79-02 - Near Mountain PUD pt 6Project: Near Mountain
Proposer: Pflaurrmrell Development Partnership
To The E.Q.B. Distribution list:
I am the authorized representative of the City of Shorewood, Responsible
Agency for the private project indicated above.
This project is not a major action and is consistent with Shorewood's
land use plan and the existing or planned capacities of necessary public
services. Minimization and appropriate mitigation of any impacts identi-
fied is to be assured through adopted policies, performance standards,
and the permitting processes of local and other agencies.
The project does not have the potential for significant or irreversible
negative environmental effects. It allows for protection of valuable or
sensitive areas through preservation of open space, control of erosion
and sedimentation, and retention of the overall drainage pattern.
The project is not of more than local significance. It will foster imple-
mentation of Shorewood's plans regarding land use, natural environment,
utilities, and public services. No significant impact on neighboring com-
munities has been identified.
In view of these findings I conclude that no E.I.S. is needed on this
project.
Please be advised that Section III., J., 5., page 9b, should be amended as
follows: Under the sub -section "plater," strike the last two sentences and
insert: "On the Shorewood portion, a well of sufficient capacity for
domestic and fire fighting purposes will be constructed by the City, with
the Near Mountain project to be assessed for its benefit."
Accompanying are relevant memoranda from the City of Shorewood's engineering
and planning consultants.
I hereby certify that the information contained in the Near Mountain E.A.W.
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
"'��/✓�—t-� SIGNATURE
_TITLE
�/ / � /% DATE
fig■// n/w//
urba. - Manning - design . market researi
416 east hennepin avenue
minnesota 55414 3-79- po
i612)379-46C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Shorewood Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: i November 1979
RE: Near Mountain E.A.W.
BACKGROUND
Under the Environmental Po)ic Act Minn.
development are required by I w to prepare anat. Section environmenta6D.0s) certain types of
Mountain Project, as a "residential development within a shoreland area. (ashefeed
by M.S. 105.485) consisting of 50 or more residential units", has been red to
ob
prepare an environmental assessment worksheet E.A.W.) q d to
of Shorewood. The City has referred the E.A.W. to Midwest Planning euated City
9 evalluation.
ANALYSIS
Upon review of the Near Mountain E.A.W. the following issues are raised:
Section III.,A.,4.
This section deals with soils and topography.; The developer has indicated that cer -
areas in the project contain slopes in excess of 12% and soil types characterizedkr�n
and moderate development limitations. The Hennepin Countyvey by slight
areas within the site which are classified as havingpsevere development limitations when
slopes and soil types are combined.
many of the areas classifie me Soil Survey is admittedly very genera(. Also,
d as severe are quite obvious (i.e. marshes and very steep hills).
However, it is felt that these areas should be identified at this time. A dra
site showing soil and slope conditions should be submitted and verified b the City wing of the
The precautionary measures proposed b the developer y t?' Engineer;
indicated on the grading y p r to mitigate these limitations can be
9 g plan at such time as it is submitted.
Section 111., 1.� 4.
The E.A-W. indicates that the project will not induce development nearby (support
services or similar developments). However, this project will be required to provide
a central well system. Depending on
areas (i.e. the land north of Covingtothe avail. bi)ity of that system to surrounding
n) development may be induced to occur
MEMORANDUM
il�.. Planning - des
r4m16 east henryrp'n ave 9n ►narkel r
esota 55414 nue Mir
(612)37
TO: .
Shorewood planning Commis '
FROM' Brad Nielsen stun, Mayor and Ci
e1S9R ty Council
aA rE:
I November 1979
RE;
Near Mountain E.A.W.
BACKGROUND
Under the
Under
development Envrronnmer.tal
pment are required 1 icY Act
Mountain Project Y law to (Minn, Stat. Section by M,S. lOS 485, as c "residentiol deypa e an enviro n 1 I6D.0I) Certain
Prepare an ) consisting of Sp or pment n'nentrrl assess types of
enviro within a shorelandment_ the N
of Shorewood. The en;al assessment works residential units ear
Ci f�. has referred heet ", has been area (as defined
the E.A.W. MidK,to be evaluated bquired to
C
ANALYSIS est Planning Y the City,
9 for evaluation.
Upon
review of the Near
SectionMountain E.A.W. the folio
II1..A.,4.
This Section de wi
ng issues are raised
oreas in theProject
deals With soils and
and moderate ro ect contain s!o topography
veto pes in excess The developer has indicated
areas Within the Pment limi of T2% tc ons. and soi! that certain
slopes and soil site which qre clossi fled Me Hennepin C soi tYpes characterized b
many of Types are corn tined, as haying sever tY Soil Su Y sI i '
However the areas classifies The Soil Survey gnt
d cs Survey a development limit,
has identified
site showing is felt that these severe are quite ob Y is admittedly ve tions When
9 soil and slo areas should be . v11 0- rY gene
the precoutio pe Conditionsrdentified s' marshes and rrrl' Also,
indicated on nary measures should be sub at this time, very steep hills . the grading Planroposed by the muted and veri fiedA drawing of the )
developer to
Section /it such time as it is sub rn; by the City Engineer;
. J. 4. muted, gate These limi tatio
The E.A.W. i Rs can be
indicates that
services or similar the
a central well deYeloPment�ralHot will not induce ore 1. system, De H'ever, this development
as (' e, the land north of ndin� on fie avails project will be re nearby (support
Coyinaility of quired to
gtOn) development that system to Provide
may be induced surrounding
to occur
sooner than it might have otherwise. No analysis is presented at this time as to the
impact this may have, however, in light of recent discussions, an increase in
development may have a positive effect on the City's bond redemption situation.
Section Ill., K .
Although the structure located in the Shorewood portion of the project is older than
50 years it is not listed as an historic site in the Shorewood Long -Range Park Plan. As
such, it may not have any historical significance. In contacting the State Historical
Society regarding the matter, they indicated that they had no listing of the site,
although a detailed survey of the Shorewood area had not yet been completed. The
Historical Society also stated that if the City would send any background information
and photographs of the structures) they would be interested in reviewing it.
RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of an E.A.W. is to provide brief and general information describing the
action proposed in its environmental setting, and outlining probable environmental effects
and possibilities for mitigation of adverse effects. The assessment should also indicate
whether the action is of more than local significance and whether it should require an
Environmental Impact Statement (E.I.S.). An E.I.S. requires much more detailed and
specific information regarding any significant effects the project may have on its
surrounding environment. The City's responsibility in evaluating the E.A.W. is to
make a finding regarding the necessity of requiring an E.I.S. The City's finding is then
presented to the Environmental Quality Council for a final determination.
While the issues raised in this report are considered important, from a planning
perspective it does not appear necessary to require an E.I.S. It is recommended,
however, that the City Engineer also be requested to review and comment on the E.A.W.
prior to submitting the City's finding to the Environmental Quality Council.
cc: Elsa Wiltsey
Frank Kelly
Jim Norton
Peter Phlaum
(656.09 #79.04)
ORR •SCHELEN • MAYERON & ASSOCIATES. INC.
Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
Land Surveyors
November 28, 1979
City of Shorewood
20630 Manor Road -
Shorewood, MN 55331
Attn: Mrs. Elsa Wiltsey
Clerk/Administrator
Re: Review of E.A.W,
Near Mountain Project
City Officials:
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for
the Near Mountain Project. The Negative Declaration stated
in the EAW is arrived at systematically and an Environrenta-1
Impact Statement (EIS) does not appear warranted based on the
10nnesota Environmental Review Program.
Where the minor amount of falling is required across the
designated wetlands care must be exercised not to disturb the
natural topography any more than necessary,
Storm water installations for the Near Mountain Project including
retention ponds should utilize the natural storage basins as
retch as possible. Any extensive amunt of earthwork near the
natural retention ponds will destroy the environmental balance
of -the wetlands.
During the construction of the sanitary sewer and water mains
pressure tests must be stringently conducted to insure there ' ,' ` A -;_ " _
will not be future pollution of the sub -soils. Pressure tests
for acceptance of utility lines are described 3.n the Standard
Utilities Specifications of the City Engineers Association of .
binnesots.
With a Negative Declaration Notice no BIS appears required. How-':.
ever care must be exercised during construction not to disturb
the area to maintain its natural attraction for fish and wild
life. Development with this in mind will also benefit the
Near Fountain Project in attracting people to this area.
%; .�i .� �-»ct I-�Iennnni,, i1 �ifl,-,ire - C', ,.r,-. '�?fJ _ A/➢:,... ,.., ,, �. 1:.. A.7: y. .,......a.. �;.ia� - c'� ! ��.r Wren
City of Shorewood
November 28, 1979
P a g a `Two
if you have any questions please contact us.
Respectfully,
& 1ASSOCIATES, INC.
44-V'O� P. 44n�
James P. Norton, P.E.
CC; City of Chanhassen
Pflau.-miell Development Partnership
JPN
File
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O BOX 1476CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 26, 1979
TO: Bob Waibel, Ass't. City Manager/LUC
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal..
SUBJ: Near Mountain Project
In reviewing the plans for the proposed condominiums in the
Near Mountain project, I feel, the one access planned to the
condominiums is inadequate as far as getting emergency vehicles
up the 2500' access road.
If we ever had a repeat of the June storms and clogged the one
road with fallen trees, access would be very difficult if not
impossible.
Therefore, I would recommend a second access road to the proposed
condominiums.
c1 �j
�a_C2a
�nQ�
s� a
o .0
Q z 0 N-�i�
1 aef', cy� '$� Da a'°�a@S't` ei,q°'Q
-Iw �,ti0�o��
q �� rRae-
d �C A a Da pJ,° � m t �• m 10 DA o0 S
co
A .4fVv
D�Cb�V
Pb
8� v l . P� •f -co
m;�s'aa�a
4.4
�$ ."e"p ti
k� >
City of Chanhassen
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN
COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING FOR
SUBDIVISION, REZONING,
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR
PFLAUMWE14 INC.
I. CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning
Com-mission of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, will meet
at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, the 17th day of October,1979,
R the City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive, for the purpose of
,olding a public hearing to consider the rezoning from
t-IA, Agricultural Residence District to P-1, Planned
Aesidential Development District, Open Space Condi-
j *.icnal Use Permit and subdivision and Planned Residen-
tial Development for 144 single family lots, 36 townhome
units, and 120 condominum units as indicated in the
graphic and legal description as follows:
THIS LS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS A
LIST OF ownership 350 feet within and around subject
premises, viz:
That part of Section 1, Township 116 North of Range
23 West, described as follows: Commencing at a point in
the West line of said Section I, distant 905 feet South of
the Northwest corner of said Section 1; thence North 89
degrees 20 minutes East 390 feet to the actual point of
beginning of the tract of land to be described, said point
of beginning being in the cc:,ter line of the Excelsior and
3den Prairie road as now laid out and traveled; thence
-untinuing North 89 degrees 20 minutes East 198.5 feet to
an intersection with the center line of the old Eden
Prairie (so called) road as originally laid out but now
abandoned and vacated; thence North 49 degrees 10
minutes east 88.6 feet along the center line of said aban-
doned road; thence North 29 degrees 59 minutes East
159.4 feet along the center line of said abandoned road;
thence North 45 degrees 20 minutes East 187.1 feet along
the center line of said abandoned road; thence North 44
degrees 20 minutes East 225.1 feet along the center line of
said abandoned road; thence North 65 degrees 41
minutes East 212 feet along the center line of said aban-
doned road; thence North 78 degrees 05 minutes East 89.1
feet more or less along the .center line of said abandoned
goad to its intersection with the East line of Government
Lot 6 of said Section 1; thence North along the East line of
said Government Lot 6, 347.9 feet to the Notheast corner
of said Government Lot 6; thence West along the North
line of said Section 1 to the East shore of Silver Lake (so
called); thence Southwesterly Westerly and Northerly
along the shore of said Lake to the North line of said Sec-
tion 1 on the Westerly side of said Lake; thence Westerly
along the North line of said Section 1 to the United States
Government meander corner in the North line of said
p -*ion 1, said meander corner being 560 feet East of the
b 4 • corner of said Section 1; thence South 19
9C ` rites West 361.8 feet; thence South 9
"^ct 327.9 feet; thence South 1 degree
i7 C b' • ^t point of beginning. Subject
E t0 p ry r� 'tie existing highway.
o ` rb yrn 't View, Carver
Ob 2 `� W �h C 8 .(e running
40
o fi
tj she
rb
yAP g 0 fi F
SlbA,
D
IAffidavit of Publication
Sate of Minnesota )
) ss.
County of Carver )
Stan Rolf srud
all the time herein stated has been the publisher and , Ong duly sworn, on oath says he is and during
P 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 to 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,
1906 and each January 1 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 Public H e a ri ny-,
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 on�e7f1 successive weeks; that it was first so published on Wed • the rd
day of Q C t • 1sC Z and was thereafter printed and published on every _ to and
including the day of 19_ 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:
abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1 __&y of _
(Notarial Seal)
a , LORRAINE LAND
NOTARY PUBLIC-MiNNE.SOTA
CARVER COUNTY
My Commission Expires June 29, 1932 3
Yvvww�titivVwwwv',ivwv�tivwvwvw x
J
Notary public, County, Minnesota
MY Commission Expires c 19�
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN
COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING FOR REPLAT
FOR WALTER CLEVELAND,
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of
the City of Chanhassen will meet on Monday, the 15th day
of Octobe- at 7:45 p.m. at the City Hall, 7610 Laredo
Drive anti 1e purpose of holding a public hearing to con-
s 't:P lat of the following described tract of land:
Ang at the southwest of corner ? lot 24 of
M : 1 Addition thence north 59' thence east 303.69'
thence sou 125' thence west 143.69' thence south 90'
thence we- t60' thence north 156' to point of ^cginnirq-"
A Clan e L ping said proposed replat is ava iQble for zn-
spedion • City Hall.
All per- ! ns interested may appear and be heard at said
time and place.
BY ORDER OF THE C11
Don Ashworth, (
'7arver County Herald on Oct(
Affidavit 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 sake 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,
1986 and each January 1 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— Public H e ar i n j?
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 Orie successive weeks; that it was first so published on Wed • the 3 rd
day of Oct. 19 79and was thereafter printed and published on every
to and
including the day of 19_ 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:
a b cd of ghijklm nopgrstuvwxyz
Subscribed and sworn to before me this j q &y of
a LORRA �nnn ' . nnM^ •
LAND
NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESQTQ
CARVER COUNTY
My Commissiontxgires June 29,1982
Iwwwvwwww
Notary public, —County, Minnewta
My Commission Expires 19 ;A.
3(ho ]]T(:o
October 11, 1979
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
The City of Minnetonka Planning staff has recently had the opportunity
to review the revised plans of the Chanhassen portion of the Near
Mountain Development Project. As you may recall, we offered our
initial comments during the preliminary design stage and noted major
concerns with the potential traffic impact of this project and others
on the Vine Hill Road,Highway 7, and Hwy.7/101 intersections and the
alignment of the collector roadway systems. Further, we asked that
the City of Minnetonka have the opportunity to review the required
EAW for the project when it was completed.
With regards to the current Near Mountain site plan, it is our opinion
that the densities and residential land uses will be complementary to
those in Minnetonka. We do feel, however, that the location of the
southerly collector should be realigned with West 64th Street to alle-
viate a potential sight distance and stacking problem on Highway 101.
It is our opinion that this change can be made without substantially
altering the development concept of this project.
We would further encourage the City of Chanhassen as well as the other
surrounding communities and Minnetonka to collectively study mutual
development proposals, roadway alignments and traffic conditions of
1'ownline Road, Vine Hill Road, and Highway 101 as we have done in
the past.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Perry
Planning Department
City of Minnetonka
/ dk
OCT 1979;
RECI.
CHANHAfSaW. • ,
the city offices are located at 14600 minnetonka boulevard minnetonka, minnesota 55343 933-2511
Vp I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER }
Don Ashworth
and says that he is and was on
being first duly swornon oath deposes
October 2 19 79 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
Pflaumwell, Inc. Subdivision, Rezoning, PUD and CUP
in the
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 1g
Notary Public
KAREN J. ENGELHARDT
It �� NOTARY PUBLIC • MINNESOTA
'U CARVER COUNTY
�..•r My Commission Expires oct. 11, 1985
i
l
- C�0_' C77�j*
Don Ashworth, City Manager
4
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
SUBDIVISION, REZONING, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR PFLAUMWELL, INC.
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That the Planning Commission of the
City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, will meet at 7:30 p.m, on Wednesday,
the 17th day of October, 1979, at the City Hall, 7610 Laredo Drive,
for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the rezoning
from R-lA, Agricultural Residence District to P-1, Planned Residential
Development District, Open Space Conditional Use Permit and Subdivision
and Planned Residential Development for 144 single family lots, 36
townhome units, and 120 condominum units as indicated in the graphic
and legal description as follows:
That part of Section 1, Township 116 North of Range 23 West, described as
follows: Commencing at a point in the West line of said Section 1, distant
90, feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section 1; thence North 800
201 East 390 feet. to the actual .point of beginning of the tract of lend to be
described, said point of beginning being in the center line of the Excelsior
and Eden Prairie road as now laid out and traveled; thence continuing North
89' 202 East 198.E feet to an intersection with the center line of the old
Eden Prairie (so called) road as originally laid out but now, abandoned and
vacated; thence ?-forth 490 101 East 88.6 feet along the center line of said
abandoned road; thence North 29' 591 East 159.4 feet along the center line
of said abandoned road; thence North 45° 20' East 187.1 feet along the center
line of said abandoned road; thence North 440 201 East 225.1 feet along the
center line of said abandoned road; thence North 65' 411 East 212 feet along
the center line of said abandoned road; thence P;orth 78* 051 East 89.1. feet
more or less along the center line of said abandoned road to its intersection
with the East lire of Government Lot 6 of said Section 1; thence North along
the East line of said Government Lot 6, 347.9 feet to the Northeast corner
of said Government Lot 6; thence West along the P,;orth line of said Section 1
to the East shore of Silver Lake (so called); thence Southviesterly Westerly
and Northerly along the shore of said Lake to the :forth line of s4id Section I
on the Westerly side of said Lake; thence Westerly along the north line of
said Section 1 to the United States Government meander corner in the North
line of said Section_ 1, said meander corner being �60 feet East of the north-
west corner of said Section 1; thence South 19' 35' West 361.8 feet; thence
South 90 50c West 327.9 feet; thence South 1° 40' East to the actual point of
beginning. Subject however to a public easement in the existing highway.
That part of Lots 12 and 13, Pleasant View, Carver County, Minnesota,
.lying Northeasterly of a line running from a point in the Southeasterly line
of said Lot 12 distant 113.2 feet Southwesterly of the most Easterly corner
thereof,to a point in the boundary line between said Lots 12 and 13, distant
149.37 feet Southwesterly of the most Easterly corner of said Lot 13, and
;running thence from said Doint in the boundary line between said Lots 12 and
13 to a point in the Northwesterly line of said Lot 13, distant 43 feet T:orth—
easterly of the most'Westerly corner of said Lot 13, except the Southeasterly
15 feet of that part of Lot 12 above described.
That part of Government Lot Four (4), Section One (1), Township One
Hundred Sixteen (116), Range Twenty Three (23) Carver County, Minnesota,
lying Pv;
ortheasterly of "Pleasant Vie", according to the plat thereof on file
and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds, Carver County, Minnesota,
and lying beti•.een the Northeasterly extensions of the Porthwesterly.line of
Lot Thirteen (13) and the Southeasterly line of Lot Twelve (12) said "Pleasant
View", extended to the North line of said Government Lot Four (4).
All that part of Government Lot Four (4) of Section One (1), Township
One Hundred Sixteen (116), Range Twenty Three (23), Carver County, Minnesota'
lying Northerly of the Northeasterly Line of "Pleasant View", according to the,
plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds,
CE:rver County, Minnesota, and westerly of the Northeasterly extension. of the
dividing lire between Lots Thirteen (13) and Fourteen (14) of said "Pleasant
SjiP...F'", if extended ��ort e2s�er1 }�"' ^� t tin= to u l l � ;}r �:10 t e North 11t'e of said
Government Lot Four (4), according to the Government Survey thereof.
Lot 141 Pleasant View, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the Registrar o,f Titles in and for said County of
Carver and State of Minnesota,
The Northeast quarter (T'E�) of the r:orth;,.est Quarter (N:14) and the
North Half (N2-) of the Northeast Quarter (T,E ) except the East 476 feet
of the South 525 feet of the Northeast 'Quarter (NE7) of the Northeast
Quarter (ITE.1),'all in Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County,
Ninnesote.
According to the Government Survey thereof,
Tract "A", Registered Land. Survey r:o, 14, files of the Registrar of
Titles, County of Carver and. State of Minnesota.
Subject to the Fifty per cent (505) interest of Federal Farm NortCar'".;.
Corporation In all mineral rights reserved by deed recorded Book Forty --three`,.
(43) of Deeds Page Six Hundred Twenty One (621). N;w-
A plan showing said proposal is available for inspection at
City Hall. All persons interested may appear and be heard at said
time and place.
BY ORDER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
BobWai el, Asst. Manager Planner
(Publish in the Carver County Herald on October 3, 1979).
2.1400-1
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
Lchristmas
31
12.
mill L
Lip
BLA
Iff
aw
cm
ru
rml cm
3
:i
Frank Metzig
6400 Chanhassen Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
,f
Mr. Richard Kartak
6450 Chanhassen Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I�•
Mr. Jim Nichols
6451 Pleasant View Cir
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Jerome Schroers
65 Pleasant View Road �?
Chanhassen, PAIN 55317
is
Mr. Thomas Murphy
6450 Pleasant View Cir
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Arnold Schroeder F
6430 Pleasant View Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
{�Ff
t I,
Mr. Carl McNutt
185 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 i
�t
Mr. Steven Murphy-�,
195 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
�f
i�
�t
1
Mr. Paul Rojina t
220 W. 77th St.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
j:
4i f'
I
Mr. Harold Rojina�
480 Indian Hill Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 11
i
�l
_ Z
1 t
Mr. Herb Kask If
115 Pleasant View Rd. '4
Chanhassen, MN 55317 fi
f ,
Mr. Dale Palmer Mr. David Evavold
91 Indian Hill Road ' 35 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Gottfried Loescher
520 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Alan Kramer
531 Indian Hill Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Randall Atchison
6915 5th Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423
Mr. Louis Guerre
551 Indian Hill Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Thomas Seifert
600 Pleasant View Rd
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mr. Robert Reichert
Box 332
ct
1
Commissioner of Natural
Resources
E Centennial Office Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55101
City of Eden Prairie
'8950 Eden Prairie Road
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
City of Shorewood
20630 Manor Road
Excelsior, PIN 55331
City of-11innetonka
.14600 Minnetonka Blvd.
Minnetonka, MN 55343
Fr
i)-Hennepin County Govt Center
ii300South 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN
I
Excelsior, MN 55331
t
American Lutheran Church ;
422 So.- 5th St.'
f;
Minneapolis, MN'
L:
f
f
d
R.V. Nelson
`
135 Pleasant View Road
!
Chanhassen, MN 55317
a.
k
—i
Mr. G. Alexander Abresch:
c/o EM.Abresch
6124 9th St.
s�
No. St. Paul, PIN 55119
Eq
i�
Mr. James Ramaker
K
f�
Rt. 2 Glen -Ellyn Park
F`
Shakopee, MN 55379
11
V_ _`
f: :' A ► Q
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612 291- 6359
February 1. 1983
To Whom It Zlay Concern:
RE: Near Mountain Partnership
HUD Subdivision Feasibility Analysis for
Near Mountain
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Received 01/26/83
Metropolitan Council•Referral File No. 10943-1
Please refer to tr_e attached eaplaratiun of tha Metro �� respo sibil i tv to review , - P litan Co'-ci 1's
L�partment of Housing `nd -Trban Deve�lopmen r
iiou;;i�i ; appl:�cuti ens .
Tie CGL1nC 11 h,-�;, ei✓ra fOrTn7ard�d such an ape
Luar� cif Lea A o OF l r 7.ication for the pro i act:
a, t7 T_ ,
is �ncZcs�d, copy
he a� nlication, which Provide ' furthcr
Thank You.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RF't''IF 1VF-0
FEB 0 4 4903
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEFT
Sincere ?.y,
TRCPC'LIT..�O? COUNCIL
Jltutfard U
zLerral Coordiiater
JR:ch
CC: Thomas Harren, Administrator, State A-95 Clearing House
Metropolitan Council District 16
Arr AW"WyC rested to C_;oordrn:at" the PlanrtIfig and DPvcljoj)rrrc•nt of thcs Twin C;'iti� i Metrc,frgl.itan Area C;c>rTaPrirzin
Anoka C(j,,rrty o Carver Count y t Dakota County , Hennopin Gaunt � I K
' — y 2arnRey County Scott County 0 W"e"ingtorr County
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Suite 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
291-6359
OF DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS
(Subdivision Feasibility Analysis)
The Metropolitan Council is required by federal law and regulations to review certain
specified applications for federal loans, grants, or other assistance.
