77-08 - 6291 Cardinal Ave VAR pt 2A
June 24, 1982
C".'04ITY DF ��
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren Ltd.
Attn: Mr. David Sellergren
1500 Northwestern Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55431
Dear Dave:
Attached please find a memorandum I received from the City Attorney,
Russ Larson, regarding the escrow account for preparation of the
development contract for Fox -Chase. This is a crisis point.
Specifically, work efforts of the Attorney's Office during the
next few weeks will be significant. If a check in the amount of
$5,000 is not received at City Hall by Monday, June 28, 1982, I
will have to withdraw my commitment to have this item on the City
Council agenda of July 19th. If you will recall our conversation
of approximately two (2) weeks ago, it was the desire of all par-
ties involved to complete the draft contract as soon as possible
so as to insure a timely review by yourself and preparation of a
cover report by this office prior to submittal to the City
Council.
Please respond as quickly as possible.
Sincer ,
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA : k
cc: Curt Laughinghouse, Derrick Land Company, 1770 Shelard Tower,
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
,.
F
RUSSELL H. LARSON
CRAIG M. MERTZ
1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S5402 • PHONE 612 335-9565
I
7.3
L
DATE
SIGNED
u(/
INI:TRUI'rIIIN� Tp RELEII N
e LLl• �E..LU /.' (; EI r•r 1 ..tNU 'wwlrL GNU F IN♦ l..il �I . INr �I.I 1. WRITF. RLr'LY. IJl1sCrl Sfuri, KEEr• —CDPY. RLTL, N ' 11111, TO SENDER.
JON 181982
Ci i r ur c.rrA�1r,:
e
'77-4
COD
p1�ENT Of T
P
C M
P
O
'Haab 3 ta►°
United States Department of the Interior
Mr. Robert Wybel
Municipal Building
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Wybel:
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
St. Paul Field Office, Ecological Services
570 Nalpak Building
333 Sibley Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
55317
July 21, 1982
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Please forgive the untimeliness of my formal comments regarding assessment
of fish and wildlife values in the area of Fox Chase Addition (Derrick
Land Company) on Lotus Lake.
Our June 29 site visit provided another opportunity to critically evaluate
the area and to reinforce previous observations and conclusions. The
visit also allowed a more thorough assessment of site -specific conditions,
which are the subject of this letter.
All of the shoreline adjacent to the Derrick property is good wildlife
habitat, and the majority of it is also good fish habitat. However,
as discussed on June 29, the lake and shoreline of the southernmost
300 feet (approximate) is less sensitive to disturbance than the area
to the north. Sensible use of the southernmost 300 feet of shore can
conserve much of the existing wildlife and fish habitat. The area from
the 300-foot station (lot 17), north another 140 feet (approximate),
is a zone of transition between deeper near -shore habitat with few
emergent or floating aquatic plants and shallow near -shore and off -shore
habitats with extensive stands of both floating and emergent aquatic
vegetation. Unlimited disturbance in this transition zone would result
in serious degradation of valuable fish and wildlife habitat. Restricted
disturbance (e.g., minimal clearing or filling of vegetated areas, minimum
dock lengths, restrictions regarding the kind, size, and number of water
craft using the shore or docks, no swimming, etc.) would reduce impacts
somewhat, although the Council must decide if the impacts of restricted
(or nonrestricted) use are acceptable.
The shore and lake north of station 440 (approximate - southernmost
lot 16) are among the most sensitive in the lake. Although the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources did not post the area this year as a
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
2
game fish spawning area, and may not post it again in the immediate
future, it remains important to the lake's food web. As discussed on
June 29 and in a letter to the City Council, all of the lake's wetlands
(including "weedbeds") contribute critically to the productivity and
diversity of fish and animal species using the lake, and in my personal
opinion, they also contribute significantly to the lake's aesthetic
qualities. In fact, it has been demonstrated that high quality wildlife
habitat enhances property values of adjacent lands, probably reflecting
attitudes of the general public regarding aesthetic attributes of such
areas.
The area north of station 440 is critically important to the lake's
fish and wildlife populations, and in my opinion, should be protected
from additional disturbances.
As discussed previously, I would be happy to answer questions the Council
may have regarding the area and my assessment. My "field" season is
in mid -stride now, and I am tentatively scheduled to be in the field
August 9-13 and 23-27. If those dates change, I will notify you as
soon as possible. Thanks for the tour.
Sincerely,
Kenneth C. Carr
Assista:it Field Office Supervisor
cc: G.Sosin
^ITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
June 7, 1982
Mr. Grady E. Mann
St. Anthony Park
1352 Raymond Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55108
Dear Mr. Mann:
The following is in reference to our phone conversation of
last week concerning the Derrick Land Company, Fox Chase Project
proposal for the placement of private docks on riparian Lots 10
thru 19 of Block 1. As I have told you, City Council was to
review this issue at its meeting of June 7, 1982, however, I
have been recently informed that they will now be conducting
this review on July 19, 1982.
As you recall, I had mentioned that the City had hoped to
obtain a brief statement of findings from several of the
participants in last years Corps of Engineers hearing on the
Fox Chase Development as to the intrinsic suitability of the
lakeshore and wetland of the Fox Chase Project for private
riparian docks and if so, are there any limitations to the number
and/or location of those docks.
The City's chief concerns are the affects of individual lakeshore
property owners accessing their docks by crossing the wetland
which adjoins Lotus Lake on Lots 10 thru 16, and problems of
destruction of the aquatic vegetation and increased turbidity
caused by docking power driven boats along the lakeshore portion
of the development having a water depth less than five feet.
It is my understanding from our conversation that you believe
it may be quite difficult to render such findings unless some
further field investigation is carried out. If such is the
case, the City would be interested in receiving from you a
proposal that would outline the consultative work that would be
carried out and the cost of these services.
Page 2
For your information, I have attached a location map showing the
Derrick property,,a copy of the Fox Chase Preliminary Plat, and
a bottom contour map of Lotus Lake.
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
4 "Z21L �/,
Bob Waibel
City Planner
cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Scott Martin, Community Development Director
7. no""'RELIM-IN
33.4,?
V, z N,
................ .
1 '21
9zo
'10
37 ,vs,r
40,
vZoo
4AMLIS-F
fy
A
, se,
4 17
CITY"OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 P CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
July 12, 1982
Derrick Land Company
Attn: Mr. Curt Laughinghouse
1770 Shelard Tower
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
Dear Mr. Laughinghouse:
I am in receipt of your letter of July 8, 1982 regarding the Fox
Chase Escrow Account. On July 8, Russ Larson's office was
notified that the check had been received and he should commence
work as soon as possible.
The City Council has acted to state that there shall only be two
regular meetings in August. As the City Attorney has stated that
he cannot have the development contract completed by August 2nd,
the earliest date this item can be submitted to the City Council
would be August 16, 1982.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA:k
cc: City Attorney, Russell Larson
City Planner, Bob Waibel
City Engineer, Bill Monk
The Demck Companies 1650 Shelard Tower Minneapoios, MN 55426 e 612; 546-2276
�L
8 July 1982
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
ATTN: Don Ashworth
Bob Waibel
Dear Mr. Ashworth & Mr. Waibel:
Enclosed is our check for .$5,000.00 for the Fox Chase escrow
account.
Please ensure that Russ Larson is proceeding with the Development
Agreement so that we can make the 9 August 1982 meeting.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
W. Kurt Laughinghouse
Derrick Land Company
WKL:slh
enclosure
cc: DF/FC
WKL
a
J June 29 1982
MA. Scott Mahtc.n
DitectotL og Ptan.n.ing
Chanhas,sen City Hatt
690 CoutteA Dn i.ve
Chanha6aen, Mn. 55317
DeaA MA. MaAtin:
This is in %e.6ponze to ouA phone eonveUation o f June 28. My 1--Aopo.6at
6oA eva Long the .i.mpactz o6 .6hoAeti,ne development 4Aom the pAopoded
Fox Chase development on the.6pawning bed toeated at the noAth end o4
Lows Lake is " 4otlow6:
1. Review o6 DepaAtinent o6 Natwcal RezouAce 6Zees and an
evatuati,on o6 the c AAent 6isheAy in. Lotu6 Lake.
2. Field evaluation of the .6ub6tAate, Rooted aquatic vegetation
compozit ion, zpawn-ing and nwusuAy aAea condition on each
o4 the ten pupozed tots with juntage on Lbtuz Lake.
3. Anat ys.i s o6 individual dock constAuction, vegetation Aemova.l
and boat tAa46 is dt6 tuAbance upon spawning and nwusuny
vaeue o6 the z honeP.ine o6 each o f the ten tots.
4. Recommendations as to which .lots could withstand dock
con,stAuction without advexsty ai6ecting spawning and
nuuswcy habitat and which Zot6 _.shoutd be putected .by a
eonse,tvation ea.6ement.
5. Analy6.us and %ecommendations to be submitted to you in
written 4oAm by July 14, 1982, oA one week a6teA being
authoA ized by you, whieheveA iz .Pu teA.
6. Anticipated aetuat time to complete Aev.iew, 6.ietd work and
AepoAt pupaAation i.6 10 to 12 howL6.
7. The bee 6oA all woAk up to and inceu.d.ing the zubmittat o f
the W it -ten %epoxt .us $300.00. Any additiont eon-suttaLion
work such a6 attending and/oA pnebenting the AepoAt at
meeti.ng.6 shaft be at a 6tat &ate o6 $25.00 peA howl.
I am a pro 4eusional aqquatc.c. b iotogizt and Aeee.ived my BacheloA o4
Science degree .in F.usheAi.es 4Aom the Un.iveA6 ty o4 Minnesota in.
1975. A4tea gAaduation I worked goA the Min.nebota Depak ment o4
Natmat Re sou&ces eva.luat i.ng the .impacts 04 pu poa ed co ppeA-nickel
mining in noAthea6texn. M.i,nnesota. j.usheAy Ae6outcez (1.5 yea 6) .
7q- q
IND
Pag e 2 . .
Po& the tazt 4.5 yeatus I have been the Minnesota. Department o4
T,ca"poAtat on'a Aquatic B.i.o.2og.ust, ne6pon6.ibte 4on evaluating
enviAonmentat impact6 o4 t anspotta ion projects upon water
quat ty and aquatic ne,6ounce�s.
Any wo&k which I would do on this pho j ect w.i U in no way be
connected with my pozit i.on as a State Fmpto yee. Should you
zeZect me 4on this project, wo&k could commence a6 o4 July 7,1982.
I wilt be out o4 town u.ntiZ July 6, 1982. you may contact me duxi,ng
the evening at 866-1821 on duh.ing buz.cne66 houu at 2 96-1642 .
S.cnceAel y,
�/LlZyL
FAa.nk Pa4ko
6801 EU i,ot Av. So.
R%ch4ietd, Mn. 55423
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
PLAT OF FOX CHASE
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of
, 1982, by and between DERRICK LAND COMPANY, a
Minnesota Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the Developer),
and the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the City);
WITNESSETH, That the City, in exercising its powers pursuant
to M.S.A. §462.358 and other applicable state laws, and the
Developer in consideration of the mutual covenants herein con-
tained, recite and agree as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.01. Fox Chase Preliminary Development Plan and
Preliminary Plat. The Developer is the fee owner of
a tract of land lying within the City, as more particularly
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof
(hereinafter the "Subject Property" or "Plat"). The Developer has
heretofore made application to the City under the City Zoning
Ordinance for the approval of a P-1 Planned Residential District
encompassing all of the subject property.
1.02. Ownership Interests. The ownership interests of
the tract of land comprising the subject property are as follows:
1. Derrick Land Company, A Minnesota Corporation,
fee owner;
2. Wilma C. Thompson, Mortgagee.
3. Minnesota Century Builders, Inc., A Minnesota
Corporation, Contract for Deed vendee as to part
of the subject property.
1.03. Plan Approval Chronology.
(1) The City Planning
hearings on August
to consider public
plans, plats, and
subject property.
Commission held public
22, 1979 and April 22, 1981
comment on development
rezoning of the
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
(2) The City Council, by its action dated April 7,
1980, approved rezoning of the subject property
to P-1 Planned Residential District, and on
April 26, 1982 approved the amended final devel-
opment plan and preliminary plat consisting of
52 single family residential lots, designated
as "Exhibit A, Chanhassen City Council meeting
of April 26, 1982", (hereinafter the "plat")
subject to and on condition that the Developer
enter into this agreement.
SECTION 2. IMPROVEMENTS BY DEVELOPER.
2.01. Construction. Developer agrees at its expense to
construct, install, and perform all work and furnish all -materials
and equipment in connection with the installation of the following
public improvements (hereinafter the "Public Improvements"), in
accordance with the Plans and Specifications described in 12.02
below, as modified by the Special Conditions set forth in Section
4 hereof:
a. Street grading, stabilizing, and bituminous surfacing
b. Surmountable concrete curbs and gutters
C. Sanitary sewer mains
d. Watermains
e. Storm and surface water drainage and retention ponds
f. Street signs
g. Underground utility lines
h. Street lighting
2.02. Final Plans and Specifications. The Developer shall
provide the City with final plans and specifications, including a
final grading plan, prepared by a registered professional engineer,
which plans and specifications shall be subject to the review and
written approval of the City Engineer. Said plans and specifica-
tions are hereby made a part of this agreement. Developer shall
not make or permit any changes, variations, omissions or additions
to City approved final plans and specifications without the writ-
ten approval of the City Engineer prior to any such change,
variation, omission or addition.
2.03. Standards of Construction. Developer agrees that
all of the public improvements shall be constructed and installed
in accordance with the aforesaid City approved plans and specifi-
cations, and that said improvements shall equal or exceed City
standards, and that all of said work shall be subject to the
inspection and approval of the City Engineer.
-2-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
2.04. Materials and Labor. All of the materials to be
employed in the making of said public improvements and all of the
work performed in connection therewith shall be of uniformly good
and workmanlike quality. In case any material or labor supplied
shall be rejected by the City as defective or unsuitable, then
.such rejected material shall be removed and replaced with approved
material, and rejected labor shall be done anew to the satisfac-
tion and approval of the City at the cost and expense of the
Developer.
2.05. Staking, Surveying and Inspection. It is agreed
that the Developer, through his engineer, shall provide for all
staking, surveying and resident.inspection for the above described
improvements in order to ensure that the completed improvements
conform to the approved plans and specifications. The City will
provide for general inspection and shall be notified of all tests
to be performed. It is agreed that the estimated cost of such
improvements, including charges of the City for legal, planning,
engineering services, including inspection, supervision and admin-
istration costs, shall be included in the total cost of all
improvements for purposes of computing the amount of the financial
security to be furnished to the City by the Developer pursuant to
the terms of this agreement.
2.06. Completion Date and Schedule of Work.
a. It is agreed by the Developer that the construction
of the public and private improvements shall commence within
one (1) year of the filing of the final plat at the Carver
County Courthouse and that all public improvements shall be
completed within two (2) years of said plat filing.
b. It is agreed that the Developer shall submit a writ-
ten schedule indicating the progress schedule and order of
completion of the work covered by this agreement. It is
further agreed that upon receipt of written notice from the
Developer of the existence of causes over which the Developer
has no control which will delay the completion of the work,
the City Council, at its discretion, may extend the date
hereinbefore specified for completion and that any bond or
financial security required shall be continued by the
Developer to cover the work during this extension of time.
