79-04 - Fox Chase PUD pt 21MEMOp,Z�T'rD UM
CITY vF 10
CIA Iff-A -e�r�.
690 COULTER pRIVE • p.0, BO
X 147 WQ 4v
• CHANHASSEN;
(612) 937-1900 MINNES
OTq 55317
TO;
Mayor
FRAM• and City Council
DATE; C1tY Manager, Don Ash
APri l 5 , 1982 Forth
SUBJ;
Set Specia
DeVeMeet -
loprnent April g Date. Fox
12, 1982). Chase, Derrick Land
Thlis item is na
Sel�'ex
The council p1a tort.
Office out Will b
Proposal lZrlingr the reCelv1ng a
Open (Corp of Current report
r0 to the C • Engine , status from the
sped) or p1at22Y in furthers action) of this develtt°rneY's
these al meeting (curved roa COnsiderinProCedures/opment
general issuesesed ford)APr11 12 ntZc patestpaight
th a that the
"'Ill
Only deal it,
a %
Derrick Land Company'-- Fox Chase Development f
The Managers noted the mortgage foreclosure notice
regarding the Fox Chase development in Chanhassen. The Board
reaffirmed that a performance bond has been posted for this
development, which should remain in place regardless of
mortgage foreclosure proceedings in order to insure full
compliance with all permit conditions for grading and land
alteration permits issued for this development site.
Spring Tour
The Managers considered scheduling the spring tour of
the District. Following the District engineer's recommendation
on possible dates, those were moved by Peterson., seconded by
Rahr, that the Spring Tour be scheduled for April 11, 1987.
Annual Report
Chairman Fiskness noted that a draft of the District's
1986 Annual Report had been distributed to the Managers for
review and comment. Chairman Fiskness requested that all
Managers submit their comments to the District's attorney
before the April meeting in order that the report be given
final consideration at that time.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the
meeting, it was moved by Cardinal, seconded by Rahr that the
meeting be adjourned. Upon vote the motion carried. Chairman
Fiskness declared the meeting duly adjourned.
0115q
Respectfully submitted,
Frederick W. Rahr
Secretary
Jul,
.SPECIAL CHANHASSEN %-. fY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 1982
R
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order with the following members present:
Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn.
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW, DERRICK LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, FOX CHASE:
Dave Sellergren, Attorney for Derrick Land Development Company, Kurt Laughinghouse,
Roger Derrick, and several area residents were present. (This is not a public hearing
and as such an attendance sheet is not necessary.)
The City Attorney reviewed his letter of April 8, 1982, reflecting the current legal
status of the Derrick development proposal. Council members generally discussed
conditions originally placed with both the City Attorney and City Engineer. Discussion
then proceeded to alternate Plan B, designated as City Council Exhibit A dated April
26, 1982.
The general consensus was that, if Plan B were to be considered, that all conditions
as setforth in July of 1981 would similarly be placed on Plan B. The City Council
proceeded to discuss the Planning Commission recommendations for Plan B. The
following conditions shown in the Planning Commission minutes of April 22, 1981, were
determined to be not applicable; i.e.
1. That the access to Fox Chase from Pleasant View Road be moved to the easterly
property line.
Y4. That the developer dedicate a right-of-way of 50 feet in width between Lots 26 and
27, Block 1, for possible future secondary access.
7. That the outlot may be incorporated into individual property as shown in Plan B.
J 9. That Plan B not be approved until the recommendations of the Planning Commission
f are incorporated into a development plan.
The following Planning Commission conditions, from their minutes of April 22, 1981,
were generally agreed to be placed as conditions if Plan B were to be approved:
n 2. That the proposed curvilinear street alignment be approved with the condition
vC that it be constructed to standards acceptable to the City Engineer and approved
by the Council.
3. That the only new direct access to Pleasant View Road be the newly platted Fox Path.
5. That the conservation easement be maintained and that within the conservation
easement there will be no alteration of Lakeshore or installation of structures,
including private, docks without prior approval on an individual lot basis by the
City Council pursuant to the Conditional Use procedures of Ordinance 47.
( J/ 6. That the developer be required to install a six foot bituminous path from Lot 12,
�.J Block 1, north to Pleasant View Road along the east side of, Fox Path.
1 8. That a permanent cul-de-sac, with the retention of right-of-way to the western
line of the plat, be constructed near the west end of Fox Path.
Additionally, condition #7 of the July 17, 1980, City Council conditions be changed by
adding: That the developer install an eight foot wide wood chip trail from the southerly
line of the plat within the utility easement, commencing at the southerly edge of the
property going northerly to the south line of Lot 12, Block 1.
Significant discussion occurred with reaard to dockage riahts associated with Plan B.
The City Manager, Don Ashworth, stated that the City Council had neither granted
dockage rights nor restricted dockage rights associated with Plan A. That the City
Council should specifically include in any motion the statement that, in approving Plan B
with whatever conditions, that such neither allows for dockage nor prohibits dockage.
The developer has previously been informed that the allowance for dockage rights, as a
part of the subdivision approval is a land use right which has been determined during
the development contract stage. The City Attorney agreed with the Manager's
position in that any approval of Plan B. should specifically state that the issue of
dockaae and allowable uses within the conservation easement area is not a part of the
plan approval process under consideration this evening recognizing time limitations.
Council Meeting April 26,�1982 -2-
P
Councilman Neveaux moved that the Council consider Plan 6 as the more preferred
of the two plans for the proposed Fox Chase Development including all 20 conditions
Qthat were applied to Plan A, along with staff recommendations and Planning
Commission recommendations as setforth in the City Planner's report of April 9,
1982. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved to approve the amended final development plan for Fox
Chase, noted as submission packet #2 and preliminary plat as designated as
V,!2 Exhibit A, City Council meeting April 26, 1982, subject to the 20 conditions
of July 21, 1980, and as subsequently modified, including the staff and Planning
Commission recommendations shown on the April 9, 1982, memorandum from the City
Planner to the City Council, and the minutes of the City Council meeting dated
Aucyust 10, 1981, and incorporating findings of Section 14.05, 5(c) of Ordinance 47.
Motion seconded by Councilman Neveaux. -The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn. No
negative votes. Motion carried.
NORTH LAKE SUSAN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, WELL #4, PUMPHOUSE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS: RESOLUTION #82-19: Councilman Neveaux moved the adoption
of a resolution approving the plans and specifications and authorize the City Engineer
to advertise for bids. Resolution seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted
in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving and
Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
GENERAL MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUND: The City Engineer recommended the
Council establish a General Municipal State Aid Fund into which all state aid
construction funds are deposited and then can be released for the following purposes
as approved by the Council:
1. MSA construction projects. y
2. Feasibility studies for designated MSA streets.
3. Assessments on City property for improvements resulting from MSA projects.
Interest aenerated from the fund can be used only upon Council authorization.
The Engineer recommended that the City as a whole should receive some benefit
from the interest; i.e. small drainage projects.
Councilman Neveaux moved to accept the recommendation of the City Engineer to
establish a Municipal State Aid Fund. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The
following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux,
Geving, and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CPT, DESIGNATE ENGINEERING FIRM:
The City Engineer recommended the Council retain Consulting Engineers Diversified,
Inc. for this project.
Councilwoman Swenson moved to retain Consulting Engineers Diversified, Inc. for
the CPT storm sewer project. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving,
and Horn. No negative votes. Motion carried.
REMODELING BUDGET REVISION, FIRE STATION #1: Councilman Neveaux moved
to accept the City Manager's recommendation and increase the previous allocation
by $880.00. Motion seconded by Councilman Horn. The following voted in favor:
Mayor Hamilton, Councilwoman Swenson, Councilmen Neveaux, Geving, and Horn.
No negative votes. Motion carried.
SUNNYSLOPE ADDITION, ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS AS MEETING DEVELOPMENT
CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS: The City Engineer and City Planner have reviewn-1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT N:e lG ~7, � z
PLAT OF FOX CHASE / 12 _ _ dz
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
, 1982, by and between DERRICK LAND COMPANY, a
Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Developer), and
the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter
referred to as the City);
W I T N E S S E T H:
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.
RECITALS
1.1) Fox Chase Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat.
The Developer is the fee owner of a tract of land lying within the
City, as more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and
made a part hereof (hereinafter the "Subject Property" or "Plat").
The Developer has heretofore made application to the City under the
City Zoning Ordinance for the approval of a P-1 Planned Residential
District encompassing all of the subject property.
1.2) Ownership Interests. The ownership interests of the tract
of land comprising the subject property are as follows:
(01) Derrick Land Company, a Minnesota corporation, fee owner;
(02) Wilma C. Thompson, Mortgagee;
(03) Minnesota Century Builders, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
Contract for Deed vendee as to part of the subject property.
1.3) Plan Approval Chronology.
(01) The City Planning Commission held public hearings on August
22, 1979, and April 22, 1981, to consider public comment on
development plans, plats, and rezoning of the subject property.
(02) The City Council, by its action dated April 7, 1980,
approved rezoning of the subject property to P-1 Planned
Residential District; and on July 21, 1980, July 20, 1981, and
April 26, 1982, approved the amended final development plan and
preliminary plat consisting of 52 single-family residential lots
designated as "Exhibit A, Chanhassen City Council meeting of April
26, 1982" (hereinafter the "plat"), subject to and on condition
that the Developer enter into this agreement.
SECTION 2.
IMPROVEMENTS BY DEVELOPER
2.1) 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 improve-
ments (hereinafter the "Public Improvements"), in accordance with the
Plans and Specifications described in 112.2 below, as modified by the
Special Conditions set forth in Section 4 hereof:
(01) Street grading, stabilizing, and bituminous surfacing
(02) Surmountable concrete curbs and gutters
(03) Sanitary sewer mains
(04) Watermains
(05) Storm and surface water drainage and retention ponds
(06-)- --Street signs
(07) Underground utility lines
(08) Street lighting
2.2) 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 consistent with those heretofore
submitted to the City subject to the final review and written approval
of the City Engineer. Substantial changes in said plans and specifi-
cations 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.
2.3) Standards of Construction. Developer agrees that all of the
public improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance
with the aforesaid City approved plans and specifications, and that
said improvements shall equal or exceed City standards, and that all
of said work shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the
City Engineer.
2.
2.4) Materials and Labor. All of the materials to be employed in
the making of said public improvements and all of the work performed
in connection therewith shall be of uniformly good and workmanlike
quality. In case any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by
the City as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected material shall
be removed and replaced with approved material, and rejected labor
shall be done anew to the satisfaction and approval of the City at the
cost and expense of the Developer.
2.5) 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 reason-
able 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 comput-
ing the amount of the financial security to be furnished to the City
by the Developer pursuant to the terms of -this Agreement.
2.6) Completion Date and Schedule of Work.
(01) 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 Court-
house and that all public improvements shall be completed within
two (2) years of said plat filing.
(02) It is agreed that the Developer shall submit a written
schedule indicating the progress schedule and order of completion
of the work covered by this Agreement. It is further agreed that
upon receipt of written notice from the Developer of the existence
of causes over which the Developer has no control which will delay
the completion of the work, the City Council will extend the date
hereinbefore specified for completion and that any bond or
financial security required shall be continued by the Developer to
cover the work during this extension of time.
(03) Final approval and acceptance of the project shall take the
form of a Resolution duly passed by the City Council, on the
advice of the City Engineer. Final approval and acceptance shall
be granted upon the City Engineer's satisfaction pursuant to
Section 2.08 and shall be conditioned upon the one-year guarantee
of work and guarantee bond set forth in Section 2.15 hereof.
2.7) Claims for Work. The Developer shall not do any work or
furnish any materials not covered by the plans and specifications and
special conditions of this Agreement, for which reimbursement is
expected from the City, unless such work is first ordered in writing
by the City Engineer as provided in the specifications.
3.
Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the
contractor, without such written order first being given, shall be at
his own risk, cost and expense, and he hereby agrees that without such
written order he will make no claim for compensation for work or
materials so done or furnished.
2.8) 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 inspec-
tion of the work. Before final payment is made .to the contractor by
the Developer, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is
satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications; and the Developer's engineer shall submit a written
statement attesting to same.
2.9) As Built Plans. Upon completion of the work, the Developer
shall have his engineer provide the City with a full set of as -built
mylar reproducible plans for the City records. These plans shall
include the locations and ties to all sanitary sewer and watermain
services as well as gate valve boxes and manholes.
2.10) City Disclaimer. It is agreed anything to the contrary
herein notwithstanding, that 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 subcontractor,
materialmen, 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 Agree-
ment or the performance and completion of the work and the improve-
ments 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 services and costs of
legal services rendered in connection with defending such claims as
may be brought against the City.
2.11) Erosion Control. Developer, at its expense, shall provide
temporary and permanent dams, earthwork, retention and sedimentation
basins, and such other practices including seeding of graded areas, as
shall be needed in the judgment of the City Engineer, 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, including construction on
individual lots. Additionally, the Developer shall comply with all.
conditions of the grading and land alteration permits from the Riley
Purgatory Creek Watershed District, dated April 20, 1982, the U.S.
Corps of Engineers, dated March 3, 1982, the Department of Natural
Resources approval dated July 13, 1981, and all of the recommendations
of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in its reports dated June 13,
1980, July 2, 1981, and April 6, 1982, to the extent that such
4.
recommendations are not inconsistent with the requirements of the
aforesaid permits.
A plan consolidating all applicable conditions concerning
construction grading and drainage shall be submitted to and approved
by the City Engineer prior to commencement of any work.
