Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03-24-25 City Council Agenda and Packet
A.5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Note: Unless otherwise noted, work sessions are held in the Fountain Conference Room in the lower level of City Hall and are open to the public. If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. Public comment is not allowed at the work session. A.1 Avienda Apartment Project: Open House Preview A.2 Assessment Policy Updates (continued) A.3 Accessory Dwelling Unit Discussion A.4 Future Work Session Schedule A.5 City Manager Performance Review (Closed Session) B.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) B.1 Cub Scout Den Visit C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS D.CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. D.1 Approve City Council Meeting Minutes dated March 10, 2025 D.2 Approve City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 10, 2025 D.3 Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated March 4, 2025 AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2025 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD 1 D.4 Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated January 8, 2025 D.5 Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes dated February 11, 2025 D.6 Approve Claims Paid dated March 24, 2025 D.7 City Commission Appointments D.8 Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, July 3 & 4, 2025, Rotary Club of Chanhassen D.9 Approve entering into contracts with Sports Facilities Companies for the Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center D.10 Approve Contract to Perform 2" Mill and Overlay in Chanhassen Rec Center Parking Lot D.11 Approve Addition of an Outdoor patio space for On-Sale Beer and Wine Liquor Licensed OG Coffee and Wine Bar D.12 Approve Professional Services Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Heritage Shade Tree Consultants. D.13 Adopt Resolution 2025-XX: Approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6651 Galpin Blvd (Planning Case #25-03). D.14 Amend Resolution 2025-19 Providing for the Sale of an Amount Not to Exceed $13,185,000 General Obligation Temporary Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A E.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Visitor Presentations requesting a response or action from the City Council must complete and submit the Citizen Action Request Form (see VISITOR GUIDELINES at the end of this agenda). F.FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE G.PUBLIC HEARINGS H.GENERAL BUSINESS H.1 Resolution 2025-XX: A Resolution Supporting Retention of City Zoning Authority H.2 Ordinance XXX: Density Bonuses Amendment H.3 Consider Preliminary Plat, Wetland Alteration Permit, and Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Contract for Pleasant View Pointe (Project 25-02) I.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS J.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS K.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION L.ADJOURNMENT 2 GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting. In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. Anyone seeking a response or action from the City Council following their presentation is required to complete and submit a Citizen Action Request Form. An online form is available at https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/action or paper forms are available in the city council chambers prior to the meeting. A total of thirty minutes is alloted for Visitor Presentations. Priority is given to Chanhassen residents. An additional thirty minutes may be provided after General Business items are complete at the discretion of the City Council. Anyone indicating a desire to speak during Visitor Presentations will be acknowledged by the Mayor. When called upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the City Council as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the City Council. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson that can summarize the issue. Limit your comments to five minutes. Additional time may be granted at the discretion of the Mayor. If you have written comments, provide a copy to the Council. Comments may also be emailed to the City Council at council@chanhassenmn.gov. During Visitor Presentations, the Council and staff listen to comments and will not engage in discussion. Council members or the City Manager may ask questions of you in order to gain a thorough understanding of your concern, suggestion or request. Please be aware that disrespectful comments or comments of a personal nature, directed at an individual either by name or inference, will not be allowed. Personnel concerns should be directed to the City Manager. Members of the City Council and some staff members may gather at Tequila Butcher, 590 West 79th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. 3 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Avienda Apartment Project: Open House Preview File No.Item No: A.1 Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Prepared By Eric Maass, Community Development Director Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION No formal action; general discussion only Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY Inland Development Partners is proposing to develop a large apartment building within Avienda. Representatives from the development team will be in attendance to provide the City Council with a preview of their development plans. The development team will be hosting a neighborhood open house at the Chanhassen Rec Center on Tuesday, March 25th from 5:00-7:00pm. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET 4 RECOMMENDATION No formal recommendation; general discussion only. ATTACHMENTS Concept Site Plan Avienda Apartment Renderings Apartment - Initial site plan Precedent Imagery Avienda Development Plan v8.2 Ordinance 696 - Avienda Design 5 12" PVC (Rec)12" PVC (Rec)[24] Drainage & Utility Easement Over All of OUTLOT B,per Unrecorded Plat of AVIENDA ROWHOMESPID: 250910040 (Currently Platted as Outlot D, AVIENDA)Address: UnassignedPID: 250910040 (Currently Platted as Outlot D, AVIENDA)Address: UnassignedBLUFF CREEKBOULEVARDAVIENDA PKWY(A Public R/W)Bituminous PathBituminous PathConcreteWalk8" PVC Wat.Stub(Rec)NO BUILDINGSPET PARK1,500 SFGREEN SPACEUNDERGROUNDGARAGE ENTRANCEMAIN ENTRANCEUNDERGROUNDGARAGE ENTRANCEPHASE IPHASE IIPLANTED EARTH BERM ALONG BOULEVARDPLANTED EARTH BERMALONG BOULEVARDPOTENTIAL FIRELANEOVERALL DEVELOPMENT MONUMENT SIGN C,FINAL SIZE, FOOTING, & LOCATION TO BESPECIFIED. COORD. W/ ARCH'L PLANSRESIDENCE MONUMENT SIGN C, FINALSIZE, FOOTING, & LOCATION TO BESPECIFIED. COORD. W/ ARCH'L PLANSAVIENDA QUAD OR POND SITEFEATUREOVERALL DEVELOPMENT MONUMENT SIGN C,FINAL SIZE, FOOTING, & LOCATION TO BESPECIFIED. COORD. W/ ARCH'L PLANSRESIDENCE MONUMENT SIGN C, FINALSIZE, FOOTING, & LOCATION TO BESPECIFIED. COORD. W/ ARCH'L PLANSFUTURE RETAILBUILDING 10KFUTURE RETAILBUILDING 10KSPORTS 50K97791112151613131329.2 6.7 18.0 26.0 18.0 26.0 12.76.719.926.019.910.0 10.0 23.018.0 26.016.019.36.722.015.126.024.0 16 . 012.76.719.926.019.910.0 10.0 23.018.08.78.714.810.014.89.09.2 6.7 18.026.018.0 20.0 R20.0R20.0R 2 0 . 0R20.0R5.0 11.311.311.3R30.042.042.010' PARKING SET BACK10' PARKING SET BACK10' PARKING SET BACK 10' PARKING SET BACK 10' PARKING SET BACK10' PARKING SET BACK 10' PARKING SET BACK 10' PARKING SET BACK 10' PARKING SET BACK10' PARKING SET BACKR10.010' PARKING SET BACK FROM BOC98PROOF OF PARKING AREA - 17 SPACESNUMBERS SHOWN AS NET TO TOTAL36.5R20.027.522.022' BLDG SET BACK22' BLDG SET BACK25.525.5167.347.8 R16.0R 1 6 . 0 96.8141.9 148.3 77.5160.2 PROOF OF PARKING AREA - 7 SPACES146612PROOF OF PARKINGAREA - 6 SPACES30' EXTERIOR PUD BLDG. SET BACK30' EXTERIOR PUD BLDG. SET BACK30' EXTERIOR PUD BLDG. SET BACK22' BLDG. SET BACK22' BLDG. SET BACK22' BLDG. SET BACK22' BLDG. SET BACK22' BLDG. SET BACK30' EXTERIOR PUD BLDG. SET BACK30' EXTERIOR PUD BLDG. SET BACK22' BLDG. SET BACKR16.0R43.0R10.0 14.5R119.8R80.2R2 0 . 0 15.015.024.012.016.08.0 6.0 16.0 8.06.0 R4.05. 76.05.76.0R4.078.850.030.0PET PARK1,500 SF50.030.0 2218.026.018.020.3 1314PROOF OF PARKING AREA - 44 SPACESNUMBERS SHOWN AS NET TO TOTAL62.04 1413PROOF OFPARKING AREA -2 SPACESPROOF OF PARKING AREA - 12 SPACESPROOF OF PARKING AREA - 14 SPACES39.2 COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.cPROJECT P R E L I M I N A R Y : N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N2023ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTION02/28/2025CITY SUBMITTALPROJECT MANAGERMATT PAVEKCONTACT NUMBER612-615-0060 X 701DRAWN BYJR, BNREVIEWED BYMPPROJECT NUMBER24440AVIENDA MULTIFAMILY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Civil Engineering ° Surveying ° LandscapeArchitecture5000 Glenwood AvenueGolden Valley, MN 55422civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060OWNER LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT LLC 4600 KINGS POINT RD, MINNETRISTA, MN 55331 SITE LAYOUT NOTES:SITE PLAN LEGEND:TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENTMARKINGSSIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGSREQUIRED.HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGNNP = NO PARKING FIRE LANEST = STOPCP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLYPROPERTY LINECURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUTGUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLANLIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IFAPPLICABLE). SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTFOR AGGREGATE BASE & WEAR COURSEDEPTH, SEE DETAIL.HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IFAPPLICABLE). SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTFOR AGGREGATE BASE & WEAR COURSEDEPTH, SEE DETAIL.CONSTRUCTION LIMITSTOCITY OF CHANHASSEN SITE SPECIFIC NOTES:1.RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC SITE NOTES.ACCESSIBILITY ROUTE ARROW (IFAPPLICABLE) DO NOT PAINT.1.ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSEDPROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONSREQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BEAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS & ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIORTO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS.6.LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FORREVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.7.CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE ASSHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALLPREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURBRAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.9.PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL.10.CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHERPAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES.11.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL.12.ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.13.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS.14.FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS.15.PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.16.ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP.17.BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS.18.ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS.19.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO INSTALL ANY SIDEWALK AND CURBING PER DESIGN PLAN. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL CURBS AND SIDEWALKS WILL DRAIN PROPERLY IN FIELD CONDITIONS.CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE CIVIL ENGINEER 24-HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CURB AND/OR SIDEWALK INSTALLATION TO REVIEW AND INSPECT CURB STAKES. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY CURB OR SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT IF THIS PROCEDURE IS NOT FOLLOWED.20.FINISH GRADING FOR HARDSCAPE AREAS IE. PARKING LOTS, CURBS, SIDEWALKS SHALL BE WITHIN 0.05 FEET. ADA AREAS MUST COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS ON PLANS AND ADA REGULATIONS.TOLERANCE WITHIN ADA AREAS IS 0.00 FEET DISCUSS ANY DEVIATIONS WITH ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CURB, SIDEWALK AND/OR PAVEMENTREPLACEMENT THAT DOES NOT MEET TOLERANCE/ADA REQUIREMENTS.CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) ASSPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK) SEEGEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATEBASE & CONCRETE DEPTHS, WITHIN ROWSEE CITY DETAIL, WITHIN PRIVATEPROPERTY SEE CSG DETAILOPERATIONAL NOTESSNOW REMOVALALL SNOW SHALL BE STORED ON-SITE OUTSIDEPARKING LOT. WHEN FULL, REMOVAL CO. SHALLREMOVE EXCESS OFF-SITE.TRASH REMOVALTRASH SHALL BE PLACED IN EXTERIOR TRASHAREA AND REMOVED BY COMMERCIAL CO.WEEKLY.DELIVERIESDELIVERIES SHALL OCCUR AT THE FRONT DOORVIA STANDARD COMMERCIAL DELIVERYVEHICLES (UPS, FED-EX, USPS).REVISION SUMMARYDATEDESCRIPTIONC2.0SITE PLAN - OVERALL01" = 50'-0"50'-0"25'-0"NKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallROWNER INFORMATIONLEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT LLC4600 KINGS POINT RDMINNETRISTA, MN 55331MARK NORDLAND612-812-7020MNORDLAND@NORDLANDPARTNERS.COM6 7 8 9 10 11 150 OF DEEDS, PG. 313 HIGHWAY EASEMENT PER BOOK 150 OF DEEDS, PG. 307 B8 B 9 B 1 0 B13 B 1 1 B 1 2 B14 B15 B16 B17 B18 B19 B22 B 1 9 3 2 B 3 1 B 3 0 B41 B33 B 4 0 30' CITY WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK 30' CITY WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK (TYP) C.S.A.H. NO. 18 LYMAN BOULEVARD POWERS BOULEVARDN42°43'42 "W 58.0 8 N00°43'25 "E 9.76 S00°43'25"W12.95 S47°01'24"W 49.70 L=570.63 R=11416.16 ∆=2°51'50" N89°16'35"W 80.00 L=290.76 R=11547.16 ∆=1°26'34" N89°10'37"W 463.85 L=123.02R=474.00∆=14°52'12" L=177.40 R=11547.16 ∆=0°52'49" ELECTRIC 915.92 915.93 915.97916.94916.93916.91 916.65916.64916.15 916.57916.13916.11 916.61 915.99915.98 916.52921.82921.48 921.299 20.8 1919.60 920.09 918.92 918.02 917.81 917.68 9 21.79 923.48923.98923.51 923.19 923.69923.22 919.91919.88 919.89 920.07919.85 919.59 AVIENDA PARKWAYSUNSET TRAIL16" DIP30' BUILDI NG SETBACK30' BUILDING SETBACK 30' BUILDING SETBACK10' PARKI NG SETBACK10' PARKING SETBACK10' PARKING SETBACK W Scale:1" = 160'-0" Avienda Multifamily SITE PLAN 25-0312 Chanhassen, MN PARKING SCHEDULE STALL TYPE COUNT GARAGE PARKING 8 x 18 COMPACT 10 9'-0" x 16' COMPACT 2 ACCESSIBLE STALL 10 STANDARD 472 494 SITE PARKING ACCESSIBLE STALL 4 STANDARD 169 173 TOTAL STALLS: 667 12 13 30' BUILDING SETBACK30' BUILDING SETBACK 30' BUILDING SETBACK 30' BUILDING SETBACK20' PARKING SETBACK10' PARKING SETBACK20' PARKINGSETBACK10' PARKING SETBACK US Hwy 212Lyman BoulevardPowersBoulevardBluffCreekBoulevardB e t h e s d a C i r c l e Lyman Boulvevard River Rock Drive NJersey Way RIVER ROC K D R S Degler Circle Sunset Tra i l Mills Drive Jeurissen LaneOUTLOT E OUTLOT A OUTLOT C 73, 500 s.f.RETAIL RETAIL RETAIL 10,000 S. F.35,000 S. F.RETAIL RETAIL ANCHOR RETAIL 8,000 S. F.RETAIL 3,000 S.F.6,000 S.F.8,000 S. F. 5, 000 S.F.15,000 S. F.6,000 S. F. 7,000 S.F.RETAIL RETAIL REST REST 13,000 S. F.SENIOR 30,000 S. F.RETAIL CHILD CARE 10, 000 S.F.REST 10, 000 S.F.8,000 S.F. RETAIL 8,000 S. F.RETAIL 7,000 S.F. REST 125, 840 S. F. x 4 STORIES APARTMENTS Powers BoulevardBluff Creek Boulevard Avienda Parkway R/ W R/ W A D F G H I J K P PR 1 PR 2 30 115 76 67 213 O 869 36 47 168 23 70 82 85 108 131 R/ W L M N R/W R/W Mills Drive B C E R/W R Q R/W Landform and Site to Finish are registered service marks of Landform Professional Services, LLC.R R in collaboration with: LEVEL 7 DEVELOPMENT NORDLAND PARTNERS · RSP ARCHITECTS ESG ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN AVIENDA · Chanhassen, MN Regional Map Legend Stall Future Traffic Signal Existing Traffic Signal Stall Count Public Right Of Way Regional Commercial Future Development Area High Density Residential Medium Density Residential Preservation Ponding NORTH 0 150 300 Wetland and Buffer PR R/ W 12 494 10 394 169 5 169 55 62 100 62 MISSISSIPPIRIVERBLOOMINGTON MINNEAPOLIS 35W SITE 94 94 694 35W 35W 35 35E 494 494 94 94 35W 212 169 169 100 12 MINNESOTA RIVER CHANHASSEN MAPLE GROVE DP8. 2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 8. 2 SEPTEMBER 8, 2022 Development Data Section Gross Area Acres)Net Developable Area Acres) Building Area (S.F.)Parking Stalls Units/Beds Parking Ratio Stalls per 1,000 S.F.or per Unit)1.91 1.91 6,000 36 6. 0 1.66 1.66 10,000 47 4. 7 3.76 3.76 35,000 168 4. 8 2.26 2.26 10,000 23 2. 3 1.27 1.27 13,000 70 5. 4 1.75 1.75 15,000 82 5. 5 1.46 1.46 5,000 85 17. 0 1.48 1.48 6,000 76 12. 7 1.62 1.62 7,000 67 9. 6 1.06 1.06 7,000 30 4. 3 6.10 6.10 45,000 239 5. 3 6.60 6.60 93,227 n/a 53 2.74 2.74 24,632 n/ a 8 9.27 7.35 95,449 n/ a 31 12.51 12.51 461,089 869 417 4.48 4.45 30,000 115 3. 8 7.07 7.07 73,524 213 300 1.2 16.11 16.11 n/ a n/a 14.25 0.00 n/ a n/a 20.87 0.00 n/a n/a 1. 66 0. 00 n/ a n/ a Total 119. 89 81. 16 936, 921 2, 120 809 n/ a A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P PR 1 R/W PR 2 Q 14 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 696 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE AVIENDA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is amended by amending the Avienda Planned Unit Development Design Standards in its entirety as follows: DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS A. Intent The use of Planned Unit Developments (PUD) for regional/lifestyle center commercial purposes should result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. This district is intended to provide for the development of regional and community scale integrated retail, office, business services, personal services, and services to the traveling public near freeway interchanges. It shall strive to create a self-sustaining pattern of land uses with cultural, employment, entertainment, housing, shopping, and social components. The regional/lifestyle center commercial district is a mixed commercial district with retail and entertainment uses of a scale and function that serves a regional market. The physical environment emphasizes an attractive, comfortable walking experience for shoppers and visitors. It shall be designed to serve pedestrian and mass transit users as well as automobile traffic. Centers of this type, generally, have at least two major retail anchors and are characterized by the diversity of mixed retail and service uses. Uses within this district should complement existing retail users in the other commercial districts. Development of these centers shall be planned as a group of organized uses and structures to accommodate a sensitive transition between commercial activities such as loading, parking of automobiles, lighting, and trash collection, and surrounding residential uses. Such centers shall be designed with one theme, similar architectural style, similar exterior building materials, and a coordinated landscaping theme, but shall avoid monotony in design and visual appearance. Vehicle and pedestrian access are coordinated and logically linked to provide a comprehensive circulation system. B. Design Standards Unless otherwise provided in the PUD, the design standards shall follow the Chanhassen City Code Chapter 20, Article VIII Division 1. 20-509. - STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR REGIONAL/LIFESTYLE CENTER COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS and Article XXIII, DIVISION 7. - DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE-INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS. Applies to District 1, 2 and 3. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 15 2 Chapter 20 DIVISION 9. - DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS and the Avienda Development Design Guidelines. Applies to Districts 4 and 5. September 8, 2022 The Master Plan identifies five distinct districts within Avienda. Each of these districts outlined on the plan below) is defined by specific site development patterns and perhaps a distinctive character or image. The sub-districts complement one another as part of the overall plan. The districts are shown on the attached District Map above. They include: District 1 - Retail – provides a location for larger-scale in-line and stand-alone retail entertainment uses. Could also include a 150-unit housing in the northwest corner. District 2 - The Village – provides the broadest variety, highest density, and greatest intensity of development, encouraging both vertical and horizontal mixed use. Including 53 rowhomes and up to 417 Apartments, with a minimum of 25,000 square feet of entertainment. Common/public space shall be included in this district as well as two seated restaurants in addition to other fast casual restaurants. District 3 Mixed Use - 10 acres or approximately 60 percent of the area in District 3 shall be developed as amusement/recreation/entertainment use. These uses include golf DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 16 3 entertainment, hockey rinks, indoor amusement arcades, convention/ performance center. The principal amusement/recreation/ entertainment use shall be constructed prior to the approval of any accessory uses; hotel, retail/restaurant, carwash, or office use. Sub-District 4 - Multi-Family – provides opportunities for high density senior or rental apartments. Includes up to 300 Senior Housing units Sub-District 5 - Low Density Residential – provides opportunities for small lot homes. Includes 39 townhomes that have received preliminary plat approval. C. Development Plans and Regulations The PUD must be maintained in accordance with the following development plans which are on file with the city, and which are incorporated herein: 1. Final Plat dated October 28, 2021 2. Development Plan DP8.2 dated September 8, 2022 3. Avienda Design Guidelines updated September 8, 2022 Permitted Uses 1. Entertainment: Amusement/recreation/entertainment use or substantially similar as reviewed by the Design Review Committee (DRC) and the Community Development Director. 2. Retail sales: a. Department stores not to exceed 25,000 square feet per store, stores that carry an assortment of merchandise from all the other categories. Such establishments may include but are not limited to department stores, discount stores, and similar establishments. b. Supermarkets and other food and grocery stores such as butcher shops and fish markets, fruit and vegetable markets, dairy products stores, candy, nut, and confectionery stores and retail bakeries not to exceed a total of 98,000 square feet. c. Apparel and accessory stores not to exceed 20,000 square feet per store. d. Home furnishing stores selling interior decorating supplies, such as paint, light fixtures, and décor. Such stores may not exceed 40,000 square feet for any single store. e. Clothing and apparel stores, including shoes, jewelry, accessories, etc. f. Drug stores and pharmacies. g. One home and furniture store which includes furniture store, home improvement center, electronic store, appliance store, and similar establishments not to exceed 50,000 square feet. h. Farmers market. 3. Hospitality and food service establishments including: a. Bars and taverns. b. Cafes, delicatessens, food catering establishments. c. Coffee shops and cafes. d. Patio/al fresco dining facilities; Accessory to a principal use. e. Restaurants. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 17 4 4. Hotels: a. One hotel is permitted in the Mixed-Use District. 5. Services: a. Personal Services i. Professional offices: banking, insurance, legal services, and real estate, etc. ii. Financial institutions. iii. Health and recreation clubs, industries, and services. iv. Health services: Offices of doctors, dentists, optometrists, etc. v. Dry cleaning, laundry, and garment services. b. One daycare center, childcare centers, preschools and Montessori school, not to exceed a total of 16,000 square feet for all such uses. 6. Housing: Residential development in the regional/lifestyle center commercial PUD may only occur in multiple-family dwellings. a. Senior housing developments are limited to two sites and are not to exceed 150 units per building. Senior housing (55 Plus) includes owner, rental or service enriched. b. Low Density Residential homes, District 5, shall be a Density of 3-6 units an acre and can include detached townhomes and twin homes. c. Fifty-three (53) rowhomes density of 8 units an acre in part of District 2. d. Apartment units with number of 417. e. The total number of housing units in the PUD shall not exceed 768. 7. Other uses: a. Retail businesses or service establishments that generally provide commodities or services and that are judged by the Community Development Director (1) to be similar in character and operation to the permitted uses described above; (2) to be closely complementary and to enhance the permitted uses; and (3) to be compatible with the intent and purposes of the Avienda Village Regional Lifestyle Center PUD. b. Drive-through accessory to a permitted use. (A maximum of four shall be permitted in Avienda. In District 1 the two permitted drive-throughs can be associated with the grocery or pharmacy or bank. 8. Prohibited Uses a. Auto related including gas stations, tires, repair etc. except for one full-service car wash in District 3. a. Truck, motorcycles, boats, etc. sales. b. Club warehouse including wholesale. c. Gaming Establishments 9. Other comparable or superior materials may be approved by the DRC and the Community Development Director. D. Minimum Setbacks Building setbacks shall follow Chapter 20, Article VIII Division 1. 20-509. - STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR REGIONAL/LIFESTYLE CENTER COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 18 5 DEVELOPMENTS. Setbacks may be waived by the City Council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection and design will be enhanced. E. Development Site Coverage and Building Height 1. The PUD standard for hard surface coverage is 70% for the overall development. Individual lots may exceed this threshold. 2. More than one (1) principal structure may be placed on one (1) platted lot. 3. The maximum building height shall be: a. Retail District - 1 story b. Village District Apartment - 5 stories (excluding underground parking) Retail - 1 story Restaurants - 1 story Entertainment - 2 story c. Mixed Use District Hotel - 3 stories (excluding underground parking) Retail - 1 story Offices - 3 stories (excluding underground parking) d. Multi-family District – the combined senior housing shall not exceed five (5) stories in height. e. Low Density Housing District - 35 feet F. Parking Requirements 1. Parking shall follow Chanhassen City Code ARTICLE XXIV. - OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING. 2. There is no minimum parking setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. 3. Code Drive-Through Facilities. Drive-throughs must comply with the standard of the City Code 20-963 and where appropriate, the city and developer may prepare a vehicle stacking study to determine whether more of less stacking shall be required for a particular use. G. Landscaping Plan An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: 1. Boulevard plantings. Located in front yards shall require a mix of over-story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads, and less intensive land uses. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. 2. Exterior landscaping and double-fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and less intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double-fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 19 6 3. Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget or plan for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the City. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget or prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the City. 4. Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. 5. No fences shall be permitted between the required landscape buffer and arterial and collector roads. H. Signage The intent of this section is to establish an effective means of communication in the development, maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the business’s ability to attract sources of economic development and growth, to improve pedestrian and traffic safety, to minimize the possible adverse effect of signs on nearby public and private property, and to enable the fair and consistent enforcement of these sign regulations. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals: 1. Establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service. 2. Preserve and promote civic beauty and prohibit signs which detract from this objective because of size, shape, height, location, condition, cluttering or illumination. 3. Ensure that signs do not create safety hazards. 4. Ensure that signs are designed, constructed, installed, and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists. 5. Preserve and protect property values. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 20 7 6. Ensure signs that are in proportion to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, the principal structures. 7. Limit temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity for grand opening and occasional sales events while restricting signs which create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections. 8. All signs shall comply with the city sign ordinance ARTICLE XXVI. – SIGNS unless otherwise permitted in this document. 1. Project Identification Sign A Six project identification signs shall be permitted for the development. The location of the Project Identification signs shall be as follows: a. Southwest and southeast of the intersection of Sunset Trail and Lyman Boulevard. b. Southwest of the intersection of Powers and Lyman Boulevards. c. Northwest and southwest of the intersection of Powers and Bluff Creek Boulevards. d. The most southeasterly corner of the development facing the Highway 212. The design and dimensions of the sign shall be identical throughout the development with exception of the larger sign facing south on to Highway 212. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 21 8 2. Off-Premise Directory Sign B Three off-premise directory signs shall be permitted for the development. The location of the off- premise directory signs shall be as follows: Southeast of the intersection of Avienda Parkway and Sunset Trail. Northwest and southwest of the intersection of Bluff Creek Boulevard and Sunset Trail. The sign architectural structure shall not exceed 19 feet in height and shall be built in accordance with the dimensions and design shown and labeled below. 1. The individual tenant sign panel area shall not exceed eight (8) square feet, six (6) feet wide and 1’ 4” high, no more than three panels per off-premise directional sign. 2. The overall sign area shall not exceed 58 square feet. 3. The sign shall be located outside of the sight triangle and shall not interfere with the driver’s intersection sight distance. 4. The sign shall maintain a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the curb. 5. The sign shall maintain a 1.5-foot separation from trails/sidewalks. 6. The sign shall not interfere with snow removal operations. 7. The sign shall only include the names and logos of the businesses. 8. The sign design shall compliment the design and materials of the proposed buildings. Project identification sign area shall not exceed 80 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the property line and be located outside the sight distance triangle. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 22 9 3. Monument Sign C a. Each lot shall be permitted one monument sign. One monument sign shall be permitted per lot with the exception of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. These signs shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than five (5) feet in height. If more than one building is on a lot, the sign must be shared. b. All monument signs shall maintain a uniform architectural design that complements the architecture of the buildings. c. These signs shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line and be located outside the sight triangle. d. All monument signs shall face the internal streets (Avienda Parkway and Bluff Creek Boulevard). DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 23 10 4. Wayfinding Signs D Wayfinding signs shall be permitted along the internal street located within Lots 1 and 2, Block 5. a. The sign shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height. b. The sign area shall not exceed 32 square feet. c. The sign shall be located outside of the sight triangle and shall not interfere with the driver’s intersection sight distance. d. The sign shall maintain a minimum of 10 feet from the back of the curb. e. The sign shall maintain a 1.5-foot separation from trails and sidewalks. f. The sign shall not be illuminated. g. The sign shall not interfere with snow removal operations. h. The sign lettering shall not exceed six inches and shall have a uniform style. i. The sign shall only include the names and logos of the businesses and a directional arrow. j. The sign design shall compliment the design and materials of the proposed building. k. The sign shall not obstruct drivers’ views of any city-owned street signage or railroad signage. l. The sign will be owned and maintained by the developer. m. The applicant shall construct the sign. 5. Wall Signs a. The location of letters and logos shall be restricted to the approved building sign bands, the tops of which shall not extend above parapet height. The letters and logos shall be restricted to a maximum of 30 inches in height. All individual letters and logos comprising each sign shall be constructed of wood, metal, or translucent facing. b. Second story illuminated signs that can be viewed from neighborhoods outside the PUD site, are prohibited. c. Tenant signage shall consist of store identification only. Copy is restricted to the tenant’s proper name and major product, or service offered. Corporate logos, emblems, and similar identifying devices are permitted provided they are confined within the signage band and do not occupy more than 30% of the sign area unless the logo is the sign. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 24 11 d. Wall signs are limited to two elevations per building unless the area of square footage exceeds 25,000 or above in a single use. e. Single tenant buildings shall be permitted wall signs on two elevations only unless the area of square footage exceeds 25,000 or above in a single use. The size of the sign shall be based on Table 1. f. Halo Lit signs are permitted consistent with the wall area criteria, including maximum nits and only white. 6. Projecting Sign (Wall) a. Shall be limited to the Village Retail District. b. Sign area shall not exceed two (2) square feet and not project more than two (2) feet from the building. 7. Festive Flags/Banners a. Flags and banners shall be permitted on approved standards attached to the building facade and on standards attached to pedestrian area lighting. b. Flags and banners shall be constructed of fabric or vinyl. c. Banners shall not contain advertising for individual users, businesses, services, or products. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 25 12 d. Flags and banners shall project from buildings a maximum of two (2) feet. f. Flags and banners shall have a maximum area of 10 square feet. g. Flags and banners which are torn or excessively worn shall be removed at the request of the city. 8. Building Directory a. In multi-tenant buildings, one building directory sign may be permitted. The directory sign shall not exceed eight square feet. 9. On-Premise Directional Signs a. On-premise signs shall not be larger than four (4) square feet. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed five (5) feet from the ground. The placement of directional signs on the property shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties including site lines or confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public right-of-way. No more than four (4) signs shall be allowed per lot. The City Council may allow additional signs in situations where access is confusing, or traffic safety could be jeopardized. b. Bench signs are prohibited except at transit stops as authorized by the local transit authority. c. Signs and Graphics. Wherever possible, traffic control, directional, and other public signs should be consolidated and grouped with other street fixtures and furnishings to reduce visual clutter and to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement. A system of directional signs should also be established to direct traffic within the commercial area and away from residential areas. 10. Prohibited Signs a. Pylon signs. b. Back lit awnings. c. Window signs are prohibited except for company logo/symbol and not the name. Such logo shall not exceed 10% of a window area. d. Menu signs. e. Signs on roofs, dormers, and balconies. DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 26 13 f. Billboards. g. Interchangeable letter boards or panels. h. Flashing signs. 11. Sign Design and Permit Requirements a. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect the quality of the development. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material and height throughout the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. b. All signs require a separate sign permit. c. Wall business signs shall comply with the City’s sign ordinance for the neighborhood business district for determination of maximum sign area. Wall signs may be permitted on the “street” front and primary parking lot front of each building. I. Public Realm, Streetscape The site development, streetscape character, building placement, pedestrian realm, material expression and color, stormwater utilization, building interest, lighting and walking paths shall be consistent with the Avienda Development Guidelines Dated September 8, 2022. J. Engineering Conditions 1. The applicant shall update the traffic analysis completed for the 2016 AUAR Update based on the approved land uses for the development. 2. Each subsequent plat and/or site plan will be required to complete a Traffic Impact Study for the abutting local road network to identify capacity deficiencies at affected intersections and to help identify feasible solutions to identified deficiencies. This shall also include; an assessment of internal circulation for vehicles and pedestrians; the interface between public and private streets and trails and their respective maintenance operations; and emergency service access and circulation. 3. The access point east of the most eastern round-a-bout on Bluff Creek Boulevard, as depicted in Development Plan 8.1 dated July 15, 2022, is not approved. 4. An updated capacity analysis shall be provided based on the approved land uses to determine if the municipal utilities to service the development are adequate. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 12th day of September, 2022. ATTEST: Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor Summary Ordinance 696 to be published in the Chanhassen Villager on October 6, 2022) DocuSign Envelope ID: 24199610-414B-4C73-99DE-6AC6696EA9A9 27 28 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Assessment Policy Updates (continued) File No.N/A Item No: A.2 Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Prepared By Charlie Howley, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION Discussion Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority Financial Sustainability SUMMARY This is a follow up to the City Council work session from February 10, 2025. Draft policy updates will be presented for continued discussion. Pending the discussion, formal approval of Policy updates will be scheduled for the April 14, 2025 City Council meeting. BACKGROUND The presentation from the February 10, 2025 meeting is attached, along with the current 10-yr Pavement Management Plan CIP. DISCUSSION N/A 29 BUDGET N/A RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS 20250210 Assessment Policy Updates Streets 10-Year CIP Map (2025-2034) Presentation 30 Assessment Policy Updates City Council Work Session February 10, 2025 31 Agenda This is a follow-up from our City Council Work Session back on June 24, 2024 1.Assessment Policy language updates a)Provide clarification b)Provide additional context and details 2.Ways to help the cost burden a)Interest Rate b)Term c)Consideration of a Flat Rate 32 Assessment Policy Language Updates A redlined version was attached to the staff report. Highlights include: •How assessments are calculated •Additional clarification on what’s included in the calculations o Note: Adding new sidewalks/trails won’t be included in assessable costs •Adding deferment language NOTE: Should there be support for moving to a Flat-Rate, much of the language would need to be revised 33 Ways to help the cost burden Interest Rate Current Assessment Policy states: “The interest rate will be equal to the average interest cost of the City’s most recent bond issue plus 2%. If the City has not issued bonds in the past year, the City will use the current municipal bond index rate for AAA rated issuers at the time the special assessment is approved.” Staff proposal: “The interest rate will be equal to the yield on the 7-year Treasury Note on the date the special assessment roll is adopted, plus 1%.” Exist. 4.5% + 2.0% = 6.5% Prop. 4.6% + 1.0% = 5.6% 34 Ways to help the cost burden Term Add longer terms for higher assessment amounts Amount Existing Term Proposed Term $0-$500 1 year 1 year $501-$2,500 5 years 5 years $2,501-$5,000 8 years 8 years $5,001-$10,000 10 years 10 years $10,001-$50,000 10 years 15 years $50,001 and above 10 years 20 years 35 Ways to help the cost burden – Flat Rate Mill and Overlay •A flat rate (per inch of new pavement) could be used o M&O projects have varying depths of pavement replacement •The rate would initially be set at $1,450/Inch, which is approximately the 20-yr average (adjusted for inflation). o A typical 2” M&O would therefore be $2,900 •The midpoint of the probable special benefit received by a M&O is $4,893 36 Ways to help the cost burden – Flat Rate Full Depth Reclamation •A flat rate could be used •Since an FDR is “Full Depth” and the new pavement section is standard, the existing pavement section doesn’t have a large impact on cost •The proposed rate would initially be set at $3,900, which is approximately the 3-year average (adjusted for inflation) •The midpoint of probable special benefit received by a FDR is $6,438 37 Ways to help the cost burden – Flat Rate Full Reconstruction •A flat rate could be used •Since the pavement section would all be new and consistent, the existing conditions don’t have a large impact on cost •The proposed rate would initially be set at $8,100, which is the average assessment for full reconstruction projects completed since 2004 (adjusted for inflation) •The midpoint of probable special benefit received by a full depth reconstruction with sewer and water replacement is $9,013 38 Ways to help the cost burden – Flat Rate The rates would be adjusted annually with the adoption of the Fee Schedule •The annual adjustment would be tied to a construction inflation indicator •Every 5 years, a more detailed review of costs could be used to reconcile the rates if deemed necessary, including updating the probable special benefit appraisal •The MS 429 process will still be utilized Rehabilitation Type Flat Rate Assessment Mill and Overlay $ 1,450/inch Full Depth Reclamation $ 3,900 Full Reconstruction $ 8,100 39 Ways to help the cost burden - Flat Rate Funding Impact •Has potential risk of shifting more cost to the city’s funding side o It’s difficult to predict with any certainty o For 25-01, estimate is $608,500 in additional city costs (it’s looking to be a high assessment year) o For 20-03, the amount would have been $380,000 in additional city costs o For 22-01, the city would have saved $158,100 o Previous data suggests 56% of the time it would have cost the city more •A reasonable assumption would be to plan for $300,000/year in additional city costs •This amount obviously has an impact to the PMP Fund, but does not jeopardize completing the programmed 10-year projects o The fund balance would remain strong at the end of the 10-year period o Risk for more fluctuation in cash flow and the short-term fund balance 40 Ways to help the cost burden – Flat Rate So, why do this? The Pro’s vastly outweigh the Con’s….and this would dramatically simplify the process Pro’s Con’s It creates a known amount •easier for the residents to plan for Financial risk more often than not would fall on the City It’s far easier to administer •savings on consultant costs and city staff time Only applies to Low-Density Single-Family property •other types will remain formula based (traffic) •the Per Unit amount is known It’s fair, equitable, and repeatable Minor short-term Impact on PMP Fund It’s easier to understand and communicate Public opinion concerning previous assessments The proposed rates fall within the probable special benefit test •reduces risk of being challenged 41 Next Steps/Options 1.Formally adopt a revised Assessment Policy at the February 24, 2025 City Council meeting a)Accept some or all of the proposed edits 2.Formally adopt a revised Fee Schedule at the March 10, 2025 City Council meeting a)If Flat Rate is desired 3.Implement on 2025 projects OR 1. Leave unchanged and proceed with current Assessment Policy 42 Questions/Comments 43 ####################################################################################################################################Lake Virginia Christmas Lake Lotus Lake Brendan Pond Lake Harrison Kerber Pond Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake Lake Riley Rice Lake Lake St. Joe Lake Minnewashta Lake Ann Lake Lucy ST18 ST15 ST14 ST17 ST61 Minnewashta Regional Park North Lotus Lake Park Meadow Green Park Lake Ann Park Chanhassen Pond Park Chanhassen Nature Preserve Chanhassen Recreation Center Lake Susan Park Rice Marsh Lake Preserve Power Hill Park Fox Woods Preserve Bandimere Community Park Bluff Creek Golf Course Hesse Farm Park Preserve Lake Susan Preserve City Center Park Raguet Wildlife Management Are MN Valley National Wildlife Re MN Landscape Arboretum Seminary Fen Scientific & Nat* Bluff Creek Preserve Independent School District 11 Independent School District 112 Independent School District 276 Riley Ridge Park Lake Ann Park Preserve SA7 SA101 SA5 SA5 SA41 )212 PowersBlvdLyman Blvd ChanhassenRdArboretum Blvd Pioneer TrlGalpinBlvd Hwy 212Hazeltine BlvdMa r k etBl v dPowers BlvdHwy 7AudubonRdF ly in g C l o u d D r Great Plains BlvdC o R d 1 0 1 Arbo r e t u m B l v d ST101 ST101 Date Created: 10/21/2024 Document Path: K:\Departments\Engineering\CIP\10 Year\CIP_10year.aprxCreated By: City of Chanhassen - Engineering Department µ0 3,000 Feet 0 0.5 Mile 10-Year CIP Pavement Management Plan (PMP) - Streets (2025-2034) City of Chanhassen Legend Mill & Overlay Full Depth Reclamation ## ##Reconstruction 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 44 Assessment Policy Updates City Council Work Session March 24, 2025 *Continued from February 10, 2025 45 Agenda A.Answer the questions that Council had on 2/10/25 B.Recap the policy language edits, change in Term, and the change in Interest Rate C.Review the Flat Rate suggestion D.Other situations to consider 46 Things we heard from Council 1.Don’t mix assessment calculation methodologies a)To the extent practicable, this will be the intent 2.Honor last year’s commitment to Chapel Hill and don’t assess them again with 25-01 a)Acknowledged 3.Add an example calculation into the assessment FAQ a)Acknowledged 47 Things we heard from Council 4.Revisit the change in Term internally a)We eliminated the 20-yr term from the proposed schedule adjustment 5.How many anomalies (Ches Mar example) are there in the future? a)There are a few examples in the 10-yr CIP that are solely SF residential •31-01 Longacres FDR (plan on this being an MSA route by then) •31-01 Lake Lucy Ln Recon (Adding Sewer/Water will increase the assessments) 4.Identify the actual impact to the PMP over the 10-yrs if the Flat Rate was implemented a)Part of the Flat Rate discussion 48 Policy Language Updates Highlights include: •Clarification on how assessments are calculated •Additional clarification on what’s included in the calculations o Note: Adding new sidewalks/trails won’t be included in assessable costs •Adding the deferment language NOTE: Should there be support for moving to a Flat Rate, much of the language would need to be revised, which is not included in the Draft redlines 49 Interest Rate Current Assessment Policy states: “The interest rate will be equal to the average interest cost of the City’s most recent bond issue plus 2%. If the City has not issued bonds in the past year, the City will use the current municipal bond index rate for AAA rated issuers at the time the special assessment is approved.” Proposal: “The interest rate will be equal to the yield on the 7-year Treasury Note on the date the special assessment roll is adopted, plus 1%.” Exist. 4.5% + 2.0% = 6.5% Prop. 4.6% + 1.0% = 5.6% 50 Payback Terms Add longer terms for higher assessment amounts Amount Existing Proposed $0-$500 1 year 1 year $501-$2,500 5 years 5 years $2,501-$5,000 8 years 8 years $5,001-$15,000 10 years 10 years $15,001 and higher 10 years 15 years 51 Flat Rate - Mill and Overlay •Potentially switch to a flat rate (per inch of new pavement) o M&O projects have varying depths of pavement replacement •The rate would initially be set at $1,425/Inch o The average of the actual assessment from the last 20-yrs together with the calculated assessments for the future 10-yr CIP (adjusted for inflation @ 3%) is $1,397/Inch o Taking into account the number of parcels (density) of the planned projects, and balancing the assessed cost vs. city cost, the amount needs to be adjusted up from the average rate o A typical 2” M&O would therefore be $2,850/unit in 2025 o Communicated goal posts indicated $2,000 - $4,000/unit (based on historical averages) o The midpoint of a probable special benefit received by a M&O is $4,893/unit ~41.8% higher than the proposed amount 52 Flat Rate - Full Depth Reclamation •Potentially switch to a flat rate •Since an FDR is “Full Depth” and the new pavement section is standard, the existing pavement section doesn’t have a material impact on the cost •The proposed flat rate would initially be set at $5,000/unit o The average of the actual assessment from the last 5-yrs together with the calculated assessments for the future 10-yr CIP (adjusted for inflation @ 3%) is $4,747/unit o Taking into account the number of parcels (density) of the planned projects, and balancing the assessed cost vs. city cost, the amount needs to be adjusted up from the average rate o Communicated goal posts indicated $3,000 - $5,000/unit (based on historical averages) o The midpoint of a probable special benefit received by a FDR is $6,438/unit ~22.7% higher than the proposed amount 53 Flat Rate - Full Reconstruction •Potentially switch to a flat rate •The proposed rate would initially be set at $9,010/unit (capped by the probable special benefit) o The average assessment for full reconstruction projects completed since 2004 (adjusted for inflation) was $8,100/unit o The average assessment for future reconstruction projects over the next 10-yrs (adjusted for inflation @ 3%) is calculated at $16,032/unit Based on the number of parcels (density), this would shift ~$3.47M in costs from assessments to the City (an average of $347k/yr) o Communicated goal posts indicated $8,000 - $10,000/unit (based on historical averages) o The midpoint of a probable special benefit received by a reconstruction project with sewer and water replacement is $9,013/unit 54 Flat Rate - Funding Impact At the 2/10/25 work session, we reported a reasonable assumption would be to plan for $300k per year in shifted city cost burden if we switched to a Flat Rate •For M&O and FDR projects, the flat rate equalizes the cost burden at the end of the 10 years •For Reconstruction projects, the flat rate would mean shifting approximately $347k per year on average from Recon project assessments to a city cost •This is not requested new revenue, it’s leveraging existing fund balance •This amount does not jeopardize completing the programmed 10-year projects with the current funding levels o The ending fund balance after 10 years maintains the minimum level desired by our financial policies o There is a short-term hit in the fund balance due to a heavy reconstruction load the next couple of years 55 Flat Rate – Fee Schedule The Flat Rates would be reviewed annually with the adoption of the Fee Schedule •The annual adjustment would be tied to a construction inflation indicator (3% was used for the cost projections), but since the feasibility studies are typically completed by December, the actual project projections would be known •Every 3 -5 years, a more detailed review of costs would be done to reconcile the rates if deemed necessary, including updating the probable special benefit appraisal •The MS 429 process will still be used Rehabilitation Type Flat Rate Assessment Mill and Overlay $ 1,425/inch Full Depth Reclamation $ 5,000/unit Full Reconstruction $ 9,010/unit 56 So, why do a Flat Rate? Staff feels that the Pro’s outweigh the Con’s Pro’s Con’s It creates a known amount •Easier for the residents to plan for Annual cost shift from assessments to the City •Recon projects only It’s easier to administer •Savings on consultant costs and city staff time Only applies to Single-Family property •Other types will remain formula based •The formula gets simplified however, due to the Flat Rate being known It’s fair, equitable, and repeatable Short-term impact on PMP Fund It’s easier to understand and communicate Public opinion concerning previous assessments •Only a few outliers The 10-yr CIP can still be accomplished with current funding The proposed rates fall within the probable special benefit test 57 Some Other Options Use a Flat Rate for only the M&O and FDR projects as there is minimal cost risk •Recon projects could be calculated project specific *No initial change in city cost burden, but Recon assessments are predicted to be higher than typical. Concern with meeting the special benefit test, and therefore a decision would need to be made to move ahead or have the city cover the cost anyway Other options: •Use a different % for the assessments (direct relationship with city cost burden) •Assess for only certain elements of the project, i.e. pavement and curb (city cost burden would go up) •Do a special benefit appraisal for each project, and cap the assessment at that amount (city cost burden would likely go down, but an added expense ~$8,000) •Raise Franchise Fee (city cost burden would go down) •Eliminate assessments (alternate funding source would be needed) •Alter the 10-yr CIP, focusing on the schedule of the Recon projects (no change in city cost burden) •Alter the 10-yr CIP scope by switching some/all Recon’s to FDR (utilities risk) 58 Some Scenario’s to review Some future project examples that don’t “fit” nicely: •Review the 27-01 project example •Review the 28-01 project example 59 Next Steps A. Provide direction on what aspects of the Policy updates Council would like to move forward with •Staff will formalize the redlined version and could bring to the April 14, 2025 City Council meeting for adoption •If a Flat Rate is supported, Council would also have to formally adopt a revised Fee Schedule B. Pose additional questions for staff to come back at a future work session with more information C. Leave unchanged and proceed with the current Assessment Policy 60 Questions/Comments 61 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Accessory Dwelling Unit Discussion File No.Item No: A.3 Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Prepared By Rachel Jeske, Planner Reviewed By Eric Maass SUGGESTED ACTION No action; discussion purposes only. Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY Currently, the city's ordinance requires the application and approval of a variance in order to permit a single-family dwelling to be utilized as a two-family dwelling or "ADU". A variance may only be allowed under the following circumstances: There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age, or financial hardship; the dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry; separate utility services are not established (e.g., gas, water, sewer, etc.); the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated, and will be in keeping with the spirit and of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Formal decision-making on variance requests related to Chapter 20 of the city code has been delegated to the Planning Commission by the City Council. Since its adoption in 1986, the city has received 10 variance applications for an ADU and the city has approved all 10 of those requests. Outside of those 62 who submitted applications, staff has record of 25 resident inquiries on ADUs in the last 5 years. From those inquiries, the most common issues for residents were the additional cost and time in seeking a variance, the interest but inability to be allowed a detached ADUs, and the inability to convert existing accessory structures. BACKGROUND The use of a variance process for ADUs does not have a strong legal basis. While the city has not been challenged to date, it makes sense to consider other approaches. Based on the consistent support that the Planning Commission has historically shown applications for ADUs, the city could consider amending its city code to allow for ADUs to be reviewed solely through an administrative approval process as well as reviewing standards and options associated with ADUs. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission held a lengthy discussion regarding ADUs at their July 2, 2024 work session and the adopted meeting minutes from that meeting are attached. In summary, the Planning Commission was interested in the following policies for the regulation of ADUs: 1. Update the city's definition of an ADU. 2. Internal to the home and attached ADUs should not require a variance or conditional use permit process but rather be permitted through the building permit process as a home improvement. 3. One ADU allowed per property. 4. ADUs over a detached garage should also be allowed and permitted through the building permit process. 5. Rental Policy - ADUs may be rented as either a short-term or long-term rental, but only if the other dwelling unit on the property is owner-occupied. 6. Maintain a single utility service and single roadway access. 7. Design standards - ADUs should complement the main principal structure. 8. Lot Cover - total lot cover would continue to be restricted by the base zoning district. 9. Properties zoned as A2, RR, RSF, R-4, RLM, or PUD-R (i.e. low density residential use) is eligible for a detached or attached ADU. 10. ADUs may not be sold independently from the principal dwelling. 11. Additional parking is not required for an ADU. 12. ADUs shall abide by Minnesota State building code regulations. The City Council discussed the Planning Commission's findings at their work session on January 27, 2025. The City Council expressed interest in seeing a draft ordinance and the history of resident inquiries and gaining a better understanding of what issues residents have struggled with as a result of the current process. Potential future timeline: April 8th - Planning Commission review of draft ordinance April 15th - Planning Commission (public hearing) April 28th - City Council meeting (possible adoption) BUDGET RECOMMENDATION 63 No formal recommendation, discussion only. ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinance - Accessory Dwelling Units Example Plan Set 1 - Variance would be required Accessory Dwelling Unit Inquiry History Approved Planning Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes 64 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 AND CHAPTER 20 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 1-2 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to include the following: Section 1-2 Rules of Construction and Definitions Accessory Dwelling Unit, means a residential dwelling unit that is subordinate and clearly incidental to a primary structure, located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, either within the same building as the single-family dwelling unit or in a detached building with its own kitchen, bathroom and sleeping area. Section 2. Section 20-59 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 3. Section 20-573 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to include a new subsection (l) to read as follows:(l) Accessory Dwelling Unit (subject to the requirements of section 20-973). Section 4. Section 20-593 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to add a new section (k) to read as follows: (k) Accessory Dwelling Unit (subject to the requirements of section 20-973). Section 5. Section 20-613 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to add a new subsection (j) to read as follows: (j)Accessory Dwelling Unit (subject to the requirements of section 20-973). Section 6. Section 20-633 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to add a new subsection (i) to read as follows: (i) Accessory Dwelling Unit (subject to the requirements of section 20-973). Section 7. Section 20-643 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to add a new subsection (h) to read as follows: 65 (h)Accessory Dwelling Unit (subject to the requirements of section 20-973). Section 8. Section 20-904(a)(1) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) In the A2, RR, RSF, RLM and R-4 districts the total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed 1,000 square feet. In the RSF, RLM and R4 districts these structures may encroach into the rear setback as follows: a. Less than 140 square feet, minimum rear setback is five feet. b. One hundred forty-one to 399 square feet, minimum rear setback is ten feet. c. Four hundred square feet and above, minimum rear setback is 30 feet, except in the RLM district where the minimum rear setback is 25 feet. Section 9. Section 20-973 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec 20-973 Reserved Accessory Dwelling Units (a) Purpose and Intent. In order to accommodate the housing needs of residents while protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of the community, the Council finds that these regulations are necessary in order to: (1) Create new housing units while respecting the appearance and character of single-family dwellings; (2) Provide housing that responds to changing family needs, privacy standards and household sizes; (3) Make more efficient use of existing housing stock and infrastructure; and (4) Encourage the creation of additional affordable housing (b) Standards (1) Zoning district. Accessory dwelling units may only be located within the A2, RR, RSF, R-4, RLM, and PUD-R residential zoning districts. (2) Location. An accessory dwelling unit may be attached to, detached from, or internal to a single-family dwelling. 66 (3)Design and access. Accessory dwelling units must be fully separated from the single-family dwelling unit by means of a wall or floor and have a separate entrance than the primary dwelling unit. The separating wall may have a door connecting the accessory dwelling unit to the primary dwelling unit. (4)Size. Both detached and attached accessory dwelling units must meet the following size standards: (a)Minimum size. Accessory dwelling units must be at least 200 square feet in area. (b)Maximum size. Accessory dwelling units must be less than 960 square feet in area. (c)Proportionate size. The four-season living area of an accessory dwelling unit must not exceed 33% of the combined four-season living area of the associated single-family dwelling. (5)Bedrooms. No more than two bedrooms are permitted in the accessory dwelling unit. (6)Number of Accessory Dwelling Units. Not more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed per single-family detached lot. (7)Permanent Structure. Accessory Dwelling Units must have a permanent foundation with no wheels. 67 (8) Setbacks. Any accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the same minimum building setback requirements as required for the living portion of the principal dwelling unit. (9) Stairways. Stairways leading to an internal accessory dwelling unit located above the ground floor of a principal residential structure shall be enclosed or located entirely to the rear of the principal residential structure. (10) Height. The maximum height for accessory dwelling units shall be as prescribed for accessory structures in the applicable zoning district, provided that in no case shall the height of a detached accessory dwelling unit exceed the height of the principal building unless the accessory dwelling unit is part of a detached garage and that garage serves as the primary garage for the principal structure. (11) Impervious Lot Coverage. The allowed area for a detached dwelling unit shall be determined by the permitted hardcover percentage in the applicable zoning district as well as any restrictions associated with applicable shoreland regulations. (12) Architectural design. An accessory dwelling unit shall be a clearly incidental and subordinate use. The exterior design of an accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate a similar architectural style, roof pitch, colors, and materials as the principal building on the lot, and shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding residential buildings, subject to approval by the Community Development Director. (13) Driveway access. An additional driveway road access shall not be granted for purposes of providing vehicular access from a public or private roadway to an accessory dwelling unit which is in a detached accessory structure. (14) Parking. No additional off-street parking spaces are required with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. (15) Ownership. Accessory dwelling units may not be subdivided and may not be otherwise separated in ownership from the associated single-family dwelling unit. (16) Owner Occupancy. An owner of the property that includes an accessory dwelling unit that is internal to a principal residential structure, and where the accessory dwelling unit is not a separate dwelling unit under the Minnesota State Building Code, must occupy at least one (1) dwelling unit on the zoning lot as their primary place of residence. If an owner is unable or unwilling to fulfill the requirements of this section, the owner shall remove those features of the accessory dwelling unit that make it a dwelling unit. Failure to do so will constitute a violation of this section. 68 (a) Prior to issuance of a permit establishing an accessory dwelling unit, the owner(s) shall file with the Carver County recorder a covenant by the owner(s) to the City of Chanhassen stating that the owner(s) agree to restrict use of the principal and accessory dwelling units in compliance with the requirements of this section and notify all prospective purchasers of those requirements. (b) The covenant shall run with the land and be binding upon the property owner, their heirs and assigns, and upon any parties subsequently acquiring any right, title, or interest in the property. The covenant shall be in a form prescribed by the zoning administrator that includes the legal description of the zoning lot. The property owner(s) shall return the original covenant with recording stamp to the zoning administrator before the building permit for the accessory dwelling unit is issued. (c) At the request of a property owner and upon an inspection finding that an accessory dwelling unit has been removed from the owner's property, the zoning administrator shall record a release of any previously recorded covenant for that accessory dwelling unit. (17) Rental License. The owner of the property shall reside in either the principal dwelling unit or in the accessory dwelling unit. Accessory dwelling units may be used as a short-term rental subject to the conditions listed in Section 10-230 of the City Code. (18) Accessory Structure Regulations. Except as otherwise specified in this subdivision, a detached accessory dwelling unit shall be subject to the same regulations as provided for under Section 20-904 of this Chapter. (19) Utilities. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer due to special infrastructure circumstances, the accessory dwelling unit shall not have separate public sewer or water utility services from that of the principal structure. (20) Addressing. The accessory dwelling unit shall be addressed as a separate unit with the same numerical address as the principal structure pursuant to Chapter 7-II (Building Code) of the City Code. (21) Building Code Compliance. The principal dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit shall be created and maintained in compliance with Chapter 7-II of the City Code. The accessory dwelling unit and the associated single-family dwelling unit shall also meet current State Building Code provisions, including, but not limited to, fire resistance standards between units. (22) Fire Code Compliance. The principal dwelling and accessory dwelling unit shall be created and maintained in compliance with Chapter 5 of the Minnesota State Fire Code. 69 (23) Property Maintenance Code. The principal residential structure and the accessory dwelling unit shall be constructed and maintained in compliance with the property maintenance requirements set forth in the City Code. (24) Shoreland and Watershed District. All applicable state shoreland and watershed district requirements must be met. (d) Accessory Dwelling Unit application requirements. Any application for an accessory dwelling unit must be accompanied by: (17) Existing conditions survey showing property lines, existing and proposed structures, existing and proposed impervious surface areas, and setbacks. (18) Elevation drawings depicting the proposed structure from all four directions; and (19) A floor plan of the accessory dwelling unit indicating points of entrance and floor areas. (20) In the event an accessory dwelling unit is proposed entirely within the existing floor area of a single-fmaily dwelling, the existing conditions survey is not required and elevations drawings are required only for those elevations proposed to be altered. (e) Temporary family health care dwellings. Pursuant to the authority granted by M.S. 462.3593, subd. 9, as it may be amended from time to time, the city opts-out of the requirements of M.S. 462.3593, which defines and regulates temporary family health care dwellings. Section 10. Section 10-230(a)(2) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to add a new subsection (b) and reletter the remaining subsections accordingly: b.State whether the rental is in a primary or accessory dwelling unit, and which dwelling unit is occupied by the property owner. Section 11. Section 10-230(b) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended to add a new subsection (9) to read as follows: (9)If the rental unit is either in or on the same property as an accessory dwelling unit, then either the primary or accessory dwelling unit must be occupied by the property owner. Section 12. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. 