The URL can be used to link to this page

79-04 - Fox Chase PUD pt 18CITY,OF -4-9y CHAXHASSgsi 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 October 11, 1983 Mr. Curt Laughinghouse Derrick Land Company 1770 Shelard Tower St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Dear Mr. Laughinghouse: As per our previous conversation, attached is a Chanhassen grading permit application. Please note that a detailed plan denoting the scope and limits of the grading work must accompany the completed application. Also, it should be remembered that standard procedure dictates that installation of improvements (including grading) not commence until the plat is filed, which under provisions of the development contract must be accompanied by a bond for 110% of all improvements. Should you have further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, William Monk City Engineer - WM : k bcc: Don Ashworth, City Manager Roger Knutson, City Attorney Riley- Purgatory Creek Watershed District 8950 COUNTY ROAD #4 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 Mr. Dennis Marhula Westwood Planning and 7415 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, Minnesota Engineering 55426 October 4, 1983 Re: Fox Chase Development: Chanhassen Dear Mr. Marhula: The Board of Managers of the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District has reviewed the plans and permit extension request for the Fox Chase Development to be located south of Pleasantview Road and north of Lotus Lake in Chanhassen. The District has previously reviewed and approved a grading and land alteration permit for this project. Our review of the plans submitted indicate that the proposed permanent sedimentation basin is to be now located out of the area designated as public waters by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Also, the roadway configuration on the site is the "curved" alignment which has previously been approved by the District. It is the District's understanding that during the 1983 construction season, construction on the site is to be limited to: 1) the construction of the permanent stormwater detention facility; 2) the construction of approximately 300 feet of roadway from Pleasantview Drive; and 3) the construction of the southeasternmost cul-de-sac for lot sale purposes. The District is concerned with the potential of an erosion problem occurring during the 1984 spring period along this cul-de-sac. Therefore, construction along this roadway alignment during 1983 must be limited to clearing and grubbing along the alignment rather than the granding of the roadway as proposed. Because grading operations on the development deal with slopes of 3:1 on the west side of the site and the proximity of the development to Lotus Lake, the District will require that a performance bond in the amount of $50,000 be posted to enable the District to maintain and install additional erosion control measures as may become necessary and/or restore critical areas on the site to minimize the potential of an erosion problem occurring and reaching the public waters of the District. With this noted, the Managers approve the permit extension request for this project subject to the following conditions: 1. The District will require that a performance bond in the amount of $50,000 be posted prior to commencement of land alteration which would enable the District to either install erosion control measures as may be necessary and/or restore critical areas as may become necessary on the site. 2. The District requires that all erosion control measures shown on the plans must be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and 0�ECEIv ` OCT 1963 CITY O� CHANHASS:`;.11 ^,!r. „ennis Marhula ;xl,e jc1ober 4, 1983 maintained until all areas altered on the site have been restored. 3. Areas altered during the 1983 construction season must be restored with seed and disced mulch, sod, wood fiber blanket, and the roadway areas restored at a minimum with a gravel subbase prior to suspension of work v for the 1983-84 winter months. A field inspection of the site with the s District's engineering consultant by December 1, 1983, must be undertaken prior to the suspension of work for the 1983-84 winter months to ensure that all erosion control measures have been properly maintained and that all areas altered during the 1983 construction season have been restored. All areas altered during the 1984 construction season must be restored with seed and disced mulch, sod, wood fiber blanket, or be hard surfaced within 2 weeks after completion of grading operations or no later than July 1, 1984. 4. The District requires that the permanent stormwater detention/ sedimentation basin be constructed at the initial stages of grading opera- tions and be functional during the site grading operation of the project. 5. Construction during the 1983 construction season must be limited to the 1) sedimentation basin; 2) construction of approximately 300 lineal feet of roadway from Pleasantview Road onto the site; and 3) clearing and grubbing operations along the proposed southeastern cul-de-sac alignment for lot sale purposes. Actual grading operations of the roadway will not be permitted until the 1984 construction season. 6. The District must be notified a minimum of 48 hours prior to commence- ment of construction. If you have any questions regarding the District's comments, please call us at 920-0655. RCO/111 c: Mr. Frederick Richards Mr. Frederick Rahr Mr. Conrad Fiskness Mr. Bill Monk t "' Mr. Kent Lokkesmoe Mr. Kurt Laughlinghouse Sincerely Ro' ert ,C. Obermeyer B.'iRR ENGINEERING CO. Engineers for the District Approved by the Board of Managers LEY-PU AT. Y C EEK WATERSHED DISTRICT L � , President Dat _ C;2 RANIVIS DA AID L, GRAN IS . 1874. 1961 VANCZ - Jq .1910-1980 7 Hjo RANNIS J,. PATRICK AfAs J. CAMpB ELL DA VM A. rAh"LL RoGER GRANNIS, III 80EER R K1NUC oN RY G, ;jjc p� R MARY S. VUJIt OVICIf Mr 1l0 Greg, Dow 55 Capi to n-ing Cedar l 'squar St. 1,aUl MNr�et e Re 5510, GRANNIS, GRgNN s OP Ic., MPBELL PRopslo & F 4 NO NALASSO 03 IATION ARRELL NOR 8ANR 8U1LDINO 161 P sr O�.1CR BOX 57 SOUTH ST PrH CoNCORn EXCHAIVCE 12.45 NRSOTA 55075 September 22 1983 Building City of Cha en Dear Mr. nhdss DOwni Derri FORtiIERLy GR4NNIS & GRAN ESTABLISHED 19 EnelOsed fig• ck Land Co. ,heis he kshe . t y m de the Bemen t w at wa'not h 1 Tf was felt that the aessaryrl that -In -its to You have an enc,losedls lieu o fs OpiniOnYou' In Par Y questions Ubmission womitting a ew asse graph please c uld suffic letter torrent all In,, e ° YOU, CC' Mr, Don Ashworth Very truly Yours GRANNIS ' CAMPBELL RA IVN-tRRE LL, A. BY • oger iv, -- son International Surplus Lines Insurance Company September 16, 1983 Mr. Roger N. Knutson Grannis, Grannis, Campbell P.O. Box 57 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 INSURED: POLICY: FILE: CLAIMANT: & Farrell, P.A. CITY OF CHANHASSEN GP 23993 96-405984 Derrick Land Company 100th Floor - Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telex 25-4597 (312) 876-3100 �0/31�3 �a v Thank you for your letter and attachments dated August 31, 1983, relative to the above -captioned claim. We appreciate your comments, and the copy of the Minnesota Suupreme Court decision which you included. However, the opinion in Jostens. vs_. CNA explicitly stated, in paragraph 1, that CNA "was held to have a duty to defend its insured,..." As you know, policy GP 23993 is not a duty to defend contract of insurance. Rather, it is a contract of indemnification, wherein coverage is provided in the form of reimbursement to the insured. Consequently, the ruling in Jostens vs._CNA does not apply to the City's claim under policy GP 23993. Therefore, our position remains as stated in my letter dated August 22, 1983. Should you have any further questions or comments relative tc the situation, please feel free to contact me at your cz;nvenience. We trust that you understand that nothing curtained herein should be construed as a waiver of any r_chts or defenses afforded to the International Surplus Lines Insurance Company under Policy GP 23993. RECEtVcD Gerry Bakker ��P 21983 Claims Representative GB/11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN I,, 0 International Surplus Lines Or Insurance Company Page Two INSURED: CITY OF CHANHASSEN CLAIM NO.: 96-405984 cc: Mr. Don Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Craig M. Mertz City Attorney Larson & Mertz 1900 First Bank Place, West Minneapolis, MN 55402 Mr. Dan Hoffman Dolliff, Inc. 2500 Dain Tower Minneapolis, MN 55402 Ms. Bonnie Atkin John H. Crowther, Inc. 750 Soo Line Bldg. Minneapolis, MN 55402 DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. - 1910-1980 VANCE B. GRANNIS VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR. THOMAS J. CAMPBELL PATRICK A. FARRELL DAVID L. GRANNIS. III ROGER N. KNITCSON ROBERT R. KING, JR. THOMAs M. SCOTT GARY G. FUCHS MARY S. VUJOVICH LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 403 NORW +EST BANK BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 57 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 612-455-1661 September 16, 1983 FORMERLY GRANNIS & GRANNIS ESTABLISHED 1907 1° /F-3 GG e Commissioner of Insurance 500 Metro Square Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: City of Chanhassen v. International Surplus Lines Insurance Company Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find two copies of Summons and Complaint in the above referenced matter. Pursuant to M.S. §543.08, please serve this Summons and Complaint on the defendant, International Surplus Lines Insurance Company at 100th Floor, Sears Tower, 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. Our check in the amount of $15.00 is enclosed for your fees in this matter. Very truly yours, GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL, P.A. BY: Roger N. Knutson vl Enc. cc: Mr. Don Ashworth $EP 2 0 1983 CITY OF CHANHASSE 1 W STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER --------------------------------------- City of Chanhassen, Plaintiff, VS. International Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Defendant. IN DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT SUMMONS THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiff's attorney an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated this 16th day of September, 1983. GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL BY /s/ Roger N. Knutson ROGER N. KNUTSON Attorneys for Plaintiff 403 Norwest Bank Bldg. 161 N. Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 ' STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER --------------------------- City of Chanhassen, Plaintiff, VS. International Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Defendant. IN DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMPLAINT FOR DECLATORY JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF Plaintiff, City of Chanhassen, for its complaint against defendant International Surplus Lines Insurance Company states and alleges: 1. Plaintiff is a Minnesota municipal corporation organ- ized under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 2. Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois and is authorized to engage in the insurance business in the State of Minnesota. 3. The defendant for valuable consideration issued to the plaintiff a written "Public Officials and Employees liability insurance" Policy No. GP 23993. A copy of that policy is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein. 4. On or about March 7, 1983, while the insurance policy was in full force and effect the Derrick Land Co —brought suit against the plaintiff in the Carver County District Court in an action entitled Derrick Land Company v. City of Chanhassen, et al, Court File No. 18149. A copy of the complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and is incorporated herein. 5. The plaintiff promptly gave notice to the defendant of the commencement of the action, and the defendant accepted the claim "under a reservation of right". 6. Pursuant to the defendant's direction, the plaintiff retained a defense attorney to defend against the claim. 7. The aforementioned claim was in whole or in part within the scope of the insurance policy issued by the defendant and the defendant therefore had a duty to defend. 8. The plaintiff incurred attorney's fees and costs of $13,033.50 in defense of the claim and has demanded reimbursement of said amount less the $5,000 deductible from the defendant, but the defendant has refused to make payment. 9. This action is brought in part pursuant to M.S.A. §555.01, et seq., for declatory relief seeking a determination that in accordance with the insurance policy that the defendant has issued to the plaintiff, the defendant is required to reimburse the plaintiff for the costs it has incurred in defense of the aforementioned claim. 10. In refusing to reimburse the plaintiff the defendant has shown a willful indifference to the plaintiff's right entitling the plaintiff to punitive damages in excess of $50,000. 11. In refusing to reimburse the plaintiff, the defendant has acted in bad faith entitling the plaintiff to the award of attorney's fees and the like pursuant to M.S.A. §549.21. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for relief against the defen- dant as follows: -2- 1. Declaring that pursuant to its policy of insurance the defendant is required to reimburse the plaintiff for the expenses it incurred, less the deductible, in defense of the aforementioned claim. 2. Awarding the defendant compensatory damages of $8,033.50, together with prejudgment interest. 3. Awarding the defendant punitive damages in excess of $50,000. 4. Awarding the plaintiff its costs, disbursements and attorney's fees incurred in this action. 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Dated: September 15, 1983. / GRANNISRANNIS, CAMPBELL / & FAR LL n1, C1 Y R N. KNUTSON' t orneys for Plaintiff 403 Norwest Bank Bldg. 161 N. Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 -3- ' jt DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 DAVID L. GRANNIS. JR. - 1910-1980 VANCE B. GRANNIS VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR THOMAS J. CAMPBELL PATRICK A. FARRELL DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N. KNUTSON ROBERT R. KING. JR. THOMAS M. SCOTT GARY G. FUCHS MARY S. VUJOVICH LAw OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 57 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 612-455-1661 Mr. Gerry Bakker Claims Representative International Surplus Lines Insurance Company 100th Floor - Sears Tower 233 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 August 31, 1983 Re: Insured: City of Chanhassen Policy: GP 23993 File: 96-405984 Claimant: Derrick Land Co. Dear Mr. Bakker: /f3 FORMERLY GRANNIS & GRANNIS E// ESTABLISHED 19o7 $1A z+-4 ALI� 9f /S3 Your letter of August 22, 1983 acknowledged that at least part of the relief sought by Derrick Land was covered by your policy. As you know, it is not possible to defend only part of a lawsuit. The Minnesota Supreme Court in Jostens v. CNA, copy attached, last month acknowledged that principle in holding that if any part of a claim is even arguably covered by a policy, then the insurer must defend and the costs of defense are not to be apportioned but are to be borne by the insurer. It is understandable that you were not aware of this decision when your letter was written. Please forward your check to me in the amount of $8,033.50, payable to the City, within the next 10 days. If this is not done, we will commence collection proceedings. Very truly yours, GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL, P.A. BY: fc .Mr. Don Ashworth Roger N. Knutson DECEIVED SEP - 11983 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PUBLIC OFFICIAL, AND EMPLOYEES LIABILIT INSURANCE (CLAIMS MADE BASIS) INCORPORATED 1971 ♦ International Surplus Lines Insurance Company CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (A stock insurance company, hereinafter called the "Company") Policy No. GP 23993 DECLARATIONS A. Public Entity CITY OT MkhE•4SSEE �= 0_6TC LAM 0 DRIYY Mailing Address: CSKKUSSEK, KI"ESOU B. Policy Period: From AUGUST 29, 1980 to _AUGUST 29, 1983 12:01 A.M., Standard Time at the address stated herein C. Limits of Liability: $ Each Loss - $ -- 1 ��• Aggregate for each Policy Year D. Retention: (a) $ 5,000. Each Loss (b) $ 1,000• Each Public Official or Employee for loss «'hich cannot be indemnified by the entity named in Item A by reason of statutory or adjudicated prohibition thereof In no event shall Retention (b) exceed the amount of Retention (a). E. Premium: $ 5,256.00 11-STALIY:ENTS DUE 8-29-80 11752.0101'/ 8-29-81 $1752.00 E-2942 $1752.00 X This Declarations Page and the Forms listed below and attached hereto, together with the completed and signed Proposal shall constitute the contract between the Insured(s) and the Company. Subject to Form No's: ISLIC 64 (3179) lit „'-_ ..'•1 a'.. f, - Counter _ 1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ISLIC68(6180) EXHIBIT A ENDORSEMENT f l This endorsement, effective 7/21/81 M. forms a part c; policy No. GP 23993 issued to City of Chanhassen by International Surplus lines Co. In consideration of the premium charged, it is agreed and understood the mailing address of .the named insured is amended to: 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen per; 55317 All other terms and conditions of this policy remain the same. Authorized Representative t INTERNATIONAL SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMIPANY : 0-1-': PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES LIAIiILITY INSUItANCE (CLA1,11S 41ADE BASIS) IN CONSIDERATION of the payment of the premium and subject to'all of the terms, conditions and exclusions of this Policy, the Company agrees with the Insureds under Coverage A and the Public Entity under Coverage B as follows: INSURING AGREEMENTS I. Coverages A and B A. The Company will pay on behalf of the Insureds all Loss which the Insureds shall be legally obligated to pay for any civil claim or claims first made against them because of a Wrongful Act, provided that the claim is first made during the policy period and written notice of said claim is received by the. Company during the policy period. B. The Company will reimburse the Public Entity for all Loss for which the Public Entity shall be required by law to indemnify the Insureds for any civil claim or claims first made against them because of a Wrongful Act, provided that the claim is first made during the policy period and written notice of said claim is received by the Company during the policy period. II. Extensions This Policy shall cover Loss arising from any civil claim or claims made against the estates, heirs, legal rep- resentatives or assigns of deceased persons who were the Insureds at the time of the Wrongful Act upon which such civil claim or claims are based, and the legal representatives or assigns of the Insureds in the event of their incompetency, insolvency or bankruptcy. III. Definitions A. "Public Entity" shall mean only that Municipality, Governmental Body, Department, or Unit, which is named in the Declarations and is legally constituted at the inception date of this Policy. B. "Insureds" shall mean the Public Entity and all persons who were, now are or shall be lawfully elected or lawfully appointed officials and members of the Public Entity. The term "Insured" shall include members of such commissions., boards or other units operating by and under the jurisdiction of such governing body and within an appointment of the total operating budget indicated in the proposal form. The term "Insured" shall include employees as may be responsible to the governing body or to its commissions, boards or other units. Employee shall not include any person working on a retainer or contractual agreement. Unless specifically en- dorsed hereon, the term "Insured" does not mean, and does not apply to any one of the following boards, com- missions or units or their officials, members or employees: Schools, airports, transit authorities, hospitals, utilities or housing authorities- C. "Wrongful Act" shall mean any actual or alleged error or misstatement or misleading statement or act or omission or neglect or breach of duty including misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance by an Insured, as public official or employee of the public entity. D. "Loss" shall mean any amount which the Insureds are legally obligated to pay or which the Public Entity shall be required by law to pay as indemnity to the Insureds, for any claim or claims made against them, for Wrongful Acts and shall include but not be limited to damages iydgmenis. settlements and Qos�s __cost of in- vestigation and defense of legal actions_jexcludtg from such cost the salaries of officials or employees of the Public Entity or any other governmental body) claims or proceedings and appeals these1f:QLR._c-ost_Qf_attachmeni Qr cimilar honris; provided always, however, such subject of loss shall not include fines or penalties imposed by law, or matters_ which may be deemed uninsurable under the law pursuant to which this Policy shall be con- strued. E. "Policy Year" shall mean the period of one year following the effective date and hour of this Policy or any anniversary thereof, or if the time between the effective date or any anniversary and the termination of the Policy is less than one year, such lesser period. ISLIC 64 (3/79) Page 1 of 6 The Company shall not be Liable to make payment for Loss in connection with any claim, made against the Insureds allegedly, based upon or arising out of any one or more of the following: 1. gaining any personal profit or advantage to which they were not legally entitled; 2. the return by the Insureds of any remuneration paid in fact to them if payment of such remuneration shall be held by the courts to be in violation of law; 3. brought about or contributed to by the dishonesty of the Insureds, however, notwithstanding the fore- going, the Insureds shall be protected under the terms of this policy as to any claims upon which suit is brought against them by reason of any alleged dishonesty on the part of the Insureds, unless a judgment or other final adjudication thereof adverse to the Insureds shall establish that acts of active and deliberate dishonesty committed by the Insureds with actual dishonest purpose and intent were material to the cause of action so adjudicated; 4. a. claims, demands or actions seeking relief, or redress, in any form other than money damages; b. for fees or expenses relating to claims, demands or actions seeking relief or redress, in any form other than money damages; 5. a. any damages, whether direct, indirect or consequential, arising from, or caused by, bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease or death; b. loss or criminal abstraction of, damage to or destruction of any tangible property or the loss of use of such property by reason of the foregoing; 6. a. false arrest, assault and battery, detention or imprisonment, or malicious prosecution; b. defamation, including, but not limited to libel or slander; c. a publication or utterance in the course of or related to advertising, broadcasting or telecasting activities conducted by or on behalf of the Public Entity; d. wrongful entry or eviction or other invasion of the right of private occupancy; e. inverse condemnation; f. strikes, riots or civil commotions; 7. the willful violation of statute or ordinance committed by or with the knowledge or consent of an In- sured; 8. the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemi- cals, liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere or any watercourse or body of water; 9. The Insured's activities in a fiduciary capacity as respects any employee benefit plan. Exclusions (1.) and (2.) do not apply 10 Coverage B. CONDITIONS 1. Warranty Clause It is represented and warranted that the particulars and statements contained in the written proposal form, copy of which is attached hereto, and the Declarations are reaffirmed as of the inception date of this Policy, and are the basis of this Policy and are considered as incorporated in and constituting part of this Policy. 2. Discovery Period If the Company shall cancel or refuse to renew this Policy, the Public Entity or the Insureds shall have the right, upon payment of an additional premium of 20% of the premium hereunder, to an extension of the cover granted by this Policy in respect of any claim or claims which may be made against the Insureds during the period 12 months after the date of such cancellation or non -renewal, but only in respect of any wrongful Act committed before the date of such cancellation or non -renewal, provided, however, that the application of this extension must be made to the Company in writing and payment of the premium must be made 10 days prior to the effective date of cancellation or within 10 days following expiration of the Policy. ISLIC 64 (3/79) Pege 2 of 6 3. Limits of Liability Regardless of the number of (a) Insureds under this Policy, (b) persons or organizations who sustain Loss from Wrongful Acts, or (c) claims made or suits brought on account of Wrongful Acts or otherwise, the Company's liability is limited as follows: The limit of liability stated in the Declarations as applicable to "each loss" is the limit of the Company's liability for all Loss arising out of one Wrongful Act covered 'hereby. The limit of liability stated in the Decla- rations as "aggregate for each policy period" is, subject to the above provision respecting "each loss," the total limit of the Company's liability hereunder for all loss. With respect to the Insured's Retention as stated in the Declarations, the Company shall only be liable to pay, subject to the Limits of Liability provisions stated above, for Loss in excess of such Retention in respect of each and every Loss hereunder, and such retention applies separately to Coverages A and B. The Insured agrees that such Retention shall be uninsured. In the event this Policy is extended in accordance with provisions of the Discovery Clause above, the Com- pany's total liability shall not exceed the "aggregate for each policy period" limit of liability shown on the Decla- rations. 4, Loss Proyislon If during the policy period or extended discovery period: (a) The Public Entity or the Insureds shall receive written or oral notice from any party that it is the intention of such party to hold the Insureds responsible for the results of any specified Wrongful Act done or alleged to have been done by the Insureds while acting in the capacity aforementioned; or (b) The Public Entity or the Insureds shall become aware of any occurrence which may subsequently give rise to a claim being made against the Insureds in respect of any such alleged Wrongful Act; Then the Public Entity or the Insureds shall as soon as practicable give written notice to the Company of the receipt of such written or oral notice under Clause 4(a) or of such occurrence under Clause 4(b). Upon the In- surer's receipt of such notice any claim which may subsequently be made against the Insureds arising out of such alleged Wrongful Act shall, for the purposes of this Policy, be treated as a claim made during the policy period in which such notice was given or if given during the extended discovery period as a claim made during such discovery period. The Public Entity or the Insureds shall, as a further condition precedent to the Insureds' right to be indem- nified under this Policy, shall give the Company any information and all such cooperation as they may reason- ably require and as shall be in the Insureds' power. S. Defense and Settlement In the event of a claim, the Insureds shall take reasonable measures to protect their interests. If defense of a suit shall be required then the Insured shall appoint counsel. No costs or expenses shall be incurred on behalf of the Company under any circumstances without its con- sent, which consent, once given, may be withdrawn at any time but may not be unreasonably withheld. In the event the Insured and the Company cannot agree on the allocation or apportionment of counsel's fees and ex- penses, then under such circumstances the Insured's right of indemnity for such expenses and fees shall not mature until the claim giving rise thereto has been finally and completely adjudicated and/or settled. The Company, at its option, shall have the right at its own expense to investigate any claim and/or nego- tiate the settlement thereof, 'as it deems expedient, but the Company shall not commit the Public Entity or the Insureds to any settlement without their consent. If, however, the Insureds shall refuse to consent to any settlement recommended by the Company and shall elect to contest the claim or continue any legal proceedings in connection with such claim, then subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, the Company's liability for the claim shall not exceed the amount for which the claim could have been settled including costs, charges and expenses incurred with its consent up to date of such refusal. ISLIC 64 (3/79) Page 3 of 6 __1 6. Action Against the Company > No action shall lie against the Company unless as a condition precedent ";ereto, there shall have been full compliance with all of the terms of this Policy, and until the amount of the Ir -ireds' obligation to pay shall have been finally determined either by judgment against the Insureds after actual trial or by written agreement of the Insureds, the claimant and the Company. Any person or organization or the legal representative thereof who has secured such judgment or written agreement shall thereafter be entitled to recover under this Policy to the extent of the insurance afforded by this Policy. No person or organization shall have any right under this Policy to join the Company as a party to any action against the Insureds, to determine the Insureds' liability, nor shall the Company be impleaded by the Insureds or their legal representative. Bankruptcy or insolvency of the Insureds or of the Insureds' estate shall not relieve the Company of any of its obligations hereunder. 