99
$ 53,466.79
ASSESSMENT BREAKDOWN
Rural Section
Total Cost
Frontage
Cost per foot
Total Cost
Frontage
Cost per foot
$263,533.95
I ,326 fr.
$3r.66393S
$300,872.32
5,629 fl--.
9s3.4s0403
Urban Section -
CITY OF
EHINHISSEN
S,# at
690 COULTER DRIVE ' P.O. BOX 147 . CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
DEt.
Mayor and City Council
Scott A. Martin, Community Devetopment Director
August 5, 198L
Proposed Water SurfaceLot Ordinances.Usage and Recreational Beach
Enclosed for your review _is a copy of both the proposed WaterSurface Usage ordinance (Ordj_n.r.e llo. 70) and th;-;;;;.;;;-Zonins ordinance Amendmenr regularing privateiy-o;";a-;;;";peratedRecreational Beach Lots.
Both, ordinances are recommended for approval in their present formby the Lake Study Conmittee and planniir! Commission.
These ordj-nances are to be considered. on a future Council agenda
.(September 29, l-ggl-),_ so they are Ueing--torwarded to yo,r-"!,tni"time for informational purpoies onIy. -
1.(evl,sell u-zo-d-L
-$ffi
PROPOS[D
CITY OF CHANIIAS SEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
WATER SUREACE USAGE ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 70
THE CfTY COUNCIL OP CHANHASSEN ORDATNS:
Section 1. Statement of Policy.
The uncontrolled use of shorelands adversely affects the publ-ichealth, safety and general welfare by contributing to pollutionof public waters and impairing the 1ocal tax base. In accord.-
ance with the authority granted in the Laws of Minnesota 1973,Chapter 379, and in accordance with the policies declared inMinnesota Statutes, chapters 105, 115, l_16 and 462, this
ordinance is enacted to provide minimum standards for the useand development of the shoreland of public waters located inthe city of chanhassen in order to preserve natural environment
val-ues of shorelands and to provide for the wise utilization ofland resources of thjs City, including the avoidance of uncon-trolled and excessive use of public waters for docks, mooringsand, other structures, and the elimination of unsafe or unnec-essary installations of docks, boat mooring areas, and otherfixed or floating structures in public waters.
Section 2. Definitions.
t\\\'-
For the
section
purposes of this ordinance, the terms defined in thisshal-I have the following meanings:
2.01 "Commissioner,' means the Commissioner of Natural
Resources of Minnesota acting directly or throughhis authorized agents.
2.02 "Councif" means the City Council of the City of Chanhassen.
2.03 "Diving Tower" means a
structure designed for
jects over the surface
than five (5) feet.
floating or a non-floating
diving purposes and which pro-
of surrounding waters by more
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO TIIE USE OF SURTACE WATERS AND ADJOINING
SHORELINE IN THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN WITHIN ITS LEGAL BOUNDARIES.
2.A7 "Lake" means any body of water Lying who11y withincorporate limits of the City of Chanhassen and all
bays, and channels thereof.
2.08
Revised 7-9-81
"Dock" means any wharf, pier, or other structure constructed
or maintained, whether floating or not, including all "L's',,uT's", or posts which may be a part thereof, whether affixed
or adjacent to the principal structure.
"Dock Set-Back Zone" means that portion of any lake lyingwithin one hundred (100) feet of the ordinary high water
mark and which is bounded by (a) the extended side lotlines of any lakeshore site and (b) a line running parallel
to and ten (10) feet distant from the extended side lot
lines of any lakeshore site, measure a right angle to said
extended side Iot lines.
"Homeowner's Association" means any person, association, orcorporation which owns or operates a Recreational Beach Lot
which abuts on the ordinary high water mark of any lake
regulated by this ordj.nance.
the
parts,
"Lakeshore Site" means any 1ot, parcel, or other tract ofland legally subdivided and recorded in the office of the
County Recorder or Registrar of Tit1es and which abuts any
lake -
2. 09 "License"
designate
the same.
means the authentic state document used to
the numbers assigned a v/atercraft and to renew
2 .70 "Mooring" means any buoy, post, boat lift,
other device at which a watercraft may be
surrounded by public waters .
structure,
moored whi. ch
or
is
2.lL "Motorboat" means any watercraft propelled in any respect
by machinery, including Watercraft temporarily equippedwith detachable motors.