C. Final approval and acceptance of the project shall
take the form of a Resolution duly passed by the City
Council, on the advice of the City Engineer. Final approval
and acceptance shall be conditioned upon the one year guaran-
tee of work and guarantee bond set forth in Section 2.15
hereof..
-3-
rhl 7/18/82
2.07. Claims for Work. The Developer shall not do any
work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans and speci-
fications and special conditions of this agreement, for which reim-
bursement is expected from the City, unless such work is first
ordered in writing by the City Engineer as provided in the
specifications.
Any such work or materials which may be done or fur-
nished by the contractor, without such written order first being
given shall be at his own risk, cost and expense, and he hereby
agrees that without such written order he will make no claim for
compensation for work or materials so done or furnished.
2.08. Final Inspection. Upon completion of all the work
required by the City Engineer, -a representative of the contractor,
and a represenative of the Developer's engineer will make a final
inspection of the work. Before final payment is made to the
contractor by the Developer, the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications; and the Developer's engineer
shall submit a written statement attesting to same.
2.09. As Built Plans. Upon completion of the work, the
Developer shall have his engineer provide the City with a full set
of as -built mylar reproducible plans for the City records. These
plans shall include the locations and ties to all sanitary sewer
and watermain services as well as gate valve boxes and manholes.
2.10. City Disclaimer. It is agreed anything to the
contrary herein notwithstanding, that the City of Chanhassen, the
City Council and their agents or employees shall not be personally
liable or responsible in any manner to the Developer, the
Developer's contractor or subcontractor, material men, laborers or
any other person or persons whomsoever, for any claim, demand,
damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character
arising out of or by reason of the execution of this agreement or
the performance and completion of the work and the improvements
provided herein, and that the Developer shall save the City harm-
less from all such claims, demands, damages, actions or causes of
actions or the costs disbursements, and expenses of defending the
same, specifically including, without intending to limit the cate-
gories of said costs, cost and expenses for City administrative
time and labor, costs of consulting engineering services and costs
of legal services rendered in connection with defending such
claims as may be brought against the City.
2.11. Erosion Control. Developer, at its expense, shall
provide temporary and permanent dams, earthwork, retention and
sedimentation basins, and such other practices including seeding
of graded areas, as shall be needed in the judgement of the City
Engineer, the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, the U.S.
Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Natural Resources,
- 4-
rhl 7/19/82,
8/11/82
to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of
lands and road within and outside the plat during all phases of
construction, including construction on individual lots.
Additionally, the Developer shall comply with all conditions of
the grading and land alteration permits from the Riley Purgatory
Creek Watershed District, dated April 20, 1982, the U.S. Corps
of Engineers, dated March 3, 1982, the Department of Natural
Resources approval dated July 13, 1981, and all of the recommen-
dations of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in its reports dated
June 13, 1980, July 2, 1981, and April 5, 1982, to the extent that
such recommendations are not consistent with the requirements of
the aforesaid permits.
A plan consolidating all applicable conditions concerning
construction grading and drainage shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Engineer prior to commencement of any work.
2.12. Street_ Lighting. The expense of furnishing
electrical energy for street lighting purposes shall be assumed by
the City twenty-four (24) months after completion of installation
of the street lighting system, or after fifty percent (50%) of the
building lots have been improved by the construction of residences
thereof, whichever is first to occur.
2.13. Conveyance of Improvements. Upon completion of the
installation by Developer of the improvements set forth in 52.01
hereof in accordance with the plans and specifications hereunder
and the written approval by the City, Developer shall convey said
improvements to the City free of all liens and encumbrances and
with warranty of title. Should the Developer fail to so convey
said improvements, the same shall become the property of the City
without further notice or action on the part of either party
hereto, other than acceptance by the City.
2.14. Building Permits and Occupancy Permits.
a. Prior to completion of the grading and placement of
rock stabilizing materials for road construction
within the plat, the City Building Inspector, with
the approval of the City Engineer, shall be
authorized to issue building permits for residential
construction within such plat upon payment of all
fees and charges applicable to the issuance of per-
mits and provisions for adequate site access.
b. The occupancy of any structure within said plat for
residential purposes shall be prohibited by the City
until the rock stabilizing base of the streets shall
have been completed and municipal sanitary sewer and
water lines shall have been installed and -are
available to serve the lot for which a building per-
mit shall have been issued.
-5-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
2.15. One Year Guarantee of Work and Guarantee Bond. All
work and materials performed and furnished by the Developer, its
agents and subcontractors pursuant to 12.01 above, which are found
by the City to be defective within one year after acceptance
by the City shall be replaced by Developer at Developer's sole
expense. The within guarantee of work shall be secured to the
City by an irrevocable letter of credit, or a corporate surety
bond, at the election of and in an amount established by the City,
furnished by the developer to the City. Said letter of credit or
surety bond shall first be approved by the City Attorney, and
shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of any other remedies
which may be available to the City to secure any defects in
materials or workmanship.
2.16. Liability Insurance. Developer shall take-out and
maintain so long as Developer's obligations continue under this
agreement, public liability and property damage insurance covering
personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage
which may arise out of Developer's work or the work of its sub-
contractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of
them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall be not less than
$ 500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for each occurence; limits
for property damage shall be not less than $ 200,000 for each
occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named
insured on said policy, and Developer shall file a copy of the
insurance coverage with the City.
SECTION 3. STATUS OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS.
3.01. Developer Acknowledges Special Benefit. The
Developer acknowledges that the subject property derives "special
benefit," as that term is defined by present case law under
Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes, from the sewer lift station and
water supply facilities, trunk and lateral sanitary sewer facili-
ties, and trunk and lateral water facilities which were .
constructed as a part of Chanhassen Improvement Projects. The
Developer acknowledges that the amount of such special benefit is
not less than the sum of the following amounts:
a. Levied Special Assessments:
Parcel #25-01-000-0037-000,
20.08 Acres in part of Gov't. Lots 5 and 6,
1 sewer and water lateral assessment levied
in 1973 in the amount of $4,119.00, payable
over 15 years at 7% interest.
1 sewer and water trunk assessment levied in
1980, in the amount of $1,054.96, payable over 10
years at 7% interest.
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
Parcel #25-79-500-0001-000, Lot 1, Vineland
1 sewer and water lateral assessment levied on
October 1, 1973 in the amount of $4,949.00, which
has been paid in full.
2 sewer and water lateral and 3 sewer and water
trunk assessments levied in 1980, in the amount
of $12,419.98, payable over 10 years at 7% interest.
b. Deferred Special Assessments. In addition to the
foregoing levied special assessments, the subject
property is further specially benefitted by 68 off-
line sewer and water trunk units, each sewer trunk
unit valued at $320.00 and each water trunk unit
valued at $380.00, and each said sewer and water
unit shall bear interest at the rate of 7% from
October 1, 1973.
3.02. Spread and Payment of Deferred Special Assessments.
All deferred special assessments for said 68 sewer and water
trunk units shall be spread and assigned to the 48 specially bene-
fitted lots within the final plat, shall be certified to the
Carver County Auditor for collection at the time of the recording
of the final plat with the County Recorder, and shall be payable
in installments of principal and interest over a period of four
(4) years after said certification.
3.03. Developer Waives Public Hearing and Right of Appeal.
The Developer waives its right to public hearing under §429.061
and §429.071 of Minnesota Statutes and its right of appeal under
§429.081 of Minnesota Statutes as to the Deferred Special
Assessments.
SECTION 4. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
4.01. Fox Path Cul-de-Sac. A cul-de-sac shall be
constructed at the western terminus of Fox Path as shown on the
preliminary plat approved by the City Council on April 26, 1982
and designated Exhibit A. Said cul-de-sac shall have a radius of
60 feet, a roadway surface radius of 40 feet, with surmountable
curb and gutter, and shall be constructed in accordance with
plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer. The
westerly extension of Fox Path from said cul-de-sac to the
westerly boundary of the subject property shall be platted as a
dedicated street but shall not be improved as such until develop-
ment on the adjoining property shall require a street connection
to Fox Path.
4.02. Pleasant View Road Access Restriction. Lot 1, Block
1, and Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2 shall not be permitted direct
driveway access to Pleasant View Road. Said restriction shall be
incorporated within covenants and restrictions which shall be
IWB
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
applicable to the final plat of the subject property and which
shall be filed with the Carver County Recorder contemporaneously
with the filing of said final plat.
4.03. Watermain Loop. The City watermain serving the sub-
ject property shall be "looped" as that term is commonly used by
professional engineers, from Lake Point to Fox Path along the
alignment depicted as "Route B" in the report of the City
Engineer, dated August 10, 1981.
4.04. Building Plans Certification. Due to extraordinary -
slope and soil conditions, building and site plans for all resi-
dences within the subject property shall be certified as having
been reviewed and approved by an architect or civil engineer
licensed by the State of Minnesota. Said building and site plan
review and approval shall include provisions for slope protection,
surface and sub -surface drainage, prevention of siltation, and
the preservation of trees and prevention of excessive vegetation
removal during construction.
Building pads and basement floors shall be
constructed at an elevation not less than two (2) feet above the
regional flood elevation in accordance with the requirements of
applicable City ordinances.
The terms and conditions of this Section 4.04 shall
be made a part of covenants and restrictions which shall be appli-
cable to the final plat of the subject property and which shall be
filed contemporaneously with the filing of the final plat with the
Carver County Recorder.
4.05. Easements. The developer, at its expense, shall
acquire all perpetual easements from abutting property owners
necessary to the installation of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer
and water facilities within the subject property and thereafter
shall promptly assign said easements to the City prior to the
filing of the final plat with the Carver County Recorder.
4.06. Easements Dedicated On Plat. Perpetual easements
for surface water drainage, including ponding and sedimentation
basins and access thereto, shall be dedicated on the final plat to
the extent permitted by State law. All such easements not so
dedicated shall be granted to the City in form approved by the
City Attorney and acceptable for recording in the Office of the
Carver County Recorder.
4.07. Streets. All streets within the plat shall be dedi-
cated with a 50 foot wide right-of-way, and shall have a 28 foot
roadway surface with surmountable concrete curb and gutter. All
street cul-de-sacs shall have a right-of-way radius of 60 feet,
with a roadway surface radius of 40 feet with surmountable
concrete curb and gutter. All streets shall be constructed in
accordance with City standards approved by the City Engineer.
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
4.08. Ponding and Sedimentation Basin Maintenance. The
Developer shall maintain in good operational order all ponding and
sedimentation basins during all phases of construction within the
subject property. Thereafter, said maintenance shall be the obli-
gation of the City.
4.09. Trail Easement. The Developer shall grant to the
City a perpetual easement twenty (20) feet wide for use as a City
trail, said easement to commence at the southerly property line of
Lot 19, Block 1, thence extending northerly along the alignment of
the sanitary sewer easement to the south line of Lot 12, Block 1,
thence westerly 170 feet along the south line of said Lot 12 to
its intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Fox Path,
thence extending northerly within said right-of-way to its inter-
section with Pleasant View Road and there terminating. The form
of said easement shall be approved by the City Attorney, and shall
be filed at the time of the filing of the final plat with the
County Recorder.
The portion of the trail easement on the Fox Path
right-of-way shall be constructed with a bituminous surface and
the portion of the easement along the sanitary sewer alignment
shall be surfaced with wood chips. All trail easement construc-
tion shall be performed by the City in accordance with specifica-
tions approved by the City Engineer.
4.10. Trail Easement Park Charge Credit. No credit for
park charges under Chanhassen Ordinance No. 14 as amended shall be
granted Developer, its successors or assigns, for the grant of the
perpetual trail easement.0
4.11. Park Fees. Prior to the issuance of building per-
mits for residential construction within the plat, Developer, its
successors or assigns, shall pay to the City the park fee then in
force pursuant to Chanhassen Ordinance 14-A and relevant City
Council Resolutions thereafter, as said park charge fee may be
adjusted by the provisions of Section 4.10, above.
4.12. Street Maintenance During Construction. The
Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until
streets are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed
when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from tra-
veling on same and directing attention to detours. If streets
become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed.
In the event residences are occupied prior to completing streets,
the Developer shall maintain a smooth surface and provide proper
surface drainage. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping
streets within and without the plat swept clean of dirt and debris
that may spill or wash onto the street from his operation. The
Developer may request, in writing, that the City keep the streets
open during the winter months by plowing snow from said streets
prior to final acceptance of said streets. The City shall not be
-9-
i 7/18/82
8/11/82
responsible for re -shaping said streets because of snow plowing
operations if they are requested. Providing snow plowing service
does not constitute final acceptance of said streets by the City.
4.13. Street Signs. All street name and traffic signs
required within the plat at the time of City acceptance shall be
furnished and installed by the City at the sole cost of the
Developer.
4.14. Covenants and Restrictions. Covenants or
restrictions to be placed upon the lots in the subject plat shall
be shall prepared by the Developers and shallbe approved by the
City Attorney prior to recording with the County Recorder. The
zoning ordinances and regulations of the City shall govern if
inconsistent with said covenants and restrictions to the -extent
actually inconsistent; but if not inconsistent therewith, the
standards contained in said covenants and restrictions shall be
considered as requirements in addition to said City ordinances and
regulations.
4.15. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments. Developer shall
place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at all other
angle points on boundary lines. Iron monument placements shall be
verified after construction of improvements has been completed
in order to preserve the lot markers for future property owners.
SECTION 5. CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
5.01. Easement To Be Granted. Developer shall grant to
the City a perpetual conservation easement for environmental pro-
tection and wetland preservation over those areas of Lots 7
through 19, inclusive, of Block 1 of the plat which lie below the
elevation of 900 feet. No credit for park charges under
Chanhassen Ordinance No. 14 as amended shall be granted Developer,
its successors or assigns for the grant of said easement.
5.02. Conservation Easement Development Restrictions. All
of the following activities shall be prohibited within the conser-
vation easement area, including the wetands as delineated on
Exhibit "A", Chanhassen City Council meeting of April 26, 1982:
a. The placement and erection of buildings, structures,
and do ks except as may be permitted by Section 5.03 hereof.
b. The alteration of vegetation in any manner or form.
C. The excavation or filling of the easement area.
d. The application of fertilizers, whether natural or
chemical.
-10 -
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
e. The application of chemicals for the destruction or
retardation of vegetation.
f. The deposit of waste or debris.
g. Construction of paths, trails and service roads
except as permitted by the City.
h. The application of herbicides, pesticides and insec-
ticides.
i. Except as may be permitted by Section 5.03 hereof, the
storage of watercraft, boat trailers, ice fishing houses, snow-
mobiles, motorized and non -motorized vehicles.
j. The mooring or storage of watercraft, including
seaplanes, in abutting waters of Lotus Lake (hereinafter "the
lake") . .
5.03. Dockage Within Easement Area. The placement of docks
within the easement area shall be restricted to Lots 17, 18 and 19,
Block 1, of said plat, and all such docks shall be subject to the
following terms and conditions:
a. No dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width nor shall
exceed the greater of the following lengths: (a) fifty (50)
feet or, (b) the minimum straight-line distance necessary to
reach a water depth of four (4) feet. The width (but not the
length) of the cross -bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be
included in the computation of length described in the pre-
ceding sentence. The cross -bar of any such dock shall not
measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in length. No dock
shall encoach upon any dock set -back zone established by City
ordinance, provided, however, that the owners of any two
of Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 1, may erect one common dock
within, -any such dock set -back zone if said common
dock is the only dock on said two lots and if said
dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this
Section 5.03. No more than one dock shall be per-
mitted on any of said lots.
b. No dock shall be so located as to: (a) obstruct the
navigation of the lake, (b) obstruct reasonable use or access
to any other dock, (c) present a potential safety hazard.