7. Subrogation In the event of any payment under this Policy, the Company shall be subrogated to all the Insureds' rights of recovery therefor against any person or organization and the Insureds shall execute and deliver such instruments and papers and do whatever else is necessary to secure such rights. The Insureds shall do nothing after Loss to prejudice such rights. 8. Changes Notice to any agent or knowledge possessed by any agent or by any other person shall not effect a waiver or a change in any part of this Policy or estop the Company from asserting any right under the terms of this Policy, nor shall the terms of this Policy be waived or changed, except by endorsement issued to form a part of this Policy. 9. Assignment Assignment of interest under this Policy shall not bind the Company until its consent is endorsed hereon. 10. Authorization Clause and Notices By acceptance of this Policy, all Insureds agree that the Public Entity shall act on behalf of all Insureds with respect to the giving and receiving of notice of claim or cancellation, the payment of premiums and the re- ceiving of any return premiums that may become due under this Policy. Notice to that individual named in the Proposal at the address of the Public Entity shall also constitute notice to all Insureds. All notices of claims or any other notice required to be given to the Company under this Policy shall be addressed to the name of the Insurer, 100th Floor, Sears Tower, 233 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. 11. Terms of Policy Conformed to Statute Terms of this Policy which are in conflict with the statutes of the State wherein this Policy is issued are hereby amended to conform to such statutes. 12. Cancellation This Policy may be cancelled by the Public Entity for itself and the Insureds by surrender hereof to the Company or any of its authorized agents or by mailing to the Company written notice stating when thereafter the cancellation shall be effective. If the Public Entity cancels, earned premium shall be computed in accordance with the customary short rate table and procedure. If the Company cancels, it shall mail to the Public Entity and the Insureds, at the last mailing address known by the Company, written notice stating when not less than 30 days thereafter such cancellation shall be effective. This policy may also be cancelled by not less than 5 days notice when the cancellation is being effected by reason of the Insureds nonpayment of premium. The mailing of notice as aforesaid shall be sufficient proof of notice. The time of surrender or the effective date and hour of cancellation stated in the notice shall become the end of the policy period. If the Company cancels, earned premium shall be computed pro-rata. Premium ad- justment may be made either at the time cancellation is effected or as soon as practicable after cancellation becomes effective, but payment or tender of unearned premium is not a condition of cancellation. ISLIC 64 (3/79) Pege 4 of 6 13. Acceptance By acceptance of this Policy, the Public Entity and the Insureds agree that this Policy embodies all agree- ments existing between themselves and the Company or any of its agents relating to this insurance. 14. Other Insurance If the Public Entity or any Insured has other insurance insuring against a Loss covered by this Policy, the insurance provided by this Policy shall apply in excess of such other insurance. 15. Service of Suit It is agreed that in the event of the failure of the Insurer to pay any amount claimed to be due hereunder, the Insurer at the request of the Insured, will submit to the jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction within the United States and will comply with all the requirements necessary to give such court jurisdiction, and all matters arising hereunder shall be determined in accordance with the law and practice of such court. It is further agreed that service of process in such suit against the Insurer may be made upon the Insurer and that in any suit instituted against it upon this Policy, the Insurer will abide by the final decision of such court, or of any appellate court in the event of an appeal. In this connection, each of the foregoing corporations is hereby authorized to accept service of process on behalf of the Insurer in any such suit, or, upon request of the Insured prior to the institution of any suit, to give a written undertaking to the Insured that it will enter a general appear- ance in the Insurer's behalf in the event such suit should be instituted. Further, pursuant to any statute of any state, territory or district of the United States which makes provision herefore, the Insurer hereby designates the Superintendent, Commissioner or Director of Insurance, or other officer specified for that purpose in the statute, or his successor or successors in office, as its true and lawful attorney upon whom may be served any lawful process in any action, suit or proceeding instituted by or on behalf of the Insured or any beneficiary hereunder arising out of this Policy and hereby designates each of the above named corporations as a person to whom said officers is authorized to mail such process or a true copy thereof. 16. Nuclear Energy Liability Exclusion (Broad Form) It is agreed that the policy does not apply: 1. Under any Liability Coverage, to injury, sickness, disease, death or destruction (a) with respect to which an insured under the policy is also an insured under a nuclear energy liability policy issued by Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association, Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters or Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada, or would be an insured under any such policy but for its termination upon exhaustion of its limit of liability, or (b) resulting from the hazardous properties of nuclear material and with respect to which (1 ) any person or organization is required to maintain financial protection pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or any law amendatory thereof, or (2) the insured is, or had this policy not been issued would be, entitled to indemnity from the United States of America, or any agency thereof, under any agreement entered into by the United States of America, or any agency thereof, with any person or organization. 2. Under any Medical Payments Coverage, or under any Supplementary Payments provision relating to immediate medical or surgical relief, to expenses incurred with respect to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death resulting from the hazardous properties of nuclear material and arising out of the operation of a nuclear facility by any person or organization. 3. Under any Liability Coverage, to injury, sickness, disease, death or destruction resulting from the hazardous properties of nuclear material, if (a) the nuclear material (1) is at any nuclear facility owned by or operated by or on behalf of, an insured or (2) has been discharged or dispersed therefrom; (b) the nuclear material is contained in spent fuel or waste at any time possesed, handled, used, processed, stored, transported or disposed of by or on behalf of an insured; or ISLIC 64 (3/79) Pege 5 of 6 (c) the injury, sickness, L.;ease, death or destruction arises out of the furnishing ' services, materials, parts or equipment ir, c Operation or use of any nuclear facility, but connection with the planning, n, an insured eof , Amer- ica, its territories or y such facility construction, maintenance, Possessions or Canada, ;his exclusios located within the United States of Ai ,er- of property at such nuclear facility. (c) applies only to injury fo or destruction 4. As used in this section °'hazardous properties', includes radioactive, toxic or explosive pro erti "nuclear material" means source material p es; special nuclear material or byproduct material; "source material", "special nuclear material" , and "byproduct them in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or in any law amendatory th eof material"have the meanings given "spent fuel" means any fuel element or fuel component, solid or liquid, which has been used or exposed to radiation in a nuclear reactor; "my Waste ( material 1 Y Y person or organizationot acnntaining byproduct material and (2) resulting from the ( ) Y nuclear facility included within the definition of nuclear facility under paragra ph a or (b) thereof; "nuclear facility" means (a) any nuclear reactor, (b) any equipment or device designed or used for 1 Plutonium, (2) processing( ) separating or utilizing spent fuel, or 9 the isotopes a uranium or (3) handling, processing or packaging waste, (c) any equipment or device used for the processing, fabricating or altof the insured at the oy i material if at any time the total amount of such material in the custody Premises where such equipment or device is located consists of or contain ng of special nuclear Of plutonium or uranium 233 or any combination thereof, or more than s more than 25 grams (d) any structure, basin, excavation, premises or place prepa ed2org used crams of uranium 235, disposal of waste, and includes the site on which any of the foregoing is to for the storage or and all premises used for such operations; located all operations conducted on such site "nuclear reactor" means an s designed or supporting chain reaction or to contain parcritical mass of fisssondable10 smalten nuclear fission in a With respect to injury material; self - forms of radioactive contamination destruction property.f property the word "injury" J ry" or "destruction" includes all 'ITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Policy to be signed by its :y shall not be binding upon the Company unless completed by the attachment hereto and Secretarylar countersigned on the aforesaid Declarations a attachment hereto of a Declaration butthis Page by a duly authorized representative of the Company. `Ta � Secretary President '9) Page 6 of 6 I I d. a. Total amount of outstandin „ S.__1934,000 :-,onds .. _ ' b. Latest Bond Rating (Mood) )r Standard & Poor's) ............ ...... e. Previous Bond Rating (If changed withir. last three years) ................ 3 d. Has any bond proposal been defeated within the last three years? .......... YES NO e. If yes, has the proposal been resubmitted or is it expected to be resubmitted?. X YES NO 1. Has the Public Entity been in default on principal or interest of any bond? .. _-- YES NO (If yes, on any of the above, please detail on last page.) 9. Have any of the following situations occurred within the last three years? a. -Strike, slowdown or other disruption by the employees ................... YES X NO b. Layoff of employees or reduction In services ........................... YES X NO c. Any person, former employee or job applicant made claim alleging unfair or improper treatment regarding employee hiring, remuneration, advancement, or termination of employment ........................................ .-- YES X 'NO d. Disputes Involving Integration, segregation, discrimination, or violation of civil rights.......................................................... -- YES _?X NO (If yes to any of the above, please detail on last page including the date, the nature of the situation and its present status.) 