2.12) Street Lighting. The expense of furnishing electrical
energy for street lighting purposes shall be assumed by the City
twenty-four (24) months after completion of installation of the street
lighting system, or after fifty percent (50%) of the building lots
have been improved by the construction of residences thereof,
whichever is first to occur.
2.13) Conveyance of Improvements. Upon completion of the
installation by Developer of the improvements set forth in $2.1 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 improvements to the
City free of all liens and encumbrances and with warranty of title
pursuant to Bill of Sale or Warranty Deed, as applicable. Should the
Developer fail to so convey said improvements, the same shall become
the property of the City without further notice or action on the part
of either party hereto, other than acceptance by the City.
2.14) Building Permits and Occupancy Permits.
(01) Prior to completion of the grading and placement of rock
stabilizing materials for road construction within the plat, the
City Building Inspector, with the approval of the City Engineer,
shall be authorized to issue building permits for residential
construction within such plat upon payment of all fees and charges
applicable to the issuance of permits and provisions for adequate
site access.
(02) The occupancy of any structure within said plat for residen-
tial purposes shall be prohibited by the City until the rock
stabilizing base of the streets shall have been completed and
municipal sanitary sewer and water lines shall have been installed
and are available to serve the lot for which a building permit
shall have been issued.
2.15) One-year Guarantee of Work and Guarantee Bond. All work and
materials performed and furnished by the Developer, its agents and
subcontractors pursuant to 1(2.1 above, which are found by the City to
be defective within one year after acceptance by the City shall be
replaced by Developer at Developer's sole expense. In accordance with
Section 6.2 and not in addition thereto, the within guarantee of work
shall be secured to the City by an irrevocable letter of credit, or a
corporate surety bond, at the election of and in an amount established
by the City, furnished by the Developer to the City. Said letter of
credit or surety bond shall first be approved by the City Attorney,
and shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of any other remedies
which may be available to the City to secure any defects in materials
or workmanship.
5.
2.16) Liability Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain
so long as Developer's obligations continue under this agreement,
public liability and property damage insurance covering personal
injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may
arise out of Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors 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 property damage shall be
not less than $200,000 for each occurrence. The City shall be named
as an additional named insured on said policy, and Developer shall
file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City.
SECTION 3.
STATUS OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
3.1) 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:
(01) Levied Special Assessments:
Parcel #25-01-000-0037-000,
20.08 Acres in part of Gov't. Lots 5 and 6,
1 sewer and water lateral assessment levied in 1973 in
the amount of $4,119.00, payable over 15 years at 7%
interest.
1 sewer and water trunk assessment levied in 1980, in
the amount of $1,054.96, payable over 10 years at 7%
interest.
Parcel #25-79-500-0001-000, Lot 1, Vineland
1 sewer and water lateral assessment levied on October
1, 1973, in the amount of $4,949.00, which has been paid
in full.
2 sewer and water lateral and 3 sewer and water trunk
assessments levied in 1980, in the amount of $12,419.98,
payable over 10 years at 7% interest.
(02) Deferred Special Assessments. In addition to the foregoing
levied special assessments, the subject property is further
specially benefitted by 48 off-line sewer and water trunk units,
each sewer trunk unit valued at $320.00 and each water trunk unit
valued at $380.00, and each said sewer and water unit shall bear
interest at the rate of 7% from October 1, 1973.
6.
3.2) Spread and Payment of Deferred Special Assessments. All
deferred special assessments for said 48 sewer and water trunk units
shall be spread and assigned to the 48 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.
3.3) Developer Waives Public Hearing and Right of Appeal. The
Developer waives its right to public hearing under S429.061 and
S429.071 of Minnesota Statutes and its right of appeal under S429.081
of Minnesota Statutes as to the Deferred Special Assessments.
SECTION 4.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
4.1) Fox Path Cul-de-Sac. A cul-de-sac shall be constructed by
the Developer at the western terminus of Fox Path as shown on the
preliminary plat approved by the City Council on April 26, 1982, and
designated Exhibit A. Said cul-de-sac shall have a radius of 60 feet,
a roadway surface radius of 40 feet, with surmountable curb and
gutter, and shall be constructed in accordance with plans and
specifications approved by the City Engineer. The westerly extension
of Fox Path from said cul-de-sac to the westerly boundary of the
subject property shall be platted as a dedicated street but shall not
be improved as such until development on the adjoining property shall
require a -street connection to Fox Path.
4.2) Pleasant View Road Access Restriction. Unless otherwise
determined by the City Council, Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2 shall not be
permitted direct driveway access to Pleasant View Road. Said restric-
tion shall be incorporated within covenants 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.
4.3) Watermain Loop. Unless otherwise determined by the City
Council, t e 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.
4.4) Building 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 reviewed and
approved by an architect or civil engineer licensed by the State of
Minnesota. Said building and site plan review and approval shall
include provisions for slope protection, surface and sub -surface
drainage, prevention of siltation, and the preservation of trees and
prevention of excessive vegetation removal during construction.
Building pads and basement floors shall be constructed at an
elevation not less than two (2) feet above the regional flood
7.
elevation in accordance with the requirements of applicable City
ordinances.
The terms and conditions of this Section 4.4 shall be made a. part
of covenants and restrictions which shall be applicable to the final
plat of the subject property and which shall be filed contemporane-
ously with the filing of the final plat with the Carver County
Recorder.
4.5) Easements. The Developer, at its expense, shall acquire all
perpetual easements from abutting property owners necessary to the
installation of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water facilities
within the subject property and thereafter shall promptly assign said
easements to the City prior to the filing of the final plat with the
Carver County Recorder.
4.6) Easements Dedicated On Plat. Perpetual easements for
surface water drainage, including ponding and sedimentation basins and
access thereto, shall be dedicated on the final plat to the extent
permitted by State law. All such easements not so dedicated shall be
granted to the City in form approved by the City Attorney and accept-
able for recording in the Office of the Carver County Recorder.
4.7) Streets. All streets within the plat shall be dedicated
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.
4.8) Ponding and Sedimentation Basin Maintenance. The Developer
shall maintain in good operational order all ponding and sedimentation
basins during all phases of construction within the subject property.
Thereafter, said maintenance shall be the obligation of the City.
4.9) Trail Easement. The Developer shall grant to the City a
perpetual easement ten (10) feet wide for use as a City trail, said
easement to commence at the southerly property line of Lot 19, Block
1, thence extending northerly along the alignment of the sanitary
sewer easement to the south line of Lot 12, Block 1, thence westerly
170 feet along the south line of said Lot 12 to its intersection with
the easterly right-of-way line of Fox Path, thence extending northerly
within said right-of-way to its intersection with Pleasant View Road
and there terminating. The form of said easement shall be approved by
the City Attorney, and shall be filed at the time of the filing of the
final plat with the County Recorder.
When constructed, the portion of the trail easement on the Fox
Path right-of-way shall be constructed at the City's expense with a
bituminous surface and the portion of the easement along the sanitary
sewer alignment shall be surfaced with wood chips. All trail easement
construction shall be performed by the City in accordance with
specifications approved by the City Engineer.
8.
( � 1
N
4.10) Park Fees. Because the Developer is granting a Conservation
Easement as provided in Section 5 and a trail easement as provided in
114.9, no park fees shall be required pursuant to Ordinance 14A and
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.358, Subd. 2b.
4.11) 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 same and directing
attention to detours. If streets become impassable, such streets
shall be barricaded and closed. In the event residences are occupied
prior to completing streets, the Developer shall maintain a smooth
surface and provide proper surface drainage. The Developer shall be
responsible for keeping streets within and without the plat swept
clean of dirt and debris that may spill or wash onto the street from
his operation. The Developer may request, in writing, that the City
keep the streets open during the winter months by plowing snow from
said streets prior to final acceptance of said streets. The City
shall not be responsible for re -shaping said streets because of snow
plowing operations if they are requested. Providing snow plowing
service does not constitute final acceptance of said streets by the
City.
4.12) 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.
4.13) Covenants and Restrictions. Covenants or restrictions to be
placed upon the lots in the subject plat shall be prepared by the
Developers and shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to record-
ing with the County Recorder. The covenants and restrictions shall be
approved if they are consistent with the requirements of this Agree-
ment. The zoning ordinances and regulations of the City shall govern
if inconsistent with said covenants and restrictions to the extent
actually inconsistent; but if not inconsistent therewith, the
standards contained in said covenants and restrictions shall be
considered as requirements in addition to said City ordinances and
regulations.
4.14) 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 5.
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
5.1) Easement To Be Granted. Developer shall grant to the City a
perpetual conservation easement for environmental protection 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.
9.
5.2) Conservation Easement Development Restrictions. All of the
following activities shall be prohibited within the conservation
easement area including the wetlands as delineated on Exhibit "A",
Chanhassen City Council meeting of April 26, 1982:
(01) The placement and erection of buildings, structures, docks
and walkways except as may be permitted by Section 5.3 hereof.
(02) The alteration of vegetation in any manner or form except as
may be permitted by Section 5.3 hereof.
(03) The excavation or filling of the easement area.
(04) The application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical.
(05) The application of chemicals for the destruction or
retardation of vegetation.
(06) The deposit of waste or debris.
(07) Construction of paths, trails and service roads except as
permitted by the City.
(08) The application of herbicides, pesticides and insecticides.
(09) Except as may be permitted by Section 5.3 hereof, the
storage of watercraft, boat trailers, ice fishing houses, snow-
mobiles, motorized and nonmotorized vehicles.
(10) The mooring or storage of seaplanes, in abutting waters of
Lotus Lake (hereinafter "the lake").
5.3) Dockage Within Easement Area. The placement of docks within
the easement area shall be subject to the Conservation Easement
attached hereto and made a part hereof and the following terms and
conditions:
(01) Five (5) docks may be placed within the easement area for
use by the owners of the ten (10) lakeshore lots within the
development: Lots 10 through 19, Block 2, Fox Chase. Each dock
may serve two (2) lots.
(02) 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 of four (4) feet. The width (but not the length) of
the cross -bar of any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in
the computation of length described in the preceding sentence.
The cross -bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of
twenty-five (25) feet in length. No dock shall encroach upon any
dock set -back zone established by City ordinance, provided,
however, that the owners of any two lots within the easement area
may erect one common dock within any such dock set -back zone if
said common dock is the only dock on said two lots and if said
10.
dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this Section 5.3.
No more than one dock shall be permitted on any of said lots.
(03) No dock shall be so located as to: (a) obstruct the
navigation of the lake, (b) obstruct reasonable use or access to
any other dock, (c) present a potential safety hazard.
(04) No fuel shall be stored upon any such dock.
(05) No person shall moor overnight or dock overnight, more than
five (5) watercraft at any such dock.
(06) Boardwalks may be constructed to serve as approach walkways
to docks over lands which are intermittently or permanently wet.
Paths may be created for dock and boardwalk approaches over dry
ground.
(07) 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.
(08) No dock shall be located northerly of the dock set -back zone
between Lots 12 and 13, Block 1, Fox Chase.
5.4) Form and Approval of Easement. The form of the conservation
easement shall be prepared by the City Attorney at the expense of the
Developer, and shall be approved by the City Council prior to
submission to the Developer for execution and delivery to the City.
5.5) Inclusion in Covenants and Restrictions. The conservation
easement shall be made a part of the covenants and restrictions
applicable to the plat and shall be incorporated therein by reference,
and as an exhibit forming a part of said covenants and restrictions.
SECTION 6.
ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
6.1) 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 connection with
all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the
within agreement and the performance thereby by the Developer. Such
reimbursement shall be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of
mailing of the City's notice of costs.
6.2) Security for Performance by Developer. For the purpose of
assuring and guaranteeing to the City that the improvements to be by
the Developer constructed, installed and furnished as set forth in
112.1 hereof shall be constructed, installed and furnished according to
the terms of this Agreement, and that the Developer shall pay all
claims for work done and materials and supplies furnished for the
performance of this Agreement, and that the Developer shall fully
11.
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
Attorney in an amount equal to 110% of the costs of the improvements
described in Section 2.1 hereof, as estimated by the City Engineer.
Upon completion of said improvements, the amount of said cash deposit
or letter of credit may be reduced from time to time to such lessor
amount as the City Council deems necessary to insure performance of
the Developer's guarantee set forth in ¶2.15 above. The cash deposit
or irrevocable letter of credit 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 District.
6.3) Remedies Upon Default.
(01) Assessments. In the event Developer shall default in the
performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein
contained, and such default shall not have been cured within ten
(10) days after receipt by Developer of written notice thereof,.
the City, if it so elects, may cause any of the required improve-
ments to be constructed and installed, or may take action to cure
said default, and to the extent that the City's recovery on the
security deposit in 6.3 is deficient, may cause the entire cost
thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and
administrative expenses incurred by the City to be recovered as a
special assessment under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, in which
case the Developer agrees to pay the entire amount of the assess-
ment roll pertaining to any such improvement within sixty (60)
days after its adoption. In addition, Developer further agrees
that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special
assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have
a specific lien on all of Developer's real property within said
plat for any amount so unpaid, and the City shall have the right
to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the fore-
closure 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.
(02) 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:
(a) the cost of completing the construction of the
improvements described in J(2.1 above; and
(b) the cost of curing any other default by the Developer
in its performance of any of the covenants and
agreement contained herein; and
12.
(c) the cost of reasonable engineering, legal, and
administrative expense incurred by the City in
enforcing and administering this contract.
(03) 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 development contract.
SECTION 7.
MISCELLANEOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS
7.1) Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations; Permits.
