The URL can be used to link to this page

3 McCord & Sanford WAP Planning Case 05-22 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone 952.227.1100 Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone 952.227.1180 Fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone 952.227.1160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance Phone 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone 952.227.1120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone 952.227.1400 Fax 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone 952.227.1130 Fax 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952.227.1300 Fax 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone 952.227.1125 Fax 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator September 12, 2005 ~ ' McCord/Sanford Wetland Alteration Permit - Planning Case No. 05-22 DATE: SUBJ: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Request for a Wetland Alteration Permit to construct a boardwalk across a wetland and place a dock on Lotus Lake on property zoned PUD-R with an area of 1.01 acres, Lot 9, Block 1 Fox Chase. ACTION REQUIRED City Council action requires a simple majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 2, 2005 to review the proposed wetland alteration permit. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 to deny the proposed request. The summary and verbatim minutes are attached. RECOMMENDA TION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the motion denying the wetland alteration permit as found on page 6 of the staff report dated August 2, 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated August 2, 2005. 2. August 2, 2005 Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes. G:\PLAN\2005 Planning Cases\05-22 McCord-Sanford WAP\Executive Summary.doc The City 01 Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving bUSinesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks A great place to live, work, and play PC DATE: August 2, 2005 CC DATE: August 22, 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN REVIEW DEADLINE: .^1I:lgI:lSt 16, 2005 October 15, 2005 CASE #: 2005-22 BY: LH; DA STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Wetland Alteration Permit for Placement of a Dock LOCATION: 6440 Fox Path (Lot 9, Block 1 Fox Chase) E-c Z < U ~ ~ ~ ~ < APPLICANT: Marianne McCord & David Sanford 6440 Fox Path Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: PUDR - Planned Unit Development Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 43,977 square feet (-1 acre) DENSITY: 1.2-4 units/acre Net < SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit for the E-c installation of a boardwalk across a wetland to access a proposed dock on Lotus Lake. The < boardwalk will be permanent to minimize impacts to wetland. Q ~ Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. E-c ~ 00. McCord/Sanford Dock W AP August 2, 2005 Page 20f6 PROPOSALS~RY The applicant is proposing the installation of a boardwalk from the rear portion of 6440 Fox Path across a wetland to provide permanent access to Lotus Lake. A seasonal dock will be extended from the permanent boardwalk at the water's edge to provide boat access by way of a dock. APPLICABLE REGUA TIONS Sec. 6-24. Location Restrictions No dock, mooring or other structure shall be so located as to: (1) Obstruct the navigation of any lake (2) Obstruct reasonable use or access to any other dock, mooring or other structure authorized by this chapter; (3) Present a potential safety hazard; or (4) Be detrimental to significant fish and wildlife habitat or protected vegetation. Sec. 20-404. No net loss. To achieve no net loss of wetland, except as provided under section 20-416 of this article, or authorized by a wetland alteration permit issued by the city, a person may not drain, grade, fill, bum, remove healthy native vegetation, or otherwise alter or destroy a wetland of any size or type. Any alteration to a wetland, permitted by a wetland alteration permit must be fully mitigated so that there is no net loss of wetlands. Sec. 20-405. Standards. The following standards apply to all lands within and abutting a wetland: (3) Docks or walkways shall be elevated six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ordinary high water mark or six (6) to eight (8) inches above the ground level, whichever is greater. (4) Access across a wetland shall be by means of a boardwalk and only upon approval of a wetland alteration permit. Sec. 20-407. Wetland alteration. (a) An applicant for a wetland alteration permit shall adhere to the following principles in descending order of priority: (1) A voiding the direct or indirect impact of the activity that may destroy or diminish the wetland; (2) Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the wetland activity and its implementation. McCord/Sanford Dock W AP August 2, 2005 Page 3 of 6 Sec. 20-408. Permit required. Drainage, grading, filling, removal of healthy native vegetation, or otherwise altering or destroying a wetland of any size or type requires a wetland alteration permit. Activity in a wetland requiring a wetland alteration permit includes, but is not limited to: (3) Installation of boardwalks. BACKGROUND In April 2005, staff was asked by the applicant if they had riparian rights to install a dock. Staff reviewed the most recent survey of the property on-file (1986) (Attachment 4). The survey indicated that only the south east comer of the property touched Lotus Lake by a single point. However, no elevations of the ordinary high water level (OHW) were indicated on the survey. The applicant was asked by staff to provide a survey with OHW to determine if riparian rights existed on the property. The applicant provided staff with survey dated May 31, 2005 from RLS 43806 (Attachment 5). The survey indicated that the property does extend past the OHW, therefore, the property does have riparian rights. The recorded development contract for the Fox Chase development (Attachment 7) indicates that a perpetual conservation easement shall be granted to the city over the area below the 900 foot elevation on Lots 7 through 19, of Block 1, inclusive. The development contract also states that Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19, Block 1 shall be allowed 1 dock per lot. The dock on Lot 16 may be used by the owners of Lots 10-16, Block 1. The conservation easement was recorded against Lot 9, Block 1 as part of an "Agreement Pursuant to Planned Residential Development Contract" (Attachment 6). Based on the documents on file with the City it appears that an 896 elevation was shown on the plans for the subdivision (Attachment 9). The 896 contour clearly extends onto Lots 8 and 9, Block 1 of Fox Chase; however, docks for these two lots were not discussed during the subdivision process. During the subdivision process, the issue of whether docks would be allowed on Lots 10-19, Block 1 was an object of much discussion. Initially, the plan was to have docks only allowed on Lots 16- 19. Through a series of legal discussions between the City and the developer, it was agreed that Lots 10-16 could share a common dock on Lot 16. From the letters and minutes in the files, it appears a number of residents opposed any docks in this area at the time of subdivision. The major concerns appeared to be preservation of vegetation, fish habitat and aesthetics. ANALYSIS The proposed boardwalk/dock is shown on Attachment 5. There are six major issues regarding the placement of a boardwalk/dock at this location: McCord/Sanford Dock W AP August 2, 2005 Page 4 of 6 Issue #1: Wetland Alteration Pennit. According to City Code, installation of boardwalks requires a wetland alteration permit. This is to ensure that any wetland impacts as a result of boardwalk installation have been avoided and minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Resolution: The applicant has applied for a wetland alteration permit. If the permit is not granted, the applicant will not be allowed to install the boardwalk over the wetland. Issue #2: Reasonable Access to Lake Lotus According to City Code, docks and other structures cannot obstruct reasonable use and access to other docks or structures (Section 6-24). Resolution: The applicant has submitted a plan for installing the dock that they feel will best allow access to both the applicant and existing docks in the area. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to alter dock placement if necessary to ensure reasonable use and access are maintained. Issue #3: Encroachment into Drainage and Utility Easement A drainage and utility easement is recorded over the rear portion of the subject property. Resolution: The applicant must enter a encroachment agreement to install their dock over within the City drainage and utility easement if the wetland alteration permit is approved. Issue #4: DNR Pennits If a boardwalk and/or dock is permitted, all applicable permits from DNR for dredging and/or vegetation alteration must be acquired. The applicant has a proposed plan that may require the removal of vegetation and or dredging to gain access to an existing navigation channel that allows access across to the main part of the lake. DNR is the permitting authority for all grading and or vegetation alteration below the OHW level (896.3). The requested wetland alteration permit, if approved, does not permit dredging of the lake or vegetation removal. Resolution: The applicant must apply for all necessary permits from the DNR prior to removing vegetation or sediment from Lotus Lake. Issue #5: Conservation Easement. As part of the Fox Chase plat, a perpetual conservation easement exists below the elevation of 900 feet over lots 7 through 19, inclusive, of Block 1. The conservation easement restricts the placement and erection of buildings, structures, docks and walkways (except as provided in Section 6.03 of the development contract). The development contract also restricts the alteration of vegetation in any manner or form within the conservation easement (except as provided in Section 6.03). Exceptions in Section 6.03 the development contract allow for one dock to be constructed on Lots 16, 17, 18 and 19 Block 1. The dock at Lot 16 may be used by the owners of Lots 10-16, Block 1. McCord/Sanford Dock W AP August 2, 2005 Page 5 of 6 Resolution: Vacation of this conservation easement (as a whole or in part) would be required to install a dock at 6440 Fox Path. The vacation of the conservation easement to install a dock may allow for additional dock installation in similar situations. Issue #6: Riparian Rights Because the OHW extends onto Lots 8 and 9, Block 1, both lots have riparian rights, that is the property rights arising from owning shoreline. In this case; however, the restrictions set forth in the conservation easement supersede riparian rights of property owners. Resolution: No resolution is necessary for this issue. If a wetland alteration permit is granted for a dock on Lot 9, staff anticipates that Lot 8, Block 1, may apply for a dock in the future. FINDINGS The rear portion of the lot at 6440 Fox Path is encumbered by a perpetual conservation easement in addition to a drainage and utility easement. An encroachment agreement would be necessary to cross a drainage and utility easement with the docklboardwalk structure. The conservation easement would require partial vacation, at a minimum, to allow for the installation of any structure or vegetation alteration within the conservation easement. From the documentation of the Fox Chase development that staff has reviewed, the intent of the conservation easement was to limit the number of docks crossing the wetland riparian to Lotus Lake. Lots 10-16, Block 1 that are required to share a common dock, have similar lake conditions (i.e., adjacent wetland, very shallow and vegetated) as Lot 9, Block 1. The shared common dock was the mechanism used to give dock access to the Fox Chase lots (10-15) that would have had to cross a large amount of wetland and a very shallow, vegetated area of the lake. Permanent structures that minimize or avoid wetland impacts are encouraged where wetland crossings are necessary. Boardwalks are intended to be permanent structures that provide access across wetland areas. If a boardwalk is permitted, the boardwalk should be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and a seasonal dock should extend from the boardwalk into Lotus Lake to provide docking for watercraft. The dock setback zone is defined in Section 6-1 of the City Code as "the area inside and running parallel to and ten (10) feet from the extended lot lines of a lot abutting a lake." "Extended lot lines" means an extension of the side lot lines 100 feet into a lake from and at a right angle to a line drawn between the intersection of each side lot line and the ordinary high water mark. If the extended lot lines of adjoining lots overlap then the common extended lot line between the lots shall be at an angle which equally divides the area of overlap." The dock should be located outside of the dock setback zone. The current proposed alignment encroaches into the dock setback zone (Attachment 5). If a dock is permitted, the dock alignment should be revised so the dock is located outside of the dock setback zone. Because the applicant's property is protected by a perpetual conservation easement that restricts the installation of any dock and/or removal of vegetation, staff is recommending denial of the wetland alteration permit. McCord/Sanford Dock W AP August 2, 2005 Page 6 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff The Planning Commission recommends that the Plaflning Commissiofl City Council adopt the following motion: "The Planning CoInfI'lission recommends denial of City Council denies Wetland Alteration Permit #05-22, for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6440 Fox Path, based on the findings of fact in the staff report." Should the Planning Commission City Council choose to recommend appro'/aI of approve Wetland Alteration Permit #05-22, staff recommends that the Planniflg Commission City Council adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #05-22, for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6440 Fox Path, with the following conditions: 1. The boardwalk shall be installed across the wetland as a permanent structure and a seasonal dock shall extend from the boardwalk into Lotus Lake to provide docking for watercraft; 2. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for the installation of the boardwalk across the drainage and utility easement. 3. The conservation easement shall be vacated for the length and width of the proposed dock structure; the remainder of the conservation easement at 6440 Fox Path shall remain intact. 4. The dock shall be located outside of the dock setback zone and shall not obstruct reasonable access to or reasonable use of other docks. 5. The applicant shall obtain all permits required by the DNR for dredging and aquatic vegetation management prior to commencing such work below the ordinary high water level of 896.3, should such permits be found to be necessary." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Application. 3. Affidavit of Mailing and Public Hearing Notice. 4. Survey for 6440 Fox Path, dated September, 11 1986. 5. Survey for 6440 Fox Path with proposed dock, dated May 31, 2005. 6. Agreement Pursuant to Planned Residential Development Contract. 7. Fox Chase Development Contract. 8. Aerial Photo of 6440 Fox Path. 9. Planned Fox Chase Subdivision "Exhibit A". 10. Letter from T. Meier to Chanhassen Planning Commission, dated July 27, 2005 11. E-mail from J. Lyon to L. Haak, dated July 29, 2005 G:\PLAN\2005 Planning Cases\05-22 McCord-Sanford W AP\McCord_Sanford CC.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: The application of Marianne McCord and David Sanford, 6440 Fox Path Planning Case No. 2005-22 On August 2, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Marianne McCord and David Sanford for a wetland alteration permit for the placement of a boardwalk across a wetland. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1) The property is currently zoned PUDR, Planned Unit Development Residential. 2) The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for residential, low density. 3) The legal description of the property is: Lot 9, Block 1, Fox Chase. 4) The subject property is located on Lotus Lake. 5) An aglurban wetland is located on the subject property between the primary structure and Lotus Lake. 6) Section 20-405 of the City Code stipulates that access across a wetland shall be by means of a boardwalk and only upon approval of a wetland alteration permit. 7) Section 20-408 of the City Code requires a wetland alteration permit for the installation of boardwalks. 8) The planning report Planning Case No. 2005-22, dated August 2, 2005, prepared by Lori Haak and Donald Asleson is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the wetland alteration permit request for a boardwalk across the wetland at 6440 Fox Path. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of August, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: VIi Sacchet, Chairman g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-22 mccord-sanford wap\mccord_sanford findings of fact.doc Planning Case No. 0 S -~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 elTV OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION JUN 1 7 2005 ettANHASSEN PLANNINGDEPT Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit Variance Non-conforming Use Permit X Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign** - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit Site Plan Review* X .