10. a. Has any claim been made or is now pending against any person in his/her X capacity as an official or an employee of the Public Entity?................. YES NO ' b. Does any official or employee have any knowledge of any act, error or omis- X sion, which might give rise to a claim against them? .................... _ YES NO (If yes to any of the above, please detail on last page the date, the nature of the situation and its present status.) c. No fact, circumstance or situation indicating the probability of a claim or action is now known to any Public Official or Employee; and it is agreed by all concerned that if there be knowledge of any such fact, circumstance, or situation, any claim or action subsequently emanating therefrom shall be excluded from coverage under the insurance here being applied for. 11. The official designated to receive :an ,and.al),notices from the Insurers or 1hel -authorized representative •� �- �` , ice - Z- concerning this insurance is ` % --- - '—� Name Tltle 12. The undersigned being authorized by, and acting on behalf of, the applicant and all persons or concerns seeking insurance, has read and understands the Application or Proposal, and declares all statements set forth herein are true, complete and accurate. The undersioned further declares and represents that any occurrence or event taking place prior to the issuance of the policy applied for, which may render Inac- curate, untrue or incomplete any statement made herein will immediately be reported in writing to the insurer. The undersigned acknowledges and agrees that the submission and the insurer's receipt of such written report, prior to the inception of the policy applied for, is a condition precedent to coverage. The signing of the Application or Proposal does not bind the undersigned to purchase the insurance, nor does review of the Application or Proposal bind the insurance company to issue a policy. it is agreed that this Application or Proposal shall be the basis of the contra ould a policy be issued. J IMPORTANT: ATTACH COPY OF LATEST FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SPECIFICATIONS (IF APPLICABLE) Agent Dolliff, Inc. 2500 Da,in Tower Minneapolis, MN 55402 23 -_ Surplus Lines License Number 6-30-81 Expiration Date ISLIC 67 (3/79) SIGNED X_' DATE D B1 Presiding Official Auqust 22, 1980 INTERNAT'r)NAL SURPLUS* LINES INr 'RANCE COMPANY HOME OFFICE • 1001h FLOOR - SEARS TpN1'ER • 213 SOUTH "'ACKER DRIVE • CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6080C Tcicphooc: 312-876.3100 Csblc: ISLJC Tcici No.: 45-4597 PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES LIABILITY INSURANCE 1. a. Name of Public Entity (Please Type) City of Chanhassen b. Address '7610 Laredo Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Number Streot c. Date organized or incorporated 1967 City State ZIP 2. Population, according to latest census 5,470 6,100, 1980 preliminary census (if Public Entity is a utility, Number of users Cill sewer ar f water has approximately 1504 cu.staress F 3. Budget (for past 3 years): Year Revenues EzpendIturwt Surplus(-{-) or Detfcit(—) 19 77 2,086,276 1,571,236 + 515 OAD) 119 78 2,300,364 2,191 243 + 109 124, 19 79 2,051,182 2,066,220 15,03 4, a. Number of members comprising governing board 5 b. Members are x elected and/or appointed by �L c. Number of employees 22 d. Number of licensed or certified positions attorneys accountants ar-cTTitects and engineers other (specify) None other than typical trade YES NO ITS BUDGET a. School ........................................ x b. Airport ........................................ x c. Hospital ....................................... x d. Municipally owned utilities (watex.. &..SeY?��)... x $332,400 (It no and if coverage is requested for these units, please submit separate proposal.) 6. Does the Public Entity currently carry YES No ` a. General Liability Insurance ...................... x b. Personal Injury Insurance x •_ _. c. Coverage for Discrimination ....... , . • . , , . x 7. a. Describe any special coverage, such as errors and omissions insurance or public officials liability insur- ance presently or previously carried by the Public Entity. Company rinnP Policy Term Limit Deductible Premium b. Has any similar insurance on behalf of the Public Entity been declined, cancelled, or not renewed? ................................ YES x ISO (If yes, indicate company, termination date and reasons for termination on last page.) c. Has any claim been presented to the current or past carrier? ..... , ... , YES x NO If yes, detail on last page. .I LAW OFFICES CAMPBELL & FARRELL / GRANNIS, GRANNIS, DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION FORMERLY DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. - 1910-1980 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING GRANNIS GRANNIS ESTABLISHED VANCE B. GRANNIS POST OFFICE BOX 57 VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE Cr THOMAS J. CAMPBELL PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N.KNUTSON 612-455-1661 ROBERT R. KING, JR. THOMAS M. SC07T GARY G. FUCHS August 31 1983 MARY S. VV.IOVICH , Mr. Gerry Bakker Claims Representative International Surplus Lines Insurance Company 100th Floor - Sears Tower 233 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Re: Insured: City of Chanhassen Policy: GP 23993 File: 96-405984 Claimant: Derrick Land Co. Dear Mr. Bakker: q//S3 Your letter of August 22, 1983 acknowledged that at least part of the relief sought by Derrick Land was covered by your policy. As you know, it is not possible to defend only part of a lawsuit. The Minnesota Supreme Court in Jostens v. CNA, copy attached, last month acknowledged that principle in holding that if any part of a claim is even arguably covered by a policy, then the insurer must defend and the costs of defense are not to be apportioned but are to be borne by the insurer. It is understandable that you were not aware of this decision when your letter was written. Please forward your check to me in the amount of $8,033.50, payable to the City, within the next 10 days. If this is not done, we will commence collection proceedings. Very truly yours, GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL, P.A. Ims fc .Mr. Don Ashworth Roger N. Knutson RECEIVED SEP - 11983 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANNAOSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 August 29, 1983 Mr. Roger N. Knutson Grannis, Grannis, Campbell & Farrell Box 57 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 Re: INSURED: City of Chanhassen POLICY: GP 23993 FILE: 96-406984 CLAIMANT: Derrick Land Company Dear Roger: I am in receipt of International Surplus Lines Insurance Company's letter of August 22, 1983 regarding the Derrick litiga- tion. Quite frankly, I am shocked by the interpretation being used by International Surplus Lines. This type of interpretation is not only damaging to the spirit and intent of Minnesota insurance laws, but could be of significant precedence to other cities within our State. I would hope that the position presented by International Surplus Lines is an initial position. I would ask that your office con- tact International Surplus Lines and ask for reconsideration. In any case, this letter. represents authorization to your office to initiate any and all steps necessary to resolve this matter. Si , Don Ashworth City Manager DA:k cc: Gerry Bakker, International Surplus Lines Insurance Company Dan Hoffman, Dolliff Insurance Company Bonnie Atkins, John H. Crowther, Inc. I International Surplus Lines Insurance Company August 22, 1983 Mr. Roger N. Knutson Grannis, Grannis, Campbell & Farrell PO Box 5.7 161 N. Concord Exchange So. St. Paul, Minn. 55075 INSURED: City of Chanhassen POLICY: GP 23993 FILE: 96-405984 CLAIMANT: Derrick Land Co. 100th Floor - See•s Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telex 25-4597 (312) 876-3100 Thank you for your letter and attachments dated August 3, 1983 relative to the above -captioned matter. Your letter indicated that the Derrick case had been settled through the City's approval of the claimant's plat. Additionally, the attached billing statement indicated that $13,033.50 in defense expenses had been incurred by the City. At this time, please refer to my letter of April 13, 1983 directed to City Manager Ashworth, a copy of which is enclosed herein. At that time, the City was notified of the application of Exclusions 4A and 4B to this case. We also requested that the City's defense counsel contact our office for discussion of the claim and the pertinent coverage questions. Your letter of August 3 was the first response to our initial acknowledgement letter. In view of the substantial amount of non -monetary relief which was sought in this case, a pro -ration of defense expenses is necessary to determine coverage. This allocation or apportionment of counsel's fees and expenses is discussed in Condition Five, the "Defense and Settlement" provisions of the Public Officials and Employees Liability policy. our initial review of the relief sought in the pleadings, as well as a subsequent recent review, has indicated that the primary thrust and emphasis of the litigation involves claims for non -monetary relief, and that for the purposes of allocation, approximately 20% of the defenses expenses could be perceived as covered under our policy. In view of this circumstance, please note that the covered apportionment of your fees to Lhe City would fall within the Policy's $5,000 sect -insured retention which is applicable to each loss incurred. Should you have any further questions or comments relative to this situation, please feel free to contact me at your. convenience. We trust you understand that nothing contained herein should be construed as a waiver of any rights or defenses afforded to the International Surplus Lines InFke ice Company under Policy GP 23993. RECEIVED Ge a Claims Representative AUG 2 9 1983 GB:pd -- Enclosures cc: Don Ashworth - City Manager qTy OF %MMSSEX cc: Craig M. Mertz - City Attorney cc: Dan Hoffman - Dollift, Inc. cc: Bonnie Atkins - John H. Crowther Inc. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney, Roger Knutson FROM: City Manager, Don Ashworth DATE: August 22, 1983 SUBJ: Various Items Gambling Ordinance: Attached is a draft of the proposed Gambling Ordinance. This ordinance does not regulate amusement devices (separate ordinance being drafted). If I do not hear from you, I will assume that the proposed ordi- nance has your blessing. Presentation is anticipated on September 12. Notices to potential affected parties to be mailed on September 1, 1983. Derrick Settlement: I have received your cover letter and the enclosed letter from Dr. Megard. Such has been forwarded to the City Council. I have received requests that a similar letter be received from Ken Carr. Is this possible? DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. - 1910-1980 VANCE B. GRANNIS VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR. THOMAS J. CAMPBELL PATRICK A. FARRELL DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N. KNUTSON ROBERT R. KING, JR. THOMAS M. SCOTT GARY G. FUCHS MARY S. VUJOVICH LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 403 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 57 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 612-455-1661 Don Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen Box 147, 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Derrick Land Co. Dear Don: August 4, 1983 FORMERLY GRANNIS & GRANNIS ESTABLISHED 1907 Enclosed is a letter I received from Professor Megard. His statement that the fourth dock was acceptable because he assumed the Lotus Lake Association approved is new to us. He never told us anything about his assumption .and we certainly never told him anything of the kind. Regardless, the bottom line is that he thinks the settlement is reasonable. Very truly yours, GRANNIS, GRANNIS, BELL FARRE; ,L , P.A. oo,-'r N/ Knutson vl Enc. RECEIVED AU G - 5 1983 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Mr. Roger N. Knutsen 403 Northwestern National P.O. Box 57 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 Dear Mr. Knutsen: Bank Building My opinion about the compromise location of docks to be permitted at so I must explain my position. July 29, 1983 agreement concerning the number and Lotus Lake has been misunderstood, I spoke to Rick Plunket on the telephone on July 12, 1983, I believe, while I was at the University of Minnesota Biological Station at Lake Itasca. He described the compromise that involved the possibility of four docks. I agreed that the compromise was reasonable, but I did so because I assumed that the compromise originated with and was acceptable to the Lotus Lake Association. I had not compared the location of the fourth dock to the boundaries of the emergent vegetation. I visited Lotus Lake with Susan Conrad and Rick Plunket on Wednesday, July 20, to prepare for the trial that was scheduled for 25 July. I gave no further thought to the prospect of a fourth dock, because I understood that the compromise had been rejected and was no longer under consideration. Consequently, we spent our time with a general survey of the site in anticipation of the trial. I did not inquire about boundaries of individual lots. The location of specific docks was not included on the list of questions I would be asked during direct examination. Thus there was no indication that the precise or approximate location of individual docks was part of the formal litigation. I also did not know that informal negotiations involving the fourth dock were still in progress. I understand that it was indicated to members of the city council that I approved of the fourth dock and that this was decisive in their acceptance of the compromise. It should be understood, however, that I approved only because I thought the compromise had been approved earlier by members of the Lotus Lake Association who were actively involved in the litigation, not because I had first-hand information about lot boundaries. I might add that I do approve of the compromise in the sense that four docks, with boats only on one side of the northern dock, is better than the absurd proposal to permit ten docks. Sincerely yours, Robert 0. Megard ROM/ rrr cc: Mrs. Georgette Sosin President, Lotus Lake Association 7400 Chanhassen Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED AUG - 5 1883 CI i Y OF CHANHASSEN k LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARR.ELL DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASROCIATION FORMERLY DAVID L. GRANNIS. JR. - 1910-1980 GRANNIS & GRANNIS 401 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ESTABLISHED 1907 VANCE B. GRANNIS POST OFFICE BOX 57 VANCTHOM B. GRANNIS, THOMAS J. CAMPBELL.161 L NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGEPATRICK A. FARREL.L SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075DAVID P L. GRANNIS, III /' ROGER N.KNUTSON 612-455-1661 ROBERT R. KING. JR.THO - GARY G. M. FucHS r GARY G. Fucxs August 3 1983 s `G MARY S. VUJOVICH Mr. Gerry Bakker Allk 4• Claims Representative r International Surplus Lines Ins, Co. 100th Floor, Sears Tower 233 S . Wacker Dr. I �1 Chicago, IL 60606 Re: Your Insured: City of Chanhassen Your Policy: GP 23993 Your File: 96-405984 Claimant: Derrick Land Co. Dear Mr, Bakker: As you know, with your approval the City of Chanhassen assigned the defense of the above matter to our firm. The claimant was seeking approximately $200,000 in damages from the City as well as other relief. The matter has now been settled. As part of the settlement the City approved Derrick's plat and in turn Derrick dismissed his lawsuit,including his claim for damages. Enclosed is a recap of our billing to the City. Please send your check to me for forwarding to the City. If you have any questions, please call me. nc. cc: Don Ashworth Very truly yours, GRANNIS, GR vNIS, CAMPBE � FARRE Y: Pit Ro' N, tson P.A. C , 1 ')1- - 1,9. DERRICK LAND CO. VS. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 5/20/83 Letter to city manager. 24.00 5/23/83 Legal research - assessment of property 28.00 5/24/83 Legal research; draft memorandum. 220.00 5/24/83 Trial preparation. 80.00 5/25/83 Trial preparation. 160.00 5/26/83 Interview witness in preparation for trial; 240.00 trial preparation. 5/31/83 Telephone call to aerial photographer to 20.00 obtain photographs; conference with photographer. 6/l/83 Executive session with City Council 160.00 6/2/83 Legal research - eutrophication. 252.00 6/2/83 Depositions of city manager and Pat Swenson. 640.00 6/3/83 Depositions of City Council members. 560.00 6/6/83 Legal research - eutrophication; expert witness 300.00 research. 6/7/83 Discovery documents; expert witness search; legal 360.00 research - eutrophication. 6/7/83 Document review. 200.00 6/8/83 Preparation for Roger Derrick deposition, office 280.00 conference. 6/9/83 Preparation for deposition; deposition.of Roger 432.00 Derrick. 6/10/83 Eutrophication memo; direct examination; search 260.00 for photograph; legal research on Lake Lotus. 6/10/83 Phone call, office conference. 24.00 6/13/83 Direct examination; look for photo at City; pick up 300.00 K. Schwartz material; legal research at Carver County District Court; interview Herbert Wright. 6/13/83 Trial preparation. 32.00 6/14/83 Cross examination; direct examination. 248.00 6/14/83 Call to Judge Mansur and office conference, 80.00 6/14/83 Attended deposition. 280.00 6/14/83 Trial preparation; preparation and service of 160.00 Notice. 6/15/83 Interrogatories; expert witness search; research 272.00 environmental effects on lake; K. Schwartz files. 6/15/83 Trial preparation. 320.00 6/16/83 Answers to Interrogatories; conference with Derrick 240.00 Land; expert witness research; review Corps of Engineering hearing transcript. 6/16/83 Legal research - temporary damages in inverse 80.00 condemnation case. Derrick Land Co. vs. Cite of Chanhassen Page T ;o 6/16/83 Deposition and conference 200.00 6/16/83 Deposition of Roger Derrick, settlement discussion; 480.00 trial preparation. 6/17/83 Expert witness search; correspondence with Megard; 160.00 research - eutrophication. 6/17/83 Trial preparation. 120.00 6/18/83 Trip to Hastings on motion for expedited hearing. 56.00 6/20/83 Expert witness. 20.00 6/20/83 Meeting with Mr. Horn, deposition of Mr. Horn; phone 256.00 call. 6/21/83 Prepare Answers to Interrogatories. 80.00 6/22/83 Interrogatories; phone call re experts. 32.00 6/22/83 Conference with city. 120.00 6/23/83 Trial preparation; telephone calls. 160.00 6/24/83 Trial preparation; telephone calls. 80.00 6/28/83 Expert witness search; trial exhibit preparation. 128.00 6/28/83 Attended deposition. 240.00 6/29/83 Trial exhibit preparation; meeting. 320.00 6/29/83 Trial preparation. 40.00 6/30/83 Minutes summary; deposition summary. 320.00 6/30/83 Review documents produced by Engineer; trial 160.00 preparation. 7/1/83 Expert witness search; deposition summary; minutes 140.00 summary. 7/l/83 Amend complaint and counteclaim. 40.00 7/5/83 Telephone call; correspondence. 32.00 7/6/83 Trial preparation. 40.00 7/7/83 Trial preparation. 64.00 7/8/83 Description of trail easement. 28.00 7/8/83 Settlement negotiation with Mr. Sellergren; draft 296.00 agreement. 7/11/83 Edit development contract; telephone calls. 144.00 7/11/83 Closed meeting with City Council. 125.00 7/12/83 Settlement negotiations, edit Development Contract. 200.00 7/13/83 Telephone call. 8.00 7/14/83 Telephone calls; correspondence to City; trial 104.00 preparation. 7/14/83 Telephone calls. 24.00 7/18/83 Minutes preparation; expert witness preparation. 28.00 7/19/83 Minutes preparation; trial memo. 40.00 derrick Land Co. vs. Citv .,f Chanhassen Page Three 7/19/83 Telephone call from Clerk re trial. 8.00 7/19/83 Telephone calls; edit Development Contract. 104.00 7/20/83 Visit to lake with expert (Megard); trial exhibit 140.00 preparation. 7/20/83 Trial preparation; settlement negotiations; telephone 360.00 calls; correspondence to auditor. 7/20/83 Meeting with City Council. 40.00 7/22/83 Telephone call to Megard. 4.00 7/22/83 Telephone calls; edit Settlement Agreement. 80.00 7/26/83 Telephone calls; send agreement to Recorder for filing. 24.00 7/27/83 Telephone call - Megard. 16.00 7/28/83 Telephone call with Ken Carr. 8.00 TOTAL FEES! $11,321.00 5/23/83 Photocopies 3.20 6/8/83 Aerial survey enlargement. 216.66 6/16/83 Photocopies 9.80 6/16/83 Depositions of Neveaux, Watson, Hamilton, & Geving 196.25 6/17/83 Photocopies 58.80 6/20/83 Depositions of Donald Ashworth & Patricia Swenson 137.86 6/20/83 Aerial photo of Lotus Lake 47.70 6/23/83 Deposition of Roger Derrick 495.03 6/23/83 Deposition of Frank Beddor, Jr. 62.55 7/7/83 Photocopies 10.00 7/11/83 Photocopies 43.20 7/12/83 Deposition of Clark Horn 47.00 7/15/83 Copy of deposition of James Orr 71.87 7/22/83 Photocopies 32.58 8/3/83 Robert 0. Megard - Consultation Fee 280.00 $1,712.50 TOTAL FOR CASE: $13,033.50 LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1974-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. - 1910-1980 403 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING VANCE B. GRANNIS POST OFFICE BOX 57 VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR. THOMAS J. CAMPBELL 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N.KNUTSON 612-455.1661 ROBERT R. KING. JR. THOMAS M. SCOTT August 2 1983 GARY G. FUCHS MARY S. VUJOVICH Mr. James Orr Schoell & Madson, Inc. 50 Ninth Avenue S. Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: Derrick Land Company - City of Chanhassen Dear Jim: FORMERLY GRANNIS & GRANNIS ESTABLISHED 1907 0 /iL2i / As you probably know by now, the Derrick case has been settled. Roger Derrick indicated that you were agreeable to holding off looking for payment until he starts up the project or August, 1984, whichever occurs first. Thank you for your patience. Very truly yours, GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL, P.A. BY: Roger N. Knutson vl cc: Don Ashworth RECEIVED AUG -31983 CITY OF CHANHASSEI4 DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. - 1910-1980 VANCE B. GRANNIS VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR. THOMAS J. CAMPBELL PATRICK A. FARRELL DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N. KNUTSON ROBERT R. KING, JR. THOMAS M. SCOTT GARY G. FUCHS MARY S. VUJOVICH LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION FORMERLY 403 NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING GRANNIS & GRANNISESTABLISHED 1907 POST OFFICE BOX 57 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE /( SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075/// 612-455-1661 9 7� C Mr. Donald Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Don: June 20, 1983 p�o 1N G 4 RECEIV ED END C < <5-t3 -.-- w. JUN 2 CffY.OF CHANHASSEN Enclosed are copies of the depositions of yourself, Thomas Hamilton, John Neveaux, Carol Watson, Patricia Swenson and Dale Geving. Please have each person read their deposition over and make any corrections on the enclosed certification page. After this has been done, return the signed certificates to me. You may keep the copies of the depositions for your files. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, ANNIS, G NN4L.A. 0 MPBELL F BY: R er Knutson /jf Enclosures n SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE, made and entered into this 2" day of July, 1983, by and between -DERRICK LAND COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation (Derrick) and THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a municipal corporation; and THOMAS HAMILTON, CLARK HORN, PATRICIA SWANSON, DALE GEVING, JOH1J NEVEAUX and CAROL WATSON (City and Council Members) . [WHEREAS, a dispute arose as to the legality of a number of conditions which the City and Council Members sought to impose on the Foy; Chase Development, a residential development proposed by Derrick, incident to the City's review and grant of subdivision and zoning authorization; and WHEREAS, Derrick has commenced a lawsuit against the City and Council Members in the Carver County District Court, First Judicial District of the State of Minnesota, such case being File No. 18149, entitled Derrick Land Company, a Minnesota corporation v. City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation; and Thomas Hamilton, Clark Horn, Patricia Swanson, Dale Gevinc, John Neveaux and Carol Watson; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to compromise and settle the above -entitled lawsuit and the dispute relating -to the City's approval of the Fox Chase Development legally described anc Exhibit A attached hereto to avoid the expense of litigation, including attorneys' fees; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the undersigned parties hereby agree as follows: 1.) The above -entitled lawsuit shall be dismissed with prejudice and without the payment of costs incurred by either party to the other and the parties hereto hereby authorize their respective attorneys to execute on their behalf a written Stipulation of Dismissal to that effect for filing with the said Court. 2.) The parties mutually release each other from any and all obligations, actions, suits, claims, damages, judgments and execution and any other matter or act regarding the City's review and approval of the Fox Chase Development subject to the provisions contained herein. 3.) The parties will execute the Planned Residential Development Contract ("the Development Contract") attached hereto and made a part hereof and the Fox Chase Development shall be allowed to proceed and be completed in accordance with the provisions of the Development Contract. SCANNED 4.) The, Development Contract will be incorporated with the Stipulation of Dismissal and filed with and approved by said Court. 5.) Derrick shall pay the City the Schoell and Madson's Engineering Services fee now outstanding including any finance charges accruing on the fee prior to it payment. Actual payment of the Schoell and Madon's fee shall take place before the construction of any public improvements on the Fox Chase Development is begun or no later than August 1, 1984. 6.) Prior to filing of the final pat of the Fox Chase Develop- ment, Derrick shall pay the City the currently unpaid negotiated balance in the City's escrow account, One Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-eight and 50/100 ($1,798.50) Dollars, which is the final amount owing to the City for its costs of reviewing the Fox Chase Development. 1 7.) The City determines that the Fox Chase Development as autho- rized by the Development Agreement is essentially similar to and does not contain significant or substantial changes from the Develop- ment Plan initially assessed for purposes of environmental impact and the City shall forthwith so determine and execute a letter stating that an additional environmental assessment worksheet and/or environ- mental impact statement is not necessary and shall not be prepared r for the Fox Chase Development. 8.) Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an admission by ether party of the allegations or liabilities asserted in connec- tion with the above -referenced lar:suit. Each of the parties hereby represents and warrants to the other that there has been no assignment of any right,, claim or cause of action encompassed by this Agreement to any individual, corporation, or other legal entity whatsoever other than the parties to this Agreement, and that this release has been duly executed by each of the parties without promises or threats or the exertion of influence by or upon the other, -and that each party fully understands the legal and practical effects of this document. This Agreement may not be changed orally. 9.) This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instru- ment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Derrick and the City and Council Members have executed and delivered this Settlement Agreement and Release as of the date first written above. DERRI LAND COJ,4 Y s Presi ent CITY :�Ir-JNHASS- 2�_ BY: i Its lerk /' i�� "o, ZIL, Its: ayor GRANNIS, GRANNY S, CAMP LL & FARRELL, P.1 E BY � --- Tj Rpt3ER q. KWUTSON, Attorneys f r ity of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation, Thomas Hamilton, Clark Horn, Patricia Swanson, Dale G eving, John Neveaux and Carol Watson 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 455-1661 r EXHIBIT A All that part of Government Lots 5 and 6 in Section 1, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the West line of said Section 1 distant 905 feet South'of the Northwest corner of said Section 1, said point being in the center line of the Excelsior and Eden Prairie Road as now laid out and travelled (and considering the West line of said Section 1 to be a due North and South line), thence running North 89 degrees 20 minutes East along said center line 170 feet, thence South 9 degrees 32 minutes East 428.3 feet, thence South 45 degrees 32 minutes East 285 feet, more or less, to the shore line of Long Lake, thence Southerly along said shore line to its intersection with the South line of Said Government Lot 5, thence West along said South line 862.1 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 5, thence North along the Westline of said Government Lot 5 1715.