In the development of the plat, Developer shall comply with all laws,
ordinances and regulations of, and secure all necessary permits from
the following authorities:
(01) City of Chanhassen
(02) State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and
commissions
(03) Department of Natural Resources
(04) Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District
(05) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7.2) Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish
the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it is fee owner
of the subject property.
7.3) Duration of Contract. This contract shall remain in effect
until such time as Developer shall have fully performed all of its
duties and obligations under this contract. Upon the written request
of Developer and upon the adoption of a resolution by the Chanhassen
City Council finding that the Developer has fully complied with all of
the terms of this contract and finding that Developer has completed
performance of all Developer's duties mandated by this contract, the
Chanhassen City Manager shall issue to the Developer on behalf of the
City an appropriate certificate of compliance.
7.4) Notices. All notices, certificates and other communications
hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when
mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid,
with property address as indicated below. The City and the Developer,
by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address
or addresses to which notices, certificates or other communications to
them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this Agreement.
Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices,
certificates and communications to each of them shall be addressed as
follows:
13.
To the City: City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Attention: City Manager
To the Developer: Derrick Land Company
1770 Shelard Tower
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426
7.5) Binding Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit
of and shall be binding upon the City and the Developer and their
respective successors and assigns. Nothing in this Agreement, express
or implied, shall give to any person, other than the parties hereto,
and their respective successors and assigns hereunder any benefit or
other legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under this Agreement.
7.6) Severability. In the event any provision of this Agreement
shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render
unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions
shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
7.7) Execution of Counterparts. This Agreement may be simul-
taneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an
original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same
instrument.
7.8) Construction. This Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
7.9) Headings. Headings at the beginning of sections and
paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, and shall not be
considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall not
influence its construction.
7.10) Sign Plan. Signs for the purpose of advertising the subject
property may be erected in accordance with the Developer's sign plans
only after submission to and approval by the City Council.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents
to be executed on the day and year first above written.
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
By:
By:
14.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Preliminary Plat
15.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By:
Attest:
s
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
On this day of , 1993, before me, a notary public
within and for said Coun `fir, pers'o{�ally a geared
ando . 4�n� ( ,
to me personally known, Th6 being each by me duly sworn did say that
they are respectively the President and Secretary of the corporation
named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed
and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its
Directors and said Roa&^ )S.tQck and _
13 acknowledged said instrument to be
act and deed of said corporation.
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
Board of
the free
No Y3t+l��hsJ�s*u��r:Nr�
SUSAN L. HANSON
¢� iF + NOTARY PUBLIC • M*4NEMMA
` HENNEPIN COUNTY
My Commission Expires Aug. 14.1W
MN� ►!�
On this day of , 19 , before me, a notary public
within and for said County, personally appeared Thomas L. Hamilton and
Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who being each by me duly
sworn did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of
the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that
the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said
municipal corporation, and that said instrument was signed and sealed
in behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its City
Council and said Thomas L. Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth
acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said
municipal corporation.
Notary Public
16.
4
AFFIRMANCE
Minnesota Century Builders, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
contract.for deed vendee as a part of the subject property, the
development of which is governed by the foregoing development
contract, hereby acknowledges receipt of an executed copy of said
contract, and affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and
agrees to be bound by said provisions as the same may apply to that
portion of the subject property being acquired by it as contract for
deed vendee.
Dated this day of , 19 .
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
MINNESOTA CENTURY BUILDERS, INC.
By:
Its: President
By:
Its: Secretary
On this day of , 19 , before me, a notary public
within and for said County, personally appeared
and ,
to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn did say that
they are respectively the President and Secretary of Minnesota Century
Builders, Inc., and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the
corporate seal of said corporation, and that said instrument was
signed and sealed in behalf of said, corporation by authority of its
Board of Directors, and said and
acknowledged said instrument to be
the free act and deed of said corporation.
Notary Public
17.
t
15r
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager
DATE: June 1, 1981
SUBJ: Final Development Plan Review, Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
Land Company (Revises Previously Approved Development Plan)
The following report has been divided into four sections:
I. Status - July 21, 1980 Plan Approval
II. Status Report - Final Development Plan Amendment Request,
Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
III. Kathy Schwartz Report of May 2, 1981 and Responses to Such Report
IV. Kathy Schwartz Report of May 26, 1981.
The purpose of breaking the report into four distinct sections is to
allow the City Council the greatest amount of flexibility in determining
how to proceed with this issue. Specifically, should the Council deter-
mine that tonight's session should only concentrate on the responses to
the Kathy Schwartz report of May 2nd. All enclosures relative to that
response have been accumulated as a part of Section III. Should the
Council determine to concentrate only in terms of what was previously
approved, enclosures relative to this are encompassed in Section I.
Should the Council desire to concentrate on Mrs. Schwartz' report #p4,
such has been included. However, as this office did not receive this
report until the day of writing this report to the City Council, no
staff comments are included in this section.
This office would recommend that the Council proceed with the review
of this item as an amendment to a previously approved final development
plan. Should this recommendation be considered, hopefully, enclosures
included under Section II are all inclusive allowing for final action
this evening.
17
SECTION I
status - July 21, 1980 Plan Approval
--� SECTION I
Status - July 21, 198.0 Plan Approval
Attached please find a report from the City Attorney's office which,
basically, states that the developer has one year in which to complete
conditions set by the City Council. Stated another way, the developer
must meet the conditions of the final development plan approval prior to
asking for preliminary plat approval and he has the one year period of
time, from final development plan approval to complete these conditions
and request preliminary plat approval. In the specific case of Fox
Chase Addition, the developer has until July 21, 1981 to meet the
conditions set by the City Council. Attached please find.a listing of
all conditions that were set as a part of the July 21, 1980 approval.
Although discussion may have occurred by Mr. Derrick in regards to a
number of the points, basically a majority of the conditions set by the
City Council have not been met. It should be recognized, however, that
Mr. Derrick still has until July 21st, 1981 to complete these conditions
and that some of the conditions relate to work that would be necessary
after preliminary plat approval was given. Therefore, conditions
associated with specific construction plans or the actual construction
itself would typically become a part of the preliminary plat approval
and incorporated into the development contract but logically would not
be completed prior to preliminary plat approval.
Conditions of April 7, 1980
1. That the applicant receive approval_of their
grading plan, drainage plan and erosion control plan
from the
Soil Conservation Service
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District
2. That said approvals be received prior to the matter
being resubmitted to the City Council for preliminary
plat approval.
3. That the pedestrian and conservation easement portion
of the proposed development must be shown by the
applicant to have such soil conditions as would allow
for the development of such facilities, and that the
applicant's soil condition evidence is to be reviewed
by the City Engineer.
4. That the applicant prepare cul-de-sac plans for the
roadway portion in the vicinity of lot 20, block 3
and lot 24, block 1. Said plans are to be reviewed
and approved by the city engineer.
5. Paved street surfaces are to be 36 feet wide and
paved cul-de-sacs are to be 32 feet in diameter.
6. That the Park and Recreation Commission review
alternative trail locations between Pleasant View
Road and the conservation easement and is to submit
a recommendation to the City Council.
Conditions of July 17 1980 (items 2.3, and 4
7. The location of the trail is still uncertain at
this time, i.e. whether along the back lot lines
or abutting the street on the north end of the
development. In meeting with the Park and
Recreation Commission, the developers have stated
their desire to have this decision withheld until
grading is commenced and Park and Recreation
Commissioners afforded an opportunity to walk both
potential locations. This suggestion appears to
create some problems in preparation of a development
contract (outlining two potential location areas),
but no other reasonable alternative appears to exist.
However, in accepting the final development plan,
it should be clear that the outlot area is being
accepted as a conservation area and, as such, no
.park.credits are being given. Further, that it
is to the advantage of the developer to have the
8 foot trail through the conservation and, whether
such be within this conservation area --or partially
adjacent to the road, that developers agree to grade
and install wood chips for the trail in accordance
with the recommendations of the Park and Recreation
Commission as a part of their overall grading plan.
8. As,a part of both the East Lotus Lake Project and
Near Mountain development proposals, significant
discussion occurred in regards to the City's ability
to assure that public improvements are designed and
inspected to City standards. In conformance with
these discussions, it is recommended that the developer
be required to use the City's engineer for preparation
of,plans and specifications and all staking and
inspection.
9. The above conditions are in addition to those outlined
by the Land Use Coordinator in his reports of July 9
and 17, and the Engineer's report of July 7--such
disregarding those variances approved by the City
Council during preliminary development plan approval,
i.e. length of cul-de-sacs and street grades.
Conditions of July 9, 1980
10.That a conservation easement be established within
the area below the 900 foot elevation pursuant to the
Comprehensive Plan and that within said conservation
easement, a pedestrian -way easement be dedicated
that is 8 feet wide with'l+ foot on either side for
Purposes of maintenance (the above would nullify the
proposed 20 foot trail easement indicated on the
proposed preliminary plat dated May 12, 1980, with
the understanding that the above described easement
would be established upon completion of a feasible
route within the conservation easement).
ll.That the applicant and its contractors, including
home builders, carry out the construction of
improvements and structures,in accordance with the
requirements set forth by the
Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District -
Soil Conservation Service Evaluation Report
dated June 18, 1980
(The City Council recommendation.is that the approvals
be obtained before their review of the preliminary
plat. For qualification purposes, the Riley Purgatory
Creek Watershed District has given a conditional
approval in their May 6, 1980, correspondence, however,
the Soil Conservation Service, being an advisory
body, will not given [sic] such approval. However,
I believe such may be satisfied through carrying out
their recommendations that were noted in their
evaluation report).
12.That extra precautions be taken so that removal of
existing vegetation may be kept to a minimum during
construction.
1.8.For reasons of soil conditions and slopes, the building
plans for all residences proposed within the subject
development should be certified by an architect or
civil engineer registered in -the State of Minnesota.
14.That the applicant be required to post sufficient
escrows to assure that the degree of engineering
and inspection is carried out as recommended by the
Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District and the
Soil Conservation Service.
15.Submit and receive Council approval of development plan,
based on the plan as presented on July 21,.1980, changing
such to 52 lots.
16.
Conditions of July 7, 1980
STREETS.
The right -of -way -and street widths meet the ordinance for
a residential street, however, it seems. to me that the main
:street through the development will ultimately be a collector
.street ---thus a wider street width should be considered.
Intersection radii are not shown and should be indicated
4r=gas 20 feet. Grade on street "A" exceeds both the 7% max.im_*nu
and 3/ within 30 feet of cul-de-sac "D". vertical curves on
cul-de-sacs "E" (upper end) and "D" (at intersection) are less
°than 20 times the algabraic difference as required by ordinance.
'Cul-de-sac "E" also exceeds the 500 foot maximum length. The
method of providing a "temporary" cul-de-sac at the south end of
the main street is not clear and should be shown.
17. SANITARY SEWER.
Size of the proposed sanitary sewer is not shown, but is
assumed to be 8-inch. Easement for the sanitary sewer from
existing manhole to manhole in street "A" (between Lots 16 and
17, Block 3) is not sho%gn. Manholes in cul-de-sacs should be
extended to eliminate services directly into the manholes_
i
r
18. WATERMAIN.
Size of the watermain is not shown., We recommend 8-inch on'.
the main street and 6-inch on the cul-de-sacs. Since cul-de-sac
"E" is in excess of 500 feet, we suggest the watermain be looped
internally within the development, or looped to existing water on"
Huron.
19. DRAINAGE WORKS.
Proposed drainage works appear to be adequate with the excep
tion that the 30-inch discharge pipe at 1.5% grade should be
increased to 36-inch_
20. CONCLUSIONS_
We recommend approval of the plans subject to the items
specifically noted. In terms of street grades, we recommend
waiver of the 7% maximum grade limitation in favor of the grades:/
proposed. The site simply does not facilitate 7% maximum grades!
and we feel the proposed grades are acceptable.
UPDATED COMMENTS ON ABOVE CONDITIONS
1. Still applicable
2. The applicant has received Water Shed District approval
on the previous plan. On the current plan amendment, the
Watershed District wants to review a Final Plat approved
first by the City. DNR has reviewed and commented on
the plan amendment. It is possible that a DNR permit
will not be necessary.
3. Covered under plan amendment proceedings.
4. The City Engineer has recommended that the right-of-way
be dedicated to the Westerly property line. The City
Engineer will also review detailed construction plans
when prepared.
5. Still applicable. (A change has been requested by the
applicant.)
6. The Park and Recreation Commission wishes to review the
placement of the trail and conservation easements at the
time when grading is taking place. Staff believes that
this is to late and thus recommends the trail and con-
servation easement be provided as per the plan amendment
recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff.
7. Reference comment #6 above.
8. Still applicable.
9. Still applicable.
10. Still applicable.
11. Still applicable.
12. Still applicable.
13. Still applicable.
14. Still applicable.
Additional additions conditions relative to the plan
amendment that are recommended by the Planning Commission
and staff are found in the Planning Report of April 17,
1981 and the Planning Commission minutes of April 22, 1981.
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
tlh 3/07/83
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
PLAT OF FOX CHASE
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
THIS AGREEMENT, Made and entered into this day of
1982,.by and between DERRICK LAND COMPANY, a
Minnesota Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as the Developer),
and the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(hereinafter referred to as the City);
WITNESSETH, That the City, in exercising its powers pursuant
to M.S.A. §462.358 and other applicable state laws, and the
Developer in consideration of the mutual covenants herein con-
tained, recite and agree as follows:
SECTION 1. 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.
1.03. Minnesota Century Builders, Inc., A Minnesota
Coporation, Contract for Deed vendee as to part
of the subject property.