~crow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost*** . ~~5.0CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ J. of) . tJO Subdivision* An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. * Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a diQital CODY in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format. ** Applicant to obtain notification sign from City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is retumed following City Council approval. *** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. BuilWmg1RRterial samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ICANNID PROJECT NAME: '8m+ 7)0 ck LOCATION: Ii, L/ Llo Fe-{ Pa:t-t-- I ~q~~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: L-, + q J 13/0 ck II h>? ~ ge- , . ./ C I.- 1''0/4 C tJwdj , rnJ MIle.. so!- If..- TOTAL ACREAGE: '-11;. j q 77 '51' f-l-. X YES WETLANDS PRESENT: NO PRESENT ZONING: . REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: !JJtf/~s REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: t-e-~ u. tt; + {J.)allLtu~ ~ ~ t-eC; S o-rdv Lo Jus L-~ 4 bod dock This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that lam making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ~ IJ-tL-t2 ~ !? 105 Date Signature of Applicant ~~ c/t'~ ~ Date ICANHU ~rms\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 4/05 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDA VIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on July 21, 2005, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for McCord-Sanford Wetland Alteration Permit - Planning Case No. 05-22 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me thi~ day of 0 u.l~ ~~T.~~ Notary Pu . I ,2005. KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public-Minnesota My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 SCMNEO C) c i CD ~ C)5 c.- .- (I) "'(1) ca._ CD E :t:E .~ 0 :CO ::IC) D..c -'2 Oc CDca ()- ~D.. Oc ZCD (I) (I) ca .c c ca .c o C) c i CD ~ c C)o c'- ._ (I) "'(1) ca.- CDE :t:E .~ 0 :cO ::Ic) D.. .5 02 CDca ()- .- D.. - oc ZCD (I) (I) ca .c c ca .c o 0) ~ Cll ...J Ul Cll.2 _0 0...J ;:'c . .b 0 "OUl~ >c:o ffigo -(]) 0"0 -Cll ~:t:::0) ECllEO ci ~ (]) ~ oga.. Q "E o,....c"O 0 ,:.:,.....Q lij 1: ~ 0"e"O c?l ", L.. (]) C L{)(])-Cll "0 o .0 <( ;; .~ oE"O~ 0 C\ICllc> C\i() ~ Cll ~ _ (j)Ul "0 ~ '0 ~ ~ 0 gC L.. U :J:JCll~ 0 <cOL..'" ~ ,U .E~ ::;__Cll (]) CllCllUl:;: C "O:r:(])"OC\llij Ul.....:JL..C\I._ (]) .:::; 0" Cll L.. :J:t:::(])0J,~ I-ua:.co..::; Q) E .. j::c alJ~ S B ~.3 j u:~ !g i ~s 'E~G);:: c"iia.ca .!!!geg c.<c..J 'i III o a. o ~ c. 0) ~ j Ul Cll.2 _0 0...J :J C . l= 0 "OUl~ >co ffiOo 8 _0"0 = ~.9Cll g L..:t:::0) . ECllEo :E ci~(])~ :: oga..o. "E 0 o,....c"O .E Gl ,:.:,.....Q lij lij ~ Cij 0" e "0 CJ) Gl L{)Q)~lij "0 ; O .0 <C- ;; .~ > EO) ", CD.. o "0> 0 C\ICllc:> CD a.c Cll Cll ~ oS C\IU;;Ul c 1;) '- ~ Ul "E 0 ~g>e 8.c.!! 5':JCll~ O~o. <C 0 L.. .", ~ ", III ,U.E~ a..S ::;__Cll ~~C {g :r:Cll :g:;: C LL:8 Ul :J"OC\I Cll o III 0)..... O"(ijC\l';:: ~U :J:EO)OJ,Cll~,g I-Ua:.cO~(oct Q) E .. j::C o alJ;:: sB ca 0 C.J j u:~ ~c5~C ... ~ 0 C~G);:: c"ii.a.ca .!!! g. e g c.<cc..J 'i III o a. o ~ c. (]) '8 (]) .co=: -.c"O -L..Cll 5.8~ .c.c_ Cll 0>= :J'a; :;: o C.~ >O(])Cll E.c.c a)L..-U .!:!.EEQ)Ui '0 .!: e =: a. CO::o>a~ .-:JCUl 5 Ul 0..- 0> '0 '~.!: '$ .!: -! .~ .!: E ~ 'ijCll!9(])= CDO).c.cO ..co_- Ui .2 0 O>! >--C...... CD.. .0 "0 .;:: - :Jc;:,.c Gla.CllOCl ~Ul :J -'-1;) .0 ~=:O)o..c _:J(])_ .c.!! 0 0"'0' Cl Cijo.Q)~L..C a.. IllS Ul a. .;:: O_UlUlCll ~~ e-'E:c~ LL=:JCll- o III a.,g"5,g ~gQ)a.o.c ~ - .c 0..0 :J (Octl-CllClla. 0) '8 (]) .co=: -.c"O -L..Cll 5..8~ .c.c_ Cll Cl= :J'a; :;: o C.~ >OO)Cll E=:8 .EEO);,; .!: e =: a. 0- -0) - "5 ~1;) Ul 0..- Cl '~.!: '$ .!: .~ .!: E ~ Cll!9O)= Q) .0 .c 0 .co_- .2 0 0> ~ :0 ; 'E - :Jc;:,.c a.CllOCl Ul_ :J .- Ul .0 =:O)o..c _:JO)- o 0"'0' 0> O)~L..C Ul a.';:: o _Ul Ul Cll e-'E:c~ :JCll- a.,g "5 ,g 0) 0.0.0 ~ g.~ 5. Ul a. -O:J "i ch~ ~ ~ ~L..E O)E ~ ~ 0) _0)0.0 32SG)c ~ 0 Ul . cL{):JO)>-.c.- o Ul CllEoMUl.cOIll-a; Q) '5 (]) .O)..-o-L..-,....G) .O'~ - a. ..- - 0 a..c ~ L.. 0 C 0.0 E I 0) _ = - c E a..~ 0 -MO,....Ul>O.:;:~- "0 9 '(j) 0> .. Ul C\I 0 a. > o:a c Q)- Ul .!:~oC}loo::::::G),g ~ ~ g 'E Q) .9 ~ ~ i3 0 !9 O~ :: a..c.c EO)' CiS 0) :J (]) CJ) a. US - o-:Jo EE--05 G)cOE a.. c a." 0) cd 0 Cll >0 cil ~ ,.... E 00)'-' .c _~_O) =. (]) Ul.c 0) - O.c Cll - 1ti .!: ca 0 (,)0 .c c-.c 0)0 Ul Cll. (j)_": .::~ E; Ooo';::r:~.c (]) Cl)co ~ Oo.oc - a .- .0EG)Oc >-c_L..- o)Ul:JOL..C- .c~- > ... .c:SO...JE"SQ)"'---c 0) ..."0..... >0 .-.c ;; c .-"'(]).... UlcO_-cB-- '=~ca 2:Ul>Q) .c-OO)Q)_c_ Q)~'-~ ~O) .!9Ul.cOO.cC. >0.0)- a.O>OCUl O)'(j)-G) 0= ~ 0 Q);;::: Cll 0 Cll.~ 0 Ul ca.c c':;: L...!!2 .c '0 32 0 -E:t::: C 'E- G) - Cll>(])Cl - L..O) Cll CO Q) 'E (ij c (]) ~LL Ul ~ 11 ~ E = - .:::: Cll Ul 'iij ~ ~.;:: -a, m ~ ~ Cll 8 S 0 ~,g 'E Q) ~ 0 -5 :J a.'o E .!: 0) G) '5: = a.Q).c.~-_ e -@E-.c-" :;:g.Eoe'ECiS.co~ c_.o~ - E=C.Cll:r:-Q)CllOQ)Ocaca 19 ~ o.g Q) :;: >0 iti"e- ~ ~ € ; ~ -g CJ)I-Ua..=: :J~"O 0.- (]) Cll 0)::: ~ o '-' c Ul = :s:: 0.'0. ... :s >0 >0 0._ Cll';:: Q) 0 G).c ~C\iM~ =.c~=:E:;:"Oo.o... IIIC) C C G)._ a.- a.G) ca G) ~:e _G) ca.c .c- 3:10 alJ 111111 cE OG) ;::E :J E :so 0(,) a. g, "i ~ ~ ~~E Q)E .. Ul Q) 0)0.0 "OG)G)c :J ~ C L{) :J (]) 'S; ~ .c ._ t5 0 ~EoMUl.cOIll-a; (]) Ul 0) .O)..-O-L..-,....G) 'o~~ '5 -a.a.E..--Oa.=~E 0'0)-= C L.. 0 C a M 0 ,.... Ul >0':;: ~- a..~ 0 Cl.. Ul C\IC\1 0 a. > o:a c "0 9 '(j) C ~ 0 0 - - '" 0 - .- 0- -1:-- ~ a. "~ i.9~~i3 ~CJ)!9 O~:: o O),g E '" '-O):J '" a.Q;l- a..c.c E E E !9 _ 0 OC G) cO E O-:Jo ......OCll>o '~""E a.. C o.u 1:'" _ ~ _ (]) 0>= . Q)~~", -O.cCll-1ti:acaO(,)O .cw......'" Q)OUlCll' (])_": c: - .c L..o 00 .:;: :r: ~.c (]) III CO ... .:: ~ E ; _ - >._ . 0 EG)O c' Oa.Oc O)Ul:JL..C- .cN- '>-c.t::Cll .cL..OOE"SO)"'~C > :J >o...J _ .c ;; c .!e O)~"O ~~=o gB-.:: cBS ~ ~.:::: ~O ~ (]) .!9 Ul ~ 0 0 .c c. >0.0)- a.O>OCUl (])'(j)-G) 0= g 0 O)!E Cll 0 Cll.~ 0 Ul as.c c':;: L...~ .c 032 O-E:t::: lij'E G)- Cll > !D Cl -; 0>1l: m Cll 0" > E .5 S 0)- - C _.c-"O - >CCllC O).;::.c...OCCllOC~ .- Cll Ul .;:: ~ Ul :J 0> ~.-: 0) U 0 0 o>,g 'E m 0 .9"0 5 a. 0 E.!: 0) G) 'S: == a.O)..c:.~_= L..~@ E-c..c:-.o~'" :;:a.E OcCll.co~ - Cll .2 aL.. Cll:r: - 0) Cll 0 0) 0 S ftI :::: E - :;: >o.~ Cll 0 E - - "0 c75 ~ 8 ~ ~ ;:, ~ {g ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ l!! - 0 '-' C Ul .- :s:: a. a. ... :s >0 >0 0 .- Cll';:: Q) 0 G).c ~C\iM~ =.c~=:E:;:"Oo.o... IIIC) C C G)._ a.- a.G) ca G) ~:e _G) llS.c .c- 3:10 alJ 1II.:!l c c OG) ;::E :JE :so 0(,) ~ ~ -~ .~~ ~ 5 = c~t C~ 0 ~ ~~ ns 0 .24)8. ai= c >.~ 8.0) ai S 4;Q)'O ca'~ca 0:0 cacg- .25 c.cc ""=CD "'CD", ~ .2<('6 CD~ CD.!!! 0 <Q)~ ~~~ ~~ R~m ~.~ ~~~ ~~g E~mca;b ca~O '0> ;~.Q .!!! .8 CD E e 8. CD t: .c -= CD a. !!! l6 l!! :u g,:s q; .0 ~CDo~[.2..~=Ec 8B ",:=g :;:~B ~~aE~~0m8~ ~ ~-=CD ui.i~ ruQ)Q)-g~Q)-5..!!St: i:~ ~gs m!~ ~~5cu~a~~0[ ~~ ~~~ :Jon ~05E~E~",=CD CD> 8.., E=iD C=OCD~.U;'6>-l50 ~~ ..: CD ~9' B~~:~~~~E~ ~g g~E so.", ~'lii"",~'6CDEO-'- -01 ",Ol! ~~CD E0~-0~E~~2 u'" ~CDC ..,Ql~ (; -8.mE-8c~~ ~= -0=0 ~~i ~l"'~(;~o~$~ c8s ~B~ -i-d)C:Q)S.~EQ):::~Q)~ (f) c:t:c l!~~CCDCDO"'~E~..,"",- ~. 58.= o~-=~E~'OE-g~~S~ Q)~ OQ)CU ~168~~ca~~CDCD",~j ~8 ~~oo cE~E~iCD~~~~gE"'" et c=g 8!i~0I.=~CDCDl!!a~~ 0.0. CD~~ Q)--0E~ca>'OE ~.c o~ ~ c: fE~!CDES~!!!80.8CD~ ;~ ~i.!!! Q)<C>.Q)-go'Ou>''O-=oCi-:; 0)_ ~'CQ.. ~CD~=-OCD=~c"'-Eo 00 ~~CD Q)'C~cagcdi.gEm'E(/)8.c E!.5 asgs ~8os=~~~~Q)Q)g~~ gE !-u ~..,ai!2~~~~~~~m .ga .2.8s a:C:~~-~D-8'Oc:~5~~Q)Q) ~~g as >C:~_Q) CQ)Cio5-0~ ~~o ~.l!ll!!.5BCD~"'>-.!!!Eo.-aq;.-.., 0. .- c:.- ~ cv.c .2_ -cu cu Q) CD Q) 0 G> ~ ~ ~Q)~~g=~~B&~~~!~~~ 5=m ~ ~ l!! ~ 8:<(."'.~ ~.g '" '" ~ ~.6 ~.8 ~.S'! c Q)~m~cu~~C:~O~!o~5~.c oCit: KEg i ~ ~ ~.~::i ~.!!!.g. ~ e 8 ! .~ci-.c ~ ~ ~~~~~i~~g~~!~S~iC:~~~! ~~'6l!!"'~QE"'~~mo.E-~CDg",~CD Q) - ~ CD en >.- E 0 0 0) cu CD 0 c:: = ~ .~ D.c. O~OECDD~OO=&~Q)~CDO.c.Q)E~_ _~b-=CDc:O~~C:~Ec5~~~EEC: ~-B~C:~Q)Q)Bc:~~ocu~&~iocu; .. ::> ~ <C 0 ~ E.c Q) 2 s en 3:.E ~ 4i (j) 0 ~ Q) !i!~ .t8.~~~!E!~ .g~~Q)e~~~ ~c:Q)~O aso~oE_S~o._oEQ)._~~ al ~ a.~:a ~ Q) e m- 8 arCl)~-;;3 g..e~ 2 c:.~ 8~E~i~:U~gl5l!!N~c~i"'..,>-.!!!I.8 ~ oE (/)(/)U~;(/)~caCUc:~OQ)C:~c ~~uo.~~tc~cuc=ww~~~~~Q)os ~ a ufO c: as 8. cd ~-g~ 0 s.!:!!.!:!!" 0 s~ -.5 ~~ ~~l~Btl!!~i~l~g=~~~8~~~i >2c-Bo.CDo.CDEEo~~c",ocn",0_ ~~~2&=~!!!~8E~22~a~CD~~:~ ~~~~i~~5~e8o~~~~~;[mi~ 0.. ... en -0 C) ~ ~ S c~t .2~ 0 ~ 'C.c aI 0 .2 Q) 8. i= 'E ~~ 8.G.l is QiQ)'O ca'~aJ 0:0 cuC:~ .9-.5 c:.cc ""=CD "'CD'" ~ .2<('6 CD~ CD~O <Q)~ ~~~ !~ I~~ ~~ ti~ ~~2 E~mal;~ aI~O ~~ ;~~ .!!! CD CD E e 0 CD t:.c -= CD a.!!! l6 ~ :u g,~ q;.o.o ~ CD g.~ [.2..l! = E c 8 B "':= g :;:~~ ~~aE~~0m8~ ~ ~-=CD uf.i~ aJCI)Q)'OOCl).g..!!.ge ~~ ~.g= CDCD- ..,~~c~-cc ~ -_ -"'c "'~'" c~-~~o.s"'~o. o~ ~80 ~g1i ~=i~jl~~c~ ~~ ~ i ~.o~ o~.o~~~~~EoO =0 S~E C~~ ; asQ)~- Q)~ c oen -0 ~:'" ~~~=~~EgOl~ -01 ~ l! -CD~ e"'CD"'EsEc~~ ~. o~c ~~= ~~~~~S8E~~ 'E~ ~~~ ~g2 .:;:~~~~16Bj~CD 800 'gtq; ~~CD~16CDo'6eEOI..,"",= ~. "'8.~ l5S$~.cE~"'=!~$s= CD~ 8CDS E168~~c"'~~CDCD"'>-~ ~I ~~Ul ! E ~ E 8..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "'" e e c ~ g 8-g~~~.s~~Q)!a.~~ ~~ Q)~~ ~~j;~~~~~"8ECD1fi Bt ~ij ~<(>-16-g00"'CD~~~,g~a.~ ~= ~-go. -CD~=- ='.cm-Eo -0 ~ CD ~"'CD~go169E~E"'0,<:: ~~ ~~= a:oo.o'-Co.o.-CDCDCO", "'... CD_..., coe-~~OCD~"'EB~", 8~ ~CD~ ~..,o."'~CCD~",,,,..,~CD'" .co .2.0_ -c-CD-as~-8'Ocu~CDaCDQ) --c: o.~OI~c~=CD CCD&~g~",~ 9~8 CD.l!l CD c BCD'" '" >- ~ E 0.- ~ CD - ~ 0. ~c~-~=~g_~~~CDo.CDCD CDCCD ~CD~..2_E~C~CD=~~Ea sB~ ",ECD~a.<CD_CDC"'~ --s BCD 'E'O~ a. ~3:J:.2:J(I)~.c.oc.8 ~.-c Q) 5i ~ [ aI u; ~ c..... 2 -g ~ g ~ ~ :g.c ."0 8:t:: iEgi~~~i~CD.!!!~le8ela~~~ -~~~~i~~g~~!=s~~c:{j~! ~.!!!'6e~~B~5~~m8:Eo~~!!!moCD ~~OBQ)D~OOi&~aI~CDO-Q)~C:= ~16~~~1~61~!~~~ili~~~ .~16 .<~,lgE~CD~~.!Ul~S~810 ~I "'i~c .8.~0 =El!!a .=~""'El!!~ '" .gCl!!.~~ ~ouioo-S'E~=8. ~~~u . c ~ (/) = ! G.l ! ~ - ~ &}UJ as 0 :3 (I) 0 s;;; C c.5 8l~~i~:U~gl5~N~!~i"';~.!!!I.8 ~ E 00'C~;0CDalSc:.cOCDC~C 0. ~O 0.5 CD ~ c 0. ~ -c _ r,. ""- ~ S 0 ~ CD 8. 0 c - ~8.~o"'o._w ~ ~~=~ - ~ .2 ~ 0 l5 [ ~ .c &i'u; g s ~ .~! (; "'.~ - ~ g .!! .!:!l.5 ~; ! ! 8. ~ E .~ 5 ~ - as ~ 8 :g t::2 ~.l5~Bo.CDCDCDEEoCD~l5"'~5n~8~ ~~Nc:==0~~oE c>~~Q)-.~o E >-9CD.!!!8:g~~~~0~i~~~Cl!!~CD~0 =Ula:o.~Ul~_=~OO~~~",<(~o.m~", o . . Lotus Lake Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation 01 records, inlormation and data located in various city, county, state and lederal oIIices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used lor relerence purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error Iree, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used lor navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement 01 distance or direction or precision in the depiction 01 geographic features. " errors or discrepancies are lound please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes !i466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user 01 this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable lor any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to delend, indemnify, and hold harmess the City lrom any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out 01 the use~s access or use 01 data provided. <<NAME1>> <<NAME2>> <<ADD1>> <<ADD2>> <<CITY>> <<STATE>> <<ZIP>> Lotus Lake Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a collllilation 01 records, inlormation and data located in various city, county, state and federal oIIices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used lor relerence purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Inlormation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error lrea, and the City does no! represent that the GIS Data can be used lor navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement 01 distance or direction or precision in the depiction 01 geographic leatures. "errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The precedng disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes !i466.03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user 01 this map acknowledges that the City shall no! be liable lor any damages. and expressiy waives all claims. and agrees to delend, indemnify, and hold hannless the City lrom any and all claims brought by User, ~s employees or agents, or third parties which arise out 01 the use~s access or use 01 data provided. <<Next Record>> <<NAME1 >) <<NAME2>) <<ADD1 >> <<ADD2>> <<CITY>> <<STATE>) <<ZIP>> Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) McCord/Sanford Wetland Alteration Permit Planning Case No. 05-22 6440 Fox Path City of Chanhassen Subject Property Lotus Lake KEVIN A & LEANNE M BENSON 620 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANCIS N CRISMAN & LINDA M WOOD 6360 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE F & JANET M DEAN 6400 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SEAN & MELINDA FITZGERALD 630 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KAY LA A HANUS 820 FOX CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEITH M & MARY BETH HOFFMAN 6470 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES D HUDSON & CAROLYN SUERTH 6541 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN P & KIMBERLY A LA TTU 840 FOX CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD R MAGILL & KELLY N PIEROPAN 660 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM P JR & ANN K MILLER 6561 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN P & DEBRA L BREEDLOVE 860 FOX CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM P CUNNINGHAM 865 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J DORAN 788 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT & RENAE FROEMMING 6411 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS R JR & MELANIE SHARER 796 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES P & NANCY FORD HOOPES 6511 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JON ALAN KLOSTERMAN & MARGARET CODY KLOSTERMAN 6471 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHUNYI L1N & YANFANG CHEN 800 FOX CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL L & REBECCA MCMILLEN 880 FOX CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES S MORIN & TANYA M SREPEL 6401 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 REBECCA CLAIR CHUVA 6521 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SAMUEL G & LAURIE J CURNOW TRUSTEES OF TRUST 650 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGG A & DIANE M ELLIOTT 6551 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG N HANSEN & CLAUDIA J GIESKE 6430 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL & DEBRA HAYDOCK 6460 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS M & SUSAN J HUBERTY 6450 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R KROLL 6410 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES M LYON 890 FOX CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS A & JUDY R MEIER 695 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES W & MARJORIE K NAGEL 6340 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS R & ANDREA L NARR 6431 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES R & JUDY L PETERSON 708 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GARY J SCHNEIDER & CYNTHIA CALHOON SCHNEIDER 640 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS M & ANN E SULLIVAN 6421 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEITH R & BARBARA C THOMAS 6380 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS ZHU & ZUO ZHI 716 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSN INC 610 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RODNEY H PETERSON JR 6571 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE T & PAULA J SOUKUP 6441 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN P & JANE THIELEN 665 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TERRY D & DEBRA L VOGT 732 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER S PELLETIER & JAMIE L GRIVICH 6420 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID B SANFORD & MARIANNE M MCCORD 6440 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL A & JANET A STANZAK 724 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BEVERLY H THOMAS 745 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES A & PAULETTE M WALL 6381 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 / ~-~-----~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H 2 ~ i; ; i ; ] : ~ ';; > o~ U~ \:1: ~~ ~J ~ ~ G UJ ~ 2. 2 UJ'; 0 ..0 ~; J: C> \:1 ~ 0 z i ~ ;: ~ L1J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :( ~l~ I i' : ~ ~ '; .. - g ~~ ' . ~ :' <(~~,..;,;~ ~ o o :1 ::1'0 ~ i i !l! i -! j p: : f ~ !H 0:: ; ~ ~ i v. ; ~ i \:'3 . . ,..':. ~ ~ ! 1 E ~ E ~ Ii ~~ a ~ ~-l .;101 11 { i~ 11 '. ~" . HI : ~ I z .. i l L o I !i ~ '" ci ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " I- UJ UJ u.. o ; '" ~ ~ u -J ., <l: 5 :J . 0 J UJ "" ~ :t i U ~~ ~ ..",0:, w II! 2 1 0 ~ w " -J i 5 ~ ~ c ) o .c . . . ... . o . .c ... c 0 . .c . c '" ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~i~";a. a\O\('\tn:~~ c .~ c " .~ ~ " "" . . u ~~~~: : gg;::~U) Q ~~~~r:~~ ~o~~~]E ~g.~~'~g~ ~ E-q.,..~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ . '" ~ '" "' -:. ~ ~ .;; " A, ~-if ,Jo , '6 ~ 4t ~ ,~." ~ _ :11f1a"'In~_ --...!!..O),LOg : oZOj]:2l.. >- h h ~ ~ z ~ ,? ~~ ..'" ... ..:;: :..j ..' :".;P 0" --_.~~ :i: '" " ~ ~ ~ '" '" .f, ? fU, -~,;~ : 6B"69 -AU} ,la, Bill6 dOL OIIW~ ?UI'(W HJN]g ~ o :z " ~ JjU?) sr:!.:!7\ .~9BJ '9Z .., 6110 ..IDqtoo ., Jo. J~S 'iJeJo Pa,o ~'IS~ 00. C2 ~~:l 'aO'~ .~1 s~<O\'?J~'~ /'" .-... ~'<- '-:.' '\ ,;".:,,:::~:'i ~ '<, (, l~'" - ",<(" ) \ ol'~~~> v/ l" .-i cY:l If.) If.) WO V)+' <(0 :c~ uc c X'- 0::;' ...... - I" ::-~ 00 f-: ~U CD 0:: 0:: O,-~ +,0:: 0<( -,U o .. .. ~ i5 z 2; &. ~^ . on~ ri..\ ('of";- V ,,:~..it rSY "" ~~ 10_ 'V q, .,Jl, f.""~ QDcJ: \ ... \ x~ " ::l _ ! \ 0 /1 ~OJ'orl\~ A3\.ns I ~ ~ 0,\'1;, Jl, ':I. .. ! x '" j, \ \ 'i \ . IS \ ~"'~ ..., \' ~ ~ \ IO"~ \ X:r. -.1 calX \---- \ ~~ : r.S-c.~ iB~ I I I 1 I I I I I ,-. .\_' o ~ o lO I,() oct tf) ~ :J~ ~ ~5 ~ '" '" .. u.1 ~~ : ,~ r")cO o oct . c-l r-=- " 9 C1l ~, ',#"-' C1l tf) ~ \ r-- ' "! Z ~ e. "lr..+ ~~ '\ s~ o. <'e.. ". <'e.. ____ ;'5 T _...IOt- ado~ ;----- ~ OOj Jq, + ~ 0<,\ 'lr+ " c: ~ -2 ~ C c.~ ~ E ... ~ ~ :J g.; t1 6 li E E E E ~ a., ~ ~ ~ g 2: 0 '" ~~o50 Lu x :Ii -J ! ,...: lJ o " z ii: w W 0> Z Id"'~~~ zow....cn :r>->-O;OO <{ ::i Q:;~ I I ~~~~~ ~i!'~o> ~ffi~~ {/)(L-<tn V V <;gg::::'d o.