1h. Dev Contract for Bluff Creek Greens ; E
I
4.-7\ . C 1 TY 0 F . --....
.,,,,,
C EANHASSEN
I ,
I', "'
I ,,, .. ,
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O, BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
... (612) 937-1900
Action by City .Administrator
IMEMORANDUM Endorsad_ i''-----__ R
i Jodi:.,,, _ _ _._,_.
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager °eec-d..
I ECG:.-.�.�.�-�22�y
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer
Dee :3 `2d to Commission
aission
v _�
I DATE: March 22 , 1989 Date .: ':,ra:tad t3 Council
3"2a:i.`L
SUBJ: Approve Development Contract for Bluff Creek Greens ---
IFile No. 86-9
Attached is the development contract for Bluff Creek Greens sub-
I division. The project received subdivision approval on March
17 , 1986 and a development contract was prepared and approved on
September 8 , 1986 . The original contract was never executed and
Ithe project for various reasons has not proceeded.
The project site is located along the southerly border of the
Bluff Creek Golf Course and is unique in that it will be a public
I and private extension of Creekwood Drive. Since the construction
area is in close proximity to the Bluff Creek ravine area, there
are significant erosion control challenges for the developer.
I All necessary Watershed, MnDOT, DNR, etc . permits were originally
obtained in 1986 . Extensions have been received from the DNR and
MnDOT. The Watershed District will be reviewing this permit
extension on April 5 , 1989 .
ISince this project is relatively new to the City Council , I have
enclosed a copy of the construction plans . The plans were
Iapproved by the previous City Council on September 8 , 1986.
Since the original development contract was not executed and
I since the City has revised its development contract format in
1988 , it was decided to prepare this new agreement in the current
format.
I The special conditions section of this contract includes the con-
ditions which are unique to this project. It was a specific
point of the previous City approvals that the storm sewer system
I and the roadway west of the golf course parking lot would remain
as private installations . The developer, through Association
documents and/or covenants of restrictions on the deeds for the
II property, must establish a contractural arrangement for main-
tenance and upkeep of the private facilities . This will need to
a
I
11
Don Ashworth ,
March 22 , 1989
Page 2 ,
be provided to the City prior to execution of the final plat. It
was also a specific request that the hold harmless clause be
reinforced in this development contract in light of the construc-
tion challenges, specifically erosion control , which present
themselves for the storm sewer construction. Remaining special
conditions are self-explanatory. Needless to say, the issuance
of building permits for this subdivision will need to be closely
reviewed with each application to address the concerns of site
stability and proper construction practices for the homes .
It is therefore recommended that the attached development
contract for the Bluff Creek Greens subdivision be approved for
execution.
Attachments '
1 . Development Contract.
2 . March 17 , 1986 City Council minutes.
3 . Construction plans ( 7 sheets) .
cc : Arthur Johnson
Scott Harr , Asst. Public Safety Director
1
1
1
I
I
I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
BLUFF CREEK GREENS
' SPECIAL PROVISIONS
AGREEMENT dated 19
by and between
the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (the
' "City" ) , and BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOCIATION, a Minnesota Limited
Partnership, (the "Developer" ) .
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked
the City to approve a plat for BLUFF CREEK GREENS (referred to in
this Contract as the "plat" ) . The land is legally described on
' the attached Exhibit "A" .
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City has approved
the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract
1 and furnish the security required by it.
3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in
' accordance with the following plans . The plans shall not be
attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the
plans may be prepared, subject to City approval , after entering
the Contract, but before commencement of any work in the plat.
If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the
written terms shall control . The plans are:
' Plan A--Plat prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc . ,
approved March 16 , 1987 .
Plan B--Erosion Control Plan dated July, 1986 , prepared
by Schoell & Madson, Inc. ( sheet 7 of 7 )
Plan C--Plans and Specifications for Improvements stamped
' "Received March 1, 1989" , prepared by Schoell &
Madson, Inc. (sheets 1 through 6 of 7 ) .
' The 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.
1
1 SP-1
I
I
4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay 1
for the following:
A. Storm Water Drainage System '
B. Streets
C. Street Signs
D. Street Lights
E. Site Grading
F. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas , electric ,
telephone, CATV)
G. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
H. Surveying and Staking
I . Turn Lane
J. Stabilization and Erosion Control '
The public portion of the improvements as listed above shall be
those as constructed within public right-of-way as dedicated on
the final plat of Bluff Creek Greens.
5 . Time of Performance. The Developer shall install
all required improvements by July 1 , 1990 . The Developer may,
however, request an extension of time from the City. If an
extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the
security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and
the extended completion date.
6 . Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms
of this Contract, payment of special assessments, payment of the
costs of all public improvements and construction of all
improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter
of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ( "Security" )
for $389 , 234. The amount of the security was calculated as 110%
of the following:
On-site storm sewer $ 137 ,123
Streets and graaing $ 178 , 387
Erosion Control $ 7 ,605
Engineering, surveying,
and inspection $ 23 ,149
Turn lane $ 7 ,585
TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $ 353, 849 '
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restric-
tion on the use of the security. The security shall be subject
to the approval of the City. The security shall be for a term
ending December 31 , 1990 . The City may draw down the security ,
without notice, for any violation of the terms of the Contract.
If the required improvements are not completed at least thirty
( 30 ) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may
also draw it down. If the security is drawn down , the draw shall
be used to cure the default. With City approval , the security
may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are
paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a point
less than 10% of the original amount until all improvements are
complete and accepted by the City.
SP-2 I
7. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall
be in writing, and shall be either hand-delivered to the
Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by
' registered mail at the following address:
ABJ Enterprises , Inc .
Attn: Arthur Johnson, Partner
250 Prairie Center Drive
Eden Prairie , MN 55344
' Telephone: ( 612) 944-9400
Facsimile: ( 612 ) 944-8496
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand-
delivered to the City Manager , or mailed to the City by
registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following
address:
' Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
' P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Telephone: ( 612) 937-1900
Facsimile: ( 612 ) 937-5739
i8. Other Special Conditions.
A. Staking, Surveying and Construction Engineering.
It is agreed that the Developer, through his registered
professional engineer, shall provide for all staking, surveying
and construction engineering 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
construction inspection.
' B. City Disclaimer. It is hereby agreed, anything
to the contrary herein notwithstanding, that the City of
' Chanhassen, the City Council and their agents or employees shall
not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the
Developer, the Developer ' s contractor or subcontractor, material
men, laborers or any other person or persons whomsoever, for any
claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind
or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this
agreement or the performance and completion of the work and the
' improvements provided herein, and that the Developer shall hold
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. This
disclaimer shall not be interpreted to include actions resulting
from the City ' s breach of provisions of this contract.
The Developer shall hold the City and its officers , agents,
consultants and employees harmless from claims made by itself and
SP-3
third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting
from plat approval and development. The Developer shall
indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs,
damages or expenses which the City may pay or incur in
consequence of such claims , including attorney ' s fees .
C. Private Improvement Maintenance. The Developer i
agrees that all improvements , as designed and approved, outside
of public right-of-way shall be maintained by the Developer
and/or by an association of area homeowners. Provisions for
maintenance of said private street and private storm sewer
facilities shall be approved as a part of the final plat process.
Further, said maintenance provisions shall include a section
holding the City harmless for future problems with or caused by
the private improvements.
D. Easements. For utility purposes , an easement '
shall be granted across Outlot A. Additionally, for access and
maintenance purposes, Outlot H shall be dedicated as
right-of-way, Outlot G shall be incorporated as a part of the
adjacent lot and Outlot F shall remain as a part of the golf
course. An access easement, 200 feet in width, across the south
edge of the golf course shall also be filed to satisfy secondary
access deficiencies.
E. Building Requirements. There shall be no
building/grading activity on areas exceeding 25% in slope. At
time of building permit application, each application shall
contain a certified lot survey showing house location , two septic
field locations and a well site meeting ordinance standards.
Additionally, two percolation tests for each septic field
location shall be required. All building and grading plans shall
be certified by a licensed civil engineer or architect.
F. Roadway Obstructions. To insure clear access
to the private portion of the improvements, long-term maintenance
provisions shall restrict the placement of any physical
obstruction, such as a gate or chain, across the roadway.
G. Existing Creekwood Drive. The Developer shall
be responsible to repair at his sole cost any damages to the
existing paved portion of Creekwood Drive resulting from his
construction traffic. Likewise, the Developer shall keep this
road free from construction debris, dirt and other nuisances
during construction.
9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this
Contract, approved by the City Council on February 22 , 1988 , are
attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein .
i
i
SP-4 1
■
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
1
BY:
Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor
(SEAL)
' BY:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
DEVELOPER:
' BLUFF CREEK GOLF ASSOCIATION, a
Minnesota Limited Partnership
BY:
Arthur B. Johnson, Partner
' BY:
Norman T. Berglund, Partner
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
1 ) ss .
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I `Thoe f foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day , 19 , by Donald J. Chmiel , Mayor,
and by Don Ashworth, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and
1 pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
Notary Public
' STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss .
COUNTY OF
1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 19 , by Arthur B. Johnson and
Norman T. Berglund, partners of Bluff Creek Golf Association, a
Minnesota Limited Partnership.
' Notary Public
1
1
SP-5
r
CONSENT
, fee '
owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of
which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, affirm
and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by
the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the sub-
ject property owned by them.
Dated this day of , 19 ,
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss .
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 19 , by
1
Notary Public
I
SP-6
■
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
' DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
(Developer Installed Improvements)
' EXHIBIT "B"
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be
platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the
' earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines , streets,
utilities , public or private improvements, or any buildings until
all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1 ) this
agreement has been fully-executed by both parties and filed with
the City Clerk, 2 ) the necessary security and fees have been
received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the
County Recorder ' s Office of the County where the plat is located,
' and 4 ) the City Engineer has issued a written letter that the
foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer
may proceed.
1 2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a
multi-phased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve
final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached
this Contract and the breach has not been remedied. Development
of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts
for such phases are approved by the City.
