Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
79-04 - Fox Chase PUD pt 20
CITY OF �H63 CHANHASSEN ` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Bob Waibel, City PlannerA,110�- DATE: December 12, 1983 SUBJ: Final Plat, Fox Chase Planning Case: 79-4 PUD For the Council's information, attached please find 5 copies of Fox Chase Final Plat. As per the project development contract, the plat was released for filing last week. Actual filing is anticipated within the next few weeks. CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PLAT OF FOX CHASE DERRICK LAND COMPANY S GREEMENT, Made and entered into this Z 0 day of i�t. , 1983, by and between DERRICK LAND COMPANY, a Minne- sota rporation, (hereinafter referred to as the Developer), and the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (herein- after referred to as the City); WITNESSETH, That the City, in exercising its powers pursuant to M.S.A. §462.358 and other applicable state laws, and the Developer in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, recite and agree as follows: SECTION 1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat of land owned by: 1.01. Derrick Land Company, A Minnesota Corporation, fee owner; 1.02. Wilma C. Thompson, Mortgagee. To be known as Fox Chase (also referred to in this Agreement as the "Plat".) - such being legally described as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" which is hereby made a part hereof. SECTION 2.0 RECITALS. 2.01. Fox Chase Preliminary Development Plan and Prelimi- nary Plat. The Developer is the fee owner of a tract of land lying within the City, as more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter the "Subject Property" or "Plat"). The Developer has heretofore made application to the City under the City Zoning Ordi- nance for the approval of a P-1 Planned Residential District encom- passing all of the subject property. SECTION 3. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL. The City has approved or agreed to approve the plat on condi- tions (1) That the Developer enter into this Development Contract, (2) that the Developer provide an irrevocable letter of credit, or cash escrow (as set forth in Sections 7.01, 7.02, 7.03 and 8.13) ("Security"), guaranteeing the performance of the terms of this Development Contract:, and also guaranteeing the payment of all con- struction costs of the improvement. A letter of credit may be sub- mitted for a one year period of time with the provision that it shall be renewed at the end of the eleventh month for any improve- ments yet to be satisfactorily completed and accepted by the City. R . 7 /] 9/83 6CANWO Failure to before the of default ting letter furnish a new posted letter and the City of credit.. letter of credit at least thirty (30) days of credit lapses shall be deemed a condition may obtain all monies posted under the exis- 3.01. Construction. Developer agrees at its expense to construct, install, and perform all work and furnish all materials and equipment in connection with the installation of the following public improvements (hereinafter the "Public Improvements"), in accordance with the Plans and Specifications described in V3.0 2 below as modified by the Special Conditions set forth in Section 5 hereof: a. Street grading, stablilizing, and bituminous surfacing and wear surface b. Surmountable concrete curbs and gutters C. Sanitary sewer mains d. Watermains e. Storm and surface water drainage and retention ponds f . Street signs g. Underground utility lines h. Street lighting i. Grading including berm construction 3.02. Final Plans and Specifications. The Developer shall provide the City with final plans and specifications, including-' a final grading plan, prepared by a registered professional engineer, which plans and specifications shall be subject to the final review and written approval of the City Engineer. Substantial changes in said plans and specifications shall be referred by the City Engineer to the City Council for approval. Said plans and specifications are hereby made a part of this agreement. Developer shall not make or permit any changes, variations, omissions or additions to City approved final plans and specifications without the written approval of the City Engineer prior to any such change, variation, omission or addition. 3.03. Standards of Construction. Developer agrees that all of the public improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the aforesaid City approved plans and specifications, and that said improvements shall equal or exceed City standards, and that all of said work shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the City Engineer. 3.04. Materials and Labor. All of the materials to be employed in the making of said public improvements and all of the work performed in connection therewith shall be of uniformly good and workmanlike quality. In case any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by the City as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected material shall be removed and replaced with approved material, and rejected labor shall be done anew to the satisfaction and approval of the City at the cost and expense of the Developer. YAI 3.05. Staking, Surveying and Inspection. It is agreed that the Developer, through his engineer, shall provide for all staking, surveying and resident inspection for the above described improvements in order to ensure that the completed improvements conform to the approved plans and specifications. The City will provide for general inspection and shall be notified of all tests to be performed. It is agreed that the estimated cost of such improvements, including reasonable charges of the City for legal, planning, engineering services, including inspection, supervision and administration costs, shall be included in the total cost of all improvements for purposes of computing the amount of the financial security to be furnished to the City by the Developer pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 3.06. Completion Date and Schedule of Work. a. It is agreed by the Developer that the construction of the public and private improvements shall commence within two (2) years of the filing of the final plat at the Carver County Courthouse and that all public improvements shall be completed within two (2) years of said plat filing. b. The Developer or his engineer shall'schedule a pre - construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time and place with all parties concerned including the City staff to review the program for the construction work. Upon completion of sewer and water lines shall be tested in accordance with the testing procedures that are required by the City Engineer. Within thirty (30) days after completion of the improvements, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "As Built" plans. C. Final approval and acceptance of the project shall take the form of a Resolution duly passed by the City Council, on the advice of the City Engineer. Final approval and accep- tance shall be granted upon the City Engineer's satisfaction pursuant to Section 3.08 and shall be conditioned upon the one year guarantee of work and guarantee bond set forth in Section 3.15 hereof. 3.07. Claims for Work. The Developer shall not do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans and specifica- tions and special conditions of this agreement, for which reimburse- ment is expected from the City, unless such work is first ordered in writing by the City Engineer as provided in the specifications. Any such work or materials which may be done or fur- nished by the contractor, without such written order first being given shall be at his own risk, cost and expense, and he hereby agrees that without such written order he will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or furnished. -3- 3.08. Final Inspection. Upon completion of all the work required by the City Engineer, a representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work. Before final payment is made to the contrac- tor by the Developer, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications; and the Developer's engineer shall submit a written statement attesting to same. 3.09. City Disclaimer. It is agreed anything to the con- trary herein notwithstanding, that except for its or their negligence or malfeasance, the City of Chanhassen, the City Council and their agents or employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Developer, the Developer's contractor or sub- contractor, material men, laborers or any other person or persons whomsoever, for any claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this agreement or the performance and completion of the work and the improvements provided herein, and that the Developer shall save the City harmless from all such claims, demands, damages, actions or causes of actions or the costs disbursements, and expenses of defending the same, specifically including, without intending to limit the categories of said costs; cost and expenses for City administrative time and labor, costs of consulting engineering ser- vices and costs of legal services rendered in connection with defen- ding such claims as may be brought against the City. 3.10. Erosion Control. Developer, at its expense, shall provide temporary and permanent dams, earthwork, retention and sedi- mentation basins, and such other practices including seeding of graded areas, as shall be needed in the judgment of the City Engi- neer, the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Natural Resources, to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and road within and outside the plat during all phases of construction, inclu- ding construction on individual lots. Additionally, the Developer shall comply with all conditions of the grading and land alteration permits from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources approval and all of the recommendations of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in its reports to the extent consistent with the requirements of other regulatory agencies. The following minimum restoration require- ments shall be met. The City Engineer shall determine if any other agency requirements are more explicit or restrictive; and may, at his discretion require that those conditions be met in lieu of any or all of the following. a) All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. b) Seed shall be rye grass or other fast growing seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. c) All seeded areas shall be mulched as neces- sary for seed retention. Ms A plan consolidating all applicable conditions concerning construc- tion grading and drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencement of any work. 3.11. Street Lighting. The expense of furnishing electrical energy for street lighting purposes shall -be assumed by the City twenty-four (24) months after completion of installation of the street lighting system, or after fifty percent (50%) of the building lots have been improved by the construction of residences thereof, whichever is first to occur. 3.12. Conveyance of Improvements. Upon completion of the installation by Developer of the improvements set forth in 113.O1 hereof in accordance with the plans and specifications hereunder and the written approval by the City if not previously dedicated in the final plat, Developer shall convey the land and said improve- ments to the City free of all liens and encumbrances and with war- ranty of title pursuant to Bill of Sale or Warranty Deed, as applic- able. Should the Developer fail to so convey said improvements, the same shall become the property of the City without further notice or action on the part of either party hereto, other than acceptance by the City. 3.13. Building Permits and Occupancy Permits. a. Prior to completion of -the grading and placement of rock stabilizing materials for road construction within the plat, the City Building Inspector, with the approval of tre City Engineer, shall be authorized to issue building permits for residential construction within such plat upon payment of all fees and charges applicable to the issuance of permits and provisions for adequate site access. b. The occupancy of any structure within said plat for residential purposes shall be prohibited by the City until the streets have been paved with a 1z inch base bituminous surface or CL5 if approved by the City Engineer, municipal sanitary sewer and water lines shall have been installed, tes- ted, inspected and are available to serve the lot for which a building permit shall have been issued. 3.14. One Year Guarantee of Work and Guarantee Bond. All work and materials performed and furnished by the Developer, its agents and subcontractors pursuant to 93.0). above, which are found by the City to be defective withon one year after acceptance by the City shall be repaced by Developer at Developer's sole expense. In accordance with Section 7.02 and not in addition thereto, the within guarantee of work shall be secured to the City by an irre- vocable letter of credit, or a corporate surety bond, at the elec- tion of and in an amount established by the City, furnished by the Developer to the City. Said letter of credit or surety bond shall first be approved by the City Attorney, and shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of any other remedies which may be available to the City to secure any defects in materials or workmanship. ME 3.15. Liability Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain so long as Developer's obligations continue under this agreement, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's work or the work of its subcon- tractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall be.not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for each occurrence; limits for proper- ty damage shall be not less than $200,000 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named insured on said policy, and Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to initiating construction. SECTION 4. STATUS OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. 4.01. Developer Acknowledges Special Benefit. The Developer acknowledges that.the subject property derives "special benefit," as that term is defined by present case law under Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes, from the sewer lift station and water supply facilities, trunk and lateral sanitary sewer facilities, and trunk and lateral water facilities which were constructed as a part of Chanhassen Improvement Projects. The Developer acknowledges that the amount of such special benefit is not less than the sum of the following amounts: a. Levied Special Assessments: Parcel No. 25-01-000-0037-000, 20.08 Acres in part of Gov't. Lots 5 and 6, 1 sewer and water lateral assessment levied in 1973 in the amount of $4,119.00, payable over 15 years at 7% interest. 1 sewer and water trunk assessment levied in 1980, in the amount of $1,054.96, payable over 10 years at 7% interest. Parcel No. 25-79-500-0001-000, Lot 1, Vineland 1 sewer and water lateral assessment levied on October 1, 1973 in the amount of $4,949.00, which has been paid in full. 2 sewer and water lateral and 3 sewer and water trunk assessments levied in 1980, in the amount of $12,419.98, payable over 10 years at 7`/o interest. b. Deferred Special Assessments. In addition to the foregoing levied special assessments, the subject property is further specially benefitted by 68 off- line sewer and water trunk units, each sewer trunk unit valued at $320.00 and each water trunk uni t valued at $380.00, and each said sewer and water unit shall bear interest at the rate of 7% from October 1, 1973. 4.02. Spread and Payment of Deferred Special Assessments. All deferred special assessments for said 68 sewer and water trunk units shall be spread and assigned to the 52 specially benefitted lots within the final plat, shall be certified to the Carver County Auditor for collection at the time of the recording of the final plat with the County Recorder, and shall be payable in installments of principal and interest over a period of four (4) years after said certification. 4.03. Developer Waives Public Hearing and Right of Appeal. The Developer waives its right to public hearing under §429.061 and §429.071 of Minnesota Statutes and its right of appeal under §429.081 of Minnesota Statutes as to the Special Assessments. SECTION 5. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 5.01. Fox Path Cul-de-Sac. A "T" intersection shall be constructed by Developer at the western terminus of Fox Path, with surmountable curb and gutter, and shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer. The westerly extension of Fox Path from said "T". intersection to the westerly boundary of the subject property shall be platted as a dedicated street but shall not be improved as such until develop- ment on the adjoining property shall require a street connection to Fox Path. 5.02. Pleasant View Road Access Restriction. Unless other- wise determined by the City Council Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 shall not be permitted direct driveway access to Pleasant View Road. Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2 may access on Pleasant View Road but the accesses shall be located to maximize site distances. The exact location and design of the accesses shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said restrictions shall be incorporated within cove- nants and restrictions which shall be applicable to the final plat of the subject property and which shall be filed with the Carver County Recorder contemporaneously with the filing of said final plat. 5.03. Watermain Loop. Unless otherwise determined by the City Council, the City watermain serving the subject property shall be "looped" as that term is commonly used by professional engineers, from Lake Point to Fox path along the alignment depicted as "Route C" in the report of the City Engineer, dated August 10, 1981. 5.04. Buildinq Plans Certification. Due to extraordinary slope and soil conditions, building and site plans for all residences within the subject property shall be certified as having been re- viewed and approved by an architect or civil engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Said building and site plan review and appro- val -shall include provisions for slope protection, surface and sub- -7- surface drainage, prevention of siltation, and the preservation of trees and prevention of excessive vegetation removal during con- struction. Building pads and basement floors shall be constructed at an elevation not less than two (2) feet above the regional flood elevation in accordance with the requirements of applicable City ordinances. The terms and conditions of this Section 5.04 shall be made a part of covenants and restrictions which shall be applic- able to the final plat of the subject property and which shall be filed contemporaneously with the filing of the final plat with the Carver County Recorder. 5.05. Easements Dedicated on Plat. Perpetual easements for surface water drainage, including ponding and sedimentation basins and access thereto, shall be dedicated on the final plat to the extent permitted by State law. All such easements not so dedicated shall be granted to the City in form approved by the City and acceptable for recording in the Office of the; Carver County Recorder. 5.06. Streets. All streets within the plat.shall be dedi- cated with a 50 foot wide right-of-way, and shall have a 28 foot roadway surface with surmountable concrete curb and gutter. All street cul-de-sacs shall have a right-of-way radius of 60 feet, with a roadway surface radius of 40 feet with surmountable concrete curb and gutter. All streets shall be constructed in accordance with City standards approved by the City Engineer. 5.07. Ponding and Sedimentation Basin Maintenance. The Developer shall maintain in good operational order all ponding and sedimentation basins during all phases of construction within the subject property. After formal acceptance by the City, said main- tenance shall be the obligation of the City. 5.08. Trail Easement. The Developer shall grant to the City a perpetual easement ten (10) feet wide for use as a City trail, said easement described as follows: A 10.00 foot permanent easement for trail purposes, the center- line of which is described as follows: Commencing at a point a line parallel to and 5.00 feet northerly.of the south lines of Lots 19 and 20, Block 1 to a point 5.00 feet or more east of the wetlands area in said Lot 20; thence in a northwesterly direction 5.00 feet easterly of said wetlands to the north line of said Lot 20; thence continuing northerly to the northwest corner of Lot 22, Block 1; thence northwesterly along the south- westerly boundary lines of Lots 23 and 24 to the easterly right- of-way line of Fox Path and there terminating. It is the inten- tion that this easement be located adjacent to but entirely easterly of any wetlands area in Lots 20, 21, 25 or 26 of Block 1; and, therefore, if after a survey of the area is completed, the above described easement lies within any wetlands, the Developer shall execute an amended easement agreement with the new description. The form of said easement and exact legal description shall be ap- proved by the City, and shall be filed before commencement of con- struction of any public improvements. When constructed, the portion of the trail easement on the Fox Path right-of-way may be constructed at the City's expense with a bituminous surface and the 10 foot portion of the easement not in the Fox Path right-of-way shall be surfaced with wood chins. All trail easement construction shall be performed by the City in accordance with specifications approved by the City Engineer. 5.9. Trail Easement Park Charge Credit. No credit for park charges under Chanhassen Ordinance No. 14 as amended shall be granted Developer, its successors or assigns, for the grant of the perpetual trail easement. 5.10. Park Fees. Prior to the issuance 'of building per- mits for residential construction with the plat, Developer, its successors or assigns, shall pay to the City the park fee then in force pursuant to Chanhassen Ordinance 14-A and relevant City Council Resolutions thereafter, as said park charge fee may be adjusted by the provisions of Section 5.9 above. 5.11. Street Maintenance During Construction. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until streets are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on said and directing attention to detours: If streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth surface and provide proper surface drainage. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping streets within and without the plat swept clean of dirt and debris that may spill or wash onto the street from his operation. The Developer may request, in writing, that the City keep the streets open during the winter months by plowing snow from said streets prior to final acceptance of said streets. The City shall not be responsible for re -shaping said streets because of snow plowing operations if they are requested. Providing snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of said streets by the City. Developer agrees to pay all costs of snow removal -done by the City prior to acceptance of said streets. 5.12. Street Signs.. All street name and traffic signs required within the plat at the time of City acceptance shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole cost of the Developer. 5.13. Covenants and Restrictions. Covenants or restric- tions to be placed upon the lots in the subject plat shall be pre- pared by the Developer and shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording with the County Recorder. The Covenants and -9- Restrictions shall be approved if they are consistent with the re- quirements of this agreement. The zoning ordinances and regulations of the City shall govern if inconsistent with said covenants and restrictions to the extent actually inconsistent; but if not inconsis- tent therewith, the standards contained in said covenants and restric- tions shall be considered as requirements in addition to said City ordinances and regulations. The City shall be held harmless in the event any disputes occur involving covenants and restrictions. 5.14. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments. Developer shall place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at all other angle points on boundary lines. Iron monument placements shall be verified after construction of improvements has been completed in order to preserve the lot markers for future property owners. SECTION 6. CONSERVATION EASEMENT. 6.01. Easement to be Granted. Developer shall grant to the City a perpetual conservation easement for environmental protec- tion and wetland preservation over those areas of Lots 7 through 19, inclusive, of Block 1 of the plat which lie below the elevation of 900 feet. No credit for park charges under Chanhassen Ordinance No. 14 as amended shall be granted Developer, its.successors or assigns for the grant of said easement. 6.02. Conservation Easement Development Restrictions. All of the following activities shall be prohibited within the con- servation easement area, including the wetlands as delinated on Exhibit "A", Chanhassen City Council meeting of April 26, 1982 and on Lotus Lake adjacent to the easement area: a. The placement and erection of buildings, structures, and docks and walkways. (Except as provided in 6.03.) b. The alteration of vegetation in any manner or form. (Except as provided in 6.03.) C. The excavation or filling of the easement area. d. The application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical. e. The application of chemicals for the destruction or retardation of vegetation. f. The deposit of waste or debris. g. Construction of paths, trails and service roads except as permitted by the City. h. The application of herbicides, pesticides and insec- ticides. -10- i. The storage of watercraft, boat trailers, ice fishing houses, snowmobiles, motorized and nonmotorized vehicles (Except as permitted in Section 6.03 of this ordinance). j. Mooring seaplanes, in abutting waters of Lotus Lake (hereinafter "the lake") 6.03. Dockage Within Conservation Easement Area. Lots 16, 17, 18, and 19, Block 1 shall be allowed one dock for each lot. a. All docks must conform to City ordinances regulating dock construction. b. Mooring of any watercraft must conform to City or- dinances and regulations. C. The dock on Lot 16 may be used -by the owners of Lots 10-16, Block 1. No more than seven (7) boats may -use the dock and the owner of any lot may not have more than one (1) boat use the dock without the written consent of the City Council. Boats may not be docked or moored on the north side of the dock. d. No dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width nor -shall it exceed the greater of the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) feet, or (b) the minimum straight- line distance necessary to reach a water depth four (4) feet. The width (but not the length of the cross -bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock all be included in the computation of length d scribed in the preceding sentence. The cross-ba of any such dock shall not measure in excess o twenty-five (25) feet in length, except on Lot 16km be oversiEed e e ,0 844 _ . e. No dock shall be so located as to: (a) obstruct the navigation of the lake, (b) obstruct reasonable use or access to any other dock, (c) present a poten- tial safety hazard. f. No fuel shall be stored upon any such dock. No more than five (5) watercraft may be moored over- night at any dock or in front of any lot with the exception of Lot 16, Block 1 where up to seven (7) watercraft may be moored overnight. -11- "1 i The Developer further agrees to pay all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat. C. The Developer shall indemnify the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including engineering and attorney fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of claims by all third parties including but not limited to other property owners, contractors, subcontractors, and material men. d. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this contract, including engin- eering and attorney's fees. 7.02. Security for Performance by Developer. For the pur- pose of assuring and guaranteeing to the City that the improvements to be by the Developer constructed, installed and furnished as set forth in g3.01 hereof shall be constructed, installed and furnished according to the terms of this agreement, and that the Developer shall pay all claims for work done and materials and supplies fur- nished for the performance of this agreement, and that the Developer shall fully comply with all of the other terms and provisions of this Development Contract, Developer agrees to furnish to the City either a cash deposit, or an irrevocable letter of -credit approved by the City in an amount equal to 110% of the costs of the improve- ments described in Section 3.01 hereof, as estimated by the City . Engineer. The cash deposit or irrevocable letter of credit (Section 3) provided for herein shall be in addition to any performance bond or other security required by the Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District as a condition of the issuance of any permit by said Dis- trict. a. If the Developer does not satisfactorily complete the work this Development Contract requires the City may, at its option, perform the work. The City shall give the Developer at least 96 hours notice of the City's intention to perform any such work. However, in the event of an emergency as deter- mined by the City, 96 hours notice is not required. This agree- ment is a license for the City to act and it shall not be neces- sary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may in addition to its other remedies assess the cost in whole or in part as outlined in 7.03. 7.03. Remedies Upon Default. a. Assessments. In the event Developer shall default in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, and such default shall not have been cured within ten (10) days after receipt by Developer of written notice thereof, the City, if it so elects, may cause any of the re- quired improvements to be constructed and installed, or may take action to cure said default, and to the extent that the d061M ti f g. Boardwalks may be constructed to serve as approach walkways to Lotus Lake and/or docks over lands which are intermittently or permanently wet. Paths may be created for dock and boardwalk approaches over dry ground. h. No motorcraft shall be moored or docked overnight at any such docks unless said watercraft is either: (a) currently registered, pursuant to Chapter 361 of Minnesota Statutes, in the name of the owner of the lot served by said dock or in the name of a member of said owner's household. i. Vegetation may not be removed except for a swath extending out six (6) feet from each side of a dock to open water. 6.04. Form and Approval of Easement. The form of the conservation easement shall be prepared by the City at the expense of the Developer, and shall be approved by the City Council prior to submission to the Developer for execution and delivery to the City. 6.05. Inclusion in Covenants and Restrictions. The con- servation easement shall be made a part of the covenants and restric- tions applicable to the plat and shall be incorporated therein by reference, and as an exhibit forming a part of said covenants and restrictions. SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. 7.01. Reimbursement of Costs. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connec- tion with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within agreement and the performance thereby by the Developer. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of mailing of the ii�y's itemized notice of costs. IF the bills are not paid on time the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. a. The City shall have no obligation to pay such devel- opment costs whether or not the City has approved the work. b. The Developer shall pay the City's out-of-pocket expenses previously or subsequently incurred, including but not limited to legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approv.1 and acceptance of the plat, and the preparation of this Development contract. -1.2- City's recovery on the security deposit in 7.03 is deficient, may cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City, to be recovered as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 4.29, in which case the Developer agrees to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such improvement amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such improvement within four (4) years after its adoption. In addition, Developer further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on all of Developer's real property within said plat for any amount so unpaid, and the City shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's liens under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineer, the notice requirement to the Developer shall be and is hereby waived in its entirety, and the Developer shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the conditions creating the emergency. b. Security Deposit. In conjunction with the foregoing, the City may utilize any cash deposit made or -letter of credit delivered hereunder, to collect, pay or reimburse the City for: (1) the cost of completing the construction of the improve- ments described in V3.01 above; and (2) the cost of curing any other default by the Developer in its performance of any of the covenants had agreement contained herein; and. (3) the cost of reasonable engineering, legal, and administra- tive expense incurred by the City in enforcing and adminis- tering this contract. C. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to prevent violations of the within development contract, to restrain or abate violations of the within develop- ment contract. SECTION 8. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 8.01. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations; Permits. In the development of the plat, Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances and regulations of, and secure valid neces- sary permits from the following authorities: -14- (1) City of Chanhassen (2) State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commis- sions (3) Department of Natural Resources (4) Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District (5) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 8.02. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it is fee owner of the subject property. 8.03. Duration of Contract. This contract shall remain in effect until such time as Developer shall have fully performed all of its duties and obligations under this contract. Upon the written request of Developer and upon the adoption of a resolution by the Chanhassen City Council finding that the Developer has fully complied with all of the terms of this contract and finding that Developer has completed performance of all Developer's duties man- dated by this contract, the Chanhassen City Manager shall issue to the Developer on behalf of the City an appropriate certificate of compliance. 8.04. Notices. All notices, certificates.and other com- munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, pos tage prepaid, with property address as indicated below. The City and the Developer, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contem- plated by this agreement. Unless otherwise provided by the respec- tive parties, all notices, certificates and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: To the Developer: 8.05. Binding. Effect. This benefit of and shall be binding upon and their respective successors and ment, express or implied, shall give parties hereto, and their respective under, any benefit or other legal or claim under this agreement. City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manager Derrick Land Company 1650 Shelard Tower Minneapolis, MN 55426 agreement shall inure to the the City and the Developer assigns. Nothing in this agree - to any person, other than the successors, and assigns, here - equitable right, remedy or -15- 8.06. Severability. In the event any provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remain- ing provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired. thereby. 8.07. Execution of Counterparts. This agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 8.08. Construction. This agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 8.09. Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections and paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall not influence. its construction. 8.10. Sign Plan. Signs for the purpose of advertising the subject property may be erected in accordance with the City ordinances. 8.11. Breach of any terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits. 8.12. Should an environmental assessment worksheet, environ- mental impact statement be required by the City or another govern- mental entity or agency, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney's fees, that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. 8.13. Before construction of public improvements or any earth work commences, the Developer shall deposit with the City satisfactory security securing the full performance of this Develop- ment Contract. The amount of the security shall be 110% of the estimated cost as set forth in the attached exhibit. Upon the exe- cution of this agreement the City shall sign the final plat and release the same to the Developer. 8.14. The Developer shall provide a site erosion control plan satisfactory to the City Engineer for the prevention of damage to adjacent property and the control of surface water runoff during the initial construction phases of the project. This plan shall indicate the location of berm and temporary water retention areas which shall be kept in good repair until permanent drainage control is provided. All areas distributed by the excavation and backfilling operations, except for the future paved portion of the streets shall be reseeded as soon as practical after completion of the excavation operation. In the event that, in the City's opinion, the Developer has failed to adequately control erosion, the Developer grants the -16- City permission to immediately enter the property and take such measures as it deems necessary to control erosion. 8.15. The Developer agrees to plant two two-inch trees on every lot in the P.R.D. that does not already have two trees. One of the trees on each lot may be an evergreen. The other tree shall be one of the following species: Maples (including Norway, Schwedler and Sugar), Linden American, Linden Littleleaf, Green Ash, Honeylocust (Impartial, Skyline, and Sunburst), Hackberry or Oak (including pin and White). A planting plan must be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these pre- sents to be executed on the day and year first above written. CITY4OFANHASSEN s Byz s By City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF DERRICK LAND COMPANY j By P66sident B, Sec tary On this-tl—day of LiLLI--2 , 19 Qom, before me, a nor'ry___4(_L ry public" within and for said County, ersonall appeared and • 2 to me pdrsonally known, who being each by me d ly sworn did say that they are respectively the President and Secretary of the Cor- poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of saidrporation by authority of its Boa rd�° f Directors and said and �J(' % 7,1;1-1 4 acknowledged said instrument to be the -free act an�j deed of said corporation. n 7 STEPHANIE J. 00"Kc 47TIA PU BLIC • MINNi96TA OAKOIACOUNTY No ar Public �.. . , -m.s" Exp. Am 2. IM y -17- r•r T� STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) On this 20 day of 161 LJL L� 19:53 , before me, a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared Thomas L. Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instru- ment is the corporate seal of said municipal corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City Co 1 and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth ack ledgedsaid instrument to be the free act and deed of said mun L11 corporati No ry Public DRAFTED By; Grannis & Grannis 403 N.W. Nall. Bank Bldg. 161 North Concord Street South St. Paul. MN 55075 (612) ':-5-166i -18- a � a AT FOX CHASE Pi�r.f Fx �<-ese OWNER AND DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: SURVEYOR: + Derrick Land Company Westwood Planning &Engineering Egan, Field & Nowak, I nc. 1770 Shelard Tower 7415 Wayzata Boulevard 7415 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55426 Minneapolis, MN 554,16 Minneapolis, MN 554.7.6 Phone: 546-2276 Phone: 546-0155 Phone: 546-683: DESCRIPTION: 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 North - west 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 Nortn and South line), thence running North 89 degrees 20 minutes East along said center line 170 feet, thence South 3 degrees 31 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 share 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 South- west corner of said Government Lot 3, thence North along the West line 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 ov-r that part of the above described tract described as follows: Beginnino at the point of heginning 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 continu- ing South 9 degrees 32 minutes East 30 feet, thence Northwesterly to a point in the South- erly 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" . a r - - �`; - I hereby certify that this Ian was Y Y P prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that _- I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. -• ___!=: -- __ _ Dated this 15th day of June, 1981. EGAN, FI ELD & NOWAK, I NC. ,Surveyors/ by (�// ( <. Minnesota Registration No. 9053 NOTES: Total Area is 35.5± acres. - = 52 single family residential lots Existinn Zoninn - R-lA Proposed Zoning - R-1 NdPiH 35. oz eye 4. PRELIMINA k A. SCALE /N FEET o /ao Zoo 300 l 7-YP/CAL LOT O�im,ye gn4uk/'fy F.a<ix fa a.< 6.a fl ip wiC/fi a��'ein eif< andrn�kfGi,<s un/m 1Minofikrwist %00 %, I Mp„inum Lof Rnv< ' 1 L' �PJD 1 3 IN THE MATTER OF: 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW, 5 52 LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, 6 NORTHWEST LOTUS LAKE, 7 REVIEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, 8 AND/OR CONSIDER AMENDED DEVELOPMENT 9 PLAN, DERRICK LAND DEVELOPMENT 10 COMPANY. 11 ----- ---------------------------------- 12 13 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS of the 14 meeting of the Chanhassen City Council, held on 15 the 26th day of April, 1982, commencing at 16 approximately 7:30 o'clock in the evening, 17 at the Chanhassen Municipal Building, in the City 18 of Chanhassen, Minnesota. 19 20 21 22 PROFESSIONAL COURT REPORTERS 23 1720 MIDWEST PLAZA WEST 24 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 25 1 APPEARANCES: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOM HAMILTON, MAYOR CLARK HORN, Member of Council DALE GEVING, Member of Council JOHN NEVEAUX, Member of Council PAT SWENSON, Member of Council RUSS LARSON, CITY ATTORNEY BOB WAIBEL, CITY PLANNER BILL MONK, CITY ENGINEER SCOTT MARTIN DON ASHWORTH WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were duly had: MR. HAMILTON: The first item on the Agenda is the Preliminary Plat Review, 52 Lot Residential Development, Northwest Lotus Lake, Review Conditions of Approval, and/or Consider Amended Development Plan, Derrick Land Development Company. 1-A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 This particular project goes back quite awhile. It's been reviewed here several times previously. There were a number of conditions that were established by the Council in 1980 that were to be met by the Developer. Those conditions have been discussed at some length at previous Council meetings. It appears now as though those conditions have been met. Consequently, this item is back on our Agenda for review and approval. There are some developments that have occurred quite recently that might cause a little problem. But, Mr. Sellergren has been working with the Derrick Land Company and there have been a couple of separate plans presented to the Council just today that we may want to talk about a little bit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 �411 So, I think at this point, if the Council has any questions they would like to ask the staff -- Does the Council have any questions that you would like to ask the staff? I have several questions that I'd ask Bill that I'd like clarified, and I think all of you will have an opportunity to ask him questions if you have any. Are there any that you would like to ask now, that come to mind since you've had an opportunity to review this? Now is the time to ask. Bill, this plan that you have up here, is that Plan 'A' MR. SELLERGREN: Mr. Mayor, those are our exhibits. I'll take them down, if you want me to. MR. GEVING: Mr. Mayor, if I may, I would like to proceed with the Council Agenda, as suggested in the letter from the attorney as to the procedure to be followed for tonight's session. I think that's appropriate and that will take us right through the whole process. MR. HAMILTON: I might not follow that specifically. (Inaudible) We have seen Plan 'A' and Plan 'B', and now we have seen Plans I..C' and 'D'. Do you, Russ, feel that there has 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 to be a presentation by the Developer? MR. LA.RSON: I guess that's a decision for the Chair to make. The Developer may have some further comments with respect to Plan 'A' or Plan 'B', as the case may be, and any new matter that he wishes to speak to relating to the matter, but not any additional argument. MR. HAMILTON: I think that's a good point. I should have mentioned that, too. MR. LARSON: I would not like to see the Chair allow continuing argument in behalf of Plan 'A' or Plan 'B', or, against Plan 'A' or Plan 'B', which does not entail actually any new material of a factual nature. As I put in my report here, we have heard from both sides, expert opinion from many sources, from the public, and I think we're at the point of reaching some conclusion. MR. HAMILTON: This is not a public hearing. It will be mostly diagologue between the Council and the Developer, and unless there is some new information from the residents, we will not have any input from the residents. So, Mr. Laughinghouse, if you are the representative of Mr. Derrick --- MR. L—AUGHIM- HOUSE: Mr. Sellergren. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 S MR. HAMILTON: Or, Mr. Sellergren, if you are going to make comments, you may do so now. MR. SELLERGREN: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Dave Sellergren with the Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren Law Firm. I'm here representing the Derrick Land Company. I want to locate the site for you. This is Lotus Lake and this is the site that's under consideration. This shows generally Pleasant View Road. We decided to give you an overall map, so you could generally have a feel for the area. I want to comment, in view of Mr. Larson's remarks, that last June in 1981, the Council received an entire submission packet entitled Submission Packets Nos. 1 and 2. Nothing has changed since then in terms of the submission of materials. Now, we're here to give the Council an opportunity to consider Plan 'B'. Plan 'A' has final development plan and preliminary plat approval. Our position is there's nothing to talk about. The 20.conditions have been met. We're prepared to sign a development contract as prepared by the City Staff and submit the final plat for signature and filing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 I've read the Staff Report submitted in your Agenda materials, particularly, the Engineer's Report of April 8, 1982, and have no disagreement with it. We're not here to talk about any other plans, other than Plan 'B'. And to the extent you received today other plans from other parties, that's not part of anything we'd like to talk about this evening. Plan 'B', as you know, was considered by the Planning Commission in April of 1981, April 22nd. It was presented to the Planning Commission then as a final plan amendment. We then appeared before this Council on June 1st, 1981, and the Council directed not to come back with Plan 'B' until such time as all the conditions attached to Plan 'A', dated back in July of 1980, were approved. We did that, and that was the submission packet of June 22, 1981. In July, as you know, we had an extensive debate over Plan 'A', and again in August, we made some decisions about certain engineering factors with respect to Plan W. In March of 1982, we received the Corps of Engineers Permit, transmitted to this City on 7 1 March llth. 2 This planned development, which is Plan 3 'B' has been seen by the Planning 4 Commission, as in the June 22, 1981 submission 5 material, and was the review at the Public Hearing 6 in April of 1981. It, again, has 52 lots. We 7 are a planned development because under your ordinance 8 Section 19.13 of Ordinance 47, anything greater 9 than 25 lots requires a planned development. 10 In our view, we're doing nothing other than a 11 standard subdivision. However, your ordinance 12 mandates that we proceed under something other 13 than Ordinance 33. 14 Plan 'B' complies with all the conditions 15 attached by the Council in its July 21, 1980 action. 16 We have submitted a different road 17 configuration in Plan 'B', to give this Council the 18 option of electing to adopt a curvalinear road 19 configuration, as well as reduce the amount of 20 grading, because by moving the road here, it 21 will reduce the amount of grade. 22 We are also showing in Plan 'B', a 23 deletion of the outlot and have all the lot lines 24 that are on the lake run to the lake. This results 25 in lO lots on the lake, as opposed to an outlot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 a servicing 52 lets on the lake. There were issues brought up by both the Staff and the Planning Commission in April of 1981. The Planning Commission took an issue by issue vote on certain matters and made recommendations to this Council, some of which differ from those recommendations from the Staff. I'd like to talk for a minute about the five issues that we disagreed with the Planning Commission about, because I believe those are issues which this Council may want to address tonight with respect to Plan 'B'. The first was that the Planning Commission impose a condition that the access to Pleasant View Road for Fox Path be moved to the east, roughly along the easterly boundary line of the subdivision. By our calculations, that would result in additional grading costs of some $12,000 and the value of the lots created by doing that are another $10,000. It leaves the lots signficantly less desirable. We don't see what it gains, and for that reason, we are not agreeable to that recommendation as suggested by the Planning Commission. The second issue relates to and I believe the staff is in concurrence with our position on that 1 2 3 4 6i I. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 B matter, the second issue relates to access for the most northwesterly lot on Pleasant View Road. The Planning Staff has recommended that that would be okay if the driveway were moved as far to the east as possible, along the easterly lot line of the most northwesterly lot. We're agreeable to that. On the other hand, Mr. Monk, the engineer, is still concerned about site lines and we believe it can be done, provide access to Pleasant View by moving it immediately to the east of the lot line of that lot, and thereby provide access to Pleasant View with safe side distances, And the reason for doing that is to save a substantial stand of trees which you will see shown on the plat along the easterly lot line and southerly lot lime of the lot. We would at least leave it up to the homeowner and the staff to decide where the best location for the driveway is. We're not platting the driveway locations -- that's supposed to be the building permit stage (sic). Another issue which came out of the Planning Commission recommendations was the question of whether there would be a platted right of way to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to connect with the Carver Beach area to the south. We do not believe that wise, and this, in turn, is related to the question of water main looping issues, and whether this road, Fox Path, as it turns and moves to the west, should be extended to provide for ultimate access road connection to the west. This Council needs, I think, to decide whether Fox Path is to be extended to the vest. It*s an issue which has been a matter of some concern to this city for some time. We believe it is better connected to the west, and for a variety of reasons, but it's an issue which this Council needs to decide. If you decided that ultimately this would be connected to the west, then it makes no sense to plat the cul-de-sac, but rather the T-intersection would be the appropriate way to approach it. Now, again, I'm talking only about Plan 'B'. There's another issue that the Plannina Commission recommended and that was with respect to engineering certification for the building plans on all lots, rather architectural certification. Our position is that only a few of the lots warrant that kind of special concern. But, it's an engineering question and really not an 11 1 architectural question, if the issue is appropriate 2 draining, et cetera. It's a significant cost 3 item to a homeowner to have it certified by a 4 registered architect. 5 We would suggest that we identify the 6 particular lots, wherein as a matter of prime concern, 7 that it require that engineering review is the 8 appropriate way and the way to deal with it is to 9 have us, as a part of the development agreement and 10 restrictive covenant and the purchase agreement that 11 we would sign with lot buyers, to put them on notice 12 that those lots may have special engineering concerns 13 and that they should consult with a registered 14 engineer,tobe sure that the concerns of the City 15 are met. 16 Now, those are the issues that we 17 see are still boiling. That's awful simple, 18 Considering the years and years that this has been 19 going on. But, that's what we see as still there. 20 And we're prepared to discuss all the issues 21 revolving around Plan 'B' tonight, and if those 22 are not resolved, then we're prepared to go ahead 23 and submit the final plat and sign the develop- 24 ment contract. we're not interested in talking 25 about some alternate plans that appear today. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 12 MR, HAMILTON: Does the Council have any questions? John? MR. NEVEAUX: Dave, I'm under the impression that Mr. Derrick has met with representatives of the Pleasant View Homeowners Association between last August and a week ago? MR. SELLERGREN: The last meeting occurred, I believe, in December of 1981. There were meetings since last August, correct6 MR. NEVEAUX: And, at that time, another plan was discussed? MR. SELLERGREN: There were discussions to see whether the -- MR. NEVEAUX: In fact, two plans. MR. SELLERGREN: I think there were alternate plans discussed, yea. MR. NEVEAUX: And it's Mr. Derrick's position that none of those or neither of those plans merit discussion? MR. SELLERGREN: At this time, tonight, yes, that's true. There were discussions with Mr. Doer, Mr. Maxwell, and their attorney, Mr. Getts, with respect to possible ways to resolve the concerns, and there was, at least, a draft of a tentative agreement premised on those alternate plans 1 2 3 4 5 6 7i 8 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 13 submitted. Certain responsibilities were to be performed by the parties. The winter passed, no resolution was achieved, and it's our view, that it's too late in the game now to discuss those, since we were not able to arrive at the basic factors upon which those alternate plans would have been agreeable. MR. HAMILTON: Any further questions, John? Anybody else have questions? MR. GEVING: I have a couple. You indicated, Mr. 5ellergren, that you had seen the April 18th Memorandum from the City Engineer regarding additional conditions required of the plat, the four conditions listed on the second page? MR. SELLERGREN: Let me make sure. MR. GEVING: Designate drainage easements, designate pond access easement, plat the cul-de-sac, permanent cul-de-sac? MR. SELLERGREN: That's correct. MR. GEVING: You are in agreement with those four conditions? MR. SELLERGREN: Yes. MR. GEVING: You did not mention, I don't believe I heard you, anyway, one of the 1 2 3 4 5 9 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 14 Planning Commission recommendations and that was on the width of the road, would you address that, please? MR. SELLERGREN: Yes, It's our under- standing that issue has been resolved by the Council last August, wherein they designated that all the roads in Fox Path would be 28 feet. We're agreeable to that. MRT. GEVING: Okay, Just checking. I would like to know what you intend to do with the drainage area that we have outlined for a wetlands area, and now I see that you have 10 lots built on the lake? We had originally planned on a Conservation easement the entire length of the lake and now I see that has been excluded again, and I suspect that your wish is to have docks in that area? What will happen to that plus the trail that we're very much interested in? MR. SELLERGREN: Councilman Geving, there is a Conservation Easement, which is in the submission packet of June of 1981, and to which we are agreeable. It roughly is at the 900 elevation. MR. GEVING: 899, MR. SELLERGREN: Okay. 899, lakeward is 1 from there. Lots are platted to the lake. 2 However, the Conservation Easement is in effect and 3 is a part of the submission packet. 4 Now, the Conservation Easement, which 5 was premised on a model provided by the City 6 Attorney, which I then dealt with, is a perpetual 7 Conservation Easement to be embodied in the 8 Development Contract as well, and these controls 9 would be in the Restrictive Covenant, 10 And this Conservation Easement would 11 prohibit any one vegetative alteration, any 12 excavation, any fill, any application of fertilizers, 13 any wetlands intrusion, except as required by agencies 14 It prohibits the deposit of trash, 15 prohibits the installation of any roads or paths, 16 except as required by the City, any utilities, 17 except as required by the City, any buildings or 18 structures of any kind, except that it reserves 19 the right for the lot owner to seek, from whatever 20 appropriate agencies control it, a permit to 21 install a dock. But, all the other items are 22 excluded and are prohibited. 23 This is the easement that we have 24 proposed and the easement that we're prepared to 25 execute as part of the process. It prohibits 1 2 3 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1A 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 any alteration, other than if the homeowner issuccessful at obtaining a permit from this Council should this Council have an ordinance that requires it, or should the DNR be in such a situation that they would require a permit, the homeowner would have to obtain those permits, but would be, this frees them for the opportunity to try and obtain a permit. MR. GEVING: Thank you very much. This is a very big concern of mine, and I've been pushing for conservation easements for a long time, and I think the City has been successful in several areas in accomplishing that. I would like to have another comment, if you will, on the northwest corner, the lot that you're proposing to access onto Pleasant View Road, and why you cannot access the main Fox Path road rather than -- MR. SELLERGREN: It can be done. It physically can be done. The difficulty is as I showed on the other plan, the other layout. In this area (indicating), there's a substantial -- maybe you can see it from there. MR. GEVING: I understand you. Pa 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2.2 23 24 25 17 MR. SELLERGREN: -- set of trees. It significantly devalues the lot, but I guess primarily what it does is it really detracts from, you know, a very nice stand of trees. In order to bring a driveway, to put a bubble in here, which you could do, and to bring a driveway up there would require substantial removal of those trees, plus there's a significant grade problem. And isn't really sensitive to the land to do that. And, unless, in our view, safety considerations are absolutely overwhelming, it does disservice to the environment to do that. MR. GEViNG: I believe that's all the questions I have. MR. HAMILTON: Mr. Horn? MR. HORN: I have several questions. There's talk in some of the reports of the periodic maintenance that would have to happen in some of the sedimentation basins. Would this be a continuing maintenance problem throughout the life of the project? Is it something that would happen only during construction and who would pay for that? MR. MONK: The temporary draining plan has a series of ponds throughout the site. These 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 would be maintained by the contractor or by the Developer during the construction. But, the; City would ultimately take over the responsibility for the permanent retention pond that underwent Corps approval, that is down near Lotus Lake, and that would be an ongoing maintenance responsibility of the City. MR„ HORN: How do you put that in terms of other maintenance activities that the City has, do you see this as being a high risk maintenance problem? MR. MONK: It's consistent with normal policy. The City is responsible for taking care of public runoff. And after all these lots are sold and houses are built, it will be no different than in any other subdivision. It will be more delicate to maintain, a little bit more difficult, but I would say consistent with other subdivisions. We are responsible for other ponds throughout the city --- MR. HORN: Do you see any construction techniques that could reduce the maintenance that would be imposed upon the City? MR. MONK: I have taken a look at that as part of this whole plan. As I said, it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 would be a delicate operation and I really don't see any way to reduce it any more than we already have. MR. HORN: Do you feel what is presented is maximized as much as can be? MR. MONK: As much as can be. MR. HORN: Let me ask you another question along the same line: What type of monitoring plan, this would obviously require a lot of care to have the whole process be done properly, what type of monitoring plan would you see would be necessary to make sure that all of the things are done properly to protect the lake throughout the construction? MR. MONK: As part of the development contract, we will have to be very explicit about the responsibilities concerning inspection. The present situation, I believe, is that the Developer wants to proceed privately in constructing the subdivision. The City will have to work with whomever is hired to do the plans and specs and inspection for the project, and it basically will come down probably to near full time inspection by the engineering firm retained by the Developer with then at least daily checks by myself to make 20 1 sure. 2 I also see in some of the conditions that 3 Watershed people saying that they want to be 4 notified in different stages to come out, so 5 everyone is concerned with the project, and wants 6 to make sure that it is properly inspected, and 7 there will be a lot of people and we'll have 8 to be explicit through the development contract 9 to make sure. 10 MR. HORN: Are you comfortable with the 11 reports of the agencies that have come back 12 to us that this will provide, at least as reasonable 13 protection for the lake as any of the past developments 14 that we allowed? Do you see a greater risk here 15 than in past developments? 16 MR. MONK: Perhaps a greater risk, yes. 17 But, I guess I am comfortable with what the 18 agencies came back with and I'm not prepared 19 at this point to say that they are wrong. 20 Anytime you work near a lake or near a 21 wetlands., it's foolish to say that the risk isn't 22 greater. 23 MR. HORN: So, we have had other 24 developments around the lake, I assume that -- 25 MR. MONK: Right. I guess I'm thinking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 of the more recent ones, we haven't had any, since I've been here, that have, in fact, the wetlands were really discussed. MR. HORN: I'd like to have a little more clarification on a topic that Dale touched upon with Russ, and that is the topic of the Conservation Easement. How would we propose the agreement here to work any different from the one of East Lotus Lake Estates? MR. LARSON: Outlot E of East Lotus Lake Estates? MR. HORN: Yes. MR. LARSON: I would much prefer to see a conservation easement because then we are not dealing with a Homeowners Association. You must remember, that the outlot concept, classically, in this city, anyway, presupposes a neighborhood association for its recreational use, and there is a sentiment that that is not appropriate here because of the delicate nature of this wetland, and, therefore, it would seem to me most beneficial that this decision for you people to make, that no outlot be allowed down there in the wetland area. An outlot presupposs use, recreational use, by the neighborhood. 22 1 So, we can place conditions on it, but 2 many are met with the contention of the 3 applications, and so forth, they have been rivet with 4 the outlot across the lake (sic). S Again, it's our preference here in our 6 office that we deal with these issues, conservation 7 issues, solely through a conservation easement, such 8 as Mr. Seliergren described to you tonight. I 9 have not seen the final draft of the easement, so 10 it needs further review by this office. But, we 11 recommend a conservation easement. 12 MR. HORN: Could this be clearly pointed 13 out in land abstracts, so a legal -- 14 MR. LARSON: All you need is an easement -- 15 a conservation easement would appear in the chain 16 of each title of those lots across which that 17 easement extends. 18 MR. GEVING: I think -- I want to 19 follow up on that, because I think it's important 20 to hit this conservation easement a little bit harder, 21 and I reiterate what you're after. 22 1 think what we did for Bob Reichert's 23 property on the northeast side of Lotus Lake is 24 the kind of concept of a conservation easement that 25 I have, in that, supposedly, there are no 1 2 M1 4 5 6 7 81 9 10 11 12 L3 14 15 16 17 18 is 20 21 22 23 24 25 23 docks down there -- I think I have seen one time or another, -- but the City wouldn't allow anyone to do pretty much what you have got on your outline there, Mr. Sellergren, and that is, to destroy the vegetation in any way and not make it an outlot. But, the thing that's missing from the preliminary plat is just that description of the conservation easement. It's not shown as well as it might be. And I would like to make sure that whatever we're talking about tonight is clearly identified at the 899 elevation throughout the whole plan. MR. SELLERGREN: This brown area (indicating) is the conservation easement area. MR. GEVING: Okay. And once again, so that we're all clear on this, the homeowner's would absolutely know that that's a conservation easement, it belongs to the City, and that it could not be used for their own public use. MR. SELLERGREN: Councilman Geving, that's correct. As I indicated, it would be, and Mr. Larson indicated, it would be filed against the land. It would also be referenced in restrictive covenants, both of which would be filed in the land title. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24 MR. GEVING: Thank you. MR. HAMILTON: Councilwoman Swenson, do you have any questions? MS. SWENSON: I'd just like to follow up on that a little bit, Mr. Sellergren. You said that you wanted to leave an opening there for the homeowners to apply for required permits for dockage. Mould you care to tell me what permits you think would be required for that, besides the City, as you said, 'if we have an ordinance'? MR. SELLERGREN: Well, in the absence of a city ordinance, the only other regulatory agency that could conceivably require permits would be the Department of Natural Resources. I've never been quite clear on what the DNR requires and what they don't require. I can't give you an assurance that any agency would require a permit, if this Council elects not to adopt an ordinance to deal with this. But, what it does do, if I can just complete it, it limits it, obviously, to 10 docks at a maximum, if that were to occur because there are only 10 riparian lots. If, as Mr. Larson pointed out, if it's done in an outlot, you potentially have 52 lot owners who could say they PR 1 want docks. 