~ 'lg~.ca::::.'\1 !:!it ,,\o.\" 0 CJJ_ 0\ \\II lIDS If], V c1 )( O;!..-- ~ ---- ---- c::r '" I'- I'- Ol ri -.t II iii ;; " l; <>. " " E ~ = " e " ~1l'J, at 2:J; o ~i (l) .... ..... rz.. ~I &- 8/ ci ..., ~ ~ I co !! I ,-. '.' ,-, '.' ------ ~~ ; '\%.i ~ ~~~ '\\0 iii \ ~"'\'~1"IU'''''!11 ;~~9......'"'''''''''''' tr.('....,f,~ IIf/,O cr -'PU'~-; g CJ . fTI~. \~\ a ffi '" 6:; ~ \'fZ." %::t: ~~ i~~ ~x =:;0 I ~ ~? ~ A,"/Si ~ Q, .. $ ~" Va ..........-... ~ ~ "1"111 '.l. ~,~\..",~ UIIIIIIIU\\\\'\\ AG~NT ..P~SUANT TO PLAmmD RESIDENTIAL DEvELoPMENT CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between theei tyo!..Cnanh~~s~ni<a.. M~DJl~sPtarnur1icipal corpp~atioJ1;;(~be., "city") ,Zachary Develo~entCorporation, a corporation Wider .... the laws of the State of Minnesota ("Zachary") and James M. Zechmann and Susan M. Zechmann, husband and wife (the "Zechmanns"). The property located in the County of Carver, State of Minnesota, legally described as Fox Chase, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Carver County Recorder, is subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Planned Residential Development Contract dated July 20, 1983, recorded August 5, 1983 as Document No. 60723vln Book 67 of Miscellaneous Records, Page 477, hereinafter referred to as the "Developers Agreement". The Developers Agreement provides for the granting of a perpetual conservation easement for environmental protection and wetland conservation over those areas of Lots 7 through 19, both inclusive, of Block 1, Fox Chase, which lie below the elevation of 900 feet. In connection with the Conservation Easement (as defined below), the Developers Agreement a.~v ~~~vides for (1) the futur9 erection of a dock on Lot 16, Block I, (which lot is presently owned by the Zechmanns) to serve the owners of Lots 10 through 16, both inclusive, Block 1, Fox Chase and (ii) the granting to the City of a public trail easement. The undersigned owners of the affected lots i~ the plat of Fox Chase, in order to comply with the terms and conditions of the Developers Agreement, do hereby grant and convey the following easements: Conservation Easement. The undersigned owners of affected lots in the plat of Fox Chase do hereby grant to the City of Chanhassen a perpetual conservation easement (the "Conservation Easement") for environmental protection and wetland preservation over those areas of Lot 7 through 19, both inclusive, of Block I, Fox Chase, which lie below the elevation of 900 feet (the "Conservation Easement Premises"). The Conservation Easement Premises shall be subject to the development restrictions applicable thereto as set out in Section 6.02 of the Developers Agreement. Dockaqe Easement. The Zechmanns do hereby grant a perpetual non-exclusive easement (the "Dock Easement") for purposes of constructing, maintaining and using a dock for the - 1 - 6799R u, rrf~fr.z'1.,~ Page I .' I / h, /." . . tt...-:t'.Y:--......~:.t. 01 /4 Pegee Ldr'-C;-r/ .:. i;'.l~~r. . Conformance with Developer's Aqreement. The City acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement will be deemed to conform to and satisfy all requirements of the Developer's Agreement relative to the creation of the conservation easement, the provision for an easement for dockage purposes, and the easement for public trail purposes described in the De,veloper's Agreement. Runninq of Benefits and Burdens. All provisions of this instrument, including the benefits and burdens, run with the land and are binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, assigns, successors, tenants and personal representatives of the grantors and grantees and their respective invitees, but may be amended without consent of the owners of any lot or lots not directly affected by the amendment. The consent of the City of Chanhassen to any such amendment shall, however, be required. Construction. The rule of strict construction shall not apply to the grants of easements contained in this instrument. The grants contained herein shall be given a reasonable construction so that the intention of the parties to confer a reasonably usable right of enjoyment on the respective grantees is carried out. Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed 1n counterparts. In witness to this instrument, the parties ~ve causeQ this instrument to be executed as ot the 3/~ day of~ ' 1987. ',<' t:. ~; ~l\' -"-. ;.:... .., . - 2 - . .,:" ::~ ~.: ,.;.; .... . ~.: ....~ of IIf "::P.8Q88 . ..;:","..:' ......-..4..:>.....,~_.:.. .." ...;;.:..:..... ':/":L'<',. . ... ,.. ..... - '--.,'- .~.:., :". '.", ...' .." ,. -., ,...." " '. .",. ,,' _.' .'.":,',H'::::.:' <i.,..,.,.,'....'.......:.,...',::.':.....,...,...~..~:'.~.....~,'~.:.~.:..,~.;,~..:.:......:.~..,{...:.:,\~,:.:.~.~...t,~;,~ .:~~~~::~:~.....:.::.~:: ::\/::~';:~~.~~~.~.~~~.~~..;;.~~~d::;.:;i~.;>:;~.~.i~::~~i-::';~<~'::':>: .~l;:- ~ :~ :,;.:.. , -. ,- .~. .-, -~..;;.,~~ ;.;:~.~i;;:~Ll~.;:./:~..~;;.{:y:.{: :':.'. .: ...~:.~.:.~:..~... >., "'.< . Eiden Construction, Inc., (OWner of Lot 10, Block 1, Fox Chase) ~' By: .' W Its: _ _?r~ STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) . II~The foregoing instrument was ackno ~ed ed before me thIS LILI'fday of .l/e-r1pJl'Ylj."r, 1987, by . . and respectively 0 Eiden. nstruction, Inc., a Minnesota corporation on behalf of said corporation. ~. 7/ /l . -~-rLde(...... ~c::.--L No'fary Public . . fa ..EinJo !Xkl MOrAllY ruIlIC_"'lNNEsor... . CARVER COUNTY " Mv commission eJlpirllS 5-28-93 S THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. 1100 International Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 - 3 - 6799R Page a of /4 Pages 1, STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ~The foregoing instrument was ackno ledged this .lL::. day of ~~ , 1987 by A << the ~~,~ ~~~/ of Zachary Deve opment Corporation, a corpor ion organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesot~, 0 behalf of said corporation. _~t~ HENNEPIN COUNTY .. -Q,j'. .....,&'.. 6799R - 4 - Page _ J.j Gl. 14 Pages ...... .,.... '.' ," .~:., .. '.::. t.: . ::. .. . ~", ,"' : "0':. ":',:;"""". " :: . '.~ ......::.... : :. :~ : '0' '.' : j;\~~.->> \'. .....;..:.:'.-:;:.. ~{5l;if~\~\~:~;\/<rr\\~:i~H\\t~;~~~Wi susan7 zec~~~;'" Lot 16, Block ~, Fox Chase) '.;." '.-; .-., ~ -f,..:.-._-..::...... .-.-.-.,-.:.... STATE OF MINNESOTA) )5S COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ~he ~t was acknowledged before me thisZfL.:-- day of , 1987 by James M. Zecr.marffi and Susan M. Zechmann, husband and LfJ;.2k ~h ~ary Public · - 5 - 6799R p.....~ .."," .- ,.-,:,:" '.' '". ....-... .'.;':-. '. . "-;." ,. ~ .. -'.:,' ~ '-,; .; . . ..; -,:: .~. .~:.::~ :/<.'.\\.::::~::.::~.~~' ..........:..':... '. i -:,~ ". . .. . , .' .' . _ . . -. -. .:. '. . ~. " .... .,-;. ..... '. .::..-.:...:..:....,: '. . . .. . ../~NA1';lO!iiihWt-.M.~-~~ 'OF:" . . ....'.... . .' .. . . :M.I~tija;~'~:<:Natioiial Sailking ." -" ~>:;,'__'; , ...'As$qt;,j,a~a:B~;.. ,M~~:~gagee, of 'that " "- -~." --' ---:;C' . "cei;t~ii;1q~(j:~:tqagedated<Apri121; > "-.ii;.::;f);,i 1987 Reco~.4ed the I</-~ day of Y1I.hA_' ~.' 1987 as DOCUll1~ll.t No. ~~<53 . . . '. (Owner of Lot 9, BI, Fox Chase) ......:.:. . :...... .......:. . ,.....'.. . ..... . :"'. .' . .~:.: . By: Its: 7f;f'1iLfb By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ~ The for@9oing instrument was aCknO~efore me this .;2s, day of r~~ , 1987 by iiff,J-d, ~ and , the U - (--' and , respectively of National City Bank of Minneapolis, a National Banking Association on behalf of said National Banking Associ"1'i'7) "". . ~0 )71 0--b,uj/J Nota'ry Publ ic. / ~ Lynne /h Lc>/n,?1 4fr I )/lr - - U~U-3 11/1.J.!'i3 r IUf ~1nvnu.~ J . 6799R - 6 - Pages ~",:.t,,:!:~~~~i';J~1:W7~[~J%~;'N.~t:;f%"?i:;,?;;~i:!\j!W?;,;F:,j,ftt'i}';';;} '.'~ . ;... " .". . ,>'~ ",-'.' ~". .":,' ......;';'"'-. ',' '.," ,~:,'f :,:.::;'~,:"/~ ',::"~\'~: ;:;;f;t:rn;'t~~~i;;+0if;;';W\0'~Wi~;1;!~'}~:;~~'~~~I((?!;;i~~;0:~!;~{~~<t:{;tff{~;'~;q!~~t~~r" ,. ~. -. '<';':-::~" .~ : STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .llnsl day of December , 1987 by Bradley J. Williams and Lqpawn M. Williams, husband and wife. . i I i i I i i., ~'''I'#N-''''H___~ t@....lACelA.WACKERi t . .~' NOTAR~ PUBLIC MINNESOTA ~ t WRIGHT COUNTY ; ; M'I Ccmmiuior Expires Nov. 24. 1992 f ~*_#"#"'#'''#''-wH~_~ 6799R ....' '-:".-:.' ~ . /) . \ , . l~~L U. LLitlL/~.Lr" Notary p, lic - 7 - Page ____ '1 Of 1# pcges ',.. '". .........~ ..... .... ""." . ;:. ... ..:~'.:-:;"~ '.:'-":'.\~:":: "'</if.: .~. :;~': ;-<,-:)~f'2: ~>:::,~': ,. '.; ~~'; , ;'.' :.j! ,'.: 'f;" ,.. ',; ....j '. :.,;:,..}.': >, :...... STATE OF MINNESOTA} }S5 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) at The fO~ng ~ument was acknowledged before me this IS-day of u'W" , 1987 by James E. Ring and Linda K. Ring, husban and wife. ~"- a. ~ Not Public. I 1U"".,i)yy.........w~:~=.A~1 NOTARY PUBlJC . MINNESGII . IlAKOTA COUNJY Mr CammfssiOlI EIIIirI* -. u..l9!lO rn.....J+...n-lf.......-.:I"n'.W..f'Jw~...,....~..tH..v.~.v~. : ~. . . 6799R - 8 - Page i 0..../1: Pages '. ~". " ' . "' . . The City of Cpanhassen, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation, does hereby consent to the foregoing i~s~rument and ~~~nowledges that the same conforms to and satisfies all re~irements of the Develcpers Agreement, as that term is defined. in .the for go~'n instrument, relative to the creation of e Conservati Easement, an easement for a dock, a ea ments i a tr i s. I By: ! Gl ! Its: ~ ~J dJ..~ ..~ B~ ~~ 4.1JI- STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was aCknoWle~d before me this 3o~ day of ~ , 1987 by~~. <M:.l.1i- ~+- 1:tI:ele-~ ~~Of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota Municipal corpor ion on behalf of said corporation. drtf e KM,EN J. ENGEU'ARDT NOTARY PU8UC . t..li~;~!:SOTA CARVER COll'iTV My c:ommtssion IIJlp!'es n- 'So91 6799R - 9 - Page _ 9 . 11- ~~ges ......_,- ~A~ ohn B .riewey ..... . YUu R., Sherrie R. Dewey, 1. Fox Chase) STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) . Block The fore~ing instrument was acknowledged before me this "2.. <tJ day of ~-~ , 1987 by John B. Dewey and Sherrie R. Dewey, husband and (ffe.~_ ~ _4V11~ Notary Pub ic "i~~~~.~p . -'~ ....--- ' .-,"" 'f : .' .~. ..,.... ,1 ;.I" oCl ., t), ....,.,., i..J" : ::.1,":1 ~.. ,.c-':' ;--'f . .~;,. ....~.~ ':;':!l~~;:; c', , . .... ":. .. .-,-,.- ",.,..... :,:". e.; I,~:j\ - 10 - 6799R Page Ii) of . .'1/. Pa988 '. 7 f\u.drt1 19, Block 1, STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) . The foregping instrument was acknowledged before me this?~ day of~e.-ttrL. , 1987 by Lowell R. Frost and Sharon Frost, husband and wife. '< ~Li\J: IV} ""-- N~t Y PIc ~".......__..~ .. _.._~~.~ -----..1 r {- -.. :::/!"'I c Ii. ,:-;,':!Ctt'l j ~~ [.::.T.\cri;"~-:'f' ~.~. ":.". ;~;".'J..f ~"~I.IC-"'!;-lNfS()fA ? is ' . ;i~. ,.....r.-.i,,;c" e~.:"re' 4.2~92} ~_...;_.r . '" I'IJa - 11 - 6799R Page II ui, 14 Pages Y'--L .. STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) 1_ The fo eg inq instrument was acknowledged before me this ...Y::.. day o' , 198f by Mark D. Lecy, President of Lecy Construe n, I ., a corporation organized and existing under laws of the State of Minnesota, 0 behalf of said corporation. il LYNNEM.LStMEYER NOrMV......,-....DTA HDNPIN COUNTY IIJ t' -......... tt. t_ - 12 - 6799R Page I~ 0'( /4 Pages STATE OF MINNESOTA) )55 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) / The foriboinq instrument was acknowledged before me this 1.2- day of 'J-1.~ , 1987 by Barie P. Fritz and ~ Hamlltoc FcitB. husband ~ Wi~ ~h1~J o y Public LV 11 u /h. Le~ It iL/~~ nt 'I ~ frl p" 'ss I "'. /l. -e 'It'!:> I r< j 11 /r ') J i3 '1 .i ,~. - 13 - 6799R Page J.:? of /4 Pages .... EXHIBIT A Legal Descrip~ion of Public Trail A permanent easement for trail purposes over and across the easterly fifteen (15) feet of Lot 20, Block 1, Fox Chase, and the Southerly ten (10) fget of Lot 19, Block 1, Fox Chase, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carve, County, Minnesota. OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF CARVER Filing Fee ~ 11o/.~ This Is to certify that this document wa~flled In this office on the~ay of ~ 1\. 19JL.A.D.at~0'clock ~. M. and was duly recorded as document no. 93995 CARL W. HANSON JR. -.W County Recortler by: /Y ~~ · "'r ~ M_I G_O._ - 14 - .'.:::.f.:_-,:.-; ;.),.-i,\::.:it:).;.;;,\:<,:;tiS;; ~.( ~'~.~.~ :.. . ;. '. @'lEiJ ;7'.".... L~ 81:~ ~ , ,.li, CITY OF CI-IANHASSEN PLAl1NED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT PLAT OF FOX CHASE DERRICK LAND COMPANY GRE:EMENT. Made and enter'(~d into this _;2,..() day of . 1983. by and betwct:n DEHHICK LAND COMPANY, a Minne- sota rporation. (hereinafter referred to as the Developert. and the CITY OF CHANHASSEN. a Minnesotil lIIunicipal corporation (herein- after referred to as the City); WITNESSETH, That the City, in exercising its powers pursuant to M.S.A. ~462.358 and ot.her' ilppJi('dbJ(~ sLaLe laws, and the DevelopI!!" in consideration of t.he rnu LUil1 i 'OVC'lldl1 t~; II(~r'e i n conl..yi ned, rec'j 1..1' ilnd uyree as follows: SECTION 1. Hl':qUI':~.:iT VUI( ,'un A""!((iV 1\1., Till' Developer has asked the City to approve a plaT"()fT~j;ld '(';wii'(;cj-by: 1.01. Derrj ck Land CUfllp.lJIY. 1\ Ml nnesota Corporation, fee owner; 1.02. .Wi Jllld C nl()ll\p~;OII. Mor'l.{Jd~J(:e" To be known as F()x Clld:., i ,.;. ~';I) n~II:'r.tvd l.o ill tt1:is Agreement as the. If'Plat If.) .. :o,uch bl'l r d l I" q<; I I y (h:5l.:)' i bed ciS shown on the attached Exhibit "A" which;'. '11'1 ,'by lIl<lei!' .j par'1 tlE-I'eof. SECTION 2.0 BE(: J TAL::.>. 2.01 . .!.::~?~.~~~..f.J.r'e~i...'.!I_~ nc~''y _.r~ev~loprnent Plan and Prel imi- Ildry 1'1 at. The th~velopl'r is the fee owner of a tract (;Tlii-I'.KCTYIt,g within the City, as more particularly described on ExlJibi l. "A" d1'.tdctlE-~d 1H'f'{"t.,Cl tlnd made a part hereof (hereinafter' the "Sub ,eel PrOfJI'Il.y" 'H "Plat"). The Developer has h'eretofol'(~ made appl:lc'dtion to Chi' II t Y under the City Zoning Ordi... nance for' the approved of d p.. I f'! ,III/H:'d Ht'sidential District encolII.. passinq all of lhf' ~jllLJec1. pnJ/"'rIV SECTION ~.). CONVl T J ON~, OF PLAT IWPHOVAL. , The Clty haE approved or dqr'vcd t.o dpprove the plat on condi- tions (1) Thet the Developer ent" r I n to tt1i s Development Contrae l. , (2) t.hat ttle Llt'v(~ luper' pruv 1 clf~ <111 1 rrevocabl e letter of credi 1~, or' cdsh escr'ow (d~; ~;f'i. for'lll in Svctions 7.01,7.02,7.03 dnd B.l'n ("Security"), g.uclrdrI1.(>('~ltlq tne performance of the terms of Lhjs Development. Contract, dlld ! L;(l qUiH'anteeing the payment ,d all con struct ion Coos ts of ! II" llf,! I )'/cllwn t,. ^ 1 etter of credi t miJY be sub.- mitLpd Jur' a one Yt:'dl ~H" i"d q( t.illle with the provision thdL it shalJ be l'('newed elt t h~, E:lld 01 the eleventh month for any illlprovI- ments yet to be sal.isfi:w'l(lriJy i'olll~leted and accepted by the City_ .f'\ ~;", > R.7/19/8~S ~~~m~~:.~~ " .~~'..'_._--_.",_.-..,. ."....-._~~_..- " ,). .' , '" ... f" .' '<-'-:~':--""', " Grfz] ~:;;.;..; ,. Failure to furnish a new letter of credit at least thirty (30) days before the posted letter of credit lapses shall be deemed a condition of default and the City may obtain all monies posted under the exis- ting letter of credit. 3.~1. Construction; Developer agrees at its expense to construct, install, and perform all work and furnish all materials and equipment in connection with the installation of the fo~lowing public improvements (hereinafter the "Public Improvements"), in accordance with the Plans and Specifications described in "3.02 below as modified by the Special Conditions set forth in Section 5 hereof: a. Street grading, stablilizing, and bituminous surfaOing and wear surface b. Surmountable concr'ete curbs and gutters c. Sani tar'y sewer' IlI'Lins d. Waterni'ains e. Storm and surfaae water dr'ainage and retention ponds f. Street signs g. Underground util1ty lines h, Street lighting , I" i. Grading including' berm construction 3.02. Final Plans and Specifications. The Developer shall provide the Cit~' with final plans and specifications, including' a final grading plan, prepared by a registered professional engineer, which plans and specifications shall be subject to the final review and written approval of the C\ty Engineer. Substantial changes in said plans and specifications shall be referred by the City Engineer to the City Co~ncil for approval. Said plans and specifications are hereby made a part of this agreement. Developer shall not make or permit any changes, variations, omissions or additions to City approved final plans and specifications without the written approval of the City Engineer prior to any such change, variation, omission or addition. 3.03. Standards of Construction. Developer agrees that all of the public improvements shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the aforesaid City approved plans and speCifications, and that said improv~~~~~s shall equal or exceed City standards, and that all of said work shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the City Engineer. 3.04. Materials and Labor. All of the materials to be employed in the making of said public improvements and all of the work performed in connection therewith shall be of uniformly good and workmanlike quality. In case any material or labor supplied shall be rejected by the City as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected mate~ial shall be removed and replaced with approved material, and rejected labor shall be done anew to the satisfaction and approval of the City at the cost and expense of the Developer. ~>& -2.. , ~~?:.t~~.t'\,'7-" -~~"_.. --' ..-.......----......---.-...'. . : ~ / Li';Wo~~~; ~~\'::~.~i1 '. 