"Motor Vehicle" means any passenger vehicle, motorcycleor motorized mini-bil<e, truck, truck-trailer, trailer,
or semi-trailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power.
-2-
2.05
2.06
2.13 "operate" means to navigate or otherwise use a watercraft.
1{evlseo I -9-A L
2.14 " Operator'r means
physical control
every person who operates or is in actualof a watercraft.
2. L5 "Ordinary Eigh Water Mark', means a mark delineating thehighest \^/ater level which has been maintained for asufficient period of time to leave evidence upon thelandscape; the ordinary high water mark is commonlythat point where natural vegetation changes from pre-dominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestial.
2.16 "Overnight" means any time between the hours of 2:00 a.mand 5:00 a.m. of any day.
2. L7 "Owner" in the case of a hratercraft means a person, otherthan a lien holder, having the property in or title to awatercraft; the term includes a person entitled to theuse or possession of such craft, subject to an interestin another person, reserved or created by agreement andsecuring payment or performance of any obligation.
"Owner" in the case of a 1akeshore site means any naturalperson who is either (a) the record. owner of a fee simpleinterest, or (b) the record owner of a contract for deed
vendee's interest, or (c) the holder of a possessory
leasehold interest, in the whole of any lakeshore site,including auth,orized guests, and immediate family membersof such person.
2.18 "Permanent Dock" means any dock not designed
so that it may be removed from the lake on a
and constructed
seasonal basis.
partnership,? 10 "Person" means any i.ndividual , individuals,
association, corporation or other entity.
2.20 "Seasonal Dock" means any dock designedthat it may be removed from a lake on a
and constructed. so
seasonal basis.
2.21 "Sheriff" means
or througrh his
) a'>
" Swimming Raf t"
exclusively for
the Sheriff of Carver
authorized agents .
County, acting directly
"SIow-No Wake" means operatj-on of a watercraft at theslowest possible spced necessary to maintain steerage andin no case greater than 5 m.p.h.
means a
swimmJ-ng
smalf floating structure designed
and sunbathing.
-3-
3. 01
3 .02
2.24 " Swimming Area" means an area immediately adjacent tothe shoreline which is identified by floating markers
and is utilized sole1y for recreational swimming.
2.25 "Underway or in Use" means any watercraft in operation
or use when not securely fastened to a dock or other
permanent mooring or at anchor.
2 .26 "Watercraft" means any contrivance used or designed fornavigation on water or an aircraft on the water.
Secti.on 3. Structure Regulations.
No dock, mooring, or other structure shall be so located
as to: (a) obstruct the navigation of any lake, (b)
obstruct reasonable use or access to any other dock,
mooring or other structure authorized under this ordin-ance, (c) present a potential safety hazard, or (d) be
detrimental- to significant fish and wildlife habitat,or protected vegetation.
No dock shall exceed the greater of the following lengths:(a) fifty (50) feet, or (b) the minimum straight-1ine
distance necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet.
The cross-bar,portion of any "T"-shaped or "L"-shaped dockshal1 not be included in the computation of length describedin the preceding sentence. The cross-bar portion of any
such dock sha1l not measure in excess of twenty-five (25)feet on any horizontal plane. No dock shaIl encroach upon
any Dock Set-Back Zone, provided however, that the ownersof any two abutting lakeshore sites may erect one dockwithin the Dock Set-Back Zone appurtenant to said abutting
l-akeshore sites, if said dock is the only dock on said twolakeshore sites and if said dock otherwise conforms withthe provisions of this ordinance. No more than one dockshafl be permitted on any lakeshore site.
3.03 No person sha1l store fut!1 upon any dock.
? na Except for privately-owned commercial resorts or comrnercialboat landings estal:lished prior to the adoption of thisordinance, no person sha11 moor overnight, dock overnight,
o.r store overnight more than five (5) watercraft on anylakeshore site or upon the waters of any lake. Dockingof watercraft at any lakeshore site or storage of water-craft upon any lakeshore site is permissibl-e however atany time other than overnight.
-4-
r(e v IS eu l-r-<5L
No watercraft shall be moored, docked, or storeil over-
night on any lakeshore site or on the waters of any
lake unless said watercraft is either: (a) currently
registered, pursuant to Chapter 351 of Minnesota
Statutes, in the name of the owner of a lakeshore site
on said lake or in the name of a member of said ownerrs
household, or (b) curentLy registered as a guest boat
at any privately-owned commercial resort Or commercial
boat landing.