One of.the many types of applications which the Council reviews is Department of
Housing and Urban. Development Applications for Subdivision Feasibility Analysjas
Form No. 2250.. This- application. is submitted to the local area HUD office by a
developer as- a preliminary step in securing a guarantee from HUD that a future buyer
will be able to receive- federal mortgage insurance- because the property, to be pur-
chased will have beendetermined. to be in accordance with federal standards.
Such applications are forwarded to the Council. by the Minnesota Area. Office of HUD
for comment concerning.
I. .the consistency of the proposed project with.... areawide development
plans.."
Z. "identification of major environmental concerns. "
The Council must complete such a review and return it to the HUD office within 30
days. The ultimate purpose of this particular notification and review process is to
encourage the coordination of federal and federally assisted housing programs with
regional planning to facilitate orderly growth of local areas.
This project will be reviewed in accordance with procedures of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget which require that the Council notify potentially affected units of
government, environmental commissions, and human rights commissions, inform them
that such review is taking place, and invite questions -or comments. These comments
will. be incorporated into the review and relayed to HUD.
If you have questions, please call the Metropolitan Council Housing Staff at 291-6373-
U.S. Department.- 'Housing and Urban Development
Minneapolis St. I Area Office, Region V
220 Second Street 6outh
Bridge Place Building
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
January 24, 1983
John Rutford
Metropolitan Council
300 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert
St. Paul, M 55101
Dear Mr. Rutford:
Subject: Subdivision No. 4577
Near Mountain
Chanhassen, MN
Pursuant to Revised OMB Circular A-95 Procedures, you will find
enclosed the following for your review and reconTnendations:
a. Application for Environmental Review.
b. Location Map.
c. Plat.
Sincerely,
Thomas T. Feeney
Area Manager
Enclosures
cc:
Veterans Administration
I
rn
a�
Li5 if
��
0 1
m
MAP.
I
rCD
CL
a
1�
� 7
2
—-----�----- -----ice• 3 ---
p i
o
in
Council Meeting Oct r 18, 1982
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the revised site plan for the Chanhassen
Lakes Business Center dated received Chanhassen Community Development
Department October 15, 1982, with conditions 1-7 of the City Planner's
report of October 15, 1982. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving.
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Geving and
Horn. No'negative votes. Motion carried..
RICE MARSH LAKE WATERSHED FEASIBILITY STUDY: John Gilbertson of CED
was in attendance to make a general presentation of the feasibility
study. Council discussion of the need and project costs ensued.
RESOLUTION #82-65: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a
resolution accepting the feasibility study. Motion seconded by Mayor
Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
Based on staff recommendation, the Council deferred any further action
on this item until the impact of the proposed project on Tax Increment
District #2 could be assessed.
IN FILTRATION/INFLOW REPORT: Representatives of Schoell and Madson and
Planning Design and_Research Engineer's, Inc. were present and.,
conducted a general- review of the report on Infiltration/.Infiol
Analysis.
RESOLUTION #82-66: Councilman Geving moved the adoption of a resolu-
tion accepting the report and directing staff to prepare a follow up
report detailing actions that should be taken based on the report's
findings. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Geving and Horn. No nega-
tive votes. Motion carried.
PURCHASE OF CITY PROPERTY, ARNO WINDSOR: Mr. Windsor has recently
purchased Fract A, RLS #28 and inquired of the City about the
possibility of purchasing a triangular portion of City owned property
to adjust some irregular property line configurations.
Councilman Geving moved to table action until Mr. Windsor can appear
before the Council. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen Geving and Horn.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, NEAR MOUNTAIN: Mayor Hamilton
discussed the following changes to the development contract:
Section 4.0
1 (a) Delete the word "substantially".
Section 4.10, Add #6, Soil Conservation Service.
Councilman Horn moved to approve the final plat and amended
development contract for Near Mountain PRO and authorize the Mayor
and City Manager to sign the plat. Motion seconded by Councilman
Geving. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilmen
Geving and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
MINNE'WASHTA PARK CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Councilman Horn gave a
report on a meeting with the DNR and Metropolitan Council Staff.
The committee proposed that the existing primary, access be upgraded
' CITY OF
CHA13ASSZN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
September 27, 1982
Mr. Sherman Goldberg
c/o Lundgren Bros. Construction Co.
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Goldberg:
The attached development contract addresses all the items of our
discussion of September 24, 1982. Please review it and let me
know if you agree it is ready for presentation to the City
Council.
Sincerely,
.r
William Monk
City Engineer
WM:bf
Enclosure
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Waibel, City Planner
DATE: October 13, 1982
SUBJ: Consideration of Development Contract and First Phase Plat for
Near Mountain PRD
PLANNING CASE: 79-2 PUD
Attached please find the executed development contract and the final
Plat for phase one as submitted by Near Mountain Limited Partnership,
Staff finds both of these documents consistent with previous City
Council approvals and recommend that the City Council authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to sign same for plat filing.
Action by City AdministratOC
Endor
Modified
Re*ted
pate Submitted to Commiss''ai
Date Submitted to Council
Q ..r.
CITY 0F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
October 19, 1982
Mr. Peter Pflaum
Near Mountain Limited Partnership
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
On October 18, 1982 the City Council acted to approve the Near
Mountain Development Contract with two (2) minor revisions. The
first revision is on page 7, paragraph 4.01 on line 3 the word
"substantially" was deleted; and on page 9, paragraph 4.10, a
number 6 was added to read "Carver County Soil Conservation Service."
If these changes meet your approval, please sign the three (3)
enclosed amended contracts and return all copies to me.. A fully
executed copy will be forwarded to you after City signatures.
have been affixed. I have also enclosed the original agreement
as executed by yourself before the revisions were made.
I
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
William Monk
City Engineer
WM:k
Enclosures
LUnDGR(n
�INCTRUCiION
BROk
1z
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
May 24, 1982
Mr. Bill Monk
City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Near Mountain Development
Phase I
Dear Bill:
Per our discussion of May 21, 1982, the following is a summary of the
items we discussed with regards to the recently submitted development
contract for the above referenced project.
Section 1 in paragraph 1.01 the last sentence should read the "final
plat" rather than the "preliminary plat".
Section 2 paragraph 2.01 relative to line J. street lighting, we will
have to check with Northern States Power Company to see how this best
can be accomplished. As I indicated to you in other communities that
we have worked in, the Northern States Power Company installs and main-
tains the lighting system with an annual billing per light to the City
which is then in turn assessed back against the benefitted property.
It is my understanding that the City of Chanhassen will pay for the
electricity costs, but that we have to have the system installed by
Northern States Power Company or some other electrical contractor.
This is covered further in the development contract.
Vli 1 31v[8 L� ti
CITY or.
Page 2
Paragraph 2.05 the financial guaranty that we will be providing the
City shall include some percentage to cover the cost shown in said
paragraph. It is my understanding that at this time the only out of
pocket expenses we would be paying would be the City Attorney's fees.
The other costs incurred by the City would be bonded for but actual
out of pocket expenses per se would not be paid.
Paragraph 2.06 at this time we do not have a firm starting date but
it was agreed that we would have approximately a 2 year period to
install the improvements except for the sodding and seeding work which
would accompany the home building. It was also agreed that we might
have to do some interim seeding or sodding in areas where erosion
would be a problem in order to take care of this matter and prevent
any serious erosion problems.
Paragraph 2.11 Sentence A was covered in the previous discussion of
paragraph 2.06. It is my feeling that the driveway surfacing should
be eliminated from the development contract as all the homes would
have driveways surfaced from the back of the curb to the garage and
this work is all done at the same time the house is built.
Paragraph 2.13 as discussed earlier under paragraph 2.01. The City
would furnish electrical energy for street lighting either 12 months
after the completion of the installation of the street lighting system
or after 50% of the building lots have been approved by the construction
of residences, whichever is first to occur. It is also understood
that the developer would have to furnish the street lighting system
as his cost.
Page 3
Section 4 paragraph 4.01 you indicated that I would have to talk with
Bob Waibel regarding the trail stystem.
Paragraph 4.02 you indicated that I should speak with Bob Obermeyer
of Barr Engineering relative to the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed
District requirements. You were of the opinion that an overall
drainage plan for the area should be provided so that it can be
determined what portions would be necessary for Phase I construction.
Relative to easements_ for ingress and egress for retention pond main-
enance we did not discuss this but I would think 15 feet wide should
be sufficient. You might want to think about this. Also, you want to
see an overall sanitary sewer plan.
Para(ira,)h_4.05 I would assume that concrete curb and gutter can be
the surmountable design since driveways would not be determined at the
time the curb and gutters were constructed.
Paragraph 4.09 This paragraph could be deleted.
Paragraph 4.11 I would like to see this entire paragraph deleted. It
is in our best interest to preserve as many trees on any particular
building site as possible. We do not indiscriminately remove trees for
the sake of removing trees. It is not practical to have each site
inspected by the City staff in order to determine the best location of
the house on any particular lot. We have design people, including a
Registered Architect, on our staff who are well qualified too. It is
our feeling that this requirement would impose an undue hardship on
the developer in trying to market his product. We would also like to
see the boulevard tree requirement eliminated. This requirement really
Page 4
stems from the FHA/VA requirements and I even wonder whether they enforce
this requirement anymore.
Paragraph 4.13 I think this particular requirement is covered in the
building code.
Paragraph 4.14 With respect to special assessments, we would request
that they be split and divided amongst the individual building sites
and remain on the assessment roll. We have worked in several other
communities and have not had to pay off the special assessments at
the time of the issuance of the building permit. I am sure you can
understand that this creates a cash flow problem and is really not
practical. As a matter of policy, most of the lending institutions
require that they be paid at the time of closing. In fact, this is
what generally takes place.
With respect to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission charges (SAC)
it is understood that this is paid at the time of the building permit.
Section 5 Paragraph 5.01 All easements will be shown on the plat and
where easements for pedestrian walkways or maintenance purposes for
the ponds cannot be shown on the plat as an easement, it will be shown
as an outlot or a separate easement document will have to be furnished
the City.
Paragraph 5.11 You indicated that I should contact Scott Martin relative
to a sign permit for an advertising sign while the property is being
developed. It is understood that the sign has to be approved by the
City Council.
a
Page 5
Paragraph 2.19 This paragraph seems to deal with the City's remedies in
case we do not perform. We feel that assurance of the improvements being
installed are covered by the financial guaranty that the City requires.
We do have to provide a financial guaranty for the required improvements
and the City will have the authority to use that money in the event
that we don't perform. Therefore, we would like to see this section
eliminated.
Bill, I think this summarizes our discussion of the development contract.
If you see any problems or contradictions, please contact me. I.t might
be a good idea if we were to sit down with you and the City staff and
discuss any problems you might see. I appreciate your taking the time
to review my concerns and it was a pleasure meeting you.
Yours very truly,
0 if
Sherman L. Goldberg
Division Manager
Land Development
SLG/pm
cc: Mike Pflaum
Peter Pflaum
'7q P
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
June 14, 1982
Mr. Sherman Goldberg
Division Manager of Land Development
Lundgren Bros. Construction Company
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Goldberg:
Your letter of May 24 has been received and noted. At present,
this office is working with members of the Planning Department
on a redraft of the Near Mountain development contract that
will address many of your comments plus several staff concerns.
Hopefully this work will be completed sometime this week and
submitted for your review soon thereafter.
Sincerely,
William Monk
City Engineer
WM : k
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE A P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
March 22, 1982
Mike Pflaum
Lundgren Bros. Construction
1421 Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mike:
Attached for your review is the development contract for Phase I
of the Near Mountain Development. As you will note, there are
several sections left blank that will need to be agreed upon prior
to your signing of the development contract. Those section are
as follows:
Section 2.06 Completion Date and :Schedule.of Work - It is suggested
that you meet with Bill and myself in order that a commencement date
and completion date for the construction of public improvements can
be agreed upon prior to signing of the contract.
Section 2.13 Street Lighting - The policy of the City of Chanhassen
has been that the costs for furnishing electrical energy for the
street lights is assumed by the City 24 months after the completion
of the street lighting system or after 50% of the residences have
been constructed, whichever occurs first.
Section 2.18 Liability Insurance - As in Section 2.06, this will need
to be agreed to between yourself and the City prior to signing of the
development contract.
Please inform me as to when you would like to meet and discuss the
above matters.
Sincerely,
G�
Bob Waibel
Planner
BW: nh
cc: Don Ashworth
Russell Larson
Scott Martin
Bill Monk
I �
CITY OF CHANHASSEN v
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
NEAR MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES
PHASE I
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
day of , 1982, by and between
NEAR MOUNTAIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I, a limited partnership
of which PETER PFLAUM and ROBERT L. MALAMED are General
Partners, (hereinafter the "Developer"), and the CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter
the "City") ;
WITNESSETH, that the City, in the exercise of its
Powers pursuant to MSA 9462.358 and other applicable state
laws, and the Developer, in consideration of the mutual
covenants herein contained, recite and agree as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.01. Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary
Plat. Developer has heretofore made application to the City
under the City Zoning Ordinance for the approval of a P-1,
Planned Residential Development District, including a
preliminary plat thereof, of certain lands comprising 147
acres, more or less, identified as Near Mountain, more
particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof, which tracts of land are referred to herein-
after as the "Preliminary Development Plan." Said Planned
Residential District encompasses all of the property described
on Exhibit A, which is proposed to be developed in separate
phases. The Preliminary Plat, more particularly described on
Exhibit B attached hereto, submitted by Developer to the
City encompasses only Phase I, consisting of 17 single family
residential lots, and one outlot, of the development plans
envisioned for the said Plan.
1.02. Ownership Interests.' The fee owner of the tract
of land comprising the plat of Near Mountain is as follows:
Near Mountain Limited Partnership I, a limited partnership
consisting of Peter Pflaum and Robert L. Melamed as
General Partners; and Edmund M. Lundgren, Gerald T.
Lundgren, Allan D. Lundgren, Michael A. Pflaum, Eugene S.
Holderness, David N. Olson, Harry J. Jensen, and
Samuel L. Kaplan, as Trustee under the Trust created by
J. S. Melamed, as Limited Partners.
CITY U CHANHASSEN
x 1
try ice;, "C �H` I } a' rE. ''
COMM'! �,T i s tL-i -., !T DER.
.
1.03. Zoning and Development Plan. The City
Planning Commission duly held a public hearing on October 17,
1979, on the petition of the Developer for rezoning of the
tracts of land comprising the Plat from R-lA to P-1, Planned
Residential District, under the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance,
and for preliminary development plan and preliminary plat
approval of Phase I. Thereafter, the City Council on May 11,
1981, granted final development plan approval, including
rezoning of the plat to P-1, Planned Residential District and
preliminary plat approval, all said approvals being subject to
the terms and conditions of the within agreement and on the
further condition that the Developer and Owners 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 T2.02 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. Water mains
e. Storm and surface water drainage and holding ponds
f. Street signs
g. Boulevard sodding or seeding
h. Driveway surfacing within the public right-of-way
i. Underground utility lines, and
j. 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 specifications 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 written 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
specifications, 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.
500
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
satisfaction 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 administration costs, shall be
included in the total cost of all improvements for purposes of
computing the amount of the bond or 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 Developer that the construction
of the public improvements shall commence within a
period of not more
following execution of this
agreement and that construction of said public
improvements shall be completed on or before
b. It is agreed that the Developer shall submit a
written 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.
-3-
2.07. Claims for Work. The Developer shall not do any
work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans and
specifications and special conditions of this agreement, for
which reimbursement 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
furnished 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 the City Engineer, a representative of the
contractor, and a representative 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 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 to.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
will save the City harmless 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 categories 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. Boulevards and Driveways. Developer agrees to
furnish, construct and install, at Developer's sole expense, the
following improvements for the benefit of each lot within
Phase I, in accordance with the plans described in 112.02 above:
-4-
a. Boulevard sod or seeding, either of which
shall be of uniformly good quality
b. Driveway surfacing within the public street
right-of-way, the materials and installation of
which shall be approved by the City Engineer.
2.12. Erosion Control. Developer, at its expense,
shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices
and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as shall be
needed, in the judgment of the City Engineer, and the Riley -
Purgatory Creek Watershed District, to prevent the washing,
flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and roads within
and outside the plat during all phases of construction, including
construction on individual lots.
2.13. Street Lighting. The expense of furnishing
electrical energy for street lighting purposes shall be assumed
by the City months after completion of installation
of thestreet lighting system, or after of the building
lots have been improved by the construction of residences
thereon, whichever is first to occur..
2.14. Water and Sewer Revenues. All water and
sanitary sewer service charges shall at all times be billed
by the City, and all revenues derived therefrom shall be the
sole property of the City.
2.15. Conveyance of Improvements. Upon completion of
the installation by Developer of the improvements set forth in
12.01 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.
2.16. Building Permits and Occupancy Permits.
a. Prior to completion of the grading and placement
of rock stabilizing materials for road construction
within each plat, the City Building Inspector, with
the approval of the City Manager, 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 permits.
b. The occupancy of any structure within said
plats 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 permit shall have been issued.
-5-
2.17. One Year Guarantee of Work and Maintenance Bond.
All work and materials performed and furnished by the
Developer, its agents and subcontractors pursuant to 112.01 above,
which is 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 a one-year bond in an amount
specified by the City Council furnished by Developers, naming
the City as beneficiary. Said bond shall first be approved by
the City Attorney. Said bond shall be in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any other remedies which may be available to the
City to cure any defects in materials and workmanship.
2.18. 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 subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly
employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death
shall be not less than $ for one person and
$ $ for each accident; limits for
property damage shall be not less than $ for
each accident. 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.
2.19. 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 D-e-veloper
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 foreclosure of mechanic's liens
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
.,
b. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing,
the City may institute any proper action or proceeding
at law or at equity to compel specific performance,
to prevent violations, or to restrain or abate vio-
lations of this development contract.
SECTION 3. Reserved.
SECTION 4. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
4.01. Trail System.
a. The Developer shall donate to the City a
perpetual easement for a pedestrian trail system
which shall substantially conform to the Preliminary
Development Plan previously submitted by Developer
to the City Planning Commission on August 29, 1979,
and identified as "Site Plan" prepared by Herb
Baldwin, Landscape Architect, showing the trail
system, ponding areas and a proposed scenic overlook.
The trail system shall be eight (8) feet wide, and
shall not be placed within the street road surface.
The City may activiate the trail system at any time,
regardless of whether the phase of the project over
which the trail system extends has been finally
platted_ o_rdeveloped- he obligationfo__furnish
surfacing and to maintain the trail system shall be
solely that of the City.
-7-
b. Outlots B and F shall be dedicated to the
City as part of the pedestrian trail system.
4.02. Storm Water Retention Ponds. Perpetual
easements for storm water retention ponds within the development
plan, including the preliminary plat of Phase I shall be donated
to the City by Developer. Said storm water retention ponds
shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications
of the City Engineer, the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District
and the Department of Natural Resources. Said easements shall
include easements to the City for ingress and egress for'
retention pond maintenance purposes.
4.03. Covenants and Restrictions. Any proposed
covenants or restrictions to be placed upon the lots in the
subject plat shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to
recording with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. 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.
4.04. 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 monuments shall
be placed after all street and lawn grading has been completed,
in order to preserve the lot markers for future property owners.
4.05. Street.
a. The North -South and East-West collector streets
within the development plan shall have a right-of-way
of 60 feet and a road surface of 36 feet. All other
residential streets shall have a right-of-way of
50 feet and a road surface of 28 feet. All cul-de-
sacs shall have a platted radius of 60 feet and a paved
surface with a 40 foot radius.
b. All streets within the plat shall be constructed
with concrete curbs and gutters.
4.06. 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
traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If and
when 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 subdivision 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
responsible for re -shaping said streets because of snow plowing
operations if they are requested and providing snow plowing
service does not constitute final acceptance of said streets.
4.07. . Street Signs. Street signs shall be required
at each street intersection at the cost of the Developer.
The City will furnish and install said signs and bill the
Developer for said work.
4.08. Park Fees. Prior to the issuance of building
permits 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 thereunder.
4.09. 5choell '& Madson, Inc. as Project Engineers.
Developer shall employ Schoell & Madson, Inc., engineers, to
prepare plans and specifications to do staking and to supervise
construction on the proposed project... It shall be.the final
responsibility of the City Engineer to determine the acceptability
of the project engineers' design and supervisory work.
4.10. Undertaking in Lieu of Bond. The Developer has
submitted a proposed "undertaking in lieu of bond" (also known
as a construction loan agreement) rather than a performance bond
or security deposit to secure performance of its obligations
under the within contract. Said "undertaking" is hereby_
given concept approval only subject to the following conditions:
a. All documentation evidencing the "undertaking in.
lieu of bond" shall be approved by the City Attorney
prior to the commencement of work on the project.
b. The City Engineer shall do all inspection of
the work.
C. No disbursement of funds shall be made by the
escrow agent under said "undertaking" to contractors
on pay requests until the City Engineer certifies
that the work has been done in accordance with City
standards and the plans and specifications.
See Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof.
4.11. Landscaping and Trees and Location of Structures.
Landscaping and location of structures on —individual lots shall
be determined through discussions between City staff and
Developer or its assigns prior to issuance of building permits,
subject to the following standards and conditions:
a. Landscaping and location of structures shall
take into consideration the preservation of trees,
slope protection, subsurface drainage, prevention of
siltation and similar potential problems.
-9-
b. In the event agreement cannot be reached
between the City staff and Developer or its assigns,
the City shall have the right, at the expense of the
Developer or its assigns, to engage the services of
the City Engineer, Planner, a landscape architect,
a soil conservation consultant, and others, to advise
as to specific problems.
C. The certificate of occupancy for each homesite,
or covenants. and restrictions, may contain conditions
for tree maintenance, and restrictions on tree removal,
after consultation with the City Forester.
d. Trees to be provided. Developer shall provide
each -'single family detached dwelling with one boulevard
tree of species acceptable to the City Forester and
of a diameter of not less .than 1-1/2 inches.
In the case of corner lots, one such tree shall be
furnished for each street frontage.
4.12. . 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.
4.13. Site Drainage, Waterproofing, and Footing Drains.
Individual site drainage, basement waterproofing and footing
drains for each residential structure shall be installed when
deemed necessary or appropriate by the City Engineer or Building
Official.
4.14. Public Improvement Special Assessments. Unpaid
public improvement special assessments including accrued
interest) outstanding against any residential lot within the
preliminary plat (Exhibit B) shall be paid in full prior to the
issuance of a building permit for any such lot. The term
"unpaid public improvement special assessments" shall include:
1. Any outstanding City sewer and water trunk
or lateral special assessments
2. Any sewer availability charges due to the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
-10-
SECTION 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
5.01. Easements 'to be Shown on Plat. Easements for
drainage, storm water holding ponds, open space, pedestrian
walkways, trails, City access to storm water holding ponds
for maintenance purposes, and utility easements shall be shown
on all final plats to the extent allowable under applicable
state law.
5.02. Proof of Title. Upon request, Developer shall
furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it
is fee owner of the subject property.
5.03. 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
written 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 mandated by this contract, the Chanhassen City Manager
shall issue to the Developer on behalf of the City an appropriate
certificate of compliance.
5.04. Notices. All notices, certificates and other
communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall
be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as indicated
below. The City and the Developer, by written notice give-n 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,
certificates and communications to each of them shall be
addressed as follows:
To the City: City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Attn: City Manager
To Developer:
5.05. 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.
-11-
5.06. Severability. In the event any provisions 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.
5.07. 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.
5.08. Construction. This agreement shall be construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
5.09. 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.
5.11. 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 presents to be executed on the day and year first above
written.
NEAR MOUNTAIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I
WN
General Partner
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By
Mayor
Attest:
City Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Preliminary Development Plan
Exhibit B: Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C: Construction Loan Agreement
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
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
and the
of the limited partnership named in the foregoing instrument,
and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of
said limited partnership by authority of its
and said and
acknowledged said instrument
to be the free act and deed of said limited partnership.