2 MS, SWENSON: Correct me if I'm wrong, 3 didn't we, last fall and on into this year, await 4 a very serious decision from the Cor ps of Engineers 5 with regards to any disturbance of that area, and 6 would not this also be required if a dock is to be 7 requested for that area? Does that take supercedence 8 over anything that even this Council Might do? 9 MR. SELLERGREN: Councilwoman Swenson, 10 your City Attorney can respond. A couple of years 11 ago, maybe as long as four, the Corps of Engineers 12 proposed to exercise control of private docks under 13 its federal jurisdicition. That met with such 14 human cr y, not only here locally, but 15 nationally, that they withdrew that proposal. 16 They do have authority for works in federally 17 protected water. They have not seen fit to live 18 with it, otherwise, to extend it to docks, provide 19 for docks. 20 MS, SWENSON: I just want to make 21 sure that we have this all quite clear, so I can 22 understand what you're saying. You're saying 23 that if we were to permit these Tots to go down to 24 the lake, even though we require a conservation 25 easement, that, other than this Council and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 and maybe the DNR, these people would have a right to put a dock out? I mean, I'm just trying to reiterate what I thought I heard you say. MR. SELLERGREN; That's correct. MS. SWENSON: That this Council then, in the absence of an ordinance, and I don't know if we have at this point an ordinance, so, virtually, if I'm hearing this right, there isn't anybody who could stop them from putting a dock up, is that correct? MR. LARSON: At the present time, the City has in force only the DNR regulations, and adopted those regulations as an ordinance. I think we do have under study now a Wetlands Ordinance and a Shoreline Management Ordinance, but that is not yet in an adopted stage. MR. NEVEAUXz Excuse me, one second. I'm under the impression that the Conservation Easement itself prohibits any structures, such as docks, onto its demarcation without special requests from the City. That's what happened over at -- MR. LARSON: This is a matter of MR. NEVEAUX: So, I would say, rather than saying, 'Wait until the City adopts an 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 ordinance', it would be, to me, basically simple to put that into and make it one of the conditions of that conservation easement, that the application for docks would have to come before this City, as we've done with the East Lotus Lake. MR. LARSON: Just a moment, John, and that's a good point. And that point would be raised in the discussions with the Developer at the final development plan stage, and then if agreement cannot be reached, brought back to the City Council for review and decision. MR, NEVEAUK: I think, given the extremely fragile nature of that wetlands and shore area down there, I personally would want to see each and every one of those requests, rather than just make it a blanket 10-dock approval. MR. LARSON: It would. it would be appropriate then, if you are going to consider Plan IS#, as you know it here or Condition 2, that with respect to the conservation easement, that that be a specific condition of the easement. MR. NEVEAUX: I think throughout our whole discussion of this, and I was here for almost every minute of it, the question of docks has, in fact, been an important concern. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 MR. LARSON: I'm aware of that. MR, NEVEAUX: Not to say that it's a blanket no, but that there may be some areas that may be able to support a dock and there may be others that very definitely can't, and I don't think that it should be given as to any particular numbers to go with the permit. Again, it's a very sensitive environmental area and it needs to be looked at very, very closely. MR. LARSON: And it would be most appropriate that should you be considering this plan, that that be a condition to your approval. MR. HAMILTON: Councilwoman Swenson, do you have any other questions? MS. SWENSON: Well, I guess not. I guess we have covered it, and so that there is absolutely no loss of control over this, is that correct, Russ? MR, LARSON: To the extent that we have discussed it this evening, yes, if we accept Councilman Neveaux's approach, and that's certainly an approach that I support. MS, SWENSON: And that would be the strongest thing that we could do as regards that -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1Q 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LARSON: At this point, yes. You have no ordinance controlling it. MR. SELLERGREN: Mayor Hamilton, I think the last comment made by Mr. Larson is the point I'd like to make. You do not have any ordinance controlling it. And, as you might well appreciate, the opportunity for a homeowner to seek dock construction is something that is of value. Lotus Lake is the only general development lake in this city, as opposed to recreational develop- ment or natural environment which are both more or less classifications, they are DNR classifications. There are now, according to our studies, 90 lots with riparian rights on Lotus Lake. We do not concur in a condition which would further restrict the use of those lands, prohibiting docks without permission of the Council. It is important to us. The lots have, in fact, contracts that relate with Mr. Leerdahl, whom, I believe, at one time appeared here to sell some of those lots, premised on a value which involves that. We're not asking that you approve docks. We're simply asking that you let your existing rules apply to the lots that will be a product 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 of this subdivision. You did have an ordinance under consideration a year ago, which allowed a dock every hundred feet, and each dock would allow five boats. Now, that was just under consideration. Yet, the point I want to make is this. This effectively prohibits 42 boats, 42 lot owners. This said 10 people would have the option of seeking to put in a dock. The Conservation Easement that we prepared is as blanket a prohibition as we're willing to draft and our client is willing to sign. So, this is a bone of contention that is of great importance. And all we're asking is that, in the absence of ordinances, and I'm not aware of any authority of this Council to adopt this kind of a control mechanism as a condition of subdivision approval. You can adopt an ordinance tomorrow, if you so choose, but as to this subdivision, we would submit that it's a condition that we can't agree to, and, two, that we do not believe the Council can impose. MR, NEVEAUX: Are you saying that you would be willing to sign, Counsel, to the effect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 that you would go along with whatever ordinance the City may adopt tomorrow? MR. SELLERGREN: We can't do that, because we have a contract signed. what I'm saying is we can't stop this Council from doing it. MR. NEVEAUX: However, this is not a typical subdivison. You prefaced your opening remark, with the fact that this falls under a planned unit development, because it's more than 25 lots. And under the planned unit development concept, correct me if I'm wrong, the City has somewhat more unusual power to regulate than under the typical subdivision. We can ask for some unique conditions of density, of lot layouts, of access to lakes, and all these things that we've talked about. That's the reason for having planned unit types of ordinances Unless, I've forgotten my Planning Commission training. MR. SELLERGREN: I think that 1s the reason for planned development. The point I made at the outset was that the planned unit development approach to develop- ment ordinas►rily involves a voluntary submission on the part of the landowner to seek a planned 1 2 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 32 development approval for the various amenities, tradeoffs, zero lot ]sines, density transfers, et cetera. This was not a volition on our part. The ordinance mandates it. As a consequence, we would have submitted an application for a subdivision if the ordinance allowed it. So, I guess to the extent that the planned development provisions of your ordinance are looked to as a source for an imposition of additional conditions, we'd have to object to that provision. We think this is a subdivision. The ordinance calls for planned development, we think this is a subdivision. MS. SWENSON: As regards Plan 'A', on this subject, what is the set up there? MR. LARS©N: Plan 'A', as I know it, contains an outlot which, as I remember, was to be -- (Inaudible discussion.) MR. LARSON: I think they had an outlot in there, which, as I can recall, had the potential of recreational use by the neighborhood. MR. HORN: With that conditional use permit with conditions imposed by the Council, so I don't see that you're giving up anything. You know, we have the same general intent that we could 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33 have applied to Plan 'A', and I think that's your point, isn't it, Pat? MS. SWENSON: Exactly. Well, I'm saying, as far as I'm concerned, if we had more restrictions on Plan 'A', this is my concern. I'm concerned about excessive dockage and usage on that lake. MR. LARSON: Well, you still have some, you still have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven lots having lakeshore access. MS. SWENSON: Through the outlot? MR. LARSON: No. Outside the outlot. MR. GEVINQ: Outside the outlot. MS. SWENSON: Outside the outlot. So, actually, this is only adding three. We would have the same problem with seven as we would with 10. MR. LARSON: Right. MR. ASHWORTH: You should note that during the discussion by Council, Plan 'A' or Plot 1, or however you want to designate it, there was no decision made regarding dockage. You did not grant authority for them to put in 52 docks or any number. It was identified early in the process by Staff to the Developer that they would have to submit to the Council a request for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 J 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 34 any dockage. This is no different than any other development that has occurred in the city. East Lotus Lake, Reichert's, all had conditions imposed by the Council as to the number of docks that would be allowed as part of their plat. Mr. Sellergren can make the point that he feels that they have the right to have the nine or 10 docks, but I again would remind you, that this issue did come up again at East Lotus Lake, where the Developer, at that point, felt that he had every right to as many docks as they wanted. Then the City was successful in sustaining our position that we could limit them. Now, I guess what I'm saying is that we haven't been challenged in that area before and unless the attorney has changed positions, I think we still have that control in front of you. MR. LARSON: Mr. Mayor, may I address a question to Mr. Sellergren? MR. HAMILTON: Yes. MR. LARSON: Mr. Sellergren, in your discussion of that easement, did I recall you to say you would be agreeable to set forth a number of conditions in the easement prohibition, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 35 but, did I understand you to say that each lot owner would have to come to the City for permiss to install a dock? That was a condition of your easement? MR. SELLERGREN: No. No. If this Council elected to control it by ordinance, which any landowner can't stop you from adopting it, too, you could do so. But, the -- MR, LARSON: Then, you are saying that if an ordinance were in effect at the time that the landowner wanted to build a dock, he'd have to come in and get a permit? MR. SELLERGREN; If this Council elected to adopt such an ordinance, yes, that's a fact. Now, I would like to add one fact. Reichert's Addition, for instance, was allowed three docks for nine lots, and two boats per dock were allowed. Now, that is, let's take a dock for a number of lots, that's 33 percent of the lots were permitted docks in the Reichert's Addition situation. We're talking about here, Flan W , is 20 percent allowance, if the homeowners elect to do it. 2511 What I want to reiterate is, 42 lots 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 36 have no dock privileges of any type, and the percentage that we're proposing here is less than what was previously allowed in Reichert's Addition. (Inaudible discussion.) MR. NEVEAUX: In your opening remarks, Mr. Sellergren, you mentioned that you did not agree with the Fox Path terminus decision that was reached by this Council back in August? MR. SELLERGREN: The decision that was reached by the Planning Commission. MR. NEVEAUX: Well, the Council made a decision on August 1Oth. MR. SELLERGREN: That's Plan W. I was only speaking of Plan 'BI. MR. NEVEAUX: So, you're saying that, as far as Plan 'B' is concerned, you'd want us to consider -- MR. SELLERGREN: That's correct. That's Plan W. MR. NEVEAUX; The T-intersection rather than the 60-foot reduction? MR. SELLERGREN: That's right. MR. NEVEAUX: The water main looping issue, you're in agreement with? 37 1 MR. SELLERGREN: Insofar as we're 2 concerned, the issues as to Plan 'A' are settled. 3 MR, NEVEAUX: I hate to get bogged 4 down in this stuff, and when it really hasn't ' been discussed nor have we had staff input until 6 this evening, and now another surprise. 7 MS. SWENSON: Excuse me, John. It's 8 explained to us here, that one of the Planning 9 Commission recommendations include these -- 10 (Inaudible discussion.) 11 MR. NEVEAUX: I'm not really ready 12 tonight to say that that length of lakeshore can support 10 docks or zero docks. I'm just not sure. 14 I think there may be some, I don't know. You know, 15 I think it needs to have a survey done and each 16 individual location looked at, the depth of the 17 water and the aq uatic vegetation. 18 I don't think myself, I'm ready to 19 say yes or no as to the docks as an issue. I 20 think it's something that, that's why we need 21 to look at it on an individual basis. And I think that 22 under the planned unit development and/or that 23 conservation easement, it is perfectly natural 24 and warranted that we, as the City Council, look 25 at that as part of our function. 11 21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 MR. HAMILTON: The question was raised, and I think it's been answered partially, and where it's going to come up again, whether it's in an easement, conservation easement contract or whether in a contract for an outlot, that's something we're going to review again and discuss, and it really isn't an issue of what we're trying to solve this evening. Did you have any other questions? I had asked Bill previously, and I guess I'd like you to clarify, Bill, the April 6th letter from Albert Fisher -- I guess there are two letters, well, one from Don Baird suggesting that Justin Jeffrey has reviewed the plans, and then a letter from Alfred Fisher, where he states that, in the third paragraph, the last sentence: "However, it would appear that the tension storage is 0.32 inches and should be near one foot to be effective", would you comment on that, and you felt that that was answered satisfactorily? MR. MONK: I have been in contact with the Soil Conservation people, namely Justin Jeffrey and Don Baird. Since this correspondence was written, there was some confusion on their part as to the differentiation between the temporary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 39 drainage plan and the permanent drainage plan, and there was some confusion over whether it should be a tension storage of .32 inches or should it be one inch. The one inch was used for the temporary ponding arrangement, and it was used particularly for the temporary plan arrangement. And it's what the SES recommends that you use for that type of operation. .32 is closer to what they recommend for the total development of the subdivision, so I believe that that point has been taken care of, and the design that's shown on the Corps' drawing will meet with the SES requirement, so it is no longer a question. MR. HAMILTON: How about the sedimentary ability, there was some question about that? MR. MONK: The sediment storage allocated is something that we will have to look into. There is a possibility that some storage should be allocated purely for sediment and they have not taken into account of the calculated volumes. I think that that can be taken care of without going back to any of the processes. It is a good point that the SES did raise and I think still has to be considered. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 40 MR. GEVING: I have another question. Bill, would you say that the location of the proposed sedimentation pond will inhibit the developer from developing 52 lots as shown on that plan right there? The location of the pond, would you describe to me where that sedimentation pond would be located and what lots it will cover? MR. MONK: The sedimentation pond basically comes into this area right in there. It will impact these lots shown in through here, the same lots basically on the other plan. As you can see, the orange line here that I drew represents 900 elevation. MR. GEVING: That's correct. Do you believe that Lots 10 and 11 could be built upon with that pond sitting there? MR, MONK: They will be very tight, but with the 30-foot setbacks, houses could be fit in there. They basically will have no back yard that can be developed, but the house can be situated on those lots. MR. GEVING: Are we looking then at a plan that has 52 proposed lots or maybe 50 or something less? MR, MONK: You basically are still looking 41 1 at a plan that has 52 lots and houses can be 2 placed on all the lots, but six or seven of the lots 3 will have to be watched very carefully to make 4 sure that they don't infringe upon the conservation 5 easement, but for all intent and purposes, you 6 are looking at a 52-lot subdivision. 7 AIR. GEVING: Well, you know, Bill, I've 8 been up here for about six years, and whenever we 9 get into trouble, it's because we've tried to build 10 a home close to a high water mark, like 899. And 11 when the problems occur long after the developer 12 is in, houses are built, and the water is in the 13 basement, and it comes back to the City, what 14 are you going to do about it? And I'm looking at 15 potential problems in Lots 10, 11 and 12, based 16 on what I can see on this map. 17 And I would propose, that if this is 18 a 52--lot plan, that in the conditions, we would 19 build such a condition so that each one of those 20 lots, and I'm not just referring to the three that 21 I picked out, there could be more, would be 22 closely watched by the City Engineer in terms 23 of the type of structure to be built on those 24 lots to prevent and avoiding future problems. 25 Do you feel that that's a legitimate request? 6 7 M M 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 MR,, MONK: There are requirements that or conditions that the basements not be placed or that they be at least two feet higher than the ordinary high water. That will have to be adhered to and will be adhered to as a minimum. MR. GEVING: And any condition of approval of this plan could be based upon those kinds of terms identifying ---- it might not be practical to identify all the lots, because we don't know at this time all of them.that could be affected, but certainly those that I've mentioned, starting with, that would be nine, 10 through maybe 13 or 14. Now 13 and 14 seem like there's quite a lot of slope. The grades there must drop significantly, but I see that possibly 12 and 11 are very flat, and I think you're going to have problems. And those then, I'm only bringinq up the point that I know there's going to be a problem, a significant potential problem, and I want to be in the forefront addressing that at this time. I guess that's all I have. MR, HORN: I guess I have another question for Bill. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 43 In the report from Justin Jeffrey, he talks about some of the temporary procedures that will have to be used to Control runoff, and he's suggesting something about the Cunningham Pond to be used as part of the controlled runoff mechanism. And my question is, is that a reasonable request, and what kind of runoff would be going into it? As I recall earlier, Mr. Cunningham had some plans for the pond, such as a trout hatchery, or something like that, would this harm his pond? MR. MONK: Basically, what it is is recommendations came back from SES saying the developer should Look into contacting Mr. Cunningham for temporary use of his pond, and that never really did work out. So, it's not part of the plan. MR. HORN: So, it isn't necessary? MR. MONK: No. It is not. MR, HAMILTON: Does the Council have any more questions? MS, SWENSON: Just one more. I'm sorry, I hate to keep coming back to this, but I think it's important that we be explicit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 44 Don, can you explain to me our structure now, where we stand on the issuance of a permit and dockage? MR. ASHWORTH: Given the question the way it has come up this evening, I -would strongly :suggest that in regards to any decision you make tonight, that you're very explicit that that does not include any approvals for dockage. That would have to be a separate process back to this City Council. Either that or you go through the actual work in determining if any or if there would be shared docks. I guess I would ask Russ, do you concur with that? MR. LARSON: Yes. We must be explicit in any action taken tonight with regard to that. MR. HAMILTON: We Could address it in the development Contract? MR, LARSON: You could address it in the development contract, but you should have it as a condition of your plan and it should be very clearly spelled out. MR. ASHWORTH: Just so there isn't any question this evening, though, in regards to that (inaudible), it is very clear that there is no approval being given tonight by the absence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 45 of that condition, and that it will be addressed in the development contract stage, MS. SWENSON: Well, this will be in addition to, if we were to adopt Plan 'B', and I assume we're discussing the continuation of the original 20 requirements for Plan 'A', in addition to the Planning Commission Recommendations as of April 17th, I believe. I just would like to clarify that we are covering all of these things in this discussion, is this correct? MR. HAMILTON: Right. MS, SWENSON: I think we should make it clear because it appears that we are being confronted with other suggestions and withdrawal of some of these things, and I think that, perhaps, if we are in agreement, we should make it quite specific, that the same 20 recommendations or requirements of the Plan 'A' apply to Plan 'B', in addition to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. MR. HAMILTON: The original review tonight was for Plan 'A', The Council is supposed to discuss Plan 'B' -- the same conditions apply to Plan 'B' as apply to Plan 'A', with any additionals that we may want to add. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 46 Does the Council have any questions? If not, if there is a spokesman for the Homeowners Association? If you have new material, that's the only thing that will be allowed. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I just wanted to ask, since we have two people from the Planning Commission here, if they might not give their interpretation of this dock issue, because i think there's a misunderstanding. Is that appropriate? MR, HAMILTON: We can get back to that later. 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Thank you. 13 MR. GETTS: Mayor, Members of the 14 Council, my name is Phillip Getts, and I represent 15 the Pleasant view Homeowners Association. And I 16 don't want to take more than about 10 minutes of 17 your time, because I think there are some points 18 worth making, and I believe that none of them 19 have been presented to you in the past, so they 20 constitute new material. It seems to me, as I 21 listened to your comments this evening, you 22 probably had more new material presented tonight 23 than any of you bargained for. 24 This has been the history with this 25 project, Every time Mr. Derrick comes before 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 47 you with a proposal, there's something new and unexpected about it. It would seem to me that at this stage of the development process, there ought to be nothing new and unexpected. And it is that habit of Mr. Derrick's that, in part, is the reason for my presence tonight. This map I have up here now was prepared by one of my clients, and indicates Plan 'A' in red coming down here, the original Fox Path ending in a cul-de-sac here. That plan, as you all know, creates a number of problems that concern my clients. I suppose that we can argue about details, about soil and water conservation approval or non -approval, or what the Corps of Engineers is concerned about, and whether or not it's good or bad, but the major point that I want to stress, and this ought not to be new, but I think it ought to be repeated, that is, we don't want to stop Mr. Derrick from developing this proposal. We realize that something is going to happen here. Our concern is that it fits with the surrounding neighborhood, that it fit with Lotus Lake, that it fit with development to the north, and that it fit, more importantly, with development that we anticipate to the west. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 48 The plans which have been presented or these plans which you have been presented, 'A' and 'B' create some problems. In our proposal, we believe, and these are resolvable problems without stopping the development, The most important one, let me put down the overlay, this is what we came to you with before and this is what we would like. This would be our Plan 'A', if you will. It shows 48 lots, it shows it connected to the west. The benefit of this is that it is further to the south than the one shown on Plan 'A' or Plan 'B', and it avoids the necessity for cutting across the Bennett Park property at an angle. It would probably be cheaper to build, certainly, from the standpoint of acquiring land, and ties in nicely with projected development to the west. The second advantage is that the sediment pond is wade much smaller, completely out of the wetlands, and is adequate in size to hold the sediment contained in the runoff, and, as indicated, avoids destroying the wetlands, which provides a further buffer for Lotus Lake. The third advantage is that the northern access, egress from the property is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 49 moved to the east, which is, as I understand it, what the developer wants, thereby simplifying access to West Pleasant View Road. Now, if the Council were to approve that plan, as I have presented it to you, with 48 lots and a pond here and an access here and here, I think my clients would be nearly 100 percent satisfied. And I think that point has been obscurred in the two and a half years that I have been involved in this plan. And while I don't like to think that that's new information, I don't think it's been adequately presented. The problem that we've had is that every time a plan comes in, something is different. And I know Mr. Derrick has complained about the delay from the City Council, but it was he who walked out of the Council Meeting in February of 1981, not my clients. And I think that the problem you have with this particular project is that there have been too many changes. I can understand the Council not wanting to prejudice Mr. Derrick, but I think you've bent over backwards until my back hurts when I think about it, to accommodate the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ].3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 50 constant changes he has been making. I think that you can resolve the controversy and put this behind you, and I'm sure you all want to do that, if we take a step back, and keeping in mind the plan which I showed you, and showed you the compromise that we discussed with Mr. Derrick this winter. It's got the northerly access on the east corner, whether it should be on the property line or slightly to the west of that, I guess is a subject I'm not qualified to comment on; it does show a curving road through the property, which, as I understand it, makes the lots more desirable from the standpoint of ultimate sales. It shows a pond, which is at least 60 percent: out of the wetland, but it's adequate in size to contain the sediment contained in the runoff. It shows access to the west at a point somewhat further south than is shown on Plan 'A' or 'B'„ Plan 'A' or 'B' exits about here (indicating) and by coming down here, it's necessary only to cut off a very small fraction of the Bennett property, simplifying those problems, and it contains a conservation easement, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 51 which avoids the surprise that you had tonight about the dockage. We would satisfy the people on Lotus Lake. And this is a compromise. We were that far from agreeing on it when a couple of things went wrong. But, the important thing is that I believe that a plan like this would solve the controversy and would stop it. I think Mr. Larson will tell you that you may impose reasonable conditions, and what Councilman Neveaux presents made reference to the docks in, you have a planned unit development application in front of you, and that gives you the power to request from the developer, what Councilman Neveaux has just referred to, as unique restrictions, What we're asking for is not burdensome. What we're asking for is a plan that fits, a plan that works. I don't think that that's unreasonable, I don't think it unfairly burdens the developer. And I think if the developer were to receive clear marching orders from the Council tonight to come back in 30 days with an answer to the dock problem, to the solution of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 52 conservation easement, and with the text of the easement before you so you could review it, with a solution to the problem that Councilman Geving made about construction in the neighborhood of the wetlands, and believe me, if there are problems, it's going to be you that will hear about.it, not Roger Derrick. I think if you were to do that and the developer knew exactly what he had to do to get approval in 30 days, the next meeting would be 10 minutes long, and he would have what he wants, we'd have what we want, and the Council can move onto something else. That, to me, is the ultimate new fact that we're trying to present to you tonight. There is a way out that will satisfy mostly everybody. Nobody will be 100 percent happy, but I think right now, the happiness factor is much closer to zero. I'd be happy to answer any questions to clarify anything that I gave you. MR. HAMILTON: I would just comment that, although I may personally agree, that I feel that plan and others that I have seen fits that property better and would help to solve all of the transportation problems within that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 53 area for the future, and I would also think that by Mr. Derrick agreeing to at least reconsider the plan that he has submitted to the Council, would indicate to me, at least, that he does have an interest in this community and in the future development of this community, for the overall transportation, for our concern for the lake, while still being able to market these lots that he has for sale there. However, I think that, personally, I feel Mr. Derrick has displayed in the past, where he doesn't really have a real deep seated concern for this community and for the development of that area. And, consequently, I don't think that you, Mr. Getts, or the rest of the Council, can recommend to Mr. Derrick how he should develop that property. I like that plan better than the other two, but I'm not going to tell him that that's the way he ought to go. He has come in here asking for approval. of Plan 'A' or Plan 'B', and that's what we have to decide tonight. But, that's certainly an interesting concept and I would certainly feel that if the developer is really interested in this 54 1 community, he would do what you suggested. 2 Does the Council have any questions of 3 Mr. Getts7 4 MS. SWENSON: I completely concur with the Mayor. I'd like to see the one down on the 6 bottom. 7 MR, GETTS: Are you referring to 8 this one? 9 MS. SWENSON: Yes. Don't misunderstand 10 me, I completely concur with Mayor Hamilton, but 11 1 was curious because I notice -- 12 MR, GETTS: Let me put this up, which 13 is essentially the same plan, but it's a lot 14 clearer. I'll hold it down and you can compare it 15 yourself. 16 This is originally Plan W. And this 17 is a modification, which is really incorporated 18 in the overlay. All it is is Plan 'A' with this 19 additional overlay. And the difference between 20 Plan 'A' and this is, first of all, we've got the 21 other road off of it, but it shows a larger 22 pond completely out of the wetlands 23 and 48 lots. It'd identical to the one I'm 24 holding in my hand. 25 MR, HAMILTON: Does anyone else have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 55 any questions? I would suspect that even though Mr, 5ellergren noted in his opening remarks that they are not open for any additional new information, do you think this -- MR. SELLERGREN; I've already stated that I do not Wish to comment unless it's something new. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: You made a statement I think either the first or second sentence, that all the conditions have been met. Could you educate me as to how those conditions have been met for the October 1 deadline? MR., HAMILTON: We'll get to that. Bill, you have some things you want to review, Is there anything you want to go over that we should be aware of? MR. MONK: No. MR, HAMILTON: Does the Council have any further comments that they want to make or questions of the staff? I guess, Mike, would you want to comment on the Planning Commission -- I don't know if you were at that meeting or not when they discussi the dock issue in this particular development. 