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, subject to public road rights within the right of way of the Excelsior and Eden Prairie Road and subject to an easement for right of way over that part of the above described tract described as follows: Begining at the point of beginning of the above described tract, thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes East 170 feet, thence South 9 degrees 32 minutes East 33.46 feet, more or less, to a point in the Southerly right of way line of the Excelsior and Eden Prairie Road, said point being the actual point of beginning of the easement to be described, thence continuing South 9 degrees 32 minutes East 30.feet, thence Northwesterly to a pointin the Southerly right of way line of the Excelsior and Eden Prairie Road distant 30 feet West of the actual point of beginning, thence East along said Southerly right of way line 30 feet to the actual point of beginning ALSO, Lots 1 and 11, "Vineland". STAfiE 'OF MINNESOTA DIS'1_- r COURT "-COUNTY OF CARVER Derrick Land Company, a Minnesota corporation, Petitioner and Plaintiff, V. City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation; and Thomas Hamilton, Clark Horn, Patricia Swenson, Dale - Geving, John Neveaux and Carol Watson, Respondents and Defendants. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT VERIFIED PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND OTHER RELIEF The Petitioner, Derrick Land Company, respectfully represents to the Court as follows: FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION I. This Verified Petition for Alternative Writ of Mandamus is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. S586.01, et sec., for an order directing the City of Chanhassen to execute the Developer's Agreement in the form attached hereto as Attachment "A" and pursuant thereto to sign and file the final plat for the project more particularly described herein consistent with the Developer's Agreement. II. Petitioner, Derrick Land Company, of 1650 Shel and Tower, Minneapolis, Minnesota, is organized.and existing as a Minnesota corporation engaged in the business of developing real estate, among other things, in the Twin City metropolitan area as well as elsewhere. EXHIBIT B • I I I e � The City of Chanhassen is a municipal corporation organized and existing pursuant pursuant to the laws of the State of Minnesota and h is located in the County of Carver. IV. Respondent Tom Hamilton was at all times relevant herein the Mayor of the City of Chanhassen and was named in that capacity. The other Respondents Clark Horn, Patricia Swenson, Dale Geving,.John Neveaux and Carol Watson were at all times relevant herein council members of the City of Chanhassen and are named in that capacity. V. Petitioner has an interest in thirty-five and five -tenths (35.5) acres of vacant land (the Property) located at the extreme northwest end of Lotus Lake in Chanhassen Cou nty of Carver, State of Minnesota, and legally described as: The southwest corner of the north 1/2 of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Carver -County, Minnesota. See, Attachment "B". VI. The land is surrounded by vacant land and residential development with large single-family lots to the north and across Lotus Lake to the east, partially developed five (5) acre parcels to the west, and the Carver Beach neighborhood to the south. VII. The Property borders Lotus Lake on its eastern boundary with approximately one thousand fifteen (1,015) lineal feet of lake frontage. Lotus Lake is two hundred thirty-five (235) acres in size. The vast majority of the perimeter of Lotus Lake is developed except 2. ,Petitioner's Property. .espondent City of Chanha -in (the City), has •not permitted or approved public access to the lake, but there are approximately eighty (80) private docks located adjacent to private residences around Lotus Lake. VIII. Prior to April 7, 1980, Petitioner requested rezoning of the Property to P-1 Planned Residential District, and filed for preliminary plat approval for a configuration of fifty-two (52) lots on the thirty-five and five -tenths (35.5) acre parcel. IX. i At all times relevant herein, the official actions taken by Respondent City with respect to Petitioner's Property had been quasi-judicial in nature for which Petitioner is entitled to seek appropriate judicial review pursuant to Minnesota Law. X. V On April 7, 1980, the City held a public hearing to review "Petitioner's request for rezoning and preliminary plat approval for the subject Property. After the public hearing Respondents rezoned the Property P-1 Planned Residential District and granted preliminary plat approval subject to certain conditions. XI. On July 21, 1980, Respondent City held a public hearing to review the final development plan and preliminary plat approval with respect to the proposed development of Petitioner's Property. The City i ` granted Petitioner's final development approval subject to certain conditions in accordance with the City Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 47, §14), which is attached hereto as Attachment "C." 3. XII. The conditions imposed by the City Council on July 21, 1980 to Final Development Plan approval are as follows: a. The outlot area is designated a conservation area and no park �T credits are being given. b. There will be an eight (8) foot trail through the conservation area of the proposed project which the developer will construct, grade and install. C. Petitioner shall use the City Engineer for preparation of plans and specifications while staking and inspecting the project. d. A conservation easement is established within the area below the nine hundred (900) foot elevation pursuant to the comprehensive plan. e. Petitioner will carry out construction of improvements and structures in accordance with the requirements of the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, and the Soil Conservation Service evaluation report dated June 18, 1980. f. Petitioner shall use extra precautions so that removal of existing vegetation may be kept to a minimum during construction. g. The building plans for all residences proposed shall be certified by an architect or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. h. Petitioner is required to post sufficient escrows to assure that the degree of engineering and inspection is carried out as recommended in the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District and the Soil Conservation Service. i. Wider streets should be considered. j. Intersection radii should be twenty (20) feet. k. Sanitary sewer should be eight (8) inches and manholes in cul-de-sacs extended. 1. The water main should be eight (8) inches on the main street and six (6) inches on the cul-de-sacs. M. The water main should be looped internally within the development, or looped to existed water on Huron. n. The thirty (30) inch drainage pipe for the proposed drainage should be increased to thirty-six (36) inches. 4. o: Street grade- ,quire a waiver of the s., n percent (7%) maximum grade limitation which is granted. XIII. Thereafter, Petitioner followed the procedure outlined by the City in its zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance to finalize approval of the project which is to execute a developer's agreement with the City incorporating the terms and conditions of the final Development Plan Approval and to have the final plat signed and filed with the County Recorder. The City has called the proposed development Fox Chase Addition and has considered it a Planned Unit Development (PUD) pursuant to §19.01 of the City Zoning Ordinance as the proposal involves more than twenty-five (25) single family lots. However, Petitioner has never agreed that the proposal should be considered a PUD. Rather, Petitioner asserts that the proposal is merely a subdivision pursuant to Chanhassen Ordinance No. 33. XIV. Over the next several months Petitioner met with City staff on several occasions to pursue implementation of the conditions set forth in Paragraph XII, su-,ra. During the course of those meetings City staff recommended certain revisions be made to the proposal in order to expedite approval and implementation of Fox Chase Addition. After several meetings, discussions and consultations, Petitioner submitted a plan amendment to the City which was set on for hearing before the Planning Commission on April 22, 1981. A copy of the configuration for the plan amendments is attached hereto as Attachment "D. The Planning Commission, in essence, recommended approval if certain conditions were met. 5. 1 X V . Pursuant to requirements imposed by the City Council, Petitioner filed documents with the City on June 22, 1981, evidencing compliance with all conditions imposed by the City in its final Development Plan - Approval dated July 21, 1980. Petitioner submitted the original Plan and the revised Plan indi.cating that both complied with the conditions /1 imposed in the approval of July 21, 1980. See, letter dated June 22, 1981, to the City of Chanhassen, which is attached hereto as Attachment "E." XVI. --% Upon submission of the documents on June 22, 1981, Petitioner complied with all conditions of final development approval and was entitled to and demanded execution of a developer's agreement. XVI I . Since June 22, 1981, Petitioner has diligently sought approval of Fox Chase Addition for which the City has responded by attempting to expand, modify, and add new conditions to the approval of the project. For example, on July 20, 1981, the City attempted to add a new condition requiring the issuance of a permit from the Corps of Engineers to Petitioner. At that meeting the City delayed further review of the project until the Corps of Engineers had issued a permit. XVIII. On August 10, 1981, the City Council confirmed its previous decision to table action on the project until the -Corps of Engineers had issued the permit. Thereafter the City modified previous conditions to the project as follows: 6. a. The street w, as be set at twenty-eight 28) feet; b. A T-section instead of the permanent cul-de-sac be incorporated at Fox Path terminus; c. There be a sixty (60) foot radius permanent cul-de-sac at the terminus of Fox Path with bituminous surface and concrete curb and gutter.. The bituminous surface not to extend westerly of the cul-de-sac. Street right-of-way to extend to the westerly property line of Fox•Chase; d. That Petitioner utilize route "C" for the looping at the water main at a cost of approximately Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000) using an eight (8) inch water main. XIX. Petitioner has obtained permits for the proposed Fox Chase subdivision from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, the Petitioner has received a determination from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board that the -project is not major and does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. XX. After further delays and attempts to add new conditions and new issues to the proposed development by Respondents, the matter was finally placed -on the City Council agenda on April 26, 1982, for consideration of approval of the amended final development plan as depicted in Attachment "D." After the public hearing, the City Council acted to approve the amended final development plan and made the following findings with respect to the proposed development: a. The proposed development is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Village Plan; b. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries; 7. c: The proposes. will not be detriment,'_ ,to present and future land uses in the surrounding area; d. Any exceptions to the zoning and subdivision ordinances are justified by the design of the development; e. The planned development is of sufficient size, composition and arrangement that its construction and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any other unit; f. The planned development will not create an excessive burden on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and Utilities which are proposed to serve the development; g. The planned development will not have an adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of neighboring property. XXI. The approval of the amended final development plan was made subject to the following conditions: a. The outlot area is designated a conservation area and no park credits are being given. b. There will be an eight (8) foot trail through the conservation area of the proposed project which the developer will construct, grade and install. C. Petitioner shall use the City Engineer for preparation of plans and specifications while staking and inspecting the project. d. A conservation easement is established within the area below the nine hundred (900) foot elevation pursuant to the comprehensive plan. e. Petitioner will carry out construction of improvements and structures in accordance with the requirements of the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, and the Soil Conservation Service evaluation report dated June 18, 1980. f. Petitioner shall use extra precautions so that removal of existing vegetation may be kept to a minimum during construction. g. The building plans for all residences proposed shall be certified by an architect or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. h. Petitioner is required to post sufficient escrows to assure that the degree of engineering and inspection is carried out 8. as recommen. -in the Riley Purgatory �k Watershed District and the Soil Conservation Service. i. Wider streets should be considered. j. Intersection radii should be twenty (20) feet. k. Sanitary sewer should be eight (8) inches and manholes in cul-de-sacs extended. 