8. Woodcrest - Discussion of Covenants and Restrictions I
, .
II CITY OF g.
„A CHANHASSEN
I .
1 .. _
*. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
IMEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
IFROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director
DATE: March 8, 1989
ISUBJ: Woodcrest
I This was presented to the Planning Commission at their Janury 4 ,
1989, meeting, as an informational item. The intent was to
advise the Planning Commission on an issue that did not work out
as anticipated. In this case, the developer agreed to place
I restrictions in the Covenants and Restrictions to establish a
rear setback of 140 feet. These are not enforceable by the City
and the developer has encroached on the agreed setback. The
I adjacent property owners brought the letter up to staff and
requested this be presented before the Planning Commission and
City Council for information.
ILarry Brown was working on this and his memo and attachments are
enclosed. Bill Eggert, an adjacent property owner would like to
present information to the City Council.
IThe Planning Commission requested that staff evaluate how this
can be worded in the future. Recognizing the changes in person-
' nel, we have not had sufficient time to complete our analysis .
Initial positions would be as follows :
I Traditional Covenants/Restrictions: Traditional covenants/
restrictions have existed for the past 100 years in various
subdivisions throughout the United States. Chanhassen is no
different in having numerous subdivisions where the developer
I wanted to see special kinds of mail boxes, not allowing chain
link fences, requiring sheds to have identical materials with
the main structure, not allowing certain colors of homes,
I etc. Some of these conditions have been debated by sub-
sequent home purchasers as still being valid. However,
generally, the restrictions are seen as a benefit within the
I neighborhood and do provide a mechanism whereby one owner
feeling agrieved by his neighbor ' s chain link fence does have
a mechanism by which to have it removed. Unless the City is
willing and desires to see all yards prohibited from being
1 fenced with chain link fence or all mailboxes to be shaped
11
Planning Commission 1
March 8 , 1989
Page 2
or all mailboxes to be shaped in a certain fashion, the City
should continue to allow these types of covenants/restrictions
to exist in their purest form, i .e. a covenant between the
homeowners themselves . In an instance such as being presented
by Mr. Eggert, the covenant process was probably not the
best solution. As the covenants are between the property
owners themselves and not binding to owners in abutting sub-
divisions, Mr. Eggert' s ability to force enforcement is non-
existent. Secondly, in this instance, the developer still
had control of all lots when the violation occurred. He had
the ability to simply change that covenant by getting his
permission as owner of all of the lots within the sub-
division. Again, this form of condition provides little
value to either the City or the abutting neighbors .
Special Conditions : The City maintains required setbacks,
activities that can occur within wetland areas, and other
conditions of plat approval that are typical within all
plats. We attempt, as with this application, to place those
conditions into the development contract and as a part of the
plat document. In this instance, the developer agreed to a
special condition over and above that required through the
platting process. This special condition met concerns of the
abutting owners and the developer agreed to the special con-
dition by stating that he would include it in the covenants
and restrictions . If there is a lesson to be learned through
this process , it is that the City should have rejected that
offer recognizing its limitations . The developer should have
been required to include that requirement as a special con-
dition of the development contract and had such filed with
each lot within the subdivision. It should also be noted
that "special conditions" do become questionable under the
law. For example, if we were to establish a unilateral con-
dition that the applicant stay back more than the required
footage from a wetland area, the developer could seek damages
for the City' s "taking" . Typically, a developer would not be
willing to hold his plat in limbo during litigation and to
incur litigation costs unless the special condition severely
reduced his property values/saleability of the property. In
the instance before us, the developer, not the City, offered
to live with the 140 ft. setback requirement. Again, if there
is a lesson to be learned from this case, it would be to
insure that any special agreements which the developer offers
be placed into the development contract and not allowed to be
placed as covenants and restrictions .
1
1
I
■
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 61
e. Overall circulation needs to be redesigned to flow properly
through all properties . If parking space sizes are to be reduced
from normal standard , information needs to be submitted to justify
reduced standards and address possible impacts .
f. Setback of 10 foot along West 78th Street for all strcutural
elements of buildings .
g. Phase IV plans , elevation and use or eliminate.
h. Resolve possible separation problems with Building Department .
' i. . Detailed facia plans , signage and lighting and landscaping .
j . All mechanical to inside buildings and service boxes screened .
k. Submittal of revised plat for the entire area .
' 4. Compliance with comments of the attached referral letters .
All voted in favor except Headla who opposed and the motion carried with a
vote of 6 to 1.
Headla : Lack of adequate information .
WOODCREST NEIGHBORHOOD - DISCUSSION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS .
'
Larry Brown
y presented the staff report on this item.
' Bill Eggert: Thank you for everybody being here at 12: 30 tonight .
Larry' s been very helpful on this project in bringing it to the attention
of the Planning Commission. I just want to state a couple of things
before I give you some of the details here . I know several of you viewed
the site personally before it even came to the Planning Commission. There
was an interest , Annette , you ' re a resident in the area so you have a
personal interest in it. David you were out and looking primarily at the
wildlife and had concerns about the water control and that type of thing
and you exhibited a genuine concern about our interests in the area and
the interest of the City of Chanhassen . Unfortunately, things didn' t go
according to plan. We felt it was necessary to bring it to your
attention. Perhaps at this point in time anything to be done might be a
moot topic. There' s probably nothing that can be done to correct the
situation but perhaps in the future, if somebody can benefit from what
occurred in our area . So what I 'd like to do is just walk through, and
Larry' s already capsulated a couple of things . The agreement was 140 foot
covenant from the back line of my property. I ' ll just mention that I 'm
directly behind the property up on the screen and that was the agreement
with the developer at that time. If I can indulge in your patience for
just a few minutes . I ' ll quote from some of your Planning Commission
meeting notes. From May 4 , 1988, Roxanne Lund was assuring all of us that
11
11
S 11
f ‘
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 62
I
in the Covenants that we have proposed , City ordinances , no building or
grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion control within II the 140 feet of the back line . My question about the Covenants . Her
statement was , what we ' re saying is that we' re approximately 140 feet from
the vacated dot to the back line . What you have to do is basically some
clearing of the underbrush which makes it more environmentally sound and
I believe there was a forester out there that said some of the underbrush
needs to be removed to make the trees more healthy. I ' ll pass some
pictures around in a few minutes of the clearing of that underbrush. II Ladd, you made comments to the effect that there had been some cases
closer where trees had gone down and I think that caused a major concern
and that' s why we' re enforcing a little bit of knowing what trees were
going down on property. That these things are assets to our community and II
we' re fighting for those assets for our community. Barbara Dacy stated at
this same meeting that the staff condition is that they submit a tree
removal plan along with their building permit application. Staff would
II
also enforce that grading limit line as identified as part of a plan .
That we would not allow tree removal beyond the grading limit line that' s
indicated on the plan and the Restrictive Covenants can be a condition of
approval and will be recorded by the applicant against the property.
David , you asked specifically if this was an enforceable requirement and
Barbara ' s response was, I think it' s some good tools that we' ve
implemented since some other subdivisions in the past , the tree removal
II
plans have really helped staff enforcing them. The private restrictions
are enforced by the homeowners in that 5 lot subdivision so you ' ve got a
couple of tools that . . . I think that the real intent here was to try and
II
protect everybody' s interest . In fact , Brian you made it a point in your
comments , as a general point I 'd like to see the Covenants included .
Annette , you mentioned that you were positive because you thought that now
we' ve got to think of the neighborhood and although they' re not
required . . . they didn' t have to put a covenant in there , but they are and
they don' t have to leave those trees , but they are. I have some
suspicion about what their intent was from the beginning . Okay. David ,
you expressed a concern later on in that hearing on what, to quote you, it
says , I like what ' s written there but I want to cover it more for what
happens in 3 , 4 or 5 years . A tree removal plan as it' s stated here
doesn ' t cover that does it? And Larry' s response was , that ' s correct . In
relying on the advice of the City Attorney, we have very little control of
that with the exception of the Covenants . That is the control that we
have. That ' s it as far as the Planning Commission meeting and my comments
on that. I also have, and I believe you have the statement from the
Department of Natural Resources . From Alan E. Olson dated 7/27/88
commenting that the existing tree cover consists mostly of sugar maple,
basswood and oak trees that are 6 to 8 inches in diameter . Also , II
extracted from his comments at that time, it says next, trees which will
require either soil added to or removed from their root zone will have to
have wells built around the trees in order to preserve the health and
II
vigor of the tree . Thirdly, the paths used by the heavy equipment
operators needs to be kept to an absolute minimum to minimize construction
damage. A little care exercised by the construction company will go a
II
long way in maintaining the good health of the trees in this area
currently enjoy. Then there' s a comment that the house located at the top
IIof the hill seems to have been built with minimal impact on the forest and
■
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4 , 1989 - Page 63
I would hope that this project would achieve a similar conclusion. What I
' would like to show are you some rough pictures of a home that has been
constructed in the area and the results of the clearing in the area . If I
could just pass this along please. As you have an opportunity to review
the pictures , what you' ll see in sequence is , first of all the new home
that ' s being built in the area with notations where the structure is
actually built in relation to the 140 foot covenanted area . As indicated
by Larry, it' s encroached in that area. It' s hard when we' re looking at a
' plat map or a proposed building site to envision what it has done to the
environment but I think a picture tells a thousand words in that respect
and it' s fairly clear that it' s encroached rather significantly into that
so called protected area . In addition, the design of the home wouldn' t
necessarily have to put that 12 foot extension into the protected
covenanted area. It ' s also my impression from, in fact the owners of that
home are present here this evening . It' s my impression that they were not
' aware specifically of what the covenant was until they closed a couple of
days ago and was informed that it' s now been changed from 140 to 100 foot
covenant. There seems to be some question in that too. Also, in the
'
pictures being circulated , you might note that Lot 1, which is the lot
directly adjacent to the new home, is still wooded. The pictures aren' t
very good but it gives you an idea of what kind of woods were in the area
before the construction took place. Number 1 has not been cleared at all .