3.05. Staking, Surveying and Inspection. It is agreed that the Developer, through his engineer, shall provide for all staking, surveying and resident inspection for the above described improvements in order to ensure that the completed improvements conform to the approved plans and specifications. The City will provide fqr general inspection and shall b~ notified of all tests to be performed. It is agreed that the estimated cost of such improvements, including reasonable charges of the City for legal, planning, engineering services, including inspection, supervision and administration costs, shall be included in the total cost of all improvements for purposes of computing the amount of the financial security to be furnished to the City by the Developer pursuant to the terms of this agreement. 3.06. Completion Date 3nd Schedule of Work. H. It i H aqr'eed by t.hu '->eve toper' Lha l: thl! con:; true l. 10/1 of Lhu pul..dlc dlH,IIJI'lv,aI,,' IlIlIIt'IIVCIII\'III.:i ,'i1'dll "UIIIIIIIIII'c.! wlLltlll Lwo (2) yean; of the LiLiny ot the firlclL pIaL elL the Cur'vet' County Courthouse and that all public illlpl'ovell\enL~ SllLlll bu completed withiri two (2) years of said plat filiny. b. The Developer or his engineer, shall schedule a pre- ccnstruction meetin~ at a mutually agreeable time and place with all parties concerned including the City staff to review the program for the construction work. Upon cowpletion of sewer and water lines shall be tested in accordance with the testing procedures that ar'e required by the City Engineer. Within thirty (30) days after completi9n of the improvements, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "As 13uilt" plans. c. Final approval and acceptance of the project shall take the form of q Resolution duly passed by the City ,Council, on the advice of the City Engineer. Final approval and accep- tance shall be granted upon the City Engineer's satisfaction pursuant to SectlOn 3, DB and shall be conditioned upon the one year guarantee of work and guarantee bond set forth in Section 3.15 hereof. 3.07. Claims for Work. The Developer shall not do any work or furnish any materials not covered by the plans and specifica- tions and special conditions of this ,a.g-r-eement, for which reimburse- ment is expected from the City, unless such work is first ordered in writing by the City Engineer as provided in the specifications. Any such work or materials which may be done or fur- nished by the contracto~, without such written order first being given shall be at his own risk, cost and expense, and he hel'eby agrees that withqut such written order he will make no claim for compensation for work or materials so done or furnished. '1 >8 -3- . '-'~'~."1~,:,"!-::.i.~': :-~. '-~... ":. ",. . I' ( &i~':J .. 3.08. Final Inspection. Upon completion of all the work required by the City Engineer, a representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of'the work. Before final payment is made to the contrac- tor by the Developer, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved .plans and specifications; and the Developer's enginee~ ~hall submit a written statement attesting to same. 3.09. City Disclaimer. It is agreed anything to the con- trary herein notwithstanding~ that except for its or their negligence or malfeasance, the City of Chanhassen, the City Council and their agents or employees shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Developer, the Developer"s contractor or ~ub- con trilc Lor, ma terial men, laborer's or any 0 ther' per'son or' pet'SOtH:; WhOIllHO(~Ver', for any Cl.lim, (jPllIiHld, d.lIn,lqt'!;. ilCl.jIHI!; lit' (,.1I1f;t~!; or i.H.::LLon of ,.illY kind or' Chell'deler' f.u'luillCJ 0111. oL i.H' I)y n.~d~,jOIl 01 LlIl! execution of t~lis t1ur'eol\llmL Of' t.lIU pt~r'JIJt'lIldlll:1' dlld "()IIIJlII'l.loll III thu wor'k uno the 1111pr'oveHlent~ pr'ov lded herei n. and UlLI L Lhe D~velopl!r' shall save .the City harmless fronl all such cldims, demdnds, damages, actions or causes of actions or the costs dishursements, and experises of defending the smne. spuc if iCdlly tne Iud iny; wi Lhou L .in Lending to .1 lmi t the categories of said CO!3ts, co~t and expen~es for Ci ty administrative time and labor, costs of consulting engineering ser- vices and cOsts of legal services rendered in connection with defen- ding such claims as may be brought against the City. 3. lC~ Erosion Control'. Developer r. at its expense, shall provide temporary and permanent dams, earthwork, retention and sedi- mentation basins, and such other practices including seeding of graded al'eas, as shall be needed in the judgment of the City Engi- neer, the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, and the Department' of Natural Resources, to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and road within and outsicte the plat during all phases of construction, inclu- ding construction OIl Individual lots. Additionally, the Developer shall comply with all conditions of the grading and land alteration permits from the Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the Department of Natural Resources approval Qnd all of the recommendations of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1ft its report s to the extent consistent' \~ith the requi rements of other regulatory agencies. The following minimum restoration require- ments shall be met. The City Eng,ineer shall determine if allY' other <;lgency requirements are mOrf: explicit or restrictive; and may , at his discretion require that those conditions be met in lieu of any or all of the following. a) All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operation, Shall be reseeded forthwith after the ,completion of the work in that area. b) Seed shall bB rye grass or other fast growing seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. c) All seeded areas shall be mulched as neces- sary for seed retention. \, 1" -4- '1&0 '-~"\'1jf~""~~~'" ' ~-~ " ......,.... " 1"..4 r.-" '.:::.C'.: l.._~~ ~:?~2J ~j .' A plan consolidating all applicable conditions concerning construc- tion grading and drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to commencement of any work. 3.11. Street Lightinq. The expense of furnishing electrical energy for street lighting purposes shall be assumed by the City twenty-four (24) months after completion of installation of the street lighting system, or after fifty percent (50%) of the buildinll lots have been improved by the constr'uction of residences ,then:~()r, whicheve~ is first to occur. ~12. Conveyance of lm(>rovernents. Upon compLetion of the installation by Developer of the impr'ovements set forth in t13. 01 hereof in accordance wi th the pI drlS dnd spec i fica I. i.ons IWI't!undt'I' and the wri. t ten approval by Llll:' C 1 Ly if no L pn~v i.OIIS I Y dpd j Cd I.t.d ill 1.111' I illotl pl.d" 1J,'v1'IOlll'l' :.11.111 ('()IIV('y 111,' 1.111<1 oIlld :;"id il'III"OIV,' melll.:;' to the! City t ['C't! of ,}f' Ii cli:. .!lId ('Ill'I!lI\IH'<ltlCt':; 011111 wi I.h vloll' r,llll.yof Ii 1.1,,: 11111':;1101111 "f) 1:111 .d ~;."I' III' W;li'r'!'oIlll.y II..,:", 01:....'1",11.. ab1 e. Should the DC'\i'e10pel' l"d i1 l.o so convey sa id i rnprovements, the Sdmc shall become the rH'Of)(~rLy of the City wiLhout [tH'ther' !\ul i,'" or ilction on the pLlrt of ei.Uwr' parLy hf~r'et.o, OUte'l' thiln accepl:.II11',' by the C i. ty. 3.1'5. _Hui ldil'2.2...J::>ermi ts__ dnd Occupancy Perllli ts. a. Prior to cornplpLLon of the qradi.nq dllll pldcement of rock stabili<,.inq materials for road construction within the plat, th(~ Ci.ty Ruiltiing Inspect:or, with the ...pproval of the City Eng ineer, sha 11 be au thor' i zed to issue bu dding perfil i. l~. for residential construction within such plat upon payment of ell1 fees and charges, applicable to the issuance of permits and provisions for adequate site access. b. The occupancy of any structure within said plat for resldential purposes shall be prohibited by the City until the streets have been paved with a Ii inch base bituminous surface or CL5 if approved by the City Engineer, municipal sanitary sewer and water lines shall have been installed, tes- ted, inspected.and are available to serve the lot for which a building permit shall have b~~n'issued. 3.14. One Year Guarantee of Work and Guarantee Bond. All work and materials performed and furnished by the Developer, its agents and subcontractors pursuant to '13.01 above, which are found by the City to be defective withon one year after acc0ptance by the City shall be repaced by Developer at Developer'S sole expense. In accordance with Secti6n 7.02 and not in addition tnereto, the within guarantee of work shall be secured to the City by an irre- vocable letter of credit, or a corporate surety bond, at the elec- tion (If and in an amount established by the City, furnished by the D~velcper to the City. Sa~d letter of credi t or suret.:y bon~ sj;lall first be approved by the City Attorney, and shall be In addl~n to. and not in 1 ieu of any 0 ther remedi es which maV' be avai lab''l e . to the City to secure any defects in materials or workmanship. ~&...( ._~ c) _. :..~---~ :J.,p: -. .' L__~~.lL ~1!:l~J ~:'-'..'-'':..-<--'-~':.\ ~ 3.15. Liability Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain so long as Developer's obligations continue under this agreement, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which ma~ arise out of Developer's work or the work of its subcon- tractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for each occurrence; limits for proper- ty damage shall be not less than $200,000 for each occurrence. The City shall be named as an addit~onal named insured on said policy, and Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to initiating construction. SECTION 4. STATUS OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. 4. () 1. pe_~.~~1!...~ ^ck~~~~~dq!~~..i:~p~:~~L~~L_~~~~~J..~ The [Jeve Lope'l' acknowl edges that: Uw subject fll'Opcr'l.y dc!r' i v('!; "!;!>l'C' i ,.1 1>('IH~f it.." d:; UldL l.er'lII i.t; del i 1H.!d by pr'\'~;\'1I1 C:,'I!;(' I dW tllldcl' CII"pl.\~t. 1.2~J o( Minlle~;otd stdLuLi!~;. fr'olll Uw ~;l'w\'r' I.i It ~;I.Il.i(Jtl oIlld woll.\'r'!;upply fl.lclliLles, tr:unk <.Im1 l..:.lLel'i.l.l sdniL<.II'Y ~jL~Wer f<.lciliLies, clnd tr'unk and lateral water facilities which were constructed ilS a part of Chanhassen Improvement Pr'ojec ts. The Developer <.Icknowledges tha t the amount of such special berwfi t:. i~, not less Uldn the sum of thl' following amounts: a. Le'Jied Special J~s~s~me.!lts~ Parcel No. 25-01-000-0037-000, 20.08 Acres in_part of Gov't. Lots 5 and 6, 1 sewer and water lateral assessment levied in 1973 in the amount of $4,119.00, payable over 15 years at 7% interest. I sewer and water trunk assessment levied in 1980, ln the amount of $1,054.96, payable over 10 years at 7% interest. Parcel No. 25-79-500-0001-000, Lot 1, Vineland 1 sewer and water lateral assessment levied on October 1, 1973 in th'e~'amount of $4,949.00, which has been paid in full. 2 sewer and water lateral and 3 sewer and water trunk assessments levied in 1980, in the amount of $12,419.98, payable over 10 years at 7% interesL, b. Deferred Special Assessments. In addition to the 'foregoing levied special assessments, the subject property is further specially ~enefitted by 68 off- -6-- -:to' or ~ '. >F'''' f::! ":<tr:) ~{- i'd r.:~ .,:-:...."_-." - ',-" ;" ~~Lj line sewer and water' trunk uni ts, eClch sewer Lrunk unit valued at $320.00 and each water trunk unit valued at $380.00, and each said sewer and water unit shall bear interest at the rate of 7% from October I, 1973. 4.02. Spread and Payment of Deferred Special Assessments. All deferred special assessments for said 68 sewer and water trunk units shall be spread and assigned to the 52 specially benefitted lots within the final plat, shall be certified to the Carver County Auditor for collection at the time of the recording of the final plat with the County Recorder, and shall be payable in installments of principal 'and interest over a period of four (4) years after said ce~tification. _~_: ~.:~ -'0 . .!~~~~_I.(_~L~:_,=-.-w.~_i_:!.(.~: !_I~~IJ.)_Li .(~. !!.'.;..' I!'. i__~_~.!.L..~~_'.'_~L .1,li (ll.l.t:__(~J__~Pl.)I'.~I_ I The 1)(~veJoper WCl.lVeS its r'iqht to !->ubJ i.c he._irinU Ul\(_h~r' ~42'J.Obl. and ~.t,29. 071 of Minnesota Statu Les dnd i. ts ri qh t of appeal uncle r' ~429.081 of Mintleso~a statutes a~; to the Special Assessments. SECTION 5. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. L.). 01. Fox Path Cul-de<jac. A "'1''' inte rsee t ion shall be -- constructed by Developer at the western terminus of Fox Path, with surmountable cur-b and gutter, dnd shall be constructc'd in accor_dancC' with plans and specifications approved by the City En~ineer. The westerly extension of Fox Path from said "'1''' intersC'ct:ion to the westerly boundary of the subject property shall be pLdtted a~ a dedicated street but shall not be improved as such until develop- ment on the adjoining property shall require a street connection to Fox Path. 5.02. Pleasant View Road Access Restriction. Unless other- wise determined by the City Council Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 shall not be permitted direct driveway access to Pleasant View Road. Lot 1, Block 1 and Lol. 3, Block 2 may access on Pleasant View Road but the acc~sses shall be located to maximize site distances. The exact location and d~sign of the accesses shall be approved by the City Engineer. Said restrictions shall be incorporated ~~jthin cove- ndn ts and restrict_ions wh ~ch shall be appl icable to ttlC: f lnal plat of Lhe subj ect prOfwrty ;.nd which sha.}"l be filed wi th the. Carver Courlty Rec6rd~~ contemporaneously with the filing of said final plat. 5.03. Watermain Loop. Unless otherwise determined by the City Council, the, City w'\t~rmain serving -the,.subject property, shall be "looped" as that term is ,commonly used by professional engineers, from Lake Point to Fox path along the alignment depicted as "Route C" in the report of the City Engineer, dated August 10, 1981. 5.04. B~li Iding Plans Certt fication. Due to extraordinary slope and soil conditions, building and site plans for all residences within the subject property shall be certified as having been re- ~6) viewed and approved by an architect or civil engineer licensed by t$ the State of Minnesota. Said building-and site plan review and appro- val shall include provision~ for slope protection, surface and sub- -7- .,~_.~-- '. "'~'~f:T' ~,~ k;~:.& rt',;-::-.;r:, "~'," "1 ~~ surface drainage, prevention of siltation, and the preservation of trees and prevention of excessive vegetation removal during con- struction. Building pad~ and basement floors shall b8 constructed ~t an elevatio.n not less ehan two (2) feet above the rr;gional flood elevation in accordance ~Iith the requirements of applicable City ordinances". The term~ and conditions of this Section 5.04 shall be made a part of covenants and r~strictions which shall be applic- able to the final plat of the subject proper1ty and which shall be fjled contemporaneously ~i~b the filing of the final plat wfih the Carver County Recorder. ',.0',. 1':i\:;1~11I(:1I1.:; 1>C'di('.il,l'd (1.1 l'l.d,. l'I"'[ll'l.lloIl (~":;I:IIH'III:; r 0 r' ::i ur"t-;1"c e w d L er'.- (jr~'; ;Tr:i '"i.iq l~-;--rr'I(~Cll'dTti(J-I)()ii'Zfr n q d nd sed i lIH:n L at; ion b:'Jsins iHld aucess thereto, shill.L be dedicated on the final plat to the extent permitted by state law. All such easements not so dedicated shall be granted to the City in form approved by the City ar.d acceptable for recording in the Office of the; Carver County Recorder. 5.06. ~;treets. All streets within the plat shall be dedi- catedwi th a 50- foot wide right-of-way, and shall have a 28 foot roadway surface with surmountable concrete curb and gutter. All street cul-de-sacs shall have a right-of-way radius of 60 feet, with a roadway surface radiJs of 40 feet with surmountable concrete curb and gutter. AJI streets shall be constructed in accordance with City standards approved by the City Engineer. 5.07. Ponding and Sedimentation Basin Maintenance. The Developer shall maintain in good operational order all ponding and sedimentation basins during all phases of construction within the subject property. After formal acceptance by the City, said main- tenance shall be the obligation of the City. 5.08. Trail Easement. The Developer shall grant to the (Ity a perpetual easement ten (10) feet wide for use as a City trail, HI j cJ easement descri bed as follows :" .' '" , A 10.00 foot permanent easement for trail purposes, the center- line of which is described as follows: Commencing at a point 3 line parallel to and 5.00 feet northerly of the south lines t)[ Lots 19 and 20, Block 1 to a point 5.00 feet or more east L.f the wetlands area in said Lot, 20; thence in a northwesterl y ,djrection 5.00 fe~t easterly of said wetlands to the north line of said Lot 20; thence continuing northerly to the northwest corner of Lot 22, Block 1; thence northwesterly along the south- westerly boundary lines of Lots 23 and 24 to the easterly righL: of-way line of Fox Path and there terminating. It is the inten- tion that this easement be located adjacent to but entirely easterly of any wetlands area in Lots 20, 21, 25 or 26 0) Block -H- '1.n <.J~ ,-- . - ...,...... ..., - .-- --.i L_~~ ~:fi~~--~3 "~':-!::'.""---:~,;.~ ~~1l~j 1; and, therefore, if after a survey of the area is completed, the above described easement lies within any wetlands, the Developer shall execute an amended easement agreement with the new description. The form of said easement and exact legal description shall be ap- proved by the City, and shall be filed before commenC0ment of con- struction of any public improvements. When constructed, the portion of the trail easement on the Fox Path right-of-way may be constructed at the City's expense with a bituminous surface and the 10 foot portion of the easement not in the Fox Path right-of-way shall be surfaced with wood chips. All trail easement construction shall be perfor'med by the City in dc;c()t'd"nc~! with ~'lJ('cLrLc"LJull:. "I'PI'()v\'d l)y L1l\! City j':llIliIH)I'r', '..'1. '1'1'.111 1-:.1:'''"1\,"1 1'011'1\.1:11.1""" t:""<l1 I.. l'lll Cl.....111. "II' P d r' k c h u rq e s una(~-r- -c;hi"i n hi;s-s(;l:l-{')-r(n:rl-(ir)c-(~---~j(;-~-I~;--ils d fliP n cI e d shill I be! (jr-,HILI)d lJ(~velopu~', it::> :jUCCL:s:;ur:; ur d:;:,iqIlS, lUI' Lhe <Jr'dIIL ul the perpetual trail easement. 