3. 06
Section 4. Operating Re gulations.
Licenses. No,person shal1 operate on any lake, or give
permission for the operation on any lake of, any water-
craft for which a watercraft license fee is prescribed
by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 361, unless the required
license for such watercraft has been issued, is in
effect and has been affixed as required. by law.
Ca.reless Operation. No person shall operate a watercraft
in a careless or heedless manner so as to endanger the
person or property of another by either the watercraft
or its resultant wake, or at a rate of speed greater
than will pennit said person in the exercise of reason-
abfe care to bring the watercraft to a stop within the
assurcd clear distance ahead.
4. 01
4.02
A1l, swimming rafts sha11 meet the folLowing minimurn
standards: (a) size shaI1 not exceed one hundred
forty-four (144) square feeti (b) swimrning rafts shaI1
project over the water surface not less than one (1)
foot and not more than five (5) feet, measured vertic-
a1Iy, above the surface of the lake; (c) swimming
rafts sha1l not be located in areas with a depth of
Iess than seven (7) feet; (d) swimming rafts sha1l
be reflectorized as provided in Section 6 of this
ordinance; distance from the ordinary high water mark
sha1l not exceed one hundred (100) feet.
-5-
Revised /-9-8I
4.03 Reckless operation. No person shal1 operate a watercraftin a reckless or grossly negligent manner, so as to causepersonal injury to another or d.amage to the property ofanother, or so as to endanger the safety of persons orproperty.
4-04 Obstruction to Navigation, Advertising, Buoys. No person
sha11 operate any watercraft in a manner which shall_obstruct or tend to obstruct the normal and ordinarynavigation of any lake. No person shal1 use any fixed,anchored, or free-fl_oating structure on the waters ofthe lakes for advertising purposes. No person shal1
moor, attach or hold in any manner a watercraft to any
buoy, or any other marking device or guide placed inany lake pursuant to 1awfu1 authority, other than amooring buoy.
4.05 Swimmi.ng and Bathing Areas. No person shall operate awatercraft withi"n a water area which has been marked offor set asj-de as a swimming or bathing area.
4,05 Towing Person on Water Skis or Other Device.
Subd. 1 No person sha11 operate a watercraft on anylake, towing a person on water skis, aqua-plane, surfboard, saucer, or similar device,unless there is in such watercraft another
person in addition to the operator in aposition to continually observe the person
being towed. The operator of such water-craft shal-I be at Least 13 years of age and
must watch where the watercraft is beingdriven at all times. The second person on
board shafl act as observer of the person
being towed and shall watch the person, orpersons being towed at aII times.
No person shal1 be towed, or sha1l operate
a watercraft towing a person on any suchdevice on any lake at any time from sunsetto sunrise of the following day.
No person shal1 be towed, or shall operatea rgatercraft tot^ring a person on any suchdevice unless the person being towed i.swearing a life vest, belt or other buoyant
Subd.3
-6-
Subd.2.
devj-ce, which complies with all U.S. Coast
Guard regulations, if any.
Subd. 4 No person sha1I be towed by a
or other towing device longer
rope, cable
than 85 feet.
Subd. 6. A person who has fallen and/or is
in tow of the watercraft shalI be
as soon as j-s safely possible.
no longer
recovered
Subd. 7
Subd.8
Subd. 9
4.07 Tampering. No person shalI board, use,
with a r^ratercraf t, except the owner or
olyner t s consent.
4.08
No person shal-l tow any airborne vehicle with
a watercraft.
No person shall- operate a watercraft within
100 feet of any bathing or swimming area,
skin or scuba divers warning flagis, raft,
watercraft, dock or pier. Operation within
L00 feet of ordinary high water mark shal1
be limited to slow-no wake operation or
emerging straight out from shoreli_ne.
No watercraft shall to!,, more than
waterskiers at any one time.
three (3)
damage ,
a person
or tamper
having the
Age for Operation of Watercraft. The minimum age of opera-
tors of watercraft shall be as set forth in Chapter 361 of
l4innesota Statutes.