' Number 2 had the least amount of damage and I think largely due to the
influence of the owners of the home who were having the home built. Lot 1
is already staked out with stakes 120 feet from the back lot line so I
' would suspect that that will encroach at least by 20 feet on the 140 foot
covenant. Also , in the group of pictures is the cutting , clearing and
grading efforts on Lots 3 , 4 and 5. As you can see, it ' s substantially
more than the clearing of underbrush to help cultivate the growth of the
trees. I guess our efforts here tonight, or at least my efforts here
tonight are those first of all , to bring it to the attention of the
Planning Commission. There may be some people who felt that through the
' Covenants and Restrictions we did have recourse if there was a violation.
It appears that there is very little recourse at this point in time, is
the position of the City Attorney. There may be some recourse among the
property owners within the five lots of the development. However , it
appears that at least the one home in the development right now, the home
that' s been constructed , is not on the board determining the covenants and
restrictions and they have already altered it from 140 feet to 100 feet
without any of their input. So I have a concern that the developer is
kind of running rush odd over everyone ' s intentions here . The Minutes
that came from the City Council meeting, express the same concerns
essentially that were expressed here at the Planning Commission level . I
would like, and I wanted to bring it to this commission first but I 'd also
like to bring this to the attention of the City Council after we' ve had an
opportunity to look at it here tonight too because I think that everyone
in this room and the people who sit on the City Council are trying to act
in a responsible, concerned manner for the residents in the area and I 'm
not so certain that the developer in this situation had the same intent .
One other issue that may help us , at least, the trees have not been
removed from Lot 1 and there is a provision in the approved development
plan that there would be a tree removal plan submitted with any building
plans . There ' s the possibility then , if there ' s any deviation from the
Planning Commission Meeting I
January 4 , 1989 - Page 64
grading plan or any trees that are being asked to be removed by the
builder , that the City could enforce approval on that before it' s done. I '
guess that ' s the sum total of my comments .
Conrad: I appreciate that. Just some comments on my part. We' ve got to
figure out what we want to do other than noting your concerns . Is the
City doing anything right now Larry or Steve?
Brown: We do not have the power . -
Wildermuth : They can ' t do anything through the building permit process?
Brown: The only thing that they have violated at this time is the '
Covenants and Restrictions .
Conrad : And that' s theirs .
Brown: And that ' s a binding contract between the developer .
Conrad: What was the development contract that we entered into with them?
It had no stipulations in terms of these things?
Brown: The development contract is essentially a contract between the
developer and the City. Now the developer , the specific condition was
that a snow fence be installed immediately south of the proposed grading
as indicated on dated plan. . . In fact the developer did do that and the
contractor reasonably complied with that barrier . Now all of a sudden the
contractor/developer has met that criteria and performed by it . Now all
of a sudden we change hands to a builder . When the builder buys the lot
or a homeowner buys the lot . . . I
Conrad : So what was our mechanism because we wanted this 140 foot
setback. What was our mechanism to make sure it happened? I
Brown: We don ' t have that mechanism.
Conrad: But that was our intent but it didn' t get in because it was put
in the Covenants that apply strictly to the lot . I 'm sure that ' s what
staff was thinking so that the property owners would specifically know
that there are restrictions . I see the idea . It sounds right but what is
our assurance that it gets done? There was none right? So therefore, it
was sort of a folly. It was really naive thinking that we could go from
the City Council saying there should be 140 foot setback to the situation II
where the Covenants and Restrictions don ' t include that. There ' s no way
to get those into the specific property restrictions . Absolutely no way
so basically the bottom line is , this is a stupid way to do it. Is that
right? '
Brown: Yes it is .
Hanson : What happens a lot of times in the heat of the debate you might 11
say, when the issue is coming before you and you ' re looking for some type
of a mechanism to put it in and quite often people view it as , from a
111
Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 65
developer ' s standpoint , it' s easy to say yes , we ' ll put it in our
' Covenants and Restrictions . In fact, we' ll give you a copy of them. Then
when it gets down to having to make a sale , make a deal somewhere, if they
haven' t sold it out and you have a lot of property owners that are aware
of that , it' s easy to make that change because we as the City are not a
party to it. I think a better way to deal with that is to put a plat
restriction on the plat which you approved so it ' s something facing the
plat, it ' s a legal document that the City is a party to. But the
' Covenants , you really don' t, you ' ve got nothing to stand on, come back to
and even though your intention at the time. . .
Conrad : And there ' s no way to put it into the development contract? That
' it could pass down from the developer to the builder. In this case had it
been specifically in the development contract , would we have had recourse
to go after the builder? That just seemed like the logical , I remember
this quite well and it seemed like the logical thing to do but obviously I
didn' t catch it and maybe it' s not the right thing to do.
Brown: We impose plat conditions that are routinely incorporated into a
development contract and the development contract is then recorded against
the property itself. Again each lot so I would say that platting
conditions run with the property. We do that routinely. i think as Steve
mentioned , maybe in this instance, this was a classic example of where the
developer stands up in the heat of the moment and says , I ' ll put it in the
Covenants and Restrictions .
Conrad : You know what would be good , as this goes up to City Council ,
when will this go?
Brown: It will not be this next one because the agenda has already been
published so it would have to be the following .
' Conrad : I think it' s really good that staff provide a recommendation in
terms of, hey this is not the way to approach this one and this is how we
should do it in the future. Steve, I think that ' s really quite important .
Setting direction for the future I think is key and then come back and
explain it to us so we understand . The second thing is the recourse at
the current time. I guess that will be up to you and I don' t know that we
have any mechanism right now to help you with the situation .
Unfortunately it happens a fair amount of time. Dave got surprised on a
parcel close to him. Whether it was clearcutted or whatever , things
happen that way. You try to button it up. It appeared to me that we had
it buttoned up and it didn ' t happen .
Bill Eggert : It appeared to all of us that way I believe too . Maybe one
thing that happened from the official planning or at development , the
initial covenant called for 120 feet and the developer was anxious and
eager to offer an additional 20 feet in the covenant and came back at that
planning session and said we ' ll go 140 feet . If nothing else , coming away
from this, my thoughts to you would be, if this particular developer came
in front of me with another project , I 'd look at him with a jaundiced eye .
At least make every effort to help those people in the immediate area .
11
1
II
Planning Commission Meeting I
January 4 , 1989 - Page 66
II
Conrad : And for sure that will happen but that ' s no help to you right
now. Obviously we' ve got to be concerned with a developer that breaks II their word .
Headla : Who should control that? When you issue the building permits?
Conrad: That ' s kind of what I 'd like to have staff come back and make II
some comments on. There was some good logic for putting it into the
Covenants and Restrictions . It seemed logical at the time. I
Brown: I think the direction is very clear . The only vehicle that we
have is development contracts which will be recorded and runs with the
property. Therefore, I guess it' s just reinforcement . I know I felt as
II
much as anyone did. Any conditions or concerns that we have, have to be
incorporated into that development contract . It ' s good education the next
time a developer stands up and says Covenants and Restrictions. We can
II
say, forget it. It' s in our development contract .
Batzli : As I recall , we' ve had this issue arise since that time where
people have been concerned about water drainage and we have requested that
something be recorded against the property. That they can' t adjust
drainage swales or some kind of contours . I don' t know how we' ve done
that in the meantime but I 'd be curious to know how many times we ' ve
II
attempted to do something about it since this because I do recall
personally making a condition saying something like this was going to be
recorded against the plat or something . I
Ellson: I remember somebody saying , against the plat? That ' s so much
work. I think you should just do it this way. I kind of remember that .
IIBatzli : It would be real interesting to know what we' ve done in the
meantime because I know we didn' t do it in a covenant but we tried to do
it another way as well .