3 . Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two ( 2 ) years
from the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City ' s
Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the
' current urban service area , or official controls shall apply to
or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or
dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or
' federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the
Developer. Thereafter , notwithstanding anything in this Contract
to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the
' City may require compliance with any amendments to the City ' s
Comprehensive Plan, official controls , platting or dedication
requirements enacted after the date of this Contract.
4 . Improvements. The improvements specified in the
Special Provisions of this Contract shall be installed in accor-
dance with City standards , ordinances, and plans and specifica-
tions which have been prepared and signed by a competent
registered professional engineer furnished to the City and
approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all
Approved by the
City Council on
2/22/88.
' REVISED 8/8/88 - 19Q, R and S Added.
REVISED 9/20/88 - 191 Revised.
REVISED 3/22/89 - 12 and 17 Revised.
11 GC-1
necessary permits from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The City
will , at the Developer ' s expense, have one or more construction
inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or
part-time basis. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to
respond to questions from the City Inspector (s) and to make
periodic site visits to satisfy that the construction is being
performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with
the engineer' s design. The Developer or his engineer shall sche-
dule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at
the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including
the City staff , to review the program for the construction work .
Within sixty ( 60 ) days after the completion of the improvements
and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply
the city with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible
Mylar as-built plans, ( 2) two complete sets of blue line as-built
plans , ( 3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets , ( 4) location
of buried fabric used for soil stabilization , (5 ) location sta-
tioning of all utility stubs , and ( 6 ) bench mark network.
5 . License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its 1
agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter
the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate
by the City in conjunction with plat development.
6. Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded,
and before any utility construction is commenced or building per-
mits are issued, the erosion control plan , Plan B, shall be
implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the
City. The City may impose additional erosion control require-
ments
if they would be beneficial . All areas disturbed by the
excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith
after the completion of the work in that area. Except as other-
wise provided in the erosion control plan , seed shall be certi-
fied seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as
possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and
disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties 11 recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion . If
the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and
schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City,
the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control
erosion at the Developer ' s expense. The City will endeavor to
notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action , but
failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer ' s and
City' s rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be
allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is
in full compliance with the erosion control requirements.
Erosion control needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has
been restored, even if construction of the improvements has been
completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to
where in the opinion of the City there is no longer a need for
erosion control , the City will remove the erosion control
measures . Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer
shall pay the City a fee of $1.00 per foot of erosion control
that is required to be constructed in accordance with the erosion
control plan for the plat, Plan B, to cover the City ' s cost for
the removal .
GC-2
•
7 . Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and
orderly work site and shall daily clean , on and off site, dirt
' and debris , including all blowables , from streets ana the
surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the
Developer, its agents or assigns .
8. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon
completion and acceptance by the City of the work and construc-
tion required by this contract, the improvements lying within
public easements shall become City property. After completion of
the improvements, a representative of the contractor, and a
representative of the Developer ' s engineer will make a final
' inspection of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City
accepts the improvements , the City Engineer shall be satisfied
that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the
approved plans and specifications and the Developer and his
engineer shall submit a written statement attesting to same with
appropriate contractor waivers. Final acceptance of the public
improvements shall be by City Council resolution.
' 9. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims
from labor, materialmen, or others that work required by this
Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been
paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking
payment out of the financial guarantees posted with the City, and
if the claims are not resolved at least ninety ( 90 ) days before
I the security required by this Contract will expire, the Developer
hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action
pursuant to Rule 22 , Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the
District Courts , to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount
up to 125% of the claim( s) and deposit the funds in compliance
with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall
release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further pro-
"' -
ceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with
the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdic
tion to determine attorneys ' fees .
' 10 . Park and Trail Dedication. Prior to the issuance
of building permits for residential construction within the plat,
the Developer, its successors or assigns , shall pay to the City
the park and trail dedication fees then in force pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions.
' 11. Landscaping. Unless the lot already has one tree
on it, the Developer shall plant a tree on every lot in the plat.
Suitable trees include:
' Maples Ash
Linden Basswood
Green Ash Birch
Honeylocust Ginko (male only)
Hackberry Kentucky Coffee Tree
Oak
' Other species of trees may be approved by the building inspector .
Trees which can cause a public nuisance, such as cotton producing
trees, or can be a public hazard, such as bug infestation or weak
GC-3
bark, are prohibited. The minimum tree size shall be two ( 2)
inches caliper , either bare root in season, or balled and
burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard. In
addition to any sod required as a part of the Erosion Control
Plan (Plan B) , the Developer shall soa the boulevard area and all
drainage ways on each lot utilizing a minimum of four inches of
topsoil as a base. Weather permitting, the trees, sod, and seed
shall be planted before Certificates of Occupancy are issued for
a lot.
12. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required
to be performed by it against poor material and faulty work-
manship for a period of two ( 2) years after its completion and
acceptance by the City. All trees, grass, and sod shall be
warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the
time of planting. All trees shall be warranted for twelve (12 )
months from the time of planting. The Developer or his
contractor ( s) shall post maintenance bonds (Miller-Davis Company
form No. 1636 or equal) or other security acceptable to the City
to secure the warranties at the time of final acceptance. ,
13. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building per-
mits an acceptable Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Tree
Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot as required in the
Special Provisions, for review and approval by the City Engineer.
Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from
buildings and that tree removal is consistent with City
Ordinance .
14. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments
against the plat will be respread against the plat in accordance
with City standards .
15. Street Lighting. Before the City signs the final
plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $200 .00 for each
street light installed in the plat. The fee shall be used by the
City for furnishing electricity for each light for twenty ( 20 )
months .
16. Street Signs. All street name and traffic signs
required by the City as a part of the public improvements shall
be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the
Developer.
17 . Responsibility for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee
in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements .
This fee is to cover the cost of City staff time and overhead for
items such as review of construction documents, preparation of
the Development Contract , monitoring construction progress , pro-
cessing pay requests, processing security reductions and final
acceptance of improvements . This fee does not cover the City ' s
cost for resident construction inspections. The fee shall be
calculated as follows :
GC-4 I
i
i ) if the cost of the construction of public improvements
is less than $500 ,000 , three percent ( 3%) of
' construction costs;
ii ) if the cost of the construction of public improvements
is between $500 ,000 and $1,000 ,000 , three percent ( 3%)
of construction costs for the first $500 , 000 and two
percent ( 2%) of construction costs over $500 ,000 ;
iii ) if the cost of the construction of public improvements
is over $1, 000 ,000 , two and one-half percent ( 22% ) of
construction costs for the first $1 ,000 , 000 and one and
one-half percent (li%) of construction costs over $1 , 000 ,000 .
' Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit
with the City a fee based upon construction estimates . After
construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined
based upon actual construction costs. The cost of public impro-
vements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special Provisions .
B. In addition to the administrative fee , the
Developer shall reimburse the City for all out-of-pocket costs
incurred by the City for providing resident construction inspec-
tions . This cost will be periodically billed directly to the
Developer based on the actual progress of the construction.
Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 17E of this
agreement.
C. The Developer shall hold the City and its offi-
cers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third
parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from
plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the
City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or
expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such
claims , including attorneys ' fees .
D. In addition to the administrative fee , the
Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the
enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attor-
neys ' fees .
E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills sub-
mitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this
Contract within thirty ( 30 ) days after receipt. If the bills are
not paid on time , the City may halt all plat development work and
construction, including but not limited to the issuance of
' building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have
sold, until the bills are paid in full . Bills not paid within
thirty ( 30 ) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year.
F. In addition to the charges and special
assessments referred to herein , other charges and special
assessments may be imposed such as but not limited to sewer
availability charges ( "SAC" ) , City water connection charges , City
sewer connection charges , and building permit fees .
18. Developer ' s Default. In the event of default by
GC-5
■
11
the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it
hereunder , the City may , at its option, perform the work and the
Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense
incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given
notice of the work in default, not less than four ( 4) days in
advance. This Contract 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 remedies , assess the cost
in whole or in part.
19. Miscellaneous.
A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site
construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be
approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction
meeting for installation of public improvements . Trailers shall
be removed from the subject property within thirty ( 30 ) days
following the acceptance of the public improvements unless other-
wise approved by the City Engineer.
B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide
for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the
local Postmaster ' s request. ,
C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no
recourse against the City under this Contract. ,
D. Breach of Contract. Beach of the terms of this
Contract by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building
permits, including lots sold to third parties. ,
E. Severability. If any portion , section, subsec-
tion, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is
for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Contract.
F. Delays. If building permits are issued prior 1
to the completion and acceptance of public improvements, the
Developer assumes all resulting liability and costs from delays
in completion of public improvements and damage to public im-
provements caused by the City, Developer , its contractors , sub-
contractors, materialmen, employees, agents , or third parties .
G. Occupancy. Unless approved in writing by the r
City engineer, no one may occupy a building for which a building
permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until 11 the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous
surface.
H. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of '
the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to
the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or
waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved 11 by written resolution of the City Council . The City ' s failure to
promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be
GC-6 ,
■
I
a waiver or release.
' I. Release. This Contract shall run with the land
and may be recorded against the title to the property. After the
Developer has completed the work required of it under this
Contract, at the Developer ' s request the City Manager will issue
a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance of such a
certificate, individual lot owners may make written request for a
certificate applicable to an individual lot allowing a minimum of
ten (10 ) days for processing.
J. Insurance. Developer shall take out and main-
tain until six ( 6 ) months after the City has accepted the public
improvements, public liability and property damage insurance
covering personal injury, including death, and claims for pro-
perty 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 and 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; or a combination single limit
policy of $1 ,000 ,000 or more. The City shall be named as an
additional insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file
with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City
signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City
must be given ten ( 10 ) days advance written notice of the can-
cellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any
disclaimer for failure to give the required notice.
' K. Remedies. Each right,power or remedy herein
conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every
other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or
hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or
under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and
remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised
from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed
expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to
exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy.
L. Assignability. The Developer may not assign
this Contract without the written permission of the City Council .
The Developer ' s obligation hereunder shall continue in full force
and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the
11 entire plat, or any part of it.