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
-13-
LUIlDGR(n
�/ r I-V Oku �, ONSTRUCTION AAr
xj-t-
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD 0 WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
February 25, 1982
Mr. Don Ashworth
Chanhassen City Manaqer
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Near Mountain/Chanhassen Phase I Development Contract
Dear Don:
When will we be provided with a draft copy of the above?
Very truly yours,
NEAR MOUNTAIN LIMITED PARTN�.RSHIP I
Michael A. Pflaum
MAP/Je
.. 11982
CITY OF CHANHASSti,
RUSSELL H. LARSON
CRAIG M. MERTZ
OF COUNSEL
HARVEY E. SKAAR
MARK C. MCCULLOUGH
LARSON & MERTZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1900 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S5402
February 15, 1982
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Bill Monk, City Engineer
Scott A. Martin, Community Development L
Bob Waibel, Land Use Coordinator
Gentlemen:
TELEPHONE
(612) 333-I5 II
Re: Near Mountain mited
Par na,-��-ip I
Phase I Development Contract
Attached is our initial draft of the Phase I Development Contract
covering the 17 lot subdivision Near Mountain proposesas its first
phase of its project.
Please review this document to ensure that it squares with the
Council and staff recommendations.
A copy has not been sent to the Near Mountain developers as the
document as drafted should first be r ed by the City.
Ver tr y yo
RUSSELL H. LARSON
Chanhassen City Attorney
RHL:ner
enc
cc: Mike Pflaum ~
J t� Z` // r,14 "-," a �-7'/
1
yo�. 41cor 0.7 i A i C,,-,4&
�60 4 / A, �i. � V� K i 41 r
J'�
- -. MyErg
FtB 1 1982
CITY OF CHAI`V� &3LI J
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PI-2-INNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
NEAR MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES
PHASE I
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
day of , 1982, by and between
NEAR MOUNTAIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I, a limited partnership
of which PETER PFLAUM and ROBERT L. MALAMED are General
Partners, (hereinafter the "Developer"), and the CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter
the "City");
WITNESSETH, that the City, in the exercise of its
powers pursuant to MSA §462.358 and other applicable state
laws, and the Developer, in consideration of the mutual
covenants herein contained, recite and agree as follows:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.01. Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary
Plat. Developer has heretofore made application to the City
under the City Zoning Ordinance for the approval of a P-1,
Planned Residential Development District, including a
preliminary plat thereof, of certain lands comprising 147
acres, more or less, identified as Near Mountain, more
particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made
a part hereof, which tracts of land are referred to herein-
after as the "Preliminary Development Plan." Said Planned
Residential District encompasses all of the property described
on Exhibit A, which is proposed to be developed in separate
phases. The Preliminary Plat, more particularly described on
Exhibit B attached hereto, submitted by Developer to the
City encompasses only Phase I, consisting of 17 single family
residential lots, and one outlot, of the development plans
envisioned for the said Plan.
1.02. Ownership Interests. The fee owner of the tract
of land comprising the plat of Near Mountain is as follows:
Near Mountain TIimited Partnership I, a limited partnership
consisting of Peter Pflaum and Robert L. Melamed as
General Partners; and Edmund M. Lundgren, Gerald T.
Lundgren, Allan D. Lundgren, Michael A. Pflaum, Eugene S.
Holderness, David N. Olson, Harry J. Jensen, and
Samuel L. Kaplan, as Trustee under the Trust created by
J. S. Melamed, as Limited Partners.
1..03. Zoning and Development Plan. The City
Planning Commission duly held a public hearing on October 17,
1979, on the petition of the Developer for rezoning of the
tracts of land comprising the Plat from R-lA to P-1, Planned
Residential District, under the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance,
and for preliminary development plan and preliminary plat
approval of Phase I. Thereafter, the City Council on May 11,
1981, granted final development plan approval, including
rezoning of the plat to P-1, Planned Residential District and
preliminary plat approval, all said approvals being subject to
the terms and conditions of the within agreement and on the
further condition that the Developer and Owners 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 112.02 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. Water mains
e. Storm and surface water drainage and holding ponds
f. Street signs
g. Boulevard sodding or seeding
h. Driveway surfacing within the public right-of-way
i. Underground utility lines, and
j. 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 specifications 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 written 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
specifications, 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-
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
satisfaction 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 administration costs, shall be
included in the total cost of all improvements for purposes of
computing the amount of the bond or 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 Developer that the construction
— of the public improvements shall commence wiU in a
period of not more
following execution of this
agreement and that construction of said public
improvements shall be completed on or before
b. It is,agreed that the Developer shall submit a
written 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.
-3-
2.07. Claims for Work. The Developer shall not do any
work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans and
specifications and special conditions of this agreement, for
which reimbursement 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
furnished 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 the Clty Engineer, a representative of the
contractor, and a representative 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 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 'L-.o 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 to.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
will save the City harmless 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 categories 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. Boulevards and Driveways. Developer agrees to
furnish, construct and install, at Developer's sole expense, the
following improvements for the benefit of each lot within
Phase I, in accordance with the plans described in J12.02 above:
-4-
a. Boulevard sod or seeding, either of which
shall be of uniformly good quality
b. Driveway surfacing within the public street
right-of-way, the materials and installation of
which shall be approved by the City Engineer.
2.12. Erosion Control. Developer, at its expense,
shall provide temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices
and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as shall be
needed, in the judgment of the City Engineer, and the Riley -
Purgatory Creek Watershed District, to prevent the washing,
flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and roads within
and outside the plat during all phases of construction, including
construction on individual lots.
2.13. Street Lighting. The expense of furnishing
electrical energy for street lighting purposes shall be assumed
by the City months after completion of installation
of thestreet lighting system, or after of the building
lots have been improved by the construction of residences
thereon, whichever is first to occur.
2.14. Water and Sewer Revenues. All water and
sanitary sewer service charges shall at all times be billed
by the City, and all revenues derived therefrom shall be the
sole property of the City.
2.15. Conveyance of Improvements. Upon completion of
the installation by Developer of the improvements set forth in
j(2.01 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.
2.16. Building Permits and Occupancy Permits.
a. Prior to completion of the grading and placement
of rock stabilizing materials for road construction
within each plat, the City Building Inspector, with
the approval of the City Manager, 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 permits.
b. The occupancy of any structure within said
plats 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 permit shall have been issued.
-5-
2.17. One Year Guarantee -of Work and Maintenance Bond.
All work and materials performed and furnished by the
Developer, its agents and subcontractors pursuant to 52.01 above,
which is 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 a one-year bond in an amount
specified by the City Council furnished by Developers, naming
the City as beneficiary. Said bond shall f`irst be approved by
the City Attorney. Said bond shall be in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any other remedies which may be available to the
City to cure any defects in materials and workmanship.
2.18. 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 subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly
employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death
shall be not less than $ for one person and
$ $ for each accident; limits for
property damage shall be not less than $ for
each accident. 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.
2.19. 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 foreclosure of mechanic's liens
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
-6-
b. Legal Proceedings. .In addition to the foregoing,
the City may institute any proper action or proceeding
at law or at equity to compel specific performance,
to prevent violations, or to restrain or abate vio-
lations of this development contract.
SECTION 3. Reserved.
SECTION 4. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
4.01. Trail* 'Sys tem.
a. The Developer shall donate to the City a
perpetual easement for a pedestrian trail system
which shall substantially conform to the Preliminary
Development Plan previously submitted by Developer
to the City Planning Commission on August 29, 1979,
and identified as "Site Plan" prepared by Herb
Baldwin, Landscape Architect, showing the trail
system, ponding areas and a proposed scenic overlook.
The trail system shall be eight (8) feet wide, and
shall not be placed within the street road surface.
The City may activiate the trail system at any time,
regardless of whether the phase of the project over
which the trail system extends has been finally
platted or developed. The obligation to furnish
surfacing and to maintain the trail system shall be
solely that of the City.
-7-
b. Outlots B and F shall be dedicated to the
City as part of the pedestrian trail system.
4.02. Storm Water Retention Ponds. Perpetual
easements for storm water retention pon s within the development
plan, including the preliminary plat of Phase I shall be donated
to the City by Developer. Said storm water retention ponds
shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications
of the City Engineer, the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District
and the Department of Natural Resources. Said easements shall
include easements to the City for ingress and egress for
retention pond maintenance' purposes.
4.03. Covenants and Restrictions. Any proposed
covenants or restrictions to be placed upon the lots in the
subject plat shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to
recording with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. 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.
4.04. . 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 monuments shall
be placed after all street and lawn grading has been completed,
in order to preserve the lot markers for future property owners.
4.05. Street.
a. The North -South and East-West collector streets
within the development plan shall have a right-of-way
of 60 feet and a road surface of 36 feet. All other
residential streets shall have a right-of-way of
50 feet and a road surface of 28 feet. All cul-de-
sacs shall have a radius of 60 feet.
b. All streets within the plat shall be constructed
with concrete curbs and gutters.
4.06. 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
traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If and
when 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 subdivision 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
responsible for re -shaping said streets because of snow plowing
operations if they are requested and providing snow plowing
service does not constitute final acceptance of said streets.
4.07. Street Signs. Street signs shall be required
at each street intersection at the cost of the Developer.
The City will furnish and install said signs and bill the
Developer for said work.
4.08. Park Fees. Prior to the issuance of building
permits 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 thereunder.
4.09. Schoelll *& Madson, Inc. 'as Project Engineers.
Developer shall employ Schoe 1 & Ma son, Inc., engineers, to
prepare plans and specifications to do staking and to supervise
construction on the proposed project. It shall be the final
responsibility of the City Engineer to determine the acceptability
of the project engineers' design and supervisory work.
4.10. Undertakirig in Lieu of Bond. The Developer has
submitted a proposed "undertaking in lieu of bond" (also known
as a construction loan agreement) rather than a performance bond
-or security deposit to secure performance of its obligations
under the within contract. Said "undertaking" is hereby,
given concept approval only subject to the following conditions:
a. All documentation evidencing the "undertaking in.
lieu of bond" shall be approved by the City Attorney
prior to the commencement of work on the project.
b. The City Engineer shall do all inspection of
the work.
C. No disbursement of funds shall be made by the
escrow agent under said "undertaking" to contractors
on pay requests until the City Engineer certifies
that the work has been done in accordance with City
standards and the plans and specifications.
See Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof.
4.11. . Landscaping and Trees and Location of Structures.
Landscaping and location of structures on individual lots shall
be determined through discussions between. City staff and
Developer or its assigns prior to issuance of building permits,
subject to the following standards and conditions:
a. Landscaping and location of structures shall
take into consideration the preservation of trees,
slope protection, subsurface drainage, prevention of
siltation and similar potential problems.
ME
b. In the event agreement cannot be reached
between the City staff and Developer or its assigns,
the City shall. have the right, at the expense of the
Developer or its assigns, to engage the services of
the City Engineer, Planner, a landscape architect,
a soil conservation consultant, and others, to advise
as to specific problems.
C. The certificate of occupancy for each homesite,
or covenants and restrictions, may contain conditions
.for tree maintenance, and restrictions on tree removal,
after consultation with the City Forester.
d. Trees to be provided. Developer shall provide
each single family detached dwelling -with one boulevard
tree of species acceptable to the City Forester and
of a diameter of not less .than 1-1/2 inches.
In the case of corner lots, one such tree shall be
furnished for each street.frontage.
4.12. 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.
4.13. Site Drainage, Waterproofing, and Footing Drains.
Individual site drainage, basement waterproofing and footing
drains for each residential structure shall be installed when
deemed necessary or appropriate by the City Engineer or Building
Official.
4.14. Public Improvement Special Assessments. Unpaid
public improvement special assessments including accrued
interest) outstanding against any residential lot within the
preliminary plat (Exhibit B) shall be paid in full prior to the
issuance of a building permit for any such lot. The term
"unpaid public improvement special assessments" shall include:
I. Any outstanding City sewer and water trunk
or lateral special assessments
2. Any sewer availability charges due to the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission.
-10-
SECTION 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
5.01. Easements 'to be Shown on Plat. Easements for
drainage, storm water holding ponds, open space, pedestrian
walkways, trails, City access to storm water holding ponds
for maintenance purposes, and utility easements shall be shown
on all final plats to the extent allowable under applicable
state law.
5.02. 1Proofof Title. Upon request, Developer shall
furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it
is fee owner of the subject property.
5.03. Du e'ticin: '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
written 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 mandated by this contract, the Chanhassen City Manager
shall issue to the Developer on behalf of the City an appropriate
certificate of compliance.
5.04. Notices. All notices, certificates and other
communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall
be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt
requested, postage prepaid, with proper 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,
certificates and communications to each of them shall be
addressed as follows:
To the City: City of Chanhassen
City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
Attn: City Manager
To Developer:
5.05. 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.
-11-
5.06. Severability. In the event any.provisions 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.
5.07. 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.
5.08. Construction. This agreement shall be construed
in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
5.09. 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.
5.11. . 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 presents to be executed on the day and year first above
--written.
NEAR MOUNTAIN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP I
By
General Partner
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By
yo r
Attest:
City Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Preliminary Development Plan
Exhibit B: Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C: Construction Loan Agreement
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
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
,and the
of the limited partnership named in the foregoing instrument,
and that said instrument was signed.and sealed in behalf of
said limited partnership by authority of its
and said and
acknowledged said instrument
to be the free act and deed of said limited partnership.
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
-13-
Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board
100 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Phone 612-296-2319
Ms.. Elsa Wiltsey
City of Shorewood
20630 Manor Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Re: Near Mountain Project EAW
November 19, 1981
Dear Ms. Wiltsey:
Based on the information contained in a November 13th letter from
Pflaumwell Development, it appears that the change in circumstances sur-
rounding the construction of the deep well in the above referenced project
does not require any modifications in the previously processed Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW), The negative declaration which was reviewed
in the January, 1980 EAW still stands.
However, even though the change does not require a new EAW, this does
not prohibit the preparation of one, In situations where there are changes
in the details presented in an EAW, or because circumstances may have changed
since the preparation of the EAW, the city may still require that one be
prepared. That requirement is at their discretion.
If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me,
cc: -City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
-Pflaumwell Development Partnership
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, PIN 55391
Sincerely,
Tom Rulland, Manager
Policy Analysis & Review
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
NOV 2 3 1981
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
1 i 1
LARSON & MEI2Tz
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1900 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
RUSSELL H. LARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TELEPHONE
CRAIG M. MERTZ .
16121 333-I SIi
OF COUNSEL September 14, 1981
HARVEY E. SKAAR
MIARK C. MCCULLOUGH
Don Ashworth
Scott A. Martin .�`
Bill Monk
Bob Waibel fi
Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
Re: Near Mountain
Phase I Development Contract
Gentlemen:
Please note the attached letter and -drawing received this date from
Mike Pflaum regarding the above project.
As noted the proposed Phase I will consist of 17 single-family
lots and one Outlot.
My questions are:
RHL:ner
enc
1. How does this proposal square with earlier approvals?
2. Does this proposal need Council approval, or should
the matter be handled administratively?
Very ru 7m�_
"'t
RUSSELL H. LARSON
Chanhassen City Attorney
MY OF CHANHASSEN
SEP 1 1981
Oev,�llMU�`�sT'� GE��E�E►F�IEi�T DEPT.
T.
LUnDGR(n
BROCONSTRUCTION
S. INC.
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
September 11, 1981
Mr. Russell H. Larson
1900 lst National Bank Bldg.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re:l Near Mountain Phase One development contract.
I
Dear' Russ:
As we today discussed, we are now preparing our initial Phase One final
plat. I have enclosed a photocopy which shows `this area outlined in red.
The only streets which we plan to construct therewith are what are shown
within the outline.
If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please call.
I trustwe will have a draft development contract soon.
i
Very truly yours,
NEAR MOPYTAIN LIMITE?PAR ERSHIP I
God
Michae/ A. Pflaum
MAP/jh
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P 0 BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: October 15, 1979
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Asst. Manager/LUC, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Planned Residential Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit
Review, Near Mountain Property, Public Hearing
APPLICANT: Pflaumwell Development
PLANNING CASE: P-607
For the purposes of this public hearing, please find the attached and incorporate
such into your copy of Exhibit 1, P-607, Near Mountain Planned Residential Development.
1. Letter dated October 2, 1979 from MnDOT.
2. Letter dated October 11, 1979, from Planning Dept. City of Minnetonka
3. Developer's description of the proposed development.
4. Preservation Plan for open space.
5. Anticipated sequence and schedule of development.
6. Preliminary Elevation drawings.
7. Prospective drawings.
8. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations.
9. Density breakdown by lot.
10. Phase plan and preliminary development plan
In reviewing the information on the subject proposal submitted L„ date, this office
has no problem with the proposed land use, density, and circulation with the exception
of the following points:
1. That the emergency and street accesses on the southern boundary of the plats
be eliminated.
2. That outlot B in the Near Mountain preliminary plat dated August 24, 1979,
be dedicated easement for pedestrian way purposes. Keeping in mind that this
easement is to be one of the links in the proposed linear pedestrian system, the
planning commission should at this time make their comments as to the appropriate
location of said outlot B. This office finds that the presently proposed location
from outlot B has the advantage that it will connect to a collector street in the
Near Mountain plat thus channelizing the pedestrian traffic in a preferred manner,
however, it does have the disadvantage in that its access from Pleasant View Road
.is such that there will in all likelihood be a residential development between
this access and Lotus Lake Community Park, thus requiring pedestrian movement to
occur on a portion of Pleasant View Road. Despite the difficulties involved, this
Planning Commission —1 -2- October 15, 1979
office would recommend that Outlot B remain in the location proposed.
3. This office had recommended that the major streets in the proposed plat be
36 feet wide which would be for collector purposes, and additionally
provide lanes for the aforementioned pedestrian traffic. Although the design of
said pedestrian way is still undecided, it is the recommendation of this office
that pedestrian lanes be provided for in 36 foot street areas with appropriate parking
restrictions.
4. As previously mentioned, this office has no problems with the land use,
density, or circulation proposed, however, at this.time, I believe that for the
condominium and the townhome area, the planning commission shotldrestrictmany approval
of the concept to adoption into the Comprehensive Plan and stating clearly into
the record, that final approval would be contingent upon planning commission and
city council approval of a detailed site plan.
As shown in the attached letter from the MnDOT, they have recommended that the proposed
access on Highway 101 as indicated in the proposed plans be eliminated and that
Pleasant View Road be utilized for the primary access to 101. This letter outlines
the essential elements of the September 25th discussion, and it cites the specific
method whereby. an intersection would be designed that would eliminate westward movement
from the development on Pleasant View Road. A plan showing said intersection will
be available for your review at the meeting Wednesday evening. This office concurs
that with adequate design, this method would be less detrimental to Pleasant View
Road and MTH 101. Said design should address the relevance of any stacking problems
to the existing homes along Pleasant View Road near the intersection of Highway 101.
This type of access to MTH 101 is additionally in conformance with the recommendations
submitted by the City of Minnetonka planning department in their letter of October 11,
1979, attached hereto.
In regard to the attached sample covenants and restrictions, I have the following
comments. The sample covenants for the single family phases of the proposed
development, indicate a provision regarding the minimum value of housing to be
constructedti[ Despite the apparent restrictiveness of such a clause, this office
feels that the applicant has addressed the spirit and intent as found in the preamble
of the P-1 zoning district concerning the low and moderate income provision by the
inclusion of the townhome portion as part of the overall development. In the attached
sample covenants and restrictions for the multiple dwelling areas, you will note that
the covenants have an expiration clause followed with an automatic renewal clause.
I would urge that the city seek to obtain a best assurance that said covenants and
restrictions are made purpetuis.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary development plan,
rezoning, subdivision, and conditional use permit for the subject proposal conditioned
upon the following:
1. That the applicant receive environmental assessment worksheet review and
approval from the environmental quality council.
2. That the applicant receive all necessary approvals of the Riley Purgatory
Creek Watershed District for land alteration permit.
.3. That the streets outlined in the August 28, 1979, Planning report recommended
to be 36 feet wide are so in fact constructed.
Planning Commission "1 -3- October 15, 1979
4. That the proposed covenants and restrictions are found to be acceptable
by the Planning Commission, city council and city attorney's office.
5. That the applicant consider construction of the local streets to a 30 foot
wide standard.
6. That the city engineer finds the later phased construction of the condominium
and townhome area not to be detrimental to the earlier phased construction and the
surrounding property with regard to utilities, grading, and drainage.
7. That the applicant dedicate outlot B, and satisfactory portions of outlot A
for purposes of linear pedestrian easement.
8. That the approval be conditioned upon the inclusion of the first four
points brought out in the comments section of this report.
I additionally recommend that the Planning Commission encourage the applicant to
proceed with final development plans in concurrence with section 14.05 subsection 5
of zoning ordinance 47.
a
PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING, SUBDIVISION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REVIEW FOR PFLAUMWELL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 17, 1979
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
Bob In other words, sharing vehicles and pedestrians. Moving the accesss
Waibel over this way you use less distance at Pleasant View Road and end up
connecting with the local street, a more minor street in the plat. The
idea is to maintain the pedestrian way along the major route thru the
plat and along this major route connected to what will probably become
a primitive multi -use trail, or a pedestrian way portion making the
remainder of the link.
Right at this time, I feel that.the out lot at this point should remain
in that position. I feel there is greater benefit from linking it to
the major road throughout the development.
Pat Swenson: Excuse me. You confuse me. Are you in favor with the
way sits now? This is what you.
Bob This office had recommended that the proposed plats be 36 feet wide
Waibel for collective purposes. It additionaly provides lanes for the afore
mentioned pedestrian traffice. The engineer and myself had discussions
this afternoon. We decided that it would be better to have a separate
pedestrian way use off of the collective street to this area here.
This would probably necessitate that the right of way be widened over
probably up to sixty feet. The city ordinance requires fifty feet in
order to accommodate separated uses we would require probably sixty foot
right of way. It's sort of design in a design area.
If the use is to be combined with the vehicular roadway there or in the
street itself, we would need more width in the roadway itself probably
an additional four feet or so. Maybe make it forty feet in that case.
At this point in time, the staff feels that a separated use is in order
and that the developer should be prepared to consider placement of a five
foot sidewalk. Admittedly, such a use because it abuts residential
property in this area would be only limited use. It would be for bicycle
or pedestrian way. It would be difficult to accommodate any other type
of pedestrian traffic, such as cross country skiing, etc.
It was previously mentioned that this office has no problems with the
land use, density or circulation proposed, however at this time I
believe that for condiminium and town home area the Planning Commission
should restrict any of the approvals of the concept to adoption of the
comprehensive plan only. And stating clearly for the record final
approval would be contingent upon the Planning Commission and City
Council approval of the detailed site plan.
As shown from the attached letter from Mindot, they have recommended
that the proposed access off Highway 101, as indicated on the proposed
plans be eliminated and that Pleasant View be utilized as primary access
to 101. This letter outlines the special elements of the September
25 discussion between the staff and Mindot and the developers and it
sites a specific method whereby an intersection would be designed that
would eleminate westward movement from the development of Near Mountain
on Pleasant View.
Mr. Baldwin has a more detailed sketch of that plan and he will be
presenting that to you later. Essentially what it has is a very soft
hand in coming out here to Pleasant View which would probably result in
a 120 degree turn back, with slip lanes and islands of sorts that could
be managed so that the traffic would not be able to turn westward using
Pleasant View going west. It also could have legal posting saying
No right turn this case. The Department of Transportation traffic
engineers felt that the westward movement of Pleasant View Road would
be lessened or the propensity of westward movement on Pleasant View
Road through this method here which has the and that the traffic would
come out here and of course travel to come back to Pleasant View Road
this way. They'd just be making a circular route around again this
way.
There was quite some concern as you recall about the future of Pleasant
View Road and this development.
In regard to the attached sample covenance restrictions I have the
following comments:
Sample covenance for the single family phases of most of the
development indicated revision of minimum value housing to be
constructed despite the apparent restrictiveness of such a closet
office feels that the applicant has addressed the spirit of chance
as found in the preamble of the T-1 Zoning District concers the low
and moderate income provisions by the inclusion of town home portion
as part of the over all development.
The attached sample covenance restrictions for the multiple dwelling
area, you will note that the covenance have expiration clause of an
automatic renewal clause. I would urge that the city seek to obtain a
best assurance that these covenance restrictions are made more
professional.
I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary
development plan, rezoning and sub -division conditional use permit
for the subject proposal conditional on the following;
That the applicant received environmental steps from a worksheet
reviewing approval from the Environmental Quality Control Council.
That the applicant receive all necessary approvals from the Purgatory
Creek Watershed District for land alteration permits.
That streets outlined in the August 28, 1979 plan report recommend that
it be 36 feet wide or so constructed.