II
Emmings : Are we sure? From your comments and from the comments he read ,
are we sure that we didn ' t make it, either a condition of approval or that
it wasn ' t recorded against the plat? Has staff looked to see that we
didn' t do it?
Brown: I reviewed that and every indication that I found at the time, it 1
didn' t come out as a specific condition because we had, we were so wound
up in approving this grading plan that only called for grading within the
first 100, the front 100 feet. It really gets down to a sticky issue.
I
How much can you tell a landowner that they can or cannot do with their
land? We may have already or don ' t have control to be quite honest. If
somebody wants to go out and cut down a tree , do we have an ordinance in
effect yet that protects us from that? I don' t think that we do but I r
will review those conditions one more time and Minutes .
Emmings : And review the plat conditions too because it may be, there were ,
comments that he read out of the Minutes that sure made it sound like
people were trying to do that and Brian has a recollection of that. If we
IIdid it , let ' s make sure that we find out in a hurry so we go out and make
■
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
January 4, 1989 - Page 67
sure they' re y e doind Lot 1 correctly if it ' s staked . Because once the
house is built, you' re not going to do anything. . . .put that house
there, nobody' s going to move it anywhere but if it ' s just staked, you can
do something about it. I think that ' s something you should get on in a
' hurry.
Conrad : Thanks for coming in. We' ll see what happens . Stick with it.
We appreciate your comments and looking out for the future too.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES : Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to approve the Minutes
' of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 16 , 1988 as presented .
All voted in favor and the motion carried .
' Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and the motion carried . The meeting was adjourned at 12: 50 a.m. .
Submitted by Steve Hanson
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Ophei.m
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
,r. ( I
r ,. .��
1
CITYOF
\ , ,
' ,j 1_ . -
,�;: �' 690 COULTER DRIVE •• P.O. BOX 14i �/�
(612) c �{Cf'L i �
MEMORANDUM tAktA,Ae% ,..— L.
TO: Planning Commission ,
Sc� - CC,- "Liz7``M
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer A p1/4,,Ix,;,, ,,,-.erg,
DATE: December 30 , 1988
q//
SUBJ: Enforcement of Covenants and Restrict LtOii LW L.1,
Woodcrest Subdivision
File No. 8-8-9 (pvt)
I
On August 8, 1988 , the City Council approved the final plat for
II
the Woodcrest subdivision (Attacnment #1) . This subdivision is
located on the south side of Woodhill Road within the Carver
Beach Estates area.
IIThe plat for the Woodcrest Subdivision has been filed at the
County as of December 29, 1988 . Prior to the final recording of
the plat, staff issued one building permit for the entire
II
Woodcrest Subdivision treating this parcel of land as one entire
parcel until the plat had been legally filed. The home which was
constructed is shown on the attached lot survey (Attachment #2 ) .
II
The homeowners located immediately to the south of the permitted
lot were upset due to the proximity of the home to the setback
requirement which was set forth in the covenants and restric- '
tions. Condition #3 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,
Restrictions and Reservations for the Woodcrest Subdivision
states "Building setbacks from lot lines shall comply with the
II
City ordinances and/or any other governmental agencies. No
building or grading will be permitted except for terracing or
erosion control within 140 feet of the back lot lines . No II building or grading will be permitted except for terracing or
erosion control within the drainage and utility easement as indi-
cated on the plat of Woodcrest. "
The neighborhood is upset because this home has encroached upon II
the 140 foot mark by approximately 10 to 12 feet. The primary
concern is the stand of trees which exist as a buffer between the II two subdivisions. From the information that was present during
platting, the damage to the trees has been minimal; however , the
homeowners are concerned for the protection and enforcement of
the covenants and restrictions for the forthcoming building per-
II
mits for the Woodcrest subdivision.
1
II
r
C
•
Planning Commission
December 30 , 1988
' Page 2
' The City does not have the jurisdiction to enforce the covenants
and restrictions. You will see by the attached memorandum from
the City Attorney dated November 22 , 1988 that the covenants and
restrictions are to be enforced solely by the developer and that
the City does not have the power to enforce covenants and
restrictions.
After relaying this information to the surrounding residential
area, residents relayed their overwhelming concern that the
Planning Commission had intended the covenants and restrictions
to be enforced by the City powers to protect the stand of trees
which exists between the two subdivisions. It should be noted,
however, that the approved grading plan which was incorporated
into the platting conditions remains in tact and has not been
violated.
Although I have explained the situation to the homeowners , they
' wish to have an open discussion at the Planning Commission to
discuss the enforcement issues and setbacks .
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Staff memo for Woodcrest subdivision.
2 . Survey for Lot 2 , Block 1 , Woodcrest subdivision.
3 . Memo from Roger Knutson dated November 22 , 1988 .
I
r
• CITY OF
---
CHANHASSEN
l.1111ki 1°.
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN,�MINNES.OT9. 5..17
(612) 937-1900 i en ��
Endorsed
MEMORANDUM Mod if a
Re;ectea — _
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manag-r Date' --
FROM Barb Dacy, City Plann-r 'fir,*
Dc,Ic .e,.-...,ad t: C uncih 1
DATE: August 3, 1988 _- -
SUBJ: Final Plat Approval - Woodcrest Addition, R & R Land
Adventures, ( SUB 88-5 )
BACKGROUND
1
The City Council approved the preliminary plat for the above 1
referenced subdivision on May 23 , 1988 subject to 14 conditions
( see attached minutes) . The City Council approved the develop-
ment contract and plans and specifications at the July 11, 1988
meeting.
ANALYSIS
The development contract and the plan and specification review
addressed the thirteen conditions of the preliminary plat approval
except for condition #1 regarding tree removal on the property.
The DNR Forester reviewed the site with staff and has submitted
his comments (see attached) . The recommendations of the forester
are incorporated into the condition of approval for the plat. 1
In addition to the city' s conditions regarding tree removal, the
applicant has also submitted the proposed deed restrictions which
include restrictions on clear cutting and removal of trees.
The applicant has also provided adequate drainage and utility
easements along the front and side lot lines . Outlot A, as ori-
ginally required, will be dedicated to the City. Conveyance
should occur by warranty deed.
RECOMMENDATION 1
It is recommended that the City Council approve the final plat
stamped received July 26 , 1988 subject to the following
conditions:
1 . Execution of the development contract and submission of all
financial securities and fees.
1/
■
r C
' Woodcrest Addition
August 3 , 1988 '
Page 2
2 . Compliance with conditions of reliminar plat p y p approval
including the recommendations of the DNR Forester as repre-
sented in his letter of July 27, 1988 .
3 . Conveyance of Outlot A by warranty deed to the City of
' Chanhassen.
ATTACHMENTS
' 1 . Letter from Alan E. Olson dated July 27, 1988 .
2 . City Council minutes dated May 23 , 1988 .
3 . Proposed deed restrictions .
4 . Final plat stamped received July 26 , 1988 .
I
I
1
''" "'''‘ STATE
• ' U V 1..1 V E S O U[\
1 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
219 E. Frontage Rd.
Waconia, Mn. 55387
442-2317
Barb Dacy 7/27/88
City Planner ,
690 Coulter St.
Chanhassen, Mn. 55317 ,
Subject: ,
Woodcrest
The house lots proposed for development are located on a hill. This is
going to present some problems for the developer in terms of leveling the 1
lots for the house pads and driveways. The existing tree cover consists
mostly of sugar maple,basswood and oak trees that are 6-8 inches in diameter.
The front half of the lots is where the site disturbance will take place, I will
address my remarks to those areas.
The trees whose drip lines fall within the zone of foundation construction
will have to be removed. These trees will suffer the most damage during a '
construction project. Next trees which will require either soil added to or
removed from their root zone will need to have wells built around the trees '
in order to preserve the health and vigor of the tree. Thirdly the paths used
by the heavy equipment operators need to be kept to an absolute minimum.
Sugar maple and oak trees are particularly suceptable to "construction damage"
which includes having their roots crushed by the repeated movement of equip-
ment on the root zone. I
A little care exercised by the construction company will go a long way in
maintaining the good health the trees in this area currently enjoy. The house I
that is located at the top of the hill seems to have been built with
minimal impact on the forest ,I would hope this project would achieve a similiar I
conclusion.