Capacity of Watercraft. No person shall operate a $rater-
craft which is loaded with passengers or carqo beyond its
safe carrying capacity, or which is equipped with any
motor or other propulsion machinery beyond its safe power
capacity as defined by the OBC or BIA ratj.ng for boats
under 19 feet long, No lvatercraft shalI be loaded beyond
its maximum capacity as set forth in Chapter 36I of
t'linnesota Statutes.
-7-
1{(jvr SeO b-ZO-d1
Subd. 5. No person shaI1 drag an unoccupied tow line
behind a watercraft for an unreasonable
length of time.
4.09
4. 10
4. 11
4.12
4.13
Riding on Gunwales or Decking. No person shal1 ride
on the starboard or port gunwales of the decki.ng overthe bow or transom of any motor boat while under motor
power, unless such boat is provided with adequate guardsor railing to prevent passengers from falling overboard.,
and no person sha11 operate such a motorboat while anyperson is so riding or sitting.
Liquor, Drugs, Physical or Mental Disability. No person
sha1l operate or be in actual physical control of anywatercraft while under the influence of intoxicatingliquor or any control]ed substance as defined by Section
169.12l of the State Iaw. No owner or other person having
charge or control of any watercraft shal1 knowingly auth-
orj-ze or permit any person who is under the infl-uence ofintoxicating liquor or any controlled substance to operate
such watercraft. No owner or other person having chargeor control of any v/atercraft sha11 knowingly authorize orpermit any person who by reason of any physical or mentaldisability is incapable of operating such watercraft, tooperate such $ratercraft.
Stopping at scene of Accident or Incidenti Reports. Theoperator of any watercraft at the scene or involved inan accident or incident resulting in injury or death toany person or in damage to property shalI, if he cansafely do so without serious danger to the watercraft
he is operatirfg or the persons aboard, immediately stopat the scene of the accident or incident and render suchassistance as may be practicable and necessary and sha1lgive his name, ad.dress and lj-cense number of the water-craft he is operating and the name and address of the
owner thereof to the person injured or the operator oroccupants of the other watercraft or owner or occupantof the property involved, and shal1 promptly report theaccident or inci.dent to the Sheriff.
Speed. A11 watercraft shaI1 be operated at a reasonable
speed for given situations, not to exceed. 40 miles per
hour from sunrise to sunset, and 15 miles per hour fromsunset to sunrise the following day. All watercraftshall be kept under complete control at all tirnes.
4.14 Passing; Changing Course; Meeting; Right of Way.
-
-8-
4. 15
4.16
4.17 Distance from Diverrs
watercraft wi-thi.n 100
f1ags. No person sha1l operate a
feet of a diver's warning f1ag.
Subd. I
Subd.2
When watercraft are crossing courses, or
approaching each other obliquely or at right
angles, so as to involve risk of colJ-is5.on,
the craft which has the other on its ownright shall yield the right-of-way.
Subd. 4 Sailboats under sail- alone shalI have the
right-of-way over other watercraft underway
except when overtaking such other watercraft.
I.lash and Wake. No person sha1I operate a watercraft in such
a manner that its wash or wake wil_1 endanger, harass, or
unnecessarily interfere with any other person or property.
In congested, commercial or public mooring access areas,
persons shalI limit operation of watercraft to a manner
rvhich produces no wake except as allowed by Section 4.06,
subd. B.
Seaplanes. No person shA1l operate a seaplane in a manner
which endangers any ot,her users of any lake. No person
shall operate a wat.ercraft in any manner as to intenti"on-
aIly obstruct or interfere with the takeoff, landing, or
taxiing of any seaplane.
-9-
Subd. 3.
When watereraft are running in the same
direction, the craft which is astern shalL
pass only when there is sufficient distance
betvreen the craft so it can do so safely and
only at such speed that its wash or wake will
not endanger the craft being passed or its
occupants. No person operating a watercraft
shall abruptly change its course without first
determining that it can be safely done without
risk of coll-ision with another craft.
When watercraft are approaching each other
head on, or nearly so, each shall turn to theright a sufficient distance so that they will
safely pass. When the course of an approach-
ing craft is so far to the right as not to be
considered as meeting head on, each sha11 main-tain its course and pass cIear.
Revised 7 -9-87
4.18 Noise. No motor shal1 be used. on any vratercraft unlessit is equipped with an efficient muffler, underwater
exhaust or other device which at all times adequatelynuffles or suppresses the sound of the exhaust of themotor so as to prevent excessive or unusual noise, and
no motor shaI1 be equipped with any cut-out.