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
Preliminary Plat. The Developer is the fee owner of
a tract of land lying within the City, as more particularly
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof
(hereinafter the "Subject Property" or "Plat"). The Developer has
heretofore made application to the City under the City Zoning
Ordinance for the approval of a P-1 Planned Residential District
encompassing all of the subject property.
OCAMMS
SECTION 3.
CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL.
rhl 7/18/82.
8/11/82
10/07/82
tlh 3/07/83
The City has approved or agreed to approve the plat on con-
ditions (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, and
7.03)("Security"), guaranteeing the performance of the terms of
this Development Contract, and also guaranteeing the payment of
all construction costs of the improvement. A letter of credit
may be submitted for a one year period of time with the provision
that it shall be renewed at the end of the eleventh month for any
improvements yet to be satisfactorily completed and accepted by
the City.
Failure to furnish a new letter of credit at least thirty (30)
days before the posted letter of credit lapses shall be deemed a
condition of default and the City may obtain all monies posted
under the existing letter of credit.
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 13.02
below, as modified by the Special Conditions set forth in Section
5 hereof:
a. Street grading, stabilizing, 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 submitted to be approved
by the City Council and which 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 specifi-
cations without the written approval of the City Engineer prior
to any such change, variation, omission or addition.
-2-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
10/07/82
tlh 3/01/83
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 specifi-
cations, and that said improvements shall equal or exceed City
standards, and that all of said work shall be subject to the
inspection and approval of the City Engineer. The Developer
represents to the City that the proposed plat complies with all
City, County, State, Metropolitan, and Federal laws and regula-
tions, including but not limited to: P.R.D. Ordinance, Zoning
Ordinances, and Environmental Regulations. If the City deter-
mines that the plat does not fully comply the City may, at its
option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in
the plat until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand
the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance.
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 satisfac-
tion and approval of the City at the cost and expense of the
Developer.
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
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
terms of this agreement. In addition, the City may, at the City's
discretion and at the Developers expense, have one or more City
inspectors inspect the work on a full or part time basis.
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 tiling.
-3-
and
the
rhl 7/18/82
10/07/82
tlh 3/07/ 83
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 proce-
dures 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 mylar reproducible
plans for the City records. These plans shall include the loca-
tions and ties to all sanitary sewer and watermain services as
well as gate valve boxes and manholes.
C. Final approval and acceptance of the project shall
take the form of a Resolution duly passed by the City Council, on
the advice of the City Engineer. Final approval and acceptance
shall be 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 speci-
fications and special conditions of this agreement, for which reim-
bursement is expected from the City, unless such work is first
ordered in writing by the City Engineer as provided in the
specifications.
Any such work or materials which may be done or fur-
nished by the contractor, without such written order first being
given shall be at his own risk, cost and expense, and he hereby
agrees that without such written order he will make no claim for
compensation for work or materials so done or furnished.
3.08. Final Inspection. Upon completion of all the work
required by the City Engineer, a representative of the contractor,
and a represenative of the Developer's engineer will make a final
inspection of the work. Before final payment is made to the
contractor by the Developer, the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications; and the Developer's engineer
shall submit a written statement attesting to same.
3.09. City Disclaimer. It is agreed anything to the
contrary 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 subcontractor, material men, laborers or any other person or per-
sons 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
-4-
rhl 7/19/82
8/11/82
10/07/82
tlh 3/07/83
of defending the same, specifically including, without intending to
limit the categories of said costs, cost and expenses for City admi-
nistrative time and labor, costs of consulting engineering services
and costs of legal services rendered in connection with defending such
claims as may be brought against the City.
3.10. Erosion Control. Developer, at its expense, shall
provide temporary and permanent dams, earthwork, retention and
sedimentation basins, and such other practices including seeding
of graded areas, as shall be needed in the judgement of the City
Engineer, the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, the U.S.
Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Natural Resources,
to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of
lands and road within and outside the plat during all phases of
construction, including construction on individual lots.
Additionally, the Developer shall comply with all conditions of
the grading and land alteration permits from the Riley Purgatory
Creek Watershed District, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the
Department of Natural Resources approval and all of the recommen-
dations of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in its reports.
The following minimum restoration requirements 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 back -
filling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the comple-
tion 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 necessary
for seed retention.
A plan consolidating all applicable conditions concerning
construction grading and drainage shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Engineer prior to commencement of any work.
3.11. Street Liqhting. 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 13.01
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 improvements
to the City free of all liens and encumbrances and with warranty of
title pursuant to Bill of Sale or Warranty Deed, as applicable.
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.
-5-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
10/07/82
tlh 3/07/83
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 the City Engineer, shall be
authorized to issue building permits for residential
construction within such plat upon payment of all
fees and charges applicable to the issuance of per-
mits and provisions for adequate site access.
b. The occupancy of any structure within said plat for
residential purposes shall be prohibited by the City
until the streets have been completed with bituminous
surface, municipal sanitary sewer and water lines
shall have been installed, tested, inspected and
are available to serve the lot for which a building
permit shall have been issued. The City Engineer may,
based on his analysis of the soils in the plat,
require that bituminous paving be delayed for not
more than a six month period and allow occupancy
permits to be issued if an adequate gravel road has
been completed which assures passage during all
seasons by all vehicles typically using such street(s).
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 53.01 above, which are found
by the City to be defective within one year after acceptance
by the City shall be replaced by Developer at Developer's sole
expense. 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 election
of and in an amount established by the City, furnished by the deve-
loper to the City. Said letter of credit or surety bond shall first
be approved by the City, 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.
3.15_ Liability InsVirance. Developer shall take out and
maintain so long as Developer's obligations continue under this
agreement, public liability and property damage insurance covering
personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage
which may arise out of Developer's work or the work of its sub-
contractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of
them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall be not less than
$500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for each occurence; limits
for property damage shall be not less than $200,000 for each
occurrence. The City shall be named as an additional named
insured on said policy, and Developer shall file a copy of the
insurance coverage with the City prior to signing the plat.
rhl 7/18/82
8/11-82
10/07/82
tlh 3/07/83
0
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 facili-
ties, end trunk and lateral water facilities which were
constructed as a part of Chanhassen Improvement Projects. The
Developer acknowledges that the amount of such special benefit is
not less than the sum of the following amounts:
a. Levied Special Assessments:
Parcel #25-01-000-0037-000,
20.08 Acres in part of Gov't. Lots 5 and 6,
1 sewer and water lateral assessment levied
in 1973 in the amount of-$4,119.00, payable
over 15 years at 7% interest.
1 sewer and water trunk assessment levied in
1980, in the amount of $1,054.96, payable over 10
years at 7% interest.
Parcel #25-79-500-0001-000, Lot 1, Vineland
1 sewer and water lateral assessment levied on
October 1, 1973 in the amount of $4,949.00, which
has been paid in full.
2 sewer and water lateral and 3 sewer and water
trunk assessments levied in 1980, in the amount
of $12,419.98, payable over 10 years at 7% interest.
b. Deferred Special Assessments. In addition to the
foregoing levied special assessments, the subject
property is further specially benefitted by 68 off-
line sewer and water trunk units, each sewer trunk
unit valued at $320.00 and each water trunk unit
valued at $380.00, and each said sewer and water
unit shall bear interest at the rate of 7% from
October 1, 1973.
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 bene-
fitted lots within the final plat, shall be certified to the
Carver County Auditor for collection at the time of the recording
of the final plat with the County Recorder, and shall be payable
in installments of principal and interest over a period of four
(4) years after said certification.
-7-
rhl 7/1 8/82
8/11/82
10/0 7/82
tlh 3/07/83
4.03. Developer Waives Public Hearing and Right of A_L ep al.
The Developer waives its right to public hearing under §429.061
and §429.071 of Minnesota Statutes and its right of appeal under
§429.081 of Minnesota Statutes as to the Deferred Special
Assessments.
SECTION 5. SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
5.01. Fox Path Cul-de-Sac. A cul-de-sac shall be
constructed by Developer at the western terminus of Fox Path as shown
on the preliminary plat approved by the City Council on April 26, 1982
and designated Exhibit A. Said cul-de-sac shall have a radius of 60
feet, a roadway surface radius of 40 feet, with surmountable curb and
gutter, and shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifi-
cations approved by the City Engineer. The westerly extension of Fox
Path from said cul-de-sac to the westerly boundary of the subject pro-
perty shall be platted as a dedicated street but shall not be improved
as such until development on the adjoining property shall require a
street connection to Fox Path.
5.02. Pleasant View Road Access Restriction. Unless otherwise
determined by the City Council Lot 1, Block 1, and Lots 1, 2, and 3,
Block 2 shall not be permitted direct driveway access to Pleasant View
Road. Said restriction shall be incorporated within covenants and
restrictions which shall be 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. Building Plans Certification. Due to extraordinary
slope and soil conditions, building and site plans for all resi-
dences within the subject property shall be certified as having
been reviewed and approved by an architect or civil engineer
licensed by the State of Minnesota. Said building and site plan
review and approval shall include provisions for slope protection,
surface and sub -surface drainage, prevention of siltation, and
the preservation of trees and prevention of excessive vegetation
removal during construction
Building pads and basement floors shall be
constructed at an elevation not less than two (2) feet above the
regional flood elevation in accordance with the requirements of
applicable City ordinances.
The terms and conditions of this Section 5.04 shall
be made a part of covenants and restrictions which shall be appli-
cable to the final plat of the subject property and which shall be
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
10/07/82
tlh 3/07/83
filed contemporaneously with the filing of the final plat with the
Carver County Recorder.
5.05. Easements. The developer, at its expense, shall
acquire all perpetual easements from abutting property owners
necessary to the installation of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer
and water facilities within the subject property and thereafter
shall promptly assign said easements to the City prior to the
filing of the final plat with the Carver County Recorder.
5.06. Easements Dedicated On Plat. Perpetual easements
for surface water drainage, including ponding and sedimentation
basins and access thereto, shall be dedicated on the final plat to
the extent permitted by State law. All such easements not so
dedicated shall be granted to the City in form approved by the
City and acceptable for recording in the Office of the Carver
County Recorder.
5.07. Streets. All streets within the plat shall be dedi-
cated with a 50 foot wide right-of-way, and shall have a 28 foot
roadway surface with surmountable concrete curb and gutter. All
street cul-de-sacs shall have a right-of-way radius of 60 feet,
with a roadway surface radius of 40 feet with surmountable
concrete curb and gutter. All streets shall be constructed in
accordance with City standards approved by the City Engineer.
5.08. Ponding and Sedimentation Basin Maintenan
Developer shall maintain in good operational order all
sedimentation basins during all phases of construction
subject property. After formal acceptance by the City,
maintenance shall be the obligation of the City.
ce. The
ponding and
within the
said
5.09. Trail Easement. The Developer shall grant to the
City a perpetual easement twenty (20) feet wide for use as a City
trail, said easement to commence at the southerly property line of
Lot 19, Block 1, thence extending northerly along the alignment of
the sanitary sewer easement to the south line of Lot 12, Block 1,
thence westerly 170 feet along the south line of said Lot 12 to
its intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of Fox Path,
thence extending northerly within said right-of-way to its inter-
section with Pleasant View Road and there terminating. The form
of said easement shall be approved by the City, and shall be
filed at the time of the filing of the final plat with the County
Recorder.
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 20 foot portion of the easement
along the sanitary sewer alignment shall be surfaced with wood
chips. All trail easement construction shall be performed by the
City in accordance with specifications approved by the City
Engineer.
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
10/07/82
tlh 3/07/83
5.10. Trail Easement Park Charge Credit. No credit for
park charges under Chanhassen Ordinance No. 14 as amended shall be
granted Developer, its successors or assigns, for the grant of the
perpetual trail easement.
5.11. Park Fees. Prior to the issuance of building per-
mits for residential construction within the plat, Developer, its
successors or assigns, shall pay to the City the park fee then in
force pursuant to Chanhassen Ordinance 14-A and relevant City
Council Resolutions thereafter, as said park charge fee may be
adjusted by the provisions of Section 5.10, above.
5.12. Street Maintenance During Construction. The
Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance -until
streets are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed
when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from tra-
veling on same and directing attention to detours. If streets
become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed.
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.
5.13. Street Signs. All street name and traffic signs
required within the plat at the time of City acceptance shall be
furnished and installed by the City at the sole cost of the
Developer.
5.14. Covenants and Restrictions. Covenants or
restrictions to be placed upon the lots in the subject plat shall
be prepared by the Developers and shall be approved by the City
prior to recording with the•County Recorder. The Covenants and
Restrictions shall be approved if they are consistent with the
requirements of this agreement. The zoning ordinances and regula-
tions of the City shall govern if inconsistent with said covenants
and restrictions to the extent actually inconsistent; but if not
inconsistent therewith, the standards contained in said covenants
and restrictions shall be considered as requirements in addition
to said City ordinances and regulations. The City shall be held
harmless in the event any disputes occur involving covenants and
restrictions.
5.15. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments. Developer shall
place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at all other
-10-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
10/07/82
tlh 3/07/83
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 CiL.y a perpetual conservation easement for environmental pro-
tection and wetland preservation over those areas of Lots 7
through 19, inclusive, of Block 1 of the plat which lie below the
elevation of 900 feet. No credit for park charges under
Chanhassen Ordinance No. 14 as amended shall be granted Developer,
its successors or assigns for the grant of said easement.
6.02. Conservation Easement Development Restrictions. All
of the following activities shall be prohibited within the conser-
vation easement area, including the wetlands as delineated on
Exhibit "A", Chanhassen City Council meeting of April 26, 1982:
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 constructed by the City.
h. The application of herbicides, pesticides and insec-
ticides. '
i. The storage of watercraft, boat trailers, ice
fishing houses, snowmobiles, motorized and non -
motorized vehicles.
j. The mooring or storage of watercraft, including
seaplanes, in abutting waters of Lotus Lake
(hereinafter "the lake").
