Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2019 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Note:  Work sessions 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. 1.Buy Chanhassen Purple Project Presentation 2.Key Financial Strategy: Pavement Management Program Deep Dive B.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER 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. 1.Approve City Council Minutes dated May 28, 2019 2.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated May 21, 2019 3.Approve Subdivision with Variance for Lotus Woods (formerly Eidsness) 4.Approve Stipulation for Settlement Agreement for Acquisition of Property Located at 740 Vogelsberg Trail in Conjunction with the Highway 101 Improvements, City Project No. 14­08 5.Approval of Feasibility Study with HKGi for Trail Plan Concepts and Natural Resource Inventory on the Newly Acquired Parkland at Lake Ann Park 6.Approve Temporary On­Sale Liquor License Request; St. Hubert Catholic Community; Harvest Festival on September 14, 2019 7.Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County for TH 5 Regional Trail and Underpass AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, JUNE 10, 2019CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSIONNote:  Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the worksession items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regularagenda.1.Buy Chanhassen Purple Project Presentation2.Key Financial Strategy: Pavement Management Program Deep DiveB.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDERC.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTSD.CONSENT AGENDAAll items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council andwill be considered as one motion.  There will be no separate discussion of these items.  Ifdiscussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and consideredseparately.  City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item.  Refer to thecouncil packet for each staff report.1.Approve City Council Minutes dated May 28, 20192.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated May 21, 20193.Approve Subdivision with Variance for Lotus Woods (formerly Eidsness)4.Approve Stipulation for Settlement Agreement for Acquisition of Property Located at740 Vogelsberg Trail in Conjunction with the Highway 101 Improvements, City ProjectNo. 14­085.Approval of Feasibility Study with HKGi for Trail Plan Concepts and NaturalResource Inventory on the Newly Acquired Parkland at Lake Ann Park6.Approve Temporary On­Sale Liquor License Request; St. Hubert CatholicCommunity; Harvest Festival on September 14, 2019 7.Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County for TH 5 Regional Trail and Underpass 8.Approve Resolution 2019­XX Establishing Emergency Slow­No Wake Area on Lake Minnewashta; and adopt Ordinance XXX Amending Section 6­49 of the Chanhassen City Code Concerning Slow­No Wake 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) 1.Tour de Tonka 2019 ­ Tim Litfin, Minnetonka Community Education F.PUBLIC HEARINGS G.NEW BUSINESS 1.Consider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback for Property Located at 3617 Red Cedar Point 2.Approve Contract for Design and Construction of the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy Road Pedestrian Improvements 3.Ordinance XXX: Amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Chanhassen City Code Establishing an Economic Development Commission H.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS I.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS J.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION 1.Building Permit Data as of 06­06­2019 2.Review of Claims Paid 06­10­2019 3.Municipal Legislative 2019 Legislative Session Report K.ADJOURNMENT L.WORK SESSION Note:  Work sessions are open to the public. 1.Discuss Lighting System Efficiency Upgrades for Public Works, Library, and City Hall M.GUIDELINES 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.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/action or paper forms are available in the city council chambers prior to the meeting. 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 AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, JUNE 10, 2019CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSIONNote:  Work sessions are open to the public.If the City Council does not complete the worksession items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regularagenda.1.Buy Chanhassen Purple Project Presentation2.Key Financial Strategy: Pavement Management Program Deep DiveB.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDERC.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTSD.CONSENT AGENDAAll items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council andwill be considered as one motion.  There will be no separate discussion of these items.  Ifdiscussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and consideredseparately.  City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item.  Refer to thecouncil packet for each staff report.1.Approve City Council Minutes dated May 28, 20192.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated May 21, 20193.Approve Subdivision with Variance for Lotus Woods (formerly Eidsness)4.Approve Stipulation for Settlement Agreement for Acquisition of Property Located at740 Vogelsberg Trail in Conjunction with the Highway 101 Improvements, City ProjectNo. 14­085.Approval of Feasibility Study with HKGi for Trail Plan Concepts and NaturalResource Inventory on the Newly Acquired Parkland at Lake Ann Park6.Approve Temporary On­Sale Liquor License Request; St. Hubert CatholicCommunity; Harvest Festival on September 14, 20197.Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County for TH 5 Regional Trail andUnderpass8.Approve Resolution 2019­XX Establishing Emergency Slow­No Wake Area on LakeMinnewashta; and adopt Ordinance XXX Amending Section 6­49 of the ChanhassenCity Code Concerning Slow­No WakeE.VISITOR PRESENTATIONSVisitor Presentations requesting a response or action from the City Council must complete andsubmit the Citizen Action Request Form (see VISITOR GUIDELINES at the end of this agenda)1.Tour de Tonka 2019 ­ Tim Litfin, Minnetonka Community EducationF.PUBLIC HEARINGSG.NEW BUSINESS1.Consider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front YardSetback for Property Located at 3617 Red Cedar Point2.Approve Contract for Design and Construction of the Powers Boulevard/Lake LucyRoad Pedestrian Improvements3.Ordinance XXX: Amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Chanhassen City CodeEstablishing an Economic Development CommissionH.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONSI.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONSJ.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION1.Building Permit Data as of 06­06­20192.Review of Claims Paid 06­10­20193.Municipal Legislative 2019 Legislative Session ReportK.ADJOURNMENTL.WORK SESSIONNote:  Work sessions are open to the public.1.Discuss Lighting System Efficiency Upgrades for Public Works, Library, and City HallM.GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONSWelcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting.  In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen CityCouncil wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council.  That opportunity is providedat every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations.Anyone seeking a response or action from the City Council following their presentation is required tocomplete and submit a Citizen Action Request Form. An online form is available athttps://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/action or paper forms are available in the city council chambers prior tothe meeting.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. 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 Houlihan's, 530 Pond Promenade in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event.  All members of the public are welcome. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Buy Chanhassen Purple Project Presentation Section 5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.1. Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, Office Manager File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Buy Chanhassen Citizen Action Request Form City Council - Citizen Action Request Form Complete this form and submit it prior to the City Council meeting date you wish to present your request. Select the date of the City Council meeting you plan to attend to make your visitor presentation.* NOTE: The City Council meets on the second and fourth Mondays of each month with the following exceptions in 2019: March 25 - Meeting CANCELLED May 28 (Tuesday meeting-Monday, May 27 is a holiday) November 12 (Tuesday meeting-Monday November 11 is a holiday) December 23 - Meeting CANCELLED Printable 2019 City Meeting Calendar 2019 City 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 First Name* Buy Chanhassen Last Name* c/o Vernelle Clayton Address1* 422 Santa Fe Circle Address2 City* Chanhassen State* MN Zip* 55317 Citizen Action Request Form 6/10/2019 Phone Number* 952-975-0444 Email* vernelle@vclayton.com If no email address, enter "none." Council Action Requested* Buy Chanhassen in cooperation with Meet Minneapolis is seeking a dialogue with the city council regarding the benefits to the community, and particularly to the business community, derived from the many visitors to our three major metro destinations: Chanhassen Dinner Theatres, Paisley Park, and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. Provide a brief description of the action you are requesting from the City Council. Summary of Information* Meet Minneapolis will be sharing some of its research, including an estimate of the number of visitors using our hotels. We hope the City Council will share information on the volume of inquiries it receives from prospective visitors. We will be sharing some marketing opportunities and potential costs. Provide a narrative of the request including need, costs, timetable, background, etc. 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. Questions? Contact Deputy City Clerk Kim Meuwissen at 952-227-1107 or by email. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Key Financial Strategy: Pavement Management Program Deep Dive Section 5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.2. Prepared By Jason Wedel, Public Works Director/City Engineer File No:  SUMMARY See attached PowerPoint presentation and funding scenario attachments. ATTACHMENTS: Pavement Management PowerPoint 3.3M No Debt 3.6M No Debt 3.3M Continuous 3.6M Continuous Last Year Pavement Management Discussion City Council Work Session June 10, 2019 Review of Past Information The inspections are done on a 3-year cycle, so for any given year the average OCI is based off the projected OCI for 2/3 of the city and the inspected OCI for the remaining 1/3.Here are the recent results: Year OCI New Miles of Street 2019 70 2018 73 0.26 2017 74 0.00 2016 74 0.00 2015 69 0.11 2014 70 0.47 2013 69 1.00 2012 72 0.88 2011 74 0.48 2010 77 0.15 The big jump from 2015 to 2016 is likely because the roads in Carver Beach were reclaimed in 2015.There are a lot of street segments in that area, so when the average OCI is calculated per segment, a project like that skews the numbers. Review of Past Information Below are the results of two OCI-driven scenarios using today’s OCI, which are maintaining 70 OCI and 60 OCI for Local and MSA roadways: •70 OCI –20 year total budget would be $68,000,000, with an average annual budget of $3,400,000 •60 PCI –20 year total budget would be $63,000,000, with an average annual budget of $3,150,000 Review of Past Information Table below summarizes protocol used in Cartegaph: Condition Category OCI Recommended Activity in Cartegraph Cost per Square Foot Impact Excellent 95 –100 Do Nothing $0 0 Good 85 –94 AC -Surface Treatment $0.16 20% Satisfactory 75 –84 AC -AC Overlay < 2”$2.00 65% Fair 50 –74 AC -AC Overlay > 2”$2.55 75% Poor 40 –49 AC -Patching – Shallow/Leveling $1.20 10% Fail 0 –39 AC -Reconstruct -Full $10.37 100 Absolute These costs can be summarized as follows: •Street Overlay (2”-3”) = $350,000 per mile •Street Reconstruction = $1,500,000 per mile Review of Past Information 2019 OCI Index rating can be broken down as follows: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Poor Fair Satisfactory GoodPercentage of Street NetworkStreet Condition 2019 Street Ratings 21%23% 16% 40% Poor (0-49) = 24 miles Fair (50-75) = 27 miles Satisfactory (75-85) = 18 miles Good (85-100) = 46 miles Total mileage = 115 miles Review of Past Information The cost in 2019 to replace all of the streets that are currently in poor condition and to mill & overlay all of the streets in fair condition would be as follows: Street Reconstruction = 24 miles x $1.5M = $36M Street Mill & Overlay = 27 miles x $0.35M = $9.45M Street Reconstruction 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014201620182020202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044204620482050205220542056205820602062206420662068Cummulative MilesYear Original Construction Replacement (~50 years) Current Year Street Reconstruction The average life expectancy of a street is 50-years. After 50-years streets need to be completely reconstructed. City streets that are now in the 50-year old category are a combination of streets that were constructed in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The average rate of new street construction between the 60’s and 70’s is 1.6 miles per year. 1.6 miles x $1.5M = $2,400,000 per year Mill & Overlay 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1960196219641966196819701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008201020122014201620182020202220242026202820302032203420362038204020422044204620482050205220542056205820602062206420662068Cummulative MilesYear Original Construction Mill & Overlay (~25 years) Current Year Mill & Overlay The age at which streets should have a mill &overlay is 25 years. City streets that are now in the 25-year old category were built in the early 90’s. The average rate of new street construction in the 90’s was 3.5 miles per year. 3.5 miles x $0.35M = $1.2M per year Financial Impact Required Annual Budget for Streets: Street Reconstruction = $2,400,000 Street Mill & Overlay = $1,200,000 Total $3,600,000 This is slightly higher than the $3,400,000 that was mentioned earlier to maintain an average OCI of 70. Funding Currently, the cost for street improvements is split 60% City and 40% Assessed. Based on an estimated annual budget of $3.6M, the City would be responsible for $2.16M and $1.44M would be assessed. The City currently covers the entire cost of the projects out of the Revolving Street Assessment Fund. The assessed portion is repaid by property owners over a 10-year or 8-year period depending on whether it is a street reconstruction project or a mill & overlay project. The City charges an interest rate of Prime + 2%. For the recent Lake Drive East project that equated to a 7.5% interest rate. The interest revenue received by the City is put back into the Revolving Street Assessment Fund. Historically the City has been spending $2.0M per year of which 40% ($800,000) is assessed and 60% ($1,200,000) is covered by the Revolving Street Assessment Fund and tax levy. Funding A breakdown of the City’s funding responsibility is as follows: Total Annual Pavement Management Cost $3,600,000 Assessments (40%) ($1,440,000) City (60%)$2,160,000 The City currently has $378,500 in the tax levy for pavement management. The funding shortfall is therefore $2,160,000 -$378,500 = $1,781,500 Funding Options for funding include the following: •Assessments •Tax Levy •Franchise Fee Several funding scenarios were included in your packet and will now be discussed O w M H m T n NO5 j -0 CD o R 4 E d a's 0 w T Mtogsg4 0 D'O gagagamm' TUP0903 A d 3= d P, M 13j 2mmm 7a""=° G» 10. 2 Vii 4 f/1NN N Z C d< N aQ N WNW pNp WNW N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 8 N 8 N V W NA W N OtN° ONDN W fNTA W NNOO W J W A W NOOt°OD OlN 8N pN O O_ W AN W s UPS. A A O N W pN N H W OD t0 V W tD W O A O W O O O O 2$IN i NAW W OOA( pV( f T V OD ( tp/ 0 tVN0 O fWA° N AO AfT VNW BO IllsW OSOOVfWNNV OO Omp 000 N VISION W 18 CSNWOW 8OOpoN W HHOq V ODn W m p4D N O pWW N r W O O S N uu gA(pV NN Of tV°OtW° tOAN W j p8g$ SNAO S88 000 H H R H H H O O N p W O W 18O p O+ V o N N+ W WO NO p OW yWWWqqHE 101 0W8W H H H H H pHp 1 0W+ A V V N pW Of O 444 poll N+ W 000 N HUSHWVH J A 11 N8N III H H H H H H pHpOfy0WWJ+ tJ° Ofp° NP 444 WpVfilm yppO N NWm OAJmmfWJJ W( WW it°0O O Cm Nm p tppD NWWN NA m 11 N NA W f( WWpp W S W t°iO W W iVp O O O frVD 88 (fNLOiD pV N fVD fHWWHHiH Ni H H H W HIP N+ W N WJ W.fNO W W N pp1 { O -+ W W ON v pNOp WWW OO NW W WW ( W.tV WppW V pW fV0N8 N O O + WNWWA Wp W D A W O A W A S OW yOyW W+ w+NVp W OI . tN{WpOp O) O 8W ONp W W O tD ONWD IW{ ppp ( O(( DDS ( gi Wpp yWOyW (JJ OO pD ppApp 8W ( NVN(pp N (W N°i+ W O N p - pWHIMOp OpD N O pOD tW pppp ppWpp OpOp Opp AOS p 8W N N Nmill WO W W N O V W N W N N W yW NpNp (N(NN WNW HNNW W AW W+ Wp pq pWN1 J(A1 pWNAOlQ Wpp t0 W WA WW NOj+ t fT WW A 08p mill NO aAV v.1 if NN NNNN W V On Cn A -t f NP W pppp WW W W NN W V 4 N+ Boa pW N W N S N V A N Om ppppppppW N oW p 8 11 NAWO++ N m v N N W O Va m A i T n N= o1DG<umian j -V co n N m m to n O N m CI N J ca0o 3 Ss 0.6( Z0 0 o aa0o a A W Nc J ooB m m ocn ae y 9--1 O N N N N N N Np N N N ONO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N N N N N N W O V p1NA W N+OtO (» Jp)NA W N+Otpm V W tTA N+O V Xjj (l N O 3 pp44{{ pp DD pqD p V N A 14 0 VJ OD V ND mp W m N d pJ O (l AA N OJtp0 p QW WA T8 W 8ao_o V (p(W( N+(Q A1ptWp (p A(J A O N A8 AO W O W W O U J0000 0000 H N H+H HpS N N V O O A O W 00. O O p pJ( N NJ pN1 ai O -Wo 1D AHN W J J1 V 8 ( 8 pm.00 O Oo N OOO y4A mO+ fmi c n QAp O 0 O O8l 088 N OO tJD O N tO A N V V J 8O O QpWp 2WN N Ol O W 8O O O O O f W N( H O( pJN NJJ Wm O! A N8O f!D 8. fOT 808080 HHHH HH(, 1 H WWp NNN y p W W tJ VO H WH t0 A OD W N O A N O tD O O O HJHHHH p W_tppN0(8 ApV N_ A W O N 8 Nt b t+00 N W8 W W W fJp OtW00 W W tAO 00 8NO g M A HWHHHHH pH Ol A NN O W W OW( A pN m pN f W W W N ttAJ qm+ y++ A.D ypW 8W Op H HHd1 CHH NN Now" V N A App N-( b pe a O N (b A O . L p O) W Of W H O Ol A N v NA 8W N O+ tppfD W N fOTq NN ( N NNHN H+H+H+ OlO pJ OpD Ol pW L W SNI ppf N el Nps 3-4 AO O1 N N tW _ tpNpO+t++ NtCDO pt tAp OfJ G1 V N Ng 8W NA N O W WW Nv JOWN + W Ol tJ0 e OW N+ Ap V Ntop tAOO tt o (toJ t app A fW0 W 8O O AW NN W plgqj V N N( pv OS pJ iJNtmO W X001NOWNW WN W N WN tfryT 00V WCDW OD W fNp o W O p tNSA ON!>O O WN tA OI tOp WN N tnN OC)N t2 W of O yWy V N 8W pV t-p+A O N W is W V O tN O,CJD W A NCD NO W VIS A A fVO 8W N OO OtJJ W HHHH HH HN Np tNp JNNNNA O OI OD O{ pW D O W tA W N oW pW gj W Npp { J pWA N V CD tN NO( WNt NA JO t>1 W t!1 N 0 W o OD O tpp pA 8 ppb y(pp tHp (Np fNpNNpN pN1 (JN1 fOONLOD (DO A J y {pApp rCNpD W j N-p® ppb W Np {+p pLpD ttp. D tW 1W t0 0 W JN N V Ntp j tC D CD fOA pW tWp N 8+ f pO AtNOA H H H H H H pW ( Np NpNNpN(N O p N WN N+ IJ pot pW V W N N Op W I (GSD O WNW ( AOI GD A V wto NtnNO pWpN ppW A JN tvWp SW W O.J. tppJD toWp N A W tWO n N T T n N' 03 .gym c000000Noo..N 3. Q3 a a V ONi N A W N - N+ O G ui N n mumN 4 - l N M. m --' H 9 W M A 3 3 m W o o o _ ()cn a r m O d i n 0. o ff A fD T 3 m N mmbWNW want m p O Ao N Nn n v(AN (/)NN 2 z c d m m o e m m a 2 91TC T2(2 D O N O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O qpNpp Ng pNo 8Ng pNo O J W NA W N- N+OMM V Q NA W N OtO QDJ O)N O j pN H H(R p+vv NNAVfTJOOWDDNJN WOMAN V V V NHHH 6ooVV ODoNVpp V W ftp Of p fppAN V H I-- NH H qq DEIN ppAJ WJ IS1110 H H H H H H NNp H + O + + f D + A VV NNHMW ftp OINE N N H+ H+ N NNp H O) M A v qqNN qqW qq W Of m OtWO tOO N+ j M M N pN WJmml ppOp+++ Y J W MOl N ftOOtWO ffffpfppDDDppp C pW Oy W+ WW + N V W tWp W W ftD O MW H W 1 0+ H N H iH W 1 + 1 N OND W 1 O! W V ttN N V W M p) M 111111 H1HHH HmH 11111119 1111111NHN11 NWVNN 11111 HHH N 1MMVWp 21112 110V 0- O 7 :. Q (0L/ D o N cn v (D U) cn U NU a CD O O ^ Yl N O { N WO W Q MW co O U) A D V G vDv^^ V' U) r(Dr^ rVr^/ V, W OAD N A CpJp WWA 8 ( O81 pA. N n pW app W pppp p Opp A W p$": p fp 5O5 5O5 R'OOOO i N WWOf m WW + V pp NN 88 p+ OO p ppS 8088 8ON 8O COW1 BO N S N y vJN W+ N8p Op 0. NOOO N 1 W maS 111 W pOOO N N W W O O m W88 O O S N 8 O N pO jig 88X00 8O HIMOW 000 NO W W WN N NN ONN N 3 WW+ WM+ NM W N+ WN oOp 818N is p NOOfp p W a O N m N tT N g N O l 8OQ 8W5 ( pW I N N V pOpOO N I O O tn W p p Qp WW pW NON W W N A IPAINN VIP O_tND 1 9 P itsWpyNN N O O W A A I N NHIM IfJ, A A fS S 8 8 JOmON Np A t N O M V W NnWO 0 M 11"A"! li5 NNp) tWOi+ A HAND 911 8181 lit OtOp W pppp ffpp pp p{pWAONVLY!OW WO WWN Milo NNiO N V S W 11121111 OvN 8181 WNpW f+ O N AANgNq++yNy N NfO NOS A .fOp ASO pNp 1 9 S wSK o+o 191 gOg 5p5 l 25 25E ill M A8 W W W G WillNfpO pD W W J Opp pp ( A N S A N O N ttfyVffpppppd ( WLWN{ l18W (N(/ 8NA V 1 O O W 1D V 1D O W oill 8O 8A 8T WO O V O N N(WJ ( pW p O v A 0 N WNp A A O W p% Np 818+1111H Bit Sl8N Nit N W pppD_ WVpONW110AN OJiN pNpj 8 O A 914 Op8l Np W Oy N fp V A W oW W+ O _fMT 01 O) pOi O NO pWp D (. JJJ . tNp ANNt41J N p NJ S 8 N M V N f OD mW MN+OfO A W W W N W V NN W V V A A W pl O fT WW W Av WCO W Op W H IV U Mpp NINE NN fSD N o D O g+l U 1111N81 112 vOMD OOOW vO 0- O 7 :. Q (0L/ D o N cn v (D U) cn U NU a CD O O ^ Yl N O { N WO W Q MW co O U) A D V G vDv^^ V' U) r(Dr^ rVr^/ V, 0 o aJ N T T N NtJJ N N N N N N j 5 T On aIQ N T TO n 3 ID N d H 6 V Ol N A W N N O fa S i N TI N@ 3 m 3 o S S S S S S o ^ g o o 0 3 r n Q n 3 o r 3 m m o m 3 n cn o m 3 O N OtJ N N N OtJ N N O O O O O O O O O O P P O p 0 V Ol N A W N+ 0 0) O D V W N A W N+ O OV $ CN N N O In OG O A V V OD V W SpD N 4 001 N A COn tpm wNw tW0 fop ANDA V J i N N P• A>> W S O N. i • IW A V NOD f Onn WOmof055 A O W OAQOQ omf$Ti'ivK m a25 mS INii SOS g25g OD N A(Vp O t0 ptpO JT VJIVOOd (O A N V A O O) W v 8O 8S O O 8O ( A 8O OpWD O A O N 8080 S0 O O O N A O D Op N W O OAi P NN N0) pV ( N T tVJJWIVOOIWOIDaN V O W 8O 8O 10DO O O m S W 8S 8S 8O O O O O 2 (R H H W O N Wo W •„ JIT N pW + y +oW N t pN : z 08 N N4tN T tq W+(+JJ+ A0 w W IVO O m Ip A N O PD ON m fW0 fpOVp1)808 m 0 0 8O , tO 8W O A O W p00 0 0 0 HHHH pH H m cNpO) p see W oW+ OSD N. tOD N W W NW W W W IVD OtWO tOA O W oN JJN+vA V OS 8O 8 O N O pAp Sw OSO WN N O D IO N NNp W W O + + A v W N f TO ANAV N W N W tp0 A N O N N fyO ONA W+ W+ W OINNOIWO tD O N A+ pyA mNNtvWO V VpW+O Q) S N O W Vo pAW O In fpJ Ol O m O fW0 O L W s. N O O m J O m O J O V V N N A/JN OIpN O :+ ID ++ tW WN N V 81J W OD O1 N N A Ol W m AA C W tpWtT ff {qqWO ppCpppp WA tpWD _J OJ 8WWWW pp 8O tpO Oy tH H WI D HHtyH W OQOWIOTpp W_tNO p I N pJp p p A Ap+ W_(WO t+J ppb tW N O! OpN p A A_tW0 WIJ tJ v OWN+WOI 8O N pAON8V ppppAA+ Ov OvW+ NDN 8O 8W O ON NNVOlIVOO H H H H H H H H pN ONIT NNITN4WI 1FSWODOWW_INp+W8 OD A N NN pl p+ TWO 8fnitQNppA W A+ It p1 V OOpD fD N V oW WW W N 1 A 0-1- T V N O Np pNp J Nt0 tA00WO) N O W N+ W O W OVD pNAptJ ppNNp pyNpy(JpISTaI OAWvOvvOA r9 ASD VWi SO p 8W ON O.N tVO Opm fN. N Q) pN N INT A WNW N O) W W O W Ol OD ++ N V A W A N GD N 01 N N J+ O A/) W+ v Op V NWOND20 WNOWN+ W S O Ipppp p (T (pTp 8 vV 00 W 9W2 pT1 ( pT O IOD 8 pp W pT pHf ( H( TT (HHIHUuI, H TTWODO W W N m A W V W W N N v 0 W A+ N O A NN +•+ O++ 0 A O O V NWIWOmtA00NOWfT+ O m N W OO D fV00 A JNm O A O'V W tvAON ITT {(TT { ppJJpp W( OD OIWITTW pqppp ppbN pA WW W V NJt1 A + VJ_D N pp 1 O8 1W8 N + A 9191- m W V NtmO OD tAOwW Sm O O tpVp yO p- p- Nv Wv00 m W W W O N O O W W pN tOTTWOD O W tO A WW O P8O N Ip N N N V NtHO OWD 8V pmW t.OJ ((t.0 W pm SO pPp N O W W O O tvNJV ON A O O A tNOOtD N H H NNN N WNVN o8 TT0tJW A 0NN SNW WOOAIJNW0. O W 0) Nw 0 O A V N pH pN1 ANITTOfOD O N V tT N .-. AfOpp +{ pW{ TT NN pT O 01N N yV N pW Vt Sapp00+ W N N0O A V N N O O N O J O N O D IpWpWIvWpOl 8O ( V 8W+ O ID W O•N tW0 CEO 5d a m a n o 4^ N TI o @ m A U) OC s'3 o a m ryTry N OD s A( pV( N NJ W JpWNp OD A dotp0 ppWp 8O WA BN pp V A N V ppp ( NNW pp N8O p 0ppp N yp pf ppCNV. . 8O WA OpWD 80808080 j H H A 0N4 V08 r p N yN Oq D pN i p N N 0 p pfV0OfWDo N N J o 0 0 W O O O W O O O N pJ( NNwooLOAN V Qpd 8 00 0 8 O 8 O 0 S88S 0 0 0 0 AOpV( pD N D OJ N yONN NJ W N OtWO D N ADpD Nm 8O A O 8O O 8AA O A 805080 000 H H R H pH N+ A V N N Nwwm- N O O d O o O O O N WWW 2fwtow w( NW O O+GD ppp88NO 8 O 8 pON p88 W 000 H HNHH pH O++ W N+ Ayp W Ot80 NN A8N ha= tw f8D A W W NfJOOfWO tD pV/ f l A W O+O 8O O O ppm . ippNO 000 H H H H H H H NN oN W N + O W N W W W O N yW AA N S W pAp {p NON OpO ( m t+ S w O Oi N w O m ow pWm pp OpV OOH lOODI WW OpOpN O! p pyO W+(+ JN( qW01WNm0 Wp Wpp OD W N 8AN 0 0 Wp pN Npp t0 0 0 Vq fq0 NNNNH+KHH+ V NA V O W OOO N W W pOA W pNN A W NmNAANO OpD 0D A W W p q HN H M H j jN+ N W N r V N N+ W N SND W N NN1NtjtjVf{Op WOIOW N OoOD W ppAppN yA f0 NOppN OD ppWppppp W mN 8A ( tWpp W4 A to W W O W+ Wmppp W N W W O ppA NN 0 pAAm pNJ1 + W A W O mfND W W( pppp pm N N V W f0 W W 8-N+ pOo1! W& nnnnnnt O O O A tvAO W NN 0pp N pN11"W882TSO-W 8 O 2 W A OOND yN W A WWt" t NfT V W t0 per tON p0Op0 AV J 00 Ov A H H W OODW e w N PD N pOp! OpWmp tppp0pjmm JOD O t0 Np (pOJ W -+ W N H OtD WpNvJ O V N N O V f(,,J100 OOD NV gyp. f OWNtTN 01 (N WJJ pJp 8ppp A W V AOf WN WWtm0W t{4NApp t0 W tp A fAT ppA. O fNJJ OOD H Nd• CDN W W fD OWVD V f0 O A pppdDGlOI (W(41 O fJI p! v SDN pN OD 8A ON W N CEO CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Approve City Council Minutes dated May 28, 2019 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the City Council minutes dated May 28, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: City Council Summary Minutes dated May 28, 2019 City Council Verbatim Minutes dated May 28, 2019 City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 28, 2019 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MAY 28, 2019 Mayor for a Day Amelia Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Coleman COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Jason Wedel, and City Attorney Andrea Poehler Mayor Ryan read the letter submitted by Amelia Wagner, the fifth grade winner of the Mayor for a Day essay contest. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilwoman Coleman moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated May 13, 2019 2. Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated April 10, 2019 3. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated April 16, 2019 4. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 23, 2019 5. Receive Senior Commission Minutes dated April 26, 2019 6. Item pulled by Mayor Ryan for discussion 7. Item pulled by Councilman McDonald for discussion 8. Resolution #2019-27: Recommendation to Carver County Board to Reject Bids for Lyman Boulevard Project 9. Approve Amendment to Public Purpose Expenditure Policy City Council Summary – May 28, 2019 2 10. Construction Cooperation Agreement with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for Construction of Cured In-Place Pipe for Sanitary Sewer I/I Project 11. Approve Special Assessment Agreement for 2625 Forest Avenue 12. Resolution #2019-28: Approve Labor Agreement with Local 49 International Union of Operating Engineers All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Gretchen Holmgren from Old National Bank presented a check in the amount of $3,000 in support of the Summer Concert Series. Resolution #2019-26: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves a resolution accepting a $3,000 donation from Old National Bank for the Summer Concert Series and staff is directed to prepare a letter of thanks to Old National Bank. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. LAW ENFORCEMENT/FIRE DEPARTMENT UPDATE. Chief Don Johnson provided the monthly statistics for April regarding staffing, calls for service, training, other activities at Crown College, World Vision Walk, assisting Girl Scouts with their EMS badge, annual fire department banquet, training with Mdewakanton and Victoria Fire Departments and an update on Fire Marshal projects. Lt. Lance Pearce reviewed monthly numbers for calls for service, arrest and citation summary, training, community relations, and staffing. CONSENT AGENDA: D-6. ITHILIEN POND: APPROVE QUANTITY OVERRUN. Mayor Ryan asked the City Engineer/Public Works Director to explain the additional expense above the approved contract amount and how the City evaluates stormwater ponds. Resolution #2019-26: Councilwoman Coleman moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council approves the modification to the contract for the Ithilien Pond maintenance project in the amount of $73,592.50 to include the additional quantities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman McDonald and Mayor Ryan thanked city staff for having a Plan B for the Memorial Day celebration and moving the event into the library. City Council Summary – May 28, 2019 3 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt explained that the watershed district measured the lake depth of Lotus Lake which is currently 6 ½ inches below the ordinary high water mark. Mayor for the Day Amelia Wagner asked for a motion for adjournment. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MAY 28, 2019 Mayor for a Day Amelia Wagner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Coleman COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Jason Wedel, and City Attorney Andrea Poehler Mayor Ryan: Good evening everybody. Thank you for being here. As many of you remember back in March we had a Mayor for the Day contest and we asked fourth and fifth graders to write in on what they would do if they were Mayor for the Day and at our last council meeting we had fourth grader Emme Rouse but today we have our fifth grade winner Amelia Wagner. Congratulations. So we received many letters. A lot of them very awesome but Amelia’s was particularly detailed. She knew exactly what she wanted to do if she’d be Mayor for a Day and we all voted at the office and you were the winner so I wanted to share with you some of the key highlights that Amelia said if she were Mayor for the day. So first she said that if she was mayor she would accompany me to some of Chanhassen schools to read to students because she thinks that every student at any age should be encouraged to read. Next she said after we visited the schools, the kids then we would go to Summerwood of Chanhassen and spend time talking with the seniors that are living there and then she would report back to the Senior Commission with any ideas or thoughts that the seniors had so she’s very intergenerational in her thinking. That was very impressive. Then she said that she would really like to thank the people who work so hard to make our city of Chanhassen a great place to live. She would have bakeries come in and do a little event and she is a musician and she would even invite some of her friends and fellow musicians to come and have a little concert just to say thank you to the city employees which is such a nice idea. And then she also said that she’s really interested in a lot of the current projects and so you would come to see the different projects and she said even for an 11 year old I have great ideas and feedback that she would be happy to share. And then last but certainly not least it’s something that’s very important to all of us at the city. You said that you would help clean up the picturesque park of Lake Ann so that there isn’t any trash to make the lake dirty or murky and that everybody could fully enjoy the beautiful lake and parks in Chanhassen. So we loved all of these ideas and she definitely deserves for Mayor for the Day so again congratulations. Could the council come down again for a picture with Amelia. Chief do you want to be in this picture too? That’d be awesome. Well done Mayor Amelia. You did way better at hitting the gavel than I did on my first go around so well done. Thank you again and welcome to this evening’s meeting. To those that are watching at home, we are glad that you can join us. For the Chanhassen City Council – May 28, 2019 2 record we have one council member absent. Councilmember Dan Campion is not present tonight. Our first action is our agenda approval. Council members are there any modifications to the agenda as printed? If not we will proceed with the published agenda. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Ryan: Are there any items that the council would like to consider separately? I did have one. Item D-6. And we will move that to G-1 under Old Business. Councilman McDonald: Miss Mayor? Mayor Ryan: Yes. Councilman McDonald: I’d like to also remove D-7 from the consent agenda. Mayor Ryan: D-7. Perfect and we’ll have that under visitor presentations. Thank you. Alright is there a motion to approve consent agenda items D-1 through 5 and 8 through 12? Councilwoman Coleman moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated May 13, 2019 2. Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated April 10, 2019 3. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated April 16, 2019 4. Receive Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 23, 2019 5. Receive Senior Commission Minutes dated April 26, 2019 6. Item pulled by Mayor Ryan for discussion 7. Item pulled by Councilman McDonald for discussion 8. Resolution #2019-27: Recommendation to Carver County Board to Reject Bids for Lyman Boulevard Project 9. Approve Amendment to Public Purpose Expenditure Policy Chanhassen City Council – May 28, 2019 3 10. Construction Cooperation Agreement with the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for Construction of Cured In-Place Pipe for Sanitary Sewer I/I Project 11. Approve Special Assessment Agreement for 2625 Forest Avenue 12. Resolution #2019-28: Approve Labor Agreement with Local 49 International Union of Operating Engineers All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Ryan: Next we’ll do the visitor presentation and move consent agenda D-7 to the visitor presentations. Let me pull that up real quickly. Todd Gerhardt: Your motion included 7 right? Mayor Ryan: D-7 is, no. Moved to the visitor presentation. Todd Gerhardt: So after the presentation you need to accept the donation. Mayor Ryan: Okay gotch ya. Is Audrey doing the? Todd Gerhardt: Yes she’s in the back row with Old National representatives. Mayor Ryan: Okay perfect. So then we’ll move to visitor presentations. Visitor presentations are included with each of our regular scheduled meeting. Anyone wishing to address the council on a matter that is not specifically on the agenda may step to the podium. Please provide your name and address for the record and then please address the council. You will have 5 minutes to present your item. If your request includes an action item from staff or council please complete a Citizen Action Request Form so that we are clear on what you’re asking and we can appropriately follow up with your request. However if you are simply making a comment with no action required a form does not need to be completed. Are there any visitor presentations other than the one from the Old National Bank? Okay. Well then I will invite Old National Bank to come forward with their Summer Concert Series. Will they make a presentation? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah and then we’ll get your picture accepting the check. Mayor Ryan: Oh okay. Welcome. If you want to make a, say a few words. Gretchen Holmgren: Well I didn’t plan anything because we didn’t last year but I’m Gretchen Holmgren. I’m the Banking City Manager for Old National Bank here in Chanhassen and it is our honor to continue the sponsorship of the Summer Concert Series for the City. It’s something Chanhassen City Council – May 28, 2019 4 that I think is just great for the community. It gets everybody together and just creates that comradery in the community so I’m happy to present the check again. Mayor Ryan: Perfect, thank you. We appreciate it. Gretchen Holmgren: Yeah. Chelsea Petersen: Get a little photo. Todd Gerhardt: You’re taking on Klein’s past history and doing this so. Mayor Ryan: Perfect, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Thank you. We’ll get this in that tube at the bank. Gretchen Holmgren: …thank you. Todd Gerhardt: So Mayor if we could just have a motion to accept the donation from Old National Bank then we can complete that item. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Is there any council member that would like to make a motion? Councilman McDonald: Well first of all I pulled it off the agenda so what I wanted to do. Mayor Ryan: Oh, I apologize. Councilman McDonald: I didn’t see it on the agenda and I wanted to make sure that Old National got some recognition for the fact that they’re going to continue the concert series because I do believe that it provides a great benefit to the community. I know it’s well liked. I hear a lot of things about it. You have great diversity as far as music. It is just amazing. There’s something for country fans. Rock and roll fans. Even the kids so thank you and I just wanted to make sure that you got recognized properly. I didn’t see the check ceremony like we did in the past. I’ll be glad to make the motion unless anyone else has any comments. Then I would like to make a motion that the City Council approves a resolution accepting a $3,000 donation from Old National Bank for the Summer Concert Series and staff is directed to prepare a letter of thanks to Old National Bank. Mayor Ryan: We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Ryan: Valid motion and a second. Chanhassen City Council – May 28, 2019 5 Resolution #2019-26: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves a resolution accepting a $3,000 donation from Old National Bank for the Summer Concert Series and staff is directed to prepare a letter of thanks to Old National Bank. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Ryan: That motion carries 4-0. Thank you again. We appreciate it and I did want to also add, I know you had sent an email that you were coming and wanted to do this but we really appreciate as Councilman McDonald said your continued support of this very popular event. I think the first event starts on Thursday, June 13th if I’m not mistaken so you have a number of evening events as well as a couple of noon events but it’s extremely popular so encourage the community to come on down. Ride your bikes. You can bring a picnic. I believe the park and rec usually serves popcorn and water and it’s always very well attended so thank you for your continued support. We appreciate it. Alright. Next on the agenda is our fire department and law enforcement update. FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Mayor Ryan: Chief. Chief Don Johnson: Good evening Mayor and council. Thank you. This is my fire department update for this month. We’re currently at 43 of 45 firefighters. I’ve got one firefighter on military leave. He’s actually completing his MLS school to continue his reserves in the Coast Guard so hopefully we’ll have him back this summer as well as one in June. We have one firefighter on medical leave. Hopefully he’ll be back on Saturday. The 2018 hiring group, the 4 of them finish tonight so we’re happy. It’s been a long year for them. I believe they started last March so it’s been a long year for them and we’re really lucky to get them back on, get them on the line. And the weekend duty crews went well in both April and May with only Saturdays scheduled. In June we’ll start Saturdays and Sundays so our first full scheduling month is done and it went really well so I look forward to continuing to support that. Some of the things that we’ve done on Saturdays on the weekends with the duty crew is help some of events that are happening on the weekend so instead of having people come in just for the event we can cover that event. The Lion’s do a hearing walk at the Arboretum which we’ll be covering with the duty crew and then we also have them help on the 6K War Vision Walk that we had in Chanhassen here so finding some things for those folks to do on the weekends as well to cover some shifts has been pretty exciting for us. April we had 64 calls for service which is the lowest since about December of 2017 so I’m not quite sure what’s going on out there but the break is nice so. 34 of those were medicals with one motor vehicle accident and injuries. Six fire related calls. We had one small garage fire on Mission Hills Way which I’ll get into here in a little bit. We had 2 mutual aid assists to Minnetonka. One mutual aid assist to Excelsior and 2 minor cooking fires here. The Mission Hills Way is turning into kind of an important discovery on our parts here in Chanhassen as the dry sprig in the garage that was installed with the system did not actuate with the fire so through the Fire Marshal’s investigation as well as going with the State Chanhassen City Council – May 28, 2019 6 Fire Marshal’s office we are putting together some notifications for both the townhome associations, the management companies and the owners for these, these dry sprigs were actually intended to be replaced after 10 years. The ones on Mission Hills Way West are 25 years old so we’re trying to get the word out to our community as well as work with the State Fire Marshal’s office to, this could be a bigger issue so. Most of these systems are checked on an annual basis and that would be something that these associations and owners could expect from a sprinkler company to, as part of their annual inspection so we kind of want to get some awareness out there and we’re working with Amy from the City and we’ll be doing some social media blasts and things like that for the future so one little fire has kind of taught us that we might have a little issue to deal with and hopefully we can get that word out for folks that live in townhomes and some of these apartment buildings so. Councilwoman Coleman: Chief as someone who lives on Mission Hills Way I want to ask how critical this issue at this point in time. Chief Don Johnson: Well the homeowners association there is involved. The occupancy was a renter. It wasn’t an owner so we’re dealing with the owner and we’re hoping to see them start looking at those systems in a hurry as far as at least ensuring that the heads are replaced on a manufacturer’s recommendation so. I know they’ve been in contact with the sprinkler contractor out there in that particular development so I would think that the homeowners there should be hearing something pretty soon. Councilwoman Coleman: Hope so. Chief Don Johnson: Monthly training. We had an officers meeting and some training on our new scheduling software. Hazardous materials training with Victoria Fire. We had a live burn at SCALE and cancer, cardiac, PTSD awareness with MnFire and EMS training tonight so next week assisted, I’ve assisted Crown College this last going with a mass casualty drill on May 2nd. Doing some assessments with their incident command process. We had several volunteers help with the World Vision Walk. Three of our four firefighters assisted the Girl Scouts last Saturday with a visit and helping them getting their EMS badge so it’s kind of exciting stuff for us over there. As some of you know we had our annual banquet on May 18th. Happy to say that Rob Frisbie was reappointed the firefighter of the year for the second year in a row. We’re pretty proud of Rob in that so thanks to Councilman McDonald and Mayor Ryan for attending and Councilwoman Coleman for, that was difficult for us because she plays double roles so thank you for that. Also assisted MFire with their, some training with their tactical medic group. Fire Marshal’s been extremely busy. We’ve got a lot of major projects in town here that are keeping us on our toes and hopefully with North Coop and the Lifetime Corporate, Venue and Aldi project are in full bloom over there as well and then some of the stuff that we’re also working on with the Bernard Group and their employees for CPR and AED training so we’ve been extremely busy so the lull in calls has been kind of nice so I can stand for questions. Chanhassen City Council – May 28, 2019 7 Mayor Ryan: Thank you Chief. Council any questions? I don’t think so. Thank you, appreciate it. Chief Don Johnson: Thank you. Lt. Lance Pearce: Good evening Mayor, council. Mayor Ryan: Welcome. Lt. Lance Pearce: So April. Was a little slow for us but we’re still keeping busy in the city. We had 54 Group A crimes, 24 Group B crimes, 269 traffic stops resulting in 4 DUI arrests. We had 11 narcotics arrest and for accidents we had 34 property damage and 1 injury crash and in total we wrote 61 citations for the month and had 848 total calls for service. For training we had hands on use of force topics. Some evidence procedure review and also review from the Minnesota DNR and our Carver County Land and Water Services on review for aquatic invasive species since our boating season’s coming up here so just a review for that to try to prevent any more infestation. Community relations. Detective Angie Nucci did a presentation at St. Hubert’s Church for internet safety. That was pretty well attended and got some feedback on. Then on April 30th the sheriff’s office had our annual award ceremony and just a note for the City that Chanhassen Community Service Officer Joe LeFevere was awarded a life saving medal at that event. The City Manager and the Assistant Manager were both in attendance and we thank them both for showing up. That was nice to see you guys there. Staffing update. We’re at full staff for the city of Chanhassen and for the sheriff’s office as a whole we have 2 people currently in field training and our 2 new cadets have moved on to field training as of today. I stand for any questions. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Council any questions? I don’t think so. Thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Got it all wrapped up. Windows in. Lt. Lance Pearce: Windows are this week. Got it all shingled and all that. Todd Gerhardt: Alright. Lt. Lance Pearce: Couple blisters on my feet… Todd Gerhardt: Lance is my new neighbor up north so. Mayor Ryan: How nice. Todd Gerhardt: It’s a small world when you’ve got a cabin right next to somebody else so. Mayor Ryan: Now you’ll feel extra safe. Chanhassen City Council – May 28, 2019 8 Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. I’ve got a BCA agent and a law enforcement guy so. Mayor Ryan: There you go you’re all set. Todd Gerhardt: I’m set. Mayor Ryan: Perfect, thank you. Appreciate it. Next up we’ll go to G-1 pulled off from the consent agenda. From D-6 to G-1. CONSENT AGENDA: D-6. ITHILIEN POND: APPROVE QUANTITY OVERRUN. Mayor Ryan: And who will give that report? Todd Gerhardt: Jason. Mayor Ryan: Jason? Okay. Jason Wedel: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. So the item before you this evening is for the Ithilien Pond maintenance project. That project was approved last fall and the actual work was done this winter. The original contract was exceeded by $73,592 and that was due to additional excavation that was needed once they started the pond excavation to restore it back to it’s original condition. There was more sediment in there than they had anticipated so while they’re there on site there’s just a need to keep moving forward and get the work done so that project was completed. The extra sediment was removed but we did exceed the original contract amount so that’s where we’re coming back to the City Council this evening to ask for approval on that. Mayor Ryan: Perfect, thank you and I had pulled this off one because you know the most obvious is that it was over twice as much of what we had initially budgeted but the other piece of it was that because of the increase in cost then we now have to put a 2019 project possibly on hold and we’ve talked about it over the course of the last few years about you know we have 250 stormwater ponds and we’re only going to be able to do them potentially once a year and then when they come in twice as much as what we anticipate and I had talked to you about this. You know what is the importance of these? You know how can we better evaluate? I know we have used an old school tactic in terms of evaluating how much sediment is going to be removed but how can we measure more accurately so we can be better prepared for that so if you could just explain some of that I’d really appreciate it. Jason Wedel: Sure absolutely. Thanks Mayor, council members. So the city has stormwater ponds. Stormwater ponds really serve two purposes. It’s for stormwater rate control and it’s for stormwater treatment so the ponds when you build new homes, new streets, you’re adding surfaces that are impervious. That means the water runs off them. It doesn’t soak into the Chanhassen City Council – May 28, 2019 9 ground so it prevent properties downstream from flooding the ponds are there to store that water temporarily and then slowly release it over time so you don’t have flooding issues downstream. The other purpose for ponds is for treatment. Sediment that washes off the streets. Phosphorus that comes from lawns and fertilizers, those things are caught in these stormwater ponds and then they’re trapped there rather than going downstream and going into our lakes and creeks and those types of things so it’s to protect our environment and it’s to prevent flooding so those are really the two purposes. So over time these ponds do collect that sediment and leaves and debris that get into our catch basins and flow into these ponds so it’s necessary to remove that sediment when they start filling up to restore them back to their original designs. Mayor Ryan: And so in the removal process because I know you get a lot of calls and we get calls as well people in their back yard and it’s starting to smell and can somebody from the city come out and evaluate you know this pond. If it’s toxic. I mean I know you get a lot of those questions and so could you just explain the process from the City perspective of how we move through this and evaluate these ponds. Jason Wedel: Yeah so every year we have our stormwater, our Water Resources Coordinator basically coordinates the efforts to inspect our ponds and our stormwater system so they review wherever we have a stormwater pipe emptying into a pond they get evaluated. That’s part of our MPCA permit as in MS4 we’re a statutory city where we have to report to the State every year that we’re doing these inspections so as part of that process we look at these ponds and then we prioritize them based on conditions and how much sediment has built up in them. Some ponds fill up quicker than others, depending on the surrounding properties so those inspections every year are what we use then to prioritize and pick off which ponds we’re going to do each year. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Thank you and it was you know important I think to have the discussion just because I know you do receive a lot of calls especially at this time of year and throughout the summer so I wanted to highlight that. And then just bring it to, you know I know council is obviously very well aware of the CIP process and you know as far forward as you can look it still sits at $80,000 so I just have asked Jason to take another look at that as we begin the budgeting process going forward so, just because more of these are going to come forward and when we look at doubling the cost of a project obviously I just want to make sure that we’re evaluating and preparing appropriately so thank you for your answers. I appreciate it. With that any council member would like to make a motion. Councilwoman Coleman: Sure the City Council approves the modification to the contract for the Ithilien Pond maintenance project in the amount of $73,592.50 to include the additional quantities. Mayor Ryan: We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: Second. Chanhassen City Council – May 28, 2019 10 Mayor Ryan: With a valid motion and a second. Resolution #2019-26: Councilwoman Coleman moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council approves the modification to the contract for the Ithilien Pond maintenance project in the amount of $73,592.50 to include the additional quantities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Ryan: That motion carries 4-0. Thank you again. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Councilman McDonald: Mayor I just want to say yesterday was our Memorial Day celebration and thanks to some very quick thinking on the part of city staff and everything they actually had a Plan B and that kept everybody dry. We moved into the library. I thought it was one of the more moving presentations we’ve had in a while. It was really good to hear first hand from someone who was actually over in Vietnam and I think the trials and tribulations that he happened to go through so I applaud city staff and the mayor. It was I think very well done and kept in honor of all the veterans and everyone who’s given their lives that Memorial Day would celebrate so hats off and thanks to you guys. Mayor Ryan: I’d like to echo those comments as well Councilman McDonald. It was a fantastic event. Appreciate the Legion’s participation. Special thanks to Jerry Ruegemer for his hard work and the overall preparation these last many months but then like Councilman McDonald to be prepared with a Plan B to make sure that it happened so fluidly and without a hiccup and it just was fantastic and to Lieutenant Commander Peterson, it was an incredibly moving speech that he gave. Standing ovation. I think it was extremely well received so I appreciate him being there so it was a great event and honored our fallen heroes as well as acknowledging our current veterans. Councilman McDonald thank you for your service but it was just a great event all around so thank you to staff for being so well prepared for a very important day for all of us. Any other council presentations? ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. You may be getting some phone calls on high water, especially on Lotus Lake. We were out there today. The watershed district did measure the depth of the lake. It has not reached the high water mark. We’re still roughly 6 ½ inches below that mark. We’ll monitor it again this week as ponds slowly release the water into the system as Jason explained. That’s how they’re designed so it may rise but there’s also an outlet from the lake so, so thank you to the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed district for going out and checking the depth for us on that. And I want to also thank Mayor Ryan for her speech. Jerry for his service. It was a great event. The room was full and it was just I think really one of the traditions that this city continues to put on in Memorial Day in recognizing our veterans and Chanhassen City Council – May 28, 2019 11 allies who put their life on the line to make our freedom as free as we can be so thank you to my staff for all the efforts that they put towards that. And that’s it. Mayor Ryan: Perfect, thank you. Anything on the correspondence discussion? If not could we get the Mayor to join us back up front please. Mayor for the Day Amelia Wagner: May I have a motion to adjourn? Councilman McDonald: So moved. Mayor for the Day Amelia Wagner: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 28, 2019 Mayor Ryan called the work session to order at 5:30 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, and Councilwoman Coleman COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Campion STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Jason Wedel, Greg Sticha, and Todd Hoffman PUBLIC PRESENT: Mary Freeburg Osborn 1111 Francesca Court, Chaska Paula & Jack Atkins 220 West 78th Street Sally Atkins 222 Chan View Nancy Simpson 3980 Country Oaks Drive DISCUSS PROPOSAL FOR RENTAL OF OLD VILLAGE HALL TO CHANHASSEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY. Chelsea Petersen and Todd Gerhardt provided background information on tenants that have occupied the Old Village Hall, and maintenance done to the building and site. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification of rental numbers. Jack Atkins presented background information on how the Historical Society was started through St. Hubert’s Church and highlights of what’s being proposed by the Chanhassen Historical Society to lease the Old Village Hall rent free for 3 to 5 years. Paula Atkins reviewed her visits to other Carver County historical societies. Hours of operation are planned for Saturdays 11:00 am to 2:00 pm. with the use of the city’s parking spaces located at Goddard School. Jack Atkins discussed the Prince Challenge with the winning quilt going on tour. Mayor Ryan asked what would be needed from the City to bring the building up to code for public use. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if the City has received interest from any other entities. Staff explained that they are currently working through the bankruptcy process and have not marketed the property. Councilman McDonald asked about potential future maintenance issues before asking if the historical society could cover electrical costs from their revenue stream. Jack Atkins explained that the Society lost $200 last year. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked about the funding source to maintain the building. Councilwoman Coleman and Mayor Ryan concurred with wanting to see a 3 to 5 year plan for building a revenue stream but discussed obstacles involved with that. Mayor Ryan explained that this item could be a part of the big picture with the 2020 budget process. City Council Work Session – May 28, 2019 2 KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGY: DISCUSS ESTABLISHING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. Todd Gerhardt explained that after discussions with Councilman McDonald and Councilwoman Tjornhom they felt the commission should be comprised of 5 members. Greg Sticha explained highlights of the ordinance establishing a Economic Development Commission. Mayor Ryan asked Councilwoman Tjornhom and Councilman McDonald for their desired make up between residential and commercial members. Councilwoman Tjornhom suggested 2 business members, 2 residents and 1 council member and suggested making the background requirements more general. Mayor Ryan asked about the role of a council member in this commission (voting or non-voting member) leaning towards keeping the commission as 5 members with the council member being a non-voting member. Councilwoman Coleman suggested 3 business members, 2 residents and 1 council member liaison. Todd Gerhardt explained it is up to the council to determine the make up of the commission. After discussion it was determined the make up will be decided after applications are received. Greg Sticha asked about term limits. After discussion it was decided to have a combination of 2 and 3 year terms. Councilman McDonald pulled out specific items in the ordinance that he had concerns with. 1. Section C-Officers and By-laws. City Council needs to set those terms. 2. Section C regarding the same rules regarding conflict of interest used by City Council. 3. Section D-1. This section is redundant to what is already done by staff and he feels it will be too time consuming. Mayor Ryan explained that D-1 is at the heart of this commission to use with the Downtown Vision Study. 4. D-2. Long term strategies for economic development is in direct conflict with what staff currently does. 5. Section E. Residential and commercial development reports. Redundant with work currently done by staff. Councilman McDonald explained that his overall feeling is that this commission is in direct conflict with what city staff currently does and if council feels staff isn’t doing their job it should be brought to the council’s attention to change. He noted he will provide staff with a copy of his notes to be included in the record. Todd Gerhardt explained the next steps for bringing the ordinance back to City Council at their June meeting. DISCUSS APPLEBEE’S SITE REDVELOPMENT. Todd Gerhardt introduced Jay Scott with Solomon Real Estate Group who discussed possible users and associated parking issues involved with a restaurant. Todd Gerhardt discussed details of a grant applicant with the CDA for construction of a parking ramp associated with a proposed restaurant. Kate Aanenson discussed details of a possible site for a parking ramp and the work that has been done with the County’s CDA. Jay Scott explained the needs of a restaurant operating as Whiskey Inferno which is a new model operating in other communities. He City Council Work Session – May 28, 2019 3 explained he is looking for feedback from the council on how to proceed with the parking situation. Todd Gerhardt explained how the City would handle funding for a parking ramp and redevelopment of the Applebee’s building. Councilman McDonald discussed congestion issues with the intersection at Market Boulevard and West 79th Street and would not favor this parking ramp plan. Councilwoman Tjornhom also had concerns with a pedestrian crossing other than constructing a bridge and asked what happens with the parking ramp if the restaurant goes out of business. Councilwoman Coleman also expressed concern with the pedestrian crossing situation and would like to see more engineering details. Mayor Ryan would like to see a pedestrian crosswalk design, would like to see employees use a majority of the parking ramp, explained that parking has always been an issue with this site and would like to see a parking ramp move forward with redevelopment of the Applebee’s site. Jason Wedel suggested the possibility of moving the ramp further east and crossing at the southern edge of West 79th Street. Jay Scott explained that they will continue working to address parking and pedestrian crossing safety issues. Mayor Ryan adjourned the work session at 7:00 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated May 21, 2019 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.2. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Planning Commission minutes dated May 21, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated May 21, 2019 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated May 21, 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MAY 21, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, John Tietz, and Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator; and Jason Wedel, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR LOT COVER, LAKE SETBACK, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3617 RED CEDAR POINT. MacKenzie Walters, George Bender and Renae Clark reviewed items contained in the staff report for this item. Chairman Weick asked for clarification on the driveway length and lot coverage. Commissioner Reeder asked for clarification on the height of the proposed structure. The applicant Pam Reimer, 3617 Red Cedar Point explained that she is the owner of the property and reviewed the design work that has been done to meet the conditions of the variances. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. Steve Gunther, speaking as a resident of Red Cedar Point and President of the Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association, discussed what the LMPA does to help preserve the water quality of Lake Minnewashta and expressed concern with the hard cover variance request and driveway length being a safety concern. Dave Bangasser, 3633 South Cedar objected to the length of the proposed driveway. Betsy Anding, direct neighbor to Pam Reimer, concurred with the comments made by Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser regarding the length of the driveway. Dave Bishop, 3605 Red Cedar Point Road expressed concern with parking during the construction process and that the road shouldn’t be blocked for public safety vehicles, snowplows and garbage trucks. Jeff Souba, noting his family owned the property at 3617 Red Cedar Point for 90 years, supports the driveway plan as proposed. Paul Wagner, the builder for this project, provided his background information and explained that he will meet personally with all the neighbors. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing. During commission discussion the public asked to speak again. Chairman Weick re- opened the public hearing. To make peace in the neighborhood the builder Paul Wagner and the applicant Pam Reimer agreed to take 3 feet off the garage to lengthen the driveway. Dave Bangasser reiterated that he believes the minimum driveway width should accommodate 2 cars and be 18 feet in length. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Summary – May 21, 2019 2 Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 17-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Planning Commission Summary – May 21, 2019 3 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER SUBDIVISION OF 1.17 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NE INTERSECTION OF CARVER BEACH ROAD AND BIG WOODS BOULEVARD. Sharmeen Al-Jaff and George Bender presented the staff report for this item. Commissioner Reeder asked about the ability to further subdivide in the future. Commissioner Skistad asked about ownership of the existing retaining wall. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. Paul Otto with Otto and Associates, speaking on behalf of the applicant, provided background information of development in this area. David Igel, 501 Big Woods Boulevard asked for clarification of stormwater, tree replacement plan, boulder retaining walls to be consistent with development in the area, drainage issues, and support of the 50 foot right-of-way. Mike Sweet, 565 Big Woods Boulevard asked for clarification on the orientation of the houses in relation to the road and how the size of the conservation easement was determined. Francesca Landon, 620 Fox Hill Drive asked for clarification on the size and location of a stormwater pond that was proposed in the past, dropping the elevation of one garage, and school district. Diane Carney, 549 Big Woods Boulevard concurred with saving as many trees as possible and keeping the right-of-way as narrow as possible to save trees. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing after Paul Otto answered questions raised by residents. Skistad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way as shown in plans stamped Received April 22, 2019 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation: SUBDIVISION Engineering: 1. The applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions including all existing easements on, and abutting, the subdivision prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to sufficiently illustrate the route drainage will take around the buildings and throughout the site for review and approval by the city prior to grading. 3. The applicant shall provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing driveway providing access to 630 and 640 Carver Beach Road will be performed without conflict or nuisance to the proposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat. 4. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading. 5. Updated plans illustrating retaining wall elevations shall be provided prior to grading. Planning Commission Summary – May 21, 2019 4 6. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW) to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive”. 7. The developer shall put into escrow the cost for construction (see condition 14) of the future street construction of “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2 prior to recording of final plat. The construction of the street will occur when the property to the north of Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it is appropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first. 8. Lot 2’s driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive”. A detail showing the elevations and conformity of future street grades and driveway grades shall be submitted prior to grading. 9. A sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big Woods Boulevard indicating a future street will be constructed. 10. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies of sanitary and water services for Lot 1 will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. From as-built information, it appears there was water and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property in 1975. If these services are currently in use by an existing property, the developer shall relocate those services to avoid having private service lines running through the subdivision. If these services are not in use, the developer shall field verify their locations and serviceability prior to connecting services to the laterals. 11. A fire hydrant shall be constructed on the end of the water main extension in “Lotus Woods Drive”. 12. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the proposed public water main and sanitary sewer main extensions prior to the recording of the final plat. 13. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the grading and construction of the future street “Lotus Woods Drive”, abutting Lot 2, prior to the recording of the final plat. 14. All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s most recent Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, and city review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. 15. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. 16. The development of Lots 1 and 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit applications. 17. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract. Water Resources: 1. Provide an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with Sec. 19-145 of city ordinances upon submittal of building permits for individual lot development. 2. Provide drainage and stormwater management plans as prescribed in Chapter 18, Sec. 18- 40 and Section 19-143. Planning Commission Summary – May 21, 2019 5 Parks: 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the two lots. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single- family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total park fees would be $5,800. Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. The easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 shall be covered by a Conservation Easement. 2. Tree preservation fencing will be required on each lot. Fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to the start of any construction activities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 16, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. MacKenzie Walters presented updates on city code amendments approved by the City Council and Sharmeen Al-Jaff explained that Control Concepts will be back on the agenda for site plan approval at the next Planning Commission meeting. Randall moved, Reeder seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, John Tietz, and Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator; and Jason Wedel, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR LOT COVER, LAKE SETBACK, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3617 RED CEDAR POINT. (Due to technical difficulties recording of the meeting began at this point in the staff’s presentation.) Walters: …but we did our best looking at driveway lengths and garages to estimate the number of parking provided by the different homes in the area. Staff determined that there are 77 spaces for 17 properties so an average of 4 ½ spaces are provided per property. The applicant’s proposal would provide 4 off street parking spaces. 3 in the garage, 1 in the driveway. That’s assuming the car in the driveway is parked parallel. Staff does note that if the driveway length was increased by 3 foot it would, it would create an average driveway depth of 16 feet which is the same as the average vehicle length and that would allow for perpendicular parking to be accommodated in the driveway, assuming an average sized vehicle. And then I’ll turn it over to George for more of a discussion on that. Bender: So this is an exhibit of the driveway that’s shown on the survey. It’s dimension to show the average of the 13 foot length and due to research that staff has done in the past the average length being about 16 feet and the desire to not overhang the vehicle into the roadway considering that the roadway in and of itself is only 16 ½ feet wide and that includes full width of the surmountable curb that’s on one side You know the condition that’s in there for your consideration is to have the, an additional 3 foot overall length of driveway to assist with the off street parking along the very constricted and narrow street. It is a low volume road being that it’s on the end of the point so that’s you know in it’s favor but you know at 16 ½ feet, you can get 2 vehicles by but you know hopefully they’re going slow and carefully. This is a street view of the Red Cedar Point Road. The yellow house on the right is 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The subject property. As you can tell the mailbox on the left is very close to the road. There is not a lot of additional space out there. This picture is currently looking east and the next slide will get Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 2 into maintenance of the street, specifically winter plowing. And the street curves to the left in this picture which is to the north and unfortunately Google Street View kind of stops at that point to get a real nice picture of that looking that direction. So this is oriented straight due north is facing up. This is where the street curves. The subject property is actually in this area here. In speaking with the public works department and the Superintendent that’s responsible for the plowing currently the plowing situation is that they use the subject driveway to back up into it to turn the plow around and drive out so that they don’t have to back out to the intersection to the west. The public works staff is very confident that they can effectively plow this area you know with the new proposed home and driveway as shown in the survey and not utilizing that property for that purpose. They would have to do a 3 point turn in this area and kind of back up and come back out in order to go out without having to back up. They feel that there is going to be some work in this eyebrow area that needs to be taken care of. There’s an old cottonwood tree that will need to come down. They feel that they can take down that tree safely and you know between that, cleaning up the area a little bit more and then working with two other properties. This is 3613 and this is 3616. Based on how you can see the white vehicle here is going on the driveway to 3616 and then this is parked next to a shed. There is a garage over here but you know additional parking space they’re going there. We would have to work with these two properties in order to help you know do the winter maintenance and be able to be an effective and efficient in keeping public safety moving through the area. And for that I’ll turn it over to our Water Resources Coordinator. Clark: Good evening, Renae Clark, the Water Resources Coordinator. I’ll first review the basis for the lake buffer to support the variance request. First the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources implements a shoreland management program, one of five different programs by the State that are established to protect the state’s public resources. The purpose of this shoreland management program is development and impervious surface impacts the functions and values of lakeshore and water quality increasing nutrients and runoff to lakes causing erosion, scenic degradation, and more over the shoreland zone, the upland area next to the lake and the first 15 feet into the lake. What’s referred to as the littoral zone are the most productive and important pieces of lake and lake water quality. So the shoreland management program is to protect public resources from associated changes from land use. The shoreland management program establishes minimum land use standards through state rule that communities must adopt and enforce through local zoning ordinance and MacKenzie referenced those in city code which in this case the 25 percent cover and the 75 percent setback. Minnesota statute then referenced on your screen 462 discussing planning and zoning in summary says that when evaluating variances the zoning authority shall request the property owner to address stormwater runoff, reduce impervious surface, increase setbacks, use vegetated buffers and other conservation design actions. So in considering a variance request in this case one criteria must be also consistency with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan includes a local water management plan. Within the local water management plan that was recently adopted the beginning of 2018 one of the goals and policies discusses a required 10 foot minimum buffer width for all properties and those are to be brought into conformance when permits are applied for and variances are requested to improve the property. The recommendation in the local water Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 3 plan calls for a 10 foot minimum width. Minnesota DNR guidance refers to in some places a 30 foot minimum width. The recommendation from staff for this project is a 20 foot buffer and that was discussed by water resources staff with this original application and DNR concurred with staff’s recommendation. The plan before you shows, at the top you can see the patio area in the back of the proposed home. The 20 foot buffer area is highlighted in red and that’s 20 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lake shown on the site plan. This is a picture of what that shoreline looks like. Staff’s recommendation in the variance request and buffer calls for leaving and utilizing the existing lake access which is shown in this picture. It’s approximately 4 feet in width. And then staff’s recommendation also calls for incorporating and improving shoreline restoration which includes replacing or augmenting the rip rap with native vegetation. Staff provided the applicant several resources in how to design and explain what a lakeshore buffer is and before you is a picture of a lakeshore buffer and what they can look like and here’s a second picture of a lakeshore buffer and to call out in this picture it incorporates the use of existing rock rip rap with native vegetation and then transitions into an upland buffer and this is an example of something that the property owner could do to comply with staff’s recommendation. Walters: So in conclusion based on the above the staff is recommending approval of the variance request. The conditions on that as mentioned staff believes that in order to offset the increased impervious surface or the above 25 percent impervious surface and the increase of it on the lake, towards the lake with the house widening the buffer that Water Resources Coordinator Clark discussed should be required. Permeable pavers should be required for the driveway and patio area and staff’s again overall assessment is that the requested variances are consistent with those granted to surrounding properties and the existing non-conformities present on the property. Staff is concerned about parking. Does note that the proposal provides a total of four off street parking spaces. As you may have noticed in your, sorry. Mind just blank for a second there. Staff report, staff proposed two different motions. The motion that reads with the 11 ½ foot front yard setback would be the one that provides for the driveway as proposed by the applicant to accommodate the fourth parking space. It would require a parallel park in front of the driveway. The second proposed motion requires the additional 3 feet and that reads as an 8 ½ foot front yard variance. As staff noted because of the proposed dedication of the right-of-way that first one would need to be increased to a 20 foot front yard variance and we’ve written that in the motion. We’ll be happy to clarify as needed because we understand it gets a little confusing. If you have any questions we’d be happy to take them at this time. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie. Commissioners, questions for city staff. I’ll open with one MacKenzie. I’m going to need clarification on the math on the driveway. Walters: Yep. Weick: Because there’s an added layer of confusion if we’re talking about from the, you know from the, are we measuring to the street or are we measuring to the curb? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 4 Walters: And that’s where it gets a little more confusing. So because the applicant is willing to dedicate the area of the lot currently covered by the street to the city the 20 foot front yard setback would be measuring from the curb, which would then become the edge of the property line because they would lose that 8 ½ feet. So that’s why it switches from the 11 ½ to 20 is to accommodate the fact that their front yard essentially contracts by 8 feet when they give that land to the City. But all the 11, if it’s easier to put that aside the, all the front yard setback is measured from the property line. So the driveway to the curb is about 14 ½ to 15 feet with the proposed one that is the 20 foot setback and the right-of-way being dedicated at it’s long point and about 11 feet at it’s shorter point. And then with the one being proposed for the 8 ½ foot setback then you would push everything back, the house back 3 feet and you would end up with at it’s long point about 18 ½ and then about 14 ½. Yeah 14, 14 ½ on it’s shortest extent for an average of 16 feet. Is that correct? Bender: I was trying to make sure that the question that you’re asking is getting answered and was it more the difference in the motions or was it related to what’s on the screen? The driveway dimensioning and. Weick: Yeah I’ll restate the question. Bender: Okay. Weick: If the goal was to have 16 to 18 feet roughly of parkable driveway I guess, I just want to be, I don’t know how to ask for that. I don’t know which motion necessarily covers that. I guess in my opinion if you wanted to, and I’m not saying this is mandating something. I’m just asking the question but if you wanted to park a car instead of parallel perpendicular you would need at least 16 feet to do that so that’s 16 to 18 foot seemed to make more sense. Bender: So to get to the 16 feet basically the recommendation is for the driveway length to increase 3 feet in the average part of the driveway which is right in the center where you see the 13 foot dimension. Weick: Okay. Bender: So on the widest part of the driveway, the 14 ½ feet here, that would increase an additional 3 feet to 17 ½ so you know you’d be able to get a 16 foot car in over here because it’d go from 17 ½ to about 16 ½. And then in the middle where you know a third or a second car could park, you know it’d go from about that 15 ½ to a little bit under the 13. And we have to be careful about no portion of the vehicle hanging out into the street and you know it would always be nice if there’s a, you know it’s very difficult to pull right up and put your bumper right up against the garage door. So you know in, there’s a little bit of flexibility there. So the thought in getting that fourth vehicle parked perpendicularly is you know the safest point is for it to be on this side. So if we’ve got something that’s a little bit less than an average size vehicle you know it can kind of park in the middle or if it’s a very small vehicle it could park off on the narrower Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 5 portion of the driveway. If it’s a very big vehicle, something with a trailer, you know the only option is going to be to be parking perpendicular. Does that answer your question or help? Weick: It does. It does. Bender: Okay. Weick: I mean would an option for us to consider be to maintain a curb to house minimum? So instead of allowing the driveway be a, whatever shape that is, you know it maintains a consistent… Bender: Yep. So it’d be at 90 degrees to the roadway. Weick: Yeah. Bender: And basically you would go to the average dimension which would probably be the dimension that they would have to do and if you know you certainly could recommend 16, 17 or 18 feet and the driveway to be you know reconfigured to be 90 degrees to the roadway and that would take care of the offset that you’re seeing here. And you know that is written in the city code for that to be that way. It’s not something that’s always you know enforced that way. Weick: Okay. Just glancing through my notes. If anyone else wants to jump in please. Skistad: If you move it, the driveway. You added the 3 feet, does that just push the house back? Or are you saying that they have to shrink the house? Bender: It would require an adjustment to the design of the home. The other option would be you know to allow a different dimension for the setback from the lake but you know it’s felt that that’s a pretty critical dimension. Skistad: And weren’t you right in the middle between, you went with 20 feet lake setback? So it was recommended as 10 and the full amount is 30 that the State would like. So you just went right in the middle 20. So if the did 8, 6, 17 or I mean whatever that number is. 20 minus 3. Walters: To clarify that is the buffer. The setback is the 75 foot setback but they are currently 52.9 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lake. And so they could in theory the Planning Commission could grant a variance to reduce the lakeshore setback without impacting the buffer width. City policy historically has been not to allow houses to move closer to the lake than existing closest point but that’s certainly an option that could be considered. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Skistad: Than answers that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 6 Weick: Yep please. Reeder: I do like the idea of having at least 16 feet of parking behind the curb to the building but I’d like to hear from the proposer what that would do to the house. Weick: Sure, we’ll get there. MacKenzie for you it just, on page 8 of 16 in the packet, I just wanted to clarify the way the lot coverage is noted there. Your, on that page while you’re looking for it what you’ve done is listed out the variances that have been granted I believe in the area. And so it says for instance, are you on that page or no? Okay. If you go down 1, 2, 3, to the fourth one which I think is the first lot coverage variance which is 3705 South Cedar Drive and it says 25 percent LC. Lot coverage. Is that 25 percent plus 25 percent? Walters: Yes. All of these are, whenever we write variances we write it as the deviation from the standard so that would be a property that has 50 percent lot cover. For a little bit of context. Whenever we deal with a property that’s a non-conforming like this we use the non-conformity as kind of, as the base point because the city code allows by rights continuation of the non- conformity and rebuilding so long as there is a reduction. So what we always tell applicants is make it better. Reduce it from where it is. So if a property started with say 55 percent lot cover. Weick: Sure. Walters: We’d look at 50 percent as perhaps not ideal but still an improvement. Weick: Okay. No I just wanted, I wanted to be sure I was reading that right. And then there’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So there’s 6 of these that are listed that are lot covered, that include lot coverage variances if I’m reading that correctly. Walters: I believe so. Weick: Including the one we’re talking about tonight. Cool. I’d love to give you another chance to ask MacKenzie some questions or staff. Randall: I’m good right now. Weick: Good. Reeder: Mr. Chair one other question. Weick: Sure. Reeder: Tell me about the height of the proposed structure. Could it go higher or is it at the max? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 7 Walters: Legally it is well under the maximum. We allow structures to be up to 35 feet in height within the shoreland and we measure that as midpoint of the highest of the highest gable. I will glance at my notes but my recollection is with that measured this is at 22 feet in height. With a peak eave of 27, I apologize. I’m not finding my, one second. Yep, 27 at peak height. 