Section 5. Permits Required.
No person shall operate or maintaj.n any ski jump, sIalomcourse, diving tower, or other structure upon the watersof any Iake, unless a permit shall have been first ob-tained for the same. No permit, however, sha1l be re-guired for any dock or swimming raft erected or maintainedin compliance with the other provisions of this ordinance.
Applications for permits shaLL be made upon forms providedby the City and sha11 incl-ude the followj.ng information:(a) the name, address and tel-ephone number of the applicant,(b) the type, number and proposed 1ocation of structuresfor which the permit is sought, (c) the period of time forwhich the permit is sought, (d) a statement as to how thestructure will be reflectorized, (e) if an organizationis seeking the permit, a statement as to the nature ofthe organizatlon, (f) if the permit is sought for a par_ticular event, the nature of the event, (g) such otherinformation as the City may require to assi.st it in con-sidering the application for the permit, (h) a statementby the applicant that he assumes responsibility for thepresence and removal for the structure or structures fromthe 1ake. Upon filing of the application for such permit,the applicant sha1l pay to the City Treasurer an applica-tion fee of twenty-five dol]ars ($25.00), which shal1 notbe refundable.
The permits required by this Section 5 shall be issued bythe City Manager upon approval by the City Council by athree-fifths (3/5) majority vote.
If a permit is granted, the permit shall specify the d.ates,or the period of time, for which it is granted. The grant_ing of permits may be subject to such conditions as the CityCouncil deems necessary to protect the safety of users ofthe 1ake. Any violation of the terms and conditions of
5.01
5. 02
5.03
5. 04
-r0-
lievr-sed 6-26- A L
any such permit is a violation of this
permit shall be issued for a period in
year, provided however that no permit
course shal1 be issued for a period in
seventy-two (72) hours.
ordinance. No
excess of one
for any slaLom
excess of
5. 0s If any structure is located in any lake pursuant to apermit and is thereafter found to be a hazard or obstruc-
tion to the safe use of the lake by others, such permit
may be revoked. Notice of revocation shall be given to
the applicant by the City orally or in writing. If the
applicant cannot be found, it shall- be suf ficj.ent notice
of revocation if written notice thereof is delivered to
the address of the applicant as set forth in the appli-cation. Upon notice of revocation, the applj.cant shaII
remove the structure within a seven (7) day period, which
shall be specified in the notice of revocation. If the
appJ-icant does not remove the structure, it may be re-
moved by the City at the expense of the owner. The
failure of the applicant to remove the structure upon
receipt of the notice of revocation of the pernit, and
in accord.ance with such notice, is a violation of this
ordinance .
Construction, Repair and Maintenance Standards.
A11 docks,
mainta ined
moorings, and other structures must be constructed andin the foLlowing manner:
6.03
Docks, moorings and other structures may be constructed
of such materials and in such a manner as the owner
determines, provided that they shall be so built and
mai.ntained that they do not constitute a hazard to thepublic using the waters of the lake and they shall be
maintained in a worl:.man1ike manner.
6.02 llo oscillating, rotating,- flashing or moving sign or
Iight may be used on any dock.
Swimming rafts, ski jumps, diving tovrers and other
structures surrounded by the waters of any Iake, whetherfloating or on posts, shall be tighted with a lightvisible in all directions, or have attached thereto
sufficicnt rcflectorized material so as to reflect
liqht in all directions, said, material shalI be capable
of retaining 80 percent of its dry weather refLective
signal strength r.rhen wet.
- 11-
Section 6.
5.01
REVTSED 7 /L6/8I
6.04
5.05
No advertising signs sha1l be dispJ.ayed from
Installation of fueling facilities on docks,and other structures shall be prohibited.
any dock.
moor j-ngs ,
6.06 ALI seasonal docks, moorings, and other structuresbe removed from the lake before November 1of each
Section 7. Scuba Divinq and Swimmin q.
7. 01
7.02
shalf
year.
Swimrning. No swimming shalt be permitted in any lakein waters more than 100 feet distant from the lake shoreline,except within 25 feet of a r4,atercraf t which has an observerand Coast cuard approved buoyant devices on board to assistthe swimmer, if nece ssary.
Section 8 Non-Conforming Permanent Docks.