6.03. Dockaie Within Conservation Easement Area. Lots
17, 18, and 19, Block 1 shall be allowed one dock for each lot.
-11
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
tlh 3/07/83
a. The dock on Lot 17 must be placed on the south 2 of
the lot.
b. All docks must conform to City ordinances regu-
lating dock construction.
C. Mooring of any watercraft must conform to City
ordinances and regulations.
d. All conditions of 6.02 shall apply for Lots 17, 18,
and 19, Block 1; except for the length and width of
the dock structure itself.
6.04. Form and Approval of Easement. The form of the con-
servation 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
servation easement shall be made a part
restrictions applicable to the plat and
therein by reference, and as an exhibit
covenants and restrictions.
SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
Restrictions. The con -
of the_covenants and
shall be incorporated
forming a part of said
7.01. Reimbursement of Costs. The Developer shall reim-
burse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering,
legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City
in connection with all matters relating to the administration and
enforcement of the within agreement and the performance thereby by
the Developer. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen
(14) days of the date of mailing. of the City's notice of costs.
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 Citys out-of-pocket
expenses previously or subsequently incurred, including but
not limited to legal, planning, engineering and inspection
expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance
of the plat, and the preparation of this Development
contract. The Developer further agrees to pay all reasonable
costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and
inspecting development of the plat including at the Citys
option full time inspection by one or more City inspectors..
C. The Developer shall indemnify the City for all
costs, damages or expenses, including engineering and attor-
ney fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of
-12-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
tlh 3/07/83
such 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
engineering and attorney's fees.
7.02. Security for Performance by Developer. For the pur-
pose of assuring and guaranteeing to the City that the improve-
ments to be by the Developer constructed, installed and furnished
as set forth in 13.01 hereof shall be constructed, installed and
furnished according to the terms of this agreement, and that the
Developer shall pay all claims for work done and materials and
supplies furnished for the performance of this agreement, and that
the Developer shall fully comply with all of the other terms and
provisions of this Development Contract, Developer agrees to fur-
nish to the City either a cash deposit, or an irrevocable letter
of credit approved by the City in an amount equal to 110% of the
costs of the improvements 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 District.
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 inten-
tion to perform any such work. However, in the event of an
emergency as determined by the City, 96 hours notice is not
required. This agreement is a license for the City to act
and it shall not be necessary 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 reme-
dies 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 required improvements to be constructed and installed, or
may take action to cure said default, and to the extent that the
City's recovery on the security deposit in 7.03 is deficient, may
cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engi-
neering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City,
to be recovered as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, in which case the Developer agrees to pay the entire
amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such improvement
-13-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
tlh 3/07/83
within sixty (60) days after its adoption. In addition,
Developer further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay
in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed
herein, the City shall have a specific lien on all of Developer's
real property within said plat for any amount so unpaid, and the
City shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner
prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's liens under the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
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
improvements described in 13.01 above; and
(2) the cost of curing any other default by the Developer
in its performance of any of the covenants and
agreement contained herein; and
(3) the cost of reasonable engineering, legal, and admini-
strative expense incurred by the City in enforcing
and administering this contract.
C. Legal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing,
the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law
or at equity to prevent violations of the within development
contract, to restrain or abate violations of the within devel-
opment contract.
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
necessary permits from the following authorities:
(1) City of Chanhassen
(2) State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and
commissions
(3) Department of Natural Resources
(4) Riley -Purgatory Creek Watershed District
(5) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
-14-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
tlh 3/07/83
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 writ-
ten request of Developer and upon the adoption of a resolution by
the Ch,uahassen 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, postage prepaid, with property address as indicated
below. The City and the Developer, by written notice given by one
to the other, may designate any address or addresses to which
notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be
sent when required as contemplated by this agreement. Unless
otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, cer-
tificates and communications to each of them shall be addressed as
follows:
To the City:
To the Developer:
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
8.05. Binding Effect. This agreement shall inure to the
benefit of and shall be binding upon the City and the Developer
and their respective successors and assigns. Nothing in this
agreement, express or implied, shall give to any person, other
than the parties hereto, and their respective successors, and
assigns, hereunder, any benefit or other legal or equitable right,
remedy or claim under this agreement.
8.06. Severability. In the event any provision of this
agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate
or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the
remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired
thereby.
-15-
rhl 7/18/82
8/11/82
tlh 3/07/83
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 Developer's
sign plan only after submission to and approval by the City
Council.
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,
environmental impact statement be required by the City or another
governmental 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 the final plat is signed by the City, the
Developer shall meet the requirements of Section 7.02.
8.14. The Developer shall provide a site erosion control
plan satisfactory to the City 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 excavatioft operation. In the event that, in
the Citys opinion, the Developer has failed to adequately control
erosion, the Developer grants the City permission to immediately
enter the property and take such measures as it deems necessary
to control erosion at the Developer's expense.
8.15. The Developer agrees to plant two two inch trees
on every lot in the P.R.D. 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 (Imperial,
Skyline, and Sunburst), Hackberry or Oak (including Pin and White).
A planting plan must be submitted to and approved by the City
Engineer.
-16-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
presents to be executed on the day and year first above written.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By
Mayor
By
City Manager
-17-
DERRICK LAND COMPANY
By
President
By
Secretary
I
' CITY(DF 4
CHANHASSEN
7610 LAREDO DRIVE • P.0 BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
PLANNING REPORT
DATE: April 17, 1981
TO: Planning Commission & Staff
FROM: Bob Waibel, City Planner
SUBJECT: Final Development Plan Amendment Request, Fox Chase
Addition, Derrick
APPLICANT: Derrick Land Company
PLANNING CASE: P-614
The applicant has submitted the attached proposed final devel-
opment plan for Fox Chase Revised April 15, 1981 for the
Public Hearing for the Planning Commission Meeting on April
22, 1981. The major changes between this and the previously
reviewed plans are:
1.
The
curving of the street named "Fox
Path" in the
northern
1/3
of the development.
2.
The
proposal for lot 1, Block 1 and
Lot 3, Block
2 to
have
direct access on Pleasant View
Road.
3.
The
removal of the previously proposed
outlot/common
open
space.
4.
The
relocation of the point from where
the trail
will
connect
from the interior street to
the Lakeshore
be-
tween
Lots 12 & 13 of Block 1.
5.
The
reduction in the number of lots
from 54 to 52
as
recommended
by the City Council.
The following are the comments of this office regarding the
points raised in the April 15, 1981 letter from Roger Derrick
to the Mayor and Council. Additional staff comments to these
points are included in the City Engineers report.
P-614, Derrick
Page 2
1. Number of lots
At any time throughout the review of the subject proposal
this office does not recall any of the plans showing more
than 55 units. It was presumed that the applicant had
calculated the pending 69 unit assessment into his
land use development proposals and chose to follow a
market that would serve lower density, larger lot development.
This is understandably qualifiable as to when the applicant
made his initial assessment search on the property.
In determining the Land Use density for developments,
and especially in the case of Planned Residential Devel-
opment Districts, there is the need to make certain
judgemental decisions including environmental concerns,
and reasonable density standard. The Planning Commission
and City Council in previous reviews, although not
specifically mentioning environmental constraints of
the subject property, did,based upon the information
available to them, find the proposal acceptable at 49
and 52 lots respectably. At this time, this office
feels that the Final Development Density relative to
the 69 units assessed is not germane to the Planning
Commission consideration and it is recommended that the
Planning Commission not act to change the gross density
established by the City Council until so instructed by
the Council.
2. Street Width
Staff had recommended that the 36 foot width street for
Fox Path in order to mitigate the single access situation
of the subject property. No change is recommended.
3. Previously Installed Assessments
This issue to be discussed with the City Council.. No
Planning Commission action necessary at this time.
4. Road Alignment
This is in reference to the proposed alignment of Fox
Path in the northerly 1/3 of the development: This
office endorses the proposed change provided said re-
alienment is constructed to standards acceptable to the
City Engineer.
5. Conservation Easement
The City, in approval of previous subdivisions and
Planned Residential Development Districts, i.e. Lotus
Lake Estates, Rice Marsh Manor, and Reichert Addition,
have placed conservation easements prohibiting structural
alterations to the lakeshores. The assistant City Attorney
will be present Wednesday evening to explain in detail
the placement of conservation easements as part of
subdivision approvals.
P-614, Derrick
Page 3
6. Public Improvements
T'o be discussed between Derrick Land Company and the City
Council. No Planning Commission action necessary.
7. Building Permit
As stated previously, the northeasterly most pro-
posed lot is proposed to have direct access to Pleasant.:
View Road. Due to the grade differential between this lot
and Fox Path, this office has no problems with issuing a
building permit after the final development plan approval
has been given by the City Council. As to a building
permit on the southeasterly lot (proposed Lot 19, Block 1)
I feel that a building permit should not be issued until
the City has received an executed development contract
from the applicant that would assure that the schedule of
work would proceed in an order that would not present an
undue delay between the time that an occupancy permit would be
requested and the time in which the road bed would be
stabilized and/or base course of asphalt be installed
8. Grading Permit
Covered in City Engineers comments.
As stated previously, one of the major changes to the developers
exhibits has been the removal of the outlot accessing the lake
from Fox Path. The previous configuration of the outlot showed
it to be traversing a wetland area with marginal attribute for
home owners association usage. Additionally much of the pro-
posed outlot area was to be utilitized for a drainage and
sedimentation basin. This office sees no problem with the
removal of said outlot since 1) it had dubious aualities for
the establishment of a common area, 2) the Chanhassen Park Plan
is designed to adequately provide the recreational needs of
the community. 3) The City Engineer will require the dedication
of proper utility & drainage easements for the'sedimentation basin.
Another change to the applicants exhibits is that the trail
easement from Fox Path to Lotus Lake has been moved to an area
between Lots 12 & 13 of Block 1. I find that this is an over-
all improvement to the plan in that it traverses areas of soils
more suitable to development of said trail. The developer has
responded to the neighborhood concern in preserving the stand
of Pine trees on the northwesterly most 'Portion of the subject
property through a proposal to have Lot 3, Block 2 access directly
onto Pleasant View Road. -.Developer has indicated that this
configuration will permit the placement of residential structures
and driveways that will minimize the removal of said trees. As
you know, this protion of the subject property has extremely poor
sight distance characteristics on Pleasant View Road. Since
the preservation of this stand of trees is quite appropriate to the
P-614, Derrick
Page 4
character of the development and that subdivision safety
design is paramount, this office recommends that this problem
be mitigated either by a density transfer of Lot 3 to another
portion of the proposed plat.
In conversations with various property owners near the subject
property, I have been asked to comment on the extention of the
right of way of Fox Path to the westerly property line, and the
possibility of secondary access from the subject property to
the south.In discussions with the attorneys office, it was found
to be acceptable to withdraw the dedicated right of way 40'to 50'
from the western property line provided that a planning agreement
be filed at the Carver County Recorders office stating that
the adjoining lots (Lot 22, Block 2 and Lot 30, Block 1) would
waive any acquisition fees to , the City if extention of said
right of way is needed in the future.
As to the issue of secondary access, the City Engineer, Bill Monk,
feels that the previous findings that that access would be of
marginal benefit remains valid.
I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the Final Development Plan of Derrick Land
Company in accordance with previous City Council approval of
July, 1980 with the additional condition that the density transfer
for Lot 3, Block 2 be incorporated into the Final Plat will main-
tain as best possible, the integrity of the stand of trees
in the northwest portion of the property.
Manager's Comments
A copy of the City Council minutes of April 7 (Preliminary
Development Plan Approval) as well as July 21 (Final Development
Plan Approval) are enclosed. This office would recommend that
any action on this item include not only the conditions of this
amended approval, but also the conditions as established for
the original plat in April and July of 1980.
Public Improvements: Mr. Derrick's letter makes several
requests in regards to a'l?etition for public improvements",
"ordering feasibility study","specific method and years of
assessment", etc. Given the length of this agenda, this office
would recommend that discussion and action on these types
of issues be tabled to a future meeting.
Location and Construction of Trail: As shown in the planning
report of July 17, 1980 .(item number 2) the previous approval
encompassed specific requirements as well as optional construction
techniques for the trail through the proposed development.
As resubmitted, a third potential location has now been defined.
It is recommended that any approval be conditioned upon the
applicant resolving this issue with the P,-lann_ing Commission and
that City Council concurrence and/or modification of
any agreement between the developer and Park Commission
must occur prior to submission of the preliminary plat.
•s.IaAnq ulo.I;
uoilsUI.Io;ui IEaouoo Atluainpne.I;
iou pip inq lua2il2au sunn l! lull!
Sulploap `Ai!Ilgsll ;o ulltj iIulA!Jp
-gild aql pa.Isap kinI aqZ •siI Aq
ulo.I; saga;ap paivaouo Anuainpnui;
Aagl WITH pus sasnoti aql 3ulloads
-ul pus 2luipllnq `Su►no.iddu ui luaS
-luau alam Alp pus .Ioloadsui `.Iado
-Ianap `.Iapllnq aqi lsgi play Ain[ aqL
AHUIPJ a of 6£9' I6$ of do paguea .qT
pus 5Z •qag pau.Inla.I `sp.Isms aq,L
-salt!