J
Alan E. Olson / i,7) AUG 1988
DNR-Forestry L,I- 1°�- CITY OF CHANHASSEN
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • WATERS, SOILS, AND MINERALS • LANDS AND FORESTRY
GAME AND FISH • PARKS AND RECREATION ENFORCEMENT AND FIELD SERVICE
k
I MR _--r_Li 0 0 T. A
�J, I ;I�� Agricultural Extension Service
I v 1 University of Minnesota
I Protecting Shade Trees from Construction Damage No. 21-1978
b Patrick J. Weicherding
Nearly everyone recognizes the value of trees in providing Caring for tree roots. When you install temporary or perma-
I shade, ornament,or protection to building sites, city streets, Went driveways or traffic lanes, cut nearby tree roots cleanly.
and roadsides. All too frequently, however,the trees that make Cleanly cut roots will heal well, and new roots will develop.
a site attractive are damaged or killed during construction work Trenchers and backhoe equipment are most commonly used
by carelessness or inadequate protection. Frequently, it is for such cutting (figure 1).
possible to repair such damage or to restore a tree's health, but Bridging. Sometimes it is necessary for traffic to pass near the
it is always better and usually more economical to prevent trees. In this case, use bridging as illustrated in figure 2.
damage than to correct it. Before beginning actual construc-
tion, it is worthwhile to give careful thought to the protection
of trees on the site.
This fact sheet provides guidelines for diagnosing construction
damage and illustrates various methods of preventing or lessen-
, ing damage to shade trees from construction work. The infor-
mation Figure t. Cutting roots near driveways,traffic lanes,or buildings
was adopted for use in Minnesota from the University
of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service Circular 1061, "Tree
1 Damage Around Construction Sites." \,1". 1.1
DIAGNOSING CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE
Symptoms of construction damage to trees appear over a peri- 1
od of several months to several years after the damage occurs.
I Because of this delay, people often shift the blame for damage
to other causes,and it becomes too late to effectively treat the fill fill
trees. curb
The first symptoms are usually just a slight wilting and shed �••••• -„.•..,., ,+ .�..., �
I ding of some leaves at the time of construction. Then, in later ' � �—^? i basement
wan
years, leaf dwarfing, dying of twigs, and, in the case of conifers, v/ ' _ C
excessive dropping of needles occurs. Trees damaged by con- - al \ *di ='
struction act abnormally in many other ways, most noticeably = - �� ,
I CAI
by dropping leaves earlier in the fall than trees of the same ,;obi l� � 0 ��,
species in other locations. Early fall coloring usually accom
panies early leaf losses. In cases of severe construction damage, drain tile
off-seasoning blooming occurs, and this usually means the tree
Iis about to die.
In addition to noticeable physiological change in trees, con Figure 2. Using bridges to protect tree roots
struction damage produces other symptoms. If the tree has
I been only slightly damaged, growth is slowed and resistance to
insects and diseases is weakened. \J V
Diagnosing compaction or smothering damage can be difficult
because it takes quite a while for symptoms to appear. Trees
I sometimes die five to seven years after the original damage.
The amount of damage, the species of tree involved, and the
soil type will determine how long it will take symptoms to
appear. Some species, burr oak and cottonwood for example,
I have deep roots and this gives them the ability to survive for
long periods in compacted soils that do not have enough air to
support other species.
I PREVENTING CONSTRUCTION DAMAGE steel plate "� F railroad ties
Controlling traffic. A basic way to lessen construction damage �� � '�
to trees is to reduce traffic as much as possible around the con-
struction site. Talk this over with your contractor before con-
III ” ll Mill struction begins. Establish definite traffic patterns and fence ,i .
off trees, if necessary. Locate areas where soil and building I
materials are stockpiled well away from the drip line of the
Itrees you want to save.
1
k. it \ '
Watering. Trees that have lost some roots and are in compacted gravel, not crushed limestone I
9 d imestone which is commonly used for road
soil usually need water. work. Crushed limestone will harm the tree by raising the soil
Pruning. When you have pruned a tree's roots you should also pH. The fill soil should be as porous as possible or amended
remove a comparable portion of the top part of the tree. Do with sand or organic materials such as corncobs. Sandy soil
permits much more natural drainage of air and water than clay,
not pollard, that is, cut back the top branches close to the
trunk. Remove selected branches to the main trunk or to the which packs more easily. Two or three inches of sandy soil can
crotch. Cut branches from throughout the tree to maintain be filled over a root system without harming the tree,while
symmetry, 2 to 3 inches of clay soil filled over a root system will kill the
tree.
Cutting and filling. Cut-and-fill damage can injure trees just as
much as compaction. The symptoms of the two problems are Remember,there are no shortcuts to good protection. You
-
almost identical,only in most cases, injury and death occur may save time and avoid mistakes if you obtain competent ,
more rapidly from cut-and-fill damage. Figures 3, 6, and 7 assistance before you make plans for extensive or complex con-
illustrate three of the most common types of cut-and-fill dam struction operations or before you treat trees that have suf-
age. Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 indicate the proper treatment in fered from widespread construction damage. Sometimes it
each case. Fill that covers the root system of a tree will may to desirable to consult local urban foresters, landscape
smother it by cutting off the air supply and,sometimes,the architects,arborists,or other technical experts.
moisture that the tree must have to survive.
Issued in furtherance of cooperative extension work in agriculture and
If you want to place fill dirt over root systems, follow the pro- I
P home economics,acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914,in cooperation with
cedure in figures 4 and 5. Use the complete system for satis- the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Roland H.Abraham,Director of
factory results, since installing any one part of it will do little Agricultural Extension Service,University of Minnesota,St.Paul,Min-
good. Use 4-or 6-inch standard agricultural field drain tile. nesota 55108. The University of Minnesota, including the Agricultural
Lay it in the pattern illustrated in figures 4 and 5. Cover the Extension Service,is committed to the policy that all persons shall have
tile with 6 to 8 inches of coarse '/:-to 3-inch stone. Use creek to race,creed,color,sex nationaltorigin,or handicap.nt without regard
50
Figure 3. Cut-and-fill damage. I
Figure 6. Lowering soil level,
r
ir incorrect correct
fill
new soil level
!f/,J I
A.f�������old soil level
soil removed fill
//L 1 ,,,•,,,..._.,• i ,,I..,..,„ 1.•,...m. old level 1.,,..,. ' old level•
iii - -/�f- /'1 134,--,, new level—„0ir'r. ` '
li new level ,ofr
Figure 4. Proper tiling system for raising ground level around tree. 1 m
IIG
grout or loose stone dry well
f
I
ill vent tile
•. ”&0-:.e: b.: .. - ..m 1 drain to
I
field tile old soil level lower level Figure 7. Protecting tree from cut-and-fill damage.
.e if possible
Incorrect method I
Z' „old soil level
Figure 5. Drainage system when raising ground level(top view/. fill " new soil level
Cover this area with coarse rock
•.=1,-:_---_-.'.7,-.,,-_ _----,
to 6 Inches above tile line "'' y. old soil level
/• -01%4 vent tile
%%//� ) fill
' •__ \
./ � �; �t new soil lave!
co 114,,v ;to dry well �//� (-)` ..
I �■v j �<-.01������� drain to surface �,��• N� a i)
-_,,, i�w i :%.%„
` correct method
•
., f ; �, / i ,•, drain tfle
' 1, v') 1
\
III
\ ; / drip line
:-:
ir r
>- i�9
Chanhassen City Council -1,_y 23, 1988
II Mayor Hamilton: If that doesn't inconvenience anybody who's here, we'll attempt
ill
to meet at 6:00 Thursday evening if we can get everyone together.
Councilman Boyt: Let's be sure we include Pierce and this on the same night.
IMayor Hamilton: There might be a couple more items.
II Councilman Boyt: So what we've agreed to do then is to hold the meeting on
Thursday at 6:00.
Mayor Hamilton: If we can have a quorum.
IICouncilman Boyt: It would be certainly very help, if the Reeds
had worked out an agreement by then. For my part, I certainly you ou u Zahn
I the option open to keep
p pen of having two cul-de-sacs that live within the limits set by the
City Ordinance. As I mentioned that may not carry today but I would like you to
think about that option.
R & R LAND VENTURES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WOODHILL ROAD:
II A. SUBDIVISION OF 3.5 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND.
Barbara Dacy: The Planning Commission, at their meeting, recommended approval
1 r of both items but they did want clarification regarding the status of the
drainageway that traverses through the eastern part of the property which is located on the transparency right here. Mr. Jim Leach from the U.S. Fish and
II -
Wildlife Service inspected the site on May 13th. He said that although the
drainageway does exhibit wetland characteristics, he said that it's not
protected by DNR or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is considered a
I drainageway and not a protected wetland. So the Planning Commission's concern
regarding whether or not the plat would have to be amended is resolved. In fact
Mr. Leach endorsed the proposed creation of the stormwater retention pond in
II this location to act as a filtering basin prior to the storm water entering into
the wetland area to the east of the Yuma Drive paper right-of-way. He also
recommended that a part of the pond be deepened to permit shortage of water
should occur on a long term basis, he's afraid the ponds is shallower in the
I southeast part of the site. Although staff recognizes that those are viable
objectives for a pond to promote the stripping of nutrients before entering the
wetland area, there was an overwhelming concern from the neighborhood at the
I public hearing regarding whether or not there is going to be standing water in
that pond. A number of the neighbors in the area have children and there was
concerns about those safety issues. Therefore, staff is still maintaining it's
original recommendation to create a and as
II P proposed as shown on the proposed
drainage plan. The Planning Commission also added three conditions regarding
the submission of a deed restriction regarding tree removal, soil borings to be
submitted upon building permit application. That the developer negotiate with
I the City Engineer regarding curbing along Lots 3, 4 and 5 and that a 10 foot
roadway and utility easement be platted on the south right-of-way of Woodhill
Road. As to the wetland alteration permit, Mr. Leach's comments have been
I received and he approved the proposed grading and planting plan. Therefore,
Council can adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval subject
to compliance with the conditions of plat approval.