M. Construction Hours. Construction equipment may
' only be operated in the plat between 7 : 00 a.m. and 6 :00 p.m. ,
Monday through Saturday. Operation of construction equipment is
also prohibited on the following holidays : New Year ' s Day,
Memorial Day , July 4th, Labor Day , Thanksgiving Day, Christmas
Eve Day, and Christmas Day.
N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the
City accepting the roadway improvements shall be the respon-
sibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued
building permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat.
GC-7
O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be 11
responsible for all street maintenance until streets within the
subdivision are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be 11
vent by the Developer when hazards develop in streets to pre-
vent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to
detours . If streets become impassable, the City may order that
such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall
maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface
drainage. The Developer may request, in writing, that the City
plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance of the
streets . The City shall have complete discretion to approve or
reject the request. The City shall not be responsible for
reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of
snow plowing operations . The provision of City snow plowing ser-
vice does not constitute final acceptance of the streets by the
City.
P. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment
systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the
field and protect from alteration , unless suitable alternative
sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified
during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done
prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any
violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unac-
ceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each
violated site in order to obtain a building permit.
Q. Variances. By approving the plat, the I
Developer represents that all lots in the plat are buildable
without the need for variances from the City ' s ordinances. ,
R. Compliance with Laws , Ordinances and Regulations.
In the development of the plat the Developer shall comply with
all laws , ordinances , and regulations of the following authorities : '
1 . City of Chanhassen;
2 . State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and
commissions;
3 . United States Army Corps of Engineers;
4. Watershed District(s) ;
5 . Metropolitan Government, its agencies , departments and
commissions .
S. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer I
shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City
that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed
purchasers to enter into this Development Contract. ,
- - - END OF GENERAL CONDITIONS - - - '
GC-8 I
I
1 y
` ' v (
Council Meeting , March 17 , 1986 _4-
RESOLUTION 1186-16: Councilman Horn moved the adoption of a resolution approving
II the award of $88,917.76 to S.M. Hentges & Sons for the TH 101 drainage project .
Resolution was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in favor: Mayor
Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving. No nega-
tive votes. Motion carried.
II MINUTES: .
Councilman Horn moved to approve the City Council Minutes dated January 27, 1986
II as presented . Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton. The following voted in
favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and
Geving . No negative votes. Motion carried.
IAmend City Council Minutes dated February 24, 1986 , page 3, last paragraph,
first sentence: Mayor Hamilton: I don 't disagree with that and I am not a pro-
ponent of metes and bounds, I think the platting of it is the best way to do it.
Amend City Council Minutes dated February 24, 1986 , page 6, last paragraph:
Councilwoman Swenson: if we had an eight foot fence around the
: # entire area with the understanding that no junk items be outside because I am
II genuinely concerned about that also.
Amend City Council Minutes dated February 24, 1986 , page 29, paragraph 12, first
sentence: Councilman Horn : What do you mean, length of cul-de-sac?
IIMayor Hamilton moved to approve the City Council Minutes dated February 24, 1986
as amended. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Swenson. The following voted
in favor: Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen Horn and
11 Geving. No negative votes . Motion carried .
Councilman Horn : I have a comment , not related to the minutes, but just a
il general comment regarding the paper that Chanhassen puts out on a periodic basis .
I would like to suggest that for next year we do have a mailing that comes out
from the City of Chanhassen and goes to everybody. I think the comments here
were that the people should take the initiative to get the information . I don ' t
1 really think that 's feasible . I think it is better if we take the initiative to
make sure that they get the information and have a quarterly paper that goes out
to them.
IIAmend Planning Commission Minutes dated February 26 , 1986 , page 5 , second
paragraph , first sentence: Marian DeWitt stated that she is opposed to it in
that if access is granted to the lake for Sunny Slope right between 2
II homes,
Councilwoman Swenson moved to note the Planning Commission Minutes dated
11 February 26 , 1986 with the noted corrections. Motion was seconded by Councilman
Geving. The following voted in favor : Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen 'Watson and
Swenson, Councilmen Horn and Geving . No negative votes . Motion carried .
ICouncilwoman Watson moved to note the Park and Recreation Commission Minutes
dated January 7, 1986 . Motion was seconded by Mayor Hamilton . The following
voted in Favor : Mayor Hamilton, Councilwomen Watson and Swenson, Councilmen
IHorn and Geving . No negative votes. Motion carried .
SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR 19 LOTS ADJACENT TO BLUFF CREEK GOLF COURSE. BERGLUND
AND JOHNSON:
me
Mayor Hamilton : This item was tabled from our last Council meeting for clarifi-
--
cation on some items.
., 1
1�
Council Meeting , March 17, 1986
-5
II
.
Barb Dacy: Staff reviewed several of the issues with the applicant that were
raised at the Council Meeting on March 3rd . We would like to briefly run
through those and expand a little on the comments that were offered in the staff I
report . The first issue of concern is the lot area buildabilities . This is
Creekwood Drive along this alignment. This is a gravel surface from this point
to service the four existing homes now to the entrance of the golf course pro-
perty . We would like to split the discussion into two areas as far as the lot I/
area buildability . First we will discuss the Creekwood Drive extension and then
the lots along Pioneer Trail . The applicant , at the request of the Council and
staff, did submit enlargements for each lot showing that a house pad, 4,500
II
square feet, 2 septic sites and a well site could be located on each of the pro-
posed lots . A 4,500 square foot house design is intended to reflect a very
large house, three car garage, a driveway turn-around area, etc. The applicant
II
has met the minimum requirements of the subdivision ordinance for rural area
standards. However, staff remains concerned about 4 of the lots along the
Creekwood Drive extension. They are Lot 3 of Block 1, Lot 2 of Block 2, and
Lots 8 and 9 at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. The buildable areas for
these lots range in size of 14,700 square feet to 22 ,000 square feet. These lot
- } areas are similar in size in lot areas that you find to concern this area. You
will note on the plan that the lots are contained by the existing revenes of the
II
subdivision. We believe that even though the minimum requirements are being
met, that the house pad , septic systems, and the well site in the four mentioned
lots are very tight and leave little room for flexibility adjacent to the very
steep sloped area. We would recommend that in the rural area that at least one- II half of an acre to an acre of the lot be reserved and level area to provide for
adequate distancing between the house and the septic system to the sloped area.
if We realize that the proposal is to take advantage of the high amenity area, a
II
very gorgeous area. We also have to maximize the amount of disturbance and
distance between individual lot development and the existing grades and slope .
We have to control an individual lot basis erosion and stabilization of all of
II
the steep sloped areas. In looking at the lot design for the Creekwood Drive
extension, it is recommended, for example , that lots 8 and 9 be combined and
the cul-de-sac shortened by approximately 150 feet to minimize the grading in
II
and around this area to allow for design flexibility . We are also recommending
that no construction occur below or beyond the 910 contour. The Pioneer Trail
lots, 6 lots are proposed. Most of these lots contain slopes in the excess of
25 percent. The soil conservation maps identify these areas as HAF, which is
II
the Hayden Loam soil series and F indicates the slope. F slopes range from 25
to 40 percent. Typically , grades in excess of 18 percent pose additional
problems for construction of houses and especially for installation for septic
systems. City staff is concerned that through subdivision approvals that II
allowing development on these steep slopes is not prudent subdivision design ,
nor encouraging some building practice. Therefore, we are recommending that
areas that contain 25 percent slope, that no grading occur in these areas. This
II
would at minimum, eliminate Lot 3 of Block 4 in the northeastern corner of the
site. The driveways , we were concerned most at the March 3rd meeting where it
was stated that if there is any opportunity for a combination that that should ' ,
occur. However, because of the topography of these lots, etc. , that is not
easiliy achieved at all . We reviewed the driveway access issue with Carver
County. Minimum spacing of at least 300 feet can be achieved for all of the
lots except for Lot 1 of Block 4. The proposed driveway would occur in this II
area and is closer than 300 feet to the existing driveway at that point .
However , the letter of tactic from the Carver County Engineer said that such a
variance could be obtained by the County . The County was also concerned that
II
each of these lots , as they are approved , contain turn around areas so that
backing onto Pioneer Trail is not done. Therefore , if it is approved, we are
I/
II
Council Meeting , ^ ,_
, Maz i(7 , 1986
-6-
' . recommending that each of the lots contain turn around areas. As far as the lot
area buildability , we are recommending three conditions for the Council 's con-
sideration . Prohibition of building on slopes exceeding 25 percent grade and
I lots along Pioneer Trail contain drive turn around areas . To control the indi-
vidual development of each of these lots, we are recommending the following
regulations at the time of building permit application: 1) that the house desgin
I be certified by a licensed civil engineer or architect 2) that the grading plans
be certified , 3) that the perc tests be retaken to specifically be designed in
conjunction with the proposed location of the house and that the lot survey
show, not only the house location , but the location of two septic field sites
I and a well site meeting ordinance standards. Our third recommendation for lot
area buildability , as I said before, is to combine lots 8 and 9, Block 2, but
also allow the cul-de-sac to be shortened by as much as 150 feet. The drainage
I and erosion control plans have been addressed in written form by the soil con-
servation service and Watershed District and those letters are included in this
packet. The street improvement issue - Creekwood Drive is proposed as a public
street down to the golf course entrance and is proposed as a private street for
I the remainder of the extension . As proposed as a private street, the sub-
division ordinance prohibits private streets, however, the applicant is agreeing
. i to building the street to city construction standards. Staff is concerned
1 though that the deed restrictions do contain maintenance provisions for the
street and that the covenants specifically state out how that is going to be
acheived so that we are assured that the street will be maintained in a safe
II condition. The Council also wished an opinion as to the ability to condition
approval on the existing structures on site. The City Attorney advised us that
if the buildings are not in conformance with existing ordinances, then the City
would have the ability to condition some type of reorientation or finishing of
1 the buildings . However, that does not appear to be the case here. However, the
golf course use, itself, should and can be considered by the Council in terms of
reviewing it as a subdivision design and its traffic design. Again , the deed
II restrictions should contain conditions for maintenance mechanisms for the storm
sewer system and the proposed private street . Finally , the secondary street
access. This received a lot of discussion at the last meeting. This was an
II alternative as well as widening the proposed Creekwood Drive extension from 24
feet to 32 feet or instituting an easement parallel to the proposed extension to
provide for some type of emergency access . Staff maintains its previous posi-
tion on secondary accesses should be looked at and considered in the interests
II of the overall function of the traffic in this area given the existing golf
course use. The applicant has mounted and prepared three schemes for your
review. The City Engineer reviewed those alternatives . If the Council does not
recommend connection to Pioneer Trail through the secondary access , at minimum
1 staff is recommending that an easement be granted along the southerly 200 feet
of the property , that the road pavement be widened from 24 feet to 32 feet and
the applicant be responsible for installing a south bound right turn lane at
IIthe TH 101/Creekwood Drive intersection.