-ulsj ani; ;o Sasso aql paloa[a I f.In!
pnoO iopadnS pao;ulslS -salslsa
xooag punog ul sauioq Suilxoddns
wild aql anolp lsgl Ausduloo aql pus
aoloadsui aql `iadolanap aqi `.Iapllnq
aql `Also aul pans sailluls; oml-:fiala
s0961 gist aql ul lung juaw
gig
unoo aulaJdns alsls aql of dolanap spusllam s ui �ulKuis ass
� � ? uotsroap aql luadds IIlm Alp aqi piss sau[oq asogm sallllils; Kismao
='aouuo0,0 ssulogZ JOSB i� L� of
L1! Ktsm.tON uoliiiul £$ �Si.Isau papasms seq eS.InI y
r tagolo0 ul A'j naoo •uuo0 �p�o;melS
L so; a;ssun paxopap sum auloq asogm 4 ssa.I a i V d P lg aoss
sacuoy u tjj 6u14001 aawjij uo
tins 6sJ;9UM09u,0y spun Ainr
�01
4
Phone Call to Mayor Thomas O'Connor
Norwalk, CT
Home: 203-847-7888
March 51 1983
- Been mayor 1 year
- Houses built in 1968
In Connecticut, there is no statute of limitations where
there has been intentional fraud.
- Suit was brought against city etc. 4 years ago; just now,
resolved.
- Most original home owners of these houses are gone, but
that didn't make any difference.
- Problem: Water table has fallen.
Pilings treated for water protection, but no
water and pilings rotted and crumbled
- Examples: Oil burner has disappeared into ground
Houses and garages have separated from each
other
Steps have pulled 5 feet away from houses
Homes, -settling, have broken away from sewers.
One part of home has separated from another.
- Norwalk hired finest attorney -specialist. Couldn't use
their own city staff because too taken up with day-to-day
business. $150/hour, they have spent thus far $100,000
and lost. Been in court since September. Now they have
to spend more for appeal. Neighbors have won $3-5 million.
- Builder has built elsewhere in the city. Residents of his
homes are coming out of the woodwork going after the city
for damages, also.
- Offered to send me briefs and any information I want.
- Recommendation: "I wish that 12 years ago, City had denied
right to build in that area.
"I would avoid building on any area with water
underneath."
"I would stick very strickly to what environmentalists
have to say about the land."
- "We've NEVER deceived anybody! In fact, one of our
Council members gave idea to neighbor to go after
developer." Thomas O'Connor speaking.
Kathy Schwartz
DERRICK LAND -CO.—VS.--CITY OF CHANHASSEN
5/20/83
Letter to city manager.
24.00
5/23/83
Legal research - assessment of property
28.00
5/24/83
Legal research; draft memorandum.
220.00
5/24/83
Trial preparation.
80.00
5/25/83
Trial preparation.
160.00
5/26/83
Interview witness in preparation for trial;
240.00
trial preparation.
5/31/83
Telephone call to aerial photographer to
20.00
obtain photographs; conference with photographer.
6/l/83
Executive session with City Council
160.00
6/2/83
Legal research - eutrophication.
252.00
6/2/83
Depositions of city manager and Pat Swenson.
640.00
6/3/83
Depositions of City Council members.
560.00
6/6/83
Legal research - eutrophication; expert witness
300.00
research.
6/7/83
Discovery documents; expert witness search; legal
360.00
research - eutrophication.
6/7/83
Document review.
200.00
6/8/83
Preparation for Roger Derrick deposition, office
280.00
conference.
6/9/83
Preparation for deposition; deposition.of Roger
432.00
Derrick.
6/10/83
Eutrophication memo; direct examination; search
260.00
for photograph; legal research on Lake Lotus.
6/10/83
Phone call, office conference.
24.00
6/13/83
Direct examination; look for photo at City; pick up
300.00
K. Schwartz material; legal research at Carver
County District Court; interview Herbert Wright.
6/13/83
Trial preparation.
32.00
6/14/83
Cross examination; direct examination.
248.00
6/14/83
Call to Judge Mansur and office conference.
80.00
6/14/83
Attended deposition.
280.00
6/14/83
Trial preparation; preparation and service of
160.00
Notice.
6/15/83
Interrogatories; expert witness search; research
272.00
environmental effects on lake; K. Schwartz files.
6/15/83
Trial preparation.
320.00
6/16/83
Answers to Interrogatories; conference with Derrick
240.00
Land; expert witness research; review Corps of
Engineering hearing transcript.
6/16/83
Legal research - temporary damages in inverse
80.00
condemnation case.
Derrick Land Co. vs. Cite of Chanhassen
Page Two)
6/16/83
Deposition and conference
6/16/83
Deposition of Roger Derrick, settlement discussion;
trial preparation.
6/17/83
Expert witness search; correspondence with Megard;
research - eutrophication.
6/17/83
Trial preparation.
6/18/83
Trip to Hastings on motion for expedited hearing.
6/20/83
Expert witness.
6/20/83
Meeting with Mr. Horn, deposition of Mr. Horn; phone
call.
6/21/83
Prepare Answers to Interrogatories.
6/22/83
Interrogatories; phone call re experts.
6/22/83
Conference with city.
6/23/83
Trial preparation; telephone calls.
6/24/83
Trial preparation; telephone calls.
6/28/83
Expert witness search; trial exhibit preparation.
6/28/83
Attended deposition.
6/29/83
Trial exhibit preparation; meeting.
6/29/83
Trial preparation.
6/30/83
Minutes summary; deposition summary.
6/30/83
Review documents produced by Engineer; trial
preparation.
7/1/83
Expert witness search; deposition summary; minutes
summary.
7/1/83
Amend complaint and counteclaim.
7/5/83
Telephone call; correspondence.
7/6/83
Trial preparation.
7/7/83
Trial preparation.
7/8/83
Description of trail easement.
7/8/83
Settlement negotiation with Mr. Sellergren; draft
agreement.
7/11/83
Edit development contract; telephone calls.
7/11/83
Closed meeting with City Council.
7/12/83
Settlement negotiations, edit Development Contract.
7/13/83
Telephone call.
7/14/83
Telephone calls; correspondence to City; trial
preparation.
7/14/83
Telephone calls.
7/18/83
Minutes preparation; expert witness preparation.
7/19183
Minutes preparation; trial memo.
200.00
480.00
160.00
120.00
56.00
20.00
256.00
80.00
32.00
120.00
160.00
80.00
128.00
240.00
320.00
40.00
320.00
160.00
140.00
40.00
32.00
40.00
64.00
28.00
296.00
144.00
125.00
200.00
8.00
104.00
24.00
28.00
40.00
f
L?err,i;k ..and Co. vs. City ;f Chanhassen
P!Age Tbree
7/19/83 Telephone call from Clerk re trial.
7/19/83 Telephone calls; edit Development Contract.
7/20/83 Visit to lake with expert (Megard); trial exhibit
preparation.
7/20/83 Trial preparation; settlement negotiations; telephone
calls; correspondence to auditor.
7/20/83 Meeting with City Council.
7/22/83 Telephone call to Megard.
7/22/83 Telephone calls; edit Settlement Agreement.
7/26/83 Telephone calls; send agreement to Recorder for filing.
7/27/83 Telephone call - Megard.
7/28/83 Telephone call with Ken Carr.
TOTAL FEES:
5/23/83 ' Photocopies
6/8/83
Aerial survey enlargement.
6/16/83
Photocopies
6/16/83
Depositions of Neveaux, Watson, Hamilton, & Geving
6/17/83
Photocopies
6/20/83
Depositions of Donald Ashworth & Patricia Swenson
6/20/83
Aerial photo of Lotus Lake
6/23/83
Deposition of Roger Derrick
6/23/83
Deposition of Frank Beddor, Jr.
7/7/83
Photocopies
7/11/83
Photocopies
7/12/83
Deposition of Clark Horn
7/15/83
Copy of deposition of James Orr
7/22/83
Photocopies
8/3/83
Robert 0. Megard - Consultation Fee
TOTAL FOR CASE:
8.00
104.00
140.00
360.00
40.00
4.00
80.00
24.00
16.00
8.00
$11,321.00
3.20
216.66
9.80
196.25
58.80
137.86
47.70
495.03
62.55
10.00
43.20
47.00
71.87
32.58
280.00
$1,712.50
$13,033.50
WILLIAM D.,SCHOELL
CARLISLE MADSON
JACK T. VOSLER
J4MES R. ORR
HAROLD E. DAHLIN
LARRY L. HANSON
JACK E. GILL
THEODORE D. KEMNA
JOHN W. EMOND
KENNETH E. ADOLF
WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT
R. SCOTT HARRI
GERALD L. BACKMAN
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Don Ashworth,
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Gentlemen:
SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC.
ENGINEERS ANO SURVEYORS
938-7801 • 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH • HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
May 13, 1981
City Manager
55317
Subject: Kathleen Schwartz Report of
May 2, 1981
Pursuant to your request, we herein wish to respond to the
above named letter dealing with the Fox Chase development.
Mrs. Schwartz's letter was 21 pages long and I wish to comment
on engineering related items only.
Mrs. Schwartz's letter was negative toward me and our firm.
It had allegations of conflict of interest, and questioned my
competence and integrity. I do not wish to enter into a confron-
tation with Mrs. Schwartz, or to address each of her comments
herein. It seems to me that the issue here is the Fox Chase
development, not what Mrs. Schwartz or myself feel about each
other's respective motives or role. Mrs. Schwartz's letter has
some inaccuracies, misstatements, and has taken comments and
discussion out of context.
Following are responses on certain engineering related it
Page 5, Item 7:
Lot 3, Block 2 could have improved site distance assuming
some grading and tree removal, plus driveway placement on the
edge of the lot. The advantage of the Pleasant View access is
that it aids the effort of saving the Pine tree stand on the
subject lot, versus a driveway access from the southeast.
Page 6, Item 8:
The Fox Path entrance onto Pleasant View does not have an
eight percent (8%) intersection with Pleasant View Road. As I
have told Mrs. Schwartz and shown her the Plans, the intersect
a a,
t
` SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC.
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
Page Two May 13, 1981
is a three percent (30), or less, grade from the south edge of
Pleasant View to a point 80 feet south where a point of intersection
of the vertical curve exists. Her statement that there is non-
compliance with Ordinance 33 is false!
Concerning the issue of location of the intersection of Fox
Chase with Pleasant View Road, the best location with respect to
site distance is where it is proposed. On the other hand, if the
Council and developer wish to change the location to the east, any
site distance problem can be corrected.
Paae 6, Item 9:
Concerning street width, I view that as a policy matter -
not an engineering issue in a residential area.
Concerning the matter of a secondary access, I have the
following comments. This applies to the issue of either an
emergency access or a permanent access. I have expressed this
view in the past, and feel strongly about it as relates to the
typical subdivision. I do not believe there to be a great safety
need to have a secondary access. The experiences that the City
has had where fallen trees have blocked the road are unique to
areas like Carver Beach. The normal residential subdivision does
not have great potential for storms blowing trees over the road
and thus blocking emergency vehicles. If it did occur, the
emergency vehicle (in a typical street section) could simply drive
on the lawns around the tree. Downed trees normally occur in the
foliage months so snow should not be a problem.
Please don't misunderstand that I am opposed to secondary
accesses. I am not, except in the case where it is difficult to
achieve. I believe that to be the case in Fox Chase for these
reasons:
1) The Carver Beach road system is poor at best.
2) Additional trees would need removal.
3) There are grade problems depending on which connection
would be used.
4) Additional right-of-way acquisition would be required in
Carver Beach to make most of the proposed connections.
SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC.
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
Page Three May 13, 1981
Page 10, Item 11:
My comments about the buyer being aware of the lot soil
conditions were attempting to convey that the City cannot and
does not warrant soil conditions of a building site. The plat
review process addresses concerns over soil conditions on the
public right-of-way where city streets and utilities will be
located. The City obviously has a direct interest in those items,
but in terms of soil conditions on the lots, this is between the
developer and the buyer. To suggest the City approval of a plat
in some way grants approval of soil conditions where a building
is to be placed is totally unreasonable and is not done in any city
that I am aware of. Nor from the Citys' point of view, should it
be.
Page 11, Item C:
My general comment on Mrs. Schwartz's allegations of not
recognizing or using the SCS and Watershed District reports is
that they were used, and the City Council's approval was conditioned
upon such. The soil conditions and erosion potential are well
recognized by us, and the Plans and Specifications prepared for
the improvements demonstrate this fact.
Page 14:
Mrs. Schwartz's comments on this page are totally out of
context and contain some false statements. (Example - We did not
"refuse to look at" the SCS report as she says.) A question was
raised as to the relationship between the SCS, Watershed District,
Corp of Engineers, DNR, and City reviews. I was attempting to
explain this, and the considerable overlap that exists in this
process, and that irregardless of.the other agency's review, the
erosion and soil problems are considered very seriously in the
City's review. I have since talked to Don Berg about the matter
and we agree on the above mentioned information.
Page 15, Item F:
As I have repeatedly explained to Mrs. Schwartz, there are
completed construction drawings and specifications for the proposed
street and utility work. Continual reference is made to preliminary
and outdated drawings that don't represent what is being proposed
in terms of drainage facilities, grades, and erosion control.
In terms of design criteria, the drainage facilities are
designed for a ten-year frequency storm - normal municipal design.
SCHOELL & MAOSON, INC.
M
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Don Ashworth, City Manager
Page Four May 13, 1981
Page 16, Conflict of Interest Charge:
The allegation of conflict of interest is a common phrase
used when trying to discredit another party's integrity. We are
working on this project in accordance with specific instructions
of the City Council. We have always been loyal to the City, and
would be fools to jeopardize our relationship with the City by
doing something not in the City's interest. We attempt to do the
best job we can in providing good engineering service regardless
of who we work for. Perhaps a part of the problem is that we have
approached our assigned work from the point of view that Derrick
had an approved plan, and that many of the controversial items had
already received policy decisions by the City Council. Mrs.