5.10. Park Fees. Prior to the issuance of building per- mits for residential construction with the plat, Developer, its successors or assigns, shall pay to the City the park fee then in force pursuant to Chanhassen Ordinance 14-A and relevant City Council Resolutions thereafter, as said park charge fee may be adjusted by the provisions of Section. 5.9 above. , 2-:.!.!...:. Street Maintenance During Construction. The Developer' shall be responsible for all street maintenance until streets are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on said and directing attention to detours. If streets become impassable, such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain d smooth surface and provide proper surface drainage. The Developer shall be responsible for keeping streets within and without the plat swept clean of dirt and debris that may spill or wash onto the street from his operation. The Developer may request, in wrjting, that the City keep the streets open during the winter months by plowing snow from said streets prior to final acceptance ,,>f "'ldid streets. The Ci ty shall not.be -responsible for re-shaping ~~ld streets be(~dUSe of snow plowing operations if they are requested, Pr'oviding snow plowing servi,ce, does not consti tute final acceptance ut sa1d streets by the City. Developer agrees to pay all costs _ of snow l'emoval done by th..~ Ci ty prior to acceptance of said streets. 5.12. Street Signs. All street name and traffic signs required within the plat at the time of City acceptance shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole cos~ of' the Developer 5.13. Covenants and Restrictions. Covenants or restric- tions to be placed upon the lots in the ~ubj ect plat shall be pre-- pared by the Developer and shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording with the County Recorder. The Covenants and -l) -. (/&r- v ~~r:-jj p<o':":;'." "'1 ~ Restrictions shall be approved if they are consistent with the re- quirements of this agreement. The zoning ordinances and regulations of the City shall govern if inconsistent with said covenants and restrictions to the extent actually inconsistent; but if not in~onsis- tent therewith, the standards contained in said covenants and restric- tions shall be considered as requirements in addition to said City ordinances and regulations. The City shall be held harmless in the. event any.disputes occur involving covenants and restrictions. ~...!:~ Setting of Lot and Block Mon~ments. Developer sha.ll place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and 4t all other angle points on boundary lines. Iron monument placements shall be ver'ified after constr'uction of irupr'ovements has been completed in order to preserve the lot markers for future property ownera, ------- SECTfON 6. --_.________.__.n___.~..__....~.~._.....~,.,_"' CON~;I;:nV^'I.TON ":ASI':MI':NT. b.O\.. F:ils(!II\l.~nL to be t;Y',.ltlL<:d. U(~vull)p(~r' ~;hdll (JrunL to the CTt:/-a perpe-tudl-conser'vaUon-'~ds-~~~~ent for envir'onlllental protec-. tion and wetland preservation over those areas of Lots 7 through 19, inclusive, of Block 1 of the plat which lie b.elow the elevation of 900 feet. No credit for park charges under C~anhassen Ordinance No. 14 as amended shall be granted Developer, its successors or asslqns for the qrdnt of said blselllent:.. _ 6.02. Conservation EcJsernent Development Hestrictions. All of the fOllowin<j activitle~; shall be prohibited within the con-- servation easement iH'ea, incluc1inq the wetlands i.lS del.i.nated on Exhibit "A".. Chanhassen City Council meeting of April 26, 1982 and on Lotus Lake adjacent to the easement area: a. The placement and erection of buildings. structures, and docks and wal kways. (Except as pro\fid..~d in 6.03.) I). The alteration of vegetation in any manner or form. (Except as provid~d in 6.03.) ~..~ -" The excavation or ~illing of the easement area. ri. The application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical. e. The applicat.ion of chemicals for the destruction or retardation of vegetation. f. The deposit of waste or debris. g. Construction of paths, trails and service roads except as permitted by the City. h. The application of herbicides, pesticides and insec- ticides. J' -10- ~6)6' .~~~-. .....~;_.. ft!~Z.-;}1 r!'~:_:::_:. ~:. ~-~ ~ii\::~~..~ :',J g. Boardwalks roilY be constr'ucLed to Sel'VE' as approuch walkways to Lotus Lake and/or docks over lands which dr'e InLtH'llIiLLenLly or per'ltk.ll1ently wet. PilU1S Illuy be created for dock and boardwalk approaches over dry ground. h. No motorcraft shall be moored or docked overnight at any such docks unless said watercraft is either: (a) currently registered, pursuant to Chapter 361 of Minnesota statutes, in the name of the owner of the lot served by said dock or in the name of a member of said owner's household. 1. Veqetation may not he rf~rnoved except-: for i1 swatJl c~xlt..tldllll' (JIll. :ilx (II) "'1:1. Ir'(J1II I'd"" :iidc~ III " dllt'\; Lu "pell W,,, ("'. t , _' ().I;.., F C It'IIl ".'1 r I 1\ P P" () V" I II I ,-: .. . ;. 'Ill' ' t". T II" I, >I 'III \I I 'III' C'(III:ic:r'v"LiulI l:d:iI:IIIC:t~L :.11.111 IJI.: pt'c:p.II'cd IIY I.IIL' Ci.Ly ,IL Llle expL:tl~;I.' of the Developer, and shall be approved by the City Council prior to submission to the Developer for execution and ~elivery to the City. G. 05. Inclusion in Covenants and RestrictJons. The con- servation easement shall be made a part of the covenants and restric- tions applicable to the plat and shall be incorporated therein by reference, and as an exhj. bi t. forming a part of said covenants and restrictions. SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. 7.01. Reimbursement of Costs. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal, planning and adlolnistrative expenses incurred ~y the City in connec- tion with all matters relating to the administration and erlforcement of' the within agreement and the performance thereby by the Developer. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourt~en (14) days of the ddte of mailing of the Ci::y's itemized notiCe of costs. IF the bLLls are not paid on time the City Hlay halt all i)lat development wor'k unti,l the bi 115' ;:J.ce pa.i.d in ful ~ :._.. a. The C~ty shall have no obligatiun to pay such devel- 0pment costs whether ornat the City has approv~d the work. b. The Developer shall pay the City's out-of-pocket expenses previously or subsequently incurred, including but not limited to legal, planning, enyineering and inspection expenses incurr~d in connection with approvnl and acceptdnce of the plat., dnLl the preparation of this Development contract. -12- ~&cSl ,,' 1:-_. ( i.-~ ~>Ji~~;2] i. The storchJe of watercraft, boat trailers, ice fishinq houses, snowmobiles, motorized and nonmotorized vehicles (Except as permitted in Section 6.03 of thi. s ordinance). j . Mooring seaplanes, in abuttint] waters of Lotu& Lake (hereinafter ."the lake"). ~. 03. Dockaqe Wi thin Conservation Easement ^rea. Lots 16, 17, 18, arid 19, Block 1 shall be allowed one dock for each lot. a. All docks must conform to City ordinances regulating dock construction. b. Mooring of any wiltercrafL IllUSt confcH'1lI to City <Jr' dinances ilnd n~qu I.at i.ons. c. 'l'lH.~ duck UII Lot I fJ 1I1dY be u~;l!d by 1.I11' owr\l!t'S ur Lots 1.0...1.(>, I.Hock I. No llIor'e than seven (7) bOdL; may 'use the docl< dnd the owner' of dny lot llIay not have mor'e than on(~ (J) bOdl: use the dock without the written consent of the City C?uncil. Boats may not be docked or llIoored on the north side of the dock. d. "~(J dock shalL exceed six (6) feel LCI width nor shall. it exceed the greater of the following lengths: Ca) fifty (50) feet, or (b) the minimum straight~ line distance* necessary to reach a water dePt~f four (4) feet. The width (but not the length of the cross-bar of any '"I''' or "L" shaped dock,.)S all be included in the computation of length o/scribed in the precediqg sentence. The cross-baVof any such dock shall not measUre in excess qf twenty-fivp (25) feet in length, except on Lot 16'" whicA~.;4 -ee-'~ve~ed~.su:f:f4.-e4QntJ.y-.to.-..-ooomoda\e..,sQ.~n-{..:;4.. 'bo8t~'--i t' ~tleh~6Vel"'Si.J,&i ng...-is...neoes s.a ry. ...to.M"aeGowodata ~@R (7) ~t.. f:> No dock shall be so located as. to: (a) obstruct the navigation of the lake, (b) obstruct reasonable use or access to any'b€h~r dock, (c) present a poten- tlal safety hazard. No fuel shall be stored upon any such dock. 1. No more than five (5) watercraft may be moored over- night at any dock or in front of any lot with the exception of Lot 16, Block 1 where up to seven (7) watercraft may be moored overnight. -11- f, i ......'00"1:. + ...,.-- - I'; ~~'0 /' 'lEi> ~.""--".'-~"" '. :.1 1. ., r;: .." .-..: -:.,..-:~' :.;" ; .-'i'.J L'-.:"JJ~::] t~:J The Developer further agrees to pay all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the plat. c. The Developer shall indemnify the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including engineering and attorney fees, which the City may pay.or incur in consequence of claims by all third parties including but not limited to other property owners, contractors, subcontractors._and material men. d. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs inl~urred in the enforcement of this contract, in~luding engin- eering and attorney's 'fees. 7.02. S_~.~ur~_~y._X<?.r.: ppr~((?t'llldlH--:(~ by f),'v(!lo.J>I'/"n For l.lw pur' pose of dssuI'lnq and qUdr'dnl.uuLnq to !.tIP Ci l.V Ulolt lIlt. iIlIJ>r'oVc.!/III~III~; to hn by t.ho I>llvl'loJlI'/' 1'1111:.1."111'1,'<<1. 111.';1," I..d d..d 1III'II,~,llt'" 01:, ;"., 11I/'Ut 'Ill "'LOI JIt:"I!ul. :JIt,1l I 1)(' l'OI'UI.I'UI~l.cd, 1l1!.il..IIII:d dllll lunli!illl'd dcco/'dlllll 1-.0 U\(~ h:/'IIl'j uf LId:; dIJl'I'I'I1\I~III. oIlld 1.11011 II... IlI'VI'IIIIII'" :.;JJl.tll pdy ...IlJ.' cLdlll:.i' lor' wud\. tlulll! dlltl II"il.cl'i.dLs <.Ind ~:;upplies lur: nishud f(~r' the pel'rC.H'llIdllCU of Uli:; ....IlJr.u..:lIlunl.. dnLl !.tldt the LJeve.l.opl-'I' shall fully comply with all of the other terms and pr'ovisions of this Development Contract. Developer agrees to furnish to the City either a cash deposit, or an irrevocable letter of credit approved by the City in an amount equal to 110% of the costs of the improve- ments described in Section 3.01 hereof, dS estimated by th~ City Engineer. The cash deposi tJr' irrevocable letter of cr'edj ~. (Section 3) provided for herein Sh211 be in addition to any perf~rm~nce bond or other security requireu bY the Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District as' a Condition of the issuance of any permit by said Dis- trict. Cl. If the Developer.does not satisfactorily complete the work this Oeveloronent Contract requires the City may._ at its option, perform the -work. The City shall give the Developer at least 96 hours notice of the City's intention to perform clny such work. However, in the event of an emergency as deter- mined by the City, 96 hours notice is not required. This agree- Inent is a license [or the City to act and it shall not be neces- sary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. Wherl the City does any such work. the City may in addition to its other remedies ~ii~~s the cost in whole or in part as outlined in 7.03. 7.03. R~'.!!'_edies Upon Q..~.t au~:_ a. Assessments. In the event Developer shall default in the per'fol'illd.'oce Of-any of the covenants and agr'eements herein contained, and such default shall not hdve been cured within ten (10) days after receipt by Developer of written notice thereof, the City, if it so elects. may cause any of the re- quired improvements to be constructed and installed, or may take action to cure said default, and to the extent that the -13- '189 '~~"r'~ "~~...~ (. "., "" ". ,-,~~~ flli,].] . City's recovery on t~e ~ecurity deposit ~n 7.03 is defici~nt, may cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City, to be recove~ed as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, in which case the Developer agrees to pay the entire amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such improvement amount of the assessment roll pertaining to any such improvement within four (4) years after its adoption. In addition, Developer further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on all of Developer's real property within said plat for any amount so unpaid, and the City shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's liens undf'r' tho lilWfi of Lh(~ st;;,,~(' of Minrw:ioLoI. III 1.1l<<' I!vl,.d. of .111 1',hl",.,"IIf'Y, ..~; c1,'(("""i,"',j IIY 1111' City ElIlJlllt:I~I', Ll1t: lluLlcc' l'vquLl'ellll.:ll1. to LI\l': Ih:vl!lupel' ShdLI Ut~ und i:;; her't!by waived in its <.:nLir'eLy, ..llld l.Iw Developer' shull reimbur'se'the City for' uny expense incur'r'ed by the Ci ty in remedying the conditions creating the emergency. b. ~ecurity Deposit. In conjunction with the foregoing, the City may utilize any cash deposit made or letter of credit delivered hereunder, to collect, payor reimburse the City fOI' : (1) the cost of completing the construction of t~e improve- ments described in "T3. 01 above; and (2) the cost of curing any other default by the Developer in its performance of any of the covenants had agreement contained herein; and, (3) the cost of reasonable engineering, legal, and administra- tive expense incurred by the City in enforcing and adminis- tering this contract. c. ~egal Proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law or at eGuity to prevent violations of the within development contract, to ~estrain or abate ~r61~tions of the within develop- ment contract. SECTION 8. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 8.01, Compliance with Laws, Ordinances ~nd Regulations; Permi~In the deve'lopmerlt of the plat, Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances and regulations of, and secure valid neces- sary permits from the following authorities: -14- 0190 -:':'''''"''"--' t'.;': k....ok_~~; ~~Nffl~~j rr ~:~:',~~. <. -'~"": ~~ (1) City of Chanhassen (2) State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commis- sions (3) Department of Natural Resources (4) Riley-Purgatory Creek Watershed District (5) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers r 8.02. Pruof of Title. Upon "request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City th~t it is fee owner of the subject property. 8.03. Duration of Contract. This contract shall remain in effect until such time as Developer shall have fully performed all of its duties and obligations under this contract. Upon the written request of Developer and upon the adoption of a resolution by the Chanhassen Ci ty Council finding that the Developer' has ful J y compl.Led with all of the tar'ms of thIs con trdC t and f.IndIng tha L Developer has crnnpleted performunce of all Developer's duties man- dated by this. contract, the Chanhassen City Manager shall issue to the Developer on behalf of the City an appropriate certificate of compliance. 8.04. ~otices. All notices, certificates and other com- munications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail. return receipt requested, po~- tage prepaid, with property address as indicated below. The City and the Developer, by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or ~ddresses to which notices,certificates or other communications to them shall be sent wheh required as contem- plated by this agreement. Unless otherwise provided by the respec- tive parties, all notices, certificates and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manager To the Developer; Derrick Land Company 1~50'Shelard Tower Minneapolis, MN 55426 8.05...:.. Binding Effect. This agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the City and the Developer and their respective successors and assigns. Nothing in this agree- ment, express or implied, shall give to any person, other than the parties hereto, and their respective successors, and assigns, here- under, any benefit or other lega 1 or equitable right, remedy or' claim under this agreement. '191 -15.. ::~ ,. , , "''''"~~........ ~S] ~~I?\:ii.'.~ ~ ~d 8.06. Sevel~ability. In the event any provisions of this a0reement shall be held invalid, illegal; or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or' render unenforceable any other' provision hereof, and the remain- ing provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. ,. ~~07. Execution of Counterparts. This agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. B.OB. Construction. This agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. ~.~~ Headinqs. Headings ilt t1H~ beqinnin~] of sections and pcir'agraphs hereof are for convenience of refer'cnce, i:Hld shdll not be considered a part of the text of this contract, and shall not influence its construction. B.IO. Siqn [:llano Signs for the purpose of advertising the subj ect property may be erected in accordance; with +_111~ City ordinances. B.ll. Hreach of any terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building perrrdtsw 8.12. Should an env i f'omnental assessment worksheet, environu mental impact statement be ~equired by the c~ty or another govern- mental entity or agency, th~ Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney's fees, that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. ~ B.13. Before construction of public improvements or any earth work commences, the Developer shall deposit with the City satisfactory security securing the full performance of this Develop- ment Contract. The amount of the security shall be 110% of the estimated cost dS set forth in the attached exhibit. Upon the exe- cution of this agreement the City shall sign the final plat and release t~e same to the Developer. 