Bill Monk : On the updated staff reports, City staff did look at a number of
II items that were reviewed in length by the City Council at the last meeting. The
City Planner reviewed grading and buildability , which is one of the most impor-
tant . Several of the conditions that staff had previously placed on the plat as
far as the plans being certified did stay the same . However , several new con-
, ditions did come up and I think they should be explained a little bit more in
detail . Basically , the first one was that grading plans be submitted at time of
building permit and several conditions were recommended to monitor the building
permit process so that grading of the individual lots , as well as making sure
that back up septic system locations could be provided for and would be pro-
II
ue,
s
IICouncil Meeting , Marci 17, 1986
vided for as a part of the building permit process because at that ti
Ir- once the street is there and the City is basically the last one to point
eviewlindime II
vidual grading layout plans for each lot , and staff felt that it was very impor-
tant that several conditions be placed in there to make sure that the process is
as complete as possible. Two additional conditions were put in after the com-
ments on the grading adjacent to the slope and the extreme slopes that existed II
along CR 14. After reviewing the new data that was generated by the applicant
of all slopes in the various lots, staff took a hard look in terms of the
existing cross slopes, the proximity of septic systems and structures to the II
revenes and slopes and how the slopes would be protected even if we did put con-
ditions on the building permit process. There were only two ways that we could
see for protecting the slopes through the development of individual building
II
lots, whereas one concept the City Council and City has used numerous times
before on setting an elevation beyond which the developer or individual builder
would not be able to extend or drain. In this case, in looking at the plan, I
II
did come up with the elevation of 910. I used 910 because of the bulk of the
project, 910 represents the top of the steep slope area. It does have an affect
on the two lots at the very end of the cul-de-sac, Lots 8 and 9 of Block 2
II
_ i because the 910 contour does go right through those two structures . In looking
at it further, I guess I confirmed by belief that we should set that limit and
that 910 was proper and that pulling the cul-de-sac back approximately 150 feet
into what is now the throat of the cul-de-sac and combining those two lots, you
could easily stay above the 910 contour to still service that end of the plat II
and would be an overall benefit to that area. The other condition was to take a
look at what type of slope preservation was necessary, again, to make sure that
grading would not take place in or exceeding a certain slope. The City Planner II
has noted on most of the correspondence the City receives, anything over 18 per-
t_ cent slopes is usually specifically noted and comes up on reports from SCS and
Watershed District and most regulatory agencies . In looking at the plat ,
however, we thought that 18 percent was being too strict and tried to come with II
a percent slope that would allow part of the preservation of slopes that staff
thought was necessary . We did , in the end , arrive at 25 percent. That could
flucuate up or down. We just tried to be as reasonable as possible . After II
looking at the plat in terms of one effect that has, and I believe that several
of the lots, especially the ones that staff is very concerned with could be
rearranged slightly in terms of where the building structure would go, etc., to
II
not expand into that 25 percent. The only one that could not be worked around
or I could not find a way to do, was Lot 3, Block 4. I believe that lot in the
end , if the 25 - 30 percent slope protection condition is put in would have to
be deleted because the cross slope on that lot I believe crosses almost the II
entire property except way dawn. I did also review the septic systems in
detail . Septic system data does meet minimum requirements and we are requesting
that a condition be placed the same as before that at the building permit pro- II
cess, that the house be placed and shown on the site plan as still allowing two
alternate septic system sites to be provided for, because if through placement
of the house you don ' t take that into consideration it would be very easy to I/
knock out one of the alternative sites because of the restricted usable area on
the properties . We did receive letters from the SCS (Soil Conservation Service )
and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District . Both letters did come
IIback saying that more detailed work with the drainage plan. I think between
Lots 9 and 10 down to the bluff at the end of the project would indeed meet
their overall design criteria and thought the plan was good as far as drainage
went. Some of the things that still need to be done is to come up with a rests-
bilization plan , actual inlet design and methods of dissipating energy . Those I/
are items I think that can be handled through the design stage and overall the
regulatory agencies as well as myself are basically in agreement that the draina I/
9e
II
Council Meeting Mai 1986 -
-8-
IIcan work and several conditions regarding the watershed district and DNR appro-
val as far as maintenance of the systems because they would be private , are
included as conditions. As far as the private street , the proposal is to
go
11 from the end of Creekwood which is paved and public up to the west edge of the
Nally Nursery to dedicate the existing gravel section up to the entrance of the
golf course and provide a turnaround in that area then to extend a private
street from that point out. Five conditions were recommended on the installa-
II tion of that private drive including maintenance, utility easements, no physical
restrictions and that they conform to the standard cross-section. Those are the
same conditions as were previously placed and have not been changed. The other
II major item regards the site access . The Council did review in detail potential
accesses across the golf course to alleviate the situation of a mile long cul-
de-sac that is being created by this proposal . At this point in time the appli-
cant has not had a chance to go over those three options with the City. I do
have what I would call some crude renderings that I did prepare for this meeting
but I guess at this point before I go through those and do a major review, I
would like to give the applicant a chance to put up his three proposals and
I review the costs and then go over that item with the City Council and answer
questions that the Council may have.
- 4
Mr. Berglund : This gives you an idea of what 25% grade is. See that piece of
tape up on the door there, you get a five foot rise in every 20 feet horizontal
so just visually you can see what we are talking about.
IIGene Ernst : You can see that is a very good demonstration on what a slope is .
Most of you have been on riding mowers, a three to one slope is a slope that you
II can sit on the riding mower and mow those slopes . A four to one , 25%, and 20%
is a five to one slope which we do not feel is extremely steep if some pre-
cautions are taken, you have got a very stable slope. We feel those are stable
in this area. Any of you who have been on the site would have to say there is a
II lot of vegetation on these slopes and if care is taken when they are built on
naturally you won ' t have erosion problems . We don 't feel that type of grading
and destruction of the site is necessary on the plan that we presented . Ms .
Dacy and Bill Monk did go over most of the items that we have on the plan , the
1 various changes that have taken place since our last meeting. What I was going
to show, there has been reference made to larger scale drawings , as soon as I go
through these I will put up the three different alternatives on the connection
I of the road from the private drive to County Road 14. The drawing that you see
up on the board here is a 50 scale drawing . This is the end of the public
street . On this drawing we are showing the pad for a structure, the dark areas
represent a 40 by 70 pad , the same size that was shown on the 100 scale drawing.
1 We felt that because it was brought up at the last meeting that we should
illustrate on our drawings how you could build on the site a house bigger than
say 2800 square feet. We have shown on here, we have just taken a home that we
II are working on , it 's got 4500 square feet , it 's a three car garage and that 's
what is represented in the lighter color. Every one of these lots , we feel , and we
have different options on a majority of these lots that you can place a house at
MO different locations, the septic fields are somewhat tighter than others but on
this particular one we have shown a drive , turnaround , a well , two septic
-. fields , again , you have got to keep in mind we have shown a 50 by 100 foot sep-
y tic field and as we discussed in previous meetings , you can reduce that area by
certain construction techniques . The red line that we have dashed here is the
910 contour that has been referred to by Bill and you can see we are well within
that with the septic fields and the houses . This location , we have shown , again,
the variations of house pads on these lots . We can ' t show you every possibility.
The last presentation that we made there was a lot of time spent discussing
1
Council Meeting March l7, 1986
II
possible secondary access or creating a loop from our proposed drive. In that
presentation we stated we had looked at these in a conceptual and some prelimi-
nary form although we had never handled them in a drawing to illustrate. We are
looking at road alignments based on the last conversation and also if there was
going to be a road installed this may create the least amount of disturbance
based on relocating the greens, the tees and fairways . We do not feel it would
II
be wise at this time to even suggest that one of these be a road alignment until
you really look at what might be the future development of this total area.
Just punching a road through because it 's going to solve the problem at this
II
time does not mean that it 's going to be the one down the road. We are showing
a connection here, the existing clubhouse and the existing structure here, there
is 2200 lineal feet of drive to get to this location. You might ask why we put
a curve in it , we were trying to avoid cutting through the most severe part of
II
this lot here. We have shown the cuts , we have some sections . Our worst cut is
45 feet of cut. We designed this road graded on an eight percent maximum grade,
based on the City 's requirements . You can see the dash line, that is where the
existing grade is at. We have got a number of 30 foot cuts, 37 foot cuts just 1
to get up through that area . There is a lot of destruction to that part of the
golf course. Again , we would have to relocate a tee, number seven tee would
have to be moved here, this fairway would then have to be reduced in size. The ,
next problem ahead is when you are playing the golf course you get from that
point to that point and you would have to go down this way to be able to play
the next hole. So there would be a disruption of the golf course if you would
II
put in a road of that magnitude. There is an awful lot of disturbance. I
stated last time that we would probably have to go from the center line 150 feet
on a 3 to 1 slope. It actullay comes out that we would have to go on some loca-
tions up to 150 feet out just to daylight that slope. Another scheme that is II
similar but really relates to more of a scheme that was suggested at the last
meeing , it takes out the curve . The number of lineal feet of road is still 2200
lineal feet . We just want to demonstrate what happens when you cut through ,
li
immediately getting of CR 14 you are going in to cut and the amount of cut is
basically the same as the other scheme . Again , having to change tees and
greens . This particular scheme reduces the length of this hole down to about a II
200 yard play . That is the two schemes for that location . This is probably one
of the first schemes that we put together . This shows a road that would pick up
at this point , try to weave through the fairways, the greens , you would have to
relocate a green at this location. The tees are questionable at this point
II
because of the grading required. A lot of fill required through here . A lot of
grading through here . Again , if you have been out on the golf course, this is
the most desirable, visually , if you want to experience a great day of playing
II
golf and getting back into a park or wood atmosphere, this would be the way you
would want to go. We are cutting through here, and that destroys the number 13
tee . You can see how close the road is . We feel that this is very undesirable .