That the proposed covenance restrictions are found to be acceptable
by the Planning Commission and City Council and City Attorney's office.
IWAS
That the applicant consider construction of local streets to a correct
32 foot standard.
That the City Engineer find the later phase of construction of the
condiminium townhome areas not to be detremental to the earlier phase
of construction and that the zoning property was correct pertaining to
drainage. This brings out the point in the development schedule that
would be 20 units built by 1983, 84 another 20 and 85 another 20.
I would urge that the time it does come for final development
plan in regards to the multiple area that the construction phase an
attempt be made to concentrate that construction phase to one or two
years rather than the three or four that are proposed in the schedule
at this time.
That the applicant dedicate the outlot B and satisfactory portions of
outlot A for purposes of linear pedestrian easement.
That the approval be conditioned upon the first four points brought
in comment section of this report and one additional that is not in
this report. That the developer construct all streets with concrete
curb and gutter, preferably after one frost cycle after the base has
been put down for the street.
And I additionally recommend that the Planning Commission urge the
applicant to proceed with final development plans in concurrence with
subdivision ordinance 47.
Walt Thompson• When opening this meeting I should have indicated that this
is a Public Hearing to entertain the feelings of the people
in the area to be presented before the Planning Commission
of which we are an unpaid advisory body to the City Council.
We do preliminary work on such developments as this. We make
recommendations. The Council may or may not go along with our
recommendations, but at least we are the initial contact for
such developments that we are looking at tonight. Would the
developers prepare and have comments to make at this time.
Peter Pflaum• I would just like to follow the comments that Bob made
between trying to keep as much as possible to the point.
One thing that I was concerned with is that we've had a
little bit of a disagreement on emergency access. Basically,
I think what Bob is saying is that this street is made wider
that he thinks that's all right and I still think that it makes
some sense to have this emergency access here. The reason being
that if there is ever a problem here, there would be a way to
get to it and I also think that maybe it would benefit the people
on Iroquois at some point in time because that Pleasant View is
so winding and stuff that if there was a problem people could
come to our project to get to it. So, it's a two sided thing.
I don't think, as I pointed out to Bob before, this is not like
a lot of situations that we have to worry about the maintenance
of it because there is a homeowners association with the
condiminiums and they would maintain and it could be built
-3-
in such a fashion that it would
Some kind of a break away deal.
be dressed. I know Bob doesn't
roads.
Pat Swenson: That's right.
Peter Pflaum: In this case, I think
would not be a road.
it the way it is, but
be looked at. I just
prudent for everybody.
making all the streets
the economics of that
look at.
be maybe asphalt or something.
I think there is something to
like it because it'd turn into
we could construct in such a way that it
I mean that Bob's saying that he accepts
I'm saying this is something that should
think that it's something that's maybe
With regard to the road, I question
32 foot wide vs 28 feet. I question
and I think it's something we should
I don't know what we gain by having to do that.. I can see
Bob's point here because it is a long cul de sac and he wants
to make it wider in case there is any problems we can always
get to it.
Bob Waibel: Plus the fact that it has collecter traffic loads.
Peter Pflaum: I question that. I don't know if that makes sense to have
four foot wider --
Pat Swenson• Would you point which other streets you're involved with there?
Bob The 36 foot wide streets recommended in the last report would be this
Waibel: street here. If adopted, it would be possibly run up to here and this
street here. The other street we are finding that some of the 28 foot
streets in town are now rather difficult to negotiate in winter time.
Families that tend to have three or four cars in the family, home
entertainment, etc. There is difficulty in making passage.
Pat Swenson: I understand that you are asking for a 32 foot, plus a
sidewalk?
Bob No, it would be -- The sidewalk portion would be along the this cul de
Waibel• sac on the north side, along this street and along the east side on this
street to this point here.
Peter Pflaum• Maybe I should tell you before I forget it, one of the things
I'm concerned with there is that what we're proposing in
Shorewood is a bituminous walkway that runs from Shorewood
down to right here and the way I was hoping we could do it
is to continue a bituminous thing to here to be consistent
and also we're going to have to do some kind of trails through
here. We've shown on all of our drawings a trail running through
here. So we're not really quarreling with that. I think that
there are reasons for having trails on the site. I just question
whetere it would be in better taste to keep consistent with
what Shorewood has up there so it all looks like one project.
And, I'm not smart enough to know if it's cheaper to go with
concrete or bituminous. That's not what I'm really saying----
-4-
-11
We're more interested in making it consistent. Either way,
they're too expensive.
Walt Thompson: Let me inquire. You're talking about Shorewood, a bituminous
walkway in Shorewood and we've been -- Bob's been refering to
a sidewalk situation in this development. Now, what are we
talking about here? Are we talking about the same thing in
both areas?
Peter Pflaum: I think it is. This is Sbepeweed plat that's been approved by
Shorewood. We show a trail system running here to down into
your community. That trail system is a bituminous trail system
for the sole purpose to get people from this community down into
the future park and over to here.
Walt Thompson: That is adjacent to the street?
Peter PflaLun:
Yes. Not in the street, adjacent to the street.
Walt Thompson:
Is it separated from the street?
Peter PflaLun•
Yest and they're talking, I think its 8 foot width. So it's
coming down to your community right here and it seems to be
consistent that you take the same kind of path doing what Bob
Said, that's all. I don't think there is any way Bob would
have known about that because Shorewood has any written material
addressing themselves to that. The development contractor is
just being informed right now.
Walt Thompson:
What is the trailway system from that cul de sac to the west?
Is it a path? At this point you have not determined what it is
going to be?
Peter Pflaum:
No. We know we want a path there. The question is should it
be a continuation of the bituminous trail or should it be kept
Herb Baldwin:
Excuse for interrupting you. I think Bob .expressed it best. At
least this is how I envision it, that it wouldbe a primitive
trail so that we might use wood chips as a surface at the end
of the cul de sac taking us off to the west end. Now, if we
determine that the kind of use across wood chips are really not
going to be serving that, then I think we have to go back to
construction.
Peter Pflaum:
Really, what we're trying to do there. I think we should put
an asphalt trail in there. First of all, first of all it would
be contradictory with the natural setting. Even though, I think
we may be creating a real problem because that's about 3/4 of a
mile length. I think we have a lot of motor zed vehicles and
problems in there. It may be too easy to drive something back
i n tb eT--e,
Walt Thompson: In other words, you're reserving the area, but you're saying you
don't know .how you want to surface it.
Peter Pflaum: That's correct.
-5-
Peter Pflaum: One of the big keys to this whole project is that we are
preserving about 25 acres, kept in its natural state and
my feelings are that the only reason people will come out
here is that they can see the project has a lot of things
associated with it. It would give them a style of living
that's a little different than some place else.
One of them is that they can step out on a trail system and
go to a large natural area for everyone to enjoy. I think
that's something we really have to take some time, we being
the developer and how we treat that.
The other thing that I wanted to point out is we have shown
101 as our entry. We've shown that all along in all the
drawings. We showed this, we could live with this. Basically,
what the Highway Department said is that according to their
standards it's 70 feet short. They wanted greater visibility
for people coming down.
In talking with the Highway Department, they came out with a
number of alternatives. I just want to make it clear that this
is what we originally proposed. I'm sure that legally the
Hwy. Dept would have to let us go out if we said we wanted to,
but they say they point out that they thought it was hazardous
to some degree and. because of their concern, we show different
options.
One option is that maybe we could come to this property here,
but we don't own that property. They didn't like that option.
They felt that the best option was to come down here somewhere.
We knew from the onset that everybody's concern about any
traffic on Pleasant View. Having been six or seven months
on that issue, I am so resigned with the help of the Hwy.
Dept. and Herb and Bob a way that could come out there that
doesn't put any traffic on Pleasant View. So that's also-----
Whenthe Hwy. Dept.. first looked .at this they felt it was
alright. And .they are the ones causing concern, but they're
not saying they won't give it to us either.
The other thing I think we should spend some time on. Herb's
got some drawings, not only on the options here, but in this
area here. We .met with the neighbors about their concerns
about the condiminiums, whenever it's going to be built up
here. We have several drawings I think you should get a chance
to look at. We tried to show them the impact of what they
would see and what other people would see on these units.
Maybe Herb, can you start with the Hwy and go to this?
Wd.lter Thompson: Are we getting a list of the people who are here tonight?
T. Droegemueller: Who would maintain the biuminous walkway? Is that something
that the city would basically take care of?
Peter Pflaum: Right.
Peter Pflaum: We don't want to create something that's going to be a
monster for maintenance.
Walt Thompson: With this walkway, we want to make sure that in this area
and up here is available in the future, not only for the
people in Chanhassen, but for our residents in Shorewood
because it's really one project. And vice versa, the
people on the trail at this end should be able to come
up here for some of the things we're going to be doing
in Shorewood that they would -probably want to get to.
Peter Pflatun: I would like to bring up another point and this is one we've
had several times in the past few months and this is your
secondary access where our people have had the fe-eling that
if we put in a permanent base and then block if off,it's
still going to be used one way or another and it appears to
me as you have indicated there, you're going it up- to your
property line and then bury it.
That means someway or other, we're going to have to .put access
on the other side of the barrier outside of the property.
Peter Pflaiun• There is another road. Iroquois runs right up to it.
It's a paved street right to here.
Pat Swenson: The engineers have assured us all, time and time again, that
there is no successful way to block these roads off. That
they are run down by everything from bull dozers to snowmobiles.
I foresee a problem there because actually from Iroquois road
on, isn't that where it connects with that real
bad turn? I can see people coming out of your area and coming
down thru there and it's going to create, I think, something
that when I work to negate the passage of the collective street
thru there, it was definetely with the idea of we wouldn't do
things like.this. These are things that are going to create
problems that the people who wanted the streets in the first
place base their convictions on and if we do things like this,
then we definetely are going to encourage more usage on that
road. The engineers have assured us many times that this is
just not successful. Now, may I ask a question? What is it
adjacent to your property?
Peter Pflatun• I see a road coming down here. What is this here?
I think this is land that we don't own that is going to be
someday developed. The reason was to provide some access for
them, but it wasn't landmarked. We don't have to.
Herb Baldwin: As Bob pointed out at our last meeting, in one of your earlier
staff reports there had been some concern expressed with our
project relating to the parcel as open ground immediately to
the south. There is quite a pocket of low land in the center
of the area down there that might make it difficult to make
access down there. gr at least to work out a reasonable way
way out of streets. We responded to that really thi-s
-7-
i
connection might_afford.a way for that northern portion of
that property south of us another way of access out of that.
Pat Swenson: There really was an effort on our part to make sure that we
were just trying to respond to Bob's comment.
Herb Baldwin: The only reason I ask is because I was wondering if there was
something that should be tied in there that would go right
straight across for an east exit.
Pat Swenson: At this time there isn't.
Clark Horn: I would like to see another exit at that particular point with
the density.that-you're planning. I think this is one reason
why it certainly is essential that the road be a wide road, so
that in the event a fire access, if one side gets -blocked off.
My opinion is.that I am concerned about that emergency exit in
that particular position.
Bob Waibel: We fi-nd ourselves in a complete opposite situation of the last
review. The last review we looked at, the developer didn't
want the access.
Clark Horn: The staff recommended that we have the secondary access and
we as a Commission voted it down. I guess I'd like to ask
Staff.why they are recommending not having the access in this
case as opposed to the last review.
Bob Waibel: There are considerable more houses. The other one a one entry
situation.
Clark Horn: We have to look at it from the number of people and I guess I
would think there would be almost as many people in this
condiminium as were located......
Herb Baldwin: I hope our neighbors believe us when we say the view of the lake
is not our prime objective. The space that exits above that
view is going to beltQu-9li w-.-th tli_et_i_n_d—o_f_ structure we're talki-m
about.
If we are able to see, it's quite a long way to the south and
it's not an objective-. Stay away from the woods, get on to the
proper parks of the kind of topography and then have a panaramic
long distance into the south of that portion of the site.
Craig Mertz:
What's the vertical
exaggeration
on
that?
Herb Baldwin:
Our horizontal scale
is 1 to 20
and
our vertical is I to 10.
OK. This is a 1 to 100 sketch, so this is 10 feet this way and
this is 10 feet this way.
M:Z
t
Bob Waibel:
Pat Swenson:
Bob Waibel:
Pat Swenson:
Bob Waibel:
This particular project was the main issue as far as the
whole development. The whole Pleasant View Road discussion
At that particular time, Bob, we didn't have any layout
because Mr. Forum ...... you hadn't gone and drafted anything,
had you?
We had concepts back in January.
Thant's right.
If anything has happened, the density's gone down on the
project.
That's what I meant.
Pat Swenson: I think I'm very much in favor of this. I don't remember there
being any discussion about this. I remember exits farther down
where the road is straight and where we don't run into this
snakepit back there, but I don't remember one down on Iroquois.
Peter Pflatun:
Herb Bdldwin:
We're very conscious of the neighbors and we don't want to
cause any hard feelings.
Wasn't there 113 units here? Now it's 120, so it's gone up
7 units.
I think we should go over the alternates on the street and
then spend a little time reviewing thru this area in more
detail.
Option A - Discussed as leaving it as is on 101, but limiting
the turning movement so that it was a right turn in only and
a right turn out only. With a median in 101 that would deter
any movement northbound on 10.1 turning left in or a left turn
out of the project. So, we only have a right turn in and a
right turn out.
Option B - We move the entry further south than we have indicated
by changing the alignment here down 70 feet, we would have right
turn in and out and left turn in and out. No problem. The
problem Peter has is that he does not own the property and the
church has indicated to him that they are .not interested in
selling.
Option C - Changing the Near Mountain Blvd. to also have an
exit at this point and that wee -would put this at an angle that
woud present physically the turning right out thru the use of
medians so that the traffic flow would be.a stop, no right turn
and only obliged to go ahead and out to 101. The westbound on
Pleasant View would be a right turn in. The eastbound on
Pleasant View would also probably have a yield sign, no left
turn and controlled with a sign and median.
We have proposed as a part of our preliminary plots that there
would be berming along this area. We have some single family
lots backing along Pleasant View and essentially what we would
do is part that and bring the alignment of the proposed Near
Mountain Blvd. into Pleasant View as indicated.
Those were the three options presented to you.
In talking with the neighbors, there was discussion that we
should do some kind of fencing.
We've gone into far more detail in this for the simple reason
that we are concerned with it. We are just trying .to show that
we can develop and not have a severe hardship on the people
around it.
Walt Thcmpson: At this time I would entertain comments from the public as far
as the presentation has been made tonight. We will have a
discussion after we've heard from you and before we come to
any conclusion.
Dean Wetzel One general feeling for the Planning Commission is that we feel
they've really gone all out to submit their ideas to the
people for their consideration before they take them any
further and we appreciate it. We'd rather have the whole
area go into a park, but that isn't going to happen, so we
do appreciate they way they've handled it.
The thing we are concerned about is that the Option C, havi.ng
a Pleasant View entrance onto that property with all limitations
apparently satisfies most of our concerns about funneling traffic
down .the windy road, etc., etc. The main concern is how
permanent is that? Can another Council five years from now,
petition and have the bumpers torn out? Is there some covenant
that can be written in so that it cannot be changed or what kind
of permanency does it carry?
Bob Waibel I guess the only other option we would have would be Option A.
Craig Mertz: There is nothing nothing that can be done to guarantee that that
exact intersection would remain that way. The City Council has
the property rights to rearrange the intersection.
Tom Seifert: I just wanted to show up here tonight to have it put on the
record to thank Herb and Peter for making a few compromises.
Mr. Gary I do not like the emergency exit.
Linda Kramer I also agree with Mr. Gary. I feel that there should not be
an emergency exit just because of the physical characteristics
of the road.
-10-
Ellen Task
Why doesn't
the Hwy. Dept. not want
you to use Option A?
Herb Baldwin
It's a requirement
given a certain
speed and given a certain
distance to
see, they require 750
feet to see a potential acciden
another car,
etc.
Walt Thompson
Do I have a
motion that the public
hearing be closed?
Pat Swenson
I so move.
Walt Thompson
Is there a second?
Ton Droegemueller
Second.
Walt Thompson
All those in
favorof closing the
public hearing, say aye..
Aye.
Walt Thompson Motion carried.
Walt Thompson At this point now, the Commission is going to have to react to
the recommendations of the Staff as regards this matter.
Action 1. No action taken.
Action 2.
Craig Mertz Motion to.rezone the property from R1A to Pl or the alternative
motion would be to deny the request for rezoning._
Pat Swenson Mr. Chairman, I make motion that we recommend that this property
be rezoned from R1A to P1.
Clark Horn Second. Seconded by Clark.
Walt Thompson All those in . favor of the Planning Commission rezoning, signify
by saying aye.
Unanimously carried:
Craig Mertz Recommend whether or not you approve the preliminary development
plan, which includes the sub -division. Exhibit A, Planning
Commission 10-17-79
Tcxn Droegemueller I recommend that we accept the lot sizes as proposed.
Clark Horn I move that we amend the 1-ot sizes to include no lot smaller
than 11,700 sq. ft.
Pat Swenson I 2nd the motion.
Any discussion?
Clark Horn I would like it for the record that my 2nd to the motion has
been made and because the developer says this will not .constitute
-11-
a problem.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Carried.
Walt Thompson
Next item is emergency exit situation.
Tbm Droegemueller
I move to go along with staff's recommendation on the emergency
exits.
Pat Swenson
I second.
Walt Thompson,
All those in favor of eliminating the three access signify by
saying aye.
Aye.
Walt Thcupson
This topic was previously discussed in the minutes.
Street widths or three options.
Tom Droegemueller
I move that we ammend the preliminary plan to include Option C.
Pat Swenson
I second.
Discussion followed.
Tom Droegemueller
I think my motion is going to have to be withdrawn because I
asked for either Option A, B or C.As I see it, it's Option A and
C or B.
Tan Droegemueller
I make motion that we adopt C and eliminate for further
consideration A and B.
Pat Swenson.
I 2 n d .
Walt Thompson
those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Option C is recommended.
Street widths.
Clark Horn
I move that it be a separated trail.
Pat Swenson
I 2 n d .
Clark Horn
I would move that we recommend the suggestion of the Staff
on the trail system with the addition of the section of trail
interfacing.
-12-
Clark Horn
I believe that would be an ammendment to the previous
motion.
Pat Swenson
2nd.
Walt Thompson
All those in favor of the motion regarding the trailway signify
by saying aye.
Aye.
Walt Thompson
Motion carried.
Pat Swenson
I make a motion to accept the street widths as shown on the
plat.
Tom Droegemueller
2nd .
Walt Thompson
All those in favor of accepting the motion signify by saying
aye.
Aye.
Walt Thompson
Motion carried.
Craig Mertz
Motion that you accept the preliminary and sub -development
plan as shown on the Exhibit A with the subject to -the
modifications in the previous motions.
Clark Horn
So move.
Tan Droegemueller
2nd .
Aye.
Walt Thcupson
Motion carried.
11 Tn T(7L
I ifULEITL Ll
October 11, 1979
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
The City of Minnetonka Planning staff has recently had the opportunity
to review the revised plans of the Chanhassen portion of the Near
Mountain Development Project. As you may recall, we offered our
initial comments during the preliminary design stage and noted major
concerns with the potential traffic impact of this project and others
on the.Vine Hill Road,'Highway 7,"and Hwy.7/101 intersections and the
alignment of the collector roadway systems. Further, we asked that
the City of Minnetonka have the opportunity to review the required
EAW for the project when it was completed.
With regards to the current Near Mountain site plan, it is our opinion
that the densities and residential land uses will be complementary to
those in Minnetonka. We do feel, however, that the location of the
southerly collector should be realigned with West 64th Street to alle-
viate a potential sight distance and stacking problem on Highway 101.
It is our opinion that this change can. be made without substantially
altering the development concept of this project.
We would further encourage the City of Chanhassen as well as the other
surrounding communities and Minnetonka to collectively study mutual
development proposals, roadway alignments and traffic conditions of
Townline Road, Vine Hill Road, and Highway 101 as we have done in
the past.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann Perry e y
Planning Department
City of Minnetonka
/ dk
</�gq 3J-11.
_-'
f OCT ]979
CY) �I3
c11 VILLAGg of
GHA3VHAg:g,
the city offices are located at 14600 minnetonka boulevard minnetonka, minnesota 55343 933-2511
A
�A..
Q o O
--JLJL- U
O
�y CHA
TO The Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council
of the Cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen
�t
C VED W
vit�Ar��
NHASSEN,
AINN.
f
and Planning Corr=ission
FROM _ Richard Bloom, Director of Planning, City of Minnetonka
DATE I May 2, 1979
SUBJECT . Near Mountain Project
The Planning staff of the City of Minnetonka has recently had the opportunity to review the
preliminary plans for the Near Mountain Project proposed in Chanhassen and Shorewood, lying
adjacent to the southwest boundaries of Minnetonka. Our primary concern in reviewing these
plans was to anticipate potential impacts, of this development upon the services and adjacent
land uses in Minnetonka. While we believe the preliminary plans present merit as a
development concept, we do have major concerns with regard to the buffering of land uses,
and traffic generation from the proposed development with respect to the transportation
systems of Minnetonka as well as the surrounding communities. Further, we would offer the
following comments for your consideration.
Adjacent Land Uses -
According to the preliminary sketch plan, 16 townhouse units, 32 quadraminium units, 110
apartment units and numerous single family units will be located adjacent to the City of
Minnetonka. Our recently completed land use guide for this portion of the City has been
designated for low density,residential development (0-4 units) per acre. While we believe
that the proposed uses and densities of the Near Mountain Project are not incompatible with
the adjacent existing and'proposed uses of Minnetonka, we do feel that an adequate buffer
should be provided between the different types of residential land uses. More specifically,
we would note that a distance of only 50' separates the proposed quadraminium units south
of Townline Road in Chanhassen from existing single family units in Minnetonka. We feel that
a greater distance separation or substantial landscaping be provided to ensure a desirable
transition of land uses in this portion of the proposed development.
Transportation -
Due to the close proximity of the Near Mountain Project to the City of Minnetonka as well as
Deephaven and Eden Prairie, it is anticipated that the roadway system of Minnetonka will serve
the majority of this development, specifically Vine Hill Road, Covington Road, Hanus Road,
Townline Road and the proposed Stratford Road connection from Holiday Road in Shorewood to
Highway 101 in Minnetonka. Further, the proposed density and subsequent traffic generation
from this development is anticipated to affect traffic circulation at several points in
Minnetonka.
We would evince major concern over additional traffic at the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7
intersection located in both Shorewood and Deephaven. As you know, the traffic congestion
at peak hours at this intersection causes problems due to poor intersection design and this
development may exacerbate an already undesirable condition. The City of Minnetonka supports
the intersection improvement plans prepared by Shorewood and we urge expeditious implementation
of one of the alternatives deemed acceptable to Shorewood. We would further be willing to
explore ways that Vine Hill Road could be improved to facilitate and complement the inter-
section improvements.
It is our recommendation that the developers and affected communities analyze the
transportation impacts identified during the EAW process of Near Mountain Project,
specifically at the Highway 7/Vine Hill Rd. intersection. Further, it is our opinion that
alternative mitigating measures alleviating these potential adverse impacts be proposed
by the developer or affected communities for review and comment by the City of Minnetonka.
:he city offices are located at 14600 minnetonka boulevard minnetonka, minnesota 553.43 933-251'
Secondly, it is anticipated that several of Minnetonka's local streets and collectors will
be used by Near *fountain residents as a through road connection between Vine Hill Road and
Highway 101, specifically, a portion of Town Line Road, Covington Road and the planned
extension of Stratford Road between Holiday Road and Highway 101. It is our opinion that
the proposed collectors indicated on the preliminary plans could better facilitate the
additional traffic if the following changes were made:
1. Realignment of the southern collector to West 64th St. (Chanhassen Road) to
alleviate a sight distance problem on Highway 101 and potentially make use of
planned improvements to Highway 101.
Realignment of the northern collector access point to a location south of
Clear View Drive to direct traffic to Townline Road and possibly Highway 101
as opposed to the Vine Hill/Highway 7 intersection.
If these changes were made, a better connection could eventually be provided to I-494 as a
result of County improvement plans to extend Cty. Rd. 62 from Shady Oak Road to Highway
101 in 1981.