-11-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
C. No fuel shall be stored upon any such dock.
d. No person shall moor overnight or dock overnight, more
than five (5) watercraft at any such dock.
e. No motorcraft shall be moored or docked overnight at
any such docks unless said watercraft is either: (a) currently
registered, pursuant to Chapter 361 of Minnesota Statutes, in
the name of the owner of the lot served by said dock or in the
name of a member of said owner's household.
5.04. Form and Approval of Easement. The form of the con-
servation easement shall be prepared by the City Attorney at the
expense of the Developer, and shall be approved by the City
Council prior to submission to the Developer for execution and
delivery to the City.
5.05. Inclusion in Covenants and Restrictions. The con-
servation easement shall be made a part of the covenants and
restrictions applicable to the plat and shall be incorporated
therein by reference, and as an exhibit forming a part of said
covenants and restrictions.
SECTION 6. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
6.01. Reimbursement of Costs. The Developer shall reim-
burse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering,
legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City
in connection with all matters relating to the administration and
enforcement of the within agreement and the performance thereby by
the Developer. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen
( 14 ) days of the date of mailing of the City's notice of costs.
6.02. Security for Performance by Developer. For the pur-
pose of assuring and guaranteeing to the City that the improve-
ments to be by the Developer constructed, installed and furnished
as set forth in 12.01 hereof shall be constructed, installed and
furnished according to the terms of this agreement, and that the
Developer shall pay all claims for work done and materials and
supplies furnished for the performance of this agreement, and that
the Developer shall fully comply with all of the other terms and
provisions of this Development Contract, Developer agrees to fur-
nish to the City either a cash deposit, or an irrevocable letter
of credit approved by the City Attorney in an amount equal to 110%
of the costs of the improvements described in Section 2.01 hereof,
as estimated by the City Engineer. Upon completion of said improve-
ments, the amount of said cash deposit or letter of credit may
be reduced from time to time to such lessor amount as the City
Council deems necessary to insure performance of the Developer's
guarantee set forth in 12.15 above. The cash deposit or irrevo-
cable letter of credit provided for herein shall be in addition to
-12-
rhl 7/18/82
any performance bond or other security required by the
Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District as a condition of the
issuance of any permit by said District.
6.03. Remedies Upon Default.
a. Assessments. In the event Developer shall default
in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements
herein contained, and such default shall not have been cured
within ten (10) days after receipt by Developer of written
notice thereof, the City, if it so elects, may cause any of
the required improvements to be constructed and installed, or
may take action to cure said default, and may cause the
entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering,
legal and administrative expense incurred by the City, to be
recovered as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, in which case the Developer agrees to pay the
entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such
improvement within sixty (60) days after its adoption. In
addition, Developer further agrees that in the event of its
failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the
time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien
on all of Developer's real property within said plat for any
amount so unpaid, and the City shall have the right to
foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclo-
sure of mechanic's liens under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
In the event of an emergency, as determined by the
City Engineer, the notice requirement to the Developer shall
be and is hereby waived in its entirety, and the Developer
shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City
in remedying the conditions creating the emergency.
b. Security Deposit. In addition to the foregoing,
the City may also utilize any cash deposit made or letter of
credit delivered hereunder, to collect, pay or reimburse the
City for:
(1) the cost of completing the construction of the
improvements described in 12.01 above; and
(2) the cost of curing any other default by the Developer
in its performance of any of the covenants and
agreement contained herein; and
(3) the cost of reasonable engineering, legal, and admini-
strative expense incurred by the City in enforcing
and administering this contract.
C. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing,
the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law
or at equity to prevent violations of the within development
contract, to restrain or abate violations of the within devel-
opment contract.
-13-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
SECTION 7. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
7.01. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances.and Regulations;
Permits. In the development of the plat, Developer shall comply
with all laws, ordinances and regulations of, and secure all
necessary permits from the following authorities:
(1) City of Chanhassen
(2) State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and
commissions
(3) Department of Natural Resources
(4) Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District
(5) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7.02. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall
furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it is
fee owner of the subject property.
7.03. Duration of Contract. This contract shall remain in
effect until such time as Developer shall have fully performed all
of its duties and obligations under this contract. Upon the writ-
ten request of Developer and upon the adoption of a resolution by
the Chanhassen City Council finding that the Developer has fully
complied with all of the terms of this contract and finding that
Developer has completed performance of all Developer's duties man-
dated by this contract, the Chanhassen City Manager shall issue to
the Developer on behalf of the City an appropriate certificate of
compliance.
7.04. Notices. All notices, certificates and other com-
munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be
deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated
below. The City and the Developer, by written notice given by one
to the other, may designate any address or addresses to which
notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be
sent when required as contemplated by this agreement. Unless
otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, cer-
tificates and communications to each of them shall be addressed as
follows:
To the City:
To the Developer:
-14-
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attn: City Manager
Derrick Land Company
1770 Shelard Tower
Minneapolis, MN 55426
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/81
7.05. Binding Effect. This agreement shall inure to the
benefit of and shall be binding upon the City and the Developer
and their respective successors and assigns. Nothing in this
agreement, express or implied, shall give to any person, other
than the parties hereto, and their respective successors, and
assigns, hereunder, any benefit or other legal or equitable right,
remedy or claim under this agreement.
7.06. Severability. In the event any provision of this
agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any _
court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate
or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
7.07. Execution of Counterparts. This agreement may be
simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which
shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one
and the same instrument.
7.08. Construction. This agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
7.09. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections and
paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall not
be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall not
influence its construction.
7.10. Sign Plan. Signs for the purpose of advertising the
subject property may be erected in accordance with the Developer's
sign plan only after submission to and approval by the City
Council.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these pre-
sents to be executed on the day and year first above written.
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
By__ _
President
And
Secretary
-15-
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Preliminary Plat
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By
Attest
-16-
rhl 7/18/82
rhl 7/18/82
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF )
On this day of , 19 ,
before me, a notary public within and for said County, personally
appeared and
to me personally known, who, being each
by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the President
and Secretary of the Corporation named in the foregoing instru-
ment, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of
said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and said
and
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and dead -of said
corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
On this day of , 19 , before me,
a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared
Thomas L. Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known,
who being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively
the Mayor and City Manager of the municipal corporation named in
the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said
instrument is the corporate seal of said municipal corporation,
and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said
municipal corporation by authority of its City Council and said
Thomas L. Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said municipal
corporation.
Notary Public
-17-
rhl 7/18/82
AFFIRMANCE
Minnesota Century Builders, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation,
contract for deed vendee as a part of the subject property, the
development of which is governed by the foregoing development
contract, hereby acknowledges receipt of an executed copy of said
contract, and affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and
agrees to be bound by said provisions as the same may apply to
that portion of the subject property being acquired by it as
contract for deed vendee.
Dated this _ day of_ _ 19
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF )
MINNESOTA CENTURY BUILDERS, INC.
By
President
And-------- _
Secretary
On this day of 19 , before me, a
notary public within and for said county, personally appeared
and ,
to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say
that they are respectively the President and Secretary of
Minnesota Century Builders, Inc., and that the seal affixed to said
instrument is the corporate seal of said corporation, and that
said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said cor-
poration by authority of its Board of Directors, and said
and _ acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed_o_f said
corporation.
Notary Public
-18-
Ir /
Mayor Torn Hamilton
224 Cnanview
Chanhassen, Mn, 55317
.Dear Mayor Hamilton
The- Derick Land Project, Fox Chase, will be on your ae�enda this week
8-23-82, requepting dockage. As you are well aware that shallow bay is
a_very important area for the lake. It is on exquisitely sensitive
ecologic area supporting fish and wildlife and abundant immergent
vegetation. It is all the more sensitive since the type 2 wetlands on
chore will be virtually destroyed by the unfortunate location on a
sedimentation basin.
'he Lotus bake Homeowners Association has recently completed a survey
of.all�our members which reaffirmed our major concern with ecology,
-:, preservation of natural resources,' water safety, and the intelligent
use of land and resources. We are very concerned that development
will destroy this sensitive area with its attendant adverse effects
an the lake in general.
We wish to support you in your decision of no shoreline development'
�tsh no .dockage "which ycu already passed, Further, we wish to point
-out that the same decision of not allowing dockage. was reached by the
planning conmssion in their recon-mendations to you. This decision
also supports the philosophy of the comprehensive plan concerning
controlled development of lakeshore and the new awareness of the
JXnportance of environmental protection.
Tn� Fox Chase Development is a Plan Unit Development.which gives the
..•-council unique opportunity for determining planning criteria, The
initial plan included inI outlot which would have been strictly
controlled by ordinance. We urge you to stand by your decision of
:`:•.no shoreline development what -so -ever including no dockage.
Respectfully Suiazittcd
Henry sin
P� a of irectors
Intus Hole;,.,ners Assocchtion
Susan Conrad, John Cunningham, Sandy Cunninahami, Bob Doles,
John Nicolay, Wally Condron, Mary Palmer. [ales Arseth,
Georgette Sosin, Henry Sosin, Marg Spliethoff; Frid,a Sathre
CC- Scott �Iaxtiri
690 Coulter Drive
PO 147
Chanhassen!. Mn. 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
AUG 191P°"
COMMUNITY DEW
LARSON & MEnTZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1900 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
RUSSELL H. LARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
CRAIG M. MERTZ
OF COUNSEL April 2, 1981
HARVEY E. SKAAR
MARK C. MCCULLOUGH
Donald W. Ashworth
Chanhassen City Manager
Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
Re: Fox Chase
Dear Don:
TELEPHONE
(612) 335-9565
On April 6, 1981, the City Council is scheduled to consider the
request of Derrick Land Company to revise the proposed plat of Fox
Chase.
This development was last considered by the Council on July 21, 1980,
when a motion was passed "to approve the final development plan
based upon the configuration of 52 lots as presented to the City Council
April 7, 1980." Under Ordinance 47 the "final development plan"
includes the "preliminary plat" among other things. To date, the
developer's have not submitted the final plat to the City for approval.
The revision proposed by Derrick Land Company consists of a realignment
of the street system and an increase in the number of lots from 52 to
54. Ho4 Let^' rej-e-t4e-0 -,I'
The City Council has some discretion to approve minor changes in plats
once preliminary plat approval has been granted. For example, the
location of a building pad might be moved. However, in the case of
Fox Chase the development review process has been completed for all
intents and purposes. Accordingly, we cannot recommend that the Council
reconsider its approval granted on July 21, 1980.
Section 14.06(2) of the Zoning Ordinance does allow the City Council
to review proposed amendments to a final development plan; however,
such amendments can be considered only after a new public hearing.
A copy of §14.06(2) is attached.
If the Council chooses to consider the amendments proposed by
Derrick Land Company, it could take no formal action on April 6, 1981,
other than to order a new public hearing as required by §14.06(2).
If the Council does chose to direct the scheduling of such a public
hearing, it would be within the discretion of Council to limit the
scope of the public hearing to the issue of the proposed road
realignment and to the issue of the additional 2 lots.
7
Donald W. Ashworth
April 2, 1981
Page Two
On a related matter, some interested citizens have questioned the
Zoning Administrater as to whether the City is required to hold a
new public hearing every time that a developer proposed a different
configuration of lots in a pending development plan. This issue is
significant in the case of Fox Chase because the developer has proposed
approximately four different lot configurations between the time of
sketch plan review and the time of final development plan approval.
The Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance requires only one public hearing on
a pending P.R.D. The amendment of a development plan necessitates the
scheduling of an additional public hearing only if the proposed
amendment is presented after final development plan approval has
occurred.
Similarly, the state statutes (M.S. §462.358) from which Chanhassen
derives its power to regulate land subdivision requires only one
public hearing.
Although local ordinance and state statute require only one public
hearing, the City would have discretion to schedule additional public
hearings whenever it is felt that the developer has made significant
modifications to his development proposal. We disagree with the
assertion that each and every modification in a pending development
plan requires a new public hearing.
Conclusion:
Prior to. July 21, 1980 final development plan approval, the City was
required to hold only one public hearing on Fox Chase. The development
review process for Fox Chase was completed on July 21, 1980, except
for the formalities of approving a development contract and the final
plat. Amendments to the development plan at this time can only be
made as provided in §14.06(2) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Very truly yours,
CRAIG M. MERTZ
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
CMM:ner
cc: Bob Waibel
r
limit within which a final development
plan of all units within the project shall
be filed with the Zoning Administrator I.
for submission to the Planning Com-
mission and the Village Council.
e. The Village Council may I ) ap-
prove the preliminary development
plan and application for rezoning, 2)
disapprove the preliminary develop-
ment plan and application for rezoning
stating reasons for the disapproval, or
3) approve the preliminary develop-
ment plan and application for rezoning-*2.
subject to specified modifications and
conditions.
Final Development Plan:
a. A final development plan shall be
filed with the 7.oning Administrator to
be submitted to the Planning Commis-
sion and the Village Council within the
time limit specified by the Planning
Commission as provided in subsection
4d. above.
b. The final development plan shall
include the following: 1) preliminary
plat in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Ordinance 33, Chanhassen
Subdivision Ordinance, including
agreements, provisions, covenants and
specifications required for approval of
the final development plan, 2) final
building drawings and specifications. 3 )
final site plans including a landscape
schedule, 4) engineering plans and re-
ports as required bti the Council, 5) any
other information or documents re-
quired by the Couii,uil for the approval
of the final development plan including
a planned unit development contract
and any bonds, deposits of money or
security.
c. Approval of the• final development
plan shall not be granted by the Village
Council unless it finds the following: 1 )
the proposed development is not in con-
flict with the Comprehensive Village
Plan, 2) the proposed development is
designed in such a manner as to form a
desirable and unified environment
within its own boundaries. 3) the pro-
posed uses will not be detrimental to
present and future land uses in the sur-
rounding area, 4) any exceptions to the
zoning and subdivision ordinances are
justified by the design of the develop-
ment, 51 the planned development is of
sufficient size, composition and ar-
rangement that its construction and
operation is feasible as a complete unit
without dependence upon any other
unit, 6) the planned development will
not create an excessive burden on
parks, schools, streets and other public
facilities and utilities which are pro-
posed to serve the development, 7) the
planned development will not have an
adverse impact on the reasonable en-
joyment of neightx;ring property.
d. The Village Council may 1) ap-
prove the final development plan, 2)
disapprove the final development plan
stating reasons for the disapproval. or
3) approve the final development plan
subject to specified modifications and
conditions.
e. If approved, the final development
plan shall be filed in the office of the
Zoning Administrator.
14.06 Revisions and Changes.
Minor Changes: Minor changes in the
placement and height of buildings or
structures may be authorized by the
Zoning A,4ninistrator if required by
engineering or other circumstances not
foreseen at the time the final develop-
ment plan was approved. Any such au-
thorization shall be in writing and filed
in the office of the Zoning Administra-
tor.