We can put a road through that location , but if in the future you are going to
II
develop it into a resident subdivision, this road would not be in a location
where you would want it in the future . Cost - we ran through 2 costs , again ,
looking at this scheme the loss of a lot and putting the value on that lot , the 11
grading costs. We estimated 140,000 cubic yards would have to be cut out of
here in order to get through this area. We estimated that we would keep half of
that on the site to try and build an area of mountain or fill something. Half
II
of that fill would cover nearly 400 by 400 by 11 feet deep if we kept half of
that on site. The other half we are saying would be hauled off of the site .
We figured out culverts , we figured the relocation of tees and greens . A tee is
in the range of $10 ,000 plus to build irregated grade greens , you are up in the
II
range of $25 ,000 - $30 ,000 with your total cost . The road base, the surface ,
seeding , erosion , in this particular scheme were in the range , based on hauling ,
II
.
Council Meeting, March 17 , 1986 ( -10-
• weigh half of the material within a five-mile radius, we are up to an estimated
one-half million dollars . Looking at this same scheme here , again , backing off
and not taking out as much fill in this area, we are still at that estimate at,
about $470 ,000 to $500 ,000 to build this particular road.
Peter Stalland : I am the attorney for the applicants here . We received the
staff report today . We are really quite concerned about the conditions that
they put on . I would like to go through those conditions . We have come to
several meetings and worked with the City staff, in due respect they have con-
11 cerns about the project , a very unique piece of property , but we have at this
point, I think by admission in the staff report , are within the ordinance
requirements in terms of the strict letters and what they require for sub-
division, etc. However, the conditions that they have discussed in the staff
report relate to the subdivision ordinance that allows the City to impose addi-
tional and more stringent standards upon the applicant if the staff feels that
is necessary. I guess I would respond to that without getting into all the
legal ramifications of that , but just from a common sense standpoint. What you
are telling a developer, a property owner coming before the City is they can
work and they can spend time and expense to conform to what the City has stated
is the law for development of their property , but yet that is not enough. And
what is enough , what are the additional requirements? Well , the applicant
doesn 't know unt..l he goes through the City process. I submit that that is a
very difficult position to put a property owner in when they are trying to
develop their property . If now I could respond specifically to those con-
ditions . On page six of the staff report, the first recommendation is with
regard to no building on areas exceeding 25 percent in slope . What this does
' effectively along with the number three condition , is to take out six lots of
the subdivision . Now remember , we are starting with only 19 lots . When you
take out six it is like having someone coming in with a 100 lot subdivision and
' ask him to take out 30 lots (30 percent ) . When you are only dealing with 19
lots, every single lot that you take, obviously , has a tremendous impact on the
probability of the project . We have already to date suffered one lot that has
been cut and now we have come in , and we believe that each lot does conform with
1 the City ordinance and now staff is talking about taking out 5. I submit to you
that this will kill the project . It is simply not economically feasible to come
in and cut that many lots out. With regard to the 25 percent , I don ' t exactly
understand how the staff comes up with this 25 percent . I don ' t believe there
is any authority in the ordinance for it . Clearly , building has occurred on 25
percent slopes all over the United States. There is engineering and building of
1 procedures and design standards that are applicable to that type of a slope .
The people that are spending $200 ,000 to $250 ,000 for a house and up want this ,
they want the unique piece of property , they want trees , they want slope, they
can have walk outs , and multi-stories , etc . If we treat the subdivision as a
' flat piece like many other pieces of property , it really does not relate speci-
fically to our project . I guess that is what I am asking the City Council to
do , you understand that it is a difficult project for everyone involved , but if
' you would keep this in mind we would appreciate it . Number three , Gene Ernst
talked about the 910 level on the topography with regard to combining 8 and 9,
that eliminates one lot there. I guess , simply , that we submit that there is
nothing in the ordinance that talks about this 910 topography . There is nothing
' in the ordinance or City law that would require two lots of this size to combine
together . We have made a tremendous effort to make those two lots to conform to
City ordinance . Number 13 , the secondary access , I think anyone with common
sense can realize that if you try to put in a secondary access for one-half
million dollars , in addition to all the other coats of the development, that
does not even take into consideration the loss ecomonically , what it does to
IR
EI
' �- 1
Council Meeting , March 17 , 1986
•
. -11-
I
the golf couse. We appreciated the Mayor 's suggestion about the easement for
emergency all the way along the road. That is certainly possible . We would
certainly be happy to work with the staff on that. Next, is the last
ir
phrae of
condition 1114, and that is provide for a south bound right turn lane onTHs101. I
Again, I don 't believe there is anything in the ordinance or in any City law
that requires the developer to start improving roads, certainly some distance
away from the development that they are proposing. I think we are getting. into, II
if I am not mistaken, TH 101 is a state road , so we are dealing with MNDot on
approving that and we have absolutely no idea what the cost is of that . You are
talking about right turn, right in, and cutting down that hill that is there.
II
That will well exceed $100 ,000. Again, that would kill the project. In sum-
mary, the other conditions we can work with , but we felt we have made a bonifide
effort to try and to conform to what the City ' s law is. I guess we 'd ask that II the City treat us like anybody else, like any other property owner.
Councilman Horn: I have a question for Bill . What would you estimate the
increase in costs to be in making an eight foot wider roadway, from 24 feet to 11
32 feet on a lineal foot basis?
- 1
II
Bill Monk: I haven 't sat down and figured out what the cost differencial would
be . The street has to be graded with 36 feet wide with gravel anyway. What we
are basically talking about is replacing three inches of the gravel in the 4
feet wide with black top. I think the cost would be minimal , several dollars a
IIfoot, but I don 't know what the actual number is .
Councilman Horn : That 's close enough . I guess the other question I had was to
Barb who mentioned that there would be nothing that we could put in the approval
II
if the current construction met with existing ordinance . Do we indeed know that
that 's true?
Barb Dacv : I don 't know if the building inspector has made a recent inspection . II
I do not believe so. As far as setback requirements and so on it is lying
there, but as far a building code violations , I don ' t know. I don ' t think an
IIinspection would take care of either the old one or the existing club house.
Councilman Horn : What would the amount of cubic yards be saved if we were to
allow a 10 percent grade rather than an eight percent? We had talked about a 10
II
percent last time, they chose to use the existing ordinance of 8 percent.
Bill Monk : Several things that I did look at , I looked at the numbers
generated , they were quite complete and were based on grades being layed out II
coming down to the street of two percent, which is proper or going to five and
then to an eight . You can see just in what has been presented the level of work
that has been generated here . If grades were changed to a maximum of 10 percent
II
so we could get up a little bit faster it would decrease the grading, but, there .
is still no question in my mind that for any one of those alternatives you are
somewhere probably between 300 and 500 thousand dollars to construct this I
street . You could , through cutting the grades , trying to use more dirt on site
and haul less off would reduce the costs from $500 ,000 given , but it is a
realistic estimate . It is an extremely expensive street to build, there is no
question about it. II
Councilman Horn: I didn 't catch in your report , Bill , that they would be elimi-
nating six lots .
I
§jJJ Monk :
It ' s not there. I knew that I was pretty sure on the 910 and I
didn ' t catch how the line went through . I have a question I guess at this
I/
II
I , . • Council Meeting , M
9 s a -_ , 1986
i -12-
' point to the developer also. With the 910 contour there is no question , you can
see the red dash line does go right in through this area. It basically changes
the end of the cul-de-sac area by taking the cul-de-sac back , it does then allow
1 enough room in here , I believe, to put a residence in and to locate two septic
systems . I guess after looking at these lots for as long as I did, looking at
the grades, I remain extremely concerned just about how close everything was
II down here to make it work . The septic systems , the house, the distance of the
steep grade, etc. I guess at this point , I am not sure where the other five'
lots are even with the 25 percent grade. I did believe that Lot 2, Block 2 and
Lot 3, Block 2 could be reworked to not disturb any grade within 25 percent. I
11 have got to assume that the four lots that Gene talked about, several of them
must be along CR 14. I had believed that only Lot 3, Block 4 would have to come
out, but again , the others could be redesigned , house pads moved , etc. to meet
II the 25 percent. All I can do is ask the applicant to maybe point out those
lots.
Mr. Berglund : On that six lot figure we combined actually the recommendation of
I the small buildable lots, small buildable areas . We had Lot 3, Block 1, Lots 2,
8 & 9, Block 2 and just working through the 25 percent it would appear that we
would lose two of these and one over here. Because you are saying you show no
1 building or grading activity exceeding 25 percent, that pretty much precludes
moving the building site anywhere on these two lots . We combined the loss with
the 25 percent and also the possible loss due to the small buildable areas.
IICouncilman Horn: You said the grading would preclude that , are you saying that
you are looking at that on a lot by lot basis or the total
IIMr. 8erlund : What he is saying here on the sheet, page three , under buildabi-
lity recommendations , it says no building/grading activity on areas exceeding 25
percent in slope . So if you roughly scale this off, pretty much this whole area
II is at least 20 - 25 percent slope, and you couldn ' t get from one side to another
without disturbing it . That is why we felt that we would lose them . That is
how we felt it could be interpreted .
II Don Ashworth: That was not the interpretation that you were putting in that
report, right Bill?
II Bill Monk : I did not believe, I guess , that the two lots that he is mentioning
couldn 't be redesigned to meet that in the cul-de-sac area . I believed after
looking at them and trying to mark the 25 percent grades myself on the plan that
they could be reworked to protect those slopes and the house pads and septic
II systems be rearranged to provide that , so I am somewhat surprised by that .