Finally; we would note concern over the potential heavy usage of the Highway 10117 -
intersection by this proposed development as well as others. The City of Minnetonka is
currently in the process of constructing improvements in this vicinity to improve traffic
circulation and it is anticipated that the total cost for this project will
approach 6 million dollars. We would further comment that this intersection is the only
state owned intersection wholly in Minnetonka and services not only Minnetonka's traffic.
but also that of Shorewood, excelsior and Deephaven as well as Chanhassen and Eden Prairie
to the south. It should also be noted that there are ten other county/state intersections
that Minnetonka shares with other communities. If an intersection lies within our corporate
boundaries, Minnetonka is responsible for improvement costs, even though other communities
receive benefit from the improvements ( notably Highway 7 & 101, Plymouth Rd. & Highway 12)
While we believe that the Near Mountain project by itself will not soley cause undue traffic
problems at this intersection, we are aware of several other large development proposals
in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen that collectively could contribute excessive traffic at
this intersection. Therefore, we recommend that a traffic study be conducted collectively
for all proposed developments projected to utilize the Highway 7/101 intersections and -
this becomes a part of your respective transportation plans
RUSSELL - LARSON
CRAIG M. MERTZ
OF COUNSEL
HARVEY E. SKAAR
MARK C. McCULLOUGH
Mr. Bob Waibel
City of Chanhassen
Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Bob:
W
LARSON & MERTZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
June 27, 1979
Re: East/West Corridor Study
TELEPHONE
(612) 33S-9S6S
You have asked us to comment on Attorney Philip Getts' letter dated
June 13, 1979 directed to the Planning Commission regarding the above
referenced matter.
Mr. Getts states flatly that "the proposal violates the Minnesota
Environmental Rights Act (Minn. Stat. 1978 Ch. 116B)". This is, of
course, an overstatement.
Chapter 116B of Minnesota Statutes allows any private citizen to com-
mence a lawsuit for the purpose of protecting the air, water, land, or
any other natural resource from "pollution, impairment, or destruction."
Section 116B.02 defines "pollution" as:
"...any conduct...which...is likely to violate, any
environmental quality standard... rule... or permit of the state
... or political subdivision thereof.. or [which] is likely
to materially adversely affect the environment..."
Even if pollution is likely to occur, the proposed conduct is nonetheless
permissible, under this statute, if:
"there is no feasible and prudent alternative and the conduct
at issue is consistent with and reasonably required for the
promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare in light of
the state's paramount concern for the protection of its air,
water, land and other natural resources from pollution,
impairment, or destruction. " (See M.S. S116B.04.)
Mr. Bob Waibel -2- 6/27/79
In the case of County of Freeborn v. Bryson, 243 N.W.2d 316 (1976),
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the Environmental Rights Act
required the court system to prohibit environmentally destructive
conduct, if feasible and prudent alternatives are available. Thus
the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, as interpreted by the
Court in the Freeborn case, would require the City to avoid environ-
mentally damaging alternatives if "feasible and prudent alternatives"
are available.
I suggest that the Planning Commission analyze the evidence and
attempt to answer these questions:
a. Is there a need (immediate or long range) for a collector road?
b. If yes, will the failure to preserve a corridor have the
effect of impairing the environment?
C. What are the feasible routes?
d. Which routes would entail damage to the environment?
We make no comment regarding the answers to these questions.
Mr. Getts alludes to the unwillingness of his client, Pflaumwell
Development, to donate public right of way to the municipality. Mr.
Getts paraphrases the Schoell & Madson transportation study dated
May 22, 1979, as stating on pages 5,6,10, and 11 that developers would
be required to contribute right of way and pay for the construction
of the east -west collector. This paraphrase is simply inaccurate.
Mr. Jackson's report states that an alignment should be officially
established so that all new development will incorporate such alignment
into pending development plans.. Mr. Jackson's position is consistent
with state legislation.
The State Legislature has charged municipalities with the responsibility
to engage in long range planning. Early identification of future needs
for public capital facilities can bring about significant savings
in both private and public expenditures.
Section 462.359 of Minnesota States creates the planning tool which
you know as the "official map". Subdivision 1 ofthat statute is
instructive:
"Subdivision 1. Statement of purpose. Land that is
needed for future street purposes and as sites for other
necessary public facilities and services is frequently diverted
to non-public uses which could have been located on other lands
without hardship or .inconvenience to the owners. When this
happens, public uses: of land may be denied or may be obtained
later only at prohibitive cost or at the expense of dislocating
.the owners and occupants of the land. Identification on an
official map of land needed for future public uses permits
both the public and private property owners to adjust their
building plans equitably and conveniently before investments
are made which will make such adjustments difficult to
accomplish."
Mr. Bob Waibel -3- 6/27/79
If the City determines that there is a need for an east -west collector,
then the alignment selected should be incorporated into the official
map of the City of Chanhassen.
The City's power to control subdivisions under 5462.358 of Minnesota
Statutes does empower the City to require the dedication of a portion
of a developer's. land for public purposes. Mr. Getts correctly notes
that a municipality cannot use this statute to exact land donations
from a subdivider far out of proportion to the needs created by his
subdivision. There must be a reasonable relationship between approval
of the subdivision and the municipality's need for the land donation.
Inasmuch as Pflaumwell Development has not even received preliminary
plat approval and inasmuch as an alignment has not been approved, it
is premature to discuss the topic of right of way dedication with
Pflaumwell Development. It is not possible to ascertain the need for
road capacity generated by Pflaumwell Development until after the
configuration and density of their proposed plat is fixed.
From time to time, the Schoell & Madson transportation study has been
referred to somewhat inaccurately as a "feasibility study." The
State law governing special assessments (Chapter 429) requires prepara-
tion of a'Teasibility study" prior to approval of a public improvement
project intended to be financed through the collection of special
assessments. The Schoell & Madson Study dated May 22, 1979 is not
and was not intended to be a Chapter 429 feasibility study. Thus,
criticisms that the study does not address land acquisition costs and
construction costs are not entirely fair.
Conclusion:
The Planning Commission should attempt to identify whether or not a
need (immediate or long range) exists for an east -west collector road.
If a determination is made that such a need exists, the Planning
Commission should proceed with the selection of the most feasible and
environmentally prudent alignment, and should take steps to incorporate
that alignment into the official map of the City.
Very truly yours,
CRAIG M: MERTZ C
Assistant Chanhassen City Attorney
CMM:mep
J
PFL aMWELL
/-� Development Partnership
(� 935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473-4400
VI. Perspective drawings.
See accompanying Site Plan.
LLD
PFLAOMWELL
Development Partnership
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612. 473A400
VII. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations.
Attached hereto are copies of covenants used to control and regulate
other neighborhoods the applicant has developed. These documents will
be utilized without substantive changes to govern the applicable
category of living unit in the Near Mountain Project:
"Ferndale North Third Addition" will be applied to Type "A" single
family lots.
"Mission Hills Park Fifth Addition" will be applied to Type "B"
single family lots.
"Mission Ponds" will be the model employed for comdominium and quad-
riminium units.
EE
707
Eq
•
_
Jm
Q
4�
Q
-
G
O
�
�
�a
- —
4
W4
W m.
11
W
m
Ma.
--Mmuman
Mom
w
E
CL
T
06
LU
UA
-j
cc
I --
Ca LU
06
:p-
o
CL
CL
LU
CL
Im D
aAssuill
t �3
0—
t = X
Z 40co
m
El
!be
to
(D
sooIN
0
a
_o
Cc
V _ --
!' y y
5
� O
j
i � j �►
0
APOspooM
MOM
tot
d�[lSijI 1 1 �
'12m-311 PFLA'MWELL
Development Partnership
LD 935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473A400
CONTENTS:
I. Pflaumwell Development Partnership's interest in the subject
property and authorization'to make this application.
II. Description of the Proposed Development.
III. Preservation of Open Space.
IV. Anticipated sequence and schedule of development.
V. Preliminary elevation drawin q_s.
VI.. Perspective drawings.
VII. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations.
PFLAJMWELL
Development Partnership
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473A400
II. Description of the Pro ;-,osed Development.
The Near Mountain Project will comprise 313 acres in Chanhassen and
Shorewoodi It has been conceived and designed to provide a variety
of housing types and land use intensities while retaining the
character and amenity of the undeveloped land.
The Chanhassen portion of the project will contain a total of 300
Single Family Detached, Condominium, and Quadriminium units:
Units
Acres
Units/Acre
Outlot
A (Condominiums):
120
42.6
2.8
Outlot
B (Trail Corridor):
Outlot
C (Quadriminiums):
36
.14
7.8
4.6
Single
Family lots
144
96.5
1.5
Totals:
300
147
2.0
Attached is a more complete statement of the development ethic which
has been applied to this land.
PFLAU A ELL
rD Development Partnership
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473-4400
CHANHASSEN CONCEPT STATEMENT
The proposed Near Mountain project is located in Chanhassen and Shorewood
on a 313 acre site which is unique in basic land form, site amenity and
open space. The site is composed of low lake and marsh areas with treed
edges, rolling slopes, cultivated areas and a heavily treed high ground
area called Near Mountain. The latter feature is the project's namesake.
Surrounding the site, the land use is primarily residential and open
consisting of single family detached units. Two farmsteads exist-.orn- the
site. Major access to the site is via highway 101 with secondary and minor
access provided by Vine Hill Road, Pleasant View Road, blest 64th Street
and Covington Road. Sewer and water are available to the site in Chanhassen,
and sewer is available in Shorewood.
The developer, Pflaumwell Partnership, with the assistance of consulting
design teams, has proposed a concept and preliminary sketch development
plan consistent with the intent of the Planned Unit Residential Develop-
ment Ordinances of Chanhassen and Shorewood. The plan is an appropriate
scheme for the site because it provides for:
A. Preservation of the existing open -space areas, including lake and
marsh, in an open space district with visual access. Large areas
of the heavy maple woods on Near Mountain have been preserved
through limited building coverage. The landform surrounding the
lake and marsh has also been preserved, through careful planning
of development, to fit with the contour. This approach has tied
the Near Mountain landform with the lake and marsh areas, creating
a significant large central space as the symbolic "place" of the
Near Mountain project site.
B. Effective residential use of land. This arrangement responds to the
unique physical landform characteristics of the site and relates
to adjacent land uses by placing similar uses of density and
housing types together where close -in visual -physical impact is
critical. Higher density areas are located within the site or buf-
fered by preserved or constructed and planted landscape elements
and by the use of transitional housing types. The housing areas
are served by a hierarchy of vehicular circulation systems which
Chanhassen Concept Statement
Page 2
optimize the efficient flow of traffic on and off -site. A
pedestrian circulation system is planned in the form of a trail
system tying the communities together and serving as a conduit
of pedestrian movement through the site's major environmental
districts.
C. Varied in density and housing types. This, as previously
stated, is in response to the landform and amenity, but serves
as well to offer a variety of life styles and economic options
to the homeowner. Each area has been planned to be identifiable
as a specific area, to be compatible with adjacent areas, and
to contribute to the overall image of the Near Mountain project.
D. Flexibilit in the variety of building designs (within housing
type areas�j. This will optimize the relationship of the struct-
ures to the site slope, tree cover, solar exposure, views, amenity
and man-made systems such as streets, trails, etc.
E. High Standards of planning. This concept and preliminary design
are the result of a planning process which began with the land.
From the land an ethic was formed and planning criteria estab-
lished. An awareness of existing land -use patterns and man -
systems was included in the planning of this development to insure
an appropriate and compatible design relationship. The developer,
who has a reputation as a builder of quality homes and living
areas, plans to build many of the homes himself; other development
will be controlled to insure the high standards of building qual-
ity. Most important is that it is a continuing process of creating
a delightful neighborhood in response to the land. It is intended
to be a special place - the Near Mountain place.
PFLAUMWELL
III
Parhiership
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473A400
III. Preservation of Open Space.
The 42.6 acres presently platted as "Outlot A" are to be divided
further into two outlot areas. The first is to contain the condo-
minium structures, and the second is to be employed to prevent
encroachment on the remaining undeveloped land. This outlot will
be deeded to the condominium homeowners association with the re-
striction that it may never be built upon.
PFLAUMWELL
D Development Partnership
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473A400
IV. Anticipated sequence and schedule of development.
Phasing of development will follow the pattern set forth in the
accompanying sketch.
The construction schedule is projected'as follows:
Phase #1: 59 Single Family Detached Units
Scheduled Start: 1981
Phase #2: 45 Single Family Detached Units
16 Quadriminium Units
Scheduled Start: 1982
Phase #3: 40 Single Family Detached Units
20 Quadriminium Units
Scheduled Start: 1983
Phase #4: 40 Condominium Units
Scheduled Start: 1984
Phase #5: 40 Condominium Units
Scheduled Start: 1985
Phase #6: 40 Condominium Units
Scheduled Start: 1986
PFLAUMWELL
Devebpment Partnership
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473-4400
V. Preliminary elevation drawings.
Sketches of the exteriors of the multiple housing units are
attached.
I
PFL.AL,"ELL
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
11!3 (612) 473A400
NEAR MOUNTAIN
EXAMPLE OF A TYPICAL
CONDOMINIUM (MULTI -FAMILY)
BUILDING. (CHANHASSEN PORTION)
- BUILDING:ELEVATON.
- BUILDING SECTION
- ENTRY LEVEL PLAN
- UPPER LEVEL PLAN
- PARKING LEVEL PLAN
INDIVIDUAL UNIT PLANS
NEAR MOUNTAIN:
EXAMPLE OF A TYPICAL
QUADHOME BUILDING OF 4 LIVING UNITS
� '!-y{.�:.L�, -.'�i _ ✓�.-•.'-••• - _ � : !rye'}�` Y..
yTj �'{ t v:tf.7 �% _ •i �flid_ '' _ �_. • y� `•irf, rjr -q=
�,
Jam- I iAM .11i.1
- y nnpiw�i� I�•I� ��.;�iill�;l
Elevation
-A
Y_1 _
- — I _ LLB -- �i�i.,�, - i:' •— -. _
Elevation B
NEAR MOUNTAIN:
EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL
QUADHOME FLOORPLAN
I
,
II
1 DINING ROOM T.BL
I I
i OPT. DECK 7.
11' x 9'�" KITCHENLINE CLO
10' x 10' OPT.
PATIO O
i OOOR K iv
PANTRY
1
LIVING ROOM MASTER BEDROOM
11'-6" x 17'-9"
BEDROOM
9'-3" x 12'
MAIN LEVEL FOYER OPT. OPT.
i I PATIO PATIO
DOOR DOOR
j OPT_ DECK
I I 20' x 5' I I
a-
yy ( l
� 0
1 1 �� BAIL i UTILITY
ROOM
OPT. \ i
I PATIO OPT_
i DOOR FAMILY ROOM -
i 19'-6" x 21'-6"
LOWER LEVEL
STORAGE
i
i
.1 I�
1\
GARAGE
22' x 22'
Ate. r ,• �� ��� .��.1 [. '�•_`::••'�7ti•' .`-���� .�row- I
%Id
NEAR MOUNTAIN:
EXAMPLE -OF TYPICAL -
,TOWNHOUSE FLOOR PLAN
(MAIN LEVEL)
--_��REL,Us P�1V E - TtijP.
----t+�►r� s �1 owv - Tlif.
flut.�+VirJE
44.4-1.
.
NEAR•MOUNTAIN: -
EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL
TOWNHOUSE FLOOR PLAN
(LOWER'LEVEL)
!� ;l.lxl� 111x15
• I
9
Near Mountain
Planned Residential Development
Public Hearing
10/17/79
Name
Al and Linda Kramer
Dean Wetzel
Frances M. O'Brien
Ella Kask
M. A. Pflaum
Peter Pflaum
Tom Seifert
Louis R. Guerre
Address
531 Indian Hill Road
6260 Ridge Road,
450 Indian Hill Rd.
115 Pleasant View Rd:.
(developer)
(developer)
600 Pleasant View
551 Indian Hill Rd.
Ole, e,
eel
NEAR MOUNTAIN
Lot Size
Block 1,
Lot
1
118,100
s.f. Block 4,
Lot 22
23,500 s.f.
Lot
2
87,100
s.f.
Lot 23
19,500 s.f.
Lot
3
88,400
s.f.
Lot 24
15,000 s.-f.
Lot
4
70,500
s.f.
Lot 25
12,600 s.f.
Lot
5
18,500
s.f.
Lot 26
15,600 s.f.
Lot
6
23,700
s.f.
Lot 27
19,200 s.f.
Lot
7
72,100
s.f.
Lot 28
20,000 s.f.
Lot
8
84,100
s.f.
'
Lot
9
77,200
s.f. Block 5,
Lot
1
13,700 s.f.
Lot
10
65,000.
s.f.
Lot
2
12,000 s.f.
Lot
11
19,300
s.f.
Lot
3
16,500 s.f.
Lot
12
19,500
s.f.
Lot
4
16,700 s.f.
Lot
13
21,900
s.f.
Lot
5
15,100 s.f.
Lot
14
42,300
s.f.
Lot
6
12,900 s.f.
Lot
15
40,900
s.f.
Lot
7
14,400 s.f.
Lot
16
35,200
s.f.
Lot
8
15,300 s.f.
Lot
17
38,900
s.f.
Lot
9
14,400 s.f.
Lot-10
17,000 s.f.
Block 2,
Lot
1
47,200
s.f.
Lot
11
14,400 s.f.
Lot
2
16,500
s.f.
Lot
12
15,300 s.f.
Lot
3
16,400
s.f.
Lot
4
18,600
s.f. Block 6
Lot
1
11,700 s.f.
Lot
5
20,200
s.f.
Lot
2
11,800 s.f.
Lot
6
18,000
s.f.
Lot
3
13,200 s.f.
Lot
7
20,800
s.f.
Lot
4
17,800 s.f.
Lot
8
27,300
s.f.
Lot
5
15,400 s.f.
Lot
9
31,800
s.f.
Lot
6
21,000 s.f.
Lot
10
32,300
s.f.
Lot
7
18,600 s.f.
Lot
8
131300 s.f.
Block 3,
Lot
1
36,300
s.f.
Lot
9
14,700 s.f.
Lot
10
13,700 s.f.
Block 4,
Lot
1
38,600
s.f.
Lot
11
17,300 s.f.
Lot
2
31,400
s.f.
Lot
12
19,000 s.f.
Lot
3
31,600
s.f.
Lot
13
13,500 s.f.
Lot
4
18,500
s.f.
Lot
14
16,200 s.f.
Lot
5
16,800
s.f.
Lot
15
23,300 s.f.
Lot
6
15,600
s.f.
Lot
16
24,000 s.f.
Lot
7
29,200
s.f.
Lot
17
25,500 s.f.
Lot
8
16,400
s.f.
Lot
18
14,200 s.f.
Lot
9
30,400
s.f.
Lot
19
16,800 s.f.
Lot
10
16,500
s.f.
Lot
20
11;500 s.f.
Lot
11
19,200
s.f.
Lot
21
13,000 s.f.
Lot
12
14,500
s.f.
Lot
22
21,000 s.f.
Lot
13
14,800
s.f.
Lot
23
54,000 s.f.
Lot
14
13,200
s.f.
Lot
24
34,000 s.f.
Lot
15
17,300
s.f.
Lot
25
18,000 s.f.
Lot
16
16,100
s.f.
Lot
26
18,900 s.f.
Lot
17
17,000
s.f.
Lot
27
18,900 s.f.
Lot
18
18,100
s.f.
Lot
28
24,400 s.f.
Lot
19
19,800
s.f.
Lot
29
23,100 s.f.
Lot
20
38,200
s.f.
Lot
30
12,200 s.f.
Lot
21
24,200
s.f.
Lot
31
11,300 s.f.
Neer Mountain
Lo )ize
Page 2
Block 6, Lot
32
13,600
s.f.
Lot
33
16,800
s.f.
Lot
34
17,400
s.f.
Lot
35
21,300
s.f.
Lot
36
12,800
s.f.
Lot
37
15,800
s.f.
Lot
38
13,500
s.f.
Lot
39
17,800
s.f.
Lot
40
15,300
s.f.
Lot
41
21,600
s.f.
Block 7, Lot
1
16,500
s.f.
Lot
2
15,300
s.f.
Lot
3
14,100.-
s. f.
Lot
4
12,700
s.f.
Lot
5
15,000
s.f.
Lot
6
16,000
s.f.
Lot
7
12,500
s.f.
Lot
8
20,500
s.f.
Lot
9
12,700
s.f.
Lot
10
16,000
s.f.
Lot
11
12,200
s.f.
Lot
12
15,700
s.f.
Lot
13
17,700
s.f.
Lot
14
11,800
s.f.
Lot
15
13,700
s.f.
Lot
16
11,900
s.f.
Lot
17
11,000
s.f.
Lot
18
11,500
s.f.
Lot
19
11,000
s.f.
Lot
20
12,500
s.f.
Block 8, Lot
1
17,800
s.f.
Lot
2
14,800
s.f.
Lot
3
13,500
s.f.
Lot
4
12,800
s.f.
Lot
5
12,800
s.f.
Lot
6
13,500
s.f.
Lot
7
17,700
s.f.
Lot
8
14,100
s.f.
Lot
9
16,700
s.f.
Lot
10
24,500
s.f.
Lot
11
20,500
s.f.
Lot
12
18,500
s.f.
Lot
13
15,600
s.f.
Lot
14
12,500
s.f.
Lot
15
12,800
s.f.
Outlot A 1,856,400
Outlot B 6,300
Outlot C 339,000
Average Lot Size 22,500
INVEN7['nR,Y AND EVALUATION
.. .,SOIL -AND .'SEATER RESOURCES
FOR THE
CARVER SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
WACONIA, MINNESOTA 55387
NEAR MOUNTAIN
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
REQUESTED BY:
BOB WAIBEL, LAND USE COORDINATOR
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEWED BY:
DONALD C. BERG, DISTRICT CONSERVATIONIST
USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
WACONIA, MINNESOTA 55387
OCTOBER 28, 1980
SCS-CONS-5 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
10-75 SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
FILE CODE CONS-14-5
INVENTORY & EVALUATION
OF LAND, WATER, AND RELATED RESOURCES
REQUESTED BY
Bob Waibel
Land Use Coordinator
LOCATION City of Chanhassen
Donald C. Berg
ASSISTED BY District Conservationist DATE
* ❑ INDIVIDUAL ❑ GROUP
October 28, 198C
® UNIT OF GOVERNMENT
SITUATION: _ Bob daibel, Land Use Coordinator for the city of Chanhassen, regueste
a review of Near Mountain. Planned Residential Develn m= Pnt, (ha.nha.ssen, irinPSr�ta
Near Mountain is a Planned Residential DeveloT-ment consisting of ;2 sln�je-family
(Type A) units, 92 single-family (Type B) units,120 condominium units, and 36 quad-
raminium units on 147 acres of land.
SUGGESTED SOLUTION(S) See attached soil map with color coded key to show buildings
site limitations, primarily due to slope or wetness.
The soils map, in addition to showing building site limitations, can be used to
show prime cropland which, in most cases, has the least problems for development.
The green color shown on the soils map indicates prime cropland. The yellow color
indicates good cropland. The red color indicates marginal cropland. The blue color
indicates sub -marginal cropland.
The soils map shows relatively small areas of prime cropland (green) and good crop-
land (yellow) mixed with marginal (red) and sub -marginal cropland (blue). At the
Rolleacrazin
areas mixed prime cropland to urban uses is usually not considered to be a problem.
The followin,_ soils key lists the soils by map unit showing their building site
*Check appropriate category
limitation and color on the attached soils map.
INVENTORY AND EVALUATION
PAGE 2
NEAR MOUNTAIN
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
SLOPE
AND
SOIL
EROSION
PROBLEMS
HAYDEN LOAM (Ha)
HaB and HaB2
2
to
6%
slope
green
slight
HaC and HaC2
6
to
12%
slope
yellow
moderate
HaD and HaD2
12
to
18%
slope
red
severe
HaE2 and HaF
18
to
24%
slope
blue
very severe
ESTERVILLE SANDY LOAM (Es)
EsC
6
to
12%
slope
yellow with
moderate
dots
DRAINAGE AND
SOIL WETNESS
PROBLEMS
CANISTEO SILTY CLAY LOAM, DEPRESSIONAL
(Cd)
Cd
0
to
2%
slope
red lines
wet - ponds
GLENCOE SILTY CLAY LOAM (Ge)
Ge
0
to
2%
slope
red lines
wet - ponds
PEAT AND MUCK (Pd)
Pd (deep - over 42 inches)
0
to
2%
slope
blue lines
wet - floods - ponds
MARSH (Ma)
Ma
0
to
2%
slope
blue lines
wet - floods - ponds
Additional soils information relative to building site development is shown on the
attached single soil interpretation sheets.
The western 50% of this area is wooded. A plan should be made to save desirable
trees other than elm.