70 PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _____, 2025, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ______________________________________________________________ Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in the ____________ on ______________________________) 71 NO CHANGES TO FRONT ELEVATIONNO CHANGES TO LEFT ELEVATIONNEW SKYLIGHTS FLUSH AS PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONSEXISTING SKYLIGHTNEW WINDOWScaleProject numberDateDrawn byPh: 612 532 8159Email: avastudio.ab1@gmail.comAddress: 4332 Brookside Ave St Louis Park Minnesota 554361/8" = 1'-0"1/30/2025 6:25:33 PMA1Elevations63406340 Dogwood AveExcelsior1/30/2025Alexander Bocharnikov1/8" = 1'-0"1Front1/8" = 1'-0"2Left1/8" = 1'-0"3Rear1/8" = 1'-0"4RightALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.GENERAL SCOPE OF PROJECT:CONVERT EXISTING STORAGE AREA ABOVE GARAGE INTO LOFT / OFFICE SPACE WITH BATHROOM AND KITCHENETTE72 35' - 0"24' - 0"11' - 0"1A428' - 9 1/2"DN36" X 80"20 MIN. RATED DOORUPNEW STAIRS SECTION FROM GARAGE FLOOR TO EXISTING LANDINGEXISTING STAIRS FROM LANDING TO ATTIC LEVELDEMO EXISTING STAIRS FROM GARAGE FLOOR TO LANDINGEXISTING STAIRS FROM GARAGE TO LOWER LEVELEXISTING GIRDER TRUSSEXISTING ROOF TRUSSESEXISTING ATTIC TRUSSESEXISTING ATTIC TRUSSESNEW FURNACE30" X 80"20 MIN. RATED DOORAIRTIGHT DOORE X I S T I N G 2 X 6 S T U D E X T E R I O R W A L L N E W R -2 1 C L O S E D C E L L S P R A Y F O A M N E W 1 /2 " G Y P . B D . W A L L S H E A T H I N G EXISTING 2X6 STUD EXTERIOR WALLNEW R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAMNEW 1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHINGEXISTING 2X6 STUD EXTERIOR WALLNEW R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAMNEW 1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHING3' - 3 1/2"EXISTING 2X6 STUD EXTERIOR WALLNEW R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAMNEW 1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHINGEXISTING DOOR34" -38" HIGH HANDRAIL TYP.NEW 2X4 WALL SEPARATING FINISHED AREA AND GARAGE2X4 STUDS @ 16" O.C.2X4 TREATED BASE PLATE1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHING (FINISHED AREA SIDE)R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM INSUL.5/8" TYPE XGYP. BD. WALL SHEATHING (GARAGE SIDE)EXISTING DOOREXISTING SCREENED PORCHEXISTING HOUSEEXISTING GARAGENEW GARAGE ATTIC ACCESS22' X 34" ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byPh: 612 532 8159Email: avastudio.ab1@gmail.comAddress: 4332 Brookside Ave St Louis Park Minnesota 554361/4" = 1'-0"1/30/2025 6:25:33 PMA2Garage Level63406340 Dogwood AveExcelsior1/30/2025Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1Garage FloorALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.73 DWREF.1A413' - 10 1/2"5' - 0"EXISTING SKYLIGHTNEW SKYLIGHT22" X 48"NEW SKYLIGHT22" X 48"N E W W I N D O W 2 8 " X 4 2 " C A S E M E N T DN32" X 60"SHOWER28" X 80"WCFAN27" VAN.EXISTING WINDOWLOFT / KITCHENETTEOFFICE / SHOPBATH24"24"12"18"30" RANGE30" X 80"CMSDSDEXISTING WALL 5' 4" HIGHSTORAGE NICHES / CABINETSBETWEEN EXISTING TRUSSESEXISTING ATTIC TRUSSES TYP.END TRUSS 2X8 TOP CHORD TO ACT AS A HEADER2' - 9"2' - 8"2' - 8"8' - 0"EXISTING 2X6 WEB TRUSS STUDSNEW R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAMNEW 1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHINGEXISTING 2X6 WEB TRUSS STUDSNEW R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAMNEW 1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHINGEXISTING 2X6 WEB TRUSS STUDSNEW R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAMNEW 1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHINGEXISTING WALL 5' 4" HIGHEXISTING WALL 5' 4" HIGHE X I S T I N G 2 X 6 S T U D E X T E R I O R W A L L N E W R -2 1 C L O S E D C E L L S P R A Y F O A M N E W 1 /2 " G Y P . B D . W A L L S H E A T H I N G EQEQEXISTING 2X6 STUD EXTERIOR WALLNEW R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAMNEW 1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHINGNEW 2X6 STUDS SISTER TO EXISTING TRUSSESNEW R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAMNEW 1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHINGScaleProject numberDateDrawn byPh: 612 532 8159Email: avastudio.ab1@gmail.comAddress: 4332 Brookside Ave St Louis Park Minnesota 554361/4" = 1'-0"1/30/2025 6:25:33 PMA3Attic Level63406340 Dogwood AveExcelsior1/30/2025Alexander Bocharnikov1/4" = 1'-0"1Attic Level458 SQ FT FINISHED AREAALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.74 T.O. Main Level13' -8"Garage Floor0' -0"Basement Level-3' -4"Attic Level12' -2"T.O. Attic20' -2"Main Level5' -8"8' - 0"EXISTING SKYLIGHT22" X 48"EXISTING 2X8 TRUSS CHORDS @ 24" O.C.NEW R-30 CLOSED CELL SPRY FOAM INSULATIONNEW 5/8" TYPE X GYP. BD. CEILINGEXISTING GARAGE CONCRETE FLOOREXISTING STAIRS FROM LANDING TO ATTIC LEVELEXISTING GIRDER TRUSSEXISTING ATTIC TRUSSES2X8 BOTTOM CHORDS2X8 TOP CHORDSEXISTING 2X6 STUD EXTERIOR WALLNEW R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAMNEW 1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHINGNEW 2X4 WALL SEPARATING FINISHED AREA AND GARAGE2X4 STUDS @ 16" O.C.2X4 TREATED BASE PLATE1/2" GYP. BD. WALL SHEATHING (FINISHED AREA SIDE)R-21 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM INSUL.5/8" TYPE XGYP. BD. WALL SHEATHING (GARAGE SIDE)0' - 7 11/16"0' - 10"34" -38" HIGH HANDRAILEXISTING STAIRSBULD 2X SUBFRAME AS NEEDED TO PROVIDE SPACEFOR NEW R-30 CLOSED CELL SPRY FOAM INSULATIONNEW 5/8" TYPE X GYP. BD. CEILING5' - 4"7" / 1'-0"7" / 1'-0"EXISTING 2X8 TRUSS CHORDS @ 24" O.C.PROVIDE 2" OF AIR VENT SPACE BETWEEN TRUSSES NEW R-30 CLOSED CELL SPRY FOAM INSULATIONNEW 5/8" TYPE X GYP. BD. CEILINGNEW RIDGE VENTEXISTING 3/4" OSB SUBFLOORR-49 BLOWN IN FIBERGLASS INSULATIONABOVE GARAGE ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byPh: 612 532 8159Email: avastudio.ab1@gmail.comAddress: 4332 Brookside Ave St Louis Park Minnesota 554361/4" = 1'-0"1/30/2025 6:25:34 PMA4Section63406340 Dogwood AveExcelsior1/30/2025Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERALCONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLEFOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROROMISSION ON THESE PLANS.1/4" = 1'-0"1Section75 ADU Inquiry History 2025 • 6450 Fox Drive. Ruth Kinkaid – presented at City Council meeting under public comments indicating her desire for a 400 square foot detached ADU on her property as a more affordable senior housing option. • 7320 Cactus Curv – has a STR and wants to add an ADU • 6340 Dogwood Ave – submitted building permit for garage addition which qualifies as an ADU. 2024 • Jeff Mathis – Interested in existing code and proposed code amendments • 1300 Oakside Cir – interested in making existing barn on property into an ADU • 6450 Fox Dr – interested in detached ADU • 8551 Tigua Lane – Current owners interested in selling primary home to their child and constructing a detached ADU for them to live in. 2023 • 2651 Orchard Ln – interest in ADU over garage • 1085 Holly Ln – interest in ADU-ish accessory lake structure • 1571 Lake Lucy Rd – interested detached ADU, recommended to pursue variance • 405 Highland Dr – interest in ADU process with the city 2022 • Developer – interest in detached ADUs in town 2021 • Wanted to build new house on lot and leave existing cabin as guest house on the lot • 10029 Trails End – variance info for attached ADU for aging parent • 1800 Lake Lucy Rd – wanted variance for lower level ADU • Realtor – wanted general info on ADUs, interested in ord amendment • 2080 Crestview Dr – interested in detached ADU • 3520 Hwy 7 – Had bathroom and kitchen above garage, required to remove one 2020 • 600 W 94th St – inquiry if they could have one • 10029 Trails End Rd – ADU must be accessible from inside the house 76 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES July 2, 2024 The work session was called to order at 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Steve Jobe, Commissioner Ed Goff, Commissioner Ryan Soller, Commissioner Katie Trevena, Commissioner Jeremy Rosengren COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Eric Noyes STAFF PRESENT: Eric Maass, Community Development Director; Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Rachel Jeske, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: None Accessory Dwelling Unit Discussion Eric Maass, Community Development Director, defines Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and their history in Chanhassen. The Commissioners asked clarifying questions on the existing accessory dwelling unit ordinance. Mr. Maass addressed why the current process of applying for a variance for an accessory dwelling unit is not the proper entitlement tool and recommended that accessory dwelling units were allowed by right or by a Conditional Use Permit instead. Mr. Maass presented on how surrounding cities permit accessory dwelling units in their city codes. The Planning Commissioners concluded that they would like to remove the requirement that an application have a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship, that the home maintain only one main entry, and that it also not require that the applicant show that the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Commissioner Rosengren expressed preference for ordinances created by the City of Minnetonka and the City of Wayzata. Mr. Maass sought the commissioners’ opinions on aspects of a potential new ordinance such as the type of ADUs that would be permitted, whether ADUs would be permitted by right or through the CUP process, whether renting of ADUs would be permitted, potentially maximum size, and parking restrictions. The commissioners confirmed that they would not like to limit the types of ADUs that are permissible. 77 During the discussion of the permitting process, Mr. Maass brought up the potential for the approval process for conditional use permits for ADUs being delegated to the Planning Commission, similar to variances or the option of delegating review of proposed ADU’s to staff as an administrative approval. The commissioners agreed that they would like all ADUs to be approved administratively by staff to eliminate any financial or time constraints on the applicants. After the discussion, the Planning Commission agreed and developed a series of potential stipulations or conditions related to ADU’s. They included the following: 1.Definition of an ADU 2.Internal and attached ADU’s require a building permit 3. One ADU per property 4. ADU’s over a detached garage require a building permit 5. Rental Policy – ADU’s may be rented as either a short- or long-term rental but only if the other dwelling unit on the property is owner occupied. 6. Maintain a single utility service and a single roadway access. 7. Design Standards – ADU should complement the main principal structure. 8. Lot Cover – total lot cover would continue to be restricted by the zoning district. 9. Any property zoned for residential use is eligible for a detached or attached ADU. 10. ADU’s may not be sold independently from the principal dwelling. 11. Additional parking is not required for an ADU. 12. ADU’s shall abide by MN building code regulations. The commissioners would like staff to clarify if there is a part of the Minnesota Building Code that would limit the maximum size of ADUs based on the consistent size constraints by other cities. The commissioners believed that lot cover constraints were l ikely to dictate the maximum size of an ADU for most properties. The commissioners expressed no interest in regulating parking for accessory dwelling units. Mr. Maass stated that the next steps would be to present the results of this work session to the City Council at one of their work sessions prior to beginning the ordinance amendment process. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Prepared by Rachel Jeske Planner 78 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Future Work Session Schedule File No.Item No: A.4 Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Prepared By Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION N/A Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY The City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold the following work sessions: April 14, 2025 Winter Parking and No Parking policies April 28, 2025 Fire Department Staffing and Trends Overview ROW Ordinance Discussion City Council Roundtable May 12, 2025 May 19, 2025 June 9, 2025 79 Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center Workshop with BKV Pending items: Sign Code updates Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center planning workshops Elections Pleasantview Rd. project planning 6440 Hazeltine Blvd. Apartment project Concept Plan BACKGROUND Staff or the City Council may suggest topics for work sessions. Dates are tentative until the meeting agenda is published. Work sessions are typically held at 5:30 pm in conjunction with the regular City Council meeting, but may be scheduled for other times as needed. DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 80 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item City Manager Performance Review (Closed Session) File No.Item No: A.5 Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Prepared By Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION N/A Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY The City Council will meet in Closed Session with the City Manager to review her performance on her employment anniversary. The Mayor will provide a summary of the results at the next regular meeting. The City is authorized to hold a closed session for this purpose by Minn. Stat. § 13D.05; 13D.05, subd. 3. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION 81 ATTACHMENTS 82 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Cub Scout Den Visit File No.Item No: B.1 Agenda Section 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) Prepared By Jenny Potter, City Clerk Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION N/A Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 83 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Approve City Council Meeting Minutes dated March 10, 2025 File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Jenny Potter, City Clerk Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves the City Council Meeting minutes dated March 10, 2025." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approves the City Council Meeting minutes dated March 10, 2025. 84 ATTACHMENTS City Council Meeting Minutes dated March 10, 2025 85 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 10, 2025 Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilmember McDonald, Councilmember von Oven, and Councilmember Kimber. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilmember Schubert. STAFF PRESENT: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager; Charlie Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer; and Jenny Potter, City Clerk. PUBLIC PRESENT: Christopher Ackerman, 1591 Heron Drive Linda Paulson, 7603 Frontier Trail Steven Curtis, President of the Southwest Metro Chamber of Commerce PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilmember McDonald moved, Councilmember Kimber seconded that the City Council approve the following consent agenda items 1 through 10 and 12 through 17 pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated February 24, 2025 2. Approve City Council Work Session Minutes dated February 24, 2025 3. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated February 18, 2025 4. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated January 28, 2025 5. Receive Commission on Aging Minutes dated January 17, 2025 6. Approve Claims Paid March 10, 2025 7. Approve Letter of Intent to Award with BKV Group for A&E Services for the Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center 8. Approve 2025 Liquor License Renewals 86 City Council Minutes – March 10, 2025 2 9. Amendment to An Encroachment Agreement at 6244 Ridge Road to Allow for A Deck Expansion in a Tree Preservation Easement 10. Award Bid, 2025 and 2026 4th of July Tents, Tables, and Chairs 11. ITEM POSTPONED: City Commission Appointments 12. Accept the Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the 2025 City Pavement Rehabilitation Project No. 25-01 13. Consultant Contract Assignment – HTPO to Houston Engineering 14. Approve an Encroachment Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and the property owner at 6950 Lucy Ridge Lane 15. 2025 Fleet Purchases – Round 2 16. Resolution 2025-21: Approval of $7,106.08 Donation for Outdoor Storage Sheds at Bandimere Park and Lake Ann Park 17. Adopt Ordinance 741: Amending Chapter 1, Chapter 11, and Chapter 20 of Chanhassen City Code regarding regulation of Cannabis Business All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. 1. Citizen Action Request: Christopher Ackerman Christopher Ackerman, 1591 Heron Drive, discussed storage of recreational vehicles, such as boats. He thought it seemed exclusionary to not be able to store RVs or campers in the driveway, but boats were permitted. He said other neighboring cities allow driveway parking. He requested that the discussion be readdressed. He stated that their RV could not be stored in the side yard since it was a corner lot. Linda Paulson, 7603 Frontier Trail, discussed the density bonus amendment. She asked about other cities that employ the bonus provision and where the development types would be located on the map. She discussed the need to monitor affordability and how staff would monitor adherence to the code. She stated that planned unit developments had relaxed standards and should not be included in the density bonus. She suggested considering other options for affordable housing. Steven Curtis, President of the Southwest Metro Chamber of Commerce, introduced himself and expressed additional opportunities to work together. 87 City Council Minutes – March 10, 2025 3 Judy Carter, 541 West 78th, discussed congestion in parking lots, especially with construction. She asked about a stop sign to help with safety, especially if large semi-trucks are parked in the area. PUBLIC HEARINGS. None. GENERAL BUSINESS. 1. Resolution 2025-22: West Metro Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan Charlie Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer, reviewed the goal of wellhead protection, including the related association and Wellhead Protection Plans. Mr. Howley introduced Robyn Hoerr, Sourcewater Protection Specialist, MN Rural Water Association and said that she was there to help with any questions the City Council may have. He explained the existing Wellhead Protection Plan, which was due to be updated in 2022. He stated that Chanhassen planned to enroll in the multi-community approach pilot plan. He reviewed the project’s background of the multi-community wellhead protection planning, including the benefits, challenges, and considerations. He explained the broad timeline of the project and the challenges of “City-by- City” Wellhead Protection Plans. He described the wellhead protection area and the drinking water supply management area. He presented photos to explain the impacts of the multi- community drinking water supply management area in Chanhassen. He described the next steps for part two of the plan and presented the estimated timeline. Councilmember von Oven asked about the downsides to being a part of the multi-community approach. Mr. Howley said that there will be a plan for the next ten years, so they do not need to request permission to manage source water from other agencies. He stated that the subparts of the plan allow for flexibility for cities. He commented that there were no strings attached. Councilmember von Oven asked if other cities had applied but were not permitted to participate. Mr. Howley responded that he did not think so. Councilmember von Oven asked for clarification about the map. Mr. Howley responded that he did not think there was groundwater interaction if it was not colored. Councilmember von Oven asked if there was a contingency strategy. Mr. Howley answered that they had interconnects with a few cities in case the water in Chanhassen had an issue, they could utilize water from neighboring communities. Councilmember McDonald asked what was specifically in the plan. Mr. Howley responded that the plan would detail information like where to place an infiltration basin. He explained that the plan provided best management practices for water. 88 City Council Minutes – March 10, 2025 4 Councilmember McDonald asked about the alternate source and if they were all on the same aquifer. Mr. Howley answered that Chanhassen was on three different aquifers. Councilmember McDonald asked if the State was taking over aquifers, and when they could be drilled into. Mr. Howley responded that he did not specifically know, but the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources provides permission to drill into an aquifer. Robyn Hoerr, Sourcewater Protection Specialist, MN Rural Water Association said that it was the Mount Simon Aquifer. There was legislation passed to prevent drilling of wells for potable water. There would be additional hoops to go through before drilling into that aquifer. Councilmember McDonald explained previous concerns when a well ran dry in Chanhassen. Ms. Hoerr responded that wellhead protection was a comprehensive water protection plan. Councilmember Kimber asked if this was to move forward with a plan that provided the best practices to protect the drinking water. Mr. Howley answered that part two of the plan would have actions, but Councilmember Kimber was mainly correct. Mayor Ryan expressed concerns since no other cities in the program were from Carver County. She expressed concern over the lack of control or oversight when working with group policy. She asked if the city was able to approve or deny the policies. She asked if they were the right communities to partner with and if it took away oversight from the city. Mr. Howley responded that the water flows from north to south, so the upstream communities need a strong plan since it is the water that Chanhassen receives. He said that part two of the plan addresses the remainder of the concerns expressed by the Mayor, including protecting local control. Mayor Ryan expressed the need for assurance provided in an out clause if the other cities go a different direction. Mr. Howley stated that part one work was done. He thought they had an option to remove Chanhassen from the effort. Ms. Hoerr answered that the city could remove themselves at any time, but the repercussion would be having to create your plan. She stated that they were working with the Met Council Planning Staff, who wrote the grant to create the map. She commented that the Met Council would be facilitators only. She stated that with this method, the city would have more control about what is done in their city since they were only responsible for implementation efforts within Chanhassen. Councilmember von Oven clarified that part two of the plan did not yet exist. Mr. Howley confirmed this information. Councilmember von Oven suggested a motion to strike a piece of the motion because he cannot agree to implement a plan he had not seen. 89 City Council Minutes – March 10, 2025 5 Mayor Ryan asked if it was an appropriate change to the resolution. Mr. Howley confirmed it was. Councilmember von Oven moved, Councilmember Kimber seconded to approve a resolution approving Part 1 of the Multi-Community Wellhead Protection Plan and authorizes continuation into the development of Part 2 of the plan. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. 1. West 78th St. Traffic Signal Timing Cost-Benefit Councilmember Kimber moved, Councilmember McDonald seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m. Submitted by Laurie Hokkanen City Manager Prepared by Jenny Potter City Clerk 90 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Approve City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 10, 2025 File No.Item No: D.2 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Jenny Potter, City Clerk Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves the City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 10, 2025." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approves the City Council Work Session minutes dated March 10, 2025. 91 ATTACHMENTS City Council Work Session Minutes dated March 10, 2025 92 1 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES March 10, 2025 Mayor Ryan called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Mayor Ryan, Councilmember von Oven, Councilmember Kimber, Councilmember McDonald COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:Councilmember Schubert STAFF PRESENT FOR COMMISSION INTERVIEW:Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager STAFF PRESENT FOR CONTINUATION OF MEETING: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager; Charlie Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer; Matt Unmacht, Assistant City Manager, Patrick Gavin, Communications Manager; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; Jenny Potter, City Clerk PUBLIC PRESENT: Commission Applicant Interviews The City Council interviewed candidates for the commission vacancies. Mayor Ryan recessed the work session at 6:58 P.M. Mayor Ryan reconvened the work session at 7:58 P.M. Pioneer Ridge: Review Development Proposal Eric Maass, Community Development Director, provided councilmembers with an update on the Pioneer Ridge proposed development (located at the NE corner of Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek Boulevard). Maass was joined by representatives from Brandl Anderson Homes, the project’s developer. Brandl Anderson has submitted a revised development proposal in response to Planning Commission and resident feedback, replacing previously proposed attached townhomes in the northern area of the proposed development with detached villas that resemble single-family homes but still offer shared maintenance. The updated plan slightly reduces the overall housing density and adds two attached townhomes to the southern portion, reducing the total new homes from 60 to 54. A minor zoning code amendment would be necessary for the city to consider the villa housing option, as it would be considered a “detached townhome” but currently the city does not have a definition for “detached townhome” within the city’s ordinances. Staff is seeking general feedback on the revised concept. 93 City Council Work Session Minutes – March 10, 2025 2 Charlie Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer delivered remarks and analysis on how the proposed development would affect vehicular access, sightlines and pedestrian safety in and out of the development and what engineering solutions would solve for each of those concerns. Mr. Howley said that some solutions include adjustments to the proposed grading plan, lowering the speed limit to 30mph (from 35mph), striping fog lines on Bluff Creek Drive and adding a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) to the existing pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Mayapple Pass and Bluff Creek Drive. Mr. Howley also noted that the proposed development would not increase off-site runoff, and could improve existing drainage issues by capturing and containing surface runoff onsite. Specific concerns raised by councilmembers include traffic solutions and access points, pedestrian safety at a northern crosswalk, landscaping details like the appearance of a proposed berm, and significant water runoff issues affecting nearby residents’ yards. The City Council is seeking more clarity on these topics to provide meaningful feedback and ensure the development aligns with community expectations. Market Blvd Improvements - Follow up discussion Charlie Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer, presented six additional options for the Market Boulevard Reconstruction Project in order to reflect previous feedback from councilmembers. The options presented by Mr. Howley had different effects on traffic, pedestrian access, and adjacent property impacts. All had advantages and disadvantages. Following Mr. Howley’s remarks, the City Council decided to delay the majority of Market Boulevard Reconstruction Project until 2027 due to ongoing and upcoming downtown construction, including apartments, retail, and the Civic Campus. They expressed concern about adding more disruption and traffic impacts to an already busy area. The City Council expects to postpone the project until 2027, noting that the intent is to still use The Venue TIF funds. Consider request for lease for Communications Tower on city owned property at Lyman Blvd. and Hwy 212 This item was tabled. Ordinance XXX: Density Bonuses Amendment Eric Maass, Community Development Director, shared with council that city staff has revised a draft ordinance to allow density bonuses in exchange for affordable housing, as outlined in the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission had questions about affordability and design but suggested no further changes. The City Council shared no additional feedback and the ordinance will proceed to a public hearing on March 18. 94 City Council Work Session Minutes –March 10,2025 3 Best Value Contracting -Pros and Cons overview Charlie Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer, shared with council the idea of “Best Value Contracting,” which is a contractor selection method that would provide the city with more control over the contractors it picks and allows the city to consider factors beyond just cost, such as experience, staff qualifications, and quality control. It may result in higher costs but aims to improve project performance. The city is exploring this option for the 2025 Street Improvement Project based on lessons learned from the 2024 project. The City Council agreed to revisit this topic at a later date, based on how well the 2025 Street Improvement Project proceeds and the city’s satisfaction with the value of the hired contractors. Commission Applicant Interviews The City Council discussed commission appointments to be presented at the March 24, 2025 meeting. Mayor Ryan adjourned the work session at 10:35 P.M. Submitted by Laurie Hokkanen City Manager Prepared by Jenny Potter City Clerk 95 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated March 4, 2025 File No.Item No: D.3 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council receives the Planning Commission minutes dated March 4, 2025." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Minutes dated March 4, 2025 with public comment 96 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Edward Goff, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; and Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Ed Szalapski Jr. 850 Pleasant View Road Paul Haik 261 Hidden Lane Paul Robinson Rachel LLC Development Director Christine Haissig 6370 Pleasant View Cove Tony Fricano 980 Lake Lucy Road Sarah Zaccarine 6431 Pleasant Park Drive Thomas Kraker 801 Pleasant View Road Alexander Westlind 825 Pleasant View Road Eric Anderson 6580 Troendle Circle Martha Noll 7214 Frontier Trail PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PID 25-4070020, GENERAL GAPLIN BLVD (PLANNING CASE #25-03) Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, presented the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6651 Galpin Boulevard. She stated that the proposal was scheduled to go before City Council on March 24. She shared that the Planning Commission's scope for Comprehensive Plan amendments was large because they act in its legislative or policy-making capacity. She explained information on the lot, including that the lot is currently zoned rural residential and that the Comprehensive Plan Guidance is for a residential large lot. The lot size is 2.50 acres with a net density of 2.22 unit per acres. Mrs. Arsenault explained the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use. She stated that the applicant wanted to go to a residential low-density designation, which was like neighboring properties outside of a pocket of four properties. She reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Guidance, which allowed for appropriate re-guiding of property upon the availability of city utilities. She explained that the current home was on well 97 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 2 and septic but did not have to connect until a large-scale repair was required. She stated that two sewer and water stubs were added to the property with the 2024 Galpin Boulevard reconstruction. She said that the applicant was looking to subdivide and build a new house on the subdivided portion of the property in the future. Chairman Noyes asked if it was a common occurrence to change the designation of a property to take advantage of the city’s utilities. Mrs. Arsenault answered that a lot of people inquire about lot splits, and when utilities are newly introduced to an area it is not uncommon for the city to receive a request for an amendment to land use designations for newly serviced properties. Commissioner Soller asked if the Comprehensive Plan is the strategic vision only set every so often and rarely changed. He said that this change would just change the specific lot, but the other lots would be guided in a different way. He said normally the Comprehensive Plan would not be changed, so he asked if the request was normal. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, answered that the request was normal as the current designation of the lot was residential large lot which was appropriate as they did not previously have access to sewer and water but the request to reguide to residential lot density was now the appropriate designation because of the availability of public water and sewer utilities to the property. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan allowed for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide for a denser designation when sewer and water were available. Vice Chair Jobe asked if the other lots guided residential large lot along Galpin Boulevard would be able to reguide as well with the new utilities installed. Mr. Maass confirmed the information. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve amending the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Low Density for PID 25-4070020, generally located at 6651 Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 2. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCE TO CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PLEASANT VIEW POINTE (PROJECT 25-02). Eric Maass, Community Development Director, said that the presentation would be collaborative. The applicant also had a presentation. Mrs. Arsenault introduced the project to be discussed. She reviewed the location of the property at approximately 6535 Peaceful Lane. She stated that the 13.65-acre property was a combination of six properties and is zoned with a single residential family. The Comprehensive Plan Guidance is Residential Low Density. She reviewed the different steps for community engagement, including the public hearing notice postcards and public hearing notice in the Sun 98 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 3 Sailor. Additionally, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the Chanhassen Recreation Center on July 31, 2024, and the development was discussed at the City Council workshop on October 14, 2024. Mrs. Arsenault described the Planning Commission Scope for a preliminary plat review, including that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the zoning ordinance, with all applicable City, County, and regional plans, the physical characteristics of the site, and the area has access to all necessary utilities. Mrs. Arsenault displayed a photo to show the existing conditions of the property. She stated that the developer proposed 19 single-family lots, with one outlot and public trail access that would also provide access to emergency services. She said the density was 1.4 units/acre, and the lots conformed to the RSF zoning district standards. She reviewed the staff comment about lot 5 changing into a flag lot to get the driveway out of an outlot owned by the city. She showed the landscaping plan for the development and noted the landscaping schedule to show the trees that would be planted. She noted that the developer did a good job to ensure existing trees on the development remained. She summarized the water and sanitary sewer utility plan and noted that an old, unused sanitary sewer and water main would be removed with the vacation of public right of way for the former road referred to as Redman Lane. Mrs. Arsenault showed the storm sewer utility plan, which would reach into the storm pond area. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, reviewed the Planning Commission Scope for the approval of variances which is more prescriptive criteria to meet for approval. He reviewed the property history to provide context. The general development area had plats for Carver Beach Estates in 1986, Vineland Forest in 1990, and Troendle Addition in 1991. He reviewed the prior development conditions for Nez Perce. He said the city condemned the right-of-way through the property being considered for the preliminary plat. The city took future assessments from the property to pay for the future road extension of Nez Perce. If the road is not extended, there would be a potential that the city would have to pay it back with interest. Mr. Maass reviewed the neighborhood feedback about the Nez Perce connection with concerns that the connection of Nez Perce would create a cut-through path for drivers not wanting to drive on Powers Boulevard, and in the opinion of those residents, such a connection would change the character of the neighborhood. He presented the two options that the developer brought forward to the City Council and asked for the preferences. Option two would require a variance for the cul-de-sac length. He showed a drawing of the cul-de-sac and explained the variance request for the dead-end cul-de-sac of 1,040 feet long. He reviewed the comments from Emergency Services about the access at the cul-de-sac. Mr. Maass reviewed the proposed findings for recommendation. Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer, reviewed the existing conditions of the property, stating that it was an open prairie with managed turf grass. He said that the stormwater generally flows from the southeast to the northwest, with a majority of the water draining into Christmas Lake. He noted that a small portion of the site drains to the south. He said that the property takes water from the Troendle Addition. He reviewed the large drainage and utility easement to protect and 99 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 4 allow access to the wetland area and the treatment area. He stated that the area would be graded to facilitate the development and construction of roads, utilities, and building pads. A SWPPP Plan was provided to show how they will mitigate impacts during the construction. He said that the project would maintain the major flow patterns and indicated the various stormwater features on the site, with a majority of the water draining into Christmas Lake. The Troendle Addition would be routed through the pond/wetland area. He explained the stormwater design and how it would utilize a combination of wet pond/filtration basin, storm sewers, and swales to maintain the existing drainage patterns and meet design requirements. He noted that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requires double the filtration volume when infiltration is deemed impractical. He said that the applicant shifted to a constructed wetland design to meet WCA and City Regulations. He reviewed the stormwater design considerations, including the existing drainage and utility easement. Mr. Seidl said that there is a planned project for Pleasant View Road Reconstruction from 2026 to 2027, which would trigger stormwater treatment rules. The city would investigate their needs for the area and work with the applicant to reconfigure the easement if the applicant would do an analysis to show how the proposed design would meet the regulations. He expressed concern about drainage to the south, which would have some risk of impacting adjacent residents. The engineer is working with the applicant’s engineer to mitigate the concerns. He stated that the best practice when building out a subdivision is to treat all the stormwater created by the impervious areas to the best extent possible. He explained that there are areas in the subdivision that aren’t being routed to the proposed water management system due to multiple factors, such as grade and current conditions. He recognized the need to increase the treatment of the Troendle Addition. Mr. Seidl stated that a Wetland Delineation was completed in July 2024, which located two wetlands on site. One wetland was 0.08 acres, and one wetland was 0.67 acres. The larger wetland was historic and governed by the Wetland Conservation Act, which protected wetlands, habitats, stormwater detention and flood protection, and groundwater recharge. He stated that typical designs try to avoid wetlands. Mr. Seidl reviewed the wetland background, which noted that wetland two is incidental created by manmade activities. The Technical Evaluation Panel reviewed historical information about the wetland, which showed that a portion of the wetland was highly modified, but a small portion was still jurisdictional. He stated that any alterations to the wetland require a Sequencing Application, which was submitted by the applicant in December 2024. He stated that wetland one did not require a sequencing application, but the Technical Evaluation Panel is still reviewing information. Mr. Seidl reviewed the process for the Sequencing Joint Application Permit, which looks at what the applicant does to avoid the impact of wetlands, minimize impacts on wetlands, and mitigate wetland impacts. He stated that the application included two alternatives, including a no-build option and a berm to preserve the wetland. The applicant preferred a constructed wetland, which would have a lot of benefits, such as honoring the historic wetland and enhancing the overall local water quality. He said the challenges would include the temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands, and that the wetland would not meet the quality control regulations. He said a decision was needed to provide direction to the applicant and meet application review timelines. 100 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 5 He explained that the applicant has done a lot of work, but that there was no clear-cut decision from the Water Resource Department. Mr. Seidl read the regulations from the State Statute, Joint Permit Application, and the Chanhassen City Ordinance that related to constructed wetlands. Paul Robinson, Development Director with Rachel Development, introduced himself and provided examples of projects he completed. He introduced the Charles Cudd Company, the home builder for the project. Mr. Robinson reviewed the land use plan and the current zoning for the property, noting that the minimum lot size was 15,000 square feet. He provided a site analysis of the property, including the wetland delineation for wetlands one and two. He recognized the right-of-way for Nez Perce. He reviewed the topography of the site and noted the bluff area on the property. Mr. Robinson showed the overland drainage on the property and said most of the drainage goes to the north and northeast. He pointed out where Pleasant View Road was located on the map. He said that Troendle Addition drains into the pond and then goes into Powers. He reviewed the drainage and utility easements with Troendle Addition in 1991 and the pond expansion in 1992. He reviewed the tree survey and showed images of the overall tree canopy. He explained the utility connections. He explained that the preliminary plat had 19 lots, and all the lots exceed the RSF standards. He said they are trying to respect the lot sizes in the area already, with a majority of the lots ranging from 22,438 square feet to 42,830 square feet. He noted that Troendle Circle had 15,919 average square foot lots. He reviewed the depth and width of the lots and explained that they exceeded the requirements. Mr. Robinson showed photos of houses that would be similar to what would be built. He reviewed the top issues raised at the neighborhood meeting, including the future access to a water tower, general traffic concerns, and the connection to Nez Perce. He explained the responses to staff comments, including the flag lot for lot 5 for the driveway, moving lot 6 driveway for snow storage, and adding a sidewalk along Pleasant View. He noted that the sidewalk would take twelve trees. He discussed the desire to preserve the trees in the development and requested additional dialogue about the sidewalk. He reviewed the southern drainage area, which would reduce the drainage to 1.6 acres, but they are looking for additional ways to reduce drainage. He stated that one option for the drainage would be to install a storm pipe to take drainage to the water tower. He reviewed the desire to add additional access to Pleasant View and said that they understood the City Code and the desire to limit driveways on Collector Roads. He did not think that the driveway would impact the collector road and said that there were turnarounds for each driveway. He provided options for a shared driveway but noted the importance of preserving the trees. Mr. Robinson reviewed the original proposed pond/filtration system, and they worked with the LGU to create a win-win option to create a constructed stormwater wetland treatment system. He showed an aerial photo of the wetland, which showed that in 1937, there was a wet meadow, but in 1956, the property was 100% farmed. In 1962, there was a small wet area visible, and in 1967 a pond was created. In 1979, he said that a culvert may have been plugged when the road was created. In 1989, a majority of the wetland was filled, and then in 1992, the Troendle addition was started, and they built a pond. He reviewed the 1992 grading permit staff memo. He said that the evidence indicated no wetlands were on the property originally. He thought that the 101 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 6 constructed wetland stormwater treatment system seemed like a win-win, and it included deep water zones, high marsh zones, low marsh zones, filtration strips, and a native upland buffer. He stated that the proposed treatment would help the water quality. He summarized the final points, including the request for one additional driveway on Pleasant View, the concerns about the impact of sidewalk construction, and Nez Perce. Commissioner Trevena asked if the proposed constructed stormwater wetland would result in a net gain in water quality. Mr. Seidl confirmed this information. Commissioner Trevena said that WAC’s recommendation was not a clear-cut approval. She asked if it was not clear-cut because of the subdivision. Mr. Seidl answered that the first part of the sequencing application demonstrated the need for the project. He said that a subdivision was difficult to prove because there were a lot of different things that could be done. He stated that the developer did a good job on the presentation, but from a water resources perspective, it is frowned upon to place your storm water treatment facilities in the area that you are trying to preserve. He explained that the construction of the wetland would have benefits and enhancements to the area. He requested direction from the Planning Commission for guidance on future projects, as well. Commissioner Jobe asked about the runoff going up to the adjacent cul-de-sac and if the trees were preventing putting a drainage ditch to redirect the runoff from the runoff change. Mr. Robinson said that the developer was trying to be cognizant to save the trees. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the wetland and a stormwater drainage and retention pond could co-exist in the same physical space. Mr. Seidl responded yes and no. He said that historically, wetlands were stormwater treatment. The wetlands provided some level of treatment before the current rules and regulations. He explained that if the two are adjacent to each other and not separated by a berm or some other separated feature, they are mixing untreated stormwater from the development with stormwater that would be from the wetland area. He said that the untreated stormwater going into the wetland is the impact and would degrade the wetland over time. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the projected five-, ten-, and one-hundred-year flood consequences would be to the proposed treatment pond. Mr. Seidl asked for clarification. Mr. Seidl answered that the stormwater facility would be large enough to hold stormwater from a two, ten, and one-hundred-year storm events. He said the subdivision would be designed around the one-hundred-year storm event to mitigate impacts on downstream resources and nearby residents. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the pond had the capacity. Mr. Seidl thought it did, but it would be a better question for the plan’s engineer. Chairman Noyes asked about feedback from the Department of Natural Resources and how it would be weighed in situations like this. Mr. Seidl said that the specific application would not impact public water, and the Department of Natural Resources would not be involved. The 102 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 7 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Administrator weighed in on the application and initially expressed concerns about the proposal of a stormwater management facility where there is a current wetland. He said that there is a long history with the wetland. There could be net benefits with the overall design. The watershed district can provide comments, but they do not get to vote on the plan. They received recent comments that the updated plan was headed in the right direction. Chairman Noyes asked if the design solution would be considered a complex solution or if it was standard. He asked about the chances if it was not appropriately sized or effectively designed. Mr. Seidl answered that the professional engineer designed the plan because he thought it would work. He explained that the project could be calculated, so there could be confidence that it would work. He voiced concerns about the vegetation. He asked who would take care of the vegetation. He explained it would be ideal to plant native vegetation, but the city would have limited resources for native vegetation management. He said there could be a possibility of a Homeowners' Association to manage the vegetation. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the wetland was private, if the city would have a maintenance easement. Mr. Seidl responded that he did not see it becoming private since there was mixing of public and private stormwater. He explained that when there is a mixing of stormwater, the city takes ownership of the management of the stormwater facilities. Commissioner Schwartz voiced concerns about his personal experience with Homeowner’s Associations and the management of the ponds. He explained that the city would have passive maintenance of the ponds. He explained concerns related to when the visual water quality was dirty and filled with algae, property owners might try to treat the water with chemicals. He asked for input from the applicant. Mr. Robinson responded that he has set up multiple Homeowners' Association with complicated stormwater systems and restoration. He said that it would be difficult for the developer to be there twenty years down the road, but the Homeowners’ Association could be set up with a lot of teeth. He suggested rather than requiring an impact to the wetland, they could put funds into the Homeowners’ Association fund for vegetation management. He thought it would be a win-win. He thought the buffer area would be managed by the Homeowners Association, but they need to figure out additional details. They put together a disclosure when the homes are sold about how ponds can be green, and the water levels can fluctuate. He explained that this effort could be lost on future owners. Commissioner Schwartz explained the process of restoring the pond in their neighborhood and explained how difficult it is to maintain these water features in future years. Commissioner Goff asked about future easement from the drainage and if it was being changed in the proposal. Mr. Robinson answered that the overall easement was growing. They are trying to reconfigure it to get lots, but also to ensure that it takes care of the one-hundred-year storm event and modeling a portion of Troendle Addition and Pleasant Creek Road. Commissioner Trevena asked if the Planning Commission recommends the approval of the water alteration permit, but there are still comments coming in from TEP, what the process would look like. Mr. Seidl explained that a majority of the TEP members are not opposed to the approval. 103 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 8 The city would follow up with a finding of fact and an additional WAC decision to memorialize everything. Commissioner Soller asked if TEP had an authority role or a recommending role. Mr. Seidl explained that the TEP voted on the decision, but it was up to the local governing unit to make the decision. He explained that if there was a history of bucking the TEP guidance, there could be challenges to the local governing unit status. He said the Chanhassen role must memorialize decisions rather than decisions by staff. Commissioner Soller asked about the current professional opinions by the TEP members and asked if they were disregarding the historical court ruling. Mr. Seidl explained that when the staff looked at the ruling 30 years later, when WAC was in its infancy, there were additional historical photos and data to analyze the existing conditions. He said that they can determine if there was a historical wetland. He explained that the question directed to the Board of Soil and Water Resources was whether the previous court ruling mattered or the current conditions. He stated that the legal purview was not in his authority. Commissioner Soller talked about the pros and cons displayed by Mr. Seidl earlier. He asked about the challenges with the constructed wetland, specifically about the quality control regulations with the water. He asked about the net increase of the status quo and discussed how the current increase and the status quo did not meet regulations. Mr. Seidl responded that if the wetland existed without any confusion, the designer would have to design around it. The designer would have to build a treatment facility in the upland to treat the stormwater before it got there. He said the proposed wetland did not have a separation, so the dirty stormwater from the development can make it into the overall treatment area. The net benefit comes from the water leaving the overall constructed wetland complex. He said there was untreated stormwater that got into the wetland today because it is an addition to the current pond from the Troendle Addition into the area. He said it was difficult to separate the overall water quality benefits. Commissioner Soller expressed the difficulties with the gray areas about what was practically acceptable versus not. He said there was no definitive thumbs up or thumbs down about the practical alternatives for the developer. This made the decision hard for the Planning Commission, especially since they are not experts. Mr. Seidl answered that there were metrics to consider when looking at applications. He explained that it was complicated since there was a net benefit to the overall site, but they would have to fill portions of a wetland that already had untreated stormwater conveyed to it. He explained that it was not a slam-dunk application for the TEP because of the need to prove the need, but there was no clear recommendation for denial. Chairman Noyes asked for Mr. Maass to review the Planning Commission’s roles with wetlands. Mr. Maass answered that the Planning Commission would have to review the application and provide a recommendation, and then the City Council would make the decision. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was anything different that the developer could do to increase the benefits to the wetland beyond what they already proposed. He said the developer already found a good solution to the problem. Mr. Seidl responded that there was a scope problem. The larger the stormwater management practices get, the more benefits they have. He 104 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 9 said it would be better to build two homes and have a larger stormwater management practice, but would that be practical? He requested guidance on what was practical. Commissioner Soller asked if there were alternatives to the plan brainstormed by the developer before they selected the plan. Mr. Robinson said that the developer was trying to go above and beyond what was proposed. He said that they were in a precarious situation. He explained that they are not maximizing the number of lots and they are trying to create a neighborhood that fits in with the area's homes today. He said they put all they could into the pond. Commissioner Soller clarified the purview of the Planning Commission and what they should consider. He referred to the final slide from the developer with the request of the additional driveway. He asked if that was included in the preliminary plat and if the Planning Commission had the purview to consider yes or no. Mr. Maass answered that the Planning Commission would recommend approval or denial of the plat. He said that the developer showed multiple options with the driveways that the city would consider. He explained that they try to limit the number of access points onto collector roads since they are to have as few as are practical. There are three other alternatives that the staff would consider, and they think they can provide a solution for access to the lots. There are multiple factors to think about, but the biggest importance is that drivers are not backing onto the collector road. Commissioner Soller asked about the connection of Nez Perce Drive based on previous comments submitted. He said that there was a City Council directional vote in a working session that was 3-2. He reviewed the three items in the variance and asked where the connection or non- connection of that road fell within the purview of the Planning Commission. Mr. Maass responded that the conversation around the Nez Perce connection was similar. There is a preliminary plat with both options. He did not think it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to table based on this subject since there is a plat with both options. Mr. Maass reviewed the triangle of discretion. He said that the Planning Commission was presented with drafts of findings of fact and the staff’s job is to provide technical expertise and information. The Planning Commission and City Council provide direction to the city staff. Chairman Noyes said that the Planning Commission would provide a recommendation about Nez Perce Drive, and the City Council would confirm the decision or disagree with the decision. Commissioner Rosengren clarified if the recommendation was for the connection to be made, a variance was no longer necessary. Mr. Maass answered that a variance would no longer be required since the depth of the cul-de-sac road would be below the 750 feet threshold required by City Code. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Ed Szalapski Junior, 850 Pleasant View Road, stated he has been a resident of Chanhassen for 31 years. He was speaking as a private citizen and a representative of the Christmas Lake Home Association Board. He voiced concern about traffic on Pleasant View Road since it was a narrow road with natural obstacles and sharp turns. He stated that some places on Pleasant View Road could not accommodate speeds of 25 to 30 miles per hour, even with the proposed upgrade to the 105 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 10 road. He expressed concerns about the increased amount of traffic, but the concern would be resolved if Nez Perce Road was not connected to Peaceful Lane. He expressed concerns with increased runoff, as residents have spent time and money to work on invasive species. He said when there is increased development, there is an increase in run-off, which decreases water quality. He expressed the need to apply the highest standard possible to water management. He said Christmas Lake was the cleanest lake in an 11-county area and voiced the need to preserve the water quality. Paul Haik, 261 Hidden Lane, said he was the Riley Purgatory Watershed District Attorney for 20 years. He said that one of the pieces they were missing in the presentation was the dynamic in expanding the pond. He said that the water would come in, but the water would warm, which would trigger soluble release of phosphorus. He asked about the volume of water that would leave and the soluble phosphorus that would be generated by the warming in the wetland. He said that the city has an MS-4 Permit, which regulates all the pipes. The city has liability for State agencies, which set the standards of what can be sent to Christmas Lake. He requested that the city share the water management plan, the MS-4 obligations, and additional information about these questions to make an informed decision. He stated that once there is a water quality problem, it is hard to fix it, but the developer was able to change what might result. He voiced favor for the Planning Commission to have a deeper understanding of how the pipe fits into the current water management program. Christine Haissig, 6370 Pleasant View Cove, expressed concerns about the traffic. She said that there would be 19 additional households flowing into Pleasant View Road. She expressed concerns about the safety of the intersection with Powers Boulevard. She said that there were no turn lanes, shoulders, or room for pedestrians. She stated that there was a major improvement project a few years ago to help get traffic onto Pleasant View Road safely, but there were still challenges with getting off Pleasant View Road. She said that the hill going into the cul-de-sac made a blind entry. She stated that traffic off Powers Boulevard makes it difficult to turn into the cul-de-sac. She said that 19 additional houses is a large increase. She requested a qualitative analysis to build on the data to understand the impact on this road and to understand the potential safety issues. She did not know how this information was analyzed by the city but expressed the importance of the city looking into the data. Tony Fricano, 980 Lake Lucy Road, said that there was a lot of speeding on Lake Lucy Road, and the traffic is a problem. He expressed the importance of spreading out the traffic. He said his house would be impacted by the additional traffic flow. He mentioned the lots on Lake Lucy Road having effects of water from the development, the engineering team clarified the water would be lower than what is currently shed today from no development on the site. He corrected himself and said that there was less water flowing and said he misheard the City Engineer. Commissioner Soller asked if spreading the traffic out meant they were in favor of the Nez Perce Connection. Mr. Fricano responded that if there were multiple roads connecting to a main road, the traffic would be spread out and people would drive from multiple areas to get to Powers Boulevard. He stated that no one would be hit hard. 106 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 11 Sarah Zaccarine, 6431 Pleasant Park Drive, expressed concerns about moving the wetland into public property in individual lots. She said it would be distributed among the two to four lots. She said if it was city-owned or an easement, the property owner might feel they could do something to the native vegetation at the wetland. Thomas Kraker, 801 Pleasant View Road, stated that he has lived on the road for twenty years. He was not able to attend the July introduction meeting. He expressed enjoying walking on Peaceful Lane and the large tract of undeveloped land. He reiterated the dangers of the curves on Pleasant View Road, especially with the vehicles traveling over the speed limit. He said it was unique that this large tract of land was undeveloped. He stated that there were too many lots, not because they do not like development. He commented that there was room on Powers Boulevard to make a turning lane. He said it was important to have fewer lots to maintain the beauty of the land and to help with the traffic flow. He stated it was good to have opportunity for development in Chanhassen, but expressed the need to be realistic about what was overkill. He said that fewer lots could help with the water runoff. Alexander Westlind, 825 Pleasant View Road, voiced agreement with the comments about water quality, not connecting to Nez Perce, and the comment about performing a traffic study about the additional homes on Pleasant View Road. He asked about the environmental impacts with the development. He said that there was a lot of wildlife on Pleasant View Road in the undeveloped area. He asked if the hard cover infrastructure would be capable of handling the additional flow of water and if there were any studies performed for endangered, rare, or special concerned species of pollinators or vegetation. He expressed concerns about the habitat being rerouted onto Pleasant View Road, which already has traffic issues. He asked about the provisions in the Homeowners Association rules that would limit the amount of fencing that could potentially reroute wildlife and habitat and if the Homeowners Association would expand to existing lots. He appreciated the developer’s concern with maintaining trees. He discussed the non-connector road for the development and stated that the precedent would be for Pleasant View lot sizes. Pleasant View Road has development with larger size lots, so the lots seem smaller than the existing lot sizes. Martha Noll, 7214 Frontier Trail, said that she agreed with the importance of saving Christmas Lake and the watershed ideas. She asked if everyone was concerned with the wetland area and the builder took their $3600 to plant and maintain the trees for ten years, then the city could come back in and maintain the area. She stated if they were to redo Pleasant View and the developer was taking on the expense of the filtration, it could be a good opportunity for the city to relieve the taxpayers. Eric Anderson, 6580 Troendle Circle, said he spent many years as the City Administrator for Edina and then a real estate developer. He stated he attended the City Council Work Session and sent letters. He commented that his neighborhood, including Troendle Circle, Nez Perce north of Lake Lucy, and Violet Court, was made up of 33 homes. He said that they did not want to see the road connected. Nez Perce from Kerber to Lake Lucy is a narrow and dangerous road with cut- through traffic. He commented that Lake Lucy and Carver Beach Road were easy outlets to Powers Boulevard. He analyzed various cul-de-sac dead-end lengths and presented various 107 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 12 examples of streets that exceeded 750 feet maximum. He said it was a reasonable variance request. He asked that they strongly consider leaving the cul-de-sac as it currently exists. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Mr. Maass offered a brief recess since the meeting had been going for a little over two hours. Chairman Noyes asked about the MS-4 obligations and the modeling that is being completed. He said he saw Mr. Seidl taking notes of the comments and he requested more information. Mr. Seidl said that the City of Chanhassen had an MS-4 permit, which stood for a municipal separate storm sewer system. This permit allowed the city to discharge stormwater into public waters of the State. The city had to inspect their infrastructure, have rules and regulations, have public engagement and education, and other responsibilities. Mr. Seidl said the resident was asking if the city was looking at the downstream water quality when a development came in and to what level. He said that the city is bound by the rules and regulations in place, and they are used in assessing developments. There are water quality standards and rate standards to meet the MS-4 rate regulations. He said that the watershed also has rules and regulations that need to be met. He explained that there are also standard engineering practices. He explained that if the water regulations are being met at the site, the downstream water quality will be improved. Mr. Seidl commented that Chanhassen cannot infiltrate water, so there will be more stormwater volume generated by the site. He said that the developer cannot mitigate this when building impervious surfaces in lieu of a reuse system. He commented that this was not written in the regulations or a part of the MS-4 Permit. He said if a development meets the city’s rules and the watershed rules, that is how he considers if it is approvable or not. Commissioner Jobe asked about the phosphorus level and if it could be managed by a Homeowner’s Association, the amount of fertilizer used on lawns, and the amount of runoff. Mr. Seidl answered that a Homeowner’s Association could in theory have a rule about the chemicals used on a lawn, but that was not a part of the city’s rules when looking at subdivisions. Commissioner Schwartz said that a Homeowner’s Association could not effectively regulate the amount of fertilizer a property owner is putting on their lawns or in their plantings. Chairman Noyes responded that a Homeowner’s Association could manage it if they were responsible for the lawns. Commissioner Schwartz stated that a Homeowner’s Association could indirectly manage the fertilizer, but it would be more likely that the vendor hired would put the fertilizer down. The Homeowner’s Association relies on the vendor to know how much fertilizer and weed killer to put on the lawns. Commissioner Soller asked about the risks associated with the wetland on Christmas Lake. He asked for a summary of the thoughts and said that once the water quality was lost, it is hard to get back. Mr. Seidl stated that the current design set forth by the developer was an improvement to the water quality over the existing condition. He commented that the stormwater was currently treated to older standards as it is leaving the site. He said the development would generate more 108 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 13 volume, but it would be mitigated by the stormwater infrastructure. He was hesitant to quantify what was happening at Christmas Lake. The water quality was improved when leaving the site and would go through other facilities and benefit from treatment before it got to Christmas Lake. Commissioner Goff said that there was a passion about road extension. He asked if the sign at the end belonged to the city. He thought it would be in the city plan to someday extend it when it was developed but asked if the city decided not to. Mr. Maass responded that the sign was a city sign and read the future extension of Nez Perce Road. He commented that the prior City Council approved the Troendle Addition in 1991, with the condition to connect Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane to connect to Pleasant View Road. He explained the City Council condemned the right-of- way to facilitate the construction of the road and took a minor assessment to fund the extension. He said that the land stood undeveloped for many years. The applicant can make the project work in any scenario, but a majority of the current City Council, based on feedback, wanted to not connect Nez Perce and just extend Peaceful Lane. Commissioner Goff said if it was connected, it would route more traffic and said he assumed the city did research to show that the streets could safely handle the additional traffic, and it would alleviate traffic on roads that travel south. Mr. Maass confirmed that the road could be safely extended but it was ultimately a policy decision for the City Council. Chairman Noyes said he understood both sides of the dilemma and did not know if extending the road was the right idea. He said one issue he had was that in the past, assurances were made that the road would be extended. He commented that people made decisions based on these assurances, so it does not feel right. He said he understood that people would be upset if it was not put through since there was a message for so long about it happening. He did not know the reason behind the original decision and recognized that times had changed. There needs to be discussions about the repercussions of the changes. He said that the City Council would have to put it in their own decision-making process. Commissioner Schwartz requested the slide that showed the pond. He asked Mr. Seidl how much the size of the pond would need to increase for him to say yes. Mr. Seidl answered that it was not the size of the infrastructure, but there would have to be a design change that completely saved the wetland. He said he applauded the design team with what was brought forward and their effort but made note that he struggled with the conflicting regulations that seemed to be at odds. Commissioner Schwartz said he understood the conflict and the work the developer put into the work. He asked if lots three, five, six, and four were not there to impede the ability to increase the size of the wetland. Mr. Seidl said that the reduction of scope would not necessitate a wetland replacement plan, since they would meet all the rules and regulations. He did not know how many lots that would be since there is a myriad of different scenarios that the developer could go through. He is trying to provide the facts to make an educated decision. Mr. Maass explained that there was an element of wetland preservation and mitigation, which was important and outlined in the City Code. He said another aspect to consider was the city’s 109 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 14 Comprehensive Plan, which required that land to be developed was guided for residential low density had to be between 1.2 units per acre and 4 units per acre. The plan was at 1.4 units per acre, so they could only reduce it by 0.2 units per acre. He said that they wanted to serve the Comprehensive Plan and the wetlands. Commissioner Schwartz said that they could request the developer to reduce the depths of the lots to increase the size of the pond. Mr. Maass answered that he was not an engineer, so he could not comment on the size of the pond. He said it was important to consider the long-term maintenance, and the responsibility and ownership of the pond and vegetative buffer. He said that lots four and five are an acre each. He said that the city could have the pond placed in an outlot deeded to the city so that they could have additional oversight. He said some residents might mow areas they should not if they do not know where their drainage and utility easement lies, but if their property line ends, it is more obvious about their maintenance responsibilities. Mr. Seidl said that the sizing of the pond meets water requirements standards, but there is a reduction of benefit with regards to the size if it is sized appropriately. He said he had no additional comments. Chairman Noyes said the developer mentioned a sidewalk, which was not in the staff report. He asked if the Planning Commission had to weigh in on this information. Mr. Maass responded that city staff was wrestling with Outlot A. He said it would be a publicly owned and maintained trail. He stated that the city maintains a public trail on the east side of Powers Boulevard. They would use the same equipment on this trail to maintain the trail on Outlot A. There was a conversation about promoting neighborhood connectivity and safety and providing an off-road trail from Outlot A to Pleasant View Road to provide connectivity. He said that the city wanted to add additional off-road pedestrian facilities, but that Pleasant View Road was tight and would be a difficult project. He noted that there were complications with the property, but they wanted to find a reasonable solution to have trails. He said they were open to feedback from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rosengren asked about a technical point and if the little road that currently ends would be turned into a path. Mr. Maass said that the area was an existing right-of-way that the city condemned for the Nez Perce connection. The city would retain the right-of-way to place a public trail. Commissioner Soller said that the variance of the cul-de-sac felt easy compared with the presented evidence of other variances. He said that the wetland alteration was difficult, but the net increase to water quality and the way that the technology could make it a better situation over a status quo that does not meet water quality standards to begin with, he did not know how much more data they could get there to sway the opinion. He said they had seen proposals that fit houses in small spaces, but there seemed to be a balance in the density proposal. He also discussed the high-quality and premium nature of the homes being built. He asked if others had opinions that they wanted to share. He did not know if he had the expertise in the connection with Nez Perce. He said that it has been signaled for thirty years, but history should not be the only consideration in the decision. He agreed that the City Council should assess the facts and make the final decision about the connections. 