22 as we measure so in absolute theory the code would allow without variance up to 35 feet midpoint of highest gable. Weick: Oka thank you MacKenzie for your presentation. At this time I would invite the applicant to come forward and tell us about the project. Welcome and thanks for coming. Pam Reimer: Should I come here? Weick: Yeah. Pam Reimer: I haven’t done this before so. Weick: You and me both. Pam Reimer: Alright. Good evening. I am Pam Reimer and I own the property at 3617 Red Cedar Point. The last applicant who was pre-approved for this exact same variance. Went through this whole process and decided not to buy it as did somebody else but I’m already all in. I’m thankful for MacKenzie Walters because he has spent many days educating and helping me through the planning process so I can build my house. To reiterate the timeline I did contact MacKenzie in January of this year to build the lot and to utilize the existing variance that was already approved. Thank you. Unfortunately my dad had a heart attack and my mom and I pretty much lived in the ICU for 2 weeks and he had another heart attack. Behind the scenes my amazing architect put together a house plan that met the approved footprint and then some. He reduced the hard cover from 36.4 percent to the approved variance of 36.3 and then he called me and said do you really need that big of a house space wise and economically for one person and can I reduce the square feet and further reduce the hard cover. I said you know me. You know what I need in the house and a dog wash in the garage for my licensed therapy dog and a service dog, and a service door for him. And yes I want to save money. He revised the plans and in a timely manner reduced hard cover an additional 1.9 percent. My builder Team Wagner not only got the survey company which did the approved variance to put our proposed house on it but he put together my house on the approved footprint with all the bids from the building parts inside and out. Met with MacKenzie 3 times to meet the city requirements by the variance deadline. He reduced the current side setback from 6 feet to 10.3 and 10.29 which is in compliance. He didn’t put in a basement or a crawl space because he hired an engineer to analyze soil samples requiring this lot to have a $70,000 boring. He arranged with their $5,000 engineer how deep the pilings would go on our already approved plan. When it was all done and said we were a month after the approved variance on my lot lapsed and MacKenzie gave me a new form and had me fill out the $528 fee and here we are. In good faith MacKenzie has covered all the conditions Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 8 and our team is willing to accept these. In good faith the City wants about 677 square feet of my lot and I’m willing to dedicate this valued at about $50,000. I will meet with Carver County and complete the right-of-way upon my variance request being approved. In good faith I have discussed the vegetation buffer with Renae. Neighbors like the Bangasser’s said no one in our neighborhood had to put that in. What rule says you have to do that? In good faith I hired an outstanding expense professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve the ecosystem. Mark Halla, owner of the Mustard Seed, he proposed a plan with the accepted, expensive vegetation and the design filters and is ecological to improve the condition of the lake. Renae liked the custom mix and suggested prairie grass as well. I have request it to go from the shore at the opening to 10 feet on both sides. Here’s a rough diagram in green. And oh I’m giving the secret away to my neighbors, you guys said there was an overhead camera that can see this? The surprise color is charcoal gray on my house. Anyway the green area shows, Renae said this shape is aesthetically pleasing and functional and I could add flag stones so the neighbors could still walk yard to buffered yard to yard. I requested it to go from the shore on the opening out to the sides. 10 feet on both sides. In good faith to fulfill requirements to further reduction of hard cover both my builder and Mark used pervious pavers and will use on my driveway. In good faith to fulfill requirement of tree protection my builder shared with MacKenzie in our last meeting he’s a horticulture expert and he will go above expectations to protect with tree fencing. In good faith Team Paul Wagner, Cold Creek Construction has significantly reduced lot coverage from the already approved variance 3 months ago. In good faith I had the same setback as already approved in Variance 18-01 through February of this year 2019. I’m on the point with limited neighbors on the dead end of Red Cedar Point and the combined parking for my one car, no sports car, and any guests who have 2 more large cars and additional compact cars like my son’s Prius 4 and girlfriend’s Mini Cooper which can park perpendicular in that driveway, or in the garage in the 2 extra spots. This was approved and accepted one month after we applied and we feel strongly to not change the size of the garage. The footprint is important to me and in good faith done in pervious pavers. I’m one woman. I don’t have a big family or gatherings. I feel I’m consistent with the neighbors. Even if I make my garage smaller it’s not going to fix the problem because if people with big cars come and can’t fit in my garage it’s not going to solve the parking problem. Per MacKenzie’s report my combined 3 car garage and driveway provides an amount of off street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. My life down on South Cedar Drive, I own a house down the road on South Cedar Drive a few blocks down on that road. It has a short driveway so you can either pull into a single car garage or park at an angle so as not to hang on the street so I was careful to provide parking in this house. In the City notes very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the City’s zoning code and most properties either are non-conforming uses or are operating under a variance. All the variances listed on page 7 and 8. I need storage in my garage and there’s no basement and no storage on my main living level. If my garage was reduced and the space I planned in the approved variance for my storage stuff like my Christmas Tree box. All my lake stuff. My kayak. And my car and extra stuff would be out in the driveway and as MacKenzie, my builder and Steve met yesterday and they laughed. You shrink the garage and it defeats the point of parking a big car in the garage and it’s back to the driveway for my stuff. I need my dog wash so hospital patients don’t complain that the dog smells, although the public school kids in Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 9 Paws Allowed to Read would say oooh, that’s funny. My neighbor Nancy says I’m a good neighbor and I already bought the property. I’m committed to this neighborhood. I’m committed to the survey plan that was already approved. My neighbor says hello I’m writing to support a neighbor Pam Reimer in a request for a property variance. We live just a few lots past her property at 3617 Red Cedar Point. We are new to the neighborhood but I recently visited with her and trust that she’ll be a good steward of her future home in Lake Minnewashta. We’re excited that a responsible buyer has come on to finally take care of this the way the lot deserves to be maintained. It’s a potentially beautiful lot but the old Sears cabin is run down and needs a lot of loving care and grass that Pam will provide. Her ownership will make the neighborhood better for all and I hope you agree that her plans are appropriate. It’s my understanding that Pam’s proposal offers adequate parking and it’s apparent that a proposed driveway is not unusual for our little community. If you’ve driven down our street you’ll appreciate that it’s a unique neighborhood where houses are close together. The street is narrow and everybody’s parking is limited. That’s part of the lakeside neighborhood charm. The peninsula is a dead end and it’s apparent to us already that it isn’t a street with traffic other than people who live here and their guests. It’s our understanding and experience that since we all live on a unique street everyone cooperates with each other. Case in point, one of our neighbors just gave us permission to borrow part of his driveway for 2 days to park our boat before we were able to get it into the water. I hope you and the Planning Commission will see that our street is unique and that Pam’s variance request suits the neighborhood. We feel lucky that Pam, an experienced homeowner and good neighbor on the lake will redevelop that site and we hope her variance request will be approved allowing construction of a beautiful home that will enhance our neighborhood. And that was Nancy Rennake right down from me on Red Cedar Point. In conclusion our team has been operating under the assumption that this variance was approved. We did the soil borings and measured for trusses and all the house building parts. We stayed within the footprint assuming there’s no issue with the footprint of the house and to change the whole plan is not economical. My builder is ready. The boring company is ready and we’re excited to check off number one to apply for a building permit so I ask you now for a simple majority vote that says that Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5 front yard setback on the street or just changed today because I offered to dedicate my land to you, a 20 foot land that I’m dedicating to the City of Chanhassen coma, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Thank you very much. Weick: Thank you. If you could hang on for a moment. There may be some questions from the commission or clarification. Questions? Commissioner Reeder. Reeder: Yeah my question still remains what would be the problem with having at least 16 feet back from the curb of the house? Pam Reimer: You’re taking away from my garage and my storage. Reeder: How big is the garage? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 10 Pam Reimer: It’s a 3 car garage and there’s room in the front for a dog wash. I have a therapy dog. He’s a service dog. Reeder: What’s the length of the garage? Audience: 26 by 30. Pam Reimer: 26 by 30. Reeder: 26 feet long and 30 feet wide? Pam Reimer: Yeah. And that’s all the storage. There’s no storage so, it’s got all, I have like 20 bins. I have Christmas. Thanksgiving. Extra clothes. Waders. I have bins of things and they’re all on shelves now and they need a place to go and I’m not going to put them out in the driveway. Then the neighbors would really complain. Garage sale every day. So thank you. Reeder: Thank you. Weick: No other questions, thank you. Pam Reimer: Thank you too. Weick: Thank you for presenting. At this time we will open the public hearing. As a reminder please come forward one at a time. State your name and address for the record and your comments on this issue. There’s some stirring. Yes, okay. Steve Gunther: Good evening. My name is Steve Gunther. I am a resident of Red Cedar Point. That area out there. I’ve been a resident there for about 21 years. We built the house in about 2003 so we’ve been through this process, although our house did not require any variances. I’m also the President of the Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association. The LMPA has been around for over 20 years and our job is to maintain and improve the quality of the lake for the residents and the users of the lake. I’m speaking kind of in both roles here. I’ll talk about the LMPA side, Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association side first. The LMPA spends a ton of money to improve the quality of this lake. We spend about 20 grand a year on treating weeds in that lake. This year we’ve donated $10,000 to Carver County of all people so that they can continue inspections of watercraft entering the lake to prevent aquatic invasive species from coming in the lake. So financially we have a big effort into keeping this lake as pristine as we can for all users. Also we have one board member who is a master water steward trained by the water associations in the State of Minnesota to help things. Put in place things like rain gardens, buffers and so on that Pam mentioned earlier so my concern as the President of the LMPA is the amount of hard cover variance requested in this lot. I spoke a year, over a year ago with the last request for a variance and pleaded with this council and maybe different members at that time to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 11 not approve the hard cover variance with the idea of preventing runoff into the lake. That being said, having this afternoon read the 60 page report from staff which came in before I came here I was happy to see that the buffer zone that I had suggested in my email is being required. That impervious pavers in the driveway and the patio are also required. That’s good news. So I think from a runoff point of view those actions and the lake side setback make me satisfied that approving the lake side setback in fine. Also happy that they’re going to take down the shed. It’s actually an outhouse believe it or not that’s been there since probably 1920 something and not ask for a variance on the side setback. Where I am largely concerned is the front setback from the road. I understand Pam’s issue that the City is taking part of her property. That’s happened to me too when they repaved the road several years ago so I understand that. You lose some of your property as a result of that but it is what it is. I mean when she bought the lot the lot lines were, the concrete or the asphalt where the road was was where it is so we’re not going to change that so I’m happy she’s going to donate it but effectively that was the property she was going to build with what was left. What I’m majorly concerned is the approval of a front street you know setback to the extent that’s been requested. The average size American car is 14 to 16 feet. A Honda Civic just for reference is 15 feet so if you know the size of a Honda Civic that’s 15 feet. Jeep Cherokee which is the car that Pam drives is 16 feet or longer depending on the model so having 11 ½ foot driveway in that spot in my mind, even if you park parallel is a safety issue. My strong suggestion is that you go with what has been proposed by staff as an option and that is, and I think it’s been brought up here as well, let’s require that that setback be a minimum of 16 to 18 feet which will accommodate you know a car parked fully in the driveway. In my mind if you do that as staff has sent in their report either reduce and you maintain the lake side setback at 52 ½ feet. That will reduce the depth of the house that’s allowed to be built to 39 feet. On an 80 foot lot, 10 foot setbacks, 60 feet wide house by 39 feet, you know depth of the house you’re at over 2,300 square feet for the size of the footprint of that house so by doing that you’re creating a house which in my mind is the modern standard house. 2,300 square feet on one level. Now I would comment that you have, I would also suggest strongly that you eliminate the 3 car garage proposal. If you look at the file that was sent out this afternoon in there there’s a map that I sent to MacKenzie which shows a printout of every lot that’s on Red Cedar Point, South Cedar, Hickory Road and you can see that the majority of the homes that are in there, it’s probably second to last page of your report here but the vast majority of the. Walters: You want to put the drawing on the document cam please. Thank you. Steve Gunther: So if Pam’s house is this 3617. This is the end of the point in this direction here. This is the area where there’s very little parking ability and turn around ability right in this spot here and these are the garage numbers of every house in the immediate area around there and you’ll see a lot of 2’s there. The next door neighbor Betsy Anding has a 1 car garage so you see a lot of 2’s there. The few homes that are 3’s or higher have extremely wide lots. 100 feet wide lots or larger, or they chose to do a side loading garage which you know puts the garage perpendicular to the road so my strong suggestion is that you push the front setback variance to 16 or 18 feet to allow 2 cars to park side by side in the driveway and then allow Pam to build a 2 car garage behind that so that gets your 4 car you know average minimum number of off street Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 12 parking spaces. A single woman, I mean she said it herself. I’m a single woman with a dog. With 1 car I’m not sure why you need a 3 car garage right. If you have 4 parking spaces with a 2 car garage as you would with a 3 car garage with a car parking sideways to it so again it’s my recommendation that you not approve. Go ahead with the lake side setback variance. Be happy with the 10 foot side setback. You know back to code if you will. Do not approve the front setback variance but go with a deeper driveway. If it’s not obvious that having an 11 ½ foot driveway with a 3 car garage on a 16 ½ foot road when snowplows are coming down and emergency vehicles are trying to get through there, it’s obvious to me that you shouldn’t have that kind of parking situation there. You get the cars off the street and put them on a standard size 16 to 18 foot driveway. And I think that’s all the comments I had. And by the way we’re friends with Pam. She was down in our house in Florida for a week. We’ve know here for 10 years or more so it’s nothing personal. It’s all let’s do what’s right for the neighborhood and let’s build a house that’s consistent with the size and scope of the neighbors that are in that very tight community. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Dave Bangasser: Hello. Weick: Welcome. Dave Bangasser: Thank you. I’m Dave Bangasser. I live, my wife and I live at 3633 South Cedar Drive. I’ve been in the neighborhood for a long time. My wife’s family purchased the property in ’46 so we’ve got a lot of history on the property and frankly I’d rather not be here because nobody wants to object to their neighbor but much like what Steve just talked about, Pam this is nothing personal and I’m generally in favor of the plan but I do take exception to the length of the driveway. I think it’s a very bad precedence to have this short of driveway especially in that location with such a narrow road as Red Cedar Point Road is at that point and I have talked to Pam a couple of times about this topic. I really haven’t heard any other considerations other than nothing can change. There’s no alternatives. I don’t believe that. I’m in design and construction. There’s lots of alternatives to this. It’s a 47 foot deep structure. I know I’ve got storage above my attic with a stairs up to it so all those lake things, including my kayaks go upstairs in the attic of the garage. There’s lots of alternatives to this. 47 feet deep. Something can give here. I do also have to take exception to, while I generally agree that increasing the driveway width 3 feet is a step in the right direction, I don’t agree with averages. Averages don’t work when you’re talking about a 16 foot vehicle and the average depth of the driveway. Well if that middle car that’s parked in the middle perpendicular, one side of it might be inside the roadway but the other side’s sticking out the roadway and I do think it is a safety issue. We’ve got a number of vehicles, the garbage trucks back up the street to get the garbage because they can’t turn around. We’ll see how the emergency vehicles, the snowplows and I’m pleased to see or hear that you think you’ve got something figured out there but I do think it’s a safety concern and driveways are mainly for visitors. It’s one thing if it’s you and you’re parking there all the time. You can probably figure out how to make something work but Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 13 driveways are mainly for visitors that aren’t necessarily familiar with things. I have an 18 foot long driveway and I believe that is an absolute minimum and I don’t have a long vehicle. I drive the same vehicle as Pam does and with an 18 foot driveway the garage door is often getting bumped because people pull up. You can’t necessarily see the front end of your vehicle. You don’t necessarily think about a license plate sticking out the front or you don’t necessarily think about a trailer hitch. We’re on a lake. A lot of people have trailer hitches. Trailer hitch sticking out the back. I think 18 feet is the minimum for something like that because you’re not going to practically pull right up to and bump the garage door. And again with that narrow street we certainly don’t want the vehicle sticking out past the street so I just think it’s a bad precedence not to allow at least 2 vehicles to pull into that driveway perpendicular to the street so that they can get out. I will grant you that with the driveway proposed you can angle park 2 vehicles in that driveway but I don’t know how you could get out without backing up the street all the way to the intersection and that’s a safety concern that we don’t want in the neighborhood. Again I’m not aware but for the variance that was granted on this property, I’m not aware of any other variances that have been granted that would not allow 2 reasonable vehicles to be parking in a driveway and I’m hoping that’s not something that is granted here tonight. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Betsy Anding: I am Betsy Anding and I am the direct neighbor of Pam and I really don’t have anything additional to add other than I just do want to voice my support for what Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser have just shared. Those are my concerns as well. I think they’ve articulated them extremely well so I’m not going to regurgitate but I did at least want to add my voice that I concur with their concerns and with what they have offered as possible alternative solutions to some of the issues. Thank you. Weick: Can I actually ask you a question? Betsy Anding: Yes. Weick: When you say direct neighbor to which? Betsy Anding: I am at 3625 Red Cedar Point so the direct neighbor on the west. Weick: Is that the blue? Betsy Anding: White house with the green roof. Weick: It’s the white house, okay. Got it, thank you. I just wanted to get that in my. Audience: Beautiful house with the one car garage. Betsy Anding: One car garage and a full driveway. It fits two cars. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 14 Weick: Welcome. Dave Bishop: Hi there. My name is Dave Bishop and Nellica Knight and I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Road. We haven’t met Pam so hi Pam. Welcome to the point. She’s right. It’s a very close neighborhood and we do cooperate a lot together. I’m going to try not to repeat anything that you’ve heard already today but we didn’t walk in at the very beginning of this so if I do please correct my misapprehensions. I want to talk to the issue of, and I believe in my heart that at some point a structure’s going to be built on this property and I welcome it because the yellow cabin that’s there, it’s useful life has well been spent. But when you do build something there is a construction process and I heard 16 ½ feet in width. I went out with my tape measurer and measured the width of that road in front of the cabin. It’s 15 feet 2 inches and I raise that because 2 houses to the west, we went through this whole process and they tore down a house and rebuilt a brand new one and we went through that construction period and we had at that point the advantage that people on the opposite side of the street had a very broad 3 car driveway so that when the construction equipment blocked the road we could actually go off the road and go around and still enter and exit but had we not had that we would have been stuck in our houses because they often had you know 2, 3, 4 construction or cement trucks or dump trucks or other related stuff taking out the entire road during this period. In addition you can see if you go further west down Red Cedar Point, up the hill and then down the hill, there’s a nice straight area there but during the construction phase people parked both overflow of us residents, visitors, swimmers from and what not, park on one side of the road. Construction would park on the other side of the road and there was only about 6 ½ feet between them to actually go so there was a lot of difficulty so I’m suggesting to you that if this comes in with a variance that you address in the variance process a construction alternative that will ensure that the road isn’t blocked so that we have ambulance and fire and all of us have itinerate schedules at that end of the point. Coming in late at night, early in the morning and during the day and we’d just like to make sure that we can get in and out during that period. I think somebody mentioned the issue of snowplowing and garbage and I don’t know what you have talked about on that issue but in my experience snow got thrown onto the gravel parkway of the cabin because that was a nice empty place and nobody was parking there and I am curious about where the City plans to put the snow once we have taken that significant area out of storage spots because everybody else has landscaped to the hilt there. Thank you. Weick: Did you want to respond? Bender: Yeah I can respond to some of that. Weick: Sure yeah. A direct response would be great. Bender: I’ll address the public safety comments first. I did speak with the Fire Marshal about this. From a public safety perspective no parking will be allowed on Red Cedar Point Road, Hickory Road, South Cedar Drive, or any other road in the vicinity that is less than 26 feet Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 15 during you know any demolition, construction or development phases of the lot. This is you know the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal were both discussing this and they are well aware of the problems that have occurred out there previously. They’re also well aware that this will be a, probably a routine battle to try to enforce this. We would expect that the CSO is probably going to be out there quite often trying to communicate delicately and enforce this. But the thought for construction traffic and construction workers is that they are going to have to find another place to park. They will have to come to the lot, drop off their supplies. Their tools. Their equipment. Unless they can pull into the lot and be out of the roadway they will not be allowed to stay there. For the second part which was more related to the plowing and the maintenance, I’ve spoken with the public works staff. The street superintendent that’s responsible for plowing the area and they do realize that this lot has been used in the past and that you know with the proposed construction they’re not going to be able to use the, this area. Knowing this they’ve thought through the process. Come up with alternatives in order to be able to not only move the snow and navigate the plow but also to store the snow. There is a large cottonwood tree out there for example that would have to be removed by public works in order to help create space and that’s in the, near the eyebrow area that’s in the right-of-way right in this area. There will be some other clean up that will have to be done. There will have to be communications that are made with the neighbors in order to help facilitate this. Summer and winter parking conditions may be a little bit different but you know they are confident that they can manage this situation with this lot redeveloping. That’s all I have. Weick: Thank you. Please. Jeff Souba: My name is Jeff Souba. My family owned the lot at 3617 for 90 years and I think that the plan that Pam has and for her needs their driveway is adequate. I don’t think she should have to make things smaller. I think for a single person living in that house you’ve got enough driveway there that she can get by with her guests either parking in the garage or on the property and I don’t think she should have to make any changes over what she’s already done to the plans and what she originally planned on doing. I just wanted to say that. Weick: Appreciate that. Thank you. Paul Wagner: My name’s Paul Wagner. I am the builder for Pam Reimer so if anything I just thought it’d be a good time to let all these neighbors know who they’ll be dealing with and I’m really easy to deal with. There’s 43 years of a licensed home builder. 75 projects on lakeshore. I’m a licensed horticulturist and a 20 year veteran of the fire department so I have a lot of respect for narrow dead end roads in the middle of the night. Lately in the neighborhood there’s a lot going on with landscapers and construction and I think everybody kind of bends a little bit. Otherwise you can’t do anything in that neighborhood. You’d better be driving slow because you’ve got nowhere to drive fast. It’s a dead end. As far as safety and meeting the needs of the neighborhood during construction I will personally be there every day and nobody will have any issue with any of my people. If you go to my website you’ll see 43 years of customers that have nothing but good to say because that’s how I do thing. My name is Paul Wagner. I’m going to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 16 give everybody information on myself. I will personally go around and meet all the neighbors. Let them know who’s doing what and how we’re doing it. They’ll have a phone number and a contact so that if there is an issue it will get addressed immediately but the end result is we want a beautiful home for a beautiful person in a beautiful neighborhood with beautiful neighbors and happy neighbors and when I leave the neighborhood and I run into somebody at the Dairy Queen I want them to wave to me. Not with a single finger so thank you and I look forward to hanging out with everybody here. Weick: Thank you. Anyone else would like to come forward now would be the time. Give everybody a chance but seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing portion of this hearing and open the floor for commissioner discussion. We’ve heard a lot this evening. There’s certainly a lot in front of us. I will sort of remind you there are 3 items in the variance for consideration so it includes the front yard setback which includes the driveway and there’s a couple of options there as written by the City. There’s an option for the variance as it was previously approved. There’s also a version that adds approximately 3 feet to that. By adding it makes the driveway longer if that’s an accurate way to say it by approximately 3 feet. So there’s that portion of the variance. The second is the lakeshore setback and the third is the lot cover variance. One thing that we didn’t really discuss if we are, it sounds like, it was suggested and accepted to use permeable pavers. That would in theory, assuming they’re maintained, improve the lot coverage would it not? Clark: Commissioners yes, the pervious pavement acts as a permeable surface if maintained offsetting the effect of a hardscape variance. Weick: Yeah. So that’s not accounted for in the official request of this variance which sits at 9 ½ percent. I did some very bad math but you could almost cut that in half with the use of the pervious pavers. I want to use the terminology right. That would get it in that 28 to 29 percent range actually. Roughly. Which is significantly less. The other consideration that you know we’ve talked a lot about, and I’ve thought a lot. I happen to be, I happened to hear this case previously as well and the 3 car garage was always something to me that I struggled with in my head but I sort of thing of it as a shed, right? So is it a better use to have a shed like this or to have a separate standing structure that you’re going to try to build somewhere else on the property? Probably not. In my mind I think this is probably a better you know storage is an issue. This is probably a better use for something like that than trying to approve a variance for a stand alone structure somewhere else on the property in my opinion if it’s already sort of captured within the existing building. Just those are some of my thoughts off the top of my head. Hopefully that gave you guys a chance to think about something as well. What are you thoughts? Randall: You ready? Weick: Yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 17 Randall: Alright. So I agree with you. I remember dealing with this back, was it January? Weick: A little over a year ago. Randall: And walking away from it I know we approved the variance but I had issues with it because of the garage. Personal experience, I spent a year looking for my lot so I could build a 6 car garage so that was a requirement for me. I found the lot that I was able to do it. I was looking at city lots. These small lots but due to the hardscape percentage, the setbacks and everything I was limited on what I could do. I feel like this house is, I love the house. I love the location and everything like that but you’re trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Maybe this isn’t the lot for this type of home because it’s requiring so many variances on it and I get the whole storage thing. You can ask my wife. She thinks I’m a hoarder but to get your stuff stored you have to come up with creative solutions and I’m worried about that driveway aspect of it. Is it creating a precedent that we’re going to be allowing this over and over again? But you get into these neighborhoods where you’ve got a small lot like this property’s been in the previous family for 90 years. So in 1927 did they envision that? Or 1928. Weick: You don’t have to do the math. It was a long time. Randall: Yeah so 90 years ago like I said. Things have changed. These lots are desirable. This was way out in the country at that time. Things have changed. We’re in an urban area. Suburban area now. My concern with it, I just remember last time walking away from that approval and I had issues with it and then this came up again and now it’s kind of a time to rehash some of those things and, and it’s too bad the variance lapsed because it would have been nice to keep it going for then we wouldn’t have had to deal with this again but I’m going to have a hard time voting in favor for it. I just feel like changes can be made. I mean I had to restrict some things at my house that I didn’t want, or I wanted but I couldn’t do it because of my hardscape percentage and that type of thing too so I could stay within bounds so that’s kind of my thought about it. I did think the property owner, I think she brought up some, she’s worked out a lot of the issues. The parking. She’s worked out that a little bit you know with cars and how that’s going to fit on her property understanding that’s going to be a hardship. She lowered the hardscape percentage which was great. I think it’s good, I don’t have any on the lake side of it. I don’t have any issues. It’s just that one side. Is that driveway going to be too short? And that’s all I have to say. Weick: Is there a number that you would feel more comfortable with? Randall: I would still like to have the more, the bigger setback for a full sized car to get into the driveway. That’s what I would like. I get what you’re saying about the shed and not having a detached, something later but if it means doing a 2 car garage with more room in the back for storage or going up I’ve got a car lift in my garage so I can lift stuff up and there are options out there that you can do so I think some of those would be, should be explored. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 18 Weick: And I would say we, I mean we shouldn’t get in the business of trying to design it. Randall: No. Weick: We really should be focused on if it should come down to if we believe that, if we believe the driveway length is important really to park a car perpendicular that’s really what we should, you know what that ends up doing to the design of the house is less of, I mean we’re certainly not here to design that house. Whether it’s a 2 or 3 car garage. I think it’s important that we make a decision on the length of the driveway though. Randall: But you know we go back to that case with the gentleman with the fire truck, he wanted a variance. Came back. Did some redesign work and we knew that he had worked with us on that and he was able to show that he did that for us so is that one of those cases where this still can be adjusted a little bit and make everyone a little bit more happy. Maybe so, I don’t know. Weick: Thank you. Sure, jump in. We’re informal here I hope. Reeder: First of all there’s certainly a beautiful house compared to what’s there now. Sort of sad to see what might be the last outhouse in Chanhassen disappear. I don’t know if that’s the historical society has looked at that or not but. Pam Reimer: It’s for sale. Reeder: I’m okay with the variance on the lakeshore side. I’m okay with the lot coverage that’s being offered. The one concern I have is the parking situation. I think we have to look at this property as a property that’s going to be owned for the next 50 years by 6 different people and the size of cars that people own now that are going to move into it really doesn’t matter. The question is will this house provide enough parking in the long run for anybody that wants to live there including somebody like me that has a long truck that would want to park in front of my house so my concern is the driveway setback. I would be comfortable. I’m not comfortable with the average idea proposed by staff. I’m more comfortable with the building line being setback 16 feet from the back of the curb. That I understand would make it an angle but that’s I think a doable thing. You could certainly if you want a 3 car garage you can make one of the garages shorter than the other garage I mean if that’s a problem. I think the proposed garages are pretty adequate at 23 feet and if it had to be reduced I don’t think that’s a real major problem so I would not vote for the front yard variance as proposed. I would vote for a total of 16 feet all the way across the lot. Weick: Thanks. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 19 Skistad: I think the homeowner has, or the land owner has made, has tried to meet everyone’s expectations and has worked really hard to do that and I don’t think the driveway is ideal but I also think that she worked it out and I guess I would be in favor of the plan as she has it. Weick: As she has it? Skistad: Yeah. Weick: So quite a few opinions across the 4 of us here. So I hear, okay. I guess leaving the. Skistad: I guess the only other question would be if we moved the driveway 3 feet back and we just allowed the setback to go, the house to go back 3 feet. That would be, you know if that, if her whole house could just move back 3 feet. Weick: Well certainly they would have to redesign. Reeder: I don’t agree with moving the house 3 feet toward the lakeshore if that’s what you’re suggesting. Skistad: That’s what I would suggest. I mean if that’s the. Reeder: Because it’s already in line with the house next door. I think it’s just about exactly and I think that’s as close as we should go to the lakeshore. Weick: It would mean, if we were to add feet to the driveway it would take away, it would be a zero sum so we would take away from the garages and I’m not quite sure if this is probably offset but it would be a one for one. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yep. Reeder: Let me ask staff. Could they overhang the second story in reducing the, and increasing the size of the driveway or what’s the setback line? Walters: In variances there is no architectural encroachment. That being said it is something you could stipulate. You’d like the use of a cantilever and it requires some writing but it’d be doable. If that answers your question. Reeder: I think so. Maybe they could come up with some creative options that would keep the upper level of the house the same relative size and just reduce the garage size as needed to accommodate a longer driveway. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 20 Walters: I would want to consult with the city attorney on that. My understanding is the front yard, when we grant a variance we establish basically a box that they can work in. I don’t know that we’d have the ability to put a control that would prevent them from altering the design of the house up to the front yard setback and our code specifies that for a variances to front yard setback is for all architectural features. Eaves, cantilevers, etcetera. Weick: I think we discussed that last time. No. Walters: I strongly suspect not but would, yeah. Weick: But again I’d reiterate for me I think the decision that each of us needs to make is whether we believe the driveway needs to be longer or not. Whether there’s adequate, whether we believe there’s adequate space for whatever considerations each of us have. Whether it’s safety or you know cars hanging out in the street or whatever it might be. Skistad: What’s the current driveway? Weick: This one that’s here in the picture? It’s deep to the house. It’s probably 20 feet. Randall: Yeah if you look at the page with the color. Jeff Souba: It’s probably more than 20. Reeder: No it’s more than 20. Weick: 30 feet, yeah. Jeff Souba: You can park an entire row of cars facing the street and then another set of cars facing sideways in front of them. We’ve put 13 cars in that driveway and not have anything imposing on the street. Weick: I remember that’s all hard cover out there today so not ideal. The whole thing yeah. The whole front. Are you looking to answer or are you just getting paper? Walters: I was driving the survey to answer the question about how far back the gravel goes. Weick: Okay. Walters: Looking at reference points I would say just shy of 30 feet on the west and just a hair over 30 feet on the east. Weick: Other questions or comments from commissioners. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 21 Randall: By code what’s the minimum driveway length? Walters: Not specifically addressed but it would generally be the length of the front yard setback so in residential single family a property that met zoning code would have a 30 foot long driveway. I believe the smallest I can remember in a PUD I believe we allowed 20 and that was not including the right-of-way. That was going to property line. Randall: Okay. Because I think about like what they are for like some of the townhome complexes and that type of thing. They have pretty short driveways there but I don’t know what the minimum would be. Walters: Again I believe we try to keep them around 20. I can’t recall any that go below that. Sharmeen might have a better memory than I on that one though. Al-Jaff: 20 feet regardless of townhouses or single family and the subdivision that’s going to appear before you after this along Big Woods Drive the front yard is 20 feet on some of those homes. Randall: Okay. Weick: Okay. And I did, when I was out there on this property the next door neighbor on the other side has a relatively short driveway. They actually had an SUV parked in the driveway tucked up against the garage door and had you know less than a foot. I kind of walked it off, whatever and it was 16ish feet so very similar to what you’re speaking to which is just mandate a car’s length. That setup was very similar to what you’re talking about. And seemed to work. You could fit two cars there so. At least visually it gave us a picture of what that might look like. Without any, I mean it sounds like we’re hung up on the driveway obviously. It didn’t to me sound like anybody had, I mean I’m very thankful that the buffer and the shoreline restoration is, and use of pervious pavers is part of this construction moving forward. That’s fantastic for the lake. It significantly reduces the hard cover as I mentioned before which is awesome. And to me I’m with Commissioner Reeder, I think it’s important to have the space for an average you know SUV type vehicle to fit in front of that house perpendicular to the street. That’s my opinion. But we can you know certainly entertain if one of my fellow commissioners has a motion we can talk about that. We can look at it. We can. Paul Wagner: Could we, could we just make… Weick: Absolutely. Randall: Please come forward. Weick: If it would help yes. Do I need to reopen the public? I will officially reopen the public portion of the hearing. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 22 Paul Wagner: I apologize. I just talked with Pam and there’s nothing like having good neighbors so Pam and I would agree to keep peace in the neighborhood and make this all work, I can do some adjustments in that third stall for her doggy deal and stuff and storage and the storage up so we’ll be, we would take 3 foot off the existing plan of the garage. Weick: Thank you. Thank you also Pam. Randall: What would we need to change the approval to? Weick: You wouldn’t there is, there is one written for that I believe. Walters: Forgive me I would have one question just for clarification for the building and the applicant. Would that still be with the dedication of right-of-way or would that be with an easement granted? It’s, it will change the math of the variance that needs to be granted. Skistad: Was it for the small garage? I was a little confused on that. Paul Wagner: We would keep everything as discussed. Walters: So that’d be with the dedication? Paul Wagner: Correct. Walters: Okay. So then that would work out, so the Planning Commission would look at the motion ahead. Instead of the 8.5 foot front yard setback there would be 8.5 feet added to that to essentially account for the right-of-way that’s being seated to the city and it would then become a 17 foot front yard setback variance. Similar to how with this one with the dedication it went from 11.5 to have the shorter driveway. The 8 ½ moved it up to 20. This one would be adding 8 ½ and this would not be with an easement condition but the dedication of the roadway to the City. Weick: So it’d be 17 ½? Walters: It’d be 8 ½ plus. Bender: 8 ½ and 17 correct. Walters: Always check with the engineers for the math but yeah. Weick: Thank you. Audience: What does the driveway have to be now? …middle of the road but… Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 23 Walters: That is what I was getting at sir is because their road would no longer be on the property we would shift the front yard setback, back to accommodate for that. It would have an average driveway depth of 16 feet would be the average depth. Bender: I guess one question I would have is are we talking average depth or are we talking orienting the driveway to be completely perpendicular to the roadway so that you would have 16 feet on both sides. Dave Bangasser: Is the public hearing still open? Weick: It actually is. I didn’t close it after the. Dave Bangasser: In my opinion. Weick: Can you come up to the? Thank you. Dave Bangasser: As I stated before but in my opinion averages don’t work if part of the vehicle’s sticking out from the road. And I don’t know exactly whether another 3 feet does it or not because the survey doesn’t show us that. My suggestion would be to set some minimum driveway length and to go with that. To me I don’t care if the third stall is less than that. To me I think it’s important precedence to say a minimum of 2 cars wide that is some minimum depth. Personally I think 16 is too narrow. I already told you that I have 18 feet with the same vehicle and I think that is really a minimum but that’s my opinion and up to your judgment. Weick: Thank you. And I will close the public hearing at this point. I apologize. But those are important, those are both important comments to add. Reeder: Mr. Chairman if they did an average of 16 how many cars could we park? How many 16 foot cars could we park there? Bender: Technically you get one. If the driveway is as oriented as it currently is proposed. Reeder: So it would be 17.9 on the one end there? Bender: Yeah you’d get a little, for the car that would be parked in the middle you’d have a little bit less than 16 on this side of it. You’d have a little bit extra here. You’d have enough on this side of the car. You’d have a little bit less than this full 16 feet here. The only other. Weick: So as I’m reading this I add 3 feet to. Bender: Each of those. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 24 Weick: 14.6, 13, and 11.6 and that’s the, that would be the new depth of the driveway. It would be 17.6, 16 and then very short next to them. Bender: And then 14 ½ yes. Reeder: So at least 2 of them would be 16 feet. Weick: He’s saying it’d be tight. Bender: It’d be a little bit less on, for the middle. The vehicle that would be parking in the middle. To get that fifth car spot. It’d be about 15 1/2 because of the angle of the road and the driveway is not completely perpendicular to the street. It’s possible that you know the garage door could maybe be orientated a little bit to match the angle of the road and still keep the front but again you’re getting into design at that point which probably is not your jurisdiction but you know. Weick: But we could say, we could, correct me if I’m not but you could maintain a 16 ½ foot. Pick a number. Bender: Yeah. Weick: You could say from the curb the driveway needs to maintain X feet. Bender: Yep and I’m just, I know it’s important to the applicant who already has the home designed and especially the foundation design to be able to leave the building corners at their current location. Weick: Got it. Bender: To not add expense for the redesign of the hiloco piles. And you know maybe an adjustment to the front of the building like we have heard earlier tonight that there are alternatives to be considered. That would help orientate the structure to the, the front of the garage to be parallel to the roadway. To achieve that 16 foot average dimension. Weick: Thanks. Do you need to hear more? Do you? Randall: Is the public hearing closed? Weick: Yes it is. Randall: I’m glad that they were able to add 3 feet. I mean it shows that it’s doable. It added a lot bigger spot on that very end. Just by doing that created a lot more space which I was happy about so if that’s included I’ll be voting for it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 25 Reeder: Are you saying increase it by 3 feet? Randall: Yeah. Reeder: I can live with that. That wouldn’t be my first choice but. Randall: I know. It’d be better if it was deeper. I’d like to see more conforming but I’m glad them came back 3 feet. That added a lot more space in my opinion. It’s still going to be tough to park cars out there but. Weick: You’ll get one. Randall: For sure yeah. Weick: For sure. And then the other one will be potentially at an angle there. Randall: Plus they still have 3 garage spots too. Weick: Right. Randall: So. Reeder: My only concern about that is the next one that comes before us that says well look what you did to this. You did an average or you did it less than 16. That’s why I’m more comfortable with 16. That’s a good number. Paul Wagner: If that foot would make a big difference to everybody then let us move the house one foot closer to the lake. Pam Reimer: Yeah and my grandmother lived to be 106 so I’m going to live a long time… Paul Wagner: You’ve got to keep in mind we’re still complying with the impervious surface. In fact we are better than the last time for the. Pam Reimer: Yeah…2 percent. Paul Wagner: And now by eliminating 3 feet and then going to pervious pavers on the driveway we are more than accommodating the impervious surface. Pam Reimer: And you’re going to help pay for that right? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 26 Weick: Thank you. We can entertain a motion if you all are comfortable with this as it reads. I am also open to discussing it further. Randall: I’m willing to make a motion if there’s no more discussion. Okay. Make a motion the Chanhassen City Council. Weick: This is it. Randall: This is it right here, okay. Weick: This has, it doesn’t change the setbacks in the back yard. Randall: But it changed to 17 feet in the front. I just want to make sure. Weick: Right. Which is the addition of the. Randall: The Chanhassen City Council approves the 17 foot yard setback at 2.2, or I’m sorry. 22.1 foot lakeshore setback and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance for the construction of a single family house subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. So shouldn’t it say Planning Commission, not City Council? Walters: Apologies issued. That was sloppy on my part. Randall: Okay. Alright I’ll re-read it then. The City, the Chanhassen City Planning Commission approves a 17 foot yard setback, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance for the construction of a single family house subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Weick: We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Reeder: I’ll second that motion. Weick: We have a valid motion and a second by Commissioner Reeder. Any further comments for the record before we vote? I would add, as I have before and I know it’s already on the record but the actual lot coverage is significantly less than 9 ½ percent with the agreed use of pervious pavers and there’s also discussion to use the buffers in the shoreland restoration as proposed by our Water Resources Coordinator which is also a fantastic addition to the project as well. We have a motion and a second. Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 17-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions: Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 27 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Weick: The motion passes with a 4 to 0 vote. If anybody would like to appeal this motion they may do so within 4 days of this decision. Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 28 The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER SUBDIVISION OF 1.17 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NE INTERSECTION OF CARVER BEACH ROAD AND BIG WOODS BOULEVARD. Al-Jaff: Thank you Chairman Weick, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is, my apologies. We don’t have a monitor here so George will be going to. The application before you is for a subdivision and a variance. The request is to subdivide a 1.17 acre into two lots for single family detached houses. The property is located northeast of the intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. One of the things that we need to point out specifically dealing with existing conditions out there. There are two homes located east of this parcel. The addresses are 640 and 630 Carver Beach Road. Those two parcels share a cross access driveway that straddles the northerly property line of the subject site. And we will talk about that later in more detail. Just a brief background. So back in 2006 this parcel that extended from Carver Beach to Lotus Lake appeared before the City. It was subdivided into two parcels. The easterly portion which contained a single family home was sold and the remaining 1.17 acres is what remains vacant and is before the Planning Commission for further subdivision. So this is a fairly simple two lot subdivision. The parcels are both, the lot area width and depth all exceed the minimum requirements of the city code. The parcels are guided single family and this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As part of the subdivision the applicant is dedicating right-of-way and it is in compliance with all of the ordinances. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions. One of the things that we need to highlight is that the existing parcel is a high quality woodland typical of the Big Woods. A type of forest dominated by sugar maple and basswood. To preserve the existing woods and retain the wooded feel of the neighborhood staff recommends the easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 be covered by a conservation easement. The Comprehensive Park Plan requires that homes be, a park be located within half a mile of residential subdivisions. In this Carver Beach Park serves this development and some of the amenities that can be found at the park are swimming beach, playground, fishing pier, trails and there’s also a parking area for individuals that wish to drive out to the park. At this point I need to turn it over to Assistant City Engineer George Bender to address access among other issues. Bender: So for Lot 1 the access is off of Carver Beach Road. It’s fairly normal and consistent. Not much to discuss there. The access for Lot 2 is a little bit different. Due to the grades that are out there this driveway is proposed to come off of the new right-of-way. There are in association with this driveway that’s along here and existing easements there is difficulties in carrying the road through the subdivision to the northerly lot line as would be a normal process. As such alternatives have been considered and the proposal is to serve the home off of the new right-of- way but allow the driveway to go through the right-of-way. The sewer and water mains would be extended beyond the driveway but not impact the existing easements that are in place to utilize the driveway by this lot and this lot. And at the time that further development occurs to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 29 the north the driveway would be torn out within the right-of-way and replaced with a street that would be extended all the way over to the north to the Fox Path Road that’s to the north. The developer would be required to provide an escrow to pay for the extension of the street and the removal of the driveway. There is no knowing how long development will take to the north. If the, or if that escrow became not enough to build the road the differences would be as written in the staff report would be put on the future developer. The utilities as discussed would be, there’s already stubs out of Big Woods Boulevard that was recently reconstructed. They would be extended beyond the driveway to allow for and be sized for the future development but they would get beyond the driveway but yet not impact the existing easement. The watermain would become a dead end. It would have to have a fire hydrant on the end of it to facilitate flushing and other maintenance. The other thing to note about this from a maintenance perspective is the City would not plow the driveway or be responsible for the maintenance due to the driveway being within the right-of-way. That would be a condition. Another part of this slide discusses the drainage and utility easements along the south side of Lots 1 and 2. You’ll notice that they are abnormal. There has been future stormwater improvements designed. They’re not part of this two lot subdivision because it is a two lot subdivision. But in the future drainage and utility easement is being granted so that they could be added as necessary when the property to the north develops. It would become the responsibility of the City to do that. There are some concerns related to that existing driveway and how they will impact this two lot subdivision. Especially from a drainage perspective because the area to the north is higher in grade than the area to the south and everything generally is sloping towards Big Woods Boulevard. So the blue arrows that are shown are basically showing drainage flow patterns that are aimed at the houses. There would be a requirement for the developer to provide an exhibit to show how drainage would not impact the home, selected home sites and you know primarily concerned with snow melt and plowing. How that would occur so that the two homes that are constructed would not be at the mercy essentially of being downhill of that. Staff is comfortable with the drainage as exhibited in the flow patterns for Lot number 1. We do have identified some concerns with Lot 2. We don’t feel that they are major concerns. We feel that with a little bit more detail that this could be easily correctable but it is noted. We’d also like to see a driveway exhibit be provided and that’s noted in the staff report to show how in the future when the road is extended, not only does it meet code for grades but how the driveway will tie into it and also meet the maximum of a 10 percent slope restriction. Regarding retaining walls. Three new retaining walls are proposed on this site. They do not have top of wall and bottom of wall elevations shown on the proposed plans. That would need to be added. It is a condition that is noted in the staff report. In addition any retaining wall that would be over 4 feet in height would be required to be designed by a professional engineer. Any retaining walls that would encroach on a drainage and utility easement would be required to file for an encroachment agreement and the existing retaining wall that’s along Big Woods Drive is within the property would be within the drainage and utility easement so that will have to be looked into from filing an encroachment agreement and looking at you know who owns that retaining wall. And that’s the end of my presentation at this time. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 30 Al-Jaff: So one of the things that I need to clarify just a little bit more. The driveway that is serving the two parcels east of the subject site. There is a cross access agreement. It has a life of 99 years. I know that the developer as well, or the owner of the property as well as their engineer and staff have communicated with the neighbors to explain to them the options and the neighbor to the north basically does not wish to have any development, doesn’t want to be part of development at this time so one of the questions you asked me Chairman Weick at the beginning was the date on this application. It was 2017 and that’s when we started working with Mr. Eidsness. He submitted his application then trying to resolve all of these issues. All of these matters has taken quite a while. With that said staff is recommending approval of this application and we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Weick: Great, thank you very much. At this time if there’s any questions for staff from the commission speak up. Randall: I have none. Weick: None? Randall: None. Weick: Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Mr. Chairman, trying to figure out why they are building two huge lots instead of, if you just look across the street on Big Woods Boulevard why wouldn’t they put 5 lots in there? Tell me about the conservation easement that you have. Al-Jaff: Sure. One of, when they appeared before the City these parcels, you can only fit two homes. If you look at the lot area, lot depth, lot width. Also there are some steep grades on these two parcels so first blush you look at it and you say it makes perfect sense to come off of Big Woods Boulevard. The fact is they’re depth will not work so they would have to come before you with variances. Reeder: What’s the? Al-Jaff: They would need 125 foot minimum. Reeder: Depth from Big Woods. And what do they have? Al-Jaff: It is less than, it’s 105. Reeder: 105? Al-Jaff: 106. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 31 Reeder: Okay my concern is that we’re setting ourselves up for a variance in the future if they come back in and try to subdivide these lots to get more lots on these houses. You talked about a conservation, how’s that work? Al-Jaff: So basically with a conservation easement they, and this is an area that they had not intended to grade. They won’t be able to remove the trees and it would preserve these, the overall area as wooded. If you look across the street with Big Woods we do have similar easements. They are not as wide and what we did is we allowed the, these parcels to have a reduced front yard setback in lieu of, so their front yard is 20 feet but their rear yard setback is 40 feet and within that 40 feet is where they have their conservation easement. Reeder: Okay so we have a conservation easement here that’s the City’s in control of and would not ever allow anything to happen? Al-Jaff: I’ve learned a long time ago to say, I never say never. But it is basically what happens is if there is a diseased tree for instance then they will go and meet, work with the City Forester and ensure that it is removed. If there are dead trees the same is true. But can they clear trees, clear cut trees out of that area? The answer is no. Reeder: And they can’t come in for a subdivision? Al-Jaff: No. You can only fit two lots into that area so no. They can. Reeder: Without a variance. Al-Jaff: Without a variance. Reeder: Because of the depth. Al-Jaff: Correct. Reeder: Clearly they have more lot area than you need for these two lots. Total area. What’s a normal lot size? Al-Jaff: 15,000 square feet. Reeder: 15,000 and these lots are? Al-Jaff: So one of them is 17,000 and the other one. Weick: 27.9. I think. On page 10 of 12. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 32 Al-Jaff: Yes. In addition to the lot depth that’s going to become an issue, or a problem. Again the grades on these parcels are not very conducive to accessing off of Big Woods Boulevard. Hence you will see retaining walls in multiple areas. There are fairly large drainage and utility easements and that’s where we will have potentially future drainage utilities. So between all of these things it’s unlikely that you will be able to fit another parcel. Reeder: Okay it’s beautiful. I love it just the way it is. That’s fine. Al-Jaff: Thank you. Weick: Any questions for the City? Skistad: I guess the only thing that confused me was the retaining wall that we don’t know who owns it? Does that have to be answered first? Bender: I don’t believe it has to. That can be worked out with the final plat. Reeder: Who built it? Bender: I couldn’t answer that question at this time. Weick: And it meets, other than the variance for the right-of-way this meets all of the. Al-Jaff: It exceeds everything. Weick: It meets and exceeds all of the requirements for a preliminary plat. Okay thank you. At this time I would invite the applicant to make a presentation if you would like. Just state your name. Paul Otto: I’m Paul Otto with Otto and Associates. I’m representing the applicant. If you have questions for him I can answer. I’ll be fairly brief on this. I think it is pretty straight forward. You’ve all realized that. A couple of the things. The retaining walls if we need to pull them out of the easements I think we can. What we did with the homes on this and the proposed grading as we wanted to give an idea of how that would look. These would be custom design as most of Chanhassen is but the easterly home, we actually have a dropped garage so that garage is dropped from the main floor farther than you normally would in a home and we are proposing to pull grade up on the north side of that home so we can get it to drain around there. We’ll certainly provide more detail on that and then as well the, why the garage is dropped is because we actually, there’s a lot of history in this. I first looked at this property and all the properties to the north in 2006. We laid it all out. I’ve got a design for the whole thing so this was the first part of it and that driveway there needs to be dropped to fit into the future road so we’ll certainly provide that to city staff as well. Other than that I think we’re onboard with everything. The retaining wall that’s at the intersection there was built with the project to the south. We Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 33 happened to have done that. The little piece there was an outlot of that project and then that got attached to the north so that’s how that got there. What easements are there or not I don’t know. We haven’t seen title work yet. Maybe that will have something in it. Maybe not so I don’t know if you have any questions for me. Weick: Certainly open it up if there’s any commissioner questions. Any questions? No, thank you very much. I’m sure it’s going to be beautiful. Lots of trees in there. At this time we will open up the public portion of the hearing if anyone would like to come forward and provide comment on this project you’re welcomed to do so now. You would go to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Yes please. David Igel: Good evening Chairman and commissioners. My name is David Igel. I live at 501 Big Woods Boulevard and my wife Rachel and I actually developed Big Woods Boulevard so I have a little bit of the history. Paul was our engineer of record and probably knows more of the details and I’ve known Mr. Eidsness and he’s been working on this for some time as well as city staff. You know I think overall we were hoping that the entire property would develop at the same time. I think it would make for a better flow. I think everybody probably feels that way but as it is I think done properly it’s going to be a nice addition to the neighborhood. I did just have a couple of questions on it and I think that this has changed a little bit in design since the last time I talked to city staff so I’ll try to be brief here but maybe if some of those questions could be answered. There’s not going to be stormwater ponding or anything added at the present time? Is that correct? It’s just planned for future? So does the existing stormwater system on Big Woods that flows both east and west, those calcs are done and that will handle the existing hard cover I presume? Bender: Yes. David Igel: Is that right? Okay. The one, let’s see. I just wondered if those trees are the final location. The additional trees that I think are required by the, to keep the canopy. Is that the final position for those to be planted or could they be, if not instead of trees being used to provide screening from the house into the trees that are going to be kept in the conservation easement, if those could be dropped on the lower side to provide screening from Big Woods ma be a consideration and that wouldn’t necessarily have to be put in but I haven’t had a chance to talk to the applicant to this point. That would be one comment I would have. With the retaining walls, the existing retaining walls which were put in when Big Woods was put in were all made of boulders and my thought on it, and perhaps the City and the engineers have a different feel for it. I think as a matter of consistency, and maybe the applicant would have a different feel for it as well but as a matter of consistency it’d be nice for those to be retaining walls as well. Made of boulders just as a matter of consistency coming across. I don’t know if that’s been considered. And then the one thing I would just like to add, and it’s probably not part of this process but because of the grade that does come down and I think it was touched on with the erosion control, that is going to be really important. The last house that was built on Big Woods at the end was uphill from the cul-de-sac and the retaining pond in my driveway that actually runs down into Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 34 my garage wasn’t properly maintained. There’s actually some weird water tables in there so the, a spring was kind of feeding the water behind. Contractors were in there. Did some work. They cut the retaining, or the silt fencing that was holding, we had several thousand gallons that ran down into the pond, into the driveway, into my garage so I would just say that special care be taken of that. I’m sure that that’s the intent of the applicant and engineer but that I think is going to be really critical because if a big storm comes down that’s going to silt up all of the catch basins. All of the underwater piping and then of course the new retaining pond or the new area to the west. The one variance which I think that’s probably the only thing that you have much discretion on here of being a 50 foot wide for the right-of-way for that future road I think is a great idea and if that could ever be made any more narrow so fewer trees could be taken out in this area. We had a 50 foot variance on our’s and I think that would have been better if that would have been more narrow because a lot of trees were taken out there. You come from a 20 foot wide cart path coming in there to what’s probably a larger boulevard than is necessary and the fewer trees and the fewer, the less excavating that needs to happen up there for that new road or for the driveway would I think be beneficial to the whole neighborhood. Thank you. Weick: Great, thank you. And as a note all the comments that are made become part of the public record so your comments and suggestions will be part of the public record for this case. Please. Mike Sweet: Thank you. My name is Mike Sweet. I live at 565 Big Woods Boulevard. Kind of right straight across from the easterly lot there and I was wondering if there’s any stipulation regarding the orientation of the two houses. Do they face Big Woods Boulevard or do they face you know the westerly one facing Carver Beach Road and the other one facing the other way? Because you know all the houses on the south side of Big Woods Boulevard face and it just seems odd to me if the other houses were facing east and west so that we’re looking at the side of that house and that it would maybe negatively impact the property values of the houses on the south side of Big Woods Boulevard. So is there any stipulation for that or is that not something you can stipulate? I mean you just kind of divide up the lots and let people build houses, whichever orientation they want. Weick: You know we’ll keep track of the questions and then we can certainly pose them to the applicant. Mike Sweet: Okay. And so that’s one concern that I had. And the other thing is just to reiterate to leave as many of those trees as possible. They’re just beautiful. Just full of maple trees and really a nice spot over there. I’d hate to see too many of those taken down. I don’t know if the conservation easements, if the size of those is cast in stone or why, how we came up with the size of those but if they could be as large as possible we’d appreciate it. Weick: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes please. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 35 Francesca Landon: Hi, my name is Francesca Landon and I live at 620 Fox Hill Drive so I’m actually north of the woods completely and our house looks out to the woods so I’m in favor and I appreciate that you guys try to keep as much of the trees as possible within that. I had a quick question because if I recall correctly I thought the original plat from years and years ago that I had talked to you on the phone about, I thought this area served as a holding pond, is that correct? About it because there was going to be like the wetland on the upper side and I thought that there was a holding pond on the south side of this entire wooded area. Al-Jaff: There was. Francesca Landon: To serve as like the storm but it was much bigger if I can recall. I was trying to track down any of the old paperwork but I couldn’t find it. My question with that is from that larger amount then to adding all the hard cover and everything like that is the proposed storm, sorry. I’m spacing here. Is that going to be enough for these two houses as well as what you guys are planning for in the future? Weick: Okay and we’ll pose it because there’s different people that have to answer certain questions so. Francesca Landon: Yeah. And then my other question is for I’m sorry I forgot your name. You had said that the second house, the Block 2 I think, that on the north side of the house you were going to be dropping the garage because of the upgrading needed on the north side of the house but how does that affect the driveway that’s currently there for the two houses? And I think that’s my other one. Oh actually I’m sorry, I do have one more. Because of the weird school district lines I was curious. Would those be Carver County schools or Minnetonka schools? It’s kind of off topic but I think that was jut it so yeah, thank you. Weick: Thank you. Would anyone else? Oh there you are. I wasn’t looking I’m sorry. Diane Carney: No problem. Diane Carney. I live at 549 Big Woods Boulevard. I won’t go into it. My questions are similar to what’s already been said by our neighbors here which is retaining the trees. They’re so beautiful and they’re in full bloom and as many as can be retained as possible. And I live directly on that Lot 4 directly across from that new road and just to reiterate Dave’s point on keeping that as narrow as possible to try and preserve. There’s some really big trees right on that corner so that’s all I have. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward, would you be willing to answer some of the questions? That’d be great. I kept track of some of them but to just kind of rattle them off. One is the trees that will be added. Would there be consideration to adding trees to screen on Big Woods Boulevard? Paul Otto: Yeah and one thing that I wanted to point out and I didn’t right away which I should have is that these, the homes and the lots themselves will be sold and those will be custom Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 36 designed by whoever buys them so the City will have to handle reviewing the building permits to be in accordance with that so it’s probably going to be more up to those owners because one of the last things we want to do is come in there and clear cut these trees and plant these new ones and it doesn’t work into their home or somebody says, I mean I’ve seen people do a lot of different things and they say I want to see something completely different and design around maybe some of those trees so that will happen with the actual owners who frankly I mean I work for developers. It’s a business. They will probably have more sensitivity to that as well. Weick: Which could then also affect the materials you would use for retaining walls I would imagine. Paul Otto: Correct. That would be the same thing. That would really be up to the homeowner. They will be all on private property so. Weick: Yeah. Obviously if they could consider what some of the neighbors are saying to keep some of the consistency that’s always something to keep in the back of our mind. I think there was some, a request for care during construction especially for the runoff. Paul Otto: Yeah so for the construction portion of it what we will be responsible for is the utilities and that access and probably will be building that driveway up there just to help salability out so we will, staff has commented we need a little more erosion control on that. Weick: Okay. And then orientation of the homes. Again it’s probably up to the person who owns. Paul Otto: Yes. Why they’re in there like this is because that grade is coming down to the road. We could come off of Big Woods Boulevard but you’re going to be looking at a tuck under type garage home and that’s not as desirable at least in this area and probably you know it can be done and that’s not to say they couldn’t do it on these lots but this is a little bit easier for a buyer to see and visualize. Weick: Okay and then I think the last one for you was a question around dropping the driveway and if that, how that would affect I think the long driveway. Paul Otto: Yeah I didn’t really explain that correctly. So we’re going to, so we’ve got our house foundation and you’ve got trusses above that but you’ve got your house foundation and your outside grade is set by that. We’re going to drop the garage down I think, I can’t remember what it is. It’s a foot or foot and a half from that. And then on the north side of that we’re, what we show on our plan is that would actually be block on that north wall in the garage so that we can keep the grade of the north wall higher than the half a foot below the garage floor is what I’m trying to, what I tried to explain. Weick: Yep. Perfect. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 37 Paul Otto: Your stormwater pond question. Weick: Yes. Paul Otto: I can help with that because we did that design. We can only work with the properties that we have. When we did that design we, all of these property owners in this whole block were in agreement at that time and had hired us to look at that and the place that made the most sense was at that intersection because it’s the lowest on the property. We don’t have that now. What we have done is we’ve shown city staff that if you look at this development as a whole we can accommodate this new road in those easements but it will not handle the rest of the water to the north so the property owners to the north are going to need a pond on their own property. We ponded on our site for that road and extension for the future but we haven’t accounted for anybody else’s water. Weick: Okay. Paul Otto: Just to be clear. Weick: Okay. Great, well thank you. Paul Otto: Thank you. Weick: Appreciate it. And then I think the one last one was do we know the school district? Al-Jaff: I will check that information and make sure it’s available at the, when we update the report to the City Council. Weick: Great. I’m not sure if I closed the public hearing but I will. Public hearing is now closed and I will open this up. Oh did you want to? Yeah come on. We’ll open it back up. I have to do things semi-officially so. Francesca Landon: No and I, and maybe it’s just not clear for me. Weick: Yeah. Francesca Landon: From everything that I’m hearing it sounds like in the future regardless of what I would like, is that this area is going to be constructed. Personally I’d love it to just be trees forever. I know that’s not going to happen so knowing that information where are we going to be putting that extra pond that you had just talked about? Where is that going to go if this isn’t an option anymore? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 38 Weick: I think that would be the responsibility of whoever is developing the property to the north. Is that a fair? Bender: I would agree with your statement. Maybe to add a little bit to that. Weick: Please. Bender: And Paul correct me if I’m wrong but there’s a low area and it’s kind of shown in some of the grade lines here that was previously going to be a pond and would likely be considered as a future pond site and that’s about as far as I can go with it. Weick: Okay. Francesca Landon: I’m just going to comment on that. Weick: Yeah go ahead. Francesca Landon: Because that pond is directly across from my house and I look at it every day. Currently that pond, especially with all the rain and the snow that we’ve had has kind of made it’s own trail and has started going down to the fire hydrant so that’s actually a spot that’s already low but it fills up very quickly, especially in the spring and it doesn’t have anywhere to go. It just trails down to Fox Hill and Carver Beach corners so just to keep that in mind. Weick: Thank you. I think that’s good information. Mike Sweet: One more quick comment regarding orientation. Weick: Sure. We’re going to get it all in. Mike Sweet: The orientation of the houses. I understand that it doesn’t make sense because of the grade the driveways really can’t come off of Big Woods Boulevard. They need to come in from the sides but if the houses could still be oriented to face Big Woods Boulevard. I realize this will be determined by the developer and the homeowners and stuff but if they could face Big Woods Boulevard it would seem more like a neighborhood so that all of our houses aren’t looking at the side of a house across the street then it seems like kind of a hodge podge you know put together thing. It’d be nice if they faced Big Woods. Weick: No that’s great feedback. I’m going to pause because I have rushed it too much. But this is really good conversation and important to get on the record for the development. So seeing nobody else come forward I am going to close the public hearing and I can open it up for commissioner discussion at this point. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 39 Randall: I just had one thing. MacKenzie did we talk about the facing of the homes? Didn’t we change something with that recently where you know because there’s these lots like that where they determined where the front of the house was going to be. Walters: Yep that was an ordinance amendment for a private streets and while it allowed the establishment of a front yard setback, the front yard setback does not dictate how the house is oriented design wise. Randall: Okay. Walters: It was just a you know a structural thing for driveways, etcetera and that was mostly targeted towards dealing with pre-existing development patterns and existing houses as they were built. Randall: Okay. Now does the one house on the west is that going to have a Carver Beach road address or is that going to have a Big Woods Boulevard address? Al-Jaff: It will have, if accessing off of Carver Beach it will have a Carver Beach address. Randall: Alright. Al-Jaff: Both of those parcels are corner lots. They would need to maintain a 30 foot setback from the right-of-way for Big Woods and Carver Beach as well as the future extension. Randall: Okay. That was all I had. Weick: Okay. Reeder: Quick question looking at this new road heading down toward Lot 4. …in a situation with the headlights going in the Lot 4? And I know that’s already situated there. Bender: Could you say that one more time? Reeder: If we’re going to put a road through directly across from Lot 4 here, we’ve got headlights heading right toward that guy’s house which sometimes people are concerned about. Bender: I see where you’re coming from. I don’t believe I understand completely which house you’re, are you talking the house that’s going to be at the end on. Reeder: No I’m talking about the Big Woods lot number 4 directly across the street from, yeah. Bender: Oh right here, okay. Eventually yes there would be headlights going at that house with that street platted through there. Best I can tell ya. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 40 Reeder: Looks like we’re setting up a problem. I don’t know what the solution would possibly be though because you’ve, you actually had that street entrance already established there right. So you assume that Lot number 4 knew it when they bought it. Bender: That is correct. We were, to talk about headlights a little bit. And it is addressed in the staff report a little bit in relation to the driveway that’s along here. We were thinking that the new houses on Lots 1 and 2 may also see headlights coming in and it is discussed in there as part of the drainage concerns of maybe using some sort of a privacy fence to help address that concern for as long as that driveway is there. Sharmeen correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that that cross access agreement went into effect in 1971. Al-Jaff: Correct. Bender: So it will be 99 years later or 2070 so approximately 51 years from now that that will expire if new agreements aren’t reached. Al-Jaff: The other thing that could potentially happen is the property to the north actually comes in for subdivision and at that time we would vacate that easement. Reeder: Okay. Weick: Comments, questions? Certainly entertain a motion if you feel like moving in that direction. Anything? Randall: I did the last one. Weick: Thank you. Skistad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way as shown in plans stamped Received April 22, 2019 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation. Weick: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Randall: Second. Weick: Second from Commissioner Randall. Any further comment on this case before we vote? Skistad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way as shown in plans stamped Received April 22, 2019 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 41 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation: SUBDIVISION Engineering: 1. The applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions including all existing easements on, and abutting, the subdivision prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to sufficiently illustrate the route drainage will take around the buildings and throughout the site for review and approval by the city prior to grading. 3. The applicant shall provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing driveway providing access to 630 and 640 Carver Beach Road will be performed without conflict or nuisance to the proposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat. 4. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading. 5. Updated plans illustrating retaining wall elevations shall be provided prior to grading. 6. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW) to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive”. 7. The developer shall put into escrow the cost for construction (see condition 14) of the future street construction of “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2 prior to recording of final plat. The construction of the street will occur when the property to the north of Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it is appropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first. 8. Lot 2’s driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive”. A detail showing the elevations and conformity of future street grades and driveway grades shall be submitted prior to grading. 9. A sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big Woods Boulevard indicating a future street will be constructed. 10. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies of sanitary and water services for Lot 1 will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. From as-built information, it appears there was water and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property in 1975. If these services are currently in use by an existing property, the developer shall relocate those services to avoid having private service lines running through the subdivision. If these services are not in use, the developer shall field verify their locations and serviceability prior to connecting services to the laterals. 11. A fire hydrant shall be constructed on the end of the water main extension in “Lotus Woods Drive”. 12. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the proposed public water main and sanitary sewer main extensions prior to the recording of the final plat. 13. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the grading and construction of the future street “Lotus Woods Drive”, abutting Lot 2, prior to the recording of the final plat. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 42 14. All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s most recent Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, and city review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. 15. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. 16. The development of Lots 1 and 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit applications. 17. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract. Water Resources: 1. Provide an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with Sec. 19-145 of city ordinances upon submittal of building permits for individual lot development. 2. Provide drainage and stormwater management plans as prescribed in Chapter 18, Sec. 18- 40 and Section 19-143. Parks: 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the two lots. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single- family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total park fees would be $5,800. Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. The easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 shall be covered by a Conservation Easement. 2. Tree preservation fencing will be required on each lot. Fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to the start of any construction activities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 16, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Weick: You all are doing a great job. That’s my presentation for you. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: Any administrative presentations or City Council action update? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 43 Walters: Just wanted to let you know that the two code amendments you had forwarded onto the City Council were passed on the consent agenda on May 13th. Staff is still working on the kennel ordinance. This is the busier time of the year so it could be a little while before I can get to it but we will try to turn that around as quick as we can. Beyond that I don’t believe. Al-Jaff: Control Concepts will be appearing before you at your next Planning Commission meeting. It’s a site plan with a conditional use permit because you are within the Bluff Creek overlay district. Weick: Got it. Is that the only one for next time so far? That you know of. Al-Jaff: Yeah. Walters: I believe yes, yes it is and the deadline’s lapsed so you should be good. Bender: They’ve also seen that one before. Al-Jaff: Correct. Weick: I know it sounds familiar yeah. Is that the one with the path? They’re back. That’s my favorite one. Okay well I won’t miss that one. Can I ask, I don’t know how to appropriately adjourn the meeting. Do we need a motion? Al-Jaff: You need a motion to adjourn. Weick: And we vote on it. Al-Jaff: Correct. Weick: Okay thank you. Do we have a motion to adjourn? Randall: Motion to adjourn. Weick: And a second? Reeder: Second. Randall moved, Reeder seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 44 Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Approve Subdivision with Variance for Lotus Woods (formerly Eidsness) Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.3. Prepared By Sharmeen Al­Jaff, Senior Planner File No: PC 2017­06 PROPOSED MOTION The Chanhassen City Council approves the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50­foot public right­of­way as show in plans stamped "Received April 22, 2019", subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots for single­family detached housing.  The property is located at the northeast intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. Access to the site is proposed via Carver Beach Road and a driveway off of Big Woods Boulevard. Sewer and water is available to the site. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF).  The applicant is proposing to dedicate the right­of­way (ROW) for the future extension of the street east of the subject site and the existing Carver Beach Road. There is a variance attached to the application that deals with the width of the ROW. Staff is recommending approval of the Variance. BACKGROUND On May 21, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval, unanimously. DISCUSSION As part of the discussion, a question was raised regarding which school district serves the site. As part of the update, staff is providing an answer. The Eastern Carver County School District serves this parcel. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50­foot public right­of­way as shown on plans stamped "Received April 22, 2019", subject to the following CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectApprove Subdivision with Variance for Lotus Woods (formerly Eidsness)Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.3.Prepared By Sharmeen Al­Jaff, Senior Planner File No: PC 2017­06PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council approves the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance toallow a 50­foot public right­of­way as show in plans stamped "Received April 22, 2019", subject to the Conditionsof Approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYThe applicant is requesting to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots for single­family detached housing.  The property islocated at the northeast intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. Access to the site is proposedvia Carver Beach Road and a driveway off of Big Woods Boulevard. Sewer and water is available to the site. Theproperty is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is proposing to dedicate the right­of­way (ROW) for the future extension of the street east of the subjectsite and the existing Carver Beach Road. There is a variance attached to the application that deals with the width ofthe ROW. Staff is recommending approval of the Variance.BACKGROUNDOn May 21, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval, unanimously.DISCUSSIONAs part of the discussion, a question was raised regarding which school district serves the site. As part of the update,staff is providing an answer. The Eastern Carver County School District serves this parcel.RECOMMENDATIONStaff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The Chanhassen City Council approves the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50­foot public right­of­way as shown on plans stamped "Received April 22, 2019", subject to the following conditions, and adoption of the Findings of Fact: Subdivision Engineering : 1. The applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions including all existing easements on, and abutting, the subdivision prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to sufficiently illustrate the route drainage will take around the buildings and throughout the site for review and approval by the city prior to grading. 3. The applicant shall provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing driveway providing access to 630 and 640 Carver Beach Road will be performed without conflict or nuisance to the proposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat. 4. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading. 5. Updated plans illustrating retaining wall elevations shall be provided prior to grading. 6. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of  ROW to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive.” 7. The developer shall put into escrow the cost for construction (see condition 14) of the future street construction of “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2 prior to recording the final plat. Construction of the street will occur when the property to the north of the Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it is appropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first. 8. Lot 2’s driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive”.A detail showing the elevations and conformity of future street grades and driveway grades shall be submitted prior to grading. 9. A sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big Woods Boulevard indicating a future street will be constructed. 10. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies of sanitary and water services for Lot 1 will be required prior to the issuance of building permits.From the as­built information, it appears there were water and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property in 1975.If these services are currently in use by an existing property, the developer shall relocate those services to avoid having private service lines running through the subdivision.  If these services are not in use, the developer shall field verify their locations and serviceability prior to connecting services to the laterals. 11 . A fire hydrant shall be constructed on the end of the water main extension in “Lotus Woods Drive.” 12. The applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the proposed public water main and sanitary sewer main extensions prior to the recording of the final plat. 13. The applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the grading and construction of the future street “Lotus Woods Drive”, abutting Lot 2, prior to recording the final plat. 14. All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s most recent Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. City review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. 15. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectApprove Subdivision with Variance for Lotus Woods (formerly Eidsness)Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.3.Prepared By Sharmeen Al­Jaff, Senior Planner File No: PC 2017­06PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council approves the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance toallow a 50­foot public right­of­way as show in plans stamped "Received April 22, 2019", subject to the Conditionsof Approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYThe applicant is requesting to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots for single­family detached housing.  The property islocated at the northeast intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. Access to the site is proposedvia Carver Beach Road and a driveway off of Big Woods Boulevard. Sewer and water is available to the site. Theproperty is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is proposing to dedicate the right­of­way (ROW) for the future extension of the street east of the subjectsite and the existing Carver Beach Road. There is a variance attached to the application that deals with the width ofthe ROW. Staff is recommending approval of the Variance.BACKGROUNDOn May 21, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval, unanimously.DISCUSSIONAs part of the discussion, a question was raised regarding which school district serves the site. As part of the update,staff is providing an answer. The Eastern Carver County School District serves this parcel.RECOMMENDATIONStaff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the following motion:"The Chanhassen City Council approves the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance toallow a 50­foot public right­of­way as shown on plans stamped "Received April 22, 2019", subject to the followingconditions, and adoption of the Findings of Fact:SubdivisionEngineering:1. The applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions including all existing easements on,and abutting, the subdivision prior to the recording of the final plat.2. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to sufficiently illustrate the route drainage will takearound the buildings and throughout the site for review and approval by the city prior to grading.3. The applicant shall provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing drivewayproviding access to 630 and 640 Carver Beach Road will be performed without conflict or nuisance to theproposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat.4. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading.5. Updated plans illustrating retaining wall elevations shall be provided prior to grading.6. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of  ROW to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on thepreliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive.”7. The developer shall put into escrow the cost for construction (see condition 14) of the future street constructionof “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2 prior to recording the final plat. Construction of the street will occurwhen the property to the north of the Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it isappropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first.8. Lot 2’s driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive”.Adetail showing the elevations and conformity of future street grades and driveway grades shall be submittedprior to grading.9. A sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big WoodsBoulevard indicating a future street will be constructed.10. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies of sanitary and water services for Lot 1will be required prior to the issuance of building permits.From the as­built information, it appears there werewater and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property in 1975.If these services are currently in use by an existingproperty, the developer shall relocate those services to avoid having private service lines running through thesubdivision.  If these services are not in use, the developer shall field verify their locations and serviceabilityprior to connecting services to the laterals.11 . A fire hydrant shall be constructed on the end of the water main extension in “Lotus Woods Drive.”12. The applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the proposed public water main and sanitary sewer mainextensions prior to the recording of the final plat.13. The applicant shall provide a cost estimate for the grading and construction of the future street “Lotus WoodsDrive”, abutting Lot 2, prior to recording the final plat.14. All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s most recent Standard Specifications and DetailPlates. City review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/orgrading permits. 15. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. 16. The development of Lots 1 and 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit applications. 17. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract. Water Resources: 1. Provide an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with Sec. 19­145 of city ordinances upon submittal of building permits for individual lot development. 2. Provide drainage and stormwater management plans as prescribed in Chapter 18, Sec. 18­40 and Section 19­ 143. Parks: 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the two lots. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single­family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total park fees would be $5,800. Environmental Resources Coordinator : 1. The easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 shall be covered by a Conservation Easement. 2. Tree preservation fencing will be required on each lot.  Fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to the start of any construction activities. ATTACHMENTS: Updated PC Staff Report Finds of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application Preliminary Plat Sheets dated April 22, 2019 Affidavit of Public Hearing Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: May 21, 2019 CC DATE: June 10, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: Waived CASE #: 2017-06 BY: SJ, EH, TH, RC, JS This staff report has been edited. All new information is highlighted in yellow. Impertinent information has been struck through. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50-foot ROW. LOCATION: Northeast intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. APPLICANT: Paul T. Eidsness 1217 Cape Coral Parkway East #346 Cape Coral, FL 33904 paul@eidsnesslaw.com 952-473-1926 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District, RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (1.2 – 4.0 units/net acre) ACREAGE: 1.17 acres DENSITY: 2 units per 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 variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinances for variances. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of City Council approves the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right- of-way (ROW) as shown in plans stamped, Received April 22, 2019, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the findings of fact and decision recommendation.” City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 2 of 12 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Sec. 18-22. - Variances Sec. 18-57. - Streets (a) Sec. 18-60. - Lots(f) Chapter 20, Article XII, RSF District PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots for single-family detached housing. The property is located at the northeast intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. Access to the site is proposed via Carver Beach Road and a driveway off of Big Woods Boulevard. Sewer and water is available to the site. The property is zoned Single Family Residential, RSF. BACKGROUND On January 23, 2006, the City Council approved a metes and bounds subdivision (#06-02) of 2.18 acres into two lots, as shown on plans stamped “Received January 5, 2006”, subject to conditions. The parcel along the east, contained a single-family home. The remaining 1.17 acres of vacant land is being proposed to be divided into two lots. Navaj o DrCar ver Beach RoadPonderosa Drive B r o k e n A r r o w D rLotus Tr ail Lotus Trail Canterbury Circle DerbyDriveB e lm o n t L a n e rtConestog a TrailBighorn D riveFr ontier Trail KiowaShadowmer eBighorn D riveYuma DriveRingo DriveYuma Dri veImperial D r Ponde rosa Drive Preakness Lane Wood Hill Dr Big Woods Blvd F o x H i l l D r Subject Property Meadow Green Park Carver Beach Park Lotus Lake City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 3 of 12 SUBDIVISION The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots. The lots are proposed to be served via Carver Beach Road and a driveway connecting to Big Woods Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to dedicate the ROW for the future extension of the street east of the subject site and the existing Carver Beach Road. There is a variance attached to the application that deals with the width of the ROW. This variance will be discussed in detail later in the report. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. EASEMENTS The applicant is proposing the dedication of drainage and utility easements (D&U) for the subdivision that meet Sec. 18-76. of city ordinance. Dedications of easements that are more than the typical D&U widths are found on the north side of Lots 1 and 2, and on the south side of Lots 1 and 2. On the north side of the two lots, the D&U has been located five feet south of an existing shared driveway, rather than five feet from the property line, creating a wider D&U than the required 5-foot minimum (ranging from 8-13 feet in width). The existing driveway, which the D&U is measured from, provides access to abutting properties, and due to previously recorded access agreements, must remain in place at this time. On the south side of the two lots, City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 4 of 12 the D&U has been platted at varying widths. At their maximums, the D&Us reach a total width of 21 feet and 35 feet on Lots 1 and 2, respectively, and at a minimum, maintains a 10-foot width. These widths are necessary to accommodate the installation and maintenance of potential future stormwater improvements. EXISTING-CONDITIONS SURVEY The applicant did not provide an existing-conditions survey. Prior to the recording of the final plat, the applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions of the subdivision including all existing easements on, and abutting, the property to be developed. GRADING/DRAINAGE The applicant is proposing to grade the west side of Lot 1 and the east side of Lot 2 in order to accommodate the construction of one new home on each of the lots. While only a few drainage arrows were illustrated on the grading plan, the proposed grading on Lot 1 appears to route stormwater runoff away from the proposed building, while the proposed grading on Lot 2 appears to not adequately route stormwater runoff away from the building, particularly on the north side. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to illustrate the route drainage will take around the buildings for review and approval by the city prior to grading. If drainage does not route stormwater away from the new homes, an updated grading plan will be required for review and approval by the city prior to grading. Due to the close proximity of the proposed new homes on Lots 1 and 2 to the existing driveway, which provides access to abutting properties (630 & 640 Carver Beach Road), the applicant will be required to provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing drive will be performed without conflict or nuisance to the proposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat. One approach may be the use of a privacy fence on Lots 1 and 2, north of the proposed buildings, outside the D&U easement. This would ensure that snow storage is not placed directly adjacent to the proposed homes, which would cause drainage issues during periods of snowmelt. The applicant has proposed grading on private property located east of “Lotus Woods Drive” (630 Carver Beach Road). Grading on adjacent properties requires a temporary construction easement be recorded. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading. EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL The applicant has prepared and submitted a preliminary erosion and sediment control plan for the grading of Lots 1 and 2. The proposed total ground disturbance will exceed 5,000 square feet but is less than 1 acre, thus a NPDES permit is not required and all erosion control measures shall meet Sec. 19-145 of the city ordinances. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed and approved concurrently upon building permit submittals for Lots 1 and 2. City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 5 of 12 RETAINING WALLS Three retaining walls have been proposed with the subdivision: two are on Lot 1 and one is on Lot 2. Top of wall (TW) and bottom of wall (BW) elevations have not been provided for the proposed retaining walls. Updated plans illustrating TW and BW elevations shall be provided prior to grading. Any retaining walls located in D&U easements will require an encroachment agreement. All retaining walls over four feet in height shall be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. All walls shall be constructed of a durable material (smooth face concrete/poured in place, masonry/mortared, railroad ties and timber are prohibited). STREETS The subdivision abuts Carver Beach Road to the west and Big Woods Boulevard to the south. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of ROW to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive”. While a 60-foot public ROW is standard for residential street sections, a 50-foot ROW is sufficient to construct a 28-foot back-to-back street section, providing consistency with the Big Woods Development off Big Woods Boulevard and the surrounding area. This ROW will be extended when future development of the area to the north occurs. Construction of the street will occur when the property to the north of Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it is appropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first. The developer will be required to put into escrow the cost for construction of the future street “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2, which includes the cost of removing the temporary driveway (discussed below). This cost will be determined by the developer for review by the city prior to recording of final plat. If the escrow amount collected is not sufficient to pay for the City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 6 of 12 future street construction abutting Lot 2, the difference shall be paid by the future developer of the subdivision to the north. Access to Lot 2 has been proposed via a driveway over and through the future public ROW “Lotus Woods Drive”. This approach is acceptable to city staff, as it allows access to Lot 2 via a temporary driveway through the public ROW until such time that a public street is constructed. The driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive” so that future construction of the street will not create adverse grades (a driveway grade greater than 10% or a street grade greater than 7%). A detail showing conformity of potential future street grades and proposed driveway grades, with elevations, shall be submitted with updated plans prior to grading. Also, a sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big Woods Boulevard, i.e. near the driveway entrance of Lot 2, indicating a future street will be constructed. Lastly, because this is a private driveway located in a public ROW, the homeowner will be responsible for snow removal of the driveway up to Big Woods Boulevard. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN Based on the city’s as-built information, there currently is access to existing sanitary sewer and water service from Carver Beach Road for Lot 1 and Big Woods Boulevard for Lot 2. Within Carver Beach Road is an 8” PVC sanitary sewer line and a 6” DIP water line, and within Big Woods Boulevard is an 8” PVC sanitary sewer line and 8” PVC water line. All utilities are adequate to service the subdivision. The applicant has not provided in their submittal, connection methodologies or proposed locations of service laterals for either water or sanitary services for Lot 1. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies will be required prior to recording of final plat. From as-built information on Carver Beach Road, it appears there was water and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property near Lot 1 in 1975. If these services are currently in use by an existing property, the developer will be required to relocate those services in order to avoid having private service lines running through the proposed subdivision. If these services are not in use, the developer will be required to field verify their locations and serviceability prior to connecting services to the laterals. The applicant is proposing to extend the public sanitary and water main from Big Woods Boulevard north, through the newly created public ROW “Lotus Woods Drive”, approximately 80 feet. Water and sewer service laterals to Lot 2 will be extended from these newly installed mains within “Lotus Woods Drive.” From the submitted plans, the applicant is proposing to install a gate valve at the end of the newly constructed water main. Instead, a fire hydrant will be required on the end of the water main extension in order to flush and maintain the newly created dead-end system. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for these proposed public utility improvements prior to the recording of the final plat. City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 7 of 12 All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The applicant is proposing a subdivision of land governed by Chapter 18. This chapter specifies that an existing and proposed drainage plan shall be provided which illustrates the pre-existing and proposed direction and rate of runoff to pubic stormwater infrastructure. Article VII, Chapter 19 of city code describes the required stormwater management development standards. The proposed development must provide plans to meet the applicable requirements of Chapter 19 and the stormwater management requirements for Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. Stormwater Utility Connection Charges Section 4-30 of City Code sets out the fees associated with surface water management (SWMP). A water quality and water quantity fee are collected with a subdivision. These fees are based on land use type and are intended to reflect the fact that the more intense the development type, the greater the degradation of surface water. This fee will be applied to the new lots of record being created. It is calculated as shown in the table below for the current rate in force for 2019: SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT FEE AREA PER ACRE FEE ACRES FEE GROSS AREA $8,320 1.04 $ 8,652.80 NET AREA 1.04 $ 8,652.80 The applicant shall pay the SWMP fee at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. ASSESSMENTS Water and sewer partial hookups are due at the time of final plat, and there are no outstanding assessments for water and sewer main installation. The partial hookup fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time. The remaining partial hookups fees are due with the building permit. For 2019 rates, the partial hookup fees are: a) A portion of the water hook-up charge: $2,311.00/unit b) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $691.00/unit The remaining partial hookups fees are due with the building permit. The remaining fees for 2019 are: City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 8 of 12 a) The remaining portion of the water hook-up charge: $5,393.00/unit b) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $1,611.00/unit FEES Based on the proposal, the following fees will be collected with the development contract: a) Administration Fee: The improvements are less than $500,000, thus 3% of the improvement costs. b) Surface Water Management Fee: $8,652.80 c) A portion of the water hook-up charge: $2,311/unit d) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $691/unit e) Park Dedication Fee: $5,800/dwelling f) GIS Fees: $25 for the plat plus $10 per parcel LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The applicant for the Lotus Woods property development has submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 1.17 ac. or 50,965 SF Baseline canopy coverage 75% or 38,546 SF Minimum canopy coverage required 46% or 23,443 SF Proposed tree preservation 29% or 14,980 SF. The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage for the site; therefore the applicant must bring the canopy coverage on site up to the 46% minimum. The difference between the required coverage and the remaining coverage is multiplied by 1.2 for total area to be replaced. One tree is valued at 1,089 SF. Minimum required 23,443 Less canopy preserved 14,980 Minimum canopy coverage to be replaced 8,463 SF Multiplied by 1.2 10,155 Divided by 1089 =Total number of trees to be planted 9 trees The applicant has proposed a total of 11 trees. The development does not have any buffer yards required. The existing parcel is a high quality woodland typical of the Big Woods, a type of forest dominated by sugar maple and basswood. To preserve the existing woods and retain the wooded feel of the neighborhood, staff recommends Conservation Easements in the rear of each yard. City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 9 of 12 COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN The city’s comprehensive park plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within one-half mile of every residence in the city. The proposed Lotus Woods subdivision is located within the Carver Beach Park neighborhood park service area. Carver Beach Park features the following amenities: swimming beach, playground, fishing pier, trails and parking area. Carver Beach Park City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 10 of 12 COMPLIANCE TABLE RSF Setbacks: Front: 30 feet, Side: 10 feet VARIANCE City Code requires a 60-foot ROW. The surrounding area and the ROW within the Carver Beach area is between 40 and 50 feet wide. Approval of the variance will allow the street to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. This street will provide future access to the property located north of the subject site. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of City Council approves the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-way as shown in plans stamped, Received April 22, 2019, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of fact and decision recommendation: SUBDIVISION Engineering: 1. The applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions including all existing easements on, and abutting, the subdivision prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to sufficiently illustrate the route drainage will take around the buildings and throughout the site for review and approval by the city prior to grading. 3. The applicant shall provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing driveway providing access to 630 and 640 Carver Beach Road will be performed without conflict or nuisance to the proposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat. Lot Area (sq. ft.) Lot Width Lot Depth 25 %Maximum Site Coverage (sq. ft.) Code (RSF) 15,000 90 125 3,750 Lot 1 27,908 106 269 6,977 Lot 2 17,433 100 157 4,358 Right-of-Way 5,000 Total 50,341 City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 11 of 12 4. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading. 5. Updated plans illustrating retaining wall elevations shall be provided prior to grading. 6. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW) to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive”. 7. The developer shall put into escrow the cost for construction (see condition 14) of the future street construction of “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2 prior to recording of final plat. The construction of the street will occur when the property to the north of Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it is appropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first. 8. Lot 2’s driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive”. A detail showing the elevations and conformity of future street grades and driveway grades shall be submitted prior to grading. 9. A sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big Woods Boulevard indicating a future street will be constructed. 10. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies of sanitary and water services for Lot 1 will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. From as-built information, it appears there was water and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property in 1975. If these services are currently in use by an existing property, the developer shall relocate those services to avoid having private service lines running through the subdivision. If these services are not in use, the developer shall field verify their locations and serviceability prior to connecting services to the laterals. 11. A fire hydrant shall be constructed on the end of the water main extension in “Lotus Woods Drive”. 12. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the proposed public water main and sanitary sewer main extensions prior to the recording of the final plat. 13. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the grading and construction of the future street “Lotus Woods Drive”, abutting Lot 2, prior to the recording of the final plat. 14. All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s most recent Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, and city review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. 15. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. 16. The development of Lots 1 and 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit applications. 17. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract. Water Resources: 1. Provide an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with Sec. 19-145 of city ordinances upon submittal of building permits for individual lot development. 2. Provide drainage and stormwater management plans as prescribed in Chapter 18, Sec. 18- 40 and Section 19-143. City Council Planning Commission Lotus Woods June 10 May 21, 2019 Page 12 of 12 Parks: 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the two lots. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single- family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total park fees would be $5,800. Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. The easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 shall be covered by a Conservation Easement. 2. Tree preservation fencing will be required on each lot. Fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to the start of any construction activities. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Preliminary Plat Sheets stamped “Received April 22, 2019”. 4. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. g:\plan\2017 planning cases\17-06 lotus woods (formerly eidsness) subdivision\staff report preliminary.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COLTNTIES, MINNESOTA IN RE: Application ofPaul Eidsness for Subdivision approval. On May 21,2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Lotus Woods for preliminary plat approval of property into two lots with a right-of-way variance. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission ireard testimony fiom all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF)' 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Low Density Residential. 3. The legal description ofthe property is: See Attached Exhibit A 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven affects and our findings regarding them are: SUBDI VISION FINDINGS a. The proposed suMivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the Single-Family Residential District (RSF), and the zoning ordinance ifthe conditions of approval are met. b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limiled to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance ifthe conditions of approval are met' The physical characteristics ofthe 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. The proposed suMivision 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. c d TINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate op€n 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 ifany ofthe following exists: l) 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 ifthe specified conditions of approval are met. Sec- 18-22. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all ofthe following conditions exist: I ) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The 50-foot right-of-way will allow the street width to be consistent with streets in the surrounding area. 2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions ofthe land; Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique to this site and not generally applicable to other properties due to the fact that all streets in the immediate surrounding area have a width of40 - 50 feet. 4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting ofa variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The request, if granted, will allow the right-of-way to be consistent with the sr,urounding area. VARIANCE FINDINGS )The planning repo rt #2017 -06, dated May 21,2019, prepared by Sharmeen Al-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21" day of May 2019. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Plat. Steve Weick, g:\rlanUo l7 planning caset\I746 lot$ woods (formerly eidsness) subdivision\findings of fact-docx Block 2CARVER BEACH ROADLOTUS WOODS DRIVE12BLOCK 1LOTUS LAKEProject No. Revised:Checked By: Requested By: Date:Drawn By:Scale: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. 9 West Division Street Buffalo, MN 55313 (763)682-4727 Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.comdenotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe set and marked by License #40062 denotes iron monument foundNPRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTUS WOODSVicinity MapNFeet020405-5-16 T.J.B.1"=20'P.E.O. Eidsness Law Offices, PLC 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. _______________________________ Paul E. Otto License #40062 Date:_____________ CARVER BEACH ROADBIGWOODSBLVD.12BLOCK 1DOGWOODRD.SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN16-01395-20-1627LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNPRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANFeet03060 BIG W O O D S B L V D .12BLOCK 1 SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN 16-01395-20-1637LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNPRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER &WATERMAIN PLANLOTUS WOODS DRIVEFeet050100 CARVER BEACH ROADBIGWOODSBLVD.DOGWOODRD.12BLOCK 1SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN16-01395-20-1647LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNPRELIMINARY GRADING PLANFeet03060SILT FENCE DETAIL(SECONDARY) CARVER BEACH ROADBIGWOODSBLVD.DOGWOODRD.12BLOCK 1SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN16-01395-20-1657LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNEXISTING TREE INVENTORYFeet03060 CARVER BEACH ROADBIGWOODSBLVD.DOGWOODRD.12BLOCK 1SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN16-01395-20-1667LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNTREE INVENTORY(AFTER SECONDARY CONSTRUCTION)Feet03060 12BLOCK 1CARVER BEACH ROADBIGWOODSBLVD.DOGWOODRD.SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN16-01395-20-1677LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNTREE PLANTING &SIGNAGE PLANFeet03060 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 9, 2019, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing to consider a subdivision of 0.65 acres into two single-family lots with variances located at the northeast intersection of Carver Beach Road and Big Woods Boulevard and zoned Single Family Residential(RSF), Planning Case File No. 2017-06 to the persons named on attached Exhibit"A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. 71-- 0 I ,Z—t-A_LCZAA32-1/\-- K m Mce wissen, Deptilerk Subscribed and sworn to before me thisI3 day o 2019. 4 A Notary Public JEAN M STECKLING Notary Pubal-Mnnesota vt „+ My Gmmirlml Ivies Jan$1,'024 SUBJECT PROPERTY I' t. r. 11/4 4 A gig Woods=1vd 111 sill Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does TAX NAME»not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the TAX_ADD_L1» depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to TAX ADD L2», «TAX ADD L3» Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd.21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. SUBJECT PROPERTY f ii s Big Woods Blvd' 7t s 1 Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and Next Record»«TAX_NAME» agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought TAX ADD L1» by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. TAX_ADD_L2», «TAX_ADD_L3» E-7 N _ O N N N- a 3 m 8 E L as LNm LE ovd>, aE m .o .mr 3-O L O . O O '- -c -0 ON -) nO + dd O Z d 'p ma 84,° 8.6E° me kg0coN > O Q + .NrOt rCN0 ! i- ++ eac= EE yo 7 ° .cmOO m 0 c U d ° mm m L cd dnO QU C O O4-' L L U U N O) U Ci, CO aNc m` mc `° EtEc' a> O cNCOOcOlO0) 43 c° a' t °287, yi md ° co 03 N LcO ' 0OO O i >5 : -m5 , e- 0a3 - CSC O •- _ Q O O > NC • CENC ,_ i U C C N O, Q N 0 N 0 o cmm c vm p c as sa.m°¢ 2V0 co` mOOa) w t >+ E0 _ L N 0m°C) v ?' _' mcd °C) - c .O > p w E - o 0) Q 'u) . 3 (/) L p . EO (> N c5, 57,2-=2oi 'C m N O N d N U 4-, `wv.,- - EaHEc arnaL LTvsmc. clacC1) @ p C N E O C O -c Q Q L E E O (.0 N C p U i CD N m a H t E U E 2 L U is m oycoNY - m E O m 7 N c L c y c L .L.' L N co c O 4- L C Q O Y E 7 L aj 3 L O ° m E m CLO, 2 j m C H O N N N J LLL 2 m Q O OU OU C 'C E= .., (0 md '' mm-° E c ,°no.?$cm C U O O .. .N 0.- c O N 0) .' O i N p >N co , QA i a m E :1-a `0 m a m t •oEaO O m CQ c)if) O.- O _ 0).c C -- N O co ,...• ••- N N CO >, E..m o f am'= m c 3 °c apQ2OcoC d , C C N 3 r- (0 E -p O c0 a) E -a N c 4- .- _ s F.8 'f,o L u o.m E N O ti O N C • O QO 4••. _ _ N N C " U ccsmEmc¢ m > a3 0 CoN O N O (n N O C O c0 0 N m 0) Q_ d w' U N ° am° E v d N,1 o o 'odcO 'O y N L O p a, C N L N Q (O N 0 - > d iC L m L E S > ° > m a>.- c:1-13 E _, c N`-0 O U d L O '- . N "O N O .,,;L U 3 0 41 , Q v= m r _ 3 Ec u m'w V ` O N O V C 0 0 0 N N > O C (O m U ( 0 w0 } O U 1:1E ° 0 = c i 8 d c a 0- rn E a 8 m `' m 'o O (O CB L C O ; C L O N N O Q • O L >,70 £ OS C .-- o E rn m L.c° 0 3 m°m(i>,c V O c O O _ON O L '-' > QO O Q C O - Q > dTs C _6 C a ,`,3"L al co Q _ > > 'O E '(A m _O L O U U L L (.? N X 0 cm ° a;-" ti ` Lmom._ o Cf c co •>O m C 0 - c o = O N p O E Q•V O O O aU) U) v'om mmoc° Eno` m omL>Q. c O O L L 0 m C L C O Q N v) N m" m- v rn.N O_ E Q (06 cf) O 3 , + ( 0 O N L O _ ._ H L c0 O 32m vmovcE Ec.°w-Uu O c N _ 23 U U y 0 co O 4--LN V --E C (O m N N +., m O .. rr •E a Q N a>m a m t E m 2 > o m cm o c V (U ( 5) C N C fp i m• O N 0 0•U) O. c i N _ N O c0 m 0 0) O v) E C m E E m m E E ac' o N m $ .L. r a. N E m0 •= N C Q +. m N O` c = Q N t .O •_-,_ c C _0 N v- N .- .0 O I- .- a E w c.o m d E c g m E m a m yOc2 > O O C .- C 2 N _ co Q - ' Q O. Q (0 co .' L U) t 0) V (p c6 O d¢ o o m, m 3 m 11;,..,r o a m m Z H N O > N -0 N O Q , N N w- ( 0 E •V Q c0 N U m ( 0 O O >! C) E N ` 65 v ami .E1:22 c m E a>a t..m N >'w N L "a (0 (O E O E C L L t 0) E 1] E 0.") '- am a te+ C O N °` a E om m `a m >..0 m m.8 c c C N N O +' O > C C, m (0 .- 0 L O m N i •.>'' .0 O O -, C i C) •= O O m E D g m U o a`o mrn m'x .= d E 0 v) = m 3 L a) as Q•U j •V U) H- O -c m () • N E r- - 41 N ;'a E c °'u E umi-`l'- '°°°-° .`-' v O 0) _QN -•, C > C ma E Q°-E cL2 c0 7 :? ..- a) N ca 0 0 0> _c Q m 0) O T N N O 4. .„,-= -p • a°c kg ' a d E d d E m_m`m°0 0 c H 0U 0 Q Zm 0Q H (O (O Q— NM ' - N .0NL E v) Q.a• a) c c a>E.-• ma.2LU° m $ Loamman V mm m mcmmLr O N N c mE O`N c.J O m c m° °" a° O c'E y a) N `,a 2 cc¢31 v° ma% m3 mo rn°mCCQmL ° cm mm ayaci 4• E mn'a on csada) m C C . Dm jVlifflllflflu1 a P. 2 28-22365`=Z2-:5),.. -2E oc5U65cLm mmaLE0' 0 O' 0) Nr C C C •E_) LaGdnn .. 3£ c. mv ,'CO)12dvacamd02,ocm ai mHy (0 C. CQ' n0L d Y c ov miL« coocae ° rnmVO . O V C4-, C O LJO 2•nU`>' mta f na¢Em2aOC. t 0 CI J a. < a. —1 11 a Z Q o L 1 c> N a cNod oE vcc$> d NN_ N O N y d w tmo ` N. cm rn .E mr C p w- L O +- Oca' -c0 N • 0 t O O - V,O O N Q / O H 13 CON m E oN0scuEcimmLdmEa° vO00 (O 0 O L Q•3 L L _ U m N YCO cO (O NU 0 (OOCNU • OL cocHdaa cit' mE dm ccOCmCO -- 0)O N Np CO ,OdL. 00 2 N _ 0 m m m m c ca "., p C OQ O - ONc O Qoo °2E ONc i L0C C EM r) c >. c = a c m 0) a) - CO N N N>+ Q N D1 L >' EQN cl mm EmE > c Eo C 3 LNO NC • 3 ,. Q CO RE Eromt" UL O . N aE= a'- 8ma°U.°t= O 11 0UrLcm0J > E a) O N 'U E 0 m U C V N N 'ag 8ryU2utHvaUmE IT) 4- c-'cec 4- C O -` •• Q-E L E E T Cm O L C m E o =.° om U m m ma)N . j O RS m .Ummm, o5m2t ,_ NL NO 0) O O0 L.c ( O O U O LL Y — m CO 4c-,' C Q U O C ` -t .-, > t 1, g2,1 'drnL mc '_o.5m°- L C p U O J LN C QO L • U O > l- CNa/1 ma m omL(Oa) O C T) (0 OC N « C .N+ COLNN _cO OOOC , Q-4-' CO d OTEad ° > m om vTomc y= • N Q- 6O m p 0 0 O.- O . C i- aN 0) N .0 mmL mo LE ¢ CD c'-omm > oC0C ap EDNO "O r U cooE_ o rn dLm °•` v0N. N N • •C ' EQD N fic0pNOiO: t%ct=a7Em'2dEOL ~ O O -Oy COO ? .- - O - OQ (O m 'L 0 - > d EL Om2d 4-•O O a) a L O L V- N OC - O "O N 0N _- L OO U ! .Od ' p m mc c m Nm E a caa. mno. 3 c c ` O05. 0L0ON O N C U C -.., N QC — o a c.- m c m m- u. VCa CO cUv 0 r' O O O C NN • pLN ( QOO ( > ycu - 0 C ma E 3mocc' mNm> m ' OmLEO OO ,, L -p ,t '' N • O QCp0a15C .,-, - 0 , e Edo aT.-a... 2 Ety ° y5Uo 7 C) 5 y cm -0 ` mCmL pO' UU 0EQ._ p00 +_' 0O -pN 0 ?,,,,, f.% ,8.2-4 ,,, ..E.-° .2 - mQ. 0 Om >O C QNQ = NN L3NUOU Q (i) To' i (O O 3mm mm ?-.1,6 c' °n E c' ohU. cLc •CN0ca • VQ N . NOC3O .' N N = = N O S m E IEE o@Ea% cNNOL N U3Ldt _a) c*-2mt dw oO .--, O U L N C (0 cO 0 N N m O ... C m c E ' ai v c a' Dd ° d l0 N - mU er Om >.- y0 • N 04 .N Ea) >' m cL - o-0 ma. >,.c C (ON O m05OU O U O . L Q O + > r. aNw .mmonc CO 22f 2aOCws O N c - C N p ` c Q co r- co 0 o o mm o Fa- m O C _ O L a) + ci 5_ as LO V - p yN m , r >° am 8ZNUO > w, " 6OE O in NN Q' E UOCLN v 0 E N \ Nod 2 E mE Lc 'i,N N Q L ui O Dg o:52 L °N NL _C -0 N O E 0 C Y EQ" 3 >,.. C •( 0 0.) C O = :,C, mU o-0 E d c -o R O - . " u CU • EcmmcU82mic -0 c = >. wN ` QV .-, U L O mm _ U) E G1C > 5 C `acmc _ m cacc.r2oN '- j L Nu . m 1- Ua_ ..' V EN ' QOr • c ' V E 1.1 75.• a Ex a)Eav ccrnCO - >NQ > 0N Q O L N c0 (0 a im3 m °dcman 8a...,2 a...-,,-O)O 0„0 0a) n N m-t - al 0 CC O d Z CO 0Q H as N 0_ • • - • v - N -C E vQa. c0 N 2 m oc .-G a ot= m-cE - ga U p N co '' w8 -OH )N_OLag ° m N cEao. ° mLa2. 3 .€0of= :, cE E . c-''O=%u sn cmu d QmC ° c m m m ay mD m =tem aoLE u mmcCdEamcdso2a-'4,an a,5 mo'cac4. E 0 C v) 2 C E L oa' dc c. 0B .o`°m2-o ocam8 C C AC N .r+ C C Cn .. " mm `= c->'minE 'o.°ELtmtmc0Uccy: >.._.c Q. ( a) :C.rr 4) 0 N E Y Oaaa)r $d ;r0ymm_ ?i..-g,- 4- 0 0 ,Q O 0 c co QC 7 O W U z9oa.52 `L omZoocumia) 0EJa. Q a. J 2 r a ()Z Q U N U o._N m r a E E m a a E m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 I 3 -1 co CC CC 0 m 0 m „ = m „ 0 u , z u u Lr m ? m u u m m mLAIA111 = uCC p 0 z O 00 0 0 0 w J V1 m 0 mCC w zWV) m w w O 0 m L i1 0 w w z La,,, m m Z o Z a Z 0 a O Z z Z m r O Z z a 0° z 0 w Z J m m Z O a o Z m m 0 0 0 a m a 0./ s _ O z Z 00 p 2 0 z m s 0c vi 0 0c z Z -.. acc Un z z J a cc 0c 0 Z Z O 00 z z 0 0 0 z m = Z a O o w 0 w O o O W O O o Y = W O 0 Y O x > > 0 > w W 3 0 > > > > Y > x Y I- x x 2 Y x Y > x x x > r >> x = > x I. a x x x LA Lox O O z p O x cc 0 w V. x 00 z V, u, O , , Lz s , , l7 O z x 0 00 O 00 m 00 00 z U_ _V' * 0 *0 a * 0 00 *0 z O a 0 s Oa a z cc < a z a o z a m m m m m m m m m m m u o m m m co u moa m u u E CD m a E OO u u Fa m o0 CO u CO a 0 0 H 0 H O 01 H IN 0 0 0 0 .7 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 I, ..0 H 0 V/ H o rn O Ln o N H LD H Ln o ff LA LNn LND U111 LW11 LMD IN VP s LLA LLn LOO Le)at ..O LO LD LO LA VI LII en N LO LO VIA VIi LO N OM0 vmi 10 LN0 LA 00 N LO Lil N L.,-, 01 L LID LCO CD LH11 LLA LLI1 L 00 01 LD LSO LLA LCO O V1 N C LA 01 LA 01 01 C LD LO LD I-, 01 C LA V1 01 N H V1 01 CO LD CO H a 01 00 C Vl CO C C C 01 H CO 01 0 ,100 ,00LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 V/ 0 0 0 LD H 0 0 Vl M 0 M 0 0 LO M 00 N 0 0 0 LD 0 M W CO VI LACOLACOV1V1V1mmmHV1V1COmV1V1HCOLANCOVIHLnLANVImCVlV1ulLnHVItie Jm 01 q CO 01 00 01 01 C 00 CO m N 01 V CO m 01 01 N CO 01 01 CO 01 N C CA 9., C CO Ot C C C 01 N 01 01 1 AANr, n n r ri ri 8a ,-, -, -, .- 1H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H rI H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HMenMMenenenenMenMenenMMMenenMInMenenenenMenenenMenMMenenenenenenenMenMLALALl1 aIDM1LA LnLALn LALALn LA VI L/1 LALAu, LA LALALi,IA LA LALALALA LA LALA V, U, LA L, VI LALALA LALALALnLnLn VILALALn LA LALnL,LA LA LALALnLA LA LALAL, X C Z 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 ZZ Z 2 Z Z 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 Z Z 2 Z Z 2 Z Z 2 2 Z ZZZZZZZ N J W Z Z W Z W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 z Z 2 z W z Z Z Z z 2 z z z 2 z Z z z Z z z Z Z z W 2JWWWWWWLUWWLUWLUWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW UN N MN N LAVI NLANMN hMNN LAN N VNN LA N LA 0 = LU NUnNNLALAVINLAN VLA IA hN V1 VI IA N VI LA 0 a a a a a a a aaaaaaaa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a at.../ 2221222222222222221222222222 2 2 x 2 22222222222 al Lu Z Z z z Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ22Z z ZZZZZZZZZZZXaaaaQaaaaaaaaQaaaaQaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx2xxxxx2xx2x2xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1- u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u LOCrMx s m 00 Y O 0 0 0 J m m 00 CG K > J J m a K CO K OOc K m C CC 00 z m K u m ac m Oa' U s ? OG u u m m = ? m s Lxj L=j m m m V CL m O D a D a Q m o a o m 0 LNiI 0 m m a vLni D m m 0 0 0 a m Q J 0 z J O Z z 0 o Z Z z I- 0 2 2 z r w z z0 O z 0 0 0 10+ 0 J OCCZ( 0 ,.. 0 0 Z W O O O o L+ S 0 0 0 Y = La, O M Y O x > > O 3 LLI a > 0Lu> > cC cc > > 3 Y > x a = x 3 = L11 L11 LLI Y = Y Y x x x > x x > x 1- a x x a < ,..., x o 00 00 _ 00 00 _ cc 00 00 *0 00 a o 00 *0 00 = o a 00 o 0. 00 o a a 00 00 00 z *0 * 0 a s *0 *0 *0 00 a O w IN m W m m m m m m m m m m m u O m m m m u m 0 a m u u m m m a m m u u m m m m u m X H 0 o H o H o 01 H H N0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 ID H 0 Ln H 0 M 0 V1 o r\ H LD H VI 0 01 a N N N O LO CA IN C N V 011OlHONV101001M010COC01MMCO0N00IDV1NCALACOCHCOHLALACON I- H V1 ID IA LA ID V1 V1 LD LD LA LO LO ID LD W VI LII LA V1 LD LD LA LD IN LD VI LD LD V1 LA ID IN VI V1 t0 LD VI LA LA LD m V1 LD LA 2 a 3 00w W 00 w = x 2 Lo I- z L• 0- n 2o a x W W Z N Vl > L~n O d = z O L• V L J D UF- W z N J O 4 Z K z w u 100 ,xWJ o m ° Lli1 LL a CO g_ 3 V 0 O2 w 0 LL x J W W Y Z Q W Y c, z > 0 Z a 1- x J Z Y 0 Ln L±+ J a C 2 -a. g w Y O J u Z w z Z m a > ~ O > U rNV o T > m Z = > w w VI W = u a 0C J K } z J Y c u i_ J Z Z m W a u J r N W OC O 2 N <7 Yc a Oc 2 Lc, 2 W Z K Q Q CC x Z u Q 2 Y Q a 2 0 a Q OL J m z u L> Z a ? Ln W a VI r O Z z W O a J a N2amza u z u W a z '^ r a m o 2 O z x W m LA Y m m O g J Z ~ - Y = , cwc 0 0 a oso m a 0 y 0 s > . 3 x Z a 06 ob 2 x am Om = Z ut Y Q z 0,S OJ a ,z _ z m L J Z Y L w (n O O u L O O LI- J OZS J W a a Q K W Y W W 1--:" 5 m W > a g 3 w = > W J 0 z ~ CC Ln - z N a W 2 W LL N Q 0 a l7 J x I- K 2 v LLU a 2 z 2 LL11 W a Z N a mLL1 00 F- W 00 x 0 d 0 0 0 a Q ~ a O a a 0 -. Ou Lon 0 0 s- CC 0c Y O G Y U O¢ K ? j x a 0 K °i w -, Q x a ' Y O VI N C V1 01 V1 C 01 LO LO LO H 01 C Vl V1 01 N H Ln 01 m LO CO H H V1 C Ol m C Ln H CO C C C 01 H CO Cr, 0 . 0 0 LD 0 0 LD 00000 VI 0 0 0 LD 01 0 0 V1 M 0 01 0 0 0 01.0010 0 0 N 0 0 0 LD 0 M LD COCLn Le) 01 C 000 CA W C 01 C CO CO CO N 01 C COO CO CA 01 N CO 01 O1 CO 01 N N CO C O1 01 C CO N CA C C C 01 N 01 01 C0- RN IN t` r\ n r\ n r\ f` H H H H H H H H H H H H H H CA CA H H H H H H H H H H H H H H CA H H H H H H CA 01 H H H M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MMIACIIMMMCOMMIAMM 0101 MLA LLVI A LN11 LVlI VVI VLI 111 LA LI-1 LA 1/11 LA VI LA LLA LLA LLI1 LLA LA LlLA VI LA Ul tnl L 11 LN11 VtnLA l LLA L 11 LLA LLA LA LLA LLA LFII LLA LLA LA LA LA N LA N VVI N LLA LLA LA VI LLA L11 LA LLA LVI LA LLA 0-RN ZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZSZZZZZZZZZZZZZSZZZZZZZZZZZZZS V1 Lwn VI VVI LA LA VI N IA V1 LA V1 VI N N LA N VI VI LWn N LLU Wn VVI N LL1. 1 UJ wn V1 LA Lwn V1 V1 Lwn LA VI N N Ln Vl N LA VI LA VILUIllL.L1 LLI LU ID L.L1 11.1 IA 1./1 N V1 LA VI N IA V1 1A V1 V1 V1 LA N VI V1 V1 VI N V1 N VI Ln VI V1 N Vl VI VI Ln VI VI N N Vl N LA V1 VI V1 N V1 Ln ¢ a a a a a a a Q a a a a ¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 22222222 22222222222222222122222 2222222 = 222 ZSZZZZZZ z Z z Z z z z z Z z z z Z Z Z z Z z Z Z z z Z z z z z z z z z z z z aaaaaaa a a a a a a a a a a a Q a a a a Q a a Q a a Q a a Q a a a a a a a a a 222 = 2222 2 = 2 2 = 2222222 222222x2 = 2222222222222 U u u u U u u u u u U u U u u u u u u u U u U LLu u U u u u u u u u u u u U u u U u u ZZZZZZZZZZ z Z z z W z z z z z z z z z z 2 2 z z z z 2 2 z 2 z z z z z 2 z 2 z W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LU W LA VI N LA V1 V1 V1 N LA V1 V1 N VI VI 1A N N LA V1 Vl V1 VI V1 VI LA VI VI V1 V1 VI Vl VI VI VI V1 V1 N V1 V1 N V1 V1 Vl V1VIVIV1NV1V1V1VIVIV1V1VIVIVlV1V1NVILANV1LAV1VILAVILALAV1V1VIVILANLANV1V1NV1VILAVINaaQaaaQaaaaaaQaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaxxxxxx22222xxxx2xxx22222xx22x2x22xx22xx22xx2zzZZZZZZzZZzZzZZZzZZzzzzZZzZZZZzzzzZzZzZzzzzaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaQaaaaaaaQaaaaaQaaQaaaaa 22 = 22 2 x2xxxxxx2xxxxx = xx = 222222222222 x x 22 2 2 2 x u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u V u u u H 00 0c _. 00 C 00 _, cc _. z m m a s m cc z 0 z cc Z cc m 0 cc .>. z z _. s 0 0 J -I 0C CC CC 0, m m m 0_ 1- m 00 H z m m on 0c 0_ m m m m Z2 J o 2 Q 2 o a o z z z m o z z a J f° z W z J m m Z o a W o z m m mo0oa a K O K w cc O W O K w K cc V1 O ce cc O O z J CC CC L1' O VI Y o J W W O O W Z O 0 W W 0 0 0 W W = W w• 0 x 3 = Y 0= 3 Y 3 0 0 0 > > 3 x = 0 x > _ D a x x > > = 3 Y a = > > 3 3 3 Y Y LL =m O x ac r w X cc a O w s cc o Oc X o H 0 >< 00200 (D ° U' L7 a 0 ' D l7 LD 5 o a l9 O s O Q a O` l7 z ¢ L7 'D a a l7 L7 l7 Oc a O s VI m m m m m m m EEE m u m m fO m u m p a m u u m m ma m m u u m m m m u m 0 . O ON N 0 LOO 01M 0 01 01CN 01 - 0 N U C 0 010 M 01 0 M C V M M 00 0 N CO LD V1 oN CA VI m C 01 00 01 V1 LLA 00 N 2 1.11 LO VI VI LO Lll V1 LO V1 LD LD LD LD 01 LA LA LA LA LO LD VI 01 N LO LA LD LO V1 V1 LD N V1 LA LD LD V1 V1 LA LO LO LA LD I 1.1D W 00JCO H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 001,100f o CA O M 0 N lCn V 0 0 CO M C 01 0 C - N N LOD 01 0 0 CA H CAN 01 0 0 c/ . 00001 .1 .701 0 0 0 n100 ,1 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 N N Ln O N 0 0 0 Win 00 ,40 0 0 00 0 0 0 N N N NO1MO01M0M0) 0 0 01 01 M O1 H O M M M O o N M 0 01 01 H N 0 M 01 0 01 01 M 0 H 01 01 01 0 0 0 00OlLDO01LDOtOLDLDO01CFI010LD00101LDLDH01LDLnOl0HLDOtOLDV10OIID000010LOIDLO H n . N H H H H H N H O H H N N H H O N H m 010001 N H H CO H N H O H H H H H H HHen .• LA V1 V1 LA V1 VI V1 LALA LA VI LA LA V1 LA V1 LA LA LA LA V1 Vl VI 1.0LA VI VI V1 VI LA LA LA VI LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA VI E. ,-, ,, ,, ,, ,,, ,, ,, ,-4 N 01 01 N 01 N 01 01 N N 01 N 01 01 N 01 N 01 N N N 01 01 01 N N N N 01 N N 01 01 01 N 01 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Approve Stipulation for Settlement Agreement for Acquisition of Property Located at 740 Vogelsberg Trail in Conjunction with the Highway 101 Improvements, City Project No. 14­08 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4. Prepared By Jason Wedel, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer File No: Project No. 2014­08 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the Stipulation for Settlement Agreement for Acquisition of Property located at 740 Vogelsberg Trail in conjunction with the Highway 101 Improvements, contingent on satisfactory title review by the City Attorney for City Project No. 14­08." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND On November 23, 2015, the City Council approved the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and adopted the official map of the corridor. In 2018, the city was successful in acquiring $9 million in State of Minnesota bond funds to help fund the reconstruction of Highway 101. On October 18, 2018, the City Council approved a consultant contract and Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Carver County for final design and construction of Highway 101. DISCUSSION The Highway 101 project will expand and realign County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 101 to a four­lane urban roadway section from Pioneer Trail (CSAH14) to Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61).  This 1.1­mile section of road will be designed to meet County State Aid Standards.  The project generally consists of grading, paving, storm sewer, pedestrian bridge, pedestrian underpass, pedestrian trails, retaining walls, ponds, street lighting, bridge removal, improvements to CSAH 61, watermain, and sanitary sewer construction. The city has taken the lead on the project and has been working with MnDOT and Carver County on a funding package to complete engineering and the reconstruction of Highway 101.  The total project is estimated to cost $31,720,000, so additional funding besides the $9 million in state Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) bonding dollars is necessary.  MnDOT is planning to use local metro district funds, along with turnback funds, to fill the funding gap.  The city will be responsible for the watermain and sanitary sewer trunk improvement costs.  The city is also anticipated to help pay for some of the improvements, such as trail improvements. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectApprove Stipulation for Settlement Agreement for Acquisition of Property Located at 740Vogelsberg Trail in Conjunction with the Highway 101 Improvements, City Project No. 14­08SectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4.Prepared By Jason Wedel, Dir. of Public Works/CityEngineer File No: Project No. 2014­08PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves the Stipulation for Settlement Agreement for Acquisition of Property located at 740Vogelsberg Trail in conjunction with the Highway 101 Improvements, contingent on satisfactory title review by theCity Attorney for City Project No. 14­08."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDOn November 23, 2015, the City Council approved the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and adoptedthe official map of the corridor.In 2018, the city was successful in acquiring $9 million in State of Minnesota bond funds to help fund thereconstruction of Highway 101.On October 18, 2018, the City Council approved a consultant contract and Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) withCarver County for final design and construction of Highway 101.DISCUSSIONThe Highway 101 project will expand and realign County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 101 to a four­lane urbanroadway section from Pioneer Trail (CSAH14) to Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61).  This 1.1­mile section of road willbe designed to meet County State Aid Standards.  The project generally consists of grading, paving, storm sewer,pedestrian bridge, pedestrian underpass, pedestrian trails, retaining walls, ponds, street lighting, bridge removal,improvements to CSAH 61, watermain, and sanitary sewer construction.The city has taken the lead on the project and has been working with MnDOT and Carver County on a fundingpackage to complete engineering and the reconstruction of Highway 101.  The total project is estimated to cost$31,720,000, so additional funding besides the $9 million in state Local Road Improvement Program (LRIP) bondingdollars is necessary.  MnDOT is planning to use local metro district funds, along with turnback funds, to fill the funding gap.  The city will be responsible for the watermain and sanitary sewer trunk improvement costs.  The city is also anticipated to help pay for some of the improvements, such as trail improvements. The realignment and widening of Highway 101 requires significantly more right­of­way than currently exists.  Carver County and Chanhassen have been working with property owners on right­of­way acquisitions since the preliminary design and official mapping was completed in 2015.  The property owners at 740 Vogelsberg Trail would like to be bought out at this time.  Carver County right­of­way agents completed the negotiations.  Terms of the settlement agreements can be found in the attached stipulation.  Closing costs are not known at this time. MnDOT funds will be used for right­of­way acquisitions.  The MnDOT funds have been transferred to Carver County, and then subsequently transferred to the city.  The City Attorney has not reviewed the title work for this property at this time.  Approval of this acquisition should be contingent on the city attorney's approval after reviewing title work and closing documents. SCHEDULE The tentative schedule is as follows: 60% Construction Plans March 2019 90% Construction Plans August 2019 Bid Project November 2019 Construction Start Spring 2020 Project Substantial Completion Fall 2021 ATTACHMENTS: Stipulation for Settlement Agreement CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Approval of Feasibility Study with HKGi for Trail Plan Concepts and Natural Resource Inventory on the Newly Acquired Parkland at Lake Ann Park Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.5. Prepared By Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION "The City Council approves a $45,000 Feasibility Study with HKGi for Trail Plan Concepts and Natural Resource Inventory on Newly Acquired Parkland at Lake Ann Park." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY The completion of a Lake Ann Park Expansion Feasibility Study was a 2018 Key Financial Strategy. This study, including a natural resource inventory, is the next step in advancing the city's comprehensive plan to expand Lake Ann Park to the north and west and expand pedestrian trail routes and connections in the area. BACKGROUND The original 63 acres of Lake Ann Park were purchased in 1969 following a successful referendum. By a vote of 452­ 350, residents approved the issuance of general obligation bonds to provide funds for acquisition and betterment of parks! Lake Ann Park has grown both in size and popularity in the 50 years since that important vote. Now encompassing 102 acres, the park is cherished for its wide variety of attractions including pristine Lake Ann, a swimming beach, ball fields, and picnicking areas, as well as for its history as a town gathering spot.  The goals of the future Lake Ann Park expansion plan is to preserve over 100 additional acres of shoreline, wetlands, and woodlands to the west of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy, including the land between the two lakes and to expand pedestrian trail routes and connections in the area.   DISCUSSION The feasibility study work will include the compilation and review of background data, GIS mapping, coordination with staff, concept planning, engineering, illustrative plans, master plan graphics, editing, and natural resource inventory.  RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectApproval of Feasibility Study with HKGi for Trail Plan Concepts and Natural ResourceInventory on the Newly Acquired Parkland at Lake Ann ParkSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.5.Prepared By Todd Hoffman, Park & RecreationDirector File No: PROPOSED MOTION"The City Council approves a $45,000 Feasibility Study with HKGi for Trail Plan Concepts and Natural ResourceInventory on Newly Acquired Parkland at Lake Ann Park."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYThe completion of a Lake Ann Park Expansion Feasibility Study was a 2018 Key Financial Strategy. This study,including a natural resource inventory, is the next step in advancing the city's comprehensive plan to expand Lake AnnPark to the north and west and expand pedestrian trail routes and connections in the area.BACKGROUNDThe original 63 acres of Lake Ann Park were purchased in 1969 following a successful referendum. By a vote of 452­350, residents approved the issuance of general obligation bonds to provide funds for acquisition and betterment ofparks! Lake Ann Park has grown both in size and popularity in the 50 years since that important vote. Nowencompassing 102 acres, the park is cherished for its wide variety of attractions including pristine Lake Ann, aswimming beach, ball fields, and picnicking areas, as well as for its history as a town gathering spot. The goals of the future Lake Ann Park expansion plan is to preserve over 100 additional acres of shoreline, wetlands,and woodlands to the west of Lake Ann and Lake Lucy, including the land between the two lakes and to expandpedestrian trail routes and connections in the area.  DISCUSSIONThe feasibility study work will include the compilation and review of background data, GIS mapping, coordinationwith staff, concept planning, engineering, illustrative plans, master plan graphics, editing, and natural resourceinventory.  RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a $45,000 Feasibility Study with HKGi for Trail Plan Concepts and Natural Resource Inventory on Newly Acquired Parkland at Lake Ann Park. ATTACHMENTS: 2019 ­ 2023 CIP Sheet Proposal Capital Request 2019 – 2023 Responsible Person: Project Name: Useful Life: Description Justification Expenditure Schedule 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 $45,000 Funding Sources 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Park Dedication Fund $45,000 Total $45,000 Operational Impact Todd Hoffman Lake Ann Park Expansion Trail Feasibility Study and Natural Resource Inventory 50 Years Planning and engineering feasibility work associated with the proposed expansion of Lake Ann Park and construction of associated pedestrian trails, bridges and boardwalk. These planning efforts are in response to the proposed development of the Galpin property by Lennar and proposed dedication of 100+/- acres of new parkland to the City. The study will include a national resource inventory. This proposed project and feasibility study efforts are consistent with the Cities Comprehensive Park Plan and the Cities Park and Recreation System Plan. The expanded parkland area and trails will require weekly refuse removal, general maintenance and inspection and incorporation into the Cities Pavement Management Program.                    REsumEs <Align image to this guide Paul possesses more than 28 years of experience assisting Minnesota communities in improving their parks and recreation systems. From park planning and design to identifying strategies to maximize efficient use of resources, Paul leverages his knowledge and experience to serve his clients and ensure that they realize positive impacts for the health and growth of their communities. Paul has provided leadership as project manager on a wide range of planning and design projects, with a particular focus on planning, site design, and construction administration for park and recreation systems and facilities, civic and corporate campuses, downtown and commercial corridor streetscapes, and other public spaces. Paul’s project management leadership and technical expertise have been critical ingredients in transforming paper plans and designs into built work, and he has served as a client advocate on dozens of construction projects throughout Minnesota. Paul knows Chanhassen well and has overseen several park improvement projects in the community. His involvement on these projects, including the recent Park and Recreation System Plan, means that he has a firm understanding of the community’s vision for its park system and understands the issues that are important to community members. His oversight on this project will help guide the process and ensure that decision makers and community members have a solid plan for moving this project forward towards implementation. Paul Paige PLA Principal in Charge | 612.252.7125 | ppaige@hkgi.com Relevant Planning Experience »Lake Ann Stairway and Overlook | Chanhassen, MN »Park and Recreation System Plan | Chanhassen, MN »Marsh Glen Trail Extension | Chanhassen, MN »Various Park Improvement Projects over 15 years | Chanhassen, MN »Athletic Feasibility Study | Chanhassen, MN »Rice Marsh Lake Trail | Chanhassen, MN »North Urban Regional Trail Design | Dakota County, MN »Spring Lake Park Trail | Dakota County, MN »Lebanon Hills Connector Evaluation | Dakota County, MN »Baker Park Reserve Master Plan | Three Rivers Park District »Veterans Memorial Park | Chaska, MN »Woodland Trail Park Master Plan | Elk River, MN »Lake Calhoun South Shore Parking Expansion | Minneapolis, MN »Village Creek and Arbor Plaza | Brooklyn Park, MN »Shingle Creek Overlook | Brooklyn Park, MN »Como Regional Park Signage | St. Paul, MN »South Loop Park Site Study | Bloomington, MN »Normandale Lake Bandshell | Bloomington, MN »Bush Lake Beach Renovation | Bloomington, MN »Andrews Park Renovation | Champlin, MN »County Road 144 Trail Feasibility Study | Hassan Township, MN »Trail Master Plan- Community wide | Northfield, MN Years of Experience: 28 Education: »Bachelor of Landscape Architecture - University of Minnesota Registration: »Landscape Architect, Minnesota License No. 23594 Memberships/Affiliations: »Elk River Parks and Recreation Commission (former) »Sensible Land Use Coalition Awards: »2013 MN ASLA Merit Award and 2009 MRPA Award of Excellence - Rivers Edge Commons, Elk River, MN »2003 Mpls AIA Merit Award - Bloomington Civic Plaza »2002 MRPA Award of Excellence - Normandale Lake Bandshell »1988 ASLA Honor Award for Student Work Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 4 REsumEs <Align image to this guide Kevin is a community planner and landscape designer who has a versatile skill set that includes project management, park and recreation planning, development concept planning, land use planning, and site and streetscape design. He also brings GIS mapping, conditions analysis, plan writing, and public engagement skills to his project work. As befits his skill set and interests, Kevin has been involved in a wide variety of projects at HKGi. He has taken the lead on most of the firm’s recent athletic facilities needs assessment projects for communities such as Chanhassen, Hopkins, Woodbury, and White Bear Lake. He has also provided expertise for a wide variety of other parks and recreation-related projects. Highlights of his experience include regional park master planning for Olmsted County; trail planning in Duluth, Hermantown, and Proctor; the He Mni Can-Barn Bluff Park Master Plan in Red Wing; and recreational development concepts for clients in Ely and Baxter. Kevin has demonstrated his ability to gain trust and build consensus for park and recreation-related projects across a broad spectrum of the community. As a meeting facilitator, he listens to input from others and ensures that their information and concerns are incorporated into the plan development process. He is also able to build a strong rapport with other consultants and key project participants to ensure that projects are collaborative and stay on track in terms of budget and schedule. His leadership will ensure this project is conducted efficiently. Park and Recreation Planning Experience »Athletic Facilities Feasibility Study | Chanhassen, MN »Camden Ridge Park Plan | Chanhassen, MN »Roundhouse Park Plan | Chanhassen, MN »Neighborhood Park Initiative | Chanhassen, MN »Lake Byllesby Park Master Plan | Dakota County, MN »Rice Creek Trail Master Plan | Dakota County, MN »Mission Creek and Magney Snively Trail Planning | Duluth, MN »St. Louis River Corridor Trails Plan | Duluth, MN »Woodland Trails Park Master Plan | Elk River, MN »Byllesby and Kenyon Park Master Plans | Goodhue County, MN »Munger Trail Spur Connector Plan | Hermantown and Proctor, MN »Park System Reinvestment Plan | Hopkins, MN »Hok Si La Park Master Plan | Lake City, MN »He Mni Can-Barn Bluff Park Master Plan | Red Wing, MN »Hoffman and Glen Park Master Plans | River Falls, WI »Rice Creek North Regional Trail Master Plan | Ramsey County, MN »Park, Trail, and Active Living Plan | Sherburne County »Athletic Facility Needs Assessment | White Bear Lake School District, MN »Athletic Facility Needs Study | Woodbury, MN »Athletic Facilities Master Plan | Worthington, MN Years of Experience: 8 Education: »Master of Landscape Architecture - University of Minnesota »Master of Urban and Regional Planning - University of Minnesota »B.A., Economics - Saint John’s University Memberships/ Affiliations: »Urban Land Institute - UrbanPlan for High Schools and Universities -Young Leaders Group Executive Committee & Learn Committee »McCarthy Center for Public Policy and Civic Engagement Awards »2017 MN APA Success Stories in Implementation Award - Downtown Master Plan and Streetscape Design - Chaska, MN »2015 MI APA Daniel Burnham Award for a Comprehensive Plan - Comprehensive Plan for the City of Ironwood Kevin Clarke Project Manager | 612.252.7143 | kevin@hkgi.com Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 5 REsumEs <Align image to this guide Years of Experience: 11 Education: »MLA - University of Minnesota »Port Cities Study Abroad: Lisbon, Barcelona, and Venice - University of Minnesota »B.A. - Political Science, University of Wisconsin Registration: »Landscape Architect, Minnesota License No. 50416 Memberships/Affiliations: »American Society of Landscape Architects- Minnesota Chapter Awards: »2015 MN APA Planning in Context Award - Moorhead River Corridor Plan »2015 MN APA Innovation in Planning Award - Lanesboro Arts Campus Vision Plan »2015 MNDOT Stewardship Award in Transportation and the Natural Environment - River to River Greenway, Dakota County, MN »2015 ASLA-MN Merit Award for Analysis and Planning - Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Duluth, MN Gabrielle’s range of experience includes working with communities on large scale planning efforts as well as small scale site improvements. Comprehensive community park, trail, recreation, and open space planning have been important components of Gabrielle’s work. In addition to her extensive list of park planning and design projects, she has been a key contributor to Dakota County’s award- winning greenway network, conducting master planning and design since the network’s inception. She has also been an important contributor to community development projects involving nature education, public arts, and cultural heritage. Gabrielle has provided park and recreation planning services to Chanhassen on several occasions and provided design services for several improvements at Lake Ann Park, including a successful hillside restoration. She understands the topography and ecological issues that will influence trail planning and design in the park, and she also has a strong understanding of how to apply design best practices to ensure that ecological sustainability is achieved as this project moves to the implementation phases. Gabrielle also contributed to the Park and Recreation System Plan and understands the community’s vision and guiding principles for its park and recreation system. She has excellent listening and communication skills and will help the design team address issues related to trail alignments and natural resources. Park and Recreation Planning Experience »Park and Recreation System Master Plan | Chanhassen, MN »Lake Ann Park Improvements and Hillside Restoration | Chanhassen, MN »Lake Minnewashta and Neighborhoods Rain Garden | Chanhassen, MN »Lakeview Neighborhood Park Concept Plan | Chanhassen, MN »Greenway Master Plans (multiple greenways) | Dakota County, MN »Greenway Collaborative Guidebook | Dakota County, MN »North Urban Regional Trail Construction | Dakota County, MN »Spring Lake Park Reserve Trail Design | Dakota County, MN »Lake Byllesby Regional Park Master Plan | Dakota County, MN »Lebanon Hills Regional Park Master Plan | Dakota County, MN »Robert Piram Regional Trail | Dakota County and Saint Paul, MN »Lakewalk Strategic Plan | Duluth, MN »Western Trails and Bikeway Plan Update | Duluth, MN »Woodland Trails Park Master Plan | Elk River, MN »Glacial Edge Trail Master Plan | Fergus Falls, MN »Byllesby and Nielsen Preserve Park Master Plans | Goodhue County, MN »Munger Trail Spur Connector Plan | Hermantown, MN »Lake Hiawatha Bluewater Rain Garden Design | Minneapolis, MN »Great River Passage Master Plan | Saint Paul, MN »North Lake Avenue Trail Concept Plans | Storm Lake, Iowa »Baker Park Reserve Master Plan | Three Rivers Park District, MN »Czech Heritage Trail Plan | Tri-City School District, MN »Great River Regional Trail Master Plan | Wright County, MN Gabrielle Grinde ASLA, PLA Project Advisor | 612.252.7141 | gabrielle@hkgi.com Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 6 REsumEs <Align image to this guide Toby P. Muse, PE – Associate/Professional Engineer – page 1 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE SEH: 16 years Industry: 19 years EDUCATION Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering University of North Dakota- Grand Forks (1999) REGISTRATIONS/ CERTIFICATIONS Professional Engineer in MN (#43364, 2004) PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Minnesota Public Works Association, Member (2003- present) City Engineers Association of Minnesota, Member (2003- present) Minnesota Society of Professional Engineers, Member (2003-present) Toby P. Muse, PE Associate/Professional Engineer Mr. Muse is a senior project manager who leads and facilitates municipal planning, design and construction services. Toby has 16 years of experience working on a multitude of municipal engineering projects ranging from planning and feasibility to final construction and project closeout. He has extensive experience navigating projects with federal aid, municipal state aid, cooperative agreements and local funding sources, including assessments. Elements of the projects on which he has worked have included roads, trails, bridges, boardwalks and parking lots, and utility systems including stormwater detention and conveyance, sanitary sewer, water distribution, and lighting and traffic signals. EXPERIENCE Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (Three Rivers Park District) – Edina, MN Project manager for this 6+ mile segment of regional trail through the City of Edina. Toby led planning and construction services spanning multiple disciplines including civil, heavy civil, survey, transportation engineering and planning, geotechnical, water resources, electrical, landscape architecture and structural. Challenges included designing nine 12 ft. heavy timber boardwalks (totaling more than 8,775 ft.) through approximately 3 miles of Nine Mile Creek floodplain and wetlands, developed commercial and residential areas and pedestrian bridges across Trunk Highways 62 and 100. The project involved coordinating with agency stakeholders that included MnDOT; Hennepin County; cities of Minnetonka, Edina and Richfield; Edina School District; Metro Transit; Nine Mile Creek Watershed District; Canadian Pacific Railroad; private utility companies; and local property owners. This $20 million project was opened to the public in June 2018. Bde Maka Ska (Formerly Lake Calhoun) and Lake Harriet Trail Improvements (City of Minneapolis) – Minneapolis, MN Project manager leading the design team through the project, coordinating a multidisciplinary consultant team, subconsultants, MPRB staff and other regulatory agencies. Toby led Legacy Amendment funded design and construction services for the improvements to the pedestrian and bike trail networks SEH was hired to design trail and access improvements to the Bde Maka Ska and Lake Harriet pedestrian and bike trail networks, including improvements to congested areas on the north side of Bde Maka Ska and southeast side of Lake Harriet, arguably the busiest park area in the State. Other key improvements included ADA access at numerous locations around both lakes, Minnehaha Regional Trail access improvements over Lake Harriet Parkway to Lake Harriet and bicycle and pedestrian trail improvements near the Lake Harriet Bandshell. Lake Rebecca Park Reserve, Pavement Management Total Reconstruction of Trails, Roads and Parking Lots (Three Rivers Park District) – Rockford, MN Project engineer on parking lot, road and the 6.5 mile trail system through extensive natural resource areas. Toby was responsible for the design and implementation of the park’s trail, road and parking lot extensions and enhancements. Considerations included trail crossing locations and treatments, parking and boat launch accessibility, traffic signing, and trail signing. The project also included introduction of new parking lot islands, rain gardens, lighting and storm sewer systems. Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 7 REsumEs <Align image to this guide Lindsey E. Roberts McKenzie, PE – Project Manager – page 1 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE SEH: 13 years Industry: 16 years EDUCATION Master of Engineering Engineering Management University of Colorado-Boulder (2015) Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering North Dakota State University- Fargo (2005) REGISTRATIONS/ CERTIFICATIONS Professional Engineer in MN (#48238, 2010) Professional Engineer in ND (#PE-10557, 2016) Professional Engineer in NE (#E16041, 2016) Professional Engineer in SD (#12985, ) MSHA 8 Hour Refresher (2014), Mine Safety and Health Administration MSHA 24 Hour New Miner (2013), Mine Safety and Health Administration PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Society of Women Engineers, Member (2001-present) Society of American Military Engineers, Member (2013- present) Lindsey E. Roberts McKenzie, PE Project Manager Ms. Roberts McKenzie has extensive experience with SEH as a water resources engineer and project engineer. As a water resources engineer, Lindsey is experienced in hydraulic and hydrologic analysis, watershed modeling, floodplain management, and preparation of detailed plans and specifications. Lindsey has completed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction and industrial stormwater permits as well as Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) submittals for several clients in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Her project experience includes hydrologic and hydraulic modeling studies, design of channels and channel structures, and erosion protection and sedimentation control plans. Lindsey has also assisted in the design of stormwater treatment basins, conveyance systems and infiltration systems. As a project engineer, Lindsey is responsible for the coordination of technical teams, subconsultants and project stakeholders. She is also experienced in the production of final construction documentation, reports and project presentations. Lindsey has experience with a variety of engineering, hydraulic and hydrologic analysis software, including: HEC-geoHMS, HEC-HMS, HEC-geoRAS, HEC-RAS, CheckRAS, HY-8, HydroCAD, XPSWMM, ArcGIS and AutoCAD. EXPERIENCE Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (Three Rivers Park District) – Edina, MN Project engineer responsible for coordinating the boardwalk design to meet floodplain management and waterbody crossing design criteria set forth by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. This included establishing the low floor elevation of the boardwalk to allow for the 100- year base flood to pass and the integration of compensatory storage areas where project fill was proposed below the 100-year base flood elevation. Lindsey was also responsible for the coordination of the project's Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit application, which included submittals related to wetland impacts and mitigation, stormwater management (both water quality and rate control) and erosion and sediment control. Lindsey worked closely with SEH technical staff to develop the required documentation for the permit, and she attended coordination meetings between SEH, Three Rivers Park District and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. The project involved approximately 7.5 miles of multi-purpose, non-motorized trail and a six-span pedestrian bridge over TH 62. The project included a hydraulic analysis using Geo-RAS and HEC-RAS to evaluate the impacts of the proposed trail and boardwalk, which cross the Nine Mile Creek floodplain at several points along the project. Gamehaven Wetland Bank (City of Rochester) – Rochester, MN SEH completed a proposed plan to develop a 200-acre wetland bank for the City of Rochester. The project involved wetland restoration through removal of several miles of drain tile and conversion of open ditches to vegetated swales. Water quality components were added to improve water quality in Gamehaven reservoir, and existing bluff prairie was enhanced to provide native buffer. The project required extensive agency coordination through preliminary, draft, and final application processes. The team used HydroCAD software to perform the analysis and summarize the results for presentation to regulatory entities. Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 8 REsumEs <Align image to this guide Deric R. Deuschle, CWD – Associate/Scientist/Aquatic Ecologist – page 1 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE SEH: 19 years Industry: 20 years EDUCATION Master of Science Biology University of Wisconsin- La Crosse Bachelor of Science Biology (Ecology Concentration) Winona State University - Winona, MN REGISTRATIONS/ CERTIFICATIONS OSHA 8 Hour HAZWOPER (Refresher), Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc Certified Wetland Delineator (CWD), University of Minnesota- Water Resources Center (WRC) OSHA 40 Hour HAZWOPER (Specialist), Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Andover Open Space Commission, Chairman Wetland Professionals Association, Member Society of Freshwater Science, Member Mississippi River Research Consortium, Member Society of Wetland Scientists, Member Association of State Wetland Managers, Member Deric R. Deuschle, CWD Associate/Scientist/Aquatic Ecologist Mr. Deuschle is a senior scientist with environmental consulting and ecological research experience. Deric is an aquatic ecologist and leader of SEH’s natural resources team. He provides project management and technical leadership for wetland services such as delineations, permitting, monitoring and mitigation siting and design. Deric produces environmental documents including environmental assessments (EA), environmental assessments worksheets (EAW) and EISs. Deric brings expertise in threatened and endangered species surveys, tree inventories, water quality analysis, aquatic invertebrate ecology, aquatic invertebrate taxonomy, stream and large river ecology, fish and wildlife studies, nutrient loading analysis, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Global Positioning Systems (GPS). EXPERIENCE Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (Three Rivers Park District) – Edina, MN Wetland biologist for the approximately 7.5 miles of multi-purpose, non-motorized trail and six- span pedestrian bridge over TH 62. The project included wetland delineations and hydraulic analysis using Geo-RAS and HEC-RAS to evaluate the impacts of the proposed trail and boardwalk, which cross the Nine Mile Creek floodplain at several points along the project. Challenges included designing nine 12 ft. heavy timber boardwalks (totaling more than 8,775 ft.) through approximately 3 miles of Nine Mile Creek floodplain and wetlands, developed commercial and residential areas and pedestrian bridges across Trunk Highways 62 and 100. Braemar 18-hole Wetlands (City of Edina) – Edina, WI Project manager responsible for permitting and for assisting with the design for all of the golf course improvements at the Braemar Golf Course. Specific tasks included wetland delineations, determining regulatory jurisdictions, wetland mitigation design, and construction oversight. SEH completed wetland delineations and permitting for the reconstruction and consolidation of the Braemar Golf Course from 27 to 18 holes. The project included wetland delineations, functions and values assessments, and permitting for minor wetland impacts. A six-acre wetland and floodplain mitigation site was designed along the South Fork of Nine Mile Creek, as was the establishment of upland buffer and oak savanna to integrate ecological enhancement within the course design. The project also had to meet Nine Mile Creek Watershed District requirements that included upland buffers, floodplain management, surface water treatment and restoration of oak savanna habitat. Wetland Delineations for Braemar Driving Range, Academy Course and Main Course Reconstruction (City of Edina) – Edina, MN Project manager responsible for assisting with the design and completing the permitting for all of the golf course improvements at the Braemar Golf Course. Specific tasks included wetland delineations, determining regulatory jurisdictions and wetland mitigation design. SEH completed wetland delineations and permitting for the reconstruction of the Braemar driving range and the nine-hole executive course. The project included a determination of jurisdictional status of wetlands, with the determination that the majority of aquatic features were incidental or not waters of the United States. Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 9 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide Lake Ann Park improvements Chanhassen, Minnesota HKGi has assisted the City in completing a variety of park improvement and construction plans and projects in the past several years, including planning and design of several improvements to Lake Ann Park, a 102-acre community park that is one of the city’s most popular parks. Since 2008 HKGi has planned, designed, and administered construction for improvements such as a lakeside staircase, monument entry signage, trail extensions, site design for a new concessions facility, and a maintenance buffer layout and planting plan. The monument entry sign was designed for durability and ease of maintenance and has served as the model for monument signage at other community parks around the city. The staircase improvement project involved a significant grade change through a wooded area, which required a significant level of detail and construction administration oversight. HKGi’s landscape architects also conducted an evaluation of the Aquatic Invasive Species Best Management Practices being used at Lake Ann Park. More than 3,000 inspections were examined, from Lake Ann and two other lakes in Chanhassen, and then HKGi worked with the City to identify improvements that could be made at the park based on this evaluation. Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 10 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide Rice marsh Lake trail Loop Chanhassen, Minnesota A result of years of planning, the Rice Marsh Lake Trail Loop trail is a 3.4 mile multipurpose pedestrian loop encircling Rice Marsh Lake in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. Half of the Rice Marsh Lake Trail Loop is located within Chanhassen, and half is located in Eden Prairie. Initial planning for the trail loop began in the 1970s and the northerly segments were completed in the 1980s. Since then, the cities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen have worked together to ensure the trail loop’s completion. HKGi assisted the City of Chanhassen in the design, bidding, and construction administration of the last remaining section of the loop. Sensitive field locating of the trail saved many of the old oak and maple trees that make this trail so spectacular. Routing the trail alignment to work within multiple easements was an additional challenge. Ultimately, HKGi designed the trail not only to meet MnDOT standards, awarding it an easement through MnDOT land, but also negotiated the adjustment of a private landowner’s easement in order to save 100 year old oaks. The trail offers spectacular views of Rice Marsh Lake and provides a nature-based trail experience featuring rolling terrain, forests, meadows and wetlands. Photo by Katie Raglan, courtesy of the City of Chanhassen Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 11 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide Parks and Recreation master Plan Chanhassen, Minnesota Lake Ann Park Lake Susan Park Bandimere Park City Center Park Chanhassen Recreation Center South Lotus Lake Park Kerber Pond Park Power Hill Park Riley Ridge Park North Lotus Lake Park Meadow Green Park Herman Field Park Pheasant Hill Park Sunset Ridge Park Stone Creek Park Pioneer Pass Park Roundhouse Park Curry Farms Park Chanhassen Hills Park Carver Beach Park Cathcart Park (Owned by the City of Shorewood) Sugarbush Park Prairie Knoll Park Rice Marsh Lake Park Bandimere Heights Park Greenwood Shores Park Carver Beach Playground Minnewashta Heights Park Chanhassen Estates Park Chanhassen High School (Joint Facilities) Manchester Park (To Be Completed in 2018) Minnewashta Regional Park University of Min nesota Landscap e A rboretum Raguet W ildlife Ma nagement Area Privately Owned Publ ic Golf Cou rse MN Valley National Wild life Refuge Olson Community Garden Minnetonka Middle School West CenturyBoulevardHazeltineBoulevardBluffCreek Drive West 78th Street Lyman Boulevard ChanhassenRoadCrosstown Boulevard Pleasant Vi e wRoad GreatPlain s Boulev a r dBa varia R o adSmithtownRoad P io n e erTra ilW e stLo n g a c resDriv eVictoriaDrive Arboretu m Boulevard Power s Boul evardKerberBoulevardLake Lucy Road MinnewashtaParkwayCounty Road 140 L akeDriveEast He ro n Drive Engler Boulevard Hund ertm arkRoadEastGalpinBoulevardAudubonRoadPioneer Trail 82nd Street West F l y i n g C lo u d D r iv e Chas k a B o u le v ardLakeDrive Pioneer Trail EastChestnutStreetNorthWest82ndStreet ")140 ")53 ¬«101 ¬«7 £¤212 ¬«5 ")61 ¬«101 ¬«101 L o t usL a k eL a k e S u s a n LakeRileyR iceL akeLakeMinnewasht a LakeA n n L a keL ucyR i c e M a rshLake E d e n P r a i r i e E x c e l s i o r G r e e n w o o d M i n n e t o n k aShorewood T o n k a B a y J a c k s o n T w p . S h a k o p e e C h a s k a V i c t o r i a LEGEND *Toddler-Friendly Playground High Replacement Priority Medium Replacement Priority Low Replacement Priority Open Space Community Park Neighborhood Park Preserve Special Use Non-City Parks & Open Space Public School Surrounding Municipal Parks Water Bodies Municipal Boundaries °0 0.5 10.25 Miles Playground rePlacement »Seek opportunities to distribute separated, 2 to 5 year old playgrounds throughout the community. »Use maintenance and replacement schedule to plan for phased replacement of neighborhood park facilities (i.e. playgrounds, sport courts, shelters, etc.). City-wide ReCommendations March 3, 2017 Draft for Advisory Committee Review Lake Ann Park Lake Susan Park Bandimere Park City Center Park Chanhassen Recreation Center South Lotus Lake Park Kerber Pond Park Power Hill Park Riley Ridge Park North Lotus Lake Park Meadow Green Park Herman Field Park Pheasant Hill Park Sunset Ridge Park Stone Creek Park Pioneer Pass Park Roundhouse Park Curry Farms Park Chanhassen Hills Park Carver Beach Park Cathcart Park (Owned by the City of Shorewood) Sugarbush Park Prairie Knoll Park Rice Marsh Lake Park Bandimere Heights Park Greenwood Shores Park Carver Beach Playground Minnewashta Heights Park Chanhassen Estates Park Chanhassen High School (Joint Facilities) Manchester Park (To Be Completed in 2018) Minnewashta Regional Park University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Raguet Wildlife Management Area Privately Owned Public Golf Course MN Valley National Wildlife Refuge Olson Community Garden Minnetonka Middle School West L o t usL a k eL a k e S u s a n LakeRileyR iceL akeLakeMinnewashta LakeA n n L a keL ucyR i c e M a r shLake ¬«101 ¬«7 ¬«212 ¬«5 ")140 ")53 CenturyBoulevardHazeltineBoulevardBluffCreekDrive Wes t 7 8 t h Street Lyman Boulevard Crosstown Boulevard P leasant View R o a d GreatPlainsBoulevardBa varia R o adSmithtownRoad P io n e e rT railW estLo n g a c resDriv eVictoriaDrive Arboretum Boulevard Powe r sBoul evardKerberBoulevardLake Lucy Road MinnewashtaParkwayCounty Road 140 L ak eDriveE ast He ro nDrive Engler Boulevard Hund ertm arkRoadEastGalpinBoulevardAudubonRoadPioneer Trail 82nd Street West F l y i n g C l o u d D r iv e Chas k a B o u le v ardLake Drive Pioneer Trail East Hi g h w a y 1 0 1ChestnutStreetNorthWest82ndStreet Eden Prairie Excelsior Greenwood MinnetonkaShorewood Tonka Bay Jackson Twp. Shakopee Chaska Victoria LEGEND Community Parks Neighborhood Parks 1 Mile Buffer 2 Mile Buffer Non-City Parks & Open Space Public School Surrounding Municipal Parks Water Bodies Municipal Boundaries 2030 Planned Land Use Medium/High Density Residential Low Density Residential Large Lot Residential Lake Minnewashta Park, a regional park, serves as a community park for the surrounding area and reduces the service area gap in the northwest °00.510.25 Miles cOmmunity PArk Access HKGi recently led the community through its first system wide planning process. The City has built an impressive system that exceeds national standards in several key areas, but as the City enters its next phase of development, staff wanted to take a comprehensive look at their system and identify guidelines for growing and maintaining the system as the community continues to grow. HKGi’s planning process included assessing current conditions, including identifying levels of access to community and neighborhood parks, distribution of facilities, and gaps in the trail and open space system. The planning process also addressed the City’s desire to measure the success of implementation initiatives. HKGi led a successful community engagement process that included two phases of input and involved several pop-up meetings at community events, stakeholder meetings with athletic associations and seniors, several online questionnaires, a community open house, and input collected through a highly interactive geo-based online mapping and comment tool. The high level of community participation and support for the parks system inspired the City Council to designate maintenance and enhancement of parks and trails as a key funding priority for future budgets. HKGi’s planners worked with the City to analyze the input and used that information to develop recommendations that include long-term Goals, Policies to guide decision-making, and Initiatives that detail actions and steps needed to implement the plan. Excellence in Community Engagement Award Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 12 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide ASLA, Minnesota Chapter Merit Award, 2012 for North Creek Greenway and Minnesota River Greenway Master Plans Master Plans Completed by HKGi include: »Minnesota River and North Creek »Vermillion Highlands »Rosemount »Lake Marion »Mendota-Lebanon Hills »River to River »Rich Valley Greenway master Plans Dakota County, Minnesota Since 2009 Hoisington Koegler Group has worked with Dakota County on ground- breaking master plans for its county-wide greenway system. These projects represent the first regionally-designated corridor master plans in the Twin Cities to intentionally combine the functions of water quality, habitat, linear recreation, non- motorized transportation, and interpretation planning. The master plans are rooted in the directives outlined in the Dakota County Greenway Guidebook, developed by HKGi in 2009. The projects exemplify HKGi’s long-standing approach to infusing ecological functions into community planning and infrastructure investments. The plans have been prepared as models in both approach and “design signature” for future greenway master plans to follow. The master plans: »Provide strategic guidance for future greenway development »Integrate recreation, transportation, natural resource management and improved water quality »Provide recommendations for natural and cultural resource stewardship »Identify a greenway trail alignment, interpretive themes and design direction »Recommend implementation strategies for land protection, development phasing, capital and operations budgets and funding. To Minnesota River Existing Soft Surface Trail Active Railroad Opportunity for Stormwater Plantings Opportunity for Slope Stabilization and Habitat Restoration Sibley Memorial Hwy Minnesota River Floodplain Greenway Corridor stewardship land Existing Big Rivers Regional Trail Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 13 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide River to River Greenway Dakota County, Minnesota Travelling through a densely developed suburban corridor in Mendota Heights and West St. Paul, the River to River Greenway (formerly known as the North Urban Regional Trail) is a multi-use trail that connects the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. When completed the River to River Greenway will be one of the first complete greenway trails in the Dakota County Greenway System and will be a big step towards accomplishing the County’s vision for the system. HKGi assisted with preliminary planning and final construction design of a one- mile trail segment to complete the trail. HKGi’s work focused on the design of the landscape, trail amenities, and trailheads in coordination with trail design and stormwater planning. Several public meetings were held as part of both the planning and design phases of the project to ensure acceptance and excitement by the surrounding neighbourhood. Following completion of this segment of the greenway, HKGi was retained to conduct concept planning for trailhead at different points throughout the River to River Greenway. These projects continue the long-standing relationship that HKGi has developed with Dakota County to plan and design parks, trails, and greenways. 2015 Stewardship Award in Transportation and the Natural Environment MnDOT Concept planning for the trailhead at Sibley High School (above) and the Dodge Nature Center (top left) included wayfinding signage design. Trail design included constructing a tunnel to improve safety and connectivity. Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 14 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide HKGi recently assisted the City of Lake City in developing a vision and strategies to guide future investments in this well-used and well-situated park on the shores of Lake Pepin. The park’s beach and campground are popular destinations for visitors from around the region as well as within the city, but the park also benefits from connections to regional trails, a boat launch, unique event hosting facilities such as the chapel, and its wildlife, especially the migratory birds and the Bald Eagles that winter in the park. The park also contains high quality native plan communities that also contribute to the park’s value as a natural resource. Despite the park’s many advantages, the City nevertheless recognized the need to plan for future improvements and for its future upkeep and maintenance. While the topography of the park limits the addition of new or larger amenities, HKGi worked with the City and community members to identify a variety of opportunities to enhance the park’s ability to continue to serve all of its patrons. These initiatives include recognizing the park’s many strengths and taking steps to ensure they remain strengths, maintaining the park’s role as an outdoor education hub, improving connections to downtown Lake City, and preserving the regionally significant landscape to be found in Hok-Si-La. The Master Plan outlines a variety of strategies and opportunities to improve some of the park’s facilities and programming, and also includes recommendations to manage the park’s substantial natural resources. Hok-si-La Park master Plan Lake City, Minnesota Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 15 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide nokomis-Hiawatha Regional Park master Plan Minneapolis, Minnesota Master plan for the Nokomis Beach focus area Master plan for the Nokomis Community Center and East Beach Area (above). HKGi designed a reconfiguration of a problematic trail crossing at Cedar Avenue (below). HKGi was retained to lead the first master plan update for Nokomis-Hiawatha Regional Park since the original master plan was established by Theodore Wirth in 1934. HKGi led master plan development; identified park implementation priorities; conducted preliminary design for initial park improvement projects; and provided construction documentation and administration for some of the park improvements initiated after this plan was adopted. Three vision themes for the plan that emerged from the community engagement process were: 1) improve the natural setting and quality of the park; 2) offer premier trail experiences that knit the park together; and 3) continue to ensure quality recreation by enhancing existing amenities and adding key new facilities. One of the most pressing problems addressed by HKGi involved traffic circulation and conflict issues around Nokomis Beach, a high activity area that features picnic facilities, a popular dining spot in the Nokomis Refectory, bike/canoe/kayak rentals, a play area, a public boat and canoe launch, athletic fields, and parking for bikes and cars in addition to the beach. The master plan identifies an alignment concept for a new bike path, enhanced trail crossings, and a slow-speed shared use trail. Other plan initiatives include applying a naturalized landscape of native plant types to enhance wildlife habitat and stormwater management efforts and making improvements to the three recreational activity centers within the park. Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 16 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide minnehaha Parkway Regional trail master Plan Minneapolis, Minnesota HKGi is currently leading the master planning process for a regional trail corridor that cuts through the heart of south Minneapolis and links the Chain of Lakes Regional Park at its western end with Minnehaha Regional Park at its eastern end. The corridor follows the path of Minnehaha Creek and is a major east-west transitway for cyclists and hikers, but it is also a significant connection for automobiles, which use the Minnehaha Parkway to connect to major north-south streets. Bicycle and pedestrian planning is one of the key components of this project. The corridor hosts thousands of users every day and the high volume of traffic has required careful consideration of potential enhancements and improvements to address safety concerns and connectivity throughout the corridor. The parkway is also lined with homes from one end of the city to the other, so HKGi and the MPRB have conducted extensive outreach to property owners to listen to and address their concerns about improvement initiatives. Some of the more challenging or notable topics that have been the subject of design consideration and problem-solving have included wayfinding to help navigate potentially confusing segments of the trail; and traffic calming or reduction strategies. Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 17 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide HKGI was retained by Three Rivers Park District to lead the master planning process for this 3,000-acre-plus park in northwestern Hennepin County. As its name implies, the park is a natural-resource based reserve that features a combination of lakes, wetlands, meadows, grasslands, woodlands, tamaracks, and wildlife. Despite its name, however, the park also contains a mixture of active recreational areas including a golf course, camping and picnic facilities, a swimming beach, and a creative play area. HKGi collaborated with the Park District to conduct a community engagement process that recognized the importance of these recreational uses and the need for modest improvements to those facilities balanced with an emphasis on addressing the park’s natural resource management needs. HKGi also worked with the Park District to identify and evaluate potential acquisitions of adjacent properties to conserve additional high quality natural resource areas and improve water quality within and around the park. Other issues addressed by the master planning process include identifying potential trailhead reconfigurations and better connectivity between the park’s trail network and adjacent regional and municipal trail networks. This plan is currently in the final phase of report drafting and review. Baker Park Reserve master Plan Three Rivers Park District, Minnesota Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 18 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide Lake Byllesby Regional Park master Plan Dakota and Goodhue Counties, Minnesota HKGi led the master planning process for Lake Byllesby Regional Park in Dakota County and for Byllesby Park, which lies just across the Cannon River in Goodhue County. In order to provide budgetary efficiencies, and in recognition that the two parks share some similar issues and can serve as complementary parks to one another, HKGi conducted the planning process for the two parks in parallel. Planning for Lake Byllesby Regional Park is complicated by the non-contiguous nature of the park, with a large portion of the park located on the lake’s east bank and a smaller portion located on the lake’s west bank. HKGi has conducted an extensive community engagement process to ensure that the park is sensitive to adjacent property owner’s concerns while still provides users with the highest quality outdoor experience. The master plan concept includes expansion of the park’s campground, prairie restoration, creation of scenic overlooks, trail improvements, and enhanced access to the Cannon River. Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 19 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide Building a Better World for All of Us® | sehinc.com MKT111315.1 Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Three Rivers Park District hired SEH to provide preliminary engineering, final engineering and environmental services for the 6+ mile Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (NMCRT) through the City of Edina. TRPD selected us based on our track record of successfully completing several recent TRPD projects, our intimate knowledge of the City, including their staff, boards, commissions, council and residents and our ability to navigate the environmental review process. The NMCRT travels from Hopkins through Edina and Richfield, connecting to the Intercity Regional Trail in Richfield and the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail in Hopkins. Federal funding covered the costs to design and construct the Edina East section from Tracy Avenue to Xerxes Avenue and the Edina West section from Hwy 169 to Tracy Avenue. Technical challenges included designing the regional trail with timber boardwalks through approximately three miles of Nine Mile Creek wetlands and floodplain, paved trail through developed commercial and residential areas and on bridges across MnDOT Highways 62 and 100. Coordination challenges include approvals from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, the Cities of Edina and Minnetonka, Edina School District, Minnesota DNR, US Army Corps of Engineers, Canadian Pacific Railroad, Hennepin County, MnDOT and private property owners. Public involvement efforts were focused on meetings with individual property owners where the trail crossed private property. SEH effectively secured a combination of 19 permanent and temporary easements and used 3D visualizations to gain property owner buy-in and acceptance. CLIENT Three Rivers Park District PROJECT LOCATION Edina, MN SERVICES • Civil engineering • Heavy civil engineering • Survey • Transportation engineering and planning • Geotechnical services • Water resources • Electrical engineering • Landscape architecture • Structural engineering • CP Railroad coordination 2019 APWA National Public Works Project of the Year 2018 ACEC/MN Grand Award 2018 CEAM Special Recognition 2018 APWA/MN Honorable Mention Building a Better World for All of Us® | sehinc.com MKT111315.1 Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail Three Rivers Park District hired SEH to provide preliminary engineering, final engineering and environmental services for the 6+ mile Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail (NMCRT) through the City of Edina. TRPD selected us based on our track record of successfully completing several recent TRPD projects, our intimate knowledge of the City, including their staff, boards, commissions, council and residents and our ability to navigate the environmental review process. The NMCRT travels from Hopkins through Edina and Richfield, connecting to the Intercity Regional Trail in Richfield and the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail in Hopkins. Federal funding covered the costs to design and construct the Edina East section from Tracy Avenue to Xerxes Avenue and the Edina West section from Hwy 169 to Tracy Avenue. Technical challenges included designing the regional trail with timber boardwalks through approximately three miles of Nine Mile Creek wetlands and floodplain, paved trail through developed commercial and residential areas and on bridges across MnDOT Highways 62 and 100. Coordination challenges include approvals from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, the Cities of Edina and Minnetonka, Edina School District, Minnesota DNR, US Army Corps of Engineers, Canadian Pacific Railroad, Hennepin County, MnDOT and private property owners. Public involvement efforts were focused on meetings with individual property owners where the trail crossed private property. SEH effectively secured a combination of 19 permanent and temporary easements and used 3D visualizations to gain property owner buy-in and acceptance. CLIENT Three Rivers Park District PROJECT LOCATION Edina, MN SERVICES • Civil engineering • Heavy civil engineering • Survey • Transportation engineering and planning • Geotechnical services • Water resources • Electrical engineering • Landscape architecture • Structural engineering • CP Railroad coordination 2019 APWA National Public Works Project of the Year 2018 ACEC/MN Grand Award 2018 CEAM Special Recognition 2018 APWA/MN Honorable Mention Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 20 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide Building a Better World for All of Us® | sehinc.com MNPLS 138627 Bde Maka Ska and Lake Harriet Trail Improvements Bde Maka Ska and Lake Harriet pedestrian and bike trails may be the most heavily used trails in the state. SEH improved these trails by systematically rebuilding the worst sections. In addition, access to both lakes via surrounding neighborhood walkways are also being improved by rebuilding accessible pedestrian ramps. NE Bde Maka Ska will also see a total revision to the pedestrian and bike networks, improving pedestrian and biker movements across the Lake Street Bridge and through this very busy space. These improvements extend across Lake Street by adding crosswalks at the signalized intersection with ample space to cue both pedestrian and bike users. Other areas around both lakes will also receive a focused attention to improve usability and accessibility to the Bde Maka Ska and Lake Harriet trail networks. CLIENT Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board PROJECT LOCATION Minneapolis, MN SERVICES • Civil engineering • Construction services • Marketing/communications • Mechanical/electrical engineering • Natural resources • Planning and landscape architecture • Structural engineering • Survey • Traffic engineering • Transportation planning • Water resources engineering Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 21 PRojEC t ExPERiEnCE < For full cutsheet, align sidebar to this guide Building a Better World for All of Us® | sehinc.com DAKOT 147332 Flint Hills Greenway Alignments Feasibility Study SEH is currently assisting Dakota County in evaluating and refining approximately 6 miles of regional greenway divided between two corridors. The study includes approximately two miles of the Rich Valley Regional Greenway in Inver Grove Heights and four miles of the Rosemount Regional Greenway in Rosemount. SEH has completed preliminary design and engineering services by reviewing existing master plan corridors and input from Flint Hills Resources (FHR), Dakota County and the Cities. Using existing County topography information (contours/lidar), SEH has completed several greenway alignment alternatives showing proposed profiles, cross sections, generalized construction limits and buffered natural resource corridor spaces. CLIENT Dakota County, MN PROJECT LOCATION Rosemount/Inver Grove Heights, MN SERVICES • Civil engineering • Natural resources • Structural engineering • Transportation planning Proposed Rendering Existing Lake ann FeasibiLity study and naturaL resource inventory ProPosaL attachment 22 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Approve Temporary On­Sale Liquor License Request; St. Hubert Catholic Community; Harvest Festival on September 14, 2019 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6. Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, Office Manager File No: LIQ St. Hubert Catholic Community PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the temporary on­sale liquor license request from St. Hubert Catholic Community for their Taste of St. Hubert Harvest Festival on September 14, 2019. The fee for said license will be $1.00.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY St. Hubert Catholic Community has submitted an application for a temporary on­sale liquor license for the Taste of St. Hubert Harvest Festival event on Saturday, September 14, 2019 from 5:00 pm to 10:00 pm. The event will be held in the front (north) parking lot and the fellowship hall at the church and they intend to sell beer in a beer garden. Liquor liability insurance has been provided for the event. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request from St. Hubert Catholic Community for a temporary on­sale liquor license for their Taste of St. Hubert Harvest Festival on September 14, 2019. The fee is $1.00. ATTACHMENTS: Application CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Approve Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County for TH 5 Regional Trail and Underpass Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7. Prepared By Todd Hoffman, Parks & Recreation Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves a Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County for the TH 5 Regional Trail and Underpass." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY On October 2, 2018 Carver County and the City of Chanhassen entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining cost participation for trail engineering, construction, and ongoing operations and maintenance of the trail between Century Boulevard and the east property line of the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum property. The MOU signaled that the parties are in general agreement and provided the foundation for the development of a Joint Powers Agreement between the County and the City of Chanhassen for this trail project. The Joint Powers Agreement further defines roles and responsibilities of each agency. BACKGROUND As a part of the 2015 Federal Solicitation for Transportation Enhancement Funding, Carver County made application to construct approximately two miles of trail along the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and TH 5 from Minnewashta Parkway to Century Boulevard in Chanhassen. Carver County was successful in obtaining partial federal funding for trail construction in the amount of $1,192,000. DISCUSSION This section of pedestrian trail with underpass of Highway 41, "a trail to the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum," is one of the most highly anticipated trail projects in the community. Creating a partnership among multiple agencies including Carver County, The University of Minnesota, Lifetime Fitness, the State of Minnesota and Federal Funding was necessary to realize this ultimate goal. The current funding obligations among the partnering agencies includes the following: Federal $1,192,000 County 2019 Parks and Trails     $301,214 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectApprove Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County for TH 5 Regional Trail and UnderpassSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By Todd Hoffman, Parks & RecreationDirector File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves a Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County for the TH 5 Regional Trail andUnderpass."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn October 2, 2018 Carver County and the City of Chanhassen entered into a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) outlining cost participation for trail engineering, construction, and ongoing operations and maintenance of thetrail between Century Boulevard and the east property line of the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretumproperty. The MOU signaled that the parties are in general agreement and provided the foundation for thedevelopment of a Joint Powers Agreement between the County and the City of Chanhassen for this trail project. TheJoint Powers Agreement further defines roles and responsibilities of each agency.BACKGROUNDAs a part of the 2015 Federal Solicitation for Transportation Enhancement Funding, Carver County made applicationto construct approximately two miles of trail along the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and TH 5 from MinnewashtaParkway to Century Boulevard in Chanhassen. Carver County was successful in obtaining partial federal funding fortrail construction in the amount of $1,192,000.DISCUSSIONThis section of pedestrian trail with underpass of Highway 41, "a trail to the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum," is oneof the most highly anticipated trail projects in the community. Creating a partnership among multiple agencies includingCarver County, The University of Minnesota, Lifetime Fitness, the State of Minnesota and Federal Funding wasnecessary to realize this ultimate goal. The current funding obligations among the partnering agencies includes thefollowing: Federal $1,192,000 County 2019 Parks and Trails     $301,214 County 2020 Parks and Trails $285,451 U of M Arboretum $600,000 County CPA Funds $573,677 Tax Forfeit Proceeds $116,096 City of Chanhassen $600,000 TOTAL $3,668,438 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve a Joint Powers Agreement with Carver County for the TH 5 Regional Trail and Underpass. ATTACHMENTS: Joint Powers Agreement City CIP Sheet Arboretum Trail $600,000 Page 1 of 17 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 REGIONAL TRAIL AND UNDERPASS THIS JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF TRUNK HIGHWAY 5 REGIONAL TRAIL AND UNDERPASS, (“Agreement”), is made and entered into as of the day of 2019, by and between the County of Carver, a political subdivision organized and existing under the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota (“County”) and the City of Chanhassen, a political subdivision organized and existing under the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota (“City”). The County and the City are each sometimes referred to hereinafter as “Party,” and are both sometimes referred to hereinafter as “Parties.” RECITALS: WHEREAS, the County has the authority to construct, maintain, and operate a regional recreation trail and underpass within the County for public outdoor recreational purposes pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 398.32; and WHEREAS, the City has the authority to construct, install, maintain, and operate a regional recreation trail and underpass within the City for public outdoor recreational purposes pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 412.221 Subdivision 6; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, § 471.59 provides that two or more governmental units, by agreement entered into through action of their governmental bodies, may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to jointly or cooperatively construct, install, maintain, and operate a regional recreational trail (“Trail”) along Trunk Highway 5, (“TH 5”) and an underpass through a box culvert under Trunk Highway 41, (“TH 41”), as generally depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, both located within the corporate limits of the City, the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, (“Arboretum”), and/or the corporate limits of the County. The Trail and the box culvert are referred to collectively hereinafter as the “Improvements;” and WHEREAS, Carver County applied for and was selected to receive Federal funds (“Funds”) in 2015 to construct the aforementioned Improvements in 2019; and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to jointly or cooperatively undertake a joint project involving the design, construction and installation of the Improvements (“Project”); to share the fees and costs for all professional services related to the Project; to allocate the Routine Maintenance and Bituminous Maintenance duties of the Improvements after Project Completion, Page 2 of 17 and to share the fees and cost of the Routine Maintenance and Bituminous Maintenance and operation duties of the Improvements after Project Completion. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants of each to the other Party as contained herein, and subject to the provisions of Minnesota §§ 398.32, 412.221 Subdivision 6, and 471.59, and for other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which the Parties hereby acknowledge, the County and City hereby covenant and agree as follows: ARTICLE I. THE AGREEMENT Section 1.01. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the obligations and rights of the County and the City related to the design, construction, installation, maintenance and operation of the Improvements, and related to sharing the costs between the Parties of the design, construction, installation, maintenance and operation of the Improvements. Section 1.02. Cooperation. The County and the City shall cooperate with one another, and each Party shall use its best effort to ensure the most expeditious implementation of the provisions of this Agreement. The Parties shall act in good faith to undertake resolution of any disputes that arise between them, if any, in an equitable and timely manner. The Improvements shall be open to inspection by duly authorized representatives of each Party at any time during normal business hours and as often as reasonably deemed necessary. Section 1.03. Relationship to Other Contracts. Subject to approval of the Contracts and Change Order by the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld by the City, the County and City acknowledge that the County may enter contracts and Change Orders with respect to the Project on behalf of the Parties. This Agreement shall be construed so as to give the fullest effect to each of the provisions of this Agreement, consistent with the provisions of the other contracts and documents referred to above. Section 1.04. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date specified in this Agreement and shall not terminate until the Parties mutually agree in writing. Section 1.05. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct as of the date hereof, are incorporated herein, and constitute a part of this Agreement. Section 1.06. Enabling Authority. Minnesota Statutes, § 471.59, authorizes two or more governmental units, by agreement entered into and through action of their governing bodies, to jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting Parties. ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS Page 3 of 17 Section 2.01. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context requires otherwise: (a) Agreement: This Agreement, as it may be amended, supplemented, or restated in writing, approved by each of the Parties, from time to time. (b) Bituminous Surface Maintenance: Preservation, repair and replacement of bituminous surface through sealcoating, crack sealing and/or overlay. (c) Chanhassen Segment: The segment of the Trail from the boundary of the right-of-way on the west side of TH41, and extending through the box culvert to the west side of Century Boulevard, as generally depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein. (d) Change Order: A written order, change order or supplemental agreement to the Contractor approved in writing, which may be electronic, by both Parties hereto and signed by the County Representative on behalf of the Parties authorizing a change in the work included within the Contract Documents and/or an adjustment in the price and/or an adjustment in the construction schedule, issued after execution of the contract for the construction of the Project. (e) City: The City of Chanhassen. (f) City Representative: The City of Chanhassen Parks and Recreation Director. (g) City/County Costs: The direct and indirect costs of City and County agents and Contractors performing professional services for the Project, and other incidentals, which shall be allocated between the City and County as provided in this Agreement. (h) Concept and Design Phase Activities: Include but are not limited to the tasks of conducting field surveys, overseeing preliminary design process, obtaining approval of the construction plans and specifications before advertising for bids, advertising for bids, and other related matters. (i) Construction Phase Activities: Include but are not limited to the activities of awarding bids or contracts, preparation of Contract Documents, entering into contracts, acquiring real property interests, conducting construction inspections and surveys, performing other engineering services, and other related matters. (j) Concept and Design Phase Professional Services Costs: The fees and costs for all professional services performed in the Concept and Design Phase Activities for the Project. (k) Construction Phase Professional Services Costs: The fees and costs for all professional services performed in Construction Phase Activities for the Project. (l) Contract Documents: Include the Engineer’s Estimate; the advertisement for bids; proposal; contract; contract bond; standard specifications; general and supplemental special specifications; special provisions; plans; notice to proceed; work orders; and supplemental agreement, if any; Page 4 of 17 Change Orders; and contracts to complete the construction of the work for the Project in an acceptable manner, including authorized extension, approved by the Parties, or their respective representatives. (m) Contractor: the person or entity that is awarded a bid or contract for the construction of the Project. (n) Costs Remaining: The costs that remain after the Funds are applied to the direct and necessary costs of constructing and installing the Improvements. The Costs Remaining shall include, but shall not be limited to, the fees and costs of all professional services necessary to complete the Concept and Design Phase Activities and the Construction Phase Activities, costs of wetland mitigation, costs of relocating utilities, and the balance of any other fees and costs not covered by the Funds. (o) County: Carver County. (p) County Representative: Carver County Parks and Recreation Director, Carver County Public Works Division. (q) Engineers Estimate: The professional engineer's opinion of probable cost prior to the advertising bids for the work to be performed and materials to be furnished to construct the Project, which encompasses all projected costs tabulated for each Party. The Parties shall compare the Engineer’s Estimate with the bids to determine if the Project should be awarded. The Engineer’s Estimate shall be nonpublic data maintained by the County as part of the evaluation or selection of bids for the Project, and shall not become public data until completion of the bid evaluation or selection process. (r) Funds: The federal funds that the County applied for and received in 2015 to construct the Improvements in 2019, and which can only be applied to cover the necessary and direct costs of constructing and installing the Improvements. (s) Improvements: The Trail along TH5 and the underpass through a box culvert under TH41, as generally depicted in Exhibit A. (t) Lowest Responsible Bidder: A qualified bidder with the most economical or best price bid, and whose business and financial capabilities, past performance, and reputation meet the required standards. (u) Permitting Costs: The costs associated with obtaining all permits necessary for the Project. (v) Project: The design, construction, installation, maintenance, and operation of the area of the Trail along TH5 and an underpass through a box culvert under TH41, the area of which is generally depicted in Exhibit A. (w) Project Completion: Approval by the County Board that: 1) The Contractor has successfully completed all of the construction work concerning the original contract and any Page 5 of 17 Change Orders for the Project; 2) The City, University, and the County have each paid their full share of the Costs Remaining under the provisions this Agreement, and any amendments thereto; and 3) the County may make the final payment to the Contractor. (x) Project Costs: All service costs for and associated with the construction of the Project, including the Concept and Design Phase Professional Services Costs, Construction Phase Professional Services Costs, Utility Costs, and the City/County Cos ts as set forth in Section 4.01 herein. (y) Project Location: TH5 and TH41, as generally depicted in Exhibit A, located within the corporate limits of the City, the jurisdiction of the Arboretum, and the corporate limits of the County. (z) Routine Maintenance: Includes snow removal, grass moving, sweeping, litter removal, and tree trimming. (aa) Standard Specifications: Minnesota Department of Transportation Facility Design Manual, DNR Trails Manual, and AASHTO Standards, according to which the Improvements must be constructed. (bb) State of Good Repair. A State of Good Repair for bituminous surfaces means the pavement is generally in good repair, including such things as a smooth riding surface, and a surface that has been either seal coated and cracked sealed within the previous four years or overlaid within the previous ten years. A State of Good Repair for drainage structures means that bridges pass inspection, railings are sound, the structures are in good appearance, and there are no erosion issues. (cc) TH5: Trunk Highway 5. (dd) TH41: Trunk Highway 41. (ee) Trail: The regional recreational trail that extends from Century Boulevard along TH5, including the underpass through a box culvert under TH41 at Minnewashta Parkway, as generally depicted in Exhibit A. (ff) Uncontrollable Circumstances: The occurrence or non-occurrence of acts or events beyond the reasonable control of the Party relying thereon, and not the result of willful or negligent action or inaction of the Party claiming the event as an Uncontrollable Circumstance, that materially adversely affects the performance of the Party claiming the event as an Uncontrollable Circumstance including but not limited to the following: (1) Acts of God, including, but not limited to floods, ice storms, blizzards, tornadoes, landslides, lighting and earthquakes (but not including reasonably anticipated weather conditions for the geographic area), riots insurrections, war or civil disorder affecting the performance of work, blockades, power or other utility failure, and fires or explosions. Page 6 of 17 (2) The adoption of or change in any federal, state, or local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, permits, or licenses, or changes in the interpretation of such laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, permits, or licenses by a court or public agency having appropriate jurisdiction after the date of the execution of this Agreement. (3) A suspension, termination, interruption, denial, or failure of renewal of any permit, license, consent, authorization, or approval essential to the construction of the Project. (4) Orders and/or judgment of any federal, state, or local court, administrative agency, or governmental body, provided, however, that the contesting in good faith by such Party of any such order and/or judgment shall not constitute or be construed to constitute a willful or negligent action or inaction of such Party. (5) Strikes or other such labor disputes shall not be considered an Uncontrollable Circumstance, unless such strike or labor dispute involves persons with whom the Parties have no employment relationship and the Parties, or either of them, cannot, using best efforts, obtain substitute performance. (gg) University: Regents of the University of Minnesota. (hh) University Segment: The segment of the trail from the boundary of the right-of-way on the west side of TH41 and extending to the bike and pedestrian trail on the south side of the right-of- way at TH5, as generally depicted in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein. (ii) Utility Costs: The costs associated with installing and/or relocating direct and necessary utilities. ARTICLE III ALLOCATION OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DUTIES Section 3.01. Concept and Design Phase Activities. Concept and design phase activities, shall be completed by the Parties as follows: The County shall be the lead agency in the Construction Phase Activities. Section 3.02. Construction Phase Activities. Construction phase activities, including, but not limited to, solicitation of bids, preparation of Contract Documents, awarding of bids or contracts, construction inspection and surveying and other matters, shall be completed by the Parties as follows: The County shall be the lead agency in the Construction Phase Activities. Section 3.03. Contract Award. The Contract Documents shall be approved in writing, which may be electronic, by each of the Parties prior to the solicitation of bids. In accordance with the applicable provisions of Minnesota Statutes, the County will cause bids to be received by it for the construction of the Project. If the bid from the Lowest Responsible Bidder exceeds Page 7 of 17 the Engineers Estimate by 15%, then the County shall not award the Contract unless the Parties agree in writing to accept the bid from the Lowest Responsible Bidder. Section 3.04. Project Construction. Subject to Uncontrollable Circumstances, the Parties shall cause the Project to be constructed in accordance with the Contract Documents. The City shall have the right to review and approve of any proposed changes to the plans and specifications as they relate to City's cost participation prior to the work being performed. Section 3.05. Maintenance Upon Project Completion. (a) Chanhassen Segment. (1) The City will assume jurisdiction of the Chanhassen Segment upon Project Completion. (2) The City shall provide Routine Maintenance of the Chanhassen Segment upon Project Completion and thereafter, and shall provide said Routine Maintenance in a manner and according to a schedule that keep the Chanhassen Segment in a State of Good Repair. (3) The City shall provide Bituminous Surface Maintenance of the Chanhassen Segment upon Project Completion and thereafter, and shall provide said Bituminous Surface Maintenance in a manner and according to a schedule that keep the bituminous surface and major drainage structures of the Chanhassen Segment in a State of Good Repair. (b) University Segment. (1) The University will assume jurisdiction of, and maintain the University Segment upon Project Completion. (2) The University shall provide Routine Maintenance of the University Segment upon Project Completion and thereafter, and shall provide said Routine Maintenance in a manner and according to a schedule that keep the University Segment in a State of Good Repair. (3) The University shall provide Bituminous Surface Maintenance of the University Segment upon Project Completion and thereafter, and shall provide said Bituminous Surface Maintenance in a manner and according to a schedule that keep the bituminous surface and major drainage structures of the University Segment in a State of Good Repair. ARTICLE IV PROJECT FEES AND COST SHARING Section 4.01. Allocation of Costs. (a) Allocation of Funds. The County shall apply 100% of the Funds toward the direct and Page 8 of 17 necessary costs of designing and constructing the Improvements. (b) Costs Remaining. (1) The Costs Remaining shall be allocated so that the County shall pay 50% of the Cost Remaining, the City shall pay 25% of the Cost Remaining, and the University shall pay 25 % of the Cost Remaining. (2) The Costs Remaining for the Design Phase Activities shall be allocated between the County, the City, and the University as set forth in this Agreement, regardless of whether a Party or the Parties exercise(s) its/their rights to withdraw from and cancel this Agreement under the terms of Article V, Section 5.01 of this Agreement. (c) Costs of Future Repair, Replacement or Improvement. (1) -. The Carver County Parks and Recreation Director and the City Parks and Recreation Director shall work in good faith to seek approval from its respective governing body to share equally (50% County/ 50% City) the cost of any routine repair, replacement, or improvement to the Chanhassen Segment after Project Completion, provided the County receives written notice of the work and estimated cost by April 1st of the year preceding the planned work. If the Chanhassen Segment requires an emergency repair, then the City Parks and Recreation Director shall notify the Carver County Parks and Recreation Director as soon as possible of the needed emergency repair, and the City shall make said repair. The County and City shall share equally (50% County/ 50% City) the reasonable cost of any such emergency repair. (2) -. The Carver County Parks and Recreation Director and the University Director of Operations shall work in good faith to seek approval from its respective governing body to share equally (50% County/ 50% University) the cost of any routine repair, replacement, or improvement to the University Segment after Project Completion, provided the County receives written notice of the work and estimated cost by April 1st of the year preceding the planned work. If the University Segment requires an emergency repair, then the University Director shall notify the Carver County Parks and Recreation Director as soon as possible of the needed emergency repair, and the University shall make said repair. The County and University shall share equally (50% County/ 50% University) the reasonable cost of any such emergency repair. (3) The County shall pay any monies it owes to the City within thirty (30) business days of being invoiced for such costs allocated to the County. Section 4.02. Payments to Contractor. (a) Payments. The County shall make partial progress payments to the Contractor and, upon approval of both Parties hereto, the final payment to the Contractor in accordance with the Contract Documents. (b) Change Orders. The designated City Representative shall have the right to approve of any Page 9 of 17 Change Orders prepared by the County that affect the City's share of the Cost Remaining. Section 4.03. Adjustments and Reconciliation. (a) Invoice Adjustment. To the extent that the actual value of any item included in an invoice cannot be accurately determined at the time of submission of the invoice, such item shall be invoiced on an estimated basis and an adjustment shall be made to reflect the difference between such estimated amount and the actual amount of such item on the next invoice after determination of the actual amount. (b) Reconciliation. Prior to final acceptance of the Project, the County Representative shall provide the City with a reconciliation of all costs for the Project and the respective contributions of the Parties for the review and approval of the Parties. Section 4.04. Exclusive Responsibility. All aspects of administration of the Funds are the exclusive responsibility of the County. Section 4.05. Payment to County. The City shall reimburse the County for the City’s share of the Costs Remaining, pursuant to Section 4.01. Unless previously deposited as provided herein, the City shall pay these monies to the County within thirty (30) business days of being invoiced for the City’s share of the Costs Remaining. The County shall invoice the Costs Remaining at the completion of Concept and Design Phase Activities, and upon completion of the Construction Phase Activities, unless an alternate schedule is mutually agreed upon in writing by the authorized representatives of the Parties. ARTICLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 5.01. Withdrawal from and Cancellation of Agreement. (a) Withdrawal or Cancellation Circumstances. The County shall promptly notify the City of the bids when they are opened. Either Party or the Parties may withdraw from and cancel this Agreement within fifteen (15) business days from the date the sealed bids are opened for the professional services for the Construction Phase Activities, if: (1) The Lowest Responsible Bidder exceeds the Engineer’s Estimate by 15 %; or (2) Either Party or the Parties consider(s) the bids to be unsatisfactory for any other reason; or (3) The University does not agree to pay 25% of the Costs Remaining for the Construction Phase Activities. (b) Method and Time to Withdraw or Cancel. The withdrawal from and cancellation of this Agreement under the terms of Article V, Section 5.01(a) shall be accomplished by either Party or the Parties serving written Notice thereof upon the other within fifteen (15) business days of Page 10 of 17 opening of the sealed bids, unless the Parties waive the aforementioned right in writing. (c) Governing Body. Only the governing body of a Party has the authority to act pursuant to Section 5.01 of this Agreement. Section 5.02. Notices. All notices or communications required or permitted pursuant to this Agreement shall be either hand-delivered or mailed to City and County by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the following address: County: Carver County Parks and Recreation Director Carver County Public Works Division 11360 Hwy212 West, Suite 1 Cologne, MN 55322 City: City of Chanhassen Parks and Recreation Director City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Either Party may change its address or authorized representative by written notice delivered to the other Party pursuant to this Section 5.01. Section 5.03. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which taken together shall be deemed a single instrument. Section 5.04. Survival of Terms, Representations and Warranties. The representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements of the Parties under this Agreement, and the remedies of either Party for the breach of such representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements by the other Party shall survive the execution and termination of this Agreement. The terms of Sections 3.05, 4.01(a) and (b), 4.02, 4.03, 4.05, 5.02- 5.20 shall survive the expiration, termination or withdrawal from this Agreement. Section 5.05. Non-Assignability. Neither the City nor the County shall assign any interest in this Agreement nor shall transfer any interest in the same, whether by subcontract, assignment or novation, without the prior written consent of the other Party. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Section 5.06. Alteration. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the Parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any alteration, variation, modification or waiver of the provisions of the Agreement shall be valid only after it has been reduced to writing and duly signed by all Parties. Page 11 of 17 Section 5.07. Waiver. The waiver of any of the rights and/or remedies arising under the terms of this Agreement on any one occasion by any Party hereto shall not constitute a waiver of any rights and/or remedies in respect to any subsequent breach or default of the terms of this Agreement. The rights and remedies provided or referred to under the terms of this Agreement are cumulative and not mutually exclusive. Section 5.08. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any paragraph, section, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be contrary to law, or contrary to any rule or regulation having the force and effect of law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement. Section 5.09. Interpretation According to Minnesota Law. The Laws of the State Minnesota shall apply to this Agreement. Section 5.10. Final Payment. Before final payment is made to the Contractor, the Contractor shall provide a certificate of compliance with the Commissioner of Revenue certifying that the Contractor and any out-of-state subcontractors have complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, § 290.92. Section 5.11. Headings. The headings to the various sections of this Agreement are included only for convenience of reference and are not intended, nor shall they be construed, to modify, define, limit, or expand the intent of the Parties as expressed in this Agreement. Section 5.12. Further Actions. The Parties agree to execute such further documents and take such further actions as may reasonably be required or expedient to carry out the provisions and intentions of this Agreement, or any agreement or document relating hereto or entered into in connection herewith. Section 5.13. Parties in Interest. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure solely to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their permitted assigns, and nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer upon any other person any rights or remedies of any nature under or by reason of tins Agreement. Section 5.14. Employees. (a) Employees of County. It is further agreed that any and all full-time employees of County and all other employees of said County engaged in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall be considered employees of County only and not of City, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under Workman's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third Parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of County employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of County. (b) Employees of City. It is further agreed that any and all full-time employees of City and all other employees of said City engaged in the performance of any work or services required or Page 12 of 17 provided for herein to be performed by City shall be considered employees of City only and not of County and that any and all claims that may or might arise under Workman's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third Parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said City employees while so engaged on any of the work or services to be rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of City. Section 5.15. Indemnification. (a) Total Liability. The Parties' total liability under this Agreement shall be governed by Minnesota Statutes, § 471.59, Subdivision 1a. (b) Government Unit Liability. Each Party shall be responsible for the acts or omissions of its officials, agents, and employees, and the results thereof, in carrying out the terms of this Agreement, to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts/omissions of the other Party and the results thereof. For purposes of determining total liability for damages, the participating governmental units shall be considered to be a single governmental unit, the total liability of which shall not exceed the limits for a single governmental unit as provided in Minnesota Statutes, § 466.04, Subdivision 1. (c) Indemnification. Each Party shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other Party, its officials, agents, and employees, from any liability, loss, or damages the other Party may suffer or incur as the result of demands, claims, judgments, or cost arising out of, or caused by the indemnifying Party's negligence in the performance of its respective obligations under this Agreement. This provision shall not be construed nor operate as a waiver of any applicable limitation of liability, defenses, immunities, or exceptions by statute or common law. (d) Single Government Unit. To the full extent permitted by law, actions by the Parties pursuant to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a "cooperative activity" and it is the intent of the Parties that they shall be deemed a "single governmental unit" for the purposes of liability, all as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, § 471 .59, Subdivision la(a); provided further that for purposes of that statute, each Party to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of the other Party. (e) Other Participants. The Parties of this Agreement are not liable for the acts or omissions of the other participants to this Agreement except to the extent to which they have agreed in writing to be responsible for acts or omissions of the other Parties. Section 5.16. Records Availability and Access. (a) County Contract Subject to Audit. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, § 16C.05, Subdivision 5, the County agrees that the City, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and Page 13 of 17 procedures of the County, and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. The County agrees to maintain these records for a period of six years from the date of termination of this Agreement. (b) City Contract Subject to Audit. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, § 16C.05, Subdivision 5, the City agrees that the County, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the City and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. The City agrees to maintain these records for a period of six years from the date of termination of this Agreement. Section 5.17. Data Practices. Each Party, its employees, agents, owners, partners, and subcontractors agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and implementing regulations, if applicable, and all other applicable Federal and State laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended from time to time. Section 5.18. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, each Party agrees to the following: No person shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status, criminal record, creed or national origin be excluded from full employment light in, participation in, be denied the benefits of or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any and all applicable Federal and State laws against discrimination. Section 5.19. Default. Default in this Agreement may occur when a Party fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement. Unless the Party's default is excused in writing by the non-defaulting Party, the non-defaulting Party may, upon written notice to the defaulting Party representative listed herein, cancel this Agreement in its entirety. Section 5.20. Third Party. This Agreement does not create any rights, claims or benefits inuring to any person that is not a Party hereto nor create or establish any third Party beneficiary. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The Parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed. COUNTY OF CARVER CITY OF CHANHASSEN ______________________ _________________________ Page 14 of 17 Randy Maluchnik, County Board Chair Elise Ryan, City of Chanhassen Mayor Date: _________________ Date: ____________________ Attest: Attest: _______________________ _________________________ Dave Hemze, County Administrator Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Date: __________________ Date: ____________________ Approved As To Form: Approved As To Form: _______________________ _________________________ Mary E. Shimshak, Assistant County Attorney Date: __________________ Date: ____________________ Page 15 of 17 EXHIBIT A Page 16 of 17 EXHIBIT B Page 17 of 17 EXHIBIT C CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Approve Resolution 2019­XX Establishing Emergency Slow­No Wake Area on Lake Minnewashta; and adopt Ordinance XXX Amending Section 6­49 of the Chanhassen City Code Concerning Slow­No Wake Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.8. Prepared By Todd Gerhardt, City Manager File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts a resolution establishing an emergency slow­no wake area for Lake Minnewashta;" and "The City Council approves an ordinance amending Section 6­49 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning Slow­ No Wake."  Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND Due to recent rainfall events, staff placed a Slow­No Wake restriction on Lake Minnewashta on Saturday, June 1, 2018.  The high water level was creating serious shoreline erosion.  The attached resolution establishing an emergency slow­no wake area for Lake Minnewashta is needed because the existing ordinance is silent regarding slow­no wake restrictions on Lake Minnewashta.   Staff is also asking City Council to approve an ordinance amending Section 6­49. ­ Slow­no wake areas of the Chanhassen City Code to include Lake Minnewashta, and gives the Public Works Director the authority to place the slow­no wake restriction into effect at any time water levels reach the designated levels outline in the attached ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff is asking the City Council to approve an after­the­fact resolution establishing an emergency slow­no wake area for Lake Minnewashta effective June 1, 2019; and to adopt an ordinance amending Section 6­49 which establishes water levels at which slow­no wake restrictions apply for Lotus Lake, Lake Lucy, Lake Minnewashta, and Lake Susan.  This ordinance also gives the Public Works Director the authority to enforce the elevations at any time the water levels exceed these levels for three consecutive days. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectApprove Resolution 2019­XX Establishing Emergency Slow­No Wake Area on LakeMinnewashta; and adopt Ordinance XXX Amending Section 6­49 of the Chanhassen City CodeConcerning Slow­No WakeSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.8.Prepared By Todd Gerhardt, City Manager File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts a resolution establishing an emergency slow­no wake area for Lake Minnewashta;"and"The City Council approves an ordinance amending Section 6­49 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning Slow­No Wake." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDDue to recent rainfall events, staff placed a Slow­No Wake restriction on Lake Minnewashta on Saturday, June 1,2018.  The high water level was creating serious shoreline erosion.  The attached resolution establishing an emergencyslow­no wake area for Lake Minnewashta is needed because the existing ordinance is silent regarding slow­no wakerestrictions on Lake Minnewashta.  Staff is also asking City Council to approve an ordinance amending Section 6­49. ­ Slow­no wake areas of theChanhassen City Code to include Lake Minnewashta, and gives the Public Works Director the authority to place theslow­no wake restriction into effect at any time water levels reach the designated levels outline in the attachedordinance.RECOMMENDATIONStaff is asking the City Council to approve an after­the­fact resolution establishing an emergency slow­no wake areafor Lake Minnewashta effective June 1, 2019; and to adopt an ordinance amending Section 6­49 which establisheswater levels at which slow­no wake restrictions apply for Lotus Lake, Lake Lucy, Lake Minnewashta, and Lake Susan.  This ordinance also gives the Public Works Director the authority to enforce the elevations at any time the water levels exceed these levels for three consecutive days. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Redlined City Code Section 6­49 Draft Ordinance CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: June 10, 2019 RESOLUTION NO: 2019-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION ESTABISHING AN EMERGENCY SLOW NO-WAKE AREA FOR LAKE MINNEWASHTA WHEREAS, recent rainfall created a high-water levels on area lakes, especially Lake Minnewashta; and WHEREAS, the high water levels are a safety hazard, as well as threaten serious shoreline erosion; and WHEREAS, the water levels are close to existing sanitary sewer manholes along Lake Minnewashta; and WHEREAS, Chanhassen City Code Section 6-49 allows the City Council to designate emergency slow-no wake areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the Chanhassen City Council hereby establishes an emergency slow no-wake area for Lake Minnewashta retroactive from June 1, 2019, until the water level is measured to be below the 10% chance occurrence level of 945.0’ for a period of three consecutive days. Passed and adopted this 10th day of June, 2019. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT Page 1 Sec. 6-49. - Slow-no wake areas. (a) No person shall operate a watercraft in any marked slow-no wake areas in excess of slow-no wake speed. Slow-no wake areas shall be marked in accordance with the applicable regulations of the state department of natural resources. The location and boundaries of each slow-no wake area established are shown on that certain map entitled Water Surface Use Zoning Map of Chanhassen dated July 11, 1983, on file in the city hall. The map and all notations, references and data thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this article and shall have the same force and effect as if fully set forth and described herein. Emergency slow-no wake areas may be established by resolution of the city council and It shall be the responsibility of the Public Works Director marked in accordance with the appropriate regulations of the state department of natural resources and posted at all public accesses. (b) Slow-no wake restrictions. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no person shall operate a watercraft at greater than slow-no wake speed on the following lakes at any time when the water level exceeds the following elevation: Lake Water Level at Which Slow-No Wake Restrictions Apply Lotus Lake (10000600) Ordinary High Water Level of 896.8’ 896.3’ Lake Lucy (10000700) FEMA 100 Yr. Flood Elevation (2018) 957.24’ Lake Minnewashta (10000900) 10% Chance Occurrence Level of 945.0’ Lake Susan (10001300) 882.5’ (2) The Slow-No Wake restrictions in paragraph 1 will be put in place by the Public Works Director any time when the water level at which Slow-No Wake restrictions apply is met or exceeded for three consecutive days. Such restrictions shall be removed by the Public Works Director after the water level has remained below the water level at which Slow-No Wake restrictions apply for three consecutive days. (3) It shall be the responsibility of the City to provide adequate notification of the public of a slow-no wake restriction, which will include placement of a sign at each public watercraft access, notice on the City of Chanhassen web page and notice to the Carver County Sherriff’s Department. (4) Restrictions shall not apply to a seaplane during take-off or landing, or watercraft utilized for emergency response. (c) Upon the placement of a slow-no wake restriction, notice will be given: (1) On a sign posted at the public access. (2) On the City of Chanhassen web page. (3) On the City of Chanhassen Clean Water Hotline (4) On the Community Cable Access Channel. (5) In an e-mail to representative of applicable lake association if known. (6) To the Carver County Sherriff’s Department. (7) In the case of Lake Riley, in a communication to the Public Works Director for the City of Eden Prairie (8) To the public by other means as may be deemed appropriate by council. Page 2 (d) Watercraft utilized by resource management, emergency and enforcement personnel, when acting in the performance of their assigned duties, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. (e) Part (c) shall not apply to float planes during takeoff or landing but shall apply while taxiing. (f) Enforcement. The enforcement of this Section shall be the primary responsibility of the Carver County Sheriff’s Office. Other licensed peace officers, including conservation officers of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources are also authorized to enforce the provisions of this section. (g) (1) Lotus Lake: All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow-no wake speed on Lotus Lake whenever the water elevation meets or exceeds the 100-year predicted level flood elevation for Lotus Lake of 896.8 MSL as set forth in the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The slow-no wake surface zoning shall remain in place until the water elevation drops below the 100-year flood elevation of 896.8 MSL for three consecutive days. Upon the placement of a slow-no wake restriction, notice will be given: a. On a sign posted at the public access. b. On the City of Chanhassen web page. c. On the City of Chanhassen Clean Water Hotline. d. On the Community Cable Access Channel. e. In an e-mail format to known representatives on Lotus Lake. f. To the Carver County Sheriff's Department. g. To the public by other appropriate means determined by council. (2) Lake Susan: All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow-no wake speed on Lake Susan whenever the water elevation exceeds 882.5. The slow-no wake surface zoning will remain in place until the water level drops below 882.5 for 72 hours three consecutive days. Upon placement of a slow no-wake restriction notice will be given: a. On a sign posted at the public access. b. On the City of Chanhassen web page. c. On the City of Chanhassen Clean Water Hotline. d. On the Community Cable Access Channel. e. In an e-mail format to known representatives on Lake Susan. f. To the Carver County Sheriff's Department. g. To the public by other appropriate means determined by council. (Ord. No. 73, § 5.06, 7-11-83; Ord. No. 356, § 7, 12-8-03; Ord. No. 418, § 1, 5-8-06; Ord. No. 419, § 1, 5-22-06) 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6, BOATS AND WATERWAYS OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 6-49 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 6-49. - Slow-no wake areas. (a) No person shall operate a watercraft in any marked slow-no wake areas in excess of slow-no wake speed. Slow-no wake areas shall be marked in accordance with the applicable regulations of the state department of natural resources. The location and boundaries of each slow-no wake area established are shown on that certain map entitled Water Surface Use Zoning Map of Chanhassen dated July 11, 1983, on file in the city hall. The map and all notations, references and data thereon are hereby incorporated by reference into this article and shall have the same force and effect as if fully set forth and described herein. (b) Slow-no wake restrictions. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, no person shall operate a watercraft at greater than slow-no wake speed on the following lakes at any time when the water level exceeds the following elevation: Lake Water Level at Which Slow-No Wake Restrictions Apply Lotus Lake (10000600) Ordinary High Water Level of 896.3’ Lake Lucy (10000700) FEMA 100 Yr. Flood Elevation (2018) 957.24’ Lake Minnewashta (10000900) 10% Chance Occurrence Level of 945.0’ Lake Susan (10001300) 882.5’ (2) The Slow-No Wake restrictions in paragraph 1 will be put in place by the Public Works Director any time when the water level at which Slow-No Wake restrictions apply is met or exceeded for three consecutive days. Such restrictions shall be removed by the Public Works Director after the water level has remained below the water level at which Slow-No Wake restrictions apply for three consecutive days. (3) It shall be the responsibility of the City to provide adequate notification of the public of a slow-no wake restriction, which will include placement of a sign at each public watercraft access, notice on the City of Chanhassen web page and notice to the Carver County Sherriff’s Department. 2 (4) Restrictions shall not apply to a seaplane during take-off or landing, or watercraft utilized for emergency response. (c) Upon the placement of a slow-no wake restriction, notice will be given: (1) On a sign posted at the public access. (2) On the City of Chanhassen web page. (3) On the City of Chanhassen Clean Water Hotline. (4) On the Community Cable Access Channel. (5) In an e-mail to representative of applicable lake association if known. (6) To the Carver County Sherriff’s Department. (7) In the case of Lake Riley, in a communication to the Public Works Director for the City of Eden Prairie. (8) To the public by other means as may be deemed appropriate by council. (d) Watercraft utilized by resource management, emergency and enforcement personnel, when acting in the performance of their assigned duties, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. (e) Part (c) shall not apply to float planes during takeoff or landing but shall apply while taxiing. (f) Enforcement. The enforcement of this Section shall be the primary responsibility of the Carver County Sheriff’s Office. Other licensed peace officers, including conservation officers of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources are also authorized to enforce the provisions of this section. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June, 2019 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 20, 2019) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Tour de Tonka 2019 ­ Tim Litfin, Minnetonka Community Education Section VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Item No: E.1. Prepared By File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Presentation To register or volunteer go to: www.tourdetonka.org (952) 401-6800 Top Participating States Outside of MN: Wisconsin Iowa Illinois Total number of states that have participated since 2006 = 42 Top 40 Cities: # 24 –Mound #32 –Delano #38 -Orono Youngest Rider: 2 Oldest Rider: 88 To date, Tour de Tonka has raised over $68,000 for the ICA Foodshelf. Chanhassen Chaska Deephaven Delano Eden Prairie Excelsior Greenwood Independence Long Lake Mayer Minnetonka Minnetrista Mound Navarre New Germany Orono Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Waconia Watertown Wayzata Norwood-Young America Minnetonka Fire Minnetonka Police Chanhassen Fire Victoria Fire Deephaven Police Eden Prairie Police Minnetrista Police Orono Police Plymouth Police Delano Fire Wayzata Fire Waconia Fire Wayzata Police Excelsior Fire Maple Plain Fire MN State Patrol Eden Prairie Fire Long Lake Fire Carver County Sheriffs Norwod Young America Fire South Lake Minnetonka Police Three Rivers District Park Police West Hennepin Public Safety 16 –30 –36 –48 –57 –62 –71 –100 Miles 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Final Total 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Total RegisteredNumber of Weeks Until Event Typical jump is Early Bird Registration Deadline April 30 Next jump is after July 4 122 33 50 151 51 32 MHS CS RS-Orono 33 RS-NYA RS- Waconia RS-Mound RS Chan. RS-EP RS MME RS-Chaska RS-Exc. 100, 71, 62, 57 & 48-milers 100-milers 62, 71 & 100-milers 100, 71, 62 & 57-milers 16-milers 92 19 100-Mile Cutoff #1 @ 37 miles, 10:30 am on to County Road 10. (100-milers who do not make it to this point by 10:30 a.m. will turn east (left) on #10 and join the 62 & 71-mile routes). They will now ride 72 miles. RS Watertown 100-milers 57-milers 30 & 36-milers MCEC 62-milers 10 62 & 71-milers 100-milers 48 & 57-milers 15 71 & 100-milers 16 30 27 RS-Delano 30 & 36-milers 10 11 16-mile 30-mile 36-mile 48-mile 57-mile 62-mile 71-mile 100-mile Ride Headquarters (952) 401-6800 *routes are subject to change Emergency –Call 911 6 6 20 10 100, 71, 62, 57 & 48-milers 100-Mile Cutoff #2 @ 48 miles, 10:45 am on to County Road 30 then 32. (100-milers who do not make it to this point by 10:30 a.m. will turn south (left) on #30 and join the 62 & 71-mile routes). They will now ride 84 miles. RS Ice Arena 32 30 33 25 Excelsior Elementary Lake Riley Park NYA Legion Park Chanhassen Bluff Creek Chaska Pioneer Park Clear Springs Elementary Delano Hamburger Stand Orono Trinity Lutheran Church Mound Bethel United Methodist Church Minnetonka Ice Arena Minnetonka Middle School East Minnetonka High School Waconia Brook Peterson Park Watertown Trinity Lutheran Church CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback for Property Located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case 2019­03 PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY On May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance is insufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the City Code allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the Community Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­ 29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed from the Planning Commission by a majority vote. The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance. The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­family dwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and the lot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravel parking area. Applicant’s Proposal CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area. Applicant’s Proposal The Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guest parking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus 8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet). *It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. In order to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5 feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­foot front yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance that would have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversations with Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintain the intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required. BACKGROUND CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area.Applicant’s ProposalThe Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guestparking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet).*It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. Inorder to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­footfront yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance thatwould have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversationswith Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintainthe intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required. BACKGROUND General Background County records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for this property nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address. Planning Case 2018­01 On January 2, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance. On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request. On January 22, 2018, the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled. Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item. On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the terms of the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing. Current Request On January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from Planning Case 2018­1. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated that the variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicant familiarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance. On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that the Planning Case 2018­01 variance could not be extended, and that they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similar variance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the required conditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervious surface was significantly reduced. On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 4­0 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval. During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order to park an average sized, 16­foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that to create a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90­degree angle. 2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staff clarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that an increased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses to move closer to a lake.  3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staff confirmed it was an CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area.Applicant’s ProposalThe Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guestparking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet).*It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. Inorder to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­footfront yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance thatwould have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversationswith Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintainthe intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required.BACKGROUNDGeneral BackgroundCounty records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for thisproperty nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address.Planning Case 2018­01On January 2, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018, the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item.On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yardsetback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval.On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the termsof the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing.Current RequestOn January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from PlanningCase 2018­1. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated thatthe variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicantfamiliarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance.On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that the Planning Case 2018­01 variance could not be extended, andthat they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similarvariance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the requiredconditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervioussurface was significantly reduced.On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 4­0 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns:1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order topark an average sized, 16­foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that tocreate a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90­degree angle.2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staffclarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that anincreased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses tomove closer to a lake.  3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staff confirmed it was an 4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under the maximum height allowed.  5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep.  6. Chairman Weick noted that the use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29 percent impervious coverage.  7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three­car garage was too large for the lot and that the driveway length would establish a precedent.  8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt the driveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet.  9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be moved three feet closer to the lake and three feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he would not support reducing the lake setback.  10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit a front cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance architectural exemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible. 11 . The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it was approximately 30 feet deep.  12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by code was. Staff stated that there was no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet.  13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16­foot driveway length was viable. The applicant’s builder stated that they would be willing to reduce the garage depth by three feet.  14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would be between 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep.  15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance.  16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth. During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed: 1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control they had been unable to acquire the property in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintained the previously issued setbacks and reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. They stated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off­ street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area. 2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property’s impervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested that driveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have a three­car garage.  3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth of the house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that driveway have a minimum length of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would not CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area.Applicant’s ProposalThe Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guestparking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet).*It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. Inorder to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­footfront yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance thatwould have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversationswith Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintainthe intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required.BACKGROUNDGeneral BackgroundCounty records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for thisproperty nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address.Planning Case 2018­01On January 2, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018, the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item.On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yardsetback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval.On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the termsof the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing.Current RequestOn January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from PlanningCase 2018­1. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated thatthe variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicantfamiliarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance.On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that the Planning Case 2018­01 variance could not be extended, andthat they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similarvariance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the requiredconditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervioussurface was significantly reduced.On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 4­0 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns:1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order topark an average sized, 16­foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that tocreate a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90­degree angle.2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staffclarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that anincreased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses tomove closer to a lake. 3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staffconfirmed it was an4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under themaximum height allowed. 5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep. 6. Chairman Weick noted that the use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29percent impervious coverage. 7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three­car garage was too large for the lot and that thedriveway length would establish a precedent. 8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt thedriveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet. 9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be movedthree feet closer to the lake and three feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he wouldnot support reducing the lake setback. 10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit afront cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance architecturalexemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible.11 . The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it wasapproximately 30 feet deep. 12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by code was. Staff stated that therewas no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet. 13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16­foot driveway length was viable. The applicant’s builder stated thatthey would be willing to reduce the garage depth by three feet. 14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would bebetween 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep. 15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance. 16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth.During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed:1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control they had been unable to acquire theproperty in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintainedthe previously issued setbacks and reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. Theystated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off­street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area.2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property’simpervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested thatdriveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have athree­car garage. 3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth of the house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that driveway have a minimum length of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would not accommodate two vehicles being parked in the driveway.  4. Betsy Anding indicated that she agreed with and supported the statements made by Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser. 5. Dave Bishop noted that he believes the street is only 15 feet 2 inches wide in front of the subject property, and asked that the Planning Commission consider and address how construction staging would work. Staff responded that construction vehicles are not allowed to park on streets of that width, and that City ordinances will be enforced.  6. Jeff Souba expressed his support for granting the requested variance, and noted that guests can park in the garage or on the property.  7. Paul Wagner, the applicant’s builder, outlined his professional experience and his plan for minimizing the impact and disruption associated with construction.  8. Dave Bangasser reiterated his position that a minimum depth was needed and that 18 feet was an appropriate minimum. On May 27, 2019, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believe they should be granted the same front yard setback as was approved in Planning Case 18­01. On May 27, 2019, a resident appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believed that the granted variance does not provide for adequate guest parking. (Note:A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during the meetings associated with Planning Case 2018­01 can be found in the attached staff report.) DISCUSSION Front Yard Setback: The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the property connecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet deep at its shortest point and about 15 feet deep at its longest. The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance 18­1. The Planning Commission, staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide sufficient off­ street parking; however, the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback to 21.5 feet to allow for a longer driveway and additional parking surface. The granted front yard setback would result in a driveway that is approximately 14 feet deep at its shortest point and about 18 feet deep at its longest, resulting in an average depth of around 16 feet, roughly the length of an average sized car. It likely that angled parking would be required to prevent longer vehicles from overhanging onto Red Cedar Point Road. Note: Concern has been expressed to staff that the applicant could simply reduce the length of a single garage stall to meet setback, extending the shallower portion of the driveway but the not the deeper section. If this concern is shared by the City Council, a condition could be added to the variance stipulating a minimum average driveway length. Lot Coverage: The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3,170 square feet of lot cover. In evaluating these CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area.Applicant’s ProposalThe Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guestparking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet).*It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. Inorder to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­footfront yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance thatwould have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversationswith Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintainthe intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required.BACKGROUNDGeneral BackgroundCounty records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for thisproperty nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address.Planning Case 2018­01On January 2, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018, the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item.On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yardsetback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval.On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the termsof the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing.Current RequestOn January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from PlanningCase 2018­1. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated thatthe variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicantfamiliarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance.On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that the Planning Case 2018­01 variance could not be extended, andthat they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similarvariance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the requiredconditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervioussurface was significantly reduced.On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 4­0 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns:1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order topark an average sized, 16­foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that tocreate a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90­degree angle.2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staffclarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that anincreased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses tomove closer to a lake. 3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staffconfirmed it was an4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under themaximum height allowed. 5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep. 6. Chairman Weick noted that the use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29percent impervious coverage. 7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three­car garage was too large for the lot and that thedriveway length would establish a precedent. 8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt thedriveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet. 9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be movedthree feet closer to the lake and three feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he wouldnot support reducing the lake setback. 10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit afront cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance architecturalexemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible.11 . The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it wasapproximately 30 feet deep. 12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by code was. Staff stated that therewas no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet. 13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16­foot driveway length was viable. The applicant’s builder stated thatthey would be willing to reduce the garage depth by three feet. 14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would bebetween 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep. 15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance. 16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth.During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed:1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control they had been unable to acquire theproperty in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintainedthe previously issued setbacks and reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. Theystated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off­street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area.2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property’simpervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested thatdriveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have athree­car garage. 3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth ofthe house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that driveway have a minimumlength of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would notaccommodate two vehicles being parked in the driveway. 4. Betsy Anding indicated that she agreed with and supported the statements made by Steve Gunther and DaveBangasser.5. Dave Bishop noted that he believes the street is only 15 feet 2 inches wide in front of the subject property, andasked that the Planning Commission consider and address how construction staging would work. Staffresponded that construction vehicles are not allowed to park on streets of that width, and that City ordinanceswill be enforced. 6. Jeff Souba expressed his support for granting the requested variance, and noted that guests can park in thegarage or on the property. 7. Paul Wagner, the applicant’s builder, outlined his professional experience and his plan for minimizing the impactand disruption associated with construction. 8. Dave Bangasser reiterated his position that a minimum depth was needed and that 18 feet was an appropriateminimum.On May 27, 2019, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believe they should begranted the same front yard setback as was approved in Planning Case 18­01.On May 27, 2019, a resident appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believed that the grantedvariance does not provide for adequate guest parking.(Note:A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during themeetings associated with Planning Case 2018­01 can be found in the attached staff report.)DISCUSSIONFront Yard Setback:The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the propertyconnecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches onto the applicant’s propertyresulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet deep at its shortest point and about 15 feet deep at its longest. Thesetback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance 18­1.The Planning Commission, staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide sufficient off­street parking; however, the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar tothe average provided by other properties in the neighborhood.The Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback to 21.5 feet to allow for a longer driveway andadditional parking surface. The granted front yard setback would result in a driveway that is approximately 14 feet deep atits shortest point and about 18 feet deep at its longest, resulting in an average depth of around 16 feet, roughly the lengthof an average sized car. It likely that angled parking would be required to prevent longer vehicles from overhanging ontoRed Cedar Point Road.Note: Concern has been expressed to staff that the applicant could simply reduce the length of a single garage stall tomeet setback, extending the shallower portion of the driveway but the not the deeper section. If this concern is sharedby the City Council, a condition could be added to the variance stipulating a minimum average driveway length.Lot Coverage: The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3,170 square feet of lot cover. In evaluating these requests staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater best management practices will represent an improvement to property’s existing conditions. Staff believes that the applicant can improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeable pavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20 feet buffer along the lake, and develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for the proposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval. Note: The neighbor appeal the variance expressed concern over the phrasing of condition 15, feeling that it left the impression that the use of pervious pavers was optional. Staff has revised the language in the condition to clarify that the use of pavers is mandatory. Shoreland Setback: The city’s shoreland overlay district requires a 75­foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta; however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9­foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposing demolishing the existing structure and building wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. These situations are common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use the property’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. The proposed lake setback of 52.9 feet is line with city precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties. (Note: A detailed discussion of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent.  3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented.  4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb.  5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation.  6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction.  7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it.  8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced.  9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area.  10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB.  CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area.Applicant’s ProposalThe Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guestparking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet).*It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. Inorder to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­footfront yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance thatwould have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversationswith Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintainthe intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required.BACKGROUNDGeneral BackgroundCounty records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for thisproperty nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address.Planning Case 2018­01On January 2, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018, the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item.On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yardsetback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval.On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the termsof the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing.Current RequestOn January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from PlanningCase 2018­1. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated thatthe variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicantfamiliarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance.On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that the Planning Case 2018­01 variance could not be extended, andthat they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similarvariance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the requiredconditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervioussurface was significantly reduced.On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 4­0 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns:1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order topark an average sized, 16­foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that tocreate a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90­degree angle.2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staffclarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that anincreased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses tomove closer to a lake. 3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staffconfirmed it was an4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under themaximum height allowed. 5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep. 6. Chairman Weick noted that the use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29percent impervious coverage. 7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three­car garage was too large for the lot and that thedriveway length would establish a precedent. 8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt thedriveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet. 9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be movedthree feet closer to the lake and three feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he wouldnot support reducing the lake setback. 10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit afront cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance architecturalexemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible.11 . The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it wasapproximately 30 feet deep. 12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by code was. Staff stated that therewas no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet. 13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16­foot driveway length was viable. The applicant’s builder stated thatthey would be willing to reduce the garage depth by three feet. 14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would bebetween 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep. 15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance. 16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth.During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed:1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control they had been unable to acquire theproperty in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintainedthe previously issued setbacks and reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. Theystated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off­street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area.2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property’simpervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested thatdriveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have athree­car garage. 3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth ofthe house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that driveway have a minimumlength of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would notaccommodate two vehicles being parked in the driveway. 4. Betsy Anding indicated that she agreed with and supported the statements made by Steve Gunther and DaveBangasser.5. Dave Bishop noted that he believes the street is only 15 feet 2 inches wide in front of the subject property, andasked that the Planning Commission consider and address how construction staging would work. Staffresponded that construction vehicles are not allowed to park on streets of that width, and that City ordinanceswill be enforced. 6. Jeff Souba expressed his support for granting the requested variance, and noted that guests can park in thegarage or on the property. 7. Paul Wagner, the applicant’s builder, outlined his professional experience and his plan for minimizing the impactand disruption associated with construction. 8. Dave Bangasser reiterated his position that a minimum depth was needed and that 18 feet was an appropriateminimum.On May 27, 2019, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believe they should begranted the same front yard setback as was approved in Planning Case 18­01.On May 27, 2019, a resident appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believed that the grantedvariance does not provide for adequate guest parking.(Note:A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during themeetings associated with Planning Case 2018­01 can be found in the attached staff report.)DISCUSSIONFront Yard Setback:The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the propertyconnecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches onto the applicant’s propertyresulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet deep at its shortest point and about 15 feet deep at its longest. Thesetback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance 18­1.The Planning Commission, staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide sufficient off­street parking; however, the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar tothe average provided by other properties in the neighborhood.The Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback to 21.5 feet to allow for a longer driveway andadditional parking surface. The granted front yard setback would result in a driveway that is approximately 14 feet deep atits shortest point and about 18 feet deep at its longest, resulting in an average depth of around 16 feet, roughly the lengthof an average sized car. It likely that angled parking would be required to prevent longer vehicles from overhanging ontoRed Cedar Point Road.Note: Concern has been expressed to staff that the applicant could simply reduce the length of a single garage stall tomeet setback, extending the shallower portion of the driveway but the not the deeper section. If this concern is sharedby the City Council, a condition could be added to the variance stipulating a minimum average driveway length.Lot Coverage:The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3,170 square feet of lot cover. In evaluating theserequests staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater bestmanagement practices will represent an improvement to property’s existing conditions. Staff believes that the applicantcan improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeablepavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20 feet buffer along the lake, and develop and implement ashoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for theproposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval.Note: The neighbor appeal the variance expressed concern over the phrasing of condition 15, feeling that it left theimpression that the use of pervious pavers was optional. Staff has revised the language in the condition to clarify thatthe use of pavers is mandatory.Shoreland Setback:The city’s shoreland overlay district requires a 75­foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta;however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9­foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposingdemolishing the existing structure and building wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. Thesesituations are common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use theproperty’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. The proposed lake setback of52.9 feet is line with city precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties.(Note: A detailed discussion of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshoresetback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findingsof Fact and Decision.1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by streetpavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing theproposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctlynote the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above theregional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and constructionlimits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side ofthe lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installeduntil all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area.  10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB.  11 . The 228­square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure.  12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet.  13. A permanent 20­foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.  14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.  15. The property owner must further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Development Review Application Findings of Fact PC Adopted Tree Removal Plan Updated Survey WRC Memo ERS Memo Engineering Memo Affidavit of Mailing Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial) Variance Document Email Comments Received Email Appeals Received Appeal letter received from Maria Knight 06­10­2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: May 21, 2019 CC DATE: June 10, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: June 18, 2019 CASE #: 2019-03 BY: MW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is demolishing a non-conforming single-family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single-family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5-foot front yard setback variance. LOCATION: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PID 256600320) APPLICANT: Pamela Reimer 14455 Westridge Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 OWNER: Patricia Souba 110980 Von Hertzen Cir. Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .23 acres DENSITY: NA PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” Or “The Chanhassen City Council Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 2 of 19 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single-family dwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and the lot currently has 36.4 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravel parking area. The applicant is proposing replacing the existing structure with a modern home. In order to do this, they are requesting a variance to formalize the existing 22.1- foot encroachment into the required shoreland setback. They are also proposing to remove the gravel parking area, a shed located within the western side yard setback, an outdoor fireplace area, and a concrete walkway in the rear yard to bring the property more in line with City Code. Removing the shed will bring the property’s side yard setback into compliance with City Code. The lot coverage proposed for the new home, driveway, and patio area would require a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, a 1.9 percent reduction from the existing condition. They are also requesting an 11.5-foot front yard setback variance; City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 3 of 19 since they believe the parcel’s size and existing lake setback make it impractical to construct a house and garage while meeting the property’s 30-foot front yard setback. The applicant has stated that they believe the requested variances are in line with those granted by the city in similar circumstances, and they have noted that many properties in the neighborhoods have structures with similar or smaller front yard setbacks. They believe the proposed house will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and feel that replacing much of the existing gravel frontage with vegetation will improve the property’s aesthetics. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Non-conforming Uses Chapter 20, Article Vii. Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks BACKGROUND General Background County records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for this property, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address. Throughout the second half of 2017, staff received numerous inquiries from interested parties about 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. Staff informed individuals interested in the property that a variance would likely be required to rebuild on the property. Staff indicated that any variance request should maintain the existing shoreland setback and reduce the amount of lot coverage present on the parcel. Staff indicated that it would consider supporting a front yard variance in the interest of maintaining the existing lake setback, but expressed concerns about the ability of a shortened driveway to provide onsite parking. Additionally, staff expressed reservations about the property’s ability to accommodate a three-car garage, recommending that a tuck under or side-loading configuration be used. Planning Case 2018-01 On January 2, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 4 of 19 mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 5-0 to approve the variance. During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern over the narrowness of the road and access issues that will be created by construction activities. Staff indicated that the applicant’s contractors would need to work with the Engineering and Building Departments to minimize obstruction, but that the issue was unavoidable. The applicant stated that he owned another property in the area which would be used as a staging area to partially mitigate these issues. 2. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern that the proposed pervious pavers be properly designed and installed. Staff stated that the design would need to conform to the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute’s guidelines and would need to be approved by our Engineering Department. 3. Chairman Aller asked if Public Safety had expressed concern with the proposal. Staff indicated that they had not. 4. Commissioner Weick wanted to know how much additional driveway length would be needed to accommodate two standard cars. Staff estimated an additional four feet would be required. The applicant stated that since his daughter drives a jeep, he believes he can fit two to three cars in the proposed driveway. 5. The Commission asked for clarification on the average parking in the area. Staff clarified that they believed most homes in the area did have driveway space for two cars, with an estimated average of 4.5 parking spaces between garages and driveway parking. 6. The Commission asked if staff felt the site’s management of water resources was being improved. Water Resources Coordinator Strong indicated that she felt it was probably as close as possible to an equal trade. 7. Commissioner Weick expressed disappointment that the lot coverage was not being more significantly reduced. 8. Commissioners Madsen and Tietz expressed concerns about the limited driveway parking. 9. Chairman Aller expressed concern about the potential impact to the lake. During the public hearing, the following concerns were raised: 1. Debbie Lockhart expressed concerns about snow removal and snow storage, stating that the snowplow currently uses the property for a turnaround and snow storage area. City Engineer Oehme indicated that he had spoken with the plow driver and feels that the city can use its extra right of way along the end of Red Cedar Point Road to facilitate snow removal and snow storage. 2. Steve Gunther expressed concerns about how the lot coverage variance will impact the lake via increased runoff. He requested that the Commission look at it as a variance from City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 5 of 19 the 25 percent standard, noting that the home could be reconfigured to reduce the required lot coverage. On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request. On January 22, 2018, the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled. Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting. Staff also extend the 60-day review deadline for this item. On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5- foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. During the meeting, the City Council expressed the following concerns: 1. Councilman McDonald requested clarification on the size of the lot compared to surrounding parcels and on the prevalence of variances in the area. Staff responded that the lot is roughly average and noted that many properties in the area have received variances. 2. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification on how snowplowing operated in the area. Staff noted that there was right of way to the north that could be used to facilitate snowplowing. 3. Councilman McDonald asked why the house could not be moved further back to accommodate a larger driveway. Staff responded that city policy has been not to allow the intensification of existing non-conforming lake setbacks. 4. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to speak on the paver requirement. Staff stated that in this instance the Water Resources Coordinator felt comfortable with their use and that a maintenance agreement would be required. 5. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to estimate the height of the house compared to surrounding structures. Staff stated that exact information was not available, but estimated it was comparable and noted that it met ordinance. 6. Councilwoman Ryan asked why staff had recommended a tuck under garage. Staff clarified that the configuration did the most to reduce the house footprint. 7. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to comment on the shoreland restoration requirements. Staff noted that that requirement would be met through coordination with the watershed district. 8. Mayor Laufenburger asked how long the applicant would have to act on the variance. Staff responded that construction would have to start within one year. 9. Councilman McDonald asked the applicant how they would stage construction. They responded that they would use their existing property in the area as parking, but noted any building would have the same staging issues within the area. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 6 of 19 During the meeting, the Mayor allowed the audience to address the City Council. The property owner spoke in favor of granting the variance. On February 12, 2019, one year passed without construction being started. Per the terms of the variance, this resulted in the variance issued on February 12, 2018 lapsing. Current Request On January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from Planning Case 2018-01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated that the variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommended that the applicant familiarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance. On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018-01’s variance could not be extended, and that they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similar variance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the required conditions and indicated that staff would likely recommend identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervious surface was significantly reduced. On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 4-0 to approve a 17-foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order to park an average sized, 16-foot long, vehicle the garage would need to be pushed back 3 feet and that to create a consistent length the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90-degree angle. 2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staff clarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that an increased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses to move closer to the lake. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 7 of 19 3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staff confirmed it was, and noted that existing base was taken into account when dealing with non-conforming uses. 4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under the maximum height allowed. 5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep. 6. Chairman Weick noted that use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29 percent impervious coverage. 7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three-car garage was too large for the lot and that the driveway length would establish a precedent. 8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt the driveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet. 9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be moved 3 feet closer to the lake and 3 feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he would not support reducing the lake setback. 10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit a front cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance, architectural exemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible. 11. The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it was approximately 30 feet deep. 12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by Code was. Staff stated that there was no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet. 13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16-foot driveway length was viable. The applicant’s builder stated that they would be willing to reduce the garage depth by 3 feet. 14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would be between 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep. 15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance. 16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth. During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed: 1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control, they had been unable to acquire the property in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintained the previously issued setbacks and City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 8 of 19 reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. They stated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off-street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area. 2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property’s impervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested that the driveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have a three-car garage. 3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth of the house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that the driveway have a minimum length of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would not accommodate two vehicles being parked in the driveway. 4. Betsy Anding indicated that she agreed with and supported the statements made by Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser. 5. Dave Bishop noted that he believes the street is only 15 feet 2 inches wide in front of the subject property, and asked that the Planning Commission consider and address how construction staging would work. Staff responded that construction vehicles are not allowed to park on streets of that width, and that city ordinances will be enforced. 6. Jeff Souba expressed his support for granting the requested variance and noted that guests can park in the garage or on the property. 7. Paul Wagner, the applicant’s builder, outlined his professional experience and his plan for minimizing the impact and disruption associated with construction. 8. Dave Bangasser reiterated his position that a minimum depth was needed and that 18 feet was an appropriate minimum. On May 27, 2019, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believe they should be granted the same front yard setback as was approved in Planning Case 18-01. On May 27, 2019, a resident appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believed that the granted variance does not provide for adequate guest parking. SITE CONDITIONS The property is zoned Single-Family Residential and is located within the city’s Shoreland Management District. This zoning district requires lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front yard setbacks of 30 feet, rear yard setbacks of 75 feet from the lake’s ordinary high City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 9 of 19 water level, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot coverage. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 9,203 square feet, and currently has 3,353 square feet of impervious surface resulting in 36.4 percent lot coverage. The existing structure meets the 30-foot front yard setback and 10- foot east side yard setback, has a shed located approximately four feet from the west side lot line, and is setback 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water mark. The rear yard also has a 114 square foot fireplace/patio area that is setback 24 feet from the lake. Note: A portion of the parcel, 562 square feet, is covered by Red Cedar Point Road which is a public street. This area is not included in the lot area or lot coverage totals above. NEIGHBORHOOD Red Cedar Point The plat for this area was recorded in August of 1913. Over the subsequent century, the City of Chanhassen was formed, a zoning code was passed, the zoning code was amended numerous times, and buildings were built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the existing ordinances. Additionally, the neighborhood’s roads were not always constructed within their designated right of way. In some areas, this has led to portions of buildings being located in the right of way and portions of these roads being located within residents’ property lines. Very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the city’s zoning code, and most properties either are non-conforming uses or are operating under a variance. Variances within 500 feet: 78-07 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 19’ front setback (garage) 80-08 3629 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 12’ front setback, 3’ foot side setback, +1.5’ side setback for (chimney), 20’ lot width, 40’ lot frontage, 13,000 square feet lot area (house) 81-08 3607 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 13.5’ lake setback (deck) City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 10 of 19 83-09 3613 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 12’ front setback, 2’ side setback, 7’ lake setback (house) 84-18 3707 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 20’ front setback (detached garage) 85-20 3624 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 1.2’ front setback, 4.8’ side setback (detached garage) 85-27 3701 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 5’ front setback, 35’ lake setback (house) 87-13 3629 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 12’ front setback, 3’ side (house) 88-11 3605 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 4’ E side setback, 2’ W side setback, 26’ lake setback (garage, addition intensifying non-conforming) 92-01 3607 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 1.5’ side setback, 14.5’ lake setback (addition expanding non-conforming) 93-06 3618 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 8’ side setback, 15’ lake setback (deck and porch) 96-04 3705 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 3’ side setback, 31’ lake setback, 25% LC (house) 02-05 3628 Hickory Road: Approved - 13’ front setback (Hickory), 2’ front setback (Red Cedar Point), 5’ side setback (detached garage) 04-07 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 19.25’ front setback, 4’ lake setback, 15% LC (addition) 06-04 3633 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 22.5’ front setback, 15.8’ front setback, 2.39% LC (garage) 08-04 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 20.2’ front setback, 8’ side setback (house) 09-15 3625 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 15.5’ front setback, 6.5’ E side setback, 9’ driveway setback, 18.5’ lake setback, 12.3% LC, allow one car garage (house) 15-07 3701 South Cedar Drive: Approved - increase existing non-conformity (enclose deck 15’ in lake setback) 15-14 3603 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 20.2’ front setback, 17’ lake setback (two-story attached garage) 16-11 3627 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 13.6’ lake setback, 4.8% LC (home) City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 11 of 19 17-09 3622 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - Intensify non-conforming by raising garage in side yard setback (garage) 18-01 3617 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 11.5’ front setback, 22.1’ lake setback, 11% LC (home) Note: Variance 18-01 lapsed due to one year passing without construction occurring. ANALYSIS Front Yard Setback The property’s existing structure meets the RSF District’s 30-foot front yard setback; however, the proposed house would be setback 18.5 feet from the front lot line, requiring an 11.5-foot front yard variance. The city requires front yard setbacks in order to ensure the presence of front yard green space, preserve the character of its Single-Family Residential Districts, and to provide for off-street parking. The property’s front yard is currently covered by a 2,105-square foot gravel parking area that runs the entire width of the property and extends past the property’s 30- foot front yard setback. While the proposed house’s expanded footprint and driveway will occupy about half of the space currently covered by gravel, the other half will be replaced with vegetation. Converting the gravel area to green space will represent an improvement to the property’s aesthetics. The applicant is requesting a reduced front yard setback because they feel that it is not possible to fit a modern house and garage on a substandard lot while maintaining the existing shoreland setback without relief from the front yard setback. Given the lot’s average depth of 122 feet, if the applicant maintained the existing shoreland and front yard setback they would be restricted to a combined home and garage depth of approximately 39 feet. The proposed house and garage have a maximum depth of 47 feet and minimum depth of approximately 41 feet. The applicant has stated that it is not practical to construct a shallower house, due to the proposed home’s tuck under garage. The applicant chose to propose a tuck under configuration based upon staff recommendation and preference for a front yard variance as opposed to the side yard variances that would be required for other attached garage configurations. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 12 of 19 The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the property connecting the corners of the adjacent homes. When examining properties within 500 feet of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road, staff found that 13 of the 25 properties have received a variance from the required front yard setback. As the table below shows, six of those properties were allowed front yard setbacks of less than 11 feet, and a further four variances were granted allowing front yard setbacks of between 14 and 18 feet. Additionally, the neighborhood has numerous non-conforming properties with similarly short front yard setbacks. The requested 18.5- foot front yard setback is in line what is present in this neighborhood; however, the presence of a portion of Red Cedar Point Road within the property’s front lot line results in a shorter driveway and front yard than is present on many properties with similar variances. Front Yard Setback Variances Granted within 500’ of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Closest Structure Front Yard Variance Distance from lot line Garage 1.2 feet 28.8 feet Garage 2 feet 28 feet House 5 feet 25 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 15.5 feet 14.5 feet Garage 19 feet 11 feet Addition (Home) 19.25 feet 10.75 feet Garage 20 feet 10 feet House 20.2 feet 9.8 feet House 20.2 feet 9.8 feet Garage 22.5 feet 7.5 feet City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 13 of 19 The final consideration in determining an appropriate front yard setback is the ability of the driveway to provide for off-street parking. The impact that the reduced front yard setback has on this is amplified by the fact that Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 6 8.29 and 8.63 8.5 feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point and about 15 feet long at its longest. Staff is concerned that the short driveway length will not facilitate off-street parking, but acknowledges that many properties in the area provide a similar amount of off-street parking have comparably short driveways. Staff conducted an estimate of the off- street parking provided by the driveways and garages of nearby homes, and determined that houses in the area provide an average of 4.5 combined off-street parking spaces, with 8 of the 17 surrounding parcels survey providing 4 or less combined off-street parking spaces. Staff believes that the proposed driveway could accommodate one car parked at an angle to the street, as the driveway is too short to allow for an average sized, 16-foot long, car to park perpendicular to the street. The proposed driveway configuration combined with the three-car garage would provide off-street parking for up to four vehicles. For reference, the City Code requires a two-car garage and 30-foot front yard setback, which would provide 4-6 off-street parking spaces depending on the width of the right of way, two in the garage and two to four in the driveway. Engineering sStaff is recommending that the house be setback an additional three feet to accommodate the perpendicular parking of vehicles within the driveway. The additional three feet of driveway length would allow the driveway to park one average sized vehicle and one smaller vehicle perpendicular instead of one parallel. Ensuring sufficient driveway length is important since the street width in front of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road is only 16.5 feet. This means it is not feasible for two vehicles to pass along the street if vehicles parked on the driveway overhang into the street. Even with the additional three feet of driveway length, the driveway will not be able to accommodate the perpendicular parking of larger vehicles. A minimum driveway length of approximately 20 feet would be required to accommodate the perpendicular parking of above average sized vehicles. Lot Coverage The city requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet for riparian properties and limits these properties to 25 percent lot coverage. The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 14 of 19 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. When owners propose improvements to properties that have non-conforming lot coverage, the policy is that the existing nonconformity must be reduced; however, there is no formal rule stating how much of a reduction must occur. In this case, the applicant is proposing to reduce the property’s existing lot coverage by 183 square feet, a 1.9 percent reduction. When considering what lot coverage is appropriate, both the percentage of lot coverage compared to the District’s standard and the absolute square footage of lot coverage present on the property should be considered. A non-riparian lot meeting the RSF District’s 15,000 square-foot minimum is allowed up to 3,750 square feet of impervious surface. Lots zoned Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) and meeting the minimum size of 9,000 square feet are entitled to up to 3,150 square feet of lot coverage. These totals provide an indication of what the city considers to be reasonable minimum maximums for single-family residential lot coverage. The 3,170 square feet proposed by the applicant is close to the minimum maximum for RLM lots; however, the city has limited lot coverage to totals below those thresholds, especially in areas with stormwater management issues or which are adjacent to water resources. It should also be noted that areas zoned RLM are required to preserve significant amounts of permanent open space to offset their higher lot cover percentage. In evaluating these requests, staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater best management practices will represent an improvement to the property’s existing conditions. A 183 square-foot reduction in the property’s lot coverage is not in and of itself a meaningful improvement to the property’s existing conditions, and if no other measures are taken to reduce impervious surface or improve stormwater management, staff does not recommend approving the variance with the proposed lot coverage. Staff believes that the applicant can improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeable pavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20-foot buffer along the lake, and develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for the proposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval. Using permeable pavers would reduce the property’s impervious surface from by approximately 680 square feet, assuming a front yard variance of 8.5 feet, resulting in 27.1 percent impervious surface and 7.4 percent pervious surface for a total lot cover of 34.5 percent. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 15 of 19 Shoreland Setback The city’s Shoreland Overlay District requires a 75-foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta; however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9-foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. Due to the fact that the property has an average depth of 122 feet, requiring the new home to meet the 75-foot shoreland setback would provide the applicant with a very constrained buildable area. These situations are fairly common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use the property’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. Within 500 feet of the property, shoreland setback variances of up to 35 feet have been granted to facilitate the construction of homes, and a total of three shoreland setback variances of over 20 feet have been issued. The properties to the east and west of the parcel have respective lake setbacks of 54.6 feet and 61.4 feet. The proposed lake setback of 52.9 feet is in line with city precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties. Staff is concerned that significantly increasing the size of the structure and amount of impervious surface within the shoreland setback will increase the amount of stormwater runoff being diverted into Lake Minnewashta. Staff believes that requiring the rear patio discussed below to be constructed using permeable pavers and requiring the installation of a 20-foot buffer between the home and the lake will serve to mitigate this impact. Portions of the rear patio will be setback closer to the lake than the existing house’s 52.9-foot setback. At its closest point, the proposed patio would be setback approximately 45 feet from the lake. Since the City Code allows for lakefront properties to have one water oriented accessory structure of up to 250 square feet with a minimum setback of 10-feet from the lake’s ordinary high water level, no variance is required for the patio’s encroachment into the shoreland setback. The applicant has agreed that the patio will be the property’s only water oriented accessory structure, and will be removing the existing fireplace area which is setback approximately 24 feet from the lake. Impact on Neighborhood Red Cedar Point is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are non- conforming uses, and 16 of the 25 properties within 500 feet of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road have been granted at least one variance. Of these 16 properties, 13 have a variance for reduced front yard City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 16 of 19 setbacks, five have been granted additional lot coverage, and 11 were permitted a reduced shoreland setback. Many of the nine properties that do not have associated variances also have non- conforming lot coverage, front yard setbacks, and shoreland setbacks. The height of the proposed house is higher than some of the surrounding homes, but with a peak height of 27 feet and building height of 22 feet, it is significantly below the 35-foot maximum building height allowed by City Code. The existing housing stock in the surrounding area is a mix between older single-level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. Proposed House Street Elevation Existing House Street View SUMMARY The applicant’s proposed shoreland setback maintains the existing distance to the lake and granting it would be consistent with how similar requests have been treated in the past. The requested lot coverage variance represents a minimal reduction of an existing nonconformity, but if pervious pavers are utilized and a buffer is installed along the lake, the property’s stormwater management will be significantly improved. The proposed front yard setback will result in a very short driveway and a limited ability to accommodate on-site parking, but it is consistent with the surrounding properties and what has historically been allowed within the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the proposed variances with conditions. RECOMMENDATION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 17 of 19 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. Or “The Chanhassen City Council Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 18 of 19 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. Should the Planning Commission City Council deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision: City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 19 of 19 “The Chanhassen City Council Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a variance request to allow an 11.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Finding of Fact and Decision Approval CC 2. Finding of Fact and Decision Alternate Approval PC 3. Finding of Fact and Decision Denial 4. Variance Documents 5. Development Review Application 6. Tree Removal Plan 7. Survey 8. WRC Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 9. ERS Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 10. ENG Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 11. Affidavit of Mailing 12. Email from Resident G:\PLAN\2019 Planning Cases\19-03 3617 Red Cedar Point Road\Staff Report-3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Round2_CC.docx (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) trtr tr ! n Comprehensive Plan Amendment.................. ... $600! fUinor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) E Single-family Residence ........... .. $325 fl rut others........ .......... $425 lnterim Use Permit (lUP) n ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 E nltothers........ ....... $425 Rezoning (REZ) n Planned Unit Development (PUD) . . ... $750 E tvtinor Amendment to existing PUD........... ..... $100 E rut Others........ ..... $500 Sign Plan Review....... .... $150 Site Plan Review (SPR) n ROministrative......... ... $100 E Commercial/lndustrral Districts" .. $500 Plus $10 per 1 ,000 square feet of building area:(_ thousand square feet) *lnclude number of exisflno employees: _*lnclude number of ry employees: E Residential Districts ... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units) Subdivision (SUB) E Create 3 lots or less ............ .. $300 n Create over 3 lots ............. ......$600 + $15 per lot(_ lots) E Metes & Bounds (2 lots) ....$300 E Consolidate lots...... ..$150 [] Lot Line Adjustment.............. ........ $150 n rinat P1a1............. .. $700 (lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)* .Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) ........ $200 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) n Single-Family Residence........... . $150 E ntothers........ ..... ...$275 Zoning Appeal . .. $100 Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) .... $500 p[!: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. tr tr n a n tr n f, eroperty Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre-application meeting) @_rJJr".r"rl E] Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) E Conditional Use Permit E lnterim Use Permit I Vacation Z Variance n Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) E Easements (- easements)E Deeds C.r l^r TOTAL FEE: '4L $3 per address $50 per document E Site Plan Agreement E Wetland Alteration Permit Description of Proposal: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd.Property Address or Location: Parcel#: Existing Use of Property: 256600320 Legal Description:Block 4, Lot 9, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta TotalAcreage:0.23 Wetlands Present? Present Zoning. Single-Family Residential District (RSF) Present Land Use Designation' Residential Low Density Detached Single Family Single-Family Residential District (RSF) E Yes Z tto Requested Zoning: EChect< box if separate narrative is attached. Requested Land Use Designation. Residential Low Density Q<_ lq ^o3 CO-IIIMUNITY DEVELOPM ENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147 , Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227 -1300 / Fax: (952) 227 -1 110 Submittaro.,"'[ \f Q,\ t9 pcDate:5]LtrJ--.{-13- ccDate:t/ro ( tq 60-DayReviewrr,",L[tY ltt *crTYor APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW vc Section 1:allthat Section 2:lnformation APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization 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 the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Address: City/Statr Email: nName: Trrt.tr, Q*^tr contact: l)n.^eln 2r; tf Phone: ?,< rC- ,l I O, ft/e A ?se- ato. s4se Signature: " a*&i=2 Daro: 4-/7*/? PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, l, as property owner, have 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 additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. 2r.;.,o ,4. -9r,-,ho contact: GF€' Soubq *u City/State/Zip ,ff& f /otz- Atb- qffl 5 Address: ' %/l th, f ' f'=a /?" (?' '* Phone: Fax Signature: PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: at Fax: oa" Qrz;z /7, ?d1 7 Address: Contact: Phone: City/State/Zip: Email: Cell: Fax: This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. 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. Who should receive copies of staff reports? 6wtrtr *Other Gontact lnformation : Name:Property Owner Applicant Engineer Other. Via: Via: Via: Via: EIEmail I fuaiteO Paper Copy EfEmail I UaiteO Paper Copy ! Email ! tvtaiteO Paper Copy f] Email I tvtatbO Paper Copy Address: City/State/Zip: Email. INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, 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. Section 3:Owner and lnformation Section 4: Notification lnformation April 10, 2019 City of Chanhassen Community Development Department 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 5531,7 Re: Variances for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road We are requesting the following variances on the property: L. L0.9o/o hard cover variance 2. 2Z.l ft.lake set back variance 3. 18.5 ft front yard setback from property line to the NE garage corner fustifications for the variance: L. The lot is sub standard. 2. We will be removing an old structure and building a new home. 3. Increased tax base for the city. 4. We will reduce the current hard cover by 44 sq.ft. 5. Current homes in the neighborhood have similar variances that we are applying for and therefore this helps justify the variance; furthermore, this property was approved in 2018 for exact above variance. 6. We will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 7. We will be bringing the side setback into compliance by removing the outhouse. Note: The patio in the backyard is the water oriented structure. The current structure on the property is a 1930's vintage Sears mail order cabin that is showing its age. The structure does not have a garage or a working bathroom, rather an outhouse that is beyond the side yard setback. The driveway currently is gravel and runs the entire width of the property and is lacking in green space. Our plan is to build a single family home (plans attached) that will improve the neighborhood from aesthetics and tax base standpoint. I am currently a neighbor and look forward to moving down the street, closer to long-time friends. As mentioned above, we will also be reducing the current hardcover and bringing the West side yard setback into compliance. Sincerely, Pamela Reimer CIryOFCHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPN COLTNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Pamela Reimer for a 20-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03 4. Variance Findines - Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting ofa variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent ofthis Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The intent ofthe city's shoreland managanent ordinance is to protect the city's aquatic resources by requiring structures to be setback 75 feet from lakes and limiting the maximum lot coverage permitted within 1,000 feet of a lake to 25 percent. The setback and lot coverage limitation is desigred to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that is discharged into the lake. The applicant's proposal calls for maintaining the existing nonconforming lake setback and slightly reducing the existing lot coverage. Staff believes that by using pervious pavers, installing a vegetative buffer, and working with the watershed district to conduct a shoreline restoration project the proposed home's impact on Lake Minnewashta will be minimized. Given the existing nonconforming nature of the property and the BMPs being required as conditions of approval for the variance, the city believes that the applicant's proposal balances protecting the lake and allowing for reasonable use on a nonconforming property. On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustrnents makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT l. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential low Density. 3. The legal description ofthe property is: Iot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta I SCAI'IttlED b The city,s zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of30 feet in order to proride for greeispace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The applicant's proposed ieduction tJthe front yard setback is in conjunction with the removal ofan existing driveway that occupiei most of the front yard and is similar to the front yard setback maintained by other homes in the neighborhood. The front yard setback also exists to ensure properties provide adequate off-street parking; the proposed driveway length of l5 feet is insufficient to accommodate an average sized vehicle. In order to provide for adequate o$street parking an average driveiay length ofat least 16 feet is required. The requested front yard variance does not provide ior tlis length, but granting an l7-foot front yard setback variance instead of the iequested 20-foot front yard setback variance would meet the intent of the ordinance. when there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the - property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this ^Cf,uptel. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Fin.ting: The lot's substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean aieasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance. That the purpose ofthe variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considefations. The plight ofthe landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is sigrrificantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandmd nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code' The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality' Finding: The property is located in one ofthe city's oldest subdivisions. The vast majorit! of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or ure .roncorrfor-ing uses. The existing housing stock is a mix between older single level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter' c. d e f. 2 5 Finding: This does not apply to this request. The planning report #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepard by MacKenzie young-Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen Board ofAppeals and Adjustmants approves an l7-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: l The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed l0 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easernents are documented. 4. The applicant must dedicate the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb as public right ofway. 5. A new l":20' scale survey should be provided as part ofthe building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and stnrctures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, ifone is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placanent to exclude the 28,,oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side ofthe lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and rernain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11.The228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property's water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20' native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystern health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use ofpervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21" day of May, 2019' CIT\'OF eick, g:vlanuo 19 plannirg css€s\|9-03 36t? red codar point rcad\firdings of fact and decision 36t ? rcd cedar-rould2-alt (ryov.l).doc BY 4 7/e t Re r4oval The Gregory Group,Inc. INVOICE NO. 86405,87086 dh. F.B.NO.__ 1093.44 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY SCALE.1"• 20 Established ii 1962 LAND SURVEYORS Doom remelt=ellemeeret REGISTERED UNDER T1¢LAWS OF STATE OF NNESOTA 0'i11"w`"'"tMI N017M1Ammo 111•4 4701160.101/1 p...lamer SUS fby•ly 460.1122 3ururyurs MertifiruteS.w6 ear EXISTING CONDI TIONS SURVEY FOR: 1>.wlae • Greerrimesi1 seureed MARK D.WILLIAMS CUSTOM HOMES Bolding Seats*1106.11111116111 Freed($0.V)-30 fast Side -10 feet Property located a S6croe 011W•7S Meet dates ef7 NO eager) I,Towage's 116.Reye 23, Caner Corry.Maeraa Property Address: 3617 Red Ceder Net Rd. e•st•.9 hardcover Ch66hma6.MN 5.22 sr k ChonoChoosy meted Beachreeh rang d/rilery odd.03627 ReLdmtee - 7A3 se kaeration•037.30 feet Gamete - 327 sq ft Grad s lace - 2105 aq h ditancws road • 543 sq.h!rot mc6aded mikes - r3,1k rbefteoe - 101 se ft z3.3s iNrrenb9e 3C.36%Parr rd two "We Note:The road surface d 543 al h.5 rot s.c4ded a the Aandhow r or the total lot arca CodaPRed omt Road Ili t •- S 84'SOY r E 79.• 1 c-aa r,owe O•01.501,,, P. 4 I - 1` 95202 n - ''-'=- i.--- r----- --------114-Z- 1 err , sic '1sus. a.r 1 920'7 010 i OS0 ween 3t err T _ s 10 44 A I asz i za i i rLrwr X Oi 1OOs.9 150 r a +- F 952.2 9545 2.5r-ne .,.a tiA a s tG.o r 7 Na 3622 55r 7 Ile4,64 No. a»:: 2-5r-fit I le NI a' j t0.0 e•. l34.e Ab.3613 Z s •7 4,e - et,' I fo 9 1 !3z r 9s 1 r12€.3 4.---.74,77-76wn,s.ri$ 10.0 7" -• OIL --' 4 W4r a1vl309 /! • p " III!34 4 932.9 W 2 Rt f.X l 36 7 S oa Dec* 93r.L I ii 4:444 , 7 ni i oar I w rt, m. 2;1 aslsr 7 22, o •-- _ z, 4 I 95 5 . 3302 tjvr..,4...,t.fore I leo.. q I 9504 950•_ x; L-i©u~ 947.4 ,` nyso.v mm2 merp 949.5 Itreptses 949.'5 u x.r 5410.: 9no 2447--x__ t SW$It 2445 C aIroe 804 4.> l I I 41It\ 9«a _':__caw a - .Pi rr3Y.117eg60' .11.1. 80.0 •94c9 •94...c wt '.La-.-90i4`s l+e.s =_--_ 944 5 -1 7144.$ 941.5 r efhroomite"wens hem Goo*odes acne..1454 Lake Minnewashta 00 ler Neal p.Mae-545.0 711..ray...s... em.are as..pre of mate.r i4enea.n Lots 9 and 10.Block 4,RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MB.INEWASHTA ptosed y dint.Carver Comty,Minnesota 1 aaaty Net W.Max p.oln6...er repot mei propeiad fe to• etder.ry dead aper rb.end NW 1.71.017016rerot tea. oiler Maar a.a..et M pea•mimosa. Surveyed 9W 1711 day d May 2017 5.__ M 511-6-- 1 nand elft On.n Pry ) 7 1‘21-,1 1-Oo-17 added(laest0ne Woes 6• vee.s lir.lleg.!..IrM r -____ - .•4.4.44,4.444414.4164•480444404..r..r.... •am. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant City Planner FROM: Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJ: Variances for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Project Summary: The applicant is proposing a new single family home in replace of an existing home at the above address on Lake Minnewashta. The project requires a variances from the Shoreland Management requirements within Chapter 20 of the City Zoning Code for hard cover and lake setback. A similar project was reviewed and approved by the City in 2018. The proposed project makes slight improvements to water resources by reducing impervious surface approximately 300 square feet (sq. ft.). Recommendations provided below remain generally consistent with the previous authorization. Water Resources Review Comments and Recommendations: 1. Tree protection fence, located outside the dripline, should be shown on the site plan for all trees proposed to be saved. 2. The Site Plan dated 4/26/19 (REV) incorrectly notes the 100 YR FEMA floodplain for Lake Minnewashta as 945.0 feet. The correct floodplain elevation per FEMA (Dec. 2018) is 945.9 feet. City Code section 20-329 requires the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. The plan indicates a crawl space that does not meet this threshold. The plan should be updated to show all low floor elevations meeting this standard. 3. The proposed plan reduces hardcover by approximately 300 sq. ft. To mitigate the impacts to Lake Minnewashta of a reduced lakeshore setback and increased impervious service, I recommend the following conditions consistent with the previously approved variance request: a. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. b. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. c. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: May 21, 2019 SUBJ: 3617 Red Cedar Pt Rd, Variances to construct a home The lot has a number of existing mature trees in the rear yard. They are all within the shoreland impact zone and are therefore required to be preserved and protected. According to the submitted plan, a 28” oak in the shoreland impact zone is not scheduled for protection. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the tree and remove it from the grading area. To protect the trees during construction, the following practices are required: • Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and grading limits. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. • When excavating near the tree, roots should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. • No equipment or materials may be stored within the tree protection area/rear yard. Additionally, as required by city ordinance, one tree will be required to be planted in the front yard. Recommendations: 1. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 2. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 3. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 4. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner FROM: George Bender, Assistant City Engineer DATE: May 2, 2019 SUBJ: Multiple Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Planning Case: 2019-03 The requested variances have been reviewed and the following comments were noted: ● A title search for the property should be required in order to document all existing easements. ● The plan should allow for reasonable off-street parking in the driveway. The edges of the driveway are not dimensioned but by scale the west side is 14.5’ and the east side is 11’. Providing a minimum average length of 16’ is recommended based on Staff research for the average size vehicle length. (Essentially the garage would need to be moved back 3’ from the back of the curb) ● The slope of the driveway shall not exceed 10%. ● A dedication of ROW over the street pavement and curb is requested. If a dedication is not feasible to request then an easement over the existing roadway portion of lot would be acceptable. ● Maintain the requirements from the prior review for this lot as part of Planning Case 18-01. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 9, 2019, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing to consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road,zoned Single Family-Residential (RSF), Planning Case File No. 2019-03 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. k)\j Kim T. Me'ssen, Deput Cl rk Subscribed and sworn to before me this(3'P'day of IY1 C 2019. x,1--4,,rJEAN M STECKLING L`eeC w oaiwrwon ate..101 31,a7tNotaryPublic . 4 14 11 1 r m''..... r.CedaPoktt Rd =, ' ', ' f n \ p ..000- 4.. . \ \ Subject Property Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to TAX_NAME» be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic TAXADDL1» Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does TAX ADD L2» «TAX ADD L3»not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. im4-- z Ni G's, - // t 7:* , , daGedai.POk( 411‘ a Subject 4 ` Property ihb Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the Next Record»«TAX_NAME» depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to TAX ADD L1» Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd.21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and TAX_ADD_L2», «TAX_ADD_L3» agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. p a m. w r 0 N C O `' N (n O 0 C z cam (O r um° w.so yr 2,...„8 a 0 n > C O N bTO- ova° m .cm. o Lac Oa« N 0 0 O N N a E c1' 1 EL •> S a) oUd dm. em wrE 86- oc O Y N o .0 — U U N ` N C 3 t .- a t 0) mcami umiEcmE c v CO U 6 Q)— N O C N ., (O O a N O m H N N N a"i m c d 1-0N — ce 0 '0 3 .( 1)— • - 0 a) u) 0- L 0) O yc F d and mymc E .- O C U C Ti N U E = a C oE , cmEd_ 3oE mmO (O (O QN p U (OL = .0 •+7, p mo¢ °aoT- Vic - acm Of6 -0 > M ..•, N -6 .O .0 3 (OL 0 a Q ? j a (2c-) o, mmUmWN (COaO' , cg 01 c 12 > U ., N 0i L. +. U Q N j 0 N O +-' O E > E E O a c m a H E c a o U a t So tC Q) a - as - V OEO Op 'VE O > VL +- 0000 . me Emy c= mSTc' d 0) L y N (O to C C O _C Q Q y E N 0 , . N •-d = L a) a) (n m a 82 m U E o '2 U=- m NO L w ... L ( O O C O 0` CL E — C V O Q > 'y a . 0 N 3Lo foo (T, iE 8 c L O o m H (O O u, ..9, -- c7)- 0.. c0O O O V O O E L £ 3 3 m m d m B E c m° gy m L C O 0 +. coo N C N + O N U 0_./... +,. C U) (A a m.cHCCDiiivwarnmro y 0 p O U (0 d . C p 3 0 CD E a w O cofl ! iUCO m 2' 11 :UU ':flllasyOOtiCQ-LL•O . E O Q 47_ O C 4) N N v m° a O ` p N y N Q O p 3 C a N L m r m Tm m 0.-0 C (j (t i co 0) L O w 4- .1) O -O "O U N 0 ..+O (/ Q.L a+ Q ` m U a 3 E 8 _ p " > QC ay. U O a C U " o N -C a 0 O 0 coo m >a EvBymo- v 0 p 2,m ` O -0 N > . 0 0 C_c O N .> 0 (O Q O co p " 3 U C . c ° m m 5 m«• r y°-2 a T a oOd) c O .2 p a L -p 'C > Q0 V 0- Q C QN X Oa) p) cm2 a3-°o .°11a20tm20bc:c d C N_Q L co N N C Com. to N 3 O • N - 3 a (n O N Q N N ^— a O •.m a m 1° o a ac 2$ a E ca w v° w .0 _- NU OL O •p w . O N O) in N t_ >,N N O a O = O m0 mncomom'vm cto a c N of•U El..)p N d O -.,., ca) O .c ,a)_ C0 N ' C N U (O L N L E L Q. (a za Q N d m c d L E v.. >a m in m o , en -a N y N U +: CO O) L (n (n (n a) I—C O E o'vy m- Emyoam o tr« v a >,,c C p .a C (O• O cr.O 0, •V 0 0 • C O ` O) .0 a s (O N ,+ m =m ^ E o B E =." m e c y ° °a ca+co N DO co E N O) N 0 C — Q N 4) ... O` co .«' " C r a — +. a E w c o om. E E m Oa. m OZc2 > 0),-- >. N w U c N N ( n 3 N 0-L a) (O as .( O ' O C .0 m fn c 22 y¢ o g H s s 2 m a>,r m n m E y N U +' O C Q N E U Q CO (n V O >> a C p () O E O E o E'ES. .- .6 E. ' 5 c ki 00 (O O w0 (O N O O N - C..., C L O 7 O 3 ?.. V 0 0 0 N U ' a + 0 0 0 7 c 8 8 m c°o v.-g Z, m . rn m. sz v d m L 41 N c = 0 C a IX 1V 0-.0 5 .VU1— Ud +.. OU O C)QE (CO g C s- > -° C amc tR myo agm2t3yEONTa. E 7 E > O ommEmm ac° 5 ° O 7 4? =' O C O (O (p- -c Q L 0 N O O >, O -0 O C .` N •D E m 3 0 80_, 0 H (gO F- (Odd MQ H CO CO Q' NM .-. (n L 0 (OU 0 0-- O N N mEmmt a=rmrn0.82m Oa N2rnOvE_ 0 N N E°mo" 8Em'no= n8occ C C 0- O L cmmEOemmvaSmv ncc a a) a 0 C_ Ca cammmovLoinNry iam E_ 0.4-• 0r) In. a, 0c0 ._, M CC Oa Bar.+ a yE8aQ. - Q. (O O L a my 20, 10="- c omv 4-. 0 0 Q. 0 0 L r 3 O W 0 Tr' ovcm >L8°o moo ° camomm O 0 a- Q- 1 O O v U0._inmra >mvsa¢ Em !a CI _i a. < dJ O a0 z Q c) . 0 a m.w c c Ca 13 u 63d— g,.E Fyo3 WLo4- n NO = C '- as N r 154 cr OCL -0 N C = 'a -O N OU L n > Y CZN (O -, C cDa ° uEE H= '5 m y NO O L N j N O N E ` E >a) o c m 8 ` d 15 aY L L — "-'U N •N C 3 a 0) myE ;roa «E 8a v cm E . c $N OCN7NOa p gym r 8a 0 m m mT?c CO O 3 a'N (n0' L 42 CNC F- m.0 ; 0 mmmmCN- v N Q U n EoN 6E13p O C .' U C OL - L . 0 mo¢ vET msoEac ma o) p -0 > Np Q O O c (O .0 0 a) 0- 3 ••-• N0 mU T.- EL) o'- co C > U NQNN0Ca UoaECNrnmflIfluIIa)r L y p aV OE N (n jyOw. OLN QN0E c 8r UE L. UwuaNONN0LEEaNNY + N C C N OO 'e2H " L ` O m8 { 2s 2 m wO N O. + i c 3 a .8,0= m ° cm `rE 08 61 O E N g n Ew • QNCD0LN N '- U a L- n O C 15 = U .O mcm aco¢d > 3.fi 0-p 0 U 0 C •- (O O p p "' y — . CO p I C O LL NEO O , aN (O O m iLo m m 0 2200 ( O O Q OC NONQ 3 >+ N amdO « . CQ• p _ N 3 -• N E - > (4 O a E LmrE >,m a = n 0 - cQ0) L 0 + `- N -, -0 -O p)N7 Udst _ o d.-oa) c U N V O 075Om am8m >uON o ; OCL O = Cvmmc8mm 8>c-0 L Of0 N N .- Q- •(7 — 3 -- -0 a 'Dvoo12LEQL • 0 C .. Xa) • oO - amcmmcHUU0 cn cr) O7c- •o +.. Y 'O CC ` 000 - OUO CQE . - .. V C -O n O a m«pC (OnU N N QO0 C — N o Eao -«omAAiCa7 OC CL (n . = C L (n a n N NQ N D) a •- ` COO y m V' y N aDc2Ecw^U° a m° m .-).o.• C - a) U 0L 0 'pC +n . 2N NC) N C >,N _ a a ^ C 0 m U mm us m« ° p N d 0 0 _cOC (O OURLN - cEL ( 60- O mm c m r E ca o m 4.2 mas ,- p•U O n -0Ly . a) N > (O 'C (n -5N (f 0 t—C 0 E c E a m_ E c m o 2 d8 .t r rNOa) O NO • .0O ° , L mmtrcdE -Ym S.Cl- 'c 7 0 ( E et.O 0), c 00p •OCLO .toL 2on0L (C ++ .-cr.. a O . aE om `Om m'T,2 E u a o -vOCd0 (O 0ONNQ'r- 0- U 2 Q L a .F ,O L _ C8o m ymmm m na= z ( Aa N U O A U E O ) in CO 0' E C ( na) , N O0 +,. En y m EE mv_ Ea> `2- E a — -- +C. 0 -p C 0-' N" - N "' EQ' (O •- C NU) O a cpc V . o E Na tccnOy O NO ma) oL3 a0Q , E0 m e g 8-30,0 -8.R rn0 -aoR -0 - c2pcc CC%.7)„. U UL O O O U EC C L Op E .nii UmN' a •cc-L nc 0 I VQ, 0 1— U d . OE NE . O > C ms - cogcymU c o O a Q 0 0 Q E > Ecy c ' EN0EmmmoO >, O "d O C .` U c aE 8 a rn sma04 .— O 0 O c - L QL 0 Q. m N U (O d d co Q CO CO 0-r a.. n ›.- .0 U (O U O NNwOci m . 8ma,Lt mDrnVc,„ moE - c . L 8pc0ynmEomo« ocmoasE y.E5oC0OLcmf. aoymva3 -5Lc8Y. a aC 0 C C y maE9E5oc5 3(n 2 51,. F, 0r..NCE 0om . mv mT ov-0a C C c oaQc .) ° a Oa .22mmi m ti5o ° 00 2FCOC >> C a .cO a n vi. • ; ommmaa3 `ammay =Lrn8OylatO a la Q. a CL03 OL y C Y Ua,vncm mmuD`O2ym32v8 0 0 •Q- O 0 L r.+ O W V a oD17, >t°o o ° camimmai CO O L 0. L O O nU O nmHa >U7 a¢ Em n o a Qa - 3 (a a0 z Q C5 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C I- F F F I- 1- I- C C C C = 1- 1- F- = Z_ ZZZZZZZZZ Z 0 0 0 0 0 Z_ Z_ Z_ 0 000000000 0 cc C C C = 555 =O O C a a a a a a a a a a a < Q a a < a a a a C C C cc C C C C C C a C C c, 0 0 0 0Ccc 0 C C C 0 Z- a a a a a a Q a a a Q W W W W W Q Q Q w 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 > U U U U > U C C C U CU w CCLU LU LU w LU w w w w CCw CC2 2 2 2 0 = LU w LU = a U O D U U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 F 1_ 1_ 1- 01- U001- F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > DDD U D 0 0 0 D Ii) Lu w w w w w w w w w w 0 0 0 0 — 01-1-11-1-11-u0 w C 2 C C C C C C C C C 2 C 2 N N N v1 2 V1 C C C v1 a N N t0 M U1 N en 03N U1 N 00 01 O ri N N Ln CO N O 01 V M i en r-1000 .-1 ri N NI N N N M 01 0100001-1004 0 2 l0 CO CO co l0 l0 CO CO (.13 CO CO CO CO LO CO lD N N N N N lD l0 N v1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0101010-101010101M NIN .1 .-i ,1 .-1 O O .1 .1 l0 .-1 )43 l0 CO CD 00 00 CO 00 lD 1- 1 N 01 N N N N N N N N l0 N l 0000 00 CO CO LO CO N l0 .1 N N ' N N N N N N N N N N N l0 lD LO lD lD N l0 N 01 lD M N N 111 N N N N N N NN 01 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 V 00 01 11 00 00 .1 -1 ‘Li e-1 .1 .-i ‘Li ri .-,i r-1 .-i c11 ‘.LI .-1 .-i .1 '-i .1 ri Lf1 M .1 O ri LO 00 M M M enM enM M M en M M M M M enM en en cr en 0 M O O M M MLnLnLr) M M M M M M en M M M M M M M M en en M M Q Ln U1 Ln en O U1 U1 U1 V1 111 U1 LnLi-) Lt-) U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 V) U1 LI1 U1 Ln Z z Q1 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z J I- Z Y Y 0I D J C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Z Z C O wOQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° 0 Q Y L a J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Z Z J X I VI LU ca U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Z Z U a 2 0 Q X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X F U C U w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w L L w C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 C C a C C C a cc C C U F F F HI- F F F F C C C C C CCH Z ZZZZZZZZ Z 0 0 0 0 0 0Z 000000000 0 0 = = = = = C O F CI C C CC C C C CC a 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Z > M a W « « « « « = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 > U U U U U > U 0 w CC CC u_i Z C J Z N C W W W W W W W W C W C 2 2 2 2 2 C 2 W a W w10QQUUUUUUUUOUOFFFFF .....F U 2 F a 0 > cc =100000000600 CI- D 0 0 - O 0 _U C Z Q 000 O > CC z z CC CC z CC LLI CC = CC = 0 0 0 0 O = OU C U -, I 01 UJ .-1 en Ln N en 00 Ni Lf1 N 00 01 O .-i M N .-i Ui lD N O O .-i .-i X O N O O O O .-i r-1 N N N N N M M M M O O O O .--1 M O O ri M l0 l0 lD l0 to l0 l0 l0 l0 kb to l0t0 t0 LC N N N N N M 01 N iF '-i rri M M M M M M M M 01 M en M en en en en en en en In U1 N FNCF Z F m Z U Lu g Z ww0w CC Z Z CC 7 o Z N C = a V)a Y w O F ow cri F- < a 00 D O Q Z U lu N w 00 _Z C F r O Z Y C a LL1 5 Z Q LUN - F 6 CC 0- 0O3-J- Y C F 0 0UCJwkr) ZZ am Z a C = Q 0 a C7 (9 .‹a C7Z Q Q Z C C Q Q O > w Z Z Z m 0C 2 en O Dkn , w O w - w Z m 0 vI c Z W --I w O Y Q LL co 0 a 00 a Z SG Z O2 .< 1- w C7 CI" Q O w OSS Q w Z co 0 N a - ce w -, Q a cc ZI 0 a Z w Q (9 Q w w > O F w Q C > 2 w w O 2 Z O w 0 XI- CC a O w a 0 0 a F- LLUU Q O I- 01- a = Q Z cc 0 = Q cc F- a (7 w x a 0 = 0 N m 0 (7 U In 0.. a F O < C7 U c -I 0 0000000000000000000000000 N N r1 N 00 01 r1 N M M .7 U1 U1 LO l0 r-1 CO 01 .--1 00 N 00 O V O M O O N N N M O O M M O M O M Ln M M C U1 M O 'h 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 l0 l0 l0 lD l0 l0 lD lD lD l0 l0 l0 l0 W l0 l0 l0 W W lD lD lD lD l0 l0 13 CO Z Ui LLI) 1LI1 LLI) LID LI1 UU1 V) U 1 Lf1 ) UULD10D LO 1 V) V1 LU1 UUi V 1 Ui Ui Ull0 CID U1 Ui Ui U 1 LLI1 UO1 U 1 d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Pamela Reimer for an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03 On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak, and voted to approve a 17-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions. On June 10, 2019, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider an appeal of the variance approved by the Planning Commission and now makes the following. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: 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. Finding: The intent of the city’s shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city’s aquatic resources by requiring structures to be setback 75 feet from lakes and limiting the maximum lot coverage permitted within 1,000 feet of a lake to 25 percent. The setback and lot coverage limitation is designed to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that is discharged into the lake. The applicant’s proposal calls for maintaining the existing nonconforming lake setback and slightly reducing the existing lot coverage. Staff 2 believes that by using pervious pavers, installing a vegetative buffer, and working with the watershed district to conduct a shoreline restoration project, the proposed home’s impact on Lake Minnewashta will be minimized. Given the existing nonconforming nature of the property and the BMPs being required as conditions of approval for the variance, the city believes that the applicant’s proposal balances protecting the lake and allowing for reasonable use on a nonconforming property. The city’s zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to provide for greenspace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The applicant’s proposed reduction to the front yard setback is in conjunction with the removal of an existing driveway that occupies most of the front yard and is similar to the front yard setback maintained by other homes in the neighborhood. The front yard setback also exists to ensure properties provide adequate off-street parking; the proposed driveway length of 15 feet is insufficient to accommodate an average sized vehicle. In order to provide for adequate off-street parking an average driveway length of at least 16 feet is required. The requested front yard variance does not provide for this length, but granting an 8.5-foot front yard setback variance instead of the requested 11.5-foot front yard setback variance would meet the intent of the ordinance. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The lot’s substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. The vast majority of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or 3 are nonconforming uses. The existing housing stock is a mix between older single level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228-square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced 4 professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of June, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Elise Ryan, Mayor g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\findings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar_round2_alt (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Pamela Reimer for an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03. On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak, and voted to approve a 17-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions. On June 10, 2019, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider an appeal of the variance approved by the Planning Commission and now makes the following. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: 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. Finding: The zoning code’s shoreland overlay district was enacted to protect the city’s aquatic resources. Allowing the applicant to exceed the district’s 25 percent lot coverage limit and increase the extent of the nonconformity within the required 75-foot shoreland setback area increases the amount of runoff that will be directed to Lake Minnewashta and is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. 2 The City Code allows for owners to improve their properties in ways that reduce an existing nonconformity. Increasing the size and amount of structures located within the shoreland setback increases, rather than decreases the existing nonconformity. The proposed reduction to the property’s impervious surface does not meaningfully improve the property’s stormwater management. Increasing nonconformities is not in line with the intent of the Chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The lot’s substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance; however, the requested variances significantly exceed the minimum variances needed for the construction of a reasonably sized home. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The proposed home is larger than those located on the surrounding properties, and deviates from the general lake home aesthetic present in the community. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a variance request to allow an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of June, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Elise Ryan, Mayor g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\findings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar_round 2 (denied).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-03 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 2 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228-square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: June 10, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\variance document 19-03_cc.doc Steckling, Jean from: Scnt: To: SubjGCt Walters, Ma(Kenzie Monday, May 13, 2019 7:51 AM Steckling, Jean FW: 3517 Red Cedar Point Road ' variance From: davemeryjo@aol.com <davemaryjo@aol com> S.nt: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:40 PM To: kaaenenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; walters, MacKenzie <Mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Re: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road - variance Kate & MacKenzie, We are $riting this email in respons€ to the variance request at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road' 5 houses east of our house on Lake Minneweshta. we arB gonerally in support of the proposed development, holvever, have a serious concem regarding the lack ol off: - .tr*t p"'*ing rie City'cooe requiiei'aoequ+ otrlstreet parking.be pro/ided and requires a minimum stall length of 18 ieet. -if"arfinA pnn ioes not iroviae nil fn" turr"y does n6t str6w tre proposed distance trom the edge of tho ;;^t ,*i tffg io garage tdr parr,ing cars in the driveway, howe\€r, it appears to be approximatety 11 bet ln the . ;Ji;rH hd;t*'"rp[s"ja -nE. for adequate off sreei pafiing. I am not aware of an_yrranances granted since the Lunent zoning orOinances was put in place in dre l976's that allowed a driv ey l33s $an 18' in length The two properfies ".iost tre ste€t are very tEht on ofi-steet parking bul both can accommodate hro \rehicles and both were bn'"truaeo *ett uebre the cunent zoning rules were established' This conditioo is even mofe extreme than typical b€caus€ the roads in this neighborhood are extremely nanow From our norr"i"ii io Ut" "nd of the point the road'is too nanow to park a car without blocking vehicular travel' this includes ule iL" of n" proposeo development. Red Cedar Point Road ind South Cedar Drive are slightly wider.lr'€st of the inter.""ion'ilr6*ing for parliing on one one side of the road, horlever. people ofien park 2' ontoour lawn on both streets in oiOii to o""t" ,-orc room blr can to pass resulting in tom sod, mud and damage to o-ur sprinkler system since the city oia not instatt curtring when the roads rire upgraaeoi whil€ this is a realty as a result oJ platting long betore the zoning coo" ,rras "oopoo, ie dont want to see it milnified by making it worse than it akcedy B - espeoally when there are i&"oniof. aftLraes. Reducing g1e deptr ot f,re garaleunouse from the prcposed 17''2" lo 41 bet u,ould allow the minimum required bf cars to perk the length of the driveway We are pleased to see pam stay in $e neighboftood and have verbally expressed this concem to her. We trust $e staff can work with tie applicant to address this concern Thank you for your consideration. Dave & Mary Jo Bangas.ser 3633 South Cedar Drive Chenhassen. MN 55331 I Steckling, Frpm: S.nt To: Su$cct Walters, MacKenzie Monday, May 20, 2019 1:01 PM Steckling, rean FW: Proposed variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Fmm: Nancy Renneke <nancyrennekewrites@Smail.com> Scnt: Monday, May 20, 2019 12:04 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalte6@ci.chanhass€n.mn.u5> Subject Proposed variance for 3517 Red Cedar Point Rd Dear Ms. Walters: Hello, I am writing to support our neighbor, Pam Reimer, in her request for a property varianoe. We live just a fei,y lots past her new property at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. We are nelv to the neighborhood, but I recently visited with her and trust that she'll be a good stewad of her future home and'Lake Minnewashta. We're exciled that a responsible buyer has come along to finally take care of this lot the way it deserves to be maintained. lt's a potentially beautiful lot, but the old Sears cabin is run down and the lot needs the loving care - and grass - Pam will provide. Her ownership will make the neighborhood betterfor all and I hope you'll agree that her plans are appropriate. It's my understanding that Pam's proposal offers adequate parking and it's apparent that her proposed driveway is not unusual for our little community. lf you've driven down our street, you'll appreciate that this is a unique neighborhood where houses are close together, the street is nanow and everyone's parking is limited. That's part of its lakeside neighborhood charm. The p€ninsula is a dead end and it's apparent to us already that this isn't a street with traflic other than people who live here and our guests. lt's our understanding and experience that since \rre all live on a unique street, everyone cooperates with each other. Case in point, one of our neighbors just gave us permission to bonow part of his driveway for two days to park our boat before we are able to get in the water. I hope you and the planning commission will see that our street is unique, and that Pam's variance request suits the neighborhood. We feel lucky that Pam - an experienoed homeo,vner and good neighbor on the lake - will redevelop that site, and we hope her variance request will be approved, allowing construc{ion of a beautiful home that will enhan@ our neighborhood. Thank you. Jean Regards, Nanry Renneke 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd. I Steckling. From: SGnt To: SubiGCt Attrchm.nls: Walters, MacKenzie Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:56 AM Steckling, rean FW: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Variances 5.20.19 Rcd Cedar Point Garage Survey l.pdf From: Steve Gunther <stguntherCgmail.com> S.,tt Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:09 AM To: wahers, MacKenzie <Mwalters@ci.chanhass€n.mn.us>; kaaenenronOci.chanhassen.mn.us SubiGGt 361/ Red Cedar Point Road Variances Mackenzie and Kate. I am writing this email in response to the Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road(the former Souba properly). This is the same input that I offered when this propert) $as considercd for variances several months ago. I objected to thosc variance requests. feeling that the lot size. road uidth and the trallic panem wele not consisteat with rhe large house being considered for construction on rhat lot. My objections remain. I hope this time you uill tisten to the input from the neighbors who are to tx forever affected by your decisions. Firsr. as the presidenr ofthe Lake Minnewashta Prcsen'ation Association and an owner on the lake since 1998. I objecr to providing a hard cover variance for this propertl because of the effect it lr'ill have on water qualiq in the lake. The morc hardcover a property has. the less chance that rainwater has ro drain through the soil and be filrercd before k enters Lake Minnewashta. The LMPA has been spending considerable effon educating homeowners to lgbeg hardcover on their propenies for the good ofthe lake and all its users. We need more vegetation not less. On the road side. runoff from the driveway sen'icing the proposed 3 car driveway uill increase the transport of petroleum products and leaves and grass clippings into the storm drains. This sen'es to introduce contaminants into rhe lake. The impact ofthe petroleum products is obvious. The leaves and clippings serve as a nutrient source for the algae in the lake, which degrades the water qualitl' for everyone. A previous owner violated the hardcover limit and added a larger than allo$'ed Class 5 drivewaS'. That deviation should have been remediated. not made permanenl. Reducing the hard cover (by 44 square feet) t-et slil[ exceeding the hardcover requirement is not good enough. While I object to the lake setback variance requesl. I understand compromises must be made on a non- conforming lot. I expect that Chanhassen and the Watershed District uill requirc proper shoreline planting I Jean buffering or a rain garden to prevent direct runoff into the lake. LMPA board member Kevin Zahler is a trained Master arer Ste.iard and oitcrs his rn'ices without charge to rcsidents to help explain and plan this kind of action. Hc can bc reached ar 612{18-9817 or via email at kjzahlerg-hotmail com I also objecr to the street setback variance for safety reasons. t believe that. given the lot sizc, tlle number of street-f;ing garage spaces should be rcduced to 2. Because 3 garage sralls are planned, that rcduces the front setback on i Jrreeyiniersection that is inordinarely small and tighr. lfa car or walercraft/trailer is hanging into the str€et on lhat driveway space. it creates an undue hazard for others. irrcluding large garbage trucks. snon ploq,s and emergency vehicles thar have lo navigate lhos€ ver)'tight roads. The average-car length is 14-16 iect. For refercnie. a Honda Civic is over l5 feet long. lt looks like this drive*ay space is less than that. more like I l -12 feet. Having only a 2 car garage should not be considered a hardship for owners in this neighborhood where lots are narror,rl andsmall. Every lakeside house on Red Cedar Point. South Shorc Drive and Hickory Road has no mone than 2 garages excepl rhose that have much larger frontage or have side loaded garages. I've attached a marked up ROF forlour use. All homes constructed or remodeled in the last l5 years. with the exception of one house. have been constructed with only tr^.,o garages facing the street' If Ms. Reimer insists on having three stalls. wh! not have one of them be double deep? That eliminates the need for a street setback variance. It also reduces the amount of driveway- (hardcover) you need to scrvice the 3 spaces. We did thar *ith our house built in 2003 as a way to contain the footprint ofour house within the 25% hard cover limit. I may not be able to attend the Ptanning Commission meeting on Tuesday May 2lst but *ill do my besr to be there. In lieu ofthat. please accept this email as m1'objections to lhe hardcover and str€et sdback variance r€quests. I,ve copied m1. neighbon *'ho mighr be affecred by these variance requests u'ith my commerls in case they would like to send on rheir own. Steve Gunther 3628 Hickor.'- Road. Chanhassen. MN 55331 president, [:ke Minnewashta Prcsen'ation Association stgun ther a qmail.c ()m Citizen I Investor I lr{ultispons Enthusiast 2 gt ,t ,* tt *I!tE-<..\ItrS3\)f,r:!03lII:il(IIr! !i Eil:l!Eit: t:l!alEi8r t: e: Ir olgi Ei!! ;: =t!itl E.i .ai t.: 3;t!I. tr al$iEIal (F r.( i--i ------ - J N \ u T1.t) \) \ \, \ I \l\ ( l:: \i w\ $\:.\'L Ad r( t(' r *I *..' I,-''#.iF Y\'''lrll r( 7_*-...-' {', $ II:" tr I I il 5&L lltq' .t. s q. \ '{' \ L + \ t q \ Steckling. Jean Ftom: S.rt To: ssbi.ct F]Dm: Helen Gunther <helen.Sunth€r@results.net> SGnt Monday, May 2O,2Ol9 7:27 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhass€n.mn.us> Subjrt variance for 3617 Red cldar Point Rd. I am writing to express my concern for the proposed home to be built on 3517 Red Cedat Point Rd. As a homeowner on the lake I am enremely concerned about the plans for the new home. I was very concerned and disappointed when you approved the plans fo. the last home that was proposed for this lot. I felt it was way too bi8 for the size lot and th€ impact to the late and the surrounding neighbors was extremely detrimental. I also think whoever builds on a lot that is hss than X acre should build a home appropriate to the size of the lot...especially for a lakeshore lot. Red Cedar Point is a very narrow street, with little room for cars, trucks or emer8ency vehicles to go through as it is. Allowing a driveway as narrow as the one proposed is 8oin8 to cause accidents, frustrations, and po$ibly even danterous situations if emergencl/ vehicles are unable to Bet throuSh. Furthermore, hardly any homes on the point have a 3 car gara3e. The few that do are on much larger lots, and none of them erceed the hardcover code. The bt iust does not lend its€lf to a 3 car taraSe. The tarate needs to be furthet away from the street, which will increase hardcover, but it's why the home should only be approved for a 2 car garate. Last time plans for this lot were brought before the plannint commission, the board was happy the potentaal owner was not asking for a side yerd setback. This seemed incredulou3 to me since the lot is 80 feet wide and shouldn't need a side yard setback. Most of the people comint before the commission looking for side yard s€tbacls heve lots that are only y) or 60 feet wide. Someone ought to b€ able to build a lovely home on an 80 foot wide lot. I Walters, MacKenzie Tueday, May 21, 2019 7:59 AM Steckling,.,ean Fw: varian(e for 3517 Red cedar Point Rd. I realize there is more hardcover on the property now than building code allows, and I realize the propo3€d house plans reduce that hardcover a tiny bit. But I have a hard time believing that asphalt and a house absorb water or run off at the same rate as class 5 travel. You might consider class 5 gravel hardcover, but I don't think it has the same lack of runotf as asphalt. The absorption rate cannot possibly be the same. So I would uBe you to approve a plan where there was a more significant reduction in hardcover. Are the plans that are attached conect? ls this the home that will b€ built? Th€ plans call for a beckya.d patio, but the plans show windows across the back of the home. ls the owner toin8 to crawl out the window to 8et to the Patio? Are you really sure this is the home that will be buih? I understand the lot is non{onforming and variances are needed to build on it. But I would urte the commission to s€nd the owner bact to their architecvbuilder to come up with a plan for a home more suited to the size of the lot end take into account the restrictions of the neithborhood and the road. One more thint. I don't think the owner should be p€nalized for this, but how are all the construction vehicles goinS to be able to park and not block the neighboB who need the road to access their homes? I rtrontly u'te the commission to have the homeowner reduce the size of the home they are requ.sting to make it mote appropriate for the lot. Ihank you foryour consideration in this matter. Helen DREAM W]TH YOUR EYES OPEN. Lrt mo br your guE.. 3{ekn Quntfrer Tfie Ritter (eam BE/iffiC"cntg ET 2 Steckling. Jean From: Scnt To: Subjcct Walters, MacKenzie Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:54 PM St6kling, Jean Fw: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Variances Thank you, Keith Paap keith.@oaao.net (email ) I will be unable to attend the planning meeting this evening and I would like to echo Mr. Grmthet's concems/objections on these variances. My name is Keith Paap and I live at 3601 Red Cedar Point Rd. The lake setback variance is not ideal, however problems may be mitigated by shoreline buffering as was suggestd. However tlle street setback variance is of particular concem and m1' primary' objection. As a resident that must &ive through this str,etch daily, I am concemed about the access and safety along this stretch of road. This is a stretch of road that is single lane wirh no available street parking. Tuo cars cannot pass side by side on this sretch of road so any parking along the sueet in this atea *ill simply block the mad. I f the depth ofthe driveway does not pmvide adequare space for visitor parking at this location there would be no where for them to park without blocking access on the stre€l. The setback varia1c€ request may be consistent with the corners of the adjacenl home, but the neighboring home as a side entance garage allou'ing for a deepcr &iveu'ay for off street parking, Making surc this s€tback provides enough depth for off streel parking while avoiding adding sigrificant hardcover by making it thret $alls wide may be handled with a double deep garage as suggestd. Access on the streer will also be of panicular concem during consmrcdon as *'orkers tend to leave vehicles along the srreet as was the case during construction at 3627 Red Cedar Poinl Rd. The access and safety concems during construction will be temporary. Not providing adequate setback for vehicles to remain off the street while at &e residence would bc a permanent hardship for those ofus that must travel this stretch of road daily. I On Tue. May 21. 2019 at 7:09 AM Steve Cunther <stqunther, smail.com> $role: Mackenzie and Kare. I am *riting rhis email in response to the Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road(the former Souba prop€rty). i.,it it th. o.. input that I offered when this propeny was considered for variances several months ago. I objected to those variance requests. feeling that the lot size, road width and the traffrc pattem were not cinsist.nr with the large house being considered for consrnrction on that tot. My objections remain. I hope this time you will lisren to the input from the neighbors who are to be forcver affected b1' your decisions. First. as rhe president ofthe Lake Minnewashu Preservation Association and an owner on the lake since 1998- t object to providing a hard cover variance for this property because of the effect it will have on watcr quality in the lake. The more hardcor.r a propmy has. the less chance that rainwater has to drain through the soil and be filrercd before it enters Lake Minnenashta. The LMPA has been spending considerable effort educating homeowners to reduce hardcover on their properties for the good ofthe lake and all its usen. We need more vegetation not less. On the road side. runoff from fie driveuay sen'icing the proposed 3 car driveway uitl increase the transpon of petroleum products and leaves and grass clippings into the storm drains. This senes to introduce conuminants into the lake. The impact of the petroleum products is obvious. The leaves and clippings serve as a nutrient source for the algae in the lake. which degrades the water qualiq for everyone. A previous owner violated the hardcover limit and added a larger than allon'ed Class 5 drive*ay. That deviation should have bcen remediated. not made permanent. Reducing rhe hard cover (by ,14 square feet) yet still excceding the hardcover requirement is not good enough. While I object to the lake setback variance r€quest. I undersund compromises must be made on a non- conforming lor. I expecr thaiChanhassen and the Watershed Distrio uill require propet shorcline planting buffering o-r a rain garden ro prevenl dircct runoff into the lake. LMPA board mcmber Kevin Zahler is a trained Masrer ftarer Steu'ard and oifers his services u'ithoul charye to residents lo help explain and plan this kind of action. He can be reached at 612-618-9817 or via email at kjzahler@hotmail'com I also object to the streer setback variance for safety reasons. I believe that, given the lot size, the number of sueet-facing garage spaces should be reduced to 2. Because 3 garage stalls are planned..that reduces the front serback on i itteJfint-ersecrion that is inordinately small and tight. lfa car or watercraft/trailer is hanging into rhe strget on that driveway space. it crcates ur undue hazard for others. including large g8rbage trucks, snow plows and emergency vehicies that have to navigate those very light roads. The average. car lcngrh is l4'16 ieet. For referenc". " Hondu Citi. is over l5 feet long. ft looks like this driveway space is less than that. more like I l -12 feet. Having only a 2 car garage should not be considered a hardship for ownen in rhis neighborhood where lors are nano*I andsmalt. every tateside house on Red Cedar Point. South Shore fhive and Hickory Road has no more than 2 garages exccpr those that have much larger frontage or have side loaded garag.es. I've attached a marked up Rbf f6r your use. All homes constnrcted br remodeled in the last I 5 years. rith the exception of one house. have been constructed $ith onll t'*o garages facing the street. lf Ms. Reimer insists on having three stalls, uhl not have one of them be double deep? That eliminates the need for a streel sctback varianie. Ir also reduces the amount of driveway (hardcover) you need to sen'ice the 3 spaces. We did that u,ith our house built in 2003 as a way to contain the footprint of our house within lbe 25o/o hard cover limit. 2 I may nor be able to atrend the Planning Commission,meeting on Tuesday May 2tst but willdo my best to be therc. In lieu ofthat. please accepr fiis;mail as my objections to the hardcover and $reet setback variance requests. I,ve copied my neighbon who might be affected by these variance requests with my comments in case they would tike to send on their own. Steve Grmther 3628 Hickory- Road, Chanhassen' MN 55331 president. [:ke Minnewashta Preservation Association $suntherargmail.com Citizen I Investor I Multispons Enthusiast 3 Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:35 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: appeal for Variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road From: Helen Gunther<helen.gunther@results.net> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 8:28 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: stgunther@gmail.com; davemaryjo@aol.com; kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.us; Ryan, Elise ERyan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: appeal for Variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Dear Mackenzie, I am writing to appeal the variance the planning commission approved on Tuesday May 2152 for the above stated property. I am appealing the front setback variance. I do not believe the approved variance would provide adequate off street (guest) parking for the home in question and would create a dangerous situation since the road the home is on is a substandard, narrow road. I also think by granting this variance the planning commission is setting a bad precedent for future requests for front setback variances. The driveway with the current approved setback would not allow for cars to be safely parked in the driveway. I believe a driveway on a street where there is no room for on street parking should at least provide space to park 2 cars. Since a standard car is 16 feet long, I believe most of the driveway, from the garage to the curb should be 18 feet. 16 feet is not sufficient, since no one parks their car against the garage door. To have a driveway any shorter would mean cars would be sticking out into the street, on a street that is already very narrow. I am also appealing the wording of the variance granted, which states, "The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator". I believe it should state that the homeowner"must further reduce hard cover through the use of pervious paver systems". Please advise my next steps. Thank you. Helen 3-feCen Gunther hefen.sunther@resuCts.net in Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:36 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18-01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted Attachments: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 3617 Red Cedar Point.doc From: Pam Reimer<preimer90@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 7:49 AM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Builder Paul Wagner<wags1956@hotmail.com> Subject:Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18-01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted 1 We the owner, architect, and builder hereby APPEAL the decision from May 21, 2019 and REQUEST the Same variances and accept the Same decision to APPROVE.and we Accept all 15 requirements that were conditions for Approval 18-01. ending 19-02. AND.we should look really good.seeing as this new plan SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES HARDCOVER an ADDITIONAL 1.9% MORE than the already Approved Variance.which is the focus of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Planning Council. Thank You. Contact was made to MacKenzie Walters 19-01 to build on this lot and utilize the existing variance that was already approved. The architect put together a house plan that met the approved footprint-and then some!: He reduced the hard cover from 36.4. to the Approved Variance of 36.3. and then SIGNIFICANTLY reduced hard cover an additional 1.9%! That's way more than one of the other multiple variances approved by Council at 50% hardcover.which Council brought to attention in the May 21 meeting! The builder utilized the existing approved variance's Surveyor, to put the proposed house on the already approved footprint, meeting 4 times with MacKenzie Walters to get it exact and by the Variance deadline. He has done 75 projects on lakeshore property. has a respect for narrow roads, and was a fireman and concerned about safety. Not 1 customer has any complaints, and neighbors see him daily. He reduced current side setback from 6' to 10.3 and 10.29,which is in compliance. He didn't put in a basement or crawl space, because... He hired the engineer to analyze soil samples requiring this lot to have $70,000 borings. He arranged with their $5000 engineer how deep the pilings would go on our already-approved plan. IN GOOD FAITH, the lot was purchased, the same footprint was used that was already Approved, and the plans were made for a smaller house with the same footprint. Architecturally accurate house plan: 2500-$5.000. Money invested in already approved footprint and plan. IN GOOD FAITH, MacKenzie said the same 15 conditions would apply, and our Team accepted these and met multiple times with George Bender, city engineer and Renae Clark, city water resources coordinator. We also accepted 1 additional condition the City asked of us: to dedicate some of my land to the City, or give a portion as an easement to the City. We gave in and accepted this 16th condition. IN GOOD FAITH,The City wants about 677 square feet of my lot, and George suggested this would lower my property tax; therefore, I was willing to dedicate this land portion,valued at about$50.000, to pay a percent less property tax However,the Residential Appraiser on May 24 denied the request to dedicate, stating the current city road does not appear to be negatively impacting the land value, so he cannot justify a land value decrease. So the variance stands at 11.5/22.1/9.5 and owner will grant easement. No monetary value.We lose land and gain nothing by giving in but the City's thanks. IN GOOD FAITH, I have discussed the vegetation buffer with Renae and hired an outstanding experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve the ecosystem health. He proposed a plan with accepted vegetation, and design filters, and is ecological to improve the condition of the lake. Renae liked the custom mix and suggested prairie grass as well. This is an expense which NONE of the other similar non-conforming lot variance were required to plant. 2-10.000.00 We lose money and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, to fulfill requirements of further reduction of hard cover, both my builder and landscaper use pervious pavers. 7-20.000.00 We lose money and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, to fulfill requirement of tree protection, my builder shared with MacKenzie in our last meeting, and to the neighbors at the Variance meeting, that he is a horticulture expert and will go above expectations to protect with tree fencing. 1-5.000.00 We lose income and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, our team has SIGNIGICANTLY reduced lot coverage from the Already Approved Variance LUST 3 MONTHS AGO. The new variance was an additional cost: 528.00. We lose money and gave in, even though we "showed intentions of building" BEFORE the already approved variance lapsed IN GOOD FAITH, I have the same setback as already approved in Variance 18-01 through February of this year 2019. I'm on the Point with limited neighbors on the dead-end of Red Cedar Point,who are in a non- conforming unique very old neighborhood with parking varying from 1 space to 4 spaces. Our already Approved Variance has a combined garage and driveway parking for 5 spaces! See photos and numbers listed for all of my direct neighbors on our dead end street. NOT Hickory and NOT South Cedar Drive, this variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point only focuses on our dead end street, Red Cedar Point. Per Mackenzie's report, my combined 3-car garage and driveway just needs to provide an amount of off-street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. End of discussion.And Council said on May 21, it's too bad hea Variance lapsed so Harship for parking, in a nighborh000d where ALL houses have 1-4 parking apaces. If the garage were made smaller, it would only be 21', not enough for me to not to hit the drywall. See photo of current garage,where I hit the front of the garage with my vehicle. Comments were made that I had a 26' garage,but that is not correct, my house is smaller, and it leaves 21' if variance takes away 3'. My 1 car needs to be parked inside, especially in the winter. Additionally, the already Approved variance allows enough space for my storage of a lawn mower, bike, snowblower, Christmas tree, bins, and a dog wash for my licensed therapy dog by the Service door. PLEASE don't take that away from me, since #1) It is in compliance with my neighborhood, #2) It was already Approved in the Variance that just ended a month before I applied! 3) I have NO storage options, since I have no basement, no crawl space, no storage on the main level, and... IN GOOD FAITH, I have given the City my patio as my 1 water oriented structure; therefore, my garage is also my"shed" because I gave in and won't have a shed and cannot store things in the outhouse, since, as my neighbors rejoice, "Let's get on with this,pass the same variance that Jackson's got UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL, and let them build, so we can get rid of that outhouse and all the mess in the yard, broken down brick fireplace and dusty gravel for a front yard!" And Council on May 21 agreed that these already approved drawings were a better solution than a shed. Loss of Shed. We lose any other water oriented structure and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, I accepted the Water Resource Coordinator's requirement to put pervious pavers on my driveway,which was approved and accepted 1 month after we applied. THIS, too, reduces hardcover significantly because I planned to put in a cement driveway. Now using Pervious Pavers: 10-20.000. We lose money and gave in. In the last meeting with MacKenzie,we noted that I'm 1 woman and don't have a big family or gatherings. I'm consistent with the neighbors. In our meeting,they said even if I make my garage smaller, it's not going to fix the problem because if people with big cars come and can't fit into my garage, it's not going to solve the parking problem. Mackenzie, my builder and Steve laughed, "You shrink the garage and it defeats the point of parking the big car in the garage, and it's back to the driveway for my stuff! " I'm a current neighbor, and my lot down on South Cedar Drive has a short driveway so you either pull into a single car garage or park at an angle so as not to hang into the street, so I was careful to provide parking. In the city notes, "Very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the city's zoning code ,and most properties either are non-conforming uses or are operating under a variance., variances on p. 7 and 8. My neighbor Nancy says I'm a good neighbor and I already bought the property and am committed to this neighborhood and committed to the survey plan that was already approved. She wrote to MacKenzie: Hello, I am writing to support our neighbor, Pam Reimer, in her request for a property variance. We live just a few lots past her new property at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. We are new to the neighborhood, but I recently visited with her and trust that she'll be a good steward of her future home and Lake Minnewashta. We're excited that a responsible buyer has come along to finally take care of this lot the way it deserves to be maintained. It's a potentially beautiful lot, but the old Sears cabin is run down and the lot needs the loving care - and grass - Pam will provide. Her ownership will make the neighborhood better for all and I hope you'll agree that her plans are appropriate. It's my understanding that Pam's proposal offers adequate parking and it's apparent that her proposed driveway is not unusual for our little community. If you've driven down our street, you'll appreciate that this is a unique neighborhood where houses are close together, the street is narrow and everyone's parking is limited. That's part of its lakeside neighborhood charm. The peninsula is a dead end and it's apparent to us already that this isn't a street with traffic other than people who live here and our guests. It's our understanding and experience that since we all live on a unique street, everyone cooperates with each other. Case in point, one of our neighbors just gave us permission to borrow part of his driveway for two days to park our boat before we are able to get in the water. I hope you and the planning commission will see that our street is unique, and that Pam's variance request suits the neighborhood. We feel lucky that Pam - an experienced homeowner and good neighbor on the lake - will redevelop that site, and we hope her variance request will be approved, allowing construction of a beautiful home that will enhance our neighborhood. Thank you. Regards, Nancy Renneke 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd. Since the Variance meeting on May 21, all the neighbors on my street that were out for Memorial Day weekend told me they would like Council to approve the architect, builder and my Variance and start building a new house. The previous owner, Jeff Souba, was also over, taking windows and siding from the yellow Sears & Roebuck cabin for emotional souveniers, and I let him for free. It will cost us a tear- down fee. 10,000.00. We lose income. The longer the delay,the more I have to pay housing and storage rent, until I get the CO to move into my new house. The architect should not start over with a new plan, since he used the already approved footprint,AND made the house smaller and thus reduced hard cover. The survey company should not need to make a new survey, since it was already done 4 times to meet Planning Commission MacKenzie's approval. The builder has been operating under the assumption that this variance was already approved, and measured for trusses and all the building parts, and got me a bid which I can afford. I have been picking out lumber, cabinets, lighting based on the proposed house on an already approved footprint. The boring company engineer already calculated for the soil borings. Heat calcs were done for the Building Permit, which is our Requirement#1. Energy calcs were already done for the Building Permit,which is our Requirement#1. To change the whole plan is not economical. My builder is ready, the boring company is ready, and we are excited to check off#1 of 16, to apply for a Building Permit. So I ask you now for a simple majority vote that, "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments APPROVES an 11.5 foot front yard setback from the street to the City of Chanhassen, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback,and a 9.5% lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." THANK YOU. New owner, old owner, architect,builder (fireman, horticulture expert, at site every day of building with his own team of builders, 43 years and not 1 complaint from his customers -that's a testimony!) Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:36 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW:Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18-01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted Addition to appeal 2 Original Message From: Fred Meier<fredmeier@integra.net> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 9:06 AM To: Pam Reimer <preimer90@gmail.com> Cc: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Builder Paul Wagner <wags1956@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18- 01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted Also a regular size boat will not fit in a 21 foot garage so are they going to pay for your storage Thank You Fred Meier Fred's Drafting & Design LLC On May 27, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Pam Reimer <preimer90@gmail.com> wrote: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 3617 Red Cedar Point.doc> 1 Steckling, Jean Please add this to the list. From: davemaryjo@aol.com <davemaryjo@aol.com> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 8:03 AM To: walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; kaaenenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: helen.gunther@results.net; stgunther@gmail.com Subject: 3517 Red Cedar Point Rd Variance Appeal MacKenzie & Kate, I understand that Pam Reimer is appealing the Planning Commission variance, presumably to take back her offer to setback the garage by 3 feet. Pam made the offer in the face of neighborhood concerns voiced and a strong indication from 3 of the 4 Commission members they had significant concem for the driveway. I betieve that even with the additional 3' of driveway length, the driveway would be the most challenging in the neighborhood and clearly sets a new precedence. I don't recall this degree of neighbor opposition to any past request. ln addition to those that have written emails or spoken at the Planning Commission, there are several others that have concems for setting this new driveway precedence but don't want to speak out publicly I tried to convey to the PC why their accepting the staffs proposed language did not work. The City Engineer noted an average vehicla length is 16'and therefore an average driveway length of 16'should work- Please see and foMard to the City C-ouncil for their consideration the attached exhibit that attempts to show that the angle of the road and the turning radius for vehicles make the proposed driveway with the additional 3 feet very challenging at best. The exhibit also briefly outlines the shortage of on street parking throughout the neighborhood and the safety challenges that can arise as a result. Just 6 weeks ago there was a 91 1 call in the neighborhood and the sheriff and fire department vehicles could not get through on South Cedar. I also have pictures of every driveway listed in the staff report as having received a variance to show how the proposed driveway(s) would set a new precedence but, due to file size, is not included. From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Dave Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Drive Walters, MacKenzie Friday, June 7, 2019 8:05 AM Steckling, Jean FW:3517 Red Cedar Point Rd Variance Appeal New DW Variance Precedence.pdf I am requesting the City Council add a condition of approval that reads: The driveway shall be designed to provide parking fora minimum of two (2) 8-1/2'by t8'stalls with ingress and egress requiing not more than a two point maneuver by a vehicle with a turning radius of 20 feet. Thank you for your consideration, 1 otC =1-(I, o- +)oot-+Jv'l lrFo oot(t,Pl-o.Ca t e t | -,2Y2.( ),.-.\-.\ '/' -L .'1 -^ .*/ d./J I , \l--1 rl a t"!i IIJIal D I''-+- !\;\ t I_lI I L* i t I I ,I a I h l E d ,F 6 -E& b* ,p38 :;EEoU . a .Q). c v -. (,t bd -o L, o E +;;IE H*H €I:i I;Yi 3;ErEl =-lE iE eE =igg:, *tuil pgE *r E: flE;E: :"ECEI r;; = E E;E ET;EE (EV'=vto-E ots-J)o'E 't^ a: =e.= >> cL.n(UtDo =(o;{H 0+ ocL .= c, -ct^:'PH ; $EJthtt^gE HXHL o-- CLO t^;i t1 nln*E:qoo-broyOfc:^lg6:g9=c=!iEB#E!(E'./r(Ul\Ie=m!bo^ro-Uz.o&iN1;Hr- C, l.-- L.c: ;, E = IE=H-8Eiv,.E:; = 8.;'=.i5Hg){LrgCJ-'F(,E E [ & U E pI E e 91Es R = 5 = SE o(J CoEo(Jol-o- =o =1t',,+)oa ;o'= ot- oP o EE o -c+r o -Y(U P oP PC (U =E EEo o -c P(u L(o E E)tn oU UIo+)oso- 3ol-l-(oc@ OC +,L-c9f s'f,0 o'Eo ->tr8(o Gr:t- - (u(J'= -*;Tt- o^';P6"E'9ote = o0: 8E:1g +r (Y) O rr -szrr .rlf Cf E0 ar (Uc;! h0 P !,,?5#g E= Qts 6>Ph_g;b".e;5e:sllE5o s ;5 E5 ,-.r' dEE:(o6tr EEE or o o.rooc oD!u ol fo6! 6fi= @ x 3eG o.,r +, E: H =--o:; $" a+ fi;E oE Fto">ts 6 :3 a $ETEiug:-9It: g irt l/t t- (tl'Y.-+rVE= 6--o lE-o SaEUpl 6 TeAE Eo bi 5;E=rg g; .ho C' (D CLtt u0c =L(o o- (o =o LE rl +ogbo ltfol! =tru.9o1 EIostar- (' g -bo.a= l\l =, Eog.sortcL=OEo- .= o(J CoEo(Jot-o- =oz lnPo(n 2JO 6Z',OPt 9tr YI/i I\I!€;=(oI+00'0 ]z 8?6 2q7 ,t-'eF6 2q1 tt 9? at L lt i-E It.0.9 r .0, rc o +a I g',6/.01 '09o?8S uto ?tod r2 toJ -.,1; 22utr1u1 uot 096e13,,I (n I )?t1.tL-f- rnr{ I o(u(I,t- \J r-!.,;7--c(IJ1; o9#EI E "i= pE<?,i 'Z.+,,- r C =E*: =0J,=q.J.=Y>lndo-cO a ou0l!Lo (! o oll(! tros =^.l/t'ar @.=o.= CL(oe8 E=ss =ga tA 'Jl (U .,9 0 =-aO!--o ah -!q{) HCis EA-or+G. r.O Orl aa Eo tno =ooE. v', 3 qot a tr)oo(\r -O-.5r a;o (J =o -O;> OE -C(o(, t+ E g.l tuEtro r- )ioJ=+rc oooF(J6H o=Efg'6(I,= ,o.9 P u,l !.-(u>o >=f = H(, c(Fth,o(Ee) IE!(UC() .u9,n er C ,rtrgE a oEU; oi>i rF J-,oi+, bO 9crFO kuo ..(oN-C _L€9<o a vloot- booEo @r{ LotF EE a99ro-cb= SP a HH €eEt E;PE Bi:sutI\E6=o_F bN tn .=E(oE5: o0(u .=(,c>l-E Eo -(I,(oE oo.>- a q 2JO 6Z'OP1 9tr*00IJ6(oIF.r Ilt c?6 €t'6f rt!IE-4 ,Ft-tITffii2x5 =1tIffiE 3,,0! o96 ,0go 18s .0,9 t t 88 '6/ ir! I e)uerluJ tlot72tltl Icn -\zL)(o -oPot) obl(t, (I, (9 I Eo ol-o. o. L)d tn (\ -CE.Eg= l_E .gg hEE-t"E I -roc{ O +e $P--d EcJ t- .X ,S-c a \ P--c Eo= qp L)_)- t- I-- I Igtinn 5 3? I g =8.9&&8 guEE .ru 0)(lJ oo .. -..' G. d. i 2q1 88'6 1,3,,0 o96 l,0go S oEIt (q I eruerluJ uoq2n4q EI CI(oI ta (u Eo(J oll -Coe cJ (o {(nT,(u LJ =oo tn.\Z o =->Co o =oC(o 1|-,o- (o Is-l -(f Rh t/) (J :Ob II .n vttn tnO(uUCJQ C.) EEro ruOCJG.t Orl Eo ot- o. o. U o- tn 6Z'OPJl 9Ir*__-6 i, t'6F6(oIF-00 I 3q1 ,a 34i e t6 a lFI'II fli!I 4 2rU-0.91 F.rHffi,?'9?6 41 o lla-c aJoN bo: tl E:(u.=Eo- ro ol- o_o. tlo Co +)a-ECoU Eo{-Jtno =ooE, >EPIH q.="*EEoo E bX s9 fr;: iE trE+ l'l .r E r- (oE9,=E; = El ;'o .= E iI E ?= E=I E.;;O '=l '= ''-' 1ocJ Cl -C C gtoro.tsg|-x: =t =## t^ (I) Oeee= bpLL{-r(-F ==_,, ct oFr C YE;8.58E; gIT H B =i E E=i*ooo = (U t E'EEs HEe ;HEfiT:E =iEE#EEEEOZEE+ IEEiiEAEF€:go-i s= nl ro o1-o.o. qt-oCo a-Pa-ECoU Pa-U EoPao =oE Maria P. Knight 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd. Excelsior, MN 55115 Re: Appeal of zoning variance at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. June 9, 2019 Dear Mayor and Council members: I am Maria Knight and I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Road, four houses east of the lot seeking this variance. I am not available to attend your June 10 meeting to hear this appeal, so I wish to have these written comments entered into the record at the public comments section of the hearing. I have three concerns: 1. The proposed house would be too close to Red Cedar Point Road. The actual roadway in front of the subject lot is paved 15 feet 4 inches across, regardless of what is says on the City site plan. This is narrow for even a one-way road, yet it must serve as simultaneous entrance and egress to my home and seven others’. Going east-bound just before the subject lot, Red Cedar Point Rd. slopes down sharply, and this critical stretch can be a skating rink in the dead of winter. One can’t always drive a perfectly straight line when all four tires are skidding downhill. To avoid crashes, residents need to have protection from parked cars on the applicant’s lot hugging the outside edge of that narrow road. Zero shoulder space along this hill is one thing, but a stationary parked truck or two butting out at the bottom near the paving’s edge will be an accident waiting to occur, in my opinion. All of my neighbors have had to accommodate tradesmen’s trucks on their driveways for innumerable reasons over the years, and I expect this site must cater to the same. A typical Ford serviceman’s panel truck is 19’ 6” long. Allowing a minimum 18 inches from the truck to the garage door plus two feet from the truck bumper to the edge of the street pavement, for safety’s sake the City should require 23 feet of clear space between the road pavement and the north side of the proposed building. Compromising our safety with a setback that green-lights only 11 feet or even 17 feet for the applicant’s actual driveway will cause some guest vehicle bumpers to be encroaching the road pavement or be dangerously close to that edge. To my mind, this would constitute a design flaw for which the City would be liable. It is immaterial whether the applicant owns a tiny car herself or thinks that she can control guests to always park perpendicular to the natural garage door openings. Evaluating this variance application should not be personal: the proposed variance would apply to the lot even when the applicant sold the property to somebody else. Moreover, I believe third-party driveway users are going to park on the applicant lot’s driveway in the most natural manner, which is not parallel to the road, but rather in line with the three proposed garage doors like every other house. So I oppose both the front yard setback variance as it was applied for (11.5 ft.) and the variance as granted by the Planning Commission (8.5 ft), because both create an unreasonably dangerous condition to the road we all have to travel, by placing the building too close to Red Cedar Point Road. 2. There is insufficient provision for road access during construction or snow storage during winter. The only construction access on this lot is the line where it abuts Red Cedar Point Road. The tiny setback from the road applicant has proposed allows insufficient staging space on her own land during construction. The neighborhood has gone through a similar construction experience within the last year or so, when the second house west of the applicant’s lot was torn down and rebuilt. In that case and fortuitously, the opposite neighbor had paved almost his entire front yard in asphalt, so street traffic diverted across the opposing side’s driveway while construction blocked the street. That alternative is impossible in applicant’s case because her opposing lot typically has a car parked there all day. At the Planning Commission hearing I heard the applicant’s contractor represent that it would never burden the street and that construction would never be any problem for the neighbors. I enclose, however, a photo I took of a contractor trailer parked overnight straddling both the applicant’s lot and the street right of way after they demo-ed the existing cabin ten days or so ago. Our little dead-end neighborhood depends on Red Cedar Point Road being continuously available because we all work varied hours, and there is only this single route for any fire or ambulance rescue. Unenforceable promises are not sufficient. In a similar vein, for many decades the applicant lot’s ample front yard has been a winter snow storage site for this narrow dead-end street. Lake winds deposit snow drifts at that corner nearly every year. I query whether the tiny remaining “front yard” described in the variance application is sufficient even to store the snow from the applicant’s own driveway, let alone a portion of the street snow overburden. I believe that any variance should specifically solve the snow storage inadequacy and reduce road-blocking drifts at this corner. The proposed variance does not specifically protect neighborhood access during construction or provide sufficient snow storage, which leads me ask you to deny this variance application. 3. The City will regret setting a bad precedent. There are several lakeshore parcels in the Red Cedar Point area that will soon be candidates for teardown and replacement. Small lake lots seem to attract oversize houses. I am concerned that sanctioning a variance for a too short driveway and inadequate off street parking in this case is going to set an unfortunate precedent that will confront the City again and again. Common sense requires that million dollar houses with three car garages on narrow roads include safe and adequate driveway parking space. Final Comments I don’t know which arguments will be presented during this appeal, but I wish to include my response to several trains of thought at the Planning Commission hearing that rang sour to my ear: --- Seven out of nine of the applicant’s neighbors also own dogs, and to my knowledge none of us require an unnaturally long garage to accommodate a dog washing station, which seems to be at the heart of this variance request. --- None of the neighbors near the lot have off-street driveway parking adjacent to their garage as short as the applicant is requesting. --- There are many ways that the proposed building can be modified (i.e., cantilevering the second story over a shorter garage area) to provide a standard parking driveway on this very small lot. --- Applicant is requesting a variance, and it should not be unexpected that initial building plans, including even piling locations, will need to be changed at applicant’s expense to meet community priorities. Making required changes is not an undue burden on applicant or a favor to the City. --- If the City grants a variance in this case, the City’s conditions with applicant should be global, specific and final, and enforceable in writing. Thank you for your attention. Maria P. Knight (enclosure) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Approve Contract for Design and Construction of the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy Road Pedestrian Improvements Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.2. Prepared By Jason Wedel, Dir. of Public Works/City Engineer File No: Project No. PW031a PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves a consultant contract with Bolton & Menk in the amount of $83,450 for the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy Road Pedestrian Improvements, Project No. PW031a." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND On March 26, 2018, the City Council entered into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Carver County to study pedestrian crossings on Powers Boulevard.  Specifically, two crossings were identified for the study.  The crossings are at Lake Lucy Road and Park Road.  These locations had been identified by the city and county as areas of potential safety concern.  In addition, residents and local businesses had expressed concern about these crossings as well. The study gathered existing traffic data, crash information and pedestrian movements at each crossing.  Based on that data, proposed improvements were developed for both crossings.  Some of the improvements for the Park Road crossing were implemented last year.  This included the addition of advanced warning signs and enhancements to the pedestrian activated crossing.   No improvements have been completed yet for the Lake Lucy Road pedestrian crossing.  The county had previously taken the lead on completing the study for this crossing.  However, the county has stated that they do not have the staff availability to take the lead on completing the final construction documents and constructing the actual improvements.  The city will therefore be taking the lead on moving forward with the Lake Lucy Road improvement. The total estimated cost for the project is $600,000.  Per the JPA with Carver County, the cost will be split 50/50 between the county and the city.  The city's capital improvement plan included funding in 2019 for these improvements.  The city's portion of the funding will be provided through the use of State Aid funds. DISCUSSION The original study of the Lake Lucy Road crossing was completed by the engineering consulting firm Bolton & Menk.  Due to their existing history and knowledge of this crossing it was logical to work with them on a proposal for CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectApprove Contract for Design and Construction of the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy RoadPedestrian ImprovementsSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.2.Prepared By Jason Wedel, Dir. of Public Works/CityEngineer File No: Project No. PW031aPROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves a consultant contract with Bolton & Menk in the amount of $83,450 for the PowersBoulevard/Lake Lucy Road Pedestrian Improvements, Project No. PW031a."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDOn March 26, 2018, the City Council entered into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Carver County to studypedestrian crossings on Powers Boulevard.  Specifically, two crossings were identified for the study.  The crossingsare at Lake Lucy Road and Park Road.  These locations had been identified by the city and county as areas ofpotential safety concern.  In addition, residents and local businesses had expressed concern about these crossings aswell.The study gathered existing traffic data, crash information and pedestrian movements at each crossing.  Based on thatdata, proposed improvements were developed for both crossings.  Some of the improvements for the Park Roadcrossing were implemented last year.  This included the addition of advanced warning signs and enhancements to thepedestrian activated crossing.  No improvements have been completed yet for the Lake Lucy Road pedestrian crossing.  The county had previouslytaken the lead on completing the study for this crossing.  However, the county has stated that they do not have the staffavailability to take the lead on completing the final construction documents and constructing the actual improvements. The city will therefore be taking the lead on moving forward with the Lake Lucy Road improvement.The total estimated cost for the project is $600,000.  Per the JPA with Carver County, the cost will be split 50/50between the county and the city.  The city's capital improvement plan included funding in 2019 for theseimprovements.  The city's portion of the funding will be provided through the use of State Aid funds.DISCUSSION The original study of the Lake Lucy Road crossing was completed by the engineering consulting firm Bolton & Menk.  Due to their existing history and knowledge of this crossing it was logical to work with them on a proposal for completing the final design and providing construction services.  Attached is a copy of the proposal from Bolton & Menk dated May 21, 2019 to complete this work. The total estimated cost is $83,450 and can be broken down as follows: Data Gathering $4,250 Project Management and Coordination   $9,960 Right­of­Way Acquisition $4,320 Final Design $31,370 Construction Services $35,570 Total $83,450 FUNDING The budget for the proposed work has been included in the 2019 CIP under Project #ST­039. SCHEDULE If the city council approves the proposal with Bolton & Menk this evening the schedule for improvements would be as follows: 1.Surveying and Mapping June 2019 2.Final Design & Plan Preparation   July ­ October, 2019  3. Construction Spring 2020  There are several reasons for why the improvements are being proposed for construction in 2020.  First, the current bidding climate is not favorable for the city.  The majority of contractors already have enough work for this year, so they are not very competitive from a project cost perspective.  Second, the lead time on ordering and receiving traffic signals, such as what is being proposed for the pedestrian crossing, can be up to 26 weeks.  It is therefore not possible to order the pedestrian crossing signal and have it installed this year.   To address the lead time on the pedestrian crossing signal, city staff will be coming back to the city council later this year to request authorization to pre­order the signal this fall so that it will be available in the spring of 2020. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends a consultant contract be awarded to Bolten & Menk in the amount of $83,450. ATTACHMENTS: Bolton & Menk Proposal Joint Powers Agreement CIP Sheet May 21, 2019 Jason Wedel Public Works Director/City Engineer 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Proposal for Powers Blvd/Lake Lucy Rd Pedestrian Improvements Dear Mr. Wedel: The project scope below and attached budget and schedule have been prepared for the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy Road Pedestrian Improvements project which proposes to widen Powers Boulevard to accommodate a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) system. Bolton & Menk will design the roadway widening and ADA compliant pedestrian facilities based on survey and utility information collected for the project. The services include the final design and construction observation/administration. We will provide a stand-alone plan set and specifications that will be approved and meet the standards of the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, and MnDOT State Aid. The scope of services has been broken down into the following tasks: Task 1: Data Gathering Task 1.1 Topographic Survey Bolton & Menk will collect additional topographic data necessary to fully evaluate the recommended design and impacts. Some initial survey was collected during the preliminary evaluations near the intersection, however, that information will need to be expanded upon due to a larger project footprint. The data collection will include • Initiating Gopher One Call utility locate request • Topographic survey of shoulders, roadway side slopes, trails, retaining walls, trees up to and across existing right of way as needed. City/County Participation: • Provide as-built plans and any other pertinent information • Provide existing right-of-way information Deliverables: • Topographic Survey Information Task 1 Subtotal: $4,230 Name: Powers Blvd/Lake Lucy Rd Pedestrian Improvements Date: May 21, 2019 Page: 2 N:\Proposals\Chanhassen\Powers Blvd-Lake Lucy Road Ped Crossing\Letter Proposal.docx Task 2: Project Management and Coordination Task 2.1 Project Management Bolton & Menk will provide accurate and timely administrative services for the project’s duration. This includes providing project management, communications, and monthly billings to the City. Task 2.2 Stakeholder Meetings Our team will lead two meetings, if needed, for coordination of final design elements that would be incorporated into the final design plan set and specifications. Meeting minutes will be developed and sent to affected parties summarizing project decisions. Task 2.3 City Council Meeting The Project Manager will be available at City Council meetings as needed for presentations and to take questions. The meetings anticipated to need attendance would be at Council plan approval/authorization to advertise and awarding of the construction contract. Task 2.4 Utility Coordination Bolton & Menk will send progress and final design plans to utility owners for relocation planning and coordination at the 60%, 95% and 100% plan level. Further correspondence and coordination with utility owners may be necessary to understand and resolve potential issues. Bolton & Menk will prepare for and facilitate one utility coordination meetings with public and private utility owners. City/County Participation: • Meeting attendance and engagement Task 2 Deliverables: Two stakeholder meeting, two City Council meetings, utility coordination meeting, meeting minutes and correspondence. Task 2 Subtotal: $9,960 Task 3: Right of Way Acquisition Task 3.1 Right of Way Determination and Figures Bolton & Menk will identify right of way needs, prepare right of way figures, and assist in coordinating right of way acquisition. It is anticipated that temporary construction easements or slope easements may be needed from several private property owners based on the recommended alternative. Final right of way or easement needs will be identified early in the final design process and solutions to minimize or eliminate right of way impacts will be reviewed and discussed with stakeholders. It is understood that the City would be using State Aid funds for this project, and therefore acquisition limits should be shown in the plans prior to State Aid plan approval. Task 3.2 Appraisals/Legal/Right of Way Agent Bolton & Menk will cooperate with the City staff and their consultants for right of way acquisition. City/County Participation: • Participate in negotiations, provide right of way agent and legal as needed. Name: Powers Blvd/Lake Lucy Rd Pedestrian Improvements Date: May 21, 2019 Page: 3 N:\Proposals\Chanhassen\Powers Blvd-Lake Lucy Road Ped Crossing\Letter Proposal.docx • Identification of funding sources Task 3 Deliverables: Right of way figures, legal descriptions. Task 3 Subtotal: $4,320 Task 4: Final Design Task 4.1 Final Design Plans Comprehensive, detailed construction plans that are legible and constructible will be produced for the roadway widening and pedestrian crossing. Construction plan details will comply with State Aid requirements. This task includes preparation of applicable plan sections, such as • Title Sheet / General Layout • Statement of Estimated Quantities / Tabulations • Typical Sections / Construction Details • Enhanced Pedestrian System Details • Existing Conditions and In Place Utilities Plans / Removal Plans • Construction Plans and Intersection Details • Signing and Striping Plans • Staging and Traffic Control Plans Task 4.2 Plan Submittals (60%, 95%, Final) Bolton & Menk will submit progress and final design plans and other documents for review at the stages of completion listed below. It is anticipated that the City will utilize State Aid funds and will require a State Aid plan approval. • 60% Plan Review - submittal to include topography, utility plans, alignments, intersection layouts, drainage plans, lighting plans, typical cross sections, preliminary utility relocations, and engineer’s estimate • 95% Plan Review - submittal to include complete plan set, specifications, and engineer’s estimate • Final Plan Approval - submittal of final design plans, specifications, and engineer’s estimate for approval and signatures Task 4.3 Cost Estimates (60%, 95%, Final) A detailed engineer’s cost estimate will be prepared at each plan submittal. Quantities and costs will be split by project areas, participating/non-participating items, and funding sources. Task 4.4 Enhanced Pedestrian Crossing Justification Letters Bolton & Menk will prepare Justification Letters the crossing location in accordance with MnDOT State Aid guidance. This letter, along with the already completed preliminary design work, will further justify the proposed design is the most logical and economical solution at each intersection. Task 4.5 Specifications and Bidding Documentation Bolton & Menk will prepare and administer the bid package. Our team will also attend the bid opening, compile bids, prepare a bid tabulation, and provide a recommendation for awarding the project. Name: Powers Blvd/Lake Lucy Rd Pedestrian Improvements Date: May 21, 2019 Page: 4 N:\Proposals\Chanhassen\Powers Blvd-Lake Lucy Road Ped Crossing\Letter Proposal.docx Subtask 4.6 Prepare Contract Documents Our team will gather the successful bidder’s contracts, insurance, bonds, etc., and complete the contract documents. We will also distribute them to the city and contractor upon completion. City/County Participation: • Review and comment on plan submittals • Identification of funding sources Task 4 Deliverables: 60% plans, 95% plans, final plans, specifications, cost estimates, advertisement for bid, responses to contractor questions, issue addenda Task 4 Subtotal: $31,370 Task 5: Construction Services Bolton & Menk is available to administer the construction contract and provide construction related services as noted below. Subtask 5.1 Coordination/Preconstruction Meeting Bolton & Menk will prepare the necessary agendas and minutes for all meetings. A preconstruction meeting will be conducted before construction starts. It is assumed that no progress meetings will be needed during construction as construction is anticipated to take less than two months. However, Bolton & Menk will organize and conduct any meetings if they are required. Subtask 5.2 Shop Drawing Review Our staff will review and approve all shop drawings. The primary shop drawings will be for the enhanced pedestrian crossing unit. Bolton & Menk will provide the city/county with final copies of the shop drawings for the city/county’s records. Subtask 5.3 Construction Site Staking Our surveyors will complete construction staking. Subtask 5.4 Construction Observation Bolton & Menk is able to provide construction observation services for all aspects of the project. Observation will be conducted for compliance with the approved plans including roadway and shoulder widening, concrete curb & gutter, guard rail, pedestrian ramps, trails, lighting, placement of the enhanced pedestrian crossing units, turf establishment & erosion control, and final signing and striping placement. It is understood that the City may provide construction observation for the project and Bolton & Menk may only supplement as need. The fees included in this proposal are based on Bolton & Menk providing all necessary observation and can be adjusted as the City desires. Subtask 5.5 Materials Testing Services Bolton & Menk will provide materials testing services for the project. A combination of certified Bolton & Menk observation staff along with a sub-consultant’s geotechnical laboratory and testing would be utilized for the work. All material testing will meet the MnDOT SALT Schedule of Materials Control for testing rates and compliance. Name: Powers Blvd/Lake Lucy Rd Pedestrian Improvements Date: May 21, 2019 Page: 5 N:\Proposals\Chanhassen\Powers Blvd-Lake Lucy Road Ped Crossing\Letter Proposal.docx Subtask 5.6 Respond to Requests for Information Bolton & Menk will provide timely responses to any requests for information from the Contractor, City/County staff, or any other participating or interested party. Subtask 5.7 Prepare Monthly Pay Vouchers and Change Orders We will review pay requests and provide a recommendation to the City for payment. Due to the relatively short length of construction, it is anticipated that no more than three pay requests will be processed for this project. Subtask 5.8 Generate Punchlist Bolton & Menk will prepare a punchlist following construction completion of the enhanced pedestrian crossing system and associated roadway widening. The punchlist will be distributed as directed by city and county staff. Subtask 5.9 Provide Record Drawings Our staff will prepare record drawings based on the actual construction for the enhanced pedestrian crossing system and roadway widening. City/County Participation: • Answer project-related questions • Provide payment application format • Review punchlist Task 5 Deliverables: Final copies of shop drawings, Pay requests, Punchlist, Record Drawings Task 5 Subtotal: $35,570 Budget & Schedule Bolton and Menk will provide the Scope of Services described above and in sync with the attached Estimated Hours, Detailed Fee Estimate, and Preliminary Schedule. The Preliminary Schedule assumes award of the design contract at the first City Council meeting in June. If awarded later, the design schedule would shift accordingly. The Preliminary Schedule is set up with the assumption that the City would use State Aid funds for the project. This would require the appropriate right of way takings be identified in the plan to receive approval from the State Aid office. The acquisition process may not be completed by the time the plan is approved, but the design and construction schedule allows for the eminent domain process, if needed. Also, as it relates to the preliminary Construction Schedule, a significant item to point out is that the current lead times for poles is 20-26 weeks from the approval of shop drawings. If the construction is to be completed by the end of June, a construction contract should be awarded by early December to start the process for review and approval of shop drawings. We are excited at the opportunity to complete the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy Road Pedestrian Improvements project. I will serve as the lead client contact on this project and Andrew Budde will serve Name: Powers Blvd/Lake Lucy Rd Pedestrian Improvements Date: May 21, 2019 Page: 6 N:\Proposals\Chanhassen\Powers Blvd-Lake Lucy Road Ped Crossing\Letter Proposal.docx as the Project Manager. Please contact me at 952-201-9488 or jacob.bongard@bolton-menk.com if you have any questions regarding our proposal. Respectfully submitted, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Jacob J. Bongard, P.E., PTOE Senior Transportation Engineer Andrew Budde, P.E. Project Manager Client: City of Chanhassen Project: Powers Blvd/Lake Lucy Rd Pedestrian Improvements Task No.Work Task Description Project ManagerSenior Transportation EngineerDesign EngineerTechnicianProject SurveyorClericalTotals 1.0 Data Gathering 1.1 Surveying and Mapping 4 6 20 30 Subtotal Hours - Task 1 4 0 6 0 20 0 30 2.0 Project Management and Coordination 2.1 Project Management 16 8 4 28 2.2 Stakeholder Meetings 8 12 20 2.3 City Council Meeting 3 3 2.4 Utility Coordination 6 16 22 Subtotal Hours - Task 2 33 8 28 0 0 4 73 3.0 Right of Way Acquisition 3.1 Right of Way Determinination and Figures 8 8 8 8 32 3.2 Appraisals/Legal/Right of Way Agent 0 Subtotal Hours - Task 3 8 0 8 8 8 0 32 4.0 Final Design 4.1 Final Design Plans 20 8 60 60 148 4.2 Plan Submittals (60%, 95%, Final)8 16 16 40 4.3 Cost Estimates (60%, 95%, Final)6 18 24 4.4 RRFB Justification Letter 2 6 8 4.5 Specifications and Bidding Documentation 4 16 4 24 4.6 Prepare Contract Documents 2 4 4 10 Subtotal Hours - Task 4 40 10 120 76 0 8 254 5.0 Construction Services 5.1 Coordination/Preconstruction Meeting 6 6 12 5.2 Shop Drawing Review 4 4 5.3 Construction Staking 2 8 30 40 5.4 Construction Observation (7 weeks, 20 hrs/week)14 140 154 5.5 Materials Testing Services 2 4 35 41 5.6 Respond to Requests for Information 4 2 6 5.7 Prepare Monthly Pay Vouchers and Change Orders 6 2 4 12 5.8 Generate Punchlist 2 2 4 8 5.9 Provide Record Drawings 4 4 8 Subtotal Hours - Task 5 36 0 164 55 30 0 285 Bolton & Menk, Inc. Estimated Hours Provided by City Powers Blvd/Lake Lucy Rd Pedestrian Improvements City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Page 7 Client: City of ChanhassenProject: Powers Blvd/Lake Lucy Rd Pedestrian ImprovementsTask No. Work Task DescriptionProject ManagerSenior Transportation EngineerDesign EngineerTechnicianProject SurveyorClericalTotal HoursTotal Cost1.0 Data Gathering4 0 6 0 20 0 30 $4,2302.0 Project Management and Coordination 33 8 28 0 0 4 73 $9,9603.0 Right of Way Acquisition 8 0 8 8 8 0 32 $4,3204.0 Final Design40 10 120 76 0 8 254 $31,3705.0 Construction Services36 0 164 55 30 0 285 $35,570Total Hours121 18 326 139 58 12 674Average Hourly Rate$160.00 $145.00 $115.00 $120.00 $145.00 $75.00Subtotal$19,360 $2,610 $37,490 $16,680 $8,410 $900$85,450Detailed Fee EstimateTotal FeeBolton & Menk, Inc.Powers Blvd/Lake Luce Rd Pedestrian ImprovementsCity of Chanhassen, MinnesotaPage 8 MonthWeek of3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 271.0 Data Gathering1.1Surveying and Mapping2.0 Project Management and Coordination2.1Project Management2.2Stakeholder Meetings (as needed)XX2.3City Council Meeting (as needed)XX2.4Utility CoordinationX3.0 Right of Way Acquisition3.1Right of Way Determinination and Figures3.2 Appraisals/Legal/Right of Way Agent4.0 Final Design4.1Final Design Plans4.2Plan Submittals (60%, 95%, Final)4.3Cost Estimates (60%, 95%, Final)4.4RRFB Justification Report4.5Specifications and Bidding Documentation4.6Prepare Contract Documents5.0 Construction Services5.1Coordination/Preconstruction MeetingX5.2Shop Drawing Review (20-26 week leadtime on poles)5.3Construction Staking5.4Construction Observation5.5Material Testing Services5.6Respond to Requests for Information5.7Prepare Monthly Pay Vouchers and Change Orders5.8Generate Punchlist5.9Provide Record DrawingsDecemberJuneJune2019July August September OctoberMayNovemberJuly2020Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy Road Pedestrian ImprovementsPreliminary ScheduleJanuary February March April60% Plans95% PlansFinal PlansOrder Poles Powers Blvd/Lake Lucy Rd Pedestrian Improvements City of Chanhassen, MinnesotaPage 9 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS ON POWERS BOULEVARD (CSAH 17) THIS AGREEMENT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY (CSAH 17), ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of the _____ day of _______ , 2018, by and between the City of Chanhassen (“City”), and the County of Carver ("County") (each sometimes hereinafter called "Party" and both sometimes collectively "Parties") the Parties being governmental and political subdivisions of the State of Minnesota. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, each of the Parties has the authority to construct, maintain, repair, and improve public streets within their respective jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, County State Aid Highway (CSAH 17) is a duly dedicated public street, located within the corporate limits of City; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to undertake a joint project involving pedestrian crossing improvements, and related incidental road construction, grading, aggregate base, pavement surfacing, curb & gutter, sidewalk, storm sewer, and other incidentals, and to share the costs of such improvement as herein provided; and WHEREAS, the authority of the Parties to enter into this Agreement is provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants of each to the other contained in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto do covenant and agree as follows: ARTICLE I THE AGREEMENT Section 1.01. Purposes. The purpose of this Agreement is to define the rights and obligations of the City and the County with respect to the Project and the sharing of the costs of the Project. Section 1.02. Cooperation. The City and the County shall cooperate and use their best efforts to ensure the most expeditious implementation of the various provisions of this Agreement. The Parties agree in good faith to undertake resolution of disputes, if any, in an equitable and timely manner. The Project will be open to inspection of duly authorized representatives of the Parties at any time during normal business hours and as often as reasonably deemed necessary. Section 1.03. Relationship To Other Contracts. The City and the County acknowledge DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page | 2 that Contract Documents will be entered into by the County on behalf of the Parties with respect to the Project, and that Change Orders or other documents may be entered into by the County on behalf of the Parties, with respect to the Project. This Agreement shall be construed so as to give the fullest effect to its provisions, consistent with the provisions of the other contracts and documents referred to above. Section 1.04. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period commencing on the date hereof and terminating on the date the Project is completed, accepted by the Parties and all amounts owed by one Party to the other have been paid in full. Section 1.05. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct as of the date hereof and constitute a part of this Agreement. Section 1.06 Enabling Authority. Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, authorizes two or more governmental units to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting Parties. ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS Section 2.01. Definitions. In this Agreement the following terms shall have the following meanings unless the context requires otherwise: (a) Agreement: this Agreement, as it may be amended, supplemented, or restated from time to time. (b) Change Order: a written order, change order or supplemental agreement to the Contractor approved in writing, which may be electronic, by both Parties hereto and signed by the County Representative on behalf of the Parties authorizing a change in the work included within the Contract Documents and/or an adjustment in the price and/or an adjustment in the construction schedule, issued after execution of the contract for the construction of the Project. (c) City: the City of Chanhassen. (d) City Representative: Paul Oehme, P.E., Public Works Director / City Engineer (e) City/County Costs: the direct and indirect costs of City and County employees performing services on behalf of the Project, and other incidentals. (f) Concept and Design Phase Professional Services Costs: the fees and costs for all professional services performed in concept and design phase activities for the Project. (g) Construction Phase Professional Services Costs: the fees and costs for all professional services performed in construction phase activities for the Project. DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page | 3 (h) Contract Documents: drawings; Engineers Estimate; specifications; general and special conditions; addenda, if any; Change Orders; and the construction contract for the Project; approved by the Parties, or their respective representatives. (i) Contractor: the person or entity that is awarded the contract for the construction of the Project. (j) County: Carver County. (k) County Representative: Lyndon Robjent, P.E., Carver County Engineer. (l) Engineers Estimate: the professional engineer’s opinion of probable cost prior to the bidding of the Project, which encompasses all projected costs tabulated for each Party. (m) Project: Design and Construction of Pedestrian Crossing Improvements on Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) at Park Road and Lake Lucy Road in the City, to include engineering design and construction services for the design and construction of pedestrian crossing treatments and related incidental road construction, grading, aggregate base, pavement surfacing, curb & gutter, sidewalk, storm sewer, and other incidentals. (n) Project Costs: all costs for and associated with the construction of the Project, including Concept and Design Phase Professional Services Costs, Construction Phase Professional Services Costs, and City/County Costs. (o) Project Location: Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) at Park Road and Lake Lucy Road in the City of Chanhassen, as generally depicted in Exhibit A. (p) Uncontrollable Circumstances: the occurrence or non-occurrence of acts or events beyond the reasonable control of the Party relying thereon, and not the result of willful or negligent action or inaction of the Party claiming the event as an Uncontrollable Circumstance, that materially adversely affects the performance of the Party claiming the event as an Uncontrollable Circumstance including but not limited to the following: (1) Acts of God, including, but not limited to floods, ice storms, blizzards, tornadoes, landslides, lighting and earthquakes (but not including reasonably anticipated weather conditions for the geographic area), riots insurrections, war or civil disorder affecting the performance of work, blockades, power or other utility failure, and fires or explosions. (2) The adoption of or change in any federal, state, or local laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, permits, or licenses, or changes in the interpretation of such laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, permits, or licenses by a court or public agency having appropriate jurisdiction after the date of the execution DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page | 4 of this Agreement. (3) A suspension, termination, interruption, denial, or failure of renewal of any permit, license, consent, authorization, or approval essential to the construction of the Project. (4) Orders and/or judgment of any federal, state, or local court, administrative agency, or governmental body, provided, however, that the contesting in good faith by such Party of any such order and/or judgment shall not constitute or be construed to constitute a willful or negligent action or inaction of such Party. (5) Strikes or other such labor disputes shall not be considered an Uncontrollable Circumstance, unless such strike or labor dispute involves persons with whom the Parties have no employment relationship and the Parties, or either of them, cannot, using best efforts, obtain substitute performance. ARTICLE III ALLOCATION OF DUTIES Section 3.01. Concept and Design Phase Activities. Concept and design phase activities, including, but not limited to, field surveys, right of way plats, design, engineering, right of way acquisition, and other matters, shall be completed by the Parties as follows: See attached Exhibit B. Section 3.02. Construction Phase Activities. Construction phase activities, including, but not limited to, the bid process, preparation of contract documents, awarding of contract, construction inspection and surveying and other matters, shall be completed by the Parties as follows: See attached Exhibit B. Section 3.03. Contract Award. The Contract Documents shall be approved in writing, which may be electronic, by the Parties prior to the solicitation of bids. In accordance with the applicable provisions of Minnesota Statutes, County will cause bids to be received by it for the construction of the Project and, subject to approval by the City if the low responsible bidder is more than the Engineers Estimate, shall award the contract for the construction of the Project to the lowest responsible bidder. Section 3.04. Project Construction. Subject to Uncontrollable Circumstances, the Parties shall cause the Project to be constructed in accordance with the Contract Documents. The City shall have the right to review and approve of any proposed changes to the plans and specifications as they relate to City’s cost participation prior to the work being performed. Section 3.05. Maintenance Upon Project Completion and Final Acceptance. Highway DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page | 5 maintenance shall be completed by the Parties, upon project completion and final acceptance of the Project, as follows: The Parties agree to perform highway maintenance responsibilities that are consistent with the Carver County Cost Participation Policy, Maintenance Section, as shown in Exhibit D, unless superseded by a separate highway maintenance agreement between the Parties. The City will perform all maintenance responsibilities on all streets under the City jurisdiction. ARTICLE IV PROJECT COST SHARING Section 4.01. Allocation. (a) The Project Costs for all items shall be divided between the City and County as follows: See attached Exhibit C. (b) The Concept and Design Phase Professional Services Costs for all items shall be divided between the Parties as follows: See attached Exhibit C. (c) The Construction Phase Professional Services Costs for all items shall be divided between the Parties as follows: See attached Exhibit C. (d) All other costs including, but not limited to City/County Costs, shall be allocated between the Parties as follows: See attached Exhibit C. Section 4.02. Payments to Contractor. The County shall make partial progress payments to the Contractor and, upon approval of both Parties hereto, the final payment to the Contractor in accordance with the Contract Documents. The designated City Representative shall have the right to approve of any Change Orders prepared by the County that affect the City’s share of the construction cost. The City further agrees that it will participate in the settlement of any claim from the County's contractor for the Project that involve delays attributable to unreasonable delays in approval by the City for plan or specification changes deemed necessary by the County Engineer or staff. The amount of the City’s participation in any such claim shall be commensurate with the percentage of delay directly attributable to City’s actions. Section 4.03. Adjustments and Reconciliation. To the extent that the actual value of any item included in an invoice cannot be accurately determined at the time of submission of the DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page | 6 invoice, such item shall be invoiced on an estimated basis and an adjustment shall be made to reflect the difference between such estimated amount and the actual amount of such item on the next invoice after determination of the actual amount. Prior to final acceptance of the Project, the designated county representative shall provide City with a reconciliation of all costs for the Project and the respective contributions of the Parties for the review and approval of the Parties. Section 4.04. Exclusive Responsibility. All aspects of application for State of Minnesota for State and Federal Funds and the grant thereof by the State, are the exclusive responsibility of the County, including but not limited to the investment, expenditure, and allocation of such funds. It is specifically agreed that any interest on the investment of any such funds is the sole property of the County, to use as the County shall see fit. Section 4.05. Payment to County. The City agrees to reimburse the County for costs incurred, pursuant to Section 4.01. Unless previously deposited as provided herein, the City is responsible to pay these monies to the County within thirty (30) days of being invoiced for costs incurred or services performed. Costs will be invoiced at the completion of each project phase and upon final acceptance of the Project by the Parties, unless an alternate schedule is mutually agreed upon in writing by the authorized representatives of the Parties. After an award by the County to the selected consultant on the Project, County shall invoice the City to deposit with the County the City’s share in the Project Costs to be paid on an annual basis as follows: invoice for 2018 at beginning of the contract / project – 50% Concept and Design Phase Activities; invoice for 2018 on October 1, 2018 – remainder 50% Concept and Design Phase Activities; invoice for 2018 or 2019 at beginning of construction – 50% Construction Phase Activities; and invoice for 2018 or 2019 at end of construction – remainder of balance of Construction Phase Activities. Section 4.06. Payment to City. The County agrees to reimburse the City for costs incurred, pursuant to Section 4.01. The County is responsible to pay these monies to the City within thirty (30) days of being invoiced for costs incurred or services performed. Costs will be invoiced at the completion of each project phase and upon final acceptance of the project by the Parties, unless an alternate schedule is mutually agreed upon in writing by the authorized representatives of the Parties. ARTICLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 5.01. Notices. All notices or communications required or permitted pursuant to this Agreement shall be either hand delivered or mailed to City and County, certified mail, return- receipt requested, at the following address: City: Paul Oehme, PE Public Works Director / City Engineer City of Chanhassen DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page | 7 P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1169 E-mail: poehme@ci.chanhassen.mn.us County: Lyndon Robjent, PE Public Works Director / County Engineer Carver County Public Works 11360 Hwy 212 West, Suite 1 Cologne, MN 55322 Phone (952) 466-5200 E-mail: lrobjent@co.carver.mn.us Either Party may change its address or authorized representative by written notice delivered to the other Party pursuant to this Section 5.01. Section 5.02. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which taken together shall be deemed a single instrument. Section 5.03. Survival of Terms, Representations and Warranties. The representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements of the Parties under this Agreement, and the remedies of either Party for the breach of such representations, warranties, covenants, and agreements by the other Party shall survive the execution and termination of this Agreement. The terms of Sections 3.05, 5.14, 5.15, 5.16 and 5.17 shall survive the expiration, termination or withdrawal from this Agreement. Section 5.04. Non-Assignability. Neither the City nor the County shall assign any interest in this Agreement nor shall transfer any interest in the same, whether by subcontract, assignment or novation, without the prior written consent of the other Party. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Section 5.05. Alteration. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the Parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. Any alteration, variation, modification or waiver of the provisions of the Agreement shall be valid only after it has been reduced to writing and duly signed by all Parties. Section 5.06. Waiver. The waiver of any of the rights and/or remedies arising under the terms of this Agreement on any one occasion by any Party hereto shall not constitute a waiver or any rights and/or remedies in respect to any subsequent breach or default of the terms of this Agreement. The rights and remedies provided or referred to under the terms of this Agreement are cumulative and not mutually exclusive. Section 5.07. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page | 8 paragraph, section, subdivision, sentence, clause or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held to be contrary to law, or contrary to any rule or regulation having the force and effect of law, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Agreement. Section 5.08. Interpretation According to Minnesota Law. The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall apply to this Agreement. Section 5.09. Final Payment. Before final payment is made to the Contractor, the Contractor shall provide a certificate of compliance from the Commissioner of Revenue certifying that the Contractor and any out-of-state subcontractors have complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 290.92. Section 5.10. Headings. The headings to the various sections of this Agreement are inserted only for convenience of reference and are not intended, nor shall they be construed, to modify, define, limit, or expand the intent of the Parties as expressed in this Agreement. Section 5.11. Further Actions. The Parties agree to execute such further documents and take such further actions as may reasonably be required or expedient to carry out the provisions and intentions of this Agreement, or any agreement or document relating hereto or entered into in connection herewith. Section 5.12. Parties in Interest. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure solely to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their permitted assigns, and nothing in this Agreement, express or implied, is intended to confer upon any other person any rights or remedies of any nature under or by reason of this Agreement. Section 5.13. Employees. It is further agreed that any and all full-time employees of County and all other employees of said County engaged in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the County shall be considered employees of County only and not of City and that any and all claims that may or might arise under Workman’s Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third Parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of County employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of County. It is further agreed that any and all full-time employees of City and all other employees of said City engaged in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by City shall be considered employees of City only and not of County and that any and all claims that may or might arise under Workman’s Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third Parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said City employees which so engaged on any of the work or services to be rendered herein shall be the sole obligation and responsibility of City. Section 5.14. Indemnification. The Parties’ total liability under this Agreement shall be governed by Minn. Statutes, Section 471.59, Subd. 1a. DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page | 9 Each Party agrees that it will be responsible for the acts or omissions of its officials, agents, and employees, and the results thereof, in carrying out the terms of this Agreement, to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts/omissions of the other Party and the results thereof. For purposes of determining total liability for damages, the participating governmental units are considered to be a single governmental unit, the total liability of which shall not exceed the limits for a single governmental unit as provided in Minn. Statutes, Section 466.04, Subd. 1. Each Party agrees to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other Party, its officials, agents, and employees, from any liability, loss, or damages the other Party may suffer or incur as the result of demands, claims, judgments, or cost arising out of or caused by the indemnifying Party’s negligence in the performance of its respective obligations under this Agreement. This provision shall not be construed nor operate as a waiver of any applicable limitation of liability, defenses, immunities, or exceptions by statute or common law. To the full extent permitted by law, actions by the Parties pursuant to this Agreement are intended to be and shall be construed as a "cooperative activity" and it is the intent of the Parties that they shall be deemed a "single governmental unit" for the purposes of liability, all as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, Subd. la(a); provided further that for purposes of that statute, each Party to this Agreement expressly declines responsibility for the acts or omissions of the other Party. The Parties of this Agreement are not liable for the acts or omissions of the other participants to this Agreement except to the extent to which they have agreed in writing to be responsible for acts or omissions of the other Parties. Section 5.15. Records – Availability and Access A. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subd. 5, the City agrees that the County, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the City and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. City agrees to maintain these records for a period of six years from the date of termination of this Agreement. B. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 16C.05, Subd. 5, the County agrees that the City, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the County and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. County agrees to maintain these records for a period of six years from the date of DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page | 10 termination of this Agreement. Section 5.16. Data Practices. Each Party, its employees, agents, owners, partners, and subcontractors agree to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 and implementing regulations, if applicable, and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. Section 5.17. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, the City and the County agree to the following: No person shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, public assistance status, criminal record, creed or national origin be excluded from full employment right in, participation in, be denied the benefits of or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any and all applicable Federal and State laws against discrimination. Section 5.18. Default and Withdrawal. Default in this Agreement may occur when a Party fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement. Unless the Party’s default is excused by the non-defaulting Party, the non-defaulting Party may, upon written notice to the defaulting Party representative listed herein, cancel this Agreement in its entirety as indicated below. Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement with or without cause by providing thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the other Parties herein. Only the governing bodies of the Participating Parties have authority to act pursuant to this provision of the Agreement. Each Party to this agreement reserves the right to withdraw from and cancel this agreement within 30 days from the opening of bids for the project in the event either or both Parties consider any or all bids unsatisfactory; the withdrawal from or cancellation of the agreement to be accomplished by either or both Parties within 30 days of opening of bids by serving a written notice thereof upon the other, unless this right is waived by both Parties in writing. Section 5.19. Third Party. This Agreement does not create any rights, claims or benefits inuring to any person that is not a Party hereto nor create or establish any third Party beneficiary. DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page | 11 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The Parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed. City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Denny Laufenburger, Mayor Date: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Date: County of Carver, Minnesota County Board Chair Date: Attest: County Administrator Date: Approved As To Form: County Attorney Date: DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 3/26/2018 | 6:44:22 PM PDT 4/4/2018 | 12:30:40 PM PDT X 4/4/2018 | 3:17:22 PM PDT 4/4/2018 | 7:35:04 PM PDT Powers Blvd andLake Lucy Rd Powers Blvd andPark Rd LakeDrEW 77th St W79thStAudubon RdLaredoDrM a r k e t S t ParkR dLake DrKerberBlvd Plea s a n t ViewRd Pon t i a c L nCarver Beach Rd Cree Dr Ponderosa Dr Lake Lucy Rd Santa Fe Trl SantaVeraDrChippewaTrlBigho r n D r W oodDuc kLnDevonshir e DrS ierraTrlRedwing L nHighland Dr Western Dr W 78thS t W 76th St GreatPlainsBlvdSad d l e broo k TrlChan ViewRedman LnBre ttonWa yParkDr DelRioD r C o n e stogaTrlLake PtHuronKiowaF o x H ill D rP a r kPl Woodhill Dr Butte C tShawneeLn LakeLucy Ln YosemiteAveCoulter Blvd NezPerceDrMark et Blvd Tet o nLnO x b o w Bnd LakewayDrMulberryCir H opi Rd FrontierTrlUtica LnTecumsehL n Sarat ogaDrLucyRidgeLnFoxPathPi m a LnHorseshoe CurvCanyon C urvChap a rralLn L ot us T rl Kimb erlyL n M ulberryCirEArboretumBlvdPowersBlvd?A@5 ST101 ST17 Exhibit APowers Blvd Pedestrian Crossings This map was created using a compilation of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. It is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a ref erence. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. Public Works Division11360 H wy 212, Suite 1Cologne, MN 55322(952) 466-5200Created: 3/5/201802,000 4,0001,000 Feet ´ DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Exhibit B – Allocation of Duties For the following Project: Design and Construction of Pedestrian Crossing Improvements on Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) at Park Road and Lake Lucy Road in the City of Chanhassen Concept and Design Phase Activities County will complete all concept and design phase activities of the Project and procure necessary Concept and Design Phase Professional Services. Construction Phase Activities Unless otherwise agreed upon by the City Representative and County Representative, County will complete all construction phase activities of the Project and procure necessary Construction Phase Professional Services, except that City will provide for the construction inspection services for all City utilities constructed with the Project. DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Exhibit C – Project Cost Sharing For the following Project: Design and Construction of Pedestrian Crossing Improvements on Powers Boulevard (CSAH 17) at Park Road and Lake Lucy Road in the City of Chanhassen The County and City agree that items not specifically covered by this agreement will be cost shared by the parties in accordance with the current version of the Carver County Cost Participation Policy, for a Conventional Project, which is attached hereto as Exhibit D. County and City agree to cost share as follows: Project Costs The County and City agree to cost share Project Costs in accordance with the Carver County Cost Participation Policy (Exhibit D) and augmented by the following: 1. The County and City agree to cost share electronic pedestrian warning systems at a ratio of 25% County and 75% City. 2. The County and City agree that any donation dedicated to the Project by IWCO will be pro-rated between the Parties by their respective construction cost share for the Park Road pedestrian crossing location. 3. The County and City agree to evenly split (50% County/50% City) all right of way acquisition costs. Right of way acquisition includes all costs related to the acquisition of property except professional services. 4. The City agrees to transfer property or grant easement rights to the County of City owned property needed for the Project at no cost to the County. 5. The City agrees to pay for all City requested improvements that are included in the Project, that the County does not deem necessary to carry out the scope of the Project. The Engineers Estimate and any Change Orders will show such City requested improvement costs for City approval. Concept and Design Phase Professional Services Costs The County and City agree to cost share Concept and Design Phase Professional Services Costs in accordance with the Carver County Cost Participation Policy (Exhibit D) and augmented by the following: 1. The County and City agree to evenly split (50% County/50% City) all right of way related professional services costs. 2. All remaining professional services costs will be split in accordance with the Carver County Cost Participation Policy (Exhibit D) and will considered the same as engineering services. DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Construction Phase Professional Services Costs The County and City agree to cost share Construction Phase Professional Services Costs in accordance with the Carver County Cost Participation Policy (Exhibit D) and augmented by the following: 1. The County and City agree to evenly split (50% County/50% Cit y) all right of way related professional services costs. 2. All remaining professional services costs will be split in accordance with the Carver County Cost Participation Policy (Exhibit D) and will considered the same as engineering services. Other Costs The County and City agree to cost share Other Costs in accordance with the Carver County Cost Participation Policy (Exhibit D) and augmented by the following: 1. The County and City agree to evenly split (50% County/50% City) all right of way related County direct and indirect costs of staff costs. 2. All remaining County direct and indirect costs of staff and other incidental costs will be split with the City in accordance with the Carver County Cost Participation Policy (Exhibit D) and will considered the same as engineering services. 3. The City agrees to not bill County for direct and indirect internal staff costs for the Project in order to support the City administration and City utility inspection of the project for City. DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page 1 of 5 Carver County Highway Cost Participation Policy – Adopted March 19, 2013 CCaarrvveerr CCoouunnttyy DDiivviissiioonn ooff PPuubblliicc WWoorrkkss COST PARTICIPATION POLICY Applicable to Cooperative Highway Projects between Carver County and Municipalities. Adopted by the Carver County Board of Commissioners on February 17, 1998. Amended by the Carver County Board of Commissioners on February 13, 2007, and March 19, 2013. A. Construction Cost Share – Conventional Project (Projects programmed in the County 5-year CIP.) Project Items County Share Municipality Share Note Right of Way By Negotiation By Negotiation 1 Retaining Wall in lieu of right of way Same %age as R/W Same %age as R/W Clearing and Grubbing 100% 0% Grading 100% 0% 2 Aggregate Base and Surfacing 100% 0% 3 Parking Lanes on 4-lane or 6-lane road 0% 100% 4 Storm Sewer and Ponds/Treatment Basins %age of Contributing Flow %age of Contributing Flow 5 Culverts 100% 0% Concrete Sidewalk 0%>5000 Population 50%<5000 Population 100%>5000 Population 50%<5000 Population 6 Concrete Curb and Gutter and Pedestrian Ramps 0%>5000 Population 50%<5000 Population 100%>5000 Population 50%<5000 Population 7 Concrete Median and Median Curb 100% 0% 8 Concrete Driveway Entrances (Apron) 100% 0% 9 Municipal Utility Adjustment or Construction 0% 100% Roundabouts By Leg By Leg Traffic Signals By Leg By Leg 10 Intersection Lighting By Leg By Leg 11 Street Lighting 0% 100% 12 Bridges By Negotiation By Negotiation Trails along county highway 0% Local 50% Linking & Regional 100% Destination 100% Local 50% Linking & Regional 0% Destination 13 Trail Underpass/Overpass 0% Local 50% Linking & Regional 100% Destination 100% Local 50% Linking & Regional 0% Destination 14 Landscaping 25% up to State Aid Limit 75% 15 Aesthetic Treatments 0% 100% 16 Highway Signs 100% 0% Electronic/Specialty Signs By Negotiation By Negotiation Noise Walls By Negotiation By Negotiation 17 Mobilization Pro-rated by const. share Pro-rated by const. share Erosion Control Pro-rated by const. share Pro-rated by const. share Traffic Control Pro-rated by const. share Pro-rated by const. share Engineering Services Pro-rated by const. share Pro-rated by const. share Other items By Negotiation By Negotiation DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page 2 of 5 Carver County Highway Cost Participation Policy – Adopted March 19, 2013 CCaarrvveerr CCoouunnttyy DDiivviissiioonn ooff PPuubblliicc WWoorrkkss Conventional Project Notes 1. Fee title and permanent and temporary easements needed for projects on the existing county highway system or newly established or dedicated county highway system including the property needed for storm water treatment basins and wetland mitigation sites. 2. Includes grading and removal items. Applies to county roads and work necessary to tie in existing public street approaches. Enhancements to public streets approaches are the responsibility of the municipality. New public or private street approaches are the responsibility of the municipality. 3. Applies to county roads and work necessary to tie in existing public street approaches. Enha ncements to public streets approaches are the responsibility of the municipality. New public or private street approaches are the responsibility of the municipality. 4. Includes grading, base and surfacing. Applies to county roads and work necessary to tie in existing public street approaches. Enhancements to public streets approaches are the responsibility of the municipality. New public or private street approaches are the responsibility of the municipality. 5. Includes catch basins, manholes, storm sewer pipes, outlet structures, grit chambers, and water quality and rate control ponds/basins. The county share is based on the ratio of contributing flow from the right of way to the total contributing flow. 6. Existing sidewalk impacted by the highway construction will be replaced in kind by the county. 7. Existing curb and gutter and pedestrian ramps impacted by the highway construction will be replaced in kind by the county. 8. The county pays for standard median design which is plain concrete . If a municipality requests decorative median the municipality pays the additional cost above the cost of a standard median. 9. Concrete aprons are installed at locations determined by the county. Driveways beyond the apron are constructed in -kind. 10. Applies to new and replacement traffic signals. Includes all components that make up a permanent warranted traffic control signal system with steel poles and mast arms installed at an intersection of a county highway and public roadway at an approved location by the county. The county pays 0% of a signal system at a private access/road. The municipality pays 100% of the furnishing and maintenance of electrical power to the traffic signal. The cost to modify, update or completely reconstruct the signal system will be shared at the same percentage as the original installation. 11. Designed to light an intersection for traffic safety purposes. Locations will be determined by the county. 12. Decorative type lighting along the roadway. 13. Applies to trails constructed with county road projects only. Stand alone trail projects are handled separately. Locations and descriptions are shown in the Carver County Comprehensive Plan and other related trail plans and policy documents. Applies to all costs associated with trail including but not limited to: grading, drainage, base, surfacing, pedestrian ramps, wetland mitigation due to trail impacts and additional right way needed for the trail. The county will only participate in trails constructed to meet State Aid Rules and Standards. Costs for major rehabilitation or replacement will be shared at the same percentage as the original installation. Townships are exempt from paying for trails. 14. Underpasses spanning 10 feet or more are considered bridges and will be added to the county bridge safety inspectio n program. 15. Landscaping items as approved by the county. State Aid limit is 5% of annual construction allotment. 16. Aesthetic items that do not serve a specific transportation use such as streetscaping, median plantings, decorative railing, ornamental fencing etc. All approved median plantings require irrigation. 17. Additional costs for decorative noise walls will be the responsibility of the requesting agency. DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page 3 of 5 Carver County Highway Cost Participation Policy – Adopted March 19, 2013 CCaarrvveerr CCoouunnttyy DDiivviissiioonn ooff PPuubblliicc WWoorrkkss B. Construction Cost Share – Development Driven Project (Projects not programmed in the County 5-year CIP) Project Items County Share Municipality Share Note Right of Way 0% 100% 1 Retaining Wall in lieu of right of way Same %age as R/W Same %age as R/W Clearing and Grubbing 100% 0% Grading 100% for through lane and shoulder (up to 44’ wide). 50% for additional through lanes and median. 100% for county rd. to county rd. turn lanes. 0% for through lane and shoulder (up to 44’ wide). 50% for additional through lanes and median. 100% for city st. to county rd. turn lanes and county rd. to city st. turn lanes 2 Aggregate Base and Surfacing Same as Grading Same as Grading Parking Lanes on 4-lane or 6-lane road 0% 100% 3 Storm Sewer and Ponds/Treatment Basins %age of Contributing Flow %age of Contributing Flow 4 Culverts 100% 0% Concrete Sidewalk 0% 100% Concrete Curb and Gutter and Pedestrian Ramps 0% 100% Concrete Median and Median Curb 50% 50% 5 Concrete Driveway Entrances (Apron) 100% 0% 6 Municipal Utility Adjustment or Construction 0% 100% Roundabouts By Leg if meets warrants by opening. By Leg up to 50% if meets warrants for design year. 0% if does not meet warrants for design year. By Leg if meets warrants by opening. By Leg but no less than 50% if meets warrants for design year. 100% if does not meet warrants for design year. Traffic Signals By Leg if meets warrants by opening. 50% of County Legs if meets warrants for design year. 0% if does not meet warrants for design year. By Leg if meets warrants by opening. 100% of City legs plus 50% of County Legs if meets warrants for design year. 100% if does not meet warrants for design year. 7 Intersection Lighting By Leg By Leg 8 Street Lighting 0% 100% 9 Bridges By Negotiation By Negotiation DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page 4 of 5 Carver County Highway Cost Participation Policy – Adopted March 19, 2013 CCaarrvveerr CCoouunnttyy DDiivviissiioonn ooff PPuubblliicc WWoorrkkss Trails along county highway 0% Local 50% Linking & Regional 100% Destination 100% Local 50% Linking & Regional 0% Destination 10 Pedestrian Underpass/Overpass 0% 100% 11 Landscaping 0% 100% 12 Aesthetic Treatments 0% 100% 13 Highway Signs 100% 0% Electronic/Specialty Signs By Negotiation By Negotiation Noise Walls 0% 100% 14 Mobilization Pro-rated by const. share Pro-rated by const. share Erosion Control Pro-rated by const. share Pro-rated by const. share Traffic Control Pro-rated by const. share Pro-rated by const. share Engineering Services Pro-rated by const. share Pro-rated by const. share Other items By Negotiation By Negotiation Development Driven Project Notes 1. Fee title and permanent and temporary easements needed for projects on the existing county highway system or newly established or dedicated county highway system including the property needed for storm water treatment basins and wetland mitigation sites. The cost share for right of way needed outside the boundaries of a development plat will be negotiated. 2. Includes grading and removal items. Enhancements to public streets approaches are the responsibility of the municipality. New public or private street approaches are the responsibility of the municipality. 3. Includes grading, base and surfacing. Applies to county roads and work necessary to tie in exist ing public street approaches. Enhancements to public streets approaches are the responsibility of the municipality. New public or private street approaches are the responsibility of the municipality. 4. Includes catch basins, manholes, storm sewer pipes, outlet structures, grit chambers, and water quality and rate control ponds/basins. The county share is based on the ratio of contributing flow. County share is based on the contributing flow from the right of way less roadway surface areas that the municipality pays for. The municipality share is the contributing flow from outside the right of way plus roadway surface area the municipality pays for. Costs to replace elements of storm sewer systems will be shared at the same percentage as the original installation. 5. The county pays for standard median design which is plain concrete. If a municipality requests decorative median the municipality pays the additional cost above the cost of a standard median. 6. Concrete aprons are installed at locations determined by the county. Driveways beyond the apron are constructed in-kind. 7. Applies to new and replacement traffic signals. Includes all components that make up a permanent warranted traffic control signal system with steel poles and mast arms installed at an intersection of a county highway and public roadway at an approved location by the county. To meet signal warrants, the intersection must meet either the four hour or the eight hour vehicular volume warrant standard. The county pays 0% of a signal system at a private access/road. The municipality pays 100% of the furnishing and maintenance of electrical power to the traffic signal. The cost to modify, update or completely reconstruct the signal system will be shared at the same percentage as the original installation. 8. Designed to light an intersection for traffic safety purposes. Locations will be determined by the county. 9. Decorative type lighting along the roadway. 10. Applies to trails constructed with county road projects only. Locations and descriptions are shown in the Carver County Comprehensive Plan and other related trail plans and policy documents. Costs associated with trail include grading, drainage , base, surfacing, pedestrian ramps, wetland mitigation due to trail impacts and additional right way needed for the trail. The county will only participate in trails constructed to meet State Aid Rules and Standards. Costs for major rehabilitation or replacement will be shared at the same percentage as the original installation. 11. Underpasses spanning 10 feet or more are considered bridges and will be added to the county bridge safety inspection program. 12. Landscaping items as approved by the county. 13. Aesthetic items that do not serve a specific transportation use such as streetscaping, median plantings, decor ative railing, ornamental fencing etc. All approved median plantings require irrigation. 14. Additional costs for decorative noise walls will be the responsibility of the requesting agency. DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 Page 5 of 5 Carver County Highway Cost Participation Policy – Adopted March 19, 2013 CCaarrvveerr CCoouunnttyy DDiivviissiioonn ooff PPuubblliicc WWoorrkkss C. Maintenance - Maintenance of county highways constructed under this policy will be as follows unless specified differently in a separate maintenance agreement. 1. The county is responsible for maintenance of the county highway between curbs or between outside edges of shoulders. This includes but is not limited to snow and ice control, patching, crack sealing, seal coating, pavement rehabilitation, shouldering, striping and sign replacement. In addition, the county is responsible for routine maintenance outside the edge of shoulder and within the right of way of a rural county highway. The county may enter into agreements with municipalities to perform highway maintenance. 2. The municipality is responsible for maintenance of the boulevard, landscaped median, trees, shrubs, irrigation systems, sidewalk, retaining walls, steps, aesthetic treatments, and other urban appurtenances within the right-of- way of an urban county highway. 3. The county is responsible for maintenance of bridges and culverts on the county route. 4. The municipality is responsible for maintenance of its utilities and storm sewer systems including detention/treatment basins. Costs to replace elements of storm sewer systems will be shared at the same percentage as the original installation. 5. The county is responsible for maintaining roundabouts with the exception of island landscaping and aesthetic treatments which are the responsibility of the municipality. 6. Unless stipulated by special agreement, the county will own and is responsible for maintaining traffic signal systems (with the exception of the attached lighting) at county road intersections with local public roadways and private streets. The municipality is responsible for maintaining the signal lighting and the electrical power to the signal system. The cost to modify, update or completely reconstruct the signal system will be shared at the same percentage as the original installation. 7. The municipality is responsible for maintenance of intersection lighting at a county road and local road intersection. The county is responsible for maintenance of intersect ion lighting at a county road and county road intersection. 8. The municipality is responsible for the maintenance of street lights. 9. The municipality is responsible for maintaining trails within the county highway right-of-way. Costs for major rehabilitation or replacement will be shared at the same percentage as the original installation. 10. The municipality is responsible for maintaining pedestrian underpasses and overpasses. 11. The county is responsible for maintaining highway signs. 12. The county is responsible for maintaining electronic/specialty signs. The costs of maintenance will be shared at the same percentage as the original installation. 13. Maintenance of noise walls is the responsibility of the agency paying for the initial installation. DocuSign Envelope ID: B43E0A3F-5231-44F1-9240-77DE1B0C1117 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Ordinance XXX: Amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Chanhassen City Code Establishing an Economic Development Commission Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.3. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Chanhassen City Code establishing an Economic Development  Commission.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND One of the city council KFS goals for 2019 was the potential establishment of an Economic Development Commission (EDC).  This evening the city council will consider adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the city code establishing an Economic Development Commission.  Staff has included all of the changes requested by city council to the Purpose & Goals document as well as changes to ordinance amendment to city code as discussed at the previous two work session meetings. RECOMMENDATION Adoption of the ordinance amending Chapter 2 of city code requires a simple majority vote. ATTACHMENTS: Purpose & Goals Ordinance Councilman Jerry McDonald Comments Purpose: The Economic Development Commission (EDC) is an advisory body to the City Council and the Economic Development Authority charged with the responsibility of researching, reviewing, and making recommendations on issues related to economic development. The EDC will review ways in which the city can expand existing businesses, attract desirable new business, and revitalize existing businesses and the community as a whole. Goals: As an advisory commission to the City Council, the Economic Development Commission (EDC) is responsible for developing a strategic plan for economic development for the city, including long-range strategies for economic development. The commissioners will recommend economic development policies and programs to the City Council and work with the City Council and staff to promote the city, work to retain businesses in the community, attract economic growth and development, and advocate as well as be liaisons for all challenges that face the businesses in the City of Chanhassen. The EDC will work to compliment the city’s long term planning and financial documents including the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Vision Plan. Each year, the EDC will produce an annual report for the City Council detailing the community development activities of the past year. The report also provides a summary of residential and commercial construction activities and outlines the progress that has been made toward achieving the goals of all strategic plans. Some of the responsibilities the EDC would be tasked with: o Review of zoning ordinance changes that could affect businesses (commercial, industrial, and mixed use districts) o Review of Fee policies as they relate to businesses o Review of the Comprehensive Plan affecting economic development and commercial/industrial land uses o Consider new or revised approaches to the City’s Economic Development policy o Consider TIF and Tax Abatement Applications and consideration of new TIF districts o Review Grant Applications and provide Support for businesses applying for CDA or other grants The Commission will consist of five members which will be a combination of residents and representatives of the business community. The city council will have one assigned Liaison to the commission with no voting rights. The commission will have an assigned chair responsible for flow and productivity of all meetings, the assigned chair should not be the appointed city council member. Requirements for Application: Reside or own a business in Chanhassen a minimum of 2-3 years 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 2, Article IV of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to add the following subsection: Sec. 2-46.13. – Economic development commission. (a) Creation. There is established an economic development commission for the city. (b) Membership. The economic development commission consists of five members appointed by the city council. The members will be a combination of residents and representatives of the business community. Members of the commission are appointed by the city council for staggered terms of two three-year terms and three two-year terms expiring on March 31 of each year. (c) Officers; meetings. The chairperson of the economic development commission is appointed by the commission from among its membership for the term of one year. The city council will adopt its bylaws. All members of the commission may vote on all questions before the commission. No member of the commission may vote on any question in which the member has any conflict of interest, either directly or indirectly. The city council shall determine in its bylaws the date and time of its meetings and shall set such public hearings as are necessary and desirable or as required by law or this Code. (d) Powers and duties. The economic development commission shall have the following powers and duties: (1) The Economic Development Commission (EDC) is an advisory body to the City Council and the Economic Development Authority charged with the responsibility of researching, reviewing, and making recommendations on issues related to economic development. The EDC will review ways in which the city can expand existing businesses, attract desirable new business, and revitalize existing businesses and the community as a whole. (2) The goals shall consist of developing a strategic plan for economic development for the city, including long-range strategies for economic development. The commissioners will recommend economic development policies and programs to the City Council and work with the City Council and staff to promote the city, work to retain businesses in the community, attract economic growth and development, and advocate as well as be liaisons for all challenges that face the businesses in the City of 2 Chanhassen. The EDC will work to compliment the city’s long term planning and financial documents including the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Vision Plan. (e) Reports. The commission will produce an annual report for the City Council detailing the community development activities of the past year. The report also provides a summary of residential and commercial construction activities and outlines the progress that has been made toward achieving the goals of all strategic plans. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of June, 2019 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor (Ordinance XXX published in the Chanhassen Villager on ) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Building Permit Data as of 06­06­2019 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.1. Prepared By File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Building Permit Data 06­06­2019 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Review of Claims Paid 06­10­2019 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.2. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  SUMMARY The following claims are submitted for review on June 10, 2019: Check Numbers Amounts 170870 – 170935 $130,348.99 ACH Payments $181,017.90 Total All Claims $311,366.89 ATTACHMENTS: Check Summary Check Summary ACH Check Detail Check Detail ACH Accounts Payable User: Printed: dwashburn 5/31/2019 12:54 PM Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount AARP AARP 05/23/2019 0.00 170.00170870 AMETIR AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC 05/23/2019 0.00 487.16170871 ARTHOM ARTCRAFT HOMES INC 05/23/2019 0.00 3,450.00170872 BCATRA BCA 05/23/2019 0.00 330.00170873 BERCOF BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 05/23/2019 0.00 584.27170874 BORSTA BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 05/23/2019 0.00 62.10170875 BRYROC BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC 05/23/2019 0.00 1,765.53170876 CARLIC CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 05/23/2019 0.00 4,888.65170877 CENENE CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 05/23/2019 0.00 549.94170878 CenLin CenturyLink 05/23/2019 0.00 58.83170879 CLACCO CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 05/23/2019 0.00 607.00170880 COMASP Commercial Asphalt Co 05/23/2019 0.00 227.16170881 CORMAI CORE & MAIN LP 05/23/2019 0.00 5,289.90170882 CUBFOO CUB FOODS 05/23/2019 0.00 13.94170883 CUSFIR CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC 05/23/2019 0.00 48.94170884 FLOCON Flow Control Automation LLC 05/23/2019 0.00 2,294.00170885 GloEqu Global Equipment Company 05/23/2019 0.00 241.95170886 GRELAK GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION LLC05/23/2019 0.00 557.40170887 hach Hach Company 05/23/2019 0.00 531.75170888 HEALSTEV Steve Healy 05/23/2019 0.00 102.00170889 ICMART ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 05/23/2019 0.00 1,466.67170890 KODMOO Kodru-Mooney 05/23/2019 0.00 2,887.20170891 KUBIDEB DEB KUBISIAK 05/23/2019 0.00 125.00170892 KUSCON KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 05/23/2019 0.00 61,286.40170893 MARTBRET BRETT MARTINSON 05/23/2019 0.00 88.55170894 METAIR METRO AIR HEATING & COOLING 05/23/2019 0.00 25.00170895 MEUWKIM KIM MEUWISSEN 05/23/2019 0.00 109.04170896 MINAIR MINNESOTA AIR 05/23/2019 0.00 1,206.04170897 MNAGR MINNESOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 05/23/2019 0.00 77.00170898 MINROA Minnesota Roadways Co 05/23/2019 0.00 385.50170899 MNHEAL MN DEPT OF HEALTH 05/23/2019 0.00 13,252.00170900 MNFIRE MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD05/23/2019 0.00 1,120.00170901 MNIAAI1 MNIAAI 05/23/2019 0.00 250.00170902 ONSMED On-Site Medical Services Inc 05/23/2019 0.00 540.00170903 RAITRE RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 05/23/2019 0.00 640.00170904 RamsJack Jackie Ramsay 05/23/2019 0.00 100.00170905 REMFBRID Bridget Remfert 05/23/2019 0.00 49.00170906 RUEGJERR JERRY RUEGEMER 05/23/2019 0.00 200.00170907 SHATOW SHAKOPEE TOWING INC 05/23/2019 0.00 222.50170908 SpeEnv Specialized Environmental Technologies Inc 05/23/2019 0.00 451.00170909 STPSTA ST PAUL STAMP WORKS 05/23/2019 0.00 77.55170910 TayEle Taylor Electric Company, LLC 05/23/2019 0.00 8,130.00170911 TheMus The Mustard Seed, Inc.05/23/2019 0.00 186.92170912 TheOth The Other Side 05/23/2019 0.00 485.00170913 WINGRICH RICHARD WING 05/23/2019 0.00 100.00170914 ALLRSHEI SHEILA ALLRICH 05/30/2019 0.00 136.95170915 BCATRA BCA 05/30/2019 0.00 105.00170916 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (5/31/2019 12:54 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount BRITDEBB Debbie Britt 05/30/2019 0.00 50.00170917 BYWOO BY THE WOODS 05/30/2019 0.00 250.00170918 CORMAI CORE & MAIN LP 05/30/2019 0.00 181.38170919 EPIEVE EPIC EVENT RENTAL 05/30/2019 0.00 1,049.25170920 FESSOU FESTIVAL SOUND AND LIGHTING 05/30/2019 0.00 500.00170921 FIREINS Fire Instruction & Rescue Education 05/30/2019 0.00 480.00170922 GRABAR GRAYBAR 05/30/2019 0.00 459.44170923 HenPro Henning Professional Services, Inc 05/30/2019 0.00 3,724.16170924 HERLAN HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 05/30/2019 0.00 75.00170925 IMOCON IMO Consulting Group Inc 05/30/2019 0.00 4,607.50170926 LANSALAN ALAN LANGSETH 05/30/2019 0.00 408.00170927 MCFOA MCFOA 05/30/2019 0.00 45.00170928 PEREMAIS Ma Isabel Perez Zauaia 05/30/2019 0.00 250.00170929 POST POSTMASTER 05/30/2019 0.00 653.62170930 SANDCHRI CHRIS SANDBERG 05/30/2019 0.00 160.00170931 TARPS TARPS INC 05/30/2019 0.00 134.50170932 TAYLAMBE Amber Taylor 05/30/2019 0.00 125.00170933 VIBTEC VIBRANT TECHNOLOGIES INC 05/30/2019 0.00 210.00170934 WILSCO Williams Scotsman Inc 05/30/2019 0.00 1,023.30170935 Report Total (66 checks): 130,348.99 0.00 Page 2AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (5/31/2019 12:54 PM) Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Summary by Check User: dwashburn Printed: 6/3/2019 8:38 AM Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH Z-AMAZON Amazon 05/16/2019 0.00 2,078.23 ACH Z-AMECAR American Carnival Mart 05/16/2019 0.00 247.50 ACH Z-AMEPLA American Planning Association 05/16/2019 0.00 539.00 ACH Z-AMEPUB American Public Works Association 05/16/2019 0.00 149.50 ACH Z-APPLE Apple.com 05/16/2019 0.00 32.18 ACH Z-AREHOT Ares Hotels and Tickets 05/16/2019 0.00 23.00 ACH Z-BATPLU Batteries Plus 05/16/2019 0.00 310.84 ACH Z-BELMUS Bell Museum 05/16/2019 0.00 630.00 ACH Z-CAFTHY Cafe Thyme 05/16/2019 0.00 147.22 ACH Z-COSTCO Costco Wholesale 05/16/2019 0.00 86.92 ACH Z-CUBFOO Cub Foods 05/16/2019 0.00 103.03 ACH Z-DUNCRA Duncraft 05/16/2019 0.00 53.85 ACH Z-ENAELE Enabling Elements Inc 05/16/2019 0.00 40.00 ACH Z-Etsy Etsy 05/16/2019 0.00 61.75 ACH Z-EVEBRI Eventbrite 05/16/2019 0.00 125.00 ACH Z-FIRSMA Fire Smart Promotions 05/16/2019 0.00 294.00 ACH Z-FIRTRA Fire Training Resources 05/16/2019 0.00 295.00 ACH Z-FIRPEN FIREPENNY 05/16/2019 0.00 192.74 ACH Z-FUNEXP Fun Express LLC 05/16/2019 0.00 380.42 ACH Z-GRAVIE Grand View Lodge 05/16/2019 0.00 473.88 ACH Z-HACCOM Hach Company 05/16/2019 0.00 609.22 ACH Z-HALCOM Hallock Company 05/16/2019 0.00 159.69 ACH Z-HAURAC Hautelook Rack 05/16/2019 0.00 -62.97 ACH Z-HOMDEP Home Depot 05/16/2019 0.00 1,079.82 ACH Z-KAISUS Kai's Sushi & Grill 05/16/2019 0.00 34.00 ACH Z-KWITRI Kwik Trip 05/16/2019 0.00 10.74 ACH Z-LUNBYE Lunds & Byerly's 05/16/2019 0.00 45.97 ACH Z-MACKEN Mackenthun's 05/16/2019 0.00 25.74 ACH Z-MCMCAR McMaster-Carr 05/16/2019 0.00 83.71 ACH Z-MENARD Menards 05/16/2019 0.00 110.92 ACH Z-MILFLE Mills Fleet Farm 05/16/2019 0.00 183.82 ACH Z-MNSTA Minnesota State Colleges and Universities 05/16/2019 0.00 400.00 ACH Z-MNAWWA MN American Water Works Association 05/16/2019 0.00 255.00 ACH Z-MNREC MN Recreation and Park Association 05/16/2019 0.00 1,360.00 ACH Z-MYBIND MyBinding.com 05/16/2019 0.00 168.62 ACH Z-NORTOO Northern Tool+Equipment 05/16/2019 0.00 22.54 ACH Z-OFFMAX Office Max/Office Depot 05/16/2019 0.00 53.53 ACH Z-PARCIT Party City 05/16/2019 0.00 16.94 ACH Z-PAYPAL PayPal 05/16/2019 0.00 110.00 ACH Z-PIZZAI Pizzaioli 05/16/2019 0.00 62.88 ACH Z-POTBEL Potbelly Sandwich Shop 05/16/2019 0.00 120.30 ACH Z-PRODYN ProFlow Dynamics 05/16/2019 0.00 32.91 ACH Z-REVDAN Revolution Dancewear 05/16/2019 0.00 160.90 ACH Z-ROTCLU Rotary Club 05/16/2019 0.00 106.00 ACH Z-SENLAN Sensible Land Use Coalition 05/16/2019 0.00 69.00 Page 1 of 3 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH Z-SHAFIL ShareFile 05/16/2019 0.00 526.50 ACH Z-SOLWIN Solarwinds 05/16/2019 0.00 454.79 ACH Z-TARGET Target 05/16/2019 0.00 97.56 ACH Z-TESSCO Tessco 05/16/2019 0.00 1,006.92 ACH Z-UOFM U of M Contlearning 05/16/2019 0.00 230.00 ACH Z-UFCFAR UFC Farm Supply 05/16/2019 0.00 242.83 ACH Z-ULINE Uline.com 05/16/2019 0.00 96.51 ACH Z-USABLU USABlueBook 05/16/2019 0.00 239.48 ACH Z-VANGRI Vandy's Grille 05/16/2019 0.00 16.75 ACH Z-WALGRE Walgreens 05/16/2019 0.00 21.46 ACH Z-WWGRAI WW Grainger 05/16/2019 0.00 59.64 ACH Z-ZORO Zoro 05/16/2019 0.00 743.31 ACH 3DSPE 3D SPECIALTIES 05/23/2019 0.00 337.94 ACH AdvEng Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 05/23/2019 0.00 16,950.84 ACH AMEENG AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING 05/23/2019 0.00 22,150.09 ACH GiveSeth Cavalier Productions LLC 05/23/2019 0.00 850.00 ACH CRYINF Crystal Infosystems LLC 05/23/2019 0.00 146.28 ACH DALCO DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC. 05/23/2019 0.00 169.06 ACH DELDEN Delta Dental 05/23/2019 0.00 2,619.60 ACH EMEAUT EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 05/23/2019 0.00 85.05 ACH FASCOM FASTENAL COMPANY 05/23/2019 0.00 18.22 ACH Avesis Fidelity Security Life 05/23/2019 0.00 192.96 ACH FORAME FORCE AMERICA INC 05/23/2019 0.00 92.49 ACH GENPAR GENERAL PARTS LLC 05/23/2019 0.00 586.14 ACH GSDIR GS DIRECT INC 05/23/2019 0.00 92.65 ACH IndPla Indelco Plastics Corporation 05/23/2019 0.00 54.35 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 05/23/2019 0.00 24.99 ACH JasEng Jasper Engineering & Equipment Co 05/23/2019 0.00 4,495.00 ACH BENSKAYE KAYE L BENSON 05/23/2019 0.00 588.00 ACH KIMHOR KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 05/23/2019 0.00 604.20 ACH MinEqu Minnesota Equipment 05/23/2019 0.00 1,081.99 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 05/23/2019 0.00 99.04 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 05/23/2019 0.00 101.78 ACH PINPRO Pine Products Inc 05/23/2019 0.00 495.00 ACH PreWat Premium Waters, Inc 05/23/2019 0.00 11.30 ACH RBMSER RBM SERVICES INC 05/23/2019 0.00 6,849.00 ACH SafFas Safe-Fast, Inc. 05/23/2019 0.00 288.49 ACH STRGUA STRATOGUARD LLC 05/23/2019 0.00 163.20 ACH SunLif Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 0.00 1,490.18 ACH Uhlcom UHL Company Inc 05/23/2019 0.00 609.00 ACH UniFar United Farmers Cooperative 05/23/2019 0.00 179.99 ACH UNIWAY UNITED WAY 05/23/2019 0.00 29.40 ACH WATSON WATSON COMPANY 05/23/2019 0.00 1,043.73 ACH WENCK WENCK ASSOCIATES INC 05/23/2019 0.00 3,385.80 ACH WilsDev Wilson Development Services LLC 05/23/2019 0.00 1,503.80 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 05/23/2019 0.00 1,722.30 ACH WWGOE WW GOETSCH ASSOCIATES INC 05/23/2019 0.00 2,005.86 ACH WWGRA WW GRAINGER INC 05/23/2019 0.00 900.60 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 0.00 8,417.32 ACH ZEEMED ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 05/23/2019 0.00 48.90 ACH ZIEGLE ZIEGLER INC 05/23/2019 0.00 5.82 ACH AFLAC American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 05/30/2019 0.00 39.78 ACH ColLif Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 05/30/2019 0.00 134.58 ACH CRYINF Crystal Infosystems LLC 05/30/2019 0.00 103.00 ACH FergEnte Ferguson Waterworks #2516 05/30/2019 0.00 242.48 Page 2 of 3 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH STICGREG GREG STICHA 05/30/2019 0.00 121.61 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 05/30/2019 0.00 492.59 ACH MESKRA MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A. 05/30/2019 0.00 3,800.00 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 05/30/2019 0.00 135.54 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 05/30/2019 0.00 185.41 ACH PinPro Pine Products Inc 05/30/2019 0.00 990.00 ACH PotMN Potentia MN Solar 05/30/2019 0.00 7,101.47 ACH ProTec Pro-Tec Design, Inc. 05/30/2019 0.00 16,498.67 ACH SafVeh Safety Vehicle Solutions 05/30/2019 0.00 2,763.00 ACH STEMAN Stepp Manufacturing 05/30/2019 0.00 36,935.00 ACH MINCON SUMMIT COMPANIES 05/30/2019 0.00 2,055.00 ACH VERIZO VERIZON WIRELESS 05/30/2019 0.00 40.01 ACH WATSON WATSON COMPANY 05/30/2019 0.00 382.61 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 0.00 13,287.70 Report Total: 0.00 181,017.90 Page 3 of 3 Accounts Payable Check Detail-Checks User: dwashburn Printed: 05/31/2019 - 12:56 PM Name Check D Account Description Amount AARP 05/23/2019 101-1560-4300 Driver Safety - 4 hr refresher course 170.00 AARP 170.00 ALLRICH SHEILA 05/30/2019 720-7202-4300 Materials for constructing park bench from Home Dept 136.95 ALLRICH SHEILA 136.95 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC 05/23/2019 101-1320-4120 135/133J Iron I-109 Regional A/P 487.16 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC 487.16 ARTCRAFT HOMES INC 05/23/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 691 Carver Beach Rd 3,450.00 ARTCRAFT HOMES INC 3,450.00 BCA 05/23/2019 101-1120-4300 Background Investigation 330.00 BCA 05/30/2019 101-1120-4300 Background Investigation 105.00 BCA 435.00 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 05/23/2019 101-1170-4110 Coffee 584.27 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY 584.27 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 05/23/2019 101-1220-4510 Lamps 48.60 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 05/23/2019 101-1190-4510 Knock Out Blank, Straps, Elect Tape 13.50 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 62.10 Britt Debbie 05/30/2019 101-0000-2021 Refund - Kindergarten Graduation - Weather rain out 3.43 Britt Debbie 05/30/2019 101-1541-3634 Refund - Kindergarten Graduation - Weather rain out 46.57 Britt Debbie 50.00 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC 05/23/2019 101-1550-4150 Red Ball Dia 1,765.53 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC 1,765.53 BY THE WOODS 05/30/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 9221 Lake Riley Blvd 250.00 BY THE WOODS 250.00 CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 05/23/2019 400-0000-4704 License & Registration - #424 3BPPHM7X4LF592753 4,888.65 CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 4,888.65 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (05/31/2019 - 12:56 PM)Page 1 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 05/23/2019 101-1220-4320 gas charges 331.45 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 05/23/2019 101-1530-4320 gas charges 177.46 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 05/23/2019 101-1120-4320 gas charges 41.03 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 549.94 CenturyLink 05/23/2019 700-7043-4310 monthly service 58.83 CenturyLink 58.83 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 05/23/2019 101-1320-4240 Gloves 25.50 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 05/23/2019 701-0000-4240 Safety Pants, Shirts, Gloves 196.62 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 05/23/2019 700-0000-4240 Safety Pants, Shirts, Gloves 196.61 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 05/23/2019 101-1320-4240 Leg Gaiters, Safety Pants, Gloves 188.27 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 607.00 Commercial Asphalt Co 05/23/2019 420-0000-4751 9.5MM Rec Wear 227.16 Commercial Asphalt Co 227.16 CORE & MAIN LP 05/23/2019 700-0000-4550 Cap, Pipe, Gasket 186.33 CORE & MAIN LP 05/23/2019 700-0000-4550 Gasket 5.00 CORE & MAIN LP 05/23/2019 700-0000-4550 Gaskets 48.40 CORE & MAIN LP 05/23/2019 700-0000-4550 Triview Blue Test 176.84 CORE & MAIN LP 05/23/2019 700-0000-4550 12" WB67 HYD EXT F/5 676.23 CORE & MAIN LP 05/23/2019 700-0000-4550 Brackets, Anode, Test Station 2,221.08 CORE & MAIN LP 05/23/2019 700-0000-4550 12" HYD EXT MUELLER w/Kit 846.97 CORE & MAIN LP 05/23/2019 700-0000-4550 Hose Nozzle, O-Ring 223.85 CORE & MAIN LP 05/23/2019 700-0000-4550 Remote Wire, Pipe, Gasket, Straps, Bolt & Nut 905.20 CORE & MAIN LP 05/30/2019 101-1550-4150 Wilkins P/Relief Valve 181.38 CORE & MAIN LP 5,471.28 CUB FOODS 05/23/2019 101-1220-4290 Trash Bags 13.94 CUB FOODS 13.94 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC 05/23/2019 101-1220-4120 Hale seal ring, Hale scraper 48.94 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC 48.94 EPIC EVENT RENTAL 05/30/2019 101-1600-4130 Chairs - Red, White and Blue / service 5/24/19 to 5/28/19 1,049.25 EPIC EVENT RENTAL 1,049.25 FESTIVAL SOUND AND LIGHTING 05/30/2019 101-1600-4300 Audio equipment:Sound System - Memorial Day 500.00 FESTIVAL SOUND AND LIGHTING 500.00 Fire Instruction & Rescue Education 05/30/2019 101-1220-4370 Apr-May 2019SW Metro Fire Academy-Foote,Gisch,Kley, Skogen 480.00 Fire Instruction & Rescue Education 480.00 Flow Control Automation LLC 05/23/2019 701-0000-4551 2" NPT Female H-Tec Model 986-SST Combination Air Valve 2,294.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (05/31/2019 - 12:56 PM)Page 2 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount Flow Control Automation LLC 2,294.00 Global Equipment Company 05/23/2019 700-0000-4120 Hanging Clamps, Pivot Mobile Rack 241.95 Global Equipment Company 241.95 GRAYBAR 05/30/2019 101-1350-4565 Ballast Kit 402.01 GRAYBAR 05/30/2019 101-1350-4565 Ballast Kit 57.43 GRAYBAR 459.44 GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION LLC05/23/2019 101-1540-4130 Drinks for Lake Ann concessions 557.40 GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION LLC 557.40 Hach Company 05/23/2019 700-7043-4530 parts/supplies 531.75 Hach Company 531.75 Healy Steve 05/23/2019 101-1766-4130 Adult Summer Softball Umpire - 5/2/19 102.00 Healy Steve 102.00 Henning Professional Services, Inc 05/30/2019 605-6501-4300 Proj TH 101 from CSAH 61 to CSAH 14 - svc through April 2019 3,724.16 Henning Professional Services, Inc 3,724.16 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 05/30/2019 101-1320-4150 Yd Pulverized Dirt 75.00 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 75.00 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 05/23/2019 101-0000-2009 5/24/2019 ID #304303 1,135.41 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 05/23/2019 210-0000-2009 5/24/2019 ID #304303 25.01 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 05/23/2019 700-0000-2009 5/24/2019 ID #304303 154.37 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 05/23/2019 701-0000-2009 5/24/2019 ID #304303 150.63 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 05/23/2019 720-0000-2009 5/24/2019 ID #304303 1.25 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 1,466.67 IMO Consulting Group Inc 05/30/2019 601-6044-4751 P03701-19-04 service period 3/31/19 to 4/27/19 4,607.50 IMO Consulting Group Inc 4,607.50 Kodru-Mooney 05/23/2019 700-7019-4530 4" and 8" Bore Pratt DuraCyl Repair Kit 2,887.20 Kodru-Mooney 2,887.20 KUBISIAK DEB 05/23/2019 101-0000-2021 Refund Kubisiak/Bermudez Wedding - picnic 8.59 KUBISIAK DEB 05/23/2019 101-1541-3634 Refund Kubisiak/Bermudez Wedding - picnic 116.41 KUBISIAK DEB 125.00 KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 05/23/2019 720-7025-4751 Ithilien Pond Maintenance 61,286.40 KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 61,286.40 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (05/31/2019 - 12:56 PM)Page 3 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount LANGSETH ALAN 05/30/2019 101-1766-4300 Adult Softball Umpire - 16 games 408.00 LANGSETH ALAN 408.00 MARTINSON BRETT 05/23/2019 701-0000-4551 10 Stranded THHN Green Wire 88.55 MARTINSON BRETT 88.55 MCFOA 05/30/2019 101-1120-4370 6/18/19 Region IV Training - A Lundell 25.00 MCFOA 05/30/2019 101-1120-4370 6/18/19 Region IV Training - K Meuwissen 20.00 MCFOA 45.00 METRO AIR HEATING & COOLING 05/23/2019 101-0000-2033 Overpayment on permit# 2019-01133 25.00 METRO AIR HEATING & COOLING 25.00 MEUWISSEN KIM 05/23/2019 101-1120-4370 Mileage to MCFOA MMCI Year 3 Training in St Cloud 85.26 MEUWISSEN KIM 05/23/2019 101-1120-4370 Mileage to Hennepin Cty Elections OmniBallot Election Equip Demo 23.78 MEUWISSEN KIM 109.04 MINNESOTA AIR 05/23/2019 101-1220-4530 Repair Roof Top Unit #1 96.65 MINNESOTA AIR 05/23/2019 101-1220-4530 Repair Roof Top Unit #1 1,109.39 MINNESOTA AIR 1,206.04 MINNESOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 05/23/2019 101-1540-4300 7/1/19-6/30/20 Lake Ann Concession Stand Food License 77.00 MINNESOTA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 77.00 Minnesota Roadways Co 05/23/2019 420-0000-4751 CSS-1H Asphalt Emulsion 385.50 Minnesota Roadways Co 385.50 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 05/23/2019 700-0000-4509 Water Supply Service Connection Fee 4/1/19-6/30/19 13,252.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 13,252.00 MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD 05/23/2019 101-1220-4300 4/25/19 Certification Exam/Haz Mat - Foote, Gisch, Kley, Skogen 1,120.00 MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD 1,120.00 MNIAAI 05/23/2019 101-1220-4370 Expert Witness Testimony class 250.00 MNIAAI 250.00 On-Site Medical Services Inc 05/23/2019 700-0000-4150 Audiometric Examination - Hearing Testing 180.00 On-Site Medical Services Inc 05/23/2019 101-1320-4370 Audiometric Examination - Hearing Testing 180.00 On-Site Medical Services Inc 05/23/2019 101-1550-4300 Audiometric Examination - Hearing Testing 180.00 On-Site Medical Services Inc 540.00 Perez Zauaia Ma Isabel 05/30/2019 815-8202-2024 6291 Blue Jay Circle 250.00 Perez Zauaia Ma Isabel 250.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (05/31/2019 - 12:56 PM)Page 4 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount POSTMASTER 05/30/2019 700-0000-4330 May Utility Statement 326.81 POSTMASTER 05/30/2019 701-0000-4330 May Utility Statement 326.81 POSTMASTER 653.62 RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 05/23/2019 720-7202-4300 First of two sprays to Control Apple Scab 640.00 RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 640.00 Ramsay Jackie 05/23/2019 101-1534-4130 Reimburse for Dance for Fun banquet food 100.00 Ramsay Jackie 100.00 Remfert Bridget 05/23/2019 101-1807-3642 Refund Lil' Star T-Ball - Quinn 49.00 Remfert Bridget 49.00 RUEGEMER JERRY 05/23/2019 101-0000-1027 Start Up Money - Lake Ann Concession 200.00 RUEGEMER JERRY 200.00 SANDBERG CHRIS 05/30/2019 101-1320-4240 Reimburse Steel-Toe Work Boots 160.00 SANDBERG CHRIS 160.00 SHAKOPEE TOWING INC 05/23/2019 400-4135-4704 Towing service 222.50 SHAKOPEE TOWING INC 222.50 Specialized Environmental Technologies Inc 05/23/2019 101-1550-4150 Western Red Cedar Mulch 451.00 Specialized Environmental Technologies Inc 451.00 ST PAUL STAMP WORKS 05/23/2019 101-1170-4110 Stamp for Fire Dept 77.55 ST PAUL STAMP WORKS 77.55 TARPS INC 05/30/2019 101-1550-4150 Dug Out Cover Repair 134.50 TARPS INC 134.50 Taylor Amber 05/30/2019 101-0000-2021 Refund - Bridal Shower - Weather rain out 8.59 Taylor Amber 05/30/2019 101-1541-3634 Refund - Bridal Shower - Weather rain out 116.41 Taylor Amber 125.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 05/23/2019 101-1350-4565 Repair street lighting on Park Rd, Audubon Rd, Coulter Blvd, GP 4,730.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 05/23/2019 701-0000-4551 Remove and replace wood pole for electrical svc at LS #4 3,400.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 8,130.00 The Mustard Seed, Inc.05/23/2019 101-1550-4150 Annual flowers, potting soil 186.92 The Mustard Seed, Inc. 186.92 The Other Side 05/23/2019 700-7019-4150 5/22/18 Lawn Fertilizer Application 485.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (05/31/2019 - 12:56 PM)Page 5 of 6 Name Check D Account Description Amount The Other Side 485.00 VIBRANT TECHNOLOGIES INC 05/30/2019 101-1160-4530 Replacement Disk Drive - CBS3 210.00 VIBRANT TECHNOLOGIES INC 210.00 Williams Scotsman Inc 05/30/2019 101-1617-4410 Final Rent - 3/12/19 to 3/18/19 330.50 Williams Scotsman Inc 05/30/2019 101-1617-4410 Final Rent - 3/12/19 to 3/18/19 330.50 Williams Scotsman Inc 05/30/2019 101-1617-4410 Final Rent - 3/12/19 to 3/18/19 362.30 Williams Scotsman Inc 1,023.30 WING RICHARD 05/23/2019 101-1220-4350 Station 2 cleaning 100.00 WING RICHARD 100.00 130,348.99 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (05/31/2019 - 12:56 PM)Page 6 of 6 Accounts Payable Check Detail-ACH User: dwashburn Printed: 06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM Name Check D Account Description Amount 3D SPECIALTIES 05/23/2019 101-1320-4240 Pullovers 337.94 3D SPECIALTIES 337.94 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 05/23/2019 700-7050-4705 2019 SCADA Services Equipment - svc through 12/29/18-2/1/19 842.66 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 05/23/2019 700-7050-4705 West WTP Filter Eff. Valves - svc through 12/29/18-2/1/19 267.00 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 05/23/2019 700-0000-4300 2019 SCADA Services - svc through 12/29/18-2/1/19 557.00 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 05/23/2019 700-7050-4705 2019 SCADA Services - svc through 2/2/19 to 3/1/19 3,657.00 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 05/23/2019 700-0000-4300 2019 SCADA Services - svc through 3/2/19 to 3/29/19 1,285.50 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 05/23/2019 700-0000-4300 2019 SCADA Services - svc through 3/30/19 to 5/3/19 1,306.68 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 05/23/2019 700-7050-4705 West WTP Control Scheme - svc through 3/30/19 to 5/3/19 9,035.00 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 16,950.84 Amazon 05/16/2019 101-1220-4290 Label Holders 14.48 Amazon 05/16/2019 101-1550-4140 GM Stepper Motors for Instrument Gauge 14.98 Amazon 05/16/2019 400-4126-4703 Keyboard/Mouse combo from new PCs 174.06 Amazon 05/16/2019 400-4126-4703 New Hard Drive - Steve F PC 79.99 Amazon 05/16/2019 400-4126-4703 Replacement Speakers for PCs 99.08 Amazon 05/16/2019 400-4126-4703 Spare phone charges for Samsung 29.97 Amazon 05/16/2019 101-1160-4530 Replacement Phone Case - Charlie Chicos 27.94 Amazon 05/16/2019 101-1801-4130 youth lacrosse balls for after school 32.19 Amazon 05/16/2019 101-1530-4150 Janitor supplies - rag towels 16.10 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-7043-4120 Replacement Filters 125.82 Amazon 05/16/2019 701-0000-4240 Hard Hat 22.09 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-0000-4240 Hard Hat 22.09 Amazon 05/16/2019 701-0000-4240 Safety Vests 101.94 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-0000-4240 Safety Vests 101.94 Amazon 05/16/2019 701-0000-4150 Batteries 82.89 Amazon 05/16/2019 701-0000-4240 Safety Glasses 26.85 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-0000-4240 Safety Glasses 26.85 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-0000-4240 Safety Glasses 5.98 Amazon 05/16/2019 701-0000-4240 Safety Glasses 5.97 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-0000-4310 Charging Station Dock 35.49 Amazon 05/16/2019 701-0000-4240 Safety Glasses 42.20 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-0000-4240 Safety Glasses 42.20 Amazon 05/16/2019 701-0000-4240 Grip Gloves 24.98 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-0000-4240 Grip Gloves 24.97 Amazon 05/16/2019 701-0000-4240 Work Gloves 39.50 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-0000-4240 Work Gloves 39.50 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-0000-4240 Nitrile Gloves 132.45 Amazon 05/16/2019 701-0000-4240 Nitrile Gloves 132.45 Amazon 05/16/2019 700-0000-4550 Brass Street Tee 25.18 Amazon 05/16/2019 701-0000-4150 Winch Rope 68.44 Amazon 05/16/2019 720-7202-4300 Tree Watering Bag 349.73 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 1 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount Amazon 05/16/2019 400-4126-4703 Cat 6 Patch cables, Cameras 72.98 Amazon 05/16/2019 101-1170-4110 Retractable ID Badge Reels, Stylus Pens 36.95 Amazon 2,078.23 American Carnival Mart 05/16/2019 101-1612-4130 Candy Filled Easter eggs 247.50 American Carnival Mart 247.50 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING 05/23/2019 605-6501-4300 Proj# 01-20255, TH101 Improvements, Geotechnical Services 22,150.09 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING 22,150.09 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus05/30/2019 101-0000-2008 May 2019 premium 39.78 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 39.78 American Planning Association 05/16/2019 101-1420-4360 APA and AICP membership and MN Chapter - R Generous 539.00 American Planning Association 539.00 American Public Works Association 05/16/2019 101-1310-4360 Membership - Jason Wedel 149.50 American Public Works Association 149.50 Apple.com 05/16/2019 400-4126-4703 Bluebeam Revu for iPad 32.18 Apple.com 32.18 Ares Hotels and Tickets 05/16/2019 101-1420-4370 Transportation to APA conference - K Aanenson 23.00 Ares Hotels and Tickets 23.00 Batteries Plus 05/16/2019 700-0000-4530 Batteries 114.95 Batteries Plus 05/16/2019 101-1160-4530 Server room UPS Replacement Batteries 135.92 Batteries Plus 05/16/2019 700-7043-4530 Batteries 59.97 Batteries Plus 310.84 Bell Museum 05/16/2019 101-1560-4300 Gallery tour tickets 630.00 Bell Museum 630.00 BENSON KAYE L 05/23/2019 101-1539-4300 Fit for Life Instructor 588.00 BENSON KAYE L 588.00 Cafe Thyme 05/16/2019 101-1410-4370 Planning Commission Work Session meal 147.22 Cafe Thyme 147.22 Cavalier Productions LLC 05/23/2019 101-1534-4300 Recital Video 850.00 Cavalier Productions LLC 850.00 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 05/30/2019 101-0000-2008 May 2019 premium 60.72 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 05/30/2019 700-0000-2008 May 2019 premium 36.93 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 2 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 05/30/2019 701-0000-2008 May 2019 premium 36.93 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 134.58 Costco Wholesale 05/16/2019 101-1110-4370 City Council meal supplies - Napkins, Plates 44.48 Costco Wholesale 05/16/2019 101-1170-4110 Office supplies - tissues, coffee creamer 42.44 Costco Wholesale 86.92 Crystal Infosystems LLC 05/23/2019 101-1170-4110 Toner for Senior Center Printer 146.28 Crystal Infosystems LLC 05/30/2019 101-1170-4110 Toner for Parks Printer 103.00 Crystal Infosystems LLC 249.28 Cub Foods 05/16/2019 700-7019-4150 Water, Paper Towels 55.44 Cub Foods 05/16/2019 101-1560-4130 Grapes, Danishes, Candles 28.40 Cub Foods 05/16/2019 101-1530-4130 coffee filters for lobby 3.84 Cub Foods 05/16/2019 700-7043-4150 Water, Plates 15.35 Cub Foods 103.03 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.05/23/2019 101-1370-4150 General Purpose Cleaner 169.06 DALCO ENTERPRISES, INC. 169.06 Delta Dental 05/23/2019 101-0000-2013 June insurance premium 1,832.88 Delta Dental 05/23/2019 101-0000-2013 June insurance premium - Cobra 30.20 Delta Dental 05/23/2019 700-0000-2013 June insurance premium 280.32 Delta Dental 05/23/2019 701-0000-2013 June insurance premium 250.12 Delta Dental 05/23/2019 720-0000-2013 June insurance premium 226.08 Delta Dental 2,619.60 Duncraft 05/16/2019 720-7201-4130 Adopt a Park supplies - Chickadee House kit 53.85 Duncraft 53.85 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 05/23/2019 101-1550-4120 Replacement dome for frontier mini-lightbar 85.05 EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECH INC 85.05 Enabling Elements Inc 05/16/2019 700-0000-4310 1 GB Service, Activation 25.00 Enabling Elements Inc 05/16/2019 701-0000-4310 1 GB Service 15.00 Enabling Elements Inc 40.00 Etsy 05/16/2019 720-7201-4130 Adopt a Park supplies - Swallow nesting box 61.75 Etsy 61.75 Eventbrite 05/16/2019 101-1250-4370 4/25/19 MN State Building code and zoning class - J Heidelberger 125.00 Eventbrite 125.00 FASTENAL COMPANY 05/23/2019 601-6038-4705 Adhesive 2.39 FASTENAL COMPANY 05/23/2019 101-1320-4120 misc parts/supplies 10.74 FASTENAL COMPANY 05/23/2019 101-1320-4120 misc parts/supplies 5.09 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 3 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount FASTENAL COMPANY 18.22 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 05/30/2019 700-0000-4250 misc parts/supplies 242.48 Ferguson Waterworks #2516 242.48 Fidelity Security Life 05/23/2019 101-0000-2007 Vision insurance - June 2019 159.80 Fidelity Security Life 05/23/2019 700-0000-2007 Vision insurance - June 2019 18.82 Fidelity Security Life 05/23/2019 701-0000-2007 Vision insurance - June 2019 12.68 Fidelity Security Life 05/23/2019 720-0000-2007 Vision insurance - June 2019 1.66 Fidelity Security Life 192.96 Fire Smart Promotions 05/16/2019 101-1220-4375 Fire Helmets for kids 294.00 Fire Smart Promotions 294.00 Fire Training Resources 05/16/2019 101-1220-4370 Fire Scene Examiniation - Investigation training for Don Nutter 295.00 Fire Training Resources 295.00 FIREPENNY 05/16/2019 700-0000-4240 Rubber Hip boots 96.37 FIREPENNY 05/16/2019 701-0000-4240 Rubber Hip boots 96.37 FIREPENNY 192.74 FORCE AMERICA INC 05/23/2019 101-1550-4120 Seal kit, Adapter, Gauge 92.49 FORCE AMERICA INC 92.49 Fun Express LLC 05/16/2019 101-1612-4130 Easter supplies - bags, spin tops, tattoos, notepads, pencils 380.42 Fun Express LLC 380.42 GENERAL PARTS LLC 05/23/2019 101-1170-4530 Repair dishwasher-Vac repair kit, rinse heater gasket, supplies 586.14 GENERAL PARTS LLC 586.14 Grand View Lodge 05/16/2019 101-1120-4370 MCMA Conference hotel stay - T Gerhardt 220.46 Grand View Lodge 05/16/2019 101-1120-4370 MCMA Conference hotel stay - C Petersen 253.42 Grand View Lodge 473.88 GS DIRECT INC 05/23/2019 101-1170-4110 Cartridge 92.65 GS DIRECT INC 92.65 Hach Company 05/16/2019 700-7043-4150 Chemkey Reagents, Chlorine 609.22 Hach Company 609.22 Hallock Company 05/16/2019 701-0000-4551 115 Vac 159.69 Hallock Company 159.69 Hautelook Rack 05/16/2019 101-1320-4240 Personal purchase returned - C Burke -62.97 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 4 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount Hautelook Rack -62.97 Home Depot 05/16/2019 700-7019-4150 8ft strip board 1.23 Home Depot 05/16/2019 700-7019-4150 elbows, nipples, snap hooks, rope 58.30 Home Depot 05/16/2019 700-7019-4150 floor cleaner, nipples 20.88 Home Depot 05/16/2019 101-1220-4370 Training supplies - wire rope, clamps, pine board 157.34 Home Depot 05/16/2019 701-0000-4150 Cap, Plug, Fitting 4.47 Home Depot 05/16/2019 701-0000-4150 Concrete mix, Seal steel 9.40 Home Depot 05/16/2019 700-7043-4550 Pipes, Elbow, Adapter, Primer 33.75 Home Depot 05/16/2019 700-0000-4260 Work Light, Flood Lights, Extension Cord 427.26 Home Depot 05/16/2019 701-0000-4551 Adapter, Coupling, Bushing, Conduit, Locknut 13.07 Home Depot 05/16/2019 700-0000-4120 Wipes, Stretch wrap, Scraper, Handle 84.88 Home Depot 05/16/2019 101-1550-4120 Orange Safety Barrier Fence 257.44 Home Depot 05/16/2019 101-1550-4260 Cord storage reel w/stand 11.80 Home Depot 1,079.82 Indelco Plastics Corporation 05/23/2019 700-7019-4150 misc parts/supplies 54.35 Indelco Plastics Corporation 54.35 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 05/30/2019 101-1170-4110 Paper, Tape 218.94 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 05/30/2019 101-1170-4110 Paper, Tape 218.94 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 05/30/2019 101-1170-4110 Paper, Tape -218.94 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 05/30/2019 101-1170-4110 Labels 33.56 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 05/23/2019 101-1170-4110 Stamp 24.99 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 05/30/2019 101-1170-4110 Plates, Pens, Book 240.09 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 517.58 Jasper Engineering & Equipment Co 05/23/2019 700-0000-4550 Magnetic Flow Meter 10", Ring/Flange 4,495.00 Jasper Engineering & Equipment Co 4,495.00 Kai's Sushi & Grill 05/16/2019 101-1120-4370 Lunch meeting w/Denny L - T Gerhardt 34.00 Kai's Sushi & Grill 34.00 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 05/23/2019 720-0000-4300 Pleasantview Road - svc through 4/30/19 604.20 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 604.20 Kwik Trip 05/16/2019 101-1320-4120 Gas 10.74 Kwik Trip 10.74 Lunds & Byerly's 05/16/2019 101-1510-4370 Cake for Park and Rec meeting 26.99 Lunds & Byerly's 05/16/2019 101-1560-4300 Oranges, Cake for Conversation Club 18.98 Lunds & Byerly's 45.97 Mackenthun's 05/16/2019 720-7201-4130 Adapt a Park garbage bags 25.74 Mackenthun's 25.74 McMaster-Carr 05/16/2019 700-7043-4550 Pipe Fitting and Nipple 20.57 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 5 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount McMaster-Carr 05/16/2019 700-7043-4550 Pipe Fitting 25.40 McMaster-Carr 05/16/2019 700-7043-4550 Pipe Fitting 12.34 McMaster-Carr 05/16/2019 700-7043-4550 Pipe Fitting 25.40 McMaster-Carr 83.71 Menards 05/16/2019 700-7043-4550 Adapters 3.91 Menards 05/16/2019 101-1550-4260 Open Rel Fbr Gl 107.01 Menards 110.92 MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A.05/30/2019 603-6303-4300 June 2019 Retainer 3,800.00 MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A. 3,800.00 Mills Fleet Farm 05/16/2019 101-1550-4120 Draw pins, Emblem 27.87 Mills Fleet Farm 05/16/2019 701-0000-4240 Jeans, Boots, Shirt 77.98 Mills Fleet Farm 05/16/2019 700-0000-4240 Jeans, Boots, Shirt 77.97 Mills Fleet Farm 183.82 Minnesota Equipment 05/23/2019 101-1550-4120 Pressure Relief, O-Ring, Hose, Revolving Light 311.48 Minnesota Equipment 05/23/2019 101-1550-4120 O-Rings, Gasket, Pump, Filler Cap 904.84 Minnesota Equipment 05/23/2019 101-1550-4120 Bushing -134.33 Minnesota Equipment 1,081.99 Minnesota State Colleges and Universities 05/16/2019 101-1310-4370 Traffic Control Supervisor Re-certification E-Learning-S Ferraro 150.00 Minnesota State Colleges and Universities 05/16/2019 101-1220-4370 Modern Fire Attack class - R Rindahl and Bryan O'Keeffe 250.00 Minnesota State Colleges and Universities 400.00 MN American Water Works Association 05/16/2019 700-0000-4370 255.00 MN American Water Works Association 255.00 MN Recreation and Park Association 05/16/2019 101-1550-4370 Playground Safety Inspector Exam/Course - Jason K, JJ Wall 1,360.00 MN Recreation and Park Association 1,360.00 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 05/23/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 99.04 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 05/30/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 102.43 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 05/30/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 33.11 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 234.58 MyBinding.com 05/16/2019 101-1170-4110 Laminate roll 168.62 MyBinding.com 168.62 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 05/23/2019 101-1320-4120 Blades, Air and Oil Filters, Fuses 91.47 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 05/23/2019 101-1320-4120 Seal, Battery Cable Lugs, Blades -39.15 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 05/23/2019 101-1550-4120 Adapter Bearing 49.46 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 05/30/2019 101-1370-4120 Bearing 14.31 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 05/30/2019 101-1550-4140 Soft Hybrid 9.40 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 05/30/2019 101-1250-4140 Oil Filter 32.76 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 05/30/2019 101-1550-4120 Oil, Air and Fuel Filters, Blister Capsules 128.94 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 6 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 287.19 Northern Tool+Equipment 05/16/2019 101-1220-4290 Training supplies - Teflon Thread, Nipples, Reducer 22.54 Northern Tool+Equipment 22.54 Office Max/Office Depot 05/16/2019 101-1170-4110 Foam Board 16.13 Office Max/Office Depot 05/16/2019 700-7019-4530 USB cable 37.40 Office Max/Office Depot 53.53 Party City 05/16/2019 101-1560-4300 St Patrick's Day party - Decor, Tumblers 16.94 Party City 16.94 PayPal 05/16/2019 101-1160-4530 Electronicsignman-Ebay - Replacement wireless cabinet Daktronics 110.00 PayPal 110.00 Pine Products Inc 05/23/2019 101-1550-4150 Yards of Western Red Cedar Mulch 495.00 Pine Products Inc 05/30/2019 101-1550-4151 Yards of Western Red Cedar Mulch 495.00 Pine Products Inc 05/30/2019 101-1550-4150 Yards of Western Red Cedar Mulch 495.00 Pine Products Inc 1,485.00 Pizzaioli 05/16/2019 101-1220-4290 Extended Fire call - lunch time 62.88 Pizzaioli 62.88 Potbelly Sandwich Shop 05/16/2019 101-1110-4370 City Council dinner 120.30 Potbelly Sandwich Shop 120.30 Potentia MN Solar 05/30/2019 700-0000-4320 March 2019 1,559.34 Potentia MN Solar 05/30/2019 101-1190-4320 March 2019 3,101.78 Potentia MN Solar 05/30/2019 101-1170-4320 March 2019 2,440.35 Potentia MN Solar 7,101.47 Premium Waters, Inc 05/23/2019 101-1550-4120 Monthly charge 11.30 Premium Waters, Inc 11.30 ProFlow Dynamics 05/16/2019 700-7019-4150 Adapters, Coupler 32.91 ProFlow Dynamics 32.91 Pro-Tec Design, Inc.05/30/2019 700-7050-4705 Water Treatment Plant Camera Upgrade 10,930.56 Pro-Tec Design, Inc.05/30/2019 700-7050-4705 Water Treatment Plant Camera Upgrade 5,496.86 Pro-Tec Design, Inc.05/30/2019 101-1160-4300 Service Call - LL SE Door Alarm Notification 71.25 Pro-Tec Design, Inc. 16,498.67 RBM SERVICES INC 05/23/2019 101-1190-4350 Library - Nightly/Weekend Janitorial - June 2019 3,370.00 RBM SERVICES INC 05/23/2019 101-1170-4350 Nightly Janitorial - June 2019 3,479.