1
INVENTORY AND EVALUATION PAGE 3
NEAR MOUNTAIN
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
A soil erosion control plan is needed to protect the lake from sediment and
nutrient delivery. The steep wooded slopes on the west end of the property shown
in blue on the soils map should remain in woodland and be protected and improved.
ITY, MINNESOTA — SHEET' NUMRr7R 20
z
z
a
w
z
z
w
x
1/2 Mile 0 3000 Feet
� Scale 1:15 840
CITYJF
CHANHASS-EN
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
October 14, 1980
Mr. Michael Pflaum A .�
% Lundgren Brothers Construction,- nc.
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391old
p
Dear Mike:" ,
Le
The following is in response o your September 24, .1980, letter
which discusses the relations".ip of the Near Mountain ,~
development to final development approval. I find that ,
many of the points. in your letter are quite accurate; howe er�,,� �
for further clarification purposes, I will provide the „P-Co' --
following summary: LA,
As x see it, the most imminent action to be taken on the proosal
is for the Ci,.ty Engineers. to review and report on the preliminar
plat for the tnttt-al phases. This report, along with other y
staff reports, is to/be=`reviewed and acted upon by the
Planning Commission/and City Council as part of final development
plan approval. With, regard to Near Mountain, the engineers
should address any> changes between the preliminary development
plan which was approved, i.e. the -southeasterly egress to
Pleasant View Road and the loop road added at the southwest
corner. Add.,i=t'ion'ally, the report should address such things as
the utility=capacity for. -the quadraminium and condominium areas.
After City Council action -on this. material the City Attorney's
office wfl 1 draft development contrace wh' ch w ill be reviewed on
a CIty Councfi:-consent%agenda with possible Planning Commission
review. Upon—sa-c-cessful.execution of the.deveiopment contract,
a plat can be filed with the County Recorder's Office for the
appropriate approved phases.
As you recall from our disc'ussion;several weeks ago, there are
certain portions of the preliminary development plan review
requirements for the condominium and quadraminium areas -that
need to be gone through before any final approvals are granted
to these elements of the project. At whatever time your firm
wishes to proceed with these elements, it would be advisable
that you meet with staff to discuss the necessary development
detail needed for their final approval.
I Ae
Mr. Michael Pflaum
Page 2
October 14, 1980
It is hoped that through this process, we will be able to have
drafted into the development contract, an understanding as to
the preliminary approvals of the land use concept for the future
phases and what will be needed to be done for final approval of
those phases. If you have any questions on the above, I would
be glad to help clarify these at our meeting of October 15, 1980.
Sincerely,
r'7
t�-l
�
Bob Wai6e1Land Use Coordinator
BW:nr
cc: Don Ashworth
Jiro Orr
Russ Larson
LUnDGR(n
BRokO CTRUCTION
I.
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
September 24, 1980
Mr. Bob Waibel
Assistant Manager/Land
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Dear Bob:
Use Coordinator
55317
Thank you for your suggestions this morning regarding our future sub-
missions on the proposed Near Mountain project.
I came away from this meeting with a number of understandings and
would like to hear from you if I am mistaken on any of them:
1) Although our Preliminary Development Plan submissions
were sufficiently detailed for granting Preliminary
Plat approval, in fact such approval has not yet been
bestowed by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The detail with which the two bodies scrutinized "Exhibit
A", which was in actuality a Preliminary Plat and so
identified, and the nature of the conditions upon which
the Preliminary Plan was approved, indicate, you said,
that no substantive questions should arise when we seek
formal acceptance of this plat.
2) The City's engineers should be contacted to report on
the acceptability of the Preliminary Plat as presently
drawn. You were to seek this information.
3) You said that site plan review will be required for both
the condominium and quadraminium areas, but that this
review could be deferred until such time as we intended
to commence development of the specified area.
4) You recommended that site plan review might best be
accomplished by first presenting a sketch for staff,
Planning Commission, and City Council comment. Any
needed alterations could then be incorporated in the
I
OCT 1980 "�,,
Mr. Bob Waibel
September 24, 1980
Page 2
first "final" site plan which we prepare.
5) You said that final building plans and specifications
need not be submitted with our application for Final
Development Plan Approval, that such approval may be
granted with the condition that said plans and spec-
ifications be submitted for staff review and acceptance
prior to construction.
6) You said that after the Preliminary Plat and Final
Development Plan have been accepted, no further plat
approval by the Planning Commission is necessary,
except in instances where significant departures from
the Preliminary Plat are made, and that City Council
acceptance of the Final Plat of each development phase
is automatic if the plat conforms to the stipulations
set forth at the time of Preliminary Plat approval.
7) You said that it was your belief that at the present
time Development Contracts were not being drafted prior
to City Council acceptance of the Final Development Plan.
The steps we should follow to reach Final Development Plan approval are
as follows:
1) Meet with Staff to review the Preliminary Plat material
already submitted and the site plan sketch.
2) Appear before the Planning Co:;emission and City Council
for review of the quadraminium site plan sketch and
artist's rendering (optional).
3) Produce final site plan and landscaping schedule; update
Preliminary Plat to reflect new lot lines and any other
changes.
4) Submit application for Final Development Plan approval.
This submission should contain:
a) Preliminary Plat, Grading and Drainage Plan,
Utilities Plan.
b) Information as required by the conditions
accompanying Preliminary Development Plan approval.
c) Final site plan and landscape schedule for the
quadraminium units (because they are to be included
in Phase I).
Mr. Bob Waibel
September 24, 1980
Page 3
d) Modified statement of proposed phasing.
e) Covenants and restrictions which are to govern
the development.
Final building drawings and specifications for quadraminiums
and condominiums, alike, are to be submitted at a later date.
The final site plan and landscaping schedule for the condo-
miniums are likewise to be supplied at a later date.
5) Receive Final Development Plan approval from Planning Commission
and City Council.
At this point; Bob, I have two questions: When is the Development Contract
prepared and how great is its scope? Should we anticipate separate con-
tracts for each phase of the overall development?
After Final Development Plan approval we prepare our Phase I Final Plat,
secure final approvals from the Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, and Health Department, and submit the Final Plat to staff
for review and placement on the Council's agenda.
Bob, I would greatly appreciate your early response to the assumptions and
event sequencing outlined above. Please indicate any submission -materials
which I may have inadvertently omitted, any inaccurate representation of
administrative procedures, etc. We need to know exactly what steps are
to be followed and the requirements for each. Thanks.
Very truly yours,
NEAR MOLOIAIN PARTNERSHIP I
//� iat
Michael A. Pflaum
MAP/jh
. y ESC ,CW FSTMATE FOR APPL=ION 0TE PLANNMG REQUEST -.—
Case Title:
Planning case: JA9.7 � ��
%arid Use Ccordinator' s Carzren is :
Routing: �, ,oe
���
Cc=y Apli cam- "t
c) Emjine zi g
J
d) `/,trLrer
%be above -are estimates as d°termdr-ed by the offices indicated- Vbrk perforr ed is
tabulated and is available at the City Treasurar's office_ Any balances reg after
capletion. of the process, W3-.-b- the except±= of the Standard fee, will be remi.-t---ea
0-i rges exceeding the acc=rt balance 1,7ill be billed directly to the anpli_cant_
PI-Al�,i Aik` iS7' TION FEE SC111MUEZ:
a) Rezoning: $100
b) Site Plan Pe &,q: $75
c) Corditional Use Permit: $100
d) SUivision: $10 per acre plus $5 per
lot - $100 rIdxdrIIm
e) Planed Eeveloar�--nts: $150 plus $5 far
first 10 units — $1.50 for each
additional w-C t_ Canda tin_itrn and
apartrr nts collectible at site pla
review_
f) Vacation of Streets_ $100
g) Variance Request: $50
CITY `jF
CHASHASSER
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 1479CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 21, 1980
TO: Planning Commission & Staff
FROM: Land Use Coordinator, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Discussion, Near Mountain P.R.D.
APPLICANT: Pflaumwell Partnership
PLANNING CASE: P-607
At the request of the applicant, this time slot has been set aside
for a general information session for the planning commission before
the final development plan review. Please note that much of the
attached material has been put together for the marketing purposes
of the applicant based upon their preliminary development plan
approvals to date.
PFLAJMWELL
Development Partnership
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473-4400
June 30, 1980
Mr. Bob Maibel
Assistant Manager, Land Use Coordinator
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Bob:
Thank you for your thoughts this.morning regarding the steps
necessary for Final Plat approval of Phase I of the Near Mountain
project.
My brother, Peter Pflaum, and I believe that the interests of all
parties will best be served by our appearing before the Planning
Commission for an informal review of what has already received
Council approval. This should be particularly important and
useful to those members of the Commission whose term of office
commenced after our last appearance.
If your agenda permits, we would like to provide this briefing
when the Commission meets on July 9, 1980.
Please advise us of when we should plan to appear.
Very truly yours,
NEAR MOUNTAIN PARTNERSHIP I
Michael A. Pflaum
MAP/md
PRAjMWELL
Development Partnership
/ 935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473-4400
May 7, 1980
Mr. Don Ashworth
City Marrager
7610 Laredo Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
ww— ,::µ Js` c .
From: City Adrm, _'ator 44,1ess A.- RC
Referred To:
Mayor
y., �,•�/� ev
Council
Planner ;�
a.c.fr pro pq%e- c r.- 'Y
Building
_
Oa �'G pw� [N• /�
a
Attorney
Engineer
Treasurer
Police
�• �r 'f 0-cc rP046."Ce
Parks & Re;,.
4
Street Maint.
Utilities
Press
Date
Re: Final Development Plan for Phase I of Near Mountain
Dear Don:
At its regular meeting on October 17, 1979, the Planning Commission
approved our request for rezoning the Near Mountain property from R-lA
to P-1 and recommended approval of our Preliminary Development Plan
subject to certain conditions.
On December 3, 1979, the City Council modified two of these conditions
and moved to accept the Preliminary Development Plan.
Neither the Council nor the Planning Commission has specified a dead-
line for submission of our Phase I Final Development Plan.
This places us in a somewhat awkward position: The present housing
market and tight money situation have made it virtually impossible to
commence development of this property. At the same time, however, we
certainly do not wish to jeopardize the approvals we have already
obtained by failing to carry through with our applications.
Our own projection of a reasonable allowance for satisfactory improve-
ment of the economy and market is one year, and we would hope that the
Planning Commission and Council would concur and extend to a year hence-
forth any deadline for submission of a Final Development Plan.
Should it be desired, we would be pleased to appear before both bodies
to detail the need for such a extension.
Please advise me, Don, of when we should plan to be present.
Very t yours, (�REECEIVED
� 91011-.
MAY 1980
Michael A. Pflaum
MAP/jh ILLAGE OF,ANHA3SEN,cc: Bob Waibel MINN. ���r
0
�iY
/
RUSSELL H. LARSON
CRAIG M. MERTZ
OF COUNSEL
HARVEY E. SKAAR
MARK C. McCULLOUGH
LARSON & MERTZ
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1900 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
February 13, 1980
Chanhassen City Council
c/o Don Ashworth, City Manager
Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
y � �
7 a�
v r
Re: Near Mountain, Phase I
Pflaumwell Development Partnership
Undertaking in lieu of Bond
Dear Council Members:
i --
TELEPHONE
,a12) 33S-9565
Adion by City ............—Lug
Endo s •r/,—
to !'ovmission
to Council
Several weeks ago we furnished you,in your Council agenda packet,
with sample documents.submitted by Pflaumwell Development
Partnership and characterized as "an undertaking in lieu of
bond" to secure performance by the developer and its contractors
of their obligations to install public improvements in Phase I
of Near Mountain in accordance with City standards and the
plans and specifications. Pflaumwell has requested that this
security concept be accepted by Chanhassen in lieu of the
developer submitting a performance bond, cash deposit or letter
of credit.
Briefly stated, the undertaking in lieu of bond takes the
form of funds advanced by the developer and its lender
(equity and mortgage funds) in an amount sufficient to pay all
costs for the installation of the public improvements including
labor, materials, and contractor, engineering and legal fees.
The funds are placed on deposit with a disbursing or escrow agent,
usually Title Insurance Company of Minnesota. As the work
progresses, the funds are disbursed by Title to the contractors
upon receipt from the engineers of their certification that
the materials are in place and that the work has been performed
in accordance with the plans and specifications and City
standards. This concept has been accepted by Plymouth and
Shorewood involving Pflaumwell projects in those communities.
We have examined the documentation involved in the "undertaking
in lieu of bond", and have discussed the matter in depth with
the City Staff, and City Engineers and the Developers. From
this review, we have concluded that the concept of the
`Undertaking in lieu of bond" is acceptable to the Staff, subject
to the following conditions:
City Council
February 13, 1980
Page Two
1. The City Engineers shall do all inspection of
the work,
2. No disbursement of funds shall be made by the
escrow agent (Title) to contractors on pay
requests until the City Engineers certify that
the work has been done in accordance with City
standards and the plans and specifications,
All documentation evidencing the "undertaking
in lieu of bond" shall be approved by this
office prior to implementation of the concept.
Subject to the foregoing conditions, this office finds the
"undertaking in lieu of bond" acceptable.
ery ru y you s
RUSSELL H. LARSON
Chanhassen City Attorney
RHL:ner
cc Jim Orr
Pflaumwell Development Partnership
Stephen Pflaum
STATE
TATE C
ItEDEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
CENTENNIAL OFFICE BUILDING • ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA • 55155
DNR INFORMATION
((,12) 296-6157
February 4, 1980
Mr. Robert Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Near Mountain Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Mr. Waibel:
The Department of Natural Resources staff has reviewed the above referenced
document and offers the following comments for your consideration.
We are concerned that this project, as proposed, would have adverse
impacts on natural resource values of this area. The impacts would
result from alterations to Silver Lake and its contiguous marshes,
development adjacent to Lotus Lake and Purgatory Creek, grading and
filling of 250,000 cubic yards of material, the clearing of 9.5 acres
of woodland, and the alteration of 5.6 acres of lowland and wetlands
for stormwater retention ponds. The project's permit requirements
are not accurately stated in the document.
Our main concern with this project is that wetland areas would be
filled in to provide areas for subdivision and development. The
southwest end of Silver Lake extends to form a Type V wetland which
along with the lake, is considered public waters. Any filling of
areas identified as public waters is inconsistent with Department
policy (6 MCAR 1.5021 A.2.b.) and would require a permit. The DNR
regional hydrologist should be contacted to determine the necessary
permit requirements (296-7523). The entire Silver Lake Area and
associated wetland complex should be protected from the adverse effects
of project development. Appropriate mitigative measures would include
sediment and erosion control structures and retention of a 50-75 foot
buffer strip.of natural upland vegetation around the wetlands areas
above the high water mark.
The proximity of development to Lotus Lake has the potential for
adverse impacts on fish and wildlife values. The northern end of
the lake includes a posted largemouth bass spawning area as well as
excellent spawning area for other fish species. Our concern is that
development associated with this project on the hill adjacent to
Duck Lake Trail will potentially cause runoff, erosion, and sedimentatio
problems in this critical lake habitat. If necessary,construction
activity should not be permitted during times when spawning activity �*
would be adversely affected.
�g5 6 76,9
FEB 1980
RECEIVED
V1L,LAGE bF.
CHANHASSEN, c
,, MINN. �1
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Robert Waibel
Page Two
February 4, 1980
The small ponds that will be used as stormwater retention ponds should
be modified in such a way as to enhance their value as wildlife habitat.
We recommend such measures as limiting the permanent maximum depth to
3 feet, constructing shallow side slopes, designing irregular shore
configuration, leveling the spoil banks, constructing a small island
in each pond, and leaving a buffer strip of undisturbed upland vegetation.
Both Shorewood and Chanhassen have floodplain ordinances, and Chanhassen
also has a state -approved floodplain ordinance. Development of this
project must be consistent with the provisions of these municipally -
enforced ordinances. The DNR does not require permits for encroachment
into the 100-year floodplain. However, any work below the ordinary
high water mark does require a DNR permit. We recommend that you consult
the soil and water conservation districts and watershed districts to
insure that your plans will provide adequate erosion control during
and after construction.
The appropriation of water in the Shorewood portion for more than 25
persons in volumes exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million
gallons per year will also require a DNR water appropriation permit.
Again, the regional hydrologist can provide details on this requirement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Balcom
Environmental Review Coordinator
TWB:DB:mp
cc: Harold Murck
Ron Harnack
Earl Huber
Sharon Decker - EQB
Pflaumwell Development Partnership
01
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
JACK E. GILL
ROONEY B. GORDON
THEODORE D. KEMNA
JOHN W. EMOND
KENNETH E. ADOLF
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT
BRUCE C. SUNDING
R. SCOTT HARRI
DENNIS W. SAARI
GERALD L. BACKMAN
SCHOELL & MAOSON, lNC.
ENGINEERS ANO SURVEYORS 1
38-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
OFFICES AT HURON, SOUTH DAKOTA AND DENTON. TEXAS
Plaumwell Development Partnership
c/o Mr. Mike Pflaum
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Dear Mr. Pf laum:
i
I
January 30, 1980
Subject: Near Mountain Development
Pursuant to your request, we herein submit our estimated
range of costs for providing inspection and construction staking
services to the above named development in Chanhassen.
Service
Construction Inspection
Construction Staking
Estimated Range of Cost
as a % of Construction
2% - 4%
2% - 4%
We have indicated a range of cost based on checking actual
costs of other jobs. Because this is a new development -with close
timing control and minimal public problems, we expect costs to be
in the low end of the range indicated.
Please advise as to questions.
Very truly yours,
�� SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
JROrr:mkr
cc: Mr. Don Ashworth
�1 �1.1
bee
fR�
Ir-4vlN C1't1`r
'300 Meta'., -So ;,tare Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Pahl,--kUnnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-63519
January 30, 1980
Mr. Mike Pflaum
935 E. Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
RE: Environmental Assessment j9orksheet ;(EAW)
�Iew—F4ountain, orewood
Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 7850-1
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
The EAW for the New Mountain Project has been reviewed by the
staff of the Metropolitan Council. The staff has found no issue
that would have caused the Council to challenge the negative
declaration that has been made to the Minnesota Environmental
Quality Board.
It is unfortunate that an incorrect mailing list had been mailed
to you so that this project could not have a full review and an
action by the full Metropolitan Council at a regular meeting.
Sincerely,
)� A
Y
';49hn K. Rutford/
Referral Coordinator
JKR:sje
cc: Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
City of Chanhassen
City of Shorewood
Ali A (tnuy-C.:.t- ., .cl xo C'o.;rdici:ite tt:s> I humix!g aril t of Oic Twin C.itie', Mt%t.roC:oii::.ix AreaCon:prss,r.;;
Anoka Goi----:y Ca_vor C; -..;.sty • Dakota County Honnopif. C':nuity `• Ii.>! .pry Couni.; SA-- it'. Co,. '.y 4: 3.;a'_:f}ytOh COUi.t
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul; Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359
n_L TT_ R1_ -1
N-0Ue t VVcL.LUCl
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
January 15, 1980
Elsa Wiltsey
City of Shorewood
20630 Manor Road
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
RE: City of Shorewood / City of Chanhassen
Environmental Assessment Worksheet .for
The Near Mountain Project
Received 01/10/80
M.etroDolitan Council Referral File No. 7850-1
Dear Sir/Madam:
This is to acknowledge that the Metropolitan Council has received
the above Environmental Assessment Worksheet.
If there are any questions or if further information is needed, the
Council will contact your office.
Thank you.
Sincerely, / "'7
ii
John Rutf ord
Referral Coordinator
JR/ch
CC: Metropolitan Council District 16
r�
JAr4
V1L G DR
!� CHAN AS3Eii, C�
\� MINN. N--z
An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board
100 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Phone (612) 296-9031
January 10, 1980
Elsa Wiltsey
City of Shorewood
Z0630 Manor Road
Shorewood, 1414 55331
RE: Near Mountain
Robert Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ms. Wiltsey and Mr. Waibel:
The 30-day review period for the environmental
assessment worksheet (EAW) on the above project
ended on January 9, 1980. No objections to the
EAW's determination that no environmental
impact statement (EIS) is needed on the
project were received. Therefore, the
decision stands.
Final actions to approve or commence the
project can now be undertaken.
Sincerely,
r
yason J zsch, Staff
Environmental Quality Board
JJ/dh
CC-. Pflaumwell Development Partnership
CO J AN zi
i` RECSIYED
cra vn.L AGN vV
,!g CHANHAWMI54,
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
w
7610 LAREDO DRIVE®P.O. 80X 147oCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
January 9, 1980
Pflaumwell Development Partnership
Attn: Mr. Mike Pflaum
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
I am in receipt of a letter from Schoell and Madson, prepared by
Dale Campbell,.dated January 3, 1980. Schoell and Madson are
the designated consulting engineers for the City of Chanhassen and
were authorized to prepare the assessment rolls for both the North
Service Area and East Lotus Lake projects. If you have questions
in regards to assessment information, I would suggest contacting
Mr. Campbell.
In reviewing the assessments, I note that Mr. Campbell's response is
based upon the phasing designated by yourself. I do not believe
that this phasing has been approved by the City Council. This
approval will be necessary and could change the assessment letter
prepared by Mr. Campbell.. Additionally, issues such as financial
guarantees assuring assessments are paid and determinations
as to whether these will be paid in advance of issuance of building
permits, are typically outlined in the development contract between
the developer and -the City. Again, the City Council must act on
this document.
Should you have ° any questions, . p-lease feel free toy-eontact me.
Sincerely,
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA:k
cc: Schoell and Madson, Attn: Dale Campbell
City Attorney, Russell Larson
PFLAuMWELL
D Development Partnership
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473-4400
January 11, 1980
Mr. Don Ashworth
City Manager
7610 Laredo Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317
Dear Don:
Thank you for alerting me to the need for Council review of our phasing
revision and for pointing out that the actual boundaries of Phase I,
should they be changed in the review process, will be the determinants
of the total assessments due.
The question I raised would be removed by deletion of the clause reading
"I will assume that..." in the first paragraph. Either Mr. Campbell has
accurately represented the assessments, or he has not. Trivial as it may
seem, your statement could be interpretated to mean that the dollar
amounts should be accurate but may, in fact, not be.
I know that such an inference was not your intention but fear that a
lending institution may have some doubts. I, therefore, greatly apprec-
iate your willingness to recast the sentence in question.
Very ruly yours,
Xfl%7; / a_ , 1444,1�
Michael A. Pflaum
MAP/i h
JAN 198p
R?�sn
CITY OF
CHANHASSER
7610 LAREDO DRIVEOP.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
January 9, 1980
Pf-laumwell Development Partnership
Attn: Mr. Mike Pflaum
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, DR4 55391
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
I am in receipt of a letter from Sc oell and Madson, prepared by
Dale Campbell, dated January 3, 1 0. � Schoell and Madson are
the designated consulting engineer s for the City of Chanhassen and
prepared the assessment rolls fo both the North Service Area and
East Lotus Lake projects
lay If y o u
have questions in regards to tl, I would suggest contacting
Mr. Campbell.
In reviewing the assessments, I note that Mr. Campbell's response is
based upon the phasing designated by yourself. I do not believe
that this phasing has been approved by the City Council. This
approval will be necessary and could change the assessment letter
prepared by Mr. Campbell. Additionally, issues such as financial
guarantees assuring assessments are paid and determinations
as to whether these will be paid in advance of issuance of building
permits, are typically outlined in the development contract between
the developer and the City. Again, the City Council must act on
this document.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincere ,
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA:k
cc: Schoell and Madson, Attn: Dale Campbell
City Attorney, Russell Larson
I NO
MI N N ESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Mr. Michael Pflaum
Pflaunwell Development Partnership
935 West Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
690 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 • 672-296-2747
January 8, 1980
RE: Review of the two buildings con-
structed prior to 1930, scheduled
for demolition, located within
the Near Mountain development area.
MHS Referral File Number: J 721
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project.
It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State Historic
Preservation Officer. by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and
the Procedures of the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(36CFR800).
It is our opinion that the two above -referenced structures, located at
5950 Vinehill Road in Shorewood and 75 Town Line Road in Chanhassen, are
not eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.
However, it is our opinion that the brick structure is of historical
interest, and we urge you to consider preserving the structure in your
future plans. As mentioned in earlier conversations, farmhouses such as
this one, which represent the early rural settlement in the metropolitan
area, are disappearing from the landscape as a result of urban sprawl.
Therefore, we encourage and support any effort made to recognize and
preserve these historical resources.
Regarding the archaeological survey, we are looking forward to reviewing
the results for the portion of the survey that has been completed.
It is also our understanding that the remainder of the project area
(the land that is adjacent to Silver Lake and Lotus Lake) will be sur-
veyed within the coming field season.
