Loading...
Agenda and Packet (2)AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, JUNE 24, 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.Applebee's Site Development Update 2.Discuss Water Surface Use and High Water Occurrences on Lotus Lake 3.Key Financial Strategy: Pavement Management Funding Discussion Followup B.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Proclamation Recognizing Glenn Kaufmann as the Rotary Club of Chanhassen 2019 Distinguished Service Award Recipient 2.Invitation to 4th of July Celebration 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 June 10, 2019 2.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated June 4, 2019 3.Receive Park & Recreation Minutes dated May 29, 2019 4.Receive Senior Commission Minutes dated May 17, 2019 5.Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated May 8, 2019 6.Resolution 2019­XX: Approve implementing Post­Issuance Bond Compliance procedures and updates to the city’s debt policy regarding those procedures 7.3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and Front Yard Setback AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, JUNE 24, 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.Applebee's Site Development Update2.Discuss Water Surface Use and High Water Occurrences on Lotus Lake3.Key Financial Strategy: Pavement Management Funding Discussion FollowupB.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDERC.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS1.Proclamation Recognizing Glenn Kaufmann as the Rotary Club of Chanhassen 2019Distinguished Service Award Recipient2.Invitation to 4th of July CelebrationD.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 June 10, 20192.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated June 4, 20193.Receive Park & Recreation Minutes dated May 29, 20194.Receive Senior Commission Minutes dated May 17, 20195.Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated May 8, 20196.Resolution 2019­XX: Approve implementing Post­Issuance Bond Complianceprocedures and updates to the city’s debt policy regarding those procedures 7.3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and Front Yard Setback 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.Donna Burt Citizen Action Request Form F.FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE 1.Monthly Fire Department Update 2.Law Enforcement Update G.OLD BUSINESS H.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Resolution 2019­XX: Approve Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easements at 8077 Century Boulevard (Control Concepts) 2.195 West 79th Street: Approve Purchase Agreement for Sale of Land to Frontier Land Holdings, LLC I.NEW BUSINESS 1.Consider a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for Development Within the Bluff Creek Corridor for Property Located at 8077 Century Boulevard (Control Concepts) and Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) J.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS K.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS L.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION 1.2019 Spring Yard Waste Collection Summary 2.Review of Claims Paid 06­24­2019 M.ADJOURNMENT N.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 Council. If there are a number of individuals present to speak on the same topic, please designate a spokesperson AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, JUNE 24, 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.Applebee's Site Development Update2.Discuss Water Surface Use and High Water Occurrences on Lotus Lake3.Key Financial Strategy: Pavement Management Funding Discussion FollowupB.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDERC.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS1.Proclamation Recognizing Glenn Kaufmann as the Rotary Club of Chanhassen 2019Distinguished Service Award Recipient2.Invitation to 4th of July CelebrationD.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 June 10, 20192.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated June 4, 20193.Receive Park & Recreation Minutes dated May 29, 20194.Receive Senior Commission Minutes dated May 17, 20195.Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated May 8, 20196.Resolution 2019­XX: Approve implementing Post­Issuance Bond Complianceprocedures and updates to the city’s debt policy regarding those procedures7.3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback,and Front Yard SetbackE.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.Donna Burt Citizen Action Request FormF.FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE1.Monthly Fire Department Update2.Law Enforcement UpdateG.OLD BUSINESSH.PUBLIC HEARINGS1.Resolution 2019­XX: Approve Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easements at 8077Century Boulevard (Control Concepts)2.195 West 79th Street: Approve Purchase Agreement for Sale of Land to Frontier LandHoldings, LLCI.NEW BUSINESS1.Consider a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for Development Within theBluff Creek Corridor for Property Located at 8077 Century Boulevard (ControlConcepts) and Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD)J.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONSK.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONSL.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION1.2019 Spring Yard Waste Collection Summary2.Review of Claims Paid 06­24­2019M.ADJOURNMENTN.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. Whencalled upon to speak, state your name, address, and topic. All remarks shall be addressed to the CityCouncil as a whole, not to any specific member(s) or to any person who is not a member of the CityCouncil. 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 24, 2019 Subject Applebee's Site Development Update Section 5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.1. Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director File No:  SUMMARY Solomon Real Estate Group is working on the redevelopment of the Applebee's site. This was last discussed at the the May 28 City Council meeting. The developer is seeking to renovate the restaurant with a user who has greater parking needs than is available with the current use. The Solomon Group was requested by the Council to provide additional parking  layouts on the city property to the south. BACKGROUND City staff has reviewed a layout that would accommodate 30 extra parking stalls.  This plan also incorporates a better access to the entrance to the existing restaurant as well as other safety issues (fencing).  The parking plan must meet city design standards as well as receive watershed district approval. DISCUSSION City staff is recommending that the parking area be given a parking easement from the city, rather than a subdivision, with the restriction that the property can only be used as a parking lot. RECOMMENDATION Solomon Group is seeking conceptual approval from the City Council so they can work on the following: Easement Description Parking Lot Design Watershed District Approval ATTACHMENTS: Site Lease Premises Applebees Site Parking Concept Applebees Site Parking Concept2 5­28­19 City Council Work Session Minutes APPLEBEE'SW 79TH STMARKET BLVD10. 0 0 'PREMISES: 12,626 SF0'40'80'Common Ground AllianceN:\0020082.00\DWG\CONCEPT 19-06-04\0020082C-SITE 19-06-17.DWG 0020082.00Call 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.comDATE:06/17/19© 2018 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.PREPARED FOR:CHANHASSEN, MNAPPLEBEE'S RETAIL8560 KELZER POND DRIVEVICTORIA, MN 55386Phone(952) 937-515012701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300Fax(952) 937-5822Minnetonka, MN 55343Toll Free(888) 937-5150LEASE PREMISESFIELD WORK DATE:..FIELD CREW:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:JRWJRWMMWSOLOMON REAL ESTATE GROUP APPLEBEE'SW 79TH STMARKET BLVD19.80' 15.00'25TOTAL PARKING25 STALLSRETAINING WALL10. 0 0 'SIDEWALKPED. CROSSING10.00'FENCEFENCEPONDINGLANDSCAPINGSIDEWALK0'40'80'Common Ground AllianceN:\0020082.00\DWG\CONCEPT 19-06-04\0020082C-SITE 19-06-18.DWG 0020082.00Call 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.comDATE:06/18/19© 2018 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.PREPARED FOR:CHANHASSEN, MNRESTAURANT PAD8560 KELZER POND DRIVEVICTORIA, MN 55386Phone(952) 937-515012701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300Fax(952) 937-5822Minnetonka, MN 55343Toll Free(888) 937-5150PARKING CONCEPT F3FIELD WORK DATE:..FIELD CREW:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:JRWJRWMMWSOLOMON REAL ESTATE GROUP APPLEBEE'SW 79TH STMARKET BLVD19.80' 15.00'25TOTAL PARKING25 STALLSRETAINING WALL10. 0 0 'SIDEWALKPED. CROSSING10.00'FENCEFENCEPONDING0'40'80'Common Ground AllianceN:\0020082.00\DWG\CONCEPT 19-06-04\0020082C-SITE 19-06-18.DWG 0020082.00Call 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.comDATE:06/19/19© 2018 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.PREPARED FOR:CHANHASSEN, MNRESTAURANT PAD8560 KELZER POND DRIVEVICTORIA, MN 55386Phone(952) 937-515012701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300Fax(952) 937-5822Minnetonka, MN 55343Toll Free(888) 937-5150PARKING CONCEPT F4FIELD WORK DATE:..FIELD CREW:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:JRWJRWMMWSOLOMON REAL ESTATE GROUP 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 24, 2019 Subject Discuss Water Surface Use and High Water Occurrences on Lotus Lake Section 5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.2. Prepared By Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director and Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator File No:  SUMMARY The City Council will be hearing from residents about water surface use and occurrences of high water levels on Lotus Lake. It is the policy of the State of Minnesota to promote full use and enjoyment of waters of the state, to promote safety for persons and property in connection with such use, and to promote uniformity of laws relating to such use.  As a part of implementing that policy, Minnesota Statutes authorize counties, cities and towns to regulate by ordinance the use of surface waters by watercraft, upon approval of any such ordinance by the commissioner.  BACKGROUND Sec. 6­48. ­ Operation near shoreline. Operation of motorized watercraft within 100 feet of any shoreline shall be limited to emerging straight out from and straight towards the shoreline, or slow­no wake operation. Operation of personal watercraft within 150 feet of any shoreline shall be limited to emerging straight out from and straight towards the shoreline, or slow­no wake operation. Sec. 6­49. ­ Slow­no wake areas. Emergency slow­no wake areas may be established by resolution of the city council and shall be marked in accordance with the appropriate regulations of the state department of natural resources and posted at all public accesses. Special slow­no wake restrictions. Lotus Lake:All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow­no wake speed on Lotus Lake whenever the water elevation exceeds the 100­year predicted level for Lotus Lake of 896.8 MSL as set forth in the 1994 Surface Water Management Plan. The slow­no wake surface zoning shall remain in place until the water drops below the 100­year predicted level of 896.8 MSL for three consecutive days. 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. Sec. 6­50. ­ Speed. No person shall operate a watercraft at a speed which exceeds the following limitations: (2)  Lotus Lake: Sunrise to sunset, 40 miles per hour;  Sunset to sunrise the following day, 15 miles per hour; CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019SubjectDiscuss Water Surface Use and High Water Occurrences on Lotus LakeSection5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.2.Prepared By Todd Hoffman, Park & RecreationDirector and Renae Clark, WaterResources Coordinator File No: SUMMARYThe City Council will be hearing from residents about water surface use and occurrences of high water levels on LotusLake.It is the policy of the State of Minnesota to promote full use and enjoyment of waters of the state, to promote safetyfor persons and property in connection with such use, and to promote uniformity of laws relating to such use. As a part of implementing that policy, Minnesota Statutes authorize counties, cities and towns to regulate by ordinancethe use of surface waters by watercraft, upon approval of any such ordinance by the commissioner. BACKGROUNDSec. 6­48. ­ Operation near shoreline.Operation of motorized watercraft within 100 feet of any shoreline shall be limited to emerging straight out from andstraight towards the shoreline, or slow­no wake operation. Operation of personal watercraft within 150 feet of anyshoreline shall be limited to emerging straight out from and straight towards the shoreline, or slow­no wakeoperation.Sec. 6­49. ­ Slow­no wake areas.Emergency slow­no wake areas may be established by resolution of the city council and shall be marked inaccordance with the appropriate regulations of the state department of natural resources and posted at all publicaccesses.Special slow­no wake restrictions.Lotus Lake:All persons shall operate watercraft at a slow­no wake speed on Lotus Lake whenever the waterelevation exceeds the 100­year predicted level for Lotus Lake of 896.8 MSL as set forth in the 1994 SurfaceWater Management Plan. The slow­no wake surface zoning shall remain in place until the water drops below the100­year predicted level of 896.8 MSL for three consecutive days.Watercraft utilized by resource management, emergency and enforcement personnel, when acting in theperformance of their assigned duties, shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.Sec. 6­50. ­ Speed.No person shall operate a watercraft at a speed which exceeds the following limitations: (2) Lotus Lake: Sunrise to sunset, 40 miles per hour;  Sunset to sunrise the following day, 15 miles per hour; Sec. 6­52. ­ Direction of travel. The operation of motorized watercraft at speeds in excess of 15 miles per hour in other than a counter­clockwise pattern of travel is prohibited upon Lotus Lake. RECOMMENDATION If desired, the City Council can modify or add water surface use regulations by: Drafting ordinance Hold public hearing – notice of the hearing should be published in the newspaper at least 10 days before the hearing Submit the draft ordinance to the DNR Commissioner along with a written statement Wait for approval of the ordinance by the Commissioner City Council adopts ordinance approved by the Commissioner After ordinance adoption, placement of signs at each public watercraft launching facility outlining the essential elements of the ordinance ATTACHMENTS: Safe Wakes for Small Lakes Presentation LLCA Wakesurfing and Other Issues on Lotus Lake Chanhassen City Council Work Session June 24, 2019 Wake Surfing Regulations Needed on Lotus Lake Presented by JoAnn Syverson Spoken to the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed 3 times (April, May, and June). The Board members seem to understand and sympathize with my cause. Left June meeting with Board assigning a study to be done this summer on the effects of surfing waves on shorelines of Lotus Lake. Sent my deck to State Representative Dean Phillips. Heard from his assistant on the environment and sent her the deck. We will be speaking soon. Acquiring like-minded people to be part of organization. I hope to increase the movement after newspaper article appears. Learning of injuries sustained on Lotus as result of wake surfing wakes (including my own). Research coming in on the wake regulation movement around the country. Legislators are weighing in and saying the issue is rising to the top of their agendas. Interviewed by the Chanhassen Villager about the wake surfing regulation movement. Article to appear in June 20 paper. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to see the interview beforehand. Received threatening email from the Chairman of the WSIA (Water Sports Industry Association) on the day he thought I’d be speaking to the Council (June 10); he had been sent my June Argument Recap by someone. Surprising since it was sent to very few people. He told me to stop spreading falsehoods. His email added to the credibility of my arguments. A heartening report was made by the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Watershed Board concerning the wake surfing issue. They recommended the Board speak on behalf of the “Lake,” not the boat owners. Spoke to State Representative Kelly Morrison at her Listening Session in Chanhassen. She said I planted the seed of this issue with her and she certainly understood the issue. Left my deck with her. Developed an organizational logo, email address, and website. “Safe Wakes for Small Lakes,” which is our ultimate goal (minimum acreage and width must be met on small lakes to allow wake surfing in MN). The “SafeWakes” movement continues to grow 2 Priorities of the LLCA and SafeWakes Differ Represents all members of the LLCA Goal is to make lake enjoyable for all members Goal is to “keep the peace” and keep neighbors friendly Goal is to encourage happy members and thus supporting members Submitting self-patrolled “boating etiquette guidelines” for ALL boats unilaterally Represents all users of Lotus Lake (except wake surfers) Goal is to make lake enjoyable for all users of Lotus Lake (Fisherpeople, swimmers, pontooners, skiiers and wakeboarders, paddle boarders, kayakers, canoers, tubers, and all boaters except wake surfing boaters) Goal is to protect the lake’s ecology (shorelines and water quality) from wake surfing wakes Goal is to keep lake safe from surfing wakes which inhibit other users’ of the lake enjoyment Goal is to, at a minimum, keep wake surfers 150 feet from the shorelines and other users of the lake Submitting local ordinances to be passed concerning wake surfing with ticketing for violations LLCA 3 Wake surfing creates extremely large wakes •Wake surfing boats fill reservoirs (“bladders”) with water to increase the boat’s weight and mass and to raise or lower the boat in the water. These boats throw a tremendous wake and create huge artificial waves. These waves are then “surfed” by people. •Wake surfing is conducted at speeds of 8 –13 mph. The slower speed creates larger wakes. The slow speed, along with the extra weight from filled bladders, creates the perfect storm for monster waves. •Wakes generated by full ballast wake surfing boats are roughly 4 times that of wakeboarding. 1 •Wakes can be up to 7 feet above surface and 7 feet below surface of water, causing major disruptions above and below the water. 2 •Maximum wake/wave height associates with wake surfing drops 27-56% in the first 100-150 feet of its travel from the boat path. Wakes dissipate more slowly in water deeper than 15 feet. Operating at least 250 feet from shore will reduce effects of deep water wakes. 3 4 1.Oregon State Legislature. 2017 Report to the board of Yamhill, Marion, and Clackamas counties, Oregon, concerning wake- enhancing devices. Item E page 6. 2.Wake surfing boats create waves, property owners complain about damage. Karen Tolkkinen. Echo Press. August 11, 2017. 3.Wakesurfing: Some Wakes are More Equal than Others. Ruprecht, Glamore, Coghlan, and Flocard. Australian Coasts & Ports Conference 2015. Auckland, New Zealand. Environmental harms: Shoreline erosion Lotus Lake shoreline is pounded by massive wakes from surf boats every day during the boating season 5 Each run takes 6 minutes. Many surfing boats often continuously pound the shoreline for hours My lake, Lotus Lake, is 1.3-mile long and 500- 800’ wide. Wakes do not have enough distance to dissipate before crashing into shorelines. According to numerous homeowners, shoreline erosion has accelerated over the last few years Environmental harms: Damaged lake quality and shoreline erosion “The size of the wake seen on the surface is also of equal size under the surface .” 2 “Wake surfing boats are designed not only to throw a larger wake than conventional boats, they tend to keep the lake waters churned up (and murky) as well as continually disturbing the bottom lands of the shallower waters, which imperils natural aquatic plants, insects, fish, and microscopic life.”1 “Boat wake can churn up sediments in shallow water which releases dormant nutrients that promote weed growth and algae blooms.”1 1. Michigan Lake and Stream Associations, An update on wake boats by Clifford H. Bloom, Esq., Grand Rapids, MI, Oct 9, 2018. 2. Wake surfing boats create waves, property owners complain about damage. Karen Tolkkinen. Echo Press. August 11, 2017. 6 Proven connection between boat wakes and: •Sediment resuspension •Nearshore turbidity •Shoreline erosion •Increased probability of AIS transmittal through ballast receptacles1 Safety concerns:Boaters and swimmers feel unsafe when surfing wake boats are running Large wakes create dangerous conditions for swimmers and small boats1 •Stand-up paddle boards, kayaks, small rowing shells, canoes, small sailing and fishing boats, other small water craft, and swimmers (especially children!) are at risk1 •Wake surfing boats focus everyone’s attention toward the back of the boat where the action is. The bow tends to rise, obscuring vision forward1 7 1.The Oregon State Marine Board’s publication “Experience Oregon Boating: Safety, Regulations, and How-to’s for Fun Boating” When surfing wakes hit, everyone on the lake is affected! States are regulating wake surfing •Maryland and Pennsylvania: 200 foot regulation specific to wake surfing •Oregon: local area rule—no wake-enhancing devices allowed •Michigan Lake and Stream Associations:Recommends reduced speed within 500’ of shore, not use ballast water or other extra weight to increase the displacement of water, not operate wake boats near newer sandy areas, wetlands, or lake front residences •Lake of the Ozarks’ Proposal: Minimum lake size for wake surfing is 300 acres and minimum distance between boats is 200 feet •NO ballasts allowed on Lake Tuscaloosa, Alabama •Village of Theinsville and City of Mequon, Wisconsin (May 2010) : Passed Ordinance #90-17: “No person can operate a boat in an artificially bow- high manner, in order to increase or enhance the boat wake. Such prohibited operation shall include wake enhancement use of ballast, mechanical hydrofoils, uneven loading or operation at transition speed 8 Many lakes in MN have local ordinances requiring minimum distances for boats Dakota County Lake Marion: slow/no wake 200’ from shore, boats swimmers, non-motorized equipment Orchard Lake: slow/no wake 100’ shore, boats swimmers, non-motorized equipment Roseville, Arden Hills, Shoreview All lakes: slow/no wake 150’ of shore, anglers, swimmers, other boats. No skiing within 300 ‘ of shore, docks, swimmers Ramsey County White Bear Lake: slow/no wake 200’ –300’ from shore, 100’ from people Skiing: 100’ from shore, rafts, docks, swim areas Lake Winona: slow/no wake 500’ from swimmers, 100’ other boats Prior Lake No Wake Along Shorelines:Prior Lake has a perpetual (constant)no wake zone along ALL shorelines; you must have no wake when you are within 150 feet of shore.. Roseville, Arden Hills, Shoreview All lakes: slow/no wake 150’ of shore, anglers, swimmers, other boats. No skiing within 300 ‘ of shore, docks, swimmers Ramsey County White Bear Lake: slow/no wake 200’ –300’ from shore, 100’ from people. Skiing: 100’ from shore, rafts, docks, swim areas Lake Winona: slow/no wake 500’ from swimmers, 100’ other boats Wright County Howard Lake, Lake Ann, Lake Charlotte: slow/no wake 150’ from shore 9 Pass local ordinances for Lotus Lake •Wake surfers must stay a minimum of 150 feet from shorelines and all other users on the lake, including other boats, fishing people, swimmers, rafts, personal watercrafts, kayakers, paddle boaters, etc. (same as Prior Lake) •Homeowners will be allowed to place buoys 150 feet from their shorelines. •New regulations will be noted with signage at ramp, letters to homeowners, and distributed flyers. •Violators will be ticketed. 10 Wakesurfing and other issues on Lotus Lake: Overview & LLCA Recommendations City Council Working Session, June 24, 2019 Wakesurfing –what’s the big deal? •Wakesurf boats are big, heavy, and built to produce very large wakes •Relatively new activity on Lotus Lake •Causing shoreline erosion and recreational issues 2 6/19/2019 Add a footer Why did the LLCA get involved? •Our board has been receiving complaints from members for the past three years: •Shoreline erosion issues •Washout behind rip-rap •Shoreline collapsing/disappearing into lake •Recreation issues •Harder for some to do “quieter” sports like kayaking, canoeing, swimming •Big wakes affecting people’s ability to enjoy time on lake •Noise issues •Loud music during day and at night •Decided to survey our members to get some actual data •Survey met with both complaints and thanks 3 6/19/2019 Add a footer Wakesurfing Survey -Overview ●Sent to all LLCA members we have emails for in February ●96 valid responses ○71 responses from lakeshore households ○25 responses from off-lake households ●Complete survey with responses and comments emailed to LLCA members in March Survey Results 5 6/19/2019 Add a footer 6 6/19/2019 Add a footer What activities do you and your family enjoy doing on Lotus Lake? 7 6/19/2019 Add a footer Do you own a boat that is used for wakesurfing? 8 6/19/2019 Add a footer Has wakesurfing adversely affected your use or enjoyment of Lotus Lake? 9 6/19/2019 Add a footer Adversely affected use or enjoyment -results by group: Surfboat owners Non-surfboat owners 10 6/19/2019 Add a footer Have you felt unsafe on the water due to large wakes from wakesurf boats? 11 6/19/2019 Add a footer Felt unsafe due to large wakes -results by group: Surfboat owners Non-surfboat owners 12 6/19/2019 Add a footer Do you think the LLCA should ask Chanhassen to regulate wakesurfing on Lotus? Should LLCA ask Chanhassen to regulate -results by group: Surfboat owners Non-surfboat owners 14 6/19/2019 Add a footer Are you a lakeshore homeowner? 15 6/19/2019 Add a footer Have you noticed any changes in your shoreline in the past few years? Shoreline changes –results by group Surfboat owners:Non-surfboat owners: 17 6/19/2019 Add a footer Have you had damage to a boat, dock, landscaping, etc. due to very large wakes? Boat/dock/landscaping/etc. damage by group Surfboat owners Non-surfboat owners Do you feel this survey method of determining LLCA membership opinions is worthwhile? Key Survey & Meeting Takeaways ●Many people were unaware of current boating regulations on Lotus ●One third of respondents did not want any new regulations ●Majority of respondents would like to see some change in wake surfing activities ●Main concerns include shoreline erosion, recreation, safety ●Boating etiquitte on Lotus could use some improvement on all fronts ●Significant reduction in Carver County Water Patrol presence on Lotus ●You don’t know what you don’t know –it’s good to learn what other people are experiencing Key Minnesota and Chanhassen boating regulations ●It’s against the law: ○To operate a watercraft in a careless or reckless manner. ○To operate a watercraft so its wash or wake endangers, harasses, or interferes with any person or property ●Additionally, on Lotus Lake: ○Boaters must travel at slow/no-wake speed within 100 feet of shore ○Daytime 40 mph, nighttime 15 mph ○Counterclockwise travel at over 15 mph 21 LLCA post-survey and meeting actions: ●Form a task force representing both “sides” to give input for: ○Educating boaters on existing ordinances/laws ○How to encourage friendlier lake usage by all ○Design of sign for installation at ramp ○Design handout for visiting boaters ●Robust discussions about various issues, delivered recommendations to LLCA Board ●LLCA Board accepted recommendations with a few minor tweaks 22 What’s next LLCA Requests from Chanhassen & Ideas for improvements Request #1 Add a sign at the public launch with: -Overview of laws/regulations currently in effect on Lotus Lake -Suggestions for making boating better for all - “Be a friendly boater” section of sign 24 6/19/2019 Add a footer Request #2 Allow LLCA to provide visitors to Lotus a rules handout -Smaller version of sign to take along in boat -Already approved for AIS inspector handout by Carver County AIS Coordinator 25 6/19/2019 Add a footer Request #3 Allow marker buoys at 100’ from shore: -Visual marker of the 100’ point -Placed by homeowners at their discretion -Uniform buoy type at all locations -Aligns with LLCA “Protect the Points” project -Requesting blanket approval to avoid need for annual permit application -Maintain 50’ distance between buoys for easy access for fishermen & others 26 6/19/2019 Add a footer Request #4 Allow LLCA to provide shed for inspectors: -Both County and Inspectors are in favor of idea -LLCA would pay for shed building expenses: -Pour foundation -Build shed (or possibly move from Minnewashta) -City would provide: -Electric at location 27 6/19/2019 Add a footer Request #5 Allow LLCA to treat ramp area for invasive weeds: -Lotus first recreational lake in state with Brittle Naiad -Do not want to spread to other lakes -Keeping ramp clear would help entire state -LLCA willing to pay for treatment, but need permission 28 6/19/2019 Add a footer Request #6 Consider amenities trade with Frontier Trail and Sunrise Hills Associations: -Sunrise Hills and Frontier Trail Associations have boat ramps at their beach lots -Both beach lots are non-conforming -Uninspected boats launched at these ramps -Consider trading ramps for docking privileges -Needs further thought/discussion, but let’s start a conversation about possibilities 29 6/19/2019 Add a footer Thank you for considering these requests Questions? City Council Working Session, June 24, 2019 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Key Financial Strategy: Pavement Management Funding Discussion Followup Section 5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.3. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: ADM­324 BACKGROUND At the previous City Council work session on June 10, staff and city council reviewed in depth some of the history and details of our pavement management program (see attached PPT).  It included review of the OCI (Overall Condition Index) of our local roads, history of when our local roads were built, and the best practices for maintaining the longevity of our local roads.  In addition, we briefly reviewed some possible funding scenarios to consider based on the need for replacement and maintenance of our aging road infrastructure. This evening staff will be looking for direction from city council on four key questions in order for the city to take the next step of providing a revenue stream for maintenance and replacement of our pavement management program: 1. Staff is looking for direction on a targeted average annual maintenance and replacement expenditure for our local roads.  In 2018, staff had reviewed with city council multiple options but particularly targeted $3.3M per year in annual cost replacement.  During Public Works Director Jason Wedel’s presentation on June 10, staff indicated that the true need based on average miles per year of roads built would be closer to at least $3.6M per year in annual replacement costs.  The city council could choose any range of average annual targeted expenditures, but identifying the targeted funding goal will be essential in helping to answer the next three questions of our discussion.  2. The second question staff would like some guidance on is how city council would like to proceed with paying for the increased funding for our local roads.  Staff has presented the two most viable funding sources: property tax levy and/or franchise fee.  The city council could choose either revenue stream to be used at any level it desired.  Staff did present one scenario which included a combination of a levy increase and a franchise fee.  All of the possible funding scenarios shared last time with city council have been attached again for your reference.  3. Thirdly, does the city council want to consider issuing debt for the assessed share (40%) of the local road improvements?  As discussed at our previous meeting, the use of bonding to eliminate the need for the city to be the funding source for the assessed share does give the fund a healthy boost in reserves in the early years of implementation.  It also keeps the initial funding stream lower.  However, in order to eliminate the use of bonding for the assessed share it would take a substantial investment in later years to do so.  We also reviewed the impact the additional debt would have on the city.  4. Lastly, how would the city council like to proceed with communicating with the public the additional tax or franchise fee to support our local street funding program?  The city council could decide to take a similar approach as last year and hold a couple of public open houses at the Library to review the potential funding scenario with city staff.  The city council could also choose to hold a public input session with the city council directly as it did CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019SubjectKey Financial Strategy: Pavement Management Funding Discussion FollowupSection5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.3.Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No: ADM­324BACKGROUNDAt the previous City Council work session on June 10, staff and city council reviewed in depth some of the history anddetails of our pavement management program (see attached PPT).  It included review of the OCI (Overall ConditionIndex) of our local roads, history of when our local roads were built, and the best practices for maintaining thelongevity of our local roads.  In addition, we briefly reviewed some possible funding scenarios to consider based onthe need for replacement and maintenance of our aging road infrastructure.This evening staff will be looking for direction from city council on four key questions in order for the city to take thenext step of providing a revenue stream for maintenance and replacement of our pavement management program:1. Staff is looking for direction on a targeted average annual maintenance and replacement expenditure for our localroads.  In 2018, staff had reviewed with city council multiple options but particularly targeted $3.3M per year inannual cost replacement.  During Public Works Director Jason Wedel’s presentation on June 10, staff indicatedthat the true need based on average miles per year of roads built would be closer to at least $3.6M per year inannual replacement costs.  The city council could choose any range of average annual targeted expenditures, butidentifying the targeted funding goal will be essential in helping to answer the next three questions of ourdiscussion. 2. The second question staff would like some guidance on is how city council would like to proceed with paying forthe increased funding for our local roads.  Staff has presented the two most viable funding sources: property taxlevy and/or franchise fee.  The city council could choose either revenue stream to be used at any level it desired. Staff did present one scenario which included a combination of a levy increase and a franchise fee.  All of thepossible funding scenarios shared last time with city council have been attached again for your reference. 3. Thirdly, does the city council want to consider issuing debt for the assessed share (40%) of the local roadimprovements?  As discussed at our previous meeting, the use of bonding to eliminate the need for the city to bethe funding source for the assessed share does give the fund a healthy boost in reserves in the early years ofimplementation.  It also keeps the initial funding stream lower.  However, in order to eliminate the use of bondingfor the assessed share it would take a substantial investment in later years to do so.  We also reviewed the impactthe additional debt would have on the city. 4. Lastly, how would the city council like to proceed with communicating with the public the additional tax orfranchise fee to support our local street funding program?  The city council could decide to take a similar approach as last year and hold a couple of public open houses at the Library to review the potential funding scenario with city staff.  The city council could also choose to hold a public input session with the city council directly as it did last year, or any combination of both to share any potential funding scenario with the residents and businesses. DISCUSSION Staff is looking for direction on how to proceed on all four of these questions as well as the timing of when they would like to proceed with the next steps. ATTACHMENTS: 6­10­19 PPT $3.3 No Debt $3.6 No Debt $3.3 Debt $3.6 Debt 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 24, 2019 Subject Proclamation Recognizing Glenn Kaufmann as the Rotary Club of Chanhassen 2019 Distinguished Service Award Recipient Section PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS Item No: C.1. Prepared By Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Proclamation CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Invitation to 4th of July Celebration Section PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS Item No: C.2. Prepared By Audrey Swantz, Recreation Supervisor File No:  SUMMARY I am excited to invite everyone to the City of Chanhassen’s largest community event of the year—the 36th Annual 4 th of July Celebration!  This celebration will be held on July 2, 3, & 4.  The event is presented by the City of Chanhassen and sponsored by the 2019 Community Event Sponsors. Tuesday, July 2 Family Night at the Carnival from 3­10 pm Pony Rides from 3­8 pm Wednesday, July 3 Activities begin at 3:30 pm and include: SouthWest Metro Chamber of Commerce Business Expo Rotary Club of Chanhassen presents the Taste of Chanhassen and Beer & Wine Garden Carnival Rides & Concessions Kiddie Parade Skate Board Competition Live Music by Stone Daisy And the ever­popular street dance featuring a new band, Fabulous Armadillos from 7:30 ­11 pm Thursday, July 4 Events start early again with the adult fishing contest on Lake Ann at 7 am.  Other events throughout the day at City Center Park and Lake Ann include: Kids fishing contest Medallion Hunt Live music by American Bootleg Carnival Rides and Concessions Rotary Club of Chanhassen presents the Taste of Chanhassen and Beer & Wine Garden Rotary Club of Chanhassen’s Classic Car Show Parade produced by the Chanhassen Rotary Club CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019SubjectInvitation to 4th of July CelebrationSectionPUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS Item No: C.2.Prepared By Audrey Swantz, Recreation Supervisor File No: SUMMARYI am excited to invite everyone to the City of Chanhassen’s largest community event of the year—the 36th Annual 4 thof July Celebration!  This celebration will be held on July 2, 3, & 4.  The event is presented by the City of Chanhassenand sponsored by the 2019 Community Event Sponsors.Tuesday, July 2Family Night at the Carnival from 3­10 pmPony Rides from 3­8 pmWednesday, July 3Activities begin at 3:30 pm and include:SouthWest Metro Chamber of Commerce Business ExpoRotary Club of Chanhassen presents the Taste of Chanhassen and Beer & Wine GardenCarnival Rides & ConcessionsKiddie ParadeSkate Board CompetitionLive Music by Stone DaisyAnd the ever­popular street dance featuring a new band, Fabulous Armadillos from 7:30 ­11 pmThursday, July 4Events start early again with the adult fishing contest on Lake Ann at 7 am.  Other events throughout the day at CityCenter Park and Lake Ann include:Kids fishing contestMedallion HuntLive music by American BootlegCarnival Rides and ConcessionsRotary Club of Chanhassen presents the Taste of Chanhassen and Beer & Wine GardenRotary Club of Chanhassen’s Classic Car Show Parade produced by the Chanhassen Rotary Club Be sure to join us for a spectacular fireworks display over Lake Ann at 10 pm.  Bring your families, neighbors, and friends for three days of fun!  I look forward to seeing everyone there! CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Approve City Council Minutes dated June 10, 2019 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the minutes dated June 10, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: City Council Summary Minutes dated June 10, 2019 City Council Verbatim Minutes dated June 10, 2019 City Council Work Session Minutes dated June 10, 2019 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JUNE 10, 2019 Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Jason Wedel, Todd Hoffman, Roger Knutson, Greg Sticha, and MacKenzie Walters PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman seconded that the City Council approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 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. 14-08 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 On-Sale 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 8. Pulled by Laurie Susla for separate discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. City Council Summary – June 10, 2019 2 VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Tim Litfin with Minnetonka Community Education showed highlights of past Tour de Tonka events and outlined events planned for the 2019 Tour de Tonka ride on Saturday, August 3rd. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVER, LAKE SETBACK, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3617 RED CEDAR POINT. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report and Planning Commission update on this item. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification of the 4 parking spaces and where people park when there’s an event. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification of the shoreland restoration plan with the vegetated buffer, lot coverage, who is responsible for cutting down the cottonwood tree and associated replacement plan, and the driveway length. Kristen Kingsbury, an attorney representing the applicant Pam Reimer, asked for 11.5 feet where the single car garage is and 8.5 feet for the double car garage. After discussion between council members and the applicant Pam Reimer and builder Paul Wagner, the following motion was made. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council table Planning Case 19-03, request for variances for lot cover, lake setback and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVE CONTRACT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE POWERS BOULEVARD/LAKE LUCY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS. Jason Wedel presented the staff report on this item. Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves a consultant contract with Bolton and Menk in the amount of $83,450 for the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy Road pedestrian improvements Project Number PW031A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ESTABLISHING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. Greg Sticha presented the staff report on this item. Councilman McDonald explained his belief that this item was not voted as a key financial strategy priority by council and his belief that there is a conflict between creating this commission and what staff currently does. Councilwoman Tjornhom explained her disappointment in the fact that the priority rankings got changed and therefore the council is discussing this issue. Councilman Campion discussed that he was wholeheartedly behind the creation of this commission. Councilwoman Coleman explained that as a new council member she saw that the KFS rankings was a flawed system. Mayor Ryan provided background information on how this item became a priority for her. City Council Summary – June 10, 2019 3 Ordinance 643: Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman seconded that the City Council adopts an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Chanhassen City Code establishing an Economic Development Commission. All voted in favor, except for Councilman McDonald and Councilwoman Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. D-8. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY SLOW NO-WAKE AREA ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA; AND ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6-49 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING SLOW NO-WAKE. Todd Gerhardt and Jason Wedel presented the staff report on this item. Laurie Susla, 7008 Dakota Avenue, and speaking as President of the Lotus Lake Conservation Alliance, expressed concern with the three consecutive day issue. The Lotus Lake Conservation Alliance board would request that in paragraph B, section 2, line 3 the words “for three consecutive day” be deleted. Keith Paap, 3601 Red Cedar Point Road discussed the water level of Lake Minnewashta. After discussion by council members the following motion was made. Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve Resolution #2019-29 establishing emergency slow-no wake area on Lake Minnewashta with the change to Section 6-49(b)(2) deleting the words “or exceeded for three consecutive days”; and adopts Ordinance 642 amending Section 6-49 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning slow-no wake with the change to Section (b)(1) Lake Minnewashta Level of 945.0 and Lake Susan Level of 882.5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Councilwoman Coleman moved, Councilman Campion seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING JUNE 10, 2019 Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Jason Wedel, Todd Hoffman, Roger Knutson, Greg Sticha, and MacKenzie Walters Mayor Ryan: I haven’t hit the gavel in a while after all that mayor, young mayors that we’ve had the last few times. Thank you everybody for coming to this evening’s meeting. To those of you that are watching at home on Mediacom cable channel or those who are livestreaming from the Chanhassen website, we’re glad you can join us. For the record we have all of our members present tonight so our first action is our agenda approval. Councilmembers 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? Or anybody here. Please state your name and address. Laurie Susla: My name is Laurie Susla. My address is 7008 Dakota Avenue. There was a late addition to the consent agenda today regarding no wake situations and I was just curious is that still on the consent agenda as well tonight? Mayor Ryan: Yes it’s D-8. Laurie Susla: Okay I would ask that that be pulled so that could be discussed. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Laurie Susla: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Ms. Susla. We will move that item under New Business to G-4. Laurie Susla: Excuse me, can I walk up here again? Should I say what I would like to see it …during the visitor presentation or wait that for that part of the agenda? Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 2 Mayor Ryan: Wait til that part of the agenda. Laurie Susla: Thank you so much. Mayor Ryan: Yeah thank you. Alright with the item moved to item D-8 moved to G-1, is there a motion to approve consent agenda items D-1 through 7. Councilman Campion: So moved. Councilwoman Coleman: Second. Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman seconded that the City Council approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 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. 14-08 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 On-Sale 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 8. Pulled by Laurie Susla for separate discussion. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Ryan: We do tonight have one scheduled visitor presentation so I will ask Mr. Litfin to come forward. Welcome again. Nice to see you. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 3 Tim Litfin: Thank you Madam Mayor, council members, city staff, community members, thank you for having me here tonight. Appreciate the opportunity to talk about Tour de Tonka, a great event that is great because it comes through the great city of Chanhassen and probably does so each and every year with 7 of the 8 rides all rolling right through here coming up real soon on Saturday, August 1st and I’ll run through it quickly. I know you’ve got a full agenda but here’s a little Tour de Tonka by the numbers up in front of you. We’ve got a little gift there in front of you and you can use however you wish. I was talking to Todd about that earlier and it’s like what do you do with it? Well that’s up to you so have fun with that little stuffed logo. Little Tour de Tonka by the numbers and I’ll take the lowest number right off the bat and that’s number one and we’ve had 12 out of 13 great runs. Last year the one year we had to cancel because of thunderstorms in the area and really all that weekend so that happens unfortunately. It’s only happened one time and we’re batting good average so we’ll keep that going this year. 13 is the number of rest stops you can enjoy when you ride Tour de Tonka this year. 54, the number of bike jerseys that Todd Gerhardt has bought in the past. No that’s the number of t- shirts that were sold last year. The event 74 represents the number of…that have come with riders to Tour de Tonka from Minnesota the past run of 13 years and 420, if you added up all the miles together back to back on all routes and trails that’s how long Tour de Tonka is in one fell swoop. Moving forward, volunteers is what makes it go as do riders. Volunteers if you’re out there 600 strong is what it takes to pull off this wonderful event and they come from Chanhassen as well as they come from all the communities around us and we thank them and we look forward to them and if you’re out there Tour de Tonka.org will get you to a volunteer spot as well as riders. We take riders all throughout, right now on up to the morning of the event so please consider that as well council members if you’re interested. This map shows where all the riders have come from in the history of Tour de Tonka and I’m not going to talk about the nasty red states because we haven’t had one those states yet but all the other states are just grand and glorious and it’s kind of cool to see that Illinois is really one of the most popular states away from Minnesota which is pretty cool. Not touching us but they send a lot of riders from the Chicago area as do riders from the Chanhassen area as you’ll see that in a little bit. Here’s Minnesota county by county as I mentioned earlier. Anybody here from the far western side who are looking for cousins, relatives, etcetera to…those white counties. And top cities that have participated, the City of Chan is number 5 and you’ve gone from number 2 through 4, 5, 6, 7, right in there. Just kind of every year’s a little different and if you look at the far right column you can see that those numbers are down and that’s because of what happened last year with the storms. Those are last year’s numbers but we’re down by that much. From Wednesday on it was just like somebody shut the faucet off of riders. They saw the weather forecasting and that kept them away and that’s understandable but this year we’ll bring them all back strong. Then the top 20 communities are the next group of cities. There are a lot of them right around us and then you start moving to the eastern side of the metro. And the demographics of this event really have been very consistent with about 65 percent male riders and the rest are female but both groups are strong. We did have a 2 year old that registered last year. Mom and dad…talking point tonight for you but that 88 year old gentleman he was ready to go the year before he rode at 87 so we’ll keep him coming back as well I hope this year. We raise money for the ICU Food Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 4 Shelf and they service many communities right around us and that is a good thing for us to do and we’re glad to partner with them. All the cities we go through and I mentioned Chan at the top of that list…but those are the communities that we go through and new on the list this year is New Germany so way out west you can be part of that group as well. The 100 mile ride goes through New Germany and as I mentioned earlier 7 out of 8 rides all come through Chanhassen so thanks to city management for working with us to make sure this event is happening and the streets I know are just going to be perfectly level. They always are here in Chanhassen so thank you for that. Police and fire outstanding and we can’t do it without safety and they provide all of that and you can see Carver County sheriff’s on there as well as Chan Fire so great groups of people to work with. They are paid. They need to be paid. They should be paid and we thank them and we need them. This year 8 different businesses and they’re in front of you so we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 council members. City staff has 8. Pick your distance and whoever goes the 100 I’ll leave that up to you but we welcome one and all and it will be a fun event for sure. Registration. This is kind of a fun thing I put together here well a couple of weeks ago and it just shows very consistent pattern through the years which was astounding to me as you reflect just on the last 5 years that it’s very consistent and that’s a good thing to know because you don’t get too shook up about where they’re coming from or when they’re coming. We just keep marketing and hope. There’s one big map of where everything goes on that one day, Saturday, August 3rd and so we can see there pretty much all around Chan and in Chan and that’s a good thing and so if you’re out there and you want to ride that day and jump down and let’s see you out there on 2 wheels. Oh 3 wheels we have some. Rest stops. Chanhassen has a beautiful rest stop here at Bluff Creek and that is a fun rest stop for the 30 and the 36 mile riders and when you can have food, music and dance and ride all those good things. Sponsors are wonderful. We partner with so many good people and these are our sponsors for this year and many of them just come back year after year and I’ll plug Dominoes just because they’re part of the gift that you have in front of you tonight as well as all of our other good sponsors that are in front of you. And there’s this year’s t-shirt that you’ll all be wearing and so a little sneak peak at that and we look forward to having you on Saturday, August 3rd and again if you’re out there as a rider or a volunteer tourdetonka.org. Thank you very much and appreciate your time tonight. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Mr. Litfin. Council any questions? Well I just want to compliment, oh go ahead. Alright well I just want to commend you I know it’s a fantastic event. We’re always happy that you come through the city and, but from the feedback that I have received over the years it is extremely well run. I know it was disappointing last year with the terrible weather but luckily that number was only one and we just appreciate you coming here this evening and sharing with us. Creating some more excitement. We appreciate you working with our city staff and of course like you mentioned police and fire and their hard work but wish you continued success and luck with this ride. Like I said it’s extremely popular and it’s neat to have a regional bike ride like this is so congratulations to you and thank you for coming tonight. We appreciate it. Tim Litfin: Appreciate all your comments and a big pat on the back to everyone here in Chanhassen. Thank you. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 5 Mayor Ryan: Thank you. That was our scheduled visitor presentation. Are there any other visitor presentations this evening? Okay we will move forward with there are no public hearings tonight so we will start with new business. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVER, LAKE SETBACK, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3617 RED CEDAR POINT. Mayor Ryan: I would like to say before I pass this over to Mr. Walters and he begins, this evening we’ll get a staff report from Mr. Walters. Provide an opportunity to ask questions of staff. Invite the applicant forward to answer any questions or respond to any of the questions that council had even for staff as well as just address the council. This is not a public hearing but I would like to let the people that are in the chambers tonight as well as at home that are watching with particular interest to this, we have received all of the emails and feedback that you have sent to city staff. We have received the full verbatim Minutes for the Planning Commission meeting so we had an opportunity to read through all of your comments and the additional communication between residents and staff were included in the packet so we have been provided with the many comments and emails provided by the residents. In particular the neighbors to this residence. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was clear on the process for this evening so with that I will turn it over to Mr. Walters. MacKenzie Walters: Thank you Mayor Ryan. As mentioned this is planning case 2019-03. It is an appeal of the case that went before the Planning Commission on May 21st. The applicant had requested an 11 ½ foot front yard setback variance, 22.1 foot shoreland setback, a 9.5 percent lot cover variance for the purpose of constructing a detached single family home. The Planning Commission had approved the variance with one modification. And 8 ½ foot front yard setback. The equivalent of instead of the requested 11 ½ foot one. A little bit of background on this case. Some of you may remember this from last year. We received a variance request for this property. That was Planning Case 2018-01. In that one the Planning Commission had voted to grant an 11.5 foot front yard setback variance, 22.1 foot lakeshore setback variance and an 11 percent lot cover variance. That’s the same setbacks as was requested by this applicant and the applicant had removed about 150 feet of lot cover. Just for some context. That approval was appealed on January 8th. The appeal cited concerns about the length of the property’s driveway, the amount of lot cover and the size of the proposed house. On February 12, 2018 the council upheld the Planning Commission’s decision. However on February 12th of 2019 the variance lapsed because no construction had taken place. I believe the buyer backed out and so the property returned to the market and so a new variance was necessary. During the May 21st Planning Commission meeting a public hearing was held. I know that you mentioned the verbatim minutes and the emails having been read but I just want to highlight the concerns that staff heard during that. The Planning Commission expressed concerns that the proposed driveway length was too short and could establish a precedent for the neighborhood and the Planning Commission was concerned that the 3 car garage may be oversized for the property. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 6 They discussed multiple driveway depths and felt that an average depth of 16 feet would provide adequate parking. The Planning Commission noted that the use of pavers would reduce the effect of impervious down to about 28 to 29 percent from the 34 to 35 percent. Sorry 34.5 percent requested. Four neighbors spoke and expressed concern over the driveway length and requested that the Planning Commission require a minimum of 18 feet. One resident spoke and expressed support for the variance as requested. At the end the applicant indicated a willingness to increase the driveway length by 3 feet and that was the variance that was ultimately granted. None of the Planning Commission, they voted 4-0 to approve the variance with the longer front yard setback. May 27, 2019 staff received 2 appeals of the variance granted by the Planning Commission. Just a note the City Council has the authority to reverse, affirm, modify wholly or partly the appeal decision. A summary of the two appeals. The first appeal received was from the applicant. The applicant essentially requested that they be granted the variance they had initially requested rather than the one approved by the Planning Commission. They noted that what they had requested was essentially the variance that had been approved last year and that they had reduced the lot cover from the previously approved variance as well as…to grant the City an easement for roadway. They feel the proposed driveway can accommodate two vehicles and that total parking rather than driveway parking should be the standard. They also point out that they have no exterior storage outside of the garage. The neighbors, we also received an appeal from the neighbor. They expressed concern that the proposal does not provide adequate guest parking. I’m sorry that is quest parking oh dear. Guest parking and believe that a minimum of two cars should be accommodated by the driveway. They believe the potential for cars to overhang the street creates dangerous situations and that a minimum 18 foot depth is needed. They expressed concern about a precedent for the neighborhood. They would also express concern about the phrasing of the condition on the variance regarding the use of pervious pavers. Staff has reworded that to address the concern. It was never staff’s intent for that to be an optional condition so that has been changed. Mayor Ryan: On the patio and the driveway. MacKenzie Walters: Yes. Mayor Ryan: Okay. MacKenzie Walters: Yes. So a little bit of background on the location and the variance. The property is located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. It’s zoned residential single family. The zoning standards for that area require a 20,000 square foot minimum lot size, limit their properties to 25 percent lot cover, have a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setback, 75 foot shoreland setback and allow for up to a 250 square foot water oriented accessory structure. The site as it is is a substandard lot. It’s 9,203 square feet so a little less than half the size that would normally be required for the district. The lot currently has a lot coverage of 36.36 percent. It meets the required 30 foot front yard setback. The 10 foot east side setback is also met. However there is an out building that is a shed that’s about 4 feet from the side yard over here that the applicant’s proposing to remove. It is 52.9 feet from the lake so that’s a non-conforming Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 7 lakeshore setback and it has an existing 114 square foot water oriented structure that’s 24 feet from the lake. I should note the property’s a little atypical in that a portion of Red Cedar Point Road is actually located within the lot lines. As…policy the 562 square feet covered by Red Cedar Point Road is not included in either the lot coverage area or the lot area totals that we’ll be discussing tonight. So the applicant is proposing to remove the existing house as well as a large gravel driveway that extends about 30 feet into the property. They’re proposing to construct a new home shown here in green with a 3 car garage, driveway and then the patio that serves the property’s water oriented accessory structure so they wouldn’t be allowed to build anything closer to the lake than that patio. Their justification cited is the substandard nature of the lot. The fact that it is not possible to construct a new home within city code on the parcel. They will be replacing a deteriorating structure. They will be removing a non-conforming gravel drive and putting vegetation in the front yard. They’ll be reducing the lot cover by 184 square feet from it’s existing so it’s about a 1.9 percent reduction and they’ll be bringing the side yard setback into compliance with city code. They believe their request is consistent with other variances granted in the neighborhood. So we have as mentioned received numerous comments from neighbors. We’ve been contacted by I believe 7 neighbors to date. 6 have expressed concerns. One has expressed support for the variance as requested. The concerns and focus have really been on whether or not the, on their belief that the proposal does not provide off street parking for guests and will exacerbate the existing parking issues and safety concerns due to road width. There have also been concerns expressed that the house overbuilt and maximized and there is concern with the amount of impervious surface being proposed. The one supportive resident felt that the proposal is a marked improvement on the existing and they feel parking is in line with the general pattern of the neighborhood and note that people in the area work together to deal with the parking situation. Regarding parking staff did survey using Google Maps as well as data we have from our aerial photos. As a note the city code does not have a minimum driveway length stipulated. However for residential single family the 30 foot setback effectively would create a 30 foot drive which depending on length of right-of-way would accommodate between 4 to 6 cars considering the 2 car garage is an ordinance minimum so between 4 to 6 spots would generally be provided under city code. Looking at the houses in the immediate neighborhood staff calculated 77 spaces from 17 properties so then average of 4 ½ spaces are provided per property. The proposal staff…provides 4 off street spaces, 3 of which are in the garage. One would be in the driveway. The 3 foot increased driveway length approved by the Planning Commission would allow the driveway to more comfortably accommodate an average sized vehicle. For the purposes of discussion staff estimates the average size of a vehicle at 16 feet. So engineering staff did some work on the driveway and look at it as it was proposed. The driveway requested by the applicant would have been 11 ½ feet at it’s shortest. 14 ½ feet at it’s longest. It was felt that by increasing it by 3 feet with the average length of 16 feet would be achieved in the middle which would allow for the perpendicular parking of an average sized car. Even with the additional 3 feet staff recognizes that you know a contractor’s truck, full sized truck would not be able to park perpendicularly on the lot. This is just for some context a street view of Red Cedar Point Road. The house in yellow is the property in question and you can see it’s being used in this shot to park a trailer and a boat in front of the home. There was also concern expressed by the neighbors during the initial variance request as well as the second Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 8 round regarding the ability of snowplows to effectively remove snow from the area. Apparently historically the home is in dis-use so the front yard was used as a turnaround and snow storage area for the snowplows. Public works has looked it over and they are confident they can effectively plow the area without utilizing the subject properties. They do believe they would need to remove a large cottonwood tree that’s currently located in the public right-of-way here but they believe they can conduct a turn and successfully plow the area. There’s also been some discussions as to the buffering requirement that was placed on this variance. Without going too much out of my depth the Water Resources Coordinator put together an explanation of why this condition is being placed on this property. Essentially there are new rules that have been put out by the DNR recently that recommend 30 foot minimum buffer. 30 foot buffers be established along lake front properties. When people apply for variances with a 10 foot minimum width and so staff is recommending a 20 foot buffer be put in place between the property and the lake to help reduce the impact of the impervious surface. An example of what that would look like is this is where the buffer would need to be located on the property. This represents a 20 foot wide buffer. They would be allowed to have a 4 foot wide gap to facilitate walkway and access to the lake. This is the current situation in the rear yard and then these are some conceptual shots of what a buffer could be with the vegetation that can help slow and infiltrate the water. Staff’s assessment looking over the variance is the applicant should be required to install a buffer to help offset the large amount of impervious surface being retained. Staff feels the utilization of permeable pavers should also be used to address the water quality issues and that the shoreland restoration project of which the buffer would be the main component should also be used to mitigate the impact of the requested setback and lot cover. Staff believes that the variance is consistent with those granted to surrounding properties as well as the existing non-conformities within the neighborhood. Staff is also concerned about parking and acknowledges that the driveway length is short but feels that the variances does provide for a total of 4 off street parking spaces which is consistent with the neighborhood. For these reasons staff is recommending the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s granted variance. I’d be happy to take any questions at this time. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Mr. Walters. Council any questions of staff at this time? Councilman McDonald: I have a question. Mayor Ryan: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: In reading through this, I remember when this came through over a year ago and we talked about the things at that point. I was concerned then about the parking out front and just adding the 11 feet that we’re looking at, what does that exactly buy because I mean that area is notorious as far as having problems whenever you have company over and especially down at that end of Red Cedar, I mean have we really solved any problem or have we just created a bigger problem? Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 9 MacKenzie Walters: I don’t believe this proposal solves any of the problems. I don’t necessarily know that it’d be possible given the lot cover and setback constraints to design a house that you know could absorb excess parking in the area. I think it represents something of a neutral, neutral situation where it provides adequate parking for the family that you have at the house and likely one guest. Councilman McDonald: Yeah I had, I was going to wonder why we couldn’t just push the house back but I think you did address that because of the buffer to the lake so there really is no room to do anything. Sounds like you’ve moved it around as much as you can on the lot. The only other place to start taking the land and everything would be to reduce the size of the house and I’m sure the owners don’t want to do that. So I’m a little perplexed. It looks like no matter what we do we’re going to create a big problem so okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I need you to review with me again 4 parking spots that you’ve identified. MacKenzie Walters: Yep so 3 of these parking spots would be in the garage. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. MacKenzie Walters: And then the fourth would be if you’re talking an average sized car with the Planning Commission’s granted variance, I’m actually…you would add 3 feet onto this so you’d have a 17 ½ foot on your longer leg and then you know going out to about 14 feet here you’d be 16 feet deep so that would allow one car, again assuming an average length car, to park you know traditionally straight up nose to the garage. If not the car would, if the car was longer you would have to come in you know and park basically parallel to the front of the garage you know to not hang into the street or cause any situation like that. If depending on the size of the car the applicant might be able to get a second car into the garage with the extra, I mean into the driveway with the extra 3 feet for a 5 but it would require a lot of coordination. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you go back to a street view? MacKenzie Walters: The Red Cedar Point view? Yes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yes that. That’s a really narrow street. MacKenzie Walters: Yes it is. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So what happens now when there’s a graduation party or there is something going on, where do people park? Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 10 MacKenzie Walters: I believe folks, I don’t believe any parking is possible on the street. I think it tends to get pushed to the streets to the west or they make arrangements to share parking between neighbors. I couldn’t speak to that authoritatively though. Councilwoman Tjornhom: But we don’t have anything posted saying no parking? MacKenzie Walters: I don’t believe we do. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And is that something that is possible to just post no parking on that street? Todd Gerhardt: Another option is to shuttle people. Make arrangements with somebody that has you know, maybe the Lutheran church down the road. Arrangements with them and have a bus shuttle people. Mayor Ryan: Okay thank you. Councilman Campion. Councilman Campion: No questions or comments. Mayor Ryan: I thought you had raised your hand, sorry. Any other questions at this time? Go ahead. Councilwoman Coleman: We received an email saying I think something a little contradictory seeing that this actually would not fit the average length of cars. Being put, I believe they said 17 if we’re taking the average. Do you see this fitting 2 cars on average? MacKenzie Walters: I think it can in theory the driveway could accommodate 2 cars in terms of how people practically park. I see accommodating one average car. I believe the email you are citing is the weighted average for cars doing like the top 20 most commonly sold by number of vehicles sold. You know in terms of whether or not that’s a more valid message for determining average with vehicle length than others I couldn’t comment on. I think that the extra 3 foot driveway would accommodate a car that’s a little bit above average but again leaving space between the front of the garage and the bumper of the car certainly if you get above average there’s a risk it would hang out into the street. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I would imagine that you know especially when you’ve had a winter like we’ve had where there’s a lot of snow, even if the snowplow comes through that road has to get even more narrow as the season progresses. So I mean I would think that it would be just a hard street to maneuver in general for anybody. So I can definitely understand everyone’s concern when it comes to parking and especially on the street. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman did you have any further questions? Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 11 Councilwoman Coleman: No thank you. Mayor Ryan: I have a few questions Mr. Walters. I’ll come back to the driveway piece of it and some that I have to do, I know you clarify the part about the permeable pavers are part of the conditions to have both on the patio and the driveway. Another thing had to do with, and it’s spoken to in the report but just to reiterate, the conditions, I think they’re 13, 14 and 15. If you could just speak to the vegetated buffer. The shoreland restoration plan. As conditioned those have to be, those plans have to be submitted and approved prior to correct? MacKenzie Walters: The applicant would need to submit an engineered design for the, sorry not engineered but landscape design for the buffer and any shoreline process and Water Resources Coordinator Clark would review those and they would require her approval in order to meet the condition of the variance. Mayor Ryan: Okay. And is that something that we’ve, is that a requirement common in the neighborhood? MacKenzie Walters: In this neighborhood no. As I mentioned the vegetative buffer is a new requirement. Mayor Ryan: Oh okay. MacKenzie Walters: It’s something that I can’t speak to exactly when they began putting that as a thing to consider for variances but I believe that comes from the DNR front. The MN Statute 462.357 and the local water management plan that we just adopted. That’s where that new standard comes from. Apologies. Mayor Ryan: Okay and that’s the standard now from today going forward so I’m trying to kind of lay the groundwork that while I know addressing this, you know this house today it’s kind of setting precedent for what’s to happen in other developments going forward in this neighborhood. And then when you did the total for impervious surface are the total calculations for the permeable pavers included in the overall lot coverage? MacKenzie Walters: So the lot coverage variance that the Planning Commission granted included the permeable pavers as well as the traditional impervious surfaces. Because the property’s in the shoreland overlay district we don’t differentiate between the two. Mayor Ryan: Okay. MacKenzie Walters: Because it’s a variance we are requiring the use and we acknowledge it plays a role in you know reducing the impact. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 12 MacKenzie Walters: If you took out the permeable pavers I think the lot coverage drops to 28 point some odd percent. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Okay I just wanted to clarify that number. And then you mentioned about obviously the public works has been involved in reviewing snow removal and what not and you mentioned about cutting down the tree. The cottonwood. Who’s responsible for cutting it down? Is there any replacement plan? I know they’re required to plant one tree in their front yard but what, you know what is that process? MacKenzie Walters: I’ll defer to the Public Works Director. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Jason Wedel: Mayor, members of the council. The removal of that tree would be done by public works so whether or not we would do it ourselves with in-house staff or contract it with our tree service, that responsibility would be our’s. There is not a plan right now to replace it because it is a tree that’s within our right-of-way in an area that was meant for truck turning movements. There’s not really a required replacement for that tree as such. Mayor Ryan: Okay so better to not have it there? Jason Wedel: Correct. Mayor Ryan: Okay. But no snow will be piled up there? Jason Wedel: The snow will be equally distributed across all the properties throughout the circle. Mayor Ryan: Goodie. Alright and then the last one does have to do with the length of the driveway. What the Planning Commission approved was a 16 foot length at the largest part of the driveway? MacKenzie Walters: The Planning Commission’s, I’m going to go back to that slide because I think illustrates it the best. So the Planning Commission by increasing the front yard setback by 3 feet would, this middle portion here would increase to 16 feet. So this one would have been 17 1/2. This one 14 ½ or so. At the shortest length. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. A typical parking lot stall is 9 feet wide, 18 feet long. Mayor Ryan: And so when you had your off street parking slide and you mentioned the number of parking, right there. Parking spaces you are including both inside the garage and outside of the garage. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 13 MacKenzie Walters: Yes I am. Mayor Ryan: And most of the, maybe you know this or you can guess it, most of the driveway’s accommodate 2 cars in their driveway or would it be a wide range of 1 to 6? MacKenzie Walters: It varies. As you mentioned in the emails the properties with variances granted the driveways have typically accommodated 2 cars. One exception would be this house to the east here where a condition of the variance was because of the shortness of the driveway they had to provide 2 parking spots up here to accommodate you know some extra parking. The non-conforming properties are less so. Mayor Ryan: Okay. And so if it moves forward with you know with 16 foot depth are the plans, do the plans as submitted have to be changed? MacKenzie Walters: I would let the applicant address the extent of revisions that would be needed. I believe it would require a redrafting of the garage area. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Okay I’ll save my questions for the applicant. And we don’t know the dimensions of the garage either. MacKenzie Walters: Again I would defer to the applicant. Mayor Ryan: Okay perfect. Alright those are my questions. Thank you Mr. Walters. Council any other questions? Alright if not I would ask the applicant to come forward please and state your name and we know your address but if you could state your address as well that would be great please. Kristine Kingsbury: Hello, my name’s Kristen Kingsbury, I’m actually an attorney. I’m so excited to meet you Roger Knutson. I grew up under Jerry Duffy so I’ve heard about you. So Mayor, council, so pleased to be here with you today. I’m representing Pam Reimer with her application and we understand the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the proposal for the motion by the City Council. We are, as far as the driveway goes we understand that, that would be great if I could have that little diagram up there could I? MacKenzie Walters: This one? Kristine Kingsbury: The one with the nice driveway. What we are interested in proposing is kind of a mix of the two. We’re wondering if we can’t do an 11.5 for where the single car garage is and an 8.5 for the double car and so the reason why we think that’s helpful is it creates greater length along the single car garage which allows for more parking. Now this is an 3 inside, one outside so that does give us the 4 spots. But having that extra length might be helpful. In terms of the outhouse, we’re so excited to be able to remove that and to create a Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 14 better neighborhood feel. Taking care of this property and kind of cleaning it up and we’re excited to cooperate with the City in creating a prescriptive easement so that we’ve got a little bit of extra road cover for the city and in terms of the buffer we’re excited to be the guinea pig with the buffer. We would like to go back to what the Planning Commission suggested with the 10 feet. I understand that the City Council’s looking at 20 feet today and we’re just excited for this new project. We’re excited to get going. We have had quite a bit of expense because we’ve done our plans over a couple times. We’re got $70,000 expense for some of the special fittings that are needed for this property and then we’ve had to redraw our plans a couple times $5,000 I think each time. So we’d like to hear what the City has to say. I’d like to just make sure I haven’t missed anything. And that is I guess our presentation and our request that you grant the variance today. Mayor Ryan: With the changes you just requested? Kristen Kingsbury: I’d like you to consider it yes. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Kate Aanenson: I’m not sure we understand. Mayor Ryan: No I don’t know that’s why I was going to ask if somebody draw that I guess. It just seemed to get shorter. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. MacKenzie Walters: So if I correctly, okay. Kate Aanenson: Do you have the zoning ordinance? Kristen Kingsbury: Yes that’s actually what I would like. Paul could you come up and assess? Paul Wagner: You bet. Mayor Ryan: Welcome, if you could just state your name and address as well please. Paul Wagner: You bet I’m Paul Wagner from way down south in …Minnesota. 3200 57th Street West. Mayor Ryan: Great thank you. Paul Wagner: …one comment out of the gate here, this reads from Helen Gunther and she thought that there should be an appeal. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 15 Mayor Ryan: Sir. Paul Wagner: It says here because it was misinformed that evening that the garage was 26 foot deep. Mayor Ryan: I know but we’re not holding a public hearing so we want to answer. Kate Aanenson: …the garage is what they wanted. Paul Wagner: The garage is only 24 feet deep. Mayor Ryan: Okay. If you could just draw on the. Kate Aanenson: We’re just trying to determine if the driveway gets bigger or shorter. Mayor Ryan: Right. Paul Wagner: …ready with a pen. It’s just this third stall right here. Todd Gerhardt: So you’re recessing it? Paul Wagner: We could step it back 2 feet and still have enough flush garage. Todd Gerhardt: So it’s a recessed single and then double… Paul Wagner: Well just give more depth to that person to be able to not have their bumper stick out. But the garage is not 26 foot deep, it’s 24. And the survey reflects that. Kate Aanenson: Okay. That was the question correct? Mayor Ryan: Go ahead Ms. Aanenson. Todd Gerhardt: It has two 8 to your 16? MacKenzie Walters: Yeah I guess one thing I’m a little confused on and I apologize I would like clarification. Is that recessed in addition to the 3 feet that the Planning Commission gave or requested in lieu of? Paul Wagner: No. It would not be an addition to that because then you’d be getting a graduate, wouldn’t even be able to park a boat in. MacKenzie Walters: So then this section of the driveway would stay at 13 feet. This section at 11 ½ and this. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 16 Mayor Ryan: It’s just it’s easier for us to see where you’re changing the numbers please. Paul Wagner: So does that show up there by my pencil? So what we’re just saying is that we step the third stall back 2 feet. We create depth for a vehicle because right now a vehicle can pull in there horizontally but it’s user friendly to turn out and leave the neighborhood so this way we’d accommodate pretty much a full sized vehicle to be off the street and you could still have another street, another vehicle shorter ones in front of the area if not at horizontal. Parallel with the street. Keep in mind the drive is 30 foot wide. Mayor Ryan: So what are the lengths if you go from left to right or right to left, however they want to do it, what are we looking at with the length of driveway? You have one, where you added the 2 feet what is the length of that driveway now? Paul Wagner: Well there again that’s another conflict is that, on Pam’s property which is currently 3 foot of road right-of-way because right now if we leave the bones off…and stick a car in front and have her sticking out it would still be sticking out onto Pam’s property. Because the road is on Pam’s property. Mayor Ryan: Right I understand that but the request for the variance is the 16 feet from curb to the front of the house and so I’m trying to, I mean I know that over the course of the Planning Commission there’s been a lot of different numbers but the concern expressed from the Planning Commission as well as I think members of council tonight is what is the length of the driveway when we’re talking from curb to the garage door? Here we’re trying to get a sense of how many cars can be parked there? Are the cars going to be parked fully on the driveway or are they going to be hanging off into the street because from the picture of this street there’s no. Paul Wagner: I can’t speak on who would ever be parking there other than my guys while they’re working under construction. I mean I don’t know who Pam’s guests would ever be or who would be over there to visit. What I can tell you after visiting the neighborhood on several occasions that people even from the other neighborhoods park on that street. That’s just what they do there. It’s a tough situation for everybody. Why do you think everybody just is used to that situation and they drive slow and go around things because people park, I mean there’s landscapers parking out on the street. Mayor Ryan: Right and I understand your point. What we’re trying to determine so we can make a decision in terms of a proposal before us, what is that appropriate length of driveway and that’s what I’m trying to get an understanding. Not, Paul Wagner: Everybody’s got a different opinion on that and because of different length vehicles. Mayor Ryan: But what is? Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 17 Paul Wagner: 21 feet. The average vehicle is 15 so. Kate Aanenson: If I may, if we could just move past this. I think what your question was is, what were they willing to do. What I heard them say is they didn’t want to change the driveway length but they are willing to, they wanted to go back to the original request but they were going to reduce the garage by 3 feet so we’re still at, the driveway at. MacKenzie Walters: My understanding is that there’s a, with a 2 foot recess the longest portion of the driveway would be 16 ½ feet, is that correct? Paul Wagner: Correct. MacKenzie Walters: Which is. Councilman McDonald: Could that be a driveway drawing, the one we’ve got where we’ve got the distances. Okay where’s the 2 feet on that? Push down driveway to 16.6. Does that make that 16.6 now? Todd Gerhardt: And how wide? You’re going to go 2 feet in but how wide is the drive? Paul Wagner: Typically at a bump out with a 9 foot garage door you have, with the way you have to do anything with a header it would have to be a 10 feet. To accommodate a 9 foot wide door. Todd Gerhardt: So it’s 2 feet deeper in, 9 feet wide. Paul Wagner: Correct. Mayor Ryan: But then you went down on the other two dimensions you went from 13 to 11 ½ and then 11 and 11.6 down to 8 1/2. Paul Wagner: Correct. Which would accommodate a vehicle if they needed to park that way parallel with the street because on a 30 foot garage, if I use 10 feet and jog that back 2 I still have 20 foot of driveway where you can park horizontal or at an angle. But I can’t be the one that says how people are going to park there. Mayor Ryan: Right nor am I asking to. Council any further questions for the applicant or the builder? Councilman McDonald: At this point I’m confused. Are you in favor of the variance where you still want the 3 feet or are you saying that in lieu of that with this bump out you don’t need the 3 feet? Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 18 Paul Wagner: I would like my customer to leave things at the way they were under the approved variance that was once approved but to accommodate the concern about getting at least the one extra vehicle which would make it, the average the fourth car if need be that could completely get off the street by taking 2 foot left out of her garage. Councilman McDonald: Okay. So we stay at 14.6. You’re going to bump it down to, so that gives you 16.6 so that will accommodate the fourth vehicle and then all these other dimensions would stay so it would be 13 feet at the middle. 11.6 at the far end. Paul Wagner: Correct. Councilman McDonald: Okay. So that says we don’t need the variance. Kate Aanenson: No. They still need a variance. You’re not supporting what the Planning Commission advanced forward. Paul Wagner: We still need the original variance. Kate Aanenson: The original request. Paul Wagner: Lot coverage and hard coverage and we stayed within that boundaries. In fact we’re under what was already approved. Councilman McDonald: Okay but those variances are different. I’m just talking about the 3 feet. I need to understand where that fits within all this because that’s what I thought the big argument was over was that variance. So somebody clarify it for me where are we at. I mean I understand the other variances and fine with all of those. I just wonder where we at with the driveway? MacKenzie Walters: What the applicant is currently proposing now would be less driveway length than what the Planning Commission approved on May 21st. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Mayor Ryan: Because for clarification again I’m feeling the same way. The original variance after it got approved last year and then it passed, the timing passed. Came back to the meeting in May and the Planning Commission was not comfortable with what was being proposed and expressed that they wouldn’t be able to support what was proposed and through the discussion you came, the applicant came forward at the, I think they re-opened the public hearing and came back. Came forward again and said we’d be willing to give the 3 feet, correct? MacKenzie Walters: Correct and so then the entire garage would have moved back 3 feet. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 19 Mayor Ryan: Would have moved back and then the longest part of the driveway, at it’s longest point from curb to garage door was going to be. MacKenzie Walters: 17 1/2. Mayor Ryan: 17 ½. MacKenzie Walters: Yep with the variance that was approved by the Planning Commission on the 21st. Mayor Ryan: Correct. So now here we are and, and now you’re requesting you don’t want the 3 feet that you had offered at the last meeting. Instead for a portion of it you would increase it 2 feet. Pam Reimer: I’m Pam Reimer and I need clarification. The garage is too. Mayor Ryan: Excuse me, could you just. Paul Wagner: It was because at that meeting, and I’m the one that made the mistake. I didn’t have anything in front of me. Somebody said what is the depth of the garage. I said at least 26 feet so if you give up 3 feet off of 26 you still have a 23 foot depth garage which is still pretty respectable. But when it’s only 24 and you give up 3 you’re down to 21 and that’s respectable especially if you want to keep a boat or anything else in the, and you park your vehicle and walk around it with groceries. So that’s where the defense came. Mayor Ryan: And do we have these plans? I mean do we? MacKenzie Walters: We have not received the interior floorplan for this… Mayor Ryan: Not even for the garage. MacKenzie Walters: Nothing. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Pam Reimer: So clarify yeah the garage is 24 feet and one of the people who appealed said oh she can’t get even a boat in there. Why are we taking away garage space so. Councilman McDonald: Okay but yeah you could get a boat in there because you’ve got the two other bays that will be deep enough if you want to put a boat in there. Paul Wagner: That’s exactly right. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 20 Pam Reimer: So I guess given the depth of the garage we did switch from 3 feet to 2 feet. That’s what he’s asking for. But therefore you get the fourth parking spot which is what the whole issue is. Councilman McDonald: Okay so I think I understand what you’re getting at. Paul Wagner: It is, it is a foot in the plan and this is the garage so. It’d be 10 feet by 2 feet. Mayor Ryan: Go ahead Councilman Campion. Councilman Campion: Instead of moving the 2 feet there if you did 3 feet in that spot to accommodate to the 17 ½ feet for the parking space, that still allows the full depth for the remaining 2 stalls with room to get a boat in as you’re saying. Paul Wagner: That was correct. Councilman Campion: I’m just counting, you know asking to counter to you if instead of 2 feet bump out like you’re talking about if you did 3 feet you’d still accomplish what the Planning Commission was requesting in the sense of… Pam Reimer: ...I’m a single person. My kids have a Mini Cooper 12 foot and Prius 4.4 feet and they live in Portland up by Nike and, up north. If they come to visit me they’ll all fit but yes to answer your question I would do a single car garage. My brother who doesn’t want to but he…so if you’re asking for 2 feet but I did the 3 feet to get everybody else who was looking at this take away the driveway but a shorter garage and yeah amen, I’ll do it. Mayor Ryan: And then the rest of the driveway, this is where I’m still. Pam Reimer: We’ll stay…away from. Mayor Ryan: What was approved by council last year? MacKenzie Walters: The dimensions would be the same yep. It’d be 13 foot and the 11 ½ which is what was approved with the Variance Case 18-01. Pam Reimer: Yep and it expired in February of 2018 but a month before that in January, as MacKenzie…I showed intention of building and it lapsed because my dad had a heart attack and I didn’t get the drawing in on time and they…so I applied within one month… I’m a smaller person and a single lady, I got a smaller house. Less hard cover. I’m doing everything…four times and MacKenzie says yep you’re good. Pulled out the survey and yep you’re good so. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 21 Paul Wagner: So at the last meeting I screwed up and I made it sound like it was a 26 foot deep garage and I didn’t get to finish so when Helen wrote this she assumed that it was a 26 foot garage and I would have to agree it did not need to be 23 but it’s 24 and I made a mistake. That’s what the plan is and that’s what this survey reflects. I said 26. Mayor Ryan: Okay thank you. Council any further questions before we turn it back for further questions of staff? Okay thank you. Pam Reimer: I just want to get it done. That’s why I hired them. They’re a good team. Mayor Ryan: Alright thank you. Pam Reimer: He’s a horticulturist and a fireman to make sure parking and everything else and trees. Mayor Ryan: Alright thank you. Council any further questions, clarification, concerns? Councilman McDonald: So it looks as though we’re looking at a different thing than what was initially brought before us and I guess I would like to see that in paper. I understand about all of the other variances and fine with all of those but I would like to get this driveway thing written down as to what it is. I think I’m okay with it but I want to see it committed to paper. Mayor Ryan: So for moving forward, are you asking for new dimensions or? Councilman McDonald: Yeah I’d like to see the same kind of presentation instead of well we’re going to do something here. We’re going to do something there. Let’s show us what are you going to do and that’s going to require, I don’t want to say new plans but it’s going to require at least a new drawing. A new concept of what we’re talking about. I like the one that you had with okay this is the old house. This is the new house. I think these are all the different zones. How do we affect that drawing? It’s as simple as that and then I can know what I’m voting on. Mayor Ryan: Right. So how does that. Todd Gerhardt: You can table this item. Bring it back with the modifications as suggested and of the 3 feet. Don’t ask me where the 3 feet’s going because I’m a little confused on that but we can bring that drawing back and just show that and put it on a consent agenda to show you exactly where the 3 feet is, if that’s the only concern. Paul Wagner: …the application, the plan has to be redone. Mayor Ryan: Sir. Paul Wagner: That 3 feet and a new survey. We have those documents. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 22 Mayor Ryan: Sir. Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Not until you get the variance. Mayor Ryan: Excuse me please. Kate Aanenson: Roger just for the...to show 60 days because we’ve gone on, the 60 days ending June 18th so. Roger Knutson: So you can just take the extra. Kate Aanenson: Take the extra 60. Roger Knutson: Take an extra 60 days. Kate Aanenson: Okay just for clarification. Mayor Ryan: And I think here’s the challenge because as we prepare for our meetings, and I know this has been a lengthy process for the applicant but here’s the challenge that we face as a council. So not only are we looking at this but we also are setting precedent for future plans to come forward but specifically to this, specifically to this when we are presented the information by the Planning Commission. By staff. We are reviewing that information and that’s what we’re making our decision on and so when you come forward with different numbers and different plans and different drawings we need official approval vetting from our city staff. Excuse me. Pam Reimer: He said there would be an ability to do it. Mayor Ryan: Okay and I understand but a council member has made the request for, in order for him and I don’t know how the rest of council feels but by the nods the rest of council is interested in getting some firm plans in order to be able to support or deny this variance and right now with drawings up on a, you know on the screen and it might be 26 and it might be 24, that leaves a lot of wiggle room for us and we don’t want to make a concrete decision when we don’t have something that has been discussed by staff and put forward. I mean that is just the process that we have to follow so while frustrating I’m sure because you want to move this forward, you know I know you have been in touch with city staff and they will continue to work through this process, I think Ms. Aanenson said or Mr. Gerhardt said it’s something that we’d put on the consent agenda which would move it forward you know unless somebody pulled it off. If the staff recommends what you’re proposing. Todd Gerhardt: And the next meeting is June 24th so it’s 2 weeks out and the way I understand it what the applicant is proposing is instead of a 2 foot recess single car garage they’re proposing a Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 23 3 foot recessed single car garage and the other one stays at it’s current location. Just as long as everybody kind of understands that that line isn’t moving. Mayor Ryan: Right. Councilman McDonald: Right but at that point the 3 foot variance that the Planning Commission gave goes away. Todd Gerhardt: Right. Mayor Ryan: Right. Councilman McDonald: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: But you do have an extra foot of depth where the single car garage is and can you bring up your map that shows the driveways? MacKenzie Walters: This one? Todd Gerhardt: Then it turns into 17.6. Kate Aanenson: We just want to make sure all the numbers tie because we haven’t seen the floorplan so we just want to make sure it all ties back. Todd Gerhardt: Yeah just conceptually that’s what I’m envisioning. I didn’t want anybody to think that the 3 foot was going all along the 28 foot. Councilman McDonald: Well and my point in asking for something hard and fast is as the mayor said what I looked at to vote on is this based upon a variance and now we’re changing things on the fly and I just don’t feel comfortable voting on something that I don’t have in front of me. I agree it sounds okay and I’m sorry to put you through this but I can’t just vote on something based upon we’ll do this. We’ll move that line here. I need something hard and fast that everybody’s committed to so that’s why I asked for it. Todd Gerhardt: No, and we can put it back on in 2 weeks so. Mayor Ryan: And so then the motion is, if somebody wanted to make a motion to table it until the 24th of June. Councilman McDonald: I’ll make the motion to table this agenda item until the 24th. Councilman Campion: Second. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 24 Mayor Ryan: We have a valid motion and a second. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council table Planning Case 19-03, request for variances for lot cover, lake setback and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Ryan: That motion carries 5-0. APPROVE CONTRACT FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE POWERS BOULEVARD/LAKE LUCY ROAD PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS. Mayor Ryan: Jason. Jason Wedel: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. So before you this evening is, for your consideration is moving forward with the engineering and the design on the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy Road pedestrian improvements. The proposed improvements were reviewed last year. There was a study that was done that reviewed this intersection as well as a section of Powers and Lake Drive. Or Park, excuse me and Park and the improvements at Park were, some of those were completed last year but nothing had been done yet with Lake Lucy so what had been proposed was what you see before you which was adding a center median as a refuge for pedestrians. Putting in an advanced flasher system that would be pedestrian activated that they could signal to cross the street and then some reconfiguration with the turn lanes and the pedestrian ramps. So one of the renderings that had been presented last year was the, this shows the before and after. Again this is the full length of the improvements. There is some lengthening of the roadway because we are incorporating a left through way and a right turn lane in each direction on Powers and then so when you add in that center median for the refuge for pedestrian it does widen the overall width of the street through that corridor so there is some additional grading and street widening that goes along with this project. So the cost estimates that were prepared for this project are as such. We’ve got removals, construction, pedestrian treatments, markings and signs and then miscellaneous gets into striping and gets into the natural signal itself or that rapid flashing light and then engineering with a total project cost of $600,000. The funding sources for this would be a cost share with the county per their policy. The cost would be split 50/50. 50 percent city, 50 percent county. The City’s portion that was proposed to be paid utilizing our state aid MSA funds. If this project were to move forward design would begin here in July through October. We would bid out the project this fall. The trick with this project is really the signal poles. The lead time on those signal poles for those pedestrian crossings believe or not is 20 to 26 weeks so what we would propose to do is order those signal poles this fall so that next spring when the rest of the construction takes place the poles would be available and able to be installed. So what the City Council is being asked to consider this evening is approval of the consultant contract with Bolton and Menk in the amount of $83,450 for the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy pedestrian improvements. They were the consulting firm Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 25 that did all the original study for this corridor so they had all the existing information so they were the logical firm to negotiate and work through a contract for doing the engineering. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Jason Wedel: So with that I’ll take any questions. Mayor Ryan: Great thank you. Council any questions? I just have one question. Is there any, with the widening of the road, I can’t recall, was there any right-of-way or nothing on the west side? I was thinking the northwest corner. Jason Wedel: I might have a drawing. There’s, sorry. Mayor Ryan: That’s okay. Jason Wedel: So if you look on this drawing, this is north is towards the top of the page. This is Powers. There’s a little, a diagonal green line that you can see that corner there. Everything within that corner it would be a temporary grading easement because that work would take place outside of the right-of-way so we would need to obtain a temporary easement from that landowner for impacts but it would not be permanent right-of-way. Mayor Ryan: And does that have anything to do with the tree cutting going on there right now? No. Jason Wedel: No. It has to do more with just the grading and the widening of the road when you widen it out and then you have to match the slopes back onto the existing ground. It just got pushed a little further out Mayor Ryan: Okay and it’s just a temporary. Jason Wedel: It’s temporary correct. Mayor Ryan: Okay thank you. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council. The trees were removed and trimmed back just because after every wind storm there would be branches laying on the road so they cleared back to the middle of their right-of-way to make sure that there was no damage to cars as they traveled up and down after a wind storm. Mayor Ryan: Oh, thank you for that clarification. Alright council any other questions or action? Councilman Campion: I will make a motion. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 26 Mayor Ryan: Yes. Councilman Campion: The City Council approves a consultant contract with Bolton and Menk in the amount of $83,450 for the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy Road pedestrian improvements Project Number PW031A. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilman Campion. We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Coleman: Second. Mayor Ryan: With a valid motion and a second. Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approves a consultant contract with Bolton and Menk in the amount of $83,450 for the Powers Boulevard/Lake Lucy Road pedestrian improvements Project Number PW031A. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE ESTABLISHING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. Mayor Ryan: Mr. Sticha or Mr. Gerhardt? Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Sticha. Greg Sticha: Thank you Mayor and council. For the audience information I’m going to share the history of this discussion over the past couple meetings. Prior to or during it’s goal setting session for 2019 the City Council identified a KFS goal of potentially establishing an Economic Development Commission similar to it’s other commissions that the City has here at the City of Chanhassen. This May the City Council underwent two work sessions to begin some initial discussion and creation of said commission. During that process a couple of initial items were changed within the staff forwarded ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the City Code and before you this evening is, includes all of the changes that were discussed at our previous work session discussions in May. The changes that were made since the last meeting included the creation of the commission with 5 appointed members. Two 3 year terms and three 2 year terms. Staggered terms for each of those 5 seats with each of them expiring on March 31st. There was also some language change on the conflict of interest that was submitted by Councilman McDonald. All other changes were consistent with what has been discussed at our previous work sessions. The proposed ordinance in front of you did not include, does not include. Does not include any changes to Section D or C that was presented at the previous work session. There was not, I believe there was not a consensus as to what those changes should be at that point in time so staff left Sections D and C the same as our previous discussion at the work session but we did make the changes based on the members of the commission and the appointment terms and the length of terms. So therefore at this point staff has prepared an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 27 City Code for the creation of a Economic Development Commission and would at this point take any questions about what we have discussed to this point in time or any of the language that is included in the ordinance in front of you for modification or potential vote. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Mr. Sticha. Council any comments or questions? Councilman McDonald: Madam Mayor. Mayor Ryan: Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Well first of all I think it’s a misnomer to say that this was approved at the KFS meeting in December. It was not. It was brought by separate item in council a few weeks after that so it was actually voted down as one of the KFS priorities. Just wanted to clarify the record. Also I go through this and one of the biggest questions I have is again there’s a conflict between creating this council and what staff currently does. How is that conflict going to be resolved? Because again we’ve given this council the ability to go out make reviews. They’re to do reports. These are all things that staff has done for council in the past. How is this commission going to be able to fill that work? It would require a staff if you’re going to be looking at reports and those things and I just don’t see how that’s granted in here. Also I still have some problems about how this commission’s by-laws are formed. It seems to me that in reading this you could read it both ways. That maybe they didn’t approve it or they need to redo it and hand it to them. That’s not clear to me and I think that needs to be cleared up. And again I have within the record all of my objections, especially to D and to E as to what I think the problems with this are so I will leave that for anyone to look into the record but again I’ve not heard an answer and I’m looking for one. What happens to the duties of staff? Are we going to have two bodies doing the same work or what? I’d like an answer to that. Mayor Ryan: Council members any other, any comments or responses? Go ahead Councilwoman. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I have to say too with disappointment we’re discussing this tonight due to the fact that we did have an agreement when we did our rankings for our initiatives and the rankings did not add up to have this commission exist and the rules got changed and so now we’re talking about it tonight. One question I have is the process of how the City… businesses and so maybe a staff member could talk about what happens now. I’m a perspective business. I call the City and I say I’m wondering are there any spaces available for my company? Can someone walk me through that process? Greg Sticha: I think Mr. Gerhardt could probably address that question. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and council it’s, developing this commission is not going to change that. It still will go through the community development group and Kate’s office and they’ll tell them what the rules and regulations of the property. The zoning. The setbacks. Site coverage and Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 28 depending on the use that’s being considered it may go to the EDA. I see the EDA as similar to the property that we owned on West 79th Street where we had two potential buyers. They would give review of those two proposals. Make a recommendation to the City Council for council’s consideration based on each of the proposals being planned. Another thing that the EDA could do is we would bring. Councilman Campion: When you EDA you mean EDC right? Todd Gerhardt: EDC, I’m sorry. Bad habit. And EDC similar to the Applebee’s redevelopment. Work with the EDC on parking lot, grants. How to go about redeveloping that site and then also to work with the EDC on the visionary process. Go through in detail prioritize what the EDC would think is the top 10 priorities or top 5 priorities for the coming year. Present that. Staff would present that to council at a work session for council adoption and consideration. That’s how I envision the EDC operating on is looking at long term economic development tools of redevelopment areas. Implementing of the downtown vision study and any other projects that the council may see under their purview. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So would an existing or a potential business that’s looking at Chanhassen would they first come to staff and do that process and then would they go to the new committee that’s being formed and get their approval and then would it come to council? Todd Gerhardt: No anything that met the current zoning would follow the similar process of going to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. It’s, you know I heard the work direction for the EDC is to develop and prioritize the many different steps that are in the downtown vision study. You know work with redevelopment areas and I think we did talk about a little bit about you know to try to approach businesses that are interested or that City Council sees interested in the downtown area and where they could be located. That could be a task for this group. Staff could propose some options to them and they could get feedback so that’s kind of my vision of the EDC. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Then I had one more question. Mayor Ryan: Sure. Councilwoman Tjornhom: When you are looking at Section D, number 2 and the statement says staff, will help staff 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 businesses in the city of Chanhassen. What does that really mean? I mean are they going to have a budget? Are they going to be counsel businesses that are struggling? I mean I’m not quite sure, that’s a big mouthful. It’s a big statement and I’m just wondering if I’m on that committee what am I supposed to be doing or what would be some of my actions? Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 29 Todd Gerhardt: Well the State has a retention program through the Department of Economic Development to retain businesses in Minnesota. I’m trying to think you know some that moved to South Dakota or Wisconsin and meet with those businesses to discuss you know what it would take to keep them here. Probably a similar one was the decision by Emerson to move one of their operations to Shakopee and staff sat down and met with the developer and to try to get their vision of trying to keep them in Chanhassen and another facility but it really got down that this plant was 40 percent of the revenue derived for Emerson Electric and they had fears of a tornado coming through and taking out a business here. They wanted enough distance between the current business and the location in Shakopee that they chose. To diversify their revenue flow if one plant should be down they could replace that operation at another plant close by. So it wasn’t a matter of Chanhassen not offering enough incentives or caring enough. It was a matter of them diversifying their location. So the EDC could have been a part of that discussion and some of them we don’t hear of. You know some just find an opportunity where they can buy a building at a reasonable price like Construction Heaters I found out moved out of Chanhassen and moved to Chaska and it was just an economic business decision that he made and that he felt as though he couldn’t give up and so we’ve been working on trying to find a new tenant for that building. Every brew taproom that came in here we mentioned that building. It had a beautiful view with a patio that could look out over the wetland behind General Mills and it’s the right size for a brew pub and we had a little concern regarding parking but you some of them enjoy being in an industrial area and food trucks and, but some of those things the EDC could take a look at. You know they work to for your pleasure. Whatever you wanted to see them research and take under advisement, it’s really up to the council. Councilwoman Tjornhom: And I appreciate your answers. A lot of your answers kind of lead me to believe and I believe that I’m correct in what I’m saying that that, everything that you talk about is already being done by staff and so the new charges and responsibilities as commission it’s either redundant or already being done and so it is just my opinion that this is just another new level of growth in government and that’s why I just can’t, I can’t, I can’t approve this or I can’t vote for it because of that level. What is being done at staff internally now is being taken care of and by adding another layer to it to me is just something that is not in my philosophy and a correct thing to do. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilwoman. Councilman McDonald: Mayor could I respond or Mr. Campion wants to go first? Go ahead. Mayor Ryan: Go ahead. Councilman McDonald: Mr. Gerhardt I thank you for that answer but you make my point. You’re already doing exactly what this commission is supposed to be doing. I could bring up two other examples of businesses in this area that were going to leave or were going to come into the area and with a couple phone calls that they managed to stay in the area so I don’t think we need a commission that again is a volunteer commission. Where are they going to meet? This is Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 30 a full time job trying to bring business into the community and that also meet the requirements of the businesses that are currently here. Most the people on this commission they’ve got day jobs. They’re not going to be here in the middle of the day to deal with these things and it just, it doesn’t make sense because we now already have in place people doing this exact job. You’re now telling me you’re going to insert another layer between me as a City Council member, staff and a business that’s coming in before I get to weigh in. You mentioned the restaurant. That should have come to council and it did. It doesn’t need to go through another layer of this commission to decide whether or not the parking lot is going to be okay or not. Yeah that’s a decision that should have come to council and it did. If we implement this those days are over and council more or less sits back and we wait for people to bring us stuff and say well this is what I recommend. That’s not what you got elected to to be on City Council. It’s to make the hard decisions. This commission makes your job tougher. Not easier. I can’t support this either and I definitely will vote against it and I will say again that I’m not happy with the way this wound up on the agenda to begin with because it did get defeated as a priority back in January so no I cannot support this and I see this as being nothing but problematic for city councils in the future. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Councilman Campion: I’d like to make a brief comment and then make a motion. First I want to point out that when we were setting our KFS goals for the year 3 of our new, 3 of our 5 elected members of the council voted this as our number 1 priority for the year. Councilman McDonald: It doesn’t make any difference. They have to meet the threshold. You know that. It’s not the number. It’s the threshold. It didn’t meet it. Councilman Campion: And I believe that this commission it adds, just like all our other commissions there is some overlap in their function to positions on staff. It’s an augmentation. It’s an advisory board to the council. It’s, you’re right. It does not remove our responsibility to make the tough decisions but it provides us with some more input and these are not paid positions. These are 5 voluntary positions as Councilman McDonald pointed out here so it is not a growth of government in that term. And I support this wholeheartedly. I think that it will be very good for the city and with that. Councilwoman Coleman: I have to say I’m surprised to hear all the anger I mean how this got to where it is today. I mean came in as a first time council member in January and learned about how the agenda was set. I pointed out this was an extraordinarily flawed system. Any system in which 2 council members, whoever they may be can completely control the agenda and control what does and does not get on the agenda subverts the role of the people. I pointed that out and I was told by Councilwoman Tjornhom I do not want to talk about that right now. I was never informed…conversation could take place again. I think for staff moving forward we definitely do need to consider this process next year and I suggested maybe a ranking from a 2.5 to 2.2 so that way any 3 members of council or a majority of council if…priority it would get onto the Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 31 agenda and so that 2 members of council cannot completely control what does and does not get onto the agenda. With that being said…repeatedly heard again and again about this request from the business community. I don’t think it creates another layer of government. I think it creates a voice and I love what our staff does here but to say that they can be the only voices I think is inaccurate. I think any time you give businesses or people a chance to have more of a voice or to get their voices out there through different avenues is beneficial. With that being said I do have two questions. I would like to get clarification on Councilman McDonald’s question on who makes the by-laws, if that’s us or the commission and setting up the commissions in the past who did that? Greg Sticha: Section C under 2-46.13, the second sentence does state the City Council will adopt it’s by-laws I also referenced the last sentence in that section, City Council shall determine it’s by-laws, the day and time of the meeting and shall set public hearings as necessary and desired as required by law or this code. That’s the language that I put in there. If the council would like to change any or all of that language we certainly can. Councilwoman Coleman: Is that how that’s typically done for other commissions? Greg Sticha: I believe the other commissions, the commissions themselves set up the by-laws but there was a request for this particular commission for the City Council to set the by-laws so that’s why I included that language. It’s completely up to the discretion of the City Council. Councilwoman Coleman: And Councilman McDonald that was your concern, you wanted the council to make the by-laws, not the commission? Councilman McDonald: Yes. That is correct. Councilwoman Coleman: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council I think the last commission we established was the Environmental Commission and the council determined the by-laws and how they operated as an educational body and I think there was emphasis placed on that and that they would only provide recommendations to the council. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. I already note that Councilman Campion had an action but I also would like to address this topic and actually go back a little bit further than our January meeting. This idea of having an economic development commission actually came up at the Buy Chanhassen candidate forum and one of the questions that came from the community or the people that were at that meeting, however Vernelle comes up with those questions was what are you doing, something to the effect of you know new ideas for moving the city forward and one of the ideas that I had and over the course of the last year looking at other cities when they look at economic development and different ways to do it, they believe that community involvement is something very important and so I had suggested that I thought it would be advantageous for Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 32 the City to have an economic development commission and that’s why I put it down as a priority for me when we did our strategy meeting in January. We can debate the fairness of it at another time but when you talk about what the purpose of an economic development commission a lot of the answers that I hear tonight and I appreciate Mr. Gerhardt’s vision but in addition to what he suggested is we don’t have necessarily a body because Ms. Aanenson is busy with her day to day as Mr. McDonald said. It’s a full time job. She’s doing it all the time and has a staff that supports her and helps her but that is reactionary to things that are coming before us as people that want to do business in the city. The idea behind this economic development commission is to be forward thinking or looking out. Seeing what other opportunities we as a council, a city can provide. What opportunities for businesses to come to the city. We had a you know a vision study of our downtown and this is just specific to downtown but we had a vision study for downtown and talked about walkability and access ability. Sub-districts. Identifying sub- districts. I mean what would those sub-districts mean and we got it a year plus ago and haven’t addressed those and so the idea is here we have a commission that isn’t going to just react to what comes to the city to say I’m interested in doing this but look for opportunities for the City for continued growth. Our neighboring cities do it. Chaska had a downtown task force. You know our neighboring cities are always looking for opportunities for growth and development and that is what this commission would provide in my vision for it is to be forward thinking and planning. Kate, Ms. Aanenson does get calls and ask you know may get presented with an idea and based on what her knowledge is of extensive at that, where we’re at with the city, often times get asked well I would also like to speak to the EDC or an EDA and yes the council is an EDA and so often times then they call me and it isn’t my job to say yeah or nay. It’s not Ms. Aanenson’s job to say yeah or nay and I have the conversations and ask them to come back and present before council as we’ve started to do. But in this case’s route it would be a great opportunity to say here’s another body of people to evaluate your idea because sometimes it’s so early in the stage that they don’t have the particular drawings and development. It’s just, it’s an idea or a concept that they just want to get as many opinions and feedback from people involved with the city and then it would come as a recommendation to, you know through us or through you know with Ms. Aanenson’s feedback so it’s, instead of the city continuing to be reactionary in terms of how we grow and develop, I have the vision to be proactive in economic development for the city and that is why I think that this would be such a benefit to our city in the long term. So those are my comments. If there’s any further comments or a motion? Councilman Campion: I’ll make a motion. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion. Councilman Campion: The City Council adopts an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Chanhassen City Code establishing an Economic Development Commission. Mayor Ryan: We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Coleman: I second that motion. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 33 Mayor Ryan: With a valid motion and a second. Ordinance 643: Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman seconded that the City Council adopts an ordinance amending Chapter 2 of the Chanhassen City Code establishing an Economic Development Commission. All voted in favor, except for Councilman McDonald and Councilwoman Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Mayor Ryan: That motion carries 3-2. Next on our agenda, are there any council presentations? Oh I’m sorry. I apologize. New Business G-4 moved from the consent agenda to approve, establish an emergency no, slow no wake area on Lake Minnewashta. D-8. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY SLOW NO-WAKE AREA ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA; AND ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 6-49 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CONCERNING SLOW NO-WAKE. Todd Gerhardt: This is will be a team approach. Jason and I, I’ll take a good shot at this. There’s two actions asked of the City Council is one, adopt a resolution establishing emergency slow no-wake area for Lake Minnewashta. It’s an after the fact emergency slow no-wake area due to the high water that occurred about 2 weeks ago and little update. Today is we took the no wake off Minnewashta about 3:00 and it’s been 3 days below the high water mark so the no wake has been removed off of Lake Minnewashta so everybody’s free to use the lake as they, as the rules will allow them under city ordinance and the DNR. The second action is the council approve an ordinance amending Section 6-49 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning slow no- wake and I think the issue at hand here is what staff did is modified the ordinance. Really two areas have changed. The water level of which the slow no-wake restrictions apply for Lotus, Lake Lucy, Lake Minnewashta and Lake Susan. You’ll notice that the elevations didn’t follow the high water mark or FEMA or some of the, or any of those follow any consistency. And the reason for that is each of the lakes have different topography. Different flows out of the lake and so when it came to Lake Minnewashta it hit the current high water mark almost for the whole summer so what we did is took a 10 year average of the different elevations and took an average and it came at 945 and talked to a couple of lake homeowners and they were in concurrence of the 945 which in the last 10 years I think there were 7 times a no-wake ordinance would have been placed and this year would have been one of them. So I think nobody really has any issue with the ordinary high water mark or the FEMA 100 year food elevations on Lake Lucy or the 882 ½ on Lake Susan. I think the big concern here is not putting the slow no-wake on for 3 days when it’s above the high water mark and this again is similar to what Eden Prairie used on Lake Riley on their side of the lake. Minnetonka which isn’t similar to any of our lakes but has a 5 day elevation where it’s got to be above the high water mark there for 5 days before they place the slow no-wake restrictions on and we’re proposing 3 days on all of the lakes mentioned up above before the high water mark goes into place. And the reason for that some of them drain faster than others and so we don’t want to put it on and then have to take it off the next day or Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 34 wait 3 days to take it off so staff is indifferent. We’ll take direction from the public or council on what you would like to see in that but staff is recommending 3 days of being above the suggested water level on the table in the ordinance. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Mr. Gerhardt. Ms. Susla before, I know you asked to have this taken off. Council are there any comments based on what Mr. Gerhardt shared? Jason Wedel: Mayor, could I just add too? Mayor Ryan: Of course. Yeah of course. Jason Wedel: Thank you. One of the other changes in the ordinance was prior to this putting the no wake on required a council action. This changes it to being at the direction of the Public Works Director so in the, you know wanting to be as effective as we can and not waiting 2 weeks, you know as a certain situation occurs the intent was that we could be, react more quickly if it was at the direction of the Public Works Director so the whole point of this was having a table with the lakes, with the specific elevations. We could post it on our websites. We can you know blast it out on social media. Everyone knows what the elevations are now. I think it’s in the past it’s been not widely known and we have these elevations and when we trip them, we’re over for 3 days then the no-wake comes on and it’s more of an automatic thing than something that requires a lot of discussion or coming back to the City Council for consideration. Mayor Ryan: And so then you become the point of contact for these lakes? Jason Wedel: Correct. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Perfect. Ms. Susla. Todd Gerhardt: That’s the best point. Mayor Ryan: Yeah. Laurie Susla: Good evening. Again I’m Laurie Susla, 7008 Dakota Avenue. I’m the President of the Lotus Lake Conservation Alliance and I just right off the bat would like to say thank you for letting a member of the public pull something off the consent agenda. I think that’s a wonderful way for you all to listen to what people have to say in the community so thank you for that. I’d also like to thank Renae Clark for addressing this issue. This has been a not great section of code for a while. She gave me a call late this afternoon to let me know about the addition of this to the agenda and I appreciate her communication. You may know that Minnewashta and Lucy right now don’t have no-wake level set and so that causes problems for those lakes and so I’m sure that the folks on those lakes are very happy to see this going on. Having said that our board is very supportive of this but we’re concerned with the 3 consecutive day issue. A lot can happen in 3 days. We are getting larger and larger storm systems coming Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 35 through. Storms back to back and we could be in a situation where we were over our, I’m not just speaking for Lotus, any lake in Chanhassen could be over their wake point for 3 days. You could be 6 inches over for 3 days because it does take quite a bit of time for these lakes to drain. So as Todd, excuse me as City Manager Gerhardt just mentioned the thought behind it was to not have lakes go on and off and on and off but typically you wouldn’t get to the point where you’re hitting the no wake unless there is a fairly significant event going on and we typically don’t have those time after time after time. So as was mentioned before we’re just concerned with that 3 days wait because the damaging effect that boats doing whatever they are doing on the lake for 3 days could have on shoreline particularly but also on docks and boats and when the other area lakes have gone on no-wake and the Chanhassen lakes are waiting we just see an influx of traffic during that time that would be even further damaging. So what we’re asking, our board is asking is in this ordinance it’s in paragraph B, section 2, line 3. Just to remove those 4 words, for three consecutive days. It’s the third line down in the second paragraph and to, everything else is great and we just would ask you to consider changing that one part. Mayor Ryan: Great, thank you. Laurie Susla: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Council any questions or comments as it relates to the removal of the three consecutive days? Councilman McDonald: Ms. Mayor then Ms. Susla are you asking that as soon as it gets to the high water mark there should be no wake or, because you’re saying you don’t want the three days. What do you want? Laurie Susla: So current code is that when it hits the no wake point the lakes go on no wake. This would be a change from the current code to implement a 3 day waiting period which is not what we do now and we what we experience on Lotus is by the time it gets to that point it really is time to put it under no wake. Not to wait for another 3 days. Councilman McDonald: Okay so what you would propose is that we get to the high water mark and that immediately creates a no wake upon that lake? Laurie Susla: Correct as is currently happening now. Councilman McDonald: Okay instead of waiting 3 days, okay. Laurie Susla: Thank you. Councilman Campion: If we leave the 3 day, the 3 consecutive day rule for taking the no wake off. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 36 Laurie Susla: I’m sorry could you repeat that. Councilman Campion: So after the no wake has been posted you’d leave the 3 day requirement, the 3 consecutive day… Laurie Susla: Yes because it takes a while. I mean typically you’d have the type of thing where you’d…the no wake. You’ll typically go beyond it and then it will take some time for it to come down so that’s just we’d like to see that part left. Councilman Campion: Okay. Understood. Laurie Susla: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: I think that’s it. Any thoughts again council on the removal of the 3 consecutive days or interest in discussing? Anyone on council. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Well I can support the 3 day going up but also I would like to see that once it gets back below the high water mark you take it off. I don’t see why we want to wait 3 days. If that’s the mark that makes all the difference then it should work both going up and going down. Mayor Ryan: Ms. Susla. Laurie Susla: If I may I would like to again point out that what we’re asking for is the way code is right now. That it comes on when the high water mark is hit. It goes off after it’s been below for 3 days because you can have the draining and the water because these lakes are filled primarily by stormwater drainage. That continues for days after the event so you’ll have a situation where you’ll go above. Maybe you’ll go below and then maybe it will come back up so to Manager Gerhardt’s point about not going on and off and on and off we’re just asking that the criteria of when you go on and when you go off stays as it is now. Mayor Ryan: What the current code states. Laurie Susla: Current, yes. Which if you remove those 4 words would be as it is now. Mayor Ryan: Okay thank you. Laurie Susla: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Mr. Gerhardt or any thoughts on the removal of the words three consecutive days? Jason Wedel: I can Mayor, members of the council. The lake levels they don’t happen overnight. I mean they usually are trending up when you’ve got a lot of rain coming in and then Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 37 it takes a while for them to level off and drop back down. There is some level of discretion there where if you’re watching the lake levels and you’re seeing that it’s slowly creeping up but you think it’s only going to be a no wake for a day and you know before things are going to start trending back down again, it’s hard to City Manager Gerhardt’s point is to post things for a day and then take them off and post them for a day and take it off. I think if you know if there was some discretion at my level to say okay yep, it’s trending up and I look at the forecast. I can see we’ve got a bunch of rainfall events on the horizon then it probably makes sense to put it on because we know more rain is coming. But if it looks like it’s barely going to get there and it’s dry for the next 2 weeks you know maybe it’s a wait and see approach to see if it’s going to stay there for a day or two. But that would put the burden more on me and I don’t know if that’s what we want to just have it an automatic that it’s, that there is no discretion there then that would be up to the council I guess to decide if it’s 3 days or just immediate but that would just be some of my thoughts. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. I’m similar to Councilman McDonald. You know I think if the magic number is the magic number that as soon as that number is hit I feel like a no wake zone should apply because often times it still continues to creep up a little bit. It doesn’t just hit that number and then immediately recede. It usually continues to creep up a little bit before, before it goes back down. And in the rare case that if it needed to come off right away you know I guess that’s an unfortunate, fortunate and unfortunate at the same time but I think it’s a dangerous to wait 3 days especially on a lake specific to Lotus that is so narrow that you let it continue to increase and wait 3 days while people are out on their boats. I think that the number is there for a reason and once it’s hit that we should you know we should enforce a no wake zone. A slow no-wake zone. My thoughts so I would be in favor of removing the three consecutive days. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor on all lakes or just Lotus? Mayor Ryan: I think consistency is good on all lakes. My opinion. Councilman McDonald: Well the ordinance is written for all lakes right. It doesn’t say any particular lake. Mayor Ryan: Correct, exactly. Todd Gerhardt: I was looking at the old ordinance. Mayor Ryan: Looking for more comments or an action. Keith Paap: Is additional public comment allowed? No? Alright. Mayor Ryan: Sure. Keith Paap: Keith My name’s Keith Paap at 3601. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 38 Mayor Ryan: Could you step forward please. Keith Paap: Keith Paap at 3601 Red Cedar Point Road. So I’m out at the very end of Lake Minnewashta so this is one of the things that impacts me a lot. So that lake level that’s listed I was contacted, one of the people they contacted and kind of polled. It used to be 944.8 so we basically added 3 more inches but when we reach that level you’re already causing damage so when it falls below 945 on Minnewashta damage is still occurring even though they took it off. …lake going over my shoreline still even though it’s down a little bit so I do, I don’t think you want to go one day on and take it off another day. I think what you’re looking at is like 4 day window. If it reaches the point you put it on but then you’re looking at least a 4 day window of letting that water recede back below that damage point so. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Thank you for your feedback. Appreciate it. Council any motions? Further discussion. Councilwoman Coleman: Does that change the wording for the motion then? Mayor Ryan: It would yes. Todd Gerhardt: You’d eliminate the 3 days and then under Lake Minnewashta we just added a comment of 10 percent chance occurrence. I think that was just the comment from Renae saying that what we did is we calculated the 10 year average of 945 so based on that 945 there was a 10 percent chance that the no-wake ordinance would go on. So I would eliminate the 10 percent chance occurrence and just. Roger Knutson: Level up. Todd Gerhardt: And level. Mayor Ryan: So within the ordinance eliminate 10 percent chance occurrence and just so it reads level of 945. Councilman Campion: Or would be ordinary high water level of? Todd Gerhardt: No the ordinary high water level is statistical level of determining the lake. What she’s saying is that it should really be the 10 year average occurrence level of 945. Roger Knutson: So you’d amend it just to read level of 945. That’s what it would say. Todd Gerhardt: Because we couldn’t use high water because if we went with high water then nobody could use the lake for almost half the summer. If you looked at the scale of the high water marks on Minnewashta it was like this. So we started going up and then we pulled all the Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 39 high water marks and data that we had over the last 10 years. Put it in a spreadsheet and did the average and it came at 944.9 so we rounded up to 945. So there’s no scientific level other than taking the history of the last 10 years. Mayor Ryan: But for the motion what Mr. Knutson is saying is that. Todd Gerhardt: Level of 945. Mayor Ryan: Level of 945 and then. Councilman Campion: Is it level of 882.5 for Lake Susan? Todd Gerhardt: Level of 882.5 for Lake Susan to be consistent. Councilman Campion: Okay. Mayor Ryan: Would anyone like to make a motion? Councilman Campion: Anyone brave? Todd Gerhardt: The only restriction that you would have to take out is under number 2. Eliminate the words exceed for three consecutive days. So put a period after which slow no- wake restrictions apply period. Roger Knutson: Is met. Todd Gerhardt: Is met period. Councilman Campion: Alright I’ll make a motion. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion. Councilman Campion: Alright. The City Council adopts a resolution establishing an emergency slow no-wake area for Lake Minnewashta and the City Council approves an ordinance amending Section 6-49 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning slow no-wake with the modifications discussed such that Lake Minnewashta reads, level of 945.0. Todd Gerhardt: And Lake Susan. Councilman Campion: And Lake Susan reads Level of 882.5. And Section B(2), the first sentence removes the words “for three consecutive days”. Mayor Ryan: Exceeded. Chanhassen City Council – June 10, 2019 40 Todd Gerhardt: Exceeded. Roger Knutson: Or exceed for three consecutive days. Todd Gerhardt: Just a period after met and then or exceeded for three consecutive days. Councilman Campion: Alright. What Todd said. Mayor Ryan: I believe we have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilwoman Coleman: I’ll second that. Mayor Ryan: Alright with a valid motion and a second. Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Coleman seconded that the Chanhassen City Council approve Resolution #2019-29 establishing emergency slow-no wake area on Lake Minnewashta with the change to Section 6-49(b)(2) deleting the words “or exceeded for three consecutive days”; and adopts Ordinance 642 amending Section 6-49 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning slow-no wake with the change to Section (b)(1) Lake Minnewashta Level of 945.0 and Lake Susan Level of 882.5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Ryan: That motion carries 5-0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Ryan: Alright we are, council is meeting again in the Fountain Conference Room to continue our work session meeting but I would take a motion for adjournment. Councilwoman Coleman moved, Councilman Campion seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 10, 2019 Mayor Ryan called the work session to order at 5:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Chelsea Petersen, Kate Aanenson, Jason Wedel, Greg Sticha, Todd Hoffman, and Jill Sinclair BUY CHANHASSEN PURPLE PROJECT PRESENTATION. Mayor Ryan welcomed Vernelle Clayton with Buy Chanhassen, Joel Rainville with Buy Chanhassen and Michael Rainville with Meet Minneapolis. Vernelle Clayton provided background information associated with the Citizen Action Request Form that was submitted to the City Council regarding Buy Chanhassen in cooperation with Meet Minneapolis creating a committee to explore the benefits to Chanhassen derived from visitors going to the Chanhassen Dinner Theater, Paisley Park and Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. She introduced Joel Rainville with Buy Chanhassen who introduced Michael Rainville with Meet Minneapolis. They discussed how to market Chanhassen using digital marketing, website marketing, and other resources that can be used to help publicize and promote hotels, motels, restaurants, and entertainment attractions. Michael Rainville discussed an agreement for $30,000 per year that will be submitted to the Buy Chanhassen group. Vernelle Clayton asked for a person from city staff to help manage this program, outlined the revenue benefits derived from partnering with Meet Minneapolis, the possibility of creating a visitor’s bureau for the City of Chanhassen and how to initiate funding i.e. lodging tax. Councilman McDonald asked Vernelle Clayton how the old Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce operated and a history of what happened to that organization. She explained that the Chanhassen Chamber of Commerce was successful but surrounding communities needed to market the southwest area of Minneapolis and created the Southwest Chamber of Commerce. Councilman McDonald asked about charging the business community rather than the City for Meet Minneapolis’s services. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification of the fees being suggested by Meet Minneapolis to be used as a revenue source for Buy Chanhassen. Todd Gerhardt explained how tax revenue would funneled through the city to a visitor bureau. Mayor Ryan asked about feedback from local hotels regarding implementing taxes, and what the process is for implementing a lodging tax. Vernelle Clayton suggested coming back to the council with a representative from Waconia’s vacation bureau to provide further information on their use of lodging taxes. Councilman Campion asked what services the $30,000 fee from Meet Minneapolis would provide. After comments from council members it was the consensus to proceed with discussions with hotels, Meet Minneapolis and Explore Minnesota. Councilwoman Tjornhom explained that she could not support implementing a new City Council Work Session – June 10, 2019 2 tax. Mayor Ryan stated she needed more questions answered regarding increasing taxes and the structure of Meet Minneapolis. KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGY: PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM DEEP DIVE. Jason Wedel reviewed past information using the OCI numbers to rank projects and the discussion of whether the City should use an average OCI of 70 or 60. He discussed associated costs with each number and the cost per square foot for different levels of street maintenance, a map showing different street rankings and associated costs, a graph showing street construction from 1960 through the current year and projects that will need to be reconstructed into the future showing a comparison between street reconstruction costs versus mill and overlay. Mayor Ryan clarified that the city is not behind in miles of street projects versus funding to keep up with future projects to maintain an average OCI of 70. Jason Wedel discussed funding options with the 60 percent City portion funded out of the Revolving Street Assessment Fund tax levy and 40 percent assessed and associated shortfalls. He discussed additional funding source options which include increasing assessments, increase the tax levy and/or implement a franchise fee. Greg Sticha discussed the different funding source options presented to the City Council last year versus what is being presented this year as possible funding scenarios using bonding to cover annual assessments, the City acting as the bank for assessments, increasing the tax levy, and implementing a franchise fee. Councilman McDonald asked about the funding source to pay the debt. Greg Sticha explained the funding source would be assessments collected by the City. Councilman Campion asked if staff had taken into account revenue from new growth. Jason Wedel presented the proposed 10 year capital improvement program overlaid with projected street projects. Greg Sticha stated staff was looking for direction on how to proceed with the amount of roads allocated for street projects and how to fund those projects. Mayor Ryan suggested council digest the information presented, ask questions over the next couple weeks and discuss it at an upcoming work session. Councilman McDonald asked staff to research how to address the problem with potholes. Mayor Ryan recessed the work session at 7:00 p.m. The work session was reconvened at 9:10 p.m. DISCUSS LIGHTING SYSTEM EFFICIENCY UPGRADE FOR PUBLIC WORKS, LIBRARY AND CITY HALL. Greg Sticha explained that rebates will likely disappear in the future so suggested if council wanted to proceed with this process now would be the time. Jill Sinclair explained that the direct wiring method is the preferred way to proceed. Greg Sticha discussed possible funding sources to implement this proposal. Mayor Ryan asked about the process of Xcel Energy contacting city staff to conduct an audit. Jill Sinclair explained that Xcel Energy had reached out to an Environmental Commissioner who in turn reached out to city staff. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on how to proceed with getting a more detailed audit before putting the project out City Council Work Session – June 10, 2019 3 for bid. Councilman McDonald asked if it would be an unfair advantage to the contractor who conducts the detailed audit. After discussion it was the consensus of council to proceed with getting a detailed audit. Jason Wedel addressed the issue of potholes in city streets. Councilman McDonald suggested staff bring back a plan for addressing potholes at the next work session. Todd Gerhardt stated staff will bring back a map that shows what’s been done and what needs to be done to get the job completed sooner rather than later. Mayor Ryan asked council members if they wanted to continue the pavement management program discussion now or at a future work session. It was decided to bring the item back at the next work session. Greg Sticha explained the timeline associated with implementing a franchise fee. Todd Gerhardt explained the work associated with preparing a proposal for council to review. Mayor Ryan directed staff to prepare information to bring back to council at their June 24th work session. Councilman Campion asked about ranking street projects after a funding source has been chosen. Mayor Ryan adjourned the work session at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated June 4, 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 June 4, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated June 4, 2019 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated June 4, 2019 CHAHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JUNE 4, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, and Doug Reeder MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, and Laura Skistad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Katrina Fiihr BDH & Young Jeff Gears BDH & Young Mike LaQua Bauer Deign Build PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8077 CENTURY BOULEVARD AND ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD). Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Tietz asked about the changes in the footprint from the previous application. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, Tietz seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 square-foot, two-story office, warehouse and manufacturing building, plans prepared by Loucks and BDH & Young, dated 05-03-2019, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building 1. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Building plans must include a code analysis that contains the following information: Key Plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers, Planning Commission Summary – June 4, 2019 2 Separated or non-separated, Fire resistive elements (Ext walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count. 4. Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 5. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed building, including but not limited to: allowable size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted. 6. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Engineering and Water Resources 1. The applicant shall provide a traffic memo, prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, evaluating conflicting driving movements with Water Tower Place and the northern driveway access 2. Vacate drainage and utility easements except the standard 10-foot wide easement associated with the front of the parcel in addition to the standard 5-foot wide easement associated with the side and rear portions of the parcel. 3. The wetland, wetland buffer, and the Bluff Creek Overlay District on the site shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Staff recommends that the developer dedicate those areas to the city to ensure conservation of these critical areas. 4. Provide a permanent 20’ easement over the trail throughout the parcel. 5. The applicant shall remove all existing fence located on the east side of the property. 6. Apply for an Encroachment Agreement for the private sidewalk. 7. Provide top of wall and bottom of wall elevations for entire retaining wall build, which includes retaining wall built below grade, i.e. bottom of wall. 8. Replace any striping removed in Century Boulevard. 9. All striping and signage shall meet the requirements of the MN-MUTCD manual. 10. Indicate lineal (running) slope design for the trail. Trail slopes shall meet ADA requirements. 11. Staff recommends the installation of a gate valve downstream of the trench drain to isolate possible hazardous material from entering the storm system. The operation and Planning Commission Summary – June 4, 2019 3 maintenance plan for the storm system should include the procedure for this isolation protocol. 12. Salvage existing topsoil and indicate stockpile location. 13. Water main fittings shall be epoxy coated. 14. Core drill to existing sanitary sewer main will require the installation of a boot at connection. 15. As the developer will be required to remove all material surrounding the existing public sanitary sewer manhole that is being proposed for connection, Public Works will inspect and determine if repair or rehabilitation of the manhole is required (e.g. rebuilding chimney, installing I/I barrier, etc.). 16. Appropriate city permits for construction within the public right-of-way shall be obtained prior to construction. Work within city streets requires a traffic control plan. 17. A preconstruction meeting with Public Works and Engineering shall be scheduled by the contractor prior to working within the public right-of-way and the connection to any public utilities. 18. Identify stockpile locations on plan. 19. All call-outs on construction plans that reference a detail shall be updated to incorporate the sheet the detail is illustrated on and the detail number referenced for construction. 20. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). 21. A SWPPP shall be submitted for review that meets the conditions of the NPDES Construction Permit 22. Provide design details for the stormwater management systems and associated hydrology models. 23. The applicant shall assess alternatives to conveying stormwater system discharge on and across City property that will not cause erosion or degradation. 24. The applicant shall demonstrate through modeling that the receiving municipal stormwater system has adequate capacity to accept the increased drainage volume. 25. Provide a planting and revegetation plan specific for grading within the bluff impact zone and the wetland buffer. Planning Commission Summary – June 4, 2019 4 26. Provide boring locations on grading and stormwater utility plan sheets. Environmental Resources 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet minimum requirements for the north bufferyard. Plantings shall be located between trail and parking lot. 2. The applicant shall protect existing trees to be preserved along Century Boulevard. Tree protection fencing shall be placed at the dripline or greater distance prior to any construction activities and maintained until construction is complete. Any trees that die will be required to be replaced. 3. The trail alignment within the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be field inspected and approved by the city prior to any removals and construction activity. No live, significant oak trees shall be removed for trail construction. Fire 1. There is only one hydrant on the property. Several are needed to meet minimum spacing requirements per MN Fire Code. Parks 1. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the “wetland trail.” Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters Ridge trail, the intersection of Century Boulevard and West 82nd Street, and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the trail. 2. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th shall be dedicated to the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”. Planning 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the security required by it prior to receiving a building permit. 2. A separate sign permit application, review and approval shall be required prior to site sign installation. Planning Commission Summary – June 4, 2019 5 3. The building needs additional articulation to break up long expansions of wall area on the north side of the building. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 21, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson provided the City Council action update from the May 28, 2019 City Council meeting and discussed future agenda items. Commissioner Undestad moved 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 at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHAHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 4, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, and Doug Reeder MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, and Laura Skistad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Katrina Fiihr BDH & Young Jeff Gears BDH & Young Mike LaQua Bauer Deign Build PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK CORRIDOR FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8077 CENTURY BOULEVARD AND ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD). Generous: Thank you Chairman Weick, commissioners. As you stated this is a site plan review. Control Concepts has approximately a 54,000 square foot office/warehouse manufacturing building that they’re proposing within the Arboretum Business Park which is the property is located at 8077 Century Boulevard. That’s Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. It’s just on the east side of Century Boulevard just south of Water Tower Place at that intersection. The property to the east of it and to the north of it is part of the Bluff Creek primary zone. As part of this development we will be preserving that area. Again this is site plan review for two story, 54,276 square foot office/warehouse manufacturing building. Previously, last year they came in for a two tenant building and they’ve revised their plans and come in with a slightly smaller building. Now there’s only going one tenant in this building. The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for office industrial uses. It’s zoned planned unit development (PUD) for the Arboretum Business Park so it has it’s own design standards. Office manufacturing and warehouse uses are permitted in the PUD district. Again the site plan, the site is approximately 5 acres in size. This development will have 48 percent coverage on the property. The balance will be open space, green space or other open spaces. As part of this project a trail connection to the Bluff Creek, there’s a wetland trail that goes around the approximately 100 acres of open space that’s in to the east of this site. This is the last segment. There is a small retaining wall as a part of this project. Previously they had a 17 foot tall one. Now they’re down to 4 foot tall one so they shifted the building farther south and reduced it’s expansion to the east. Building Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 4, 2019 2 schematics. This is a, how it would appear from Century Boulevard. Two story building. The main entrance is on the left side of the northwest corner of the building. Building materials consists of exposed aggregate, concrete panels. The top part is exposed aggregate. The bottom part would be racked finish and then there’s darker portions of the building that are sand blasted finish so it helps to give it a little bit of articulation and artistic value so. Again two levels of offices on the western third of the building approximately will be two story. The rest of it is a one story structure. The north elevation of the building was something that we were a little concerned about. The original presentation had a long wall that was broken up by a lot of architectural detailing. The bottom portion of this shows that they’re adding another area of sand blasted concrete panels so it will get a darker color out of that and also they’ve combined groupings of windows up for overstory windows in the warehouse portion of the building. We believe that this change in the elevation has improved it’s aesthetic value. The dark gray, the light gray and the medium gray plus the red highlight at the entrance and then if you add in the landscaping will provide an opportunity to have a pleasing industrial building so again the, like I said the western portion of the building has office space in it and meeting areas and break rooms and then the northern part of the eastern side of the building is warehouse space and the southern part is the manufacturing area. At present the second floor office area is just an open space and they’re going to use it for storage until they need to expand their offices. As part of the site again the grading for the trail system into the City’s wetland trail and then they’ve reduced the grading on the site. There’s a reduction in the amount of retaining walls that will be required on this development. They’re proposing two access off of Century Boulevard, the northerly one and the southerly one. This, well it disappeared. This will be a 16 foot drive aisle so it will be for emergency access and for truck access out of the site. Primary entrance will be in the northwest corner of the development. Parking is located on both the west, north and there’s a few parking spots on the east side of the building. The truck docks are located on the east side of the building so they’ll be screened from public view on Century Boulevard. There’s not a whole lot of issues in the grading from an engineering standpoint. Landscaping plan, they’re slightly deficit in the amount of landscaping in this north buffer yard. They’ve been working with the City Forester to do improvements and so I don’t believe that will be an issue. Again the grading of the grade will be, create a nice contrast in the building outlay. I should point out that in the southwest corner of the building they have a patio area for their employees and then again the trail connection. Access out on the, pedestrian access out onto Century Boulevard and from the main entrance of the building. Sewer and water services are available in Century Boulevard. They’ll be brought into the southern part of the building so no problems with that. Storm sewer improvements, they’re using an underground system for infiltration purposes and for pre-treatment. It discharges out to the City owns this outlot up on the north side. There is one condition in there that they look at the discharge point in there and evaluate how that will impact our outlot and the stormwater. There’s two issues involved with that. Is there sufficient capacity in the existing stormwater pond for the water that’s coming in and will the discharge from the pipe create a channelized system and so we want them to evaluate that prior to beginning construction. And then they have another drain system, underground drain system that connects up to the front and again it all discharges up to the north. Like I stated before 48 percent of the site will be covered with hard surface and the balance would be some green area so generally in industrial Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 4, 2019 3 developments you have a 70 percent coverage so they’re doing very well. And again the engineering wanted me to put this in. Right now water sheet drains across this property so all the water that’s coming off this site goes over a large area into the wetland. Into the natural area. There’s some wetland out there and then the City’s stormwater pond. This is a pond we would need to have evaluated to make sure that it’s sized correctly to accommodate their development. And then one other thing that the engineering staff has requested the applicant determine is there’s a slight offset where the entrance is from Water Tower Place and they want a traffic engineer to look at it to make sure that traffic movement is efficient and safe for everyone so we, it’s one of the condition number 1 under the engineering design. With that staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Jump in if you have any questions. Anybody? From the presentation. No? Nothing. With nothing we would invite the applicant or developer to have the opportunity to give a presentation. Welcome. Applicant’s Representative: Good evening commissioners. Thanks for your time this evening. Bob thank you for your presentation. I don’t know if we have a lot more to add. I think Bob did a very good job of going through there and explaining the design that we’ve proposed here. One thing I would mention, and you may have said it and I just maybe didn’t catch it is in the revised elevation that we did submit one of the things we did is we did a little bit of articulation with the parapet height just to add some visual interest. So I think that would be the only other thing that I might add. Oh they’re putting it up there. There it is. So being that it’s a warehouse use we had some limitations in terms of what the actual function is going on the inside and how else we could achieve articulation so through color choice and creating vertical elements and extending the parapet and reorienting the windows we were hoping that we’re achieving some articulation. That’s all I have. Weick: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Wow. Tietz: How much did you, I know Bob mentioned and I didn’t look back at the old presentation. What’s the footprint and how much did you reduce the footprint of the building? Applicant’s Representative: Do you remember that number offhand. I think it was. Audience: I think it was only about, I think maybe 5,000 square feet on the actual footprint of the building. But the location of the building and how the parking lot was structured the. Aanenson: Maybe you can come up to the microphone. Audience: Yeah so the location of the two tenant building it made it really, really difficult to achieve you cost effective structure to deal with the 20 foot retaining wall. It just wasn’t working so we went back to the drawing board. Made it a single tenant. Moved where the Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 4, 2019 4 loading docks were. You know changed the parking lot to a fire lane. Skeech the building south as much as we could and that really reduced everything. Just everything just kind of worked out better so we’re excited about it. Tietz: Yeah it looks a lot better. Hope it works for you guys. Audience: So thank you. Weick: Thank you. At this time we would open the public hearing portion of this item. If anyone would like to come forward please do so. Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing and open for commissioner discussion. Sounds like there isn’t much. Undestad: Like everybody said it’s a much better layout for engineering and it looks like they’re going to get what they want out of the building so I think it looks nice. Weick: Yeah. Tietz: Yeah agree, no problems. Weick: I mean you had concerns John about just the path right and the retaining wall. Tietz: …precedent with that huge retaining wall and the path was like here and all the snow was going to come down on top of the path and you know parks got their, a much better path connection and there’s a modest retaining wall so there’s some savings there which I’m sure in construction so yeah it looks like a good use finally of that site. Weick: Perfect. We could certainly entertain a motion if there’s no other discussion. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 square foot two story office/warehouse manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval and adopting of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Weick: We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Tietz: I’ll second. Weick: Second from Commissioner Tietz. Any further discussion on the item? Undestad moved, Tietz seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 square-foot, two-story office, warehouse and manufacturing building, plans prepared by Loucks and BDH & Young, dated 05-03-2019, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 4, 2019 5 Building 1. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Building plans must include a code analysis that contains the following information: Key Plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers, Separated or non-separated, Fire resistive elements (Ext walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count. 4. Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 5. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed building, including but not limited to: allowable size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted. 6. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Engineering and Water Resources 1. The applicant shall provide a traffic memo, prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, evaluating conflicting driving movements with Water Tower Place and the northern driveway access 2. Vacate drainage and utility easements except the standard 10-foot wide easement associated with the front of the parcel in addition to the standard 5-foot wide easement associated with the side and rear portions of the parcel. 3. The wetland, wetland buffer, and the Bluff Creek Overlay District on the site shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Staff recommends that the developer dedicate those areas to the city to ensure conservation of these critical areas. 4. Provide a permanent 20’ easement over the trail throughout the parcel. 5. The applicant shall remove all existing fence located on the east side of the property. 6. Apply for an Encroachment Agreement for the private sidewalk. 7. Provide top of wall and bottom of wall elevations for entire retaining wall build, which includes retaining wall built below grade, i.e. bottom of wall. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 4, 2019 6 8. Replace any striping removed in Century Boulevard. 9. All striping and signage shall meet the requirements of the MN-MUTCD manual. 10. Indicate lineal (running) slope design for the trail. Trail slopes shall meet ADA requirements. 11. Staff recommends the installation of a gate valve downstream of the trench drain to isolate possible hazardous material from entering the storm system. The operation and maintenance plan for the storm system should include the procedure for this isolation protocol. 12. Salvage existing topsoil and indicate stockpile location. 13. Water main fittings shall be epoxy coated. 14. Core drill to existing sanitary sewer main will require the installation of a boot at connection. 15. As the developer will be required to remove all material surrounding the existing public sanitary sewer manhole that is being proposed for connection, Public Works will inspect and determine if repair or rehabilitation of the manhole is required (e.g. rebuilding chimney, installing I/I barrier, etc.). 16. Appropriate city permits for construction within the public right-of-way shall be obtained prior to construction. Work within city streets requires a traffic control plan. 17. A preconstruction meeting with Public Works and Engineering shall be scheduled by the contractor prior to working within the public right-of-way and the connection to any public utilities. 18. Identify stockpile locations on plan. 19. All call-outs on construction plans that reference a detail shall be updated to incorporate the sheet the detail is illustrated on and the detail number referenced for construction. 20. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). 21. A SWPPP shall be submitted for review that meets the conditions of the NPDES Construction Permit Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 4, 2019 7 22. Provide design details for the stormwater management systems and associated hydrology models. 23. The applicant shall assess alternatives to conveying stormwater system discharge on and across City property that will not cause erosion or degradation. 24. The applicant shall demonstrate through modeling that the receiving municipal stormwater system has adequate capacity to accept the increased drainage volume. 25. Provide a planting and revegetation plan specific for grading within the bluff impact zone and the wetland buffer. 26. Provide boring locations on grading and stormwater utility plan sheets. Environmental Resources 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet minimum requirements for the north bufferyard. Plantings shall be located between trail and parking lot. 2. The applicant shall protect existing trees to be preserved along Century Boulevard. Tree protection fencing shall be placed at the dripline or greater distance prior to any construction activities and maintained until construction is complete. Any trees that die will be required to be replaced. 3. The trail alignment within the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be field inspected and approved by the city prior to any removals and construction activity. No live, significant oak trees shall be removed for trail construction. Fire 1. There is only one hydrant on the property. Several are needed to meet minimum spacing requirements per MN Fire Code. Parks 1. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the “wetland trail.” Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters Ridge trail, the intersection of Century Boulevard and West 82nd Street, and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the trail. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 4, 2019 8 2. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th shall be dedicated to the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”. Planning 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the security required by it prior to receiving a building permit. 2. A separate sign permit application, review and approval shall be required prior to site sign installation. 3. The building needs additional articulation to break up long expansions of wall area on the north side of the building. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Weick: Thank you Bob. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 21, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: Kate. Aanenson: Yes just give you a couple council updates. The one thing that we put in here is there is a, Solomon Real Estate Group has been working on the Applebee’s site. They bought that piece of property and they had restrictions on it. There was when that project went in, where the Walgreen’s was there was a bank so there was a condition put across, there were 4 properties there. Or actually, yeah 4. The tire store, the Chipotle and Buffalo Wild Wings and then Applebee’s and then the bank. They all had a common interest in parking and access and so there was restriction on there for no additional banks even though the bank had left, that restriction still lies in place so Solomon went to the City Council and said can we have that restriction removed. They were interested in doing a bank and then the council asked them to give hard consideration to doing a restaurant so they’ve been working on trying to land a restaurant. They’ve got an end user in mind but based on some of the parking things, how Applebee’s operated and then the restaurant they would like to put there, they want additional parking and in order to accommodate that would have to be across the street. So we’ve been working with them. The staff. Their engineer. Our engineer working on looking at a site plan there for additional parking. I’m not sure that would come to you. It’d probably be just administrative and mostly remodel but what they’re looking at is a significant you know million dollar reinvestment and remodeling on that site if they can make it go so that’s what the Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 4, 2019 9 council’s working on right now so stay tuned on that one so. Then for your schedule your next meeting is June 18th and we have Camp Tanadoona coming on that site plan so they’re redoing the lodge building so they’re taking that one down so they’re getting through the process now because as soon as camping season ends, which is I believe Labor Day weekend, they want to start moving dirt and it’s you’ll see the plans. A very, very nice plan how they’ve redone that and it’s got a lower level walkout so it accommodates not only if there’s storms or something. Also the people that stay there that they’ve got a kitchen area for them to eat in too so. Tietz: Kate I have a question. Aanenson: Yeah. Tietz: Are they connected to sewer and water? Aanenson: Yes that’s a good question. They did connect to sewer a couple years ago. They had a failing system and we let it go on and I think like 2 years ago we insisted that they had to fix that so they are connected and with this project they will do water yep. So that was one of the things that they’ve been raising funds for to get all that to put in place so yeah, thanks for asking. So that will be on your meeting on the 18th. I don’t think we have anything else on for that meeting right now. Then there’s no meeting, historically we don’t have on the fourth of July because there’s so much going on up here and a lot of people are traveling. And then on the 16th we’re revisiting the design standards which is Chapter 18 of Subdivision and that includes cul- de-sac lengths and some of those things. The Fire Marshal has commented on that and so you’ll be reviewing those and giving recommendations to the City Council. In addition to that Xcel has a tower as a conditional use that is over a certain height and they’ll need that. Just wanted to let you know we are working through, there’s some properties that are trying to do subdivisions. Maybe some are up to, you saw one last time a split at your last meeting but these other ones, maybe it might be 4. Might be 10 lots. They’re all complicated so, so if you’re interested in any of those some of those may be going to the City Council for work sessions first. Again this ties into the whole discussion of how we connect streets and the like. When we’ve got a stub street and we don’t connect them so that will be going on. We also have our annual retreat. Excuse me tour we’ll be taking with the other commissions so I think one of the places we want to be able to stop at, and they should be far enough along that we can potentially get in the building and that would be the Venue so we can get inside that building so we’ll work on that but if anybody has something that they’d really like to see let me know. The last update I give you is we have been working with Avienda. We did have a meeting with them again last week. They did get their NPDES permits. They are getting their watershed approvals so they’re working to proceed to grading. I know I keep saying that and lose some credibility there so hopefully by the end of July so everything’s lining up that way that they would start grading in July. Tietz: So the crop that’s planted. Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 4, 2019 10 Aanenson: It’s just a question. I’ve gotten a lot of calls on that too. So I think it depends on the dollar so that would be compensated so yeah. I think there’s also someone that enjoys planting so put that out there so. So if you’re on the tractor you might as well keep, so I’ll keep you posted on that but right now I’ll give you a heads up on that one too. Oh thank you. There is a variance appeal on your item that was heard last time. Both parties appealed. The applicant and the neighbors so that is going to the City Council on the 10th. So they have wo unhappy parties so. So that’s it so. Tietz: I have one question Kate. Aanenson: Yeah. Tietz: You mentioned parking at the old Applebee’s site. I read with interest the council work session on the proposed breweries on that site that was going to be a dental office. Aanenson: Yes. Tietz: How does parking work on that site and how does access work for all those folks that might want to go to the brewery? Aanenson: Correct. So they have to do a traffic study too so there’s a purchase agreement put together. That was one of the things they have to look at. One was a little bit smaller. Had more parking than the other one. One user had probably little bit more robust plan so I think the council kind of went with the smaller plan but they have to demonstrate how that works too so that’s great. Tietz: I just remember that dental office that was really kind of a contorted parking situation with a kind of spearhead site. Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: And it wasn’t, you know there was land but not very developable. Aanenson: Right. So it will be a challenge. I think long term wise we looked at other ways to service that. You know we’ve talked about if the, if we could connect where we come in to the restaurant, Potbelly and the like if that would come up where Valvoline is or one of those, you could make that street connection there too and try to eliminate some of those turn movements. It’s difficult there because of the train tracks there so providing some additional, just better sight lines and some of those sort of things so we’re looking at that too so you guys will see that project for sure. So that will come in for review so they’re working on just putting together a more detailed business plan and some of their landscaping detail and so they’re using the same architect on that one that Camp Tanadoona is so it’s a nice looking building. I think that was one of the goals too that we had. A nice presence because that’s a gateway to downtown so. Just Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 4, 2019 11 status on projects. As you can see the Venue is zipping right along and now the Aldi’s has got their steel up and they’re both hoping to open by September and if you’ve gone by Lake Riley Crossings the senior housing, that’s coming right along too so both those projects are kind of wrapping up so starting some other ones here pretty soon so that’s all I had. Tietz: Now that you mentioned senior housing I just drove by the other day on 7 and 41, I noticed the Beehive is now a… Aanenson: Yeah they bought their franchise with Beehive out of Utah so now. Tietz: So now it turned into Pendleton? Aanenson: Yep. And they also wanted to expand. I think they wanted to just preserve most of that area that was Mr. Gowan’s property with the hostas yep. They had talked about that and that they might do a better regional ponding there so they would add on that third phase and then do a significant regional pond that which they could use for all that area just south of 7. That drains that way. Yep, yep. And then also I don’t know if you’ve noticed the North Coop is open now. That new restaurant there. You can see it was a remodel. It’s right on the corner of 7 and 41 just right across from the middle school there so they just opened last week or the week before, yeah so doing very well. They have long waits for dinner so. Yeah. Tietz: Good. Aanenson: Yeah, that’s all I had Chair. Weick: Thank you very much. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Undestad moved 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 at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Receive Park & Recreation Minutes dated May 29, 2019 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.3. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No: N/A PROPOSED MOTION "The City Council receives the Park & Recreation Minutes dated May 29, 2019." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Summary Minutes Verbatim Minutes CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION SUMMARY MINUTES REGULAR MEETING The Park and Recreation Commission met at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the request to sponsor a Gratitude Tree, and then departed at 5:40 p.m. for a tour of the Lake Ann Park expansion property with Mayor Ryan and Councilwoman Coleman. Chairman Boettcher called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Karl Tsuchiya, Meredith Petouvis, Joe Scanlon, Matt Kutz, Sandy Sweetser, and Haley Pemrick STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Audrey Swantz, Recreation Supervisor PUBLIC PRESENT: Ashley & Joe Heuer 295 Preserve Court APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Scanlon moved, Petouvis seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Joe and Ashley Heuer introduced themselves as high school students from Holy Family School. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tsuchiya moves, Pemrick seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated April 23, 2019. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. INTRODUCTION OF 2019 OLD NATIONAL BANK SUMMER CONCERT SERIES. Audrey Swantz reviewed the line up of entertainment for the 2019 Old National Bank Summer Concert Series. 2019 EASTER EGG CANDY HUNT REVIEW. Audrey Swantz reviewed highlights of the 2019 Easter Egg Candy Hunt. Commissioner Kutz asked where the remaining revenue goes. Staff explained it goes back into the general fund. Park and Recreation Commission Summary – May 29, 2019 2 2019 LAKE ANN PARK SUMMER PROGRAMS. Jerry Ruegemer reviewed the Lake Ann Park summer programs related to picnics, watercraft rentals and concession stand. Chair Boettcher asked about staffing of the concession stand. 2019 SUMMER PROGRAMS. Audrey Swantz reviewed the list of programs being offered for 3 to 16 year olds. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. Chair Boettcher noted that he, Commissioner Petouvis and her daughter planted a tree for the Arbor Day event. Commissioner Sweetser had a question on the Park and Recreation Commission By-laws regarding the location of the City’s official bulletin board and review of the By-laws every 5 years. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Chair Boettcher noted the Pickleball Classic being held June 4th through the 6th. Todd Hoffman explained that the Mill Street Trail feasibility study is being done by Hennepin County for extension of the trail along Powers Boulevard to Excelsior before suggesting the commission discuss the meeting with the Sunshine Gang. REQUEST TO SPONSOR GRATITUDE TREE IN CITY CENTER PARK. After discussion between the commission and staff regarding locating a gratitude tree in City Center Park the following motion was made. Kutz moved, Pemrick seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approves allowing the Sunshine Gang to use one of the trees in City Center Park for the summer as a Gratitude Tree and to review the issue at the next commission meeting. All voted in favor except Commissioner Sweetser who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. After discussion of the Lake Ann Park expansion tour the following motion was made. Scanlon moved, Petouvis seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Commission Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING The Park and Recreation Commission met at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the request to sponsor a Gratitude Tree, and then departed at 5:40 p.m. for a tour of the Lake Ann Park expansion property with Mayor Ryan and Councilwoman Coleman. Chairman Boettcher called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Karl Tsuchiya, Meredith Petouvis, Joe Scanlon, Matt Kutz, Sandy Sweetser, and Haley Pemrick STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Audrey Swantz, Recreation Supervisor PUBLIC PRESENT: Ashley & Joe Heuer 295 Preserve Court Boettcher: Those of us that were on the tour evidently everybody made it back so good time there. Didn’t lose anybody. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Scanlon moved, Petouvis seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Boettcher: I see a couple here. Are you here for high school class credit. You want to introduce yourselves. Joe Heuer: I’m Joe. Ashley Heuer: I’m Ashley. Hoffman: And from which school? Joe Heuer: Holy Family. Hoffman: Which class. Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 2 Joe Heuer: ? Boettcher: Glad to see you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tsuchiya moves, Pemrick seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated April 23, 2019. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. INTRODUCTION OF 2019 OLD NATIONAL BANK SUMMER CONCERT SERIES. Boettcher: Alright, getting through this fast. Making up for the tour. New business. Item number 1, introduction of 2019 Old National Bank Summer Concert Series. Is this Audrey? Swantz: Good evening Commissioner Boettcher and commission. The 2019 Old National Bank concert series will be held at City Center Park just outside starting on June 13th and will go through August 8th. Every Thursday from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.. We have a good variety of different types of music for everyone’s style this year. It’s going to be a good fun event that everyone kind of looks forward to every summer. Attached is the Summer Concert Series flyer. It has a little information on at least the names of all the different bands that we have coming this year and more information can be found on our website. Old National Bank, previously KleinBank just across the street is our title sponsor for the event series this year. They graciously donated $3,000 to the concert series which really helps take care of most of the expenses for this series. And they actually were at City Council last week, or last night to present a check to the City Council. On August 1st we will have two different, we’ll have a children’s band in the morning and then an adult band in the evening so we get a little more variety mixed in. And the, we will have concessions with fresh popcorn, candy, cold beverages, and Old National Bank providing water once again this year. Staff continues to think of different ways to market it and this fun event and we have magnets upstairs if anyone is interested. Boettcher: And I think last month Jerry did you say that the bank now upped their participation by $500, is that right? Ruegemer: That is correct. Boettcher: It was $2,500 with Klein. Ruegemer: That’s correct Chair Boettcher. Boettcher: Okay thank you. Yeah looking forward to it. It looks like a good selection there. I think I need to come and see the Fattenin’ Frogs. That just sounds like my type of group I guess. No it looks really good so looking forward to good participation. Swantz: Thank you. Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 3 Boettcher: And the next item, Old Business we’ve got, is there anything that needs to be covered there Todd? Hoffman: No. Boettcher: Commissioners anything? 2019 EASTER EGG CAND HUNT REVIEW. Boettcher: Audrey I guess you’re back up again for the Easter Egg Candy Hunt review. Hate to make you run back and forth. Swantz: Kind of crazy to think about Easter. So on April 20th we had the Easter Egg Candy Hunt. It was the 36th annual event and we really lucked out with the weather that day. It was 50 degrees and sunny and we had a great turnout. 471 kids total registered. That is much higher than the 247 from the previous year. It did rain the previous year so it’s a little difficult to compare the two. It’s really dependent on the weather but it was a great turnout and we couldn’t have asked for a better event. And we had 230 pre-registered participants and 241 show up the day of and register so being able to keep that open registration is really important. Each participant, well we had the kids divided into three age groups. 4 and under, 5 to 8 and 9 to 12 and they each had their own designated area to find candy and eggs which worked really well. ABC Toy End Zone of Chanhassen donated prize baskets for the coloring contest this year as well as a golden egg basket and we had 140 coloring contest entries and we as a city staff voted on the entries and contacted the winners and they were all very excited. Attached is an expense report for the event and for 2020 we hope to continue to have the Chanhassen Fire Department help out with the event and continue to reach out to community sponsors to maybe get involved as well. Boettcher: So I see this $27.49 for cleaning the bunny suit so the bunny was rolling around in the grass and getting smudge marks on it. I mean we’ve got control this bunny evidently. Swantz: Bunny got a little muddy. Boettcher: Really okay. But I mean yeah, and again weather is something you can’t control but if you just look at the raw numbers from last year to this year that’s quite an increase. Hoffman: It was snowing last year. Pretty significantly. Boettcher: I think the 15th of April last year I think was when we had the big, 12 inches or whatever it was. Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 4 Tsuchiya: Didn’t we say last year they had to brush off the field last year? Hoffman: Yeah we did. We had to plow it and sweep it… Tsuchiya: Yeah not a lot of hiding there. Boettcher: The reason for the colored eggs. White is kind of camouflaged by the snow. Hoffman: It was unique. Boettcher: Well sounds like everybody had a good time then. It’s great. Thank you Audrey. Kutz: I have one question. What do you do with the balance? Do you just roll that over to next year’s fund or what happens with that dollar amount? Do you guys know? Hoffman: Yeah it just goes into general fund. Kutz: It just goes back to the general fund instead of rolling over to next year? Hoffman: Yep. Ruegemer: Just revenue. Swantz: Any other questions? Thank you. Boettcher: Thank you. 2019 LAKE ANN PARK SUMMER PROGRAMS. Boettcher: Jerry looks like you’re up next. Lake Ann Park summer programs. Ruegemer: Thank you Chair Boettcher. Excuse me for interrupting. Just wanted to give everybody a quick update here. Lake Ann is, hopefully with the rain going to be stopping here hopefully anytime soon, looks like we’re really kind of starting to kind of pick up up there for activity out at Lake Ann. Really Lake Ann is one of our important hubs of recreation that we have within our city. Certainly not only with active with ballfields and that sort of thing but just lots of picnics. A lot of people going down to the beach. Fishing is starting to pick up on the piers. Rentals were started last weekend for all the paddleboats and kayaks and paddleboards. Stand up paddleboards so that’s always good to see. We have staff out there working for that so just kind of in the process of just kind of getting up and running here. We did staff training out there for all the concession folks for that so we did open up last weekend and we’ll be open until Sunday, August 18th out there so we’ll be open 7 days a week, 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. So you know again we have the paddleboards out there with our agreement with Twin Cities Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 5 Paddleboards out there so it’s really a great, a great agreement we have with Jeff Gibbon with Twin Cities Paddleboards. He supplies all the boards. He purchases them. Maintains them and so kind of what we do as a staff out there is we operate the rental operation. We kind of do, coordinate the rentals and do all that kind of stuff and it’s, Jeff is very generous and we split revenue. We get 70 percent and he gets 30 percent so it’s really been a great revenue, source of revenue for us and so we’re close to 1,500 rentals last year total for all the paddleboats and stand up paddleboards and that sort of thing here so that has far surpassed our food sales out there so we’re very fortunate to have a good reputation. Lake Ann’s a great lake. Calm lake. Non- motorized lake for people to go out and kayak without the fear of getting run over by a power boat. It’s great for stand up paddleboarding so we’re very fortunate to have our watercraft rental operation out there for that so, so it’s been very busy with getting that all ready to go here for the season so that’s up and running here. We’re going to be having a lot of school groups out there next week from Minnetonka Middle School West, Scenic Heights Elementary School, Pioneer Ridge Middle School so a lot of them will come out kind of for the end of the year parties. Do a lot of boat rentals out there. Buy lots of lollies and other types of candy and snacks, that sort of thing so we bring in staff early those days just to accommodate all the rentals and all the activity out there so we’re extremely happy that they continue to pick Lake Ann for their end of the year picnics and it’s kind of a tradition for them as well. They love coming there and we love having them so it’s been a great partnership through the years. Staff has been busy, very busy with picnic reservations or really a lot of the weekend I guess facilities. Lake Ann at the Lakeside and the Klingelhutz Pavilion as well as the Lake Susan pavilions. A lot of the weekends are booked. Certainly in the month of June. July is really filling up and August is starting to fill up as well so that’s very busy. Just coordinating those so we normally have 120 plus picnics for the year so a lot of coordination. Kind of getting, make sure everybody’s having a really quality experience out there for that so we always project revenue to be about $16,000 by the end of the year for that so that’s been pretty consistent through the years and we’ll have that number here at the tail end of the season in September-October when we go through the final numbers of those. The beach is, well the beach is always open from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. which coincides with our park hours so really anybody can swim at any time. Lifeguards will be on staff this coming weekend and that will start on Saturday, June 1st. That will go through Sunday, August 11th so we are contracting again through Minnetonka Aquatics so they’ll be on duty from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weather permitting from, kind of between those dates that we had notified here. So just very busy again. It’s always crazy this time of year with kind of the end of school years and it’s starting to get nice. It’s starting to dry out a little bit and hopefully the water will warm up a little bit so people can get in it so we’re excited and our staff is trained and ready to go and we’re here to make memories here for the summer so it’s going to be a good one. Boettcher: Do you have any issues staffing wise? I mean plenty of people. Like do you have someone working concession stand and someone doing the rentals? Are there always 2 people on site or? Ruegemer: Yeah kind of what we do Commissioner Boettcher is that we have 4 people staffed out there. We have 4 people hired I should say and then what we do, we have a concession Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 6 manager and then 3 general Lake Ann concession workers so the manager takes care of creating schedules. Ordering product. Kind of keeping us up to date as to kind of what’s going on a daily basis. Handle any kind of issues that may arise during that so what we do during the week we have 2 different shifts. Kind of split the day in half so we have an opening and a closing shift. On the weekends we overlap 3 hours so then kind of usually kind of the middle part of the day it’s always pretty busy out there so then we have 2 people on duty so we kind of overlap 3 hours to improve our customer experience. To lessen lines. To get boats rented quicker. To you know get out food quicker so the quicker we hustle the, obviously more revenue we make and obviously most importantly is having really a good experience for the customer is getting them through and making it enjoyable for them. Boettcher: So this year did you get approved that park commission members get a discount on concessions? I tried that last year and I said I know Jerry Ruegemer and she charged me double so evidently I don’t use that line again. Ruegemer: As instructed. Boettcher: As instructed. I was afraid of that so. Tsuchiya: Your picture’s on the wall. It says Cookie Monster. Boettcher: I thought $17 for a hotdog was a little bit excessive but you know. Maybe not. No it seems like, I’ve personally I’ve never heard any complaints about anything when I’m out there fishing. I watch and there’s always people going back and forth so looks like they do a real good job definitely so. Good. 2019 SUMMER PROGRAMS. Boettcher: Okay next item I think is still Jerry and that’s, oh no this is Audrey again. You guys are flip flopping. 2019 summer programs. Looks like you’ve got, you might have a few things going on this summer huh? Swantz: Just a couple. Boettcher: What 50 or 60? Swantz: We have a list of our 2019 summer programs in front of you. These can all be found in the Summer Connection that was mailed out in March but this is a list kind of separates it by different age groups so you have a wide variety for ages 3 to 6, 7 to 16 and there’s also some family oriented events. A lot of these include the Rec Center Sports as well as some of my playground programs. Lake Ann Adventure Camp. Our partnership with Carver County Parks as well as our partnership with Skyhawk Sports. And we really have something for everyone whether it’s sports or dance or outdoor adventure, archery. It’s really awesome. And then our Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 7 family programs we have the 36th Annual Fourth of July celebration as well as the concert series and I would really throw the Penny Carnival in a family event as well. It’s listed for both age groups but I think it’s something the whole family likes to go out and go to. If any commissioners have any ideas for future programs feel free to reach out or discuss them now too. Boettcher: I just like the names of a couple, looking at the Pint Sized Picasso’s and Little Tiger Self Defense Camp. So who is the, most of these are done at the Rec Center so Jodi and her crew or are you over there manipulating, watching them or doing whatever too or not? Swantz: No a lot of the ones that are based out of the Rec Center, actually all the ones based out at the Rec Center are going to be overseen by Jodi and then her, she has a Rec Sports Coordinator that helps with the planning and implementing of the sports programs. Boettcher: Looks like if you want something to do in Chanhassen and you’re between 3 and 16 you’re covered. Good. Swantz: Thank you. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. Boettcher: Next looks like we’re looking at commission member committee reports. Anyone have anything? I had one item real quick. Commissioner Petouvis and I were at Arbor Day and I think the tree that she and I and her daughter planted I believe has grown about 2 feet in 3 ½ weeks so evidently we didn’t cover the root with dirt like they told us not to so I think we might have. Petouvis: It might be the dead one. Boettcher: Oh is that the dead one? Oh. Our’s was one over from there. Oh okay but it was a good time. Good crowd of people out there. It was really enjoyable. Didn’t rain this year so. Hoffman: Good weather. Didn’t rain. Boettcher: Yeah it was really a nice day so. Hoffman: Thanks for coming down. It’s important, Jill supports that so it’s important to her that we support her and her efforts to plant trees in our parks so thanks for being there. Sweetser: Oh I have a question. I don’t know if this is the right thing. Boettcher: Sure. Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 8 Sweetser: I was reading through the by-laws and I have two questions on those. Should I bring that up? Boettcher: Sure. Sweetser: Okay. First of all is for Section 2. Notice of all special meetings shall also be posted on the official city bulletin board. Where is that? Hoffman: Right up. Sweetser: Upstairs? Up top. Okay. I kind of figured. Didn’t know. Hoffman: Entryway. Sweetser: I haven’t been up there in a while. Hoffman: So tonight was posted as an official board council meeting even though it didn’t reach a quorum so there all council was invited so we post that. Sweetser: Okay. And then the other thing I noticed was it says that it should be reviewed every 5 years but 2013 is the date that’s listed on the bottom of it. Hoffman: The by-laws? Sweetser: On the by-laws so is that something that needs to be reviewed and updated then? Hoffman: Yep could. Otherwise I’ll check the date. It might not have been. Sweetser: If we didn’t get the most recent print out okay. That’s all. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Boettcher: Then anything in the administrative packet? I noticed the first thing that jumped out was the Pickleball Classic June 4th to 6th. That looks like, I think that would be worth going over there just to see. I’ve seen it in the Rec Center but not the outside. The mixed doubles. Women’s doubles. Men’s doubles. What kind of numbers are we looking at, do you know? Ruegemer: You know I’m not sure what the total numbers are right now. I can confirm with Jodi and we can get you guys out an email for that. One thing to note is, this is the first year that Kwik Trip is the title sponsor for it so they provided $500 worth of gift cards for us to go purchase energy drinks or bananas or do gift cards for the winners, that sort of thing so they’ve been a really great partner of the City of Chanhassen and the Rec Center. They do probably at least 2 meetings a month out there. All kind of regionally so they really have a good relationship Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 9 with Jodi and the Rec Center staff and just seemed to be a really nice fit to transition to be a sponsor for the pickleball tournament. Boettcher: Sounds like fun. Hoffman: Chair Boettcher, members of the commission. Just want to make note of the Mill Street trail feasibility study. If you don’t recognize the name Mill Street, that’s Powers Boulevard in our community and so Hennepin County is taking a look at building the trail from our northern terminus on Powers Boulevard and it’s good project. It’s got good momentum. If you ever see one of the meetings you want to participate in that feel free to attend. I attended the last public open house at the church as you drive north. It’s on the left hand side. And neighbors are excited. Not all of them are excited. Some don’t like the project. Would prefer not to have a trail in their front yard so obviously is a mix like most public projects being proposed but keep track of that one. That would be a trail to Excelsior from Chanhassen and vice versa from Excelsior, from Chanhassen to Excelsior. And then before we close the meeting we’ll need to pop back up to the top of the agenda to the tree and talk about the Sunshine group that stopped before we left. REQUEST TO SPONSOR GRATITUDE TREE IN CITY CENTER PARK. Boettcher: Yeah I think Sandy you weren’t here. Joe you weren’t but we had the little mini - presentation out here. A request wanting to use one of the trees, you said down in the grassy area here Todd? So I guess looking for everyone’s input. We talked about it last month. What does everyone think? I think Todd you were going to get some info on the one in Edina. Hoffman: That’s the one she talked about and so. Boettcher: Because we had a couple concerns about vandalism. Somebody putting something on the note that wasn’t appropriate, that type of thing. I mean does anyone have feelings, good, bad or otherwise? Is this something we think we ought to proceed with or what’s everyone’s feeling? Because the way I understood it she talked about the tags. Now are those placed in a? Hoffman: They’d be in a tub. Boettcher: In a tub right there at the base of the tree, okay. And she said that she likes to keep 50 on hand at all times. So after so many are hung up in the tree she removes them and then, or do they just? Hoffman: They just keep putting more up there. Boettcher: Just keep leaving them in. Hoffman: Until the end of the year yeah. Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 10 Petouvis: Is the tree down at Centennial Lakes is that on public or private? Hoffman: It’s on a city park. Petouvis: City park okay. Kutz: She mentioned that she would review it two times a week. Was that? Boettcher: Right. Kutz: So in case you guys didn’t know that she’d be dropping by like a Tuesday and like a Saturday to, I mean monitor so I felt kind of good about that. At least knowing that it’s not just there and nobody’s watching it so. Boettcher: Right because she works right here at the Dinner Theater so it’s not a big deal for her to pop over and. Sweetser: What was the timing again? You said how long does she want to keep it? Hoffman: The summer. Sweetser: Just the summer. Boettcher: She said she could start already on Saturday if we approved it. Hoffman: So another perspective to take a look at. In our community we can’t do everything and so when somebody comes to you and says hey we want to do something to engage your residents in something fun it’s not always, you know we tend to try to look at the well what could happen. What could go wrong and if something does go wrong we’re going to say you know Nikki let’s just stop and so if you want to do it we an always say let’s just stop but I think in all reality families are going to have a lot of fun with it and it’s probably going to be something that is note worthy and people are going to say hey, did you see what’s going on at City Center Park? It’s just going to be another attraction I think at City Center Park for the summer. And then you’ll gauge you know how did people did they like it? Did they not like it? And it was interesting that I said I had just been to one tree and other gal, that was her’s. Her sister in Northfield so we had fun with it. We were just a family walking down a sidewalk and we stopped and took note of it. Learned about it and hung our tags up and continued on our way so. Pemrick: I think it’d kind of be a nice tradition too with the Summer Concert Series because it’s in that area and there’s a lot of families and kids and stuff running around. That’d be a reall y Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 11 good activity either before or after the concert starts for families to take part in so I see no issue with that. I felt a lot more comfortable after talking to her. Boettcher: And did she mention earlier or has she said something to you how it would be promoted? I mean would there be a flyer in the Chan Villager or what was her? Hoffman: Just foot traffic. Boettcher: Just foot traffic. Hoffman: A sign. A sign yeah. She might put something out on her Facebook. They have a Facebook for their Sunshine Gang. Boettcher: Okay. Tsuchiya: Is this something that’s within our authority or does this seem to go to City Council? Hoffman: This is within your authority. If something really bad happens they might tell you it’s in their authority now but I don’t think it will. Tsuchiya: Okay. Hoffman: It’s like a program. Tsuchiya: Yeah. Kutz: Is it something we need a motion for or is this something? Boettcher: I would say probably yes. I mean if there’s no more discussion I’m open if you wat to, if someone wants to make a motion. Kutz: I’ll make a motion that we allow the Sunshine Gang to have a, use one of our trees in our park for the summer and gauge how it works out and we can review it at our next meeting to say hey this maybe wasn’t a good idea or it’s been a good idea. Let’s continue it on. Boettcher: Okay. Second? Pemrick: I’ll second. Boettcher: Motion and a second. Kutz moved, Pemrick seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission approves allowing the Sunshine Gang to use one of the trees in City Center Park for the summer as a Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 12 Gratitude Tree and to review the issue at the next commission meeting. All voted in favor except Commissioner Sweetser who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Boettcher: 6 to 1 in favor so, and then someone will, Todd, Jerry, someone on staff will kind of keep an eye. Hoffman: Yep. Boettcher: I mean if somebody just comes down in the bin and starts taking tags and tossing them out in the parking lot or. Hoffman: Yeah we’ll keep an eye and I’ll contact her and select a tree. Boettcher: And again we do have the authority to just, that’s it. Hoffman: That’s our property yeah. Boettcher: Okay. Anyone have anything else? Hoffman: Thank you for taking the time for the tour. Really appreciate coming along. Tsuchiya: Thank you for coordinating. Hoffman: You’re welcome. That will set the stage for once you get into a planning process and nothing more important than to be there personally when you start talking about people in the audience. I think the type of questions you’re going to get is you know there’s going to be people that would just as soon do nothing. Maybe people that would want to do minimal. There’ll be people that want to do a lot of things in there so it’s going to be a balance of you know what is the Comprehensive Plan specified so far. Do you want to change from that and I think generally you just want to garner that excitement about the space and the place and utilize that to further the plan. The planning process is one thing but then you’re going to identify a budget for actually putting in the structures and then you have to find the funding for that. So at one point we had thought that we would you know kind of fast track it and start the planning now and then, but I think with everything, the plat. Final plat probably won’t come in until July, July 8th at the earliest. If not July 8th then it goes into August and so there’s really no rush. Put it in the budget. Have the conversation about the planning process. Let the council vet that during the budgeting process and then if it’s approved and in the budget in 2020 then we’ll start that consultant process. Do some interviewing. Put together an RFP. Request for proposal for our different consulting firms that would do that and then establish that process and you’ll be in charge of that. You’ll be working on that throughout 2020 if it’s approved and that’s going to be a big process. Similar to the master planning process you went through with the Park System Master Plan. This will probably take 10 to 12 months to go through that with all those neighborhood meetings. Community meetings. Community input. Design. Check in. You Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 13 know you create a plan. You put it out. You get community input. You bring it back. You modify it and you’re going to establish a park master plan for what then will be built in the future. Boettcher: Well I think we found this evening that leaving the trail in a natural state is not a good idea in wet weather. So we definitely got the first hand experience there and I think Commissioner Petouvis we found an outdoor area, you know we did the natural playground yeah. Petouvis: Lots of options. Boettcher: The cathedral area, that was just, that was pretty amazing. Hoffman: Yeah I don’t think you want to pave everything because it just doesn’t need to be but you do need to pave some of the main trails so people can get in and out with bicycles, trikes. You know all the different strollers and all the different activities and then for handicap. And then just for maintenance so highly used public trails have to have a durable surface. Asphalt is the one… I think what will happen over time is, well actually as a city, as an organization find yourself trying to manage people off track. Often like you see in a national park where people just get going off trail too much and that’s probably what we’ll be managing is trying to keep people on the trail so they don’t you know start trampling all the other natural areas that you’re trying to preserve. Boettcher: Now the bridge that will go where Riley Creek, that’s going to be an arch? Hoffman: An arch bridge so boats can go underneath it, yeah. Boettcher: Okay. Hoffman: The other one may be shorter and it may be built to a construction standard so you could drive asphalt trucks across it over time and so because you’re not going to be able to do that on the Riley Creek side but you’re going to have to have some until the Gorra property is developed and you could have land access from that side. The only other really access to get either a truck or rock or asphalt or future maintenance is going to be right there where we stood at that creek crossing so when you think about feasibility study that’s a more expensive bridge. It’s just not a foot bridge. It has to be able to handle probably some poor soils in that area. As you stood there you could sense that there’s probably some poor soils there so if you’re going to tell an engineer we want to drive dump trucks across here for future maintenance they’re going to say yeah that’s fine. That’s just going to up the cost of doing business and building that particular bridge. Boettcher: Yeah I thought it was really interesting. Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – May 29, 2019 14 Hoffman: Thank you. Boettcher: Nobody fell down, rolled down the hill or anything. You don’t know what you missed Joe. Alright with no other business I’ll take a motion to adjourn. Scanlon moved, Petouvis seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Commission Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Receive Senior Commission Minutes dated May 17, 2019 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Senior Commission minutes dated May 17, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Summary Minutes CHANHASSEN SENIOR COMMISSION MINUTES May 17, 2019 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Cerchia, Mack Titus, Carol Buesgens, Lisa Lyon, Ruth Lunde. MEMBERS ABSENT: Dorina Tipton, Bhakti Modi STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Mary Blazinin. GUESTS PRESENT: Dawn Plummer, Carver County Office of Aging, and Holly Kranz, Carver County Public Health. Chairman Cerchia called meeting to order. Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Titus moved to approve the Agenda. Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Senior Commission Minutes: Chairman Cerchia called for approval of April 26, 2019 minutes. Commissioner Titus moved to approve. Commissioner Lunde seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Arbor Day Update: Chairman Cerchia attended the 2019 Arbor Day tree planting event at Rice Marsh Lake on May 4. Memorial Day: Memorial Day celebrations to take place on May 27 at City Center Park, followed by lunch provided by Lions. Donations received will go to Diversion Court. Commissioners Lunde, and Tipton will participate. Community Health & Wellness Fair Byerlys sponsored Health and Wellness Fair planning for June 22nd finalized. Commissioner Tipton will tend to the table. July 4th events: Staff provided a list of previous years businesses that have donated prizes to the event. Commissioners split these businesses among themselves and will contact them for similar donations for this year’s 4th of July Bingo. Staff will prepare letters to these establishments. Act on Alzheimer’s Update: • A table has been reserved for the 3rd of July Chamber Expo. • Chairman Cerchia and Commissioner Tipton completed a plan for the Maple Café. • The opening is planned for October 10, 2019. Senior Commission Comments: Commissioner Titus offered suggestions to improve the Chanhassen Website and suggested Senior related topics be under “OUR COMMUNITY”. Dinner with the Mayor Sharmeen Al-Jaff reminded the commission that Dinner with the Mayor will be on Thursday, June 20, 2019. Adjournment: Chairman Cerchia called for meeting adjournment. Commissioner Titus moved to adjourn; Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Prepared by and submitted by Sharmeen Al-Jaff CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Receive Environmental Commission Minutes dated May 8, 2019 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.5. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Environmental Commission minutes dated May 8, 2019.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Summary Minutes 1 Chanhassen Environmental Commission (EC) Regular Meeting May 8, 2019 Members Present: Bill Chappell, Keith Butcher, Don Vasatka, Greg Hawks, Rachel Popken, Kristin Fulkerson, Jeff Harken Members Absent: none Staff Present: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist; Guests Present: Ashley Kennedy; Brandon and Will – students from Holy Family Minutes: After spelling corrections were made, April minutes were approved. Arbor Day summary: The commissioners agreed that the turnout was good and the weather was great. Jill said that the plantings and some site restoration work done makes the park look better than ever. Metro Environmental Commission Conference: Greg attended the conference on Saturday, April 13. He brought handouts which he distributed, including a participant list. There were 5 breakout sessions to choose from during the conference and participants were asked to pick two. Greg attended the energy conservation and surface water sessions. At the energy conservation session he talked to representatives from Eden Prairie and Bloomington. From his notes, Greg read that Bloomington determined that businesses consume 80% of energy used in the city. Both Eden Prairie and Blooming promote energy audits. Bloomington offers $50 rebates for the audits, which cost $70-100. It was reported that a good way to reach out to businesses was to be involved in groups like Chambers and Rotary to make connections. Rachel wondered if Chanhassen business energy use could be determined. Keith said that Xcel could probably provide that information. In Greg’s second session, surface water, he learned how street vactors help to eliminate pollution. Greg also listened to a talk on How to Influence Behavior by Diana McKeown. The commission wondered if she could come speak at a meeting to help the commission with the Energy Efficiency focus topic. There was also a talk on Effective Youth Engagement. There are quite a few students on ECs in the metro area. Terms run with the school year. It seems a good source of ‘humanpower’ and a good way to connect with the school system and activities. There were 5 sponsors for the conference. Sixty people attended; 48 were attending for the first time. More people attended than last year, but there were less commissions represented. July 3 trade fair planning: Keith contacted the Center for Energy and Environment and they may be able to provide a rep for the event. Keith will look into giveaways. Maybe do stickers or light switch plates, seed bracelets, raffle LED lights, and candy. It would be preferable not to have candy in wrappers. Should look for cardboard – like milk duds. Someone suggested that maybe ACE hardware might be interested in issuing a discount coupon for LEDs or the commission could do a giveaway of a 2 weather stripping kit or pipe wrap or an energy audit. Maybe the commission should wait until the fall event to do giveaways like that. Someone mentioned that the focus seems to be switching from kids to adults. Maybe stickers should still be given away. Keith shared the Right Light Guide and explained the section of information. Jill will print 50 for handouts at the event. Keith will bring the light display next month. The commission will also sign up for shifts at next month’s meeting. Fall Connection article: The fall topic for the commission’s Energy Efficiency series will be ‘space conditioning – heating and cooling’. Jeff volunteered to write the article. It’s due to Jill on June 17. GreenStep update and documentation: Jill reported that the city was informed that it has been recognized as a Step 2 city. Chanhassen will be invited to the GreenStep Cities recognition banquet to be held in June as a part of the League of MN Cities conference. Jill has not yet received any details. She will pass them on to the commission when she gets them. July Tour: The commission decided it would like to schedule a tour at DemCon in July. Jill will look into what days and times are available for tours. General Discussion: • Greg reviewed the RPBCWD meeting notes – o The Bluff Creek tributary restoration project is postponed while more site exploration is done for any historical artifacts. o St Hubert has petitioned the WD to help repair or replace the catch basin in their parking lot which has failed. The WD discussed where the water goes or should go and who should pay for it since St H is a private entity. o The WD and the city are in the process of acquiring 3 properties at 101 and Pioneer for future wetland restoration. • Kristin suggested that the holiday article for this year be fresh and focus on a new topic. The commission said they would think about what would be a good idea. Kristin will send out the old articles. A point was made that even though the topic may seem ‘old’ to the commission, some people will be hearing it for the first time. Meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm Minutes prepared by Jill Sinclair CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Resolution 2019­XX: Approve implementing Post­Issuance Bond Compliance procedures and updates to the city’s debt policy regarding those procedures Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the attached resolution implementing changes to the Post­Issuance Bond Compliance procedures and updates to the city’s debt policy regarding those procedures.