110 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 15 Mr. Maass said any recommendation did not create a precedence for future applications for variance requests for a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Goff said he was good with the proposal, but the outstanding decision was the Nez Perce decision. He stated the developer did a great job, but the City Council needs to decide between options one and two. Chairman Noyes asked if he were to pretend to be on the City Council, how would he vote? He said the Planning Commission had to make a recommendation to provide to the City Council so they would understand their thoughts. Commissioner Goff asked how many people were for the extension and how many people were against it. He said people were in favor of or against the extension based on traffic. Commissioner Rosengren said that the Planning Commission was looking for assurance about the impacts. The Planning Commission could not always get to that level of assurance, and they could only make the best recommendation possible. He commented that there needs to be trust that the city staff and developer were making proposals based on what they best knew after working with experts. He said that the Planning Commission asked for certainty, which was not always possible. He stated that the proposal, as presented, should stand. He thought it was reasonable to not connect Nez Perce, and there was no certainty about the impact. He asked about what to do with the driveway on Pleasant View. He said that shared driveways do not work, so he suggested not following that option. He did not think it seemed like a big hardship to add one driveway on a road that already had sixteen driveways. Commissioner Jobe thought a pathway or a trail would be a great thing to have to get along the road and to allow for neighborhood connectivity. He stated that the amount of paper that the project had taken had already consumed the twelve trees that would be removed from the trail. Commissioner Schwartz mentioned his only concern was the wetland and if it made sense to narrow the depth of the lots on block one to increase the size of the wetland and improve the water quality going into Christmas Lake. Chairman Noyes said he was not convinced that a larger wetland would greatly impact the efficiency and outcomes of the water. He said that there were limiting factors. He said all the work to come up with a solution was impressive, and it was better than what they were going in with. He said that the solution was a step forward, and he did not know if they would get a second step forward. He said if there were guarantees that it would improve the water quality, he would consider it, but he did not know if that was the case. He discussed the connection between Nez Perce. He said he would prefer to connect Nez Perce. He wanted the City Council to explain the logic behind the decision change and he wanted to force the conversation. He said the City Council might have great ideas which were not expressed to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Trevena said she felt like they were missing valuable information from the City Council as it relates to the Nez Perce connection. 111 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 16 Mr. Maass shared information that was shared with the City Council during their work session which was open to the public and the topic was on the agenda. The City Council received neighborhood feedback that there was a preference for the connection not to be made. He thought it was a fair summary to say the decision was based on the information the City Council received to the point of the area development. Commissioner Soller asked if the staff expressed their opinion and whether there was an engineering opinion about whether or not to connect. Mr. Maass responded that there was an engineering solution in either scenario. It comes down to a policy decision about long cul-de- sacs or interconnected neighborhoods. Commissioner Soller asked if there was guidance in the Comprehensive Plan about what type of city they wanted to engineer. Mr. Maass answered that the Comprehensive Plan had a transportation chapter that classified roads based on the levels of traffic they were meant to carry and the design type they should receive when they build new or reconstruct. He said that interconnection was a good thing, but it is not always required. It does say that the right-of-way provided to the edge was a requirement if there is developable property directly adjacent to land being platted to facilitate future road extensions. He showed an example of how right-of-way locations were brought to the edge on other properties. He said it was whether or not they utilized the right-of-way. He commented that there would likely be policies in the Comprehensive Plan that could be used in support of either option. Commissioner Soller said without objectivity and data it was difficult to make claims about the traffic. Commissioner Schwartz said that there seemed to be a disconnect between the scientific observations and residents’ lived experiences in traffic studies. He asked if it was reasonable to combine both areas to find a compromise. He stated that there was no ability to overlap, which he found disturbing. Chairman Noyes said connector streets were made to handle large levels of traffic. He did not know which roads were connectors before this conversation. The objectives of the roads might not fit into residents’ desires because they do not fit into the way of life. Commissioner Rosengren said that he would prefer not to make the connection because Nez Perce would operate similarly to a connector road, which Peaceful Lane was not set up to handle the extra traffic. He said he would not support turning Nez Perce into a connection unless there was support to redo roads. He voiced concerns about future problems. Chairman Noyes clarified that Outlot A was in the city right-of-way. Mr. Maass responded that the city currently owns the condemned right-of-way. Chairman Noyes asked if the opportunity existed to make the connection in the future, if it was desired by other Planning Commissions or City Council. Mr. Maass answered that a connection could be made in the future, but that it was not common for this to occur with future street 112 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 17 reconstruction projects. If it was to be connected, it would likely be during the initial development of the property. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the city was considering widening Pleasant View. He said it was a scary road. Mr. Maass answered that Pleasant View is planned for reconstruction in the coming years. He said that the city staff knew the challenges that Pleasant View presented and hoped to address many of them in a future reconstruction project. Commissioner Soller said that it seems as if the Planning Commission was ready to consider what was on the table. Mr. Maass said that the Planning Commission could take each item on its own as a recommendation or make a single recommendation. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit, and recommends approval of the variance, for the subdivision on Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2025 Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated February 18, 2025 as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: 1. DISCUSSION ONLY: ORDINANCE XXX: DENSITY BONUSES AMENDMENT Mr. Maass reviewed Housing Policy 1.7.2 in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He bolded the “as defined by the City” since the City Code did not specify the details. He showed two prospective developments, Santa Vera Phase II and 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard, that would like to utilize the density bonus. Mr. Maass said that the density bonus is within the Comprehensive Plan but is not something that can be used until the details of a density bonus are outlined in city code. He presented the income limits for the metro area determined by the United States Housing of Urban Development. He said that the staff reached out to other cities for example ordinances for similar bonuses. They discussed potential bonuses with private developers to gauge usability. They drafted an ordinance based on this feedback and said that the density bonus would be eligible for use in R-8, R-12, R-16, PUD-R, and the Central Business District. He said that developers 113 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 18 indicated that 80 percent of Area Median Income was aligned with common Metro area market rents. He discussed that the city would require that the bonus units would remain affordable for a period of twenty years. Chairman Noyes asked where the money came from in this situation. Mr. Maass said that as drafted the density bonus is a non-fiscal tool and the city would not be required to participate financially in the project and offset reduced rental revenue. He commented that the city does not often give housing TIF. Chairman Noyes asked if other cities were similar in economic terms and residents’ background as Chanhassen. Mr. Maass responded that they looked at the spectrum. They were proposing the density bonus as an option for high density housing, rather than a requirement which is what is seen with inclusionary housing ordinances. Chairman Noyes asked how they knew it was affordable for twenty years. Mr. Maass answered that the developer would have to provide annual reports to the city to make sure that they met compliance for the Area Median Income. It was similar to the senior housing TIF requirements. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was a difference between the size and the quality of the affordable units. Mr. Maass reviewed the requirements for the bonus units, including that they needed to be distributed throughout the building, and should be the same design, size, and materials as the market rate units. He said that the unit type should be consistent as a percentage with the rest of the development. He said that the city would look at the geographic distribution if it seemed like an incorrect fit. He commented that they did not require every multi-family area to have bonus units, but there would be benefits to having affordable housing throughout the community. He said that over ninety percent of workers commuted into Chanhassen. He commented that they were setting up guidelines to follow if developers wanted to include the information. Mr. Maass reviewed the timeline for the project. Commissioner Rosengren clarified that the ordinance was granting that the developer could have greater density than the zoning allows. Mr. Maass provided an example and confirmed this information. Commissioner Rosengren asked what would happen if they stopped meeting the eighty percent and were out of compliance with their zone. Mr. Maass answered that compliance with affordability requirements would be outlined in a contract between the City and developer and if a developer failed to abide by that contract, the city would have grounds to sue the property owner for failure to operate by the contract. Commissioner Jobe asked about the thirty percent run-off area. Mr. Maass responded that it would not preclude any property from meeting other zoning requirements of the city including maximum impervious lot coverage. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the city had a population base that would qualify for affordable housing. Mr. Maass answered that there is a need for affordable housing. 114 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 19 Commissioner Schwartz asked about the twenty-five percent threshold. Mr. Maass answered that it would be at least eight units per acre. Commissioner Schwartz asked about transferring the property to a market rate if the housing sat vacant. Mr. Maass said that the bonus units are required to be held for renters with qualifying income levels. Commissioner Rosengren highlighted the need to encourage the development of the style so people who work here would also live here. He expressed the positive of the suggestion since it was not a mandate. Mr. Maass asked if there was anything they wanted to be added. Chairman Noyes asked about how the Area Median Income was calculated. Mr. Maass explained that HUD utilized the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington area to determine Area Median Income. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. OPEN DISCUSSION: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, provided an update to Pioneer Ridge. He said that it would be on the City Council Work Session on March 10. The City Staff issued a sixty- day extension for the project. The developer submitted an updated concept that revised the northern portion to a detached villa. He said that the City Code did not have a detached villa definition, so there would be a process to go through for it to be approvable. He said it could be on the City Council agenda as early as March 24. Commissioner Rosengren asked about the removal of trees for bats and if it would push out the start of the project until next year. Mr. Maass responded that the federal government had recommendations for tree removal that were potential habitats for the bat. The developer was meeting with their engineer to see if there were restrictions related to the timing of tree removal. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director 115 From: Bryce Fier Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 3:04 PM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; rasenault@chanhassenmn.gov <rasenault@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Fw: Nez Perce Drive Extension and Beddor Property Development Please see attached email I sent to the city council and mayor, thanks, Bryce Fier Get Outlook for iOS From: Bryce Fier Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 2:07 PM To: council@chanhassenmn.gov <council@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: Amanda Durrant ; Eric Durrant >; Geoff Seper ; Julia Seper ; Tracy ; Lisa Moser >; Subject: Nez Perce Drive Extension and Beddor Property Development My name is Bryce Fier, and I live at 1040 Lake Lucy Road. It is with great disappointment that the city of Chanhassen is strongly considering to not extend Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane. Nez Perce was suppose to be extended 30+ years ago when Troendle Circle was developed. My neighbors on Lake Lucy Road were very vocal about our concerns about the traffic fiow on our street from neighborhoods around us. We were told repeatedly that Nez Perce would be extended to Peaceful Lane so Troendle Circle owners could exit their development to Peaceful Lane. We've been waiting for 30+ years for this to happen. 116 We have complained as a Lake Lucy neighborhood about the traffic fiow (often speeding up and down our street at excessive speeds). Most of the speeding traffic comes from Troendle, Vineland and Nez Perce. We have sought action from the Traffic Safety committee, the engineering department and from law enforcement. We are still waiting for a response to our safety concerns. Many of the homes on our street have young children living in them. Some of us have young grandchildren visiting often. Now apparently, the city counsel is no longer supporting the extension of Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. I don't understand after waiting for 30 years, the promise made by the City Counsel and Frank Beddor is no longer the plan. I can only hope that you reconsider the direction you are headed in approving this development without extending Nez Perce. As an alternative, has the counsel ever considered ending Nez Perce at 6481 or 6491 Nez Perce and sending all of Troendle circle traffic and the Beddor Property development to Peaceful Lane to exit the neighborhood. While this does not extend Nez Perce it would take the traffic from 11-12 homes off our street. I hope you all give consideration to my suggestion to making our street safer for all who live on it. Respectfully, Bryce Fier, 1040 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen Mn Get Outlook for iOS 117 From: Julie Kaiser Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 2:34 PM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2025 Dear Eric, We are Julie and Pete Kaiser, homeowners at 6400 Peaceful Lane. Unfortunately we are unable to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on March 4. We are very much interested and have concerns regarding the Pleasant View Pointe Project. We see there will be discussions of a Wetland Alteration Permit and Variance to the cul-de-sac length for Pleasant View Point. Not having a great understanding of how the decisions are made, are there any resources that you may share regarding these requests and their impacts? Obviously there are rules or codes that are being requested to be adjusted. I am attaching a letter we sent to the Mayor and City Council Members back in October 2024 for the Planning Commission's review. We continue to have the same concerns. We also now have concerns for the Wetland Alteration Permit and the Variance to the cul-de-sac length as we want to understand both requests and their impacts. We would also like to reiterate the concern we have for extending Peaceful Lane and the increase of traffic and impact it will have on the original two remaining houses on the Lane. If you would please conflrm receipt of this email, we would appreciate it. Thank you for your time and consideration to our concerns. Pete and Julie Kaiser 6400 Peaceful Lane 118 10.9.24 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, We are writing to you today to express our concern over the development plan for the Beddor properties at 6535 Peaceful Lane and 1015 Pleasant View Road. Although we realize change is inevitable, we were quite surprised to receive the initial concept plan from Rachel Development and the number of proposed homes in the plan. The turnout at the neighborhood meeting was well attended by neighbors on all sides of the proposed land and several concerns were raised. Being one of the two homes on Peaceful Lane, the third slated for demolition according to the plan, we felt it important to share our concerns for your consideration while reviewing and ultimately making the decision on this property development. 1. First and foremost, we are concerned with the safety of all impacted by this development. People already drive too fast in this area and Pleasant View has seen a considerable rise in traffic. The corner of Pleasant View and Peaceful used to be patrolled regularly 15-20 years ago. We no longer see that type of patrolling. This intersection is a blind spot as it is at the top of the hill and those traveling from both directions cannot see what is at the area just west of the intersection. Many residents walk, bike, jog this road and it continues to become more treacherous with added traffic and speeds. The SE corner of Powers and Pleasant View has a fence that edges the sidewalk. This fence has been knocked down every winter when vehicles travel too fast and lose control. Pleasant View has many blind driveways and bus stops along the way and the safety of children and those entering and exiting driveways is being impacted, especially anytime additional development is introduced. The road has become a cut through which has also signiflcantly increased traffic. 2. We are concerned with the number of homes being proposed, speciflcally requiring access from Peaceful Lane. We were told by Rachel Development that they aren’t requesting any variances or changes to the city’s established codes. Are there any requests for changes required for the established 6535 Peaceful Lane property? If so, what are these? How would the proposal change if 6535 was not part of the proposed development? When considering the design, why can’t the proposed area refiect the landscape and property size of the houses surrounding the pond rather than the Nez Perce culdesac, especially considering the safety and access concerns? 3. We are concerned for Peaceful Lane being connected to Nez Perce. It creates an unnecessary “short cut” for neighborhoods which will increase unnecessary traffic and likely speed concerns for both neighborhoods. 4. We are concerned for the beauty of the green landscape and the disruption of the animals. 119 5. We are concerned for the impact of our homes on Peaceful Ln with the possible number of cars passing through, especially at night with headlights. 6. We are concerned for the construction traffic and overall impact of the condition of Peaceful Lane throughout this process. Peaceful Lane receives little maintenance yet it’s a road where heavy duty trucks, trailers, and machinery park, load and unload to do work on Powers Blvd., Pleasant View, and Pleasant View properties. We want to be assured that the repair and rehabilitation of this road will fall on the construction/development side and not on the homeowners. 7. We are concerned with the impact of the wooded cut through path that connects the Powers sidewalk and Peaceful Lane. Many flnd this a hidden pathway that takes you away to “up north” if only for less than a block. While you review the development, please take into consideration the following: • Do not allow the connection of Peaceful Ln and Nez Perce. • Increase the required size of the proposed size lots 7-19 to match the area by the pond and surrounding area. Reducing the number of homes will ultimately reduce traffic and safety concerns. Consider why the previous owner of the land, did not move forward with any development of this land. Consider why the current owner of the land did not want to build out this property while living in the area. • Consider the rich history of Chanhassen and how it received #1 designation for small living by Money Magazine and why. Continue to be able to tote that Chanhassen is the Best Place to Live. • Review the plans from a “put yourselves in our shoes” perspective. What are the determining factors and whys for making the decisions? We encourage you to view and walk the area to see what it currently holds and how adding 16 (19 total) homes in a small area is going to signiflcantly change the landscape and feel of what was once considered a country town and road. Thank you for your time and allowing us to express our concerns. Sincerely, Pete and Julie Kaiser 6400 Peaceful Lane 120 121 122 From: eric Anderson Date: Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 4:25 PM Subject: Charles Cudd Development Plan - Pleasant View Pointe To: <council@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Good Afternoon Council Members, I wish to express my support for the Charles Cudd Development that is being proposed to you in the near future called Pleasant View Pointe. I understand you have a work session to discuss it on Monday. I am part of a large neighborhood group on Troendle Circle, Nez Perce and Lake Lucy that have two items that we strongly oppose related to this development: 1. We strongly oppose the plan option that would connect Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane. This would quickly become a cut through for those looking to avoid Powers to get to Pleasant View. Nez Perce (north of Lake Lucy) is a road that has a number of blind spots that create safety hazards for our neighbors that have young children and dogs. Even going 25 miles an hour on the street is too fast given all the topographic change and turns that create the blind areas. 2. We also oppose the relocation of the water tower access between 1060 and 1080 Lake Lucy Road. Currently, there is a City-owned outlot that is 50 feet wide in length that has been reserved for potential relocation of the water tower access in the future. We understand the developer is being asked by the city to provide an easement that would make the connection possible in the future. Putting an access road between two houses is a bad idea. There are children and dogs that surround the homes in that area that would make it unsafe for them if this was built. I appreciate your consideration in reviewing this request. We love our neighborhood and believe these two items could drastically change the character of the neighborhood making it less safe for residents, their young children and their pets. Sincerely, Eric Anderson 6580 Troendle Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 123 From: Sent: Saturday, March 1, 2025 3:10 PM To: emass@chanhassenmn.gov; Arsenault, Rachel <rarsenault@chanhassenmn.gov>; lhokkanen@chanhassenmn.gov - City Manager Subject: Rachel Development LLC Commission Members and City Staff: I am writing to voice my support for the variance (to NOT connect Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane) proposed by Rachel Development LLC in regards to their proposed 19 lot single- family development. I understand that this will be taken up by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 4, 2025. This connection would degrade the neighborhood traffic patterns that currently exist and are working fine for the residents of our neighborhood. Making the proposed connection would increase traffic, decrease safety, and degrade our quality of life. In regard to street or connection lengths, many other neighborhoods have faced the same issue, voiced their concerns, and been granted a similar (if not exactly the same) variance by the City. I only ask, and I think I echo the position of a majority of my neighborhood, that the same consideration and precedent be extended to the Chanhassen citizens in our neighborhood. Some residents have proffered the position that the connection would reduce traffic on Nez Perce and thereby lower traffic speeds. In my professional opinion, this is a logical fallacy and simply not true. Lower traffic volumes do not equate to lower speeds; particularly in a residential setting. I thank you for your time and consideration. Please include our comments as part of the packet presented to the Commission. Respectfully, Michael W. Johnson, PE and Gwen R. Westphal Johnson 6540 Nez Perce Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (763)458-7735 (M. Johnson PE – MN, ND, CA, FL, TX, NV) 124 From: Thomas Donnelly Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 4:05 PM To: DL City Council <Council@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Proposed Cudd Development - Pleasant View Pointe Wanted to express my concern regarding one of the two proposed development plans for Pleasant View Point (which I understand you are discussing next Monday). I reside at 6491 Nez Perce Drive and actually purchased the last home developed by the Bedor family on the Bedor property. My concern is the concept plan that connects Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane. Nez Perce Drive to the immediate south and north of Lake Lucy Road was not designed for high traffic volumes which are certain to result if residents in the area and up to Kerber and beyond know that they can access Pleasant View to travel south without accessing Powers and for residents who are traveling north to Excelsior, accessing Powers at Pleasant View Road. Nez Perce Drive, to the south of Lake Lucy Road is quite narrow and has considerable pedestrian traffic without sidewalks - already a route that sees meaningful southbound traffic to downtown Chanhassen. Nez Perce Drive to the north of Lake Lucy Road has significant elevation changes leading to poor visibility and also includes a 90 degree left turn at the bottom of a hill in a neighborhood that has attracted young families with small children since we moved here 25 years ago. I hope you will consider alternatives that do not include this road connection for everyday traffic, as I believe it will create a significant safety hazard for families in the immediate neighborhood. I think there are other pragmatic approaches to allow for emergency vehicle access (if that is the primary city concern) to both the existing and proposed new culdesac. Thank you so much for considering these concerns as you move through your process with Cudd. Regards, Thomas Donnelly 6491 Nez Perce Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 125 From: Bryce Fier Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 11:31:21 PM To: Eric Durrant ; Amanda Durrant >; Eric J Durrant >; Denise Clarke ; Bradley Johnson Lisa Moser Tracy ; Julia Seper Geoff Seper ; Jay Lochner >; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: Bryce Fier Subject: Planning commission meeting tomorrow night To my fellow Lake Lucy Road neighbors and Mayor Ryan. I assume that all of you got the notice in the mail last week of the planning commission hearing about the development behind those of us who live on the even side of the street. I remain steadfast that the Nez Perce extension needs to go through to Pleasant View, via Peaceful Lane, to help alleviate the traffic flow on our street, and make our street safer. It is time for the city to deliver on promises made 30+ years ago. Unfortunately, Mother Nature is coming and I will no longer be able to voice my position. A Mayo Clinic appointment on Wednesday morning is forcing us to drive to Rochester Tuesday to avoid the bad weather coming. Shelly and I built our home in 1991 at 1040 Lake Lucy Road. Since 1991, there have been discussions about the Nez Perce extension. When Troendle was built we were told to be patient with our concerns about traffic flow because the Nez Perce extension would go through. The Nez Perce extension was first discussed by the city council on 9-11-89 when the Vineland Forest development concept plan was brought forth. There was significant discussion about the roadways to connect the Vineland development and the western undeveloped property (Troendle and Rachel Development being considered now). On 8-12-91 the Troendle plat was approved by the city council. The approved plat included the extension of Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. On 5-24-93, the city council voted to condemn a portion of the property and complete the extension of Nez Perce, as was approved in the 9-11-89 concept plan. The temporary end of Nez Perce has had a barricade with a sign indicating the road would be extended in the future. This sign has been in place since at least summer of 1995. The barricade and signage was paid for by the Troendle Developer. The city wanted all future 126 residents of the area (especially future residents of the Troendle development) to know what the city of Chanhassen intent was for Nez Perce extension to Peaceful Lane. It is my understanding that the approval of the Troendle Addition included the Nez Perce extension to Peaceful Lane. In August 1995, Frank Beddor agreed to a proposal to resolve the condemnation process and allow for the right of way to complete the Nez Perce extension, but not before August of 1998. It is note worthy that Carver County District court ruled in favor of the city about this road extension, and Beddor agreed to the proposed resolution, it was sitting before a Minnesota State Appeals Court. 27 years later after Beddor settled and gave the city the right of way to complete the extension we are still waiting for a road that has been in development plans for 36 years. Respectfully, Bryce Fier, 1040 Lake Lucy Road Get Outlook for iOS 127 From: Amanda Durrant Date: March 4, 2025 at 11:59:35 AM CST To: DL City Council <Council@chanhassenmn.gov>, "Ryan, Elise" <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: J Lochner , mgrunig@chanhassenmn.org, , Eric Durrant Eric J Durrant Denise Clarke Lisa Moser >, Tracy >, Julia Seper Geoff Seper >, Bryce Fier , Bradley Johnson >, Kord Brashear Dear Chanhassen City Council and Mayor Ryan, I am writing to you today in regard to the Nez Perce extension to Powers Blvd. I live at 1061 Lake Lucy Rd. I have only been living on Lake Lucy Rd for 9 years, but enough to have witnessed the exorbitant amount of speeding traffic down Lake Lucy Rd. It is frustrating to say the least. A cut through to Powers via Peaceful Lane, which has been in the plans for 30+ years, would significantly relieve the speeding cars, multiple garbage trucks, and construction vehicles traveling down Lake Lucy to get to multiple other neighborhoods every day. As my children are older now, there are still several families with younger children, and plenty with pets (including us) along Lake Lucy who would greatly benefit from less traffic. Please consider extending Nez Perce to finally give Lake Lucy residents a break! Thank you for your consideration, Amanda Durrant 128 From: Amy Fricano Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 4:01 PM To: DL City Council <Council@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: J Lochner ; Eric Durrant ; Eric J Durrant ; Denise Clarke Lisa Moser >; Tracy <>; Julia Seper >; Geoff Seper ; Bryce Fier >; Bradley Johnson >; Kord Brashear ; Antonio Fricano Subject: Re: Dear Chanhassen City Council and Mayor Ryan, I am writing to you today in regards to the Nez Perce extension to Powers Blvd. I live at 980 Lake Lucy Road. Our family moved to Chanhassen and Lake Lucy Road from Chicago in 2018. As a family with an elementary school aged child and senior dog, we en joy walking and biking around our neighborhood. Unfortunately, since living here we have consistently witnessed motorists speeding down Lake Lucy Road, as well as disregarding the stop sign at the corner of Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce. The safety of residents, children and pets on our street is of utmost concern to us, as we value living in the city of Chanhassen and enjoy the amenities that this area, and our neighborhood in particular, have to offer. A cut through to Powers Blvd via Peaceful Lane, which has been in the plans for 30+ years, would significantly reduce the speeding cars traveling down Lake Lucy in their efforts to quickly access Powers Blvd. All of the residents and their families would benefit from this extension. Please consider extending Nez Perce to keep the residents of Lake Lucy Road safe. Sincerely, Amy Fricano Amy Fricano 773.505.7036 129 From: Denise Clarke Date: March 4, 2025 at 5:19:52 PM CST To: DL City Council <Council@chanhassenmn.gov>, "Ryan, Elise" <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: DL City Council <Council@chanhassenmn.gov>, "Ryan, Elise" <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>, J Lochner < , Eric Durrant >, Eric J Durrant < Lisa Moser <, Tracy >, Julia Seper >, Geoff Seper >, Bryce Fier <>, Bradley Johnson >, Kord Brashear Antonio Fricano Subject: Re: cut through from Nez Perce to Powers Blvd Honorable Mayor Ryan and Chanhassen City Council Members Kindly vote for allowing the cut through to Powers Blvd via Peaceful Lane. My husband and I have been owners of 1000 Lake Lucy Road since 1997 and Lake Lucy Road is way too dangerous for pedestrians, children of all ages and pets due to speeding motorists. It doesn’t matter the time of day or night. We love our neighbors and the city and hope you give this very careful consideration. Kindest regards, Denise Clarke 612-709-3899 130 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated January 8, 2025 File No.Item No: D.4 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council receives Environmental Commission Minutes dated January 8, 2025." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 131 Environmental Commission Minutes dated January 8, 2025 132 Chanhassen Environmental Commission (EC) 6:00 pm January 8, 2025 Members Present: Scott Grefe, Leslie Elhadi, Billy Cripe, Paget Pengelly, Sidney Lindmark Members Absent: Kaisa Buckholz, John Stutzman, Wren Roemer Staff Present: Jamie Marsh, Environmental Resource Specialist Visitors: None Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Minutes Commissioner Lindmark moved to approve the meeting minutes dated December 11, 2024; Commissioner Cripe seconded. The minutes were approved with a 5-0 vote. Discussion Items 1. Earth Day Everyday Program The Chanhassen Library is planning an environmental panel on April 17, 2025 and hope to include different community programs, such as Green Corp, the county, and the Environmental Commission. A representative from the Commission would discuss the Environmental Academy events. Commissioner Grefe volunteered to represent the commission with Commissioner Cripe offering to be a backup. 2. Revisit 2025 Focus Topic The Commission selected balancing a healthy environment and growth at the previous meeting, encompassing various topics. Commissioner Lindmark wanted to revisit the topic. The commission’s discussion landed on adjusting the topic to promote a healthy environment during growth. Commissioner Lindmark moved and Commissioner Cripe seconded; the motion carried 5-0. 3. Select Arbor Day Contest Theme Each year a new theme is selected surrounding the idea that “trees are terrific” that can be used to create art by local fifth graders. The commissioners brainstormed and discussed different ideas for a theme. The commissioners voted on two of their favorite ideas. “Trees are terrific for outdoor adventures” received the most votes. Next, the theme is sent to local art teachers to share with students; the submissions are voted on during the April Environmental Commission. The winning poster is framed to hang near Council Chambers and the artist wins a gift card to Garden by the Woods; the runners-up will get tree identification books. All winners will be invited to a City Council meeting. 133 4. Trivia Night Event Planning Dave Ryan is confirmed as an emcee for the next Environmental Trivia night. The communications team has started advertising the February 4 event at Chanhassen Brewing Company. Most of the trivia questions have already been submitted. Commissioners Pengelly and Grefe will check people in. Commissioner Pengelly will start the event by introducing Dave Ryan. Commissioner Cripe will run technology, and Commissioners Lindmark and Grefe will be runners. Commissioner Elhadi and Buckholz will keep score. They discussed prizes that will be available. 5. Camp Fire MN Update Ms. Marsh reached out to Sara at Camp Fire MN, but due to the holiday schedules, there isn’t anything on the schedule yet. This item will be revisited. Commission Presentations Upcoming Items and Events Commissioner Lindmark asked if the city hosts a winter festival; Ms. Marsh replied that Feb Fest is scheduled for the first weekend in February. The commissioners discussed the possibility of volunteering at community events such as FebFest or hosting a pop-up at the Farmers’ Market. Adjournment Commissioner Pengelly moved to adjourn the meeting. Chair Grefe adjourned at 6:56 p.m. Minutes prepared by Amy Weidman, Senior Administrative Support Specialist Minutes Submitted by Jamie Marsh, Environmental Resource Specialist 134 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes dated February 11, 2025 File No.Item No: D.5 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Kate Vogt, Admin Support Specialist Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council receives the Economic Development Commission Minutes dated February 11, 2025." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 135 Economic Development Commission Minutes February 11, 2025 136 CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2025 Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:36 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Eric Anderson, Vice Chair Chris Freeman, Luke Bame, Stacy Goff, David Benedict, Cohen Lee MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Samantha DiMaggio, Economic Development Manager PUBLIC PRESENT: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA DATED FEBRUARY 11, 2025 Commissioner Freeman moved, and Commissioner Goff seconded to approve the Agenda of the Economic Development Commission meeting dated February 11, 2025, as presented. All voted in favor and the motion was carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 14, 2025 Commissioner Benedict moved, and Commissioner Bame seconded to approve the Minutes of the Economic Development Commission meeting dated January 14, 2025, as presented. All voted in favor and the motion was carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PATRICK GAVIN – COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER DISCUSSION/GENERAL BUSINESS ITEMS: ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Lee moved, and Commissioner Goff seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion was carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Economic Development Commission meeting was adjourned at 6:58 p.m. Submitted by Samantha DiMaggio Economic Development Manager 137 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Approve Claims Paid dated March 24, 2025 File No.Item No: D.6 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Danielle Washburn, Assistant Finance Director Reviewed By Kelly Grinnell SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council Approves Claims Paid dated March 24, 2025." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Financial Sustainability SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION The following claims are submitted for review and approval on March 24, 2025: Total Claims $976,536.99 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION 138 ATTACHMENTS Payment Summary Payment Detail 139 Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Summary Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount CENTURYLINK 03/05/2025 0.00 1,509.76 Hydro-Klean LLC 03/05/2025 0.00 280,526.28 IUOE Local #49 03/05/2025 0.00 700.00 Marco Inc 03/05/2025 0.00 1,010.00 MN CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSOC. 03/05/2025 0.00 411.98 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 03/05/2025 0.00 21,184.00 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 03/05/2025 0.00 128.00 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 03/05/2025 0.00 8,139.31 Nokomis Energy, LLC 03/05/2025 0.00 3,938.43 Paul Young 03/05/2025 0.00 125.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 03/05/2025 0.00 26,882.98 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 03/06/2025 0.00 85.02 ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 03/06/2025 0.00 80.98 ASPEN MILLS 03/06/2025 0.00 65.00 Boyer Ford Trucks 03/06/2025 0.00 239.38 CAMPION BARROW & ASSOCIATES 03/06/2025 0.00 1,395.00 Cleaning Solutions Services 03/06/2025 0.00 8,320.42 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 03/06/2025 0.00 152.34 Compass Minerals America, Inc 03/06/2025 0.00 4,965.57 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 03/06/2025 0.00 810.00 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 03/06/2025 0.00 15,511.32 GONYEA HOMES 03/06/2025 0.00 2,500.00 Great Plains Fire 03/06/2025 0.00 2,713.16 Guard Guys, LLC 03/06/2025 0.00 139.75 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 03/06/2025 0.00 6,076.78 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP 03/06/2025 0.00 920.00 Homeland Health Specialists, Inc 03/06/2025 0.00 101.80 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 03/06/2025 0.00 74.65 Johnson's Paint Service Inc 03/06/2025 0.00 1,293.00 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 03/06/2025 0.00 6,606.44 MOSS & BARNETT 03/06/2025 0.00 5,468.00 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 03/06/2025 0.00 127.16 On-Site Medical Services Inc 03/06/2025 0.00 1,019.00 Pollard Water 03/06/2025 0.00 247.55 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC 03/06/2025 0.00 3,456.72 SEH 03/06/2025 0.00 6,351.28 Senja Inc 03/06/2025 0.00 198.40 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 03/06/2025 0.00 5.38 Sun Life Financial 03/06/2025 0.00 3,898.14 TJ Office Furniture LLC 03/06/2025 0.00 8,530.00 Utility Logic LLC 03/06/2025 0.00 12,770.00 VESSCO INC 03/06/2025 0.00 847.04 W.L. Hall Co. 03/06/2025 0.00 975.00 Williams Scotsman Inc 03/06/2025 0.00 1,788.60 Page 1 of 2 140 Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 03/06/2025 0.00 4,217.00 Alfred Bartels 03/12/2025 0.00 25.00 CenturyLink 03/12/2025 0.00 64.00 Joseph Young 03/12/2025 0.00 39.98 Metronet Holdings, LLC 03/12/2025 0.00 172.22 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 03/12/2025 0.00 32.00 NOVEL SOLAR THREE, LLC 03/12/2025 0.00 6,760.57 Potentia MN Solar 03/12/2025 0.00 5,378.29 Thomas Erdmann 03/12/2025 0.00 200.00 All Energy Solar 03/13/2025 0.00 116.80 ASPEN MILLS 03/13/2025 0.00 173.45 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 03/13/2025 0.00 19,584.80 Carver County 03/13/2025 0.00 1,450.00 Compass Minerals America, Inc 03/13/2025 0.00 9,961.12 CORE & MAIN LP 03/13/2025 0.00 103.63 CROWN COLLEGE 03/13/2025 0.00 824.00 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC. 03/13/2025 0.00 580.95 DISPLAY SALES COMPANY 03/13/2025 0.00 1,397.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 03/13/2025 0.00 80.60 Engel Water Testing Inc 03/13/2025 0.00 1,160.00 Enterprise FM Trust 03/13/2025 0.00 35,473.30 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 03/13/2025 0.00 1,024.62 Fidelity Security Life 03/13/2025 0.00 337.04 First State Tire Recycling 03/13/2025 0.00 996.38 Guard Guys, LLC 03/13/2025 0.00 85.00 GYM WORKS INC 03/13/2025 0.00 112.50 H & L Mesabi 03/13/2025 0.00 999.00 HALLOCK COMPANY 03/13/2025 0.00 314.19 Holton Electric Contractors LLC 03/13/2025 0.00 300.54 KaiBi Mobile LLC 03/13/2025 0.00 1,500.00 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 03/13/2025 0.00 3,803.25 Lano Equipment 03/13/2025 0.00 18.05 Mansfield Oil Company 03/13/2025 0.00 18,847.54 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 03/13/2025 0.00 8,309.11 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 03/13/2025 0.00 5,078.06 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 03/13/2025 0.00 25.24 North American Safety, Inc. 03/13/2025 0.00 111.95 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 03/13/2025 0.00 66.51 PRECISE MRM LLC 03/13/2025 0.00 294.00 Precision Utilities 03/13/2025 0.00 7,037.50 PULLTABS PLUS INC 03/13/2025 0.00 84.48 ROADKILL ANIMAL CONTROL 03/13/2025 0.00 387.00 SM HENTGES & SONS 03/13/2025 0.00 376,212.54 Sophia Martin 03/13/2025 0.00 136.50 Springbrook 03/13/2025 0.00 1,980.00 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 03/13/2025 0.00 1,155.05 Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 03/13/2025 0.00 7,300.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 03/13/2025 0.00 8,588.00 USA BLUE BOOK 03/13/2025 0.00 867.46 Van Meter Inc 03/13/2025 0.00 170.15 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 03/13/2025 0.00 312.00 Report Total:0.00 976,536.99 Page 2 of 2 141 AP Check Detail User: dwashburn@chanhassenmn.gov Printed: 3/15/2025 4:14:50 PM Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description All Energy Solar 101-1250-3301 116.80 3/13/2025 Permit Refund-7610 Canyon Curve 116.80 3/13/2025 All Energy Solar 116.80 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 101-0000-2008 85.02 3/6/2025 February premium 85.02 3/6/2025 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 85.02 ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 101-1120-4110 80.98 3/6/2025 PW Water Filter 80.98 3/6/2025 ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 80.98 ASPEN MILLS 101-1220-4240 65.00 3/6/2025 Class B uniform embroidery-Heger 65.00 3/6/2025 ASPEN MILLS 101-1220-4240 173.45 3/13/2025 Spenser Smith Class B Uniform 173.45 3/13/2025 ASPEN MILLS 238.45 Bartels Alfred 101-1220-4370 25.00 3/12/2025 EMT renewal-Bartels AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 1 of 20 142 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 25.00 3/12/2025 Bartels Alfred 25.00 Boyer Ford Trucks 101-1320-4140 239.38 3/6/2025 gaskets seals bolts 239.38 3/6/2025 Boyer Ford Trucks 239.38 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 720-6053-4303 4,308.66 3/13/2025 2025 Pavement Rehab-Storm @ 22% BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 701-6053-4303 1,566.78 3/13/2025 2025 Pavement Rehab-Sanitary @ 8% BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 700-6053-4303 1,958.48 3/13/2025 2025 Pavement Rehab-Water @ 10% BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 601-6053-4303 11,750.88 3/13/2025 2025 Pavement Rehab-PMP @ 60% 19,584.80 3/13/2025 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 19,584.80 CAMPION BARROW & ASSOCIATES 101-1220-4352 1,395.00 3/6/2025 Psychological Assessments for Candidates 1,395.00 3/6/2025 CAMPION BARROW & ASSOCIATES 1,395.00 Carver County 101-1160-4326 700.00 3/13/2025 CarverLink Dark Fiber + Internet - City Locations Carver County 700-1160-4326 750.00 3/13/2025 CarverLink Dark Fiber - Utilities - Mar 1,450.00 3/13/2025 Carver County 1,450.00 CENTURYLINK 101-1540-4310 62.04 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges CENTURYLINK 701-0000-4310 15.56 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges CENTURYLINK 101-1550-4310 31.02 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges CENTURYLINK 101-1170-4310 825.28 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges CENTURYLINK 101-1160-4325 250.87 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 2 of 20 143 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description CENTURYLINK 700-7019-4310 216.38 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges CENTURYLINK 700-0000-4310 6.20 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges CENTURYLINK 700-0000-4310 15.56 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges CENTURYLINK 701-0000-4310 6.20 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges CENTURYLINK 101-1350-4310 31.02 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges CENTURYLINK 101-1312-4310 49.63 3/5/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges 1,509.76 3/5/2025 CenturyLink 701-0000-4310 32.00 3/12/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges CenturyLink 700-0000-4310 32.00 3/12/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges 64.00 3/12/2025 CenturyLink 1,573.76 Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1220-4511 266.09 3/6/2025 cleaning services-February Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1312-4511 532.19 3/6/2025 Cleaning services-January 2025 Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1190-4511 4,190.95 3/6/2025 cleaning services-February Cleaning Solutions Services 701-0000-4511 66.52 3/6/2025 Cleaning services-January 2025 Cleaning Solutions Services 700-0000-4511 66.52 3/6/2025 Cleaning services-January 2025 Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1170-4511 3,198.15 3/6/2025 cleaning services-February 8,320.42 3/6/2025 Cleaning Solutions Services 8,320.42 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 701-0000-2008 45.84 3/6/2025 February premium Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 700-0000-2008 106.50 3/6/2025 February premium 152.34 3/6/2025 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 152.34 Compass Minerals America, Inc 101-1320-4156 4,965.57 3/6/2025 Road salt 4,965.57 3/6/2025 Compass Minerals America, Inc 101-1320-4156 7,412.75 3/13/2025 Road salt Compass Minerals America, Inc 101-1320-4156 2,548.37 3/13/2025 road salt AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 3 of 20 144 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 9,961.12 3/13/2025 Compass Minerals America, Inc 14,926.69 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.101-1160-4211 488.80 3/6/2025 Datto Office365 Backup Service - March COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.101-1160-4211 321.20 3/6/2025 Office365 Add on Licenses - Feb 810.00 3/6/2025 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 810.00 CORE & MAIN LP 700-7043-4160 103.63 3/13/2025 west water treatment plant chemicals 103.63 3/13/2025 CORE & MAIN LP 103.63 CROWN COLLEGE 101-1220-4370 824.00 3/13/2025 Quarterly EMS Training 824.00 3/13/2025 CROWN COLLEGE 824.00 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.101-1120-4110 580.95 3/13/2025 Cleaning Supplies 580.95 3/13/2025 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC. 580.95 DISPLAY SALES COMPANY 101-1550-4120 1,397.00 3/13/2025 Flags (Restock) 1,397.00 3/13/2025 DISPLAY SALES COMPANY 1,397.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 101-1420-4336 40.30 3/13/2025 Publication of PH Notice Planning 2025-02 AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 4 of 20 145 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description ECM PUBLISHERS INC 101-1420-4336 40.30 3/13/2025 Publication of PH Notice Planning 2025-03 80.60 3/13/2025 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 80.60 Engel Water Testing Inc 700-0000-4300 1,160.00 3/13/2025 water samples 1,160.00 3/13/2025 Engel Water Testing Inc 1,160.00 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 742.79 3/13/2025 201 - 22 GMC Yuko #25MPSN Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 439.30 3/13/2025 602 - 24 Chev Equi #27MF9K Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 277.59 3/13/2025 430 - 24 Chry Paci #275N63 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 198.46 3/13/2025 134 - 23 Chev Silv #25WNKR Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 720.04 3/13/2025 404 - 24 GMC Sier #27NDJJ Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 626.88 3/13/2025 408 - 22 Chev Silv #25G89X Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 360.14 3/13/2025 308 - 24 Chev Silv #27RZHT Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 103.26 3/13/2025 605 - 22 Ford Rang #25G25M Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 256.78 3/13/2025 204 - 23 Chev Tahoe #25WDVL Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 680.42 3/13/2025 131 - 24 Chev Silv #27NDJK Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 315.48 3/13/2025 305 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QR Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 427.95 3/13/2025 001 - 22 Ford Esca #26M3MH Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 619.42 3/13/2025 204 - 23 Chev Tahoe #25WDVL Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 150.61 3/13/2025 314 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGTW Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 144.29 3/13/2025 301 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR8 Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 139.74 3/13/2025 310 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR3 Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 146.36 3/13/2025 315 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGTV Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 60.01 3/13/2025 307 - 23 Chev Equinox #262P8K Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 478.52 3/13/2025 605 - 22 Ford Rang #25G25M Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 632.95 3/13/2025 411 - 22 Chev Silv #25G8CL Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 81.47 3/13/2025 140 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5J6 Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 143.42 3/13/2025 303 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR7 Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 360.13 3/13/2025 308 - 24 Chev Silv #27RZHT Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 708.16 3/13/2025 505 - 23 Chev Silv #26RP8Z Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 198.20 3/13/2025 307 - 23 Chev Equinox #262P8K Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 526.73 3/13/2025 412 - 22 GMC Sier #25H28F Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 93.24 3/13/2025 214 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5D2 Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 129.87 3/13/2025 308 - 24 Chev Silv #27RZHT Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 201.84 3/13/2025 420 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMS AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 5 of 20 146 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 717.22 3/13/2025 402 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMF Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 532.18 3/13/2025 502 - 23 Chev Blazer #25XQVB Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 144.29 3/13/2025 301 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR8 Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 150.61 3/13/2025 314 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGTW Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 49.80 3/13/2025 305 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QR Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 731.10 3/13/2025 420 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMS Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 272.26 3/13/2025 203 - 23 Chev Silv #26RPC3 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 361.69 3/13/2025 410 - 24 GMC Sier #27NDJB Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 735.77 3/13/2025 132 - 23 Chev Silv #25WNCN Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 102.29 3/13/2025 411 - 22 Chev Silv #25G8CL Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 129.86 3/13/2025 308 - 24 Chev Silv #27RZHT Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 720.12 3/13/2025 130 - 24 GMC Sier #27NF7M Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 583.52 3/13/2025 603 - 25 Chev Equi #28CM4H Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 201.93 3/13/2025 416 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMC Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 74.52 3/13/2025 412 - 22 GMC Sier #25H28F Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 60.01 3/13/2025 307 - 23 Chev Equinox #262P8K Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 107.69 3/13/2025 201 - 22 GMC Yuko #25MPSN Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 143.58 3/13/2025 306 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGRB Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 202.41 3/13/2025 419 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMJ Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 385.48 3/13/2025 301 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR8 Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 49.80 3/13/2025 305 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QR Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 733.17 3/13/2025 419 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMJ Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 513.64 3/13/2025 801 - 24 Chry Paci #2754MQ Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 439.22 3/13/2025 606 - 22 Ford Rang #25G23Z Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 361.61 3/13/2025 404 - 24 GMC Sier #27NDJJ Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 720.01 3/13/2025 410 - 24 GMC Sier #27NDJB Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 384.91 3/13/2025 315 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGTV Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 384.92 3/13/2025 315 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGTV Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 386.18 3/13/2025 306 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGRB Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 731.43 3/13/2025 416 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMC Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 386.19 3/13/2025 306 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGRB Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 388.91 3/13/2025 310 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR3 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 670.64 3/13/2025 203 - 23 Chev Silv #26RPC3 Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 385.47 3/13/2025 301 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR8 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 612.19 3/13/2025 214 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5D2 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 714.78 3/13/2025 401 - 23 Chev Silv #26RPBZ Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 594.10 3/13/2025 405 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QQ Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 185.06 3/13/2025 602 - 24 Chev Equi #27MF9K Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 380.66 3/13/2025 314 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGTW Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 627.75 3/13/2025 140 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5J6 Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 143.41 3/13/2025 303 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR7 Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 385.86 3/13/2025 303 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR7 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 111.55 3/13/2025 408 - 22 Chev Silv #25G89X AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 6 of 20 147 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 146.35 3/13/2025 315 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGTV Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 145.18 3/13/2025 405 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QQ Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 218.47 3/13/2025 402 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMF Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 619.42 3/13/2025 202 - 23 Chev Tahoe #25WDVJ Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 202.38 3/13/2025 403 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMK Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 322.52 3/13/2025 131 - 24 Chev Silv #27NDJK Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-4811 139.74 3/13/2025 310 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR3 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 279.76 3/13/2025 801 - 24 Chry Paci #2754MQ Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 733.09 3/13/2025 403 - 23 Chev Silv #25XGMK Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 261.63 3/13/2025 401 - 23 Chev Silv #26RPBZ Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 388.90 3/13/2025 310 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR3 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 198.47 3/13/2025 132 - 23 Chev Silv #25WNCN Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 357.63 3/13/2025 130 - 24 GMC Sier #27NF7M Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 315.48 3/13/2025 305 - 22 Chev Silv #25G5QR Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 256.78 3/13/2025 202 - 23 Chev Tahoe #25WDVJ Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 569.92 3/13/2025 430 - 24 Chry Paci #275N63 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 106.94 3/13/2025 606 - 22 Ford Rang #25G23Z Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 198.20 3/13/2025 307 - 23 Chev Equinox #262P8K Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 579.06 3/13/2025 501 - 23 Chev Silv #26RL44 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 187.45 3/13/2025 502 - 23 Chev Blazer #25XQVB Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4810 735.76 3/13/2025 134 - 23 Chev Silv #25WNKR Enterprise FM Trust 701-0000-2317 380.66 3/13/2025 314 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGTW Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 281.70 3/13/2025 501 - 23 Chev Silv #26RL44 Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-4811 143.58 3/13/2025 306 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGRB Enterprise FM Trust 700-0000-2317 385.86 3/13/2025 303 - 24 Chev Silv #27MGR7 Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 269.83 3/13/2025 603 - 25 Chev Equi #28CM4H Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 123.38 3/13/2025 001 - 22 Ford Esca #26M3MH Enterprise FM Trust 400-0000-4811 263.32 3/13/2025 505 - 23 Chev Silv #26RP8Z 35,473.30 3/13/2025 Enterprise FM Trust 35,473.30 Erdmann Thomas 101-1220-4240 200.00 3/12/2025 Duty Boots 200.00 3/12/2025 Erdmann Thomas 200.00 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 700-0000-4532 15,500.00 3/6/2025 Add Gateway at North Lotus Lake Park Ferguson Waterworks #2518 700-0000-4550 11.32 3/6/2025 water supplies AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 7 of 20 148 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 15,511.32 3/6/2025 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 700-0000-4550 1,024.62 3/13/2025 Air relief valve 1,024.62 3/13/2025 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 16,535.94 Fidelity Security Life 101-0000-2007 294.95 3/13/2025 Vision insurance-March 2025 Fidelity Security Life 720-0000-2007 6.63 3/13/2025 Vision insurance-March 2025 Fidelity Security Life 701-0000-2007 9.11 3/13/2025 Vision insurance-March 2025 Fidelity Security Life 700-0000-2007 26.35 3/13/2025 Vision insurance-March 2025 337.04 3/13/2025 Fidelity Security Life 337.04 First State Tire Recycling 700-0000-4120 332.13 3/13/2025 tire recycle First State Tire Recycling 101-1320-4120 332.12 3/13/2025 tire recycle First State Tire Recycling 101-1550-4120 332.13 3/13/2025 tire recycle 996.38 3/13/2025 First State Tire Recycling 996.38 GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 3/6/2025 As built escrow 1825 Lucy Ridge Cir #520093 2,500.00 3/6/2025 GONYEA HOMES 2,500.00 Great Plains Fire 201-0000-4705 2,713.16 3/6/2025 Structural firefighting and auto X gloves 2,713.16 3/6/2025 Great Plains Fire 2,713.16 AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 8 of 20 149 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Guard Guys, LLC 101-1120-4352 139.75 3/6/2025 Background checks 139.75 3/6/2025 Guard Guys, LLC 101-1120-4352 85.00 3/13/2025 Pre-employment drug test-Collins 85.00 3/13/2025 Guard Guys, LLC 224.75 GYM WORKS INC 101-1530-4530 112.50 3/13/2025 Upright Bike Repair 112.50 3/13/2025 GYM WORKS INC 112.50 H & L Mesabi 101-1550-4120 -633.00 3/13/2025 plow edge return H & L Mesabi 101-1550-4120 1,632.00 3/13/2025 plow edges 999.00 3/13/2025 H & L Mesabi 999.00 HALLOCK COMPANY 701-0000-4551 314.19 3/13/2025 Lift station #2 new controller 314.19 3/13/2025 HALLOCK COMPANY 314.19 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 700-7043-4160 6,066.78 3/6/2025 west water treatment plant chemicals HAWKINS CHEMICAL 700-7043-4160 10.00 3/6/2025 1 ton chlorine cylinder 6,076.78 3/6/2025 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 6,076.78 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP 414-4011-4300 920.00 3/6/2025 Civic Campus LA/Planning services AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 9 of 20 150 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 920.00 3/6/2025 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP 920.00 Holton Electric Contractors LLC 700-0000-4550 300.54 3/13/2025 well maintenance 300.54 3/13/2025 Holton Electric Contractors LLC 300.54 Homeland Health Specialists, Inc 101-1120-4300 101.80 3/6/2025 Vaccinations 101.80 3/6/2025 Homeland Health Specialists, Inc 101.80 Hydro-Klean LLC 701-7013-4751 280,526.28 3/5/2025 2024 Sanitary Sewer I&I Project 280,526.28 3/5/2025 Hydro-Klean LLC 280,526.28 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 101-1120-4110 74.65 3/6/2025 Colored Paper Batteries Cardstock 74.65 3/6/2025 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 74.65 IUOE Local #49 101-0000-2004 420.00 3/5/2025 Union Dues-March 2025 IUOE Local #49 701-0000-2004 105.70 3/5/2025 Union Dues-March 2025 IUOE Local #49 700-0000-2004 174.30 3/5/2025 Union Dues-March 2025 700.00 3/5/2025 IUOE Local #49 700.00 AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 10 of 20 151 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Johnson's Paint Service Inc 101-1190-4510 1,293.00 3/6/2025 Painting at Library 1,293.00 3/6/2025 Johnson's Paint Service Inc 1,293.00 KaiBi Mobile LLC 101-1613-4300 1,500.00 3/13/2025 4th of July 2025 deposit 1,500.00 3/13/2025 KaiBi Mobile LLC 1,500.00 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 700-0000-4170 594.02 3/13/2025 fuel west water treatment plant KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 700-0000-4170 3,209.23 3/13/2025 east water treatment plant fuel 3,803.25 3/13/2025 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 3,803.25 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 601-6057-4303 6,606.44 3/6/2025 Market Blvd 6,606.44 3/6/2025 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 6,606.44 Lano Equipment 700-0000-4120 18.05 3/13/2025 tail light lense 18.05 3/13/2025 Lano Equipment 18.05 Mansfield Oil Company 101-1370-4170 9,653.47 3/13/2025 fuel Mansfield Oil Company 101-1370-4170 9,194.07 3/13/2025 fuel 18,847.54 3/13/2025 AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 11 of 20 152 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Mansfield Oil Company 18,847.54 Marco Inc 720-0000-4410 50.50 3/5/2025 Copier Lease Marco Inc 701-0000-4410 101.00 3/5/2025 Copier Lease Marco Inc 101-1170-4410 757.50 3/5/2025 Copier Lease Marco Inc 700-0000-4410 101.00 3/5/2025 Copier Lease 1,010.00 3/5/2025 Marco Inc 1,010.00 Martin Sophia 101-1539-4343 136.50 3/13/2025 4252.107 & 4252.108 art class instruction 136.50 3/13/2025 Martin Sophia 136.50 Metronet Holdings, LLC 101-1190-4310 115.75 3/12/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges Metronet Holdings, LLC 700-7043-4310 56.47 3/12/2025 Telephone & Communication Charges 172.22 3/12/2025 Metronet Holdings, LLC 172.22 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 700-7043-4509 2,065.88 3/13/2025 WWTP industrial capacity charge Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 700-7019-4509 3,214.85 3/13/2025 EWTP Industrial capacity change Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 700-7019-4509 568.23 3/13/2025 EWTP strength change Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 701-0000-2023 2,485.00 3/13/2025 February 2025 SAC Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 101-1250-3816 -24.85 3/13/2025 February 2025 SAC 8,309.11 3/13/2025 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 8,309.11 MN CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSOC.101-1120-4360 249.60 3/5/2025 MCMA dues Hokkanen MN CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSOC.101-1120-4360 162.38 3/5/2025 Membership - Matt Unmacht AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 12 of 20 153 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 411.98 3/5/2025 MN CITY/COUNTY MGMT ASSOC. 