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 7 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount RBM SERVICES INC 6,849.00 Revolution Dancewear 05/16/2019 101-1535-4130 Dance Costumes - footed tights 160.90 Revolution Dancewear 160.90 Rotary Club 05/16/2019 101-1520-4360 Monthly membership fee - T Hoffman 53.00 Rotary Club 05/16/2019 101-1120-4360 Monthly membership fee - T Gerhardt 53.00 Rotary Club 106.00 Safe-Fast, Inc.05/23/2019 101-1320-4240 Jacket, Vests, Hard Hat 91.12 Safe-Fast, Inc.05/23/2019 101-1320-4240 LED Barricade Light, Vests 197.37 Safe-Fast, Inc. 288.49 Safety Vehicle Solutions 05/30/2019 400-4135-4704 2019 Silverado - Siren System/Speaker, Lights 2,763.00 Safety Vehicle Solutions 2,763.00 Sensible Land Use Coalition 05/16/2019 101-1420-4370 Breakfast and Program - B Generous 69.00 Sensible Land Use Coalition 69.00 ShareFile 05/16/2019 101-1160-4300 ShareFile Service - Q2 526.50 ShareFile 526.50 Solarwinds 05/16/2019 101-1160-4220 Network Topology Mapper Renewal 454.79 Solarwinds 454.79 Stepp Manufacturing 05/30/2019 400-0000-4705 SBF200 Bottom Fired Kettle 36,935.00 Stepp Manufacturing 36,935.00 STICHA GREG 05/30/2019 101-1130-4370 Rides to Airport in MN and LA 121.61 STICHA GREG 121.61 STRATOGUARD LLC 05/23/2019 101-1160-4300 Proofpoint Email Filtering Svc - June 163.20 STRATOGUARD LLC 163.20 SUMMIT COMPANIES 05/30/2019 700-7019-4530 5 yr Internal Inspection-1 wet & 1 dry systems,replaced 2 gauges 2,055.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 2,055.00 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-0000-2011 Life insurance - June 2019 - Cobra 50.11 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1120-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 33.30 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1130-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 21.30 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1160-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 11.21 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1250-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 45.00 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1310-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 32.30 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1320-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 47.62 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1370-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 18.86 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 8 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1520-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 13.50 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1530-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 6.21 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1560-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 5.13 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1600-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 10.85 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1700-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 1.21 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1550-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 29.52 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1420-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 34.58 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1430-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 2.05 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 210-0000-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 7.90 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 720-7201-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 2.43 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 720-7202-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 2.43 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1170-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 3.51 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-1220-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 18.72 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 701-0000-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 31.95 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 700-0000-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 40.91 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 720-0000-4040 Life insurance - June 2019 16.65 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 101-0000-2011 Life insurance - June 2019 760.36 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 210-0000-2011 Life insurance - June 2019 6.29 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 700-0000-2011 Life insurance - June 2019 109.52 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 701-0000-2011 Life insurance - June 2019 109.52 Sun Life Financial 05/23/2019 720-0000-2011 Life insurance - June 2019 17.24 Sun Life Financial 1,490.18 Target 05/16/2019 101-1530-4150 Cleaning supplies 6.37 Target 05/16/2019 101-1550-4120 25 gallon totes 41.84 Target 05/16/2019 101-1550-4120 25 gallon tote, Utility Tubs 49.35 Target 97.56 Tessco 05/16/2019 701-0000-4551 Foam Heliax Cable 337.41 Tessco 05/16/2019 701-0000-4551 1/2" N Male Positive Stop AL4RPV 94.91 Tessco 05/16/2019 701-0000-4551 1/2" N Male Positive Stop AL4RPV, Foam Heliax Cable 574.60 Tessco 1,006.92 U of M Contlearning 05/16/2019 101-1550-4370 3/19-3/20 MN Shade Tree Short Course - D Koskela 230.00 U of M Contlearning 230.00 UFC Farm Supply 05/16/2019 101-1550-4260 misc parts/supplies 242.83 UFC Farm Supply 242.83 UHL Company Inc 05/23/2019 101-1190-4530 Library - Program changes on boiler 609.00 UHL Company Inc 609.00 Uline.com 05/16/2019 700-7043-4510 Ribbed Bollard Sleeve - Well House 3 96.51 Uline.com 96.51 United Farmers Cooperative 05/23/2019 101-1320-4240 Safety Toe Boots 179.99 United Farmers Cooperative 179.99 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 9 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount UNITED WAY 05/23/2019 101-0000-2006 PR Batch 00424.05.2019 United Way 29.40 UNITED WAY 29.40 USABlueBook 05/16/2019 701-0000-4150 Sanitizing Wipes 239.48 USABlueBook 239.48 Vandy's Grille 05/16/2019 101-1120-4370 Carver County Manager's meeting meal 16.75 Vandy's Grille 16.75 VERIZON WIRELESS 05/30/2019 101-1220-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 40.01 VERIZON WIRELESS 40.01 Walgreens 05/16/2019 101-1560-4130 Soap for dishwasher 21.46 Walgreens 21.46 WATSON COMPANY 05/23/2019 101-1540-4130 Lake Ann concession supplies 1,043.73 WATSON COMPANY 05/30/2019 101-1540-4130 Lake Ann concession supplies 382.61 WATSON COMPANY 1,426.34 WENCK ASSOCIATES INC 05/23/2019 720-0000-4300 Stormwater Ordinance Revisions - svc through 4/30/19 3,385.80 WENCK ASSOCIATES INC 3,385.80 Wilson Development Services LLC 05/23/2019 605-0000-4300 Professional Service - Andrea Carty 1,503.80 Wilson Development Services LLC 1,503.80 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 05/23/2019 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant - 1/4" Sand mix, 3/8" Fine Asph 242.19 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 05/23/2019 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant - 1/4" Fine Mix 807.50 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 05/23/2019 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant - 1/2" and 3/4" Blacktop 672.61 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 1,722.30 WW GOETSCH ASSOCIATES INC 05/23/2019 700-0000-4530 Pump w/ 115 Volt Motor 2,005.86 WW GOETSCH ASSOCIATES INC 2,005.86 WW Grainger 05/16/2019 700-7043-4550 misc parts/supplies 59.64 WW Grainger 59.64 WW GRAINGER INC 05/23/2019 101-1550-4150 Fountain Pump 900.60 WW GRAINGER INC 900.60 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 140.73 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 700-7019-4320 electricity charges 1,326.46 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 20.67 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 5.84 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 24.42 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 700-7043-4320 electricity charges 4,445.87 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 10 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 11.32 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 11.32 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 22.13 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 101-1600-4320 electricity charges -24.46 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges -21.57 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 2,583.67 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/23/2019 101-1600-4320 electricity charges 11.65 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 101-1120-4320 electricity charges -40.19 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 101-1600-4320 electricity charges -50.32 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 101-1170-4320 electricity charges -1,013.03 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 101-1190-4320 electricity charges -500.79 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 101-1220-4320 electricity charges 423.13 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 101-1370-4320 electricity charges 1,125.80 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 701-0000-4320 electricity charges 140.73 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 101-1540-4320 electricity charges 597.18 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 101-1600-4320 electricity charges -33.73 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 101-1550-4320 electricity charges -184.88 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 701-0000-4320 electricity charges 2,092.25 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 926.09 XCEL ENERGY INC 05/30/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 9,664.73 XCEL ENERGY INC 21,705.02 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 05/23/2019 101-1550-4300 misc medical supplies 48.90 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 48.90 ZIEGLER INC 05/23/2019 101-1320-4120 Key 5.82 ZIEGLER INC 5.82 Zoro 05/16/2019 700-0000-4550 Valve Air Release and Vac 743.31 Zoro 743.31 181,017.90 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/03/2019 - 8:47 AM)Page 11 of 11 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Municipal Legislative 2019 Legislative Session Report Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: J.3. Prepared By File No:  ATTACHMENTS: MLC 2019 Legislative Session Report CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 Subject Discuss Lighting System Efficiency Upgrades for Public Works, Library, and City Hall Section WORK SESSION ­ After Item No: L.1. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  BACKGROUND In February, the city looked into the cost benefit of switching to LED lighting in three public buildings – City Hall, the Library, and Public Works.The city's  account representative at Xcel Energy was contacted to discuss energy expenditures on lighting for the buildings.Xcel offered to do a free lighting audit to see where the city could save money by switching to LED lighting.In March, the Center for Energy and Environment sent a representative to perform audits on each of the buildings.Each fixture in every building was inventoried and any problem areas (lighting too dim, too bright, wrong location, etc) documented.One particular location, the teen reading area in the Library, is particularly dim and staff expressed a need to improve the lighting. Overall, the quantity and location of the lighting fixtures in the buildings were satisfactory.The representative said that the quality of lighting would improve with a switch from fluorescent to LED. The city received the results of the audit in April Separate reports were generated for each building.Information found in the analysis includes current energy use, annual utility cost for LED lights, and the estimated expense of the switch. Based on the three attached lighting system analysis reports, the recommended initial investment would be $86,845 and of that amount it is estimated that the city would receive $27,729 in rebates from Xcel Energy, bringing the initial total investment to just over $62,000. During the replacement, staff is also estimating some other small lighting improvements that may make sense as long as replacement LEDs are being installed. The total investment after rebates could be between $70,000­$80,000.  The improvements would result in a total annual estimated energy savings of around $23,000 per year, resulting in between a three­ to four­year payback. If the City Council wants to proceed with the initial investment of between $70,000­$80,000, staff would get bids from qualified contractors. Staff would recommend the improvements be paid for out of reserves from the Capital Equipment Replacement Fund. The majority of the cost savings would be seen in the city's General Fund with some small savings also realized in the city's Water & Sewer Funds. RECOMMENDATION Staff is looking for direction on whether to proceed with receiving bids from qualified contractors for the replacement of lights to LED lights at the Library, City Hall, and Public Works buildings. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectDiscuss Lighting System Efficiency Upgrades for Public Works, Library, and City HallSectionWORK SESSION ­ After Item No: L.1.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: BACKGROUNDIn February, the city looked into the cost benefit of switching to LED lighting in three public buildings – City Hall, theLibrary, and Public Works.The city's  account representative at Xcel Energy was contacted to discuss energyexpenditures on lighting for the buildings.Xcel offered to do a free lighting audit to see where the city could savemoney by switching to LED lighting.In March, the Center for Energy and Environment sent a representative toperform audits on each of the buildings.Each fixture in every building was inventoried and any problem areas (lightingtoo dim, too bright, wrong location, etc) documented.One particular location, the teen reading area in the Library, isparticularly dim and staff expressed a need to improve the lighting. Overall, the quantity and location of the lightingfixtures in the buildings were satisfactory.The representative said that the quality of lighting would improve with aswitch from fluorescent to LED.The city received the results of the audit in April Separate reports were generated for each building.Information foundin the analysis includes current energy use, annual utility cost for LED lights, and the estimated expense of the switch.Based on the three attached lighting system analysis reports, the recommended initial investment would be $86,845and of that amount it is estimated that the city would receive $27,729 in rebates from Xcel Energy, bringing the initialtotal investment to just over $62,000. During the replacement, staff is also estimating some other small lightingimprovements that may make sense as long as replacement LEDs are being installed. The total investment after rebatescould be between $70,000­$80,000. The improvements would result in a total annual estimated energy savings of around $23,000 per year, resulting inbetween a three­ to four­year payback.If the City Council wants to proceed with the initial investment of between $70,000­$80,000, staff would get bidsfrom qualified contractors. Staff would recommend the improvements be paid for out of reserves from the CapitalEquipment Replacement Fund. The majority of the cost savings would be seen in the city's General Fund with somesmall savings also realized in the city's Water & Sewer Funds.RECOMMENDATION Staff is looking for direction on whether to proceed with receiving bids from qualified contractors for the replacement of lights to LED lights at the Library, City Hall, and Public Works buildings. ATTACHMENTS: City Hall Lighting System Analysis Library Lighting System Analysis Public Works Lighting System Analysis Prepared by Lighting Specialist: Erik Ennen Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 819-7245Mobile: (612) 335-5888Fax: eennen@mncee.orgE-mail: - Financing Kristen Funk Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 612-335-3487Phone: 612-335-5888Fax: kfunk@mncee.orgE-mail:- Contractors - Rebates - Audits Program Coordinator: www.mncee.org City Of Chanhassen-7700 Property Address: 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317-8363 April 2, 2019 Jill Sinclair Prepared for: 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317-8363 City Of Chanhassen Cost Saving Recommendations Lighting System Analysis Ph: 952-227-1133 Customer Report 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Building Energy Efficiency Program Page 1 of 6 Customer Report 04/02/2019 05:43 PM Program ID#00038685 2.9 years$7,311.04 *Job must be completed and invoices submitted within 90 days or by 12/31/2019, whichever comes first. One-Stop reserves the right to withdraw this rebate offer after expiration. You may request an extension, which includes re-verification of eligibility, kW/kWh savings, installation costs, estimated rebate, and program rules by One-Stop. After rebate (a) (Including special orders) Lighting Upgrades Estimated Costs $31,750.00Total Installed Cost $21,467.55Your Final Cost Estimated Annual Savings Payback Rebate equals 32% of installed cost.Ö Before rebate $10,282.45Utility Rebate* Estimated monthly savings $609.25 $627.66Monthly loan payments at 3.9% for 37 month term (a) (b) Estimate based on a loan amount of $21,682.23, including a $214.68 loan processing fee. Mortgage, flood and title fees may apply. The loan term has a maximum of 5 years, with monthly payments not less than the estimated monthly savings. Final terms and conditions set by lender upon loan approval. 3.2 years(b) CEE Financing Option (Including Loan Financing Charges) * How do CO2HPLVVLRQVDIIHFWPHDQGP\EXVLQHVV"ˆ5LVLQJFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIJUHHQKRXVHJDVVHV *+* SURGXFHDQLQFUHDVHLQWKHDYHUDJH surface temperature of the Earth over time. Rising temperatures produce changes in precipitation patterns, storm severity, and sea level commonly referred to as ´climate change.µˆ&DUERQGLR[LGH &22), methane, nitrous oxide and four groups of fluorinated gases (sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, PFCs and CFCs) are the major GHG. In the U.S., GHG emissions come primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels in energy use. CO2 emissions from coal-fired electricity generation comprise nearly 80 percent of the total CO2 emissions produced by the generation of HOHFWULFLW\LQWKH86ˆ,QVWDOOLQJHQHUJ\HIILFLHQWOLJKWLQJDQGLPSOHPHQWLQJRWKHUFRQVHUYDWLRQPHDVXUHVWKDWUHGXFHHOHFWULFHQHUJ\XVH significantly reduces GHG emmissions and mitigates global climate change. Read more at: www.eia.doe.gov or www.epa.gov 134,572 $7,311.04 (a)83,932 50,640 41.948 25.780 16.168 $11,754.06 $4,443.02 Existing Lights New Lights 228,772 142,684 86,089 ŻEstimated Savings * Utility Cost Analysis Demand (KW)Energy (KWh)Annual Cost CO2 (lbs)* (a) Savings estimates are based on standard engineering calculations and are NOT guaranteed. Your actual savings may be higher or lower depending on various factors, including how you operate your lights and other electric equipment in your building. Electric Utility Rates = $0.0630/KWh and $7.59/KW, where Demand cost savings occurs primarily during the summer months peak rate hours of 9am to 9pm. (13 [00,00 ] [0] [00,00] [00] [True] [22.223KW] ) Summary of Recommended Lighting Upgrades 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Page 2 of 6 Customer Report (04/02/2019 05:43 PM) Program ID# 00038685 City Of Chanhassen-7700 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317-8363303117711 Xcel Acct# Recommended Lighting Projects 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Recommended Lighting System Upgrades Schedule Name & Hours/year of Operation Installed Cost (Without Rebate) Estimated Annual Savings Select Area A: Garage Project: #1 7x24 8,760 hrs/yr $1,861.09 Incl Special Order $948.96 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 12 173 MH 150W STD1 1L Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 50 LED 050W 1L-NewFix12 Area B: Exterior LED Retrofit Project: #2 Exterior 4,380 hrs/yr (Night-Only) $6,289.25 Incl Special Order $981.51 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 20 130 MH 100W STD1 1L 14 93 MH 070W STD1 1L 7 295 HPS 250W STD1 1L Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 40 LED 040W 1L COB34 150 LED Area Light 150W7 Area C: Sheriff Offices Project: #3 7x10 3,650 hrs/yr $723.92 Incl Special Order $411.21 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 21 85 T8 4' 32 E3-3L-Exist Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 24 LED 012W Linear-T8-Bypass-4' 2L21 Area D: Offices, Halls, Misc Project: #4 5x10 2,607 hrs/yr $4,472.22 Incl Special Order $1,183.02 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 84 51 CFL 26W 2L PL 14 130 MH 100W STD1 1L Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 15 LED 015W Can 1L98 Project: #5 5x10 2,607 hrs/yr $2,353.43 Incl Special Order $471.39 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 19 73.50 T5 0040W E2 2L 15 98 T5 0040W E3 3L Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 30 LED 030W 1L-NewFix34 Project: #6 5x10 2,607 hrs/yr $16,050.09 Incl Special Order $3,314.95 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 187 85 T8 4' 32 E3-3L-Exist 68 58 T8 4' 32 E2-2L-Exist-Utube 40 58 T8 4' 32 E2-2L-Exist 9 110 T8 4' 32 E4-4L-Exist Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 36 LED 012W Linear-T8-Bypass-4' 3L187 30 LED 030W 1L-NewFix68 24 LED 012W Linear-T8-Bypass-4' 2L40 48 LED 012W Linear-T8-Bypass-4' 4L9 Totals (Including special orders)$31,750.00 $7,311.04 Page 3 of 6 Customer Report (04/02/2019 05:43 PM) Program ID# 00038685 City Of Chanhassen-7700 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317-8363303117711 Xcel Acct# I, the undersigned, agree that to the best of my knowledge the lighting schedule below accurately describes how the lights are operated at the facility listed in this document. I understand that the energy or cost savings reflected in this analysis are estimates, and that Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) and Xcel Energy do not guarantee that a specific level of energy or cost savings will result from the implementation of energy conservation measures or the use of products funded under this program. I also give CEE SHUPLVVLRQWRVXEPLWRQP\EHKDOIDOO;FHO(QHUJ\UHEDWHDQGILQDQFLQJIRUPVUHTXLUHGIRUWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠSURJUDP Signature Date Customer Cost: $21,467.55 (Including special orders) I understand that CEE and its staff do not perform lighting installation services. I agree to have CEE contact a participating contractor who will contact me to schedule a time to perform a walk-through inspection, and, if I agree to hire the contractor, to schedule a time to complete the lighting installations that are checked under the "Selected" column of this document. I understand that I must enter into a separate agreement with the contractor to receive lighting installation services. I understand that contractors generally perform installation during weekdays and labor will be charged accordingly. I understand that the contractor will provide a one-year warranty on all labor and equipment that will be installed as part of this program and that the terms of the warranty will be part of my agreement with the contractor. I understand that the contractor alone, and not CEE, provides a warranty on the installation services. I further understand that all electrical code violations that are found during a contractor's inspection or during installation must be brought up to code at my expense. Costs for correcting code violations are NOT included in the installation costs quoted in this document. %\VLJQLQJEHORZ,FHUWLI\WKDW,KDYHUHDGXQGHUVWDQGDQGZLOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHDWWDFKHG2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ58/(6DQG REQUIREMENTS, and that I can not apply for other rebates offered by Xcel Energy or any other energy-efficiency program towards lamps or lighting work covered by this agreement. Financed Cash Select One Lighting Schedules Customer Participation Agreement 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Your lighting savings are based on the following average hours of operation Lighting Schedule Name Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun 5x10 2,607 hrs/yr 10.0 hrs 10.0 hrs 10.0 hrs 10.0 hrs 10.0 hrs 7x10 3,650 hrs/yr 10.0 hrs 10.0 hrs 10.0 hrs 10.0 hrs 10.0 hrs 10.0 hrs 10.0 hrs 7x24 8,760 hrs/yr 12:00 AM to 12:00 AM 12:00 AM to 12:00 AM 12:00 AM to 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM to 12:00 AM to 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM to 12:00 AM 12:00 AM to Exterior 4,380 hrs/yr 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs Page 4 of 6 Customer Report (04/02/2019 05:43 PM) Program ID# 00038685 City Of Chanhassen-7700 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317-8363303117711 Xcel Acct# 21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š352*5$058/(6DQG5(48,5(0(176 1. Rebate items must be installed at the Xcel Energy electric account listed on the application. 2. All equipment must be new. Used or rebuilt equipment is not eligible for a rebate. 3. All removed lighting equipment (lamps, ballasts and fixtures) must be properly recycled, and cannot be sold or reused at another location. Documentation may be required to ensure compliance with proper disposal of equipment. 4. Energy-efficient equipment must result in an electric load reduction. 5. Xcel Energy and CEE recommend Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) light levels. Participant is responsible for approval of final light levels. 6. Rebates are offered for interior lighting, exterior canopy lighting, soffit fixtures, wall pack fixtures, parking garage and parking lot lighting. Rebates will not be issued for street lighting. Most screw-in compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are not eligible for rebates. 7. Lamps or other equipment that have already been rebated through any other Xcel Energy rebate programs are ineligible for a rebate under the 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ7KLVLQFOXGHVXSVWUHDPSURJUDPVWKDW provide incentives to manufacturers, distributors and retailers to sell products at a discounted price. 8. CEE reserves the right to disallow a rebate if it determines, in its sole judgment, that the lighting technology is inappropriately applied or light levels are inadequate. Contact your CEE consultant to determine qualification of custom or specialty lighting projects. 9. Equipment must be purchased, properly installed and fully operating prior to submitting an application for a rebate. A Minnesota Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) Offered by Center for Energy and Environment 10. The ³Vendor´is any person or company that is consulting on the project, selling the project to the participant, completing the work and/or supplying the materials. Vendor is an independent contractor and not an agent or representative of Xcel Energy or CEE, has no authority to bind Xcel Energy or CEE, and is solely responsible for sub-contractors the Vendor hires to do some or all of the work and/or supply materials. 11. The Vendor must clearly communicate to the Participant the purpose DQGUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠLQFOXGLQJ eligibility requirements for lighting rebates. The Vendor must involve the CEE consultant in communications with the Participant, and must keep the CEE consultant fully informed regarding all details of the transaction. Eligibility Requirements Vendor Responsibilities 12. Vendors are responsible for reviewing, signing and returning the Contractor Report to CEE before materials are ordered. By signing the Contractor Report, the Vendor represents and warrants that the transaction complies with these Rules and Requirements and that the project specifications in the Contractor Report are accurate, acceptable and will be installed as specified. 13. Any inaccuracies concerning project specifications must be reported immediately to a CEE consultant so they can be addressed, the rebate recalculated if necessary and a revised report issued to the Vendor and the Participant. 14. Vendor must contact a CEE consultant whenever there are changes to the project so that equipment eligibility can be confirmed and the rebate value can be re-calculated if necessary. 15. CEE will not be responsible for changes in the rebate value if the Vendor does not sign and return the Contractor Report, and report: inaccuracies in the Contractor Report; changes in the equipment to be installed; or changes in the project during construction. Rebate Calculations 16. Rebate values are based on CEE¶s calculation of electric demand (KW) and energy (kWh) savings. Hours used for calculation of the kWh savings must be an accurate representation of the Participant¶s operating schedule. 17. Electric demand and energy savings are calculated using lighting efficiency baselines established by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). EISA standards apply to most T12 and incandescent lighting technologies today, and will apply to other technologies as efficiency requirements continue to be phased in. 18. If an Xcel Energy lighting rebate was previously assigned to this account and the rebated lighting was subsequently converted to a less efficient lighting system, a One-Stop consultant must review the situation to determine the correct baseline energy use for calculating the rebate. 19. Rebates are based on the energy use of the equipment actually installed at the site and the Participant¶s Project Cost. Rebates will be recalculated if the final equipment and Participant¶s Project Cost is different than originally approved by CEE. 20. Rebates cannot exceed 60 percent of the Participant¶s Project Cost, XQOHVVRWKHUZLVHVSHFLILHGE\WKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ7KH minimum rebate paid is $5.00. 21³Participant¶s Project Cost´means the Participant¶s financial obligation for the lighting retrofit based on the total project cost less any and all Deductions, regardless of when these Deductions are received. 7KH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠŠOLJKWLQJHIILFLHQF\SURJUDP 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ DGPLQLVWHUHGE\&HQWHUIRU(QHUJ\DQG Environment ³CEE´ and funded through Xcel Energy, offers cash rebates to eligible small business customers ³Participant´ who purchase and install qualifying energy-efficient lighting products in existing buildings. 7KHLQWHQWRIWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠRSHUDWLQJDVD0LQQHVRWD&RQVHUYDWLRQ,PSURYHPHQW3URJUDP &,3 LVWRLQFHQWLYL]H;FHO Energy¶s customers to install energy efficient equipment earlier than they would have otherwise by defraying a portion of the cost of the retrofit. To ensure that the program operates as intended, the Participant must have a financial stake in the transaction and the Participant¶s Project Cost PXVWEHJUHDWHUWKDQ]HURWRUHFHLYHD2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWH Participant Qualifications 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWHVDSSO\RQO\WRTXDOLILHG;FHO(QHUJ\FXVWRPHUVZLWKDYDOLGFRPPHUFLDOHOHFWULFDFFRXQWLQ;FHO(QHUJ\¶s 0LQQHVRWDVHUYLFHWHUULWRU\WKDWPHHW2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠHOLJLELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWV7KH9HQGRURU3DUWLFLSDQWPXVWYHULI\ZLWKD&(( FRQVXOWDQWWKDWDQ;FHO(QHUJ\DFFRXQWLVHOLJLEOHIRU2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWHVEHIRUHFRPPLWWLQJWRSXUFKDVLQJHTXLSPHQWIRURU LPSOHPHQWLQJDSURMHFW7RGHWHUPLQHLIDEXVLQHVVTXDOLILHVIRUWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠSOHDVHFRQWDFW&((DW   Page 1 of 2 Page 5 of 6 Customer Report 04/02/2019 05:43 PM Program ID#00038685 21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š352*5$058/(6DQG5(48,5(0(176 22³Deductions´means anything of value received by the Participant that reduces the Participant¶s actual out-of-pocket cost for the lighting retrofit including, but not limited to: labor or material donations; monetary donations; labor or material cost deductions; grants; awards, rebates; or any other assistance of monetary value provided, directly or indirectly, by the Vendor, its agents or representatives to reduce the Participant¶s actual financial obligation for the lighting project. 23. The following types of financial transactions are not allowed as methods of payment by the Participant for the lighting project: barter, in-kind donations and performance contracting. 24. All Deductions must be separately itemized on the final invoice submitted to CEE. The Participant¶s Project Cost must be greater than ]HURWRUHFHLYHD2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWH A Minnesota Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) Offered by Center for Energy and Environment 25. The Vendor must submit an accurate, complete and transparent final invoice for the completed lighting retrofit. All parties involved in the project, including the Participant and CEE, must have a clear understanding of the scope of work and associated project costs, including any Deductions that have been applied. 26. Invoice(s) submitted must include: (1) itemized quantity, manufacturer¶s make and model numbers for each material item, (2) a lump sum amount for both material and labor, and (3) grand total project cost. In some cases, original equipment manufacturer (OEM) specification sheets may be requested for verification or clarification. 27. The Vendor must provide the Participant an invoice that reflects the same financial information that is submitted to CEE, including any Deductions that have been applied. Invoice 32. In cases of deferred payment, CEE reserves the right to process the rebate only when full payment is received by the Vendor from the Participant. All financed and alternate payment plans must be documented with detailed, legally obligating and signed contracts. CEE reserves the right to disallow any payment plan that its staff determines is not in compliance with the program design intent and rules. 33. Rebates will not be disbursed until the project is fully installed and verified. 34. The rebate check will be sent to the Participant (i.e., Xcel Energy account holder) listed on the rebate application, unless otherwise authorized by CEE. Xcel Energy will issue rebates in the form of checks, not utility bill credits. 35. Once completed paperwork is submitted and approved, rebate payments are usually made in 6 to 8 weeks. Special Notices 36. Xcel Energy and CEE reserve the right to refuse payment or SDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠLIWKH3DUWLFLSDQWRU Vendor violates program design intent, rules and procedures. Xcel Energy and CEE are not liable for rebates promised to Participants as a result of a Vendor misrepresenting the program. 377KH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠLVVXEMHFWWR60 days notice of cancellation. The Participant and Vendor are responsible for checking with a CEE consultant to determine whether the program is still in effect and to verify program requirements. 39. Do not endorse any particular vendor, manufacturer, product or system design by offering these rebates; 40. Will not be responsible for any tax liability imposed on the Participant as a result of the payment of rebates; 28. CEE reserves the right to inspect Participant¶s facility(ies) for installation of materials listed on this rebate application and will need access to survey the installed project. Participant must keep a sample of any and all types of equipment removed for a period of three (3) months after receiving a rebate from Xcel Energy. If the inspection determines that Participant did not comply with these Rules and Requirements, any rebate received by Participant must be promptly returned to Xcel Energy. 29. Vendor agrees to promptly provide CEE with such additional documentation and information as may be necessary to verify compliance with these Rules and Requirements, such as copies of cancelled checks or other relevant receipts/records as proof that the Participant paid the amount reflected on the invoice. Rebates for that project will not be paid until all requested documentation and information is provided and verified. Verification 302QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUXOHVDQGUHEDWHHOLJLELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWV are subject to change. It is the Participant's and Vendor's responsibility to verify with CEE that estimated rebates are still valid before committing to, purchasing equipment for or implementing a project. CEE will not pay a rebate for projects where the invoice is submitted more than 12 months after the start of the project. 31. Xcel Energy and CEE are not responsible for any lost, late, stolen, ineligible, illegible, misdirected or postage-due mail. All completed rebate applications and other submissions in connection with the One- 6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠEHFRPHWKHSURSHUW\RI;FHO(QHUJ\DQG&(( and will not be returned. Rebate Application and Payment Disclaimers 38. CEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DISQUALIFY NON- COMPLIANT VENDORS FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE 21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š 41. EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO ANY PRODUCTS, EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL OR WORKMANSHIP PROVIDED, SUPPLIED OR INSTALLED IN &211(&7,21:,7+7+(21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š Warranties, if any, are between Participant and equipment manufacturer (s) and/or Vendors. Xcel Energy and CEE: 42. Are not responsible for the disposal of removed lighting equipment (lamps, ballasts and/or fixtures) replaced as a result of this program, when required for optimum lighting performance; 43. In no event shall be liable for any indirect, special, incidental, consequential or punitive damages arising out of or relating to DGPLQLVWHULQJWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ 44. Do not guarantee that a specific level of energy or cost savings will result from the implementation of energy conservation measures or the use of products funded under this program. Page 2 of 2 CEE FACET, Program Rules # 130326 For more information, contact CEE at Phone: (612) 244-2427 Fax: (612) 335-5888. Mail To: Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Page 6 of 6 Customer Report 04/02/2019 05:43 PM Program ID#00038685 Prepared by Lighting Specialist: Erik Ennen Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 819-7245Mobile: (612) 335-5888Fax: eennen@mncee.orgE-mail: - Financing Kristen Funk Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 612-335-3487Phone: 612-335-5888Fax: kfunk@mncee.orgE-mail:- Contractors - Rebates - Audits Program Coordinator: www.mncee.org City Of Chanhassen/Library Property Address: 7711 Kerber St Chanhassen, MN 55317 April 7, 2019 Jill Sinclair Prepared for: 7711 Kerber St Chanhassen, MN 55317 City Of Chanhassen Cost Saving Recommendations Lighting System Analysis Ph: 952-227-1133 Customer Report 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Building Energy Efficiency Program Page 1 of 6 Customer Report 04/07/2019 08:16 PM Program ID#00001372 2.1 years$6,408.49 *Job must be completed and invoices submitted within 90 days or by 12/31/2019, whichever comes first. One-Stop reserves the right to withdraw this rebate offer after expiration. You may request an extension, which includes re-verification of eligibility, kW/kWh savings, installation costs, estimated rebate, and program rules by One-Stop. After rebate (a) (Including special orders) Lighting Upgrades Estimated Costs $18,350.00Total Installed Cost $13,677.84Your Final Cost Estimated Annual Savings Payback Rebate equals 25% of installed cost.Ö Before rebate $4,672.16Utility Rebate* Estimated monthly savings $534.04 $541.89Monthly loan payments at 3.9% for 27 month term (a) (b) Estimate based on a loan amount of $13,877.84, including a $200.00 loan processing fee. Mortgage, flood and title fees may apply. The loan term has a maximum of 5 years, with monthly payments not less than the estimated monthly savings. Final terms and conditions set by lender upon loan approval. 2.3 years(b) CEE Financing Option (Including Loan Financing Charges) * How do CO2HPLVVLRQVDIIHFWPHDQGP\EXVLQHVV"ˆ5LVLQJFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIJUHHQKRXVHJDVVHV *+* SURGXFHDQLQFUHDVHLQWKHDYHUDJH surface temperature of the Earth over time. Rising temperatures produce changes in precipitation patterns, storm severity, and sea level commonly referred to as ´climate change.µˆ&DUERQGLR[LGH &22), methane, nitrous oxide and four groups of fluorinated gases (sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, PFCs and CFCs) are the major GHG. In the U.S., GHG emissions come primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels in energy use. CO2 emissions from coal-fired electricity generation comprise nearly 80 percent of the total CO2 emissions produced by the generation of HOHFWULFLW\LQWKH86ˆ,QVWDOOLQJHQHUJ\HIILFLHQWOLJKWLQJDQGLPSOHPHQWLQJRWKHUFRQVHUYDWLRQPHDVXUHVWKDWUHGXFHHOHFWULFHQHUJ\XVH significantly reduces GHG emmissions and mitigates global climate change. Read more at: www.eia.doe.gov or www.epa.gov 117,546 $6,408.49 (a)62,110 55,435 31.157 16.415 14.742 $12,229.99 $5,821.50 Existing Lights New Lights 199,828 105,587 94,240 ŻEstimated Savings * Utility Cost Analysis Demand (KW)Energy (KWh)Annual Cost CO2 (lbs)* (a) Savings estimates are based on standard engineering calculations and are NOT guaranteed. Your actual savings may be higher or lower depending on various factors, including how you operate your lights and other electric equipment in your building. Electric Utility Rates = $0.0630/KWh and $13.30/KW, where Demand cost savings occurs primarily during the summer months peak rate hours of 9am to 9pm. (13 [00,00 ] [0] [00,00] [00] [True] [15.635KW] ) Summary of Recommended Lighting Upgrades 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Page 2 of 6 Customer Report (04/07/2019 08:16 PM) Program ID# 00001372 City Of Chanhassen/Library 7711 Kerber St Chanhassen, MN 55317302595302 Xcel Acct# Recommended Lighting Projects 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Recommended Lighting System Upgrades Schedule Name & Hours/year of Operation Installed Cost (Without Rebate) Estimated Annual Savings Select Area A: Exterior LED Retrofit Project: #1 Exterior 4,380 hrs/yr (Night-Only) $683.17 Incl Special Order $215.23 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 10 93 MH 070W STD1 1L Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 15 LED 015W Can 1L10 Area B: Library LED Retrofit Project: #2 72 Hours/Week 3,754 hrs/yr $266.64 Incl Special Order $2,411.55 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 129 32 CFL-S 032W 1L 32 14 CFL 13W 1L PL 13 64 CFL-S 032W 2L 8 100 INC A 100W 1L (EISA= INC A 072W 1L) Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 15 LED 015W A-Lamp 1L8 Project: #3 72 Hours/Week 3,754 hrs/yr $6,097.22 Incl Special Order $1,312.53 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 60 147 T5 0040W E2 4L 21 73.50 T5 0040W E2 2L Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 100 LED 025W Linear-T8-w/Ballast-4' 4L60 50 LED 025W Linear-T8-w/Ballast-4' 2L21 Project: #4 72 Hours/Week 3,754 hrs/yr $7,703.45 Incl Special Order $2,296.67 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 78 85 T8 4' 32 E3-3L-Exist 67 58 T8 4' 32 E2-2L-Exist 13 110 T8 4' 32 E4-4L-Exist 13 58 T8 4' 32 E2-2L-Exist-Utube Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 45 LED 015W Linear-T8-w/Ballast-4' 3L78 32 LED 016W Linear-T8-w/Ballast-4' 2L67 60 LED 015W Linear-T8-w/Ballast-4' 4L13 36 LED 018W Linear-T8-w/Ballast-4' 2L U-Shape13 Project: #5 72 Hours/Week 3,754 hrs/yr $3,599.52 $172.51 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 13 73.50 T5 0040W E2 2L Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 40 LED 40W New Flood Fixture13 Totals (Including special orders)$18,350.00 $6,408.49 Page 3 of 6 Customer Report (04/07/2019 08:16 PM) Program ID# 00001372 City Of Chanhassen/Library 7711 Kerber St Chanhassen, MN 55317302595302 Xcel Acct# I, the undersigned, agree that to the best of my knowledge the lighting schedule below accurately describes how the lights are operated at the facility listed in this document. I understand that the energy or cost savings reflected in this analysis are estimates, and that Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) and Xcel Energy do not guarantee that a specific level of energy or cost savings will result from the implementation of energy conservation measures or the use of products funded under this program. I also give CEE SHUPLVVLRQWRVXEPLWRQP\EHKDOIDOO;FHO(QHUJ\UHEDWHDQGILQDQFLQJIRUPVUHTXLUHGIRUWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠSURJUDP Signature Date Customer Cost: $13,677.84 (Including special orders) I understand that CEE and its staff do not perform lighting installation services. I agree to have CEE contact a participating contractor who will contact me to schedule a time to perform a walk-through inspection, and, if I agree to hire the contractor, to schedule a time to complete the lighting installations that are checked under the "Selected" column of this document. I understand that I must enter into a separate agreement with the contractor to receive lighting installation services. I understand that contractors generally perform installation during weekdays and labor will be charged accordingly. I understand that the contractor will provide a one-year warranty on all labor and equipment that will be installed as part of this program and that the terms of the warranty will be part of my agreement with the contractor. I understand that the contractor alone, and not CEE, provides a warranty on the installation services. I further understand that all electrical code violations that are found during a contractor's inspection or during installation must be brought up to code at my expense. Costs for correcting code violations are NOT included in the installation costs quoted in this document. %\VLJQLQJEHORZ,FHUWLI\WKDW,KDYHUHDGXQGHUVWDQGDQGZLOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHDWWDFKHG2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ58/(6DQG REQUIREMENTS, and that I can not apply for other rebates offered by Xcel Energy or any other energy-efficiency program towards lamps or lighting work covered by this agreement. Jill SinclairFinanced Cash Select One Lighting Schedules Customer Participation Agreement 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Your lighting savings are based on the following average hours of operation Lighting Schedule Name Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun 72 Hours/Week 3,754 hrs/yr 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM 8:00 AM 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM 8:00 AM 5:00 PM to 11:00 AM 5:00 PM to Exterior 4,380 hrs/yr 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs Page 4 of 6 Customer Report (04/07/2019 08:16 PM) Program ID# 00001372 City Of Chanhassen/Library 7711 Kerber St Chanhassen, MN 55317302595302 Xcel Acct# 21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š352*5$058/(6DQG5(48,5(0(176 1. Rebate items must be installed at the Xcel Energy electric account listed on the application. 2. All equipment must be new. Used or rebuilt equipment is not eligible for a rebate. 3. All removed lighting equipment (lamps, ballasts and fixtures) must be properly recycled, and cannot be sold or reused at another location. Documentation may be required to ensure compliance with proper disposal of equipment. 4. Energy-efficient equipment must result in an electric load reduction. 5. Xcel Energy and CEE recommend Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) light levels. Participant is responsible for approval of final light levels. 6. Rebates are offered for interior lighting, exterior canopy lighting, soffit fixtures, wall pack fixtures, parking garage and parking lot lighting. Rebates will not be issued for street lighting. Most screw-in compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are not eligible for rebates. 7. Lamps or other equipment that have already been rebated through any other Xcel Energy rebate programs are ineligible for a rebate under the 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ7KLVLQFOXGHVXSVWUHDPSURJUDPVWKDW provide incentives to manufacturers, distributors and retailers to sell products at a discounted price. 8. CEE reserves the right to disallow a rebate if it determines, in its sole judgment, that the lighting technology is inappropriately applied or light levels are inadequate. Contact your CEE consultant to determine qualification of custom or specialty lighting projects. 9. Equipment must be purchased, properly installed and fully operating prior to submitting an application for a rebate. A Minnesota Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) Offered by Center for Energy and Environment 10. The ³Vendor´is any person or company that is consulting on the project, selling the project to the participant, completing the work and/or supplying the materials. Vendor is an independent contractor and not an agent or representative of Xcel Energy or CEE, has no authority to bind Xcel Energy or CEE, and is solely responsible for sub-contractors the Vendor hires to do some or all of the work and/or supply materials. 11. The Vendor must clearly communicate to the Participant the purpose DQGUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠLQFOXGLQJ eligibility requirements for lighting rebates. The Vendor must involve the CEE consultant in communications with the Participant, and must keep the CEE consultant fully informed regarding all details of the transaction. Eligibility Requirements Vendor Responsibilities 12. Vendors are responsible for reviewing, signing and returning the Contractor Report to CEE before materials are ordered. By signing the Contractor Report, the Vendor represents and warrants that the transaction complies with these Rules and Requirements and that the project specifications in the Contractor Report are accurate, acceptable and will be installed as specified. 13. Any inaccuracies concerning project specifications must be reported immediately to a CEE consultant so they can be addressed, the rebate recalculated if necessary and a revised report issued to the Vendor and the Participant. 14. Vendor must contact a CEE consultant whenever there are changes to the project so that equipment eligibility can be confirmed and the rebate value can be re-calculated if necessary. 15. CEE will not be responsible for changes in the rebate value if the Vendor does not sign and return the Contractor Report, and report: inaccuracies in the Contractor Report; changes in the equipment to be installed; or changes in the project during construction. Rebate Calculations 16. Rebate values are based on CEE¶s calculation of electric demand (KW) and energy (kWh) savings. Hours used for calculation of the kWh savings must be an accurate representation of the Participant¶s operating schedule. 17. Electric demand and energy savings are calculated using lighting efficiency baselines established by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). EISA standards apply to most T12 and incandescent lighting technologies today, and will apply to other technologies as efficiency requirements continue to be phased in. 18. If an Xcel Energy lighting rebate was previously assigned to this account and the rebated lighting was subsequently converted to a less efficient lighting system, a One-Stop consultant must review the situation to determine the correct baseline energy use for calculating the rebate. 19. Rebates are based on the energy use of the equipment actually installed at the site and the Participant¶s Project Cost. Rebates will be recalculated if the final equipment and Participant¶s Project Cost is different than originally approved by CEE. 20. Rebates cannot exceed 60 percent of the Participant¶s Project Cost, XQOHVVRWKHUZLVHVSHFLILHGE\WKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ7KH minimum rebate paid is $5.00. 21³Participant¶s Project Cost´means the Participant¶s financial obligation for the lighting retrofit based on the total project cost less any and all Deductions, regardless of when these Deductions are received. 7KH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠŠOLJKWLQJHIILFLHQF\SURJUDP 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ DGPLQLVWHUHGE\&HQWHUIRU(QHUJ\DQG Environment ³CEE´ and funded through Xcel Energy, offers cash rebates to eligible small business customers ³Participant´ who purchase and install qualifying energy-efficient lighting products in existing buildings. 7KHLQWHQWRIWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠRSHUDWLQJDVD0LQQHVRWD&RQVHUYDWLRQ,PSURYHPHQW3URJUDP &,3 LVWRLQFHQWLYL]H;FHO Energy¶s customers to install energy efficient equipment earlier than they would have otherwise by defraying a portion of the cost of the retrofit. To ensure that the program operates as intended, the Participant must have a financial stake in the transaction and the Participant¶s Project Cost PXVWEHJUHDWHUWKDQ]HURWRUHFHLYHD2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWH Participant Qualifications 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWHVDSSO\RQO\WRTXDOLILHG;FHO(QHUJ\FXVWRPHUVZLWKDYDOLGFRPPHUFLDOHOHFWULFDFFRXQWLQ;FHO(QHUJ\¶s 0LQQHVRWDVHUYLFHWHUULWRU\WKDWPHHW2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠHOLJLELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWV7KH9HQGRURU3DUWLFLSDQWPXVWYHULI\ZLWKD&(( FRQVXOWDQWWKDWDQ;FHO(QHUJ\DFFRXQWLVHOLJLEOHIRU2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWHVEHIRUHFRPPLWWLQJWRSXUFKDVLQJHTXLSPHQWIRURU LPSOHPHQWLQJDSURMHFW7RGHWHUPLQHLIDEXVLQHVVTXDOLILHVIRUWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠSOHDVHFRQWDFW&((DW   Page 1 of 2 Page 5 of 6 Customer Report 04/07/2019 08:16 PM Program ID#00001372 21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š352*5$058/(6DQG5(48,5(0(176 22³Deductions´means anything of value received by the Participant that reduces the Participant¶s actual out-of-pocket cost for the lighting retrofit including, but not limited to: labor or material donations; monetary donations; labor or material cost deductions; grants; awards, rebates; or any other assistance of monetary value provided, directly or indirectly, by the Vendor, its agents or representatives to reduce the Participant¶s actual financial obligation for the lighting project. 23. The following types of financial transactions are not allowed as methods of payment by the Participant for the lighting project: barter, in-kind donations and performance contracting. 24. All Deductions must be separately itemized on the final invoice submitted to CEE. The Participant¶s Project Cost must be greater than ]HURWRUHFHLYHD2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWH A Minnesota Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) Offered by Center for Energy and Environment 25. The Vendor must submit an accurate, complete and transparent final invoice for the completed lighting retrofit. All parties involved in the project, including the Participant and CEE, must have a clear understanding of the scope of work and associated project costs, including any Deductions that have been applied. 26. Invoice(s) submitted must include: (1) itemized quantity, manufacturer¶s make and model numbers for each material item, (2) a lump sum amount for both material and labor, and (3) grand total project cost. In some cases, original equipment manufacturer (OEM) specification sheets may be requested for verification or clarification. 27. The Vendor must provide the Participant an invoice that reflects the same financial information that is submitted to CEE, including any Deductions that have been applied. Invoice 32. In cases of deferred payment, CEE reserves the right to process the rebate only when full payment is received by the Vendor from the Participant. All financed and alternate payment plans must be documented with detailed, legally obligating and signed contracts. CEE reserves the right to disallow any payment plan that its staff determines is not in compliance with the program design intent and rules. 33. Rebates will not be disbursed until the project is fully installed and verified. 34. The rebate check will be sent to the Participant (i.e., Xcel Energy account holder) listed on the rebate application, unless otherwise authorized by CEE. Xcel Energy will issue rebates in the form of checks, not utility bill credits. 35. Once completed paperwork is submitted and approved, rebate payments are usually made in 6 to 8 weeks. Special Notices 36. Xcel Energy and CEE reserve the right to refuse payment or SDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠLIWKH3DUWLFLSDQWRU Vendor violates program design intent, rules and procedures. Xcel Energy and CEE are not liable for rebates promised to Participants as a result of a Vendor misrepresenting the program. 377KH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠLVVXEMHFWWR60 days notice of cancellation. The Participant and Vendor are responsible for checking with a CEE consultant to determine whether the program is still in effect and to verify program requirements. 39. Do not endorse any particular vendor, manufacturer, product or system design by offering these rebates; 40. Will not be responsible for any tax liability imposed on the Participant as a result of the payment of rebates; 28. CEE reserves the right to inspect Participant¶s facility(ies) for installation of materials listed on this rebate application and will need access to survey the installed project. Participant must keep a sample of any and all types of equipment removed for a period of three (3) months after receiving a rebate from Xcel Energy. If the inspection determines that Participant did not comply with these Rules and Requirements, any rebate received by Participant must be promptly returned to Xcel Energy. 29. Vendor agrees to promptly provide CEE with such additional documentation and information as may be necessary to verify compliance with these Rules and Requirements, such as copies of cancelled checks or other relevant receipts/records as proof that the Participant paid the amount reflected on the invoice. Rebates for that project will not be paid until all requested documentation and information is provided and verified. Verification 302QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUXOHVDQGUHEDWHHOLJLELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWV are subject to change. It is the Participant's and Vendor's responsibility to verify with CEE that estimated rebates are still valid before committing to, purchasing equipment for or implementing a project. CEE will not pay a rebate for projects where the invoice is submitted more than 12 months after the start of the project. 31. Xcel Energy and CEE are not responsible for any lost, late, stolen, ineligible, illegible, misdirected or postage-due mail. All completed rebate applications and other submissions in connection with the One- 6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠEHFRPHWKHSURSHUW\RI;FHO(QHUJ\DQG&(( and will not be returned. Rebate Application and Payment Disclaimers 38. CEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DISQUALIFY NON- COMPLIANT VENDORS FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE 21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š 41. EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO ANY PRODUCTS, EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL OR WORKMANSHIP PROVIDED, SUPPLIED OR INSTALLED IN &211(&7,21:,7+7+(21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š Warranties, if any, are between Participant and equipment manufacturer (s) and/or Vendors. Xcel Energy and CEE: 42. Are not responsible for the disposal of removed lighting equipment (lamps, ballasts and/or fixtures) replaced as a result of this program, when required for optimum lighting performance; 43. In no event shall be liable for any indirect, special, incidental, consequential or punitive damages arising out of or relating to DGPLQLVWHULQJWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ 44. Do not guarantee that a specific level of energy or cost savings will result from the implementation of energy conservation measures or the use of products funded under this program. Page 2 of 2 CEE FACET, Program Rules # 130326 For more information, contact CEE at Phone: (612) 244-2427 Fax: (612) 335-5888. Mail To: Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Page 6 of 6 Customer Report 04/07/2019 08:16 PM Program ID#00001372 Prepared by Lighting Specialist: Erik Ennen Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 819-7245Mobile: (612) 335-5888Fax: eennen@mncee.orgE-mail: - Financing Kristen Funk Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 612-335-3487Phone: 612-335-5888Fax: kfunk@mncee.orgE-mail:- Contractors - Rebates - Audits Program Coordinator: www.mncee.org City Of Chanhassen/Public Works Property Address: 7901 Park Pl Chanhassen, MN 55317 April 7, 2019 Jill Sinclair Prepared for: 7901 Park Pl Chanhassen, MN 55317 City Of Chanhassen/Public Works Cost Saving Recommendations Lighting System Analysis Ph: 952-227-1133 Customer Report 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Building Energy Efficiency Program Page 1 of 6 Customer Report 04/07/2019 06:54 PM Program ID#00027605 2.9 years$9,395.25 *Job must be completed and invoices submitted within 90 days or by 12/31/2019, whichever comes first. One-Stop reserves the right to withdraw this rebate offer after expiration. You may request an extension, which includes re-verification of eligibility, kW/kWh savings, installation costs, estimated rebate, and program rules by One-Stop. After rebate (a) (Including special orders) Lighting Upgrades Estimated Costs $36,745.00Total Installed Cost $27,060.94Your Final Cost Estimated Annual Savings Payback Rebate equals 26% of installed cost.Ö Before rebate $9,684.06Utility Rebate* Estimated monthly savings $782.94 $791.19Monthly loan payments at 3.9% for 37 month term (a) (b) Estimate based on a loan amount of $27,331.55, including a $270.61 loan processing fee. Mortgage, flood and title fees may apply. The loan term has a maximum of 5 years, with monthly payments not less than the estimated monthly savings. Final terms and conditions set by lender upon loan approval. 3.1 years(b) CEE Financing Option (Including Loan Financing Charges) * How do CO2HPLVVLRQVDIIHFWPHDQGP\EXVLQHVV"ˆ5LVLQJFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRIJUHHQKRXVHJDVVHV *+* SURGXFHDQLQFUHDVHLQWKHDYHUDJH surface temperature of the Earth over time. Rising temperatures produce changes in precipitation patterns, storm severity, and sea level commonly referred to as ´climate change.µˆ&DUERQGLR[LGH &22), methane, nitrous oxide and four groups of fluorinated gases (sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, PFCs and CFCs) are the major GHG. In the U.S., GHG emissions come primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels in energy use. CO2 emissions from coal-fired electricity generation comprise nearly 80 percent of the total CO2 emissions produced by the generation of HOHFWULFLW\LQWKH86ˆ,QVWDOOLQJHQHUJ\HIILFLHQWOLJKWLQJDQGLPSOHPHQWLQJRWKHUFRQVHUYDWLRQPHDVXUHVWKDWUHGXFHHOHFWULFHQHUJ\XVH significantly reduces GHG emmissions and mitigates global climate change. Read more at: www.eia.doe.gov or www.epa.gov 136,158 $9,395.25 (a)70,981 65,177 65.981 34.539 31.442 $18,071.42 $8,676.17 Existing Lights New Lights 231,469 120,669 110,800 ŻEstimated Savings * Utility Cost Analysis Demand (KW)Energy (KWh)Annual Cost CO2 (lbs)* (a) Savings estimates are based on standard engineering calculations and are NOT guaranteed. Your actual savings may be higher or lower depending on various factors, including how you operate your lights and other electric equipment in your building. Electric Utility Rates = $0.0630/KWh and $13.30/KW, where Demand cost savings occurs primarily during the summer months peak rate hours of 9am to 9pm. (13 [00,00 ] [0] [00,00] [00] [True] [30.846KW] ) Summary of Recommended Lighting Upgrades 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Page 2 of 6 Customer Report (04/07/2019 06:54 PM) Program ID# 00027605 City Of Chanhassen/Public Works 7901 Park Pl Chanhassen, MN 55317304183725 Xcel Acct# Recommended Lighting Projects 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Recommended Lighting System Upgrades Schedule Name & Hours/year of Operation Installed Cost (Without Rebate) Estimated Annual Savings Select Area A: Exterior LED Retrofit Project: #1 Exterior 4,380 hrs/yr (Night-Only) $10,098.81 Incl Special Order $823.68 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 15 295 MH 250W STD1 1L 9 130 MH 100W STD1 1L Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 150 LED Area Light 150W15 40 LED 40W New Wall Pack Fixture9 Project: #2 15 min/wk 13 hrs/yr (Night-Only) $990.78 Incl Special Order $0.58 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 2 454 MH 400W STD1 1L Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 100 LED 100W 1L-NewFix2 Area B: Offices, Halls Project: #3 6x06 1,877 hrs/yr $9,586.17 Incl Special Order $2,214.02 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 249 64 T5 4' 0028W E2 2L Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 32 LED 016W Linear-T5-w/Ballast-4' 2L249 Area C: Truck Bay, Mainitenance Project: #4 6x06 1,877 hrs/yr $16,069.24 Incl Special Order $6,356.97 ; Qty Watts EXISTING Luminaire 123 354 T5 HO 4' 54 E2/4-6L-Exist Qty Watts NEW Luminaire 168 LED 028W Linear-T5-w/Ballast-4' 6L123 Totals (Including special orders)$36,745.00 $9,395.25 Page 3 of 6 Customer Report (04/07/2019 06:54 PM) Program ID# 00027605 City Of Chanhassen/Public Works 7901 Park Pl Chanhassen, MN 55317304183725 Xcel Acct# I, the undersigned, agree that to the best of my knowledge the lighting schedule below accurately describes how the lights are operated at the facility listed in this document. I understand that the energy or cost savings reflected in this analysis are estimates, and that Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) and Xcel Energy do not guarantee that a specific level of energy or cost savings will result from the implementation of energy conservation measures or the use of products funded under this program. I also give CEE SHUPLVVLRQWRVXEPLWRQP\EHKDOIDOO;FHO(QHUJ\UHEDWHDQGILQDQFLQJIRUPVUHTXLUHGIRUWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠSURJUDP Signature Date Customer Cost: $27,060.94 (Including special orders) I understand that CEE and its staff do not perform lighting installation services. I agree to have CEE contact a participating contractor who will contact me to schedule a time to perform a walk-through inspection, and, if I agree to hire the contractor, to schedule a time to complete the lighting installations that are checked under the "Selected" column of this document. I understand that I must enter into a separate agreement with the contractor to receive lighting installation services. I understand that contractors generally perform installation during weekdays and labor will be charged accordingly. I understand that the contractor will provide a one-year warranty on all labor and equipment that will be installed as part of this program and that the terms of the warranty will be part of my agreement with the contractor. I understand that the contractor alone, and not CEE, provides a warranty on the installation services. I further understand that all electrical code violations that are found during a contractor's inspection or during installation must be brought up to code at my expense. Costs for correcting code violations are NOT included in the installation costs quoted in this document. %\VLJQLQJEHORZ,FHUWLI\WKDW,KDYHUHDGXQGHUVWDQGDQGZLOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHDWWDFKHG2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ58/(6DQG REQUIREMENTS, and that I can not apply for other rebates offered by Xcel Energy or any other energy-efficiency program towards lamps or lighting work covered by this agreement. Jill SinclairFinanced Cash Select One Lighting Schedules Customer Participation Agreement 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ Your lighting savings are based on the following average hours of operation Lighting Schedule Name Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun 15 min/wk 13 hrs/yr 0.1 hrs 0.1 hrs 0.1 hrs 0.1 hrs 0.1 hrs 6x06 1,877 hrs/yr 6.0 hrs 6.0 hrs 6.0 hrs 6.0 hrs 6.0 hrs 6.0 hrs Exterior 4,380 hrs/yr 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs 12.0 hrs Page 4 of 6 Customer Report (04/07/2019 06:54 PM) Program ID# 00027605 City Of Chanhassen/Public Works 7901 Park Pl Chanhassen, MN 55317304183725 Xcel Acct# 21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š352*5$058/(6DQG5(48,5(0(176 1. Rebate items must be installed at the Xcel Energy electric account listed on the application. 2. All equipment must be new. Used or rebuilt equipment is not eligible for a rebate. 3. All removed lighting equipment (lamps, ballasts and fixtures) must be properly recycled, and cannot be sold or reused at another location. Documentation may be required to ensure compliance with proper disposal of equipment. 4. Energy-efficient equipment must result in an electric load reduction. 5. Xcel Energy and CEE recommend Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) light levels. Participant is responsible for approval of final light levels. 6. Rebates are offered for interior lighting, exterior canopy lighting, soffit fixtures, wall pack fixtures, parking garage and parking lot lighting. Rebates will not be issued for street lighting. Most screw-in compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are not eligible for rebates. 7. Lamps or other equipment that have already been rebated through any other Xcel Energy rebate programs are ineligible for a rebate under the 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ7KLVLQFOXGHVXSVWUHDPSURJUDPVWKDW provide incentives to manufacturers, distributors and retailers to sell products at a discounted price. 8. CEE reserves the right to disallow a rebate if it determines, in its sole judgment, that the lighting technology is inappropriately applied or light levels are inadequate. Contact your CEE consultant to determine qualification of custom or specialty lighting projects. 9. Equipment must be purchased, properly installed and fully operating prior to submitting an application for a rebate. A Minnesota Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) Offered by Center for Energy and Environment 10. The ³Vendor´is any person or company that is consulting on the project, selling the project to the participant, completing the work and/or supplying the materials. Vendor is an independent contractor and not an agent or representative of Xcel Energy or CEE, has no authority to bind Xcel Energy or CEE, and is solely responsible for sub-contractors the Vendor hires to do some or all of the work and/or supply materials. 11. The Vendor must clearly communicate to the Participant the purpose DQGUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠLQFOXGLQJ eligibility requirements for lighting rebates. The Vendor must involve the CEE consultant in communications with the Participant, and must keep the CEE consultant fully informed regarding all details of the transaction. Eligibility Requirements Vendor Responsibilities 12. Vendors are responsible for reviewing, signing and returning the Contractor Report to CEE before materials are ordered. By signing the Contractor Report, the Vendor represents and warrants that the transaction complies with these Rules and Requirements and that the project specifications in the Contractor Report are accurate, acceptable and will be installed as specified. 13. Any inaccuracies concerning project specifications must be reported immediately to a CEE consultant so they can be addressed, the rebate recalculated if necessary and a revised report issued to the Vendor and the Participant. 14. Vendor must contact a CEE consultant whenever there are changes to the project so that equipment eligibility can be confirmed and the rebate value can be re-calculated if necessary. 15. CEE will not be responsible for changes in the rebate value if the Vendor does not sign and return the Contractor Report, and report: inaccuracies in the Contractor Report; changes in the equipment to be installed; or changes in the project during construction. Rebate Calculations 16. Rebate values are based on CEE¶s calculation of electric demand (KW) and energy (kWh) savings. Hours used for calculation of the kWh savings must be an accurate representation of the Participant¶s operating schedule. 17. Electric demand and energy savings are calculated using lighting efficiency baselines established by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). EISA standards apply to most T12 and incandescent lighting technologies today, and will apply to other technologies as efficiency requirements continue to be phased in. 18. If an Xcel Energy lighting rebate was previously assigned to this account and the rebated lighting was subsequently converted to a less efficient lighting system, a One-Stop consultant must review the situation to determine the correct baseline energy use for calculating the rebate. 19. Rebates are based on the energy use of the equipment actually installed at the site and the Participant¶s Project Cost. Rebates will be recalculated if the final equipment and Participant¶s Project Cost is different than originally approved by CEE. 20. Rebates cannot exceed 60 percent of the Participant¶s Project Cost, XQOHVVRWKHUZLVHVSHFLILHGE\WKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ7KH minimum rebate paid is $5.00. 21³Participant¶s Project Cost´means the Participant¶s financial obligation for the lighting retrofit based on the total project cost less any and all Deductions, regardless of when these Deductions are received. 7KH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠŠOLJKWLQJHIILFLHQF\SURJUDP 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ DGPLQLVWHUHGE\&HQWHUIRU(QHUJ\DQG Environment ³CEE´ and funded through Xcel Energy, offers cash rebates to eligible small business customers ³Participant´ who purchase and install qualifying energy-efficient lighting products in existing buildings. 7KHLQWHQWRIWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠRSHUDWLQJDVD0LQQHVRWD&RQVHUYDWLRQ,PSURYHPHQW3URJUDP &,3 LVWRLQFHQWLYL]H;FHO Energy¶s customers to install energy efficient equipment earlier than they would have otherwise by defraying a portion of the cost of the retrofit. To ensure that the program operates as intended, the Participant must have a financial stake in the transaction and the Participant¶s Project Cost PXVWEHJUHDWHUWKDQ]HURWRUHFHLYHD2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWH Participant Qualifications 2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWHVDSSO\RQO\WRTXDOLILHG;FHO(QHUJ\FXVWRPHUVZLWKDYDOLGFRPPHUFLDOHOHFWULFDFFRXQWLQ;FHO(QHUJ\¶s 0LQQHVRWDVHUYLFHWHUULWRU\WKDWPHHW2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠHOLJLELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWV7KH9HQGRURU3DUWLFLSDQWPXVWYHULI\ZLWKD&(( FRQVXOWDQWWKDWDQ;FHO(QHUJ\DFFRXQWLVHOLJLEOHIRU2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWHVEHIRUHFRPPLWWLQJWRSXUFKDVLQJHTXLSPHQWIRURU LPSOHPHQWLQJDSURMHFW7RGHWHUPLQHLIDEXVLQHVVTXDOLILHVIRUWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠSOHDVHFRQWDFW&((DW   Page 1 of 2 Page 5 of 6 Customer Report 04/07/2019 06:54 PM Program ID#00027605 21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š352*5$058/(6DQG5(48,5(0(176 22³Deductions´means anything of value received by the Participant that reduces the Participant¶s actual out-of-pocket cost for the lighting retrofit including, but not limited to: labor or material donations; monetary donations; labor or material cost deductions; grants; awards, rebates; or any other assistance of monetary value provided, directly or indirectly, by the Vendor, its agents or representatives to reduce the Participant¶s actual financial obligation for the lighting project. 23. The following types of financial transactions are not allowed as methods of payment by the Participant for the lighting project: barter, in-kind donations and performance contracting. 24. All Deductions must be separately itemized on the final invoice submitted to CEE. The Participant¶s Project Cost must be greater than ]HURWRUHFHLYHD2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUHEDWH A Minnesota Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) Offered by Center for Energy and Environment 25. The Vendor must submit an accurate, complete and transparent final invoice for the completed lighting retrofit. All parties involved in the project, including the Participant and CEE, must have a clear understanding of the scope of work and associated project costs, including any Deductions that have been applied. 26. Invoice(s) submitted must include: (1) itemized quantity, manufacturer¶s make and model numbers for each material item, (2) a lump sum amount for both material and labor, and (3) grand total project cost. In some cases, original equipment manufacturer (OEM) specification sheets may be requested for verification or clarification. 27. The Vendor must provide the Participant an invoice that reflects the same financial information that is submitted to CEE, including any Deductions that have been applied. Invoice 32. In cases of deferred payment, CEE reserves the right to process the rebate only when full payment is received by the Vendor from the Participant. All financed and alternate payment plans must be documented with detailed, legally obligating and signed contracts. CEE reserves the right to disallow any payment plan that its staff determines is not in compliance with the program design intent and rules. 33. Rebates will not be disbursed until the project is fully installed and verified. 34. The rebate check will be sent to the Participant (i.e., Xcel Energy account holder) listed on the rebate application, unless otherwise authorized by CEE. Xcel Energy will issue rebates in the form of checks, not utility bill credits. 35. Once completed paperwork is submitted and approved, rebate payments are usually made in 6 to 8 weeks. Special Notices 36. Xcel Energy and CEE reserve the right to refuse payment or SDUWLFLSDWLRQLQWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠLIWKH3DUWLFLSDQWRU Vendor violates program design intent, rules and procedures. Xcel Energy and CEE are not liable for rebates promised to Participants as a result of a Vendor misrepresenting the program. 377KH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠLVVXEMHFWWR60 days notice of cancellation. The Participant and Vendor are responsible for checking with a CEE consultant to determine whether the program is still in effect and to verify program requirements. 39. Do not endorse any particular vendor, manufacturer, product or system design by offering these rebates; 40. Will not be responsible for any tax liability imposed on the Participant as a result of the payment of rebates; 28. CEE reserves the right to inspect Participant¶s facility(ies) for installation of materials listed on this rebate application and will need access to survey the installed project. Participant must keep a sample of any and all types of equipment removed for a period of three (3) months after receiving a rebate from Xcel Energy. If the inspection determines that Participant did not comply with these Rules and Requirements, any rebate received by Participant must be promptly returned to Xcel Energy. 29. Vendor agrees to promptly provide CEE with such additional documentation and information as may be necessary to verify compliance with these Rules and Requirements, such as copies of cancelled checks or other relevant receipts/records as proof that the Participant paid the amount reflected on the invoice. Rebates for that project will not be paid until all requested documentation and information is provided and verified. Verification 302QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠUXOHVDQGUHEDWHHOLJLELOLW\UHTXLUHPHQWV are subject to change. It is the Participant's and Vendor's responsibility to verify with CEE that estimated rebates are still valid before committing to, purchasing equipment for or implementing a project. CEE will not pay a rebate for projects where the invoice is submitted more than 12 months after the start of the project. 31. Xcel Energy and CEE are not responsible for any lost, late, stolen, ineligible, illegible, misdirected or postage-due mail. All completed rebate applications and other submissions in connection with the One- 6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠEHFRPHWKHSURSHUW\RI;FHO(QHUJ\DQG&(( and will not be returned. Rebate Application and Payment Disclaimers 38. CEE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DISQUALIFY NON- COMPLIANT VENDORS FROM PARTICIPATION IN THE 21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š 41. EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, AND ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO ANY PRODUCTS, EQUIPMENT, MATERIAL OR WORKMANSHIP PROVIDED, SUPPLIED OR INSTALLED IN &211(&7,21:,7+7+(21(6723()),&,(1&<6+23Š Warranties, if any, are between Participant and equipment manufacturer (s) and/or Vendors. Xcel Energy and CEE: 42. Are not responsible for the disposal of removed lighting equipment (lamps, ballasts and/or fixtures) replaced as a result of this program, when required for optimum lighting performance; 43. In no event shall be liable for any indirect, special, incidental, consequential or punitive damages arising out of or relating to DGPLQLVWHULQJWKH2QH6WRS(IILFLHQF\6KRSŠ 44. Do not guarantee that a specific level of energy or cost savings will result from the implementation of energy conservation measures or the use of products funded under this program. Page 2 of 2 CEE FACET, Program Rules # 130326 For more information, contact CEE at Phone: (612) 244-2427 Fax: (612) 335-5888. Mail To: Center for Energy and Environment 212 3rd Avenue North, Suite 560 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Page 6 of 6 Customer Report 04/07/2019 06:54 PM Program ID#00027605