Scuba Diving. No person shall use any lake for scubadiving purposes unless such use is in compliance with theprovisions outlined in Minnesota Statutes and Departmentof Natural Resource I s Boat and Water Safety Rules andRegulations.
Non-Conforming Permanent Docks. permanent docks existingat the time of the adoption of this ordinance and whichdo not comply wirth the structure Iimitations set forth inSection 3 of this ordinance shall be deemed to be non-conforminq uses. No such non-conforming dock shall beenlarged or altered, or j-ncreased, or occupy a greaterarea than that occupied by such dock on the effectivedate of this ordinance or any amendment thereto. A non-conforming permanent dock shall not be moved to any otherpart of the lakeshore site upon which the same is 6rectedun]-ess it is relocated in such a manner as to conform tothe dock set-back zone requirements of this ordinance.Any non-conforming permanent dock which is partially ortotally destroyed by any cause may be restored to itsformer use and physical dimensioni, if said restorationis completed within one year of its partial or tota1destruction. Maintenance and. necessiry structural re-paj.rs of a non-conforming dock are periritted providedthat any such maintenance or repairi do not extend.,enlarge, or intensify such dock.
Section 9. Variances.
Hardship. The City Council may grant a varj-ance fromthe dock requj.rements of the Structure Regulations.inSection 3 of this ordi.nance where it is shown that byreason of topography, soil conditions, or other physical
9.01
-72-
8.01
t - J-t) -L
characteristics of the lakeshore site, strict compliance
with said dock requirements could cause an exceptional or
undue hardship to the enj oyment of the use of the l-ake-
shore sitei provided that a variance may be granted only
if the variance does not adversely affect purpose and
i-ntent of this ordi.nance.
9.02 Procedure. Written application for a variance together
with a non-refunilable application fee of g sha1I
be filed with the City Manager, and sha11 state fully aI1
facts reLied upon by the applicant. The application sha11
be supplemented with maps, soil studies, and engineering
data which may aid in the analysj.s of the matter. The
applicant shall furnish the City Manager with the names
and mailing addresses of the owners of all land within
three hundred (300) feet of the Lakeshore site to which
the variance application applies. The application may
be referred to such outside consultants, engineers, or
attornies as the City Manager deems necessary to study
the application and make recommendation to the City
Council, and the cost of any such referral shall_ be
borne by the applicant.
Upon filing of an application for a variance hereunder,
the City Manager shal1 set a time and place for a hearing
before the City Council, on such appJ-ication. Notice of
such hearing sha1l be mailed not ]-ess than ten (10) days
before the date of the hearing to each owner of property
situated whoIly or partially within three hundreai (300)
feet of the lakeshore site to which the variance applica-tion applies, utilizing the mailing list provided by theappllcant and such other records as may be available tothe City l4anager,
Pailure to give mailed notice to
o\{ners, or defects in the notice
the proceedingrs, provided a bona
with this section has bedn made.
individual property
sha11 not invalidate
fide attempt to comply
Council Action. No variance shall- be granted by the City
Council unlcss it shall have received the affirmative vote
of at l-east four-fifths (A/5) ot the full Counci1.
-r3-
9. 03
Section 10. Titles of Sections.
Any titles of the several parts, sections or subsections of thisordinance are inserted for convenience of reference only and shalLbe disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions.
Section Ll. Violations of this Ordinance.
Any person violating the provisions of this ordinance or permi.t_ting the violation of the provisions of this ordinance sha1I beguiLty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, sha11 bepunished by a fj-ne of not to exceed five hundred dollars ($50O.OO)or imprisonment of not to exceed ninety (90) days or both.
Section 12. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall take effect and be in force after itspassage and publication according to law.
Section 13. Severabilit
ff any
is for
a ffe ct
section, subsection, clause or phrase of this
any reason, hel_d to be invalid, such decisionthe vali.dity of the remaining portion of this
Passed by the Councfl this _ day of
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CLERK/CITY MANAGER
ordi.nance
shall not
ord.inance .
l_981.
Publ-ished in
1981.
Carver County Herald on the _ day of
- 14-
PROPOSED
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND TMNNEPIN COIJNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDTNANCE 47
AN ORDTNANCE AMENDING SECTTONS
CHANI{ASSEN ZONING ORDINANCE .
4.02, 6.04, 7.04 AND 14.04 OF THE
THE CITY COI'NCIL OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Purpose and Intent.