411.98 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 700-0000-4509 21,184.00 3/5/2025 water supply connection fee 21,184.00 3/5/2025 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 700-0000-4370 32.00 3/12/2025 Jake C water exam 32.00 3/12/2025 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 21,216.00 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 101-1250-3818 -103.69 3/13/2025 February 2025 Surcharge MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 101-0000-2022 5,181.75 3/13/2025 February 2025 Surcharge 5,078.06 3/13/2025 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 5,078.06 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 101-0000-2037 128.00 3/5/2025 Life Insurance-March 2025 128.00 3/5/2025 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 128.00 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 700-0000-4320 213.92 3/5/2025 Electric Charges MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 115.79 3/5/2025 Electric Charges MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 272.63 3/5/2025 Electric Charges MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 6,004.52 3/5/2025 Electric Charges MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 701-0000-4320 708.41 3/5/2025 Electric Charges MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 43.62 3/5/2025 Electric Charges MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 47.22 3/5/2025 Electric Charges MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1600-4320 733.20 3/5/2025 Electric Charges 8,139.31 3/5/2025 AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 13 of 20 154 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 8,139.31 MOSS & BARNETT 210-0000-4300 5,468.00 3/6/2025 Mediacom renewal 5,468.00 3/6/2025 MOSS & BARNETT 5,468.00 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1320-4140 127.16 3/6/2025 filters 127.16 3/6/2025 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1550-4120 -56.94 3/13/2025 filter returns NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1320-4120 20.99 3/13/2025 thread locker NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1320-4120 11.08 3/13/2025 wiper blade NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1320-4140 50.11 3/13/2025 filters wiper blades 25.24 3/13/2025 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 152.40 Nokomis Energy, LLC 700-7019-4320 755.43 3/5/2025 Electric Charges Nokomis Energy, LLC 101-1312-4320 307.92 3/5/2025 Electric Charges Nokomis Energy, LLC 701-0000-4320 38.49 3/5/2025 Electric Charges Nokomis Energy, LLC 700-7043-4320 2,499.77 3/5/2025 Electric Charges Nokomis Energy, LLC 700-0000-4320 336.82 3/5/2025 Electric Charges 3,938.43 3/5/2025 Nokomis Energy, LLC 3,938.43 North American Safety, Inc.101-1320-4240 111.95 3/13/2025 gloves 111.95 3/13/2025 North American Safety, Inc. 111.95 NOVEL SOLAR THREE, LLC 700-0000-4320 4,365.81 3/12/2025 Electric Charges AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 14 of 20 155 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description NOVEL SOLAR THREE, LLC 701-0000-4320 2,303.92 3/12/2025 Electric Charges NOVEL SOLAR THREE, LLC 101-1350-4320 90.84 3/12/2025 Electric Charges 6,760.57 3/12/2025 NOVEL SOLAR THREE, LLC 6,760.57 On-Site Medical Services Inc 101-1320-4300 161.34 3/6/2025 Annual hearing test On-Site Medical Services Inc 101-1520-4300 161.34 3/6/2025 Annual hearing test On-Site Medical Services Inc 700-0000-4300 348.16 3/6/2025 Annual hearing test/fit-test & medical questionnaire On-Site Medical Services Inc 701-0000-4300 348.16 3/6/2025 Annual hearing test/fit-test & medical questionnaire 1,019.00 3/6/2025 On-Site Medical Services Inc 1,019.00 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 700-0000-4140 7.44 3/13/2025 Mini Bulb Mini Bulb Return O'Reilly Automotive Inc 701-0000-4140 -158.87 3/13/2025 Ultra Stat Tie Rod Return O'Reilly Automotive Inc 101-1220-4140 217.94 3/13/2025 Core Charge Starter 66.51 3/13/2025 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 66.51 Pollard Water 700-0000-4550 247.55 3/6/2025 fire hydrant bags and out of service tags 247.55 3/6/2025 Pollard Water 247.55 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC 700-0000-4140 1,224.56 3/6/2025 tires POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC 101-1320-4140 2,232.16 3/6/2025 tires 3,456.72 3/6/2025 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC 3,456.72 Potentia MN Solar 700-0000-4320 1,244.63 3/12/2025 Electric Charges AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 15 of 20 156 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Potentia MN Solar 101-1170-4320 1,770.67 3/12/2025 Electric Charges Potentia MN Solar 101-1190-4320 2,362.99 3/12/2025 Electric Charges 5,378.29 3/12/2025 Potentia MN Solar 5,378.29 PRECISE MRM LLC 101-1320-4310 294.00 3/13/2025 AVL for plow trucks 294.00 3/13/2025 PRECISE MRM LLC 294.00 Precision Utilities 700-0000-4552 7,037.50 3/13/2025 water main break 7255 minnewashta parkway 7,037.50 3/13/2025 Precision Utilities 7,037.50 PULLTABS PLUS INC 101-1560-4130 84.48 3/13/2025 Bingo Game Daubers supplies 84.48 3/13/2025 PULLTABS PLUS INC 84.48 ROADKILL ANIMAL CONTROL 101-1320-4300 387.00 3/13/2025 roadkill removal 387.00 3/13/2025 ROADKILL ANIMAL CONTROL 387.00 SEH 410-4410-4300 6,351.28 3/6/2025 Lake Ann Park Preserve 6,351.28 3/6/2025 SEH 6,351.28 AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 16 of 20 157 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Senja Inc 101-1539-4343 198.40 3/6/2025 February Tai Chi Class 4251.125 198.40 3/6/2025 Senja Inc 198.40 SM HENTGES & SONS 601-6140-4751 260,588.47 3/13/2025 75% County Roadway & Storm SM HENTGES & SONS 601-6040-4751 86,862.82 3/13/2025 25% City Roadway & Storm SM HENTGES & SONS 700-6040-4751 28,761.25 3/13/2025 100% City Water 376,212.54 3/13/2025 SM HENTGES & SONS 376,212.54 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 101-1370-4260 5.38 3/6/2025 bulb 5.38 3/6/2025 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL 5.38 Springbrook 101-1130-4300 1,980.00 3/13/2025 Special Assessment Conversion Project Mgmt 1,980.00 3/13/2025 Springbrook 1,980.00 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 101-1220-4510 1,155.05 3/13/2025 annual fire extinguisher service 1,155.05 3/13/2025 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 1,155.05 Sun Life Financial 701-0000-2015 64.90 3/6/2025 LTD-March 2025 Sun Life Financial 700-0000-2037 182.90 3/6/2025 Life Insurance-March 2025 Sun Life Financial 701-0000-2011 31.20 3/6/2025 Life Insurance-March 2025 Sun Life Financial 701-0000-2037 182.89 3/6/2025 Life Insurance-March 2025 Sun Life Financial 101-0000-2037 1,224.20 3/6/2025 Life Insurance-March 2025 Sun Life Financial 720-0000-2015 40.59 3/6/2025 LTD-March 2025 AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 17 of 20 158 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Sun Life Financial 101-0000-2015 1,313.40 3/6/2025 LTD-March 2025 Sun Life Financial 700-0000-2015 101.07 3/6/2025 LTD-March 2025 Sun Life Financial 700-0000-2011 49.39 3/6/2025 Life Insurance-March 2025 Sun Life Financial 720-0000-2011 20.49 3/6/2025 Life Insurance-March 2025 Sun Life Financial 101-0000-2011 687.11 3/6/2025 Life Insurance-March 2025 3,898.14 3/6/2025 Sun Life Financial 3,898.14 Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 101-1140-4302 7,300.00 3/13/2025 Sales Tax Election 7,300.00 3/13/2025 Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 7,300.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 101-1350-4566 2,000.00 3/13/2025 traffic signal indications 78 at target ent Taylor Electric Company, LLC 101-1550-4300 1,683.00 3/13/2025 Tunnel lights Taylor Electric Company, LLC 101-1350-4565 4,905.00 3/13/2025 street light repair 8,588.00 3/13/2025 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 8,588.00 TJ Office Furniture LLC 414-4010-4702 8,530.00 3/6/2025 Office Furniture FFE 8,530.00 3/6/2025 TJ Office Furniture LLC 8,530.00 USA BLUE BOOK 700-7019-4160 867.46 3/13/2025 chemicals east water treatment plant 867.46 3/13/2025 USA BLUE BOOK 867.46 Utility Logic LLC 701-7025-4705 6,385.00 3/6/2025 Sewer Inspection Camera 50% Utility Logic LLC 720-7025-4705 6,385.00 3/6/2025 Sewer Inspection Camera 50% AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 18 of 20 159 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 12,770.00 3/6/2025 Utility Logic LLC 12,770.00 Van Meter Inc 701-0000-4120 170.15 3/13/2025 fuse of equipment 170.15 3/13/2025 Van Meter Inc 170.15 VESSCO INC 700-7019-4120 847.04 3/6/2025 body valve assembly for EWTP 847.04 3/6/2025 VESSCO INC 847.04 W.L. Hall Co.101-1530-4510 975.00 3/6/2025 Wall Repair 975.00 3/6/2025 W.L. Hall Co. 975.00 Williams Scotsman Inc 101-1617-4400 596.20 3/6/2025 North Lotus Lake Park Warming House Williams Scotsman Inc 101-1617-4400 596.20 3/6/2025 City Center Warming House Williams Scotsman Inc 101-1617-4400 596.20 3/6/2025 Bandimere Park Warming House 1,788.60 3/6/2025 Williams Scotsman Inc 1,788.60 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 700-0000-4150 112.00 3/13/2025 spoils from watermain break WM MUELLER & SONS INC 700-0000-4150 200.00 3/13/2025 spoils from water main breaks 312.00 3/13/2025 AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 19 of 20 160 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description WM MUELLER & SONS INC 312.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 720-0000-4300 1,269.50 3/6/2025 2024 Water Resources Support Services WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 101-0000-2076 2,947.50 3/6/2025 GLENDALE HOMES SECURITY ESCROW 4,217.00 3/6/2025 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 4,217.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1350-4320 26,882.98 3/5/2025 Electric Charges 26,882.98 3/5/2025 XCEL ENERGY INC 26,882.98 Young Joseph 101-1220-4240 39.98 3/12/2025 Spectacle Lenses 39.98 3/12/2025 Young Joseph 39.98 Young Paul 101-1560-4345 125.00 3/5/2025 St Pat's Party Performer - Paul Young 125.00 3/5/2025 Young Paul 125.00 976,536.99 AP - Check Detail (3/15/2025)Page 20 of 20 161 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item City Commission Appointments File No.Item No: D.7 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Jenny Potter, City Clerk Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen 162 SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council appoints the following commissioners: Planning Commission -Three 3-year positions 1. Ryan Soller 2. David Grover 3. Michael Olmstead Park & Recreation Commission -Two 3-year positions and One 1-year position 1. Emily Nagel 2. Kurt Scheppmann 3. Nora Nashawaty (one year position) Commission on Aging - Three 3 year positions and One 1-year position 1. Janet Dean 2. Jane Bender 3. Rebecca (Becky) Johnson 4. Barbara Solum (one year position) Economic Development Commission -Two 3-year positions available 1. Nicholas Gardino 2. John Kroll Environmental Commission - Two Three year positions available 1. Scott Grefe 2. Glenn Stolar Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY The City Council will discuss the last appointment during the work session. This item will be updated on Monday evening. BACKGROUND 163 DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council make appointments to City Commissions. ATTACHMENTS 164 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Approve Temporary On-Sale Liquor License, July 3 & 4, 2025, Rotary Club of Chanhassen File No.Item No: D.8 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Jenny Potter, City Clerk Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves the request from Chanhassen Rotary Club for a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license to sell alcoholic beverages at the 4th of July Celebration on July 3 & 4, 2025 at City Center Park. Approval is contingent upon the Rotary Club providing and updated certificate of liquor liability insurance.” Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND The Chanhassen Rotary Club submitted a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license application for a 4th of July Celebration on July 3 & 4, 2025. Liquor will be served in City Center Park and is outlined in the attached map. Alcohol will be served: • July 3: 3pm-midnight 165 • July 4: 10am-5pm DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Chanhassen Rotary Club’s request for a temporary on-sale liquor license for the 4th of July Celebration on July 3 & 4, 2025 in City Center Park. Approval is contingent upon receipt of an updated certificate of liquor liability insurance. ATTACHMENTS Temporary Liquor License Application Liquor Sales Location Map 166 Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1600, St. Paul, MN 55101 651-201-7507 Fax 651-297-5259 TTY 651-282-6555 APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A 1 DAY TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE Name of organization Date organized Tax exempt number Address City State Zip Code Name of person making application Business phone Home phone Date(s) of event Club Charitable Religious Other non-profit Type of organization Organization officer's name City State Zip Code Organization officer's name City State Zip Code Organization officer's name City State Zip Code Location where permit will be used. If an outdoor area, describe. If the applicant will contract for intoxicating liquor service give the name and address of the liquor license providing the service. If the applicant will carry liquor liability insurance please provide the carrier's name and amount of coverage. City or County approving the license Date Approved Fee Amount Permit Date Date Fee Paid Signature City Clerk or County Official APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT City or County E-mail Address City or County Phone Number CLERKS NOTICE: Submit this form to Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 30 days prior to event. ONE SUBMISSION PER EMAIL, APPLICATION ONLY. PLEASE PROVIDE A VALID E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR THE CITY/COUNTY AS ALL TEMPORARY PERMIT APPROVALS WILL BE SENT BACK VIA EMAIL. E-MAIL THE APPLICATION SIGNED BY CITY/COUNTY TO AGE.TEMPORARYAPPLICATION@STATE.MN.US Microdistillery Small Brewer Please Print Name of City Clerk or County Official 167 Beer Sale Location West Village Road Kerber BoulevardChan View Market BoulevardWest 78th Street Laredo DriveCarver County GIS Document Path: K:\Departments\Parks\Liquor License Map\Liquor License Map.aprxDate Created: 3/12/2025 Created By: City of Chanhassen - Engineering Department µ0 0.01 Mile 0 110 Feet City Center Park - Approved Liquor Areas Chanhassen Liquor License Map 168 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Approve entering into contracts with Sports Facilities Companies for the Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center File No.Item No: D.9 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council authorizes entering into two Professional Services agreements, for venue planning and design support and to develop a pro forma, with The Sports Facilities Companies." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY Staff recommends contracting with The Sports Facilities Company to augment the professional expertise of the project team for the new Community Center, which also includes city staff, BKV Group and their sub-consultants, and the construction manager (to be selected in April). See the attached proposal for full details. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET 169 The costs of these contracts is included in the soft costs of the overall Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center budget. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council authorize entering into these agreements. ATTACHMENTS Professional Services Agreement, Venue Planning and Design Support Professional Services Agreement, Pro Forma SFC Services Overview 170 1 235086v1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement” or Contract”) made this ________ day of ___________________, 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and SPORTS FACILITIES ADVISORY, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Consultant"). IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. The City retains Consultant to provide a detailed financial forecast (Pro Forma) for the City’s proposed community center as more fully detailed in the attached as Exhibit “A” (“Services”). The Consultant agrees to perform the services diligently and completely and in accordance with professional standards of conduct and performance. Consultant agrees to complete the Services within One Hundred Twenty (120) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. 2. COMPENSATION. Except for expenses as otherwise provided herein, Consultant shall be paid by the City for the Services a not to exceed a total fee of Thirty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($30,000.00). The payment shall be paid as follows: Payment 1: City will pay $15,000.00 upon execution of this Agreement Payment 2: City will pay $ 9,000.00 within thirty-five (35) days of invoicing by Consultant following the virtual presentation of the Pro Forma to City. (Step 4 of Services). Payment 3: City will pay $ 6,000.00 within thirty-five days of invoicing by Consultant following Consultant upon delivery of the final deliverables. Consultant will make themselves available to present the final deliverable remote or in person at the request of City. The City will pay to Consultant reimbursable travel expenses, if any, within thirty-five days of invoicing. Consultant shall invoice the City upon completion of travel. Reimbursable travel expenses shall include, but not be limited to: flights, hotel accommodations, ground transportation and associated fees (parking, tolls, etc.) and meals. Reimbursable travel expenses shall be billed at $65 per consultant per day for any necessary travel expenses. The not to exceed fees shall not be adjusted if the estimated hours to perform a task, the number of required meetings, or any other estimate or assumption is exceeded. All travel expenses shall be incurred by Consultant in consultation with City and City reserves the right to deny any travel expense requests. 3. DOCUMENT OWNERSHIP. All reports, plans, models, diagrams, analyses, and information generated in connection with performance of this Agreement shall be the property of the City. The City may use the information for its purposes. 171 2 235086v1 4. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders, regardless of amount, must be approved in advance and in writing by the City. No payment will be due or made for work done in advance of such approval. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS. In providing services hereunder, Consultant shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. 76 STANDARD OF CARE. Consultant shall exercise the same degree of care, skill, and diligence in the performance of the services as is ordinarily possessed and exercised by a professional consultant under similar circumstances. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is included in this Agreement. City shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies in the accuracy of Consultant’s services. 7. INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, including costs and attorney's fees, arising out of or by reason of the execution or performance of the services provided for herein and further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising hereunder. 8. INSURANCE. Consultant shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect Consultant from claims under the Worker’s Compensation Acts, automobile liability, and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of services under this Agreement. Such insurance shall be written for amounts not less than: Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 annual aggregate Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit Professional Liability $2,000,000 each occurrence/aggregate The City shall be named as an additional insured on the general liability policy on a primary and non-contributory basis. Before commencing work, the Consultant shall provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance coverage in a form acceptable to City. The certificate shall provide that such insurance cannot be cancelled until thirty (30) days after the City has received written notice of the insurer’s intention to cancel this insurance. 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The City hereby retains Consultant as an independent contractor upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant is not an employee of the City and is free to contract with other entities as provided herein. Consultant shall be responsible for selecting the means and methods of performing the work. Consultant shall furnish 172 3 235086v1 any and all supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary for Consultant’s performance under this Agreement. City and Consultant agree that Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant's agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the City. Consultant shall be exclusively responsible under this Agreement for Consultant’s own FICA payments, workers compensation payments, unemployment compensation payments, withholding amounts, and/or self-employment taxes if any such payments, amounts, or taxes are required to be paid by law or regulation. 10. SUBCONTRACTORS. Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. Consultant shall comply with Minnesota Statutes § 471.425. Consultant must pay subcontractors for all undisputed services provided by subcontractors within ten (10) days of Consultant’s receipt of payment from City. Consultant must pay interest of one and five-tenths percent (1.5%) per month or any part of a month to subcontractors on any undisputed amount not paid on time to subcontractors. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or more is Ten Dollars ($10.00). 11. CONTROLLING LAW/VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of litigation, the exclusive venue shall be in the District Court of the State of Minnesota for Carver County Minnesota. 12. MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT. Consultant must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to (1) all data provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement, and (2) all data, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant is subject to all the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, including but not limited to the civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, as if it were a government entity. In the event Consultant receives a request to release data, Consultant must immediately notify City. City will give Consultant instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold City, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers harmless from any claims resulting from Consultant’s officers’, agents’, city’s, partners’, employees’, volunteers’, assignees’ or subcontractors’ unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. 13. COPYRIGHT. Consultant shall defend actions or claims charging infringement of any copyright or software license by reason of the use or adoption of any software, designs, drawings or specifications supplied by it, and it shall hold harmless the City from loss or damage resulting therefrom. 14. PATENTED DEVICES, MATERIALS AND PROCESSES. If the Contract requires, or the Consultant desires, the use of any design, devise, material or process covered by letters, patent or copyright, trademark or trade name, the Consultant shall provide for such use by suitable legal agreement with the patentee or owner and a copy of said agreement shall be filed 173 4 235086v1 with the City. If no such agreement is made or filed as noted, the Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims for infringement by reason of the use of any such patented designed, device, material or process, or any trademark or trade name or copyright in connection with the services agreed to be performed under the Contract, and shall indemnify and defend the City for any costs, liability, expenses and attorney's fees that result from any such infringement. 15. RECORDS. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records of hours worked and expenses involved in the performance of services. 16. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, or any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 17. WAIVER. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 18. NONDISCRIMINATION. All Contractors and subcontractors employed shall comply with all applicable provisions of all federal, state and municipal laws which prohibit discrimination in employment to members of a protected class and all rules and regulations, promulgated and adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor will include a similar provision in all subcontracts entered into for the performance of this contract. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 20. NOTICES. All notices, demands or requests required or permitted to be made pursuant to or under this Agreement must be in writing and deemed valid if sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by overnight delivery service providing written evidence of delivery, or by hand delivery by a reputable independent courier providing written evidence of delivery, addressed as follows: CITY: City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attention: City Manager 174 5 235086v1 CONSULTANT: Sports Facilities Development, LLC 17755 US Highway 19 N. Unit 300 Clearwater, FL 44764 Telephone: 727.474.3845 Attention: Jason Clement Email: jclement@sportsfacilities.com Either party may change the designated recipient of notice by so notifying the other party in writing. 21. TERM. This Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue in effect until the completion of the Services unless sooner terminated pursuant to Section 22 (the “Term”). 22. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by the City for any reason or for convenience upon written notice to the Consultant. In the event of termination, the City shall be obligated to the Consultant for payment of amounts due and owing including payment for services performed or furnished to the date and time of termination. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] [Signature pages to follow] 175 6 235086v1 Dated: _______________, 2025. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: _____________________________________________ Elise Ryan, Mayor AND:____________________________________________ Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager Dated: _______________, 2025. SPORTS FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT, LLC BY: _____________________________________________ Jason Clement, Manager 176 A-1 235086v1 EXHIBIT “A” 177 A-2 235086v1 EXHIBIT “A” Page 2 178 1 235088v1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement” or Contract”) made this ________ day of ___________________, 2025 (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and SPORTS FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Consultant"). IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. The City retains Consultant to provide venue planning and design support for the City’s proposed community center as more fully detailed in the attached as Exhibit “A” (“Services”). The Consultant agrees to perform the services diligently and completely and in accordance with professional standards of conduct and performance. Consultant agrees to complete the Services within 120 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. 2. COMPENSATION. Except for expenses as otherwise provided herein, Consultant shall be paid by the City for the Services a not to exceed fee of One Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($185,000.00). The payment shall be paid as follows: • $15,000 upon execution of this Agreement • $30,000 upon completion of Concept Design/Update to City Council • $15,000 upon commencement of Schematic Design • $30,000 upon completion of Schematic Design/Update to City Council • $15,000 upon commencement of Design Development Phase • $15,000 upon 50% completion of Design Development Phase • $15,000 upon completion of Design Development Phase/Update to City Council • $15,000 upon commencement of Construction Document Phase • $10,000 at completion of 95% Construction Document Pricing Set • $10,000 at completion of 100% Construction Document Pricing Set • $10,000 at commencement of Bidding Phase • $5,000 upon award of construction contract The City will pay to Consultant reimbursable travel expenses, if any, within thirty-five days of invoicing. Consultant shall invoice the City upon completion of travel. Reimbursable travel expenses shall include, but not be limited to: flights, hotel accommodations, ground transportation and associated fees (parking, tolls, etc.) and meals. Reimbursable travel expenses shall be billed at $65 per consultant per day for any necessary travel expenses. All travel shall be booked in consultation with the City and the City reserves the right to deny travel requests. The not to exceed fees shall not be adjusted if the estimated hours to perform a task, the number of required meetings, or any other estimate or assumption is exceeded. 179 2 235088v1 3. DOCUMENT OWNERSHIP. All reports, plans, models, diagrams, analyses, and information generated in connection with performance of this Agreement shall be the property of the City. The City may use the information for its purposes. 4. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders, regardless of amount, must be approved in advance and in writing by the City. No payment will be due or made for work done in advance of such approval. 5. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS. In providing services hereunder, Consultant shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. 76 STANDARD OF CARE. Consultant shall exercise the same degree of care, skill, and diligence in the performance of the services as is ordinarily possessed and exercised by a professional consultant under similar circumstances. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is included in this Agreement. City shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies in the accuracy of Consultant’s services. 7. INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, including costs and attorney's fees, arising out of or by reason of the execution or performance of the services provided for herein and further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising hereunder. 8. INSURANCE. Consultant shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect Consultant from claims under the Worker’s Compensation Acts, automobile liability, and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of services under this Agreement. Such insurance shall be written for amounts not less than: Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence $2,000,000 annual aggregate Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit Professional Liability $2,000,000 each occurrence/aggregate The City shall be named as an additional insured on the general liability policy on a primary and non-contributory basis. Before commencing work, the Consultant shall provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance coverage in a form acceptable to City. The certificate shall provide that such insurance cannot be cancelled until thirty (30) days after the City has received written notice of the insurer’s intention to cancel this insurance. 180 3 235088v1 9. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The City hereby retains Consultant as an independent contractor upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant is not an employee of the City and is free to contract with other entities as provided herein. Consultant shall be responsible for selecting the means and methods of performing the work. Consultant shall furnish any and all supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary for Consultant’s performance under this Agreement. City and Consultant agree that Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant's agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the City. Consultant shall be exclusively responsible under this Agreement for Consultant’s own FICA payments, workers compensation payments, unemployment compensation payments, withholding amounts, and/or self-employment taxes if any such payments, amounts, or taxes are required to be paid by law or regulation. 10. SUBCONTRACTORS. Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. Consultant shall comply with Minnesota Statutes § 471.425. Consultant must pay subcontractors for all undisputed services provided by subcontractors within ten (10) days of Consultant’s receipt of payment from City. Consultant must pay interest of one and five-tenths percent (1.5%) per month or any part of a month to subcontractors on any undisputed amount not paid on time to subcontractors. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or more is Ten Dollars ($10.00). 11. CONTROLLING LAW/VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of litigation, the exclusive venue shall be in the District Court of the State of Minnesota for Carver County Minnesota. 12. MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT. Consultant must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to (1) all data provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement, and (2) all data, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant is subject to all the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, including but not limited to the civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, as if it were a government entity. In the event Consultant receives a request to release data, Consultant must immediately notify City. City will give Consultant instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold City, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers harmless from any claims resulting from Consultant’s officers’, agents’, city’s, partners’, employees’, volunteers’, assignees’ or subcontractors’ unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. 13. COPYRIGHT. Consultant shall defend actions or claims charging infringement of any copyright or software license by reason of the use or adoption of any software, designs, drawings or specifications supplied by it, and it shall hold harmless the City from loss or damage resulting therefrom. 181 4 235088v1 14. PATENTED DEVICES, MATERIALS AND PROCESSES. If the Contract requires, or the Consultant desires, the use of any design, devise, material or process covered by letters, patent or copyright, trademark or trade name, the Consultant shall provide for such use by suitable legal agreement with the patentee or owner and a copy of said agreement shall be filed with the City. If no such agreement is made or filed as noted, the Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims for infringement by reason of the use of any such patented designed, device, material or process, or any trademark or trade name or copyright in connection with the services agreed to be performed under the Contract, and shall indemnify and defend the City for any costs, liability, expenses and attorney's fees that result from any such infringement. 15. RECORDS. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records of hours worked and expenses involved in the performance of services. 16. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, or any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 17. WAIVER. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 18. NONDISCRIMINATION. All Contractors and subcontractors employed shall comply with all applicable provisions of all federal, state and municipal laws which prohibit discrimination in employment to members of a protected class and all rules and regulations, promulgated and adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor will include a similar provision in all subcontracts entered into for the performance of this contract. 19. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 20. NOTICES. All notices, demands or requests required or permitted to be made pursuant to or under this Agreement must be in writing and deemed valid if sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by overnight delivery service providing written evidence of delivery, or by hand delivery by a reputable independent courier providing written evidence of delivery, addressed as follows: CITY: City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attention: City Manager CONSULTANT: Sports Facilities Advisory, LLC 182 5 235088v1 17755 US Highway 19 N. Unit 300 Clearwater, FL 44764 Telephone: 727.474.3845 Attention: Jason Clement Email: jclement@sportsfacilities.com Either party may change the designated recipient of notice by so notifying the other party in writing. 21. TERM. This Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall continue in effect until the completion of the Services unless sooner terminated pursuant to Section 22 (the “Term”). 22. TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by the City for any reason or for convenience upon written notice to the Consultant. In the event of termination, the City shall be obligated to the Consultant for payment of amounts due and owing including payment for services performed or furnished to the date and time of termination. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] [Signature pages to follow] 183 6 235088v1 Dated: _______________, 2025. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: _____________________________________________ Elise Ryan, Mayor AND:____________________________________________ Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager Dated: _______________, 2025. SPORTS FACILITIES ADVISORY, LLC BY: _____________________________________________ Jason Clement, Manager 184 A-1 235088v1 EXHIBIT “A” Page 1 185 A-2 235088v1 EXHIBIT “A” Page 2 186 A-3 235088v1 EXHIBIT “A” Page 3 187 A-4 235088v1 EXHIBIT “A” Page 4 188 CHANHASSEN, MN // SERVICES OUTLINE Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center planning, development and operational DESIGN support THE SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES // SPORTS FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT, LLC February 7, 2025 189 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 2 Sports Facilities Companies 17755 US Hwy 19 N #300 Clearwater, FL 33764 Founded in 2003 JIM ARNOLD DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT 404.984.6682 jarnold@sportsfacilities.com Dear Laurie & Jerry, It was a pleasure meeting with both of you this week. I truly appreciate the time you dedicated to sharing insights into the project, and I’m excited about the opportunity to contribute to a facility that will have such a meaningful impact on the community. As discussed, I’ve outlined a potential scope of work, focusing on how we can assist during the design process, specifically in venue planning, procurement, and operational design. Based on our conversation, we believe we can provide the most value and support as an integrated part of your team, rather than as a subcontractor to the selected architect/engineer. While we have experience in both roles, we’ve found that working directly with the City enables us to better align with and help achieve your goals. I’ve aimed to keep the information concise, understanding that it’s a lot to digest. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you’d like to schedule a call to discuss any questions or clarifications. Additionally, we’re happy to provide more details regarding our pre-opening and management services in the future, but for now, I wanted to focus on potential next steps. Thank you again for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Best regards, 190 Pre-Development FIRM OVERVIEW DevelopmentManagement dev e l o pmentpre-developmen t Mana g e m entMarket Research Financial Forecasts (Pro Forma) Economic Impact Feasibility Reports Community Engagement & Partnership Development Strategic Planning & Finance Strategy Start-Up Operational Development Facility Operations Operational Timelines Revenue Generation Facility Optimization Owner’s Rep Venue Planning Procurement (FF&E & OS&E) Operational Budget Impacts Technology Requirements, Sport Equipment & Specifications Facility Branding, Wayfinding, Signage Our mission is to improve the health and economic vitality of the communities we serve. Since 2003, the Sports Facilities Companies, comprised of Sports Facilities Advisory, Sports Facilities Management, and Sports Facilities Development, have become the trusted resource for communities who want to plan, develop, or operate sports, recreation, entertainment and fitness centers. • CONTRACTING FIRM: SPORTS FACILITIES ADVISORY, LLC • NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES: 2,500+ • YEARS IN OPERATION: 21 • CORPORATE STRUCTURE: Limited Liability Company (LLC)191 FOUNDED IN 2003 OUR MISSION IMPROVE THE HEALTH & ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE COMMUNITIES WE SERVE 3,000 COMMUNITIES SERVED $15 BILLION IN PLANNED & FUNDED FACILITIES 25 MILLIONANNUAL VISITS TO SFM FACILITIES THE VOICE OF THE INDUSTRY THE SINGLE LARGEST & FASTEST GROWING SPORTS TOURISM NET- WORK WWW.THESFNETWORK.COM PLANNING OPTIMIZATION DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 2,500+ TEAM MEMBERS AND GROWING 192 MARKET FEASIBILITY • Market and Participation Analysis • Existing Service Providers Assessment • Trends and Benchmarks Evaluation • Recommended Facility and Opinion of Cost Projections • Expectations for Financial Performance PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION • Opportunity Representation & Presentations • Project Implementation Timeline • Partnership Engagement • Ongoing Business Model Refinement • Operator/Management Model Selection • Facility Program Specifications Generation • Brand Management • Pitch Deck Development • Design Concept and Test Fit OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT • Team Development & Training • Operational Development • SOP Development & Implementation • Brand Development & Marketing Systems • Systems & Technology Implementation • Safety, Security, & Risk Management DAILY OPERATIONS • Event Booking & Business Development • Marketing & Branding Campaigns • Strategic Planning • Financial Reporting & Modeling • Team Development • Program/Event Management and Development PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION • Financial Analysis • Team Evaluation • Operational & Proces Improvement • Strategic Planning • Systems and Technology Evaluation PRE-DESIGN • A/E Teams RFP Generation, Distribution, Evaluation, Selection, and Contracting • Infrastructure Coordination • Site Development Services • Conceptual Design and Master Planning • Cost Validation • Facility Program Specification Refinement FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY • Business Model Development • Institutional-Grade Financial Forecast (Pro Forma) • Economic Impact Projections • Feasibility Report • Project Overview Presentation DESIGN • Design Consulting / Venue Planning • Design Scheduling and Coordination • Constructability Feedback and Review • Cost Reviews Throughout Design • Ongoing Refinement of Facility Program and Operational Impacts • Design Alternatives and Value Engineering CONSTRUCTION & COMMISSIONING • Contractor(s) Procurement and Contracting • Review of Contractor’s Construction Plan • Cost Control • Master Schedule Control • Project Reporting • FF&E and OSE Procurement CONCEPT CONCEPT TO CONCRETE SERVICES 193 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 6 Project Approach 194 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 7 PROJECT APPROACH As emphasized in our cover letter, our team is thrilled about the opportunity to collaborate with Chanhassen and the entire project team on this exciting endeavor. In the following pages, we outline our service offerings and approach to addressing the requested scope of work. SFC provides a comprehensive suite of services encompassing planning, development, and management. However, our success over the past 20 years is not merely the result of offering a broad range of services. It stems from our ability to work closely with our clients to identify the specific services that best support the project and team, ensuring the successful achievement of goals and outcomes. We are eager to build a tailored set of services for Chanhassen and are prepared to address any challenges that may arise throughout our partnership. With SFC acting on your team, Chanhassen is positioned to help make fully informed decisions throughout the planning process and ultimately drive the best possible project, on-time and on-budget. We will assist the design team in delivering a facility that is as unique and innovative as it is functional and efficient. Our goal is to help deliver an innovative, impactful, and sustainable venue for the City, and we stand ready to contribute to this project’s success. 195 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 8 SFC’s advisory and financial planning process starts with an on-site development planning session (DPS), with all team members that will focus on defining suc- cess and refining your vision, value propositions, finan- cial resources and core competencies, products and services, strategic alliances, and financial success met- rics. Using the information gathered in the DPS as well as the existing schematic program of the facility, SFC will work with Chanhassen and project team to create a detailed financial forecast for the facility. This forecast will provide a full understanding of the operational sus- tainability, economic impact, local use access, and re- turn-on-investment for the facility. Operations Analysis • The ideal business model • Right-sized program spaces and space requirements • Construction costs based on recent, comparable projects • Recommended parking • Revenue by product/program • Direct/variable costs (cost of goods sold) • Facility and operating expenses • Management and staffing model Economic Impact Analysis • Number of events • Number of local & out-of-town guests • Length of stay • Average daily rate • Average daily expenditures • Net new tax generation Using the data from this exercise, we will be able to quickly adapt the program, if necessary, to put more or less focus on any area. As focus shifts in one area, each other area is affected. SFC will work with Chanhassen and project team until we develop the financial plan and program that meet the unique goals and success met- rics for the facility. Working Document The pro-forma developed during the schematic phase of the project is not a rigid pro-forma. Rather it is a pro-forma that has the ability to ebb and flow through- out the design and construction process. SFC will con- tinuously update this document as decisions are made that affect facility program, timeline or budget. The initial purpose of the pro-forma and economic impact analysis is to create a road map for the project. As with any route towards a destination, there are sure to be detours, obstacles and unexpected decisions along the way. When these items arise, our job as your Owner’s rep is to help you navigate a new route and keep the project on-time and on-budget. Our design and con- struction team members will help SFC asses the impact of each item on the project time-line and budget. The pro-forma and economic impact tracking document is a unique element that SFC brings to the table that also allows us to educate Chanhassen on what short and long-term impacts a decision has on financial sustain- ability, operations and marketability of the facility. Our experience and understanding of the entire process and life-cycle of a venue from design through construc- tion and ultimately through pre-opening and long-term operations equips Chanhassen and the project team with all of the information necessary to make truly in- formed decisions. OPERATIONAL ADVISORY & FINANCIAL PLANNING 196 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 9 VENUE PLANNING Throughout the facility design, SFC will take on all nec- essary services to ensure the successful delivery of the project. SFC brings a unique set of capabilities to the project through our Venue Planning Services that will integrate seamlessly into the design team. This process creates a collaboration between SFC, Chanhassen and the project team, leading to a facility that is aestheti- cally pleasing, operationally sustainable, and meets the goals for the facility and its intended usage. As part of this process, SFC pairs our program-driven design approach with our extensive operational expertise and focuses on the following areas: Operationally led design SFC has been involved in the development and op- erations of many of the most operationally-success- ful sports and recreation facilities in the country. The foundation to this success is providing a facility that is custom designed to match the primary functions and structure of the owner’s operations. Too often facilities are designed and built and then a management team is put in place. Form must follow function to realize the full potential of a facility. Starting in the schematic process, SFC will work with the project team to the operation- al structure for all aspects of the facility. SFC will then work closely with Chanhassen to ensure that the de- sign of facility is providing the best opportunity for these unique operations to be successful. Experiential design In an ever-expanding industry and with family/commu- nity time at a premium, it has never been more import- ant for facilities to provide a first-class, differentiating experience while also accomplishing the individual goals of the project. This starts with the City’s vision and goals and continues immediately into the planning phases of the project, incorporating everything from user group specific layouts and amenities to fanfare and family experiences. SFC’s experience developing some of the most successful and innovative facilities in the country provides an unparalleled understanding of what design elements create real impact and provide the best value to the overall project. This experience ensures Chanhassen Bluffs immediately opens as a true, experience driven community gathering place. Multi-use functionality SFC has been at the forefront of functional, innovative and multi-purpose design for sports and recreation fa- cilities across the industry. These efforts have culminat- ed in the development of facilities that drive demand in individual sport sectors while maximizing each and every space within a facility; allowing for increased eco- nomic impact and return on investment without over- building facilities and creating unrealistic debt burdens on owners. From tournaments to events, concerts and local community groups; SFC ensures the Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center will be designed in a way to provide opportunities to engage all of your residents - regardless of age, interest or ability. Revenue & Impact driven design decisions There are only so many areas within the facility that can drive revenue. Part of SFC’s role leading the proj- ect team will be to ensure that everyone understands each design and construction decision has on each of these areas. Maximizing each of these revenue levers starts with design that is focused on maximizing each of these areas. Along with revenue focused design, SFC also focuses on fiscally-responsible elements; defining, refining, and creating plans that support the desired/re- quired financial outcomes of the project while providing creative approaches to maximize cost recovery. Maximizing impact SFC’s will work closely with Chanhassen and the de- sign team to ensure that the project maximizes impact in terms of both community health and economic vital- ity. Our understanding of how these types of facilities operate over time ensures that long range planning al- lows for future expanded services while the initial plan will reduce barriers to access and maximize the social, health, education, safety, and economic impact of plac- es to play and programs in which to participate for the residents of the region. 197 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 10 SPACE PLANNING Facility Program Options Space planning is vital for the seamless operation and functionality of large indoor sports and entertainment venues. This process focuses on designing spaces that support the venue’s core activities while enhancing the experience for attendees, staff, and performers. It ensures efficient circulation for large crowds, strategic placement of amenities like concessions and restrooms, and optimal layouts for back-of-house operations such as loading docks, storage, and staff facilities. By aligning spatial design with operational needs, space planning maximizes revenue potential, ensures safety and compliance, and creates an engaging and functional environment for both large-scale events and day-to-day operations. Utilizing the data and insights gathered in the preceding steps and utilizing our vast experience in sports facility planning and operations, SFC will produce up to three new facility program options for review and consideration. Each facility program will be developed to demonstrate the type, number, and size of each asset. Each facility program will also include recommendations for parking, setbacks, and greenspace to demonstrate the total acreage requirements for the option. Following a review of the facility program options, SFC will facilitate a discussion to determine the preferred facility program and location for the project. ROom Data Sheets As a part of our on-going project support which is highlighted in Phase V; SFC will work with the project team to develop project specific room data sheets which will assist with space and operational planning. SFC’s Room Data Sheets (RDS) are an essential tool in the building design process, providing detailed information about each space to ensure alignment with functional, operational, and aesthetic goals. Our services focus on creating comprehensive, accurate, and customizable room data sheets that guide the design process and support successful project delivery. Key features include: Detailed Room Requirements Documentation of room dimensions, finishes, lighting, HVAC, and acoustical needs tailored to the space’s purpose. Functional Space Specifications Clear descriptions of the room’s intended use, capacity, and required adjacencies to ensure operational efficiency. Fixture, Furniture, and Equipment (FF&E) Coordination Precise listing and placement of all necessary furnishings, fixtures, and equipment to align with user needs and project budgets. Technical and MEP Integration Identification of power, data, plumbing, and mechanical system requirements for seamless coordination with building systems. Flexibility for Future Changes Inclusion of adaptable elements to accommodate evolving needs or alternative uses over the building’s lifecycle. 198 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 11 ROOM DATA SHEET EXAMPLE FUNCTION / ACTIVITY Team fitness area ADJACENCY NEEDS: Locker Room, ERG Machines WINDOWS: Daylight Desired LIGHTING: Overhead, Zoning and dimmable DOORS: Multiple Single doors SECURITY: General coverage 1-2 cameras BASE: Cove base ACCESS CONTROL: Card Reader Access on One Door FLOORING: Weight Room Flooring ACOUSTICS & VIBRATION LIMITS: Need to be able to block out gym sound, Limit sound of weights dropping WALL FINISHES: Branding and sponsorship, Mirrors DAYLIGHT / VIEWS: Daylight recommended CEILING FINISHES:Drop ceiling, Acoustical control needed OTHER: N/A MECHANICAL: Heating, Cooling, Ventilation PLUMBING: Water Fountains/ Filling TEMPERATURE RANGE:68-78 F ELECTRICAL / POWER: 120 volt TR duplex receptacle throughout the space HUMIDITY RANGE:N/A SPECIAL POWER NEEDS: Visual Displays Cardio machine will require special power (Power curb) AUDIO/VISUAL:Visual Displays, 70A Distributed Audio with Input/Controls DATA:Visual displays, Cardio machine, Wi- Fi access point FURNITURE:Chairs and benches, Check in desk, day lockers, Millwork EQUIPMENT: Gym equipment (weight, cardio, functional training, etc.) visual display, weight/mat storage, vending? CRITICAL DIMENSIONS: Need to consider spacing around equipment, Cardio likes views to outside or into the Court space CONSIDERATIONS:Do we need a private office /meeting space in this room? CRITICAL FACTORS Sports Performance GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION BUILDING SYSTEMS FURNITURE / EQUIPMENT 10/29/2024 Sports Performance 1 199 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 12 FF&E + OS&E Consulting SFC’s strong industry position guarantees that Chanhassen and the facility receive the best equipment at competitive prices. Specializing in FF&E (Furnish- ings, Fixtures, and Equipment) and OS&E (Operating Supplies and Equipment) for sports and recreation facil- ities, our team has extensive experience sourcing over 850 sports-specific products, from basketball equip- ment to concession gear and POS systems. Our process starts with a thorough needs assessment, followed by supplier vetting, and assistance in the RFP and procurement stages. As a leading developer in sports and recreation facilities, SFC leverages its in- dustry expertise, purchasing power, and supplier rela- tionships to secure the best value for each project, often surpassing co-op pricing. We ensure the City and the project receive the best value and the appropriate prod- ucts to meet the short and long-term goals of the facility. ROCKY MOUNT EVENT CENTER CEDAR POINT SPORTS CENTER HORIZON’S EDGE SPORTS CAMPUS HIGHLANDS SPORTS COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION $48MM $32MM $24MM $30MM FFE BUDGET $3,950,000 $2,400,000 $2,800,000 $4,300,000 FFE FINAL $3,180,000 $1,750,000 $2,345,000 $3,650,000 SAVINGS $770,000 $650,000 $455,000 $650,000 % SAVINGS 19.5%27.1%16.3%15.1% Importantly, SFC’s procurement services follow all nec- essary procurement policies and are fully transparent, with no product mark-ups, fees, or commissions, en- suring that we consistently act in the best interest of the City. DIVIDER CURTAINS CEILING SUSPENDED VOLLEYBALL WOOD-COURT FLOORING SCOREBOARDS & VIDEO SCREENS PLAYER & SPECTATOR SEATING CEILING SUSPENDED FIXTURES LED LIGHTING SCORER’S CHAIRS & TABLES 200 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 13 Experience and Qualifications 201 PROJECT STATISTICS & PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS 420,000 ft2 8 Basketball / 16 Volleyball Courts 1 NHL/NCAA Regulation Ice Rink Family Entertainment Center 1 Indoor Turf Field Sports Performance Training Center Restaurant, Cafe, and Meeting Space Advisory Market & Financial Feasibility Partnership & Funding Development Development Venue Planning FF&E Procurement Management Pre-Opening Management Full-Time Management SPORTS TOURISM • COMMUNITY RECREATION • ICE • COURTS SIZE FEATURES FIRM ROLES & SERVICES Opened in 2024, AdventHealth Sports Park at Bluhawk is an incredible 420,000 square foot indoor facility that is a true sports destination. Located in the heart of the Bluhawk development, this facility will be within walking distance of premium restaurants, retail, and hotels. Sports Facilities Development was engaged to provide venue planning and design consultation along with FF&E procurement during the design and construction phase of the project. Concurrently, Sports Facilities Management has provided pre-opening services including marketing, branding, organizational development, programming and event booking, and grand opening planning. The Management team has been the full-time operating partner since opening. ADVENTHEALTH SPORTS PARK AT BLUHAWK OVERLAND PARK, KS 202 PROJECT STATISTICS & PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS 100,000 ft2 25-yard, Six-lane Lap Pool Family Aquatic Center Fitness Center 4 Basketball / 6 Volleyball Courts Meeting & Event Space Advisory Financial Forecasting Economic Impact Development Venue Planning FF&E Procurement Management Pre-Opening Management Full-Time Management SPORTS TOURISM • COMMUNITY RECREATION • COURTS • FITNESS • AQUATICS SIZE FEATURES FIRM ROLES & SERVICES When the SF Network team joined the City of Morristown on the development of Morristown Landing, the client had a very defined vision of what they wanted this facility to become. They envisioned the facility to be an indoor facility that provides residents with premier amenities to play, gather, and maintain a healthy lifestyle. To execute this vision, the City of Morristown hired the Development team for their venue planning and FF&E expertise. The team’s efforts helped to re-envision the facility in a way that not only aligned with the client’s vision and goals but also increased revenue and operational efficiency. The Management team provided pre-opening services and full-time management of the facility. MORRISTOWN LANDING RECREATION AND EVENTS MORRISTOWN, TN 203 Located just an hour outside of Pittsburgh and on the border of Ohio, this 200,000 square foot indoor sports center is an excellent addition to the existing Highlands development in Wheeling, West Virginia. The Sports Facilities Companies’ Advisory team conducted the initial assessment including a market analysis, financial forecasting, economic impact analysis, and a feasibility study. The Development team was then engaged to assist the facility with FF&E procurement. Through the team’s due diligence and expertise, over 15% of the initial FF&E budget was saved which allowed a reallocation of funds to enhance program offerings elsewhere. The Management team was then engaged to provide full-time management of the complex. PROJECT STATISTICS & PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS 200,000 ft2 6 Basketball / 6 Volleyball Courts Fun-Climb Family Entertainment 2nd Story Mezzanine 1 Indoor / 1 Outdoor Turf Field 5 Multi-Purpose Rooms Cafe & Concessions Advisory Existing Data Review Market Analysis Financial Forecasting Economic Impact Analysis Feasibility Report Development \FF&E Procurement Management Full-Time Management HIGHLANDS SPORTS COMPLEX WHEELING, WV COMMUNITY RECREATION • COURTS • FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT • INDOOR/OUTDOOR SIZE FEATURES FIRM ROLES & SERVICES 204 PROJECT STATISTICS & PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS 160,000 ft² Competition Pool & Warm-Up Pool Indoor Climbing Area Fitness Center/Group Training Rooms Elevated Track Indoor Turf Field Café, Concessions, & Meeting Rooms Advisory Feasibility Report Development Venue Planning FF&E Procurement Management Start-Up Operations Development Brand Development & Marketing Advisory Management SIZE FEATURES FIRM ROLES & SERVICES Opened in summer 2021, this is the premier destination for sports, recreation, and events in the Mid-Atlantic region. Bridgeport has a charming downtown and team-friendly accommodations. The complex includes nearly 160,000 square feet of state-of-the art competition and entertainment space, fitness center, and competition pool. The Advisory Team conducted the initial Feasibility Report for the complex. During construction, the Development Team was hired for venue planning services and FF&E procurement. Due to their extensive work in the value engineering process, the Development Team was able to save nearly $1 million of the original $3.9 million FF&E budget. The Management Team was then hired for pre-opening services and an ongoing advisory management role. THE BRIDGE SPORTS COMPLEX BRIDGEPORT, WV SPORTS TOURISM • COMMUNITY RECREATION • INDOOR 205 Opened in 2021, parents and community members paid visit to the City of West Des Moines to propose the building of a new athletic complex. The idea came from the concerning shortage of local space for youth athletic teams/organizations to practice hockey and other sports. After investigation, the City recognized the need for improved quality athletic facilities to help increase year-round access for youth programs. To meet the demand, the City of West Des Moines, in partnership with local leaders and youth activity organizations, launched a public/private project that would later be known as the MidAmerican Energy Company RecPlex. The Sports Facilities Companies Advisory Team worked with the City and its partners to evaluate the conceptual design of the facility, make recommendations for design improvements, and create the financial forecast and economic impact projections for the facility. They engaged The Sports Facilities Companies Advisory Team for an additional study of the potential expansion of the facility in 2022. We delivered a pro forma, economic impact analysis, and executive summary report on facility expansion in 2022. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY COMPANY RECPLEX DES MOINES, IA SPORTS TOURISM • COMMUNITY RECREATION • COURTS • TURF PROJECT STATISTICS & PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS 150,000 ft2 2 Ice Rinks Indoor Turf Field with Batting Cages 3 Outdoor Multippurpose Fields 4 Basketball / 8 Volleyball Courts Indoor Pickleball Courts E-Sports Center Advisory Existing Data Review Market Opportunity Report Pro Forma Economic Impact Analysis Development Timeline SIZE FEATURES FIRM ROLES & SERVICES 206 PROJECT STATISTICS & PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS 120 acres, 155,000 ft² 11 Basketball / 16 Volleyball Courts Splash Pad Trade Show & Meeting Room Spaces 5 Multipurpose Fields Indoor Climbing, Food Court, RV Park Hoover Met Stadium (10,000+ seating) Advisory Financial Forecasting Management Pre-Opening Management Full-Time Management SIZE FEATURES FIRM ROLES & SERVICES This massive development has something for everyone featuring an indoor sports facility called the Finley Center, Hoover Met Baseball Stadium, RV park, indoor climbing area, a baseball complex, multipurpose fields, a tennis center, and disability-inclusive splash pad and playground. SFC’s role in pre-opening development included business development, event booking, brand development and marketing, strategic planning, hiring and organizational structure definition. SFC, engaged as the full-time outsourced management solution for the entire $80 million complex, has doubled economic impact projections, beating bottom-line budget, and providing increased usage to the school system and parks & recreation. The Hoover Met Complex is designed to be a family-friendly destination, with indoor climbing, food court, RV Park, and splash pad. HOOVER MET COMPLEX HOOVER, AL SPORTS TOURISM • COMMUNITY RECREATION • INDOOR/OUTDOOR 207 Legends Event Center is a bustling hub of activity and excitement will provide programs, special events, family activities and more to serve the surrounding communities. Partnered with Destination Bryan, the City has made this recreational facility as the new hub for basketball, volleyball, and arcade lovers. In 2019, SFC was engaged to produce a feasibility study for the City of Bryan, including existing data review, market analysis, and provide financial forecasting and economic impact projections. SFC’s Development team assisted in design concepts, schematic drawings and development. The Management team was then contracted for pre-opening and on-going management of the facility. PROJECT STATISTICS & PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS 120,000 ft2 8 Basketball / 16 Volleyball Courts Onsite Dining Options Turf Area for Special Programming Meeting/Party Rooms Arcade Outdoor Patio Advisory Financial Forecasting Economic Impact Analysis Feasibility Report Development Venue Planning FF&E Procurement Management Pre-Opening Management Full-Time Management LEGENDS EVENT CENTER BRYAN, TX SPORTS TOURISM • COMMUNITY RECREATION • INDOOR SIZE FEATURES FIRM ROLES & SERVICES 208 CEO & FOUNDER Jason Clement SPECIALTIES SFC leadership and oversight, long-term strategic direction, partnership management education Bachelor of Architecture Iowa State University experience Years in Industry: 22 MEMBERSHIPS, ACCREDITATIONS, & ACHIEVEMENTS ICMA - Strategic Partner & Speaker SportsETA - Featured Speaker & Content Contributor NRPA - Speaker Board Chair - Habitat for Humanity, Man Up & Go Tampa Bay Business Journal “Hall of Fame” Under Jason’s leadership, the SF Companies have opened more successful sports and recreation venues than any organization in the country. As an experienced advisor he has provided planning, strategy, finance, and operational leadership to projects throughout the world. The Sports Facilities’ firms have become globally recognized leaders focusing on transforming the health and economic vitality of communities around the world. As the Chief Executive Officer of SFC, Jason leads the strategic direction, culture, and service standards that define SFC in the public sector and private sector markets we serve. Under Jason’s leadership, SF Companies recently launched new products to serve communities focused on economic development and the youth and amateur sports industry. The initiatives include an event company, new technology platforms, food & beverage and gaming options. The firm is also focused on merchandising, purchasing, and leveraging social capital to improve access to sport. Formally trained and licensed as an architect, Jason began his career in sports architecture before transitioning into commercial development and corporate real estate management. The experience was the spark to bring similar professional management services to the youth & amateur sports industry. Jason is a passionate and faith driven contributor to causes that positively impact families and communities. He has founded, supported, and lead the growth as board chair to multiple organizations including Habitat for Humanity, Man Up and Go, Calvary Christian High School, Florida Small Business Development Center, and others. Pelican Bay Aquatic Center - Edmond, OK West Monroe Sports & Events - West Monroe, LA Salvation Army KROC Center- South Bend IN Sand Mountain Park - Albertville, AL Bill Noble Park - Gardendale, AL Hoover Met Complex - Hoover, AL Spooky Nook Sports - Lancaster, PA Eugene Civic Alliance - Eugene OR Publix Sports Park - PCB, FL Paradise Coast Sports Complex - Naples, FL NOTABLE PROJECTS 209 SPECIALTIES business development, program planning, sustainability education BS, Business Administration St. Bonaventure University MBA St. Bonaventure University experience Years in Industry: 21 With over 23 years of industry expertise, Jim has led the strategic planning, design, development, and successful operation of numerous cutting-edge facilities across the country. Regarded as one of the leading design voices in youth and amateur sports facilities, he is often looked to as a leading voice in conversations about trends in the industry. Although Jim’s career primarily revolves around amateur sports facility development, his impact extends globally, touching all levels of sports. From contributing to the design and construction of professional venues such as of SRP Park (awarded the 2018 Minor League Baseball Ballpark of the Year) to spearheading a nationwide growth and development strategy for New Zealand Baseball, Jim’s extensive experience plays a pivotal role in assisting clients in creating innovative, unique, and sustainable sports facilities. Paradise Coast Sports Complex - Naples, FL Cedar Point Sports Center - Sandusky, OH Publix Sports Park - Panama City Beach, FL SRP Park - North Augusta, SC Ripken Experience - Pigeon Forge, Myrtle Beach, Maryland Rhythm & Rally Sports & Events Center - Macon, GA Sand Mountain Park & Amphitheater - Albertville, AL Ballparks of America - Branson, MO 4 Winds Field - South Bend, IN National Sports Center, Blaine, MN Rize Sports - Leetsdale, PA Scheels Sports Park & Legacy Pointe - Springfield, IL Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation Youth Development Parks (100+ Fields) The Corner (Old Tiger Stadium Redevelopment), Detroit, MI NOTABLE PROJECTS NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT Jim Arnold 210 SPECIALTIES strategic planning, financial analysis, project management education BA, Sport and Recreation Administration Temple University experience Years in Industry: 15 Dan is Vice President of Pre-Development services for the Sports Facilities Companies. Since joining SFC in 2012, Dan has served in a variety of roles such as market research specialist, business analyst, project manager, account executive, and strategic advisor that have prepared him to lead the pre-development department today. He leads a team of professionals that produce between 150-200 studies a year related to market studies, financial forecasts (pro forma), economic impact analyses, facility optimization audits, community master plans, partnership development support, and industry benchmarking. The pre-development team is focused on serving SFC’s clients to provide the most accurate and reliable information possible through dynamic financial and economic impact forecasting to create facility models that fulfill client goals as well as SFC’s mission to positively impact the lives of its clients and the communities they serve. Dan has been directly involved or led the studies that have supported the development of over 100 operational facilities including those inside and outside of the SF Network. Prior to joining SFC, Dan worked in facility management of an indoor sports venue in the Northeast United States. For several years, he learned the day-to-day operations of sports and recreation facilities, holding a variety of positions from coach to manager on duty to sports program manager. This experience equipped him for a transition to the planning and analysis of new facility developments with SFC. Cedar Point Sports Center - Sandusky, OH Iron Peak Sports and Events - Hillsborough, NJ Sand Mountain Park & Amphitheater - Albertville, AL Horizons Edge Sports Campus - Harrisonburg, VA Bo Jacksons Elite Sports - Hilliard, OH Wintrust Sports Complex - Bedford Park, IL Scheels Sports Park at Legacy Pointe - Springfield, IL Emerald Acres Sports Connection - Mattoon, IL CORE4 Athletic Complex - Chamblee, GA Legends Event Center - Bryan, TX Fort Bend Epicenter - Rosenberg, TX Advent Health Sports Park at Bluhawk - Overland Park, KS WYO Sports Ranch - Casper, WY The Podium - Spokane, WA NOTABLE PROJECTS Dan began his career in facility management of an indoor sports venue in the Northeast United States. For several years, he learned the day-to-day operations of sports and recreation facilities. This experience equipped him for a transition to the planning and analysis of new facility developments with SFC. VP, PRE-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DANIEL MORTON 211 SPECIALTIES venue planning & procurement , management, design efficiencies, vendor relations education BS, Mechanical Engineering University of Illinois experience Years in Industry: 17 As VP of Development, Jake is responsible for total project oversight including controlling budgets, negotiating subcontracts, and providing day-to-day communication with the project team to ensure the development remains on schedule and within budget. Jake has over 15 years experience overseeing all phases of multi-million-dollar construction projects, including parks, recreation, event centers, fitness, university, and sports tourism projects for both public and private sector clients. A skilled collaborator, Jake holds an excellent track record of strong working relationships with owners, architects, and engineers, resulting in successful construction experiences for some of the largest athletic facilities across the nation. Over his career Jake has worked in key phases of project delivery including supply chain, manufacturing, sales, installation, design, and construction project management. Prior to coming to the Sports Facilities Companies, Jake was the Director of Sales Operations for Porter Athletic where he oversaw a team of project managers, sales associates, and a national distributor network for over 500 projects per year. Jake is a proven innovator and solutions-finder as evidenced by his experience in a $20mm+ custom construction division where he directed manufacturing, engineering, architecture, and construction teams for projects ranging from $10mm - $100mm. A keystone of his success is his ability to leverage emerging technology to create process automation, on-line quoting tools, and 3D modeling to reduce project lead times, eliminate manufacturing errors, and equip partners with DIY tools to maximize communication. Legends Event Center & Travis Park- Bryan, TX Fort Bend Epicenter - Rosenberg, TX Publix Sports Park - Panama City Beach, FL Sand Mountain Park and Amphitheater - Albertville, AL University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire, Sonnentag Center - Eau Claire, WI Advent Health Sports Park at Bluhawk - Overland Park, KS Cedar Point Sports Center - Sandusky, OH Wintrust Sports Complex - Bedford Park, IL Scheel’s Sports Park at Legacy Pointe - Springfield, IL Highlands Sports Complex - Wheeling, WV Iron Peaks Sports and Events - Hillsborough Town- ship, NJ Horizon’s Edge Sports Campus - Harrisonburg, VA Rize Sports - Leetsdale, PA Emerald Acres Sports Connection - Mattoon, IL WFSF Sportsplex – Philadelphia Union, PA Pinellas Park, FL West Monroe Sports and Events - West Monroe, LA NOTABLE PROJECTS VICE PRESIDENT, DEVELOPMENT JAKE WHITTAKER 212 DAN MORTON DEPARTMENT HEAD FINANCIAL FORECAST & ANALYSIS Our financial forecast and analysis team will provide SPARC with the expertise, experience, and real-world data necessary to understand how successful venues are planned as well as the guidance needed to generate better results, overcome operational challenges, and maximize marketing and business development opportunities. key capabilities• Financial Forecasting• Economic Impact Calculations• Market Research & Analysis Experts in financial forecasts and strategic plans, reports and communication policies as well as attend on-site user group meetings, staff engagement interviews, and oversight/client interviews. KALIEGH HINCMAN Account Executive DANTE NEWBERG Business Analyst RYAN SCHMIDTKE Senior Business Writer GARY SMALLSHAW Account Executive NIC FRAME Senior Business Analyst KAITLYN SUTTON Project Coordinator RYAN FERGUSON Project Manager KEVIN SCHUH Account Executive CARSON SCHLATHER Project Manager analytics team PROJECT ROLE: FINANCIAL FORECASTING, BUDGET CREATION, PROGRAM PLAN OPTIMIZATION ZACH SAVAGE Market Research Specialist 213 JAKEWHITTAKER DEPARTMENT HEAD DEVELOPMENT Our qualified development team will partner with the project team to review the vision, financial forecasts and business plan, programming and space requirements, provide an initial design and project schedule review for future phases. SFC will provide not only a direct line into how the project is developing, but guidance, project management, and operating perspective along the way. key capabilities• FFE/OSE Pocurement• Vendor Engagement / Resolution• Venue Planning Services• Owner’s Representation Services Our team uses real-world operational expertise and access to the leading sports facility planning firm in the country, our design and project management principles are centered around creating facilities that are operationally efficient, meets the project’s and community’s unique goals, and is in line with the original project vision. KEVIN GREENE Project Executive JOHN WOLFE Project Executive JARED YANDLE Project Executive GARRICK GRIFFIN Project Coordinator MELISA MITCHELL Project Coordinator ISHAN PATEL Project Coordinator MIKE MAYS Project Manager STEVEN GROSSMAN Project Executive development team PROJECT ROLE: VENUE PLANNING & PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT, DESIGN EFFICIENCIES, VENDOR RELATIONS 214 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 27 FEE Proposal 215 SPORTS FACILITIES COMPANIES 28 COST Proposal SFC is thrilled by the opportunity to partner with Chanhassen on this transformational project. We believe it has the potential to make a meaningful impact on the health and economic vitality of the City and entire surrounding region, aligning perfectly with our mission of Improving the Health and Economic Vitality of the Communities We Serve. The proposed fee structure outlined below is our initial approach, designed to align our team with the project’s goals. Our aim is to work collaboratively with the City to deliver the project on time and on budget, ensuring long-term sustainability, ROI, and lasting community impact. Proposed FeeS Financial & Operational Planning: $30,000 Venue Planning & Space Planning & FFE/OSE: $185,000 We confident in our the ability for our team to provide a full ROI on our fees through our services and also open to exploring alternative approaches as necessary. JIM ARNOLD | PARTNER 404.984.6682 jarnold@sportsfacilities.com 216 FOUNDED IN 2003 OUR MISSION IMPROVE THE HEALTH & ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE COMMUNITIES WE SERVE 3,000 COMMUNITIES SERVED $15 BILLION IN PLANNED & FUNDED FACILITIES 25 MILLIONANNUAL VISITS TO SFM FACILITIES THE VOICE OF THE INDUSTRY THE SINGLE LARGEST & FASTEST GROWING SPORTS TOURISM NETWORK WWW.THESFNETWORK.COM PLANNING OPTIMIZATION DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 2,500+ TEAM MEMBERS AND GROWING 217 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Approve Contract to Perform 2" Mill and Overlay in Chanhassen Rec Center Parking Lot File No.N/A Item No: D.10 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Kate Salihovic, Public Works Support Specialist Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION The City Council approves the quote from Northwest Asphalt Inc in the amount of $78,758.75 to perform a 2" mill and overlay in the parking lot for the Chanhassen Rec Center. Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Asset Management SUMMARY The Chanhassen Rec Center parking lot is in need of pavement resurfacing. The city had intended on performing the mill and overlay last fall after completing the driveway entrance storm sewer repair, but due to timing, decided to push the work to this spring. BACKGROUND N/A DISCUSSION The city received five quotes to do this project. The quotes ranged from $78,758.75 to $101,900.00. The lowest quote came from Northwest Asphalt (NWA). NWA has done a lot of work for the city in the past and their workmanship has always been acceptable. 218 The city will use our standard construction contract. BUDGET The funding for this improvement is proposed to come from the Pavement Management Program (PMP) fund. Performing the work in the spring comes with a substantial cost savings as contractors generally have a lot more capacity for paving work compared to the late summer or fall. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the contract. ATTACHMENTS Northwest Asphalt Quote 219 220 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Approve Addition of an Outdoor patio space for On-Sale Beer and Wine Liquor Licensed OG Coffee and Wine Bar File No.Item No: D.11 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Jenny Potter, City Clerk Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves a modification of the licensed premises of OG Coffee & Wine bar to include outdoor patio space." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY Julie Jost, owner of the OG Coffee and Wine Bar would like to expand the establishment to include a patio space outside. To expand the space, OG Coffee and Wine bar is required by the State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement (AGE) to have a fenced area. A new Certificate of Insurance (COI) covering the patio area is required by the AGE. If the patio space exceeds 593 square feet the Met Council would have to determine if new SAC/WAC fees are needed. There needs to be four feet of space left on the sidewalk to comply with ADA requirements. A new COI was provided, and is attached, to cover the patio. The square footage of the patio does not exceed the 593 square feet to trigger new SAC/WAC fees. There is at least 4 feet of space between the suggested patio area and the parking lot that complies with ADA requirements. A rendering of the enclosed patio space is attached to show the area included. All requirements have been met to approve the requested expansion for an outside space. 221 BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approves a modification of the licensed premises of OG Coffee & Wine bar to include outdoor patio space. ATTACHMENTS COI with Patio Fenced Area 222 ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVEOFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? INSR ADDL SUBRLTR INSD WVD PRODUCER CONTACTNAME: FAXPHONE(A/C, No):(A/C, No, Ext): E-MAILADDRESS: INSURER A : INSURED INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF POLICY EXPTYPE OF INSURANCE LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB WORKERS COMPENSATIONAND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTEDCLAIMS-MADE OCCUR $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) MED EXP (Any one person) $ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRO-POLICY LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGGJECT OTHER: $ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $(Ea accident) ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $AUTOS ONLY AUTOS HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident) $ OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ DED RETENTION $ PER OTH-STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes, describe under E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMITDESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y / N N / A (Mandatory in NH) SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.ACORD 25 (2016/03) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) $ $ $ $ $ The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD 3/5/2025 (763) 421-1290 (763) 421-6530 18988 The OG Coffee & Wine LLC DBA: The O.G. Coffee & Wine Bar 600 Market Street Suite 110 Chanhassen, MN 55317 11347 A 2,000,000 X 08483566 8/9/2024 8/9/2025 300,000 10,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 B 184222.201 9/10/2024 9/10/2025 500,000Y500,000 500,000 C Liquor Liability LL0996412 10/1/2024 Liquor Liability 1,000,000 Liability coverage extends to adjacent outdoor patio area. Certificate holder is listed as an additional insured on the above general liability policy if a written contract exists. Coverage is continuous until cancelled. City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 THEOGCO-01 JLORETZ Loretz-Johnson Agency, Inc.224 East Main St. Suite 203 Anoka, MN 55303 Jeremy Loretz Auto-Owners Insurance Company SFM Mutual Insurance Company Star Insurance Company X 10/1/2025 X X 223 224 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Approve Professional Services Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Heritage Shade Tree Consultants. File No.Item No: D.12 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Jamie Marsh, Environmental Resource Specialist Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION Motion to approve Professional Services Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Heritage Shade Tree Consultants. Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Operational Excellence SUMMARY Consultant services are necessary to ensure continuation of Environmental Resources and Forestry service needs during parental leave of the Environmental Resources Specialist. Heritage Shade Tree Consultants will perform Environmental Resources and Forestry tasks during the months of April and May. Services will include tree inspections, landscaping inspections, coordination with city tree contractor and support various city departments in ongoing projects. BACKGROUND The Owner of Heritage Shade Tree Consultants- Manuel Jordan- earned his degree in Urban Forestry from the University of Minnesota and has over 20 years of experience in Arboriculture. He has worked for the City of Chanhassen as a Forestry Consultant in 2023 and in 2024, so Manuel is familiar with city policies, ordinances and has worked with city staff on various projects. 225 DISCUSSION BUDGET The contract is set at a not to exceed amount of $25,000. Work will be billed at an hourly rate of $125 per hour. Payments for services rendered shall be paid in two monthly installments. The funding for this is within budget. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen City Council approves the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and Heritage Shade Tree Consultants. ATTACHMENTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Heritage Shade Tree Consultants 2025.docx 226 1 201749v1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this 24th day of March, 2025, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN,a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and HERITAGE SHADE TREE CONSULTANTS ( "Consultant"). IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1.SCOPE OF SERVICES. The City retains Consultant for interim Environmental Resources Specialist services, as detailed in Exhibit A. 2.CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The following documents shall be referred to as the "Contract Documents," all of which shall be taken together as a whole as the contract between the parties as if they were set verbatim and in full herein: A.This Professional Services Agreement; B.Letter Proposal (Exhibit A) dated March 21, 2025; C.Insurance Certificate; In the event of conflict among the provisions of the Contract Documents, the order in which they are listed above shall control in resolving any such conflicts, with Contract Document “A” having the first priority and Contract Document “D” having the last priority. 3.COMPENSATION. Consultant shall be paid by the City for the services described in the Proposal anot to exceed feeofTwenty-FiveThousandDollars ($25,000, inclusive of expenses). Services performed directly by Consultant shall be paid in two monthly installments, one billed by May 1, 2025 and one billed June 1,2025. Consultant shall bill the City as the work progresses. Payment shall be made by the City within thirty-five (35) days of receipt of an invoice. 4.DOCUMENT OWNERSHIP. All reports, plans, models, diagrams, analyses, and information generated in connection with performance of this Agreement shall be the property of the City. The City may use the information for its purposes. 5.CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders, regardless of amount, must be approved in advance and in writing by the City. No payment will be due or made for work done in advance of such approval. 6.COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS. In providing services hereunder, Consultant shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. 227 2 201749v1 7.STANDARD OF CARE. Consultant shall exercise the same degree of care, skill, and diligence in the performance of the services as is ordinarily possessed and exercised by a professional consultant under similar circumstances. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is included in this Agreement. City shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies in the accuracy of Consultant’s services. 8.INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, including costs and attorney's fees, arising out of or by reason of the execution or performance of the services provided for herein and further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising hereunder. 9.INSURANCE. Consultant shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect Consultant from claims under the Worker’s Compensation Acts, automobile liability, and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of services under this Agreement. Such insurance shall be written for amounts not less than: Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence/aggregate Automobile Liability $2,000,000 combined single limit Professional Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence/aggregate The City shall be named as an additional insured on the general liability policy on a primary and non- contributory basis. Before commencing work, the Consultant shall provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance coverage in a form acceptable to City. 10.INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The City hereby retains Consultant as an independent contractor upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant is not an employee of the City and is free to contract with other entities as provided herein. Consultant shall be responsible for selecting the means and methods of performing the work. Consultant shall furnish any and all supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary for Consultant’s performance under this Agreement. City and Consultant agree that Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant's agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the City. Consultant shall be exclusively responsible under this Agreement for Consultant’s own FICA payments, workers compensation payments, unemployment compensation payments, withholding amounts, and/or self-employment taxes if any such payments, amounts, or taxes are required to be paid by law or regulation. 11.SUBCONTRACTORS. Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. Consultant shall comply with Minnesota Statutes § 471.425. Consultant must pay subcontractors for all undisputed services provided by subcontractors within ten (10) days of Consultant’s receipt of payment from 228 3 201749v1 City. Consultant must pay interest of one and five-tenths percent (1.5%) per month or any part of a month to subcontractors on any undisputed amount not paid on time to subcontractors. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or more is Ten Dollars ($10.00). 12.CONTROLLING LAW/VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of litigation, the exclusive venue shall be in the District Court of the State of Minnesota for Carver County Minnesota. 13.MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT. Consultant must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to (1) all data provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement, and (2) all data, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant is subject to all the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, including but not limited to the civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, as if it were a government entity. In the event Consultant receives a request to release data, Consultant must immediately notify City. City will give Consultant instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold City, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers harmless from any claims resulting from Consultant’s officers’, agents’, city’s, partners’, employees’, volunteers’, assignees’ or subcontractors’ unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. 14.COPYRIGHT. Consultant shall defend actions or claims charging infringement of any copyright or software license by reason of the use or adoption of any software, designs, drawings or specifications supplied by it, and it shall hold harmless the City from loss or damage resulting therefrom. 15.PATENTED DEVICES, MATERIALS AND PROCESSES. If the Contract requires, or the Consultant desires, the use of any design, devise, material or process covered by letters, patent or copyright, trademark or trade name, the Consultant shall provide for such use by suitable legal agreement with the patentee or owner and a copy of said agreement shall be filed with the City. If no such agreement is made or filed as noted, the Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims for infringement by reason of the use of any such patented designed, device, material or process, or any trademark or trade name or copyright in connection with the services agreed to be performed under the Contract, and shall indemnify and defend the City for any costs, liability, expenses and attorney's fees that result from any such infringement. 16.RECORDS. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records of hours worked and expenses involved in the performance of services. 17.ASSIGNMENT. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, or any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 229 4 201749v1 18.WAIVER. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 19.ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 20.TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by the City for any reason or for convenience upon written notice to the Consultant. In the event of termination, the City shall be obligated to the Consultant for payment of amounts due and owing including payment for services performed or furnished to the date and time of termination. Dated: _______________, 20__.CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: _____________________________________________ Elise Ryan, Mayor BY: _____________________________________________ Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager Dated: March 24,2025.HERITAGE SHADE TREE CONSULTANTS BY: _____________________________________ Manuel Jordan, Owner, Heritage Shade Tree Consultants 230 5 201749v1 Exhibit A Date: March 21, 2025 Goal To ensure continuation of Environmental Resources and Forestry service needs during leave of the Environmental Resources Specialist. Project Overview This scope includes two-three days a week in person support services for the Planning, Engineering and Parks and Recreation Departments during staff leave. It also includes virtual support, as needed. Tasks and Deliverables 1) Prepare necessary staff reports for ongoing planning projects. 2) Answer calls, questions, attend virtual meetings 3) Perform landscaping inspections as requested. 4) Provide Engineering Department Support for ongoing street projects. 5) Coordinate Arbor Day tree planting event and the residential tree sale. 6) Communicate necessary tree removals with the city’s tree contractor. Timeline Work starts on (or around) March 31st with a 2.5 hour on-boarding meeting on Tuesday, March 25th. The contract duration is 9 weeks, ending on (or around) May 30 th, with the ability to extend upon mutual agreement and negotiation. Fee Total fee is a not to exceed amount of $25,000. Work performed shall be billed hourly at a rate of $125.00 per hour. When both Manuel and Don are working on the same project, the hourly rate of $125 will be billed. If the Consultants are working on completely separate projects, the invoice will reflect separate billing accordingly. Payment for services rendered shall be paid in two monthly installments, first payment due by the end of June and second payment due by end of July subject to timely submission of invoicing by the Consultant. About Manuel Jordan and Don Mueller Manuel Jordan earned his degree in Urban Forestry from the University of Minnesota and has over 20 years of experience in Arboriculture. He is an expert in Arboriculture with international experience on several levels including private, municipal and governmental fields. He specializes in structural assessments, construction damage prevention and environmentally conscious solutions. Manuel has worked for the City of Chanhassen as a Forestry Consultant in 2023 and in 2024 so Manuel is familiar with city policies, ordinances and has worked with city staff on various projects. 231 6 201749v1 Don Mueller earned his degree in Forest Resource Management and has over 30 years of experience in natural resources management. He has extensive experience in the Arboriculture industry working in different organizations including governmental, private and public positions. He is now a Consultant with Heritage Shade Tree Consultants. The intention is to have Manuel be the main point of contact for projects and Don will provide support in tree assessment efforts, landscaping inspection requests, answering questions from residents and coordinating removals with the city tree contractor. 232 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Adopt Resolution 2025-XX: Approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6651 Galpin Blvd (Planning Case #25-03). File No.Planning Case #25-03 Item No: D.13 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Reviewed By Eric Maass SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council adopts the resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6651 Galpin Blvd (Planning Case #25-03)." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY The Applicant is requesting to reguide the property from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density. The catalyst for the land use map amendment is the addition of sewer and water service access. Section 2.13.2 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan discusses the possible extension of urban services to properties serviced by on-site sewage disposal systems. In these instances, it is the city’s policy to review land use and zoning changes on an area-wide basis. BACKGROUND This property is located in the Lake Lucy Highlands development which was platted in 1986. This large-lot subdivision is a part of many similar developments that occurred right before the city placed restrictions on the development of properties at a minimum density of one unit per ten-acre development density. Since the 2020 Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent comprehensive plan updates the subject property and adjacent properties east of Galpin Blvd have been and continue to be 233 assigned as Residential Large Lot. Properties on all four sides of the Lake Lucy Highlands plat are guided Residential Low Density. DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguiding the subject property from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Resolution Development Application 25-03 Staff Report 2040 Future Land Use - Current Designations 2040 Future Land Use - Proposed Designations 234 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: March 24, 2025 RESOLUTION NO: 2025-XX A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE CHAPTER LAND USE AMENDMENT FOR 6651 GALPIN BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan on February 10, 2020; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 4, 2025, to review amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to amend the land use map for the property generally located at 6651 Galpin Boulevard; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted on March 4, 2025, to recommend that the City Council adopt the amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map, to revise the land use for Lot 2, Block 1, Lake Lucy Highlands, Carver County, Minnesota, from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density; WHEREAS, the proposed amendments have been waived of jurisdictional review due to meeting the requirements as established by the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are minor in nature and re-guide 2.5 acres of land from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council approves the amendments to Chapter 2, Land Use, Figures 2- 6, Land Use in 10 Year increments, Figure 2-8, 2020 – 2040 Land Use Comparison, and Figure 2-10, 2040 Land Use Map, of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan contingent upon Metropolitan Council review. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 24 th day of March 2025. ATTEST: Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT 235 Page 2 of 4 236 Page 3 of 4 237 Page 4 of 4 238 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1100 I Fax'. (952).227-1110 *crTYorcrrattrrassrl APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW submrttarDare: 1-3O-L5 rcon,3-Ll ccoil,,:3'L1 Section 'l: Application Type (check all that apply) (Refer to the awqidte A$balion Ch@klist fot rcquiBd subminal intonnaliql that must ae..onpany this awlication) [l Comprehensive Plan Amendment............-............$7OO E Subdivision (SUB) E Plat 3lots or less..............E Conditional Use Permit (CUP) n Singlo-Family Residence . I Alt ortrers....... n lnterim Use Permit (lUP) fl Plat over 3 lots E Metes & Bounds (2 lots)....... n Consolidate Lots E ln conjunaion with Single-Family Residence.. $400 E All Otners.-..... ..................... $600 Rezoning (REz) n Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 ! Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100 ! A[ Orhers....... ..................... $600 E Vacation oI EasementvRight-ot-way (VAC) (Additional recording lees may apply) $300 ! Variance (VAR).......$200 ! Sign Plan Review.......... E Site Plan Review (SPR) . $150 ! att others .......'.. $150 .......... $27s E Appeal ot Administrative Decision...... E Administrative .................... $100 ! Residential/Commercial/lndustrial Oistricts.. $750't n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)... ........... $400 -.......... $600 .. $soo $1250 .. $300 .. $150 .. $150 $700. D Administrative Subd. (Line Adjustment) fl Final P|at....... E Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) E Single-Family Residence................. . $200 . $s00 E Notification Sign (city to instatt and remove)..... $200 I Escrow for Recording Documents (check allthat apply)......................... ............"....... $ per document E Conditional Use Permit - $50 E lnterim Use Permit - $50 fl Site Plan Agreement - $85 E wetland Atteration Permit - $50 D Easements (- easements) - $85 ! vacation - $85 I Variance - $50 E Metes & Bounds Sub (2 deeds) - $250 n De€ds - $1OO 7 oo.aTOTAL FEE:-lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs..'Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Section 2: Required lnformation Descdption ot Proposal Property Address or Location: Parcel #: Total Acreage: Present Zoning 1.5 Lar e. 1"* t65l Gc,l 6tvA. Legal Description Wetlands Present? 1g5 ident i 11\ tr\ l-ot 2 Block I Lqk<- Ltc I ves ! tto Requested Zoning Requested Land Use Designation: r<-s i.t e na, Hi C+ Reside.'a]ria-\ lo w der,sitqoPresent Land Use Designation:t (. br.,.. Existing Use ot Property:Pri mr^rta hurn,e E Check box if separate narrative is a;M 60-Day Review Oato: Ll-l l,l r lvtvt 239 Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorizatlon from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on lhe applicalion or dudng tho appeal period. lf this application has not b6en signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentalion of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and lam the party whom the Clty should contact regardlng any matter pertaining to thls application. I will keep myself informed of the d€adlines for submlssion of matsrial and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibilily studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the informalion and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name City/State/Zip Email: Contact: Phone: Cell: Fax: DateSignature PROPERry OWNER: ln signing this applicalion, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that condilions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at th6 hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. lfurther understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibillty studies, etc. with an eslimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. Name: Li vl Address: b b 5l C>,ol pi,,r BlvA. the information and exhibits itted arefrus{l-24-zo true r8) I and conect. B46lln,u". s e ure Phone: /, I 7- - C1 n -l"#3-ir City/State/Zip: Email:@ Cell: Fax: Cell: Fax. .cI Signature PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Date:l-io-zo L5 Address: Contact: Phone: City/State/zip: Email: 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. Beforo flling this appllcation, refer to the appropriate Application Checklisl and confer wilh the Planning Department to determine lhe specilic ordlnance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completaness of tho application shall be made within 15 business days of applicalion submittal. A written notice of applicalion dericiencies shall be mailed to the applicanl within 15 business days of application. Who should receive coples of staff reports? I Properry owner emaitshvtre<h 6q yna', I . Co ]n L_l Applicant Email U 'Olher Contact lnformallon : Name: Address: E Engineer E other' Email City/Statezip Email:Email INSTRUCTIoNS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fislds, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing. Address: Section 4: Notification lnformation 240 Proposed amendment for Lot 2, Block 1, Lake Lucy Highlands Address: 5551 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Ownerc: Steven W. Buresh and Wendy Lam Buresh Held in the Buresh Living Trust With the completion of the active sanitary sewer and city water connections on Galpin Boulevard north from Lake Lucy Road in 2024 and the two separate city connections created on the above property, we would like to propose the following amendments. 1) Rezone our property from large lot residential to residential low density. 2) Subdivide our 2.5-acre lot into two 1.25 acre lots. The current 2.5-acre lot is 235 feet on the east and west (facing Galpin Boulevard) sides. The proposed amendment would produce two lots 117.5 feet on the east and west sides and would remain 350 feet on the north and south sides. The existing home at 6551 Galpin Boulevard would remain on the new northern 1.25-acre lot. ln regards to the new southern 1.25-acre lot, our proposal is to build a new single level residential home after the sale of our existing home at 6651 Galpin Boulevard on the northern lot. This proposed change seems to fit with staff's future desire for the area and fits with the sanitary sewer and city water work that was done as part of the 2024 portion of the Galpin Boulevard project. Thank you for your consideration in this proposal. Steven W. Buresh and Wendy Lam Buresh 5651 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Phone: 612-570-5983 241 This doclmer1 has been recorded elecltonically. Piease see -he ::'!=a^ec clitl :a 'rlev/ +,\e aoLlnv Recoroer s ita,:1p as , .c.i 3ia?3i: .r 5e CutJc ecoic Oop 3 inches reserved for recording data) WARRANTY DEED DEED TAX DUE: $1.65 DATE: january 24, 2018 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, STEVEN W. BURESH and WENDY LAM BURESH, spouses married to each other, ("Grantors"), hereby convey and warrant to STEVEN W. BURESH and WENDY K. LAM.BURESH, TRUSTEES, OR THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, OF THE BURESH LIVING TRUST DATE0 JANUARY 24,2018, AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, ("Grantees"), real property in Carver County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: See legal description attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit'4" Check here if all or part of the described real property is Registered (Tonens) [ Consideration for this transaction is less than $500.00. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto, subject to covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations and easements of record, if any. 242 Check applicable box tr Fitlr6 J.n 91.2010 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: lVlullen & Guttman PLLC 6600 France Avenue S., Suite 210 Edina, Minnesota 55435 (612)756-7272 The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described real property. A well disclosure certificate accompanies this document or has been electronically filed. (lf electronically filed, insert WDC number: [ ..] ) I am familiai with the property described in this inskument and I certify that the status and number of wells on the described real property have not changed since the last previously filed well disclosure certificate, Grantors t, STEVEN W. BURESH WEND IV BURESH TAX STATEMENTS FOR THE REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE SENT TO: Steven and Wendy Buresh Trustees of the Buresh Living Trust 6651 Galpin Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 State of Minnesota County of Hennepin This instrument was acknowledged before me on January 24,2018, by STEVEN W. BURESH WENDY LAM BURESH, spouses manied to each other. (Stamp) JAMIE ALLEN REFFW AONEB Title (and Rank):Notarv Notary Public-Mlnnosota My commission expires:et5t-za/? ----1fronIEnNYeal tr tr b^*l/ 243 EXHIBIT'A' Lot Two (2), Block One (1), LAKE LUCY HIGHLANDS, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota, 244 Application: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Planning Case #2025-03) Staff Report Date: March 19, 2025 Drafted By: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Planning Commission Review Date: March 4, 2025 City Council Review Date: March 24, 2025 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to facilitate future rezoning and subdivision. LOCATION: 6651 Galpin Boulevard, Excelsior MN 55331 PID: 254070020 APPLICANT/OWNER: Steve Buresh & Wendy Lam Buresh PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential, RR 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Large Lot ACREAGE: 2.50 acres CURRENT DENSITY: 1.11 net units/acre PROPOSED MOTION: “Motion to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6651 Galpin Blvd (Planning Case #25-03).” 245 Page 2 of 6 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments because the city is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving Comprehensive Plan amendments because the city is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. Amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan are at times required to be reviewed and commented on by adjacent adjoining jurisdictions. This adjacent review can be waived if the proposed amendment involves less than 40 acres, does not change a communities growth forecasts or Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) allocations; and is either more than ¼ mile from an adjacent jurisdiction or beyond the distance the communities adopted ordinances require notice to adjacent or affected property owners, whichever distance is less. Staff has conferred with the City’s sector representative to the Metropolitan Council and the city has received a waiver of jurisdictional notice due to meeting the requirements as established by the Metropolitan Council. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The Applicant is requesting a land use map amendment from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Low Density. BACKGROUND This property is located in the Lake Lucy Highlands development which was platted in 1986. This large-lot subdivision is a part of many similar developments that occurred right before the implementation of the current one unit per ten-acre limit came into effect. In the 2020 Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent comprehensive plan updates, the subject property and adjacent properties east of Galpin Blvd have been and continue to be assigned as Residential Large Lot. Properties on all four sides of the Lake Lucy Highlands plat are guided Residential Low Density. EXISTING CONDITIONS On the east end of the property there is a wetland that flows through the natural vegetation areas within Lake Lucy Highlands. This wetland has not been delineated but is included in the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Further delineation will be required if the property owner applies for the subdivision of the lot. Based on current staff estimation 0.78 acres are considered undevelopable due to the wetland, wetland buffer, and the required setbacks. 246 Page 3 of 6 This property is heavily wooded, approximately 1.6 acres of the 2.5 total acres is forest that interconnects with surrounding properties to form a natural passageway to Lake Lucy and the Lake Ann Park Preserve. The wooded area of this property provides a protective natural buffer for the wetland. The city believes this is an integral chain of natural resources therefore requires its protection from development through the city code section 18-61(d). These existing conditions result in approximately 1.6 acres of the 2.5 total acres being undevelopable. If the applicant decides to pursue a subdivision to create an additional lot, the net density based on developable land will be approximately 2.22 dwelling units an acre, this is within the requirements of the Residential Low-Density future land use which is 1.2-4 units per acre. ANALYSIS The catalyst for the land use map amendment is the addition of sewer and water service access. Section 2.13.2 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan discusses the possible extension of urban services to properties serviced by on-site sewage disposal systems. In these instances, it is the city’s policy to review land use and zoning changes on an area-wide basis. The existing zoning of the property, Rural Residential District, RR, is consistent with the current land use designation of the property, Residential - Large Lot. Should the city approve the land use amendment to Residential – Low Density, the comprehensive plan allows less intensive land uses to remain in place. However, any approval by the city for subsequent development of the property must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and would need to meet the regulations in the city’s zoning and subdivision ordinance. The proposed land use map amendment would permit the further subdivision of the property into two lots. The property owners would like to sell their current house and build a retirement- friendly home on the new lot they would create on the south half of the property. MUNICIPAL SERVICES – SANITARY SEWER & WATER The home on this property is currently serviced by well and septic, but the property has two sanitary sewer and water stubs for the connection of the current home and a new home on the South end of the property. These service stubs were added during the reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard in the summer of 2024. The watermain predates the Galpin road project, however it is located on the west side of the road and service lines didn’t span across the road for the properties to access, with the reconstruction these extensions were added. The City of Chanhassen engineering department evaluated with the planning department ahead of this reconstruction the potential possibility of additional homes along this span of Galpin Boulevard. The planning department and engineering department concluded that it was a possibility and therefore the stubs were added to the scope of the project. The following properties currently have two sets of utility stubs: 6621 Galpin Blvd, 6651 Galpin Blvd, 6681 Galpin Blvd, and 6691 Galpin Blvd. 247 Page 4 of 6 This additional scope to the road project ensures the newly constructed Galpin Boulevard will not be torn through in the future for additional stubs, thus maintaining the longevity of the road, free of issue road patches pose. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION This grouping of properties with the land use designation of residential - large lot are all within the Lake Lucy Highlands plat. This plat consists of 19 lots and one outlot with the land use designation of parks – open space. Outside of the Lake Lucy Highlands plat the surrounding properties are residential – low density land use with some interspersed parks – open space land use. LAND USE ZONING CONSISTENCY The following zoning districts are consistent with Residential – Large Lot land use: Agricultural Estate District, A-2; and Rural Residential District, RR. The following zoning districts are consistent with Residential - Low Density land use: Single-Family Residential District, RSF; Mixed Low Density Residential District, R-4; Residential Low and Medium Density Residential District, RLM; and Planned Unit Development – Residential, PUD-R. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES The proposed amendment from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Low density assists in the furtherance of the following land use goals and policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. Support low-density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in such a manner as to maintain the aesthetics of existing single-family areas, and to create new neighborhoods of similar character and quality. Designate sufficient land to provide for a wide spectrum of housing. The proposed amendment assists in the furtherance of the following housing goals and policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. 248 Page 5 of 6 249 Page 6 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends approval of the land use map amendment from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Low Density for PID 25-4070020, generally located at 6651 Galpin Boulevard. APPLICATION REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS None at this time. 250 Chanhassen, MetroGIS, Carver, Hennepin Legend Parcels Landuse 2040 Residential Large Lot Residential Low Density Parks / Open Space 2040 Future Land Use - Current Designations February 24, 2025 ± 1 in = 263 Ft 251 Chanhassen, MetroGIS, Carver, Hennepin Legend Parcels Landuse 2040 Residential Large Lot Residential Low Density Parks / Open Space 2040 Future Land Use - Current Designations February 24, 2025 ± 1 in = 263 Ft 252 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Amend Resolution 2025-19 Providing for the Sale of an Amount Not to Exceed $13,185,000 General Obligation Temporary Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A File No.Item No: D.14 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Kelly Grinnell, Finance Director Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves the resolution providing for the sale of an amount not to exceed $13,185,000 General Obligation Temporary Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Financial Sustainability SUMMARY City voters authorized a new local option sales tax and the issuance of up to $40 million in general obligation sales tax revenue bonds for the Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center project through a referendum election held on November 5, 2024. The city is currently working on a purchase agreement for the land upon which the Community Center will be built. The city expects to close on the land purchase in the next few months and plans to issue temporary bonds to finance the land purchase, sitework, and design costs. The proposed amount of the bonds is up to $13,185,000, with $13 million allocated for the land purchase and $185,000 allocated for issuance costs, including the underwriter's discount and other costs of issuance. The seller of the land is offering a credit of $300,000 per acre, which may be deducted from the purchase price, or it will be issued as a refund to be used for project costs. The principal amount of the bond issue will ultimately depend on how the per acre credit is given. 253 On February 24, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-19, which authorized the call for the sale of the bonds and established a March 24, 2025, competitive sale date. Since the closing date for the land sale has been delayed, staff recommends pushing back the date of the bond sale to avoid additional interest expense. The attached resolution rescinds Resolution No. 2025-19 and establishes the new sale date of April 28, 2025. The temporary bonds will be structured for maturity on February 1, 2028, with interest payments due every six months beginning on February 1, 2026. The city will begin receiving local sales tax proceeds after the tax goes into effect on April 1, 2025. The local sales tax proceeds will be used to pay the interest on the bonds. The bonds will have a call option allowing for prepayment without penalty starting August 1, 2026. The city plans to issue permanent financing for the project in 2026 or 2027. At that time, the city will repay the temporary bonds and issue an additional amount to cover all of the construction costs. The attached presale report provides additional information. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION Approve the Resolution Rescinding Resolution No. 2025-19 Adopted on February 24, 2025; and Providing for the Sale of an Amount Not to Exceed $13,185,000 General Obligation Temporary Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A. ATTACHMENTS Res Rescinding Res 25-19 and Providing for Sale of Amt Not to Exceed $13.185M GO Temp Sales Tax Rev Bonds Series 2025A.docx Pre Sale Report 254 171851147v1 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA HELD: MARCH 24, 2025 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall on March 24, 2025, at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose, in part, of rescinding Resolution No. 2025-19, adopted on February 24, 2025; and providing for the issuance and sale of an amount not to exceed $13,185,000 General Obligation Temporary Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A. The following members were present: and the following were absent: Member ________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. ______________ RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2025-19 ADOPTED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2025; AND PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $13,185,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TEMPORARY SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2025A A.WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota (the "City") has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's an amount not to exceed $13,185,000 General Obligation Temporary Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A (the "Bonds"), to finance the acquisition of land and project costs for the construction of a new Chan Rec Center, which is expected to include an indoor walking track, indoor ice facilities, indoor playground, indoor fieldhouse, and expanded community center amenities, as outlined in the Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center project plan, to be located in the City; and B.WHEREAS, on February 24, 2025, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-19, entitled "Resolution Providing for the Sale of an Amount Not to Exceed $13,185,000 General Obligation Temporary Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A" (the "Resolution") which provided for the sale of the Bonds on March 24, 2025; and C.WHEREAS, it has been determined to move the sale of the Bonds to April 28, 2025 from March 24, 2025; and D.WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent municipal advisor for the Bonds in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, as follows: 255 171851147v1 2 1.Authorization. The Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to assist the City for the sale of the Bonds. 2.Meeting; Proposal Opening. The Council shall meet at 7:00 P.M. on April 28, 2025, for the purpose of considering proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3.Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member _______________________ and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following Council Members voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 256 171851147v1 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES CITY OF CHANHASSEN I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Manager of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes with the original thereof on file in my office, and that the same is a full, true and complete transcript of the minutes of a meeting of the City Council, duly called and held on the date therein indicated, insofar as the minutes relate to rescinding Resolution No. 2025-19 adopted on February 24, 2025; and providing for the issuance and sale of an amount not to exceed $13,185,000 General Obligation Temporary Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A. WITNESS my hand on March 24, 2025. __________________________________________ City Manager 257 258 259 260 261 • • 262 263 City of Chanhassen, Minnesota $13,185,000 GO Temporary Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A Assumes Current Market Non-BQ "AAA" Rates plus 35bps Sources & Uses Dated 04/17/2025 | Delivered 04/17/2025 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $13,185,000.00 Total Sources $13,185,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (0.600%)79,110.00 Costs of Issuance 102,000.00 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 13,000,000.00 Rounding Amount 3,890.00 Total Uses $13,185,000.00 Series 2025A GO Temp Sale | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/18/2025 | 8:30 AM 264 City of Chanhassen, Minnesota $13,185,000 GO Temporary Sales Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2025A Assumes Current Market Non-BQ "AAA" Rates plus 35bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 04/17/2025 ----- 02/01/2026 --317,245.75 317,245.75 317,245.75 08/01/2026 --201,071.25 201,071.25 - 02/01/2027 --201,071.25 201,071.25 402,142.50 08/01/2027 --201,071.25 201,071.25 - 02/01/2028 13,185,000.00 3.050%201,071.25 13,386,071.25 13,587,142.50 Total $13,185,000.00 -$1,121,530.75 $14,306,530.75 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $36,771.50 Average Life 2.789 Years Average Coupon 3.0500000% Net Interest Cost (NIC)3.2651394% True Interest Cost (TIC)3.2726788% Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.0461139% All Inclusive Cost (AIC)3.5672414% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3.0500000% Weighted Average Maturity 2.789 Years Series 2025A GO Temp Sale | SINGLE PURPOSE | 2/18/2025 | 8:30 AM 265 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Resolution 2025-XX: A Resolution Supporting Retention of City Zoning Authority File No.Item No: H.1 Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS Prepared By Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION "The City Councils adopts Resolution 2025-XX: A Resolution Supporting Retention of City Zoning Authority" Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY The State of Minnesota legislature is considering bills that would impose a rigid state framework on residential development, limiting local decision-making authority regardless of a city’s unique needs and circumstances. Local zoning is an important planning tool that ensures communities can responsibly plan for residential development and address locally-identified housing needs with resident input. BACKGROUND These bills apply to all cities and remove local flexibility, replacing traditional planning and zoning tools with one-size-fits-all mandates. Local decision-making authority is eliminated by requiring: Duplexes, townhomes and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on all residential lots and in 266 some cases require triplexes and fourplexes Multifamily buildings up to75 ft. tall in commercial areas No parking requirements for new residential, commercial/retail developments Smaller lot sizes and setbacks, limiting cities’ ability to ensure compatibility in scale and form Cities with successful local housing efforts could be forced to change or abandon said efforts in favor of state-mandated policies Resident input is minimized, allowing only one “community meeting” before administrative approval of projects These bills create significant implementation challenges for cities, requiring them to completely overhaul zoning and land use ordinances at the expense of taxpayers Forcing density on all residential lots including duplexes, townhomes and in many cases triplexes and fourplexes would force cities to allow for higher density even in areas where it doesn’t make sense. The League of Minnesota Cities is actively working on behalf of cities to convey our concerns to legislators. LMC drafted the attached Resolution for the City Council's consideration. DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS Resolution A Message from the Mayor March 20 2025 267 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: March 24, 2025 RESOLUTION NO:2025-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE RETENTION OF CITY ZONING AUTHORITY WHEREAS, decisions regarding local zoning and land use that best-fit community needs are best left to city residents and officials; WHEREAS, cities utilize zoning and land use regulations to balance property usage, guide community growth, dedicate space and capacity for public infrastructure to support development (roads, parks and trails, transportation, sewer, stormwater, water, etc.), mitigate flooding and erosion, and preserve natural resources among others; WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Legislature, in an attempt to address housing availability and affordability challenges, is considering measures that would broadly limit city authority over zoning and land use decisions, transferring that authority to the state government; WHEREAS, these proposed measures fail to adequately address housing availability and affordability and offer no guarantees that cost savings for developers would translate into lower housing costs for prospective homeowners or renters; WHEREAS, a rigid, state-mandated approach to zoning and land use—relying on overly prescriptive mandates—would deprive cities of the flexibility necessary to accommodate their unique circumstances; WHEREAS, provisions would also limit opportunities for local residents to voice their concerns regarding proposed developments during public hearings of city council and other public meetings; AND, WHEREAS, cities across the state have invested years of work to address zoning issues, and continue to do so, with the help of community engagement. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS: The City of Chanhassen opposes state proposals that seek to broadly limit local zoning and land use decision-making related to residential development; Supports constructive policy alternatives that provide cities with performance-based standards to guide development—while maintaining local decision-making and flexibility—and incentivize and bolster city efforts for addressing housing challenges; 268 2 And, advocates for a city-state partnership to consider reforms that are proven to address housing availability and affordability and respect locally-led zoning decisions and community input. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 24th day of March 2025. ATTEST: JennyPotter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT 269 We only use cookies that are necessary for this site to function to provide you with the best experience. The controller of this site may choose to place supplementary cookies to support additional functionality such as support analytics, and has an obligation to disclose these cookies. Learn more in our Cookie Statement. A Message from the Mayor Chanhassen, MN sent this bulletin at 03/20/2025 03:49 PM CDT Subscribe to updates from Chanhassen, MN Email Address e.g. name@example.com Subscribe Share Bulletin 3/20/25, 4:28 PM A Message from the Mayor https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MNCHANHASSEN/bulletins/3d7f1ce 1/3270 Hello Chanhassen Residents, I am reaching out to you today because there is housing legislation being considered next week by state legislators at the Minnesota State Capitol that would negatively impact Chanhassen’s local control. More specifically, it removes not only the City Council’s ability to make zoning decisions, but it also minimizes residents’ ability to provide feedback by requiring only one “community meeting” before the administrative approval of projects. Unequivocally, the state should not take this process away from our residents. Open dialogue and review with our residents are cornerstones to our process and result in improved outcomes. While housing remains an important topic for policy discussions, such decisions should be made at the local level. A “one-size-fits-all” approach does not work because I believe cities should be able to create communities with unique identities and attributes tailored to each city. We’re already making thoughtful progress locally. The City Council is currently evaluating policy changes to housing density requirements, reviewing our zoning and developing ways to have a broad range of housing options in Chanhassen that support a balanced mix of housing types and price points. But these decisions should be made in Chanhassen – not St. Paul. A few key points from the bills being proposed that I wanted to bring to your attention: These bills apply to all cities and remove local flexibility, replacing traditional planning and zoning tools with one-size-fits-all mandates The proposed legislation eliminates local decision-making by requiring increased density on all residential lots, including duplexes, townhomes and, in many cases, triplexes and fourplexes. It would force cities to allow for higher density even in areas where it doesn’t make sense. Here’s what that could mean: if you are in a single-family home, for instance, your neighbor could decide to put up a four-plex and neither you nor the city could stop this from happening. The proposed legislation would … …permit multi-family buildings up to 75 ft. tall in commercial areas …eliminate parking requirements for new residential, commercial/retail developments …support smaller lot sizes and setbacks, limiting cities’ ability to ensure compatibility in scale and form Local control remains one of Chanhassen’s Legislative Priorities – let’s not lose that. Make Your Voice Heard Please consider sending a quick email to the following legislators to express your opposition to this “one-size-fits-all” approach. Please act quickly to express your concerns about these bills prior to the hearings next week. Senate State and Local Government Committee Chair Tou Xiong: sen.tou.xiong@senate.mn Senator Ann Johnson Stewart: sen.ann.johnson.stewart@senate.mn House Elections Committee Co-Chair Representative Mike Freiberg rep.mike.freiberg@house.mn.gov Co-Chair Representative Duane Quam rep.duane.quam@house.mn.gov Please let me know if you have any questions. I appreciate your attention and action on this matter. Warmest regards, Elise Ryan eryan@chanhassenmn.gov Stay Connected with Chanhassen, MN: 3/20/25, 4:28 PM A Message from the Mayor https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MNCHANHASSEN/bulletins/3d7f1ce 2/3271 SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Help Powered by Privacy Policy | Cookie Statement | Help 3/20/25, 4:28 PM A Message from the Mayor https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MNCHANHASSEN/bulletins/3d7f1ce 3/3272 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Ordinance XXX: Density Bonuses Amendment File No.Item No: H.2 Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS Prepared By Eric Maass, Community Development Director Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council adopts the attached ordinance as presented." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for the city allowing density bonuses in exchange for the creation of affordable housing. The city has been approached by a developer seeking to utilize this bonus policy. However, in order for the policy to be utilized as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, the city must establish rules and regulations for the program in city code. Staff has drafted the attached ordinance for planning commission feedback related to density bonuses. As currently drafted, the Ordinance would allow for up to 25% increased density for residential projects in the R-8, R-12, R-16, PUD-R, and CBD zoning districts. The Metropolitan Council's threshold for affordable housing is based on a minimum density of 8 units per acre which is staff's basis for using the R-8 district as a minimum threshold. BACKGROUND The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for the city allowing density bonuses in exchange for the creation of affordable housing. In order to utilize that policy in the Comprehensive Plan, the city must 273 establish rules and regulations for the program in city code. City staff has had reviewed the draft ordinance at the following public meetings: - February 24th City Council Work Session - March 4th, Planning Commission - March 10th, City Council work session - March 18th, Planning Commission meeting including public hearing City staff has updated the draft ordinance based on feedback received to date and that latest version is attached to this case for reference. DISCUSSION The meeting minutes of the March 18th Planning Commission meeting were not yet available as of the publishing of this agenda item. Provided below is a summary of public comment received during the public hearing that was conducted on March 18th at the Planning Commission meeting. Three individuals testified during the public hearing. Alison Streich, Executive Director for the Carver County Community Development Agency (CDA) expressed her support for the proposed ordinance amendment in that it aligned with the CDA's mission in providing abundant housing fall all. Streich shared data points from the recently completed Carver County housing study related to demand for affordable housing within the City of Chanhassen. Two members of the public shared comments: The pace at which the city was considering this proposed ordinance amendment was too quick commented on prior city reviews and moratoriums related to the proposed Cafe Zupas development in the Lunds and Byerlys parking lot as well as city code amendments to minimum parking standards. The concern that public hearing notices were inadequate for a city code amendment compared to notices that are mailed related to a specific development project. The city should delay consideration of an affordable housing density bonus in light of changing policies at the federal level as well as proposed legislation at the state level related to zoning and land use law. The Planning Commission discussed or asked clarifying questions on the following: City discretion in approving or denying a requested affordability density bonus. Public process for considering projects that are requesting a density bonus. Duration of the affordability requirement. Process for ensuring affordability requirements are being satisfied. Confirmation that the proposed density bonus was an option, at the discretion of the city, and not a requirement or mandate of the city on future high density housing projects. Confirmation that if a project requested an affordable housing density bonus that the project is still subject to the other requirements of city code including but not limited to height restrictions, setbacks, and impervious lot coverage requirements. The Planning Commission indicated that the proposed ordinance as written provided adequate discretion to the City Council to be able to assess with each project whether or not the requested density bonus was appropriate and that the ordinance stopped short of mandating or requiring affordable units but instead provided the city with a "tool in the tool box" when it comes to creating housing 274 opportunities across all income levels. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance as presented with a 5-0 vote. BUDGET RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended adoption of the attached ordinance as presented. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance XXX: Establishing Affordable Housing Density Bonus Staff Memo - Public Comment at March 10th City Council Meeting 275 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-924 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Sec 20-924 Development of Affordable Housing Development of affordable housing in R-8, R-12, R-16, Planning Unit Development - Residential, and Central Business District zoning districts. (a) Generally. The following development types in the R-8, R-12, R-16, Planned Unit Development Residential, and Central Business District zoning districts may, at the sole discretion of the City Council, be granted additional densities in order to create a certain number of affordable housing units. The amount of potential additional bonus affordable units shall be calculated as follows. (1) Density Bonus. A residential development within zoning districts regulating development intensity through units per acre maximums qualify for the following density bonuses for each affordable unit provided at varying household income levels as follows: i. Each affordable dwelling unit affordable to households at or below 80 percent of AMI qualifies the overall development for one bonus dwelling unit up to a maximum 25 percent increase over current zoning density. ii. In no instance may density bonus units be allocated to parcels designated by the comprehensive plan for residential densities of less than eight dwelling units per gross acre. (2) Period of affordability. For rental developments subject to this chapter, the period of affordability for the affordable dwelling units shall be 20 years. (3) Geographic Distribution. Development projects which request to utilize this density bonus should be in general proximity to employment centers and commercial development. A density bonus will not be granted if infrastructure including but not limited to sanitary sewer, watermain, or roadways adjacent to the development site are deemed insufficient by the City to support the increased density. 276 (4) Applicable Zoning Requirements. Approval of a density bonus does not provide a waiver for any other applicable zoning requirements including but not limited to building setbacks, building height restrictions, or minimum parking standards. (b) Standards for affordable dwelling units. (1) Rent price level. The monthly rental cost for an affordable dwelling unit shall include rent, and any other non-optional monthly occupancy charges which would not include basic utility services such as water, sewer, and electricity. Affordable units shall not be charged any fee that is not also levied against market rate renters. The maximum rent amount shall be based on the metropolitan area that includes the city adjusted for bedroom size and calculated annually be the department of housing and urban development and posted by Minnesota Housing for establishing rent limits for the Housing Tax Credit Program. (2) Size and design of affordable dwelling units. The developer shall not designate specific units for affordability. They shall be the same design, size and materials as market rate units. (3) Distribution of affordable dwelling units. Affordable dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the building. (4) Number of bedrooms in the affordable units. The affordable dwelling units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportion as the market rate units. The mix of market rate and affordable dwelling units shall be approved by the city. (5) Affordable dwelling unit size. The affordable dwelling units shall have room sizes comparable to the room sizes in market rate dwelling units. (6) Tenants. Rental affordable dwelling units shall be rented only to income eligible families during the period of affordability. A household that was income eligible at initial occupancy may remain in the affordable dwelling unit for additional rental periods as long as the income of the household does not exceed 140 percent of the applicable AMI. (7) Non-discrimination based on rent subsidies. Developments covered by the chapter must not discriminate against tenants who would pay their rent with federal, state, or local public assistance, including tenant based federal, state, or local subsidies, including, but not limited to, rental assistance, rent supplements, and housing choice vouchers. (c) Affordable housing tools and incentives; general requirements. (1) The developer of any of the housing types listed in section 20-656(a), 20-, 20- 677(a), 20-685(a), 20-738(a), 508(g) is eligible to use any of the affordable housing tools and incentives described in this section. 277 (2) Land use approvals or issuance of a building permit for a development requesting a density bonus under this Section shall be conditioned upon recording of a covenant and appropriate guarantees satisfactory to the City that affordable housing requirements for the development will be in compliance with this Section for a period of no less than 20 years. Section 2. Section 20-656 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-656 Development of affordable housing in the R-8 district (a) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924 may be eligible for affordable housing bonus density Section 3. Section 20-677 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-677 Development of affordable housing in the R-12 district (a) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924 may be eligible for affordable housing bonus density. Section 4. Section 20-685 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-685 Development of affordable housing in the R-16 district (a) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924 may be eligible for affordable housing bonus density. Section 5. Section 20-738 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-738 Development of affordable housing in the Central Business District (a) Multifamily including vertical mixed use structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924 may be eligible for affordable housing bonus density. Section 6. Section 20-508(g) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: (g) Development of affordable housing in the Planned Unit Development – Residential District (1) High density housing which has a density of at least 8.0 homes per net acre that meet the requirements in section 20-924 may be eligible for affordable housing bonus density. 278 Section 7. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _________, 2025, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ______________________________ ________________________________ Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in the _________________________ on ______________________________) 279 Date: March 12, 2025 To: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager From: Eric Maass, Community Development Director Subject: Citizen comment for information at March 10th City Council meeting During the public comment portion of the March 10, 2025 City Council meeting a resident requested information related to the city’s current work related to a draft ordinance implementing a density bonus in exchange for the creation of affordable housing wh ich is outlined in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 1. What other cities has staff contacted for purposes of researching for the draft ordinance? Staff Response: City staff reached out to the following cities for purposes of researching existing ordinances related to density bonuses in connection with affordable housing development: Victoria Chaska Carver Shoreview Eden Prairie Maple Grove New Brighton Farmington Bloomington Buffalo Delano Plymouth Vadnais Heights Lino Lakes St. Michael Cottage Grove 2. Have you identified on the map where all the possible locations are? Staff Response: The draft ordinance indicates that properties guided for densities of at least 8 homes per acre would be eligible to request a density bonus. As such, and property currently zoned R-8, R-12, R-16, CBD, and PUD-R would be eligible. These are in alignment with properties guided by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for “High Density Residential”. 3. Will residents or owners within 500 feet be notified? 280 Page 2 of 3 Staff Response: Any development application that requires a public hearing notice and applicable mailer would be mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. City staff has properly noticed the proposed ordinance amendment prior to the public hearing on March 18, 2025 at the Planning Commission meeting. 4. The period of affordability must be monitored. Who will do that? Will additional staff be required to complete this monitoring? Staff Response: The City’s Economic Development Manager currently reviews annual reports submitted to the city related to the affordability monitoring in connection with Tax Increment Financing (TIF) associated with affordable housing. The same process and staff would be assigned to monitoring any projects which received a density bonus. 5. Resident indicated that the draft metrics for denial of the bonus is too limited and recommended adding “safety”. Staff Response: The ordinance as drafted includes a section for “Geographic Distribution” and states that development projects which request to utilize the density bonus should be in general proximity to employment centers and commercial development. A density bonus will not be granted if infrastructure including but not limited to sanitary sewer, watermain, or roadways adjacent to the development site are deemed insufficient by the City to support the increased density. Additionally, staff has added to subsection (a) that “at the sole discretion of the City Council”, additional densities may be granted in order to create affordable housing. Each of the utility components currently proposed is a non-subjective measurement for which the City to base a decision on. To include the term “safety” is a generic term and subject to interpretation. In addition, the city may not discriminate affordable housing under the guise or perception of what is or is not “safety”. 6. Resident indicated that Planned Unit Development (PUD’s) should not be included in the bonus. Staff Response: Planned Unit Development (PUD’s) style developments are an eligible zoning designation for High Density Residential guided and zoned properties which as a result staff recommends that PUD’s remain eligible. Additionally, if a property owner/developer requests a PUD zoning for a project with a density of at least 8 homes per net acre versus a base zoning designation, that PUD only increases the City’s discretion in approving or denying a project requesting a PUD. 7. Resident inquired whether or not the current Chanhassen Cinema and Chanhassen Country Inn & Suites properties currently being redeveloped would be able to use this proposed ordinance. 281 Page 3 of 3 Staff Response: No, the current redevelopment project as approved does not have the capacity with regarding to height limitations to support additional housing units. 8. Resident indicated that other mechanisms exist and why doesn’t the City utilize those tools to help create additional affordable housing with the City? Staff Response: Some examples of additional tools used to create affordable housing included Housing Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Tax Abatement, Revolving Loan Program, and Local Housing Trust Funds are all examples of tools that cities and counties use to help create affordable housing. The difference between these programs and the proposed density bonus ordinance is that the density bonus is a non-monetary tool whereas the others require financial participating by the City. 282 City Council Item March 24, 2025 Item Consider Preliminary Plat, Wetland Alteration Permit, and Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Contract for Pleasant View Pointe (Project 25-02) File No.Planning Case 25-02 Item No: H.3 Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS Prepared By Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves the requested preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit for the subdivision on Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision and approves the land disturbance and tree removal contract.” Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY The Applicant is proposing the subdivision of 13.65 acres of properties, zoned Single-Family Residential and guided for Low-Density Residential into twenty lots. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission reviewed this proposed development at their meeting on March 4th, 2025. Since that meeting, the proposed development plans have been revised such that Nez Perce Drive is shown to connect to Peaceful Lane. This resulted in additional roadway frontage and the opportunity for an additional buildable lot bringing the total lots within the proposed subdivision from 19 lots to 20 lots. Each of the 20 lots shown adhere to the City's base zoning ordinance requirements for the Residential Single Family (RSF) zoning district. The potential for a roadway extension of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on March 4th, 2025. 283 DISCUSSION As shared on the project page and via email to subscribers of the Proposed Developments list on Tuesday, March 19: During the review of this proposed development — including discussions at the March 4th Planning Commission meeting — the potential connection of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane has been considered. Based on prior feedback, the Applicant originally proposed a development plan that omitted this connection in favor of a cul-de-sac extension of Peaceful Lane. However, after further review and advisement from the City Attorney, staff will now propose approval of the preliminary plat with the extension of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane. The City Attorney has raised concerns regarding the proposed plat and the variance recommendation by the Planning Commission, citing City Code requirements. The City Council will consider this item on March 24, 2025. BUDGET RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested Preliminary Plat, Cul-de-sac length variance, and Wetland Alteration Permit. As detailed above and in the attached materials, the staff recommendation is for the City Council to approve the requested preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. (The variance request has been withdrawn.) ATTACHMENTS Pleasant View Pointe Application Pleasant View Pointe - Pre-Plat Narrative Pleasant View Pointe - Updated Site Plan Preliminary Plat Plan Set Staff Report - Preliminary Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit Findings of Fact Trip Generation Analysis Adopted - March 4, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Antonio_Fricano_3.7.25_Redacted Letter to Mayor Ryan and City Council Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Contract March 12, 2025 letter from ELLRNA 284 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227 -1100 I F ax.. (952) 227-1110 *ffrror APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Dale \L-ZO.Z'I PC Date y L\ -L5 ""Date: L- v -15 60-Day Review Datel Z'W 15 (Refer to the apprc.piate Awlicalion Check st fot requted submiftal information that must accompany this application) ! Comprehensive Plan Amendment....... . . .. . ... . $7OO E Subdivision (SUB) ! condirionaruse permit(cup) E ;i:l:J::r::[l'- ....... .. .. .! Single-Family Residence . ... .. ................... $400 E I,otn".. $60' = X;:::,flNTJ:'(.] "I.] E lnterim use permit (tup) E Administrative subd. (Line Adjustment) E ln conjunction with single-Family Residence.. $4oo ! rinal Plat " "'"'"' E All others. ... ............. ........ $600 g vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (vAC) n Rezoning (REz) (Additional recording fees mav applv) E Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 E Variance (VAR).................. n Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $1 OO n All Others...... ...................... $60o E Wetland Alteration Permit (wAP) E Single-Family Residence....................... E Sign Plan Review.................. . . . . .... ............. $150 E A[ Otners...... E Site Plan Review (SPR) ! Appeal of Administrative Decision...............E Administrative .. .. .............. $1OO E Residentiaucommercial/lndustrial Districts.. $750-- n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)......... NqIE: When multiple applications are processed concuftenuy, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application E Notificatlon Sign (ciryto insrart and remove). .... E Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)........... fl Conditional Use Permit - $50 E lnterim Use Permit - $50 f] Wetland Alteration Permit - $50 [ Easements (_ easements) - $85 ! Variance - $50 ! Metes & Bounds Sub (2 deeds) - $250 . $500 $12s0 $300 $150 . s1s0 $700- $300 $200 $150 $275 $200 $500 $200 .... $ per document E Site Ptan Agreement - $85 E Vacation - $85 n Deeds - $100 TOTAL FEE: "lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs. '"Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Description of proposat: Proposing a RSF compliant neighborhood/ development plan for 'lg homesites 955, 1015 Pleasant View Ave and 6535 Peaceful I Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) Section 2: Required lnformation Property Address or Location Parcel #; 13.25Total Acreage: Present Zoning RSF Legal Description PID's 258700063, 258700062, 258690130, 258710190 Wetlands Present?EYesENo Requested Zoning Low Density Res Low Density Besidential RSF Vacant and Sinqle Familv B Check box if separate narrative is attached Present Land Use Designation:Requested Land Use Designation: Existing Use of Property: 285 Property Owner and Applicant lnformationSection 3 APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as appticant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions oi approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been slgnej by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to fite the application. This appliiation ' should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. lwill keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progiess of ttris applic;tion. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibjlity studies, eic. with an esiimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name Rachel Developmenl, lnc Contact. Paul Bobinson Address: 4'180 Napier Court NE Phone 763.488.9650 City/Stateizip St, Mi ce 612.791.7080 Email Probin racheld nt.com Fax Signature Date. 12t10t2024 PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, !, as property owner, hav€ full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that ;dditional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with thestudy. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name. Beddor Enterprises, LLP Contact P hon e: Steve Beddor Address: 12555 Salem Ave Norwood Young America, I\,4N 55368 Cell: Fax. Date 6ta 3.jq 6J70 Er-air. steve@beddor Signature e-0-2 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, refer io the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Depa(ment to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. 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. PROJECT ENGINEER (if aoplicable) 1rr" Alliant Engineering, lnc.Contact Phone: Mark Rausch Address: 733 lvlarquette Ave, Suite 700 763.213.9775 City/State/Zip Minneapolis, MN 55402 Cell FaxEmail. mrausch@alliant-inc.com Who should receive copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnformation : EEEE Property Applicant Engineer Othert Owner Email steve@beddor.com Name Emai I e'obnen@r&ierd*€brn6' 60 Address Email m6ueh.ca ,Enr-m mn city/state/zip Email:Email dr,.d'@h@,&h€'de.befr 6d @m INSJRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then selectSAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. suBMtT FoRM to send'a digital copy to the city for processing. Section 4: Notification lnformataon city/state/zip: 286 4180 Napier Ct NE Michael, MN 55376 Office: 763.424.1500 www.racheldevelopment.com Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat Narrative To: City of Chanhassen From: Rachel Development, Paul Robinson – Development Director Date: 12/20/2024 A. Submittal Documents 1. Narrative 2. Pre-Plat Plan Set 3. Site Plan Rendering 4. Easement Vacation Exhibit 5. Storm Wa ter Management Plan 6. ALTA Survey B. Applicant and Consultants 1. Developer – Rachel Development, Paul Robinson, Development Director 2. Builder – Charles Cudd Co., Rick Denman, Charles Cudd, Matt Olson 3. Civil Engineer(s) – Alliant Engineering - Tyler Stricherz, Mark Rausch 4. Survey – Alliant Engineering - Dan Ekrem 5. Wetland Consultant – Kjolhaug Engineering, Melissa Barrett 6. Attorneys – Larkin Hoffman, Peter Coyle, Ryan Boe C. Site Basics • Land Use Plan Guiding – Low Density Residential – 1 - 4 units/acre • Zoning – RSF • Development Acres – 14.046 • Owner – Beddor Enterprises, LP • PID’s: 258700063, 258690130, 258710190, 258700060, and 258700062. 287 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 2 2 D. Introduction On October 14th at the City Council work session, we presented the City Council with a concept plan for developing the Beddor property at 955,1015 Pleasant View Rd. There were two items in particular that we were seeking guidance on as a part of that review. Item one was if we should extend Nez Perce to connect to the Troendle Addition and item two was how, if at all, we should provide an alternative access point to the water tower. After some discussion, the general Council direction was to not connect Nez Perce to the Troendle neighborhood and that staff was going to review the need for an alternative water tower access. Our Concept Plan continues to comply with or exceed the requirements of the RSF zoning district. That said, one variance is required for cul-de-sac length. This comes from listening to the desires of 288 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 3 3 the adjacent neighbors at the neighborhood meeting and from subsequent City Council direction to not connect Nez Perce Drive. This is addressed in greater detail below. E. Site Characteristics 1. Woodlands We have completed a tree survey and inventory. There are 777 trees that qualifled as signiflcant for the survey. The City enforces tree preservation by evaluating the percentage of tree canopy being removed. The tree preservation plan, inventory and calculations are included on pages 14-18 of the preliminary plat submittal. Based on the City canopy preservation calculations we will be required to plant 91 trees, shown on our landscaping plan, to offset the project impact to the existing canopy. As we mentioned in our concept plan, we did try to keep the majority of trees that boarder the property and we are preserving the two endangered White Walnut (Butternut) trees shown on our survey on Lot 1, Block1 of the Preliminary Plat. 2. Topography The high point on the property is 1046 on the south end of the site near the water tower and the lowest point is 993 in the north pond area. The majority of the southern property generally fiows to the north and to the existing pond offsite to the west, with smaller site areas fiowing offsite to the east and south. Overall, there is around 50 ~ feet of topographical change across the property depending on existing pond depth. Post development the drainage patterns will be similar, however, more area will be captured and routed to a new stormwater management system and areas currently discharging offsite to the west, south and east will be reduced. 289 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 4 4 3. Wetlands There was much conversation between us and the Technical Advisory Panel (TEP) regarding the status of Pond 1. We felt that there was enough evidence of previous impacts and City approvals to call the pond a pond versus a wetland. In large part that was due to a grading permit issued by the City of Chanhassen on September 4, 1992 which authorized the construction of a new pond (Pond 1 currently on the Beddor property). This permit approved fllling an existing pond on the property and expanding and reconflguring the approved Troendle addition pond. The new pond met the NURP standards for storm water treatment for Troendle Addition but also expanded the ponding area to accommodate future roadway work and additional future development of the Beddor property. Without getting lost in the technical arguments the TEP believed that based on historical aerial photo reviews, not the grading plan approved in 1992, that a portion of the existing pond is historic wetland. At the time we are writing this narrative we have not yet received the formal Notice of Decision from the TEP. What we have heard is that the TEP was comfortable recommending that Wetland 1 and the Historic portion of Pond 1 as shown in our plans be considered wetlands in the Notice of Decision so this is what is included as wetlands in the Preliminary Plat Plan Set and calculations. 4. In our concept narrative we noted that we would be requesting a wetland alteration permit for wetland #1. We are now also expanding that request to include the area now shown as historic remnant wetland within existing Pond 1. We are submitting a wetland alteration permit/replacement plan concurrent with our preliminary plat application. 290 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 5 5 F. Plan Details • Lots – 19 • Lot Sizes o North Portion 32,745 – 64,625 sf – averaging 42,830 sf o Southern Portion 18,123 – 42,541 sf – averaging 22,746 sf • The set-backs used for the lots follow the required setback of the RSF and are shown on the site plan – see page 5 of the preliminary plat plan set. 1. Roadways • Nez Perce – As mentioned in the introduction the preliminary plat does not include a Nez Perce connection to the Troendle neighborhood. A number of neighbors at the neighborhood meeting mentioned not wanting the connection for fear of cut through traffic and that changing the exiting traffic pattern which has been in place for over 30 years did not seem necessary. A neighborhood representative also explained the neighborhood’s desires during the concept review with the City Council. The exhibit shown on the next page and a sperate plan provided with the submittal illustrates how a portion of the existing Nez Perce Drive right of way (ROW) will be vacated and a portion of the Nez Perce ROW will be retained. Within the New Perce ROW being retained, the existing roadway will be removed and replaced with a trail. Connected and adjacent to the portion of the Nez Perce ROW being retained is an Outlot A. This Outlot will be dedicated to the City and is 50’ wide to match the width of the ROW. A trail connection to the Troendle Addition will be included within Outlot A and the unvacated portion of Nez Perce. Additionally, the Outlot/ROW corridor will be used for utility connections, portions of driveways accessing homesites within Pleasant View Pointe and could also serve as a roadway connection in the future if there ever was a need for such a connection. 291 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 6 6 With the removal of the Nez Perce Drive connection Peaceful Lane will now continue south terminating in a cul-de-sac. While the ROW width has historically been 50’ in this area, the ROW width will be 60’ and roadway 31’ wide consistent with current City standards. No sidewalk is proposed which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. • Redman Lane/Peaceful Lane - A portion of peaceful land(AKA Redman Lane) which extends to the water tower was previously approved to be vacated by the City. It appears that vacation may never have been recorded. We are working with our title company to determine the official status and will either vacate Redman Lane or incorporate it into our plat as needed. 2. Easements and Vacations With our Preliminary Plat there will be a number of vacations needed to move and relocate roadways and other various easements beyond those described above. These are shown below on the following page and also on a separate exhibit provided with the submittal. 292 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 7 7 3. Variance Request With the changes described above to Nez Perce the length of cul-de-sac for Peaceful Lane will now be roughly 1,040’ long, exceeding the city standard of 750’. During concept review, it appeared that the Council and Staff would accept this variance and understood that it was a necessity if Nez Perce Drive was not connected. There was also discussion about other similar precedents within the City. A couple examples include: Della Drive at the Bluffs at Lake Lucy 1,350’ cul-de-sac approved in 2020, Gunfiint Trail 1,210’ in Highcrest Meadows approve in 2005, and Preserve Court 1,230’ in Preserve at Rice Creek approved in 2015 to name a couple. 293 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 8 8 4. Traffic Comments received from residents who participated at the neighborhood meeting are attached as an exhibit. a. Lake Lucy Road - There were a number of residents living along Lake Lucy Road, in particular, that were concerned about increased traffic creating further dangerous conditions on Lake Lucy Road. It appears to us that not connecting Nez Perce should help ameliorate those concerns. b. Peaceful Lane/Pleasant View Road – Similarly a resident on Peaceful Lane and on Pleasant View Road expressed concerns about traffic onto Pleasant View Road and asked that a direct connection to Powers Blvd should be considered. Adding an additional intersection onto Power Road (County Road 17) does not seem practical or likely to be approved by the City or County vs using Pleasant View Road which is already classifled by the City as a collector roadway. 5. Storm Water The proposed stormwater management plan will modify and enlarge the existing pond. The storm sewer inlet from Troendle additional will remain (alignment will be modifled) and proposed pond outlet will be installed in the same location as the existing pond storm sewer outlet. Currently the pond is sized to handle the wet volume NURP storage for the onsite drainage area as well as for the portion of the Troendle addition already draining to the pond. In addition to the NURP treatment there is a flltration bench that will treat the required watershed water quality volume of 1” over the proposed impervious surfaces. The flltration bench will include an underdrain/fllter submersed within a specially designed soil mix. As a part of the revised storm pond and storm water treatment system we will need to vacate a portion of the City’s previous drainage and utility easement . It will be reconflgured to coincide with the new treatment system. Additionally, we will be looking at if and how the pond could be expanded in the future to help provide additional storm water treatment from Pleasant View Road in the future when that roadway is reconstructed. The image on the next page shows and how the D & U is being modifled and expanded from 1.28 acres to 1.81 acres to accommodate additional area and work with the development plans. 294 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 9 9 6. Utilities Pleasant View Pointe will be served by existing sanitary sewer and watermain adjacent to the site. Sanitary sewer will be connected to existing sewer within Peaceful Lane with the addition of a new manhole and new trunk sewer extending south within the proposed cul-de-sac to service proposed lots 4-5, block 1 and lots 1-13, block 2. Proposed lots 1-3, block 1 will have right of way frontage along Pleasant View Lane and will make use existing sewer services previously installed. Proposed lot 6, block 1 will make use of the existing sewer service provided to the lot from Nez Perce Drive. Trunk watermain will be installed, extending an existing watermain within Nez Perce Drive west to the proposed cul-de-sac connecting to the existing watermain within Peaceful Lane. Proposed lots, 4-5, block 1 and lots 1-13, block 2 will connect to new watermain services on a new trunk watermain. Proposed lots 1-3, block 1 will use the existing services provided from Pleasant View Lane watermain and lot 6, block 1 will use the existing water service provided from Nez Perce Drive. There are existing sanitary sewer and watermain and services along the west property boundary in Redmen Lane ROW. These utilities will not be connected to and will be abandoned for those sections not currently servicing an existing resident. Sanitary sewer and water service will remain for those utilities currently providing service to the existing homes along Peaceful Lane. 295 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 10 10 7. Builder As mentioned above we are working with Charles Cudd Co. on this neighborhood. Below are some examples of the types homes that could be built in this neighborhood. 8. Outlots In the concept plan there were two Outlots, however, the proposed plan only has one, Outlot A. As described above, this outlot is for the connection between Pleasant View Pointe and 296 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 11 11 Troendle for a trail, utility connections, driveways and possible a roadway if ever needed in the future. The second Outlot which was shown in the concept plan but is not included in the Preliminary Plat was to provide a secondary connection to the water tower. Staff reviewed the need for this connection after concept review and asked us not to include it in the preliminary plat. This was also an item that a number of the Lake Lucy road residents had objected to at the neighborhood meeting. G. Neighborhood Meeting As mentioned, several times in this narrative, on July 31 we held a neighborhood meeting on the Pleasant View Pointe development plans. Approximately 30 people came to the meeting. We gave a presentation and answered a number of questions. I summarized many of the questions in the narrative we provided for the concept review. Attached is an exhibit with the same summary provided with the concept review. H. Closing We are looking forward to discussing our development plans with you. Please let us know if there is any additional information you would like to help inform your review. 297 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 12 12 Exhibit A – Developer Comment Summary from the July 31, 2024 Neighborhood Meeting 1. Traffic Concerns - Concerns about traffic in general and construction traffic are combined. There were slightly differing concerns about traffic during construction and traffic overall. a. Residents on Peaceful Lane – NOTE: There are only two residences on Peaceful Lane. The owners of one of the residences were in attendance and were concerned about the Nez Perce connection to Peaceful Lane and the traffic that they would now be experiencing. They would prefer no connection to Peaceful Lane. The Peaceful Lane resident liked the idea from the Pleasant View resident(s) that there should be a connection to Powers or that the development use Nez Perce going south without a connection to Peaceful Lane. Concerned if a connection was made to Peaceful that the roadway could not handle the wear and tear. Also, concerned that the intersection of Peaceful and Pleasant view is dangerous and cannot handle the additional traffic safely. b. Residents on Pleasant View – There were not a lot of residents in attendance from Pleasant View. Those there did not think there should be any connection to Pleasant View but that the development should connect directly to Powers instead. There was some mention of a promise made by the City Council to not connect to Pleasant View and of actions made by Frank Beddor to make a connection to Pleasant View more difficult. (NOTE: Pleasant View is considered a minor collector in the City/County roadway system) c. Residents on Nez Perce and Troendle Circle – In general concern about cut through traffic. Residents do not see the beneflt or need to connect Nez Perce. They think that all would be better off without this connection. Less traffic potential for those on Nez Perce and for those on Pleasant View and Peaceful Lane. They said they would support the project if Nez Perce was turned into a cul-de- sac/hammerhead with no through connection to Nez Perce. d. Residents on Lake Lucy Rd – In general residents on Lake Lucy Road have concerns about the amount and speed of traffic on their roadway. Concerns about safety and that connecting the development to Nez Perce will create more traffic and a potential cut through for traffic after construction and create a route for construction traffic during construction. 2. Stormwater Drainage into Lot 13 – The owner of the home adjacent to Lot 13 said they currently receive a lot of water from the Beddor property (and also City water tower property). There was a concern that this could get worse with development. Mark Rausch, the developers engineer, let the homeowner know that the watershed area fiowing into her property would actually be reduced and while there would still be some water it will be less 298 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 13 13 water after development than prior to development. In general, we cannot control water coming from areas not on our property. 3. Residents adjacent to Lot 11 – The residents of the two homes on Troendle Circle behind Lot 11 were concerned about how close the homes would be to their homes. They asked if there was any way that we could adjust to lots to make the distance larger. Our response was that it may not be possible we are meeting the standards of the zoning district but that we would look at additional plantings to help screen the lots from each other. 4. Water Tower Access Road – The residents along Lake Lucy Rd adjacent to, across from and near this potential access strenuously object to having this become a water tower access. They believe they were told by the City that this would never be needed or used as an access. Some residents had called and talked to the City Engineer and were told that no plans were being considered. We let residents know that this was coming from Charlie the Public Works Director and that he would be the one to contact. There is a 50’ wide outlot in this location. Another resident said he thought the adjacent neighbor was offered to buy the property from the City at one point. 5. Existing Tree Lines – Owners of homes adjacent to the Beddor property implored us to save the trees on the Beddor property adjacent to their properties. We said that it was generally in our mutual interest to do so. We said will try to save as many of the trees along the property lines as possible. 6. Storm Water a. Concern about Christmas Lake – Do not want any water quality impacts to the lake due to this development. We stated that we will be required to meet stormwater management requirements of the City and MCWD for rate, quality and volume control. 7. City Sanitary Sewer & Water a. Concerns about Water Pressure – neighbor(s) stated that they have very low water pressure (40 psi) and wanted to know how this could impact them. b. General questions about how we would connect to City sewer and water. 8. General Questions a. How will the lots along Pleasant View connect to the roadway system. We said that they would directly access Pleasant View much like the neighboring properties. b. Concern about lot sizes relative to neighborhood - We said they are the same if not larger than the neighboring lots. c. Is the existing home being torn down? – We indicated that the existing home would be torn down. 299 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 14 14 d. Would there be model homes or spec homes? – We said yes that there would likely be a spec home/model home. e. Questions about allowable work hours. We did not know exactly but said Monday – Saturday with Saturday we thought 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. and no work on Sunday. f. Question about how long the development buildout would take. We mentioned we thought it would take about 3 years. 9. Types & Price of Homes - We said in general we saw the homes on the 15,000 sf lots being 1 ½ story to 2 story homes starting in the 1.3 million range. The large lots would be custom lots with a wider range of overall value above that. 10. Lot Layout/Density a. Size of Lots - Residents asked why the lots south of Nez Perce are smaller than the 6 proposed north of Nez Perce – explanation was provided that all lots meet current zoning and the design was created to match the existing lot sizes in each area. b. Larger or Fewer Lots/No Development – In general if the residents could waive a magic wand, they would have not development or would have fewer larger lots. We let the residents know that we are meeting/exceeding the standards of the zoning district and that we are on the very low end of what could be allowed based on the Comprehensive Plan guiding which could allow up to 4 units/ ac. 300 12346123456789101112135BLOCK 2BLOCK 2BLOCK 1BLOCK 11000' Shoreland District BoundarySW WETLAND/FILTRATIONPEACEFUL LANE PEACEFUL LANE 739,006 sf32,828 sf29,930 sf26,462 sf30,599 sf36,504sf61,662 sf21,343 sf19,676 sf20,002 sf19,993 sf20,105 sf24,952 sf23,338 sf18,431 sf47,140 sf32,981 sf27,418 sf22,265 sf26,030 sfPLEASANT VIEW RDREDMAN LANE TROENDLE CIRCLE NEZ PERCE DRFile Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\SITE.dwg Plotted By: Mark Rausch on March 14, 2025 at 12:04:47 PMKnow what's below.Call before you dig.RDial 811FOR REV IEW ONLYPRELIM INARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCT ION City Submittal Site Plan Update - Nez Perce Drive Connection 3-14-2025 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat Submittal Pleasant View Pointe Site PlanTyler Stricherz www.alliant-inc.comPROJECT TEAM DATAQA/QC CHECKDateByCERTIFICATIONDateLicense no.DATE DESCRIPTION Project No.:Drafted By:Designed By:Sheetof TAS, MPRELL4000320-00I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed ProfessionalCivil Engineer under the laws of theState of Minnesota. 5195N0SCALE IN FEET3060120LEGEND: TYPICAL LOT DETAILSITE PLAN DATA: 301 PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 1000' Shoreland District Boundary POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\COVER.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:16 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O N N City Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeCover Sheetwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Cover Sheet Existing Conditions Preliminary Plat Site Plan Grading & Drainage Plan Grading Profiles Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Plan Storm Sewer Plan PLAN SUBMISSION/REVISION MATRIX #SHEET DESCRIPTION 2024-12-13DEVELOPER Rachel Development 4180 Napier Court NE Saint Michael, MN 55376 Email: probinson@racheldevelopment.com Contact: Paul Robinson CONSULTANT Alliant Engineering, Inc. Marquette Avenue South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612.758.3080 Fax: 612.758.3099 ENGINEER Tyler Stricherz License No. 61993 Email: TStricherz@alliant-inc.com SURVEYOR Dan Ekrem License No. 57366 Email: dekrem@alliant-inc.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT John Gronhovd License No. 59233 Email: jgronhovd@alliant-inc.com VICINITY MAP Scale: 1"=3000' N Pleasant View Pointe Chanhassen, Minnesota CONTACT LIST 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 200 1 19 1 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PROJECT LOCATION Wetland Management Plan Pond Detail Landscape Plan Tree Preservation Plan Tree Inventory Demolition Plan # 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Erosion & Sediment Control Notes 17-18 19 Tree Plan Enlargements15-16 2 302 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 PARCEL 1 GU S83°48'28"W 147 . 0 2 N1°02'51"E 290.00PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 3 S88°06'51"E 294.35 S0°47'27"W 222.50PARCEL 4 PARCEL 5 S88°06'51"E 379.08 S0°47'27"W 716.87N74°5 8 ' 2 1 " W 1 7 0 . 8 1 R=173.13 L=36.12 Δ=11°57'12" C.Brg=N68°59'45"W R=204.48 L=117.26 Δ=32°51'21" C.Brg=S58°32'40"E S54° 5 4' 1 9" W 58.9 3 S18°02'55"W 198.74S36°38'01"W 457.20R=223.13 L=22.55 Δ=5°47'22" C.Brg=N72°04'40"W N74°5 8 ' 2 1 " W 1 7 0 . 8 1R=154. 4 8 L = 17 6.77Δ=6 5 ° 3 3'4 5"C.Br g=S4 2 ° 1 1'2 8"ES18°02'55"W 187.12S89°47'13"W 315.46 R=56 2 .5 4 L=81.1 3 Δ=8°15'4 6"C.Br g=S 8 6°0 4'5 4"E S83°48'28"W 58.88 S1°02'51"W 7.06 S84°03'53"E 14 6 . 3 8 S1°02'51"W 4.86 N87°22'17"W 140.00 S1°02'51"W 232.41R=175.00 L=44.19 Δ=14°28'08" C.Brg=S59°04'19"E C=44.07 N 5 1 ° 5 0 ' 1 6 " W 1 1 5 . 0 0 S0°47'27"W 3.06 PLEASANT VIEW RD R=175.00 L=71.23 Δ=23°19'16" C.Brg=N63°29'54"W REDMAN LANENEZ PERCE DRIVE TROENDLE CIRCLES89°47'13"W 118.22 Parcel 1 All of Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2, Block 3, "Vineland Forest", Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of a line drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 2 a distance of 53.53 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 2 to a point on the West line of said Lot 2 distant 66.00 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 2 and there terminating. Parcel 2 That part of Lots 5 and 6, “Vineland”, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East 129.57 feet; thence South 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds East 160.63 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 96.01 feet to the actual point of beginning, Carver County, Minnesota. Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, “Vineland”, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating. And That part of Lots 5 and 6, "Vineland", Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: viz: That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, "Vineland" lying Easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distant 168.62 feet Westerly along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5. Parcel 3 Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing on the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the parcel being described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Point A”); thence Easterly along the South line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for ingress and egress and utility purposes, appurtenant to and for the benefit of the above described Exception, which said easement is described as all that part of said Lot 5, Vineland, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning on the South line of said Lot 5 described above as “Point A”; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet more or less, to its intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 5 and there terminating. Also excepting from said Lot 5 that part thereof described as follows, viz: A 50.00 foot strip of land over and across Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, the centerline of said strip is described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 5; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 03 seconds East, on an assumed bearing, along the East line of Lot 5, a distance of 380.86 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence Westerly, a distance of 29.21 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the South, said curve having a radius of 198.13 feet, a central angle of 08 degrees 26 minutes 53 seconds and a chord bearing of North 71 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds West; thence North 76 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds West tangent to last described curve, a distance of 170.81 feet; thence Northwesterly, a distance of 124.92 feet, along a tangential curve concave to the Northeast, said curve having a central angle of 39 degrees 52 minutes 43 seconds and a radius of 179.48 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as “Point B”; thence continue Northwesterly and Northerly along the last described curve a distance of 124.92 feet and said centerline there terminating. Also excepting, a 50.00 foot strip of land over and across said Lot 5, Vineland, the centerline of said strip is described as follows: Beginning at the above described “Point B”; thence South 53 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance of 100.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. Parcel 4 Lot 6, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the North line of said Lot 6, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 96.01 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160.63 feet; thence North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 97.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 6; thence Easterly along the said North line of Lot 6 to the point of beginning. Excepting from said Lot 5 and said Lot 6 the following described premises: That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, “Vineland” lying Easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distance 168.62 feet Westerly along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5. And Lot 7, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part of said Lot 7 described as follows, viz: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 7, Vineland; thence North 1 degree 53 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 76.37 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane; thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes 34 seconds East along said Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane a distance of 174.79 feet; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 294.35 feet; thence South 1 degree 03 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 220.04 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 7; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds West along said Southerly line of Lot 7 a distance of 397.82 feet to the point of beginning. Together with an easement appurtenant to the foregoing Parcels 2, 3 and 4 for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the Westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating. Parcel 5 Outlot A, Troendle Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. All Abstract Property PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Sheet ofJOB NO.DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALEFIELD CREW:DATEDESCRIPTIONFIELD DATE:CLIENTDOCUMENTPROPERTY ADDRESSwww.alliant-inc.com Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 N I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dan Ekrem___________________________________________________ Print Name ____________________________________________________________ Signature 12/19/2024 57366____________________________________________________________ Date License Number File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\ECON.dwg Plotted By: Joshua Taylor on December 19, 2024 at 7:52:19 AM Chanhassen, MN2 154000320-00RS,MS,LB7/24/2024 RACHEL DEVELOPMENTJDT1"=60'DPEEXISTING CONDITIONSSURVEY2 LEGEND HOUSE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 1.This Survey and the property description shown here on based upon information found in the commitment for title insurance prepared by DCA Title - The Title Team as agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company file no. DC240228, dated January 9, 2024 2.The basis of bearings is assumed. 3.All distances are in feet. 4. The locations of existing public utilities on or serving the property are depicted based on Gopher State One Call Ticket No. 241563124 & 241563143, available city maps, records and observed evidence locations. Lacking excavation, underground utility locations may not be exact. Verify critical utilities prior to construction or design. 5. Benchmark: MnDOT benchmark ROBERTQ MN053 RESET, located in Excelsior, 0.5 mile west along 2nd Street from the junction of 2nd Street (old Log Way Christmas Lake Road) and Trunk Highway 7, then 0.8 mile south on County Road 82, 30.0 feet northeast of County Road 82, 54.0 feet south of Christmas Lake, 93.2 feet southeast of a power pole, 45.5 feet northwest of a power pole, 36.5 feet south of a corner fence post, 1.3 feet southwest of a witness post and have and elevation of 978.994 FT NAVD88. NOTES 303 60193 (MAG FND) PARCEL 1 PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 4 PARCEL 5 R=223.13 L=22.55 Δ=5°47'22" C.Brg=N72°04'40"WR=154. 4 8 L = 176.77Δ=6 5 °3 3'4 5"C.Br g=S4 2° 1 1'28"E PLEASANT VIEW RD R=175.00 L=71.23 Δ=23°19'16" C.Brg=N63°29'54"W REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\DEMOLITION.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:33 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 City Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeDemolition Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. NOTES: 1.PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. NO CONSTRUCTION OR FABRICATION SHALL BEGIN UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR HAS RECEIVED AND THOROUGHLY REVIEWED ALL PLANS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS APPROVED BY ALL OF THE PERMITTING AUTHORITIES. 2.CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, 800-252-1166, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE PRIVATE UTILITIES LOCATED 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, SUCH AS EXISTING GUTTER GRADES AT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ALL MATERIAL REMOVALS. CONTRACTOR TO SALVAGE ALL MATERIALS POSSIBLE AND COORDINATE WITH OWNER ON FINAL USE. 5.PRIOR TO EARTH DISTURBANCE, INSTALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFFSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION WORK. INSTALL SILT FENCE AND INLET PROTECTION TO AT DISTURBANCE LIMITS. 6.SEE TREE PRESERVATION SHEETS FOR TREE REMOVALS AND INDIVIDUAL TREE LOCATIONS. 7.DEVELOPER OR CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE WELL SEALING RECORDS ONCE WELL SEALING IS COMPLETE.. 8.ALL REMOVALS IN AREAS OF NO MASS GRADING SHALL INCLUDE RESTORATION OF AREA COMPLETE WITH SEEDING AND APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL. 9.SEE SEPARATE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR FULL SITE SURVEY. 10.SEE ALSO SEPARATE EXHIBIT(S) FOR VACATED EASEMENTS/ROW. LEGEND: 3 19 3 N 304 RLS 9018 PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E = = = = = S88°06'51"E 294.35' = S84°03'53"E 146.38'S1°02'51"W232.41'L =4 4.19' R =175.00' Δ = 14°28'08" N 5 1 ° 5 0 ' 1 6 " W 1 1 5 . 0 0 ' L=71.23' R=175.00' Δ=23°19'16" = S1°02'51"W 4.86' N87°22'17"W 140.00' =S36°38'01"W457.20'S89°47'13"W 315.46'S89°47'13"W 118.22'N1°02'51"E 290.00'S0°47'27"W 716.87'S88°06'51"E 379.08'S0°47'27"W 222.50'= = = = =S18°02'55"W 343.34'S18°02'55"W 195.82'PARCEL AREA TABLE PARCEL B1-L1 B1-L2 B1-L3 B1-L4 B1-L5 B1-L6 B2-L1 B2-L2 B2-L3 B2-L4 B2-L5 B2-L6 B2-L7 B2-L8 B2-L9 B2-L10 B2-L11 B2-L12 B2-L13 OUTLOT A PEACEFUL LANE ROW PLEASANT VIEW ROW AREA SF 39,006 32,745 35,333 64,625 46,373 38,896 18,415 19,114 19,456 19,444 20,100 24,952 23,338 18,431 42,541 28,869 23,306 18,123 19,609 9,093 49,063 1,029 AREA AC 0.90 0.75 0.81 1.48 1.06 0.89 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.57 0.54 0.42 0.98 0.66 0.54 0.42 0.45 0.21 1.13 0.02 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\PRELIMINARY PLAT.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:42 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointePreliminary Platwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 4 19 4 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE R.O.W EASEMENT LINE FOUND IRON MONUMENT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines and 10 feet in width and adjoining right of way lines, unless otherwise indicated on the plat. NOT TO SCALE 305 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 1000' Shoreland District Boundary POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\SITE.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:52 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeSite PlanTyler Stricherz www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 5 19 5 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 LEGEND: TYPICAL LOT DETAIL SITE PLAN DATA: 306 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 1000' Shoreland District Boundary POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E F WW WW W File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\GRADING.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:15 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeGrading & Drainage Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 6 19 6 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 GRADING NOTES: 1.ALL FINISHED GRADES SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM PROPOSED BUILDINGS AT MINIMUM GRADE OF 2.0%. ALL SWALES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 2.00%. 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THE ADJACENT ROADWAYS FREE OF DEBRIS AND PREVENT THE OFF-SITE TRACKING OF SOIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND WATERSHED. 3.NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, AT (800)252-1166, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. 4.ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO CONFORM WITH CITY OF CHANHASSEN CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS SPECIFICATION, LATEST EDITION. 5.ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS. 6.REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND PROJECT MANUAL, FOR SOIL CORRECTION REQUIREMENTS AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS. 7.STRIP TOPSOIL PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. REUSE STOCKPILE ON SITE. STOCKPILE PERIMETERS MUST BE PROTECTED WITH SILT FENCE. 8.PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. NO CONSTRUCTION OR FABRICATION SHALL BEGIN UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR HAS RECEIVED AND THOROUGHLY REVIEWED ALL PLANS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS APPROVED BY ALL OF THE PERMITTING AUTHORITIES. 9.IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING GRADING OF (3:1 OR GREATER) SIDE SLOPES AND DRAINAGE SWALES, WOOD FIBER BLANKET OR OTHER APPROVED SOIL STABILIZING METHOD (APPROVED BY ENGINEER) SHALL BE APPLIED OVER APPROVED SEED MIXTURE AND A MINIMUM OF 6" TOPSOIL. 10.THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR MUST DISCUSS DEWATERING PLANS WITH ALL SUBCONTRACTORS TO VERIFY NPDES REQUIREMENTS. IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHOULD CONSULT WITH EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR AND ENGINEER TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE METHOD. 11.REFER TO STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) FOR ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE LOCATION, DESCRIPTIONS, NOTES AND DETAILS INCLUDING CONCRETE WASHOUT STATION INSTRUCTIONS. 12.SEE SHEET 7 FOR ROADWAY AND TRIAL CENTERLINE PROFILES. 13.SEE SHEET 7 FOR HOUSE PAD HOLDDOWNS & SEE SHEET 5 FOR CITY TYPICAL ROADWAY/STREET SECTION. 14.FREEBOARD: THE LOWEST BUILDING OPENING MUST BE AT MINIMUM 1' ABOVE THE EMERGENCY OVER FLOW ELEVATION (EOF) AND BUILDING ADJACENT TO STORMWATER BASIN SHALL BE 3' ABOVE THE 100 YEAR HIGH WATER LEVEL (HWL) RETAINING WALL NOTES: 1.ALL RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED AT A 2:1 SLOPE WITH BASE OF SLOPE AT PROPOSED WALL FACE. 2.THE RETAINING WALL SLOPE AREAS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED UNTIL RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION OCCURS. ANY EROSION SHALL BE REMEDIED AND RESTORED. 3.BUILDING PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL RETAINING WALLS 4 FEET IN HEIGHT OR GREATER AND THE WALLS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WITH DESIGN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE BUILDING PERMITS SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR. 4.A SAFETY RAILING IS REQUIRED ATOP ALL WALLS PER BUILDING CODE. 5.RETAINING WALL CONTRACTOR AND/OR RETAINING WALL STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ARE RESPONSIBLE TO REVIEW CIVIL SITE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS. ANY OBSERVED CONCERNS WITH CIVIL SITE ENGINEERING DESIGN ELEMENTS RELATED TO RETAINING WALLS THAT REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CIVIL SITE DESIGN IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO COORDINATE WITH PROJECT OWNER AND CIVIL SITE ENGINEER. IF NO COORDINATION IS REQUESTED IT SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD THAT ALL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CIVIL SITE DESIGN AND PLANS ARE ACCEPTABLE AND ABLE TO BE PROVIDED FOR IN THE RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. 6.RETAINING WALLS ARE TO BE FINAL DESIGNED AND PERMITTED BY OTHERS. GRADING LEGEND: 307 PEACEFUL LANE PROFILE Trail A PROFILE BLOCK 2 HOLD DOWN DETAILS WALKOUT PAD SUBGRADE CORRECTION FULL BASEMENT PAD LOOKOUT PAD BLOCK 1 HOLD DOWN DETAILS WALKOUT PAD SUBGRADE CORRECTION FULL BASEMENT PAD PLAN VIEW: HOLD DOWN DETAIL FULL BASEMENT File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\PROFILES.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:25 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeGrading Profileswww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 7 19 7 PEACEFUL LANE 10' BIT TRAIL 308 3 BLOCK 1 POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 WA A'1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100099610041006996PEACEFUL LANEPLEASANT VIEW A A'File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\POND DETAILS.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:42 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 15 30 60 City Submittal 12-19-2024 8Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointePond-Filtration Detailwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 8 19819 FILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL (NOT TO SCALE) N OCS 101 N.T.S NOTE: 309 GU 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 GU PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E DND DND DND DND DND DND DND DND DNDDNDDND DND DND DND File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\EROSION CONTROL.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:57 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeErosion & Sediment Control Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 9 19 9 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE TBD: MPCA CERTIFIED SWPPP INSPECTOR INSPECTOR: EROSION CONTROL PARTIES LEGEND: DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING TREE PROPOSED SEDIMENT SILT FENCE PRE SF DO NOT DISTURB AREASDND PST SF EROSION CONTROL BLANKET (CATEGORY 3N) DESIGNER: ALLIANT ENGINEERING 733 MARQUETTE AVE. STE. 700 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 CONTACT: TYLER STRICHERZ PH: 612-767-9330 INSTALLER: (PRE GRADING) PROPOSED SEDIMENT SILT FENCE (POST GRADING) ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TBD: MPCA CERTIFIED SWPPP INSTALLER RESPONSIBLE PARTY: DISTURBED AREA 11.1 AC EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 3,458 SY SILT FENCE 6,676 LF INLET 13 EA SWPPP BMP QUANTITIES (PER PLAN): RACHEL CONTRACTING THE MASS GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) AS SHOWN IN THE SWPPP. THE BMPS ARE TO BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM AS SHOWN IN THE PLAN, IF CONDITIONS ARISE, ADDITIONAL BMP SUPPLEMENTATION TO PREVENT SITE EROSION OR SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MAY BE NECESSARY. THE MASS GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BMPS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE MASS GRADING ACTIVITIES. THE MASS GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL SITE STABILIZATION. UTILITY CONTRACTOR INSTALLING UTLITIES MUST MAINTAIN ALL BMPS IN PLACE. STREET CONTRACTOR INSTALLING STREETS MUST MAINTAIN ALL BMPS IN PLACE. AT THE COMPLETION OF PROJECT WORK AND SATISFACTORY SITE SOIL STABILIZATION A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) SHALL BE FILED ON MPCA WEBSITE. A NOTICE OF TERMINATION WILL CLOSE OUT THE PERMIT. NOTE TO CONTRACTOR: 1. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG ANTI-TRACKING CONTROL TEMPORARY SEED MIX 1. MnDOT-100 (OATS 20-120 DAY STABILIZATION) PERMANENT SEED MIX/STABILIZATION 1. MnDOT 34-271 2. MnDOT 35-241 STABILIZATION BMP'S 1. STRAW/HAY MnDOT TYPE 1 MULCH 2. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET MnDOT CAT. 3N 3. HYDROMULCH MnDOT TYPE 42. MnDOT-150 (1-2 YEAR STABILIZATION) 4. TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT SC250 NORTH AMERICAN GREEN 1. 2" CRUSHED CLEAR ROCK (LAND DEVELOPMENT) OR EQUAL-MNDOT CAT 6 SEDIMENT BARRIERS ACTIVE SWPPP LEGEND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MULCH BERM FIBER ROLLS / MULCH SOCKS SILT FENCE TEMPORARY MULCH COVER TEMPORARY HYDROMULCH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ROCK DRIVEWAY / ROCK PADS INLET PROTECTION DEVICES PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAY/ROADS) SOD STOCKPILES NOTE: CONTRACTOR, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR SWPPP INSPECTOR TO COMPLETE TABLE AS GRADING PROGRESSES NOTE: 1.SEE SHEET 10 FOR ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS. A.ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION OF THE SITE HAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. B.TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN PART III, B.1.5 MUST BE USED FOR COMMON DRAINAGE LOCATIONS THAT SERVE AN AREA WITH FIVE (5) OF MORE ACRES AT A TIME. DURING CONSTRUCTION: IMPAIRED WATER REQUIREMENT 3. MnDOT 22-112 2. SILT FENCE 1 MILE INLET PROTECTION 310 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WASHED ROCK OR WOOD/MULCH PER SPECIFICATIONS 18" MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM SITE NOTES: 1. MnDOT 3733 TYPE 4 FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK OR MULCH TO STOP MUD MIGRATION THROUGH MATERIAL. 2. FUGITIVE ROCK OR MULCH WILL BE REMOVED FROM ADJACENT ROADWAYS DAILY OR MORE FREQUENTLY AS NECESSARY. 3.CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OPERATIONS ON THE SITE. 4.THE ENTRANCE MUST BE MAINTAINED IN PROPER CONDITION TO PREVENT TRACKING OF MUD OFF THE SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOPDRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL ROCK, WOOD/MULCH, OR REMOVAL AND REINSTALLATION OF THE PAD. 5.THIS ENTRANCE WILL BE USED BY ALL VEHICLES ENTERING OR LEAVING THE PROJECT. 6.THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WILL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF BITUMINOUS SURFACING. PUBLI C R O A D 50' M I N I M U M L E N G T H ROCK-6" MINIMUM DEPTH WOOD/MULCH- 12" MINIMUM DEPTH 20' MI N I M U M W I D T H NOTE: ALL SLOPES WITH A GRADE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1 REQUIRE SLOPE TRACKING. SLOPES WITH A GRADE MORE GRADUAL THAN 3:1 REQUIRE SLOPE TRACKING IF THE STABILIZATION METHOD IS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET OR HYDROMULCH. UNDISTURBED VEGETATION TRACKED EQUIPMENT TREADS CREATE GROOVES PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE DIRECTION. SLOPE SLOPE TRACKINGEROSION CONTROL BLANKET INSTALLATION OVERLAP LONGITUDINAL JOINTS MINIMUM OF 6" OVERLAP END JOINTS MINIMUM OF 6" AND STAPLE OVERLAP AT 1.5' INTERVALS. ANCHOR TRENCH (SEE DETAIL AND NOTES BELOW) ANCHOR TRENCH 1. DIG 6" X 6" TRENCH 2. LAY BLANKET IN TRENCH 3. STAPLE AT 1.5' INTERVALS 4. BACKFILL WITH NATURAL SOIL AND COMPACT 5. BLANKET LENGTH SHALL NOT EXCEED 100' WITHOUT AN ANCHOR TRENCH 6" 6" 1' TO 3' DI R E C T I O N O F SU R F A C E F L O W NOTE: SLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS, SOIL CLUMPS, STICKS, VEHICLE IMPRINTS, AND GRASS. BLANKETS SHALL HAVE GOOD SOIL CONTACT. STAPLE PATTERN/DENSITY SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\EROSION NOTES.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:08 PMFOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeErosion & Sediment Control Noteswww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10 19 10 EROSION CONTROL SCHEDULE: FINAL STABILIZATION: EROSION CONTROL GENERAL NOTES: POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES: SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES: THE CONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL STABILIZATION IS COMPLETE, OR ANOTHER OWNER/OPERATOR (PERMITTEE) HAS ASSUMED CONTROL OF ALL AREAS OF THE SITE THAT HAVE NOT UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION. FINAL STABILIZATION CAN BE ACHIEVED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AT THE SITE HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND ALL SOILS MUST BE STABILIZED BY A UNIFORM PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER WITH A DENSITY OF 70 PERCENT OVER THE ENTIRE PERVIOUS SURFACE AREA, OR OTHER EQUIVALENTMEANS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SOIL FAILURE UNDER EROSIVE CONDITIONS AND; A.ALL DRAINAGE DITCHES, CONSTRUCTED TO DRAIN WATER FROM THE SITE AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, MUST BE STABILIZED TO PRECLUDE EROSION; B.ALL TEMPORARY SYNTHETIC, AND STRUCTURAL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS (SUCH AS SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS) MUST BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE SITE FINAL STABILIZATION; AND C.THE CONTRACTORS MUST CLEAN OUT ALL SEDIMENT FROM CONVEYANCES AND FROM TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS THAT ARE TO BE USED AS PERMANENT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BASINS. D.SEDIMENT MUST BE STABILIZED TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING WASHED BACK INTO THE BASIN, CONVEYANCES OR DRAINAGE WAYS DISCHARGING OFF-SITE OR TO SURFACE WATERS. THE CLEAN OUT OF PERMANENT BASINS MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO RETURN THE BASIN TO DESIGN CAPACITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON THE SITE: 1. SOLID WASTE: COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. 2. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED, INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, TO PREVENT SPILLS, LEAKS OR OTHER DISCHARGE. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. 3. CONCRETE WASHOUT IS DONE TRUCK BY TRUCK WITH A MOBILE WASHOUT SYSTEM PROVIDED AND COMPLETED BY THE CONCRETE CONTRACTOR. RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND WASTE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. 4. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. 1. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST MINIMIZE SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS AND STORM SEWER INLETS. 2. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE ESTABLISHED ON ALL DOWN GRADIENT PERMITERS BEFORE ANY UPGRADIENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN. THESE PRACTICES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 3. THE TIMING OF THE INSTALLATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE SHORT-TERM ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CLEARING OR GRUBBING, OR PASSAGE OF VEHICLES. ANY SHORT-TERM ACTIVITY MUST BE COMPLETED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND THE SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ACTIVITY IS COMPLETED. HOWEVER, SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED BEFORE THE NEXT PRECIPITATION EVENT EVEN IF THE ACTIVITY IS NOT COMPLETE. 4. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR OTHER EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS, AND CANNOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING STORM WATER CONVEYANCES SUCH AS CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS, OR CONDUITS AND DITCHES. 5. SITE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION, SEDIMENT BARRIERS AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN TO INTERCEPT RUNOFF. 