Amendments: Changes in uses, any re-
arrangement of lots, blocks, or building
tracts, any changes relating to common
open space areas, and all other changes
in the approved final development plan
may be made by the Village Council
only after a public hearing by the Plan-
ning Commission and the submission of
its recommendations thereon to the Vil-
lage Council. No amendments may be
made in the approved final develop-
ment plan unless they are found to be
required by changes in conditions
which have occurred subsequent to
approval of the final development plan,
or by changes in the development poli-
cy of the Village. All such changes shall
be filed in the.office of the Zoning Ad-
ministrator as amendments to the final
development plan.
14.07 Annual Review.
Planning Commission Review. The
Planning Commission shall review all
Planned Unit Development Districts at
least once each year and submit a re-
port to the Village Council on the status
of development.
Village Council Action: If the Village
Council finds that development has not
occurred within a reasonable time af-
ter approval of the final development
plan, the Village Council may instruct
the Planning Commission to initiate
rezoning to the original zoning district.
by removing the Planned District zon-
ing.
14.08 Building Design and Construc-
tion.
1. Multiple Residence Building: Within a
P-1 District, building design and con-
struction for a multiple residence build-
ing containing more than 12 dwelling
units, and buildings accessory thereto,
shall be governed by the provisions of
Section 8.06 of this ordinance.
14.09 Common Open Space.
1. The establishment, use, maintenance
and disposition of Common Open Space
areas within a P-1 District shall be
goverened by the provisions of Section
21 of this ordinance.
14.10 General Regulations.
1. Additional regulations in the P-1 Plan-
ned Residential Development District
are set forth in Section 19.
14.11 Boundaries of the P-I Planned
Residential Development District. The
boundaries of the P-1.Planned Residential
Development District shall include the
following described tracts and parcels of
land:
SECTION 15. P-2 PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
15.01 Objectives. The P-2 Planned
Unit Development District is intended to
16
pi.,/ide a_ district appropriate for high
density residential uses and office build-
ings for administrative, financial and pro-
fessional uses, particularly in transition-
al situations. between business or industri-
al districts and residential districts.
It is further intended that to the extent
reasonably possible the P-2 District be
characterized by central management.
integrated architectural design of build-
ings. joint or common use of parking and
other similar facilities and a harmonious
selection and effici2nt distribution of
permitted uses within the district.
15.02 Permitted Uses.- Within a P-2
Planned Unit Development District, no
building or land shall be used except for
the following uses•:
1. Single. family dwellings.
2Two family dwellings.
3. Townhouses.
4. Multiple dwellings.
5. Administrative offices.
6. Medical, dental, legal and similar pro-
fessional offices.
7. Financial. institutions.
8. Restaurants.
9. Theaters. not including "drive-in"
type.
15.03 Accessory Uses. Within a P-2
Planned Unit Development District, the
following uses shall be allowed as acces-
sory to the permitted use:
I. Subordinate uses which are clearly and
customarily accessory to the permitted
use.
15.04 Procedure for P-2 Planned Unit
Development District Zoning, Platting
and Development..
1. Zoning, Platting and Development. -
a. Procedures for the zoning, platting
and development of a P-2 District shall
be governed by the provisions of Sec-
tions 14.05 to 14.07 inclusive of this ordi-
nance.
15.05 Building Design and Construc-
tion.
1. Multiple Residence Buildings: Within
a P-2 District, building design and con-
struction for multiple residence build-
ings, and buildings accessory thert�to,
shall be governed by the provisions of
Section 8.06 of this ordinance.
2. Commercial Buildings: Within a P-2
District, building design anti construc-
tion for all buildings other than multi-
ple residence buildings shall be gov-
erned by the provisions of Section 9.o6
of this ordinance.
15.06 Land Use Intensity.
1. Commercial Buildings.. With a P-2 Dis-
trict not more than 30': of the lot area
shall be occupied by buildings.
I5.07 Common Open Space.
1- The establishment. use, maintenance
and disposition of Common Open Space
areas within a P-2 District shall be
governed by the provisions of Section 21
of this ordinance.
15.08 General Regulations.
1_ Additional regulation in the P-2 Plan-
ned Unit Development District are set
forth in Section 19.
15.09 Boundaries of the P-2 Planned
Unit Development District. The bounda-
ries of the P-2 Planned Unit Development
District shall include the following de
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P 0. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 26, 1981
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Bob Waibel, Planner
SUBJ: Response to Letter from Roger Derrick dated March 20, 1981
I feel the following is important in order to thoroughly answer Mr.
Derrick's questions about building and occupancy permits after final
plat filing.
First, the final plat may not be released for filing until a signed
development contract has been delivered to the city offices. Addition-
ally, the developer will need to provide proof of receipt of land
alteration permit from the watershed district, provide the appropriate
performance sureties, and payment for any escrow deficits before the
final plat may be released. To my knowledge and recollection, the
city has never had any minimum prerequisites before building permits
were issued, such as establishment of erosion control measures,
completion of rough grading, etc. If the completion of work deadline
or schedule of installation of improvements in the development contract
is compatible with the typical amount of time involved in the construc-
tion of residential structures, there is probably no problem with the
issuance of building permits directly .after the filing of a final plat.
The essential reason for such is so that there is no undue delay between
the time of completion of a dwelling(s) and the time at which the
minimum threshhold improvements for occupancy have been completed.
Traditionally, development contract language has required that sewer
and water installation and street stabilization and/or base course
installation be completed before occupancy permits are to be issued.
Obviously, of primary concern to this office is the avoidance of any
unnecessary delays as mentioned above. Again, I believe there should be
little or no problem if the schedule of improvements installation is
compatible with the timing of construction of residential units.
i+A
25 March 1981
cj,
GC
DERRICK LAND COMPANY 2�1
1 770 SHELARD TOWER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55426
PHONE 612/546-2276
Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Fox Chase
Dear Don:
This is to follow up on our recent phone conversations. Please refer to the
attached Proposed Final Plat.
We request that you place us on the 6 April 1981 Council Agenda to discuss the
changes as shown thereon. I want specifically to assure you that we do not
wish to bring up at this meeting any other issues not mentioned herein, nor do
we want to put ourselves in the position of asking the Council for what we con-
sider minor changes to an approved preliminary plat, only to have the entire
matter re -aired.
1. Road Alignment - We propose to realign the main entrance road from its
present straight configuration to the curvilinear alignment shown. Don,
allow me to reiterate some of the arguements relating to the road alignment:
a. In the first place, once the street and utilities are installed, and
the houses follow, they will be there until the next Ice Age; so it
behooves us all to do our best to get it right before we install it.
b. As you are aware, Fox Chase underwent several road alignment changes,
some generated by our ideas, some as a reaction to the city staff and
citizen suggestions, and at least one due to the proposed East-West
County road along the Pleasant View alignment. Upon reflection and
further study of the land, particularly by our Engineer, we feel that
our new proposal is better suited to the land and to the development
for the following reasons:
- It provides a curvilinear street pattern much more compatible with
a quiet residential neighborhood.
- It provides a more varied appearance, especially from Pleasant
View Road.
- It reduces the disturbance and regrading of the site.
- It provides a more stable soil situation on which to place house
pads.
LAND DEVELOPERS
Page 2
2. Width of Paved Street - We propose to reduce the paved profile of the street
from thirty six feet, formally required by the Council action of 21 July 1980,
to thirty two feet. As we have understood discussion of this requirement, it
is based on two points: 1) on street parking has caused congestion in certain
parts of the city; 2) in case of emergency, downed trees may cause an impass-
able and therefore potentially dangerous situation. First, we intend to re-
quire by covenants that all dwellings in the plat have double garages (or more)
and that there be two off-street parking spaces for each residence. This will
not cure all the on street paaking problems, but certainly reduce it to very
exceptional situations. Second, for the first two thirds of the length of
Fox Path, there will be no trees of any size for twenty or thirty years.
Further, it is really a little hard to imagine that the extra four feet of
paved surface will change a downed tree situation substantially. The extra
four feet of pavement not only makes the street scape more unsightly but
would require additional snow plowing and repair expense. Also, there is the
additional cost of the original construction to be added to lot costs. We ask
that unless you and the Council really feel a 36 foot street is necessary in
Fox Chase that the requirement be changed to 32 feet.
I realize that we all have spent an inordinate amount of time on this project.
The plea that I make at this point is merely that we should all do our best
for the many generations who will live in this neighborhood.
I appreciate your continued patience.
Sincerely yours,
V`
W. Kurt Laughinghouse
Derrick Land Company
WKL:slh
enclosure���
cc: FC/DF
(10)� /�6
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
1770 SHELARD TOWER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55426
PHONE 612/546-2276
20 March 1981
Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Fox Chase development
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
In order to complete our application package for a development loan
for Fox Chase, we need an assurance from you that building permits
will be available upon the recording of the final plat.
Will you please confirm that any number of building permits are
available after the filing of the plat, with the understanding that
occupancy permits are obtained only as each unit is hooked up to
sewer and water.
Don, I would appreciate a response as soon as possible so that the
commencement of construction will not be unduly delayed.
Sincerely yours,
1
Roger D. De'rtick, President
Derrick Land Company
cc: FC/CF
Corres/AwtgRpls
dcf '�"'
,I
{1�iR 1981
I-
`:1 _CEIVED
r
�
VILLAGE OF v
CHAHHASSEN,AcvJ M04N.
LAND DEVELOPERS
�c
CITY0 F
7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P.0 BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
March 17, 1981
Mr. Philip Getts
Dayton, Herman, Graham and Getts
10 South 50th Street
Suite 930
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Dear Phil:
As per our telephone conversation.'yesterday, attached please find a
copy of the Manager's Comments on your letter of February 20, 1981,.
concerning the Fox Chase Development. This was presented to the
City Council under the Administrative Presentations portion of - their
agenda on March 2, 1981. Since. there was no.Council discussion on
your letter or the Manager's Comments, it is apparent that the
Fox Chase Development will not be further reviewed by the City Council
unless Derrick Land Company chooses to. proceed with its most
recent plan alternative.
If you have any. further questions or comments regarding this matter,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bob Waibel
Land Use Coordinator
BW:k
cc: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Russell Larson, City Attorney
Art Partridge, Planning Commission Chairman
Frank Beddor
Mrs. Gordon Schwartz
y �f
Honorable Thomas Hamilton
February 20, 1981
Page Six
will be forced to seek judicial relief, a procedure which
will cause all parties unnecessary expense and delay..
xTery truly Yours,
Philip W. Getts
PWG/dw
cc: 11r. Craig L"ertz
Assistant City P.ttorney
Mr. Bob Waibel
Assistant City l-Tanager/Planner .
Mr. Art Partridge, Chairman
City Planning Commission
mr. Frank Beddor
Mrs. Gordon Schwartz
March. 2, 1981.
Manager's Comments: A detailed review of themammoth case
file on this development proposal, by the Attorney's office,
should occur- prior to any final action on thj.s item. however,
x believe -the following fairly depicts major points in regards
to this subdivision:.
1). Reviews for the development were delayed for nearly
a one year period primarily as a result of staff concerns
as to the need for a secondary access from the development.
These concerns culminated in the City Council ordering
a feasibility study for public road construction. At
the time that the feasibility study- was presented, the
City Council acted to deny, in total, and/or in part,
construction of the road through the development_
Following this action, the City Council approved a prelim-
inary development plan which specifically excluded the
secondary access and was explicit as to cul-de-sac and
street width requirements knowing that such was being
approved as a single access development.
2). At the time of final development plan approval, staff
noted the number of lots had been changed f rom the 49
(original public hearing) to 52 (preliminary plan
approval) to the proposed 54. The City Council wrestled
with this issue in terms of an oral opinion- givers by the
' Manager's Comments -2 March"2, 1981-
= City Attorney's office that the City Council had
full discretion to determine whether changes made after
a public hearing represented a'significant change in
r a particular plan and thereby determining whether
a public hearing should be required or not. City Council
action was to approve the final' development plan with
52 lots.
Rightly or wrongly, it is the belief of this office that the
City Council has given specific approvals to the Fox Chase
development after being aware of all of the points brought out
in this. letter. If the applicant does proceed with any
additional request for reconsideration, the City Counc*iI may"
then be in a position to reconsider previous approvals given
by the City. .Further, the City would then be additionally
justified in charging any costs of city- attorney review of
the then changed proposal, including the city's options to
reconsider; and to charge such costs against. the applicant
as a part of his request for reconsideration. However, should
7TIa the applicant not proceed further with any requests for _
reconsideration, the.City cannot now establish new
conditions. The Council may desire to have the
City Attorney generally respond to the points raised by this
office and seek his general concurrence or disagreement with
20
such. His disagreement may be a -basis for further research
by his office, but I sincerely doubt that such would be given.
Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed Distric
March 4, 1981
Mr. Fran Hagen
Westwood Planning.& Engineering
7415 Wayzata Boulevard -
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
Re: Permit Extension Request - Sunrise Beach/
Fox Chase Development: Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Hagen:
8950 COUNTY ROAD I
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 553,
;lam
/2�7_-
K �g, •• t�is�
NIAR 1981
FZEC VM
'VILLAGE On
M1i3N. v
The Board of Managers of the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District
has reviewed the revised plans and request of January 27, 1981 for an extension
of the District's grading and land alteration permit for the Sunrise Beach/
Fox Chase Development in Chanhassen. The Managers approve the permit extension
request until September 15, 1981 subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions stipulated in the District's original correspondence.
of May_6, 1980 remain applicable.
2. Because of the alteration of steep slopes on the site and the potential
of a serious erosion problem occurring if erosion control measures
are not properly maintained, the developer must post a performance
bond or'letter of security in the amount of $20,000 prior to the
commencement of land alteration. This security must be submitted
and approved by the District's legal advisor. If needed, this
performance bond will enable the District to restore altered areas
or to install additional erosion control measures to protect the
public waters of the District from areas that have not been restored.
3. The District requires that additional erosion control measures, i.e.,
staked hay bales reinforced with snow -fence, be installed between the
proposed sedimentation basin and Lotus Lake. These erosion control
measures must remain in place until -all altered areas have been
restored.
4. A detailed storm sewer plan must be submitted to the District for
review and approval,
Mr. Fran Hagen
Page 2-
March 4, 1981
5. All areas altered because of site grading must be restored with seed
and disced mulch, or sod, or wood fiber blanket, or be hard surfaced
within 2 weeks after completion of land alteration or no later than
September 15, 1981.
All altered areas with a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored
with sod or wood fiber blanket within 2 weeks after completion of
land alteration.
6. The District must be notified 48 hours prior to commencement of land
alteration.
If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please
call us at 920-0655.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Obermeyer fl /
BARR ENGINEERING. CO.
Engineers for the District
Approved by the Board of Managers
RC0I111 RILEY-PFURGATORY CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
c: Mr. Frederick Richards
Mr. Frederick Rahn
Mr. Don Ashworth
Date:
dlaoa1, hm1na1 , grdlYrM Fr gefiS attorneys at law
Ten South Fifth Street, Suite 930
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 339-7633
February 20, 1981
G_ lMw�EAtif� � rsw
Charles K. Dayton
John H. Herman�1
Kathleen M. Graham
Philip W. Getts
James A. Payne
Carolyn Chalmers
Honorable Thomas Hamilton, Mayor Jonathan L. Eisenberg
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Fox Chase Development, Your File No. P-614,
Our File No. 834
Dear Mayor Hamilton:
I represent a group of Chanhassen residents who
live along West Pleasant View Road between Christmas and
Lotus Lakes. This group, recently organized as the West
Pleasant View Road Neighborhood Association, is extremely
concerned about the proposed Fox Chase development on the
south side of Pleasant View Road on the west shore of Lotus
Lake. Various members of the Neighborhood Association have
appeared at various planning commission and city council
meetings to express opposition to this project, but such
protests have had little effect, as the project has received
almost all approvals required prior to commencement of con-
struction.