The Ci.ty of Chanhassen is authorized to enact regulations relat-ing to the surface use of public waters and the adjoinlng shore-line within its legal boundaries. Said regulations may controlthe surface use of public uraters at various times and the conductof other activities of public waters and adjoining shoreland.This ordj-nance is enacted for the purpose of exercising suchauthority so as to secure the public health and safety, the mostqeneral public use of the surface of public $raters, and the con_servation of water resources.
The City Council is enacting this ordinance for the followingpurposes: to promote public health, safety, and general welfare,to promote safety and sanitation in the use of public waters, to
keep public waters open for general public use, to avoid pollu_tion an<l uncontrolled excessive use of public waters for docks,
moorings and other structures, and to eliminate unsafe and
unnecessary installations of docks, boat mooring areas and otherfixed or floating structures on the lakes.
I'rhile this ordinance does regulate both the establishment of newrecreati-onal beach lots and the further development of existingrecreational beach 1ots, it is not the intent. of this ordinanceto limit or prohibit usages of recreational beach lots which arealready existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance.Rather, it is the intent of this ord.inance to preserve the presentquality of public watcrs by preventing uncontrolled excessive useof the surface of public waters and the abutting shoreline.
Section 2
t*\\\
he re t.o f ore ,
Section 4.02 of Ordinance 47, as adopted and amendedis hereby amendcd by addj.ng the following definitions:
Scction 4.02. Definitions.
" Dock
water
Set-Back Zone" means that portion of any body oflying within one hundred (1OO) feet of the ordinary
Revised 7-9-81
r\cvfoc(i t-r-t)L
high water mark and which is bounded by (a) the extendedside 1ot lines of any lakeshore site and (b) by a linerunning paralIeI to and ten (10) feet distance from the
extended side lot lines of any lakeshore site, measured.at right angles to said extended side lot lines.
"Lakeshore Site" means any 1ot, parcel or other tract ofland legalLy subdivided and recorded in the office of theCounty Recorder or Registrar of Tit1es and which abuts any
body of water.
"Ordinary High Water Mark" means a mark delineating thehighest water leve1 which has been maintained for a suffi-cient period of time to l-eave evidence upon the landscapeithe ordinary high water mark is commonly that point vrherenatural- vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic topredominantly terrestial.
"Overnight" means any time between the hours of 2:00 a.m.and 5:00 a.m. of any day.
Section 3
heretofore,
reading as
Section 5.04 of Ordinance 47,
is hereby amended by adding a
follows:
as adopted and amended
paragraph numbered 10
10.
Section 6.04. Uses by Conditional Use Permit.
Recreational- beach lots owned or operated by residential
neighborhood associations, or by homeowner associations,or by residential housing developers and which abut onany body of water situated who11y or partly within theboundaries of the City of Chanhassen; and provided that,in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribedby any conditional use permit, the foll-owing minimumstandards sha11 apply:
a No buil-ding, ice fishing house, or tent shall beerected, mai,ntained, or stored. upon any recreatj.onal
beach lot; provided however that professionally
maintainecl chemical toilet facilities may be placed
upon any rccreational beach lot if located not 1essthan seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary highwater mark.
-2-
b
C
d
No motor vehicl-e, including but not limited to
any motorcycle, motorized minj--bike, or snow-
mobile, shall be driven upon or parked upon any
recreational beach Iot.
No recreational beach lot shall be used for over-
night camping purposes .
No recreational- beach 1ot shall be used for purposes
of overnight storage, or overnight mooring in abut-
ting waters, or overnight docking of sea planes,
boats, or other watercraft; provided however, that
canoes may be stored overnight on any recreatj,onal
beach Iot, if said canoes are stored in canoe racks
specifically designed for that purpose. Docking of
watercraft or of sea planes is permissible however
at any time other than overnight.
No boat trailer shall be allovred upon any recreational
beach Iot; boats, sea planes, or other watercraft may
be launched from any recreational beach 1ot if accomp-
lished without the use of any motor vehicle, trailer,
or wheeled do1ly.