Mr. 8erlund : It is possible that it could reduce five. We could lose five.
rGene Ernst : There is another point that I would like to clarify
Block 2, Lots 8 and 9. Referring back to the 910 contour line that moves
to
MI through here , if you figure your grades on here say below the 910
and thi
II going on around , this is less than 20 percent from that point down to thes900
foot contour until you get around to this side, then is starts to get steeper .
So there is an area in here that is below the 910, but is less than the 20 per-
= cent , so that is why we had a little problem with the 910 just bein
arbitrary line down in this area. We feel that it applies h lies t 9 used as an
through the rest of
■
the lots .
ablMayor Hamilton : Can ' t construction take place on 25 a
e to restore the land without a great deal of difficulty slopes and still be
-. - 1
Council Meeting , March 17, 1986
. -13- II
Bill Monk : Yes , you can build on a 30 - 40 percent slope and still stabalize
it. It comes back to a position in keeping somewhat perhaps with the wetlands
ordinance . How far do you go to protect not only the natural amenities of any II site , but also areas once disturbed could come back and begin to erode again if
not properly maintained and restored . I think that staff took the position that
we should take a more aggressive or positive stance in terms of protection of
those slopes because once it has been disturbed , the City basically loses II
control over its restoration and should it continue to erode, you are already so
close to those revenes, some of which are extremely steep that that was the
reason that staff, after reviewing it , did take that position . But all the
houses could be built as shown and we are just thinking that to protect the slo-
pes that some kind of a condition should be put on there or some kind of
restriction or guarantee type of provisions that will allow the area to be
II
restored. You can build on over 25 percent . The number is just a number that
staff tried to come up with seeing that the 18 percent that was used by a lot of
the regulatory agencies was too strict to say anything over an 18 percent.
Again the number could go to 30 percent or whatever. After looking at it the
II
condition is there for consideration.
Councilwoman Swenson: I notice on page 2 of the Watershed letter, they are con- II cerned about the water draining into the Bluff Creek, but I would like to ask if
the applicant is willing to do this . It says , "As also indicated in the
District 's previous corresponsence because of the severity of the slopes on the
site and the potential of serious erosion problems occurring not only during II
the site grading portion of the project, but also during the installation of
utilities , the District will likely require a performance bond to be posted for
this project . This bond will enable the District to install additional erosion
II
control measures should it become necessary , maintain erosion control measures
installed by the developer, should it become necessary, and/or restore critical
areas that are disturbed because of construction , should it become necessary . " II
That would indicate to me that the Watershed District is equally concerned about
the slopes and erosion , so this isn ' t something I think that we are picking up
just arbitrarily . Are you prepared to do that , to post a bond with the
Watershed District?
II
Peter Stalland : Yes we are.
Councilwoman Swenson: Now I would like to go back to the site access issue. On I/
page four of Bill ' s memo in the middle paragraph , he mentions something also
that I think we put a considerable thought to in the previous conversation here .
II
Was it not one of the reasons that we required this improvement project because
of the heavy density useage by the golf course on Creekwood?
Bill Monk : That was one of the reasons .
II
Councilwoman Swenson: In addition to the surfacing which is a result of that .
Is it not true that this is an extremely dangerous curve on Highway 101? It is
not easy to see.
Bill Monk : It has severe restrictions to the north , and after reviewing in con-
juntion with the Mayor ' s comment at the last meeting , I did come to the conclu-
II
sion that the condition should be changed . I don ' t believe that the cost of
that turn will be $100,000. But I believe there is the need to provide for more
1 safety on TH 101 and the turn lane would be one way to do it .
I/
Councilwoman Swenson: I think in the interest of the people who are already
living there , and I think that is
tion of pretty important , we would welcome the addi- I
new citizens, however I am loathed to do it at the danger to those who
II
Council Meeting , March k . , 1986
-14-
are already here . I guess that I would be inclined to feel that since you feel
that we are only adding 13 lots , but if you figure , as I read here , Bill , that
II you had the equivalent of 32 single family units , which is fine except that the
intensity of use on those is probably on weekends and early evenings as opposed
to a consistent flow every day in and out. It would be my feeling at this par-
ticular time that we would have to have one or the other. Either the upgrading
Iof TH 101 for the safety of the road or a double access .
Councilwoman Watson : I am still concerned about the access. I guess I never
thought of that road that ran sort of through the middle of the golf course,
where they showed the alternatives, as really a road. I guess I saw more of a,
certainly not a bituminous surface, but something where you could drive across
if you needed an emergency access. The other thing that I am concerned about
' here is with the limited building pads on these lots . Is it possible to build
in some restriction variances . I would like to see people who purchase these
lots build something that fits instead of looking for a variance process to
I expand on that buildable area. I think that there should be some restriction in
here when you buy this lot that you build a house that fits on the lot . I think
that cutting that cul-de-sac by 150 feet solves some other problems too.
IICouncilman Gevinq : I want to compliment the staff for pulling together a lot of
extraneous notes and comments that were made at our last meeting into a workable
document . We had a heck of a meeting four weeks ago and they did a good job .
I The comments that I have, have to do with looking at the lot pads more closely
again . As I indicated at the last meeting, I am still concerned about the size
of the lot pad on Block 3, Lot 1. At the last meeting I asked the architect
II what the buildable size of that lot was and he indicated about 10 percent of the
lot . Ten percent of 2 1/2 acres is roughly 10 ,000 square feet and our City
staff tonight indicated to us that they would like to see about a half acre. I
1.__.
still have concerns about the size of that buildable area on Lot 1, Block 3. I
1 think that whatever we do in this subdivision request that there should be a
hold harmless clause to the City of Chanhassen that if for any reason
reconstruction of the Bluff Creek that has to be done at some future time , that
I the City of Chanhassen will have no part in paying for those reconstruction
efforts. Tonight we let a contract for $90,000 to repair Bluff Creek Drive. So
the potential is there for some serious damage to Bluff Creek as a result of
runoff from this development . So I would like to see that hold harmless clause
I be part of the development contract . I believe that the 910 elevation that was
suggested by our City Engineer is reasonable and will be a good thing for the
development to hold the development off the bluff. I also believe that his
I recommendation to combine Lots 8 and 9 is also a good recommendation and I am in
favor of it . I am in favor of expanding the size of the private drive to 32
feet . I want to say this to the developers , that in your development contract
with the people you sell these homes to, I want to make sure that the
City
I no interest in any future maintenance of this private drive. We don ' twanththis
drive. This will be a private drive owned by 13 homeowners , you can maintain
it , it is your drive , we don ' t want it and I want to be stated for the record .
IAs far as the secondary access is concerned , we have all mentioned that tonight .
It is a concern because the only purpose for the secondary access is for safety .
That is the only reason that we brought this up as a big issue. As far as Mr.
II Stalland is concerned and the comments that he made regarding meeting all the
City requirements for ordinance and subdivision requests , I can only say this ,
that we have experience on our side , we see things that are not built into ordi-
nances , we see developments that do happen and five years later the developer is
off on another project and we get the results of all the problems . We don ' t ~'
want those problems with Bluff Creek Drive. We don ' t want the problems if the
N.
sewer system is going to heck , we don ' t want the problems if the drainage down
�
II
I'
C
Council Meeting , March 17, 1986
-15- II
.
.
to the bluff causes a reconstruction effort , we are not going to pay for those.
As far as this development is concerned , any effort that has to be made to
jr-. reconstruct the road we just repaired , we just built a nice road into this deve- '
lopment in November and assessed a lot of good people, I don ' t want to see them
have to pay for another road that is caused because of this development . So I
am saying to you , the developers , if a road has to be done and we have to II reconstruct TH 101 to tear out and build a right turn only entrance to this
development , you are going to pay for it . I believe that the comment that was
made by the Watershed District is appropiate . I think the securing of a bond is
exactly what I was trying to get at when I mentioned at our last meeting that I II
wanted to see this development take place in phases so that we were assured that
as one house pad went up they knew what they were doing . And as you built each
one of those homes on this development , that we know that
thin you have done
II
everything g possible to build it right. I think the bond as far as that issue is
a good one . One of the problems that I have is with the park dedication fees .
Normally in the City of Chanhassen when someone comes in to get a building per-
mit they pay a park dedication fee because they are going to take advantage of ,
our park system and they pay something like $450 .00 for a lot of 1/3 of an acre.
Here we have got 2 1/2 and 3 acre lots. How are we going to assess this park
dedication fee, Bill? Have you any thoughts on this?
II
Don Ashworth: It is still $450 .00 regardless of the size.
Bill Monk : The use of the park is assumed the same because it is one residen- II
tial unit , whether they own 2 1/2 acres , 5 acres, or 15 ,000 square feet . They
will be charged the standard fee.
IICouncilman Gevinn : I just wanted to clarify that because I wasn 't sure myself
whether it was a per unit basis or on the size of the lot . I was happy to see
that someone addressed the ground water availability issue , the II
Y , question I
brought up at the last meeting and apparently our staff is indicating that they
see no problem in that . I have a couple other questions regarding the septic
system and the comment that Mr. Monk made on his page 2 of his memorandum, I
agree with that - "the integrity of lots in the rural district that include only
II
15 percent useable area " I personally feel that our standards for per-
colation tests are far too minimal and I hope some day we can do something about
that . For this development it is already too late . As far as the secondary
I/
access road is concerned, I think I would be satisfied , in my own mind , if we
had a 32 foot roadway , which is really another 8 feet more than recommended . If
we were to get an easement on top of that all along there for the safe passage of
fire, police and other vehicles to get in during emergency situations , I think II
I would be satisfied if that solves the secondary access issue at this time. I
indicated at the last meeting that I would be satisfied that this development ,
and only this development as we see it tonight would exist with no secondary
II
access and any future expansion of this development would absolutely require a
secondary access .
Peter Stalland : We would be happy to provide the bond and provide the hold II
harmless clause on everything that the City wants. I agree with everything you
say and I guess that is our point . We feel confident that we can build this
1....; project so that we don ' t have any problems and we are willing to back that up 11
because it is private and we intend to keep it private and I guess that is our
whole perspective on this whole project . I have to stress that we can ' t give
that if the Council decides to cut some of the lots out because I am not '
exaggerating when I mentioned before that is just going to kill the project . We
would do that , everything you said .