Despite the consistent approvals given this proj-
ect by both the planning commission and city council, the
procedural history of the Fox Chase project has departed
substantially from the requirements of the Chanhassen zoning
ordinance. I discovered these discrepancies when I reviewed
the chronology of this project for my clients in connection
with an appearance before the planning commission on Febru-
ary 11, 1981. The occasion for this appearance was the
request by Derrick Land Company, the Fox Chase developer,
to realign the interior street for Fox Chase and to increase
the number of approved lots from 52 to 54. -I am writing
this letter to bring these errors and omissions to your
attention and to request that the City Council order the
FEB 1981 0,
RECEtYED
�iANHA8t3II�1, ��
MINN, �Q
Honorable Thomas Hamilton
February 20, 1981
Page Two
developer to either proceed with the project as originally
(and properly) approved or to withdraw the project and make
a new application so that the procedural errors can be cor-
rected.
As you know, Chanhassen Ordinance No. 47 contemplates a
two-step approval process for planned unit developments.such
as Fox Chase. The first step of the approval process is
the submission of a preliminary development plan in accordance
with § 14.05 of Ordinance No. 47. If the zoning administrator
determines that the plan conforms to the procedural requirements
of the ordinance, the planning commission must then conduct
a public hearing. The purpose of the preliminary development
plan and public hearing is to review and resolve large
policy issues such as general land use, densities, traffic
patterns, necessary utilities, and similar issues before the
developer invests a substantial amount of money in detailed
surveys, design drawings, and the like. For this reason, it
is obviously wise to obtain the views of concerned citizens
at a public.hearing before the planning commission acts to
resolve such questions. If the planning commission approves
the proposed plan, or approves the plan with conditions, the
matter is referred to the City Council for formal approval.
No further public hearings are required by the
zoning ordinance if the developer merely prepares a final
plan, proposed final plat, development contract, draft
covenants and restrictions, and other documents required
for final approval. Presumably, final development plan
approval requires only that the developer produce a final
plan which complies with the dimensional and procedural
requirements of the platting ordinance and is consistent
with the approved preliminary development plan. The period
between preliminary plan approval and final plan approval is
intended to permit"fine tuning" of the project, with all
major issues having been resolved in the preliminary approval
stage. After final plan approval, of course, no changes in
the plan are permitted without a showing of changed or
unforeseeable conditions.
Unfortunately, the Fox Chase development has not
followed this procedure. Two major and controversial aspects
of this development, density and vehicular access, have been
Honorable Thomas Hamilton
February 20, 1981
Page Three
constantly revised or modified since the public hearing
in August of 1979. A brief review of the chronology of
these changes shows that their effect has been to effectively
exclude the citizens, taxpayers, and voters of Chanhassen
from participation in what is, by law, a public process.
Fox Chase, then known as the Sunrise Beach Addition,
was first presented to the planning commission in a prelimi-
nary presentation in April of 1979. At the same meeting,
the planning commission reviewed a petition of Pleasant View
Road neighbors who requested an increase in the minimum lot
size along the south side of Pleasant View Road from 15,000
to 40,000 square feet.
On August 8, 1979, the Sunrise Beach plan was
presented to the City's planning staff, who prepared a
report on the project. According to that report, the project
was to have 49 lots and vehicular access was provided through
a street to the southwest through the Devil's Slide area or
west along the proposed Lake Lucy Road and to the north onto
Pleasant View Road. This plan was presented by -the planning
commission at a public hearing on August 22, 1979 as the
preliminary development plan for Sunrise Beach. The proposed
plan contained 49 lots, a single vehicular access onto
Pleasant View Road, and a staff recommendation that the
developer petition for a public improvement to construct a
southerly access to the property. Many neighbors appeared
at the hearing to express opposition to the density and
to the single access on Pleasant View Road. At its next
regular meeting on August 29, 1979, the planning commission
gave preliminary development plan approval and recommended
that the City Council rezone the land from R----1A to P-1.
Despite the public opposition, the plan as approved contained
50 units and had no secondary access.
On April 7, 1980, over six months later, the City
Council gave its approval to the preliminary development
plan and authorized the P--1 rezoning. However, the Council
minutes reflect that the plan as approved contained 52
lots, an increase of three over the original proposal and -
more importantly - an increase of two lots over the number
approved by the Planning Commission after the public hearing.
Honorable Thomas Hamilton
February 20, 1981
Page Four
On July 9, 1980, the planning commission gave
final plan approval for Fox Chase. Several commission
members questioned the inconsistency in the number of lots,
but the plan - with 52 lots - received "final approval" with
two dissenting votes. On July 21, 1980, the City Council
approved the final development plan with 52 lots.
Six months after "final" plan approval, the developer
appeared before the planning commission on February 11,
1981, to request approval of 54 lots and approval for realignment
of the interior roadway. when confronted with the explicit
requirement of § 14.06(2) of Ordinance No. 47, which required
a public hearing for such changes, the developer withdrew
the proposed amendments.
This chronology raises vexing problems about the
manner in which the land use development process operates in
the City of Chanhassen. while developers undoubtedly have
a valid interest in the parcels which they hope to develop,
it is equally true that the neighbors, who are voters and
taxpayers in the City, have an equally valid interest in the
integrity and openness of the development process. Here,
that interest has been severely eroded.
My clients have consistently expressed strong
opposition to this project and to the number of lots pro-
posed. I am attaching to this letter an opinion from
Darrell Fortier, an architect.retained by one of my clients,
to the effect that this project is incompatible with sur-
rounding land uses. The major point, however, is that the
project has changed significantly from the manner in which
it was presented at the public hearing in August of 1979.
At that time, the question of southerly access was unresolved,
and the planning staff had clearly recommended that such
access be constructed. Similarly, the number of lots was
set at 50 by the developer's own representative. Two years
later, the number of lots has beenO"creased to 52 and the J
developer has twice tried to increase it to 54, and no
secondary access shows on the final plan. The lack of
secondary access is particularly disturbing in view of the
fact that the city council approved a feasibility study of
such access on September 4, 1979, but no such plan or study
has ever been published or made public.
. Your own city manager criticized this process in
his memorandum of July 17, 1980 in connection with the
developer's request for final plan approval. Mr. Ashworth
Honorable Thomas Hamilton
February 20, 1981
Page Five
stated that he had "concerns with this overall process"
because of the several changes in number of lots and secon-
dary access which took place after preliminary plan approval.
As Mr. Ashworth stated, "densities should.not be changed by
either the Citv or the applicant after preliminary plan
approval" (emphasis in Mr. Ashworth's original). These
concerns echo those of my clients.
The developer has twice attempted to increase the
number of lots by over 100, a substantial change from the
plan presented at the public hearing nearly two years ago.
The question of secondary access is equally crucial, since
the construction of another access will materially affect
traffic conditions on Pleasant View Road. Your own city
planner expressed concern about this question in reports
dated August 8, 1979, and August 15 1979, and even the
developer himself stated that secondary access is an important
consideration.
The several chancres in the number of lots in the
Fox Chase development and the failure to adequately resolve
the question of secondary access have understandabl17 aroused
the ire and the suspicion of my clients. The validity of
these concerns is underscored by the comments of Mr. Ashworth
contained in his memorandum of July 17, 1980. Since creation
of a planned unit development is a rezoning and therefore a
legislative act, the City of Chanhassen has great flexibility
in resolving this problem. T recommend that, in order to
comply with the letter and spirit of your ordinances, and to
keep faith with the voters and taxpayers of your city, the
City Council place the matter on the agenda for its next
regularly scheduled meeting and that it offer the developer
two alternatives: accept the plan of 50 units as approved
in August of 1979, with adequate provision for secondary
access, or withdraw his plan and commence the development
process over again with appropriate public hearings. By
taking such actions you and your colleagues on the City
Council can ensure the integrity of the land use planning
process in the City of Chanhassen. Otherwise, my clients
Honorable Thomas Hamilton
February 20, 1981
Page Six
will be forced to seek judicial relief, a procedure which
will cause all parties unnecessary expense and delay.
Very truly yours,
Philip W. Getts
PWG/dw
cc: Mr. Craig Mertz
Assistant City Attorney
Mr. Bob Waibel
Assistant City Manager/Planner
Mr. Art Partridge, Chairman
City Planning Commission
Mr. Frank Beddor
Mrs. Gordon Schwartz
March 2, 1981
Manager's Comments: A detailed review of the mammoth case
file on this development proposal, by the Attorney's office,
should occur prior to any final action on this item. However,
I believe the following fairly depicts major points in regards
to this subdivision:
1). Reviews for the development were delayed for nearly
a one year period primarily as a result of staff concerns
as to the need for a secondary access from the development.
These concerns culminated in the City Council ordering
a feasibility study for public road construction. At
the time that the feasibility study was presented, the
City Council acted to deny, in total, and/or in part,
construction of the road through the development.
Following this action, the City Council approved a prelim-
inary development plan which specifically excluded the
secondary access and was explicit as to cul-de-sac and
street width requirements knowing that such was being
approved. as a single access development.
2). At the time of final development plan approval, staff
noted the number of lots had been changed from the 49
(original public hearing) to 52 (preliminary plan
approval) to the proposed 54. The City Council wrestled
with this issue in terms of an oral opinion given by the
Manager's Comments -2- March 2, 1981
City Attorney's office that the City Council had
full discretion to determine whether changes made after
a public hearing represented a significant change in
a particular plan and thereby determining whether
a public hearing should be required or not. City Council
action was to approve the final development plan with
52 lots.
Rightly or wrongly, it is the belief of this office that the
City Council has given specific approvals to the Fox Chase
development after being aware of all of the points brought out
in this letter. If the applicant does proceed with any
additional request for reconsideration, the City Council may
then be in a position to reconsider previous approvals given
by the City. Further, the City would then be additionally
justified in charging any costs of city attorney review of
the then changed proposal, including the city's options to
reconsider, and to charge such costs against the applicant
as a part of his request for reconsideration. However, should
the applicant not proceed further with any requests for
reconsideration, the City cannot now establish new
conditions. The Council may desire to have the
City Attorney generally respond to the points raised by this
office and seek his general concurrence or disagreement with
such. His disagreement may be a basis for further research
by his office, but I sincerely doubt that such would be given.
�` V
CITY UF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P.0 BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: February 5, 1981
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Final Development Plan Amendment Request, Fox Chase
Addition
APPLICANT: Derrick Land Company
PLANNING CASE: P-614
As shown on the attached, Derrick Land Company has requested
that a newly proposed street re -alignment in the northern
one-third of their property be allowed to be accommodated into
.the final plat. (This change can be seen by comparing en-
closure one with the preliminary plat prepared by Egan, Field,
and Nowak, Inc.) Although, ordinance no. 47 PPrfits staff to
discretionarily approve minor changes to preliminary plats,
it was felt that it would be best for the Planning Commission
and City Council to review this requested re -alignment.
Essentially, the area of change involves the northerly 700
feet of roadway accessing the subject property wherein the
middle 400 feet of this section is proposed to be shifted
westerly -to higher elevations and away from the area of Glencoe
class soils down along the original road alignment. Additionally,
as a result of this road alignment, the applicant has indicated
a gain of 2 lots to the 52 lots approved in July of .1980.
This offi.'ce sees that there are two areas of concern to be
addressed by the Planning Commission which. are: (1) is the
proposed change road alignment and subsequent two additional
lots- material enough to warrant further review or additional
public hearing and (2) does- th.e proposed change comply with
acceptable engineeri'ng standards.
From a development standpoint, the proposed re -alignment of the
road should:
Planning Report P-614
Page 2
February 5, 1981
1. Present more suitable soil conditions for resi-
dential construction on its easterly side, and
2. Present greater visual variety to the development
through the curvilinear street section as opposed
to the previously proposed street pattern align-
ment.
In discussions with City Engineer, Jim Orr, it was agreed
that the developer
should soften the curves at Lot 4, Block 2, and Lot 1, Block 1,
and also super -elevate the curve to specifications on Lot 1,
Block 1. The City Engineer additionally recommended that the
applicant struck the grade at the northerly entrance at the
subject development to provide for better stacking. The City
Engineer will 6e present Wednesday evening to answer any of the
questions of the Planni'ng Commission on the engineering aspects
of this proposal.
The appropriate action of the Planning Commission at this time
is to make known th.ei'r concerns to the City Council with respect
to the issues presented in paragraph 3 of this report.
BW:nr
19 January 1981
Estimated Number of EAWs and EISs Required to be Prepared in a Year's Time
Please return by February 9, 1981 to:
City:
Individual Completing Form:
Tom Rulland
Environmental Quality
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota
Board
55101
Telephone Number:
Mandatory EIS Categories
1.
Agricultural land:
10a.
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional
development:
10b.
Industrial/Commercial/Institutional
development:
12a.
Non-metallic mineral mining:
13a .
Residential development: 0
13b.
Residential development:
02
13c.
Residential development:
14.
Recreational development: D
15a.
Highway projects: jj
15b.
Highway projects: 0
20.
Public Waters and wetlands: Q
21.
Marinas:
23.
Historic places:
Mandatory.EAW Categories
la. Agricultural land: (f
1b. Agricultural land: d
1c. Agricultural land: y
2. Animal feedlots:
12b. Air pollution:
13a. Industrial/Commercial/Institutional development:
13b. Industrial/Commercial/Institutional development:
13c. Industrial/Commercial/Institutional development:
15a. Non-metallic mineral mining: _d
16a. Residential development: 6
16b. Residential development: 4
16c. Residential development: /
16d. Residential development: Q
17. Recreational development: n
18a. Highway projects:_ -7-
18b. Highway projects: (�
18c. Highway projects: Q
18d. Highway projects:
18e. Highway projects: p
24a. Public waters and wetlands:
24b. Public waters and wetlands:
24c. Public waters and wetlands: y 30c. Forestry:_
25a. Stream diversion: 30d. Forestry:_
25b. Stream diversion: 31..Historic places: r
28. Marinas: 32a. Natural areas: �]
•e..�a M+x .Y'sTf`u.,N�.4+..-+�eu}e.+r+c< y.. . ... .. _ a..v.yYv Tv «. _.a .....�+�-�.-�---+..+.r+wu-��r�m.� . +.e!'.+r-�w+.fw'T�.+'w+rtrw+e-.- ....+s--+r-n�r.•_s+m.+..�..�
IS
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
1 770 SHELARD TOWER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55426
PHONE 612/546-2276
7 January 1981
Mr. R. Waibel
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7610 Laredo Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Fox Chase
Dear Bob:
This is in response to your letter of 29 December 1980.
We wish to proceed with the proposed change: moving a portion of the
road to the west and reducing two cul-de-sacs to "bubbles".
Please schedule us for the 28 January Planning Commission meeting. If,
as you said on the phone, that regular meeting is changed, please put
us on the earliest possible Commission agenda.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours.