II13
11 s
2 ()
anhassen City Council - y 23, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: Ron, did you have anything you wanted to add?
Ron Krueger: Yes, one point that you covered here. The one on the curb. I
believe at the Planning Commission meeting there was. ..and the drainage in that
area, the water seems to.. .running along the north side. I really don't see any
purpose for putting a blacktop curb along those lots. I'm not concerned with
the first... The other item was the applicant shall dedicate Outlot A to the
City of Chanhassen prior to the commencement of any grading. We have agreed to
dedicate the outlot but the problems would be, we'd like to get busy and start
installing this storm sewer to get at least some of these houses built and we
still have the final plat to get approved and it has to go to the County and
there's one of the lots that has a tax title problem so if we're not able to do
any grading prior to the deeding of the outlot, it's probably going to take
about six weeks. Perhaps in the development agreement. I'm sure there will be
words in the development agreement to cover the deeding of the outlot to the
City.
Councilman Johnson: You said that the Fish and Wildlife and the DNR don't
consider it a wetland, what about our ordinance? That's what the Planning
Commission talked about. They were pretty sure those would be our wetlands.
Barbara Dacy: The primary distinction is that yes, there's no question that
there's running water through it because it's a drainageway. And yes, there are
reed grasses along it because it's wet in the area but it's considered a ditch.
A drainageway and not a wetland. It's very similar to what we did in the Rod
Gram's subdivision with the creek that runs through there and the Triple Crown
creek. Well, there used to be in that area there. Maybe I'll use the example
on the west side in the Saddlebrook area.
Councilman Boyt: Didn't we open that up and make a pond out of it?
Barbara Dacy: In Saddlebrook? Yes. I believe our crews did alter this '
drainageway also for improving the flow through.
Councilman Johnson: They should have spread the fill out a little better around I
the edge to make it look nicer. I wish there was something we could do about
the grading... I'm hoping that the other side of the road will develop and get
rid of some of those shacks and problems on the other side of the road too. I
think that this is another fine area that seems kind of.. .similar to our
conservation easement. Little easement that we could work out to discuss what
can and can't be done within the woods. Obviously, you take out the diseased
trees that you're required to take down but I think that's something that ought
to be taken on a future agenda where we talk about.. .to help try to preserve
some of the wood...
Councilman Boyt: If we look at the motion as recommended to the City Council,
number 1 talks about clearcutting. I think in that should be added reference to
trees being proposed for cutting should be reviewed by the Forest Service and
City Engineer. That's not in there and I think that should be standard
operating procedure for the City. Then in number 5, Gary it's my understanding
that we have put in our standard development contract that the City is going to
be responsible for erosion control and we're going to charge for that.
14 I/
Ir-- I- .- 41)4", 1
Chanhassen City Council i - May 23, 1988 .
=`
II
I Gary Warren: The City will be responsible for removal of erosion control and
there will be a charge for that.
II Councilman Boyt: Okay, we should modify 5 to reflect that. It says that the
responsibility will be on the developer and I believe it's 1.00 a foot to
remove?
IIGary Warren: That's correct.
Councilman Boyt: Then I think as a part of this we should post that Woodhill
Road be as a no parking area. I gather from the discussion it presently
1 wouldn't support parking. I think that we should, as part of our conditions of
approvement, if possible, require that all homes have a sump system and drain
tile. As I recall our ordinances, we require that the lowest level of the house
Ibe 3 feet above the water line. Do you recall that?
Gary Warren: You're talking about 2 foot from the high water mark.
ICounciLman Boyt: It's_2 feet above, not 3 feet above?
Gary Warren: 2 feet above the high water mark.
IICouncilman Boyt: As I look at where the current line is for the marsh, maybe
that's no problem. I guess I was looking at the drainage ditch. There are
quite a few references in the Planning Commission notes about flooding on Lot 5.
Are we in touch with that?
Larry Brown: Yes. The applicant has submitted calculations to try and address
Ithe flow that would flow over the corner of Lot 5 in the event of a large storm.
Part of the house pad elevations can be addressed as well through the building
permit application. We're not locking in now house pad elevations at this time.
1 Councilman Boyt: Are we indicating that these are buildable lots without
variances?
IBarbara Dacy: Yes.
II Councilman Boyt: I know from a square footage standpoint but what if this lot
can't be built on from a water table standpoint? What if they have no way of
accessing this lot without cutting across an area where the water table is 1
foot below the ground? Does that then make them unbuildable?
1 Larry Brown: I think those questions will have to be answered once the soil
borings are submitted to the building inspection department.
ICouncilman Boyt: Can we approve this without soil borings being taken and
indicate that this is a buildable lot? Once we plat this, aren't we saying it's
a buildable lot?
Ili Gary Warren: Maybe Roger wants to address that. I guess my opinion on that
would be that platting the lots but that does not absolve the developer from
III certain things. Like bad soils, for example, regardless of water, if he has a
buildable foundation.
II 15
t j _ .
202
Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988
•
Councilman Boyt: It stems to me that the City is faced with variances with some
frequency where a lot has been platted and it's found that it no longer fits the
City's ordinances and yet we pretty generally grant those variances through the
hardship of not finding another use for that piece of ground.
Gary Warren: In certain setback areas, those variances I would agree ,
gree wzth you
but as far as conditions such as soil stability and ground water, I would be
hard pressed to come up with a variance that we've approved. I
Councilman Boyt: So you're telling me that even if this lot was unbuildable, we
wouldn't be faced with a variance request to build on it. You wouldn't be able
to grant it, is basically what you're saying.
Gary Warren: I'm saying that in order for him to build on any of these lots, he
still has to be able to comply with the ground water and soil stability issues.
Roger Knutson: I suppose potentially Gary, I don't know anything about these
lots...
Gary Warren: In which case he's complying with the ground water condition. The
basement that's above the ground water.
Roger Knutson: So you would need a variance before he ?
can get that house filed?
Councilman Boyt: Okay, I'm just trying to protect the future property owners.
On the issue of the wetland, the National Wildlife Service, I gather, is
suggesting that the wetland be a more permanent wet area. Is that right
Barbara? Is that what you're suggesting? The neighborhood is saying they want
it dry?
Barbara Dacy: The wetland, the actual wetland is off the property.
Councilman Boyt: This is the pond you're creating.
Barbara Dacy: And the pond area, yes, Mr. Leach recommended that we could I
create a deeper part of the pond in the northern area and a shallower area to
encourage vegetation and so on and during the Planning Commission meeting that
was an issue of concern. '
Councilman Boyt: The neighbors talked about there was a good bit of water
around this area already. I don't know exactly how I feel about the issue. I
hate to create a hazard. I also hate to give up potential wetland area that we
could develop. I understanding in reading the Planning Commission Minutes that
there is a considerable number of trees that are going to be loss due to
grading. Is that right? I
Gary Warren: Correct.
Councilman Boyt: And these are mature trees we're talking about. What can we '
do to save them?
Gary Warren: It will come up I guess to the builder or property owner or
developer, this is the building plans. We call out for grading plans for review
for a building permit as we have in Shadowmere and other areas and say what
1
I/
16
. ■
, Chanhassen City Counci:( May 23, 1988
trees are you going to save. It's to their incentive to save the trees except
for those that are diseased or damaged.
Councilman Boyt: Well, no it isn't. It's not to their incentive if it keeps
them from developing that piece of property. They'll come in and they' ll put 10
feet of fill in there and kill that tree.
Gary Warren: I guess what I meant to say is that from a monetary standpoint,
' the lot is worth more to have trees on it.
Barbara Dacy: Mr. Boyt, I guess we attempted to be, as you can tell from the
' grading plan, that there will need to be a certain amount of work conducted. On
one hand we didn't want to lead the Council down the road by saying that there
will be a lot of trees saved. We wanted to be upfront with that but in order to
compensate that, by establishing that grading limit boundary, preserving the
11 southern half of those lots, maintain the property from the Triple Crown
subdivision and do our best to review the tree removal plan and you have a good
suggestion with the DNR forester. Maybe we do have some added help in that area
when we have the grading...