Thank you for your close attention to historic and prehistoric resources
in your planning process.
RWF : bh
cc: Ms. Elsa Wiltsey
Mr. Robert Waibel
Respectfully
AC11 1�. 1' L lu iG�
to Historic Preservation Officer
JAN 1.980
RecaveD
Founded 1849 0 The oldest institution in the state
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
JACK E. GILL
RODNEY B. GORDON
THEODORE D. KEMNA
JOHN W. EMOND
KENNETH E. ADOLF
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT
BRUCE C. SUNDING
R. SCOTT HARRI
DENNIS W. SAARI
GERALD L. BACKMAN
SCHOELL & MAOSON, iNc.
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
38-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
OFFICES AT HURON, SOUTH DAKOTA AND DENTON, TEXAS
January 7, 1980
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Bob Waibel, Assistant Manager
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Subject: Plan Review Costs
Near Mountain Development
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request, we respond to the above named
matter. My guess would be approximately $1,500.00 to review
the subject plans. This is merely an estimate and it could be
more or less.
JROrr:mkr
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
��
-� JAN4. 60 cry
RECEIVED `,
YiLL.AGE OF
cp, ;CHANHASSEN,cl- MINN.
,
1'WILLIAM 0. SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
JAMES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
JACK E. GILL
ROONEY B. GORDON
THEODORE D. KEMNA
JOHN W. EMOND
KENNETH E. ADOLF
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT
BRUCE C. SUNDING
R. SCOTT HARRI
DENNIS W. SAARI
GERALD L. BACKMAN
Pflaumwell
Developrient Partnership
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Dear Mike:
SCHOELL & MA®SON, iNo.
ENGINEERS ANO SURVEYORS
38-7601 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
OFFICES AT HURON, SOUTH DAKOTA AND DENTON, TEXAS
January 3, 1980
Subject: Near Mountain Properties
As requested, we have completed the assessment information
computations for the Phase I portion of County Reference Nurnher
1DO. At this time we will also try to answer your questions
which were posed in your December 17, 1979, letter to the City
of Chanhassen.
The City has officially adopted the Sewer Board Policy as
follows:
A) Single family houses shall be charged 1 unit.
B) Duplexes and townhouses shall be charged 1 unit for each
living unit.
C) Quadraminium units shall be charged 1 unit for each
living unit.
D) Condominiums shall be charged at 80 percent of the living
units within the structure.
The total "to date" assessments on Phase I should he broken
down into two categories - the North Service Area and East Lotus
Lake Area.
North Service.Area
For the area designated as Phase I, there are zero trunk and
and water units currently assessed. However, it should be noted
that there is a total of 161 "off line" sewer and water trunk units
placed upon County Reference Number 1DO.
SCHOELL & MAOSON. INC
Pflaumwell
Development Partnership
Page Two January 3, 1980
East Lotus Lake Area
For the area designated as Phase I, the currently assessed
units are as follows:
13
Sewer
Laterals
@
$2,914.00
Each
= $ 37,882.00
13
Water
Laterals
@
$1,968.00
Each
= 25,584.00
55
Sewer
Trunks
@
$ 706.00
Each
- 38,830.00
55
Water
Trunks
@
$ 602.00
Each
= 33,110.00
TOTAL
$135,406.00
The criteria used in determining the potential units are as
follows:
The total number of potential single family equivalent units
served by the North Area trunk systems were computed at 2-1/2 units
per acre of undeveloped land, after reduction for area of swamp
lands and an allowance of 15 percent for future roadways. The
number of these units for each individual parcel is recorded at the
City Offices. When the property is fully developed, at least this
number of additional units will be charged. If a greater number of
units are developed, that number will be charged.
The additional charges on Phase I should be broken down into
two categories - the North Service Area and East Lotus Lake Area.
North Service Area
As zero units have been charged Phase I and 16 single family
units fall within the North Service Area (see map), these 16 units
are assessable at: sewer trunks $320.00 per unit and water trunks
$380.00 per unit in October of 1973. These numbers should be
increased at 7 percent per year. This comes to 6 years 3 months
as of January, or 7% x 6.25 = 43.75%. Thus the sanitary trunk
should be $460.00 and water trunks should be $546.25.
Sewer units 16 @ $460.00 Each = $ 7,360
Water units 16 @ $546.25 Each = 8,740
$16,100
The $16,100.00 represents the total amount chargeable to
Phase I in the North Service Area.
East Lotus Lake Area
55 units were assessed Phase I in 1977. An additional 7 units
(see map) will be generated by the Phase I subdivision resulting
in the following assessment:
SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC.
Pflaumwell
Development Partnership
Page Three January 3, 1980
Sewer trunk unit @ $706.00 per unit
Water trunk unit @ $602.00 per unit,
in September of 1977. These numbers should be increased at 7 percent
per year. This comes to 2 years 4 months as of January, or 7%
x 2.33 = 16.31%. Thus the sanitary trunk should be $821.15, water
trunk should be $700.19.
Sewer units 7 @ $821.15 Each = $ 5,748.05
Water units 7 @ $700.19 Each = $ 4,901.33
10,649.35
The $10,649.38 represents the total amount chargeable to Phase I
in the East Lotus Lake Area.
Thus the total additional chargeable to Phase I as of January,
1980, is $16,100 + $10,649.38 = $26,749.38.
The presently deferred units on Phase I will become due when
the building permits are taken out.
The remaining deferred units are on properties 1DO, 2DO and
954DO. The breakdown is as follows:
1DO - 145*"off line" units.
* This total does not include 16 units of Phase I.
2DO - 1 "on line" sewer and water unit.
2DO - 6 "off line" units.
954DO - 18 "off line" units.
The 1 set of "on line" units is tentatively set for being
charged in 1981. There are no plans at present for collecting
assessments on the "off line" units.
With the payment of the $26,749.38 (calculated to January of
1980 only), the Chanhassen portion. of Phase I would be totally
assessed for sewer and water.
At present, there are no present or expected assessments or
projects on any of the Near Mountain Properties.
This information has been directed largely towards the Phase I
project. However, the same principals can be applied to the other
Near Mountain Properties in further phases.
If you have need of any other information concerning this or
any other property, kindly contact this office.
DLCampbell:mkr
cc: Mra Don Ashworth
Very truly yours,
SCHOELL & DSON, INC.
c
n
�p �`�NNESOT-9
D �
3�yT �QO
OF TVO�
Minnesota
Department of Transportation
Transportation Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
January 3, 1980
Mr. Robert Waib el
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mr. Waibel:
Phone(612)296-1636
Re: In Reply Refer to : 702
Near Mountain Project -
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the
above referenced document. While we do not challenge the document's
negative declaration finding, we wish to note that adverse impacts
on our transportation facilities are anticipated. Total development
of this project, including both the Shorewood and Chanhassen portions,
will generate approximately 5740 vehicular trips daily. Perhaps as
much as 90% of this traffic will empty onto Trunk Highway 7, which
presently experiences a poor level of service during peak hours in the
vicinity of I-494. We would therefore predict levels of service "E"
and "F" during peak hours on Trunk Highway 7 between Vine Hill Road
and I-494. Additional traffic from several proposed projects is an
increasing problem in this project area.
If you require further information from Mn/DOT, please contact
Robert Morast, Transportation Analysis Engineer, at 545-3761 (ext. 117).
Sincerely,
Randall K. Halvorson
Acting Director
Office of Environmental Affairs
cc: Mary Sullivan, Administrator
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
Robert Morast, Transportation Analysis Engineer
Mn/DOT Golden Valley District Office
���3 �9 - -
J,AN ib80
VILLAGE 01r,
CHANHASSE i
1 MINN , `s
1 =-T, 7! -TT
J 4
-Ai
-
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
690 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 . 672-296-2747
December 26, 1979
Ms. Elsa Wiltsey
City of Shorewood
20630 Manor Road
'�23456T�
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
1�► �P
621
JAN 1980
Mr. Robert Waibel
City Chanhassen
4' a
RECEIVED
of
7610 Laredo Drive
' VILLAGE of .r
;CHANHASSEI�i,
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
MINN.
����
Dear Ms. Wiltsey and Mr. Waibel:�c
RE: Review of the E.A.W. for Near Mountain
development, City of Shorewood, Hennepin
County, (Sec. 26, T117N, R23W) & City of
Chanhassen, Carver County (Sec. 1 T116N,
R23W).
MHS Referral File Number J721
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project.
It has been reviewed pursuant to responsibilities given the State
Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Procedures of the National Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (36CFR800).
This review reveals that the proposed project is located adjacent to Silver
Lake between Lotus and Christmas lakes. Because systematic archaeological
research in many areas of the state has indicated a high correlation between
prehistoric archaeological sites and permanent sources of water '(which exist
now or may have existed in the past), it is our opinion that archaeological
sites may exist within the project area. Moreover, we believe that this
project, by its nature, is likely to affect these archaeological sites.
Consequently, we recommend that an archaeological survey of the project area
be conducted. Such a survey would determine the existence of any sites, their
eligibility to the National Register, and the specific effects on them from
the proposed activity. I have enclosed for your reference a list of archaeological
consultants who have indicated an interest in performins such surveys. The
Founded 1849 • The oldest institution in the state
2
archaeologist hired will need a map of the project area and an explanation
of the kind of development proposed. Upon the completion of the survey and
before work on the project begins, a copy of the survey results should be
submitted to this office for final review.
I should add, however, that if you are aware of any extensive alterations to
the project area and feel that the need for a survey should be reevaluated,
you should not hesitate to contact Ms. Susan Hedin, Environmental Assessment
Officer, State Historic Preservation Office, James J. Hill House, 240 Summit
Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102, (612) 296-0103, with that information.
In addition, we wish to review the two structures over fifty years old in
order to determine whether or not they are eligible for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. To complete this review, we would
appreciate it if you would send our office photographs of the properties.
Once we are in receipt of this information we will be able to complete our
review.
Thank you for your participation in this important effort to preserve
Minnesota's cultural resources.
Sincerely,
tfs'sell 41. Fri�ley
tate Historic Preservation Officer
RWF/cjb
Enclosure
cc: Environmental Review Program
Room 100, Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
MINNESOTA CONTRACT ARCHAEOLOGISTS
Alan Brew
Department of Anthropology
Bemidji State College
Bemidji, Minnesota 56001
(218) 755-2801 or
(218) 551-8723
Commonwealth Associates
209 E. Washington Street
Jackson, Michigan 49201
(519) 788-3551 or
(519) 788-3561
James P. Gallagher, Archaeologist
Department of Sociology & Archaeology
University of Wisonsin La Crosse
La Crosse, Wisconsin 54601
(608) 784-8042 home
(608) 785-8457 work
(608) 785-8463 work
Guy Gibbon
Department of Anthropology
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
(612) 376-3256
Christina Harrison
503 East 4th Street
Northfield, Minnesota 55057
(507) 645-9017
Vernon Helmen
Professor of Anthropology
Normandale Community College
9700 France Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
(612) 935-1357 or
(612) 831-5001 ext. 245
G. Joseph Hudak
Archaeological Field Services, Inc.
421 South Main Street - Suite 421E
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
(612) 439-6782 or 277-2737 work
(612) 436-7444 home
Richard Lane
Department of Anthropology
St. Cloud State College
St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301
(612) 255-3010
or
P.O. Box 687
St. Joseph, Minnesota 56374
(612) 363-8411
Richard Strachan & Kathleen Roetzel
Impact Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 3224
Mankato State College
Mankato, Minnesota 56701
(507) 388-4543
Mike Michlovic
Department of Anthropology
Moorhead State
Moorhead, Minnesota 56560
(218) 236-2632
Clifford W. Watson
Terra Archaeological Services
562 Holly, Apt. 202
St. Paul, Minnesota 55102
(612) 226-7660
Alan Woolworth
3719 Sun Terrace
White Bear, Minnesota 55110
(612) 429-4091
Michael L. Gregg
Research Director
University of North Dakota Archaeological
Research
Anthropology - Archaeology
Box 8242, University Station
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58202
(701) 777-3009
CITY* CIF
rk7
7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 147*CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
December 17, 1979
Schoell and Madson
Attn: Mr. Jim Orr
50 Ninth Ave. South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Jim:
Attached please find a letter dated December 17, 1979, from
Pflaumwell Development Partnership. Would you please review this
letter and answer questions presented in such. Mike is attempting
to finalize financing for the project, and has
asked that the city respond to these questions as soon as possible.
If you will be unable to respond to the points noted by Mike within
the next two weeks, please ...notify me of such. Otherwise, I will
assume that you will be able to complete a response within that
time frame.
Of greatest importance to Mike are answers in regards to assessments
for the first phase of..their development. You -may desire to make your
response in two sections, being more specific with assessments
for the first phase'and leaving the remainder of the project being
more generally discussed.
Should you have any- questions_, please feel free to contact either
myself or Mike, directly.
Sincerel ,
1
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA:k
cc: Mike Pflaum
Enclosure
PFLAuMWELL
DeveWment Partnership
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612) 473-4400
December 17, 1979
Mr. Don Ashworth
City Manager
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minn. 55317
Re: Near Mountain Project
Dear Don:
Outlined on the accompanying Preliminary Plat is the area we propose to
develop as Phase I. Elimination of Lot 8 in Block 9 and of Lots 5 and
6 in Block 10 will result in a total of 46 single family lots in this
phase. In addition, we propose to construct 32 of the 36 quadraminium
units (8 of the 9 structures).
For our financing we require from the City a statement of the total assess-
ments on this Phase and confirmation that there are no additional assessments
pending.
We ask also that the treatment of assessments on further phases be explained
at this time:
1) Has the City of Chanhassen officially adopted the Sewer Boards'
policy of assessing one trunk charge per single family lot, one
trunk charge per townhouse living unit, one trunk charge per
duplex living unit, and .8 trunk charge per condominium living
unit? What is the charge per quadraminium unit?
2) What is the total number of sewer and water trunk units currently
assessed against the Chanhassen portion of the Near Mountain
project? Will additional units be assessed if the total we have
proposed (300 l.u.) is greater than this figure? If .so, how many,
at what dollar amount, at what rate of interest and bearing int-
erest from what date? When are deferred trunk charges to be paid?
3) With the above additions (if any), is the Chanhassen portion of the
Near Mountain project then fully assessed for sewer and water?
Mr. Don Ashworth
December 17, 1979
Page 2
4) Are there any other assessments pending against any of the
Near Mountain parcels we have proposed to develop? Are any
municipal projects currently being considered which could
result in new assessments on any of these parcels?
Unrelated, but also needed at this time, is a copy of the resolution(s)
approving the P-1 rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan.
I am sure, Don, you are as eager as we to complete the pre -construction
stages for Phase I. To that end we shall both be served by your prompt
attention to this request for information.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Michael A. Pflaum
MAP/jh
Enclosure
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Nuiy -
December 14, 1979
Robert Waibel
City of Chanhassen
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
SUBJECT: Near Mountain Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Sir/Madam:
The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge receipt of the
above referenced document. The staff is currently reviewing
this document and will transmit any significant comments in
an additional letter.
We appreciate receiving
concerning any questions
VE
ly,
McMichael
Project Planager
Environmental Planning &
this document. Please contact me
regarding our review.
Review Unit
(612)296-7293
17
DEC1979
�. RECEIVED
VILLAOC op na
CHANHAggIENy.
�Q MINN.
� LIM
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Regional Offices • Duluth / Brainerd / Detroit Lakes / Marshall / Rochester / Roseville
Equal Opportunity Employer
Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board
100 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul Minnesota 55101
Kane (612) 296-9031
December 6, 1979
City of Shorewood
Elsa Wi 1 trey
20630 Manor Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
RE: Near Mountain Project
Dear Ms. Wiltsey and Mr. Waibel:
City of Chanhassen
Robert Waibel
7610 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
This letter acknowledges receipt of the environmental assessment work -
sheet (EAW) on the above project. Notice of the EAW's conclusions that
no environmental impact statement (EIS) is needed will be published in
the EQB Monitor on December 10, 1979.
Publication in the qBB Monitor commences the 30-day review period for
the decision. You will be notified if any challenges to the decision
are filed and EQB action is necessary. You will also be notified if
no objections are filed during the review period.
Please note that no final actions to approve or commence the project
should be taken until the 30 days after publication of a Negative
Declaration (a decision that no EIS is needed) or, if an EIS Comple-
tion Notice (a decision that an EIS is needed) is published, until
after the EIS is completed. This is in accord with the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and the Minnesota Environmental Review
Program Rules (6 MCAR § 3.031).
Sincerely,
V� Jason Je, y.zsch, taff
Environmental Quality Board
JJ/dh
cc: Pflaumwell Development Partnership - Michael A. Pflaum
C".>F
I TY
CHANHASSER
7610 LAREDO DRIVE*P.O. BOX 1476CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
3' MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 27, 1979
TO: City Engineer, Jim Orr
FROM: Asst. Manager/LUC, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Escrow Account, Near Mountain Development
PLANNING CASE: P-607
For escrow account estimating purposes, please advise me as to your
cost estimate for the review of°,the preliminary and final engineering
plans for the subject development.
Thank you.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
Don Ashworth
and says that he is and was on
, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes
December 4, ' 19 79 , 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
Near Mountain EAW Worksheet
in the
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.
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Subscribed and swo to before me
this,1= day�f 1�
tit
Notary Public
KAR- J. E,_ -LHARDT
NOTARY PIJ L'C - MINNESOTA
CR<<`' COUNTY
My commissi-I c�pires Oct. 11, 1985
Mr. .Arthur Sidner, Chairman
State Planning Agency
-Roan 101: Capitol Square Bldg
St._Paul, Neil 55101
.Charles R. Kenow
Roan 100 Capitol Square Bldg.
550 Cedar St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Richard Braun, Commissioner
Dept. of Transportation
Rn 411 Transportation Bldg.
John Ireland Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
Terry Hoffman
PN Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. County Road B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
Clarence Johannes
MN Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Rod B-2
Roseville, MN 55113
Joe Alexander, Commissioner
Dept_ of Natural. Resources
3rd Floor Centennial Bldg.
658 Cedar St.
St_ Paul, MN 55155
I
Tarn Balcom t`
Dept. of Natural Resources
2nd Floor Space Center Bldg
444 Lafayette Rd.`
is
St. Paul, M 55101
Mary Sullivan Adm.
rm. 100, Capitol Square Bldg, .-
550 Cedar St_
St. Paul, MN 55101 !�
ij
Environmental Review Program ;:
Rn. 100 Capitol Square Bldg.
550 Cedar St.
St. Paul, M 55101 `E
`t
Mark Seeti.n, Czarnissioner
Dept. of Agriculture
90 West Plato Blvd.
St_ Paul, NIN 55107
Dave McGinnis
Dept_ of Agriculture
90 West Plato Blvd.
St. Paul, J 1Rq 55107
George Pettersen, Caninissionei
Dept. of Health-
717 Delaware St.
!
Minneapolis, Nil 55440
Laura Oatman
!:
Dept. of Health
717 Delaware St.
Minneapolis, NIN 55440
tr
t:
fc
Al Johnson, Director
MN Energy Agency
980 American Center Bldg_
150 E..Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55101
i3
t
Karen Cole
MN Energy Agency
930 American Center Bldg_
150 E. Kellogg Blvd.
St_. Paul, BIN 55101,
t:
Kermit McRae:
Spec. Asst. to Governors
Rm. 130 State Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55155i
E,
Russell W. Fridley
Main Historical Bldg.
•1;
690 Cedar St.
ES
St. Paul, Nil 55101
V-
t'
:r
Dave Parsons, Chief
;
Env. Regulatory Division
1135 U.S. Post Office
r�
St_ Paul, NNl 55101
:
Environmental Conservation
Library
E `
300 Nicollet Nall
Minneapolis, MW 55401
4!
�t
i
�E
Yt
t,
E
fl _
tr
E;
r
r
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
2 5 1983
The Honorable Tom Hamilton
Mayor, City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive -
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mayor Hamilton:
Enclosed is a copy of Permit Number 12879 for construction and operation of
a sanitary sewer extension in Chanhassen, Minnesota.
Please review the Permit, any Special Conditions, the General Conditions
(P:o. 1-19) and information relative to plans and permit applications
carefully. Please let us know if you have any questions concerning them.
If you have any questions, you may contact Mr. Don Perwien of my staff at
the address below or call (612) 296-7257.
Sincerely,
i
C�rtis J. Sparks, P.E.
Chief, Permits Section
Division of Water Quality
CJS/DKP:cmc
Enclosures
cc: City Council, c/o Donald Ashworth, City Manager
Schoell & Madson, Inc.
M.etrupolitan Waste Control Commission
Metropolitan Council
Phone:
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 551 13-2785
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
ClT_Y_ OF CHANNS�
41k & j W42
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
VCRY
PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF
A DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Chanhassen
Carver County
Pursuant to Authorization by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and in
accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115 arid 116,
plans are approved and a permit is hereby granted to the City of Chanhassen
for construction and operation of a sanitary sewer extension in Chanhassen,
Minnesota.
The facilities consist of 3,032 linear feet of 8-inch sanitary sewer pipe.
The facilities are further described in plans and specifications designated
"Near Mountain Phase I Improvements" received June 27, 1983 prepared by
Schoell and Madson, Inc. for the City of Chanhassen.
It is the permittee's responsibility to assure compliance with any special
conditions and the general conditions that are required by this permit.
This includes taking all necessary measures needed to comply including, but
not limited to, the notification of contractors or others who may be
carrying out this work.
PERMIT NUMBER: 12879
DATED: HUG 2 5 1983
Z , >
.1� l �
Curtis J. Spa, -s, F.E.
Chief, Permi; s Section
Division of Water Quality
Phone: _
1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 551 13-2785
Regional Offices • Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester
Equal Opportunity Employer
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PERMITS
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1) Material, labor and equipment for temporary erosion control measures
and the acceptable maintenance thereof shall be provided during the life of
the project, to effectively prevent water pollution through the use of
berms, dikes, dams, sediment basins, fiber mats, netting, gravel, mulches,
grasses, slope drains, and other erosion control devices or methods.
Surface cover materials shall be anchored to reasonably prevent their
entering waters of the State by erosion or rising water levels.
2) Temporary pollution control measures shall be included for all
construction activity associated with the project where such work is
necessary, for example borrow pit operations, haul roads, equipment
storage, and plant or waste disposal sites.
3) The temporary pollution control provisions contained herein shall be
coordinated with any permanent erosion control features to the extent
practical to assure economical, effective, and continuous erosion control
throughout the construction and post -construction period.
4) The surface area of erodible earth material exposed by clearing and
grubbing, excavation, borrow and fill operations shall be minimized and
immediate permanent or temporary control measures shall be taken to prevent
contamination of adjacent streams and other water courses, lakes, ponds,
and areas of water impoundment. Cut slopes shall be stabilized by methods
such as seeding and mulching as the excavation proceeds to the extent
considered practicable. Slopes shall be graded properly to minimize
erosion.
5) The Applicant will be required to incorporate all permanent erosion
control features into the project at the earliest practicable time.
Provisions should be made for continual checking and maintenance of all
control measures, particularly during periods of rainfall, to ensure
maximum effectiveness. Temporary pollution control measures will be used
to correct conditions that develop during construction that were not
foreseen during the design state; that are needed temporarily to control
erosion that develops during normal construction practices, but are not
associated with the permanent control features on the project.
6) The Applicant will control the area of excavation, borrow and
embankment operations commensurate with his progress with finish grading,
mulching, seeding, and other such permanent erosion control measures.
Should seasonal limitations make such coordination unrealistic, temporary
erosion control measures shall be taken to the extent feasible.
7) Oil and other liquid substances capable of polluting water of the
State will be stored in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota
Regulation WPC 4.
8) Stream Bank Stabilization shall be utilized if it is needed to prevent
erosion, and shall be constructed of materials which will not pollute
waters of the State..
9) If an effluent will result from the project the Contractor shall
submit to the MPCA plans, for approval, to provide for the following:
a) Water from dewatering operations including effluents from
construction activities shall only be discharged when the effluent
complies with the applicable water quality and effluent standards.
Dewatering shall be performed using well points where feasible and
practical, all other dewatering shall be performed so as not to result
in increased turbidity in the receiving water. This may. require the
use of desilting ponds to reduce suspended solids. When the MPCA
requires, permits must be obtained.
b) A Disposal System Permit shall be obtained by the Contractor from
the MPCA prior to any hydraulic dredging or tunneling, or other
activity including an effluent which may contain potential
pollutants.