W. Kurt Laughinghouse
Derrick Land Company
WKL:slh
cc: FC/DF
-71
JAN 1904
p VILLAGIa OP,
�� 01ANHASi XN,
LAND DEVELOPERS
/
CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENTS/REDEVELOPMENTS
The March, 1979 Chanhassen Newsletter had two pieces which presented
the status of various development proposals throughout the city, and
an insight into what some of the issues are that must be resolved
before any development activity actually takes place. In the past
year many of last year's proposals have proceeded to the point where
construction may commence or has actually occurred. The following
is a list of projects and active proposals within the city and their
present status:
Construction Completed
1. North and South Highway 5 Frontage Road, sanitary sewer, water
and streets.
2. Signalization of intersection of Highway 5 and Dakota Avenue.
3. -Lotus Lake Estates 1st Addition; sanitary sewer, water and
streets for 44 single family units.
4. Trolls Glen 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Additions; sanitary sewer, water
and streets for 20 single family units.
Currently Under Construction and Ready.for Construction
5. Near Mountain planned residential development; 144 single
family,.120 condominiums and 36 townhome units.
16 Lotus Lake Estates 2nd and 3rd Additions; 90 single family units.
"7. Reply Systems office/warehouse.
8. Lyman Lumber complex.
L
9. Holiday station/store.
10. Cannonball Kitchen.
11. Sunnyslope Addition; 13 single family units.
12. Chanhassen Lakes Business Park; sanitary sewer, eater and streets
for 328 acre business/industrial park.
13. Kerber Drive; local collector.
14. New City Hall.
15. New public works garage.
16. New satellite fire station.
17. Co. Rd. 17 and railroad crossing; local collector.
18. Murphy office/warehouse building.
W
19. Roos professional building.
20. Western Hills 3rd Addition; sanitary sewer, water and streets
for 57 single family and 18 double townhome units.
4L
21. Chaparral; sanitary sewer, water,streets, and park for 169
single family, 98 duplex and 156 townhome units.
22. Christmas Acres; sanitary sewer, water, and streets for 7
single family units.
23. Minnewashta Creek 2nd Addition; sanitary sewer, water and streets
for 30 single family and 12 duplex units.
24. Kellynne Addition; sanitary sewer, water and streets for 7
single family units.
25. Hesse Farm 2nd Addition; streets for 28 single family units..
Proposals Presently Undergoing Review
26. Colonial Grove 2nd Addition; 30 single family units.
27. South Lotus Lake Addition; 22 single family and 28 zero lot
line units..
28. Sorenson retail building.
29. Hidden Valley Estates; 44 single family units.
30. Burdick office/warehouse building
31. Burdick office building.
32. Sunrise Beach; 49 single family units.
33. Lake Ann planned residential development; 175 single family,
100 duplex, 296 quadrominiums, 233 apartment units, 24 acre
park, and 10 acre commercial area..
34. Lake Susan Hills West and South planned residential development;
574 single family, 180 duplex, 144 quadrominium, 88 eight-plex,
271 townhomes, and 192 apartment units, 5.11 acres.
35. Downtown Redevelopment Project/Kraus Anderson; retail facility
proposal and Bloomberg complex proposal.
-�3,6
_26
Ti
L��r�r � >_aeie�i+�hA �-txr-se:�d�u�tvw.a+,a.u.xswwsax�'e�d�trs•��r`fi*pxp��)f,�.ecw*.i�c�'
Council Meeting April- 1, 1981 -3_ 1.14ue)
Given the fact that this is a concept discussion, Councilman Neveaux moved that
.:.the Council.: encourag.e,.the._deve_Loper..to .continue work with staff investigating the _
inherent problems. in the proposed site at the corner of- Highways 41 and.5. .Those
problems being with the extension of utilities, extension of the MUSA line, problems
inherent in the city comprehensive plan. Direct staff to assist Minnetonka, Inc.
�• in resolving those problems at that site contacting the Metropolitan Council for
thoughts about the extension of utilities and. the MUSA line. Working with Mark-
Koegler and Scott Martin on the comprehensive plan and get back to the Council at
the earliest possible time. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted
in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
FEASIBILITY STUDY, AMERICAN LEGION POST #580: Councilman-Neveaux moved to authorize
the Engineer to proceed with a feasibility study for the property based upon the
request of the American Legion Club and that an escrow account of $500 to cover
such be requested of the Legion as a part of the application. Motion seconded by
Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swensor
Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
REPLAT REQUEST, LOTS 2 AND -3, BLOCK 1, ZAMOR ADDITION: Mr. Zamor was present seeking
Council approval to replat the above named lots in order to allow for additional
parking on Lot 2 for Cannonball Kitchens.
Councilman Neveaux moved to approve the replat request as submitted by Bob Waibel,
Planner, in his memorandum of April 2, 1981, with the understanding that it meets
with the concurrence of the City Manager and that all requests for consideration
in regard to lighting, etc. and the Planning Commission recommendation of March 25,
1981, be incorporated and that the metes and bounds replat be authorized because
of its parallel configuration. Motion seconded by Councilman. Horn. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Horn, and
Geving. No negative votes. Motion carried.
/FOX CHASE DEVELOPMENT: Several Pleasant View area residents and representatives of
Derrick Land Company were present. Derrick Land Company is proposing changes in the
road alignment, width of paved street, and additional lots. Further they are requestin
that building permits for certain lots be issued immediately. Mayor Hamilton
pointed out that these requests are covered by the city ordinances and those
ordinances state that if there are any changes requested in a final development plan,
after approval, such changes must go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing.
Councilman Neveaux moved to direct staff to publish the appropriate notices for the
Planning Commission to hold a public hearing. on the proposed changes to the July 1980
plan at the soonest possible time. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilman Neveaux, Geving,
and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Geving expressed concern about the location of the trail through the
property and the size of the beach lot.
John Edwards, representing the Pleasant View neighborhood, stated that the neighborhood
has met with Mr. Derrick and they felt that because of the changes that have taken
place since the initial public hearing that the proposed plan rightfully should go
back through the process of the City. The neighborhood does feel that they can,
along with the developer and contractor, work out the details that are acceptable to
the neighborhood, city staff, and council.
RESIGNATION, JACK HUNGEI2,UNN, 1e1KE STUDY COMMITTEE: Councilman Neveaux moved to accept
the resignation of Jack Hungelmann from the Lake Study Committee with a letter of
METROPOLITAn
WAITE
COnTROL
COfTlmiffion
Twin Cities Rreo
April 21, 1981
Mr. Donald Ashworth
Manager
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Fox Chase SSES
Dear Mr. Ashworth:
r1
A
4
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has reviewed your application
for a sanitary sewer extension for Fox Chase. This project is in
accord with your comprehensive sewer plan (CSP) and consistent with the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area.
We will file this project as part of your CSP and inform the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency that we have no objections to the installation
of these facilities.
Sincerely,
,Q,�, evez
R. A. Odde
Staff Engineer
17.1TI 7:1: R7
cc: Metro Council
Myrna Halbach, MPCA
350 METRO/OUHRE BLDG.
7TH & ROBERT MEET!
fAinT PAUL fmn 55101
612/222.8423
.ecycled 40
1U
CITY'-DF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P 0. BOX 147 • CHANHASSFN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM.: City Engineer, Bill Monk
DATE: April 20, 1981
SUBJ: Fox Chase
Comments from the preliminary plat review and in response to the
petitioner's letter of April 15, 1981, are as.follows:
Streets
Because of the sharp roadway curves and steep street grades being
proposed, it is desirable to maintain a 36 foot wide roadway on
Fox Path.
The proposed street grades exceed the 7% maximum, as specified in
the City Code, in three locations: on Fox Path near Pleasant View
Road (7.53%), and at the terminus of Fox Path (10.79%), as well as
on Fox Court (8.28%). These grades were reviewed and discussed on the
original layout and are deemed acceptable only because of the efforts
to match the roadway grades as closely as possible with the existing
contours.
Utilities
Sanitary and storm sewer easements must be shwon on the plat wherever
the utilities follow lot lines or cross lots. The easement needed
for the sanitary sewer connection to the south shall also be shown.
The easement for the turn around at the end of Fox Path shall also
be included on the plat.
If the utility improvements are to be constructed by the City,'a
petition must be submitted to the City Council for approval. This
item does not directly affect the preliminary plat except in the
drafting of the final development contract.
Gradin
The developer could commence with project grading with an approved
excavation permit. I suggest this permit not be issued until a
Ir
Planning Commission -2- April 20, 1981
final development contract is in effect. This would also allow time
for DNR and Corp of Engineers permits to be received since application
to both have been made. The application for an excavation permit
involves the City Council, so again, this item does not affect the
preliminary plat.
Assessments
The question of assessments on this property is under study and a
report will be submitted to the City Council, but this item does not
affect the preliminary plat.
��\ 790 Pleasant View Road
Q Chanhassen, MN 55317
I April 20, 1981
Mr. Art Partridge, Chairman
Chanhassen Planning Commission
6280 Hummingbird Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Art and Commissioners:
CONFUSION
July 21, 1980 the Council approved Derrick's plat with
the straight road, 93,500 square foot outlot with 170
feet of shorefront, 20 foot drainage and utility and
trail easement and three lots abutting Pleasant View.
This approval was made contingent upon Derrick reducing
the number of lots from 54 to 52.
April 22, 1981, 9 months to the day, we have yet to
receive a copy of the plat showing what was approved
July 1980.
While it is true that April 22,.1981 Derrick has come
forth with a plat showing'52 lots, ironically, all the
other things mentioned above and approved July 1980 have
now been changed..
The result is that when one discusses the straight road
vs. the curved one, the outlot, the trail, or the three
lots on Pleasant View vs. the four now shown and one tries
to make comparisons, there is nothing to compare with. This
may sound simplistic to even point out, but it is next to
impossible to tell where you are going when you can't
say where you came from.
1. Therefore, we request a plat drawing of what
was approved July 21, 1980.
LOTS ALONG PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
The July 21, 1980 approval was for three house lots
abutting Pleasant View. It has always been neighbor concern
that Derrick's high density is adjacent to ourrural setting.
Further, Mr. Derrick's current plan shows 4 lots on
Pleasant View with the fourth exiting privately onto
Pleasant View. This exit is extremely dangerous as it is
on a blind curve with perhaps 20-30 foot line of sight.
Art Partridge -2- April 20, 1981
In addition, this latest plan would bring that fourth
house up onto the flat area near the old Wilma Thompson
road; whereas, the July 1980 plan had.the house on that
lot down in the meadow east of the pine trees.,
2. Therefore, we request returning to the July 21, 1980
plat design of 3 house lots abutting Pleasant View.
We specifically request that under no circumstance
should a private exit be permitted onto Pleasant
View from the old Wilma Thompson road due to its
terribly dangerous blind exit.
ACCESS TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD
It has been a constant concern of the neighbors to have
Fox Path exit onto Pleasant View changed to a safer
location. Neighborhood stories abound of the danger of
that curve being at the bottom of the hill in -the winter.
Further, Derrick's plans show that the proposed grade of
��he Fox Path exit onto Pleasant View is 8 Yet
rdinance 33 Sec. 8.03(c) states,
"Wherever feasible, grades within 30 feet of street
intersections shall not exceed 3%."
3. Therefore, we request that the exit to Pleasant
View be moved the width of one lot to the east
and abut the Osgood driveway where the grade is
gentle and the line of sight better.
STREET WIDTH AND SECONDARY ACCESS
As discussed in the Public Hearing August 1979 and as
requested by the City Council, we request a secondary
access to this property providing all roads in the Fox
Chase development do not exceed 28'. The current request
of 36' would make such a glaring contrast to the present
28' width of Pleasant View, that by contrast Fox Path
would look like a highway --certainly a collector road.
In addition, the road which now dead -ends against the
Bennett property should be made into a cul-de-sac. While
we understand that future plans may have been to develop
a road westerly across the Bennett property at such time
as it would be sold, the entire neighborhood agreed
that not only is the 100' drop between the edge of the
Bennett property and the current Fox Chase road an
unfeasible one to connect, but that a secondary road is
needed now. A secondary road leading into Carver Beach
would mean Fox Chase residents would have direct access
Art Partridge . -3- April 20, 1981
to Chanhassen via Kerber Road.for shopping.
4. Therefore, we request all roads in the Fox
Chase development be reduced to 28' wide.
And ask that the secondary access be between
Lots 26 and 27 of Block 1 (plan dated April 15, 1981).
(This is the same location as between Lots 16 and 17,
of Block 3 of plan dated May 22, 1980.)
SOIL
The attached.reports from the
Watershed District and Carver
District discuss the soil and
DNR, Riley -Purgatory
Soil and Water Conservation
erosion problems of Fox Chase.
The part that has always confused the neighborhood is
how one could possibly build in a meadow where water is
so near the surface.
In fact, it is because of this poor meadow soil that
the approved straight -shot road.has been realigned. It
is secondary, but not incidental, that the road realignment
does make everything more attractive in the eyes of many.
But the question inevitably arises:"where the soil was so
poor that a road could not -safely be constructed, how
could a house instead now be placed there? One needs
only to check soil borings and look at .the grading map to
.ascertain that water lies very close to the meadow surface.
In the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District report
of June 18, 1980, Mr. Berg writes,
"The second building site limitation problem is the
wet Glencoe soils in the low area adjacent to the
lake. The subsurface seasonal water table rises
to within one foot of the surface at least once a
year. To control the wetness problem in these
areas, the maximum flood level of Lotus Lake would
have to be known, the seasonal high water table would
also have to be known., and the bearing strength of
the Glencoe soil needs to be determined. Basements
would be designed to prevent continuing water seepage
problems and also foundation cracking due to low
soil strength and frost action."
His: report is 19 pages. The last 15 of those 19 are
forms, but Mr. Berg underlined in red those parts pertaining
to Fox Chase. On the page describing Glencoe soils,
Mr. Berg underlined:
,-1
Art Partridge
-4-
April 20, 1981
Building Site Development:
Shallow Excavations: Severe--ponding
Dwellings without Basements: Severe--ponding
Dwellings with Basements: Severe--ponding
Local roads and streets: Severe--ponding, low
strength, frost action
Lawns, landscaping: Severe--ponding.
Permeability: 2/10 of an inch of water in 1 hour_.
Building, therefore, in Glencoe soils would be nothing
short of building in .a permanently wet soil --or one where
it would take 5 hours to move 1 inch of rain through it.
I was told that this report was received too late to be
considered for the Derrick project. The report was dated
June 18, 1980. Yet the letter from this staff office
requesting this report was dated June 10, 1980. Due to
the nature of this report, it would seem that one could
not in good conscience ignore it
The neighborhood is strongly opposed to any.thought of
selling lots on a buyer -beware basis as a matter of
social responsibility to future Chanhassen residents.
Mr. Derrick states that it is his responsibility to render
those low-lying building sites buildable before selling them.
What this means is that he will scoop out --muck of 2-20 feet
deep and replace it. But.more than that, add to that
replacement another 12 feet bringing soil level to 912.
One has only to stand on Pleasant View looking'down into
those 900 and 902 elevations to be staggered by the
prospect of raising it all to 912.
5. We therefore suggest Bill Monk, our City
Engineer, consider the ramifications of this
meadow -level rise: the aesthetics of it, the
settling problems from it, the sodding of such
mammoth proportions two weeks following completed
grading, and the erosion problems of that 12'
cliff which will then be standing next to "_'.:,:
wetlands and marsh areas.