11 21 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 56 Do you recall what the Planning Commission's concerns were at that time and what conversation took place? Could you give us some additional information? MR, THOMPSON: Just in relation to the dock? MR. HAMILTON: Yes. MR, THOMPSON: I think the under- standing was based on the fact that there was a conservation easement, that there were going to be no docks. MR. HAMILTON.* That was the Planning Commission's understanding. To answer your question, Kathy, I think if we go back and look at all the 20 conditions that the developer was asked to comply with, that in July I think it was, when we met, there were some of those conditions that had not been met. As I explained to you previously, they had not been met by October 1, as in Dale Geving's motion. However, the developer had no control over that date. That date was put in there because we felt at that time that the Corps would have their response back to us by October lst. The developer can't control the Corps. 57 1 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Could you show that 2 they met Soil and Water Conservation by October 1? 3 MR. HAMILTON: They met all 20 of therm. 4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Soil and Water 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Conservation? MR. HAMILTON: Yes. After the Corps reviewed that, they discussed it, after the Corps gave their approval, we asked the SES to review, they did, we have the letters saying they did. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Not Plan 'A', however. That was the subject of Dale's motion. MR. HAMILTON: I'm not going to debate the issue any longer. MR. MONK: We have gotten responses back from the. SES. The only question is whether they have actually approved. Basically, their comment is that the City is, at the bottom line, is responsible for the subdivision and will assist in every way possible:. But, that's as far as they will go. MR. HAMILTON: Any other comments? Do the Council members have any comments at this time? If not, I would entertain a motion. We have several options. We can approve those 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conditions, prior to getting to the motion, we would want to discuss the docking more thoroughly, or at least perhaps come up with a comment or paragraph to explain how we want to handle the docking in the preliminary development, unless we have a motion. Mr. Larson? MR. LARSON: Yes. It would be appropriate that we, or in your action on this, that you include, as a condition, that it shall be expressly understood by the developer that the placement of any docks within the subdivision on the very shore, would be subject to such control as might be lawfully enacted by the City of Chanhassen. MS. SWENSON: Mr. Mayor, are you eliminating 'S' then of the Planning Commission Recommendations, eliminating No. 5? MR. LARSON: Modifying it. MS. SWENSON: The Planning Commission Recommendation is in Bob Waibel's report. MR. HORN: I think it might be appropriate to go through of each of these points of discussion. I think we all agree on the docking issue. MR. H}1fiULTON : First of all, does the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 E Council want to look at Plan 'B'? UNKNOWN SPEAKER (RESIDENT): Something in the way of new considerations., possibly. I'd just like to remind you that the Council, through the Planning Commission, has created a new Committee in this community charged with the job of creating or drafting a new set of rules concerning the use and development or non -development of wetlands in the community. I think this is something new that has come up and it wasn't within the thinking of the community prior to the time these plans or rather subsequent to the time that these plans were made. And in your deliberations as to which plan, yes or no, that you accept, I think that should be an important and a foremost consideration in your minds. I know there's been a lot of haggling about, essentially, what you have for the wetlands in this area, I think it would be important for the Council to hear something that was told over the telephone in a verbal communication to my wife, who had a chance to talk with Colonel Badger (sp), who is the head of the agency. Why don't you tell them what you heard? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ZOE UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Am I allowed? MR, HAMILTON: Yes. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Sometime before the final approval of the permit from the Corps, I had gone down and spoken with people at the Corps, to tell them about our thinking in the community, that we were very concerned about the wetlands, and to make sure that they would concentrate- on that issue. And at that time, I spoke with Colonel Badger (sp), who really is the last word, the person who gives the final approval, he said that there were some things that he had to explain, and Ism sure that I can repeat this to you, and that is that in the case, such as with Mr. Derrick, when a process like this is prolonged for such a long time, for many, many months, which is unusual apparently, that it is almost always the consensus that the permit will be given to the developer. That shocked me, because that had really nothing to do with what the public hearing was about, in which we were concerned about the wetlands and that was our primary concern. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AI And I think that this Council, the reason that I bring this to you, is that the last word about what is done in our community has to be really with you, and with us, actually, as a community and that we can't rely on strictly another agency to make those decisions for us. And I thought this was brought home to me and very clearly by him. The second point he made to me was that they could only give approval on the plans that were submitted, and that there wasn't a better plan than the one that finally did get approval, and there they did approve of the engineering. But had, perhaps, the plan that Mr. Getts proposed been submitted to the Corps, they would have preferred it, because certainly their concern with the wetlands is also great. So, I would like you to keep this in mind when you make Your decision this evening. Thank you. MR • HAMILTON : Thank you. The conditions, as you know, in the Memo of April 9th, Staff Recommendations: That all streets in the proposed development be 36 feet in width. This has been changed. It's r- 1 now 28 feet. That was adopted. 2 That the proposed curvilinear street 3 alignment be approved with the conditions imposed 4 and constructed to standards acceptable with the 5 City Engineer. You want that to be a part? 6 MR. GEVING: Could I comment on that? 7 The City Engineer apparently has some ideas 8 that he would consider in what is acceptable to him. 9 Could you elaborate on that, Bill? 10 MR. MONK: Basically, on that particular 11 item, as I understand it, would refer to the 12 strength of the section, and that would be 13 determined from a detailed testing of the area, and 14 even more testing might be required than has 15 been done. The width has been set, we have the 16 standard section. The only question remaining is 17 the strength of the section. 18 MR. GEVING: I guess the question I 19 have, I thought this was very ambiguous, a very 20 general statement, that we would give you the 21 authority to construct these according to standards 22 acceptable. I'd like to build into that, if 23 we're going to use that, whatever some of those 24 might be. I'd like to see the strength -- I know 25 there's a very good possibility of peat in that area, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 63 and that would be one of the tests, obviously. MR. MONK: Well that`s, basically, the only remaining factor as far as streets go is exactly the cross section of the street, and how couch gravel and how much blacktop would be applied and -- MR. GEVING: I would like to see that strengthened a little bit. MR. HAMILTON: approved by the Council. Council. I would like to see that MS. SWENSON: And approved by the MR. HAMILTON: Yes. MR. HORN: This also is saying that Plan 'B', a curvalinear street . . . MR. LARSON: Customarily, you always approve the plans and specifications for any public construction, what the tonnage will be for a street, the width, the base and subbase and asphalt mats, and so forth, and so on. MR. HORN: Do we all agree then on this Plan 'B' then? MS. SWENSON: Well, we're discussing Plan 'B', as I understand it, isn't that correct? MR. HORN: I thought that was the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 64 question earlier as to whether we prefer Plan 'B' or Plan 'A'? MR. NEVEAUX: I think we should have a motion in there that this body direct the developer to proceed with finalizing Plan 'A' before Plan 'B' is to be considered? MR. GEVING: Is that a motion? MR. NEVEAUX: I would make a motion that we consider Plan 'B' as the more preferred of the two plans for this Fox Chase Development. MR. HORN: I second that. MS. SWENSON I think you would be modifying Plan 'B', with the inclusion of the recommendations that we're discussing, those 20 -- MR. HAMILTON: The motion is to review Plan 'B' of the Fox Chase Development PUD, as all 20 conditions that were applied to Plan 'A' were concerned, along with staff recommendations and Planning Commission recommendations of April S, 1982. MR. HORN: Second that motion. MR. NEVEAUX: Yes. I think it was pretty well explained in Bob Waibel's report of April 9, where he talks in terms of the City Attorney's letter of April 8, the City 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 65 Engineer's Report of April 9, that all 20 conditions of Plan 'A' could also be transferred to Plan W . MR. HAMILTON: Any further discussion? MR. HORN: The rest of the items will be considered on an individual basis? MR. HAMILTON: Yes. If there are no further questions, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying 'Aye'. (Unanimous vote.) No. 3 -- going back to 2, Item No. 2: That proposed curvalinear street alignment be approved with the condition that it be constructed to standards acceptable to the City Engineer and approved by this Council. Item 3, as it reads, that Lot 3 of Block 2 not have direct access to Pleasant View Road . - MR. GEVING: Now, could I comment on that? We may have some problems describing how to get to that lot if the plan isn't changed, otherwise you'd have a narrow corridor between Lots 2 and 4 to access to 3. So, how would we propose to do that with the plan that's shown? I've drawn on my sketch -- MR. HAMILTON: One of the ways, we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 have discussed this before with Mr. Sellergren, is that that corner can be changed. If I could circumvent your question for just a second to say, with '31, I'd like to see that Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 2 not have direct access to Pleasant View Road, which means that none of those lots will have direct access to Pleasant View Road, and that those lots would have to be redrawn. MR. GEVING: I like your suggestion. MR. HAMILTON: There would be no access to any of those lots. MR. NEVEAUX: Direct driveway access. They're always going to front or pass up to Pleasant View, but as far as driveways are concerned. MS. SWENSON: There's no access to Pleasant View except the -- MR. GEVING: No. Like Tom said, that Lots 1, 2 and 3 of Block 2 not have direct access to Pleasant View Road. (Inaudible discussion.) Okay. Let's go across the road. Remember now, when we get to it, when we get there, one of the Planning Commission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 67 recommendations will be to move that road, isn't that true? I thought all along, and I'm sorry that I'm bringing this up now, that all along, we had previously talked about moving that road all the way to the eastern property line of this development, which would almost negate that Lot, Block 1. But, if we coo with this plan, that lot will be there, and, you know, that's a very steep hill. (Inaudible.) I would go along with adding Lot 1, Block 1. MS. SWENSON: I'm glad you mentioned that. We are still looking at a 60-foot leveling off area before it gets to Pleasant View. (Inauible discussion.) MR. HORN: I believe we could specify that no lots have access onto Pleasant View Road other than through Fox Path to cover any future issues that -- MR. SELLERGREN: Mr. Mayor, may I comment as to the last lot that you just added, which is Lot 1, Block 1. As I think most of you probably are aware, I think there's already a driveway there and a home. MR. GEVING: I was under the impression 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 C�j that you're not going to get any kind of an access from the Osgoods. I've always heard that. MR. SELLERGREN: The Osgood driveway is on our land versus the other way around. But, it is our intention to use that driveway that there is now. We are not adding anything new to the traffic. MR. NEVEAUX: You would be using the one that Osgoods use now. MR. SELLERGREN: Correct. MR. NEVEAUX: which is, in effect, on your property? MR. SELLERGREN: Correct. MR. NEVEAUX: It would be pretty difficult to take it away from them. MR. GEVING: I didn't realize that. This is new information. MR. SELLERGREN: No. It isn't. We talked about this several times. MR. GEVING: Well. let me sav this, then we've got another problem with the Osgoods. We still have another problem with the Osgoods. MR. LAUGHINGHOUSE: Mr. Geving, the Osgoods have an easement over this land, over the land that is in Fox Chase, a small corner of it, enough for a driveway. That cannot be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 69 radicated by us. We propose only to use that same land for an access. It would be joint use, that we have a right to in a sense that we still own the land, but they have a special easement access for driveway purposes. So, the only change would be instead of one family using the driveway, it would be two families, so it would be three trips, four trips a day. MS. SWENSON: Well, that's not an additional access to Pleasant View. MR. HAMILTON: Any comments? MR. MONK: I would almost word the condition that the Council, if they're inclined to go that way, that no additional accesses will be put up on Pleasant View on any lots created with Fox Chase, giving them the latitude to use that if it does work out with the Osgoods, but hopefully taking the City out of any future court case that might arise over the use of that driveway. MR. NEVEAUX: The only access from the development then is Fox Path. MR. MONK: The only new access. MR. NEVEAUX: The only new access. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ow That the only direct access on Pleasant View Road would be the newly platted Fox Path Road. MR. HAMILTON: Does that satisfy everyone? Before Plan 'B' be approved with the additional previous conditions placed by the City Council. Planning Commission Recommendation of April 8, 1982, that access to Fox Path be moved to the easterly property line. That is not the case. That's not the plan you're seeing, so that one would not be included. MR. NEVEAUX: That was, I think, some of the discussion that we were just getting into when the motion came to discontinue discussion on Plan 'B', and tell the developer to go back and get Plan 'A' done. So, we never really got, as I remember, we haven't got around to making that. MR. HAMILTON: No. 2 is proposed road width be decreased from 36 feet to 32 feet. That's already 28 feet. No. 3, that no lots have direct access on Pleasant View Road. That has been taken care of. The developer dedicate a right of way of 50 feet in width between Lots 26 and 27, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 71 Block 1, for possible future secondary access. MR. GEVING: Well, I've got a note here, the developer does not agree with that. MS. SWENSON: This is something, though, that is not new. MR. HAMILTON: Well, we discussed it previously, and we discussed all kinds of things. If I remember correctly, I think the westerly egress from there, it would be a much better connection to connect up with Carver Beach. MS. SWENSON: Well, yeah, but you can hook it up between Lots 26 and 27 also, if it's necessary, and we have already discussed and approved a permanent cul-de-sac at the end of Fox Path. MR. NEVEAUX: Well, the permanent cul- de-sac doesn't extend to the right of way, up to the western property line. MR. GEVING: I really don't think that this is applicable any longer. Even if it were, if you looked at the gradation of that land between Lots 26 and 27, it's extremely steep. I don't know. What would you say, Bill, in terms of the incline? That has to be indicative, you know. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 K-M 72 MR. MONK: It really doesn't go anywhere ii Carver Beach -- MS. SWENSON: It goes into Huron, doesn't it? MR. MONK: No. It goes down to Deerwood, that gravel road. (Inaudible discussion.) MR. GEVING: I guess I don't see much use in having No. 4. MR. HAMILTON: Actually, the concept plan that was shown by Mr. Getts indicates a much clearer traffic pattern than -- MR. GEVING: Well, you got to remember one thing, too, Tom, that since we talked about this almost a year ago, way back about 172, we have the new development to the west that never was a proposition, so I can see where No. 4 was an issue at one time. I'd like to throw out No. 4. (Agreed by all.) MR. HAMILTON: No. 5, that the Conservation Easement be maintained and that within that specific Conservation Easement, there will be no alteration of lakeshore or installation of structures, including private docks. MR. LARSON: May I suggest something? Adding to read: "Including private docks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73 without prior approval therefor, on an individual basis, by the City Council, pursuant to the Conditional Use procedures of Ordinance 47." MR. HAMILTON: mould you read that again? MR. LARSON: "Including private docks, without prior approval therefor, on an individual lot basis by the City Council pursuant to the Conditional :.kbe Procedures of Ordinance 47." MR. GEVING: And will be spelled out in the Development Contract. MR. HAMILTON: Item 6, that the developer be required to dedicate a trail easement originating on the southerly line of the plat within the utility easement, commencing at the southerly edge of the property and lying northerly to the south line of Lot 12, Block 1, and lying westerly at that point to its point of intersection of Fox Path, and then continuing northerly with the right of way of Fox Path with the intersection of Pleasant View Road. MR. HORN: Is that in concurrence with the Park and Recreation Commission? MR. WAIBEL: The Park Board Recommendation, they've left silent as far as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 74 when it came to the Park Board, as to where the holding pond would be (sic). They had asked that they be able to look at that when it's under construction and see how it looks then. The Staff felt that that could not be done. Development contract before the plat is filed and construction begins. MR. HORN: was that taken back to them? MR. WAIBEL: It was taken back to them, and they had asked that they be able to do it when construction commenced. (Inaudible discussion.) MR. WAIBEL: I notified Frank Callahan of that particular position of Staff. MR. HORN: When was that? MR. WAIBEL: I think it was last year when we were on the discussions of Plan 'A'. This same issue came up as part of that plan amendment process a vear ago. MR. GEVING: And we talked, though, we talked that there would be the possibility of a sidewalk on the east side of that road because of that trail, is that true? Do you remember any conversation about that? MR. MONK: Comments were made but no 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 motion or requirement was ever made whether it was to be concrete or if it was to be -- MR, GEVING: Well, otherwise, the kids are going to be walking on somebody's front yard or in the street. MR. MONK: That was discussed. but never conditioned. MR. GEVING: Some of it would be hiking, biking? MS. SWENSON: Tom, when we were talking about a 36-foot width road, this was not a large an issue than the 28 foot, I can see a considerable, particularly if they insist on having that road go down to Carver Beach and bring up more traffic, I can see a potential danger there. MR. GEVING: What about the possibility, and I'm just speaking outloud here, of widening the road and including the striping like we did on Curver Drive, or whatever it's called, of about six or eight feet or whatever it is, Bill, that striping for pathways where the children walk to school, go to school, do you know what the width of that is? MR. MONK: Well, Cooper Drive is an exceptionally vide street, but that would be one 1 2 3 4 6 i 31 9 10 11 12 ].3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 76 possibility. The other would be to actually construct a six-foot wide bituminous surface behind the curb for biking. That's commonly done, you know, in place of concrete. The other is to put a woodchip path, depending on the use of the proposed path going in there. But, any type of construction would be possible now, with our roads, the right of way, just to do whatever the Council wants. MR. NEVEAUX: I think we ought to get them off the streets. MR. GEVING: I agree. MR. HORN: I think we ought to define a six-foot trail, bituminous path along there. It would be more expensive for the developer if we, insisted upon a 36-foot road than a 28-foot road with a six foot path for that section. MR. GEVING: You're running it from Lot 12 north to Pleasant View Road on the easterly side. MS. SWENSON: This also is going to restrict any parking on the street. MR. ASHWORTH: The conditions, as you go further into the 20, one of those was a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 77 a condition regarding the trail, one of the 20 conditions. Further, that it is the advantage of the developer to have an eight foot trail through the conservation area and whether such be within this conservation area or partially adjacent throughout, the developer has agreed to grade and install woodchips for the trail, in accordance with the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission, as a part of their overall grading plan. So, as I read this, those 20 conditions made earlier includes an eight -foot trail to be installed. MR. NEVEAUX: Woodchip you're talking about down there from Lot 12 down to the Conservation Easement. MR. GEVING: I think a woodchip trail would be out of context. If you put that in there from Lot 12 north, I don't think that would be very permanent. One good spring, and the wind would have those chips all over the place. MR, ASHWORTH: I just wanted you to be aware of that. MR. GEVING: I think the chips probably would be more applied to the southern part 78 1 of it, the real trail, along the shore. 2 MR. HORN: And if you went along the 3 property lines up to the road, if not next to the 4 street. 5 MR. GEVING: Oh, no, just down to Lot 12. 6 What item was that? 7 MR, HAMILTON: Item No. 7. The trail 8 of woodchips would be just through the conservation 9 area. 10 MR. ASHWORTH: It was not defined, 11 that section started out saying the Park and 12 Recreation Commission had not defined that. 13 MR. HORN: Well, I think if we define 14 the bituminous system up to Pleasant View Road, 15 that in some way the Park and Recreation would 16 say some other alternative would certainly be 17 less expensive -- 18 MR. HAMILTON: For No. 6, that the 19 Planning Commission recommendations would be a 20 six-foot path, it would seem like a six-foot 21 bituminous path would be adequate, six-foot bituminous path 22 Lot 12 north to Pleasant View Road. 23 And Condition No. 7, from the July 17, 24 1980, would address the conservation area, which 25 would be an eight -foot woodchip trail through the 79 1 conservation area. 2 MR. GEVING: From, we should probably 3specify that from Lot 12 through the develop- 4 ment. 5 MR, HAMILTON: That would be from the 6 southerly line of the plat within the utility 7 easement, essentially that's the southerly 8 edge of the property, going northerly to the south 9 line of Lot 12. 10 MR. GEVING: That's correct. 11 MR. SELLERGREN: Mr. Mayor, may I .12 comment on those conditions, or do you want to 13 finish? 14 MR. HAMILTON: Let us finish. 15 MS. SWENSON: Ending at Lot 12 and 16 beginning at the Conservation Easement. 17 MR. HAMILTON: Originating at the 18 southerly line of the plat within the utility 19 easement at the southerly edge of the property, 20 and lying northerly to the south line of Lot 12. 21 No. 7, the outlot may be incorporated 22 into the individual property as shown in Plan 'B'. 23 No. 8, that the permanent cul-de-sac 24 be constructed on the west end of Fox Path. 25 That's already in there. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 80 MR. NEVEAUX: Permanent cul-de-sac with a retention of the right of way, is the way the attorney put it. MR. HAMILTON: That Plan 'B' not be approved until the recommendation of the Planning Commission -- MS. SWENSON: You're including '8' with the retention of the easement? MR. H,AMILTON: 18' was already taken care of in August, I believe it was, with a permanent cul-de-sac with the right of way to the north -- M. SWENSON: Well, I guess this needs to be reiterated, now that we're talking about Plan 'B'. I'm just trying to cover all the bases. I mean, that was Plan 'A'. MR. NEVEAUX: We accepted all those conditions of Plan 'A'. MR. HAMILTON: Right. MS. SWENSON: I can't find, Gentlemen, in the 20 sections here or the 20 conditions of July 14th, the preliminary plat conditions, any reference to the requirement that we had agreed upon at an earlier time, to the architectural and engineering okay, if you will, of building plans. 81 1 MR. MONK: Condition 13. 2 MR. ASHWORTH: You're looking at the 3 July 14th report. Those are simply comments to the 4 additional 20 conditions. It's an explanation of 5 those 20 conditions. 6 MS. SWENSON: Very good. 7 MR. NEVEAUX: And they say architect 3 or city engineer. MR. HORN: So, in effect, we have 10 included as defined in greater detail, Conditions 11 5 and 6 of the recommendations recommended 12 by the Planning Commission. The rest have been 13 addressed. 14 MR. GEVING: Yes. Only 5 and 6. 15 MR. ASHWORTH: You earlier agreed to 16 define Item 7, as well. 17 MS. SWENSON: What about No. 9? 18 MR, HAMILTON: No. 9, that Plan 'B' 19 not be approved until the recommendations of the 20 Planning Commission are incorporated into the 21 Development Plan. That goes without saying -- 22 MS. SWENSON: Have we eliminated some 23 of them? 24 MR. HAMILTON: Only because _- I 25 haven't eliminated anything. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 J 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 82 MS, SWENSON: No. Not you, personally. MR. HAMILTON: Many of these have already been changed simply because the Council moved on therm after the Planning Commission had already made their recommendation, which we acted on. MS. SWENSON: I just wanted to eliminate any confusion with regard to the easement between 26 and 27, which is taken out. MR. HORN: Actually •9' is saying all of the above. MR. GEVING: It does. it does say that. I think that was their intention. MR. HAMILTON: Would you like to go through all 20, the conditions of April 7, 1980? 1 did have a couple of questions to ask. For instance, No. 12, would extra precautions be taken so that removal of existing vegetation be kept to a minimum during construction? I would like to have Bill or the Staff spell out exactly what extra precautions would mean. Extra precautions doesn't wean anything to me if I'm the developer -- it would give the developer some direction (inaudible). MR. MONK: I think that if you want 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 83 me to give it now, I can give it verbally. What we can do is part of the development contract,actuall get into that in some detail and probably connect an actual grading plan that is referenced within that development contract, when that comes back to the Council. That would be a part of the plan and that would spell out the extra precautions. Because I think that the extra precautions do mean monetary things also, not to be spelled out in a development contract, to make sure things are done. MR. ASHWORTH: So, would you like that modified -- shall I, 'Which shall be included in the development contract"? MR, HAMILTON: Yes, No. 14, that the applicant be required to post sufficient escrow to ensure the degree of engineering and inspections carried out at the direction . . Just so it's clear to everybody what that amount should be, the Riley Purgatory Creek said they need to put up $20,000, I think, and we require -- MR. MONK: Fast actions said 110 percent of actual construction costs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 84 MR, HAMILTON: And a letter of credit. 110 percent of the construction costs. That should probably be added to that. Would that be appropriate, Don, to put $20,000 that the Watershed District is requiring and 110 percent of total construction costs and with the letter of credit? MR. LARSON: That's just a matter of, we do that customarily in development contracts uniformly, without any council approval or action on it. (inaudible discussion.) MR. ASHWORTH: So, that it's clear for the record then, these 20 conditions, that would be, if any of those were previously modified by the Council, they would be the street widths, the water main issue, et cetera, et cetera, these conditions would change by the specific action that has previously been taken by the Council. MR. GEVING: Well then, what we're really talking about are the original 20 conditions of idly 7, 1980, the action of our August loth meeting, which we set the cul-de-sac, the street width, the water looping, -- and tonight's action? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 85 MR, LARSON: There were other actions, too, on other dates. MR. HORN: And the Planning Commission recommendations Nos. 5 and 6, as modified. MR. GEVING: well, that's what I'm referring to, Planning Commission Recommendations Nos. 5 and 6. MR. ASHwORTH2 I think you've specified all of them. MR. GEVING: Including the Engineer's Report of, I believe it was April 8 or 9th, April 8th, I'm referring to April 8th from Bob waibel, City Planner, I guess we could just call it Staff Recommendations and Planning Commission Recommendations, What else is there? MR. HAMILTON: Nothing. Is that in the form of a motion? MR. GEVING: we've already moved on one item, and that was a motion to approve the planned unit. So then, I will make the motion to approve the preliminary plat for the Fox Chase Development PUD, is it? MR. LARSON: You had moved to approve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q the amended final development plan noted as Submission Packet No. 2, we'll mark that Exhibit 'A', preliminary plat designated as Exhibit 'A', City Council Meeting 4/26/82, subject to the move to approve it, Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat, subject to the conditions, certain conditions. MR. GEVING: Conditions of, the 20 conditions of April 7, 1980, and as modified subsequently, including the Staff and Planning Commission Recommendations shown on the April 9, 1982 letter from Bob Waibel, the City Planner, to the Mayor of the City Council, and the Minutes of the City Council Meeting dated August 10, 1981, and I believe that's it. MR. LARSON: And there is incorporated within that motion a specific finding of Section 14.05 (5)(c) of Ordinance 47. MS. SWENSON; Does this include the Planning Commission Recommendations? MR. GEVING: Yes, Pat. I included that in as April 9, 1982, Staff and Planning Commission -- MR. ASHWORTH: One modification, Councilman Geving, that is, that we referred to hd 87 1 April 7th, it was actually July 21st, 1980. 2 MR. GEVING: July 21, 1980. 3 MR, ASHWORTH: On that date, you had 4 approved or had combined the conditions that 5 were made for April 7, July 9 and July 17, and 6 Jul incorporated in p y 7, incorporated those in 7 and created the 20 conditions of July 21. 8 MR. NEVEAUX: Second. 9 MR. HAMILTON: Any further discussion? 10 MR. GETTS: Mr. Mayor, I have one very 11 brief comment. 12 M.R. HAMILTON: Just one very brief 13 comment. 14 MR, GETTS: I was just going to ask 15 that since there's been so much controversy, 16 and since Councilman Geving's motion incorporates, 17 by my count, three documents, two years apart, 18 and oral comments tonight, you table it for 19 30 days, or at least until the next meeting, so that 20 a written resolution could be prepared by Staff 21 incorporating all of this, so that at least 22 you'd save yourself the problem in the future of 23 worrying about what you approved. 24 MR. ASHWORTH: Any approval given by 25 the City Council is not official until you have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 88 reviewed tonight's minutes, so as far as this action, if there is any ambiguity, it would be your responsibility to catch those when the minutes come ou`. They would not be, by your action tonight, automatically incorporated. MR. HAMILTON: Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion, signify by saying *Aye'. (Unanimous vote.) Motion carries. MR. SELLERGREN: Mr. Mayor, may I makes a comment? MR. HAMILTON: Yes. MR. SELLERGREN: You've imposed a lot of new conditions, modified conditions, I should say. We will be examining very closely the various conditions imposed and making a decision as to Plan 'A' or Plan 'B' Thank you. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ].3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WE REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE Z, MARLENE FRANCES BURN, a general Shorthand reporter, of Professional Court Reporters, 1720 Midwest Plaza West, Minneapolis, Minnesota, do hereby certify the foregoing 88 pages of typewritten material constitute a full, true and correct transcript of my original Shorthand notes, as they purport to contain, of the proceedings reported by me at the time and place hereinbefore mentioned. Dated this lst day of June, 1982.