1. The water main should be eight (8) inches on the main street and six (6) inches on the cul-de-sacs. M. The water main should be looped internally within the development, or looped to existed water on Huron. n. The thirty (30) inch drainage pipe for the proposed drainage should be increased to thirty-six (36) inches. o. Street grades require a waiver of the seven percent (7%) maximum grade limitation which i-s granted. P. The street widths be set at twenty-eight (28) feet; q. A T-section instead of the permanent cul-de-sac be incorporated at Fox Path terminus; - r. There be a sixty (60) foot radius permanent cul-de-sac at the terminus of Fox Path with bituminous surface and concrete curb and gutter. The bituminous surface not to extend westerly of the cul-de-sac. Street right-of-way to extend to the westerly property line of Fox Chase; S. That Petitioner utilize route "C" for the looping at the water main at a cost of approximately Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000) using an eight (8) inch water main. t. That the proposed curvilinear street alignment be approved with the condition that it is constructed to standards acceptable to the City Engineer and approved by the City Council; U. That Lot 3 of Block 2 not have direct access to Pleasant View Road due to poor sight distance; V. That no lots have direct access onto Pleasant View Road except Lot 1, Block 1 of Fox Chase; W. That the conservation easement be maintained and within the conservation easement there will be no alteration of lakeshore or installation of structures, including private docks without approval by the City Council pursuant to the conditional use procedures of Ordinance No. 47; and that the developer be required to dedicate a trail easement across the conservation easement; 9. x. That a permanent cul-de-sac be constructed on the west end of Fox Path with retention of right-of-way to the westerly property line. XXII. Petitioner has agreed to and has established compliance with all conditions for approval of the project except the following: a. That there will be no alteration of lakeshore or installment of structures inc�uding private docks without prior approval of the City Council pursuant to the conditional use procedures of Ordinance No. 47; b. That Petitioner be required to pay park dedication fees of Twenty-one Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Dollars ($21,580); C. That Petitioner be required to dedicate- a•trail through the conservation easement of twenty (20) feet in width rather that ten (10) feet in width; - - d. That Pe itioner be equired to pay special assessment for seventy -on,\ (71) lot rather than the fifty-one (51) 1 o s which were ap roved. e. That no lots have direct access onto Pleasant View Road except Lot 1 of Block 1; f. That a permanent cul-de-sac be constructed on the west end of Fox Path. XXIII. The additional conditions set forth in Paragraph XXII, sum--ra, are -� arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, confiscatory, and void. XXIV. The City has an obligation of good faith in its dealings with Petitioner to act reasonably pursuant to Minn. Stat. S462.358, et seq. In its delaying tactics and efforts to expand, add, and modify conditions to the approval granted on July 21, 1980, the City has acted in bad faith and has deliberately attempted to deprive Petitioner of its statutory and common law rights to proceed to develop the subject property. 10. ~N XXV . Pursuant to the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, and Minn. Stat. §462.351, et sect., the City has a legal duty to execute % .the developer's agreement in the form as set forth in attachment A and `J to sign and file the plat. XXVI. The failure of the City to comply with its legal duty constitutes a public wrong specifically injurious to Petitioner and the general public in that the City has refused to execute the developer's agreement and to sign and file the plat. XXVII. Petitioner has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for Respondent's failure to execute the developer's agreement and to sign and file the plat. 0 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION XXVIII. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. S555.01, et seq., for a declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a determination that the City's condition for approval that there will be no alteration of lakeshore or installation of structures including private docks without Ithe prior approval of City Council pursuant to conditional use pro dures of Ordinance No. 47 is arbitrary and capricious, uncons itutional, unlawful, confiscatory and void. XXIX. Reallege Paragraphs I through XXVII as though set forth in their entirety herein. 11. XXX. The power of the City to regulate the alteration of lakeshore or installation of structures including public docks is governed by Minn. Stat. S412.221(12). That statute provides, inter alia, that cities can, b,., ordinance, regulate the alteration of lakeshore or installation of structures including private docks on the water or lake surface shoreward from the low watermark. However, riparian owners have the right to construct docks within that area subject to reasonable and equal municipal police power regulations. / XXXI. The power of the City to regulate the use of lake surface, including docks, is governed by Minn. Stat. §459.20, et al. That statute provides, inter alia, that cities can, by ordinance, regulate the use of the lake surface, including docks. However, riparian owners have the right to construct docks subject to reasonable and equal municipal police power regulations. XXXII. The City has not enacted an ordinance regulating the alteration of lakeshore, the installation of structures including private docks, or the mooring of boats on public waters. Accordingly, the City has no ordinance or authority by which to review Plaintiff's proposal to construct ten (10) docks. Moreover, the City has, inso facto, no objective standards by which to review Plaintiff's proposal to construct ten (10) docks. XXXIII. The City has previously approved or permitted the construction and Placement of approximately eighty (SO) docks around Lotus Lake. 12. The refusal of the City to permit the placement of ten (10) docks for the approved development is arbitrary and capricious, unlawful, j )Unconstitutional, confiscatory, void, and results in a denial of equal protection of the laws involved herein. XXXV. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties requiring a determination of the court as to the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to the unlawful attempt of the City to deny Plaintiff's proposal to place ten (10) docks on the subject property without any ordinance or standards whatsoever. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION XXXVI. This cause of action is brough pursuant to Minn. Stat. 9555.01 et seq., for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a determination that the City has acted arbitrary and capriciously and unlawfully in requiring the Plaintiff to pay park dedication fees of Twenty-one Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Dollars ($21,580) as a condition to approval of the proposed development. XXXVII. Reallege Paragraphs I through XXXV as though set forth in their entirety herein. XXXVIII. As a condition to execution of the developer's agreement the City has required Plaintiff to dedicate 4.82 acres below the 900 foot contour of the property as a conservation easement which, for all Practical purposes, results in a dedication of that property to the 13. City. Moreover, the is also requiring Peti,:. ner to dedicate a trail approximately 20 feet wide through the conservation easement. The trail will be used by and available to the general public. XXXIX. City Ordinance 14A provides that in -kind credits may be received by the City in lieu of cash for park dedication fees. See, Attachment "E." The dedication of the conservation easement and the dedication of the trail totally offset the requested park dedication fees of Twenty-one Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Dollars ($21,580). XL. r '-� The City is requiring a conservation easement and trail as a condition to execution of the development agreement pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.358, Subd. 2(b), but has exceeded the authority of that statute. XLI. The City's requirement that Plaintiff pay park dedication fees and dedicate the conservation easement and trial to the City is arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional, unlawful, confiscatory and void. XLII. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties requiring a determination of the court as to the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to the unlawful attempt of the City to collect park dedication fees and at the same time requiring dedication of the conservation easement and trail. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION XLIII. - This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §555.01 et 14. sec:, for declaratory injunctive relief seeks a determination .that the City has acted arbitrary, capriciously and unlawfully in requiring the developer to dedicate a twenty foot trail through the conservation easement. XLIV. L__) Reallege Paragraphs I through XLII as though set forth in their entirety herein. XLV. On July 20, 1980, the City approved the final development plan subject to, among other things, the dedication of a ten (10) foot trail through the conservation easement which has been accepted by Plaintiff. XLVI. Recently, the City has attempted to unilaterally by its own actions modify the conditions of July 21, 1980, to require that the trail easement be twenty (20) feet wide. XLVII. The City's purported modification of the trail to extend to twenty (20) feet wide is arbitrary and capricious, unlawful, unconstitutional, confiscatory and void. XLVIII. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties requiring determination of rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to the width of the trail easement. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION XLIX. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §555.01 et 15. seq.•,� for declarator, , -d injunctive relief see,., , a determination of this court that the City has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unlawfully in assessing against the property sewer assessments for .seventy-one (71) units when the approval was only for fifty-two (52) i Jun L. Reallege Paragraphs I through XLVIII as though set forth in their entirety herein. LI. The sewer assessments levied but deferred against the subject property contemplate seventy-one (71) units for development. LII. The City's approval of the final development plan was limited to fifty-two (52) units. The City now seeks to unlawfully require Payment for seventy-one (71) sewer units after having taken the police power action to limit development to fifty-two (52) units. LIII. The City failed to follow proper procedure pursuant to statute in the adoption of the assessment. unconstitutional. Accordingly, the assessment is LIV. The property has not received a special benefit equal to the amount of the assessment. LV. -- An actual and justiciable controvery exists between the parties requiring a determination of the court as to the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to the number of units 16. chargeable against tht abject property for sewer ssessment. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION LVI. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §555.01 et seq., for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a determination of the court that the City acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully -min conditioning the approval of the project so that there were no lots having direct access to Pleasant View Road and that a permanent cul-de-sac be constructed on the west end of Fox Path. LVII. Reallege Paragraphs I through LV as though set forth in their entirety herein. LVIII. The conditions of the City Council's approval of the amended final development plan on April 22, 1982, included, among others, the following: a. That no lots have direct access onto Pleasant View Road except Lot 1 of Block 1; b. That a permanent cul-de-sac be constructed on the west end of Fox Path. LIX. The conditions set forth in Paragraph LVIII, supra, are arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, unconstitutional, confiscatory and void. LX. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties requiring a determination of the court as to the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to access to Pleasant View Road and installation of a permanent cul-de-sac on the west end of Fox Path. 17. EVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION LXI. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. S55 5.01 et seq., for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a determination of this Court that the City has acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in taking Plaintiff's property for public use either for a temporary period of time or permanently. LXII. Reallege Paragraphs I through LX as though set forth in their entirety herein. LXIII. The ordinance, regulations, and other actions of Defendants constitute an unlawful and unconstitutional taking of Plaintiff's private property for public use without just compensation, contrary to the provisions of the United States Constitution, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION LXIV. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5555.01 et sea., for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a determination of this Court that the City has acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in taking Plaintiff's private property for public use either for a temporary period of time or permanently. LXV. Reallege Paragraphs I through LXIII as though set forth in their entirety herein. I" LXVI. The ordinance, regulations, and other actions of Defendant constitute an unconstitutional and unlawful taking of Plaintiff's private property for public use without just compensation, contrary to the Constitution of Minnesota, Article I, Section 13. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION LXVII. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5555.01 et seq., for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a determination of this Court that the City has acted arbitrarily, capriciously and unlawfully in depriving Plaintiff of its vested right to complete the development it has commenced. LXVIII. Reallege Paragraphs I through LXVI as though set forth in their entirety herein. LXIX. Plaintiff has a vested right to continue the development it has commenced pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.358, as well as the common law. LXX. The ordinances, regulations, and actions of Defendants with respect to the six (6) disputed conditions set forth in Paragraphs XXII and LVIII are void and unlawful as they deprive Plaintiff of its vested right to complete the development it has commenced. LXXI. The ordinances, regulations and actions of Defendants prevent Plaintiff from completing the development that has been authorized by the City of Chanhassen on which Plaintiff has relied and changed position. 19. R LXXII. Defendants are estopped by the equities of these circumstances from applying the provisions of the ordinances and regulations of the City of Chanhassen to Plaintiff's property. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION LXXIII. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. 5555.01 et seq., for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking, a determination of this Court that the City has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, unlawfully and unconstitutionally in adopting the six (6) disputed conditions to the proposed development. LXXIV. Reallege Paragraphs I through LXXII as though set forth in their entirety herein. LXXV. Various provisions of the ordinances and regulations of the City of Chanhassen with respect to the six (6) disputed conditions set forth in Paragraphs XXII and LVIII, su:-ra, for the proposed development are excessive, unreasonable, and not related to a legitimate state interest. LXXVI. Additionally said ordinances and regulations are so vague and uncertain as to constitute an undue and unlawful delegation of legislative authority to persons responsible for administration of the ordinance as they lack any objective standards. LXXVII. The ordinances and regulations applied by the City to establish 20. the'six (6) disputed 3itions to this project e adopted in excess of the statutory authority granted to the City of Chanhassen and are ultra vires and void. LXXVIII. The fees charged by the City of Chanhassen with respect to this project are unreasonable, excessive and unauthorized by statute. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION LXXI X. This cause of action 'is brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §555.01. et sea., for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a determination of this Court that the City has violated the open meeting law, Minn. Stat. S471.705 (1980). LXXX. Reallege Paragraphs I through LXXVIII as though -set forth in their entirety herein. LXXXI . There was an apparent violation of the open meeting law, Minn. Stat. 9471.705 (1980) by Defendants and others which deprived Plaintiff of its rights to a fair and impartial hearing. TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION LXXXII. This cause of action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. S1983 (1970), et spec., which confers upon any citizen the right to commence legal action against any person who, under cover of any statute, ordinance, regulation or custom of any state, deprives the citizen of any rights, privileges or immunities preserved by the United States Constitution and laws. This court has jurisdiction pursuant 42 U.S.C. §1983. 21. I •1 I] ^� LXXXIII. • llege Paragraphs I through LXXXI as though set forth in their lEy herein. LXXXIV. s set forth in particularity in the foregoing causes of action, dant City of Chanhassen, and City Council members and others by t action, both individually and in concert under color or pretext tate law and city ordinance, deprived Plaintiff of -its rights, Iileges and immunities guaranteed by the United States Constitution laws, and pertinent State Constitution and laws. LXXXV. As a direct and proximate result thereof Plaintiff has suffered ages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000). WHEREFORE, Petitioner -Plaintiff prays for relief against the :espondents-Defendants and each of them as follows: 1. That the writ of mandamus issue compelling Respondents to execute the developer's agreement in the form attached as attachment A hereto and to sign and file the final plat consistent with the developer's agreement. 2. Declaring and adjudging that Respondents -Defendants authorize and approve the installation of the subdivision ten (10) docks for Fox Chase. 3. Declaring and adjudging that Respondents be ordered to waive park dedication fees in lieu of the conservation easement and trail -easement. 4. Declaring and adjudging that Respondents approve a ten foot trail easement for the Fox Chase Addition. 22. 5. Declaring a,_ `-3judging that Responden,:_ _pprove reduction in sewer assessments to fifty-two (52) chargeable units. 6. Declaring and adjudging that Respondents authorize.and approve that the lots have direct access onto Pleasant View Road and that a permanent cul-de-sac is not required for the west end of Fox Path. 7. Awarding Petitioners -Plaintiffs damages against Respondents - Defendants in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000') as may be proven at the time of trial. 8. Awarding Petitioners the costs and disbursements including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 51983, et seq. (1970); and Minn. Stat. 5549.21, et seq. 9. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and equitable. Dated: Christopher J. Idetzen, for LARKIN, ROFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. Attorneys for Petitioner -Plaintiff Derrick Land Company 1500 Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 (612) 835-3800 23. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS COUNTY OF HENN EPIN ) Roger Derrick, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the President of Derrick Land Company which is the Petitioner -Plaintiff in the above -entitled action; that he has read the foregoing Verified Petition for Alternative Writ of. Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated on information and belief as to such matters that he believes it to be true. Rbger Derrick Subscribed and sworn to before me this 4tr_ day of March, 1983. SUSAN L HANSON f NO7AFY PUBLIC • NINNESOTA • �1 H-.NNEPIN COUNTY .'• �. Comma- Ex Wti. AW. 14. 19" DAVID L. GRANNIS - 1874-1961 DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. - 1910-1980 VANCE B. GRANNIS VANCE B. GRANNIS, JR. THOMAS J. CAmmu PATRICK A. FARRELL DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N. KNUTSON ROBERT R. KING. JE. THomAB M. SCOTT GARY G.FUCHS MARY S. VUJOVICH LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, CAMPBELL & FARRELL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 403 NORWFST BANK BUILDING POST OFFICE BOX 57 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 612-455-1661 Mr. Scott Martin City of Chanhassen Box 147, 690 Coulter Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Derrick Land Company Dear Scott: August 16, 1983 FORMERLY GRANNIS A GRANNIS ESTABLISHED 1907 Enclosed per your request please find copy of executed Settlement Agreement and Release in the above matter. vl Enc. Very truly yours, ANNI GRANNIS, AMPBE & FAR L, P.A. BY Rog r N. Knutson CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE, made and entered inter this 2" day of July, 1983, by and between DERRICK LAND COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation (Derrick) and THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a municipal corporation; and THOMAS HAMILTON, CLARK HORN, PATRICIA SWANSON, DALE GEVING, JOHN NEVEAUX and CAROL WATSON (City and Council Members). WHEREAS, a dispute arose as to the legality of a number of conditions which the City and Council Members sought to impose on the Fox Chase Development, a residential development proposed by Derrick, incident to the City's review and grant of subdivision and zoning authorization; and WHEREAS, Derrick has commenced a lawsuit against the City and Council Members in the Carver County District Court, First Judicial District of the State of Minnesota, such case being File No. 18149, entitled Derrick Land Company, a Minnesota corporation v. City of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation; and Thomas Hamilton, Clark Horn, Patricia Swanson, Dale Geving, John Neveaux and Carol Watson; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to compromise and settle the above -entitled lawsuit and the dispute relating -to the City's approval of the Fox Chase Development legally described anExhibit A attached hereto to avoid the expense of litigation, including attorneys' fees; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the undersigned parties hereby agree as follows: 1.) The above -entitled lawsuit shall be dismissed with prejudice and without the pavment of costs incurred by either party to the other and the parties hereto hereby authorize their respective attorneys to execute on their behalf a written Stipulation of Dismissal to that effect for filing with the said Court. 2.) The parties mutually release each other from any and all obligations, actions, suits, claims, damages, judgments and execution - and any other matter or act regarding the City's review and approval of the Fox Chase Development subject to the provisions contained herein. 3.) The parties will execute the Planned Residential Development Contract ("the Development Contract") attached hereto and made a part hereof and the Fox Chase Development shall be allowed to proceed and be completed in accordance with the provisions of the Development Contract. 4.) The Development Contract will be incorporated with the Stipulation of Dismissal and filed with and approved by said Court. 5.) Derrick shall pay the City the Schoell and Madson's Engineering Services fee now outstanding including any finance charges accruing on the fee prior to it payment. Actual payment of the Schoell and Madon's fee shall take place before the construction of any public improvements on the Fox Chase Development is begun or no later than August 1, 1984. 6.) Prior to filing of the final pat of the Fox Chase Develop- ment, Derrick shall pay the City the currently unpaid negotiated balance in the City's escrow account, One Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-eight and 50/100 ($1,798.50) Dollars, which is the final amount owing to the City for its costs of reviewing the Fox Chase Development. 7.) The City determines that the Fox Chase Development as autho- rized by the Development Agreement is essentially similar to and does not contain significant or substantial changes from the Develop- ment Plan initially assessed for purposes of environmental impact and the City shall forthwith so determine and execute a letter stating that an additional environmental assessment worksheet and/or environ- mental impact statement is not necessary and shall not be prepared for the Fox Chase Development. 8.) Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute an admission by either party of the allegations or liabilities asserted in connec- tion with the above -referenced lawsuit. Each of the parties hereby represents and warrants to the other that there has been no assignment of any right, claim or cause of action encompassed by this Agreement to any individual, corporation, or other legal entity whatsoever other than the parties to this Agreement, and that this release has been duly executed by each of the parties without promises or threats or the exertion of influence by or upon the other, -and that each party fully understands the legal and practical effects of this document. This Agreement may not be changed orally. 9.) This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instru- ment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Derrick and the City and Council Members have executed and delivered this Settlement Agreement and Release as of the date first written above. D RRI LAND COY B I s Pr(s ent CITY OF NHASSE BY: Its Jerk r r\ Its: ayor GRANNIS, GRA" S, CAMP ELL & FARRELL, P.V 1 -- B-' RO,ER [V. KNUTSON; Attorneys r ity of Chanhassen, a municipal corporation, Thomas Hamilton, Clark Horn, Patricia Swanson, Dale Geving, John Neveaux and Carol Watson 403 Norwest Bank Building 161 North Concord Exchange South St. Paul, MN SS075 (612) 455-1661 EXHIBIT A All that part of Government Lots 5 and 6 in Section 1, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point in the West line of said Section 1 distant 905 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Section 1, said point being in the center line of the Excelsior and Eden Prairie Road as now laid out and travelled (and considering the West line of said Section 1 to be a due North and South line), thence running North 89 degrees 20 minutes East along said center line 170 feet, thence South 9 degrees 32 minutes East 428.3 feet, thence South 45 degrees 32 minutes East 285 feet, more or less, to the shore line of Long Lake, thence Southerly along said shore line to its intersection with the South line of said Government Lot 5, thence West along said South line 862.1 feet, more or less, to the Southwest corner of said Government Lot 5, thence North along the Westline of said Government Lot 5 1715.3 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, subject to public road rights within the right of way of the Excelsior and Eden Prairie Road and subject to an easement for right of way over that part of the above described tract described as follows: Begining at the point of beginning of the above described tract, thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes East 170 feet, thence South 9 degrees 32 minutes East 33.46 feet, more or less, to a point in the Southerly right of way line of the Excelsior and Eden Prairie Road, said point being the actual point of beginning of the easement to be described, thence continuing South 9 degrees 32 minutes East 30 feet, thence Northwesterly to a point in the Southerly right of way line of the Excelsior and Eden Prairie Road distant 30 feet West of the actual point of beginning, thence East along said Southerly right of way line 30 feet to the actual point of beginning ALSO, Lots 1 and 11, "Vineland".