PERMITS
It is apparent from talking with the DNR, the Corps of
Engineering., the Watershed District and the Soil and
Water Conservation that they have not always been apprised
of the changes after Derrick has once had a permit.
Art Partridge -5- April 20, 1981
For example, while Watershed District has issued Derrick
a permit January 26, 1981, it was a permit based on the
plat drawing which bears no date but which has an outlot
of 81,100 square feet. That was the plat submitted to
the Planning Commission. February 1981 which was that same
evening withdrawn by Derrick. Likewise, the grading plan
used by the Watershed District was dated l/26/81--which
has now been superseded.
The same type of situation exists with the DNR. Kent
Lokkesmoe writes in his April 7, 1981 letter to Bob Waibel:
This department did receive notice of the original
public hearing, but the notice was mailed to the
wrong office and contained no plans. With
inadequate time to respond and no plans, this
Department made no comments. This was unfortunate,
but regardless of these facts, a permit is still
required for work below the OHW.
The same type of situation existed with the „Corps'.`of
Engineering whose jurisdiction is over wetlands•. The
Corps was not even aware that Derrick had changed its
plans of years ago when there was a proposed tennis court
in the meadow.
6. We therefore request alertness in keeping
concerned departments apprised of the progress
of this project so that such crucial matters as
soil erosion can be constantly monitored.
OUTLOT
In the August 1979 Public Hearings, the outlot showed
3.21 acres; in July 21, 1980, the plan showed a reduction
from 3.21 to 2.15 acres. In April 4, 1981, the outlot had
been further reduced to 1.58 acres and today, the outlot
has disappeared altogether.
7. We request reinstatement of the outlot as shown
on the July 21, 1980 approval; i.e. 2.15 acres.
Sincerely,
(Mrs.) Kathleen Schwartz
for the West Pleasant View
Road Association
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
1 770 SHELARD TOWER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55426
PHONE 612/546-2276
15 April 1981
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
c/o Mr. Don Ashworth
7610 Laredo Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota
55317
RE: Fox Chase
Chanhassen, MN
Dear Mayor and Council:
We request that the Planning Commission consider, at the public hearing on 22 April
1981, and you consider at the 4 May 1981 Council Meeting, the plat for Fox Chase,
including the changes and other considerations discussed below.
NUMBER OF LOTS There has been a great deal of discussion of the number of lots
to be finally platted. We have never conceded that the City has the right unila-
terally to reduce the number of lots in the plat below that which is permitted in
single family residential zoning. This, we felt, was done arbitrarily when the
plat was approved at the 21 July 1980 Council Meeting and the number of lots was
reduced from 54 to 52. Not incidentally, no consideration seemed 'to have been
given to the 69 lot units assessments which are pending.
All of the above notwithstanding and in the spirit of cooperation in bringing this
protracted platting matter to a satisfactory close, we are prepared to finally plat
52 lots as shown on the enclosed proposed plat, if we can come to agreement on the
other items discussed herein.
STREET WIDTH This matter was discussed in our letter of 25 March 1981 to Don
Ashworth. If this street is constructed at 36` width it will be one of only three
streets in the City of Chanhassen so constructed.
REQUEST: Council reduce the street width to 32 feet.
PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED ASSESSMENTS We are advised that the property has pending
69 unit assessments. In light of the fact that only 52 units are approved, this
pending assessment should be reduced accordingly.
REQUEST: Council reduce the pending assessment to 52 units.
LAND DEVELOPERS
MAYOR AND'COUNCIL
CITY,,OF CHANHASSEN
15 April 1981
page 2
ROAD ALIGNMENT This question was discussed at length in our letter to Mr. Don
Ashworth (25 March 1981). By all measures, this is the best method of installing
the road. The homesites all have a better configuration and less grading and soil
correction would be necessary to prepare the property in this fashion.
REQUEST: Council approve the change in the road alignment.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT We learned at the staff meeting of 9 April 1981 that by
"conservation easement" the city means no structures including docks are permitted
on the lakeshore lots; this was never previously so defined and it is a groundless
and unacceptable limitation. Lotus Lake is a General Development Lake. All riparian
lots meet both city and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) standards in every re-
spect; only these ten lots will have access to Lotus Lake.
REQUEST: Council instruct the city attorney not to include in the
Development Agreement any extraneous provisions limiting use of
riparian lots.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS We request the City of Chanhassen install ordinary municipal
utility and street improvements in Fox Chase. We understand you must order a feasi-
bility study, accept the feasibility study, and order the work. Because the City
Engineer has already compiled the necessary data for feasibility study, in this case
the feasibility study can be ordered, presented and accepted at one meeting. We have
already agreed to pay for the actual drafting and preparation of the documents. We
hereby waive our right to a public hearing at that meeting and ask that you order
the work to go forward upon acceptance of the feasibility report. In discussions with
Mr. Craig Mertz we have proposed the assessments be amortized over fifteen years with
payment in full due in seven years.
REQUEST: Council:
a. Order and accept feasibility study and order all public improve-
ments.
b. Assess all improvements to Fox Chase, with costs divided among all
lots equally. By this request, we waive public hearing of the
assessments.
C. Assess said public improvement costs over a fifteen year amortiza-
tion period with entire amount payable in seven years.
BUILDING PERMIT Because the majority of the lots have been sold to Lloyd Leirdahl
of Minnesota Century Builders Inc., and in that Fox Chase is comprised of two separate
parcels, there would normally be permitted two residential building permits. Mr. Lloyd
Leirdahl proposes to build two residences, on the northeasternmost and southeasternmost
lots of the plat. The former is to be a model for the Parade of Homes in August; the
latter will be a private residence for Mr. Leirdahl. It is understood that occupancy
permits may be withheld until water and sewer are hooked up.
REQUEST: Council permit two residential structures, moving one permit
from Lot 11, Vineland, to Government Lot 5.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CITx OF CHANHASSEN
15 April 1981
page 3
GRADING PERMIT We are unsure what constitutes a Chanhassen grading permit on
our development. We, of course, have the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed Permit
(copy attached). In fact, they have, in effect, approved both road alignments --
one in the original application and the second at the renewal. We will obtain the
necessary DNR permits before grading in DNR protected land. Additionally, we will
grade only that property that is common to both road alignments until that issue
is settled. We have a firm agreement with an earth moving company, but the favorable
price we obtained requires that the grading start in May. The grading contractor
will supply the bond required by the Watershed district to insure against unwanted
erosion damage.
REQUEST: Permit to rough grade Fox Chase subject to:
a. Terms of Watershed permit, including required bond;
b. Necessary DNR permit;
C. Not grading area where application for street change has been
made until final determination.
Sincerely yours,
Roger D. D rick, President
Derrick Land Company
cc: FC/DF
Corres/AwtgRpls
Craig Mertz
Jim Orr
Bob Waibel
p- t jq
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
1 770 SHELARD TOWER, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55426
PHONE 612/546-2276
15 April 1981
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
c/o Mr. Don Ashworth
7610 Laredo Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota
55317
RE: Fox Chase
Chanhassen, MN
Dear Mayor and Council:
We request that the Planning Commission consider, at the public hearing on 22 April
1981, and you consider at the 4 May 1981 Council Meeting, the plat for Fox Chase,
including the changes and other considerations discussed below.
NUMBER OF LOTS There has been a great deal of discussion of the number of lots
to be finally platted. We have never conceded that the City has the right unila-
terally to reduce the number of lots in the plat below that which is permitted in
single family residential zoning. This, we felt, was done arbitrarily when the
plat was approved at the 21 July 1980 Council Meeting and the number of lots was
reduced from 54 to 52. Not incidentally, no consideration seemed to have been
given to the 69 lot units assessments which are pending.
All of the above notwithstanding and in the spirit of cooperation in bringing this
protracted platting matter to a satisfactory close, we are prepared to finally plat
52 lots as shown on the enclosed proposed plat, if we can come to agreement on the
other items discussed herein.
STREET WIDTH This matter was discussed in our letter of 25 March 1981 to Don
Ashworth. If this street is constructed at 36' width it will be one of only three
streets in the City of Chanhassen so constructed.
REQUEST: Council reduce the street width to 32 feet.
PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED ASSESSMENTS We are advised that the property has pending
69 unit assessments. In light of the fact that only 52 units are approved, this
pending assessment should be reduced accordingly.
REQUEST: Council reduce the pending assessment to 52 units.
LAND DEVELOPERS
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
15 April 1981
page 2
ROAD ALIGNMENT This question was discussed at length in our letter to Mr. Don
Ashworth (25 March 1981). By all measures, this is the best method of installing
the road. The homesites all have a better configuration and less grading and soil
correction would be necessary to prepare the property in this fashion.
REQUEST: Council approve the change in the road alignment.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT We learned at the staff meeting of 9 April 1981 that by
"conservation easement" the city means no structures including docks are permitted
on the lakeshore lots; this was never previously so defined and it is a groundless
and unacceptable limitation. Lotus Lake is a General Development Lake. All riparian
lots meet both city and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) standards in every re-
spect; only these ten lots will have access to Lotus Lake.
REQUEST: Council instruct the city attorney not to include in the
Development Agreement any extraneous provisions limiting use of
riparian lots.
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS We request the City of Chanhassen install ordinary municipal
utility and street improvements in Fox Chase. We understand you must order a feasi-
bility study, accept the feasibility study, and order the work. Because the City
Engineer has already compiled the necessary data for feasibility study, in this case
the feasibility study can be ordered, presented and accepted at one meeting. We have
already agreed to pay for the actual drafting and preparation of the documents. We
hereby waive our right to a public hearing at that meeting and ask that you order
the work to go forward upon acceptance of the feasibility report. In discussions with
Mr. Craig Mertz we have proposed the assessments be amortized over fifteen years with
payment in full due in seven years.
REQUEST: Council:
a. Order and accept feasibility study and order all public improve-
ments.
b. Assess all improvements to Fox Chase, with costs divided among all
lots equally. By this request, we waive public hearing of the
assessments.
c. Assess said public improvement°costs over a fifteen year amortiza-
tion period with entire amount payable in seven years.
BUILDING PERMIT Because the majority of the lots have been sold to Lloyd Leirdahl
of Minnesota Century Builders Inc., and in that Fox Chase is comprised of two separate
parcels, there would normally be permitted two residential building permits. Mr. Lloyd
Leirdahl proposes to build two residences, on the noutheasternmost and southeasternmost
lots of the plat. The former is to be a model for the Parade of Homes in August; the
latter will be a private residence for Mr. Leirdahl. It is understood that occupancy
permits may be withheld until water and sewer are hooked up.
REQUEST: Council permit two residential structures, moving one permit
from Lot 11, Vineland, to Government Lot 5.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
15 April 1981
page 3
GRADING PERMIT We are unsure what constitutes a Chanhassen grading permit on
our development. We, of course, have the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed Permit
(copy attached). In fact, they have, in effect, approved both road alignments --
one in the original application and the second at the renewal. We will obtain the
necessary DNR permits before grading in DNR protected land. Additionally, we will
grade only that property that is common to both road alignments until that issue
is settled. We have a firm agreement with an earth moving company, but the favorable
price we obtained requires that the grading start in May. The grading contractor
will supply the bond required by the Watershed district to insure against unwanted
erosion damage.
REQUEST: Permit to rough grade Fox Chase subject to:
a. Terms of Watershed permit, including required bond;
b. Necessary DNR permit;
C. Not grading area where application for street change has been
made until final determination.
Sincerely yours,
r
Roger D. D rick, President
Derrick Land Company
cc: FC/DF
Corres/AwtgRpls
Craig Mertz
Jim Orr
Bob Waibel
Vernon Beckman
� + . ,._
6670 Ho pz Road
-
d
�•
Chanhassen, MN
55317
_- ._-
Dennis- & Carl IKathesex
E.� V`: --Keefer -_
I
;.
850 Pleasant View Road
,-�
f
66.81 Nez Pierce
Dr.
I
Chanhassen,.MN 55317
rt
Chanhassen, MN
55317
-
Frank Beddor
E
Nadena. Collver
is
655 Fairview Ave North
I
6686 Hopi.
St. Paul, MN 55104
- r
Chanhassen, MN
55317
John Thielen
1=
I
Wm. Cunningham
I I
II
F. Lieble
A
665 Pleasant View
Road
-I
Route 7 Box 846
'I
A. Otterdahl
Chanhassen, MN
55317
I;
Excelsior, MN 55331
6715 Nez Pierce
Dr.
1
Chanhassen, MN
5531.7
John Thielen
I3
ff'
Henry Graef
Harlan Koehnen
`
701 Pleasant View Road
fI`
Christmas Lake
t
1'
1830 Koehnen Circle
Excelsior, MN
55331
'-.Chanhassen,.
MN
55317
I;
Excelsior, PIN 55331
!! .
,
Michael Thompson
I:;
+
"'
Frank Leavenworth
Jerry Cziok
721 Pleasant View Spur
(!,
gl5 Pleasant View Road
I;
2005 E. 122nd St.
Chanhassen, MN
55317
�i
Chanhassen, MN 55317.ly
Burnsville, MN
.
Is
� I
�'
Sewall Osgood, Jr.
I;
Joseph Troendle
Kurt Behmer
ar
795 Pleasant View Road
1015 Pleasant View Road
'1
6680 Deerwood Dr.
Chanhassen, MN
55317
if
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN
55317
r
-
�I
k
Fs
James Meyer
Ij
Arthur Owens!
Leonard Larson
6225 Ridge Road
II
6535 Peaceful Lane
i
3033 43rd Avenue
South
3-
Chanhassen, MN
55317
(i
Chanhassen, MN 55317
;!
Minneapolis, MN
554.05
iI
John Edwards
Joyce Bennet
!"
Win- Peden
6270 Ridge Raod
I`.
Box 147
I
6687 Hoky Road
Chanhassen, MN
55317
i1
I
Excelsior, MN 55331
Chanhassen, MN
55317
;q
Mark Parker
Todd Owens
11
`Highwood
Dr. Y326
II
6661 Nez Pierce Dr,
jl
.Bloomington,
MN
55438
11
Chanhassen, MN 55317
jjl+
W.D. Gullickson
I
5830
Pleasant View
Road
�i
peal Nelson
6689 Laredo
kt
'
:: Chanhassen, MN
55317I
I.
Excelsior, MN 553311
a
(_
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
C OUNiY OF CARVER )
Don Ashworth being first duly sworn, on oath deposes
and says that he is and was on A p r i 1 10 , 19 81 , the duly qualified and
acting City Clerk -Administrator of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said
date he caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing on a amendment
to a planned residential development i.rFthe
City to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said
notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes
addressed to all such owners in the United States mails with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such
by the records of the County Treasurer of Carver County, Minnesota, and by other
appropriate records:
Subscribed and sworn. to before me
this day of ,. 1 J`'�
Notary Public
yKAREN J. ENGELHAADT
NK3'tAl1Y /U!lLIC • Mt►WdEsotA
CARVER COUNTY
Mp Comml�a+on Expi►a Oet, 11.1�
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PLAN AMENDMENT TO FOX CHASE ADDITION
(,FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUNRISE BEACH ADDITION), DE:RR,ICK` LAND C"FAN'Y',
CHAN`H:AS'S--EN', '1MI'NNE'SOTA,..