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND In recent years the IRS and SEC has required additional regulations regarding Post­Issuance Compliance for debt issued.  The attached documents update the city's procedures as well as the policy regarding "Post­Issuance Compliance" requirements. RECOMMENDATION Approve the attached resolution implementing changes to the Post­Issuance Bond Compliance procedures and updates to the city’s debt policy regarding those procedures. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Procedures Policy CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: June 24, 2019 RESOLUTION NO: 2019-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION ADOPTING POST-ISSUANCE DEBT COMPLIANCE POLICY FOR TAX-EXEMPT AND TAX-ADVANTAGED GOVERNMENTAL BONDS WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota (the “City”) from time to time will issue tax-exempt and tax-advantaged governmental bonds; and WHEREAS, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and related regulations (the “Code”), and Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) the City is required to take certain actions after bond issuance to ensure that interest on those bonds remains in compliance with the Code and SEC; and WHEREAS, the City has determined to adopt a policy regarding how the City will carry out its compliance responsibilities via written procedures, and to that end, has caused to be prepared documents titled Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy and Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures; and WHEREAS, The City Council (the “Council”) of the City has reviewed the Post- Issuance Debt Compliance Policy in connection with the Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures and has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to adopt the Policy. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Council approves the Policy as shown in the form attached; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED; the City staff is authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out the Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy and Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 24th day of June, 2019. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures The City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota (the “City”) has adopted the attached Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy dated June 24, 1999. The Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy applies to qualifying debt obligations issued by the City. As directed by the adoption of the Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy, the Finance Director of the City will perform the following Post- Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures for all of the City’s outstanding debt. 1) General Post-Issuance Compliance a) Ensure written procedures and/or guidelines have been put in place for individuals to follow when more than one person is responsible for ensuring compliance with Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures. b) Ensure training and/or educational resources for post-issuance compliance have been approved and obtained. c) The Finance Director understands that there are options for voluntarily correcting failures to comply with post-issuance compliance requirements (e.g. as remedial actions under Section 1.141-12 of the Treasury Regulations and the ability to enter into a closing agreement under the Tax-Exempt Bonds Voluntary Closing Agreement Program described in Notice 2008-31(the “VCAP Program”)). 2) General Recordkeeping a) Retain records and documents for the obligation and all obligations issued to refund the obligation for a period of at least seven years following the final payment of the obligation. If an obligation is refunded, then the final payment of the refunding obligation becomes the beginning of the period unless otherwise directed by the City’s bond counsel. b) Retain electronic (preferred) and/or paper versions of records and documents for the obligation. c) General records and documentation to be assembled and retained: i) Description of the purpose of the obligation (i.e. the project or projects) and the state statute authorizing the project. ii) Record of tax-exempt status or revocation of tax-exempt status, if applicable. iii) Any correspondence between the City and the IRS. iv) Audited financial statements. v) All accounting audits of property financed by the obligation. vi) Obligation transcripts, official statements, and other offering documents of the obligation. vii) Minutes and resolutions authorizing the issuance of the obligation. viii) Certifications of the issue price of the obligation. ix) Any formal elections for the obligation (i.e. an election to employ an accounting methodology other than the specific tracing method). x) Appraisals, demand surveys, or feasibility studies for property financed by the obligation. xi) All information reports filed for the obligations. xii) All management contracts and other service agreements, research contracts, and naming rights contracts. xiii) Documents related to governmental grants associated with construction, renovation or purchase of property financed by the obligation. xiv) Reports of any prior IRS examinations of the City or the City’s obligation. xv) All correspondence related to the above (faxes, emails, or letters). 3) Arbitrage Yield Restriction and Rebate Recordkeeping a) Investment and arbitrage documentation to be assembled and retained: i) An accounting of all deposits, expenditures, interest income and asset balances associated with each fund established in connection with the obligation. This includes an accounting of all monies deposited to the debt service fund to make debt service payments on the obligation, regardless of the source derived. Accounting for expenditures and assets is described in further detail in Section 4. ii) Statements prepared by Trustee and/or Investment Provider. iii) Documentation of at least quarterly allocations of investments and investment earnings to each obligation. iv) Documentation for investments made with obligation proceeds such as: (1) investment contracts (i.e. guaranteed investment contracts), (2) credit enhancement transactions (i.e. obligation insurance contracts), (3) financial derivatives (e.g. swaps, caps, and collars), and (4) bidding of financial products: (a) Investments acquired with obligation proceeds are purchased at fair market value (e.g. three bid safe harbor rule for open market securities needed in advance refunding escrows). b) Computations of the arbitrage yield. c) Computations of yield restriction and rebate amounts including but not limited to: i) Compliance in meeting the “Temporary Period from Yield Restriction Exception” and limiting the investment of funds after the temporary period expires. ii) Compliance in meeting the “Rebate Exception.” (1) qualifying for the “Small Issuer Exception,” (2) qualifying for a “Spending Exception,” (a) 6-Month Spending Exception (b) 18-Month Spending Exception (c) 24-Month Spending Exception (3) qualifying for the “Bona Fide Debt Service Fund Exception,” and (4) quantifying arbitrage on all funds established in connection with the obligation in lieu of satisfying arbitrage exceptions including reserve funds and debt service funds. d) Computations of yield restriction and rebate payments. e) Timely Tax Form 8038-T filing, if applicable. i) Remit any arbitrage liability associated with the obligation to the IRS at each five-year anniversary date of the obligation, and the date in which the obligation is no longer outstanding (redemption or maturity date), whichever comes sooner, within 60 days of said date. f) Timely Tax Form 8038-R filing, if applicable. i) Remit the form after the date in which the obligation is no longer outstanding (redemption or maturity date), whichever comes sooner, within 2 years of said date. g) Procedures or guidelines for monitoring instances where compliance with applicable yield restriction requirements depends on subsequent reinvestment of obligation proceeds in lower yielding investments (e.g. reinvestment in zero coupon SLGS). 4) Expenditure and Asset Documentation to be Assembled and Retained a) Documentation of allocations of obligation proceeds to expenditures (e.g. allocation of proceeds to expenditures for the construction, renovation or purchase of facilities owned and used in the performance of exempt purposes). i) Such allocation will be done not later than the earlier of: (1) eighteen (18) months after the later of the date the expenditure is paid, or the date the project, if any, that is financed by the obligation is placed in service; or (2) the date sixty (60) days after the earlier of the fifth anniversary of the issue date of the obligation, or the date sixty (60) days after the retirement of the obligation. b) Documentation of allocations of obligation proceeds to issuance costs. c) Copies of requisitions, draw schedules, draw requests, invoices, bills, and cancelled checks related to obligation proceed expenditures during the construction period. d) Copies of all contracts entered into for the construction, renovation or purchase of facilities financed with obligation proceeds. e) Records of expenditure reimbursements incurred prior to issuing obligations for projects financed with obligation proceeds (declaration of official intent/reimbursement resolutions including all modifications). f) List of all facilities and equipment financed with obligation proceeds. g) Depreciation schedules for depreciable property financed with obligation proceeds. h) Documentation that tracks the purchase and sale of assets financed with obligation proceeds. i) Documentation of timely payment of principal and interest payments on the obligation. j) Tracking of all issue proceeds and the transfer of proceeds into the debt service fund as appropriate. k) Documentation that excess earnings from a Reserve Fund are transferred to the Debt Service Fund on an annual basis. Excess earnings are balances in a Reserve Fund that exceed the Reserve Fund requirement. 5) Miscellaneous Documentation to be Assembled and Retained a) Ensure that the project, while the obligation is outstanding, will avoid IRS private activity concerns. b) The Finance Director shall monitor the use of all obligation-financed facilities in order to: i) Determine whether private business uses of obligation-financed facilities have exceeded the de minimus limits set forth in Section 141(b) of the Code as a result of: (1) sale of the facilities; (2) sale of City capacity rights; (3) leases and subleases of facilities including easements or use arrangements for areas outside the four walls (e.g. hosting of cell phone towers); (4) leasehold improvement contracts, licenses, management contracts in which the City authorizes a third party to operate a facility (e.g. cafeteria); (5) research contracts; (6) preference arrangements in which the City permits a third-party preference (e.g. parking in a public parking lot, joint ventures, limited liability companies or partnership arrangements); (7) output contracts or other contracts for use of utility facilities including contracts with large utility users; (8) development agreements which provide for guaranteed payments or property values from a developer; (9) grants or loans made to private entities including special assessment agreements; (10) naming rights agreements; and (11) any other arrangements that provide special legal entitlements to nongovernmental persons. ii) Determine whether private security or payments that exceed the de minimus limits set forth in Section 141(b) of the Code have been provided by nongovernmental persons with respect to such obligation-financed facilities. c) The Finance Director shall provide training and educational resources to any City staff that have the primary responsibility for the operation, maintenance, or inspection of obligation-financed facilities with regard to the limitations on the private business use of obligation-financed facilities and as to the limitations on the private security or payments with respect to obligation- financed facilities. d) The City shall undertake the following with respect to the obligations: i) An annual review of the books and records maintained by the City with respect to such obligations. ii) An annual physical inspection of the facilities financed with the proceeds of such obligations, conducted by the Finance Director with the assistance of any City staff who have the primary responsibility for the operation, maintenance, or inspection of such obligation-financed facilities. e) Changes in the project that impact the terms or commitments of the obligation are properly documented and necessary certificates or opinions are on file. 6) Additional Undertakings and Activities that Support Sections 1 through 5 above: a) The Finance Director will notify the City’s bond counsel, financial advisor and arbitrage provider of any survey or inquiry by the IRS immediately upon receipt. Usually responses to IRS inquiries are due within 21 days of receipt. Such IRS responses require the review of the above-mentioned data and must be in writing. As much time as possible is helpful in preparing the response. b) The Finance Director will consult with the City’s bond counsel, financial advisor and arbitrage provider before engaging in post-issuance credit enhancement transactions (e.g. obligation insurance, letter of credit, or hedging transaction). c) The Finance Director will monitor all “qualified tax-exempt debt obligations” (often referred to as “bank qualified” obligations) within the first calendar year to determine if the limit is exceeded, and if exceeded, will address accordingly. For obligations issued during years 2009 and 2010 the limit was $30,000,000. During this period, the limit also applied to pooled financings of the governing body and provides a separate $30,000,000 for each 501 (c)(3) conduit borrower. In 2011 and thereafter it is $10,000,000 unless changed by Congress. d) Identify any post-issuance change to terms of obligations which could be treated as a current refunding of “old” obligations by “new” obligations, often referred to as a “reissuance.” e) The Finance Director will consult with the City’s bond counsel prior to any sale, transfer, change in use or change in users of obligation-financed property which may require “remedial action” under applicable Treasury Regulations or resolution pursuant to the VCAP Program. i) A remedial action has the effect of curing a deliberate action taken by the City which results in satisfaction of the private business test or private loan test. Remedial actions under Section 1.141-12(d)(e) and (f) include the redemption of non-qualified obligations and/or the alternative uses of proceeds or the facility (i.e. to be used for another qualified purpose). f) The Finance Director will ensure that the appropriate tax form for federal subsidy payments is prepared and filed in a timely fashion for applicable obligations (e.g. Build America Bonds). 7) Continuing Disclosure Obligations a) Identify a position at the City to be responsible for compliance with continuing disclosure obligations as defined by the Rule and any policies of the City. b) The position responsible for compliance may have the ability to assign responsibilities, delegate where appropriate or engage a dissemination agent or third-party service providers to perform all or some of the duties described in this section. The City cannot delegate its compliance responsibilities. c) The City should specify how providers or delegated authorities will be monitored and supervised. d) The City should identify the documents that set forth the respective requirements being monitored at the time of closing for each obligation. e) The City should catalog all outstanding Continuing Disclosure Agreements and establish consolidated filing requirements based on the outstanding CDAs. f) The City should identify the frequency of the actions to be undertaken to ensure compliance, establish a system or filing alerts or reminders to administer the filing requirements. g) The Finance Director for compliance must be made aware of any new outstanding debt, changes to obligation or loan covenants, events of acceleration or default that would materially affect investors. h) The City should review a compliance checklist to verify compliance with CDA requirements, at least annually, although it may be advisable to provide more frequent reviews in connection to specific material events. i) The City should monitor mandatory material events specifically identified in accordance with the Rule and file required notices within 10 days of occurrence. i) Principal and interest payment delinquencies. ii) Non-payment related defaults, if material. iii) Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties. iv) Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties. v) Substitution of credit or liquidity providers or their failure to perform. vi) Adverse tax opinion, IRS notices or material events affecting the tax status of the obligation. vii) Modifications to rights of security holders, if material. viii) Obligation calls, if material. ix) Defeasances. x) Release, substitution or sale of property securing repayment of the obligations, if material. xi) Rating Changes. xii) Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, or similar event of the obligated person(s). xiii) Merger, consolidation, or acquisition of the obligated person, if material. xiv) Appointment of a successor or additional trustee, or change of name of a trustee, if material. xv) Incurrence of financial obligation of the City, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default, remedies, priority rights, or other similar terms of a financial obligation of the City, any of which affect security holders, if material. xvi) Default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of the financial obligation of the City, any of which reflect financial difficulties. j) In addition to the mandatory material events, the City should review and file any additional or voluntary event notices. k) The City should maintain a catalog of all outstanding obligations whether publicly offered or privately placed, and the terms and conditions that govern default or acceleration provisions. l) Any missed filing requirement should be remedied with a failure to file notice as soon as possible once the late filing is identified and the required information is available to file. m) Sensitive information such as bank accounts and wire information should be redacted from documents prior to posting on EMMA. n) The City needs to monitor for changes in law and regulations that effect continuing disclosure obligations and review disclosure policies and procedures periodically to ensure compliance and consistency with regulation and market expectations. 8) Compliance with Future Requirements a) Take measures to comply with any future requirements issued beyond the date of these Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures which are essential to ensuring compliance with the applicable state and federal regulations. 1 Amended June 24, 2019 Amended June 25, 2012 Chanhassen Debt Policy The City of Chanhassen has chosen, by policy, to guide its issuance of debt by following the guidelines listed below. These practices were identified through examination of materials from state statutes, bond rating agencies, and the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). This policy can be amended in the future by the City Council, but is consistent with general municipal practices at the time of its adoption. Policy Adoption In accordance with the authorities cited in the background section, the City of Chanhassen will use the following policies in determining when and how to use debt for financing capital and equipment needs. I. Debt Limits a. Legal Limits: i. Minnesota Statutes, Section 475 states that the statutory limit for outstanding debt principal cannot exceed 3% of the taxable market value. This limitation applies only to debt that is wholly tax- supported. The type of debt included is either general obligation debt of any size bond issue (G.O.), or lease revenue bond issues that were over $1,000,000 at the time of issuance. However, there are also several other types of debt, including G.O. tax increment, G.O. abatement, G.O. special assessment, G.O. utility revenue, and most HRA or EDA-issued debt that have a separate revenue source other than taxes, and are therefore excluded from the legal debt limit calculation. HRA and EDA public project revenue bonds or lease revenue bonds that have a financing lease agreement with a city or county do count against the statutory debt limit. ii. Local ordinances do not limit the City’s ability to issue debt. b. Policy Limits: i. Uses of Debt: Debt will be used for capital costs only. The City will not utilize debt for cash flow borrowing, even though this is allowed by state statutes. ii. CIP and Financial Planning: The City’s capital improvement plan shall contain debt assumptions that match this policy and requires a commitment to long-range financial planning that looks at multiple years of capital and debt needs. 2 iii. Tax Increment Bonds: The City shall use G.O. Tax Increment Bonds only when the development merits special consideration. c. Financial Limits: i. Direct debt is the amount of general obligation principal or lease obligations supported by taxes that are outstanding for the City only. Indirect debt is the amount of the City’s share of debt of other taxing jurisdictions based upon the City’s share of that taxing jurisdiction’s net tax capacity. Direct debt per capita shall not exceed $1,000. Direct debt as a percentage of the City’s taxable market value shall not exceed 2%, excluding revenue-based debt. ii. Bond issues may require a special debt levy. The City hereby adopts a policy to limit the amount of the city’s property tax levy dedicated to debt service (principal and interest plus 5% for G.O. bonds) to less than 30% of the total tax levy. Unlike rating agencies, the City’s definition of tax levy does not include special assessments, tax abatements, or tax increments. iii. Conduit debt – The City will review requests for issuance of conduit debt on a case-by-case basis. The city may request a fee upfront not to exceed 1% of the original par amount of the issuance. II. Use of Variable Rate Debt and Derivatives a. Variable Rate Debt. The City shall use variable rate debt only if the total principal and interest of the debt constitutes less than 20% of the City’s total debt payments and only if circumstances dictate the need for a short call date. b. Derivatives. The City will not use derivative-based debt. III. Debt Structuring Practices a. Term: State law limits general obligation debt to 30 years in most circumstances. The City shall not exceed 25 years in term of debt. b. Term for Equipment: The City has a goal of paying for all capital equipment with a useful life of five years or less from cash reserves or annual operating budgets. State law does allow cities to issue debt (known as equipment certificates or capital notes) with a term of ten years or the useful life of the equipment if it is at least 10 years. The City would prefer, within the bounds of levy limits, to fund capital equipment on a pay-as-you-go basis. Capital equipment with a useful life greater than five years may be financed with debt, but the bond term should not exceed ten 3 years. c. The City’s collective debt shall amortize at least 50% of its principal within 10 years. d. The City shall typically issue debt with level principal and interest payments. e. The City shall have a call date (pre-payment date) of no longer than 10 years on longer term debt and 6 to 8 years on shorter-term debt. IV. Debt Issuance Practices a. Rating Agencies: The City utilizes Standard and Poor’s for all of its debt issuance of more than $1 million or longer than 3 years in term. b. Method of Sale: The City shall use competitive bidding for all of its debt unless the debt is so specialized in its nature that it will not attract more than 2 bids. c. Refunding: i. Advance refunding bonds shall not be utilized unless the present value savings of 4% to 5% of refunded principal is achieved and unless the call date is within 4 years. The state law minimum is 3% of refunded principal. Bonds shall not be advance refunded if there is a reasonable chance that revenues will be sufficient to pre- pay the debt at the call date. ii. Current refunding bonds shall be utilized when present value savings of 3% of refunded principal is achieved or in concert with other bond issues to save costs of issuance. iii. Special assessment or revenue debt will not be refunded unless the Finance Director determines that special assessments or other sufficient revenues will not be collected soon enough to pay off the debt fully at that call date. d. Professional Services. The City shall use an outside bond attorney and an independent financial advisor to structure the sale. V. Debt Management Practices a. Investment of bond proceeds. The City shall follow the same investment guidelines when investing debt proceeds as stated in the City’s investment policy. 4 b. Disclosure: The City shall comply with SEC rule 15(c)2(12) on primary and continuing disclosure. Continuing disclosure reports shall be filed no later than 180 days after receipt of the City’s annual financial report. c. Arbitrage Rebate: The City shall complete an arbitrage rebate report for each issue no less than every five years after its date of issuance. Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy The City Council (the “Council”) of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota (the “City”) has chosen, by policy, to take steps to help ensure that all obligations will be in compliance with all applicable federal regulations. This policy may be amended, as necessary, in the future. IRS Background The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is responsible for enforcing compliance with the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) and regulations promulgated thereunder (“Treasury Regulations”) governing certain obligations (for example: tax-exempt obligations, Build America Bonds, Recovery Zone Development Bonds and various “Tax Credit” Bonds). The IRS encourages issuers and beneficiaries of these obligations to adopt and implement a post-issuance debt compliance policy and procedures to safeguard against post-issuance violations. SEC Background The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is responsible for enforcing compliance with the SEC Rule 15c2-12 (the “Rule”). Governments or governmental entities issuing obligations generally have a requirement to meet specific continuing disclosure standards set forth in continuing disclosure agreements (“CDA”). Unless the issuer, obligated person, or a specific obligation is exempt from compliance with CDAs, these agreements are entered into at the time of obligation issuance to enable underwriter(s) to comply with the Rule. The Rule sets forth certain obligations of (i) underwriters to receive, review and disseminate official statements prepared by issuers of most primary offerings of municipal securities, (ii) underwriters to obtain CDAs from issuers and other obligated persons to provide material event disclosure and annual financial information on a continuing basis, and (iii) broker-dealers to have access to such continuing disclosure in order to make recommendations of municipal securities transactions in the secondary market. The SEC encourages issuers and beneficiaries adopt and implement a post-issuance debt compliance policy and procedures to safeguard against Rule violations. When obligations are issued, the CDA commits the issuer or obligated person to provide certain annual financial information and material event notices to the public. Issuers and other obligated persons may also choose to provide periodic, voluntary financial information and filings to investors in addition to fulfilling the specific responsibilities delineated in their CDA. It is important to note that issuers and other obligated persons should not give any one investor certain information that is not readily available to all market participants by disseminating information to the marketplace, at large. Issuers and other obligated persons should be aware that any disclosure activities determined to be “communicating to the market” can be subject to regulatory scrutiny. Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy Objective The City desires to monitor these obligations to ensure compliance with the IRS Code, Treasury Regulations and the SEC Rule. To help ensure compliance, the City has developed the following policy (the “Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy”). The Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy shall apply to the obligations mentioned above, including bonds, notes, loans, lease purchase contracts, lines of credit, commercial paper or any other form of debt that is subject to compliance. The Finance Director of the City is designated as the City’s agent who is responsible for post- issuance compliance of these obligations. 5 The Finance Director shall assemble all relevant documentation, records and activities required to ensure post-issuance debt compliance as further detailed in corresponding procedures (the “Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures”). At a minimum, the Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures for each qualifying obligation will address the following: 1. General Post-Issuance Compliance 2. General Recordkeeping 3. Arbitrage Yield Restriction and Rebate Recordkeeping 4. Expenditure and Asset Documentation to be Assembled and Retained 5. Miscellaneous Documentation to be Assembled and Retained 6. Additional Undertakings and Activities that Support Sections 1 through 5 above 7. Continuing Disclosure Obligations 8. Compliance with Future Requirements The Finance Director shall apply the Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Procedures to each qualifying obligation and maintain a record of the results. Further, the Finance Director will ensure that the Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy and Procedures are updated on a regular and as needed basis. The Finance Director or any other individuals responsible for assisting the Finance Director in maintaining records needed to ensure post-issuance debt compliance, are authorized to expend funds as needed to attend training or secure use of other educational resources for ensuring compliance such as consulting, publications, and compliance assistance. Most of the provisions of this Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy are not applicable to taxable governmental obligations unless there is a reasonable possibility that the City may refund their taxable governmental obligation, in whole or in part, with the proceeds of a tax-exempt governmental obligation. If this refunding possibility exists, then the Finance Director shall treat the taxable governmental obligation as if such issue were an issue of tax-exempt governmental obligations and comply with the requirements of this Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy. Private Activity Bonds The City may issue tax-exempt obligations that are “private activity” bonds because either (1) the bonds finance a facility that is owned by the City but used by one or more qualified 501(c)(3) organizations, or (2) the bonds are so-called “conduit bonds”, where the proceeds are loaned to a qualified 501(c)(3) organization or another private entity that finances activities eligible for tax- exempt financing under federal law (such as certain manufacturing projects and certain affordable housing projects). Prior to the issuance of either of these types of bonds, the Finance Director shall take steps necessary to ensure that such obligations will remain in compliance with the requirements of this Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy. In a case where compliance activities are reasonably within the control of a private party (i.e., a 501(c)(3) organization or conduit borrower), the Finance Director may determine that all or some portion of compliance responsibilities described in this Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy shall be assigned to the relevant party. In the case of conduit bonds, the conduit borrower will be assigned all compliance responsibilities other than those required to be undertaken by the City under federal law. In a case where the Finance Director is concerned about the compliance ability of a private party, the Finance Director may require that a trustee or other independent third party be retained to assist with record keeping for the obligation and/or that the trustee or such third party be responsible for all or some portion of the compliance responsibilities. The Finance Director is additionally authorized to seek the advice, as necessary, of bond counsel and/or its financial advisor to ensure the City is in compliance with this Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject 3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and Front Yard Setback Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case 2019­03 PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5­foot 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 Facts and Decisions.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY On June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval of multiple variances to allow the construction of a single­family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals and subsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off­street parking; there was general agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances. The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of their home by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resulting reduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressing concern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking. During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback but recessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longer driveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showing this proposal. The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has color coded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approved by the Planning Commission. Revised Proposal CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019Subject3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and FrontYard SetbackSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5­foot 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 Facts and Decisions.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval ofmultiple variances to allow the construction of a single­family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals andsubsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off­street parking; there wasgeneral agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances.The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of theirhome by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resultingreduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressingconcern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking.During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback butrecessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longerdriveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showingthis proposal.The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has colorcoded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approvedby the Planning Commission. Revised Proposal Revised Footprint Revised Elevations CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019Subject3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and FrontYard SetbackSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5­foot 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 Facts and Decisions.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval ofmultiple variances to allow the construction of a single­family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals andsubsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off­street parking; there wasgeneral agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances.The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of theirhome by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resultingreduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressingconcern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking.During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback butrecessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longerdriveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showingthis proposal.The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has colorcoded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approvedby the Planning Commission.Revised ProposalRevised Footprint Revised Elevations The revised proposal would create a 10­foot wide longer section of driveway in front of the recessed third stall that is 17.8 feet deep along its longest leg and 16.5 feet deep along its shortest leg. The remaining 18 feet of driveway would be 13.5 feet deep along its longest point and taper down to 11.5 feet deep at its shortest point. This would allow for an average sized vehicle (16 feet long) to park perpendicular in front of the third stall and for a second vehicle to park at an angle in front of the double garage door. The applicant believes this would honor the intent of the variance granted by the Planning Commission while allowing them to retain sufficient garage depth to accommodate the storage of boats or larger­than­average vehicles within the garage. Note:  A more detailed summary of the other aspects of the requested variance (lot cover and lake setback) can be found in the attached executive summary from the June 10, 2019 City Council Meeting, and a full analysis can be found in the attached staff report. BACKGROUND Councilman McDonald expressed concern that the proposal didn’t improve parking on Red Cedar Point Road. Staff responded that they felt the variance provided adequate parking for the property in questions, but would not help alleviate any of the existing issues. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the provided parking. Staff noted that the proposal provide three in­garage parking spaces and 1­2 guest parking spaces depending on vehicle size. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if the street could be signed No Parking. Staff indicated that this was something that could be done. Councilwoman Coleman asked about average car length and if the driveway could accommodate two cars. Staff indicated that depending on vehicle size and how they were parked, it likely could. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the buffer requirement. Staff noted that it was part of the new local water management, and that such buffers would likely be required for future shoreland variances. Mayor Ryan asked what the lot cover worked out to if the pervious pavers were exclude from the calculations. Staff indicated that it would be around 28 percent. Mayor Ryan asked about the logistics surrounding the removal of the cottonwood tree. Staff clarified that Public Works would be responsible for removing the tree and that no replacement was planned or required. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the driveway length and amount of parking typically provided. Staff stated the CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019Subject3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and FrontYard SetbackSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5­foot 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 Facts and Decisions.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval ofmultiple variances to allow the construction of a single­family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals andsubsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off­street parking; there wasgeneral agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances.The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of theirhome by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resultingreduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressingconcern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking.During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback butrecessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longerdriveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showingthis proposal.The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has colorcoded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approvedby the Planning Commission.Revised ProposalRevised FootprintRevised ElevationsThe revised proposal would create a 10­foot wide longer section of driveway in front of the recessed third stall that is17.8 feet deep along its longest leg and 16.5 feet deep along its shortest leg. The remaining 18 feet of driveway wouldbe 13.5 feet deep along its longest point and taper down to 11.5 feet deep at its shortest point. This would allow foran average sized vehicle (16 feet long) to park perpendicular in front of the third stall and for a second vehicle to parkat an angle in front of the double garage door. The applicant believes this would honor the intent of the variancegranted by the Planning Commission while allowing them to retain sufficient garage depth to accommodate the storageof boats or larger­than­average vehicles within the garage.Note:  A more detailed summary of the other aspects of the requested variance (lot cover and lake setback) can befound in the attached executive summary from the June 10, 2019 City Council Meeting, and a full analysis can befound in the attached staff report.BACKGROUNDCouncilman McDonald expressed concern that the proposal didn’t improve parking on Red Cedar Point Road. Staffresponded that they felt the variance provided adequate parking for the property in questions, but would not helpalleviate any of the existing issues.Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the provided parking. Staff noted that the proposal provide threein­garage parking spaces and 1­2 guest parking spaces depending on vehicle size.Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if the street could be signed No Parking. Staff indicated that this was something thatcould be done.Councilwoman Coleman asked about average car length and if the driveway could accommodate two cars. Staffindicated that depending on vehicle size and how they were parked, it likely could.Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the buffer requirement. Staff noted that it was part of the new local watermanagement, and that such buffers would likely be required for future shoreland variances.Mayor Ryan asked what the lot cover worked out to if the pervious pavers were exclude from the calculations. Staffindicated that it would be around 28 percent.Mayor Ryan asked about the logistics surrounding the removal of the cottonwood tree. Staff clarified that PublicWorks would be responsible for removing the tree and that no replacement was planned or required. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the driveway length and amount of parking typically provided. Staff stated the driveway as approved would range from 17.5 to 14.5 feet deep and that a city parking stall was 18 feet by 9 feet. Staff noted that most driveways can accommodate at least two cars. There was extensive discussion on a variety of potential garage and driveway configurations. The City Council indicated that they would like to see a proposal showing the third stall recessed back three feet. The applicant’s representative requested that instead of the variance be granted by the Planning Commission, the applicant would like to propose a recessed third stall. The applicant stated that it was not desirable to reduce the depth of the entire garage by three feet due to the fact that it is only 24 feet deep and a 21­foot deep garage would be too shallow. They stated that they felt this configuration met the intent of the Planning Commission’s variance by providing the deeper garage parking space. Note:  A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during the public hearing conducted on May 21, 2019 and during meetings associated with Planning Case 2018­01, can be found in the attached staff report. DISCUSSION The applicant’s proposal would provide a similar amount of driveway parking to the variance granted by the Planning Commission. In both configurations, there would be one section of the driveway capable of accommodating average sized vehicles with a second section that would likely require an average­sized vehicle to park at an angle to the garage. The variance granted by the Planning Commission did create a deeper second driveway section than what the applicant is proposing, but it was not deep enough to allow for the perpendicular parking of multiple average sized vehicles. The City Council, Planning Commission, staff, and neighbors have all expressed concern about the lack of parking along Red Cedar Point Road; however, the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar to average parking provided by other properties in the neighborhood. In order to ensure that the third stall is built as proposed, staff recommends that the following condition of approval be added: 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopt 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 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019Subject3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and FrontYard SetbackSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5­foot 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 Facts and Decisions.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval ofmultiple variances to allow the construction of a single­family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals andsubsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off­street parking; there wasgeneral agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances.The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of theirhome by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resultingreduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressingconcern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking.During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback butrecessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longerdriveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showingthis proposal.The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has colorcoded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approvedby the Planning Commission.Revised ProposalRevised FootprintRevised ElevationsThe revised proposal would create a 10­foot wide longer section of driveway in front of the recessed third stall that is17.8 feet deep along its longest leg and 16.5 feet deep along its shortest leg. The remaining 18 feet of driveway wouldbe 13.5 feet deep along its longest point and taper down to 11.5 feet deep at its shortest point. This would allow foran average sized vehicle (16 feet long) to park perpendicular in front of the third stall and for a second vehicle to parkat an angle in front of the double garage door. The applicant believes this would honor the intent of the variancegranted by the Planning Commission while allowing them to retain sufficient garage depth to accommodate the storageof boats or larger­than­average vehicles within the garage.Note:  A more detailed summary of the other aspects of the requested variance (lot cover and lake setback) can befound in the attached executive summary from the June 10, 2019 City Council Meeting, and a full analysis can befound in the attached staff report.BACKGROUNDCouncilman McDonald expressed concern that the proposal didn’t improve parking on Red Cedar Point Road. Staffresponded that they felt the variance provided adequate parking for the property in questions, but would not helpalleviate any of the existing issues.Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the provided parking. Staff noted that the proposal provide threein­garage parking spaces and 1­2 guest parking spaces depending on vehicle size.Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if the street could be signed No Parking. Staff indicated that this was something thatcould be done.Councilwoman Coleman asked about average car length and if the driveway could accommodate two cars. Staffindicated that depending on vehicle size and how they were parked, it likely could.Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the buffer requirement. Staff noted that it was part of the new local watermanagement, and that such buffers would likely be required for future shoreland variances.Mayor Ryan asked what the lot cover worked out to if the pervious pavers were exclude from the calculations. Staffindicated that it would be around 28 percent.Mayor Ryan asked about the logistics surrounding the removal of the cottonwood tree. Staff clarified that PublicWorks would be responsible for removing the tree and that no replacement was planned or required.Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the driveway length and amount of parking typically provided. Staff stated thedriveway as approved would range from 17.5 to 14.5 feet deep and that a city parking stall was 18 feet by 9 feet.Staff noted that most driveways can accommodate at least two cars.There was extensive discussion on a variety of potential garage and driveway configurations. The City Councilindicated that they would like to see a proposal showing the third stall recessed back three feet.The applicant’s representative requested that instead of the variance be granted by the Planning Commission, theapplicant would like to propose a recessed third stall. The applicant stated that it was not desirable to reduce thedepth of the entire garage by three feet due to the fact that it is only 24 feet deep and a 21­foot deep garage would betoo shallow. They stated that they felt this configuration met the intent of the Planning Commission’s variance byproviding the deeper garage parking space.Note:  A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during thepublic hearing conducted on May 21, 2019 and during meetings associated with Planning Case 2018­01, can befound in the attached staff report.DISCUSSIONThe applicant’s proposal would provide a similar amount of driveway parking to the variance granted by the PlanningCommission. In both configurations, there would be one section of the driveway capable of accommodating averagesized vehicles with a second section that would likely require an average­sized vehicle to park at an angle to thegarage. The variance granted by the Planning Commission did create a deeper second driveway section than what theapplicant is proposing, but it was not deep enough to allow for the perpendicular parking of multiple average sizedvehicles.The City Council, Planning Commission, staff, and neighbors have all expressed concern about the lack of parkingalong Red Cedar Point Road; however, the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­streetparking similar to average parking provided by other properties in the neighborhood.In order to ensure that the third stall is built as proposed, staff recommends that the following condition of approval beadded:16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that hasa minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshoresetback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopt the attachedFindings 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 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 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 228­square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water­oriented 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. 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. ATTACHMENTS: Variance Document Findings of Fact (Approval) Revised Survey Revised Footprint Revised Elevation June 10, 2019 City Council Staff Report Emailed Appeals Received Emailed Comments Received Appeal Letter Received 6­10­19 Shoreline Landscape Plan 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 City Council approves an 11.5-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 and buffer averaging may be used, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Coordinator. 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. 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. 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 24, 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_2.docx 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 tabled the variance appeal, requesting that the applicant provide additional information. On June 24, 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 2 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 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 is insufficient to accommodate an average sized vehicle. In order to provide for adequate off-street parking a driveway length of over 16 feet is required. The requested front yard variance does not provide for this length, but placing a condition on the variance requiring the creation of a 9-foot wide by 16.5 foot deep section of driveway will provide adequate off-street parking. 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. 3 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 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 17-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 dedicate the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb as public right of way. 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. 4 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 and buffer averaging may be used, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Coordinator. 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. 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 six inches. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 24th 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_cc_2.doc 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 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 6E 13p 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 MLn Ln Lr) 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 w10QQUUUU U U U U O U O F F F F F .....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 QLUN - 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 QO > 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 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) 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 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 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) 1/16" = 1' Scale:6/19/2019Date:Revision #:1CoryReimer ShorelineLandscape Plan:The Mustard Seed Inc.Landscape Design by:WildflowersABCDARaingardenRaingardenWildflowersWildflowersA) Carex pensylvanicaB) Veronicastrum virginicumC) Iris vesicolorD) Liatris spicata (Marsh)Wildflower mix contains:Asclepias tuberosa, Asclepias incaranata, Echinacea pillada & purpurea,coreopsis lanceolata, Ratibda pinnata & columnfera, monarda fistula, Asters, Liatris spicata & aspere and Others annuals for first year color and erosin control* Raingarden size my change do to actual sq' footage of drainageOhw 944.528' 9.49"20' 5.34"13' 5.49"28' 1.22"93' 2.10"Sq' of buffer proposed= 1871 sq'Sq' of Buffer not including Raingardens=1739 Sq' CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Donna Burt Citizen Action Request Form Section VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Item No: E.1. Prepared By File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Donna Burt CARF Print 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* Donna Last Name* Burt Address1* 6645 Horseshoe Curve Address2 Citizen Action Request Form - Submission #2632 Date Submitted: 6/21/2019 6/24/2019 City* Chanhassen State* MN Zip* 55317 Phone Number* 612-619-6191 Email* mndokat@yahoo.com If no email address, enter "none." Council Action Requested* To take immediate action to reduce hazardous safety conditions, and rapid damage to Lotus Lake caused by wakes. The large wakes are causing shoreline erosion at an alarming rate and are a concern to the overall water quality. Lotus lake is home to native and protected vegetation and wildlife, which are quickly being destroyed. This request includes 5 items: 1) enforcement of existing boating rules on Lotus Lake 2) update city code for no wakes 150ft from shoreline 3) Install buoys 150ft from shoreline, docks and swim areas 4) Update city code to further reduce the high water level to evoke a 30-day emergency no wake 5) Completely restrict boats with ballast systems Provide a brief description of the action you are requesting from the City Council. Summary of Information* 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 Work Session Discussion Date Action 1)enforcement of existing boating rules on Lotus Lake MN Boating rules on Lotus Lake are not being followed. Boats are making large wakes inside of 40 feet from shoreline, swim areas, and other boats. Our property is being damaged at an alarming rate. We have also suffered personal injury from being knocked off our dock by careless and reckless boating practices. This resulted bruised ribs, legs and elbow. We need a sheriff on Lotus Lake to enforce the following existing rules: Sec. 6-50. - Speed. No person shall operate a watercraft at a speed which exceeds the following limitations: Lotus Lake: a. Sunrise to sunset, 40 miles per hour; b. Sunset to sunrise the following day, 15 miles per hour Boats regularly speed in excess of 15mph after sunset, even while towing people behind them, and without their navigation lights on. This is extremely dangerous. 