2. ALL EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATIONS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL THE SITE HAS BEEN RE-VEGETATED. 3. SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED TO ALLOW FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF 6" OF TOPSOIL FOR DISTURBED AREAS TO BE RE-VEGETATED. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE SITE GRADING, SO THAT THE GENERAL SITE CAN BE STABILIZED AND SEEDED SOON AFTER DISTURBANCE. SITE SHALL BE STABILIZED AND SEEDED WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER DISTURBANCE OCCURS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AS INDICATED ON THIS EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIRED BASED ON MEANS, METHODS AND SEQUENCES OF CONSTRUCTION. 1. NO LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY SHALL OCCUR UNTIL A GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED FROM THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN AND THE WATERSHED DISTRICT. UNLESS EXPRESSLY EXTENDED BY A PERMIT. 2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) REFER TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES DEFINED IN THE MPCA PROTECTING WATER QUALITY IN URBAN AREAS AND THE MINNESOTA CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING HANDBOOK. 3. ALL BMP'S SELECTED SHALL BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TIME OF YEAR, SITE CONDITIONS, AND ESTIMATED DURATION OF USE. 4. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PLANS SHALL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. 5. A COPY OF THESE PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. PLANS, SWPPP TO BE LOCATED ONSITE IN MAILBOX. 6. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND DISTURBANCE LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLANS SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE DISTURBED LIMITS. 7. WHEREVER POSSIBLE, PRESERVE THE EXISTING TREES, GRASS AND OTHER VEGETATIVE COVER TO HELP FILTER RUNOFF. 8. ESTABLISH A PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER ON ALL EXPOSED SOILS WHERE LAND IS COMING OUT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. PLANT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH DENSE GRASS FILTER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND TO MINIMIZE WEED GROWTH. 9. ALL TREES NOT LISTED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE PROTECTED. DO NOT OPERATE EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE DRIPLINE, ROOT ZONES OR WITHIN TREE PROTECTION FENCE AREAS. 10. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES (BMP'S) SHALL BE INSTALLED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES AND THEY SHALL BE SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION HAS PASSED. 11. SEDIMENT BARRIERS ARE REQUIRED AT DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETER OF DISTURBED AREAS AND STOCKPILES. PROTECT WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM SEDIMENTATION AND STORMWATER RUNOFF. 12. THE BMP'S SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE PERMITTEE/CONTRACTOR SHALL ANTICIPATE THAT MORE BMP'S WILL BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ON THE SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE/CONTRACTOR TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND/OR CLIMATIC EVENTS AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BMP'S OVER AND ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AS MAY BE NEEDED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES. 13. THE BMP'S SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY BY THE PERMITTEE/CONTRACTOR AND MAINTAINED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THEIR CONTINUED FUNCTIONING. 14. LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SHALL OCCUR IN INCREMENTS OF WORKABLE SIZE SUCH THAT ADEQUATE BMP CONTROL CAN BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE SMALLEST PRACTICAL AREA SHALL BE EXPOSED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME. 15. OPERATE TRACK EQUIPMENT (DOZER) UP AND DOWN EXPOSED SOIL SLOPES ON FINAL PASS, LEAVING TRACK GROOVES PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. DO NOT BACK-BLADE. LEAVE A SURFACE ROUGH TO MINIMIZE EROSION. 16. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED FROM EROSION WITHIN 7 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF GRADING IN THAT AREA. TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH SHALL COVER ALL EXPOSED SOILS IF GRADING COMPLETION IS DELAYED LONGER THAN 7 DAYS. 17. GENERAL TEMPORARY SEED SHALL BE MNDOT MIX 190 @ 100 LBS. PER ACRE OR APPROVED EQUAL. PERMANENT SEED SHALL BE MNDOT MIX 270 @ 120 LBS. PER ACRE OR APPROVED EQUAL. (PLANTING DATES PER SPEC 2575) MULCH SHALL BE MNDOT TYPE 1 (CLEAN OAT STRAW) @ 2 TONS PER ACRE AND DISK ANCHORED IN PLACE OR APPROVED EQUAL. FERTILIZER SHALL BE 80-80-80 NPK PER ACRE (UNLESS P RESTRICTIONS APPLY) AND INCORPORATED INTO THE SEED BED. 18. POND SHALL BE SEEDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LANDSCAPE PLAN. 19. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY MEASURES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM: 1. INSPECT SEDIMENT BARRIERS IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL. IMMEDIATELY REPAIR FAILED OR FAILING SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS. 2. REPLACEMENT - SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY WHEN IT DECOMPOSES OR BECOMES INEFFECTIVE BEFORE THE BARRIER IS NO LONGER NECESSARY. 3. SEDIMENT REMOVAL - SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH STORM EVENT. THEY MUST BE REMOVED WHEN DEPOSITS REACH APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. 4. REMOVAL OF SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG - SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFUL PURPOSE, BUT NOT BEFORE THE UPWARD SLOPING AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. IF THE UPWARD SLOPING AREA IS TO BE EXPOSED LONGER THAN SIX (6) MONTHS, THAT AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH TEMPORARY VEGETATION WHEN FIRST EXPOSED. 5. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE ONCE EVERY SEVEN (7) DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN 24 HOURS. 6.ALL INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONDUCTED DURING CONSTRUCTION MUST BE RECORDED IN WRITING AND THESE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED WITH THE SWPPP RECORDS OF EACH INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY SHALL INCLUDE: A. DATE AND TIME OF INSPECTIONS; B. NAME OF PERSON(S) CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS; C. FINDINGS OF INSPECTIONS, INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS; D. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN (INCLUDING DATES, TIMES, AND PARTY COMPLETING MAINTENANCE ACTIVIES. E. DATE AND AMOUNT OF ALL RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 1/2 INCH (0.5 INCHES) IN 24 HOURS: F. DOCUMENTS OF CHANGES MADE TO THE SWPPP AS REQUIRED IN PART III.A.4. 7.WHERE PARTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE HAVE UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION, BUT WORK REMAINS ON OTHER PARTS OF SITE, INSPECTIONS OF THE STABILIZED AREAS MAY BE REDUCED TO ONCE PER MONTH. WHERE WORK HAS BEEN SUSPENDED DUE TO FROZEN GROUND CONDITIONS, THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE MUST TAKE PLACE AS SOON AS RUNOFF OCCURS AT THE SITE OR PRIOR TO RESUMING CONSTRUCTION, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEWATERING: 1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A PLAN TO THE CITY AND PROJECT ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. THE PLAN AT MINIMUM SHALL BE A DEWATERING PLAN INCLUDING WATER ROUTING, STORAGE, AND DISCHARGE LOCATION. 2.IF ANY TEMPORARY DEWATERING IS REQUIRED ONSITE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF STORMWATER OR GROUND WATER BY USE OF PUMPS AND HOSES TO ACCEPTABLE DISCHARGE POINTS APPROVED BY THE CITY AND PROJECT ENGINEER. Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 311 GU PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\SAN-WM.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:18 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeSanitary Sewer & Watermain Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 11 19 11 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 LEGEND: | > PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER | >> EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANT EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE UTILITY NOTES: 1.EXISTING UTILITIES, SERVICE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2.MAINTAIN A MIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION AT ALL WATERMAIN PIPE CROSSINGS. WATER LINES TO MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER. LOWER WATERMAIN AS NECESSARY. 3.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 4.PROVIDE POLYSTYRENE INSULATION FOR ALL WATERMAIN CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS LESS THAN 18". 5.ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING GUIDELINES. 6.NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY UTILITY WORK. 7.PROVIDE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL IN COMPLIANCE WITH MNDOT "TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS-FIELD MANUAL" LATEST REVISION, FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PUBLIC R.O.W. 8.ALL SANITARY MANHOLES TO BE 48" DIAMETER CONCRETE W/NEENAH R-1642 CASTING, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 9.WATERMAIN, SERVICES, AND VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MINIMUM 7.5' OF COVER. 10.WATER SERVICES SHALL BE 1" DIA. HDPE SDR-9 W/1" CORP. STOP AND 1" CURB BOX. 11.SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC, SDR 26, MINIMUM 2% SLOPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS. 12.ALL 6" AND 8" WATERMAIN SHALL BE PVC C900. SANITARY SEWER SCHEDULE: HYDRANT RADII - 250' RADIUS 312 PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\STORM SEWER.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:26 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeStorm Sewer Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 12 19 12 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 LEGEND: | > PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER | >> EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANT EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE DT PROPOSED DRAINTILE PROPOSED DRAINTILE STRUCTURE STORM SEWER SCHEDULE: UTILITY NOTES: 1.EXISTING UTILITIES, SERVICE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2.MAINTAIN A MIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION AT ALL PIPE CROSSINGS, LOWER WATERMAIN AS NECESSARY. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES TO MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION. 3.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 4.PROVIDE POLYSTYRENE INSULATION FOR ALL STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS LESS THAN 2'. 5.ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING GUIDELINES. 6.NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY UTILITY WORK. 7.PROVIDE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL IN COMPLIANCE WITH MNDOT "TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS-FIELD MANUAL" LATEST REVISION, FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PUBLIC R.O.W. 313 PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\WETLAND.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:34 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeWetland Management Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 13 19 13 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 WETLAND SUMMARY WETLAND IMPACT CALCULATION LEGEND: 314 GU 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 GU PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 2122 23 24 25 26 2728 29 3031 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 5859 60 61 62 6364 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 7778 79 80 81 8283 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 9293 94 95 96 97 9899100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126127 128 129130 131 132 133 134 135 136137 138 139 140141142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157158 159160 161 162 163 164 165166 167168 169170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 301 302 303 304 305306 307 308309 310 311 312313 314 315316317318 319 320 321 322 323324 325 326 327328 329 330331 332333334335 336337 338339340341 342 343 344345 346347 348 349350 351 352 353354 355356357 358 359360361 362363364365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389390 391 392 393 394 395396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 1588 15891590 15911592 15931594 1595159615971598 1599 160016011602 160316041605 1606160716081609161016111612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 16501651 1652 1653 1654 1655 16561657 16581659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 16661667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 17021703 1704 1705 17061707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 17271728 17291730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 17421743 1744 17451746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 17701771 1772 1773 1774 17751776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 17831784 1785 178617871788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 180118021803 1804 1805 18061807 1808 18091810 18111812 1813 1814 181518161817 18181819 1820 1821 1822 18231824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 18311832 183318341835 183618371838 1839 1840 18411842 1843 1844 1845 184618471848 1849 1850 18511852 1853 18541855 1856 1857 1858 1859 18601861 1862 18631864 18651866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 18991900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 19371938 19391940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 19671968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974197519761977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 19891990 1991 1992 1993 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 969 970 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:52 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Preservation PlanTyler Stricherz TAS TLM 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 14 19 14 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of CANOPY CALCULATIONS: TREE PRESERVATION NOTES: LEGEND: PLAN NOTE: TREE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE SURVIVABILITY OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. NO HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHALL BE STORED WITHIN THE TREE DRIP LINE AS DESIGNATED ABOVE. ELEVATION 4' ORANGE SNOW FENCE WITH POSTS 8' O.C. AT DRIP LINE OF OUTER MOST BRANCHES DRIP LINE TREE PROTECTION FENCE NO SCALE2 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 315 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 10101020101610 1 4 1008 PLEASANT VIEW RD NEZ PERCE DR POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 P E A C E F U L L A N E 1 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157158 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 1588 1589 1590 15911592 15931594 1595159615971598 1599 1600 16011602 160316041605 1606 16071608 16091610 16111612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 17061707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 17271728 17291730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 17451746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 17701771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 17831784 1785 17861787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 180118021803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 18091810 1811 1812 1813 1814 181518161817 18181819 1820 1821 1822 18231824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 183318341835 183618371838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 18461847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 18541855 1856 1857 1858 1859 18601861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 18991900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1925 1926 1927 1928 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1972 1996 1997 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:56 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Perservation Plan - Enlarged - NorthTyler Stricherz TAS TLM 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 15 19 15 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 15 30 60 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of LEGEND: www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 316 GU 10101020998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 101810221016GU REDMAN LANEPEACEFUL LANE2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 25 26 2728 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 6364 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 159160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167168 169170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338339340341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 462 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 18991900 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 19891990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 969 970 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:01 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Perservation Plan - Enlarged - SouthTyler Stricherz TAS TLM 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 16 19 16 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 15 30 60 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of LEGEND: www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 317 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:04 PMFOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Inventory ScheduleTyler Stricherz TAS TLM 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 17 19 17 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 318 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:09 PMFOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Inventory ScheduleTyler Stricherz TAS TLM 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 18 19 18 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 319 GU 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 1000' Shoreland District Boundary POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E GU PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 1 - RO 1 - SL 1 - NF 1 - SL 1 - BF 1 - RB 1 - BF 1 - SL 1 - RB 1 - RO 3 - BF 1 - NS 1 - RB 1 - NF 2 - CH 1 - RB 1 - NS 1 - AB 1 - BF 1 - NF 1 - CH 1 - RO 1 - RB 1 - AB 1 - SL 1 - NF 1 - AB 1 - CH1 - RO 3 - WP 3 - WP 1 - RO 1 - SL 1 - AB 1 - NF 1 - CH 1 - AB 1 - RO 1 - AB 1 - SL 1 - NF 3 - NS 1 - RB GU 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 3 - WP 3 - BF 2 - CH 1 - SL 1 - NF 1 - AE 1 - SW 1 - RO 1 - SW 1 - NS 1 - RB 1 - CH 1 - NS 1 - SW 1 - SL 1 - SW 1 - AE 1 - AB 1 - SW 1 - AE 1 - NF 1 - RB 1 - NF 1 - SW 1 - RO 1 - AB 1 - AE 1 - SW 1 - CH 1 - NS 1 - RO 1 - RB 1 - AB 1 - SW 1 - NS 1 - AE 1 - AE 1 - AE 1 - SW File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\LANDSCAPE.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:30 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeLandscaping Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 4000320-00 John Gronhovd 59233 JG TLM I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 19 19 19 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 PLANTING NOTES: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: SEEDING NOTES: LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE: LEGEND: 1 TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.TREE STAKING IS OPTIONAL. 2.DO NOT PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. 3.FOR TREES IN CONTAINERS, REMOVE CONTAINER PRIOR TO PLANTING. FOR BARE ROOT TREES, PLACE TREE IN MIDDLE OF PLANTING HOLE, SPREAD ROOTS OUT RADIALLY FROM THE TRUNK AROUND THE PREPARED HOLE. PREPARE PLANTING AREA 3X THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL OR PER PLAN IF PLANTED IN A BIORETENTION OR LARGER PLANTING AREA PLACE ROOTBALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL EXPOSE TRUNK FLARE, DO NOT PILE MULCH AGAINST TREE TRUNK MULCH RING, DIAMETER PER PLAN OR LANDSCAPE NOTES. PLACE MULCH SO NOT IN CONTACT WITH BASE OF TREE. COMPLETELY REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL TWINE, ROPE AND BASKETS. DISPOSE INTO PROPER LOCATION. TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT THE ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. PLANTING SOIL, BACKFILL PLACED IN 6" LIFTS GUYING PLAN SOD UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL ROOTBALL PRUNE DEAD AND BROKEN BRANCHES 16" POLY STRAP, 40 MIL. 1-1/2" WIDE 1 FLAG PER WIRE 3-GUY CABLES, DOUBLE STRAND, 14 GA. WIRES AT 120° SPACING, SEE GUYING PLAN 18" MIN.MACHINE EDGE V-DITCH AROUND ALL TREES IN SODDED AREAS 2"X2"X24" WOODEN STAKE AT AN ANGLE 320 Application: Preliminary Plat & Wetland Alteration Permit. (Planning Case #2025-02) Staff Report Date: March 19, 2025 Drafted By: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer Planning Commission Review Date: March 4, 2025 City Council Review Date: March 24, 2025 APPLICATION SUMMARY: The Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property at and around 6535 Peaceful Lane into twenty lots. The City Council is requested to review the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. MARCH 18, 2025 PROJECT UPDATE: During the review of this proposed development, including discussions at the March 4th Planning Commission meeting, the potential connection of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane has been considered. Based on prior feedback, the Applicant originally proposed a development plan that omitted this connection in favor of a cul-de-sac extension of Peaceful Lane. However, after further review and advisement from the City Attorney, staff is proposing approval of the preliminary plat with the extension of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane. As a result, this removes the requirement of a variance to cul-de-sac length. The Applicant has formally rescinded their variance application in the event that the City Council approves a preliminary plat that extends Nez Perce through to Peaceful Lane and that action makes a variance for the cul-de-sac length moot. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen City Council approves the requested preliminary plat, and wetland alteration permit for the subdivision on Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision and approves the land alteration and tree removal contract.” 321 Page 2 of 14 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: LOCATION: 955 Pleasant View Road, 1015 Pleasant View Road, & 6535 Peaceful Lane PID: 258710190, 258690130, 258700063, 258700060, & 258700062 APPLICANT: Rachel Development, Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: Beddor Enterprises, LLP PRESENT ZONING: Single-Family Residential, RSF 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – Low Density (1.2 – 4.0 units/net acre) ACREAGE: 13.65 Acres DENSITY: 1.46 Units/Acre LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the city must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The city’s discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit is limited to whether the proposal meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the city must approve the wetland alteration permit. This is a quasi-judicial decision. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Notice of the public hearing at Planning Commission was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 31, 2024. This neighborhood meeting was conducted entirely by the Applicant to gather feedback from adjacent property owners prior to the City Council workshop on October 14. This development application went to Planning Commission for public hearing on March 4, 2025. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivision Chapter 18, Section 18-22 Variances Chapter 20, Article XXII, RSF Single-Family Residential District 322 Page 3 of 14 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The Applicant is proposing the subdivision of 13.65 acres of properties, zoned Single-Family Residential and guided for Low-Density Residential into twenty lots. HISTORY The properties are divided into three prior plats: Vineland, Vineland Forest, and Troendle Addition. First is the historical Vineland plat in 1887; due to the age of this plat, the roads do not match currently existing, nor do the street names. The scale of the area it once included is unknown due to the missing measurement units. Four of the parcels included in this subdivision and the water tower parcel next door have not been replatted since this plat. The next plat is the Vineland Forest platted in 1990. There is only one parcel in the proposed new subdivision that is from this plat, and it has since gone through a lot line adjustment and lot combination in 1996. The final plat Troendle was platted in 1991; one parcel in the new proposed subdivision is included in this previous plat as an outlot. As a condition of the Troendle plat approval the developer was required to create a temporary cul-de-sac with a sign affixed at the end notifying residents of the future extension of Nez Perce. Additionally, the developer was required to place a notice on each lot’s chain of title that Nez Perce will be ultimately extended as a through street to Pleasant View. These conditions were due to the fact the plat included a dead-ending cul-de-sac 1,400 feet long. The requirements at the time of approval were vague, stating the maximum length of a dead end shall be determined as a function of the expected development density along the street, thus resulting in the conditions of approval. City Code section 18-III-(7) states that one or two family residential developments where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approve fire apparatus access road, and shall meet the requirements of section 18-57(u)(4)(iii) with the following exceptions: 1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus road and all dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with section 903.3.1.1, 903..3.1.2, or 903.1.3 of the International Fina Code, access from two directions shall not be required. 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official. Currently Nez Perce/Troendle Circle and Vineland Court have 33 homes on a single fire apparatus road which was approved based upon the potential for a future secondary access with future development of the Beddor property which is currently contemplated for 323 Page 4 of 14 development. If Nez Perce does not connect to Peaceful lane as a result of development of the Beddor property, the existing 33 homes will no longer be in compliance with Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen city code. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DISTRICTS • Wetland Protection – There are two wetlands on this property. • Bluff Protection – There is a bluff on the SW corner of the property. • Shoreland Management – Lots 1-6, Block 1 are within this district. • Floodplain Overlay – Not within FEMA Flood Zones 2018. SUBDIVISION REVIEW There are 20 lots proposed in this subdivision along with extended right-of-way for Peaceful Lane and Nez Perce Drive. COMPLIANCE TABLE Parcel Area Frontage Depth Lot Cover Notes B1-L1 39,006 147.02 270.97 9,751.5 B1-L2 32,828 131.25 250.28 8,207 B1-L3 29,930 198.9 192 7,482.5 B1-L4 61,662 140.83 (shortest frontage) 303.22 15,415.5 Corner Lot B1-L5 36,504 104 350 9,126 Double Frontage B1-L6 30,599 108 282.26 7,649.75 Double Frontage B1-L7 26,462 126 249 6,615.5 B2-L1 21,343 124 172 6,402.9 B2-L2 19,676 112.25 175.5 5,902.8 B2-L3 20,002 109.16 182 6,000.6 B2-L4 19,993 113 175.5 5,997.9 B2-L5 20,105 118.49 134.5 6,031.5 B2-L6 24,952 90.01 178.5 7,485.6 B2-L7 23,338 90.01 170.1 7,001.4 B2-L8 18,431 114.48 125.19 5,529.3 B2-L9 47,140 92.1 431.5 14,142 324 Page 5 of 14 B2-L10 32,981 90.16 367.7 9,894.3 B2-L11 27,418 90.25 304.62 8,225.4 B2-L12 22,265 90.1 246 6,679.5 B2-L13 26,030 105 193.6 7,809 Setbacks: Front - 30 ft., Side - 10 ft., Rear - 30 ft. Staff notes that the lot proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. LANDSCAPING The developer is proposing to remove the existing trees in areas to be graded and plans to save the trees around the perimeter of the lots and development as a whole. The plans for development include canopy calculations to establish the number of replacement trees required to be planted per city code, currently 96 trees will need to be planted, these are shown on the landscaping plan. The landscaping plan dated 12-19-2024 adheres to the City’s species diversity requirements which states that the landscaping plan shall consist of no more than 10% of the trees can be from one tree species, no more than 20% of the trees can be from one genus, and no more than 30% of the trees can be from one family. ROADS The development proposes a road extension of Peaceful Lane which connects to Pleasantview Road. It also shows an extension of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane. The City of Chanhassen 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a chapter focused on transportation. Within that chapter is 325 Page 6 of 14 a section on local street improvements which includes the “Nez Perce/Pleasant View Road Connection” as an improvement. That section of the Comprehensive Plan states as follows: “During review of the Vineland Forest plat, it was evident that a connection between Nez Perce/Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road was warranted since there was no north- south connection between Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) and Lotus Lake. Improved access is needed for local trips and to ensure the adequate provision of emergency services. At the same time, there were concerns voiced regarding the introduction of additional trips onto Pleasant View Road since the street already suffers from capacity and design constraints. Therefore, it was determined that the Pleasant View Road intersection should be located as far west as possible at the Peaceful Lane Intersection.” Based on the information included within the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the proposed preliminary plat for Pleasant View Pointe is shown with the Nez Perce Drive extension to Peaceful Lane which connects to Pleastview Road. The resulting cul-de-sac of Peaceful Lane is measured at approximately 540 feet. City Code allows for cul-de-sacs up to 750 feet in length. As shown the roadway network proposed with the Preliminary Plat is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT OVERVIEW – ENGINEERING AND WATER RESOURCES The Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property at and around 6535 Peaceful Lane into twenty lots. Construction plans developed by Alliant Engineering Inc. dated December 19, 2024 were reviewed by staff. The plans show alteration and filling of the two onsite wetlands which require a Chanhassen wetland alteration permit and associated joint permit sequencing application to meet requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. A sequencing application was submitted with the preliminary plat application. After review and comment from the City and Technical Evaluation Panel an updated sequencing application was submitted on January 29, 2025. This application was reviewed, and additional comments were provided to the applicant. Revised application materials were provided to the City on February 21st and 24th. This memo reflects all the wetland alternation permit submittals to date. GRADING & DRAINAGE The project site is located south of Christmas Lake and consists of five parcels with one single family residence located onsite along with a driveway, and outbuildings. The project site is bounded by Pleasant View Road to the north, Peaceful Lane to the West and single-family homes on the South and East. In the existing condition the majority of the surface runoff from the site flows into the pond/wetland on the northern portion of the site. This pond/wetland drains west through an 8 inch culvert into a wetland complex east of Powers Blvd. Runoff from the wetland/pond ultimately drains to Christmas Lake through a series of wetlands, stormwater ponds, and stormwater infrastructure. A small portion of the site drains to the east between existing homes into public storm sewer on Troendle Circle which ultimately drains into the pond/wetland located onsite. A small portion of the site drains south through properties 326 Page 7 of 14 located on Lake Lucy Road and ultimately drains to Lake Susan through a wetland complex east of Powers Blvd. In the proposed condition the site would be mass graded to facilitate the construction of public roads, utilities and homes. The proposed drainage patterns remain similar to existing conditions. The majority of the site will be captured and routed by storm sewer and drainage swales to the proposed stormwater management feature located where the existing pond/wetland is today. Drainage from the Troendle Addition will be routed to the proposed basin. Small portions of the site that are not routed to the stormwater basin would sheetflow west, south, and east similar to that in existing conditions. The proposed conditions are capturing runoff from portions of Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road and routing the stormwater to the basin via storm sewer. The proposed impervious treatment for the development is accounting for the maximum impervious for each lot. The proposed design would alter how stormwater runoff would leave the site to the south through existing home side yards. The proposed design is attempting to route stormwater through City owned property, however there does not appear to be a defined drainage channel on the property that would convey the runoff to the City’s drainage system along Lake Lucy Road. Additional design, survey and a drainage memo is required to confirm that the proposed development will not adversely impact downstream properties on the south end of the development. The applicant shall submit a memo that verifies the proposed design will not adversely impact the adjacent properties with the final plat application. 327 Page 8 of 14 EROSION CONTROL The proposed development will impact one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). A Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was included in the preliminary plat submittal. The SWPPP is a required submittal element for final plat review along with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in accordance with Section 19- 145 of City Ordinance. No earth disturbing activities may occur until an approved SWPPP is developed. This SWPPP shall be a standalone document consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements of the permit. The SWPPP will need to be updated as the plans are finalized, when the contractor and their sub-contractors are identified and as other conditions change. An approved SWPPP shall be submitted prior to recording the final plat. All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of site grading activities. WETLANDS The proposed plans show two (2) wetlands onsite that were delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services on July 3, 2024. The delineation was approved by the City of Chanhassen in its role as the local governing unit (LGU) that is responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) made up of representatives from the city, Watershed District, MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), and Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) are all part of the WCA process in reviewing wetland applications including types and boundaries. The Wetland types and sizes on site were determined to be: • Wetland 1 - 0.08 acre wetland meadow depression • Wetland 2 – 0.67 acre wet meadow of which 0.16 areas are historic and governed by WCA The applicant submitted a no-loss application which asserted that Wetland 2 was manmade and therefore incidental. Portions of Wetland 2 were determined to be an incidental wetland by the TEP. It was determined that earth moving activities associated with past projects onsite modified the area and altered the wetland, however there were areas of historic wetland that while altered still have wetland characteristics today and are therefore governed by WCA regulations. As such only 0.16 acres of wetland 2 is governed by WCA regulations. During the design process the applicant’s Engineer discovered the grading plans associated with the Troendle Addition that showed that Wetland 1 was likely created with the grading of the subdivision. As such, the LGU and TEP support the determination that wetland 1 is incidental. The findings will be memorialized with a formal WCA decision processed concurrently with the sequencing application. The proposed plan would fill wetlands 1 and 2. The grading and filling over the wetlands would facilitate the construction of the homes and stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs), associated with the development. WCA regulations and City Ordinance were created to 328 Page 9 of 14 protect wetlands because of their value as a water resource and their numerous benefits to the surrounding area (water quality, flood mitigation, wildlife habitat, etc.). The main principles of the WCA are to avoid wetland impacts, then minimize impacts, and finally replace filled wetlands where wetland altering activities could not be avoided. The process of filling wetlands and showing the avoidance and minimization are defined in State Statue 8420 and submitted to the LGU as a Joint Permit Sequencing Application. The applicant must secure permits for the wetland impacts from the LGU prior to construction. The applicant submitted a sequencing application with the preliminary plat application which was reviewed by the TEP. The sequencing application outlines why the applicant needs the specific design, alternative designs reviewed, and actions to minimize wetland impacts. The application and review are a rigorous process. The original application was determined to be deficient with regards to demonstrating the need for the project and the quality of the avoidance and minimization alternatives provided. Staff met with the applicant to outline initial comments and requested an updated and more robust application focusing on the engineering challenges of why the wetlands could not be designed around. An updated application was submitted on January 29, 2025. The updated application focused on the water quality benefit of the proposed revised constructed wetland treatment BMP. The TEP reviewed the updated application and discussed findings during a coordination meeting on February 14th. Remaining comments were sent over to the applicant on February 17th. The applicant revised the submittal and sent over additional review materials on February 21st and 24th that answered most of the TEP’s questions. The City requested a design modification which would minimize impacts to the historic wetland area which the applicant’s Engineer completed (scenarios 1 and 2). This area would remain as a shallow pond type wetland that would function in similar fashion as it does today. The applicant also sent over a draft maintenance proposal for the native vegetation around the BMP which outlines that an HOA would be created for this purpose. 329 Page 10 of 14 Scenario 2 Schematic Scenario 2 Grading The applicant’s preferred design (scenario 2) would fill a small portion of the historic wetland but the majority would not be graded. Additionally, the constructed wetland proposed would 330 Page 11 of 14 result in higher pollutant removals than other options reviewed and would be a net benefit to local water quality. Scenario 2 would likely increase the amount of untreated stormwater drained through the historic wetland, as such it would still result in a permanent wetland impact which requires mitigation with the purchase of wetland banking credits. The applicant’s Joint Permit Application did outline the purchase of wetland banking credits. Impacting wetlands in Chanhassen requires a wetland alteration permit as defined in Article VI, Chapter 20 of City Ordinance which must be approved by City Council. The intent of this section of code was to give the city additional control of wetland impacting activities within the city of Chanhassen and ensure that the WCA was followed by all activities that could impact wetlands. Staff and the TEP members have reviewed the updated sequencing application. TEP comments from the last submittal are still outstanding but will be provided at the March 4 Planning Commission Meeting. The Water Resources Department does not have recommendation to Planning Commission and City Council on the wetland sequencing application decision. Staff will present the facts to the Commissioners at the March 4th Planning Commission meet so an informed decision can be made. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required stormwater management development standards. Section 19-141 states that “these development standards shall be reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site plans, subdivisions and water management features.” These standards include abstraction of runoff and water quality treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorous (TP). The proposed project is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and is therefore subject to the watershed’s rules and regulations. A Stormwater Management Report was submitted for review to confirm all applicable stormwater management requirements are being met. This includes rate control, volume abstraction and water quality requirements among others. All comments on the proposed design from both the city and MCWD will need to be addressed. The applicant shall provide final versions of all modeling (HydroCAD and MIDS) and Stormwater Management Report to address remaining comments and confirm rate, volume and water quality requirements are met as part of the final plat application. Additionally conditional approval from the watershed district shall be provided with the final plat application to confirm the design is meeting all applicable stormwater management requirements. The applicant is proposing to meet stormwater regulations with the construction of a constructed wetland type stormwater best management practice (BMP) with incorporated filtration located on the northwest corner of the site where the existing pond/wetland is located. An approved wetland alteration permit and associated WCA sequencing application is required to construct the stormwater management system shown in the construction plans. The BMP is located within an existing drainage and utility easement (D&U) that serves to protect the existing pond/wetland located in the area. The existing easement is larger than the current area of the pond/wetland. There are limited opportunities for stormwater management 331 Page 12 of 14 in this part of Chanhassen. The city intends to utilize the existing D&U for treatment associated with the future Pleasant View Road reconstruction project which is scheduled for 2026-2027 construction. If the design is approved and the applicant secures the required wetland permits the easement would be vacated by the city and then reconfigured. In order to approve the use of the existing D&U for the subdivision drainage the applicant must show that the proposed design will be oversized to accommodate the existing and future stormwater management needs of the city. The applicant shall complete an analysis of the area that outlines the existing and future stormwater management needs of the city in this area and shows that the proposed basin is sized appropriately. The analysis shall be submitted with the final plat application. There appears to be approximately 1 acre of the development which routes untreated stormwater to the south that ultimately drains to a wetland complex north of Carver Beach Road. There is a small city-owned wet pond that would provide some level of treatment before the stormwater discharges to the downstream wetland. Standard engineering practice is to route and treat a site's runoff to the maximum extent practicable. There appears to be opportunities to optimize the design or add/enhance downstream BMPs to provide treatment so that the water leaving the site would achieve city water quality standards. As such the applicant shall work with staff to optimize the stormwater design. Additional water quality modeling and potentially a private BMP installation may be required. The proposed BMP systems shown in the preliminary plat are to be publicly owned and maintained, however there may be the need for private stormwater infrastructure with the final plans. A maintenance plan for any proposed BMPs will be required and should include the maintenance schedule, responsible party, and should include information on how the system will be cleaned out as necessary. The applicant shall submit a stormwater operations and maintenance plan as part of the final plat submittal. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat, variance (now rescinded), and wetland alterations permit subject to the conditions and findings of fact. APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTS PLANNING: 1. Conservation signage shall be required to be placed along the boundary of the stormwater facility south of Pleasant View Road encompassing portions of proposed lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Block 1. Signage shall be placed on a post no smaller than 4"x4" with a concrete footing and the location of signage is at the sole discretion of the city. 2. Applicant shall update corresponding plan sheets including the cover sheet, demolition plan, preliminary plat, grading and drainage plan, grading profiles, erosion and sediment control plan, sanitary sewer and watermain plan, storm sewer plan, wetland management plan, tree preservation plan, tree inventory schedule, and landscaping plan based upon the updated site plan which extends Nez Perce Drive through the proposed development and connects to Peaceful Lane. 332 Page 13 of 14 3. Public sidewalk may be required along Peaceful Lane and Nez Perce drive at the sole discretion of the city. The city will assess this improvement with final design plans. FORESTRY 1. Developer must update the tree survey to include condition of all significant trees. 2. Developer must add tree protection fencing symbols to the legend on the Tree Preservation plan sheet. 3. Ash trees that are marked to be saved must be inspected by the Environmental Resources Specialist. ENGINEERING: 1. The developer shall enter into Encroachment Agreements for all private improvements located within public drainage and utility easements or right-of-way, as approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Any previously recorded easements located within proposed public right-of-way or proposed public drainage and utility easements must be vacated prior to or concurrently with the final plat. 3. Final plans shall include current City Standard Details. 4. 8” sanitary sewer main shall be at a minimum 0.5% grade. 5. Correct the jog in the Lot 1 R/W. 6. Lot 1 grading contours do not tie into existing residential lot to the East. 7. Provide D&U Easement over drainage swales where applicable. 8. If there are retaining walls with this project, they shall be HOA or privately owned. 9. The Developer and their Engineer must amend the construction plans, to fully address construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to the recording of the final plat. 10. The Developer will be required to clean & televise all sanitary sewer at connection point and submit the CCTV footage and reporting to the City Engineer for review prior to paving. 11. Many typical details were not included in the plans. Engineer to show private services, pipe profiles, pipe sizes, grade of existing driveway tie-in. 12. Lot 6 appears to push drainage onto existing residential lot to the south. 13. Developer to remove water main and sanitary sewer pipe and structures along Redman Lane R/W that no longer is necessary. 14. Developer shall coordinate relocations & installations with private utilities prior to final restoration. WATER RESOURCES: 1. The Developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of subdivision approval and construction of infrastructure onsite. 333 Page 14 of 14 2. It is the Developer’s responsibility to ensure that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Carver County, MCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, MnDOT, etc.) prior to the commencement of construction activities. 3. The Developer and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction plans, dated December 19, 2024 prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc., to fully satisfy construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to recording final plat. 4. An analysis of stormwater treatment shall be submitted with the final plat application that verifies that the design meets the existing and future needs of the City. The treatment volume shall be noted and broken down into what is provided for the existing condition, proposed subdivision, and future roadway projects. 5. The Developer shall secure a wetland alteration permit and associated joint permit sequencing application prior to or in conjunction with the final plat approval. 6. An Operations and Maintenance plan for all proposed BMPs including the inspection frequency, maintenance schedule, and responsible party shall be submitted with the final plat application. 7. The Developer shall work with staff to optimize the drainage design and verify that stormwater runoff to the south meets water quality standards. 8. The Developer shall revise the design and provide a memo which verifies that the development will not adversely impact the drainage of adjacent properties. 9. The Developer shall provide updated H&H and water quality modeling with the final plat submittal. 10. The Developer shall secure condition approval from the watershed district prior to submitting the final plat application to the City. Verification of conditional approval shall be provided with the final plat application. BUILDING: 1. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 2. Building permits must be obtained before beginning any construction. 3. Private retaining walls, if present, more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls, if present, under four feet in height require a zoning permit. 4. A building permit must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 5. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 334 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Rachel Development for a Twenty Lot Subdivision On March 4th, 2025, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application to subdivide 13.65 acres into nineteen single-family lots and one outlot. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed preliminary plat which at the time included a variance request for cul-de-sac length which that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and recommended approval of the preliminary plat, and variance, based upon the city ordinances in effect at the time. On March 24th, 2025, the City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the subdivision and wetland alterations applications for the subdivision of the land but without the previously requested cul-de-sac variance as the proposed preliminary plat was modified such that a cul-de-sac variance was no longer required and which increased the proposed development from 19 lots to 20 lots as a result of an increase in roadway frontage. Based on the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit applications before the City Council, the City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On December 20, 2024, the City received a land use application for the property legal described in attachment Exhibit A for the following: A. A preliminary plat application for a 20-lot subdivision for residential single-family. 2. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential - RSF. 3. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Low Density Residential. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the City Council to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven effects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single- Family District and the zoning ordinance if the conditions of approval are met. b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and subdivision ordinance if the conditions of approval are met. 335 c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision will provide adequate urban infrastructure subject to the conditions specified in this report. e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to the conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) Lack of adequate stormwater drainage. 2) Lack of adequate roads. 3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets if the specified conditions of approval are met. 5. The planning report Planning Case 2025-02, dated March 19, 2025, prepared by Rachel Arsenault, et al, is incorporated herein. 336 DECISION The City Council approves the Preliminary Plat and Wetland Alteration Permit. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this _____ day of _____________, 202_. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BY:___________________________________ Its Mayor BY:_ __________________________________ Its City Manager 337 EXHIBIT A PID #258710190 (955 Pleasant View Road) All of Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2, Block 3, "Vineland Forest", Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of a line drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 2 a distance of 53.53 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 2 to a point on the West line of said Lot 2 distant 66.00 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 2 and there terminating. PID # 258700060 (6535 Peaceful Lane) That part of Lots 5 and 6, “Vineland”, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East 129.57 feet; thence South 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds East 160.63 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 96.01 feet to the actual point of beginning, Carver County, Minnesota. Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, “Vineland”, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating. And That part of Lots 5 and 6, "Vineland", Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: viz: That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, "Vineland" lying Easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distant 168.62 feet Westerly along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5. PID # 258700063 (No Address Assigned) Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing on the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the parcel being described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Point A”); thence Easterly along the South line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for ingress and egress and utility purposes, appurtenant to and for the benefit of the above described Exception, which said easement is described as all that part of said Lot 5, Vineland, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning on the South line of said Lot 5 described above as “Point A”; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet more or less, to its intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 5 and there terminating. Also excepting from said Lot 5 that part thereof described as follows, viz: A 50.00 foot strip of land over and across Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, the centerline of said strip is described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 5; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 03 seconds East, on an assumed bearing, along the East line of Lot 5, a distance of 380.86 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence Westerly, a distance of 29.21 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the South, said curve having a radius of 198.13 feet, a central angle of 08 degrees 26 minutes 53 seconds and a chord bearing of North 71 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds West; thence North 76 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds West tangent to last described curve, a distance of 170.81 feet; thence Northwesterly, a distance of 124.92 feet, along a tangential curve concave to the Northeast, said curve having a central angle of 39 degrees 52 minutes 43 seconds and a radius of 179.48 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as “Point B”; thence continue Northwesterly and Northerly along the last described curve a distance of 124.92 feet and said centerline there 338 terminating. Also excepting, a 50.00 foot strip of land over and across said Lot 5, Vineland, the centerline of said strip is described as follows: Beginning at the above described “Point B”; thence South 53 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance of 100.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. PID #258700062 (No Address Assigned) Lot 6, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the North line of said Lot 6, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 96.01 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160.63 feet; thence North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 97.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 6; thence Easterly along the said North line of Lot 6 to the point of beginning. Excepting from said Lot 5 and said Lot 6 the following described premises: That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, “Vineland” lying Easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distance 168.62 feet Westerly along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5. And Lot 7, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part of said Lot 7 described as follows, viz: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 7, Vineland; thence North 1 degree 53 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 76.37 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane; thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes 34 seconds East along said Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane a distance of 174.79 feet; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 294.35 feet; thence South 1 degree 03 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 220.04 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 7; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds West along said Southerly line of Lot 7 a distance of 397.82 feet to the point of beginning. Together with an easement appurtenant to the foregoing Parcels 2, 3 and 4 for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the Westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating. PID #258690130 (1015 Pleasant View Road) Outlot A, Troendle Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. All Abstract Property 339 Memorandum TO: City of Chanhassen Planning and Engineering Department CC: Paul Robinson, Rachel Development FROM: Mark Rausch, PE DATE: 3/7/2025 SUBJECT: Pleasant View Pointe Development – Trip Generation Summary The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition) was utilized to determine average trip generation rates for existing and proposed land use types, and in turn develop an estimated trip generation for the existing and the two proposed development conditions. Estimated trip generation data is shown in the tables below and estimated for: Existing Conditions, No Nez Perce Drive Connection and Nez Perce Drive Connection: Table 1. Existing Trip Generation1 Weekday ADT2 AM Peak 3 PM Peak 4 Existing Site Single-Family Detached Housing 210 1 9.4 0.7 0.9 9.4 0.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1. Estimates Per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. 2. Weekday Generation rate = 9.43 trips / dwelling unit 3. Weekday Generation rate = 0.70 trips / dwelling unit / 7-9 am Peak Hour 4. Weekday Generation rate = 0.94 trips / dwelling unit / 4-6 pm Peak Hour Net Existing Total to Nez Perce Drive Trips Generated:Number of Units for Generation ITE Land Use CodeLand Use Net Existing Total to Pleasant View Road (Via Peaceful Ln) 340 Pleasant View Pointe March 7, 2025 Page 2 of 3 Table 2. Proposed Trip Generation1 - No Road Connection to Nez Perce Drive Weekday ADT2 AM Peak 3 PM Peak 4 Proposed Site - To Pleasant View Rd Via Peaceful Ln Single-Family Detached Housing 210 15 141.5 10.5 14.1 Proposed Site - To Pleasant View Rd - Direct Single-Family Detached Housing 210 3 28.3 2.1 2.8 Proposed Site - To Nez Perce Dr Single-Family Detached Housing 210 1 9.4 0.7 0.9 169.7 12.6 16.9 160.3 11.9 16.0 9.4 0.7 0.9 1. Estimates Per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. 2. Weekday Generation rate = 9.43 trips / dwelling unit 3. Weekday Generation rate = 0.70 trips / dwelling unit / 7-9 am Peak Hour 4. Weekday Generation rate = 0.94 trips / dwelling unit / 4-6 pm Peak Hour Net Total Difference to Pleasant View Drive Land Use ITE Land Use Code Number of Units for Generation Trips Generated: Net Proposed Total to Pleasant View Road Net Total Difference to Nez Perce Drive Table 3. Proposed Trip Generation1 - Road Connection made to Nez Perce Drive Weekday ADT2 AM Peak 3 PM Peak 4 Proposed Site - To Pleasant View Rd Via Peaceful Ln Single-Family Detached Housing 210 14 132.0 9.8 13.2 Proposed Site - To Pleasant View Rd - Direct Single-Family Detached Housing 210 3 28.3 2.1 2.8 Existing Troendle - To Pleasant View Rd Via Peaceful Ln Single-Family Detached Housing 210 13 122.6 9.1 12.2 Proposed Site - To Nez Perce Dr Single-Family Detached Housing 210 2 18.9 1.4 1.9 282.9 21.0 28.2 273.5 20.3 27.3 -103.7 -7.7 -10.3 -103.7 -7.7 -10.3 1. Estimates Per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. 2. Weekday Generation rate = 9.43 trips / dwelling unit 3. Weekday Generation rate = 0.70 trips / dwelling unit / 7-9 am Peak Hour 4. Weekday Generation rate = 0.94 trips / dwelling unit / 4-6 pm Peak Hour Trips Generated: Net Proposed Total to Pleasant View Road (Via Peaceful Ln) Net Proposed Total to Nez Perce Drive Net Total Difference to Nez Perce Drive Net Total Difference to Pleasant View Drive Land Use ITE Land Use Code Number of Units for Generation 341 Pleasant View Pointe March 7, 2025 Page 3 of 3 The estimated trip generation is summarized as follows for each scenario: No Roadway Connection to Nez Perce Drive An estimated increase in weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 160 trips is expected to Pleasant View Road from existing conditions with increase in AM and PM peak hour traffic of 12 and 16 trips, respectively. An estimated increase in weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 9 trips is expected to Nez Perce Drive from existing conditions with increase in AM and PM peak hour traffic of 1 and 1 trips, respectively. Roadway Connection to Nez Perce Drive In making a trip generation estimate for a possible roadway connection to Nez Perce Drive, engineering judgement and assumption has been made that 2 homes would use Nez Perce Drive for their typical route and 13 Troendle Addition homes would change behavior and use a new roadway connection to access Pleasant View Road. The corresponding graphics highlight specific homes, however, for analysis purposes the specific homes are not critical, the exhibit shall be used to highlight how many total homes could use each route. Actual driver behavior will vary based on routes users need to travel, this study attempts to assume the likely average or typical route taken. An estimated increase in weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 274 trips is expected to Pleasant View Road from existing conditions with increase in AM and PM peak hour traffic of 20 and 27 trips, respectively. An estimated decrease in weekday Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 104 trips is expected to Nez Perce Drive from existing conditions with increase in AM and PM peak hour traffic of 8 and 10 trips, respectively. 342 12346123456789101112135BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT ABLOCK 1BLOCK 1PLEASANT VIEW ROADPOWERS BOULEVARDLAKE LUCY ROADNEZ PERCE DRPEACEFUL LN1464 AADT (MNDOT 2023)PLEASANT VIEW POINTE - TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS EXHIBIT - NO ROAD CONNECTLEGEND: 343 12346123456789101112135BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT ABLOCK 1BLOCK 1PLEASANT VIEW ROADPOWERS BOULEVARDLAKE LUCY ROADNEZ PERCE DRPEACEFUL LN1464 AADT (MNDOT 2023)PLEASANT VIEW POINTE - TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS EXHIBIT - ROAD CONNECTLEGEND: 344 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 4, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Edward Goff, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, and Katie Trevena. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; and Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Ed Szalapski Jr. 850 Pleasant View Road Paul Haik 261 Hidden Lane Paul Robinson Rachel LLC Development Director Christine Haissig 6370 Pleasant View Cove Tony Fricano 980 Lake Lucy Road Sarah Zaccarine 6431 Pleasant Park Drive Thomas Kraker 801 Pleasant View Road Alexander Westlind 825 Pleasant View Road Eric Anderson 6580 Troendle Circle Martha Noll 7214 Frontier Trail PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR PID 25-4070020, GENERAL GAPLIN BLVD (PLANNING CASE #25-03) Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, presented the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 6651 Galpin Boulevard. She stated that the proposal was scheduled to go before City Council on March 24. She shared that the Planning Commission's scope for Comprehensive Plan amendments was large because they act in its legislative or policy-making capacity. She explained information on the lot, including that the lot is currently zoned rural residential and that the Comprehensive Plan Guidance is for a residential large lot. The lot size is 2.50 acres with a net density of 2.22 unit per acres. Mrs. Arsenault explained the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use. She stated that the applicant wanted to go to a residential low-density designation, which was like neighboring properties outside of a pocket of four properties. She reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Guidance, which allowed for appropriate re-guiding of property upon the availability of city utilities. She explained that the current home was on well 345 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 2 and septic but did not have to connect until a large-scale repair was required. She stated that two sewer and water stubs were added to the property with the 2024 Galpin Boulevard reconstruction. She said that the applicant was looking to subdivide and build a new house on the subdivided portion of the property in the future. Chairman Noyes asked if it was a common occurrence to change the designation of a property to take advantage of the city’s utilities. Mrs. Arsenault answered that a lot of people inquire about lot splits, and when utilities are newly introduced to an area it is not uncommon for the city to receive a request for an amendment to land use designations for newly serviced properties. Commissioner Soller asked if the Comprehensive Plan is the strategic vision only set every so often and rarely changed. He said that this change would just change the specific lot, but the other lots would be guided in a different way. He said normally the Comprehensive Plan would not be changed, so he asked if the request was normal. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, answered that the request was normal as the current designation of the lot was residential large lot which was appropriate as they did not previously have access to sewer and water but the request to reguide to residential lot density was now the appropriate designation because of the availability of public water and sewer utilities to the property. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan allowed for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to re-guide for a denser designation when sewer and water were available. Vice Chair Jobe asked if the other lots guided residential large lot along Galpin Boulevard would be able to reguide as well with the new utilities installed. Mr. Maass confirmed the information. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. There were no public comments. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve amending the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Low Density for PID 25-4070020, generally located at 6651 Galpin Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 2. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCE TO CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PLEASANT VIEW POINTE (PROJECT 25-02). Eric Maass, Community Development Director, said that the presentation would be collaborative. The applicant also had a presentation. Mrs. Arsenault introduced the project to be discussed. She reviewed the location of the property at approximately 6535 Peaceful Lane. She stated that the 13.65-acre property was a combination of six properties and is zoned with a single residential family. The Comprehensive Plan Guidance is Residential Low Density. She reviewed the different steps for community engagement, including the public hearing notice postcards and public hearing notice in the Sun 346 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 3 Sailor. Additionally, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the Chanhassen Recreation Center on July 31, 2024, and the development was discussed at the City Council workshop on October 14, 2024. Mrs. Arsenault described the Planning Commission Scope for a preliminary plat review, including that the proposed subdivision was consistent with the zoning ordinance, with all applicable City, County, and regional plans, the physical characteristics of the site, and the area has access to all necessary utilities. Mrs. Arsenault displayed a photo to show the existing conditions of the property. She stated that the developer proposed 19 single-family lots, with one outlot and public trail access that would also provide access to emergency services. She said the density was 1.4 units/acre, and the lots conformed to the RSF zoning district standards. She reviewed the staff comment about lot 5 changing into a flag lot to get the driveway out of an outlot owned by the city. She showed the landscaping plan for the development and noted the landscaping schedule to show the trees that would be planted. She noted that the developer did a good job to ensure existing trees on the development remained. She summarized the water and sanitary sewer utility plan and noted that an old, unused sanitary sewer and water main would be removed with the vacation of public right of way for the former road referred to as Redman Lane. Mrs. Arsenault showed the storm sewer utility plan, which would reach into the storm pond area. Eric Maass, Community Development Director, reviewed the Planning Commission Scope for the approval of variances which is more prescriptive criteria to meet for approval. He reviewed the property history to provide context. The general development area had plats for Carver Beach Estates in 1986, Vineland Forest in 1990, and Troendle Addition in 1991. He reviewed the prior development conditions for Nez Perce. He said the city condemned the right-of-way through the property being considered for the preliminary plat. The city took future assessments from the property to pay for the future road extension of Nez Perce. If the road is not extended, there would be a potential that the city would have to pay it back with interest. Mr. Maass reviewed the neighborhood feedback about the Nez Perce connection with concerns that the connection of Nez Perce would create a cut-through path for drivers not wanting to drive on Powers Boulevard, and in the opinion of those residents, such a connection would change the character of the neighborhood. He presented the two options that the developer brought forward to the City Council and asked for the preferences. Option two would require a variance for the cul-de-sac length. He showed a drawing of the cul-de-sac and explained the variance request for the dead-end cul-de-sac of 1,040 feet long. He reviewed the comments from Emergency Services about the access at the cul-de-sac. Mr. Maass reviewed the proposed findings for recommendation. Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer, reviewed the existing conditions of the property, stating that it was an open prairie with managed turf grass. He said that the stormwater generally flows from the southeast to the northwest, with a majority of the water draining into Christmas Lake. He noted that a small portion of the site drains to the south. He said that the property takes water from the Troendle Addition. He reviewed the large drainage and utility easement to protect and 347 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 4 allow access to the wetland area and the treatment area. He stated that the area would be graded to facilitate the development and construction of roads, utilities, and building pads. A SWPPP Plan was provided to show how they will mitigate impacts during the construction. He said that the project would maintain the major flow patterns and indicated the various stormwater features on the site, with a majority of the water draining into Christmas Lake. The Troendle Addition would be routed through the pond/wetland area. He explained the stormwater design and how it would utilize a combination of wet pond/filtration basin, storm sewers, and swales to maintain the existing drainage patterns and meet design requirements. He noted that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requires double the filtration volume when infiltration is deemed impractical. He said that the applicant shifted to a constructed wetland design to meet WCA and City Regulations. He reviewed the stormwater design considerations, including the existing drainage and utility easement. Mr. Seidl said that there is a planned project for Pleasant View Road Reconstruction from 2026 to 2027, which would trigger stormwater treatment rules. The city would investigate their needs for the area and work with the applicant to reconfigure the easement if the applicant would do an analysis to show how the proposed design would meet the regulations. He expressed concern about drainage to the south, which would have some risk of impacting adjacent residents. The engineer is working with the applicant’s engineer to mitigate the concerns. He stated that the best practice when building out a subdivision is to treat all the stormwater created by the impervious areas to the best extent possible. He explained that there are areas in the subdivision that aren’t being routed to the proposed water management system due to multiple factors, such as grade and current conditions. He recognized the need to increase the treatment of the Troendle Addition. Mr. Seidl stated that a Wetland Delineation was completed in July 2024, which located two wetlands on site. One wetland was 0.08 acres, and one wetland was 0.67 acres. The larger wetland was historic and governed by the Wetland Conservation Act, which protected wetlands, habitats, stormwater detention and flood protection, and groundwater recharge. He stated that typical designs try to avoid wetlands. Mr. Seidl reviewed the wetland background, which noted that wetland two is incidental created by manmade activities. The Technical Evaluation Panel reviewed historical information about the wetland, which showed that a portion of the wetland was highly modified, but a small portion was still jurisdictional. He stated that any alterations to the wetland require a Sequencing Application, which was submitted by the applicant in December 2024. He stated that wetland one did not require a sequencing application, but the Technical Evaluation Panel is still reviewing information. Mr. Seidl reviewed the process for the Sequencing Joint Application Permit, which looks at what the applicant does to avoid the impact of wetlands, minimize impacts on wetlands, and mitigate wetland impacts. He stated that the application included two alternatives, including a no-build option and a berm to preserve the wetland. The applicant preferred a constructed wetland, which would have a lot of benefits, such as honoring the historic wetland and enhancing the overall local water quality. He said the challenges would include the temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands, and that the wetland would not meet the quality control regulations. He said a decision was needed to provide direction to the applicant and meet application review timelines. 348 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 5 He explained that the applicant has done a lot of work, but that there was no clear-cut decision from the Water Resource Department. Mr. Seidl read the regulations from the State Statute, Joint Permit Application, and the Chanhassen City Ordinance that related to constructed wetlands. Paul Robinson, Development Director with Rachel Development, introduced himself and provided examples of projects he completed. He introduced the Charles Cudd Company, the home builder for the project. Mr. Robinson reviewed the land use plan and the current zoning for the property, noting that the minimum lot size was 15,000 square feet. He provided a site analysis of the property, including the wetland delineation for wetlands one and two. He recognized the right-of-way for Nez Perce. He reviewed the topography of the site and noted the bluff area on the property. Mr. Robinson showed the overland drainage on the property and said most of the drainage goes to the north and northeast. He pointed out where Pleasant View Road was located on the map. He said that Troendle Addition drains into the pond and then goes into Powers. He reviewed the drainage and utility easements with Troendle Addition in 1991 and the pond expansion in 1992. He reviewed the tree survey and showed images of the overall tree canopy. He explained the utility connections. He explained that the preliminary plat had 19 lots, and all the lots exceed the RSF standards. He said they are trying to respect the lot sizes in the area already, with a majority of the lots ranging from 22,438 square feet to 42,830 square feet. He noted that Troendle Circle had 15,919 average square foot lots. He reviewed the depth and width of the lots and explained that they exceeded the requirements. Mr. Robinson showed photos of houses that would be similar to what would be built. He reviewed the top issues raised at the neighborhood meeting, including the future access to a water tower, general traffic concerns, and the connection to Nez Perce. He explained the responses to staff comments, including the flag lot for lot 5 for the driveway, moving lot 6 driveway for snow storage, and adding a sidewalk along Pleasant View. He noted that the sidewalk would take twelve trees. He discussed the desire to preserve the trees in the development and requested additional dialogue about the sidewalk. He reviewed the southern drainage area, which would reduce the drainage to 1.6 acres, but they are looking for additional ways to reduce drainage. He stated that one option for the drainage would be to install a storm pipe to take drainage to the water tower. He reviewed the desire to add additional access to Pleasant View and said that they understood the City Code and the desire to limit driveways on Collector Roads. He did not think that the driveway would impact the collector road and said that there were turnarounds for each driveway. He provided options for a shared driveway but noted the importance of preserving the trees. Mr. Robinson reviewed the original proposed pond/filtration system, and they worked with the LGU to create a win-win option to create a constructed stormwater wetland treatment system. He showed an aerial photo of the wetland, which showed that in 1937, there was a wet meadow, but in 1956, the property was 100% farmed. In 1962, there was a small wet area visible, and in 1967 a pond was created. In 1979, he said that a culvert may have been plugged when the road was created. In 1989, a majority of the wetland was filled, and then in 1992, the Troendle addition was started, and they built a pond. He reviewed the 1992 grading permit staff memo. He said that the evidence indicated no wetlands were on the property originally. He thought that the 349 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 6 constructed wetland stormwater treatment system seemed like a win-win, and it included deep water zones, high marsh zones, low marsh zones, filtration strips, and a native upland buffer. He stated that the proposed treatment would help the water quality. He summarized the final points, including the request for one additional driveway on Pleasant View, the concerns about the impact of sidewalk construction, and Nez Perce. Commissioner Trevena asked if the proposed constructed stormwater wetland would result in a net gain in water quality. Mr. Seidl confirmed this information. Commissioner Trevena said that WAC’s recommendation was not a clear-cut approval. She asked if it was not clear-cut because of the subdivision. Mr. Seidl answered that the first part of the sequencing application demonstrated the need for the project. He said that a subdivision was difficult to prove because there were a lot of different things that could be done. He stated that the developer did a good job on the presentation, but from a water resources perspective, it is frowned upon to place your storm water treatment facilities in the area that you are trying to preserve. He explained that the construction of the wetland would have benefits and enhancements to the area. He requested direction from the Planning Commission for guidance on future projects, as well. Commissioner Jobe asked about the runoff going up to the adjacent cul-de-sac and if the trees were preventing putting a drainage ditch to redirect the runoff from the runoff change. Mr. Robinson said that the developer was trying to be cognizant to save the trees. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the wetland and a stormwater drainage and retention pond could co-exist in the same physical space. Mr. Seidl responded yes and no. He said that historically, wetlands were stormwater treatment. The wetlands provided some level of treatment before the current rules and regulations. He explained that if the two are adjacent to each other and not separated by a berm or some other separated feature, they are mixing untreated stormwater from the development with stormwater that would be from the wetland area. He said that the untreated stormwater going into the wetland is the impact and would degrade the wetland over time. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the projected five-, ten-, and one-hundred-year flood consequences would be to the proposed treatment pond. Mr. Seidl asked for clarification. Mr. Seidl answered that the stormwater facility would be large enough to hold stormwater from a two, ten, and one-hundred-year storm events. He said the subdivision would be designed around the one-hundred-year storm event to mitigate impacts on downstream resources and nearby residents. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the pond had the capacity. Mr. Seidl thought it did, but it would be a better question for the plan’s engineer. Chairman Noyes asked about feedback from the Department of Natural Resources and how it would be weighed in situations like this. Mr. Seidl said that the specific application would not impact public water, and the Department of Natural Resources would not be involved. The 350 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 7 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Administrator weighed in on the application and initially expressed concerns about the proposal of a stormwater management facility where there is a current wetland. He said that there is a long history with the wetland. There could be net benefits with the overall design. The watershed district can provide comments, but they do not get to vote on the plan. They received recent comments that the updated plan was headed in the right direction. Chairman Noyes asked if the design solution would be considered a complex solution or if it was standard. He asked about the chances if it was not appropriately sized or effectively designed. Mr. Seidl answered that the professional engineer designed the plan because he thought it would work. He explained that the project could be calculated, so there could be confidence that it would work. He voiced concerns about the vegetation. He asked who would take care of the vegetation. He explained it would be ideal to plant native vegetation, but the city would have limited resources for native vegetation management. He said there could be a possibility of a Homeowners' Association to manage the vegetation. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the wetland was private, if the city would have a maintenance easement. Mr. Seidl responded that he did not see it becoming private since there was mixing of public and private stormwater. He explained that when there is a mixing of stormwater, the city takes ownership of the management of the stormwater facilities. Commissioner Schwartz voiced concerns about his personal experience with Homeowner’s Associations and the management of the ponds. He explained that the city would have passive maintenance of the ponds. He explained concerns related to when the visual water quality was dirty and filled with algae, property owners might try to treat the water with chemicals. He asked for input from the applicant. Mr. Robinson responded that he has set up multiple Homeowners' Association with complicated stormwater systems and restoration. He said that it would be difficult for the developer to be there twenty years down the road, but the Homeowners’ Association could be set up with a lot of teeth. He suggested rather than requiring an impact to the wetland, they could put funds into the Homeowners’ Association fund for vegetation management. He thought it would be a win-win. He thought the buffer area would be managed by the Homeowners Association, but they need to figure out additional details. They put together a disclosure when the homes are sold about how ponds can be green, and the water levels can fluctuate. He explained that this effort could be lost on future owners. Commissioner Schwartz explained the process of restoring the pond in their neighborhood and explained how difficult it is to maintain these water features in future years. Commissioner Goff asked about future easement from the drainage and if it was being changed in the proposal. Mr. Robinson answered that the overall easement was growing. They are trying to reconfigure it to get lots, but also to ensure that it takes care of the one-hundred-year storm event and modeling a portion of Troendle Addition and Pleasant Creek Road. Commissioner Trevena asked if the Planning Commission recommends the approval of the water alteration permit, but there are still comments coming in from TEP, what the process would look like. Mr. Seidl explained that a majority of the TEP members are not opposed to the approval. 351 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 8 The city would follow up with a finding of fact and an additional WAC decision to memorialize everything. Commissioner Soller asked if TEP had an authority role or a recommending role. Mr. Seidl explained that the TEP voted on the decision, but it was up to the local governing unit to make the decision. He explained that if there was a history of bucking the TEP guidance, there could be challenges to the local governing unit status. He said the Chanhassen role must memorialize decisions rather than decisions by staff. Commissioner Soller asked about the current professional opinions by the TEP members and asked if they were disregarding the historical court ruling. Mr. Seidl explained that when the staff looked at the ruling 30 years later, when WAC was in its infancy, there were additional historical photos and data to analyze the existing conditions. He said that they can determine if there was a historical wetland. He explained that the question directed to the Board of Soil and Water Resources was whether the previous court ruling mattered or the current conditions. He stated that the legal purview was not in his authority. Commissioner Soller talked about the pros and cons displayed by Mr. Seidl earlier. He asked about the challenges with the constructed wetland, specifically about the quality control regulations with the water. He asked about the net increase of the status quo and discussed how the current increase and the status quo did not meet regulations. Mr. Seidl responded that if the wetland existed without any confusion, the designer would have to design around it. The designer would have to build a treatment facility in the upland to treat the stormwater before it got there. He said the proposed wetland did not have a separation, so the dirty stormwater from the development can make it into the overall treatment area. The net benefit comes from the water leaving the overall constructed wetland complex. He said there was untreated stormwater that got into the wetland today because it is an addition to the current pond from the Troendle Addition into the area. He said it was difficult to separate the overall water quality benefits. Commissioner Soller expressed the difficulties with the gray areas about what was practically acceptable versus not. He said there was no definitive thumbs up or thumbs down about the practical alternatives for the developer. This made the decision hard for the Planning Commission, especially since they are not experts. Mr. Seidl answered that there were metrics to consider when looking at applications. He explained that it was complicated since there was a net benefit to the overall site, but they would have to fill portions of a wetland that already had untreated stormwater conveyed to it. He explained that it was not a slam-dunk application for the TEP because of the need to prove the need, but there was no clear recommendation for denial. Chairman Noyes asked for Mr. Maass to review the Planning Commission’s roles with wetlands. Mr. Maass answered that the Planning Commission would have to review the application and provide a recommendation, and then the City Council would make the decision. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was anything different that the developer could do to increase the benefits to the wetland beyond what they already proposed. He said the developer already found a good solution to the problem. Mr. Seidl responded that there was a scope problem. The larger the stormwater management practices get, the more benefits they have. He 352 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 9 said it would be better to build two homes and have a larger stormwater management practice, but would that be practical? He requested guidance on what was practical. Commissioner Soller asked if there were alternatives to the plan brainstormed by the developer before they selected the plan. Mr. Robinson said that the developer was trying to go above and beyond what was proposed. He said that they were in a precarious situation. He explained that they are not maximizing the number of lots and they are trying to create a neighborhood that fits in with the area's homes today. He said they put all they could into the pond. Commissioner Soller clarified the purview of the Planning Commission and what they should consider. He referred to the final slide from the developer with the request of the additional driveway. He asked if that was included in the preliminary plat and if the Planning Commission had the purview to consider yes or no. Mr. Maass answered that the Planning Commission would recommend approval or denial of the plat. He said that the developer showed multiple options with the driveways that the city would consider. He explained that they try to limit the number of access points onto collector roads since they are to have as few as are practical. There are three other alternatives that the staff would consider, and they think they can provide a solution for access to the lots. There are multiple factors to think about, but the biggest importance is that drivers are not backing onto the collector road. Commissioner Soller asked about the connection of Nez Perce Drive based on previous comments submitted. He said that there was a City Council directional vote in a working session that was 3-2. He reviewed the three items in the variance and asked where the connection or non- connection of that road fell within the purview of the Planning Commission. Mr. Maass responded that the conversation around the Nez Perce connection was similar. There is a preliminary plat with both options. He did not think it would be beneficial for the Planning Commission to table based on this subject since there is a plat with both options. Mr. Maass reviewed the triangle of discretion. He said that the Planning Commission was presented with drafts of findings of fact and the staff’s job is to provide technical expertise and information. The Planning Commission and City Council provide direction to the city staff. Chairman Noyes said that the Planning Commission would provide a recommendation about Nez Perce Drive, and the City Council would confirm the decision or disagree with the decision. Commissioner Rosengren clarified if the recommendation was for the connection to be made, a variance was no longer necessary. Mr. Maass answered that a variance would no longer be required since the depth of the cul-de-sac road would be below the 750 feet threshold required by City Code. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Ed Szalapski Junior, 850 Pleasant View Road, stated he has been a resident of Chanhassen for 31 years. He was speaking as a private citizen and a representative of the Christmas Lake Home Association Board. He voiced concern about traffic on Pleasant View Road since it was a narrow road with natural obstacles and sharp turns. He stated that some places on Pleasant View Road could not accommodate speeds of 25 to 30 miles per hour, even with the proposed upgrade to the 353 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 10 road. He expressed concerns about the increased amount of traffic, but the concern would be resolved if Nez Perce Road was not connected to Peaceful Lane. He expressed concerns with increased runoff, as residents have spent time and money to work on invasive species. He said when there is increased development, there is an increase in run-off, which decreases water quality. He expressed the need to apply the highest standard possible to water management. He said Christmas Lake was the cleanest lake in an 11-county area and voiced the need to preserve the water quality. Paul Haik, 261 Hidden Lane, said he was the Riley Purgatory Watershed District Attorney for 20 years. He said that one of the pieces they were missing in the presentation was the dynamic in expanding the pond. He said that the water would come in, but the water would warm, which would trigger soluble release of phosphorus. He asked about the volume of water that would leave and the soluble phosphorus that would be generated by the warming in the wetland. He said that the city has an MS-4 Permit, which regulates all the pipes. The city has liability for State agencies, which set the standards of what can be sent to Christmas Lake. He requested that the city share the water management plan, the MS-4 obligations, and additional information about these questions to make an informed decision. He stated that once there is a water quality problem, it is hard to fix it, but the developer was able to change what might result. He voiced favor for the Planning Commission to have a deeper understanding of how the pipe fits into the current water management program. Christine Haissig, 6370 Pleasant View Cove, expressed concerns about the traffic. She said that there would be 19 additional households flowing into Pleasant View Road. She expressed concerns about the safety of the intersection with Powers Boulevard. She said that there were no turn lanes, shoulders, or room for pedestrians. She stated that there was a major improvement project a few years ago to help get traffic onto Pleasant View Road safely, but there were still challenges with getting off Pleasant View Road. She said that the hill going into the cul-de-sac made a blind entry. She stated that traffic off Powers Boulevard makes it difficult to turn into the cul-de-sac. She said that 19 additional houses is a large increase. She requested a qualitative analysis to build on the data to understand the impact on this road and to understand the potential safety issues. She did not know how this information was analyzed by the city but expressed the importance of the city looking into the data. Tony Fricano, 980 Lake Lucy Road, said that there was a lot of speeding on Lake Lucy Road, and the traffic is a problem. He expressed the importance of spreading out the traffic. He said his house would be impacted by the additional traffic flow. He mentioned the lots on Lake Lucy Road having effects of water from the development, the engineering team clarified the water would be lower than what is currently shed today from no development on the site. He corrected himself and said that there was less water flowing and said he misheard the City Engineer. Commissioner Soller asked if spreading the traffic out meant they were in favor of the Nez Perce Connection. Mr. Fricano responded that if there were multiple roads connecting to a main road, the traffic would be spread out and people would drive from multiple areas to get to Powers Boulevard. He stated that no one would be hit hard. 354 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 11 Sarah Zaccarine, 6431 Pleasant Park Drive, expressed concerns about moving the wetland into public property in individual lots. She said it would be distributed among the two to four lots. She said if it was city-owned or an easement, the property owner might feel they could do something to the native vegetation at the wetland. Thomas Kraker, 801 Pleasant View Road, stated that he has lived on the road for twenty years. He was not able to attend the July introduction meeting. He expressed enjoying walking on Peaceful Lane and the large tract of undeveloped land. He reiterated the dangers of the curves on Pleasant View Road, especially with the vehicles traveling over the speed limit. He said it was unique that this large tract of land was undeveloped. He stated that there were too many lots, not because they do not like development. He commented that there was room on Powers Boulevard to make a turning lane. He said it was important to have fewer lots to maintain the beauty of the land and to help with the traffic flow. He stated it was good to have opportunity for development in Chanhassen, but expressed the need to be realistic about what was overkill. He said that fewer lots could help with the water runoff. Alexander Westlind, 825 Pleasant View Road, voiced agreement with the comments about water quality, not connecting to Nez Perce, and the comment about performing a traffic study about the additional homes on Pleasant View Road. He asked about the environmental impacts with the development. He said that there was a lot of wildlife on Pleasant View Road in the undeveloped area. He asked if the hard cover infrastructure would be capable of handling the additional flow of water and if there were any studies performed for endangered, rare, or special concerned species of pollinators or vegetation. He expressed concerns about the habitat being rerouted onto Pleasant View Road, which already has traffic issues. He asked about the provisions in the Homeowners Association rules that would limit the amount of fencing that could potentially reroute wildlife and habitat and if the Homeowners Association would expand to existing lots. He appreciated the developer’s concern with maintaining trees. He discussed the non-connector road for the development and stated that the precedent would be for Pleasant View lot sizes. Pleasant View Road has development with larger size lots, so the lots seem smaller than the existing lot sizes. Martha Noll, 7214 Frontier Trail, said that she agreed with the importance of saving Christmas Lake and the watershed ideas. She asked if everyone was concerned with the wetland area and the builder took their $3600 to plant and maintain the trees for ten years, then the city could come back in and maintain the area. She stated if they were to redo Pleasant View and the developer was taking on the expense of the filtration, it could be a good opportunity for the city to relieve the taxpayers. Eric Anderson, 6580 Troendle Circle, said he spent many years as the City Administrator for Edina and then a real estate developer. He stated he attended the City Council Work Session and sent letters. He commented that his neighborhood, including Troendle Circle, Nez Perce north of Lake Lucy, and Violet Court, was made up of 33 homes. He said that they did not want to see the road connected. Nez Perce from Kerber to Lake Lucy is a narrow and dangerous road with cut- through traffic. He commented that Lake Lucy and Carver Beach Road were easy outlets to Powers Boulevard. He analyzed various cul-de-sac dead-end lengths and presented various 355 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 12 examples of streets that exceeded 750 feet maximum. He said it was a reasonable variance request. He asked that they strongly consider leaving the cul-de-sac as it currently exists. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Mr. Maass offered a brief recess since the meeting had been going for a little over two hours. Chairman Noyes asked about the MS-4 obligations and the modeling that is being completed. He said he saw Mr. Seidl taking notes of the comments and he requested more information. Mr. Seidl said that the City of Chanhassen had an MS-4 permit, which stood for a municipal separate storm sewer system. This permit allowed the city to discharge stormwater into public waters of the State. The city had to inspect their infrastructure, have rules and regulations, have public engagement and education, and other responsibilities. Mr. Seidl said the resident was asking if the city was looking at the downstream water quality when a development came in and to what level. He said that the city is bound by the rules and regulations in place, and they are used in assessing developments. There are water quality standards and rate standards to meet the MS-4 rate regulations. He said that the watershed also has rules and regulations that need to be met. He explained that there are also standard engineering practices. He explained that if the water regulations are being met at the site, the downstream water quality will be improved. Mr. Seidl commented that Chanhassen cannot infiltrate water, so there will be more stormwater volume generated by the site. He said that the developer cannot mitigate this when building impervious surfaces in lieu of a reuse system. He commented that this was not written in the regulations or a part of the MS-4 Permit. He said if a development meets the city’s rules and the watershed rules, that is how he considers if it is approvable or not. Commissioner Jobe asked about the phosphorus level and if it could be managed by a Homeowner’s Association, the amount of fertilizer used on lawns, and the amount of runoff. Mr. Seidl answered that a Homeowner’s Association could in theory have a rule about the chemicals used on a lawn, but that was not a part of the city’s rules when looking at subdivisions. Commissioner Schwartz said that a Homeowner’s Association could not effectively regulate the amount of fertilizer a property owner is putting on their lawns or in their plantings. Chairman Noyes responded that a Homeowner’s Association could manage it if they were responsible for the lawns. Commissioner Schwartz stated that a Homeowner’s Association could indirectly manage the fertilizer, but it would be more likely that the vendor hired would put the fertilizer down. The Homeowner’s Association relies on the vendor to know how much fertilizer and weed killer to put on the lawns. Commissioner Soller asked about the risks associated with the wetland on Christmas Lake. He asked for a summary of the thoughts and said that once the water quality was lost, it is hard to get back. Mr. Seidl stated that the current design set forth by the developer was an improvement to the water quality over the existing condition. He commented that the stormwater was currently treated to older standards as it is leaving the site. He said the development would generate more 356 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 13 volume, but it would be mitigated by the stormwater infrastructure. He was hesitant to quantify what was happening at Christmas Lake. The water quality was improved when leaving the site and would go through other facilities and benefit from treatment before it got to Christmas Lake. Commissioner Goff said that there was a passion about road extension. He asked if the sign at the end belonged to the city. He thought it would be in the city plan to someday extend it when it was developed but asked if the city decided not to. Mr. Maass responded that the sign was a city sign and read the future extension of Nez Perce Road. He commented that the prior City Council approved the Troendle Addition in 1991, with the condition to connect Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane to connect to Pleasant View Road. He explained the City Council condemned the right-of- way to facilitate the construction of the road and took a minor assessment to fund the extension. He said that the land stood undeveloped for many years. The applicant can make the project work in any scenario, but a majority of the current City Council, based on feedback, wanted to not connect Nez Perce and just extend Peaceful Lane. Commissioner Goff said if it was connected, it would route more traffic and said he assumed the city did research to show that the streets could safely handle the additional traffic, and it would alleviate traffic on roads that travel south. Mr. Maass confirmed that the road could be safely extended but it was ultimately a policy decision for the City Council. Chairman Noyes said he understood both sides of the dilemma and did not know if extending the road was the right idea. He said one issue he had was that in the past, assurances were made that the road would be extended. He commented that people made decisions based on these assurances, so it does not feel right. He said he understood that people would be upset if it was not put through since there was a message for so long about it happening. He did not know the reason behind the original decision and recognized that times had changed. There needs to be discussions about the repercussions of the changes. He said that the City Council would have to put it in their own decision-making process. Commissioner Schwartz requested the slide that showed the pond. He asked Mr. Seidl how much the size of the pond would need to increase for him to say yes. Mr. Seidl answered that it was not the size of the infrastructure, but there would have to be a design change that completely saved the wetland. He said he applauded the design team with what was brought forward and their effort but made note that he struggled with the conflicting regulations that seemed to be at odds. Commissioner Schwartz said he understood the conflict and the work the developer put into the work. He asked if lots three, five, six, and four were not there to impede the ability to increase the size of the wetland. Mr. Seidl said that the reduction of scope would not necessitate a wetland replacement plan, since they would meet all the rules and regulations. He did not know how many lots that would be since there is a myriad of different scenarios that the developer could go through. He is trying to provide the facts to make an educated decision. Mr. Maass explained that there was an element of wetland preservation and mitigation, which was important and outlined in the City Code. He said another aspect to consider was the city’s 357 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 14 Comprehensive Plan, which required that land to be developed was guided for residential low density had to be between 1.2 units per acre and 4 units per acre. The plan was at 1.4 units per acre, so they could only reduce it by 0.2 units per acre. He said that they wanted to serve the Comprehensive Plan and the wetlands. Commissioner Schwartz said that they could request the developer to reduce the depths of the lots to increase the size of the pond. Mr. Maass answered that he was not an engineer, so he could not comment on the size of the pond. He said it was important to consider the long-term maintenance, and the responsibility and ownership of the pond and vegetative buffer. He said that lots four and five are an acre each. He said that the city could have the pond placed in an outlot deeded to the city so that they could have additional oversight. He said some residents might mow areas they should not if they do not know where their drainage and utility easement lies, but if their property line ends, it is more obvious about their maintenance responsibilities. Mr. Seidl said that the sizing of the pond meets water requirements standards, but there is a reduction of benefit with regards to the size if it is sized appropriately. He said he had no additional comments. Chairman Noyes said the developer mentioned a sidewalk, which was not in the staff report. He asked if the Planning Commission had to weigh in on this information. Mr. Maass responded that city staff was wrestling with Outlot A. He said it would be a publicly owned and maintained trail. He stated that the city maintains a public trail on the east side of Powers Boulevard. They would use the same equipment on this trail to maintain the trail on Outlot A. There was a conversation about promoting neighborhood connectivity and safety and providing an off-road trail from Outlot A to Pleasant View Road to provide connectivity. He said that the city wanted to add additional off-road pedestrian facilities, but that Pleasant View Road was tight and would be a difficult project. He noted that there were complications with the property, but they wanted to find a reasonable solution to have trails. He said they were open to feedback from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Rosengren asked about a technical point and if the little road that currently ends would be turned into a path. Mr. Maass said that the area was an existing right-of-way that the city condemned for the Nez Perce connection. The city would retain the right-of-way to place a public trail. Commissioner Soller said that the variance of the cul-de-sac felt easy compared with the presented evidence of other variances. He said that the wetland alteration was difficult, but the net increase to water quality and the way that the technology could make it a better situation over a status quo that does not meet water quality standards to begin with, he did not know how much more data they could get there to sway the opinion. He said they had seen proposals that fit houses in small spaces, but there seemed to be a balance in the density proposal. He also discussed the high-quality and premium nature of the homes being built. He asked if others had opinions that they wanted to share. He did not know if he had the expertise in the connection with Nez Perce. He said that it has been signaled for thirty years, but history should not be the only consideration in the decision. He agreed that the City Council should assess the facts and make the final decision about the connections. 358 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 15 Mr. Maass said any recommendation did not create a precedence for future applications for variance requests for a cul-de-sac. Commissioner Goff said he was good with the proposal, but the outstanding decision was the Nez Perce decision. He stated the developer did a great job, but the City Council needs to decide between options one and two. Chairman Noyes asked if he were to pretend to be on the City Council, how would he vote? He said the Planning Commission had to make a recommendation to provide to the City Council so they would understand their thoughts. Commissioner Goff asked how many people were for the extension and how many people were against it. He said people were in favor of or against the extension based on traffic. Commissioner Rosengren said that the Planning Commission was looking for assurance about the impacts. The Planning Commission could not always get to that level of assurance, and they could only make the best recommendation possible. He commented that there needs to be trust that the city staff and developer were making proposals based on what they best knew after working with experts. He said that the Planning Commission asked for certainty, which was not always possible. He stated that the proposal, as presented, should stand. He thought it was reasonable to not connect Nez Perce, and there was no certainty about the impact. He asked about what to do with the driveway on Pleasant View. He said that shared driveways do not work, so he suggested not following that option. He did not think it seemed like a big hardship to add one driveway on a road that already had sixteen driveways. Commissioner Jobe thought a pathway or a trail would be a great thing to have to get along the road and to allow for neighborhood connectivity. He stated that the amount of paper that the project had taken had already consumed the twelve trees that would be removed from the trail. Commissioner Schwartz mentioned his only concern was the wetland and if it made sense to narrow the depth of the lots on block one to increase the size of the wetland and improve the water quality going into Christmas Lake. Chairman Noyes said he was not convinced that a larger wetland would greatly impact the efficiency and outcomes of the water. He said that there were limiting factors. He said all the work to come up with a solution was impressive, and it was better than what they were going in with. He said that the solution was a step forward, and he did not know if they would get a second step forward. He said if there were guarantees that it would improve the water quality, he would consider it, but he did not know if that was the case. He discussed the connection between Nez Perce. He said he would prefer to connect Nez Perce. He wanted the City Council to explain the logic behind the decision change and he wanted to force the conversation. He said the City Council might have great ideas which were not expressed to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Trevena said she felt like they were missing valuable information from the City Council as it relates to the Nez Perce connection. 359 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 16 Mr. Maass shared information that was shared with the City Council during their work session which was open to the public and the topic was on the agenda. The City Council received neighborhood feedback that there was a preference for the connection not to be made. He thought it was a fair summary to say the decision was based on the information the City Council received to the point of the area development. Commissioner Soller asked if the staff expressed their opinion and whether there was an engineering opinion about whether or not to connect. Mr. Maass responded that there was an engineering solution in either scenario. It comes down to a policy decision about long cul-de- sacs or interconnected neighborhoods. Commissioner Soller asked if there was guidance in the Comprehensive Plan about what type of city they wanted to engineer. Mr. Maass answered that the Comprehensive Plan had a transportation chapter that classified roads based on the levels of traffic they were meant to carry and the design type they should receive when they build new or reconstruct. He said that interconnection was a good thing, but it is not always required. It does say that the right-of-way provided to the edge was a requirement if there is developable property directly adjacent to land being platted to facilitate future road extensions. He showed an example of how right-of-way locations were brought to the edge on other properties. He said it was whether or not they utilized the right-of-way. He commented that there would likely be policies in the Comprehensive Plan that could be used in support of either option. Commissioner Soller said without objectivity and data it was difficult to make claims about the traffic. Commissioner Schwartz said that there seemed to be a disconnect between the scientific observations and residents’ lived experiences in traffic studies. He asked if it was reasonable to combine both areas to find a compromise. He stated that there was no ability to overlap, which he found disturbing. Chairman Noyes said connector streets were made to handle large levels of traffic. He did not know which roads were connectors before this conversation. The objectives of the roads might not fit into residents’ desires because they do not fit into the way of life. Commissioner Rosengren said that he would prefer not to make the connection because Nez Perce would operate similarly to a connector road, which Peaceful Lane was not set up to handle the extra traffic. He said he would not support turning Nez Perce into a connection unless there was support to redo roads. He voiced concerns about future problems. Chairman Noyes clarified that Outlot A was in the city right-of-way. Mr. Maass responded that the city currently owns the condemned right-of-way. Chairman Noyes asked if the opportunity existed to make the connection in the future, if it was desired by other Planning Commissions or City Council. Mr. Maass answered that a connection could be made in the future, but that it was not common for this to occur with future street 360 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 17 reconstruction projects. If it was to be connected, it would likely be during the initial development of the property. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the city was considering widening Pleasant View. He said it was a scary road. Mr. Maass answered that Pleasant View is planned for reconstruction in the coming years. He said that the city staff knew the challenges that Pleasant View presented and hoped to address many of them in a future reconstruction project. Commissioner Soller said that it seems as if the Planning Commission was ready to consider what was on the table. Mr. Maass said that the Planning Commission could take each item on its own as a recommendation or make a single recommendation. Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit, and recommends approval of the variance, for the subdivision on Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2025 Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated February 18, 2025 as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: 1. DISCUSSION ONLY: ORDINANCE XXX: DENSITY BONUSES AMENDMENT Mr. Maass reviewed Housing Policy 1.7.2 in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He bolded the “as defined by the City” since the City Code did not specify the details. He showed two prospective developments, Santa Vera Phase II and 6440 Hazeltine Boulevard, that would like to utilize the density bonus. Mr. Maass said that the density bonus is within the Comprehensive Plan but is not something that can be used until the details of a density bonus are outlined in city code. He presented the income limits for the metro area determined by the United States Housing of Urban Development. He said that the staff reached out to other cities for example ordinances for similar bonuses. They discussed potential bonuses with private developers to gauge usability. They drafted an ordinance based on this feedback and said that the density bonus would be eligible for use in R-8, R-12, R-16, PUD-R, and the Central Business District. He said that developers 361 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 18 indicated that 80 percent of Area Median Income was aligned with common Metro area market rents. He discussed that the city would require that the bonus units would remain affordable for a period of twenty years. Chairman Noyes asked where the money came from in this situation. Mr. Maass said that as drafted the density bonus is a non-fiscal tool and the city would not be required to participate financially in the project and offset reduced rental revenue. He commented that the city does not often give housing TIF. Chairman Noyes asked if other cities were similar in economic terms and residents’ background as Chanhassen. Mr. Maass responded that they looked at the spectrum. They were proposing the density bonus as an option for high density housing, rather than a requirement which is what is seen with inclusionary housing ordinances. Chairman Noyes asked how they knew it was affordable for twenty years. Mr. Maass answered that the developer would have to provide annual reports to the city to make sure that they met compliance for the Area Median Income. It was similar to the senior housing TIF requirements. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was a difference between the size and the quality of the affordable units. Mr. Maass reviewed the requirements for the bonus units, including that they needed to be distributed throughout the building, and should be the same design, size, and materials as the market rate units. He said that the unit type should be consistent as a percentage with the rest of the development. He said that the city would look at the geographic distribution if it seemed like an incorrect fit. He commented that they did not require every multi-family area to have bonus units, but there would be benefits to having affordable housing throughout the community. He said that over ninety percent of workers commuted into Chanhassen. He commented that they were setting up guidelines to follow if developers wanted to include the information. Mr. Maass reviewed the timeline for the project. Commissioner Rosengren clarified that the ordinance was granting that the developer could have greater density than the zoning allows. Mr. Maass provided an example and confirmed this information. Commissioner Rosengren asked what would happen if they stopped meeting the eighty percent and were out of compliance with their zone. Mr. Maass answered that compliance with affordability requirements would be outlined in a contract between the City and developer and if a developer failed to abide by that contract, the city would have grounds to sue the property owner for failure to operate by the contract. Commissioner Jobe asked about the thirty percent run-off area. Mr. Maass responded that it would not preclude any property from meeting other zoning requirements of the city including maximum impervious lot coverage. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the city had a population base that would qualify for affordable housing. Mr. Maass answered that there is a need for affordable housing. 362 Planning Commission Minutes – March 4, 2025 19 Commissioner Schwartz asked about the twenty-five percent threshold. Mr. Maass answered that it would be at least eight units per acre. Commissioner Schwartz asked about transferring the property to a market rate if the housing sat vacant. Mr. Maass said that the bonus units are required to be held for renters with qualifying income levels. Commissioner Rosengren highlighted the need to encourage the development of the style so people who work here would also live here. He expressed the positive of the suggestion since it was not a mandate. Mr. Maass asked if there was anything they wanted to be added. Chairman Noyes asked about how the Area Median Income was calculated. Mr. Maass explained that HUD utilized the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington area to determine Area Median Income. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. OPEN DISCUSSION: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, provided an update to Pioneer Ridge. He said that it would be on the City Council Work Session on March 10. The City Staff issued a sixty- day extension for the project. The developer submitted an updated concept that revised the northern portion to a detached villa. He said that the City Code did not have a detached villa definition, so there would be a process to go through for it to be approvable. He said it could be on the City Council agenda as early as March 24. Commissioner Rosengren asked about the removal of trees for bats and if it would push out the start of the project until next year. Mr. Maass responded that the federal government had recommendations for tree removal that were potential habitats for the bat. The developer was meeting with their engineer to see if there were restrictions related to the timing of tree removal. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director 363 Complete this form and submit it prior to the City Council meeting date you wish to present your request. The City of Chanhassen invites citizens to submit a request in their native or preferred language. Upon doing so, the city will utilize its resources and do everything in its power to translate the request appropriately. Select City Council Meeting date you would like to attend: 03/10/2025 In 2024, the Chanhassen City Council meets on the second and fourth Mondays of each month. Printable Meeting Calendar View and/or print this calendar to assist with determining when city council meetings are held in order to make your date selection above. Resident Information * Name Antonio Fricano * Address 980 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 * Phone * Email Council Action Requested * Provide a brief description of the action you are requesting from the City Council. I will be speaking on behalf of the East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association with respect to the request under Project 25-02 to Consider Preliminary Plat, Wetland Alteration Permit, and Variance to cul-de-sac length for Pleasant View Pointe and the potential variance that would eliminate the planned extension from Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane. Summary of Information * Provide a narrative of the request including need, costs, timetable, background, etc. I will provide a detailed letter late Sunday or first thing Monday morning detailing the reasons why the City should not reverse its prior decision to extend Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane. What Happens Next? Immediately upon submission of this form, staff will be notified by email and will provide copies to the City Council prior to the selected meeting date. Contact Questions? Contact City Clerk Jenny Potter at 952-227-1107 or by email. Page | 1 364 East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association March 18, 2025 Sent Via Email to council@chanhassenmn.gov; eryan@chanhassenmn.gov Re: Nez Perce/ Pleasantview Road Connection- Project 25-02 Request for Variance to cul-de-sac Honorable Mayor Elise Ryan and City Council Members: We are writing to provide a supplement to the letter that was sent on March 12, 2025, on behalf of the East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association (the “March 12th Letter”). We would like to supplement that letter with a citation to Section 20-58(a) of the Chanhassen Municipal Code that states in pertinent part: Sec 20-58 General Conditions For Granting A variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (a) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. […] [emphasis added] As we noted in the March 12th Letter, page 130 of the City of Chanhassen 2040 Comprehensive Plan states as follows: Nez Perce/ Pleasant View Road Connection- During review of the Vineland Forest plat it was evident that a connection between Nez Perce/ Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road was warranted since there was no north/south connection between County Road 17 and Lotus Lake. Improved access is needed for local trips and to ensure adequate provision of emergency services. At the same time, there were concerns voiced regarding the introduction of additional trips onto Pleasant View Road since the street already suffers from capacity and design constraints. Therefore, it was determined that the Pleasant View Road intersection should be located as far west as possible at the Peaceful Lane intersection. We hope that this additional information is helpful, and we ask that this letter, along with the March 12th Letter be added to the record, when this matter is taken under consideration at the March 24, 2025, City Council Meeting. Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing. Respectfully submitted, /s/Antonio J. Fricano Antonio (Tony) Fricano Association Secretary East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association Resident of 980 Lake Lucy Road /s/Bryce Fier Bryce Fier Association President East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association Resident of 1040 Lake Lucy Road Cc: East Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood Association 365 1 225440v7 LAND DISTURBANCE AND TREE REMOVAL AUTHORIZATION LAND DISTURBANCE AUTHORIZATION dated ______ _, 20__, issued by the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), to __________________, a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for PLEASANT VIEW POINTE (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is situated in the County of Carver, State of Minnesota, on the land legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (“Property”). 2. Conditions of Approval. The plat has received preliminary plat approval and the Public Works Director hereby approves the proposed Land Disturbance and tree removal activity on the Property on condition that the Developer abides by the terms of this agreement as well as furnishes the security required by it subject to the following conditions: A. Land Disturbance activities shall be in compliance with tree removal and erosion control plans identified under Paragraph 3 of this Agreement which shall include the following: mobilization, tree clearing and grubbing, stabilization of exposed soils, perimeter sediment controls around the disturbed areas; and B. If applicable, Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from roadway authorities for mobilization to the Property. 3. Plans. The Property shall be disturbed and tree removals completed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this authorization. Plan A - Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Schedule dated March 12, 2025, revised March 19, 2025 prepared by Alliant Engineering. Plan B - Tree Inventory, Removal and Land Disturbance Plan dated March 12, 2025, revised March 19, 2025 prepared by Alliant Engineering. 366 2 225440v7 4. Time of Performance. The Developer shall complete the tree removal, Land Disturbance and stabilization activities by April 15, 2025. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 5. Erosion and Sediment Control. Plan A shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion and sediment control requirements as they deem necessary. All areas disturbed by the Land Disturbance and tree removal operations shall be stabilized forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion and sediment control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City or the MPCA, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to mitigate erosion and control sediment on site. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit or cash escrow to pay any costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the property is in full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Street sweeping shall be required as necessary to address any vehicle tracking onto public roads. Stump grubbing and further Land Disturbance operations may not proceed until erosion and sediment control BMPs are in place. City Code chapter 19-145 Erosion And Sediment Control states that an Earthwork Permit is required for land disturbance that is equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet. The developer is required to adhere to City of Chanhassen Erosion and Sediment Control regulations with the tree clearing operations. Inspection records shall be submitted to the City Engineer not less than every two weeks. 6. Clean up. The Developer shall promptly clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 7. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this authorization, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow in the total amount of $15,000. The security shall be released upon the earlier of: (i) the date the Land Disturbance and tree removal work set forth in the Land Disturbance and tree removal plan is complete and the site is stabilized in conformance with the NPDES General Stormwater Permit (vegetation uniformly established to 70% or better of the intended density) and the approved Plans; or (ii) the plat and accompanying development contract have been recorded and the security provided as required under the development contract has been received by the City which also covers the work contemplated under this Agreement. 367 3 225440v7 8. Responsibility for Costs. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the Land Disturbance and/or erosion and sediment control, including but not limited to legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the permit, the preparation of this permit, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the Land Disturbance and erosion control. The City will deduct costs incurred by the City from the posted cash escrow outlined in Section 8. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by it and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit approval and work done in conjunction with it. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this permit, including engineering, site inspections, and attorney's fees by a reduction of the cash escrow. D. In the event that the cash escrow funds are fully diminished, the Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all work and construction. 9. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This authorization is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 10. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Developer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, and its employees, officials, and agents from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, arising out of Developer’s negligence or its performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. Developer’s indemnification obligation shall apply to Developer’s general contractor, subcontractor(s), or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by Developer, or anyone for whose acts Developer may be liable. Developer agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 11. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. 368 4 225440v7 12. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with this Agreement. 13. Acknowledgment. Developer acknowledges that approval of a Land Disturbance and tree removal activities for the Property under the terms of this Agreement does not constitute a guarantee by the City of any future subdivision approvals and that Developer grades the Property at its own risk. 14. Laws. Developer shall comply with all federal, state and local laws in connection with the Land Disturbance and excavation work on the Property and shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for such work. 15. Termination of Prior Land Disturbance Approvals. This Agreement shall terminate all prior Land Disturbance approvals by the City for the Property. 16. Recording. The Developer agrees that the terms of this Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Development Authorization Agreement shall be a covenant running with the Property. The Developer agrees that the City shall have the right to record a copy of this Agreement with the Carver County Recorder to give notice to future purchasers and owners. 17. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: ____________________________________., Attn: _____________, _________________________________. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: City of Chanhassen, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317. 369 5 225440v7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: _______________________________ Elise Ryan,, Mayor And: ______________________________ Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OFCARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of ______________, 2025, by Elise Ryan and Laurie Hokkanen, respectively the Mayor and City Manager, of the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on its behalf. _________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC 370 6 225440v7 DEVELOPER: _______________________. BY: _________________________________ Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF _________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of _____________________, 2025, by ___________________________________________ the ____________________________________ of ____________________., a ______________ corporation, on its behalf. _________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL, KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: 651-452-5000 AMP/smt 371 7 225440v7 FEE OWNER CONSENT TO LAND DISTURBANCE and tree removal AUTHORIZATION Beddor Enterprises LP, fee owner of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Authorization, affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by it. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2025. Beddor Enterprises LP By _________________________ [print name] Its ______________________ [title] STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF __________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _____________________, 2025, by _____________________________________________, the ______________________________________________ of Beddor Enterprises, LP, a _________________________________, on behalf of said entity. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 651-452-5000 AMP/smt 372 8 225440v7 EXHIBIT A TO LAND DISTURBANCE AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT Legal Description PID #258710190 (955 Pleasant View Road) All of Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2, Block 3, "Vineland Forest", Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of a line drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 2 a distance of 53.53 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 2 to a point on the West line of said Lot 2 distant 66.00 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 2 and there terminating. PID # 258700060 (6535 Peaceful Lane) That part of Lots 5 and 6, “Vineland”, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East 129.57 feet; thence South 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds East 160.63 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 96.01 feet to the actual point of beginning, Carver County, Minnesota. Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, “Vineland”, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating. And That part of Lots 5 and 6, "Vineland", Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: viz: That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, "Vineland" lying Easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distant 168.62 feet Westerly along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5. PID # 258700063 (No Address Assigned) Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing on the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the parcel being described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Point A”); thence Easterly along the South line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for ingress and egress and utility purposes, appurtenant to and for the benefit of the above described Exception, which said easement is described as all that part of said Lot 5, Vineland, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning on the South line of said Lot 5 described above as “Point A”; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet more or less, to its intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 5 and there terminating. Also excepting from said Lot 5 that part thereof described as follows, viz: A 50.00 foot strip of land over and across Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, the centerline of said strip is described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 5; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 03 seconds East, on an assumed bearing, along the East line of Lot 5, a distance of 380.86 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence Westerly, a distance of 29.21 feet along a non -tangential curve concave to the South, said curve having a radius of 198.13 feet, a central angle of 08 degrees 26 minutes 53 seconds and a chord bearing of North 71 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds West; thence North 76 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds West tangent to last described curve, a distance of 170.81 feet; thence Northwesterly, a distance of 124.92 feet, 373 9 225440v7 along a tangential curve concave to the Northeast, said curve having a central angle of 39 degrees 52 minutes 43 seconds and a radius of 179.48 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as “Point B”; thence continue Northwesterly and Northerly along the last described curve a distance of 124.92 feet and said centerline there terminating. Also excepting, a 50.00 foot strip of land over and across said Lot 5, Vineland, the centerline of said strip is described as follows: Beginning at the above described “Point B”; thence South 53 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance of 100.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. PID #258700062 (No Address Assigned) Lot 6, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the North line of said Lot 6, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 96.01 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160.63 feet; thence North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 97.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 6; thence Easterly along the said North line of Lot 6 to the point of beginning. Excepting from said Lot 5 and said Lot 6 the following described premises: That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, “Vineland” lying Easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distance 168.62 feet Westerly along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5. And Lot 7, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part of said Lot 7 described as follows, viz: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 7, Vineland; thence North 1 degree 53 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 76.37 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane; thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes 34 seconds East along said Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane a distance of 174.79 feet; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 294.35 feet; thence South 1 degree 03 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 220.04 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 7; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds West along said Southerly line of Lot 7 a distance of 397.82 feet to the point of beginning. Together with an easement appurtenant to the foregoing Parcels 2, 3 and 4 for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the Westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating. PID #258690130 (1015 Pleasant View Road) Outlot A, Troendle Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. All Abstract Property 374 10 225440v7 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454