Councilman Boyt: I would recommend that a condition be put on this that we
' minimize fill that would lead to the death of a major tree. I would say
anything over 10 inches. I'd like to see the fill minimized to save those as
much as possible. We have the capability of building on Lot 5, which is barely
above the water table, according to the neighbors, then we certainly have the
capability of minimizing fill and protecting as many trees as possible. I think
we should go with that on 10. My last point is 20% road incline. Basically I
don't think this piece of property warrants five lots. I don't think we should
put five more families on a road that has a 20% decline/incline and a surface
only 16 feet wide. I won't vote against it because of that but it just seems to
me it's not safe. That's all.
Mayor Hamilton: I had a question on item 3 also. I'm curious why we're asking
for Outlot A to be dedicated prior to any grading when it hasn't been done in
the past. It would seem to me that that's a City, rather.. .condition. I think
' this can be accomplished by putting something into the development contract and
I think in the past it's been overlooked in some cases where we haven't gotten
the outlots deeded to the City as we should have but I don't think this is the
1 right place to do it.
Gary Warren: Exactly Mr. Mayor. We've had problems catching up with some
easements and outlots that haven't been carried out even as a result of being in
' the development contract. I would suggest, I wouldn't request here but I would
like to get some deadline maybe where we could put out some realistic date that
the developer would do where we could expect to have the deed transferred so we
' have something that's not nebulous out there.
Mayor Hamilton: I think as long as the developer knows and had agreed that he's
going to transfer that, there shouldn't be a problem. I would think that the
City would want him to finish his grading anyway. Why would we war:'_ to have it
deed to us?- He could say well now it's yours. I'm not going to finish it. I
don't know, why should I? It's not my property.
17
204
Chanhassen City Council - 23, 1988
Gary Warren: Conditions of the development contract and plans would require
that he have to do the work out there whether we have ownership or not. I guess
I'm saying...we could use a letter of credit I guess as a back-up. If he hasn't
provided us with a deed we'll use his letter of credit.
Mayor Hamilton: Can that be put into the development contract?
Gary Warren: Yes. I
Mayor Hamilton: So you can strike that from one of the conditions. Then item
12 on curbing. Could you make a comment on that please?
Larry Brown: The curbing, the reason that they had stated that the curbing was
to be negotiated is through the plans and specs mode, their initial intent was
to make sure that the water along Lots 4 and 5 did in fact make it to the pond
and not flood out the front of those lots. Right now Mr. Krueger and myself
have yet to sit down and take a look at the low points to find out whether
that's feasible and that's why they're allowing him to negotiate with the City
Engineer.
Gary Warren: That would either be, probably more appropriate along with review
of the plans and specs. We would make a review of it at that time. '
Mayor Hamilton: Then the discussion on the trees. That is a beautiful piece of
property and there are many trees on there. I think a lot of them will be saved
because the building pads will be in the north side of the lots. However, you
do have to take some trees to make room for a building pad. I think we've
talked about this so many times that when we hired a forester to help us with
these things, he told us that trees will die if you do. .. You expect that as a
part of development. I certainly hate to see a nice treed area like this, some
of these trees are being developed but... It is a valuable asset to the
property... A lot of people looking for lots with trees on them. They're hard
I/
to find. I have no other items.
Councilman Johnson: Just to follow up on the trees and grading. Looking at the 11 grading plan, with the exception of Lot 1 and Lot 2, some of the very front part
of it, the entire Lot 3, 4 and 5 are going to be regraded bringing that up to 4
foot of fill and 2 foot or so over almost the entire Lot 4. There's not going
to be on the front half a lot of trees saved on Lots 1 and 2. Truthfully when I i
went down through there, there's a lot of real small grubby trees on the front
side of those lots like somebody has cleared it once before. There are some
mature trees but primarily 1 inch type stuff. It's pretty scrubby. It would be '
interesting to get some of those, replant whatever you can. With a tree spade
move them around if you've got some that are saveable and after you fill, go
back into the frontyards. Use your own thing as a nursery if it's possible.
Just a suggestion obviously. Do you know that operation down east, a logging
operation going on down there.
Mayor Hamilton: The person has been trying to develop a buildable lot and I
what's happened is they've got all kinds of trees off. The owner has been doing
that.
Councilman Johnson: How deep, if you expanded the pond, where there was some
water, would we be talking 6 inches of water? I think a lot of people are
18 1
V ra
' Chanhassen City Counci.t - May 23, 1988
' concerned about getting a high water where the kids would drown. Is what Mr.
Leach is looking for is something for ducks to swim in?
Barbara Dacy: Right.
Councilman Johnson: With wood duck houses and stuff? We have
for a beautiful area
or wood ducks.
Mayor Hamilton: ...improving a ditch that goes through there so I suspect that
there's wildlife...
Councilman Johnson: We're not talking a real lot of depth of water. Just
enough water to promote the wildlife. During the storms we do go to 2 to 3 to 4
feet deep during a large storm. Whether it's totally dry or has 6 inches in it
to start with. Is there a way we could say that the average depth shouldn't
exceed a foot of something or a design that we are going to hold water in?
' Gary Warren: I think it'd be more appropriate to just specify an outlet in the
rear that would control elevation. With the grading we cut what the maximum
depth would be. You have a 928 outlet, you put a rear a 930, it will be 2 foot
down on the east end and there will be 0 depth. That would be the way to do it.
11 Councilman Boyt: That's just the reverse. I would move approval
Request #88-5 with the following conditions and changes. On number f1SI would
�on
add Forest service and City Engineer. Also add the grading and fill be
minimized to save trees. That means that we simply have the ability to ask for
trees to be saved. Then I understand we struck 3. That 5 has the addition of
$1.00 per foot for removal.
Gary Warren: He's still dedicating the outlot.
Councilman Boyt: Right but it's no longer in this?
Gary Warren: It's still a condition of approval. It's just that he doesn'
have to give it to us prior to starting of the grading. t
Councilman Johnson: Strike from prior back.
Councilman Boyt: Then that addition I just made on 5, I'd like to add a point
I 14, no parking on Woodhill Road. I'd like to add a point 15 which is so much
common sense it defies logic but that a sump and drain tile will be required in
the homes in this development.
Mayor Hamilton: If that's a motion I'll second it.
Ron Krueger: I had a question on the erosion control. In other words, we don't
do it.
Gary Warren: The City has a standard development contract now which the City
' public works force. ..erosion control in new developments because sometimes we
want to leave that in for a year or sometime after finishing the project when
the developer and everybody else has gone away.
Ron Krueger: So in other words, we can't remove it?
19
•
. 1.•K
Chanhassen City Council -\ay 23, 1988
Gary Warren: In no case can you remove it unless you have the approval of the
City.
Ron Krueger: That is an option...
Gary Warren: The City will remove under the development contract. The City
will remove and you will be charged $1.00 per foot for removal.
Mayor Hamilton: Is this an item that is negotiable so if he would agree to
remove it and he's finished with is grading and everything, that his crews take
it out?
Gary Warren: It's kind of defeating the purpose of our eneric contract. '
g tract. We're
trying to get consistency because it does get difficult to remember who we said
can remove it and who can't and that's why we said with this saying the City
will take care of it.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm not saying not to have it in there. I'm just saying, I
don't see any reason why you and the developer can't negotiate that. If you're
satisfied with the way it is and he's still got his crew there, I don't see any
reason why he can't take it out.
Gary Warren: Contrary to the contract we're approving.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess it doesn't make any sense. I see no reason why staff
doesn't have...
Gary Warren: Normally the erosion control is left in place for some time after
the improvements are done. Especially on an area such as this where we've got a
lot of steep grades.
Councilman Boyt: What I'd like to see happen there is that we collect the money I
and if per chance if this worked out, we give it back to them. If it doesn't
the City has the righ to take them out. That way it becomes the developer's
responsibility and the City doesn't have to chase anybody down. r
Mayor Hamilton: Just a comment on your 15 with the sumps and baskets.
...anybody I've seen or dealt with. .. The developer is not building the house
and I don't think that we, on developer's contract, one of his conditions, if
he's not building the house, that we can tell him that the builder has to put
sumps and baskets in that house. He's not the builder. He's only the developer
of the property. He's not the builder. ,
Councilman Boyt: We tell them sometimes where they can locate a house. We tell
the developer any number of things. About house positioning, tree removal. ,
Mayor Hamilton: That's fine but that doesn't have anything to do with the
actual construction. When it's something within the house and the construction.
I'm not disagreeing with you as far as doing it. Quality builders do it but I'm
not sure that_we can tell R & R that it has to be there when you have no control
over that.
Roger Knutson: It should be put in the development contract... Maybe there's
no dispute on that point. Do you have any problem with that?
20
_ _ s
lir • ,_
Chanhassen City Council - May 23, 1988 ifa
111 ill Ron Krueger: We have covenants.. . These lots are going to have to rest.. . I
don't know what deeds we've got. You may say the City says you have to do it
but.. .