Schwartz's approach has been to go through the decision making
process again.
Page 18, Top Paragraph:
I take issue with the statement that I misled anyone. The
actual facts related to possible grades of a secondary access off
of Lake Point are a 13.5 percent grade would be required. This is
based on the actual plans. The hills slope is 17 percent - thus
requiring filling to achieve the 13.5 percent grade. It can be
done, but it does create some problems.
Page 20, Buyer Beware:
I have previously commented on this, but would suggest a legal
explanation of the City's limits on responsibility for the benefit
of Mrs. Schwartz.
Summary:
We have tried herein to present information and response to
engineering related items referred to in Mrs. Schwartz's letter
of May 2, 1981. We trust that our point of view will be helpful
in understanding the real facts. Our desire and intent is to
provide any assistance to the City or its residents that we can
in order to resolve this problem. Please advise as to questions.
Very truly yours,
-,CHOELL & MDSON, INC.
JROrr:mkr
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE.
County Office Building, Waconia, Minnesota 55387
May 28, 1981
Mr. Tom Hamilton, Mayor
City of Chanhassen
7690 Laredo Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mayor Hamilton:
I am writing this letter at the request of Kathy Schwartz. Over the
past few weeks, she has requested information from me relating to the
June 18, 1980 Inventory and Evaluation of Soil and Water Resources of
Fox Chase, Chanhassen, by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District.
I reviewed the January 28-30, 1980 preliminary plan of Fox Chase, visited
and walked over the site twice, discussed it with Steve Widuta, former
State Soil Conservation Board Representative, and Justin Jeffery, Soil
Conservation Service Area Engineer, and wrote the report for the Soil and
Water Conservation District, as requested by the city on June 10, 1980.
Copies of this report were sent to Bob Waibel and Dennis Marhula on
June 19, 1980. As of this date, I have not reviewed an updated plan and
I do not know if soil erosion and soil wetness problems have been resolved
to the satisfaction of the city planning commission and city council.
I read Kathy Schwartz' May 2, 1981 twenty-one page letter to the Chanhassen
city council "Concerns of West Pleasant View Road Association', and I am
aware of a second letter being drafted at this time (5-26-81).
Sincerely,
(---,
8-
Donald C. Berg
District Conser onist
cc: Kathy Schwartz
Don Ashworth, Chanhassen City Planner
Alfred Fischer, SCS Area Conservationist
Justin Jeffery, SCS Area Engineer
RECEIVED
MAY 2 9 1981
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
MIN
SECTION I
Status - July 21, 1980 Plan Approval
Attached please find a report from the City Attorney's office which,
basically, states that the developer has one year in which to complete
conditions set by the City Council. Stated another way, the developer
must meet the conditions of the final development plan approval prior to
asking for preliminary plat approval and he has the one year period of
time, from final development plan approval to complete these conditions
and request preliminary plat approval. In the specific case of Fox
Chase Addition, the developer has until July 21, 1981 to meet the
conditions set by the City Council. Attached please find a listing of
all conditions that were set as a part of the July 21, 1980 approval.
Although discussion may have occurred by Mr. Derrick in regards to a
number of the points, basically a majority of the conditions set by the
City Council have not been met. It should be recognized, however, that
Mr. Derrick still has until July 21st, 1981 to complete these conditions
and that some of the conditions relate to work that would be necessary
after preliminary plat approval was given. Therefore, conditions
associated with specific construction plans or the actual construction
itself would typically become a part of the preliminary plat approval
and incorporated into the development contract but logically would not
be completed prior to preliminary plat approval.
Conditions of April 7, 1980
1. That the applicant receive approval of their
grading plan, drainage plan and erosion control plan
from the
Soil Conservation Service
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District
2. That said approvals be received prior to the matter
being resubmitted to the City Council for preliminary
plat approval.
3. That the pedestrian and conservation easement portion
of the proposed development must be shown by the
applicant to have such soil conditions as would allow
for the development of such facilities, and that the
applicant's soil condition evidence is to be reviewed
by the City Engineer.
4. That the applicant prepare cul-de-sac plans for the
roadway portion in the vicinity of lot 20, block 3
and lot 24, block 1. Said plans are to be reviewed
and approved by the city engineer.
5. Paved street surfaces are to be 36 feet wide and
paved cul-de-sacs are to be 32 feet in diameter.
6. That the Park and Recreation Commission review
alternative trail locations between Pleasant View
Road and the conservation easement and is to submit
a recommendation to the City Council.
ondi .i t\
• The n-
1
or on
ab tZms °f
e i
on Of
del, Z, e• the 8
Rec eZopfie n9 th whe trai m
re n e t 1
9 ad . dez
es C° I� meeeet on long st�l1 3 and
CO ing ire1ss tin the the once 4)
Ao �i.j 99, s c° tO at, °n, g with nOz't back 1 tain
Cent . hers mmence e this e deV the P end Ot li et -
eat
cono so 1Oca afftz ord and I el0Ae ark
a o f the es
but tact me. Ar b ons ded an Park aon cv . h n
s aV d
H°wev ° 0th�Out Z j b1ems Th js °ppor u Re � thhe e stat
t shoo r' in r res 1ng t �n Ar sug9e uni ty tea t Zl02 un t1 d
acc ul ac son wo eAa st ' t° n 1
pa eAte d be cept . able Aote rati ion a wal
is rk cr d as clear �n9 t alto ntial on of ppea,, k 'bot
to edi a c° that he rnat loc a d s t0 h
8 foot the a s are cons
at th f-Z Ve a at-iOn Cie
Such tra dt'an bein a ti on e out de Ve ppear area Amen t
adJa be w it t ta9e 9 9 - are Out-,
lOpme s to s�
and cent Zthin hr°ugh of th Ven• a and area is t pla exist•
with �nsta to the this the e de Furt ass be . n,
Com�isse r e WO°d road Con Se
serva e'er ex-,
that ' no
8. AS on a orl hen chips that t-ion tion ° haV it
a s a dat for C7 are . and e t
iveCl,is r out °f part Of sOf the
e ra ers ar par he her
to cuss ntai both them. he pa it in 9ree gall
thspec ere �thacurren CIE? elO�°mo ast y oV�a 1 and Rearda� r de
es d t d n o 9r r e
be r e disc to Ci publi in z'e Pro po s Lak ad-Zn9 eat3on
o f pl quire ussi o t-' s t c imp zds s a l to s, e Pro pl an .
9, ZnsAeCt.i°� d ns nt
s° use' t t -Z 12 an a3 V e T nos ahe C gt fi sj a and
by abo�,e AecZ facatioitY sMendeof°rma -Z b lit
e d n d Y
and
v 7, and U e bons ns and nal1 ee, h or the tan d
e CounC ga du g th Eh9 dinato n add stale.Zng and a2-de ati Per
length Zng tar e 1p.- er,s r zn h ti0n t on
o cut de irjar ces a ors o rep r those
sacs a eV'20Zov d Jul y °f `Tul lined
and St pment Y the`such Y 9
Ze e t Al an Ci t
-- - grades appr val
1
Conditions of July 7, 1980
16. STREETS.
x::..
The right-of-way -and street widths meet the ordinance for
a residential street. However, it seems. to me that the main
...street through the development will ultimately be a collector
street ---thus a wider street width should be considered.
Intersection radii are not shown and should be indicated
-as 20 feet. Grade on street "A" exceeds both the 7% maxi -mum
4and 3/ within 30 feet of cul-de-sac "D". Vertical curves on
cul-de-sacs "E" (up-o-r end) and "D" (at intersection) are less
=`than 20 times the algebraic difference as required by ordinance.
'Cul-de-sac "E" also exceeds the 500 foot maximum length_ The
method of providing a "temporary" cul-de-sac at the south end of
the main street is not clear and should be shown.
17. SANITARY SEWER.
Size of the proposed sanitary sewer is not shown, but is
assumed to be 8-inch. Easement for the sanitary sewer from
existing manhole to manhole in street "A" (between Lots 16 and
17, Block 3) is not shown. Manholes in cul-de-sacs should be
extended to eliminate services directly into the manholes_
r
18. WATERMAIN.
Size of the watermain is not shown. We recommend 8-i.nch on
the main street and 6-inch on the cul-de-sacs. Since cul-de-sac
"E" is in excess of 500 feet, we suggest the watermain be looped
internally within the development, or looped to existing water on
Huron.
.Y.i.'S..hryL
19. DRAINAGE WORKS.
Proposed drainage works appear to be adequate with the excep-
tion that the 30-inch discharge pipe at 1.5% grade should be _
increased to 36-inch.
20. CONCLUSIONS: =
We recommend approval of the plans subject to the items
specifically noted. In terms of street grades, we recommend
waiver of the 7% maximum grade limitation in favor of the grades.,
proposed. The site simply does not facilitate 7% maximum grades
and we feel the proposed grades are acceptable.
Conditions of July 9, 1980
1O.That a conservation easement be established within
the area below the 900 foot elevation pursuant to the
Comprehensive Plan and that within said conservation
easement, a pedestrian -way easement be dedicated
that is 8 feet wide with l+ foot on either side for
purposes of maintenance (the above would nullify the
proposed 20 foot trail easement indicated on the t
proposed preliminary plat dated May 12, 1980, with
the understanding that the above described easement
would be established upon completion of a feasible
route within the conservation easement).
11.That the applicant and its contractors, including
home builders, carry out the construction of
improvements and structures -in accordance with the
requirements set forth by the
Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District
Soil Conservation Service Evaluation Report
dated June 18, 1980
(The City Council recommendation.is that the approvals
be obtained before their review of the preliminary
plat. For qualification purposes, the Riley Purgatory
Creek Watershed District has given a conditional
approval in their May 6, 1980, correspondence, however,
the Soil Conservation Service, being an advisory
body, will not given [sic].such approval. However,
I believe such may be satisfied through carrying out
their recommendations that were noted in their
evaluation report).
-t 12.That extra precautions be taken so that removal of
existing vegetation may be kept to a minimum during
construction.
13.For reasons of soil conditions and slopes, the building
plans for all residences proposed within the subject
development should be certified by an architect or
civil engineer registered in.the State of Minnesota.
14.That the applicant be required to post sufficient
escrows to assure that the degree of engineering
and inspection is carried out as recommended by the
Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District and the
Soil Conservation Service.
15.Submit and receive Council approval of development plan,
based on the plan as presented on July 21,.1980, changing
such to 52 lots.
UPDATED COMMENTS ON ABOVE CONDITIONS
1. Still applicable
2. The applicant has received Water Shed District approval
on the previous plan. On th:e current plan amendment, the
WatershEd District wants to review a Final Plat approved
first by the City. DNR has reviewed and commented on
the plan amendment. It is possible that a DNR permit
will not be necessary.
3. Covered under plan amendment proceedings.
4. The City Engineer has recommended that the right-of-way
be dedicated to the Westerly property line. The City
Engineer will also review detailed construction plans
when prepared.
5. Still applicable. (A change has been requested by the
applicant.)
6. The Park and Recreation Commission wishes to review the
placement of the trail and conservation easements at the
time when grading is taking place. Staff believes that
this is to late and thus recommends the trail and con-
servation easement be provided as per the plan amendment
recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff.
7. Reference comment #6 above.
8.
Still
applicable.
9.
Still
applicable.
10.
Still
applicable.
11.
Still
applicable.
12.
Still
applicable.
13.
Still
applicable.
14.
Still
applicable.
Additional additions conditions relative to the plan
amendment that are recommended by the Planning Commission
and staff are found in the Planning Report of April 17,
1981 and the Planning Commission minutes of April 22, 1981.
SECTION II
Status Report
Final Development Plan Amendment Request
Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
Status - Final Development Plan Amendment Request
Fox Chase Addition, Derrick
After receiving final development plan approval, and recognizing that
various conditions must be met within a one year period, Mr. Derrick
approached the City asking that this final development plan be amended.
His contention was that although final development plan approval had
been given, that changes proposed by himself would be beneficial to
both the City as well as himself and, therefore, it made no sense to
seek approvals from Soil Conservation Service, DNR, Watershed District,
etc. if an amended plan would be considered by the Council. I have not
asked the City Attorney's office or City Planner to.verify their calendars
as to when Mr. Derrick's initial request may have occurred, but it is
generally believed that such was approximately the first of the year.
Delays in his formalizing the request for a plan amendment primarily
related to questions concerning whether the City would consider such,
procedures that would have to be followed if an amendment were to be
considered, and what affects this amendment would have on the original
approval. In any case, an initial review did occur at the Planning
Commission level wherein the attorney verbally stated that his preliminary
review showed that a new public hearing would be required. Mr. Derrick
withdrew his request for further Planning Commission review. Mr. Derrick
then submitted a letter to the City Council asking the City Council to
amend the final development plan. This item was considered by the Council
in April at which time the Council noted that they would not waive the
public hearing requirements and that they would request that the Planning
Commission carryout such a hearing. Significant discussion occurred as
to whether all potential issues would be considered in the public hearing
process or whether such public hearing should only address changes in the
plan in comparison the approved plan of July 21, 1980.
The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on April 22, 1981.
A copy of the minutes of that public hearing are attached. The minutes
appear to reflect a Planning Commission recommendation of denial with
specific conditions. However, at the last City Council Meeting, Mr.