8.14. fhe Developer shall provide a site erosion control plan satisfactory to the City Engineer for the prevention of damage to adjacent property dnd Lhecontrol of surface water runoff during the initial constructior[ phases of the project. This plan shall indicate the location ot berm and temporary water retention areas which shall be kept in good repair until permanent drainage control is provided. AU ar'eas distributed by the excavation and backfilling opet'ations, except fOl' the future paved port ion of the streets shall 'be reseeded as soon dS practical after cOlnpletion of the excavation operation. In the event that, in the City's opinion, the Developer has failed to adequdLely control erosion, the Developer grants the -16- 19< .:-:~ : l' ,. r' ( ~,;;.;.;,r~ ~",~Z0 ~~i~.:~~J City permission to immediately enter the property and take such measures as it deems necessary to control erosion. 8.15. The Developer agrees to ,plant two two-inch trees on every lot in the P.R.D. that does not already have two trees. One of the trees on each lot may be an evergreen. The other tree shall be one of the following species: Maples (including Norway, Schwedler and Sugar)" Linden American, Linden Littleleaf, Green Ash, Honeylocust (Impartial, Skyline, and Sunburst), Hackberry or Oak (including pin and White). A planting plan must be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these pre- sents to be executed on the day and year first above written. C tTY' O~1'^NIIM)~jl.';N...I' 1/' /// JI t....<" l / _ / .. By V l/p-Af.d7 -, fJ-ft-1iI II r'._ /}' . -<U..; (k=.".Z:}:r City Manager By, I lI':I(lll Cl< I./\NII COMI'/\NY , .:. / .I. ,\. ~ . J~ ((. ~,/ ( p('.lildenL ). / << Jy_ ~L.. _0 /'~:;i . / l~L--1 Sect;e tory Ily J STATE OF MINNESOTA) . )S5 COUNTY OF'tJ.(I/1'I/NF=4h,J On this ~-2tJ-J..;b..day of __ //--)JJ,~~.!i__, , 19~, before me, a nO)1ry public wi thi.n and for ~county, /personall~ appe~red _~1 D. (I,~.ul {f..I? dnd.., tf{J~-tD.".UVL<--f'"_-lr to me p rsonally .known, who being each by me dLfly sworn did say' that they are respectively the President and Secretary of the Cor- poration named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of sdid ~rpqration by authority of its BO~~.r:::~' Di r'ectors and said__" I..A...fd(t'fPh:r .. and _.___ '. '(L' :t,. 'l~___-y-.-~acknowledged said instrument to be the'free act an~deed of said corporation. "'f,oALl~L-q (7, (dOKdL No ary'Public r ..... Sll:PH...,.'E J. OOEOll fjf,lANV f'lJbllC MIHHUoll ,)jWJIA COUHTY .,........ lap. _ 2. ... 49tJ -17 ":"~ [~....r~~ELj ,. STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTY OF CARV~R ) On this 2..0 day of ~ \J.. '-Y ~ 198'3, before me, a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared Thomas L. Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn did say that they are respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to said instru- lIInnl. III LlI" (~(H'pOI'.d.q rll~.11 ql ~:,lid IllIlIli,'ip,lI ('III"IIIII',d jnn, "nd lit,,' uiI(d tlluL"UllIullL Wd:j :;Iljllud dlld 1;",II,'d III Iwl'dll 01 :..lId IIIUlltclp,lI 1""'Pll""" j 11/1 by ,IlIt.I,",'ll.y ," f f~; (: II y 1:"qllLj I .t,pl ~..Ii d '1'1111111"; I.. 11<.111111 Lun <.1ud lJou<.llLi W. J\ShWOl'LI1 dck1lcW l.\:dq'~V:jd.id 1I1:~ l.t'UlllellL Lo be the fr'ee act and d"ed of ~ajd ",un'j\2;'jl~ ~~ NO~fJUbliC; V'NV\N-.NJ\I ? 11""^/'lJ-.:'./'.J<.^NV,, .0"...' .~,I r...~..t):,i .~ :<'~ "c~ntEX~f:~:i~~::, ~ .;. . -... hi c,Jl.":" .: :.....J. ""....""'.J......"..."J',," ,.... . ,;"v .".,jl..i'.fV""""""v .......\;,'J."IJ..V"'oI"t/ ti\l:.IViPT FHOivl HlIl~b I~....:v f'UII"UHNT TO MINN. STAT. SECTION 386.77 DRAFTED BY; qrannfs & GrannIs' 403 N.W. NaU. Bank Bldg ~61 North Concor.d Street outh St. Paul, MN 55075 (612) 4:;:;-1661 "f91 '. -18.. ..~ .."..' ~ ,.;~.. '.>-,.--...-:,~... L..fJ ~~~J\ ~f:~-ij E~ 1--)') G ; T " A II )LAT: FOX CHASE ~.":J-'.AI t)t:AI,-14 l.....,""'<,.. f/4.i If r.liI ~/...se lle...-:"t '--' ~-r...., .:'.J.lq. OWNER AND DEVElOPER:' Derrick lan4 Company 1770 Shelard Tower Minneapolis, MN 55426 Phone: 546- 22?6 ENGINEER: Westwood Planning &Engineering 7415 WdY/ata Ho.lIevard f\;,inneapolis, MN 55<121> Pllone: )46-0155 SUP'"EYOR: [I)'an, Field & Nowak, I nc. 7415 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 554:'6 Phone: 546-683:' \~ '.'\ DESCRIPTION: All that part of Government lots 5 and () in Section I, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, (,arver CO:.Jnty, Nlinnesota, described as follows: . Beginnin9 at a point in the'West line of said Section 1 distant 905 feet South of the North west corner of said Section'I, said pOint being In the center line of the Excelsior and [oen Prairie Road as now laid out and travelled ( and consideringtht' West line ot said Section 1 to be a due Nortn and Souti1 linel, thence running North S() degrees ZO minutes East along saidc.enter line 170 feet, thence South ~ degrees 3" minutes East 428. 3 feet, thence South 45 df'qrees 32 minutes East 285 feet, more or less, to the shore line of long Lake, thence Soutii<:rly along said shore line to its intersection with the South line of sai Government Lot 5, thence West along said South line 862.1 feet, more or less, to the Sout west cornN said Government Lot S, thence North along the West line of said Government Lot; 1715,3 feet, more orless;t,o the point of beginning, subject to public road rights within the right of way o,f ,the Exce'ls,or and EdenPrilirie Road and subject to an easement for right of way,'ovpr tha\p,~rt of theab-ovedescr(be~ tract described as follows: Beginning at the point of "egin,ni,?q" of t!)'!e":ci~~ije described tract, thence North 89 degrees 20 minutes East 170 feet, thence South,? deg'r'e'es 32 minutes East 33.46 feet, more or less, to a point in the Southerly right of. way lihe of the Excelsior and Eden ?rairie Road, said point being the actual perint of beginning ofttl.eeas.ement to be described, thence continu- ing South 9 degrees }2' minutes East 30 Peet, c'Ule..nce Northwesterly ~o a point in the South- erly rig:1t of wayHneqf!t,he,EJtcelsior and Eden Prairie Road distant 30 fee! West of the actual point of beg.innin'g, thence East along said Southerly right of way line 30 feet to the af.tual point of beginning. ALSO, Lots 1 and 11, "Vineland'i, 1'&$ L::>~~: ~:r.~ DOCUMENT \'l0. _ 60'123., ' Off\CEOF COUNTY f\ECc;>>tliD~R ST.~;tE OF """NI'iESOTA coUNTY cj,s:eA'Rv6i;l' . This ,is tq€ertify t~~fthi$ c,foBbtTl'ehtWaSi mep .il'\t~l;S office~nthe2-:l'5' ..i..dayot ~.lql' A,ci.a~ 9.'$.\O'~'~Odlf~~.' ~nd waKduly reco.rde,d ,r", ',8"'1,0.,,0., .k~,7(a"",,i'~,,",.'~,' 0';:;\:. ;;.:::;~ .J County Recordet ',,: ' by - ~[(;.o,:3 ':::-- t e~.: g",,/ ' If:\_<>~ . ....J>Y' i j ):I.--- I " / ~. ~ ..i; I ! If'i 'I!I!U ~h;:tt Bgf~j I I LLJ Cf) <( J: (.) x ~ ~ ....J a. i !!m~~ ! h~:~i~. ~~:~:~; ~~,;:~~~ I ~'2!:';~~ .: ::-:;-~ ;:~ H ~ ~ ~~~ ~:.~ ~ ~~; ::-...c:c_ :; ::: ~ o lle<'! ...B: .. n~~ eo=: ~ .......'" ~ ~~l~ > .~ J:. c: ~ c:..... C,! ~ S~iQ. o ~ o ':, 0 u :~ ~ '0 ':i v. ~: i 'a-:; %::: E~ ..:- ..... 0 > ~: ~ ~ , 0 ~ ~ % ~ go .~ ~~ . ~i~ ..l~~~ ~ ;;:>~i~ ~. 'f~~ ~ :,~ i f ~ o ! ..: O, . ..~ ~ Eo", :?= .... ~, ~: H . ~ :;~ ;;.~ ~ - Hi H~ ;; E II .c... ~ ~~ H 00 ~~ ;, - .. - - ~ , - , .. - ~ '" 0 , '" - '" , '" 0 < '" 0 - '" 0 '" ~ ~ -" .. ~ ~. , ~ ~ ;:: ~ . c < -" -" ~ ... E 0 ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ N E E E ~ , , - < E E E ~ r. '" E ~ - " " " ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" > z....~ ~j~~ ~ :5 ~i~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~sil ~~. EO 0: :; 0 ~ ~ ~ '" < ~ '" % A }<C- L [us L 0 ' "''0 ".'-\0, ".'-l" I .~; ('~ . .J V./V -\ ,^,/ V ":.: \\V I 1.""Z. I . I ~ ! ~ ~ .. ~ ~ 05 -,d::t Tom & Judy Meier 695 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED July 27,2005 AUG 1 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Chanhassen Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: August 2,2005 public hearing for Wetland Alteration Permit to construct walkway and dock on property located at 6440 Fox Path. Dear Sir or Madame, As the adjacent owner of 695 Pleasant View Road I would like to object to the proposed Alteration Permit. Having lived for nine years ourSelves at 641 0 Fox Path, Lot 6, from 1990 to 1999 it was clear in our subdivision plat that only lots 10 thru 19 has any access to Lotus Lake. While lots 2 - 9 had lake views we were not allowed to directly access the lake. Now we live directly east of Lot 9 at 695 Pleasant View Road. If you did grant them an easement to cross the Conservation Easement (which restricts the placement and erection of buildings, structures, docks and walkways), they still cannot: 1. Reach open water in a straight line direction while maintaining the city code dock setback requirements. 2. Other neighbors would be adversely affected. They are going directly across any future access for 6430 Fox Path. 3. Their proposed location is within 8 feet of our dock not 20' as indicated. They do not show our dock correctly on their survey. 4. They cannot reach our channel without dredging the lake due to 2-4 inches of water depth in the entire area where they are proposing their dock. This area is often a dry bed if we do not receive continuous rains. 5. The length of their walkway and dock is estimated to be at least 440 feet long to no open water. To reach open water is an additional 350 feet at a severe angle to their proposed dock, not a straight line as the code is written. 6. Dredging cost a minimum of $50,000 plus a DNR permit which is very hard to acquire. I just went through this cost analysis recently. SCANNED 7. Our channel maintenance costs, (weed spraying) would have to be shared and we are not interested in any agreements or partnerships. 8. The Conservation Easement supersedes any Riparian Rights. 9. There is a family of deer immediately to the south of their proposed dock which would adversely affect them. The deer have lived there at least since 1989. Many giant snapping turtles additionally live in their proposed path. It is also home to the Egret, Heron, Ducks and many species of birds. It is also a spawning bed in the spring for the pickerel and carp. Since your staff has also recommended the Planning Commission deny the Wetland Alteration Permit, I urge you to do the same. I would also invite you to see first-hand what the situation looks like by inviting you to our property. Feel free to stop by and walk out on our dock. Sincerely, ~~ Page 1 of 1 Haak, Lori From: JLyon87671 @aol.com Sent: Friday, July 29,20053:17 PM To: Haak, Lori Subject: Wetland Alteration Permit for Marianne McCord & David Sanford I am writing in support of the project Marianne and David have planned. I won't be able to attend the Planning Commission's hearing on the proposal because it's being held at the same time as National Night Out, and our neighborhood is having their annual gathering. Frankly, I'm glad to see someone trying to improve our end of Lotus Lake! I can't see any problems being caused by the boardwalk and dock, and their presence can only improve the neighborhood. Regards, Jim Lyon 890 Fox Court Chanhassen 952-470-3593 'CANNED 7/?Q/?OOl:\ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: VIi Sacchet, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Deborah Zorn, Kurt Papke, and Mark Vndestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician; and Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT W ALKW A Y AND DOCK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6440 FOX PATH. MARIANNE McCORD & DA VID SANFORD. PLANNING CASE 05-22. Public Present: Name Address Marianne McCord and David Sanford Tom Meier J ahn Dyvik 6440 Fox Path 695 Pleasant View Road 610 Pleasant View Road Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McDonald asked for clarification on the depth of the lake in this area, dredging of the channel and placement of the dock. Commissioner Larson asked for further clarification on placement of the dock. Commissioner Papke asked staff to explain what responsibility and authority the Planning Commission has in regards to the conservation easement and if there is precedence of the Planning Commission over riding a conservation easement in granting a dock like this. Chairman Sacchet asked why Lot 9 was not included in the community dock and clarification on the city and state regulations for docks. The applicant, David Sanford, 6440 Fox Path provided background information and his wife, Marianne McCord presented more detailed information of their request. Commissioner McDonald asked the applicants to explain what their understanding was when they purchased their home and their definition of open water. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Tom Meier, 695 Pleasant View Road provided historical background on this neighborhood having lived for 9 years at 6410 Fox Path, which is Lot 6, and now living Planning Commission Summary - August 2, 2005 at the property with the dock directly adjacent to where this dock is proposed to go. He showed pictures and reviewed the letter he submitted to the commission stating his opposition to this request. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After commission discussion the following motion was made. McDonald moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Wetland Alteration Permit #05-22 for a boardwalk across the wetlands at 6440 Fox Path, based upon the Findings of Fact in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R. SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMA TEL Y 36.01 ACRES INTO 30 LOTS. 1 OUTLOT AND PUBLIC RIGHT -OF- WAY; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GRADING IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 138 TOWNHOUSES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL (1500 PIONEER TRAIL). LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE. TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-24. Public Present: Name Address Kevin Clark Rick Janssen Ed Hasek Town & Country Homes Town & Country Homes Westwood Professional Services Kate Aanenson presented the staff report, noting that staff is recommending tabling of this item. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification of the sight line elevations from the Peterson Bluff neighborhood stating a desire to better understand the transition process. Commissioner McDonald asked to see more clarification on the road system in the area. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on grading, retaining walls, housing types, access to the wetland mitigation areas, and tree inventory. Commissioner Papke asked for clarification of the parking plan. Kevin Clark, Director of Land Development for Town and Country Homes introduced his team of Rick Janssen, Vice President of Acquisition and Ed Hasek, Senior Landscape Architect with Westwood Professional Services. He thanked city staff for their assistance and reviewed their proposal. Chairman Sacchet asked for a clearer understanding of why they were choosing to go with only one housing type and clarification of the X's on the tree survey. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Janet Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive asked why the item was noticed with variances when no variances were being requested and clarification of the difference between public street, private streets and private drives. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. The commission directed staff and the developer to address the items listed in the staff report along with the following items: show the location of the trail along Bluff Creek, look at the gathering areas to perhaps include playground equipment, look at an additional housing product, and additional off street parking. 2 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 2, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: VIi Sacchet, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Deborah Zorn, Kurt Papke, and Mark Undestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Dan Keefe STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician; and Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT W ALKW A Y AND DOCK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6440 FOX PATH. MARIANNE McCORD & DA VID SANFORD. PLANNING CASE 05-22. Public Present: Name Address Marianne McCord and David Sanford Tom Meier J ahn Dyvik 6440 Fox Path 695 Pleasant View Road 610 Pleasant View Road Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Lori. Questions from staff. Go ahead Jerry. McDonald: I've got a couple questions for you. You mayor may not know the answers. At that end of the lake what's the depth of the lake? Haak: Well I can only say with what we've seen and there have been other dock issues in that area. In the channel, that area of the lake, the center of that is about 4 feet deep max. Even out in that area, it is quite shallow and actually we saw the presence of floating bogs or actually sediment that was showing up at the surface in and amongst the aquatic vegetation so it is quite shallow. Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 McDonald: Okay. One of the other things in your report was, you talk about I guess the existing docks. They dredge those channels out. How often is that dredged and who pays for it? Haak: Actually I'm not, I couldn't state for certain that it was. I do know that there would probably need to be some dredging in order to accommodate this dock. But I think in the past they mayor may not have been actually dredged. I'm not sure. There may be some people here tonight who can speak to that better. McDonald: And then the other thing you talk about is that, in putting the walkway and then the dock, you talk about the jog that's going to have to be made in order to get, I guess to miss the existing dock there, the far western dock which is pretty much right on the border. Aren't they going to have to go across the property of Lot 10 in order to get out there to make the jogs that you're talking about? Haak: Yes. Actually that is. There's a little bit of a discrepancy. There is a little bit of an uncertainty as to whether or not the applicant has the right to do that. Typically the interpretation that staff makes, and I believe the DNR makes is that you really don't have a lot of property rights below the ordinary high water mark of your property simply because that's where the DNRjurisdiction takes over. And that's something we'd have to check with the attorney about. I haven't actually asked that question but that is a point that would definitely have to be. McDonald: Okay, and then is that the same thing with Lot 8 because at that point if they now have property below the ordinary high water mark and they want to put a dock out, then we end up trying to put 3 docks in that particular area. Haak: Yes, that's correct, and that's one of the concerns. McDonald: And then we go down through and we have to cross over Lot 10, then Lot 10 which is governed by this common dock suddenly wouldn't they have rights to this dock also or at least be able to say I want access to it by? Haak: And I don't know the answer to that question. That's something that we'd have to check with the attorney. McDonald: So we potentially could be opening up a can of worms there as to. Haak: Correct. McDonald: Now, you talk about in the beginning when all this was put together and the intents for Lots 1 through 9 as it was negotiated with the developer before any of this was cut out the developer agreed that Lots 1 through 9, as he put them together, would not have lake access. So all of that was put into the original agreement in order for him to get the development. Haak: Well it wasn't stated that way. Lots 1 through 9 weren't addressed really. Lots 7,8 and 9 do have the conservation easement because the 900 elevation does cross those three additional properties but the only lots that were addressed specifically were Lots 10 through 19. So it 2 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 didn't, it didn't say that they didn't have, you know it didn't explain that they didn't have dock rights but they were left out what appears to be intentionally. McDonald: So Lot 9 wasn't discussed but your position would be that when the conservation easement was put in, that covers Lot 9 as far as... Haak: Oh absolutely. Absolutely. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions? Larson: Yeah, I've got one. Sacchet: Go ahead Debbie. Larson: Can you point on your aerial view where the proposed dock would be? I was a little unclear as to where that was supposed to go. Haak: That would be the end of it. Larson: Okay. Would that be this permanent pier, whatever you want to call it, that would be there forever? Haak: Yes. Larson: And then there would be an additional dock added to that. Haak: It would depend on where the, in most cases when we make this recommendation you have the wetland that you're crossing then you need to cross additional open water, so it may be the case that in this instance they would not need to cross additional open water so therefore there would not need to be a seasonal component to it. We just haven't established that yet because we're not exactly sure of where it would need to be aligned. Larson: I see. Okay. Haak: In order to get access to the lake. Larson: Okay. Papke: Two questions. Reading, it almost seems like a legal issue. Could you please explain what the responsibility and authority of the Planning Commission is in regards to the conservation easement. Now that easement is a legally binding document. I mean do we have the authority to over ride that with this wetland alteration permit? Where does our authority come in here exactly? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 Haak: Do you have any, okay. Aanenson: The conservation easement, as Lori indicated, was a condition of the original approval. All you can do is recommend to the City Council who would have the authority to remove that conservation easement. So the City Council would have to be the one, but you would make a recommendation. Papke: Okay. Okay, got it. The other question I have, is there a precedent for the Chanhassen Planning Commission of over riding such a conservation easement for the granting a dock like this? Haak: I'm not aware of any. Papke: So this would be the first time we would ever do something. Haak: Right. Typically when the city vacates conservation easements, it's because there's nothing to conserve any more. We've done it in instances, I know in Longacres as an example where the trees got cut down for some reason or another with the house building or the development or something like that. Papke: But specifically for the granting a dock like this, for the granting of that. Haak: Yeah, I'm not aware of any. Aanenson: The other point that I wanted to make is, again as Lori indicated is that there was a lot of history that went into the discussions of how to get those, so there was kind of a compromise. In order to get the dock there was conservation easements.. .discussion and we're not, those notes in the file but not to the depth and breadth of really what all those negotiations, discussions were so going forward in time we're trying to go back and kind of re-create what those discussions were. It's our belief there was a strong purpose for putting that in place and that was strictly to limit the boats and the docks on the lake. Sacchet: A couple more questions. Is there any knowledge or wisdom why Lot 9 was not included in the community dock? We don't know anything about that? Haak: No. It was, like I indicated earlier, it just wasn't even brought up. Sacchet: Now obviously looking at the aerial photograph, there is no open water. I mean it's all vegetation so they would have to be, the vegetation would have to be cut to make a water way. Haak: Potentially, and again the applicant, in my conservations with the applicant, the applicant is interested in extending the dock. They do believe, and I think they'll share this in a minute, but that they can get a dock extended into the end. Sacchet: Of the existing water way there? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 Haak: Right. In order to gain access. Sacchet: So it would be minimizing the amount of. Haak: That's correct. Sacchet: Now I don't quite understand why Lot 8 keeps coming up. It seems like that one is quite a bit further removed from actually the water. Haak: In, this is actually a copy of the preliminary plat. This isn't the actual recorded version but it does show documentation that the 896 point, well 896 contour, which is right here, does extend onto Lot 8. And based on the applicant's most recent survey and the surveys of other properties in the area, it also appears that that hasn't changed. That that is consistent, so there would be some shoreland frontage. Sacchet: That little comer would be sufficient to consider that that lot has riparian rights? Haak: Yes, because they can. This crazy little drawing is the illustration of the dock setback zone and how our code reads as far as interpreting dock setbacks. What the code says is you connect two points where the ordinary high water mark meets each property line and you connect those with a straight line, and then you draw at a 90 degree angle a 100 foot line, and then where those overlap on neighboring properties, you split the difference. So, and they have to meet a 10 foot setback from that. Following? It takes a couple times reading through it to get it. And it's probably taken me the 5 years I've worked here to figure that out but, so that's how this, which is called the extended lot line is derived and then the yellow as shown here is the dock setback zone. Sacchet: So the blue is actually Lot 8? Haak: The blue is actually Lot 8, so they would be able to, you know if there was a 10. Could you get me my scale please. The one line I didn't put on here. I think this is 40. So if you look at a 10 foot setback here, there is actually about 10 feet right in the middle there that we would be talking about. Sacchet: But wouldn't it come to a point further south? Haak: All you extend the lot lines are 100 feet though. So that's all they have to meet the setback for. So as long as they meet the setback at that 100 foot mark, it's fine. Which is why this dock, well actually this, why this extends past the green here. And it kind of jogs over is because they don't have to meet the setback. Sacchet: So it has to be 10 foot from the green there at the 100 foot, and then basically it's free for grabs? Haak: Yes. Yep. When I put these together it got a little shifty but I think this shows the idea. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 Sacchet: That's good information. McDonald: Can I ask a follow up? Sacchet: Go ahead Jerry. Go. McDonald: On that particular one, didn't you say earlier that anything below the ordinary high water mark on the State is considered the lake and no one's really got rights within there. It's the State. Haak: Except that the City has adopted this additional requirement of a setback. McDonald: Okay. Sacchet: Okay, well this is very helpful Lori. Thanks for explaining this. Any other questions? Thank you Lori. With that I'd like to invite the applicants to come forward and tell you your view. Tell us your view of what's going on here. This looks like an interesting. Welcome. If you want to state your name and address for. the record. David Sanford: Yes, I'm David Sanford and I li ve at 6440 Fox Path. I'm going to start off with some, a couple points to Lori's presentation and then just some overview of kind of how this process started so there's some background and my wife's going to get into a little more detail to the specific points. You know first thing I think the absence of nothing written about Lots 8 and 9 does not assume anything. So nothing written does not make a point. There's contradictory remarks on Lots 16. One is it had an independent dock and one is it doesn't. It does not. 17, 18 and 19, 10 through 16 have the shared dock. Ijust want to clarify a couple points because that went back and forth. And I think that proves that some of the things that were written in that original thing had changed. And Lot 16 was one. But kind of some highlights. First, we bought our house in '98 so well after the development of the project. There was no mention of any conservatory in our closing documents and we refinanced. Checked the title insurance. No mention of this conservatory in any of that. The goal of the conservatory is to protect the environment. We have done probably more than a lot of other folks in the conservatory nature. First, we use state approved and natural fertilizer. We do not use phosphorous based ones. We planted over 20 to 30 trees in different varieties in our yard and into the berm. We've reduced the turf in our yard by over 50% where many folks have extended turf against the conservatory option with no input from anyone out there. We've not used any sealant on our driveway to affect the environment. We don't change our own oil on our property. And my wife's an active participant in master gardeners in the Arboretum. When we first contacted Lori about this, it was actually in the purpose of offering our home to be, how to environmentally lakescape your property. So we're very much into the conservation of our property. And the first purpose of calling this was not really to build a dock but to understand the rights are of some other docks that were built that were extended well beyond their original area, so it was more into understanding the purpose behind the lakes. We then asked in April, to Lori's point, you know hey, why can everyone build a dock and seem to do whatever they want on the lake and we seem to have a lot of lakefront property. Lori very much encouraged us to pursue this issue. And so we've, you know we looked at that and we saw that a lot of people were changing the docks and 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 extensions. We discussed the impact of the environment on this end of the lake and Lori said at that time things were, I think the term we've kind of wrote down, were a bit fuzzy at this end of the lake. So we knew there was some challenges around it. Our original survey, as I think she showed getting to a point, which was an error. We actually have open water. In fact you know in reality I think 26 feet of open water we understand is required. We have about 100 feet of open water on our property. And then Lori strongly encouraged us to get a survey for our lot and actually indicated how beneficial to the city this would be to clear up many issues on this end of the lake, and some of the changes on that were specifically requested by Lori during our survey and then my wife is going to get into a little more detail. Marianne McCord: The map that we used, or that she used. If you could put up this map. Haak: Oh sure. Marianne McCord: It's a little confusing because.. .he thought this was all vegetation but it's water vegetation so depending on what time of the year you take the picture, sometimes it will look like open water. Sometimes it doesn't. These right here are actually two lots, and so there's open water for this in combination with the second one is about the same amount that we have open water. One of the other things that has been brought up was this part about 8. Well, there's a open high water mark here and it goes this way but if you would just use the open water that we have on our lot, that's Lot 8. So I'd like to go over...and I'm going to just address them very briefly. Again my husband talked about lake preservation and we very much want to go ahead and use the dock. It would be a very simple dock. We don't want to, when we first moved there, these two docks right here were just a straight, long dock and that's all we want. We feel that in a way our lot is being asked to do all the preservation at this end of the lake and then other lots don't even have to follow the same things that we have to follow. We are good stewards of the land and we, again my husband spoke about the conservancy. Issue number two is reasonable access, and we are besides 9, we are the only ones who, Lot 9 is the only one that has the open water. Open water. These do too but then somehow in the original lot, or original surveys they went ahead and gave them dock use. If you go around the lake right here, we're the only lot that doesn't have either an access to a dock or a dock. Everybody else does. Encroachment into drainage swale and utilities. If my husband can pass this out. One of the reasons why we went ahead with the dock that we went with was because we talked to Lori and Don and they had initially said these things. ..and it saves us money anyway so we would be happy to do that. Four is dredging. I actually called Lori because we had 4 bids and during one of my calls somebody had stated that some people at the other end, my end of the lake were thinking about dredging and would I go in with them because it would spread the cost and it would be great, so I called Lori and I said well is this even possible. Can we do that as a conservation effort and you know what were the issues, so when we personally went down there, you can go back down to that part of the lake. We were down there with some friends and they have a boat, depth finder and it is 3 feet so we feel that shouldn't be a problem right now with dredging. Again issue 5. 7 and 8 are part of the conservation effort but again they have no open water on their property. You also brought up something about in our area perhaps has there been a precedent with this. There's been a precedent in our neighborhood. In this big code of how many inches Lori did you say, just hundreds of paper, we have a public trail and for 15 some years nobody did anything about it so all of a sudden we were going to lose that trail and we had 7 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 to go with the city. We went, we planned. There's some people who wanted it. Some people who didn't and they actually altered it from what the original documents were. So it was supposed to be 10 feet with so much easement and they went ahead and switched that. Again sticking with then finally with issue 6. Again the ordinary high water mark can only be an estimate on Lot 8 because they haven't had that before, and this lot right here has changed the ordinary high water mark so you cannot take a point from here to here and know exactly where it is because it's been changed. And our lot actually wouldn't require an easement because if you follow, where's your, you know with all the negatives... If you follow in here, Lot 8, yeah Lot 8, then we too can go off to this area and this then becomes our, kind of a variance so if you're applying that rule over here, you then have to apply it over here and we have no problem cutting that and doing that. So I guess the part that we have a problem with and why I called Lori way back in April, and I had contacted her even 2-3 years ago, was that it didn't seem that things were being fairly applied to my lot, the lot next to me and I just wanted to make sure that (a), I was conserving well by being a good steward of the lake, but also what they got to have, I can have. Sacchet: Thank you. Anything more Dave? David Sanford: One more point. You know as we went through this process, I think the other point that I want to make clear is, we worked closely with staff and had numerous meetings and literally encouraged. As a matter of fact during our survey process staff came out to ask for extra points on the survey that they wanted, which cost us about an extra $500 for our surveyors, and we were very much encouraged that this would be a supported thing, so quite frankly we were dismayed and a little bit surprised by the staff report, based upon the 4 months previous of our actions and working together. Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions from the applicant? No? Okay, thank you very much. Yeah, you have one? Go ahead Jerry. McDonald: When you bought your house was it sold as having lakefront property? Marianne McCord: It said we did. It said that we didn't have a dock. David Sanford: It said that we didn't have access to the shared dock. We knew that and we knew we had lake view. We knew we had water. Marianne McCord: We knew we had water but again if you went back to the original lot on the survey, I don't know where that one is. That one unfortunately showed us, and in fact that was 2 or 3 years ago I contacted Lori and at that time she was giving me that 26 feet, 10 feet on each side and a 6 foot dock and she said, well you know she was looking at it and I was looking at it, We thought it just came to a point when in reality it comes out like this. So we had more than 26 feet of open water and adjacent to a point so again I think the problem was, in the 80's when it was extremely fuzzy, and we were working, until we figured out exactly what our survey is. And I was a little confused with that too because I think the survey is supposed to be legally binding. I mean you're not supposed to switch it. It shouldn't have been just...it should have shown that we had more. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 McDonald: Okay, so I'm understanding this about you keep mentioning open water. Where the 64 feet is at on this one where it shows the dock coming down, that would be open water so the boat would actually dock there and you wouldn't have to go out beyond the dock next to it? Marianne McCord: Well what happened here was, again while we were going through the survey and costs, we realized that this next dock was less than 10 feet on what was considered our property line. So we were a little confused about that and again Lori, it was the 100 feet kind of thing like that. So depending on how we come up here, we could probably have done just parallel to that and now that we've heard concerns, we would bring it over to the ordinary high water. Bring it up to within 10 feet of what is considered our property line, and then bring it parallel over so it wouldn't be 64 feet. It'd be much less. McDonald: Okay, and at that point would there be access problems between your dock and the dock next to it? Marianne McCord: No, we would try, well no because that wouldn't be fair but no, we would go ahead and move it back over here. Then move it back up. Here's where this comes in. Again the water actually comes down to about here. That's this.. . and then we would just bring it up here and run it parallel. And we only want a very, very simple dock. Larson: Because it really does appear close. Marianne McCord: But these two docks are very close too, so it's been done before. McDonald: Well if you bring your dock across, what impact does that have on Lot 10, which is the one next to you? Marianne McCord: Again we would be out, if you see the line right here... and survey and then if you go back to Lori's, this part, it would have absolutely no impact. So regardless of which way you want to look at it, on that surveyor. . . David Sanford: Lot 10 does.. .have access to the shared dock. Marianne McCord: Community dock. David Sanford: But we don't believe that anything we do would cross into their property line... Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? No? Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing so I'd like to open the hearing and invite anybody who would like to comment to this topic to come forward now and let us know what you have to say. If you would please state your name and address for the record please. Tom Meier: Good evening commissioners. I'm Tom Meier and I'm at 695 Fox Path. Or pardon me, Pleasant View. I used to live in Fox Path and I addressed a letter to the Planning Commission this week. We lived for 9 years ourselves at 6410 Fox Path which is Lot 6. From 9 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 1990 to 1999, and it was clear in our subdivision and it's in the by-laws of the subdivision which are attached to Lori's report that only Lots 10 through 19 had access to Lotus Lake. While Lots 2 through 9 had lake views, they were not and we were not allowed to directly access the lake. And the reason is, it's a conservation easement which is a lot different than a utility drainage easement. We now live directly east of this property at 695 Pleasant View and I am the dock adjacent to where they're proposing to go. And I had a number of points that I put in my letter. The first one, to reach open water in a straight line direction, while maintaining the city code dock setback requirements, which is a straight line to open water, and if you stay within the easements of this drawing, they will hit the shoreline. Because this, does this show up? This line, if you allow rights here, he also has the rights and their blue lines where it cross over the orange lines so you split the difference as was indicated. So they would then have to come out this direction. Here's my dock over here. They're proposing to come very close to my dock but you would in effect have to come this direction, but they're crossing Lot 10 and Lot 10, it also has the same riparian rights which changes this line right here. You now have to get this ordinary high water mark to determine the riparian rights of Lot 10. So I believe Lot 10 riparian rights, the high water marks are about here and here, which means their line would look like this so they'd split this difference and they'd have to come in here and in here and somehow still cross this lot. And they are now intruding on the space of Lot 8, so if they've got a direction out of here somehow, because Lot 10 granted it or you did, they would just go onto the shoreline because the city code requires a straight line direction. This area by the way is very shallow. It's 2 to 4 inches of water currently and if we don't get rain it will dry up to a, it will completely dry up. There is no water typically in the area that they're proposing and they want to extend their dock from their house, quite a ways behind their house. There will be 440 feet from their back yard to the end of my dock. And then to get to open water they would have to dredge from their dock around their dock to that channel which I just went through this to get a dredging permit, if you can get one. The DNR will probably will fight you and not grant you one but the minimum cost to get a dredger is $50,000 because it's such a complicated process. This is considered protected environment but it's contaminated soil. You have to remove it. You have to put it in an enclosed environment until it absolutely dries out. They have to mix it with good soil and re- process this and then haul it back to the earth and put it back in. It takes a year to do this and it's a very involved process. There's only one dredger around. That's Minnetonka Dredging. I talked to him about it and it's a very complicated process. But trying to get a DNR permit is almost next to impossible. That channel has been there for many, many years and it's basically dredged out from boat traffic, not from any other kind of dredging so. Our, so your other neighbors are going to be adversely affected by their proposal, plus you're going to set a precedent for the whole subdivision which allows everybody in that subdivision to go back to what you're calling lake frontage. The reason 10 through 16 have a common shared dock is they're all in wetlands and they're all on vegetation. When you get to dock number, or Lot number 17,18 and 19, they're actually on the lake. They have pretty good lake frontage. But 10 through 16 have all kinds of vegetation and I've got pictures that I want to show you as well. They're proposed extension by the way was within 8 feet of our dock because they failed to draw. There was a proposed drawing. My dock actually comes out to the end of this dock. It's a U shaped dock and then there's a platform, viewing platform that goes 8 foot out to that direction. So the way it was proposed to us, it's too close. The channel is maintained by, with the weeds by myself. It gets complicated trying to get neighbors to share in these costs and I'm quite frankly not interested in partnerships or agreements. Our land is private. It's separate from 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 the Fox Chase subdivision. The Fox Chase subdivision when it was established, ended up with this conservation district and that's what is governing this whole discussion. And this conservation easement supercedes, again I want to reiterate, supercedes all riparian rights. There is a family, there's a lot of wildlife down there. There's a family of deer right where this dock is proposing to go through. There are, a lot of people don't know it but there's giant snapping turtles that live in that wetlands and they're absolutely huge and there's all kinds of birds and wildlife that live back there. And as far as the fish, in the spring that's where the pickerel and the carp mate and it's a quite active area. So you'd be going through and destroying a lot ofthe vegetation and lake, or what little water there is, and affecting the fish. In the spring, this is a view in front of my dock. And it's very shallow. This is high water in the spring after all the rain, but there is mud where they would have to, this is not silt. This is actual mud that they would have to remove, which means they'd have to dredge. This is a little different angle of the same. There's a thing on my dock, so looking to where they want to navigate, and again there's 2 to 4 inches of water where you're looking around that mud. This is what it looks like right now. Coming off the dock. They put a survey stake here next to my dock. And looking at it, it's solid vegetation. There's just a slight amount of open water but that will fill in with vegetation as well. Haak: Just for reference, that stake, if you could remove that last picture Tom real quick. That stake is where the McCord/Sanford property comes to a point. That appears to be where that stake is so. Tom Meier: What that stake represents is lakeshore. Okay? You have 3 different things. You've got lakeshore. You've got a wetland and you have this high water mark. So there's 3 lines and the stake is where the lake actually starts. And the wetlands is back kind of in the middle and then there's the high water mark, so high water mark is simply an elevation above sea level. It's 896.3. These are just more shots at the end of the dock. Trying to show you the vegetation. I took this shot to show the water depth. We can, if you saw the picture up close, you can see into the water and how shallow it is. This is looking back from the end of the dock towards their house. Their house is back here. Again, that's my dock. It's 550 to 600 feet from the end of my dock to their back door. Marianne McCord: From that point it's 466. It's on the survey. Tom Meier: It's where the dock would start and to their house. It's further and then they still aren't in open water and you can't just go out there and turn your docks. The city code says you have to go in a straight line to open water. These are just more shots. I took these shots this morning so they're quite current. Oh here's, there's the shot of the water depth. You can see again if you want to look at this up close you can see the bottom. It's not very silty. It's mucky. So a lot of people think you can just go in with an outboard and open that up but you can't. It's very, very dense. I looked up on the DNR site the definition of a conservation district and, easement I should say. And I'd like to read this paragraph. Conservation easement means a non-possessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations, the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic or open space values of real property. Assuring it's availability for agricultural, forest, recreational or open space use. Protecting natural resources. Maintaining or enhancing air quality, water quality or 11 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 preserving the historical, architectural, archeological or cultural aspects of real property. Now holder means the government body empowered to hold the interest in the real property under the laws of the State, which is the City of Chanhassen and that's stated in the agreement with the developer and the City. So you are the holder, not this commission but the City is the holder of this easement. And it's there for conservation. And in the conservation it states that no dock, structure, building can be crossing through a conservation district. So again that supercedes. There was a question earlier about the judicial actions. Again this is looking at the main part of the code of the DNR and judicial actions is an action affecting the conservation easement may be brought by an owner of an interest in the real property burdened by the easement. A holder of the easement, which is the City. A person having a third party right of enforcement. A person authorized by other law. So it's very narrow who can affect the changes on these kind of districts so being that there are no rights to the lake, being that the conservation easement disallows it and there is drainage and utility easements through the same area, it's, it would adversely affect the laws. And I think that's pretty much what I wanted to present. Any questions? Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? This is your chance. Seeing nobody, I'm closing this public hearing. Bring it back to commission for discussion and comments. You want to start Kurt? Papke: Sure. I'm adamantly opposed to this application. I think it's bad for the lake. It's bad for the neighbors and it puts the city on a very slippery slope, pun intended, in regards to making precedence with easements. The conservation easement is very black and white. It states it's a perpetual conservation easement. Perpetual. Names Lot 7 through Lot 19 inclusive. Specifically prohibits docks and walkways. Alteration of vegetation in any manner or form. I think this one is about as cut and dryas it gets from my perspective. Sacchet: Okay. Thanks Kurt. Deborah. Zorn: While I feel for the homeowners and they feel like they're the only home without a dock accessing the lake, I would have to say I would side with adhering with the conservation easement as well. Sacchet: Okay. McDonald: Well I believe you could put a dock in there that would not impact on the area. I have seen quite a few areas but the problem I have is the easement that was negotiated. That was part of the original development. It should have been on your title. If it's not, I'm sorry but you know, whenever they do the searches, the easement should come up. That is a restriction on property use that is there. It is law. It follows the property and because of that I could not support it. There is just no way around it and if we start trying to do that, we're opening up a big can of worms. Again this was negotiated several years ago as part of this development. Everyone was on notice. They understood what the conditions were and because of that I couldn't support it. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Jerry. Debbie. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - August 2, 2005 Larson: Boy. I actually went out and looked at this on my kayak and I looked at the area and it is very shallow. However, in looking at the dock next door I'm seeing that he's quite close to the line as well and he's got ajog in his straight line and so there's an issue here. I guess I wouldn't be terribly opposed to having the dock just because it's not going to make a huge difference compared to what's already there. However, the conservation easement is pretty big and it's very clear cut what it says that you're not supposed to put anything on it. But my main issue is the fact that the developer didn't put it in the original, you know he covered through Lot 10 and it was very clear that he intended possibly to have lake rights or dock rights for those lots and not your's and it wasn't lined, outlined in there that it was to include Lot 9 and it looks like perhaps it was, it was such a small portion at the time that he looked at it. As I say, I'm a little bit, I could go either way but leaning towards perhaps not allowing this to go through as well. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Debbie. Undestad: No comment. Sacchet: No comment? I do want to point out just two things. We heard from one resident speaking against it. We also got written comment from another resident that is supporting the applicant in putting the dock in. And then I further want to point out that this is a recommendation with City Council that ultimately City Council will make the final decision on this. Other than that I don't really have any specific comments. I think it's an unfortunate situation that in the original situation this was not considered, that there is water on that lot. It's also unfortunate that the conservation easement apparently wasn't discovered until quite far into this process because without the conservation easement it'd be clear that the lot has riparian rights, and obviously that came as a not very pleasant surprise for the applicant and all of a sudden there's this conservation easement. But you made it very clear from staff's side that the City Attorney stated distinctly that the conservation easement supercedes the riparian rights and I think that's only the fulcrum of what we have in front of us here. So that's my comments. With that somebody want to venture a motion please? McDonald: I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Wetland Alteration Permit #05-22 for a boardwalk across the wetlands at 6440 Fox Path, based upon the Findings of Fact in the staff report. Sacchet: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Papke: Second. McDonald moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Wetland Alteration Permit #05-22 for a boardwalk across the wetlands at 6440 Fox Path, based upon the Findings of Fact in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sacchet: So this will go to council on August 22nd and I encourage you to present your case there and see what the situation will be. Thank you very much. 13 -