No dock shall exceed the greater of the following
lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet or, (b) the minimum
straight-line distince necessary to reach a water
depth of four (4) feet. The cross-bar portion of
any "T" or "L" shaped docl< shall not be included
in the computatj-on of length described in the pre-
cceding sentcnce. The cross-bar portion of any
such dock shall not measure i-n excess of twenty-
five (25) feet on any horizontal plane. No dock
sha.l-I encroach upon any dock set-back zone. pro-
vided however that the ovrners of any two abutting
e
f
q
-3-
No seasgnal or pennanent dock shall be permitted on
any recreational beach 1ot, unless said recreational
beach lot is not less than one hundred (I00) feet
wide at both the ordj.nary high water mark and at a
point one hundred (100) feet landward from the
ordinary high water mark. One dock may be erected
upon any recreational beach lot which meets the
minimum dimensional requirements set forth in both
this subparagraph in subparagraph "9" of
this Section 6. 04.
r(c v1s eo /-9-dI
lakeshore sites may erect one dock within the dockset-back zone appurtenant to said abutting lakeshoresites, if said dock is the only dock on said twolakeshore sites and if said dock otherwise conformsvrith the provisions of this ord.inance.
Each recreational- beach lot shall have a width,
measured both at the ordinary high water mark andat a point one hundred (I00) feet landward from theordinary high water mark, of not less than four (4)lineal feet for each dwelling unit which has appurt_enant rights of access to that recreational beachlot, accruing to the ov,rners or occupants of thatdwelling unit, under the applicabl_e rules of thesubject residential neighborhood association, home_ovrners association, or residentiaL housing developers.
h
l-At least fifty percent (5Og) of the dwelling units,which have appurtenant rights of access to anyrecreational beach Iot, sha11 be located within atleast one thousand (I000) feet of said recreationalbeach 1ot.
No recreational beach 1ot may be used for swimmingbeach purposes unless swimmj.ng areas are clearlydelineated with appropriate marker buoys.
)
-4-
ilevised 6-t6-dI
Section 4. Section 'l .04 of Ordinance 47, as adopted and
amended heretofore, is hereby amended by adding a paragraph
numbered 9, reading as follows:
Section 7.04. Uses by Conditio nal Use Permit.
Recreational Beach Lots owned and operatett by
ltext identical to proposed amendment to S6.04(10)stated abovel .
Section 5.Section 14.04 of Ordinance 47, as adopted and
amended heretofore, is hereby amended by adding a paragraph
numbered 2, reading as follows:
Section 14.04. Conditional Uses.
9
2 Recreational Beach Lots owned and operated by
Itext identi.cal to proposed amendment to SG.O4(10)stated abovel .
-5-
Section 6.
.Recrearional Beach r,ot"-EGuif"ilEl?Gr ro the effectivedate of this ordinance which do not *..i uff of the minimumstandards set forth in sections 2, 3;;;4 above shall_ bedeemed to be nonconforming ,".", O.oriJ"U nor"lr"r, that thecontinuation provisions of Sectio" ZO.Oi of ordinance 47, asamended, sha11 not be deemed t" .;pi;-;; recrearional beachlots established prior to the .ft."tirr.-aate of this ordinance.
Docks or buildings existing on any recreational beach lot at thetime of the adoption of this o.ain.rr.. which do not comply r,rl-ththe limi.tations set forth in thi; ;;;i"unce shal1 be deened tobe nonconforming uses. No such nonconforming dock or buildingshalL be enlarged or altered, or increased, or occupy a greaterarea than that occupied by such ao"r.-or'building on the effectivedate of this ordinance or any amendment thereto. A nonconformingdock or buildinq shalt not b. *""a; ';;
any other part of thelakeshore site upon which the "un. :."-"r"cted., unless it is re_located in such a manner as to conform to the dock set_back zonerequirements of this-ordinance. arrf
-rrorr"onf
orming dock or build_
:::.:::;".:"r::'::*'" or totallv ul='i"o"a bv anv cause mav be
;:::Xim. 1,:i,Xj::"1"i'ili"nll:';:1.":?"lil'il;.ii. "11r.".",
nonconrormins dock "i i:ifli"":::=;:Hr::il";ffi":;'n:: :jr;-:::X H:l'::Tffr:il:pairs d6 ""i I*'""u, ".l".eu, o.-i,,iui"iry
Section 7 E ffe ctive Date.
Passed by the Council on this _ day of
from and after the passage
ATTEST:
CLERK,/CTTY I4ANAGER
Public hearing held on May 27, 19g1.
Published in Carver County Herald on
This ordinance sha.L1
and publicati-on.
T4AYOR
become effective
1981.
lfElE
-6-