10) This permit shall not release the permittee from any liability or
obligation imposed by Minnesota or Federal statutes or local ordinances and
shall remain in force subject to all conditions and limitations now or
hereafter imposed by law. The permit shall be permissive only and shall
not be construed as estopping or limiting any claims against the permittee
for damage or injury to persons or property, or any waters of the state
resulting from any acts, operations or omissions of the permittee, its
agents, contractors or assigns for damage to state property, or for any
violation of the terms or conditions of this permit.
11) No assignment of this permit shall be effective until it is executed
in writing and signed by the parties thereto and thereafter approved by the
Agency.
12) No major alterations or additions to the disposal systems shall be
made without the written consent of the Agency.
13) The use of the disposal system shall be limited to the treatment
and/or disposal of the sewage, industrial waste, other waste materials or
substances described in the plans and/or permit application and associated
material filed with the Agency.
14) The Agency may modify, suspend, or revoke in whole or in part, this
permit after giving notice and providing an opportunity for a public
hearing or by taking direct enforcement action, or any just cause including
failure: (a) to comply with the terms stated herein, or (b) to comply with
Agency water quality regulations and standards presently in force. Nothing
herein shall prohibit the Agency from exercising its emergency powers.
15) The permittee acknowledges that nothing contained herein shall prevent
the future adoption by the Agency or its predecessors of any pollution
control regulations, standards, orders or statutes more stringent than
those now in existence or prevent the enforcement and application of such
regulations, standards, orders or statutes to the permittee.
16) The Agency, its officers, employees and agents review and comment upon
engineering reports and construction plans and specifications regarding
this permit solely for the limited purpose of determining whether such
report, plans and specifications will enable the facilities subject thereto
to reasonably comply'with the regulations and criteria of the Agency.
17) This permit has not been reviewed by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency and is not issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
12) The plans for the project have been approved with the reservations
stated on the attached sheet entitled "Information Relative to Review of
Plans and Permit Application."
19) The permittee shall comply with all rules, regulations and
requirements of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board prior to
construction of the proposed project. This permit is not effective until
the permittee completes all applicable environmental review (Environmental
Impacts Statement or Environmental Assessment Worksheets) which may be
required for the project.
I
rYA
3 � �
September 7, 1983
Page 2
6. Copy of a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
permit to work in public waters issued to the Department of Natural
Resources for public access and improvements for Starring Lake.
7. Copy of correspondence sent to the acting executive
secretary of the Minnesota Water Resources Board by the Major of
the City of Minnetonka, commenting upon the size of watershed
district boards of managers affecting that particular community.
8. August 4, 1983 letter from Harry Pool commenting upon
the availability of technical service from Hennepin County Soil
and Water Conservation District to interested persons and
communities. Chairman Sault noted that this subject will be
discussed later in the meeting and appropriate response made to
Mr. Pool.
Grading and Land Alteration Permit Applications and Extensions
i
The following grading and land alteration permit applications
and requests for extensions of permits previously issued and out-
standing, were submitted to the District for review and approval:
A. Filing by Cal Anderson adjacent to Lake Idlewild,
grading and land alteration permit, Eden Prairie.
B. Lake Idlewild Office Center permit extension request,
Eden Prairie.
C. Maple Leaf Acres loth Addition, permit extension
request, Eden Prairie.
D. Baypoint Manor Apartments, grading and land alteration
permit - The Preserve - Eden Prairie.
E. Carver Beach Estates Development, grading and land
alteration permit, County Road 17 and Nez Perce Drive,
Chanhassen.
F. Office Building Construction, 7575 Corporate Way,
grading and land alteration permit, Eden Prairie.
G. Valley Pond Condominiums, grading and land alteration
permit, Valley View Road and CMStP&P Railroad, Eden Prairie.
H. Edenvale 9th Addition, grading and land alteration
permit, Valley View Road and Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie.
September 7, 1983
Page 3
I. Near Mountain 2nd Addition, grading and land alteration
permit, Pleasant View Road and TH 101, Chanhassen.
J. Burger King, SE quadrant, County Road 4 and TH 5,
grading and land alteration permit, Eden Prairie.
K. Menard's 4th Addition, grading and land alteration
permit, Eden Prairie.
L. Quality Homes, Inc., Prairie Court Drive and Anderson
Lakes Parkway, grading and land alteration permit, Eden
Prairie.
Each individual permit application and permit extension request was
presented to the managers by Robert Obermeyer, the District
engineer. Mr. Obermeyer stated that he had reviewed each pending
permit application and permit extension request, finding each one
to be in general conformance with the policies and criteria of the
watershed district. The managers noted the following appearances
regarding certain of these pending matters: Mr. and Mrs. Cal
Anderson for development of property adjacent to Lake Idlewild;
Mr. Tom Heiberg for the Lake Idlewild Office Center development;
Mr. Donald Hess regarding the Carver Beach Estates development;
Mr. Thomas Robertson pertaining to the Valley Pond Condominiums in
Eden Prairie; Mr. Bill Englehardt with regard to the Near Mountain
Second Addition in Chanhassen; Mr. Dennis Trisler for the Burger
King site in Eden Prairie; and Mr. Dan Johnson pertaining to the
Menards Fourth Addition development in Eden Prairie. Following
review of each pending permit application and permit extension
request, upon motion duly made, seconded and adopted, each grading
and land alteration permit and permit extension request was
approved by the managers subject to the terms and conditions set
forth in.the permits and accompanying correspondence from the
watershed district issued to each permitee. With regard to
certain actions taken by the managers, the following comments were
I noted during the discussions and voting upon separate permit
applications:
A. Mr. Rahr voted for the issuance of a grading and land
alteration permit application for Mr. Cal Anderson with reserva-
tions about the lack of safeguards to be required in the extension
of the sanitary sewer system, which Mr. Rahr expressed were needed
to reduce sedimentation possibly reaching public waters as a
result of the proximity of this system to Highways 169 and 5 in
the City of Eden Prairie.
ek .Purgatory Cre
Watershed District
Riley 6950 COUNTY ROAD #4
EDEN PRAIRIE, MtNNESOTA 55343
September 79 1983
Mr, William R. Englehardt
Schoell and Madson, Inc.
50 - 9th Avenue
South55343
Hopkins, Minnesota
A ddition: Chanhassen
.
Re• Site Grading - Near Mountain n lehardt: Watershed District has
Dear Mr. E g purgatory Creek
Managers of the Riley- per application as submitted ion in
The Board of and land alteratithe Near Mountain
2nd A
reviewed the Plans and grading
he District for site grading operations on
t permit application for site
Chanhassen. grading and land alteration
The Managers aPPrOve the
conditions: rior to
on the plans must be installed P areas
grading subject to the following shown maintained until all
grading operations and be
1. All erosion control measure
commencement of site grading operations have been re ales
forced with
altered because of staked hay bales reinforced and 8,
the front yard limits
of Lots otential. of
Additional erosion control
d alongs� esures will minimize the P
snow fence, will These measures
Block 2 of this addition. at the
material from leaving the areas altered on the site
be installed
mate rock filter
e
require that a Road. This dike should
Also, the District will C R d and Castle Ridge floalong Castle page
row Road the direction of flow height and
intersection p dicular a minimum of 2 feet in g
constructed perpendicular
be rock filter dike will minimize the
The dike This grading
Road. es of 4:1.
ram leaving the areas altered because of site
maximum side slop
potential of material f
Operations. operation
s must be restored with
site gradingor be hard surfaced within
prior to the suspension of
2. All areas altered because
sod, fiber blanket,
seed and disced mulch, d alteration but p
after completion of o
2 weeks 84 winter months.
work for the 1983- ,
3. A detailed storm sewer plan
must be submitted to the District for review
and approval. of 48 �EGEi'� E�
hours prior to commence -
The District must be notified a minimum
4' grading operations.
meet of g SAP 16 ti983
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Mr. William R. Engleharr'%.,
Page 2
September 7, 1983
If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call us at
920-0655.
Sincerely,
Ro ert .. Obermeyer 1
BARR ENGINEERING C, .
Engineers for the District
Approved by the Board of Managers
RILEY-PURGATORY CREEK W TERSHED DISTRICT
RCO/111
L ��u . " President
c: Mr. Frederick Richards
Mr. Frederick Rahr Date: /l T
Mr. Bill Monk L/
DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961
DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. - 1910-1980
VANCE B. GRANNI6
VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR.
THOMAS J. CAMPBELL
PATRICK A. FARRELL
DAVD L GRANNIS, III
ROGER N. KNU7SON
ROBERT R. KING, JR.
THOMAR M. SCoTC
GARY G. FUCHS
MARY S. VUJOVICH
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL
PROFESSIONAL A66oCIATION
403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING
POST OFFICE BOX 57
ti 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE
SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
612-455-1661
September 14, 1
Mr. Hugh Maynard
Leonard, Street & Deinard
1200 National City Bank Bldg.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Near Mountain
Your File 16-66-60
Dear Mr. Maynard:
-jj�&
��, A4--
FORMERLY
GRANNIS & GRANNIS
ES': ABLiSHED 1907
I have reviewed your "letter in lieu of bond" and I have two
concerns. First, that the bankruptcy or insolvency of the developer
could result in the lender backing out of or breaching the loan
commitment. Second, that the proposed letter requires the signatures
of both the lender and the city. This procedure means the city
would have to rely upon the lender's cooperation. If both these
issues can be resolved, I will have no objection to the letter.
Enclosed is an irrevocable loan commitment letter which I used
for a different development. Paragraphs 1 and 7 take care of my
concerns. If you can redraft your draft letter and incorporate
similar procedures, I am sure the city will find your letter
acceptable.
vl
Enc.
cc: r,x . Don Ashworth
Mr. Bill Monk
Very truly yours,
GRANNIS, GRANNIS,
AMPB & FARILL, P.A.
B
oger N. Knutson
RECEIVED
REF 1 91983
CRY OF CHANHASSEN
a AMOS S. DEINARD
LAW OFFICES
r. SIDNEY LORBER
SIDNEY BARROWS
HAROLD D.FIELD, JR.
LEONARD, STREET- AND DEINARD
ALLEN 1. SAEKS
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFE5SIONAL CORPORATIONS
THOMAS D. FEINBERG
MORRIS M.SHERMAN
1200 NATIONAL CITY BANK BUILDING
GEORGE REILLY
DAV ID N. COX
S10 MARQUETTE AVENUE
STEPHEN R. PFLAUM
CHARLES A. MAYS
MINNEAPOLIS, M-INNESOTA 55402
NANCYC.DREHER
LOWELL J. NOTEBOOM
1 TELEPHONE AND TELECO PIER
GEORGE F. MCGUNNIGLE,JR.
FREDRIC T. ROSENBLATT
(612) 339-1200
BYRON E. STARNS'
STEVEN D.D.RUYTER
ALAN J. WILENSKY
STEPHEN J. DAVIDSON
STEPHEN R. LITMAN
DAVID C. ZALK
EDWARD M. MOERSFELDER
ROBERT LEWIS BARROWS
HUGH M. MAYNARD
KENNETH H. PROCHNOW
MARSHA
September 8, 1983
C.
MARTHA C. BRAND
RAND
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
BY MESSENGER
Roger N. Knutson,
Chanhassen City Attorney
Grannis and Grannis
403 Northwestern National Bank Bldg.
South St. Paul, Minnesota 55075
Re: NEAR MOUNTAIN; Our File 16-66-60
Dear Mr. Knutson:
M. PATRICIA SCHAFFER
JAMES V. ROTH
ROBERT L. DEMAY
ANGELA M. BOHMANN
ROBERT D_ARKIN
ROBERT P.THAVIS
JAMES G. BULLARO
JOSEPH M. FINLEY
LAWRENCE J. FIELD
JONI MARIE KELLY
RICHARD RAPSON
ROBERT D. GILBERT
GEORGE B. WYETH
NANCY A.WELSH
MARSHA A. FREEMAN
GEORGE B. LEONARD (1872-19S6)
ARTHUR L. H. STREET (1877- 1961)
BENEDICT DEINARD (1899-1969)
IRENE SCOTT
OF COUNSEL
This is in furtherance of our telephone conversation of September 6 in
which we discussed NEAR MOUNTAIN, a pending subdivision in Section 1-116-23
in Chanhassen and in Section 36-117-23 in Shorewood. Our clients are
Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. and its related partnerships Pflaumwell
Development Partnership, Near Mountain Land Company and Near Mountain
Limited Partnership I. (Peter Pflaum is the President of Lundgren Bros.
His brother Michael works for him and his brother Stephen is my law
partner. All three Pflaums have been involved in this project.)
We ask you to approve the "letter in lieu of bond" procedure for all
phases of NEAR MOUNTAIN in Chanhassen. This procedure was approved by
William F. Kelly, Shorewood City Attorney,in late 1979 and by Russ Larson,
Chanhassen City Attorney, in early 1980. Enclosed please find the
following items:
1. September 14, 1979 letter from our office to the Plymouth City
Attorney asking for confirmation to the Shorewood City Attorney
that the "letter in lieu of bond" procedure is satisfactory, with
enclosures:
a. Construction loan agreement between the lender and the
developer;
b. Plymouth's standard development contract;
c. Letter in -lieu of bond; and
d. Operating procedures letter..
2. September 17, 1979 letter from the Plymouth City Attorney to our
office confirming the procedure.
Roger N. Knutson
September 8, 1983
Page 2
3. November 14, 1979 letter from our office to the Chanhassen City
Attorney requesting approval of the procedure and enclosing items
1 and 2 plus pages 1 and 9 of the Shorewood development contract
accepting the procedure.
4. January 15, 1980 letter from the Chanhassen City Attorney to our
office approving the procedure in concept.
5. January 16, 1980 letter from the Chanhassen City Attorney to the
developer approving the procedure, subject to three conditions.
6. February 13, 1980 letter from the Chanhassen City Attorney to the
Chanhassen City Council approving the procedure, subject to three
conditions (one is different).
7. Proposed September 13, 1983 "letter in lieu of bond".
8. Proposed September 14, 1983 "operating procedures letter".
Since this procedure was approved by your predecessor and you have
approved similar procedures for other subdivisions, I hope your will be
able to review this matter as soon as possible. My clients are most
anxious to plat NEAR MOUNTAIN. within seven days and begin subdivision
improvements while the weather is good.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
By
Hugh M. Maynard
HMM/pm
Enclosures
cc: Peter Pflaum
Sherm Goldberg
SIGNAL HILLS BANK
IRREVOCABLE LOAN COMMITMENT
May 24, 1983
City of Lakeville
Lakeville City Hall
Lakeville, Minnesota 55044
B C & J, Inc.
c/o Gerald Shaughnessy
572 Miriam
Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55118
Dear Sir or Madam:
We hereby establish our Irrevocable Loan Commitment in your favor
for the account of B C & J, Inc., in the amount of $300,000.00
in the aggregate, subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. One or more drafts may be drawn on the Irrevocable
Loan Commitment by either the City of Lakeville
individually, pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph
4 below, or otherwise by both addresses jointly.
2. All requests for payments of drafts drawn on the
Irrevocable Loan Commitment shall be presented to
Signal Hills State Bank, 100 Signal Hills; West St.
Paul, Minnesota 55118.
3. Requests for payment under this Irrevocable Loan
Commitment drawn by B C & J, Inc. shall be subject
to the following:
a. Shall be signed by Lance Johnson and any one
of either Gerald Shaughnessy, Robert Bonine
or Donald G. Langewisch of B C & J, Inc. and
the Mayor or City Clerk of Lakeville.
b. Be in an amount not to exceed $300,000.00 in
the aggregate.
100 Signal Hills • West Saint Paul. MN 55118 - IPlPnhnnP (612) 4.r,7-177R
Irrevocable Loan Comm;.-tment
May 24, 1983
.Page 2
C. Bear on its face the clause "drawn under
Irrevocable Loan Commitment dated May 24,
1983, in favor of B C & J, Inc."
d. Be presented for payment at Signal Hills
State Bank, 100 Signal Hills, West St.
Paul, Minnesota 55118, no later than 2:00
P.M., CDT on June 1, 1984.
e. Be accompanied by bill or invoice, or
Mechanics Lien Waiver for development
work performed or materials supplied'in
conjunction with the Development Agreement
for Dakota Heights 8th Addition dated
May 24, 1983.
4. Requests for payment under this Irrevocable Loan
Commitment drawn by the City of Lakeville shall be
subject to the following:
a. Be accompanied by a statement signed on
behalf of the City of Lakeville that B C &
J, Inc., has failed to perform pursuant tc
its Development Agreement with the City of
Lakeville dated May 16, 1983, a copy of
which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
and incorporated by reference, which
statement shall specifically set forth the
terms of non-compliance with said
development agreement. Provided, however,
B C & J, Inc. shall be given the right to
cure such failure to perform within 30
days after receiving written notice of
such default from the City of Lakeville,
and provided further that no notice shall
be required if such failure to perform
occurs within 30 days of the termination
date of this Irrevocable Loan Commitment.
b. Shall be signed by the Mayor or City Clerk
of Lakeville, Minnesota
c. Be in an amount not to exceed $300,000.00
in the aggregate and inclusive of drafts
advanced under No. 3 above.
d. Bear on its face the clause "drawn under
Irrevocable Loan Commitment dated May 24,
1983 in favor .of B C & J, Inc."
Irrevocable Loan Commitment
May 24, 1983
Page 3
e. Be presented for payment at Signal Hills
State Bank, 100 Signal Hills, West St.
Paul, Minnesota 55118, no later than 2:00
P.M., CDT on June 1, 1984.
f. Shall be used to satisfy the amount which
B C & J, Inc. has failed to pay under
4 (a) above.
5. This commitment is subject to and will be governed by
the laws of the State of Minnesota and the United
States.
6. We hereby agree that the drafts drawn under and in
compliance with the terms of this Irrevocable Loan
Commitment will be duly honored _upon presentation.,
7. The bank's liability to honor drafts drawn under and
pursuant to the terms of this Irrevocable Loan
Commitment shall not be affected by the bankruptcy,
insolvency or financial situation of B C & J, Inc. at
the time said drafts are drawn.
8. We are not to be called upon to resolve issues of law
or fact between B C & J, Inc. and the City of
Lakeville, or to make any independent determination as
to the purpose of and use of said funds.
very truly yours,
SIGNAL HILLS STATE BANK
By: ). 4 . .
Its.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
May 11, 1984
Mr. Peter Pflaum
Lundgren Brothers Construction Company
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
As you are aware, on May 7th the City Council acted to approve
the final plats for Chestnut Ridge at Near Mountain First,
Second, Third and Fourth Additions. The plat for the First
Addition will be signed as soon as it is submitted, however, the
other three plats must be accompanied by financial guarantees as
specified in the approved development contract. -
Should you have any questions on this matter, please let me know.
Sincerely,
1,111111 "
William Monk
City Engineer
WM:k
ell
SAT HRE-BERG12UIST, INC.
935 EAST WAYZATA BLVD. 0 WAYZATA, MN. 55391 • TELEPHONE 612-476-0848
VACATION OF STREET
All of CASCADE PASS as platted in NEAR MOUNTAIN, Carver County, -Minnesota, --
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the
Registrar of Titles, which lies westerly of a line 25.00 feet westerly of
and parallel with the center line of Castle Ridge as platted in said NEAR
MOUNTAIN.
VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
All of the Drainage and Utility easements in Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 and
Lot 1, Block 3 and Lots 1, 3 and 4, Block 4, NEAR MOUNTAIN, Carver County,
Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office
of the Registrar of Titles.
OLYMPIC
N
Clt
N
O
m�
SHASTA -
�� CASCADE
J
0
j
FYI:
TOWN
typical
CIRCLE
CIRCLE
4�
Illi �II_11i.-
lotting
Y CIRCI-E
I
I +
w I
ROAD
CHESTNUT RIDGE •""F
LUNDGREN BROS. SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC.
w 'f us e•sr w•rau ewo. w•xz•r•. ww. ssa+ ......n
CONSTRUCTION INC.
ROTA
Lake
U of M
Arboretum
I
Lake Minnetonka
Excelsior
I'
Shorewood
Shopping Center
Christmas
Lake =
m
5
j� JOIN l
l Lake Lucy
cLakeLotus
Lake c Lake Ann 'o
Minnewashta v v
Regional Park
+, Cty Park
Lake Ann
City Park Downtown
Chanhassen
Chanhassen
Dinner Theatre
Hazeltine
. National Golf Course
13
. Minnetonka
Junior High
= I School
7 Hi
Shopping
Center ,
v
MinnXTownlineRd
a
SeniScenic Heights _
SchoElementary School
prings •
ntary School
tgHOU'�
CHESTNUT RMGE
State Hwy 5
v
C
u°
Prairie Village
Shopping
Center
Lwu(jREn
CONSTRUCTION
BROS.
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
612/473-1231
EQ
0
0
c
a-
e
N
oneaP°1 s
Future Extension
Crosstown 62
Bryant Lake
Regional Park
Bryant
Lake
'So r,
T
b�
Eden Prairie
Regional Shopping
Center
f2t
Equal Housing
Opportunity
' yF
r \.
GNT N
oW �
�N �C
O=
W� N�
o
-a
I
o m 3 m
N 7 fG m
3 f m m
m ? m m
_m
w �a
e m m
m no
0-
Sic
m O
naID
i m
i � m
r:T CT Er f
c o c Ic
7 c - 7
n N O._. O.
D CD to
N N N w m
J = m 7
n N
O m p
N
N x O
C N H n
O
n 7 7 7
O O N n
N +
NC
O' 7
f m n-
Q �. A
m C O
7 7
c O N
smOm
Q m m
AA,
s
F-I
i
„ 1
�a
1
r®
1
a
data
r
d
z
H �
Z Q7
H d U f6
J _J a--) U
LL' E U
LO
M
CL�-•rQ
(M
N
d
z X
O W O to
M
l0
lfl
O
1�
W e i. N
LO
r
M
I
d'
O O-. CL O
Z J IZ S-
wWczCD
Q W
0
cm CD O
W z
cn
o U fn
p Q E •r
LO
N
m
I
N
D:f J :3 S=
r
IZ O Z O
U
�
O
ZOO+3
U
Q \
f6 S-
r
LO
E U
M
M
X
J Z
O N
LO
C+')
I
r
czj-
d Q
S- N
J
A O
S-
W
Q C•3
O F-
Z Z
W W
4-
d
O
Q
O
S-
F- J
U rn
d
O
1
LO
O
fn W
-0 4-3
LO
O
M
N
IY :�-
E +r
1
r
H W
C
LL- m
-n
U
F-
a) r(5
.J
4-> U
Cl-
to S-
LO
N
r-
Z
E U
r
O
M
o¢•r••d
1
n
W J
X
LO
d
O
O
d
5 CL
O cn
�t
Gf
1
r
O
S- cn
of F-
O..O
n_ Z
IZ S-
O- W
d CD
Q �
o_
O
JJ(I-
J W
O
Q �
Z W
S-
H
C-D
-0 4-3N
N
O
LO
O
H M
E •r
LO
61
1
M
N
r-
O d
z o
d
cn
U
cn_
O
0-
a•r
a
a-o
F- 3
F- •r
F- •r
3
3
aE
a
a
W
r 7
r E
r E
N
d
r E
r
r
E
E r
E E
E E
O
�--
(C C
fa •r
CO •r
•r
LL r
LL- a
LL- O
C
(O
E
•r
•r
r
z
U
U E
U E
E
O
N
C) O
IT-
M-
t3
b
O
c O
C U-)
aco
(O
C
O
r '-
r I-
•r l0
O
2
(n
(n
(/)
O
C )
U
Q
+
M O
r O
N
H
Ln
z
W
co
a
o Ln
M N
O
fY
t.D
U
Q
\
I�
r
n
01
r
F-
N
Z
O W
m O
N
N
N
O
tY
C3
+ U
1`
¢t Q
r \
O
d-
O
N
}
F-
O H
O (n
M Z
W
0
N
(n
N O
r �
(o C-D
O
F-
b �
v
Development Standards
for
Near Mountain
Minimum Standards for Living Areas
Single Family Condominium
Ty; e A Type B Type C
Average
Lot Area
29,500
18,600
12,800
15,500
Minimum :.
Lot Area
14,400
12,000
10,000
10,000,
Front Yard
30'
30'
25' -
30'
Side Yard
10'
10'
10'/5'*
25'
Rear Yard
30'
30
30'
25'
Lot Width at
Setback
100'
75'
68'
---
Lot Depth
120'
110'
100'
---
Maximum 'Bui 1 ding Height
2 2 Stories
2 z Stories
2 2 Stories
.3 Stories
Right of Way
Width
50'
50'
40'
---
(Diameter of
Cul de Sac)
(120)
(120)
(90)
Street Width
28'
28'
28'
---
(Diameter of
Cul de Sac)
(80)
(80)
(80)
*on alternating lot lines
a