1/
II
1 - y-
, ' Council Meeting , Mai -o ( , 1986 >}
k -16-
• Councilman Gevino : Don 't forget now what I said was I still believe in com-
bining Lots 8 and 9 into one.
IPeter Stalland : I understand that .
Councilman Geving: And I still believe that Mr. Monk is absolutely correct on
II Block 4, Lot 3, that that should be eliminated and so we are talking about two
lots , at least that is what I am talking about. I don ' t know what the other
Council members feel . But, that is where I am coming from.
IIPeter Stalland : I understand.
II Councilman Geving: And then the other big issue, as far as I am concerned , is
what we are going to do with TH 101 and this Bluff Creek Drive. This is a very
important issue. It is very important because I am the one that would have to
go back to our residents and assess them for a road that they are already
II satisfied with. There is no reason why that road has to be expanded other than
for this development . You are causing this to happen and because of that I feel
that you should be assessed for the costs of building that access . I don 't know
if you agree with me as a developer, Leonard , or as your attorney , but that is
Iwhere I think we are coming from.
Mayor Hamilton : I would like to ask Barb about the 25 percent grade. The com-
ment was made that in some cases that in the vicinity of the 910 line, the gra-
des are less than 25 percent. Couldn 't we be consistent if we want to keep it
at 25 percent, make it a 910 elevation or 20 percent , whichever occurs in that
area?
IIBarb Dacy : The intent of the recommendation of number one , re
in there that says the applicant should identify those slopedhareassin excesscof
I 25 percent and show us in a revised plat what areas could meet a buildable area
under 25 percent and show that relationship to the 910 contour, so we were
trying to set two parameters to maximize the distance from the slope as much as
possible . So the answer to your question can only be achieved by looking at a
I revised plat showing those areas, if the Council does actually approve that 25
percent.
I Mayor Hamilton: - It just seems to me that that would be more consistent if we
were going to go with 910 or 25 percent , whichever occurs on a particular lot .
If the 25 percent is what we are concerned about, then we ought to allow 25 per-
cII ent and that is not necessarily the intent.
Bill Monk : The reason that I established the 910 was that 1) it is the easiest
to enforce. On a site plan the elevations are set , the 910 elevation is there.
1 It seemed to mark the edge of the steep slope area along the entire cul-de-sac .
I did note , as Mr. Ernst also noted tonight, that in across Lots 8 and 9 the
slope did flatten out there even with the 910 . The reason I opted to leave the
II condition in was because even though the area flattens out, it is extremely
narrow. What happens with Lots 8 and 9 at the end of the cul-de-sac , it doesn ' t
happen anywhere else is that because of the cul-de-sac configuration and the lot
II configuration all your building takes place on the very narrow limited plateau.
After looking at it , I believe still that the 910 basically does represent a
building line that can be adhered to , but for the cul-de-sac is probably as
II restrictive or could take the place of the 25 percent . The real reason that the
25 percent came up was because of the slope of the lots on CR 14. There was no
elevation that could be set there and we had to come up with some other cri -
1
Council Meeting , Marc(r17 , 1986
, -17_ II
teria. It is an either/or type of situation , both clauses are somewhat restric-
tive, but it is really on Lots 8 and 9 the clause of the restricted width. You
can see on the board up there how squeezed everything is on those two particular
lots in terms of being close to one another not because the slope is bad , but
that it is just so narrow. By pulling back the cul-de-sac and combining those
two, I thought that that was in order on those two lots.
Mayor Hamilton : If you shortened that cul-de-sac 150 feet II
lot lines be redrawn so that et or whatever, can
you don 't lose a lot?
IIBill Monk : You lose too much of your frontage on the existin g
then they, in essence, would become flag lots and it could be done . You scould
shorten up the cul-de-sac and allow them to become more flag type lots with a
I
very narrow frontage with a drive going down it depending on how you would
decide on the 910 contour. It could be done . The cul-de-sac could slightly be
shortened.
IIGene Ernst : Again, this lot, you can see the septic field that we have show
here, that septic field can be shoved up into this area. Granted , there arena
lot of things going on in here. We did this because we were looking at three
different house sites on this particular lot . Again, this septic field can be 11
shoved up here. This particular one , because of the width, you couln 't push it
up there but if you constructed your septic field to where you increase lock
II
depth , you could decrease the surface area by 20 percent . So that starts to
open up a lot of the congestion that you see on this particular drawing. On
1.... this plan , the houses right now that you see, the closest point is 100 - 110
II
feet on these. Again, we show the setback lines here , those can be shifted
which gives you some other options on this particular end of the cul-de-sac.
Councilwoman Swenson : Bill , on Creekwood Drive, since it is the only ingress
II
and egress , how much damage do you think the construction traffic will cause
that road?
Bill Monk : It is impossible to say . We basically just regraded the existing
II
gravel surface that was there, not doing a tremendous amount of subsurface
exploration and put three inches of blacktop , which is a very heavy section
down a thousand feet , 20 feet in width. I expect the street to take quite a
II
beating because the subsurface looked quite good , but what construction will do
to the street remains to be seen .
Councilwoman Swenson : I think I would have to add that to Councilman Geving ' s II
responsibilities then of the developer . That is a brand new road and I am sure
these people would not be very happy if they wind up with some of the other
roads we have around the City . As long as we don ' t have any alternative access, II
or if we do not , it seems to me that it is going to take quite a beating. If
you have got cement trucks coming in with cement blocks on it and I have seen a
few of those go past my house recently and they can really tear up a road in a ' 11
hurry . So I would have to ask if that would be added to the Councilman ' s recom-
mendations
as to the developer 's liability.
Councilman Horn : What price range do you expect these lots to be in? II Peter Stalland : A price range of probably $50,000 minimum for the lots along
the Creekwood extension and around $40,000 to $60 ,000 range on the Pioneer Trail II
lots.
I/
II
! T
Council Minutes , March , 1986 t
-18_
Councilman Horn : Also you responded to Dale 's comments and agreed to them, did
you also include the improvement to the intersection of TH 101 in that
agreement?
I
Peter Stalland : No, Sir. We do not believe that it is our responsibility . We
[-
would be happy to be assessed for a proportion of the amount if it is done like
1 any other assessment is done , but we ask that the City doesn ' t treat us dif-
ferently .
1/ Councilman Horn : Were you aware that he wasn 't in agreement to that portion?
Councilman Gevinq: No. In fact that is exactly why I asked that question. My
statement to you, Mr. Stalland, was that if this development goes through the
I only purpose for upgrading the road would be to approve of your whole develop-
ment. We have got a road there now. We just put it in, and I can 't see going
II back to the homeowners and asking them to build another road and assess them for
your development. My feeling is that if the development goes in, the cost for
reconstructing the entrance to TH 101 and this Creekwood Drive should be your
responsibility . That is what I said.
IPeter Stalland : I guess our response is that I believe that in the earlier
staff reports the saf.-ty chief said, with regard to the density , that there
should not be that much increase in safety hazard , etc. There has been no traf-
' fic accidents , to my knowledge, at that corner and I believe that was brought up
to date. So what we are doing now is adding 13 homes along that stretch.
II Councilman Gevinq : But we only have about 20 homes in the whole subdivision
there now.
Peter Stalland : I guess what I am saying is 13 homes in addition to what has
I been going to the golf isn ' t going to add that much. If I could also respond
to the comment made about the damage to the roads . It is my understanding that
when a road is built , it is built to City specs . I assume that road is built to
I City specs . I guess I would think that City specs would provide for construc-
tion traffic and be able to have it kind of handle those capabilities .
Bill Monk : As far as the weight goes , yes , Creekwood was built to, as far as
II the depth conception , I believe it will take the construction traffic . I guess
the one item that I would mention to the Council is that we will also be taking
into account these new residents that might be created along Creekwood at time
1 of assessment . If the development situation changes , that will be taken into
account at time of assessment hearing , but it is a public street and the City ,
if approving this , will be hard pressed to sign off on maintence costs or
II anything like that . I have never seen any way that we can do it before , but I
would just remind the Council of that item. I would like to go over a few more
items. One item that got my attention was when Councilwoman Watson mentioned
II that she would like to see a provision about variances . There is reason that
site provisions are not normally included in there because basically anybody has
the right to come in for a variance at any point in time . All the Council could
do regarding the variance issue now is , I would recommend that they not make that a
I condition of their approval , accept to state perhaps their preference as Council
as a whole regarding the issuance of variances . This Council cannot bind a
future council to a future decision . I think that is over stepping what we can
realistically enforce . The issue about the private road is a good one. A par-
LE
Ition of the road is proposed to be private . Again , the Council may state their
II
II
1
I.
Council Meeting , Marcn 17, 1986
-19- '
intent, but with any private road , ten years down the road , anybody who lives
along there could come in and petition the City to take it over for maintenance.
That could also happen . As the City goes through its normal process , we will go
through a development contract that will call for a guarantee on construction
costs that will cover the roadway and the drainage. That will not cover house
construction . That is the main reason City staff has put many conditions in
II
here about the submittals being included in the building process, to make that
just tight as possible because there are no guarantees . The letter of credit ,
at least as we have it right now, does not cover buildings . As far as the turn
lane goes, I think the City Council is within its bounds to make a decision as
II
far as the turn lane goes and can require off side improvements if they think
they are required and basically caused by any incoming development . It is up to
the City Council to decide whether this makes or breaks the TH 101 situation,
II
whether it should be added or not .
Councilman Horn : If we were to go along with Dale 's proposal and say that they
would require the turn lane on TH 101 , I think we all threw out a number of II
somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000. Using the numbers, again everybody
takes the extreme that they like, if we use Bill 's $300,000 figure we are
looking at a total cost of the project of $200,000 because I don 't feel those
II
turn lanes would be necessary if there was a secondary access. If we spread
that over the 17 lots that are in there it comes to around $12 ,000 per lot. The
other thing that they would get with that secondary access is the option of
II
creating some golf course lots to offset that . So I think there is an option
there that exists that they probably haven 't looked at, at this point , but would
help offset that cost. So I think those are the kinds of numbers we should keep
II
in perspective . The lots are $50,000 , without any type of offset on the
increasing lots would be something like a 25 percent increase per lot .