Michael Thompson did state that it was his belief that the motion reflected
an overall denial unless the various conditions were met. In essence,
he stated that the motion was to be considered a recommendation of approval
if all of the conditions noted were met.
On May 4, the City Council considered the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and additionally.considered public comments. As report #3,
submitted by Kathleen Schwartz - was of significant length and not
received for comments prior to this meeting, theCouncil acted to table action
on this item to June 1, 1981.
Should the City Council desire to proceed with considering approving an
amended final development plan for Fox Chase, the following issues need
to be resolved and incorporated as a part of the final development plan
amendment approval.
I would recommend that the Council follows the procedures set forth in
this section in carrying out the review of this item. Additionally, a
summary recommendation from this office of the issues to be resolved is
included at the end of this report. Bring the plans as enclosed in your
last packet.
1. Number of Lots
Developer's Request dated April 15, 1981:
There has been a great deal of discussion of the number of lots to
be finally platted. We have never conceded that .the City has the right
unilaterally to reduce the number of lots in the plat below that which
is permitted in single family residential zoning. This, we felt, was
done arbitrarily when the plat was approved at the 21 July 1980 Council
Meeting and the number of lots was reduced from 54 to 52. Not
incidentally, no consideration seemed to have been given to the 69
lot units assessments which are pending.
All of the above notwithstanding and in the spirit of cooperation
in bringing this protracted platting matter to a satisfactory close,
we are prepared to finally plat 52 lots as shown on the enclosed proposed
plat, if we can come to agreement on the other items discussed herein.
Planner's Comments:
(April 17, 1981 Report; Also see May 2, 1981
Report, Section III) :
At any time throughout the review of the subject proposal this
office does not recall any of the plans showing more than 55 units.
It was presumed that the applicant had calculated the pending 69 unit
assessment into his land use development proposals and chose to follow
a market that would serve lower density, larger lot development. This
is understandably qualifiable as to when the applicant made his initial
assessment search on the property.
In determining the land use density for developments, and
especially in the case of Planned Residential Development Districts,
there is the need to make certain judgemental decisions including
environmental concerns, and reasonable density standard. The
Planning Commission specifically mentioning environmental constraints of
the subject property, did, based upon the information available to
them, find the proposal acceptable at 49 and 52 lots respectably. At
this time, this office feels that the Final Development Density
relative to the 69 units assessed is not germane to the Planning
Commission consideration and it is recommended that the Planning
Commission not act to change the gross density established by the
City Council until so instructed by the Council.
2. Street Width
Developer's Request dated April 15, 1981:
This matter was discussed in our letter of 25 March 1981 to
Don Ashworth. If this street is constructed at 36' width it will be
one of only three streets in the City of Chanhassen so constructed.
REQUEST: Council reduce the street width to 32 feet.
Schoell & Madson's Comments dated May 13, 1981:
Concerning the matter of a secondary access, I have the following
comments. This applies to the issue of either an emergency access or
a permanent access. I have expressed this view in the past, and feel
strongly about it as relates to the typical subdivision. I do not
believe there to be a great safety need to have a secondary access.
The experiences that the City has had where fallen trees have blocked
the road are unique to areas like Carver Beach. The normal residential
page -2- 1-) 1-1
subdivision does not have great potential for storms blowing trees over
the road and thus blocking emergency vehicles. If it did occur, the
emergency vehicle (in a typical street section) could simply drive
on the lawns around the tree. Downed trees normally occur in the
foliage months so snow should not be a problem.
Please don't misunderstand that I am opposed to secondary
accesses. I am not, except in the case where it is difficult to
achieve. I believe that to be the case in Fox Chase for these reasons:
1) The Carver Beach road system is poor at best.
2) Additional trees would need removal.
3) There are grade problems depending on which connection would
be used.
4) Additional right-of-way acquisition would be required in
Carver Beach to make most of the proposed connections.
City Engineer's Comments dated May 18, 1981:
Based on safety considerations, Fox Path should be wider than
the normal 28' because of the sweeping curves and steep grades. Even
with double access, the street should be at least 32' wide. Fox Path
is a proposed residential street and excess width is not being required
to make it an eventual collector.
City Planner's Comments dated April 17, 1981:
Staff had recommended that the 36 foot width street for Fox
Path in order to mitigate the single access situation of the subject
property. No change is recommended.
3. Previously Installed Assessments
Developer's Request dated April 15, 1981:
We are advised that the property has pending 69 unit assessments.
In light of the fact that only 52 units are approved, this pending
assessment should be reduced accordingly.
REQUEST: Council reduce the pending assessment to 52 units.
Manager's Recommendation: Deny Request
4. Road Alignment
Developer's Request dated April 15, 1981:
This question was discussed at length in our letter to Mr. Don
Ashworth (25 March 1981). By all measures, this is the best method
of installing the road. The homesites all have a better configuration
and less grading and soil correction would be necessary to prepare the
property in this fashion.
REQUEST: Council approve the change in the road alignment.
Planner's Comments dated April 17, 1981 and May 2, 1981:
This is in reference to the proposed alignment of Fox Path
in the northerly 1/3 of the development. This office endorses the
page -3-
proposed change provided said realignment is constructed to standards
acceptable to the City Engineer.
It is the recollection of this office that the curved street
was presented as not being of any consequence to the prominent stand
of pine trees in the northwest portion of the property.
5. Conservation Easement
Developer's Request dated April 15, 1981:
We learned at the staff meeting of 9 April 1981 that by
"conservation easement" the City means no structures including docks
are permitted on the lakeshore lots; this was never previously so
defined and it is a groundless and unacceptable limitation. Lotus
Lake is a General Development Lake. All riparian lots meet both City
and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) standards in every respect;
only these ten lots will have access to Lotus Lake.
REQUEST: Council instruct the city attorney not to include in the
Development Agreement any extraneous provisions limiting use
of riparian lots.
Planner's Comments dated April 17, 1981 and May 2, 1981:
The City, in approval of previous subdivisions and Planned
Residential Development Districts, i.e. Lotus Lake Estates, Rice
Marsh Manor, and Reichert Addition, have placed conservation easements
prohibiting structural alterations to the lakeshores.
State law does not permit the designation for trail and
conservation easements on the final plat document. The City has
consistently established such easement through the development
contract. The final plat document will need to have drainage and
utility easements designated in compliance with subdivision ordinance
33 and as per the City Engineer's recommendations.
Manager's Comments dated April 17, 1981:
As shown in the planning report of July 17, 1980 (item number 2),
the previous approval encompassed specific requirements as well as
optional construction techniques for the trail through the proposed
development. As resubmitted, a third potential location has now been
defined. It is recommended that any approval be conditioned upon the
applicant resolving this issue with the Park Commission and that City
Council concurrence and/or modification of any agreement between the
developer and Park Commission must occur prior to submission of the
preliminary plat.
Manager's Comments dated June 1, 1981:
Although the City Council has generally encouraged developers to
create a common outlot to be used by all parties within a subdivision,
there is no requirement for this under the ordinance. The plan as
previously submitted did encompass a common outlot. The current plan
does not reflect this.
In meeting with the developer, this past week, he stated they would
be willing to accept the area as recommended by the City Planner, includ-
ing trail easements and requirements of such, with all of the conditions
page -4-
typically required in a conservation easement (no filling, clear -cutting,
structures, etc.) with the exception that each individual lot be
allowed one dock. Mr. Derrick supports his belief that docks should be
allowed through the proposed Lake Study Ordinance which allows one
dock for each lot having at least 100' in width on a lake. Typically,
the Council would allow a common beach lot (if the plat were in the
form of an outiot versus separate ownership, i.e. East Lotus Lake).
However, exceptions do exist in plats such as the Reichert Addition,
i.e. three docks were allowed for the 9 lots.
Recognizing that the developer would be willing to agree to all
typical conditions of a conservation easement for the area outlined by
the Planner and recognizing conditions of the trail system, this
office sees the issue of an individual dock for each lot having a width
of 100' at the lake, versus a sharing of a dock for every other lot
meeting the 100' requirement, versus one dock for the entire addition,
as solely a policy decision.
6. Public Improvements
Developer's Request dated April 15, 1981:
We request the City of Chanhassen install ordinary municipal
utility and street improvements in Fox Chase. We understand you must
order a feasibility study, accept the feasibility study, and order the
work. Because the City Engineer has already compiled the necessary
data for feasibility study, in this case the feasibility study can
be ordered, presented and accepted at one meeting. We have already
agreed to pay for the actual drafting and preparation of the documents. We
hereby waive our right to a public hearing at that meeting and ask that you
order the work to go forward upon acceptance of the feasibility report.
In discussions with Mr. Craig Mertz we have proposed the assessments be
amortized over fifteen years with payment in full due in seven years.
REQUEST: Council:
a. Order and accept feasibility study and order all public
improvements.
b. Assess all improvements to Fox Chase, with costs divided
among all lots equally. By this request, we waive public
hearing of the assessments.
C. Assess said public improvement costs over a fifteen year
amortization period with entire amount payable in seven
years.
Manager's Comments dated June 1, 1981:
The feasibility study is anticipated to be complete this week for
action on June 15, 1981. Therefore, no action can be taken at this time.
7. Access to Pleasant View and Building Permit
Developer's Request dated April 15, 1981:
Because the majority of the lots have been sold to Lloyd Leirdahl
of Minnesota Century Builders Inc., and in that Fox Chase is comprised
of two separate parcels, there would normally be permitted two residential
building permits. Mr. Lloyd Leirdahl proposes to build two residences,
on the northeasternmost and southeasternmost lots of the plat. The
former is to be a model for the Parade of Homes in August; the latter will
be a private residence for Mr. Leirdahl. It is understood that occupancy
page -5-
permits may be withheld until water and sewer are hooked up.
REQUEST: Council permit two residential structures, moving one permit
from Lot 11, Vineland, to Government Lot 5.
Planner's Comments dated A::ril 17 , 1981 and Ma-,- 2 , 1981 :
As stated previously, the northeasterly most proposed lot is
proposed to have direct access to Pleasant View Road. Due to the grade
differential between this lot and Fox Path, this office has no problems
with issuing a building permit after the final development plan approval
has been given by the City Council. As to a building permit on the
southeasterly lot (proposed Lot 19, Block 1) I feel that a building
permit should not be issued until the City has received an executed
development contract from the applicant that would assure that the
schedule of work would proceed in an order that would not present an undue
delay between the time that an occupancy permit would be requested and
the time in which the road bed would be stabilized and/or base course
of asphalt be installed.
It has been the recommendation of this office that no individual
access be given onto Pleasant View Road for Lot 3 Block 2 of the plan
dated April 15, 1981, and that a density transfer be contemplated in
the interior of the development. In effect this would reduce the
number of houses on Pleasant View Road to three.
City Engineer's Comments dated May 18, 1981:
Staff has always upheld the position that Fox Path be the only
access to Pleasant View Road from this subdivision. Lot 3 of Block 2 does
exist as a buildable lot, but site distance restrictions.make private
access unsafe.
Schoell & Madson's Comments dated May 13, 1981:
Lot 3, Block 2 could have improved site distance assuming some
grading and tree removal, plus driveway placement on the east edge of
the lot. The advantage of the Pleasant View access is that it aids
the effort of saving the Pine tree stand on the subject lot, versus
a driveway access from the southeast.
8. Grading Permit
Developer's Request dated ALril 15, 1981:
We are unsure what constitutes a Chanhassen grading permit on
our development. We, of course, have the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed
Permit (copy attached). In fact, they have, in effect, approved both
road alignments -- one in the original application and the second at
the renewal. We will obtain the necessary DNR permits before grading in
DNR protected land. Additionally, we will grade only that property that
is common to both road alignments until that issue is settled. We have
a firm agreement with an earth moving company, but the favorable price
we obtained requires that the grading start in May. The grading contractor
will supply the bond required by the Watershed District to insure against
unwanted erosion damage.
REQUEST: Permit to rough grade Fox Chase subject to:
a. Terms of Watershed permit, including required bond;
b. Necessary DNR permit;
C. Not grading area where application for street change has been made
until final determination.
page -6-
Manager's Recommendation dated June 1, 1981: Deny
9. Other Conditions
a. Planning Commission Recommendations of April 22, 1981?
b. All Conditions previously applied and as set forth in Section
I; except where in direct conflict with action taken this
evening, in which case the June 1, 1981 condition would apply.
C. Confirm or Extend Completion of Conditions by July 21, 1981?
d. Other Conditions which appear necessary as a result of Mrs.
Schwartz' report(s) and/or other public comment?
Manager's Summation:
This office would recommend approval of the amended Final Development
Plan on the following conditions (see previous pages for background
on each of the following and recognize that disagreement exists by
various staff members).
1. Number of Lots: 52
2. Street Width: 36 or 32
3. Reduction of Assessments: Deny
4. Road Alignment: Approve recognizing that approval and
conditions set by Watershed District, S.C.S., D.N.R., etc.
(as set forth in 10b., below) will apply.
5. Conservation Easement: Approve as a condition. Includes
resolution of trail issue with Park Commission and
previous conservation/trail conditions as shown in 10b,
below.
6. Public Improvements - Table to June 15th.
7. Access to Pleasant View and Building Permit Question:
- Approve building permit issuance for Northeasterlymost
lot of plat
- No permit approved for Lot 19, Block 1, until plat completed.
- Lot 3, Block 2, allowed to access to Pleasant View if
site distances can be achieved
8. Grading Permit: Deny request
9. Other Conditions:
a. Planning Commission recommendations deemed advisable
by Council.
b. All conditions as applied in July of 1980 and as set forth
in Section I of this report.
page -7-
c. Council decision.
d. Council decision.