Roger Knutson: As far as it having teeth, it's in the development contract that
is recorded against the lots. You don't have any problems.
RoxAnn Lund: Don't you have strength in the building application?
IIMayor Hamilton: Not in the building permit application.
Councilman Johnson: In reviewing the building designs, if we find that the
IIground water is so high we can't, I find that hard to believe.
Councilman Boyt: This takes care of it. It's
real simple.
II Mayor Hamilton: But again I think perhaps rather than having it as one of the
conditions it should be in the development contract.
IICouncilman Boyt: Is the development contract okay with you?
Gary Warren: For the sump pumps? Fine.
Councilman Boyt: Do you want to make a note to make sure it's in there. So I
11 [II
remove that from a part of my motion.
rCouncilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Subdivision Request
#88-5 based on the plan stamped "Received May 2, 1988" and the grading and
drainage plan stamped "Received May 19, 1988" subject to the following
I conditions:
II 1. There shall be no clearcutting of the lots at any time. Grading, erosion
control and tree removal plans shall be submitted in conjunction with the
building permit application for Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. The applicant
shall file the proposed deed restrictions upon satisfactory review by City
I staff, Forester and City Engineer. The grading and fill should be minimized
to save trees.
2. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and
II provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee
completion of these improvements.
I3. The applicant shall dedicate Outlot A to the City of Chanhassen.
4. The applicant shall erect a snow fence immediately south of the proposed
grading area to prevent removal or destruction of trees outside the proposed
grading area.
5. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of
Iany grading, and once in place shall remain in place throughout the duration
of construction. The developer is required to review all erosion control
IImeasures periodically and make the necessary repairs promptly. All erosion
21
2 .8 .-
nanhassen City Council .y 23, 1988 •
1
control measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover
has been produced, at which time removal shall be the responsibility of the
developer at $1.00 per foot.
6. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District.
7. Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all distrubed
slopes greater than 3:1.
8. The develper shall be responsible for daily on and off-site clean up caused
by construction of this site. '
9. The plans shall be revised to show that the storm sewer pipe located at the
southwest corner of Outlot A shall be extended 10 feet beyond the existing
watermain along Yuma Drive.
10. The applicant shall provide the City with revised storm sewer calculations
which verify the adequate capacity of the storm sewer system prior to the
final plat review process.
11. The applicant shall submit soil borings for each lot as part of the building
permit process.
12. The developer shall negotiate with the City Engineer for curbing for Lots 3,
4 and 5.
13. The developer shall provide a ten foot roadway easement along Woodhill to
provie for future road improvements and utilities.
14. There shall be no parking on Woodhill Road.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to suggest that the staff look at including
creeks, whatever you want to call those bodies of water in the Wetland
Ordinance.
Councilman Johnson: Drainage areas. i
Councilman Boyt: I hate to get into the business of saying that unless somebody
put a drainageway in, it is not a wetland. On the other hand I think if we
don't have the ability to protect streams and creeks, we have a problem.
Mayor Hamilton: But if it is a drainageway, that's happened to other places
down the road and above ground.. .but it's still the same type of thing as this ,
it's just the other way around. If you open it up you can say it's a wetland
because there will be emergent vegetation on it.
Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
I
Permit Request #88-6 based on the plans stamped "Received May 2, 1988 and May
19, 1988" subject to the following condition:
22 1
(ue-----
. . Chanhassen City Counci. May 23, 1988
I
1. Compliance with the conditions of plat approval for Subdivision #88-5.
IAll voted in favor and the motion carried.III
BROOKSIDE MOTEL, JOSEPH NOTERMAN, 789 AND 790 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE:
A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-773, THE BF DISTRICT TO ALLOW
RECREATIONAL CAMPING FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 4 RECREATIONAL CAMP/TRAILER SITES.
' Mayor Hamilton: This is another ordinance amendment where we need to have four
council persons present. Consequently we'll have to table this for our next
' regularly scheduled meeting which will be June 13th. I don't think there's
anything pressing on it.
Councilman Johnson: He wants to get it in for the Canterbury Downs season but
Ihe's not here tonight.
Councilman Boyt: I can tell you that it's not going to get my vote.
' Councilman Johnson: Nor mine.
Mayor Hamilton: Nor mine.
IIpl Councilman Boyt: We can't pass it but we can defeat it.
I Mayor Hamilton: Personally I prefer to allow the other councilmembers to make
comment on this. If he is curious about what our feeling is, he's got it. So
this will be tabled until the 13th.
REQUEST TO RELOCATE TRAIL EASEMENT, HIDDEN VALLEY.
Roger Knutson: Let me point out one thing. Before you take final action on
this, the signage in that area is to relocate a trail and vacate a trail... or
otherwise, you need a public hearing. This has not been advertised for a public
hearing this evening. Discuss it and whatever but you can't act on it.
Don Ashworth: There's no use discussing it then is there if you discuss it at
the time of public hearing as well?
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to tabke the request to
relocate the trail easement for Hidden Valley until staff has advertised it for
a public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO AMEND SECTION 20-1251 (A) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO PERMIT LARGER ON-PREMISE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR SQUARE
FEET, FIRST READING, DATASERV.
' Mayor Hamilton: This also needs four people present.
23
. _ 1
I
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,
I
CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS
FOR
WOODCREST
1
This Declaration is made this day of , 1988, by the undersigned parties representing all the osner;
in fee and all the encumbrancers of the land hereinafter described lying in Carver County, Minnesota.
WHEREAS, R & R LAND VENTURES, a Minnesota Partnership, is the fee owner of the r:gal property legally described as tuts 1
through 7, inclusive, Woodcrest, according to the recorded plat thereof.
I
WHEREAS, Suburban National Bank of Eden Prairie, and United States of America Corporation, is a holder of a mortgage on
the real estate hereinafter described.
I
WHEREAS, Vernon Kerber, individual, is the holder of a mortgage on the real estate here:nfaftar described.
WHEREAS, the undersigned_ parties desire to impose upon and subject said land to certain covenants, cundiLions,
restrictions and reservations for the benefit of said land and its present and future owners, I
NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned parties hereby declare, impose upon, and sake Lots 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, wooacrest according
the duly recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of tae Registrar of Titles in and for Carver County,
Minnesota, subject to the following covenants, conditions, restriction and reservations, which shall operate as restrictions
;hissing with the conveyance of every lot included therein, and shall apply to and wind each and every successor in inteiest�
to the party hereto, to-wit:
1. Residential Purposes. No lot shall be used except for residential purposes, cicep, that l.,ts o: portions of lots
lay used by bode builders for temporary offices and model homes. Residential purposes include dwei..ngs ano attached
garages, swimming pools, tennis courts and attendant structures.
2. Dwelling Specifications. No dwelling shall be erected, altered or placed on a lot cr permitted "u remain there
other than one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed two stories in height, as measured fru: grade. In the event t,
dwelling includes a walk-out basement to the rear, the basement shall not be counted as a story. ::doh dweiliog may have an
attached garage for nut sore than three cars . All structures constructed or placed on a lot shall be completely finished -
the exterior thereof within twelve months after commencement of construction.
/ 3. Setbacks. Building setbacks from lot lines shall comply with city ordinances and/or any ether governmental agencies
No/building or grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion control within 140 feet of the back lot lines. N
on Lots 1-5 inclusive. No building or grading will be permitted except for terracing or erosion control within the drain
and utility easement areas as indicated on the plat of 'Woudcrest".
4. Nuisance._ No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on or upon a,iy lot, nor shall anythrnl: be du'
thereon which say be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neignborhood.
5. Prohibited Itructures. No structure of a temporary oharai'.,er, tr,:i her, nasemeni , ton/, sh vii, garage, barn, or etI
outbuilding shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence either termporari,y or permanentl,.
6. Animals. No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall ce raised, bred or kepi. on my lot, except That cog.
cats and other houshold pets may be kept, provided that they are not t.epl, bred, or satill.iined fer any eamaercial purposes
No more than two cats and/or dogs shall be kept by the owners of any lot at any one t,me..
7. 'Rubbish. No lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground fur rubbish, cic:ept during construction of
subdivision improvements and dwellings. Trssh, garbage or other waste shati nut be kept except in sari Lary containers, A
incinerators and other equipment for storage or disposal of such material shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition ale
screened from view.
I
ill
1
9. Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except as follows:
a. During the intital construction and sales period of the subdivision, one sign no larger than •, legit by 4 feet in size
may be placed on each lot advertising the lot for sale, except. in the case of houses advert.ise., as model homes, in which ease
multiple signs and signs in excess of 3 feet by 4 feet are permitted.
b. After the initial construction and sales period, one sign of not more than one square foot in site identifying the
' profession of the occupant of the lot, and one sign of not 'ore than 2.5 feet uy 3 feet in sire, advertising the lot for sale
are permitted for each lot.