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, THAT The Planning Commission of the City
of Chanhassen will meet at 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, the 22nd day
of April, 1981, at the City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive for the purposes
of reviewing a proposed amendment to a planned residential development
on the following described tract of land:
All that, part of Govt._ Lots: 5. -and- G `Se&,13I6.23:••`,
described as follows: Beg. at a pt. in W. line of said See. -
1, Dis.905 ft. S. of NW corner of said Sec. f. said it. Being'
the center line of the Excelsior and Eden Prairie. Road.
as now laid out and travelled (and considering the W..,
line of said Sec. -I to be due North and South line);. th.
run. N.89.20' E. along said center line170 ft;.th.S. 9- 3Z'
E: 428.3 ft; th. S. 45. 32':E. 285 ft. more or -less to the
" -
shore line of Long Lake; tb. Sly. along said shore line to
its intersection with the S. line of said Govt. Lot 5; th. W.
along said S. line 862.1 ft. more or less to the SW, corner
of said Govt. Lot S; th. No. along the W. line of said Govt.
Lot 5 1715.3 ft. more or less to the pt. of beg. Subject to
public road rights within the rt/wy of _Excelsior and
Eden Prairie Road and subject to an easement for rt/wy
over that part of above described tractreserved to the
grantors,....deser.. as 'follows: Beg. at! pt. of. beg. of
above described tract; th. N. 89' 20' E.170 ft; tb. S. 9`32' . j
E: 33.46 ft'. more or less to a pt, in Sly. Rt/wy line of
Excelsior'and Eden Prairie Road, said pt.- being. the••.
actual pt. of beg. of easement to, be described;..th. cont.
S. V 32' E. 30 ft; th. N W Ly. to a pt. in Sly.Rtlwy.line of
Excelsior and Eden Prairie Road dis.30 ft.-W. of actual
pt. of beg; th. E. along said Sly. rt/wy liae30 ft. to actual,.;.
pt. of beg.4-,'..c
Lots•1 and -ll Vineland
A plan showing said proposed amendment is available for
inspection at City Hall. All persons interested may appear and be
hear&at said time and place.
BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
(_Published in th.e Carver County Herald on April 8, 1981)
r
• Sv�'s FGT -
� p�,E12T Y
Christmas
• i..
a •F . ' � :..� Lake /� ., OF
• • i1 _
Ll
• • L• _ • 1
i
y oC% I
• IIc�, ' : - . F� � ���_: 1, � �f jj'
EI• a �.. -
Cr
1J'�.• .I 1• . �\ Lotus
I
Lake LucyPK
if •' " _ kt �_\\ (/'(/•`` `� " �I
• �,
•F •' • Lakes
Lake lnn
PC
PYC
pu
P.
Ci
t JL) (il; t��i.T�iD —.. _- _ _ __.. _._._•r _ _ _. �M---`---=y ��a°`�' ���/% . � _ __— __ ..��'P-..-- :. ! __ '-�-___-
lam` '+ •F
•F �` •F •i I ` Li
/}
%l PK
Laka Susan
Rice
Marsh
'•r •r •F '
1
PROJECT: Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed Distritrt LAKE GAGE NO. 4
LOCATION: Lotus Lake
898
696
894
892
1�-
;.
i i
L_
7.
t
• i _
-4 -.--
{
19 %O 19 71 19 72 --�
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
CONSULTING HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS
PROJECT: RILEY-PURGATORY CREEK
14ATERSHED DISTRICT
LOCATION: LOTUS LAKE
.Elevation Previous High 896.35
Elevation Previous Low 894.95
LAKE GAGE NU. 4
3-17-71
9-15-70
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
CONSULTING HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS
C-6
M9
898
�m
894
892
PROJECT: RILEY-PURGATORY CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT
LOCATION: LOTUS LAKE
Elevation Previous High 899.99
Elevation Previous Low 893.18
LAKE GAGE NO. 4
10-13-77
12-29-76
x z
1976 1977 1978
BARR ENGINEERING CO.
CONSULTING HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS
39
`CARVER' -COUNTY, MINNESOTA - SHEET NUMBER 20
.y
R .23 W.
HaC�
�Cw
•
- —
Pd
—
x HaB
°o
_ _ HaC • n ' • NaD
HaC - Ge u '•
G HaE2
J . Ma
i HaE2
HaF
ydc
• m II a • HaC
='" '
HaB d
�°� �� w HaE
2
.
HaC • ii HaB
Ge
Pa
O HaB �O 1
H
_-____•
--- K ii
Pd -� m Nap
/ C
.�aG
_
aF Te
HaE2 HaC
Ge C`
Cd
IaD
Pd
a----/
Ce
!
Ge i v "
eC HaC ti
HaD HaC w aV
HaD• y�0�•
z1r ii C,e HaC
•
aE2
HCD3
Gem
%ITe6. _ _ a HaE2
I
a
Cs n I
EsC do
HaB Ge•
HaC
HaD
Ge
_.HaF — `Pd J
•II! 16aa
HaD ,•
HaC m Q� n�m HaC HaD2 C HQD
�aB
'HaBii rrn
II y8F
' • HaE2 PC
•%'
HaD2
Ha
HaB Qd
Za
La8 .
HaE.
_
�
Ha6 Pd pd Ge
LsA HaC _ HaF
HaC2 � HaE2 ��HaE2
HaC2 Ge
aQ`ti
m
°O
HaD2
HaB2
,'_
• tia yaF
HaD2 HaB
�
Ge i
HaC2/
\� • n. , I
••
Q
•. . ii
HaC2
Pd
aC
/!1 Cw HaD
F.
/ •\\\ ` %mil
= -=-mac _= •••
•ii q
HaE2
Ma aE2
Na
Pd
ti ;; a
• II \\ n
.
• ° ' �aF '
Ma
Pd Ma
.
HaC2
�aG
HaB
Ma
HaB
e
oo
Sk Ma y -
Pd HaE2
HaB
Pm Ge Pm HaC \\
HaD•
Hal
Sk HaD
Pd
Ma
Sk �a•
®
i ° •Sk
HaC2 a6'j
H^
HaE2 'J 4HaU
HaC2
Ge q
'_- - LOTUS
a
•�!
' I
u • m N
HaC
o
• 0' HaB•ir=
,I
.� Sk
LAKE LUCY �IU. II �i•
Ge
Hai?
HaE2 Ma
HaD LAKE
u n
HaB
a tiGe
p
••
it == an HaB `
i,
Ala
;� • !� aC� uo
HaB
Lab
: J \� HaF gk
Nb HaC2
Ma
ill uGe
•
n u • ii
Cw LsB
HaC2
• it
HaF Sk yd1` - it •--J�--_ _
?`•
HaB
Ha
�'
HaD +
\ Tr HaC
o
aC
HaF HaC2 HaD2
Ge
HaC
Ma HaC
CW
Pm
E
HaB / m ` LsB
HaD - E kT
� e "
%-
-
Ge
HaC2 F
HaC2
LAKE ANN HaF
y
a HaC2
=' /
•.
-
Ge
eB
0
�1`ai •� � tiaF2
H
HaB �
- _ //
HaC2 Ma
�JI•
_
N
H
_---
m /6e
.•'
HaE2
•HaC2
/HaC2
HaB Te ES
••
HaF =
k HaD
Ge
/ �z0 T- aF
1
Ge m •�.•
•
H;
HaC
/ n • HaC2
a�
��
y
dT
g Ha 2
a
Ha I
�2
° - -
HaD2 G(,
• HaE2�Ge
" 2
HaB
PI
s
HaD
-
-_-__---
3 Ge Ha6
" a
�a0 Sk
f
HaC2
\ LaC2
I
( j HCD3
HaC2 -
cE
H Ge
Ge
Na /
HaC2
1
HaC
f Ge
HaE2 Ge HaB HaC2 HaC2
C
aC
-
LaB
a
- 14aE2 Ge LaC2 aE2
/
aB
Ge HaC
Ha6.
HaB•
�i Ge
• •
LaB jaC
aHaC2
HaB P
LaB
La BREFCIGE cOd IHcE3
LaB2'J HaB
• Ge
�,•
Cw
ii
a Cs
BOUNOq HaD2 Ge
�� • Chanhassen 101
j
5
Ge
Ha62•
jz Mile Scale 1:15 840 0 3000 Feet
ppog abpzg OSZ9
aoTad za-4ad •Saw pup •aW
ppog abpTH 09Z9
TazgaM upaa • says pup • ays
ppog abpzg OLZ9
spapMpg uuor -saw Pup -aw
PPOU MaTA 4upspaTd 08TT
uosaa4ad MOTapw • says pup • aW
ppog MaTA 4upspaTd Oi7TT
g4auap9 Tnpd -Saw Pup .aw
aup7 upulpag S£S9
suaMO znugaV -says pup •aW
pPog MaTA quespaTd STOT
aTpuaoas udasor *saw pup •aW
ppog MaTA 4UPSPaTd OTOT
TTaMXPW Tapuozys .r •saW Pup 'zW
ppog M@TA qupspaTd ST6
lg4a0Muanpa'I xupz3 • says pup • zys
T££SS NW 'aOTSTaoxg
aupq poTan ot89
papM -g UIPTTTTM •saW Pup '.lW
ppog MaTA 4upspaTd OT6
•zr 'zoppag Nupa3 -saw Pup -aw
ppog MaTA 4upspaTd OS8
uasiu4PW szuuaa •says pup •aW
ppog M@TA 4UPSPaTd 0£8
uosxotTTnO ml2TTTTM -saw Pup -aW
ppog MaTA 4upspaTd SZ
ulpubuzuun0 . d ureTTTTM • aW
ppog MaTA 4upspaTd 06L
aa}[zpd NaPw • saw Pup -aw
ppog MaTA quuspaTd StIL
poobs0 -W •S -saw Pup -aw
ppog MaTA 4upspaTd S99
uaTaTui aaqad •r -saw Pup -aw
ppog MaTA 4upspaTd 969
uosdulOuy TapuoTW . says pup • ays
ggauuag •a aoAor
8T£SS NW 'pxSpuD
aO4ua0 abpTTTA upugpuor
. OuI ' p�(agly o/o
AaTTpg •Z Nazar
quauldOTanaa uosduiouy • O puITTM
MESS NW 'pgpzLpM
aATaa u04sPg OS06T
zanpW gnuiTaH • SJW pup • ays
ppog abpzg SZZ9
aoAaw saumr -saw pup -aa
(GVOU HOQId aNK) CIVO'd MaIA SNKSHS'Id NO SNIAIU S'IdOgd 30 ZSI'T
V\
City of Chanhassf
(8625 Official Publication)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AKVER AND HENNEPIN
;:OUNTIF.S, MINNESOTA
NOTf'"r PUBLIC HEARING FOR PLAN
AMR ' NT TO FOX CHASE ADDITION
(FORME _Y KNOWN AS SUNRISE BEACH
ADDITION), DERRICK LAND COMPANY,
CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the Planning
CommLs9ion of the City of Chanhassen will meet at
8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, the 22nd day of April,1981,
at the City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive for the purposes
of reviewing a proposed amendment to a planned
residential development on the following described
tract of land:
All that part of Govt. Lots 5 and 6 Sec. 1-11643
described as follows: Beg. at a pt. in W. line of said
Sec. 1, Dis. 905 ft. S. of NW corner of said Sec. 1, said
pt. being the center line of the Excelsior and Eden
Pram', d as now laid out and travelled (and
the W. line of said See.1 to be due North
and Sout .jne; th. run N. 89 degrees 20' E. along
O.niCA . - 15ne 170 ft.; th. S. 9 degrees 32' E. 428.3
it.- Jegrees 32' E. 285 ft. more or c,,Ln to the
etorc :. .f Lang Lake; th. Sly. along said shore
lire m its intersection with the S. line of Said Govt.
Ls8 5; th. W. along said S. line 862.1 ft. more or less
to the SW comer of said Govt. Lot 5; th. No. along
tiir : line of said Govt. Lot 51715.3 ft. more or less
v tl e pt. of beg. Subject to public road rights within
rVwy of Excelsior and Eden Prairie Road and
blect to an easement for rVwy over that part of
:,hove described tract reserved to the
aantors..... descr. as follows: Beg. at pt. of beg. of
cbove described tract; th. N. 89 degrees 20' E. 170
- th. S. 9 degrees 32' E. 33.46 ft. more or less to a
F , Sl,-. Rt/wy line of Excelsior and Eden Prairie
Lead, said pt. being the actual pt. of beg. of ease-
cient to be described; th. cant. S. 9 degrees 32' E. 30
A. • 'f NWi y. to apt. in Sly. Rt/wy line of Excelsior
a. I let Prairie Road dis. 30 ft. W. of actual pt. of
t� along said Sly. rVwy line 30 ft. to actual
pt . .
is u:td 11 Vineland
n n snowing said proposed amendment is
ava - . or inspection at City Hall. All persons in-
ter, may appear and be heard at said time and
place.
OF THE PLANNING CO''"_ SION
r County Herald April 8, 1 .)
#'.ffidar it of Publication
Sate of Minnesota )
)Ss.
County of Carver )
Stan Rolfsrud
being duly sworn, on oath says he is and during
all the time herein stated has been the publisher and printer of the newspaper known as Carver County Herald and has full
knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (1) Said newspaper is printed in the English language in newspaper format
and in column and sheet form equivalent in printed space to at least 900 square inches. (2) Said newspaper is a weekly
and is distributed at least once a week. (3) Said news paper has 50% of its news columns devoted to news of local interest
to the community which it purports to serve and does not wholly duplicate any other publication and is not made up
entirely of patents, plate matter and advertisements. (4) Said newspaper is circulated in and near the municipality which
it purports to serve, has at least 500 copies regularly delivered to paying subscribers, has an average of at least 75% of its
total circulation currently paid or no more than three months in arrears and has entry as second-class matter in its local
post -office. (5) Said newspaper purports to serve the City of Chaska in the County of Carver and it has its known
office of issue in the City of Chaska in said county, established and open during its regular business hours for the
gathering of news, sale of advertisements and sale of subscriptions and maintained by the managing officer of said
newspaper, persons in its employ and subject to his direction and control during all such regular business hours and at
which said newspaper is printed. (6) Said newspaper files a copy of each issue immediately with the State Historical
Society. (7) Said newspaper has complied with all the foregoing conditions for at least one year preceding the day or dates
of publication mentioned below. (8) Said newspaper has filed with the Secretary of State of Minnesota prior to January 1,
1966 and each January I thereafter an affidavit in the form prescribed by the Secretary of State and signed by the
managing officer of said newspaper and sworn to before a notary public stating that the newspaper is a legal newspaper.
He further states on oath that the printed__ Le 1-1 tt8625
hereto attached as a part
hereof was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published therein in the English language,
once each week, for 1 successive weeks; that it was first so published on Wed he f�h
April �'r We-dme stay
day of19___ and was thereafter printed and published on every to and
�y
including the � 4lzSy of _Apri_l__ _-1191 and that the following is a printed copy of the lower case alphabet
from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and
publication of said notice, to wit:
abedefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
Subscribed and sworn to before me this —_ ? � day of
L1
CYNTHIA A. NO' DEN
,0 40TARY PUB IC - MINNESOTA
4 r CARVER COUNTY 2
►Commis:ion ljxpi.esOct. 28.1986 t
NIN�N�r�tt.►rIVNNN+� ar J
19T
Notary public, aunty, inn
My Commission Expires 19