Gene Ernst : A recommendation was made to widen the road from 24 feet to 32
I
feet. As you know , the present cross section according to City standards , is a
24 foot paved area , plus 4 feet on each side which gives you 32 feet . Are you
saying you want the area paved 32 feet , plus 4 feet on each side so you have a
40 foot road going into that area , which takes a pretty big swap . I just wanted II
to make sure that we are talking about the right thing . The other point was in
reference was to Lot 1, Block 3. That has been changed since the last meeting .
We have increased that building area that was based on the previous plan , we
II
made revisions , as I stated earlier in the drive so it pulls up further north .
Bill Monk : My intent there is only that the paved section be widened out, so in
II
essence you would have a narrower gravel base on either side , but the section
would not change in terms of full width. That is the recommendation.
Councilman Gevinq : So we would have a 32 foot paved surface. I
Bill Monk : Right . But you would still have the 36 foot surface from end to
end . I
Councilwoman Swenson : So you would have two feet on either side instead of the
six.
II1 Bill Monk : Right .
I
i._ Councilman Horn : That again was not taken into account and they said it would
offset that with a secondary access because you wouldn ' t require that , right? II
Bill Monk : I would not , no . 1
II
1 , . ,
Council Meeting , March , 1986
-20-
Mayor Hamilton moved to approve the Bluff Creek Greens Subdivision Request
#85-21 with the following conditions :
1. There shall be no building/grading activity on areas exceeding
25% in slope. Those areas shall be indentified along Pioneer
Trail and the extension of Creekwood Drive and lot lines re-
' , configured to conform to new buildable areas . The applicant
shall submit a revised preliminary plat for Council final
approval. Lots along Pioneer Trail shall contain driveway
Iturnaround areas .
2. At time of building permit application, each application shall
contain a certified lot survey showing
II septic field locations and a well site meetingoordinancewo
standards including setback and distance requirements. Perc-
olation tests shall also be conducted for permit application
1 beyond the tests already performed by Paul Waldron. Building
plans shall be certified by a licensed civil engineer and
architect for structural integrity. Certified grading plans
shall also be submitted .
3. Lots 8 and 9 of Block 2, shall be combined and the cul-de-sac
shortened by as much as 150 feet.
t4. Approval of the final grading and drainage plan by the City
Watershed District, DNR, and Soil Conservation Service, ands
' adoption of any approval conditions of these regulatory agen-
cies by reference.
5 . Maintenance of the storm sewer system shall be specifically
I addressed in the covenants and restrictions as the system is
proposed as private .
1 6. Submission of a detailed grading plan as a part of the
construction documents denoting how to control erosion during
construction .
I/ 7. All public and private streets within the plat shall be con-
structed to comply with the City standards for rural street
section.
II8. Maintenance of all private streets be specifically included
in the covenants and restrictions.
II9. A utility easement be granted across all of Outlot A for
future use .
I 10 . No physical restrictions be placed across the entrance to
the private street to control access.
Ill . For access and maintenance purposes , Outlot H be dedicated as
right-of-way , Outlot C be incorporated as a part of the adjacent
private property and Outlot F be left as a part of the golf
[....
II course property .
• 12 . Deed restrictions containing provisions for maintenance of
_ storm sewer systems and the private street shall be submitted
before final plat approval .
1
Council Meeting, March 17 , 1986 A.-
-21- I
13 . If a secondary access is not required , the applicant shall
widen the bituminous surface from 24 to 32 feet , grant an
` ' access easement over the southerly 200 feet of the golf
I
I course property and provide for a southbound right turn lane
at the TH 101 - Creekwood Drive intersection.
Motion died due to the lack of a second . II
Councilman Geving moved to approve the Bluff Creek Subdivision Request #85-21
with the following conditions: II
1. There shall be no building/grading activity on areas exceeding
25% in slope. Those areas shall be indentified along Pioneer II
Trail and the extension of Creekwood Drive and lot lines re-
configured to conform to new buildable areas. The applicant
shall submit a revised preliminary plat for Council final
II
approval . Lots along Pioneer Trail shall contain driveway
turnaround areas.
2. At time of building permit application , each application shall
II
contain a certified lot survey showing house location , two
septic field locations and a well site meeting ordinance
standards including setback and distance requirements. Perc- '
olation tests shall also be conducted for permit application
beyond the tests already performed by Paul Waldron. Building
plans shall be certified by a licensed civil engineer and
II
architect for structural integrity . Certified grading plans
shall also be submitted .
3. Lots 8 and 9 of Block 2, shall be combined and the cul-de-sac
I
shortened by as much as 150 feet; an4-z}4%4.ftg-6e-.6e -4T-41'4eek---:tt
4. Approval of the final grading and drainage plan by the City ,
II
Watershed District, DNR, and Soil Conservation Service , and
adoption of any approval conditions of these regulatory agen-
cies by reference.
II
5. Maintenance of the storm sewer system shall be specifically
addressed in the covenants and restrictions as the system is
proposed as private .
II
6. Submission of a detailed grading plan as a part of the
construction documents denoting how to control erosion during
II
construction.
7. All public and private streets within the plat shall be con-
structed to comply with the City standards for rural street 11
section.
8. Maintenance of all private streets be specifically included
II
in the covenants and restrictions .
9. A utility easement be granted across all of Outlot A for
future use. II
10. No physical restrictions be placed across the entrance to
IIthe private street to control access .
II
II Council Meeting ,
9 •r` ' , 1986 ;
-22-
1 , , 11 . For access and maintenance purposes , Outlot H be dedicated as
right-of-way, Outlot G be incorporated as a part of the adjacent
private property and Outlot F be left as a part of the golf
IIcourse property .
12 . Deed restrictions containing provisions for maintenance of
storm sewer systems and the private street shall be submitted
before final plat approval .
14. Development contract to include "hold harmless clause" for
Iany costs which would be incurred for future problems of
erosion control along the creek and the private street.
II : Councilman Horn: Are you including in there any damage to the road in that
clause?
Councilman Gevinq: I am talking about a hold harmless clause that will elimi-
' nate any future costs to the City of Chanhassen for potential erosion in the
Bluff Creek area and the private drive, which is part of their own problems.
You have got to remember Creekwood is a City street. If there is any damange
I there it is a City street and it will be just like any other construction pro-
ject where it will be assessed back to the area. So, I don 't understand your
question.
IICouncilman Horn : The point we wanted was we didn 't want to have the people who
were paying for the road now have to pay for any improvement because of this
development.
' Councilman Cevinn : I believe that that should be covered in item
was talking about was the hold harmless clause as I am only concerned •about tthe
II future of the Bluff Creek revene. Item 14 should include , as we have said here
the external reconstruction of access to TH 101 and Creedw000 Drive as well as
any construction damange to Creekwood Drive itself during the construction phase
of these units in the development .
1 Councilman Horn: That is specifically part of 14?
I/ Councilman Gevinq: Yes .
Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn for discussion.
1 Councilman Horn : We have had two recommendations that we had trouble getting a
second for and apparently there is a third cne out in the woods some place. I
am curious as to what the other recommendations might be and what the objection
1 will be to the motion. It appears that we would not get a unanimous decision on
this .
1 Councilman iiman Gevinq : My motion excludes 1/13 .
Canna Horn : Right .
IIMa or Hamilton : Why are you eliminating Lot 3, Block 4?
Councilman Goyim-
I :Gevin : Lot 3, Block 4 was recommended being eliminated by the City
I Engineer Apparently that is one that he specifically identified as being '
severe in his comments to us. 9 very
II
II
II
Council Meeting, March 17, 1986
-23-
II
.17 Bill Monk : I did make a note of two lots where I was very worried about the
slopes, but thought that through the use of the 910 contour or the 25 percent II slope that Lot 3 could be moved around and made to function and was not recom-
mending an out and out deletion of any of the lots. We may well find that Lot 3
IIcannot be built on because of the 25 percent restriction , I am not sure.
Councilman Gevinq: I will remove that particular restriction from my motion on
item number 3, the elimination of Lot 3, Block 4 has been removed .
II
Councilman Horn : I have one other question, if we go ahead with this, will the
building of Lot 2, Block 4 preclude any future road going through that area? I
IIhate to cut that option off at some point.
Bill Monk : Basically , if that house was constructed as shown it may well
preclude that exact alignment. I think there still is the possibility that the II
City would have to find another corridor if that is the place they wanted to
come through near there and acquire that piece of property and it would have to
be something decided on in the future, but it would be very difficult. We have
already got the two outlots to try and peg another location. II
Councilman Horn : I think it is important, at some point, that we keep in mind
that this will be a temporary situation and at some point there is going to be
I
another access in there.
Bill Monk : That is the reason for the two outlots in the first place in terms II
of trying to pick the best locations for a road if there was no golf course. As
the developer has stated , the three alignments as shown tonight might well not
be the same three at the time that the golf course use is no longer being
contemplated .
II
Mayor Hamilton : Outlot D is by far the best lot if they were to develop the
golf course . It is by far the best place to have a road going into it . I
Councilman Horn : I guess I never looked at that as an option that the golf
course would go away . I looked at the option that there would be an expansion
li
of the development with the golf course being there .
Bill Monk : If that is the case I will have to take the roadway issue at that
time and it would be the developer 's responsibility at that time to provide the I
corridor or the City would have to acquire it and put it back as a development
cost.
Councilman Horn : I would certainly not favor anything that will eliminate that I
golf course at any time .
The following voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Swenson and Watson , 1
and Councilmen Horn and Geving . No negatives votes . Motion carried .
BILLS : Councilwoman Watson moved to approve the bills dated March 17, 1986 , II
checks 0023452 through 0023573 in the amount of $583 ,939 .32 and checks 1/02316
LI through 0026421 in the amount of $143 ,368.43 and a check to Dolliff Insurance in
the amount of $4,145.00 . Motion was seconded by Councilman Horn . The following
II
voted in favor: Mayor Hamilton , Councilwomen Watson and Swenson , Councilmen
Horn and Geving . No negative votes . Motion carried .
II
II