' 10. Soil and Trees, No sod, soil, sand or gravel shall be sold or removed from any lot, except for the purposes of
ese:avating for the sonstruction or alteration of a residence on the lot or appurtenances thereto, or for the prupoer grading
thereof, or for road improvement.
No trees shall be removed from any lot except as necessary fur construction or en✓ironuentai purposes unless they are of a
site smaller than 4 caliper inched measured at a level 4 feet above the ground except as recommended for removal by the City of
Chanhassen or any other governmental agency,
12. Architectural Control.Committee.
a, No dwelling, shed or other building, fence, mailbox, newspaper box, light post, entrance monument, pavement, or other
improvement (excluding landscaping) shall be erected or places upon any lot without thhe prior written approval by the
' Architec.ural Control Committee of the plans and specifications for the work,
b. The exterior color, style and materials of any improvement en a lel sha.l nut be cbani,ed w;tho:.t the prior written
aepro✓al by the Committee of the person who will actually perform the proposed w,rk and of the plans and speut.ical.uns ;or the
I work.
c. Until five years after the City of Chanhassen has issued a .:er,iiic,:Le of occupancy or dwe:ii:,g.. :,n real estate
uescrited herein, the Committee shall consist of two indivicuais appointed by undersigned. Tnereafter the Committee sha.i
:Insist of three individuals appointed by the homeowners in the pia!, ul 'Auod..risl
d. The Committee shall appoint one member of the Committee to Le is chairman. A quorum of the LxmitLeu shall consist
two of its cleaners. The Committee may act upon the vote or wr;•t n .. .,s' nt e. any two at ,Ls u- sters. "he ::hairuan of the
U..omiLLee is authorised to execute certificates of approval, notic.s uf disapproval and simi,ar .nstrumenos effectuating
' ci.cisions of the Committee.
e. At least fourteen (14) days before work is commenced, the owner shall submit Lo the Committer. unt complete set of
ans and sp::cificatiuns (including, without limitation, full sac ;Jars, exterior celurs and material:.), along with the name
of the builder wno will actually perform the proposed work.
f. Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of plans and specifications and the name of the builder, the Committee shall
approve or disapprove them in writing. The Committee may disapprove a builder if the Committee determines, in its sole
discretion, that such builder does not meet the Committee's standards of credit worthiness and/or does not build homes or
improvements, as the case may be, of the same quality and in the same prime range as the undersigned. The Committee may
disapprove plans and specification only for one or more of the following reasons:
1. Non Compliance with this Declaration;
' 2. Failure of the exterior of a dwelling or other improvement to be of a style compatible with, or failure of a
dwelling or other improvement to be of the same general sire, quality of construction anu price range as the
as the dwelliings and improvements built or to be built by the undersigned in Wupderest.
3. Failure of a dwelling or other improvement to be placed and oriented on its let in a manner compatible to the
dwellings and other improvements built or to be built upon adjoining lots ane in a maunur compatible wits tcriain
of the lot;
4. Failure of the plans and specifications to show all information necessary to evaluate the foregoing
' characteristics.
The Committee's determinations concerning the plans and specifications shall be cuncissive, if the Committee disapproves
' the builder ur the plans and specifications, it shall state in writing the reason for such disapproval and, in the ease of
plans and specifications, the deficiencies which must be cured to obtain approval.
r
I
g. If construction of or exterior changes to a dwelling or other improvement are conmt.ncee without auprovai of the
eutlder and/ur approval of the plans and specifications, or if construction of or exterior changes to a dwelling or other
improveuent are completed not in accordance with approved plans and specifications, any owner if a lot described herein, may
bring an action to enjoin futher constructino and to coupe! the owner to conform the dwelling or f,flea wiih plans and
specifications approved by the Committee, provided that such action shall be commenced and a n,tiec of lis pendens shall be
filed no later than ninety (90) days after the date on which the certficate of occupancy is ,sued by th1 appropriate municipal
authority, in the case of a dwelling, or the date of completion, in the ease of any other improvement.
I
13. Failure of The Architectural Control Couuittec. In the event that the undersigned, the Committee and/or the members of
the Committee shall fail to discharge their respective obligation under paragraph 12 of this Declaration, then any owner of
lot described herein may bring an action to compel the discharge of said obligations. Such an action shall be the exclusive
reaidy of any owner of a lot described herein for failure of the undersigned, the Committee and/or its members to discharge
such obligations.
14. Duration1 Renewal. These covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations shall run with the land and shall be a
servitude thereon, and shall be binding upon all of the parties hereto, upon all persons claiming under them, and upon all
pe:chasers of all or any of the land described herein and their heirs, assigns, and successors in interest. These covenants,
restrictions and reservations shall remain in full force and effect until 20 years from the date hereof, at whic
time they shall be automatically extended for successive periods of 10 years each unless art instrument agreeing to change these
sivenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations in whole or in par', and signed by the owners of the otjority of the lot
.umpri sing tie land described herein has been recorded.
1'.. Seierability. invalidation of any one or sore of the provistuns hi.rein by judgment or court order shall not a!i' ct any of
.ue utaer proViSiunS, watch shall remain In full force and effect anti the date: ul txpiration.
ii. Node of Enforccuent. Each owner of a lot described herein snail have the rigit to enter:— the pre/isms of this
to:strument in his/her o:.n none by proceedings in law to recover damage or In euutty to re,Aralf. riL,lat:ue, again;!, any pens.
.: Riling or atteuuting t., violate any covenant or provision hereof, eruvlued that the remedied in parabr..pns ii: and 13 and
tie reuedies of this paragraph 16 shall apply to violations of paragraph 1';:.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1%1 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER
DAVID L. GRANNIS, JR. - 1910-19 0 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612) 455-2359
VANCE B GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B KNETSCH
MICHAEL J.
BERG
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TIMOTHY BERG
PATRICK A. FARRELL .T
DAVto L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075
ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661
' DAVID L. HARMEYER
November 22, 1988
i
Mr. Larry Brown
' Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
' RE: Private Covenants
Dear Larry:
Private covenants are private contracts governing the use of
property. The City is not a party to the covenants , and is not
bound by them and cannot enforce them. In Odell v. Eagan, 348
' N.W.2d 792 (Minn. App. 1984 ) , the City turned down a plat and
cited as a reason restrictive covenants. The City' s decision was
overturned. The court held "the restrictive covenants are private
' matters to be resolved by the parties to the covenants, and not
the City. "
(Very truly yo s,
' GRINNIS, GR IS, FARRELL
KN .1T8i, P.A.
BY
Roge N. Knutson
RNK: srn
r
I
- . _
' NOV 2 3 1988
CITY OF CHANhASSEN
.n s.-„�, a) ® I
, c-J1.4ztcs, inc. ® 4, CERTIFICATE (`
8030 Wallace Road OF Engineering I
Ten Prairie,Minnesota 55344 Land Surveying
=MI=ES SURVEY R V EY Landscape Architecture
(812)934.4242 r'- 'a .
Planning
Survey for: VteTDRt-A EUll,vEaS i ImC . Job No. 8y90 Bk. z/g. pg. 4‘6
966'.9 tAJo0D Nt L RoND 9 ' I
6068el%26,1.0
ei 0. 00
1 _-_ '° g"H'$
o Q�J� 1 0
f M I
Toes ( Aab
Q-) /9'0 2s.69 / /90 i P°''' 1
��30 SCA.LE AQ• ' /N/ y
I
I 5 O Q / Q
• f iz0)005E0 / I `9
I
1..,1,A, / /IV' E
o /
IA � •o / JS7� ti
\ ?�r o 91.,, .,,., .,..„ / ycifi
N N , 05°) 1(q fo
1 i/9,0 /6'o 49x S) //9v
—r-- �9 2,0 9(19,8 T
7 I O O
N O
N 1 P,'o, 'osa o GLc VA7'/ONS N
1 oWWST Pi-cog- 950.33
GAfAGG FG.Q.Ze- .950.0
roP o FoziNPA-rion/- 9 53.3 3 I
XXX •- QEN07E5 •6'X/ST/NCB ELEYATIo%4
(XIC,Y) - OENVTE 5 PRoPos D EI.EVAT/o/"/
I
A- - 0c'NoTE S D/RECT/ory c FL o kV ,
ac. SuIFAcE P2AINAGE•
I
.7 DQA(NA . i J•riu1Y EASEIhE.NTS I
'\\
I
s e)0.OD s
991 a s --- > 911
I
I
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTM ION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF Lo-r 2 gt..oG I ■
P OPSE D N � CZ�ST C4 .VE CO YT , MINNESOTA.
SURVEYED BY ME THIS Da DAY OF Lr'tEwti� 19 as 11, ,�� I
RONALD L. KRUEGER
CTATC DCf_ICTDATI(1\I MI(1 .I'IT•