6110.1200 sub.p.2a Mode of operation of watercraft No person shall operate a watercraft in such a manner that its wash or wake will endanger, harass, or unnecessarily interfere with any other person or property. Our property has been irreversibly damaged by wakes. 2) update city code to increase distance of no wakes from 100ft of shoreline to 150ft from shoreline & 3) Install buoys 150ft from shoreline, docks and swim areas. Existing Minnesota Lake and River Use Restriction Summary for Lotus Lake specifies Slow-no wake speed within 100 feet of shore. 100 feet from shore is not sufficient, as wakes at 100 feet out do not dissipate enough to safely reach shore or other people/objects. Buoys will assist boaters to adhere to this rule. 4) Update city code 6-49 for further reduction of the water level to evoke a 30-day emergency no wake According to the city plat drawing of our property, the water level at our shoreline is 896.3. As of an amendment on June 10th the slow-no wake level on Lotus Lake was lowered by 6 inches. However, this is still not enough, as at that level the water will breach our shoreline. This past May, when significant erosion occurred, the newly lowered level would still not have been met. 5) Complete ban on boats with ballast systems. Lotus Lake is not suitable for the large wakes that ballast boats create. There is simply not enough area for the wake to dissipate before it reaches shoreline. Therefore, anyone using a ballast system to create a large wake on Lotus Lake is in violation of MN rule 6110.1200 sub.p.2a Mode of operation of watercraft. This activity has endangered us, harassed us, and interfered with our person and property. mm/dd/yyyy City Council Meeting Date Action mm/dd/yyyy CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Monthly Fire Department Update Section FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE Item No: F.1. Prepared By Don Johnson, Fire Chief File No:  SUMMARY Monthly Update for Activities May/June 2019. ATTACHMENTS: Report Narrative Graphs and Charts TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Don Johnson, Fire Chief DATE: June 24, 2019 SUBJ: Monthly Fire Department Update, June 2019 Fire Department Staffing Department staffing is at 43 of 45 paid on-call firefighters. Evan Thoreson, a 2019 hire, was able to challenge and pass Firefighter I, II, and Hazmat Operations which results in him being able to move directly to the operational line. He and two other recruits are currently attending EMT certification. July duty crews, to include 8-hour shifts on both weekend days, was filled by June 10th. I am extremely proud of my staff in this mid-year adjustment and appreciate city leadership’s investment into the community and the fire department. I am also happy to report the scheduling software Aladtec, has had a tremendous positive impact on the scheduling of shifts. The program also empowers staff to select shifts, make trades, and see the working schedule. At the end of May, (3) candidates were interviewed with multiple hiring panels for the position of Fire Captain. Captain Rob Weidman was selected for promotion beginning June 1. Rob has a significant amount of career fire experience prior to joining Chanhassen Fire in 2018. Fire Department Response The fire department responded to 71 calls for service in May. Year to date, total calls through May is 393 with a projected total for 2019 being approximately 950. . Significant calls for May included the following: • (46) Rescue/EMS calls with (2) motor vehicle accidents involving injuries. • (2) Fire-Related Responses: (1) Mutual Aid Assist to Eden Prairie (1) Motor Vehicle Fire at Lake Susan Apts Todd Gerhardt Fire Department Update Page 2 Monthly Training Training that occurred since my last update: • Officer Meeting and Leadership Training • Live Burn Training at SCALE Training Facility Other Activities • June 18 – The Annual Black Hat Ceremony was held at Public Works and Mayor Ryan swore in several fire department members and a newly hired fire captain. • June 19 – June 23 the Chanhassen Fire Dept staffed several positions for the KPMG Open at Hazeltine Golf Course. This included several on course EMS posts, stand by Engine, and I served as the Senior Advisor on Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday. • Planning continues for the upcoming 4th of July events Fire Marshal Council Update for May 2019 May Fire Inspection and Construction Highlights • The Venue Apartments: most all floors have had full fire sprinkler inspections completed. • Riley Crossing Senior Living: all floors in the apartment building and both twin homes, fire sprinkler inspections completed. • Fire Permits issued for July 4th celebrations for City of Chanhassen and Lake Minnewashta. • Working with Lifetime Fitness Corporate Office II on their submitted building and atrium design plans and the necessary fire and life safety components. The State Fire Marshal’s Office also is assisting in evaluating the design. Public Education • Fire Crews attended the Wellness Fair at The Bernard Group • Several Hands-Only CPR/AED/Choking classes completed for The Bernard Group • Created and distributed a publication for the public, building owners, and associations in Chanhassen possibly affected by certain types of fire sprinkler heads that may not activate in a fire. Fire Investigations On Saturday, May 25th a multiple vehicle fire was reported in the parking lot of Lake Susan Apartments. The fire damaged three vehicles, no parts of the building were affected. The fire was determined to be intentionally set using accelerant. A joint arson investigation between Chanhassen Fire and Carver County Sheriff’s Office was conducted and is on-going. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Mar Apr May 2019 Calls by Month and Type Rescue & Emergency Medical Service Alarm Calls Good Intent Call Hazardous Condition Service Call Fire 55 51 63 65 55 86 66 60 59 80 57 56 71 50 66 79 86 76 66 72 84 85 85 101 94 88 76 64 71 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Chanhassen Fire Department Calls By Month Comparison 2017 2018 2019 621 691 690 753 921 950 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 PROJECTED Calls for Service By Year Rescue & Emergency Medical Service 58% Alarm Calls 13% Good Intent Call 12% Hazardous Condition 8% Service Call 5% Fire 4% 2019 Calls for Service by % of Call Type S 10% M 12% T 17% W 15% TH 16% F 17% Sa. 13% 2019 CALLS BY DAY OF WEEK 0 50 100 150 200 250 12-4a 4-8a 8-12p 12-4p 4-8p 8-12a CALLS BY TIME OF DAY 2017 2018 2019 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Law Enforcement Update Section FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE Item No: F.2. Prepared By Lt. Lance Pearce, Carver County Sheriff's Office File No:  SUMMARY Law Enforcement Update ATTACHMENTS: Memo May Activity reports Page 1 Memo TO: Mayor Ryan; Council Members Tjornholm, McDonald, Campion and Coleman FROM: Lieutenant Lance Pearce DATE: June 12, 2019 RE: Law Enforcement Update Attached are the agenda items for the City of Chanhassen council meeting June 24, 2019 for your review and consideration. 1. Carver County Sheriff’s Office City of Chanhassen May 2019 Monthly Calls for Service Summary; Group A, Group B, Non-Criminal, Traffic and Administrative. 2. Carver County Sheriff’s Office City of Chanhassen May 2019 Arrest Summary. 3. Carver County Sheriff’s Office City of Chanhassen May 2019 Citation Summary. 4. Training Update. 5. Community Relations Update. 6. Staffing Update. Lieutenant Chanhassen Office CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Resolution 2019­XX: Approve Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easements at 8077 Century Boulevard (Control Concepts) Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: H.1. Prepared By Erik R. Henricksen, Project Engineer File No: Planning Case 2019­04 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council adopts a resolution approving the vacation of a portion of public drainage and utility easements dedicated as shown on the attached Exhibit A." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND The property owner of 8077 Century Boulevard has requested the city vacate a portion of public drainage and utility easements on Lot 2, Block 1 of Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition.  The portion of drainage and utility easement as described in the attached Exhibit A is being vacated to meet conditions of a site plan review for the development of Lot 2, Block 1 of Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition.  The atypical drainage and utility easements on Lot 2 were originally platted in 1997 in the event public drainage and utilities were required.  Staff has reviewed the vacation and finds no need for the atypical easements and believes standard drainage and utility easements associated with the lot lines are appropriate for this site. Furthermore, staff agrees that the vacation will avoid the need for additional encroachment easements. No existing public or private utilities, structures, or public appurtenances are within the requested vacation area.  The easement vacation is conditioned upon recording the lot line adjustment for Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition, along with the easements required as a condition of site plan approval for Planning Case 2019­04, "Control Concepts." RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of a resolution granting the vacation of the atypical portions of drainage and utility easements of Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition, Block 1, Lot 2. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019SubjectResolution 2019­XX: Approve Vacation of Drainage & Utility Easements at 8077 CenturyBoulevard (Control Concepts)Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: H.1.Prepared By Erik R. Henricksen, Project Engineer File No: Planning Case 2019­04PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council adopts a resolution approving the vacation of a portion of public drainage and utility easementsdedicated as shown on the attached Exhibit A."Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDThe property owner of 8077 Century Boulevard has requested the city vacate a portion of public drainage and utilityeasements on Lot 2, Block 1 of Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition.  The portion of drainage and utility easementas described in the attached Exhibit A is being vacated to meet conditions of a site plan review for the development ofLot 2, Block 1 of Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition.  The atypical drainage and utility easements on Lot 2 wereoriginally platted in 1997 in the event public drainage and utilities were required.  Staff has reviewed the vacation andfinds no need for the atypical easements and believes standard drainage and utility easements associated with the lotlines are appropriate for this site. Furthermore, staff agrees that the vacation will avoid the need for additionalencroachment easements.No existing public or private utilities, structures, or public appurtenances are within the requested vacation area.  Theeasement vacation is conditioned upon recording the lot line adjustment for Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park7th Addition, along with the easements required as a condition of site plan approval for Planning Case 2019­04,"Control Concepts."RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends adoption of a resolution granting the vacation of the atypical portions of drainage and utility easements of Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition, Block 1, Lot 2. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Vacation Survey ­ Lot 2 Vacation Application Resolution Approving Vacation Affidavit of Mailing GSOC Verification CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE June 24, 2019 RESOLUTION NO: 2019-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 412.851 the City Council of the City of Chanhassen has conducted a hearing preceded by the statutorily required two (2) weeks published and posted notice and mailed notice to the abutting property owners, to consider the vacation of easements for drainage and utility purposes as legally described in the attached Exhibit A (“Easements”); and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the lot line adjustment for the property in which the Easements are located, new drainage and utility easement will be provided; and WHEREAS, it was determined by the City Council that the Easements are no longer needed for public purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chanhassen City Council: 1. The Easements are hereby vacated, conditioned upon recording the lot line adjustment for Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition (“Property”), and the easement required as a condition of site plan approval for the Property. 2. The vacation shall not affect the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling the electric or telephone poles and lines, gas lines, sanitary and storm sewer lines, water pipes, mains, hydrants, and natural drainage areas thereon or thereunder, to continue maintain the same or to enter upon such way or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereof. 3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this Resolution to the County Auditor and County Recorder for recording simultaneous with the documents approving the lot line adjustment and the easements required for site plan approval of the Property. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 24th day of June, 2019. ATTEST: __________________________________ ____________________________________ Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Easements to be Vacated All Drainage and Utility Easements as dedicated in Lot 2, Block 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 7TH ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota, and all Drainage and Utility Easements as dedicated in ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK, Carver County, Minnesota, Lying within said Lot 2, Block 1, except the north 5 feet, west 10 feet and south 5 feet thereof lying west of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing South 89 degrees 32 minutes 15 seconds East along the south line of said Lot 2, a distance of 546.74 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 45 seconds East 280.88 feet; thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes 15 seconds West 49.31 feet; thence northwesterly 99.88 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 129.00 feet, a central angle of 44 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds and a chord that bears North 62 degrees 28 minutes 43 seconds West, thence North 00 degrees 12 minutes 17 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, 29.14 feet to a north line of said Lot 2 and said line there terminating. 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 June 6,2019, 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 for Vacation of Public Drainage and Utility Easements, Control Concepts, Planning Case No. 2019-04 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. 1 A,c. Kim MMj' a sen, Deputy Cler Subscribed and sworn to before me M STE KLING this o` N day of J`-- 2019. NotwyJEAN pubMo-M Commilicn l s,Mn 31,2024 Q C..r is !a, Notary Public CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 24, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §412.851 to consider the vacation of public drainage and utility easements located at 8077 Century Boulevard, legally described as follows: All Drainage and Utility Easements as dedicated in Lot 2, Block 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 7TH ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota, and all Drainage and Utility Easements as dedicated in ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK, Carver County, Minnesota, Lying within said Lot 2, Block 1, except the north 5 feet, west 10 feet and south 5 feet thereof lying west of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing South 89 degrees 32 minutes 15 seconds East along the south line of said Lot 2, a distance of 546.74 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 45 seconds East 280.88 feet;thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes 15 seconds West 49.31 feet; thence northwesterly 99.88 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the southwest,having a radius of 129.00 feet, a central angle of 44 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds and a chord that bears North 62 degrees 28 minutes 43 seconds West,thence North 00 degrees 12 minutes 17 seconds East,not tangent to said curve, 29.14 feet to a north line of said Lot 2 and said line there terminating. EXHIBIT FASF41F,VT ANOw.144 4. 1-01170,-ory• •w.ss ,- 3 a tee.` 'AY...-' 'awa 4 ten r:F..•w.''71,0•.7....»d a.7;1 i .'• LOUCKS M , s a, . .:, . ... I,• w«... SCALE IN FEET All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Erik R. Henricksen, EIT, Project Engineer Phone: 952-227-1165 Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 13 &20, 2019) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE June 24, 2019 RESOLUTION NO: 2019-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION VACATING PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 412.851 the City Council of the City of Chanhassen has conducted a hearing preceded by the statutorily required two (2) weeks published and posted notice and mailed notice to the abutting property owners, to consider the vacation of easements for drainage and utility purposes as legally described in the attached Exhibit A ("Easements"); and WHEREAS, in conjunction with the lot line adjustment for the property in which the Easements are located, new drainage and utility easement will be provided; and WHEREAS, it was determined by the City Council that the Easements are no longer needed for public purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Chanhassen City Council: 1.The Easements are hereby vacated, conditioned upon recording the lot line adjustment for Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition ("Property"), and the easement required as a condition of site plan approval for the Property. 2.The vacation shall not affect the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling the electric or telephone poles and lines, gas lines, sanitary and storm sewer lines, water pipes, mains, hydrants, and natural drainage areas thereon or thereunder, to continue maintain the same or to enter upon such way or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereof 3.The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this Resolution to the County Auditor and County Recorder for recording simultaneous with the documents approving the lot line adjustment and the easements required for site plan approval of the Property. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 24th day of June, 2019. ATTEST: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Easements to be Vacated All Drainage and Utility Easements as dedicated in Lot 2, Block 1, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 7TH ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota, and all Drainage and Utility Easements as dedicated in ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK, Carver County, Minnesota, Lying within said Lot 2, Block 1, except the north 5 feet, west 10 feet and south 5 feet thereof lying west of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing South 89 degrees 32 minutes 15 seconds East along the south line of said Lot 2, a distance of 546.74 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 00 degrees 27 minutes 45 seconds East 280.88 feet; thence North 89 degrees 32 minutes 15 seconds West 49.31 feet; thence northwesterly 99.88 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the southwest, having a radius of 129.00 feet, a central angle of 44 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds and a chord that bears North 62 degrees 28 minutes 43 seconds West,thence North 00 degrees 12 minutes 17 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, 29.14 feet to a north line of said Lot 2 and said line there terminating. JCLd0ccp 0JWJHWJC° O m U O mCHCCCHCCDDZ < Z Z < ZLULULU W U > U U > CL N O C) 0 111 11) N l0 co N 00 00 0 00 r-1 CP 00 0 00 N 00 N N 00 N O o N 00 r-I O 0 crl N IIIo0 co m oo C JI cT A N c1 A N 0 cr c-1 rl Ql c r cn m m m m Cr) Ln In Li")111 U U) x Z Z Z Z Z Z N w Z Z Z Z J W W W LU OI cc Q < H < < a 2 2 Q 2 S QI z Z Z N Z Z Q p S 2 Q 2 2 H UJUUUU CCCC J N 0 W w w J 0 w cc m H U E2 a to ccCC Opw2 _ O 1 < zH Y CC U 2 Q a I O m O O r1 X rl l0 00 c-1 111 O O oo r L.c. 00 00 H N N 0o m - N U JJ J J J W J --I Z Z Z Qd J CLJ LU W O J J a O U O0 2 w (I) co cc N u CC LLI wU eL < Z lU Q 2 = XI Z w Z O J w Q H N m 2 U m OU 0 o O o 0 0 N N A--1 CO LID x--1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 14 00 111 111 c7 D N N N N Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject 195 West 79th Street: Approve Purchase Agreement for Sale of Land to Frontier Land Holdings, LLC Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: H.2. Prepared By Todd Gerhardt, City Manager File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the Option Agreement with Frontier Land Holdings, LLC for the purchase price of $460,000.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND Frontier Brewing Co. is a new start­up brewing company in Chanhassen.  Their building will have a gross square footage of 6,053 with 2,830 square feet of production area and 2, 840 square feet for a tap room.  It will provide 8 to 15 new jobs and have an estimated value of $1,425,000 for land and building.  Total new taxes to the overall tax base is estimated at $36,000 DISCUSSION Under state statutes, the city council must hold a public hearing when considering the sale of city owned land. Attached you will find a proposed option to purchase agreement with Frontier Land Holdings, LLC and an Option to purchase Lot 2, Block 1, Gateway East 2nd Addition. The significant terms and conditions of the purchase agreement are as follows: 1. Purchase Price:$8.17 per square foot (56,192 square feet x $8.17 = $460,000) 2. Earnest Money:$1,000 3. Closing:Scheduled for August 31, 2019 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the purchase agreement with Frontier Land Holdings, LLC for the purchase price of $460,000. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019Subject195 West 79th Street: Approve Purchase Agreement for Sale of Land to Frontier Land Holdings,LLCSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: H.2.Prepared By Todd Gerhardt, City Manager File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves the Option Agreement with Frontier Land Holdings, LLC for the purchase price of$460,000.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.BACKGROUNDFrontier Brewing Co. is a new start­up brewing company in Chanhassen.  Their building will have a gross squarefootage of 6,053 with 2,830 square feet of production area and 2, 840 square feet for a tap room.  It will provide 8 to15 new jobs and have an estimated value of $1,425,000 for land and building.  Total new taxes to the overall tax baseis estimated at $36,000DISCUSSIONUnder state statutes, the city council must hold a public hearing when considering the sale of city owned land. Attachedyou will find a proposed option to purchase agreement with Frontier Land Holdings, LLC and an Option to purchaseLot 2, Block 1, Gateway East 2nd Addition.The significant terms and conditions of the purchase agreement are as follows:1. Purchase Price:$8.17 per square foot (56,192 square feet x $8.17 = $460,000)2. Earnest Money:$1,0003. Closing:Scheduled for August 31, 2019RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the purchase agreement with Frontier Land Holdings, LLC for the purchase price of $460,000. ATTACHMENTS: Request for Proposals Frontier Brewing Co. Proposal Option Agreement REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET PID 25.3010026 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR THE SALE OF LAND LOCATED AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET, PID 25.3010026 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCHEDULE Issue RFP Deadline ............................................................................................. May 6, 2019, noon Interviews with Chanhassen City Council .....May 13, 2019, 5:00 pm, Fountain Conference Room Closing Date.......................................................................................On or before August 31, 2019 The RFP does not commit the City to award any agreements. All dates are subject to change. Submit proposals and requests for consideration to: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director 952-227-1139 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Request for Proposals for Land Sale on West 79th Street 3 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SALE OF LAND AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET PID 25.3010020 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: I. RFP Process A. Introduction of proposed Project B. Financial Performance to see a successful Project (submit financial capabilities and a letter of support from a financial institution) II. Business Opportunity A. Site Plan and description of operation/Business Plan B. Expansion opportunities, if any, and description of purpose III. Proposal Instructions A. Delivery of Proposals IV. Proposal Evaluation A. Evaluation Criteria (100 total points) 1. Concept of the land use to the site (0-25 points) 2. Financial return to the City (0-25 points) a) Estimated tax base b) Number of employees/wages c) Draw to downtown 3. Qualifications of Experience of Proposers (0-25 points) 4. Architectural Design “Gateway” (0-12.5 points) 5. Traffic demand and management (0-12.5 points) 4 V. General Terms and Conditions A. Transparency Policy All RFPs should include all potential or actual proposers including their representatives, employees, agents, proposed partners, subcontractors, joint ventures, members, or any of their lobbyists, and attorneys. Discuss their involvement matters associated with the development With respect to the selection of the successful proposer, the City Manager will continue the past practice of exerting no undue influence on the process. This request is intended to create a level playing field for all proposers, assure agreements are awarded in public, and protect the integrity of the selection process. B. Negotiations Once the award recommendation has been approved, the city may negotiate business terms with a proposer and submit a formal purchase agreement with the Mayor and City Council. C. Preparation Costs Under no circumstance will the city be responsible for any costs incurred by anyone in/or responding to this request for proposal, in any subsequent follow up to the proposal, and in any subsequent negotiation of a contract. D. Proposals 1. Name of the RFP 2. Name, address, and telephone number of the proposer 3. Rezoning – no contingencies on rezoning 4. Escrow – buyer and seller shall diligently pursue completion of a mutually acceptable agreement of sale and opening of escrow within twenty (20) business days from acceptance of the purchase agreement 5. Costs and Expenses – buyer shall be responsible for the escrow fee, all recording fees, and costs of an owner’s title insurance policy subject to seller’s approval, 5 any other charges and costs customarily attributable to buy in Carver County, Minnesota. 6. Title – Title to the property shall be conveyed to the buyer by a recordable warranty deed upon close of escrow 7. Phase I Environmental Study – Cost of the study shall be solely that of the buyer 8. ALTA Survey – All due diligence including the cost of the ALTA survey will be solely the responsibility of the seller. 9. Condition – The property is being offered and sold “as-is.” 10. Brokerage – If Buyer is represented by a broker, the Seller is NOT responsible for any costs related to brokerage fees. 6 ATTACHMENTS A. Development Details Form B. Proposed Purchase Price Form C. ALTA Survey D. Proposed Site Plan Drawings E. Letter from a financial institution/bank reference letter that contains your financial responsibility and stability and demonstrate your ability to fulfill your financial obligations to your proposed project F. Chanhassen City Code Chapter 10, Article II. – Alcoholic Beverages G. Chanhassen Ordinance No. 632 – Amends Chanhassen City Code Chapter 10, Article II. – Alcoholic Beverages (not yet codified) H. Chanhassen City Code Chapter 20, Zoning, Article XVII. – “BH” Highway and Business Services District 7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SALE OF LAND AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET PID 25.3010026 ATTACHMENT A DEVELOPMENT DETAILS Name of Proposer: Each proposer must complete and submit this form with its proposal. • Gross Square Footage (SF): • Commercial SF: • Office SF: • Other SF: • Number of Parking Spaces: • Building Height (feet and stories): • Number of Buildings: • Estimated Number of Construction Jobs: • Estimated Number of Permanent Jobs: • Estimated Value of Project: 8 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SALE OF LAND AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET PID 25.3010026 ATTACHMENT B PROPOSED PURCHASE PRICE Name of Proposer: Each proposer must complete and submit this form with its proposal. The city will not be responsible for any proposer errors or omissions. Proposed Purchase Price: (Minimum $460,000) 9 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SALE OF LAND AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET PID 25.3010026 ATTACHMENT C GATEWAY EAST 2ND ADDITION PLAT ALTA SURVEY 10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SALE OF LAND AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET PID 25.3010026 ATTACHMENT D PROPOSED SITE PLAN DRAWING (to be provided by Proposer) 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SALE OF LAND AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET PID 25.3010026 ATTACHMENT E LETTER FROM A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION/BANK REFERENCE LETTER THAT CONTAINS YOUR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND STABILITY AND DEMONSTRATE YOUR ABILITY TO FULFILL YOUR FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS TO YOUR PROPOSED PROJECT (to be provided by Proposer) 12 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SALE OF LAND AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET PID 25.3010026 ATTACHMENT F CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE II. – ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARTICLE II. - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES[2] Footnotes: --- (2) --- Editor's note— Ord. No. 299, § 1, adopted Mar. 13, 2000 amended former article II, §§ 10-16—10-125, in its entirety and set forth a new article II, §§ 10-16—10-53 effectively repealing former article II, §§ 10- 16—10-125. Former article II, §§ 10-16—10-125, also pertained to alcoholic beverages and derived from Ord. No. 2H, §§ 3, 4, 5.01—5.04, 5.06, 5.08, 6.01—6.05, 7.02—7.06, 7.10, 7.11, 7.13—7.15, 7.18, 7.4, 8.01—8.11, 9.01—9.03, 9.06—9.08, 10.01, 10.04, 10.05, 10.22, and 11, adopted Apr. 19, 1982; Ord. No. 34-E, §§ 1, 2.07, 3.01—3.03, 4.01, 4.02, 5.01—5.04, 6.01—6.05, 8.01, 9.01, 9.04—9.07, 9.09, 9.11, 10.02(3), (4), 12.01, and 13.01, adopted Feb. 14, 1983; Ord. No. 2-I, §§ 1—7, adopted Feb. 14, 1983; Ord. No. 2-K, § 1, adopted May 19, 1986; Ord. No. 115, § 1, adopted Dec. 18, 1989; Ord. No. 158, § 1, adopted Nov. 18, 1991; Ord. No. 175, § 1, Oct. 12, 1992; Ord. No. 201, § 1, adopted Apr. 11, 1994; Ord. No. 226, § 1, adopted Oct. 24, 1994; Ord. No. 235, § 1, adopted Feb. 27, 1995; Ord. No. 279, § 1, adopted Apr. 13, 1998; and Ord. No. 295, § 1, adopted Sept. 13, 1999. DIVISION 1. - STATE LAW ADOPTED/DEFINITIONS Sec. 10-16. - Provisions of state law adopted. Except to the extent the provisions of this article are more restrictive, the provisions of M.S. ch. 340A, as amended, regarding the terms, licensing, consumption, sales, hours of sale, and all other matters pertaining to the retail sale, distribution, and consumption of intoxicating liquor and 3.2 percent malt liquor are adopted and made a part of this article as if set out in full. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-17. - Definitions. For the purposes of this article, and in addition to those definitions contained in M.S. ch. 340A, as amended, the terms used in this subsection are defined as follows; (a) Display. The term "display" means the keeping, storing, or permitting to be kept or stored of an alcoholic beverage which has been poured, dispensed or has had its package seal broken on, in, or at any table, booth, bar or other area of a licensed premises accessible to the general public, except when the alcoholic beverage is stored in a normal storage area during non-sale hours. (b) Interest. the term "interest" as used in this article includes any pecuniary interest in the ownership, operation, management or profits of a liquor establishment, but does not include: bona fide loans; bona fide fixed sum rental agreements; bona fide open accounts or other obligations held with or without security arising out of the ordinary and regular course of business or selling or leasing merchandise, fixtures or supplies to such establishment; or any interest of five percent or less in any corporation holding a city liquor license. A person who receives monies, from time to time, directly or indirectly from a licensee in the absence of a bona fide consideration therefor and excluding bona fide gifts or donations, shall be deemed to have a pecuniary interest in such retail license. In determining "bona fide," the reasonable value of the goods or things received as consideration for the payment of the licensee and all other facts reasonably tending to prove or disprove the existence of any purposeful scheme or arrangement to evade any prohibitions under this article shall be considered. (c) Licensed premises. The term "licensed premises" is the premises described in the approved license application. In the case of a restaurant, club, or exclusive liquor store licensed for on-sales of alcoholic 13 beverages and located on a golf course, "licensed premises" means the entire golf course except for areas where motor vehicles are regularly parked or operated. (d) Operating manager. The term "operating manager" as used in this article means a person designated by the license holder who works full-time at the licensed premises and is in charge of day-to-day liquor sales. (e) Properly designated officer. The term "properly designated officer" means and includes; (1) The city fire inspector; (2) The city building official; and (3) The health inspectors employed by Carver or Hennepin county or the state acting in the course of the scope of their employment. (f) Underage person. The term "underage person" means a person who is under the legal drinking age as provided by M.S. ch. 340A. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) DIVISION 2. - RETAIL LICENSES Sec. 10-18. - Licenses required. No person, except as otherwise provided in M.S. ch. 340A shall directly or indirectly deal in, sell, keep for sale or deliver any intoxicating liquor, 3.2 percent malt liquor, or wine as part of a commercial transaction without first having received a license to do so as provided in this article; nor shall any private club or public place, directly or indirectly, or upon any pretense or by any device, allow the consumption or display of intoxicating liquor or serve any liquid for the purpose of mixing with intoxicating liquor without first obtaining a license from the city as provided in this article. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-19. - Types of licenses. The following types of licenses are issued under this article: (a) On-sale intoxicating liquor license. On-sale intoxicating liquor licenses shall be granted only to hotels, bowling centers, clubs, restaurants, and exclusive liquor stores. A license shall be issued to clubs and congressionally chartered veterans' organizations if they have been in existence for at least three years and liquor sales will only be to members and bona fide guests. On-sale licenses will only be issued to exclusive liquor stores that were licensed on January 1, 2000. (b) Off-sale intoxicating liquor license. Off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses may be issued to an exclusive liquor store and shall permit off-sale of intoxicating liquor and 3.2 percent malt liquor. (c) Wine licenses. Wine licenses may be issued, with the approval of the commissioner of public safety, only to restaurants having facilities for seating of at least 25 people at one time for the sale of wine not exceeding 24 percent alcohol by volume and for consumption on the licensed premises only in conjunction with the sale of food. The holder of a wine license who is also licensed to sell 3.2 percent malt liquor on-sale may also sell intoxicating malt liquors at on-sale without an additional license. (d) On-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license. On-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license may be issued to bona fide clubs, bowling centers, golf courses, including driving ranges, restaurants, and hotels where food is prepared and served for consumption on the premises only. (e) Off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license. Off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license may be issued to general food stores and drug stores and permit the sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor at retail in the original package for consumption off the premises only. (f) On-sale Sunday liquor license. On-sale Sunday liquor licenses may be issued only to a hotel or restaurant, with facilities for serving not less than 50 guests at one time, to which an on-sale 14 intoxicating license has been issued. Such license may permit the sale of liquor to be consumed on the premises during the hours allowed by state law in conjunction with the serving of food provided that the licensee is in conformance with the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act, M.S. § 144.411 et seq., and provided a public hearing is held prior to the issuance of the license. No Sunday liquor license is needed for on-sale wine licenses. (g) Temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. Temporary on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses may be issued to a club or charitable, religious, or nonprofit organization in existence for at least three years. The license may authorize the on-sale of 3.2 percent malt liquor for not more than three consecutive days, and may authorize on-sales on premises other than premises the licensee owns or permanently occupies. The license may provide that the licensee may contract for 3.2 percent malt liquor with the holder of a full-year on-sale liquor license issued by the city. The licenses are subject to the terms, including the license fee, normally imposed by the city. The licenses issued in this section are subject to all laws and ordinances governing the sale of liquor, including furnishing a form of proof of financial responsibility. (h) Temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. The city council may issue to a club or charitable religious or nonprofit organization in existence for at least three years or to a political committee registered under M.S. § 10A.14 a temporary license for the on-sale of intoxicating liquor in connection with a social event within the city sponsored by the licensee. The license may authorize the on-sale of intoxicating liquor for not more than four consecutive days, and may authorize on-sales on premises other than premises the licensee owns or permanently occupies. The license may provide that the licensee may contract for intoxicating liquor catering services with the holder of a full-year on-sale liquor license issued by the city. The licenses are subject to the terms, including license fee, imposed by the city. The licenses issued under this section are subject to all laws and ordinances governing the sale of intoxicating liquor except M.S. § 340A.409 and § 340A.504, subd. 3, paragraph (d), and the laws and ordinances which by their nature are not applicable. Temporary licenses must first be approved by the commissioner of public safety before they become valid. No more than three four- day, four three-day, or six two-day temporary licenses, in any combination not to exceed 12 days per year, may be issued for the sale of alcoholic beverages to any one organization or registered political committee, or for any one location, within a 12-month period. Not more than one temporary license may be issued to any one organization or registered political committee, or for any one location, within any 30-day period. (i) Club licenses. Club licenses may be issued to clubs as provided in M.S. § 340A.404, subd. 1. (j) Consumption and display permits. Consumption and display permits may be issued to a bottle club which complies with the requirements of M.S. § 340A.414 and which has obtained a permit from the commissioner of public safety. Consumption and display permits shall not be issued in the city, except to establishments that have been issued such license on or prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 299. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00; Ord. No. 371, §§ 1—3, 4-12-04; Ord. No. 404, § 1, 10-10-05; Ord. No. 447, § 1, 4-9-07; Ord. No. 605, § 1, 6-8-15; Ord. No. 615, § 1, 10-10-16; Ord. No. 618, § 1, 1-23-17) Sec. 10-20. - License period. Each renewal license shall be issued for a maximum period of one year. Temporary licenses shall expire according to their terms. All intoxicating liquor licenses, 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses, and consumption and display licenses expire on April 30 of each year. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-21. - Retail license fees. (a) Annual fees. The annual fees for all licenses and temporary licenses shall be as determined by city council resolution in amounts no greater than those amounts provided under M.S. § 340A.408. 15 (b) Prorated fees. If a license application is made during the license year, the license shall be issued for the remainder of the year and, except in the case of wine licenses and off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses, the license fee shall be pro-rated, with any unexpired fraction of a month being counted as one month. (c) Investigation fees. Investigation fees shall be determined by city council resolution. Investigation fees are nonrefundable. No investigation fee shall be charged for a renewal application. At any time that an additional investigation is required because of a change in the control of a corporate license, change in manager, change in location, or enlargement of the premises, the licensee shall pay an additional investigation fee. Where a new application is filed as a result of incorporation or a change of name by an existing licensee and the ownership control and interest in the license are unchanged, no additional investigation fee will be required. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-22. - License fee refunds. License fees shall be refunded if an application for a license is denied by the city council, except where rejection is for a willful misstatement in the license application. No part of the fee paid for any issued license shall be refunded except as authorized under M.S. § 340A.408, subd. 5, upon application to the city clerk within 20 days of the happening of any event provided under M.S. § 340A.408, subd. 5. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-23. - Liability insurance. Except as provided in M.S. § 340A.409, subd. 4, all applicants for any liquor license or consumption and display permit must, as a condition to the issuance of the license, demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by M.S. § 340A.801, subd. 1, to the city by providing proof of liability/dram shop, general liability, and workers' compensation insurance coverage as specified by M.S. § 340A.409, subd 1. The city shall be named as additional insured on the liability insurance policy. The insurance limits outlined in this section shall be effective for license renewals and immediately on any new applications. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00; Ord. No. 371, § 4, 4-12-04; Ord. No. 508, § 1, 8-9-10) Sec. 10-24. - License application. A license applicant shall complete the applicable application form provided by the city clerk. The city clerk may waive completion of any part of the form that is inappropriate or unnecessary. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-25. - Execution of application. If the application is by an individual, it shall be signed and sworn to by such person; if by a corporation, by an officer thereof; if by a partnership, by one of the partners; if by an incorporated association, by the operating officer or managing officer thereof. If the applicant is a partnership, the application, license, and insurance policy shall be made and issued in the name of all partners. It shall be unlawful to make any false statement in an application. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-26. - Renewal application. Applications for the renewal of an existing license shall be made at least 45 days prior to the date of the expiration of the license, and shall state that everything in the prior applications remains true and correct except as otherwise indicated. 16 (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00; Ord. No. 618, § 2, 1-23-17) Sec. 10-27. - Investigations. (a) At the time of making an initial application, renewal application, or request for approval for a new manager, the applicant shall, in writing, authorize the city to investigate all facts set out in the application and do a personal background and criminal record check on the applicant and operating manager. The applicant shall further authorize the city to release information received from such investigation to the city council. (b) should the city council deny the applicant's request for a license due, partially or solely, to the applicant's prior conviction of a crime, the city council shall notify the applicant of the grounds and reasons for the denial; the applicable complaint and grievance procedure as set forth in M.S. § 364.06; the earliest date the applicant may reapply for a license; and that all competent evidence of rehabilitation will be considered upon reapplication. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-28. - Hearing required for new licenses. A public hearing for the issuance of a license for a new premises, or for a different licensee at the same premises, shall be preceded by ten days' published notice. In addition, the public hearing for the issuance of a license for a new premises shall also be preceded by a ten days' mailed notice to all owners of property located within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property on which the business that is the subject of the application is located. A public hearing is not required for temporary license applications, or for off- sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00; Ord. No. 371, § 5, 4-12-04) Sec. 10-29. - Information considered for license approval. The city council shall consider the following in addition to conformity with state statutes and city ordinances in determining whether a new or renewal license shall be granted: (a) The investigative and staff report submitted by the city clerk; (b) Information received through the public hearing process; (c) Whether the applicant has or will take affirmative action to minimize public safety problems commonly associated with on-sale liquor establishments, including but not limited to DWI drivers, illegal sale to minors, disturbing the peace, etc.; (d) Any other relevant information. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-30. - Granting or transfer of license. (a) Applicant. A license shall be issued to the applicant only, and no license shall be transferred except as provided in this article. (b) Premises. Each license shall be issued only for the exact rooms and square footage described in the application. A license is valid only in the compact and contiguous building or structure situated on the premises described in the license, and all transactions relating to a sale under such license must take place within such building or structure. (c) Building under construction. When a license is granted for a premises where the building is under construction or otherwise not ready for occupancy, the city clerk shall not issue the license until notified by the building official that the building is ready for occupancy. 17 (d) Death of licensee. In the event of the death of a person holding a license, the personal representative of that person shall be allowed to continue to operate the business within the terms of the license for a period not to exceed 90 days after the death of the licensee. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-31. - Corporations, partnerships, or associations. (a) All corporations, partnerships, and associations must designate an operating manager. The operating manager must be a person working full-time at the licensed premises who is in charge of day-to-day liquor sales. (b) Licenses issued to corporations shall be valid only so long as there is no change in the officers or ownership interest of the corporation, as defined in this article, unless such change is approved by the council. The requirement concerning change in officers does not apply to corporations whose stock is traded on the New York or American Stock Exchanges. (c) Licenses issued to associations or partnerships shall be valid only so long as there is no change in the partnership or association, unless such change is approved by the council. (d) Corporations, partnerships, or associations holding licenses shall submit written notice to the city clerk of any changes described herein on or before 30 days prior to the effective date of any such change. Notwithstanding the definition of "interest" as defined in this article, in the case of a corporation, the licensee shall notify the city clerk when a person not listed in the application acquires an interest that, when combined with that of a spouse, parent, brother, sister, or child, exceeds five percent and shall give all information about said person as is required of a person pursuant to the provisions of this article. (e) Corporations holding licenses shall submit written notice to the city clerk of any change in operating managers prior to the effective date of such change. The written notice shall designate the new operating manager. The new operating manager shall be subject to the investigation required by this article. (f) The designation of a new operating manager shall not cause the corporation's license to become invalid before a decision is rendered by the city manager or city manager's designee, provided proper notice and application are made by the applicant. A proposed new operating manager shall be referred to as the interim operating manager. In the event an interim operating manager is rejected by the city manager or city manager's designee, the corporation shall designate another interim operating manager and make the required application within 15 days of the decision by the city manager or city manager's designee. In any event, a corporation shall be limited to two successive interim operating managers. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-32. - Ineligible for license. (a) State law. No license shall be granted to or held by any person: (1) Made ineligible by state law; (2) Who is a person under 21 years of age; (3) Who is not a citizen of the United States or a resident alien; (4) Upon whom it is impractical to conduct a background and financial investigation due to the unavailability of information; (5) Who has had a liquor license revoked within five years of the license application, or to any person who at the time of the violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested; 18 (6) Who is not of good moral character and repute; (7) Who has a direct or indirect interest in a manufacturer, brewer, or wholesaler; or (8) Who, within five years of the license application, has been convicted of a felony or a willful violation of a federal or state law or local ordinance governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of an alcohol beverage and who cannot show competent evidence under M.S. § 364.03 of sufficient rehabilitation and present fitness to perform the duties of a licensee. (b) Manager required. No licenses shall be granted to a corporation that does not have an operating manager. (c) Real party in interest. No license shall be granted to a person who, in the judgment of the council, is not the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business operated, or to be operated, under the license. (d) Residency requirements. A license will not be renewed if, in the case of an individual, the licensee is not a resident of the state at the time of the date for renewal; if, in the case of a partnership, the managing partner is not a resident of the state at the time of the renewal; or in the case of a corporation, if the operating manager is not a resident of the state at the time of the date of renewal. The time for establishing residency within the state may, for good cause, be extended by the council. (e) Delinquent taxes or charges. No license shall be granted for operation on any premises on which state, city or county taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the state, city, or county are delinquent and unpaid. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the delinquent taxes, assessments, or financial claims are against a landowner, and licensee is a tenant of landowner and has no financial interest in landowner, then the city council may, in its discretion, but shall not be required to, grant a license to an applicant so long as the applicant is not delinquent on any taxes, assessments, or financial claims as set forth herein. (f) Reserved. (g) Instructional program. No license or renewal license shall be issued to sell alcoholic beverages under this article unless an applicant or license holder has an approved program for instructing all employees at the business premises for which the license was issued, in the legal requirements pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages, including, but not limited to, reviewing the law on the sale of alcoholic beverages, providing information on the health risks of using alcoholic beverages, and requiring employees to request identification from every customer who appears to be under 27 years of age. No license shall be issued or renewed unless the applicant or license holder signs a city form attesting that each employee of the applicant or license holder has received training and instruction on the sale of alcoholic beverages and the date such training occurred. Training must be completed before an employee commences work in a licensed establishment and annually thereafter. The training shall include information that the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors is illegal, explains what proof of age is legally acceptable, and that a sale to a minor can subject the applicant or license holder and their employees to criminal liability. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00; Ord. No. 618, § 3, 1-23-17) Sec. 10-33. - Conditions of approval. At the time a license is issued pursuant to this article or a consumption and display permit is approved, the city council may attach special conditions to the approval based upon the nature of the business the location of the business, and verified complaints, if any, to protect the health, safety, welfare, and quietude of the community and ensure harmony with the location where the business is located. Violation of any of the conditions shall be grounds for revocation of the license. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) 19 Sec. 10-34. - Nudity on licensed premises. (a) It is unlawful for any person on premises licensed under this article to: (1) Employ or use any person in the sale or service of alcoholic beverages in or upon the licensed premises while such person is unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing so as to expose or to view any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or of any portion of the pubic hair, anus, cleft or the buttocks, vulva or genitals. (2) Employ or use services of any host or hostess while such host or hostess is unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing as described in subsection (1) above. (3) Employ or use any dancers, musicians, or other performers or entertainers, who are unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing as described in paragraph (1) above. (4) Directly or indirectly sponsor any contests which may foreseeably cause, result in, or lead to the occurrence of the acts or incidents described in subsection (6) below. (5) Encourage or permit any person on the licensed premises to touch, caress or fondle breasts, buttocks, anus or genitals of any employee of the licensee or any performers or entertainers who are employed or whose services are used by the licensee. (6) Permit any person to perform acts of or acts which simulate: a. With or upon another person sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, flagellation or any sexual act which is prohibited by law; b. Masturbation or bestiality; c. With or upon another person the touching, caressing or fondling of the buttocks, anus, genitals, or female breasts; d. The displaying of pubic hair, anus, vulva, genitals or female breasts below the top of the areola. (7) Permit any person to use artificial devices or inanimate objects depicting any of the prohibited activities described. (8) Permit any person to remain in or upon the licensed premises, or any area owned or controlled by the licensee upon the licensee's premises, who permits the public to view any portion of his genitals or anus. (9) Permit the showing of film, still pictures, electronic reproduction or other visual reproduction depicting: a. Acts or simulated acts of sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation or any sexual act which is prohibited by law; b. Any person being touched, caressed or fondled on the breast, buttock, anus, or genitals; c. Scenes wherein a person displays the vulva, the anus or the genitals; d. Scenes wherein artificial devices or inanimate objects are employed to depict, or drawings are employed to portray, any of the prohibited activities described in this section. (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any theatrical production performed in a theater by a professional theatrical or musical company that has serious artistic merit. (c) Both the licensee and the person(s) actually engaging in any of the acts prohibited by subsection (a) shall be criminally liable. Any violation of this section shall also constitute grounds for revocation or suspension of the licensee's license. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-35. - Federal stamps. 20 No licensee shall possess a federal wholesale liquor dealer's special tax stamp or a federal gambling stamp. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-36. - Compliance checks. (a) Compliance checks. From time to time, the city shall conduct compliance checks. Such compliance checks may involve, but are not limited to, engaging underage persons to enter the licensed premises to attempt to purchase alcohol and alcohol related products. (b) Underage persons. If underage persons are used for compliance checks they shall not be guilty of unlawful possession of alcohol when such items are obtained as a part of a compliance check. No underage person used in compliance checks shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the person's age, and all underage persons lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all questions about the person's age asked by the licensee or his or her employee and shall produce any identification for which he or she is asked. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-37. - Revocation or suspension of license. The council may suspend or revoke any license for the sale of intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor for any of the following reasons: (a) False or misleading statements made on a license application or renewal, or failure to abide by the commitments, promises or representations made to the city council; (b) Violation of any special conditions under which the license was granted, including, but not limited to, the timely payment of real estate taxes, and all other charges; (c) Violation of any federal, state, or local law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquor, 3.2 percent malt liquor, or controlled substance; (d) Creation of a nuisance on the premises or in the surrounding area; (e) That the licensee suffered or permitted illegal acts upon the licensed premises or on property owned or controlled by the licensee adjacent to the licensed premises, unrelated to the sale of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor; (f) That the licensee had knowledge of illegal acts upon or attributable to the licensed premises, but failed to report the same to the police; (g) Expiration or cancellation of any required insurance, or failure to notify the city within a reasonable time of changes in the term of the insurance or the carriers. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-38. - Inactive license. The city council may revoke the intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license of any establishment granted a license that is not under construction and exhibiting satisfactory progress toward completion within six months from its issuance, or any establishment that ceases operation for a period of six months. A hearing shall be held to determine what progress has been made toward opening or reopening the establishment and, if satisfactory progress is not demonstrated, the council may revoke the license. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-39. - Hearing notice. 21 Revocation or suspension of a license by the city council shall be preceded by a public hearing conducted in accordance with M.S. §§ 14.57 to 14.69. The city council may appoint a hearing examiner or may conduct a hearing itself. The hearing notice shall be given at least ten days prior to the hearing, include notice of the time and place of the hearing, and state the nature of the charges against the licensee. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00; Ord. No. 371, § 6, 4-12-04) Sec. 10-40. - Minimum civil penalties. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish criteria by which the city council determines the length of license suspensions and the propriety of revocations, and shall apply to all premises licensed under this article. These penalties are the minimum penalties appropriate for most situations; however, the council may deviate in an individual case where the council finds that there exist reasons making it more appropriate to deviate, such as, but not limited to, a licensee's efforts in combination with the state or city to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors. When deviating from these standards, the council will provide written findings that support the penalty selected. (b) Minimum penalties for violations. The minimum penalties for convictions or violations are as follows (unless specified, numbers below indicate consecutive days' suspension); Appearance Type of Violation 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1. Commission of a felony related to the licensed activity Revocation NA NA NA 2. Sale of alcoholic beverages while license is under suspension Revocation NA NA NA 3. Sale of alcoholic beverages to under-age person 3 6 18 Revocation 4. Sale of alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated person 3 6 18 Revocation 5. After hours sale of alcoholic beverages 3 6 18 Revocation 6. After hours display or consumption of alcoholic beverages 3 6 18 Revocation 7. Refusal to allow city inspectors or police admission to inspect premises 5 15 Revocation NA 8. Illegal gambling on premises 3 6 18 Revocation 9. Failure to take reasonable steps to stop person from leaving premises with alcoholic beverages 3 6 18 Revocation 10. Sale of intoxicating liquor where only license is for 3.2 percent malt liquor Revocation NA NA NA (c) Multiple violations. At a licensee's first appearance before the council, the council must act upon all of the violations that have been alleged in the notice sent to the licensee. The council in that case must consider the minimum penalty for each violation under the first appearance column in subsection (b) above. The occurrence of multiple violations is grounds for deviation from the minimum penalties in the council's discretion. (d) Subsequent violations. Violations occurring after the notice of hearing has been mailed, but prior to the hearing, must be treated as a separate violation and dealt with as a second appearance before the council, unless the city manager and licensee agree in writing to add the violation to the first appearance. The same procedure applies to a second, third, or fourth appearance before the council. 22 (e) Subsequent appearances. Upon a second, third, or fourth appearance before the council by the same licensee, the council must impose the minimum penalty for the violation or violations giving rise to the subsequent appearance without regard to the particular violation or violations that were the subject of the first or prior appearance. However, the council may consider the amount of time elapsed between appearances as a basis for deviating from the minimum penalty imposed by this section. (f) Computation of appearances. After the first appearance, a subsequent appearance by the same licensee will be determined as follows: (1) If the first appearance was within three years of the current violation the current violation will be treated as second appearance. (2) If a licensee has appeared before the council on two previous occasions, and the current violation occurred within five years of the first appearance, the current violation will be treated as a third appearance. (3) If a licensee has appeared before the council on three previous occasions, and the current violation occurred within seven years of the first appearance, the current violation will be treated as a fourth appearance. (4) Any appearance not covered by subsection (1), (2), or (3), above will be treated as a first appearance. (g) Other penalties. Nothing in this section shall restrict or limit the authority of the council to suspend up to 60 days, revoke the license, impose a civil fine not to exceed $2,000.00, to impose conditions, or take any other action in accordance with law; provided, that the license holder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing in the manner provided in this article. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) DIVISION 3. - RETAIL SALES REGULATION Sec. 10-41. - Right of inspection. (a) Any city designated police officer displaying proper identification shall have the unqualified right to enter, inspect, and search the premises of any licensee hereunder without a warrant, during business hours or when owners, managers, or other employees are located on the premises. (b) the business records of the licensee, including federal and state tax returns, shall be available for inspection by the city at all reasonable times upon written request. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-42. - Responsibility of licensee. (a) Orderly conduct. Every licensee shall be responsible for the conduct on the licensee's place of business including conduct and activity attributable to the business on property owned or controlled by the licensee. Every licensee shall also cooperate with the city in controlling activity attributable to the business in surrounding areas. (b) Act of employee. The act of any employee in violation of this article on the licensed premises is deemed the act of the licensee as well, and the licensee shall be liable for all penalties provided by this article and other laws equally with the employee. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-43. - Hours of operation. (a) Hours and days of sale. Hours and days of sale shall be as allowed by state law. There shall be no consumption or display of intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor during the hours that sale is prohibited by state law. 23 (b) Non-employees on premises. A liquor licensee shall not allow non-employees on the business premises from 15 minutes after the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited until the sale is again permitted except as hereinafter provided. On-sale intoxicating liquor licensees and on-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor licensees may permit non-employees on the premises during its normal hours of operation when the sale of intoxicating and 3.2 percent malt liquor is prohibited, provided, that there be no sale, consumption, or display of intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor during the hours in which the sale or consumption of liquor is prohibited, and provided that the licensee has closed off all access to the bar area in a manner approved by the city. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-44. - Posting license. All liquor licensees shall have the license posted in a conspicuous place that is visible to the public in the licensed establishment at all times. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-45. - Building changes. Proposed enlargement or substantial alteration which changes the character of the establishment, or extension of premises previously licensed shall be reported to the city clerk at or before the time application is made for a building permit for any such change. The enlargement, substantial alteration or extension shall not be allowed unless the council approves an amendment to the license. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-46. - Public character of liquor sales. No sale of liquor shall be made to or in guest rooms of hotels unless: (1) The rules of such hotel provide for the service of meals in guest rooms; (2) The sale of such liquor is made in the manner on-sales are required to be made; (3) Such sale accompanies and is incidental to the regular service of meals to guests therein; (4) The rules of such hotel and the description, location, and number of such guest rooms are fully set out in the application for the liquor license. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-47. - Restrictions involving underage persons. (a) No licensee, his agent, or employee shall serve or dispense upon the licensed premises any intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor to a person under the legal drinking age; nor shall such licensee, or his agent or employee, permit any such person to be furnished or allowed to consume any such liquors on the licensed premises; nor shall such licensee, his agent, or employee, permit any such person to be delivered any such liquors. (b) No person under the legal drinking age shall enter a licensed premises for the purpose of purchasing or consuming any alcoholic beverage. It is not unlawful for any person who has attained the age of 18 years to enter licensed premises for the following purposes; (1) To perform work for the establishment, including the serving of alcoholic beverages, unless otherwise prohibited by statute; (2) To consume meals; and (3) To attend social functions that are held in a portion of the establishment where liquor is not sold. 24 (c) No person under the legal drinking age shall possess any intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor. Possession of an alcoholic beverage by a person under the legal drinking age at a place other than the household of the parent or guardian is prima facie evidence of intent to consume it at a place other than the household of the person's parent or guardian. (d) Misrepresenting age. No underage person shall misrepresent the person's age for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor, nor shall the person enter any premises licensed for the retail sale of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor for the purposes of purchasing or having served or delivered any alcoholic beverage. Nor shall any such person purchase, attempt to purchase, consume, or have another person purchase for the underage person any intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor. (e) Identification requirements. (1) Identification required. Any person shall, upon demand of the licensee, his employee, or agent, produce and permit to be examined one of the forms of identification provided under M.S. § 340A.503, subd. 6. (2) Prima facie evidence. In every prosecution for a violation of the provisions of this section relating to the sale or furnishing of intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating malt beverages to underage persons and in every proceeding before the council with respect thereto, the fact that the underage person involved has obtained and presented to the licensee, his employee or agent, a driver's license, passport or identification card from which it appears that said person was not an underage person and was regularly issued such identification card, shall be prima facie evidence that the licensee, his agent or employee is not guilty of a violation of such a provision and shall be conclusive evidence that a violation, if one has occurred, was not willful or intentional. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00; Ord. No. 371, § 7, 4-12-04) Sec. 10-48. - Employment of persons under eighteen years of age. No person under 18 years of age may serve or sell intoxicating liquor in a retail intoxicating liquor establishment. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-49. - Prohibited conditions. (a) Prostitution. No licensee shall knowingly permit the licensed premises or any room in those premises or any adjoining building directly under the licensee's control to be used by prostitutes. (b) Controlled substances. No licensee shall knowingly permit the sale, possession or consumption of controlled substances on the licensed premises in violation of state law. (c) Gambling. Except for lawful gambling conducted in accordance with state law and City Code, gambling and gambling devices are not permitted on licensed premises. State lottery tickets may be purchased or sold within licensed premises as authorized by the director of the state lottery. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00; Ord. No. 371, § 8, 4-12-04) Sec. 10-50. - Ownership of equipment. No equipment or fixture in any licensed place shall be owned in whole or in part by any manufacturer or distiller except such as shall be expressly permitted by state law. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-51. - Display of liquor. 25 No on-sale liquor establishment shall display liquor to the public during the hours when the sale of liquor is prohibited. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-52. - Delivery. (a) Restrictions. Only licensed off-sale retail liquor establishments and no other dealers may make deliveries of intoxicating liquor from their stores to the residence of the purchaser or other location. Such delivery shall be made only to a person 21 or more years of age. No deliveries may be made to a beer tavern or other public or private place in violation of law. No deliveries may be made to purchasers in any location where the sale or delivery thereof is prohibited by law. No deliveries may be made of any intoxicating liquor during the hours when off-sale of liquor is prohibited by state law or municipal ordinance. Only alcoholic beverages ordered and packed at the store for delivery shall be carried in the delivery vehicle. (b) Delivery tickets required. The person in charge of any vehicle delivering intoxicating liquor to purchasers shall carry an invoice or delivery slip stating the date and names and addresses of the seller and purchaser, itemizing the number, size, and brands of intoxicating liquor to be delivered. Upon delivery, the invoice shall be signed by the person accepting delivery and by the deliverer and the signed copy preserved on the retainer's premises for a period of six months. (c) Licensee may refuse to deliver. Any licensee, or employee or agent of the licensee, may refuse to sell or deliver intoxicating liquor to any person whom they have reasons to believe is ineligible to buy such liquor, or whom they have reason to believe intends to deliver the intoxicating liquor to ineligible consumers. They may require a person of doubtful age to produce written evidence of being 21 or more years of age. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Sec. 10-53. - Samples. Off-sale licensees may provide samples of malt liquor, wine, liqueurs, cordials, and distilled spirits which the licensee currently has in stock and is offering for sale to the general public without obtaining an additional license, provided the wine, liqueur, cordial, and distilled spirits samples are dispensed at no charge and consumed on the licensed premises during the permitted hours of off-sale in a quantity less than 100 milliliters of malt liquor per variety per customer, 50 milliliters of wine per variety per customer, 25 milliliters of liqueur or cordial, and 15 milliliters of distilled spirits per variety per customer. (Ord. No. 299, § 1, 3-13-00) Secs. 10-54—10-75. - Reserved. 26 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SALE OF LAND AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET PID 25.3010026 ATTACHMENT G CHANHASSEN ORDINANCE NO. 632 AMENDS CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE II. – ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 632 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS; CHAPTER 4, LICENSE, PERMIT AND ADMINISTRAIVE FEES; CHAPTER 10, LICENSES, PERMITS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS REGULATIONS; AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Brew Pub is a brewer who also holds one or more retail on-sale licenses and who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year, at any one licensed premises, the entire production of which is solely for consumption on tap on any licensed premises owned by the brewer, or for off-sale from those licensed premises as permitted in Minn. Stat. 340A.24. subdivision 2. Brewer is a person who manufactures malt liquor for sale. Brewery is a location where malt liquor is manufactured for sale. Cocktail room is a location in or adjacent to a microdistillery where the owner of the distillery sells distilled spirits produced by the distiller for consumption on the premises or for off-site consumption as provided for in Minn. Stat. 340A.22. Distiller is a person who manufactures distilled spirts for sale. Distilled spirits is ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, spirits of wine, whiskey, rum, brandy, gin, and other distilled spirits, including all dilutions and mixtures thereof, for non-industrial use. Malt Liquor is any beer, ale or other beverage made from malt by fermentation and containing not less than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume. 27 Microdistillery is a distillery operated within the state producing premium distilled spirits in a total quantity not to exceed 40,000 proof gallons in a calendar year. Pickup signs. See Sign, Pickup Sign, Pickup means a sign not attached to a building that designates a specific area of a parking lot for the pickup and loading of goods purchased in advance. Small Brewer is a brewery that produces less than 20,000 barrels of malt liquor in a year. Tap Room is a location in or adjacent to a brewery where the owner of the brewery sells malt liquor produced by the brewery for consumption on the premises or for off-site consumption as provided for in Minn. Stat. 340A.28 and 340A.285. Section 2. Section 4-15(a)(2) of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: 2. Various other license fees shall be set as follows: Microdistillery Off-sale ...................$200.00 On-sale Brewer Taproom .................$400.00 On-sale Cocktail Room ....................$400.00 Off-sale intoxicating ........................$200.00* Off-sale non-intoxicating .................$ 58.00 On-sale non-intoxicating ..................$410.00 Small Brewer Off-sale .....................$200.00 Sunday sales .....................................$200.00* Wine/beer license .............................$410.00 *Fees that are established by state statute. Section 3. Section 10-19(h) to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: (h) Temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. (1) The city council may issue to a club or charitable religious or nonprofit organization in existence for at least three years or to a political committee registered under M.S. § 10A.14 a temporary license for the on-sale of intoxicating liquor in connection with a social event within the city sponsored by the licensee. The license may authorize the on- sale of intoxicating liquor for not more than four consecutive days, and may authorize on- sales on premises other than premises the licensee owns or permanently occupies. The license may provide that the licensee may contract for intoxicating liquor catering services with the holder of a full-year on-sale liquor license issued by the city. The licenses are subject to the terms, including license fee, imposed by the city. The licenses 28 issued under this section are subject to all laws and ordinances governing the sale of intoxicating liquor except M.S. § 340A.409 and § 340A.504, subd. 3, paragraph (d), and the laws and ordinances which by their nature are not applicable. (2) The city council may issue to a brewer who manufactures fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year or a microdistillery a temporary license for the on-sale of intoxicating liquor in connection with a social event within the municipality sponsored by the brewer or microdistillery. The terms and conditions specified for temporary licenses under paragraph (1) shall apply to a license issued under this paragraph, except that the requirements of section M.S. § 340A.409 subd. 1 to 3a, shall apply to the license. (3) Limitations on temporary on-sale intoxication liquor licenses: (i) Temporary licenses must first be approved b y the Commissioner of Public Safety before they become valid. (ii) No more than three four-day, four three-day, or six two-day temporary licenses, in any combination not to exceed 12 days per year, may be issued for the sale of alcoholic beverages to any one organization or registered political committee, or for any one location, within a 12-month period. (iii)Not more than one temporary license may be issued to any one organization or registered political committee, or for any one location, within any 30-day period. Section 4. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 10-19(k) to Section 10-19(n) to read as follows: (k) On-Sale Brewer Taproom License. May be issued to a brewery licensed under Minn. Stat. Section 340A.301, subdivision 6, clause (c), (i), or (j) for the on-sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for the consumption on the premises of or adjacent to one brewery location owned by the brewer as provided in Minn. Stat. Section 340A.26. (1) On-Sale Brewer Taproom License Holders are allowed Sunday on-sales as provided in Minn. Stat 340A.26, subdivision 5 and do not require a separate On-Sale Sunday Liquor License. No Sunday on-sales are allowed before 10:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. (l) Small Brewer Off-Sale License. May be issued to a brew pub or brewery licensed under Minn. Stat. Section 340A.301, subdivision 6, clause (c), (i), or (j) for the off-sale of malt liquor at its licensed premises that has been produced and packaged by the brewer as provided in Minn. Stat. 340A.24, 340A.28, and 340A.285. (1) Small Brewer Off-Sale License holders are allowed Sunday off-sale as provided in Minn. Stat. 340A.24 and 340A.28, and 340A.285. No Sunday off-sales are allowed before 10:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. (m) On-Sales Cocktail Room. License may be issued to a microdistillery for the on-sale of distilled spirits produced by the distiller for the consumption on the premises of or adjacent 29 to one distillery location owned by the distiller as provided in Minn. Stat 340A.22, subdivision 2. (2) On-Sales Cocktail Room License Holders are allowed Sunday on-sales as provided in Minn. Stat 340A.22, subdivision 2 and do not require a separate On-Sale Sunday Liquor License. No Sunday on-sales are allowed before 10:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. (n) Microdistillery Off-Sale License. May be issued to a microdistillery for the off-sale of distilled spirits as provided in Minn. Stat. 340A.22, subdivision 4. (1) Microdistillery Off-Sale License Holders are allowed Sunday off-sales as provided in Minn. Stat 340A.22, subdivision 4 and do not require a separate On-Sale Sunday Liquor License. No Sunday off-sales are allowed before 10:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. Section 5. Section 10-53 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 10-53. - Samples. On- or off-sale licensees may provide or permit a licensed manufacturer or wholesaler or its agents to provide on the premise of the retail licensee samples of malt liquor, wine, liqueurs, cordials, and distilled spirits which the licensee currently has in stock and is offering for sale to the general public without obtaining an additional license, provided the malt liquor, wine, liqueur, cordial, and distilled spirits samples are dispensed at no charge and consumed on the licensed premises during the permitted hours of sale in a quantity less than 100 milliliters of malt liquor per variety per customer, 50 milliliters of wine per variety per customer, 25 milliliters of liqueur or cordial, and 15 milliliters of distilled spirits per variety per customer. Section 6. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-314 to read as follows: Sec. 20-314. - Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year. The following applies to all breweries operated in conjunction with a taproom: (1) The brewery shall not produce more than 5,000 barrels of malt liquor per year, unless they are located in an area zoned Industrial Office Park (IOP), in which case the brewery shall not produce more than 20,000 barrels of malt liquor per year. (2) An outdoor seating area is permitted provided it has an enclosure and the enclosure is not interrupted; access to the seating area must be through the principle building; its hours of operation shall be no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday-Thursday and 12:00 a.m. Friday- Saturday; and the outdoor seating area must be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. (3) Shipping and receiving areas shall be located behind the facility or otherwise screened from view. 30 (4) Compliance plan must be submitted to the city including: a. An inventory of potential or identified odor emission point sources associated with the industry or source. b. An engineering quality plan detailing best available control technologies and appurtenances designed to eliminate or achieve the maximum reduction of odor pollution from an emission point source inclusive of, but not necessarily limited to certain processes, procedures, or operating methods intended to mitigate or control odor pollution. c. A detailed explanation of the specifications and operating parameters of the best available control technologies, monitoring instrumentation and equipment, and processes and procedures intended for the mitigation or control of odor pollution. d. A specification of the documentation that will be made available for the city's review which will verify the data produced by the monitoring equipment, and which will verify that processes and procedures are conducted consistent with the specifications in the facility's odor control study and plan. e. An approved schedule which states, in a time certain manner, the implementation and installation of the best available control technology, processes, procedures, operating methods, and monitoring instrumentation designed to mitigate or control odors at the facility inclusive of an approved completion date. f. An acknowledgment of the authority of the city and its agents to enter into the facility or its property in order to investigate complaints and to verify the facility's adherence to the compliance plan. Section 7. Section 20-712 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-712. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "BH" district: (1) Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section 20-966 (2) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (3) Brew pub, subject to the requirements of section 20-968. (4) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969. (5) Car wash. 31 (6) Community center. (7) Convenience stores without gas pumps. (8) Day care center. (9) Fast-food restaurant. (10) Financial institutions with/or without drive-through services. (11) Funeral homes. (12) Health services. (13) Liquor stores. (14) Microdistillery operated in conjunction with cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967. (15) Miniature golf. (16) Motels and hotels. (17) Offices. (18) Personal services. (19) Private clubs and lodges. (20) Shopping center. (21) Specialty retail shops. (22) Standard restaurants. (23) Utility services. Section 8. Section 20-714 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-714. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "BH" district: (1) Automobile rental facilities. (2) Automotive repair shops. (3) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing over 3,500 barrels per year. (4) Convenience stores with gas pumps. 32 (5) Drive-through facilities. (6) Emission control testing stations. (7) Garden centers. (8) Motor fuel stations. (9) Outdoor storage. (10) Small vehicle sales. (11) Supermarkets. (12) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. Section 9. Section 20-732 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-732. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "CBD" district: (1) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (2) Ballroom. (3) Barber and beauty salons and spas including hair, nail, skin and scalp services. (4) Bars and taverns. (5) Bowling center. (6) Brew pub, subject to the requirements of section 20-968. (7) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969. (8) Clothing rental. (9) Clubs and lodges. (10) Coin-operated service machines. (11) Community center. (12) Convenience stores without gas pumps. (13) Convention and conference facilities. (14) Costume rental. (15) Cultural facilities. 33 (16) Day care center as part of shopping center. (17) Fast-food restaurants as part of shopping center. (18) Financial institutions. (19) Health and recreation clubs, instructions and services. (20) Health services, outpatient only. (21) Hotels. (22) Laundry and garment services including self-service. (23) Locker rental. (24) Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967. (25) Multiple-family dwellings, including senior citizen housing. (26) Newspaper offices. (27) Offices. (28) Parking ramp. (29) Photographic studios. (30) Print shops. (31) Quilting and scrap booking. (32) Retail sales. (33) Schools. (34) Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors. (35) Shopping center. (36) Sporting goods rental. (37) Standard restaurants. (38) Tattoo and body art and piercing services (MS ch. 146B). (39) Theatrical producers and services. (40) Utility service. (41) Wedding chapel. 34 Section 10. Section 20-734 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-734. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "CBD" district: (1) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing over 3,500 barrels per year. (2) Drive-through facilities. (3) Convenience store with gas pumps. (4) Freestanding fast-food restaurants. Section 11. Section 20-752 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-752. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "BG" district: (1) Adult day care, subject to the requirement of section 20-966 (2) Animal hospital. (3) Antenna. (4) Bars and taverns. (5) Bowling center. (6) Brew pub, subject to the requirements of section 20-968. (7) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969. (8) Community center. (9) Convenience stores without gas pumps. (10) Day care center. (11) Entertainment. (12) Fast-food restaurants. (13) Financial institutions. (14) Funeral homes. 35 (15) Garden centers. (16) Hardware goods. (17) Health and recreation clubs. (18) Health services. (19) Home improvement trades building supply centers. (20) Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967. (21) Miniature golf. (22) Motels. (23) Newspaper and print shop. (24) Offices. (25) Personal services. (26) Private clubs and lodges. (27) Senior citizen housing. (28) Small appliance and similar repair shops. (29) Specialty retail. (30) Standard restaurants. (31) Supermarkets. (32) Utility services. (33) Veterinary clinic. Section 12. Section 20-754 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-754. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "BG" district: (1) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing over 3,500 barrels per year. (2) Convenience stores with gas pumps. (3) Drive-through facilities (4) Equipment rental. 36 (5) Major auto repair and body shops. (6) Motor fuel stations. (7) Screened outdoor storage. (8) Truck, automobile, farm implement, recreational vehicles and boat sales and service. Section 13. Section 20-793 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-793. - Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in the "OI" district: (1) Adult Day Care as part of a church (subject to the requirements of Sec. 20-966). (2) Parking lots. (3) Signs. (4) Temporary outdoor sales and events (subject to the requirements of section 20- 964). Section 14. Section 20-812 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-812. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "IOP" district: (1) Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section 20-966 (2) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (3) Automotive repair shops. (4) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom producing less than 3,500 barrels per year, subject to the requirements of section 20-969. (5) Conference/convention centers. (6) Health services. (7) Indoor health and recreation clubs. (8) Light industrial. (9) Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room, subject to the requirements of section 20-967. 37 (10) Offices. (11) Off-premises parking lots. (12) Print shops. (13) Recording studios. (14) Utility services. (15) Vocational school. (16) Warehouses. Section 15. Section 20-814 to of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 20-814. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in an "IOP" district: (1) Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing over 3,500 barrels per year. (2) Contracting yards. (3) Day care centers as part of a multi-tenant building. (4) Day care centers as a separate facility. (5) Food processing. (6) Gun range, indoor. (7) Home improvement trades. (8) Hotels and motels. (9) Lumber yards. (10) Motor freight terminals. (11) Outdoor health and recreation clubs. (12) Screened outdoor storage. (13) Research laboratories. (14) Commercial towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (15) Electrical distribution and underground electric distribution substations. 38 Section 16. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-967 to Section 20-969 to read as follows: Sec. 20-967. - Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room. The following applies to all Microdistilleries operated in conjunction with a cocktail room: (1) The Microdistillery shall not produce more than 40,000 proof gallons of distilled spirits per year. (2) An outdoor seating area is permitted provided it has an enclosure and the enclosure is not interrupted; access to the seating area must be through the principle building; its hours of operation shall be no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday- Thursday and 12:00 a.m. Friday-Saturday; and the outdoor seating area must be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. (3) Shipping and receiving areas shall be located behind the facility or otherwise screened from view. Sec. 20-968. - Brew Pub. The following applies to all brew pubs: (1) The brew pub shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels per year. (2) An outdoor seating area is permitted provided it has an enclosure and the enclosure is not interrupted; access to the seating area must be through the principle building; its hours of operation shall be no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday- Thursday and 12:00 a.m. Friday-Saturday; and the outdoor seating area must be located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. (3) Shipping and receiving areas shall be located behind the facility or otherwise screened from view. Sec. 20-969. - Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, producing less than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year. The following applies to all breweries operated in conjunction with a taproom: (1) The brewery shall not produce more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year. (2) An outdoor seating area is permitted provided it has an enclosure and the enclosure is not interrupted; access to the seating area must be through the principle building; its hours of operation shall be no later than 10:00 p.m. Sunday- Thursday and 12:00 a.m. Friday-Saturday; and the outdoor seating area must be 39 located and designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian and vehicular circulation. (3) Shipping and receiving areas shall be located behind the facility or otherwise screened from view. Section 17. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-1124(2)(z) to read as follows: z. Brew pub, Brewery operated in conjunction with a taproom, or Microdistillery operated in conjunction with a cocktail room-One space for each 50 square feet of gross taproom, cocktail room, or restaurant floor area, and one space for each 1,000 square feet of gross production area. Section 18. The Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding Section 20-1255(14) to read as follows: (14) Pickup Signs; big box retailers and grocery stores are allowed one sign to designate an area of the parking lot for pickup/driveup loading of goods purchased in advance subject to the following conditions: a. The pickup sign must be located within the parking lot and the placement of pickup sign shall be so located such that the sign does not adversely affect adjacent properties or navigability of the parking lot (including sight lines, confusion of adjoining ingress or egress) or the general appearance of the site from public rights of way. b. No more than one pickup sign shall be allowed per business c. The pickup sign may not exceed thirteen feet in height. d. The pickup sign’s base shall be not more than two-feet wide on a side, and no portion of the sign may project beyond the base. e. The pickup sign is limited to four square feet of display area per sign face, and no more than 30 percent of the display area shall be used for the business logo or identification. f. Businesses with a drive-through facility may not also have a pickup sign. Section 19. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 2018 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota 40 Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor (Summary Ordinance 632 published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 21, 2018) 41 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SALE OF LAND AT 195 WEST 79TH STREET PID 25.3010026 ATTACHMENT H CHANHASSEN CITY CODE CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE XVII. “BH” HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT ARTICLE XVII. - "BH" HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS SERVICES DISTRICT Sec. 20-711. - Intent. The intent of the "BH" district is to provide for highway oriented commercial development restricted to a low building profile. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-1), 12-15-86) Sec. 20-712. - Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in a "BH" district: (1) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (2) Car wash. (3) Community center. (4) Convenience stores without gas pumps. (5) Day care center. (6) Fast-food restaurant. (7) Financial institutions. (8) Funeral homes. (9) Health services. (10) Liquor stores. (11) Miniature golf. (12) Motels and hotels. (13) Offices. (14) Personal services. (15) Private clubs and lodges. (16) Reserved. (17) Shopping center. (18) Specialty retail shops. (19) Standard restaurants. (20) Utility services. (21) Adult day care, subject to the requirements of section 20-966. 42 (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 116, § 6, 1-22-90; Ord. No. 122, § 1, 2- 26-90; Ord. No. 173, § 1, 7-27-92; Ord. No. 259, § 21, 11-12-96; Ord. No. 377, § 97, 5-24-04; Ord. No. 377, § 97, 5-24-04; Ord. No. 628, §§ 32, 33, 12-11-17) Sec. 20-713. - Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BH" district: (1) Signs. (2) Parking lots. (3) Temporary outdoor sales and events (subject to the requirements of section 20-964). (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-3), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 243, § 5, 2-13-95; Ord. No. 377, § 98, 5- 24-04; Ord. No. 619, § 9, 2-27-17) Sec. 20-714. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "BH" district: (1) Automobile rental facilities. (2) Automotive repair shops. (3) Convenience stores with gas pumps. (4) Drive-through facilities. (5) Emission control testing stations. (6) Garden centers. (7) Motor fuel stations. (8) Outdoor storage. (9) Reserved. (10) Small vehicle sales. (11) Supermarkets. (12) Towers as regulated by article XXX of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5.11-4), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 80-G, § 1, 1-11-88; Ord. No. 91, § 1, 6- 27-88; Ord. No. 116, § 6, 1-22-90; Ord. No. 120, § 4(8), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 137, § 2, 2-11-91; Ord. No. 259, § 22, 11-12-96; Ord. No. 296, § 2, 2-14-00; Ord. No. 377, § 99, 5-24-04; Ord. No. 628, § 34, 12-11-17) Editor's note— Section 1 of Ord. No. 91, adopted June 27, 1988, amended § 20-714 by adding a subsection (5) thereto. Inasmuch as there existed a subsection (5), added by Ord. No. 80-G, the editor has renumbered the new provisions as § 20-714(6). Subsequently, subsections (5) and (6), added by Ord. No. 116, § 6, adopted Jan. 22, 1990, were renumbered as (7) and (8). State Law reference— Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595. Sec. 20-715. - Lot requirements and setbacks. 43 The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BH" district subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum district area is ten acres. This section may be waived by a condition use permit in the case of expansion of an existing district. (2) The minimum lot area is 20,000 square feet. (3) The minimum lot frontage is 100 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum frontage in all districts of 60 feet. (4) The minimum lot depth is 150 feet. (5) The maximum lot coverage is 65 percent. (6) Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in chapter 20, article XXV, division 3, pertaining to landscaping requirements. b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-street parking area. c. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is 25 feet for side street side yards. e. Parking setbacks along public rights-of-way may be reduced to a minimum of ten feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city that 100 percent screening is provided at least five feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is both an effective screen and of high quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use of fencing is not permitted. (7) The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, two stories. b. For accessory structures, one story. (8) Minimum setback requirements: a. For front yards, 25 feet. b. For rear yards, 20 feet. c. For side yards, ten feet. d. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. e. Buffer yards. 1. The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses and shall comply with chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. 2. The buffer yard is not an additional setback requirement. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. 3. The buffer yard is intended to provide physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the 44 minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 11(5-11-5), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 94, §§ 1, 3, 7-25-88; Ord. No. 136, §§ IA, lB, 1-28-91; Ord. No. 451, § 4, 5-29-07; Ord. No. 474, § 11, 10-13-08) Sec. 20-716. - Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "BH" district: (1) Churches. (2) Reserved. (3) Farmers markets. (Ord. No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90; Ord. No. 243, § 6, 2-13-95) Secs. 20-717—20-730. - Reserved. 1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Consider a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for Development Within the Bluff Creek Corridor for Property Located at 8077 Century Boulevard (Control Concepts) and Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: I.1. Prepared By Robert Generous, Senior Planner, AICP File No: Planning Case File No. 2019­04 PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the site plan for a 54,276 square­foot, two­story office, warehouse and manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report; and adopts the Planning Commission's Findings of Fact. Approval requires a Majority Vote of the entire council. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 54,726 square­foot two­story office, warehouse and manufacturing building. The building footprint is 39,779 square feet with a second floor storage/manufacturing area of 14,497 square feet. BACKGROUND The Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 4, 2019 to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 4­0 to recommend approval of the project, subject to the conditions in the staff report. The Planning Commission thought the proposed plan was a good use of the site. The Planning Commission minutes for June 4, 2019 are in the consent agenda of the June 24, 2019 City Council packet. DISCUSSION In conjunction with the development of the site, the developer will install the last leg of the wetland trail around the Chanhassen Nature Preserve which is a 111­acre, permanent natural area, tributary to Bluff Creek east and north of this property. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the proposed site plan subject to the conditions in the CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019SubjectConsider a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for Development Within the BluffCreek Corridor for Property Located at 8077 Century Boulevard (Control Concepts) andZoned Planned Unit Development (PUD)Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: I.1.Prepared By Robert Generous, Senior Planner, AICP File No: Planning Case File No. 2019­04PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves the site plan for a 54,276 square­foot, two­story office, warehouse and manufacturingbuilding subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report; and adopts the Planning Commission's Findings ofFact.Approval requires a Majority Vote of the entire council.SUMMARYThe applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 54,726 square­foot two­story office, warehouse and manufacturingbuilding. The building footprint is 39,779 square feet with a second floor storage/manufacturing area of 14,497 squarefeet.BACKGROUNDThe Chanhassen Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 4, 2019 to review the proposed development.The Planning Commission voted 4­0 to recommend approval of the project, subject to the conditions in the staffreport.The Planning Commission thought the proposed plan was a good use of the site. The Planning Commission minutes forJune 4, 2019 are in the consent agenda of the June 24, 2019 City Council packet.DISCUSSIONIn conjunction with the development of the site, the developer will install the last leg of the wetland trail around theChanhassen Nature Preserve which is a 111­acre, permanent natural area, tributary to Bluff Creek east and north ofthis property.RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the proposed site plan subject to the conditions in the Planning Commission staff report dated June 4, 2019. ATTACHMENTS: PC Staff Report 6­4­19 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, June 4, 2019 Subject Consider a Site Plan Review for Development Within the Bluff Creek Corridor for Property Located at 8077 Century Boulevard and Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By Robert Generous, Senior Planner, AICP File No: Planning Case File No. 2019­04 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 square­foot, two­story office, warehouse and manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the findings of fact and recommendation. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 54,276 square­foot, two­story office, warehouse and manufacturing building. APPLICANT Bauer Design Build / Zion Investments, LLC SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Planned Unit Development (PUD)/Bluff Creek Overlay District LAND USE:Office Industrial ACREAGE:  5.23 acres  DENSITY:  0.16 F.A.R.  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article 2, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office­Institutional Developments Arboretum Business Park Development Standards BACKGROUND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, June 4, 2019SubjectConsider a Site Plan Review for Development Within the Bluff Creek Corridor for PropertyLocated at 8077 Century Boulevard and Zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD)Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By Robert Generous, Senior Planner, AICP File No: Planning Case File No. 2019­04PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 square­foot, two­storyoffice, warehouse and manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the findings offact and recommendation.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 54,276 square­foot, two­story office, warehouse and manufacturingbuilding.APPLICANTBauer Design Build / Zion Investments, LLCSITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Planned Unit Development (PUD)/Bluff Creek Overlay DistrictLAND USE:Office IndustrialACREAGE:  5.23 acres DENSITY:  0.16 F.A.R. APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 20, Article 2, Division 6, Site Plan ReviewChapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office­InstitutionalDevelopmentsArboretum Business Park Development Standards BACKGROUND On May 29, 2007, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following: Preliminary and final plat for two lots and one outlot (Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition). Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor. Site Plan for a 51,800 square­foot office/warehouse building (Mamac Systems) with a variance to permit only 32 percent building transparency on the western building elevation and with a 20­foot setback variance for the drive aisle in the southeast corner of the site for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. On September 24, 2001, the Chanhassen City Council approved Interim Use Permit (IUP) #2001­1 to grade a portion of the Arboretum Business Park development and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #2001­8 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The IUP and CUP included this property. On July 28, 1997, the City Council approved the following: the ordinance for PUD #92­6 rezoning approximately 154 acres from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and the PUD #92­6 granting final plat approval for Arboretum Business Park. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 square­foot, two­story office, warehouse and manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Application for Development Review Findings of Fact and Recommendation Title Sheet, Preliminary Floor Plans, Building Elevations Atlas Land Survey Existing Conditions Demolition Plan Site Plan Grading and Drainage Plan Storm Sewer Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) SWPPP Notes Utility Plan ­ Sanitary Sewer & Water Main Utility Plan ­ Storm Sewer Utility Plan ­ Foundation Draintile Civil Details Landscape Plan Landscape Details Public Hearing Notice Affidavit of Mailing List CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: June 4, 2019 CC DATE: June 24, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: July 2, 2019 CASE #: 2019-04 BY: RC, RG, EH, TH, DN, JS, ET SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 54,276 square-foot, two-story office, warehouse and manufacturing building. LOCATION: Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition (PID 25.0680020) 8077 Century Boulevard APPLICANT: Bauer Design Build Zion Investments, LLC 14030 21st Avenue N. 7014 Willow Creek Road Plymouth, MN 55447 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (763) 999-7217 (952) 474-6200 mikel@bauerdb.com cwatkins@ccipower.com PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 54,276 square-foot, two-story office, warehouse and manufacturing building subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the findings of fact and recommendation.” Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 2 of 15 PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development (PUD)/Bluff Creek Overlay District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial ACREAGE: 5.23 acres DENSITY: 0.16 F.A.R. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a Site Plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the city must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Site plan approval for a 54,276 square-foot, two-story office, warehouse and manufacturing building. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article 2, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office- Institutional Developments Arboretum Business Park Development Standards BACKGROUND On May 29, 2007, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following: Preliminary and final plat for two lots and one outlot (Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition). Conditional Use Permit for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor. Site Plan for a 51,800 square-foot office/warehouse building (Mamac Systems) with a variance to permit only 32 percent building transparency on the western building elevation and with a 20- foot setback variance for the drive aisle in the southeast corner of the site for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor on Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. On September 24, 2001, the Chanhassen City Council approved Interim Use Permit (IUP) #2001-1 to grade a portion of the Arboretum Business Park development and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #2001-8 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The IUP and CUP included this property. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 3 of 15 On July 28, 1997, the City Council approved the following: the ordinance for PUD #92-6 rezoning approximately 154 acres from Agricultural Estate, A2, to Planned Unit Development, PUD, and the PUD #92-6 granting final plat approval for Arboretum Business Park. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting site plan approval for a 54,726 square foot, two-story, office, warehouse and manufacturing building. The building footprint is 39,779 square feet with a second floor storage/manufacturing area of 14,497 square feet. Site Constraints Wetland Protection The City of Chanhassen Wetland Inventory, the National Wetland Inventory, a review of historic aerial photography and a site visit reveal that wetland is present on the site. The applicant has submitted a wetland delineation and type determination for city review and approval. Bluff Protection There are no bluffs present on the site. Bluff Creek Primary Zone Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 4 of 15 The eastern portion of the site is located within the Bluff Creek Primary Zone. A Conditional Use Permit was approved in 2007 for development in the overlay district. This area is proposed for preservation as permanent open space. A 40-foot structure setback with the first 20 feet in buffer is required. A trail connection is required by the city from Century Boulevard to the existing trail around the wetland complex. Shoreland Management The property does not lie within a shoreland overlay district. Floodplain Overlay This property does not lie within a floodplain. ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE Size Portion Placement The main entry is located in the northwest corner of the building with a secondary access on the north side of the building as well as an entrance in the southwest corner of the building. The main entrance is highlighted with a red colored metal canopy. Material, Color and Detail The applicant is proposing the building material of multi-textured, gray and exposed aggregate, precast concrete wall panels with partition lines and banding. The concrete panels at the entrances incorporate a dark gray, sandblasted finish. The upper levels of the building are a light gray, exposed aggregate finish with the lower portion of darker random rack finish. Accent and articulation is added through the spacing of aluminum storefront systems at the entrances and lower and upper five foot by seven foot window groupings along the street frontage. Five feet by five feet upper level windows are spaced around the warehouse area of the building. However, the building needs additional articulation to break up long expansions of wall area on the north side of the building. To avoid long unbroken expanses, buildings of more than 40 feet Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 5 of 15 in width shall be divided into smaller increments (between 20 and 40 feet) through articulation of the façade. This can be achieved through façade modulation-stepping back or forward or extending a portion of the façade. Height and Roof Design The building height is 30 feet 6 inches to the top of the parapet. The parapet is topped with a dark metal coping material. The parapet is highest at the building entrance, then steps down to 29 feet 6 inches along the office spaces and steps down to 28 feet at the south end of the building. The height of the building at the loading doors on the east end of the building is 24 feet 8 inches. Facade Transparency The applicant meets the 50 percent glazing (window) requirements. Windows are provided in all office areas of the building. The windows are within anodized aluminum window frames. Loading Areas, Refuse Area, etc. Delivery and service overhead doors are located on the east side of the building facing the Bluff Creek preserved area. This side of the building is shielded by the building from the public right- of-way of Century Boulevard. Lighting The applicant is proposing 25-foot tall light poles around the parking lot as well as wall pack units around the building. LED lighting is proposed. All lighting shall be shielded and have 90 degree cut-off angles pursuant to city code. Signage The applicant is proposing signage on the north elevation of the building and a monument sign at the entrance. Wall signage is permitted on the street frontage. However, the city may approve signage on the north elevation if wall signage is not included on the west elevation. Signage must follow the standards for the IOP district. Monument signage may not be located within drainage and utility easements and will need to be moved to another location on the site or the easement may be vacated. A separate sign permit must be submitted for each sign. Site Furnishings The applicant is proposing constructing a trail as part of the development. They provide a patio for outdoor seating/picnic area in the southeast corner of the building. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 6 of 15 Landscaping Minimum requirements for landscaping at the proposed development include 4,498 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lot, five landscaped islands or peninsulas, and 18 trees for the parking lot. The applicant’s proposed as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 4,498 sq. ft. >4,498 sq. ft. Trees/parking lot 18 trees 18 trees Islands or peninsulas/parking lot 5 islands/peninsulas 0 islands/peninsulas The applicant meets minimum requirements for trees and landscaping, but lacks landscape islands or peninsulas in the parking lot area. Bufferyard and Boulevard tree requirements: Required plantings Proposed plantings Bufferyard C – North prop. line, open space, 350’ 7 Overstory trees 17 Understory trees 17 Shrubs 5 Overstory trees 0 Understory trees 0 Shrubs Bufferyard B – South prop. line, 500’ 7 Overstory trees 15 Understory trees 22 Shrubs 7 Overstory trees 12 Understory trees 23 Shrubs Boulevard trees – 1 tree per 30’ 11 Trees 11 Trees The applicant does not meet bufferyard minimum requirements for the north property line. Staff also recommends that the applicant increase plantings to meet minimum requirements. Along the south property line, staff does not recommend adding trees to meet minimum requirements due to a lack of space. The rear wooded area on the lot is within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. This wooded area is in the primary zone and shall be preserved with the exception of the public trail connection. The plans show the removal of a large oak tree for the installation of a park trail. After an inspection of the site, it appears that a trail could be installed without the removal of any significant oak trees. Staff recommends that the trail alignment be field inspected and approved by the city prior to any removals and construction activity. The developer shall install Conservation Area signage at the edge of the preservation area. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 7 of 15 Access, Lot Frontage and Parking Location The lot fronts on Century Boulevard and proposes two access driveways. Parking is distributed on the western and northern sides of the building with truck docks located on the east side of the building. An access drive is provided around the entire building. Staff has concerns regarding the alignment of the northern access driveway with Water Tower Place. The applicant shall provide a traffic memo, prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, evaluating conflicting driving movements with Water Tower Place and the northern driveway access. This memo should contain recommendations for improvements and/or alignment adjustments. Fire Lane No Parking areas for all the curbing except those directly adjacent to parking spaces will need to be painted yellow with NO PARKING FIRE LANE signs posted per city/fire code. Miscellaneous There is only one hydrant on the property. Several are needed to meet minimum spacing requirements per MN Fire Code. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Building plans must include a code analysis that contains the following information: Key plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers, Separated or non- separated, Fire resistive elements (Ext. walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count. Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed building, including but not limited to: allowable size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. EASEMENTS There are several existing easements on this property as shown on the survey. Two existing drainage and utility easements are atypical. Staff believes standard drainage and utility easements associated with the lot lines are appropriate for this site. The atypical portions of the existing easements should be vacationed to avoid the need for additional encroachment easements. A permanent easement will be required to be granted over the city’s trail that will traverse through the property. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 8 of 15 PARKS & RECREATION The applicant is proposing a trail connection to the trial within Century Boulevard and the trail located within the Bluff Creek primary zone. No Park and Trail frees are being collected because there is no subdivision. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the “wetland trail”. Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters Ridge trail, the intersection of Century Boulevard and West 82nd Street, and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the trail. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition (formerly Outlot C, Arboretum Business Park) shall be dedicated to the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”. UTILITIES The developer will extend sanitary sewer and water service to the building from the existing utility lines in Century Boulevard. This will include the wet-tap of the existing 12-inch DIP water main in the street to establish an 8-inch C900 service connection for water, and the core drilling into an existing sanitary sewer manhole in the street to establish a 6-inch PVC service connection for sanitary sewer. All work within the public right-of-way, including the connections to the public utilities, will require permits through the city accompanied by traffic control plans. Prior to working within the public right-of-way and the connection to any public utility main, the applicant’s contractor shall contact Public Works to schedule a preconstruction meeting. All call-outs on construction plans that reference a detail shall be updated to incorporate the sheet the detail is illustrated on and the detail number referenced for construction. This will promote clarity between public improvements and private construction (e.g. curb details, gutter details, pavement details, etc.). Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 9 of 15 GRADING The applicant is proposing to grade the site to accommodate the construction of an industrial building. Through the proposed grading plan, drainage will be routed away from the building into a series of catch basins and stormwater pipe located in the parking areas, and directed to an underground storage and treatment device. Grading for a public trail will be conducted within the Bluff Creek Primary Zone under the approved 2007 Conditional Use Permit for the development of the Arboretum Business Park Seventh Addition. This trail connection was a requirement by the city as passed by Resolution 2007-34 on May 29, 2007. The applicant is proposing the construction of an approximately 80’ long modular block retaining wall between the northern parking lot and the public trail. While the top of wall and bottom of wall elevations provided are less than 4’, the bottom wall elevation is noted to be “at grade.” Bottom wall elevations of the entire wall section, or below grade, shall be provided. If the wall exceeds 4’ in total height, the wall shall be designed by a registered engineer, and plans shall be submitted for review. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of site grading activities. The applicant has proposed to install a trench drain directly adjacent to the loading docks located at the east side of the building. The trench drain is designed to capture stormwater, which is then routed to an underground detention facility, then to an infiltration facility, where overflow from infiltration is routed to a wetland and subsequent stormwater pond. Staff has concerns that in the event of a spill at the loading docks, if hazardous material and/or metals are utilized at the site, Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 10 of 15 they may enter the private storm system via the trench drain. Staff recommends the installation of a gate valve downstream of the trench drain to isolate possible hazardous material from entering the storm system. The operation and maintenance plan for the storm system should include the procedure for this isolation protocol. The proposed redevelopment will need Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) permits. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required stormwater management development standards. Section 19-141 states that “these development standards shall be reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site plans, subdivisions and water management features.” These standards include abstraction of runoff and water quality treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorous (TP). The applicant has proposed a sub-surface stormwater management system which includes stormwater detention and infiltration prior to discharge to a wetland and stormwater facility north of the site. Further stormwater system design details are required to assess system functionality and performance. Staff also recommends alternatives be explored to manage flow and erosion from the point discharge exiting the site to the downstream facility. Compliance Table Code Project (Control Concepts) Building Height 3 stories 2 stories 40 feet 30.5 feet (to top of highest parapet) Building Setback N* - 0' E# - 0' N - 144' E# - 309' W - 50' S - 0' W - 80' S – 34’ * There is a wetland buffer setback: 30 feet building, 15 feet parking # There is a 40-foot setback required from the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary. Parking Stalls 84 stalls 92 stalls (Office = 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet ((11,614/1,000)*4= 46); Manufacturing = 1 per employee on largest shift (28 employees); Warehouse = 1 space per 1,000 square feet for the first 10,000 square feet, then 1 space per 2,000 square feet ((9,782/1,000)=10) Parking Setback N - 0' E #- 0' N - 70' E - 230' W - 10' S - 0' W - 10' S - 11' Hard Surface Coverage 70% 48% Lot Area 43,560 sq. ft. 227,850 sq. ft. (5.23 ac.) Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 11 of 15 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the site plan for a 54,276, two-story building, plans prepared by Loucks and BDH & Young, dated 05-03-2019, subject to the following conditions: Building 1. The building is required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Building plans must include a code analysis that contains the following information: Key Plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers, Separated or non-separated, Fire resistive elements (Ext walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count. 4. Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 5. Structure proximity to property lines (and other buildings) will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed building, including but not limited to: allowable size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted. 6. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Engineering and Water Resources 1. The applicant shall provide a traffic memo, prepared by a licensed traffic engineer, evaluating conflicting driving movements with Water Tower Place and the northern driveway access 2. Vacate drainage and utility easements except the standard 10-foot wide easement associated with the front of the parcel in addition to the standard 5-foot wide easement associated with the side and rear portions of the parcel. 3. The wetland, wetland buffer, and the Bluff Creek Overlay District on the site shall be preserved and protected in perpetuity. Staff recommends that the developer dedicate those areas to the city to ensure conservation of these critical areas. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 12 of 15 4. Provide a permanent 20’ easement over the trail throughout the parcel. 5. The applicant shall remove all existing fence located on the east side of the property. 6. Apply for an Encroachment Agreement for the private sidewalk. 7. Provide top of wall and bottom of wall elevations for entire retaining wall build, which includes retaining wall built below grade, i.e. bottom of wall. 8. Replace any striping removed in Century Boulevard. 9. All striping and signage shall meet the requirements of the MN-MUTCD manual. 10. Indicate lineal (running) slope design for the trail. Trail slopes shall meet ADA requirements. 11. Staff recommends the installation of a gate valve downstream of the trench drain to isolate possible hazardous material from entering the storm system. The operation and maintenance plan for the storm system should include the procedure for this isolation protocol. 12. Salvage existing topsoil and indicate stockpile location. 13. Water main fittings shall be epoxy coated. 14. Core drill to existing sanitary sewer main will require the installation of a boot at connection. 15. As the developer will be required to remove all material surrounding the existing public sanitary sewer manhole that is being proposed for connection, Public Works will inspect and determine if repair or rehabilitation of the manhole is required (e.g. rebuilding chimney, installing I/I barrier, etc.). 16. Appropriate city permits for construction within the public right-of-way shall be obtained prior to construction. Work within city streets requires a traffic control plan. 17. A preconstruction meeting with Public Works and Engineering shall be scheduled by the contractor prior to working within the public right-of-way and the connection to any public utilities. 18. Identify stockpile locations on plan. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 13 of 15 19. All call-outs on construction plans that reference a detail shall be updated to incorporate the sheet the detail is illustrated on and the detail number referenced for construction. 20. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.). 21. A SWPPP shall be submitted for review that meets the conditions of the NPDES Construction Permit 22. Provide design details for the stormwater management systems and associated hydrology models. 23. The applicant shall assess alternatives to conveying stormwater system discharge on and across City property that will not cause erosion or degradation. 24. The applicant shall demonstrate through modeling that the receiving municipal stormwater system has adequate capacity to accept the increased drainage volume. 25. Provide a planting and revegetation plan specific for grading within the bluff impact zone and the wetland buffer. 26. Provide boring locations on grading and stormwater utility plan sheets. Environmental Resources 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to meet minimum requirements for the north bufferyard. Plantings shall be located between trail and parking lot. 2. The applicant shall protect existing trees to be preserved along Century Boulevard. Tree protection fencing shall be placed at the dripline or greater distance prior to any construction activities and maintained until construction is complete. Any trees that die will be required to be replaced. 3. The trail alignment within the Bluff Creek Overlay District shall be field inspected and approved by the city prior to any removals and construction activity. No live, significant oak trees shall be removed for trail construction. Fire 1. There is only one hydrant on the property. Several are needed to meet minimum spacing requirements per MN Fire Code. Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 14 of 15 Parks 1. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the “wetland trail.” Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters Ridge trail, the intersection of Century Boulevard and West 82nd Street, and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the trail. 2. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th shall be dedicated to the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”. Planning 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide the security required by it prior to receiving a building permit. 2. A separate sign permit application, review and approval shall be required prior to site sign installation. 3. The building needs additional articulation to break up long expansions of wall area on the north side of the building. ATTACHMENTS 1. Application for Development Review 2. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 3. Control Concepts Title Sheet, Preliminary Floor Plans and Building Elevations 4. Atlas Land Survey 5. Existing Conditions 6. Demolition Plan 7. Site Plan 8. Grading and Drainage Plan 9. Storm Sewer Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 10. SWPPP Notes 11. Utility Plan - Sanitary Sewer & Water Main 12. Utility Plan - Storm Sewer 13. Utility Plan - Foundation Draintile 14. Civil Details Planning Commission 8077 Century Boulevard – Control Concepts June 4, 2019 Page 15 of 15 15. Landscape Plan 16. Landscape Details 17. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-04 control concepts\staff report control concepts 6-4-19.docx COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT P lalindDivision– P.O.77rket147,BouleChanhassen,Ow CITY (HT1 CIIANIIASSENMailingAddress– .O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317IV1I IV11t+ Phone: (952) 227-1300/Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date' I3\ (c\ PC Date:6 `t I l 1 c Date: f>,I t`3 60-Day Review Date: 71a/ a Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) 1 l Comprehensive Plan Amendment 600 C Subdivision (SUB) Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers $100 Create 3 lots or less 300 CUP El Create over 3 lots 600+$15 per lot Conditional Use Permit CUP) Previously Paid lots) Single-Family Residence 325 Metes & Bounds (2 lots) 300 0 All Others 425 El Consolidate Lots 150 Interim Use Permit(IUP) Lot Line Adjustment 150 El Final Plat 700 IIInconjunctionwithSingle-Family Residence..$325 Includes$450 escrow for attorney costs)*All Others 425 Additional escrow may be required for other applications El Rezoning (REZ) through the development contract. Planned Unit Development(PUD) 750 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way(VAC) $300 Minor Amendment to existing PUD 100 Additional recording fees may apply) El All Others 500 II ElVariance(VAR) 200 Sign Plan Review 150 I ElWetland Alteration Permit(WAP) 0 Site Plan Review(SPR) El Single-Family Residence 150 I Administrative 100 El All Others 275 0 Commercial/Industrial Districts*500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: El Zoning Appeal 100 54,852 thousand square feet) Zoning Ordinance Amendment(ZOA) 500Includenumberofexistingemployees: 44 Include number of new employees:63 1 Residential Districts 500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, Plus$5 per dwelling unit (units) the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 1 Notification Sign (City to install and remove) 200 Property Owners'List within 500' (City to generate after pre-application meeting) Previously Paid 3 per address addresses) 0 Escrow for Recording Documents(check all that apply) Previously Paid — 50 per document 0 Conditional Use Permit Previously Paid Interim Use Permit 0 Site Plan Agreement 0 Vacation Variance Wetland Alteration Permit 1 Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)El Easements( 2 easements) Deeds TOTAL FEE: $1,550 00 Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: Proposing construction of new 54,852 sf office/industrial building with warehouse Property Address or Location: 8077 Century Blvd Parcel#: 25.0680020 Legal Description. Refer to attached ALTA survey Total Acreage:5.20 Wetlands Present? 2] Yes No Present Zoning Planned Unit Development(PUD) Requested Zoning: Not Applicable Present Land Use Designation Office/Industrial Requested Land Use Designation: Not Applicable Existing Use of Property: Vacant CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED Check box if separate narrative is attached i i I 1 ' CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, 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. If 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. Name: Bauer Design Build Contact: Michael LaQua Address: 14030 21st Avenue N Phone: 763) 999-7217 City/State/Zip: Plymouth, MN 55447 Cell: 612) 597-3739 Email: mike.)@bauerdb_com Fax: 763) 972-8707 Signature: Date: 5-1-19 PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, 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. Name: Zion Investments, LLC Contact Cory Watkins Address: 7014 Willow Creek Road Phone: 952)474-6200 Eden Prairie MN 55344 612)834-1225City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: atkins@ccipower.com Fax: Signature: Date: s/1 /q This application must be completed ih- I Ind 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. PROJECT ENGINEER(if applicable) Name:Loucks Inc Contact TREVOR GRUYS, PE Address 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite#300 Phone: 763)496-6706 City/State/Zip: Maple Grove, MN 55369 Cell: 952) 334-7593 Email: tgruys@loucksinc.com Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? Other Contact Information: Property Owner Via: [' Email Mailed Paper Copy Name: Patrick L Schneider 0 Applicant Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy Address: 5810 West 78th Street. Suite 150 0 Engineer Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: Minneapolis, MN 55439 0 Other* Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy Email: PatrickS@calhouncommercial.com 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. SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM] 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Bauer Design Build and Zion Investments, LLC for Site Plan approval for a 54,726 square foot, two-story, office, warehouse and manufacturing building. On June 4, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Bauer Design Build and Zion Investments, LLC for site plan approval. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development, PUD. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office Industrial uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition. 4. Site Plan Review: a. Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; Finding: The proposed development is in compliance with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides as well as meeting the design standards for Arboretum Business Park. b. Is consistent with site plan division; Finding: The proposed development complies with the Site Plan review requirements of the Chanhassen City Code. c. Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing areas; Finding: The site has been significantly altered by previous grading on the parcel. The proposed development is in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring 2 developed areas. The development is preserving the Bluff Creek primary zone located on the site. d. Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; Finding: The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e. Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. Finding: The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval. e. Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and traffic circulation. 5. The planning report #2018-11, dated June 4, 2019 prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Site Plan for Control Concepts subject to the recommended conditions of approval contained within the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of June 2019. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Steve Weick, Chairman e E. Ow s Ii i Ys N—1 o 1e N0j i = 01. I-- z 5 5; zz IVO OzgqCEvv o bO s 1 8MEMi3m PJ I a iqqi I w 4 z. tO c_ 1 f R 4 I l+ a y , N g 1-0g1 l/i HI gplid$aila 119 ; t y2, v cooaaaa3eded '_; ¢'ae CI GWw elU I Z Q ohi 1Z 2 y C U ct a, Z Z o xo o z U U C CL O ffi LL cc W } W H Ur`cs Z0 CO O h r II i I. 111s 1; iE T 1 ag dia ; 1 a 8 9 aI I it i1 18 I I,. i FIs! 1$11 1 it oar0_ 6 Iii113 5 WINO, ' 11; ir 111 ' f5La D4/,I p- 11iimim&i 11,0 ,g O cyo ittr <F: uu 5 § 1 Ft 1 tlh AMri - 33 0' $ I 1 6 5 i Ji,z 0, ila i l'i g L cV-.,' 11 2,A 7,.E 80._ 53 , 53 ill 5105 1 I51 51 11 11 11 if II i 1.' 3-9 1!I 31g lif ' . 911 19 111 1 11 sig I 11 51 F I/ 11 11 1; 4 ; 51 51 53 53 53 53 L. I ili 311 31 111 1 I I-.1g! I 1 11111111i i il I 1 I L I I 1111 11... i ilq. 1- - I m-., 1..i , 1 f, t 1 i-,, li ,. , g-,I11i ., __ IteIli'9 l'I4 i , 1196I-1 i 1 . Ii 1 0 Ir: !b - 1,01S,i I ----I ! . 1 g 1114 c,g 1 .1 ' 1 -+ -+— 6 I 1 Lli Ai 4\-i Ili N ie o a„,, . 3-,, Oj; 111 4 l _ type A 1 l'W IiQs RmWi EL yy gg ggi ° z df61 f i' l S 1 l S fl d R di s s v' I 9 i I aEi I Cr 1 9 t i i ' 1 x 4' Baa ch 1 3 Q, Oa ill ' ii 1 e isMa: u°v € z Vpp ct pyccw zw A ii t y M illLXit lai 11,1 litl 11 I t Oil EL ii h 11- li 6 01r Pi E1111 Inlil I 3 ir lei iiii MI1p113 1 4 i8 e MI F 1. ME s Ii WE S ll i111111ilin Iti 11; 1 111; 11 hi iti 1 .1'. ,, in' B e Z 9 6 s LOUCKS W:\2017\17516\CADD DATA\SURVEY\_dwg Sheet Files\S17516-ALTAPlotted: 06 /13 / 2018 1:47 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION 05/08/18 SURVEY ISSUED 06/12/18 ADDED WATERMAIN License No. Date 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 VICINITY MAP Field Crew Max L. Stanislowski - PLS 48988 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. Minnesota. 17516 MLS NRS MLS DMP/GCF 05/08/18 CONTROL CONCEPTS 8077 CENTURY BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BAUER DESIGN BUILD 14030 21ST AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY 1 OF 1 N SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED (Per Schedule A of the herein referenced Title Commitment) Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. Abstract and Torrens Property TITLE COMMITMENT EXCEPTIONS (Per Schedule B, Part II of the herein referenced Title Commitment) The property depicted on this survey and the easements of record shown hereon are the same as the property and the easements described in the Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Commercial Partners Title, LLC, as agent for Chicago Title Insurance Company, File No. 54247, effective date March 21, 2018. The numbers below correspond to those in the title commitment. 1-8 & 10-16 do not require comment. 9. Easement for utilities and drainage as shown on the recorded plat of Arboretum Business Park 7th Addition and plat of Arboretum Business Park. Shown hereon around the entire site. 17.Subject to the following matters as shown on the survey prepared by Schoell Madson dated April 17, 2007: a) Encroachment of bituminous trail along the West line of the subject property. Shown hereon. ALTA/NSPS OPTIONAL TABLE A NOTES (The following items refer to Table A optional survey responsibilities and specifications) 1. Monuments placed (or a reference monument or witness to the corner) at all major corners of the boundary of the property, unless already marked or referenced by existing monuments or witnesses to the corner are shown hereon. 2. The address, if disclosed in documents provided to or obtained by the surveyor, or observed while conducting the fieldwork is 8077 Century Boulevard, Chanhassen, MN 55317. 3. This property is contained in Zone C (area of minimal flooding) per Flood Insurance Community Panel No. 2700510005B, effective date of July 2, 1979. 4. The Gross land area is 227,850 +/- square feet or 5.23 +/- acres. 7. (a) There are no observable buildings on this site. 8. Substantial features observed in the process of conducting fieldwork, are shown hereon. 9. There are no striped parking stalls on this site. SURVEY REPORT 1. The Surveyor was not provided utility easement documents for the subject property except for those shown on the Survey. 3. The bearings for this survey are based on the Carver County Coordinate System NAD 83 (1986 Adjust). 4. Benchmark: MnDOT monument JON MNDT, located in Chanhassen, 0.25 mile south along Trunk Highway 41 from the junction of Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 in Chanhassen, at Trunk Highway 41 milepoint 6.9, 83.5 feet north of a power pole, 26.0 feet west of Trunk Highway 41, 81.02 Feet north of reference mark 1, 2.0 feet east of a witness post. Elevation = 1027.44 (NGVD29) Site Benchmark: Top nut of fire hydrant located on the westerly side of the site along the westerly side of Century Boulevard. Elevation = 975.95 (NGVD29) 5.We have shown underground utilities on and/or serving the surveyed property per Gopher State One-Call Ticket Nos. 181153120 & 181154099. The following utilities and municipalities were notified: JAGUAR COMMUNICATIONS (507)219-8081 CITY OF CHANHASSEN (952)227-1300 CENTURYLINK (800)283-4237 LIGHTCORE (800)283-4237 LIFETIME FITNESS (507)219-8081 CENTER POINT ENERGY (406)541-9571 MEDIACOM (800)778-9140 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC (952)492-8210 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS (877)366-8344 XCEL ENERGY (800)848-7558 i. Utility operators do not consistently respond to locate requests through the Gopher State One Call service for surveying purposes such as this. Those utility operators that do respond, often will not locate utilities from their main line to the customer's structure or facility. They consider those utilities “private” installations that are outside their jurisdiction. These “private” utilities on the surveyed property or adjoining properties, may not be located since most operators will not mark such "private" utilities. A private utility locator may be contacted to investigate these utilities further, if requested by the client. ii. The locations of underground utility lines shown hereon is an approximation based on available maps, unless otherwise noted on the survey. iii. Maps provided by those notified above, either along with a field location or in lieu of such a location, are very often inaccurate or inconclusive. EXTREME CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED BEFORE AN EXCAVATION TAKES PLACE ON OR NEAR THIS SITE. BEFORE DIGGING, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE AT 811 or (651) 454-0002. 6. The location of wetland delineation markers, which have been determined by a qualified specialist, are shown hereon. CERTIFICATION To Control Concepts Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Chaska Gateway Partners Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, Commercial Partners Title, LLC and Chicago Title Insurance Company: This is to certify that this map or plat and the survey on which it is based were made in accordance with the 2016 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys, jointly established and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and includes Items 1 - 4, 7(a), 8, and 9 of Table A thereof. The field work was completed on May 4, 2018. Date of Plat or Map: June 12, 2018 ______________________________________________ Max L. Stanislowski, PLS Minnesota License No. 48988 mstanislowski@loucksinc.com 9 9 9 9 17 9 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 9 SURVEY LEGEND C1.1 REMOVE TREE TYP REMOVE TREE PER CONVERSATION WITH TODD HOFFMAN (PARK & RECREATION DIRECTOR) REMOVE BITUMINOUS PATH CLEAR AND GRUB AS NEEDED FOR BITUMINOUS PATH CONSTRUCTION REMOVE FENCE AS NEEDED FOR BITUMINOUS PATH CONSTRUCTION SAW-CUT, REMOVE, & REPLACE BITUMINOUS AS NEEDED FOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION REFER TO UTILITY PLAN PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES DURING DRIVEWAY AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PROTECT EXISTING LIGHT POLE DURING CONSTRUCTION REMOVE & RELOCATE EXISTING SIGN COORDINATE LOCATION WITH CITY REMOVE BITUMINOUS PATH REMOVE PORTION OF EXISTING CURB & GUTTER REMOVE CURB & GUTTER REMOVE BITUMINOUS PATH PROTECT EXISTING TREES PROTECT EXISTING TREE PROTECT EXISTING TREE PROTECT EXISTING TREE PROTECT EXISTING TREES PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES DURING DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION PROTECT EXISTING TREE LINE PROTECT EXISTING TREES SAW-CUT, REMOVE, & REPLACE BITUMINOUS AS NEEDED ALTERNATE C3 REMOVALS FOR CITY BITUMINOUS TRAILREMOVE TREE TYP REMOVE TREE TYP REMOVE TREE TYP 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 9 SURVEY LEGEND C1.2 REMOVE EXISTING TREES/WOODS REMOVE EXISTING CURB & GUTTER, RETAINING WALLS, FENCE, ETC. REMOVE EXISTING MANHOLES, POWER POLES, LIGHT POLES, BOLLARDS, PARKING METERS, SIGNS, ETC. REMOVE EXISTING TREES REMOVE EXISTING UTILITIES REMOVE EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVING DEMOLITION LEGEND 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE AND/OR RELOCATE EXISTING PRIVATE UTILITIES AS NECESSARY. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ACTIVITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL. 3. CONTRACTOR TO CLEAR AND GRUB EXISTING VEGETATION WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, STRIP TOP SOIL, AND STOCKPILE ON-SITE. REFER TO GRADING PLAN AND SWPPP FOR SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS. 4. CLEAR AND GRUB AND REMOVE ALL TREES, VEGETATION AND SITE DEBRIS PRIOR TO GRADING. ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALL CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVALS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. SEE THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP). 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL SITE SURFACE FEATURES WITHIN REMOVAL LIMITS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SITE DEMOLITION NOTES PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING 18 18 27 25 2 20'29.5'80.1'B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP-SEE DETAIL ALTERNATE C3 10' BITUMINOUS PATH TYP-SEE DETAIL 40' AVERAGE BUFFER AREA 20' MINIMUM BUFFER AREA 6-WETLAND BUFFER LOCATION SIGNS TYP-SEE DETAIL BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT SIGN TYP-SEE DETAIL (AVAILABLE FROM CHANHASSEN PUBLIC WORKS) DOUBLE SIDED FIRE LANE SIGNS TYP-SEE DETAIL DOUBLE SIDED FIRE LANE SIGNS TYP-SEE DETAIL BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT 218.0'26.0'18.0'20.5'11.7'5.0' 9.0' TYP 9.0' TYP 26.0'18.0'93.0'10.7'16.0'7.6'5.7'5.0'24.0'8.0'TYP8.0'TYP9.0'TYP30.0'10.0'40.1'MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL TYP-SEE DETAIL ALTERNATE C3 10' BITUMINOUS PATH TYP-SEE DETAIL 26.0'8.7' CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP-SEE DETAIL TYPICAL ADA PARKING SEE DETAIL 4 - ADA PARKING SIGN/ BOLLARD COMBO TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE PAD FOR GENERATOR SEE DETAIL COORDINATE WITH ELECTRICAL PLANS CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE STOOP COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL PLANS HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL DOUBLE SIDED FIRE LANE SIGNS TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE PATIO TYP-SEE DETAIL HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT TYP-SEE DETAIL MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER & BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER & BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB FLAT CURB TYP-SEE DETAIL 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB CONCRETE APRON TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP TYP-SEE DETAIL 20'R 30'R 9.3'3'R 3'R 3'R 3'R 50'R 5'R 10'R 116'R 50'R 200'R 100'R 20'R 30'R 15'R 5'R 5'R 15'R 20'R 5'R 5'R 3'R 90'R 3'R 3'R 25'R184'R 15'R 3'R CONCRETE APRON TYP-SEE DETAIL 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER & BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH MATCH EXISTING CURB & GUTTER & BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB PROTECT EXISTING TREES-TYP FLAT CURB TYP-SEE DETAIL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MATCH EXISTING SECTION 105'R 95'R 112'R 122'R 85'R 75'R 130'R 140'R 48'R 38'R 24'R 34'R 60'R 10'R 50'R 49'R MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS TRAIL PROTECT EXISTING TREES-TYP PROTECT EXISTING TREES-TYP DOUBLE SIDED FIRE LANE SIGNS TYP-SEE DETAIL 9.0'TYP18.0' 26.0' 18.0'6.0'CONCRETE SIDEWALK TYP-SEE DETAIL FLAT CURB TYP-SEE DETAIL 10' TAPER TO FLAT CURB 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB CONCRETE PAD FOR TRASH DUMPSTER SEE DETAIL CONCRETE PAVEMENT AT LOADING DOCK SEE DETAIL CONCRETE STOOP COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL PLANS 10' TAPER TO FLAT CURB 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB 10' TAPER TO FLAT CURB FLAT CURB TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE STOOP COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL PLANS 2 - BOLLARDS TYP-SEE DETAIL 3 - BOLLARDS TYP-SEE DETAIL 31.3'6 7 . 1 ' 8.0'12.0'TRANSITION TO SURMOUNTABLE CURB SURMOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER TYP-SEE DETAIL TRANSITION TO SURMOUNTABLE CURB CONCRETE STOOP COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL & STRUCTURAL PLANS 1 - BOLLARD TYP-SEE DETAIL MONUMENT SIGN 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL C2.1 N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 SITE NOTES 1. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEET(S) AND STATE/LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS. 2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS. 3. ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. TYPICAL FULL SIZED PARKING STALL IS 9' X 18' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. ALL CURB RADII SHALL BE 5.0' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD TO BE PLACED AT FULL DEPTH OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BEHIND CURB ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. 8. SEE SITE ELECTRICAL PLAN FOR SITE LIGHTING. CURRENT ZONING: PUD PROPOSED ZONING: PUD PROPERTY AREA:227,850 SF / 5.23 AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 305 SF / 0.007 AC PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA:109,336 SF / 2.51 AC SITE DATA YARD (BUILDING) SETBACKS: FRONT 30 FT MINIMUM SIDE 10 FT MINIMUM REAR 30 FT MINIMUM PARKING SETBACKS: FRONT 10 FT MINIMUM SIDE 10 FT MINIMUM REAR 10 FT MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING AND DESIGN STANDARD REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM PARKING LAYOUT DIMENSIONS (90 DEGREE PATTERN): PARKING SPACE WIDTH = 9 FT PARKING SPACE LENGTH = 18 FT DRIVE AISLE WIDTH = 26 FT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS SIGNAGE AND STRIPING NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SITE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ALL ACCESSIBLE STALLS, LOGOS AND CROSS HATCH LOADING AISLES WITH WHITE PAVEMENT MARKING PAINT, 4" IN WIDTH. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ANY/ALL DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC ARROWS, AS SHOWN, IN WHITE PAINT. 4. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL INCLUDE POST, CONCRETE FOOTING AND STEEL CASING WHERE REQUIRED. 5. ALL SIGNAGE NOT PROTECTED BY CURB, LOCATED IN PARKING LOT OR OTHER PAVED AREAS TO BE PLACED IN STEEL CASING, FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED YELLOW. REFER TO DETAIL. 6. ANY/ALL STOP SIGNS TO INCLUDE A 24" WIDE PAINTED STOP BAR IN WHITE PAINT, PLACED AT THE STOP SIGN LOCATION, A MINIMUM OF 4' FROM CROSSWALK IF APPLICABLE. ALL STOP BARS SHALL EXTEND FROM DIRECTIONAL TRANSITION BETWEEN LANES TO CURB. 7. ALL SIGNS TO BE PLACED 18" BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. FIRE LANE NO PARKING AREAS FOR ALL THE CURBING EXCEPT THOSE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE PAINTED YELLOW WITH "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" SIGNS POSTED PER CITY FIRE CODE. PAVEMENT TYPES NOTE: SEE PAVEMENT SECTIONS ON SHEET C8.3 FOR TYPE AND DEPTH INFORMATION. LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED = 80 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 92 STALLS (INCLUDES ADA STALLS) OFF-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS REQUIRED = 4 STALLS PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE STALLS PROVIDED = 4 STALLS ACCESSIBLE PARKING  23 CIVIL LEGEND 40' WETLAND BUFFER AREA = 10,645 SF 40' AVERAGE WETLAND BUFFER AREA = 10,650 SF WETLAND BUFFER DATA PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING  972974973969 96 9 96096595695795895996196296396496696796894 5 950 955 94 6947948949951952953954956957958959960 965 96196 2 96 3 96 4 966 9509 4 6 9 4 7 9 4 8 9 4 9 953 954 956955 959957958 9619609 6 0 9659 5 6 9 5 7 9 5 8 959 9 6 1 9 6 2 96 3 964 966961 952 951 950950951952953954 970 971 972 97397097096 7 9 6 8969 970970972973974971972975 97 397 4 1 2 RETAINING WALL ELEVATIONS TW-65.33 BW-64.50 TW-64.53 BW-61.53 TW-60.25 BW-60.00 1 2 3 967 968 9519529539549 5 0 965 962963964966967968969 970 96 6 967 968 96 9 9 6 6 968 969 97097197 1971 971 971972973 971 97 1 971971971MATCH EXISTING 71.40 71.40 71.40 71.40 67.40 67.40 67.30 67.30 67.40 67.40 69.87 69.87 71.08 71.08 71.40 71.40 71.40 71.13 71.09 70.9070.85 71.33 70.6870.84 70.59 69.98 69.80 69.27 69.69 65.94 66.10 65.04 66.06 66.45 66.68 66.61 65.70 66.07 68.47 67.92 68.72 69.27 70.10 69.69 71.4071.4071.40 71.4071.40 71.12 71.07 70.40 70.6570.86 70.86 69.25 69.57 71.18 71.1871.1870.86 71.49 72.08 72.73 73.52 74.75 73.49 72.87 74.22 74.59 74.03 72.90 72.29 73.19 71.76 71.61 71.32 70.18 71.42 70.00 71.63 70.73 69.98 69.46 69.63 69.78 69.61 68.99 ±EX 69.45 ±EX 70.73 70.69 70.81 71.28 71.12 71.40 71.3371.12 71.03 70.6770.83 70.15 70.11 69.57 68.88 69.47 70.1669.61 69.02 69.21 69.12 68.95 68.94 68.41 68.5068.51 68.28 68.18 68.14 67.98 60.73 60.53 58.35 58.15 56.01 55.81 55.24 55.24 55.04 55.04 55.24 55.04 55.24 55.04 54.40 54.50 68.35 ±EX 67.71 ±EX 67.60 ±EX 67.44 ±EX 70.10 ±EX 70.50 ±EX 67.96 ±EX 68.29 ±EX 71.72 74.76 ±EX 74.33 ±EX 73.77 ±EX 73.12 ±EX 74.19 ±EX 74.24 ±EX 75.48 ±EX 75.52 ±EX 1.3%1.0%2.1%1.8%1.8%70.6270.62 4. 5 % 2. 0 % 1. 5 %1.9%4.5 % 2. 0 % 5.0% 2.4%1.5%1.5%5.0%4.4%1.8%3.5%1.5%2.6% 2.0%4.0%4.0% 4.0% 3.0%2.8%2.7%2.3%0.7%2.0%1.5%1.7%1.1%1.1% 1.8% 1.0% 1 . 6%3.0%2.0%2.0%2.5%2.2% 2.4% 2.0%2.0%1.6%3.3%2.9%2.0%2.1% 2.1% 5.0%2.0% 2.0% 5.0% 2. 2 % 2.0%2.5%1.1%2.6% 2.0%1.8%1.9%1.1%2.0%1.3%1.5%2.0%3.1%1.5%0.8%0.3%4.4%3. 6 % 0 . 8%1.5% 0.9 % 3 ACTIVITIES MUST BE CONDUCTED SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE ALTERNATE C3 GRADING ASSOCIATED WITH CITY BITUMINOUS TRAIL 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60  23 CIVIL LEGEND GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. SPOT ELEVATIONS REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE GRADES, GUTTER/FLOW LINE, FACE OF BUILDING, OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. GRADE THROUGH THE ADA AREAS OF THE PARKING LOT SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 2% SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. 3. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPED 0.16 FEET. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS DO NOT REFLECT SUMPED ELEVATIONS. 4. ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OF TOP SOIL AND SEED/MULCH OR SOD. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED/MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. 5. ACTIVITIES MUST BE CONDUCTED SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE. 6. FOR SITE RETAINING WALLS "TW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT TOP FACE OF WALL (NOT TOP OF WALL), AND "BW" EQUALS SURFACE GRADE AT BOTTOM FACE OF WALL (NOT BOTTOM OF BURIED WALL COURSES). 7. REFER TO THE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW (REPORT NO. B1801313), DATED MARCH 13, 2018 AS PREPARED BY BRAUN INTERTEC FOR AN EXISTING SUBSURFACE SITE CONDITION ANALYSIS AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS. 8. STREETS MUST BE CLEANED AND SWEPT WHENEVER TRACKING OF SEDIMENTS OCCURS AND BEFORE SITES ARE LEFT IDLE FOR WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS. A REGULAR SWEEPING SCHEDULE MUST BE ESTABLISHED. 9. DUST MUST BE ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED. 10.SEE SWPPP FOR ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND REQUIREMENTS. 11.SEE UTILITY PLAN FOR WATER, STORM AND SANITARY SEWER INFORMATION. 12.SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND BITUMINOUS TAPER LOCATIONS. C3.1 PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING  972974973969 96 9 96096595695795895996196296396496696796894 5 950 955 94 6947948949951952953954956957958959960 965 96196 2 96 3 96 4 966 9509 4 6 9 4 7 9 4 8 9 4 9 953 954 956955 959957958 9619609 6 0 9659 5 6 9 5 7 9 5 8 959 9 6 1 9 6 2 9 6 3 964 966961 952 951 950950951952953954 970 971 972 97397097096 7 9 6 8969 970970972973974971972975 97 397 4 967 968 9519529539549 5 0 965 962963964966967968969 970 96 6 967 968 96 9 9 6 6 968 969 97097197 1971 971 971972973 971 97 1 971971971INLET PROTECTION TYP-SEE DETAIL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SEE DETAIL SILT FENCE TYP-SEE DETAIL SILT FENCE TYP-SEE DETAIL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET TYP-SEE DETAIL DOUBLE ROW SILT FENCE TYP-SEE DETAIL ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SEE DETAIL ACTIVITIES MUST BE CONDUCTED SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL OF AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE TREE PROTECTION FENCE TYP-SEE DETAIL PROPOSED SOIL STOCKPILE LOCATION PROPOSED SOIL STOCKPILE LOCATION TREE PROTECTION FENCE TO BE INSTALLED AT EDGE OF GRADING LIMITS ALONG TRAIL TYP-SEE DETAIL TREE PROTECTION FENCE TO BE INSTALLED AT EDGE OF GRADING LIMITS ALONG TRAIL TYP-SEE DETAIL ALTERNATE C3 EROSION CONTROL ASSOCIATED WITH CITY BITUMINOUS TRAIL INLET PROTECTION TYP-SEE DETAIL INLET PROTECTION TYP-SEE DETAIL 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60  23 CIVIL LEGEND C3.2 SWPPP LEGEND INLET PROTECTION SILT FENCE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERN BIO ROLLS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL 1.THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT WILL CONSIST OF CONSTRUCTING A BUILDING, SURFACE PAVEMENTS, RETAINING WALL, UNDERGROUND RETENTION & DETENTION SYSTEMS, AND UTILITIES. 2. THE INTENDED SEQUENCING OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. INSTALL VEHICLE TRACKING BMP 2. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION 3. INSTALL SILT FENCE AROUND SITE 4. CLEAR AND GRUB SITE 5. STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL 6. REMOVE PAVEMENTS AND UTILITIES 7. ROUGH GRADE SITE 8. IMPORT CLEAN FILL FOR REPLACEMENT AND BALANCE 9. INSTALL UTILITIES 10. INSTALL BUILDING FOUNDATIONS 11. INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER 12. INSTALL PAVEMENTS AND WALKS 13. FINAL GRADE SITE 14. REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT FROM STORMWATER SYSTEMS 15. SEED AND MULCH 16. WHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED, REMOVE SILT FENCE, INLET PROTECTION, AND RESEED ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL. 3. SITE DATA: AREA OF DISTURBANCE:4.201 AC PRE-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.007 AC POST-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA: 2.509 AC GENERAL SOIL TYPE: SEE GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT 4. THE LOCATION OF AREAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED MUST BE IDENTIFIED WITH FLAGS, STAKES, SIGNS, SILT FENCE, ETC. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 5. ALL DISTURBED GROUND LEFT INACTIVE FOR SEVEN (7) OR MORE DAYS SHALL BE STABILIZED BY SEEDING OR SODDING (ONLY AVAILABLE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 15) OR BY MULCHING OR COVERING OR OTHER EQUIVALENT CONTROL MEASURE. 6. ON SLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER MAINTAIN SHEET FLOW AND MINIMIZE RILLS AND/OR GULLIES, SLOPE LENGTHS CAN NOT BE GREATER THAN 75 FEET. DENOTES SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1. ALL 3:1 SLOPES TO BE STABILIZED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 7. ALL STORM DRAINS AND INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED UNTIL ALL SOURCES OF POTENTIAL DISCHARGE ARE STABILIZED. 8. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROL AND CAN NOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS OR STORM WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS. TEMPORARY STOCKPILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SILT, CLAY, OR ORGANIC COMPOUNDS ARE EXEPMT EX: CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCK PILES, DEMOLITION CONCRETE STOCKPILES, SAND STOCKPILES. 9. SEDIMENT LADEN WATER MUST BE DISCHARGED TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF NOT POSSIBLE, IT MUST BE TREATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE BMP'S. 10. SOLID WASTE MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. 11. EXTERNAL WASHING OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE. RUNOFF MUST BE PROPERLY CONTAINED. 12. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. 13. THE OWNER WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PERMITTEE AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. THE OPERATOR (CONTRACTOR) WHO SIGNS THE NPDES PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PERMITTEE FOR PARTS II.B., PART II.C, PART II.B-F, PART V, PART IV AND APPLICABLE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN APPENDIX A, PART C. OF THE NPDES PERMIT AND IS JOINTLY RESPONSIBLE WITH THE OWNER FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PERMIT. 14.TERMINATION OF COVERAGE-PERMITTEE(S) WISHING TO TERMINATE COVERAGE MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) TO THE MPCA. ALL PERMITTEE(S) MUST SUBMIT A NOT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET: A. FINAL STABILIZATION, PER NPDES PERMIT PART IV.G. HAS BEEN ACHIEVED ON ALL PORTIONS OF THE SITE FOR WHICH THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE. B. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AS DESCRIBED IN THE PERMIT. 15. INSPECTIONS A. INITIAL INSPECTION FOLLOWING SILT FENCE INSTALLATION BY CITY REPRESENTATIVE IS REQUIRED. B. EXPOSED SOIL AREAS: ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS AND WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A 0.5" OVER 24 HOUR RAIN EVENT. C. STABILIZED AREAS: ONCE EVERY 7 DAYS D. FROZEN GROUND: AS SOON AS RUNOFF OCCURS OR PRIOR TO RESUMING CONSTRUCTION. E. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR 3 YEARS AFTER FILING OF THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION AND MUST INCLUDE: DATE AND TIME OF ACTION, NAME OF PERSON(S) CONDUCTING WORK, FINDING OF INSPECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION, DATE AND AMOUNT OF RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD. 16. MINIMUM MAINTENANCE A. SILT FENCE TO BE REPAIRED, REPLACED, SUPPLEMENTED WHEN NONFUNCTIONAL, OR 1/3 FULL; WITHIN 24 HOURS B. SEDIMENT BASINS DRAINED AND SEDIMENT REMOVED WHEN REACHES 1/2 STORAGE VOLUME. REMOVAL MUST BE COMPLETE WITHIN 72 HOURS OF DISCOVERY. C. SEDIMENT REMOVED FROM SURFACE WATERS WITHIN (7)SEVEN DAYS D. CONSTRUCTION SITE EXITS INSPECTED, TRACKED SEDIMENT REMOVED WITH 24 HOURS. E. PROVIDE COPIES OF EROSION INSPECTION RESULTS TO CITY ENGINEER FOR ALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 12" IN 24 HOURS F. PERMITTEE MUST, AT A MINIMUM, INSPECT, MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL DISTURBED SURFACES AND ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES EVERY DAY WORK IS PERFORMED ON THE SITE AND AT LEAST WEEKLY UNTIL LAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY HAS CEASED. THEREAFTER, THE PERMITTEE MUST PERFORM THESE RESPONSIBILITIES AT LEAST WEEKLY UNTIL VEGETATIVE COVER IS ESTABLISHED. 17. THE SWPPP, INCLUDING ALL CHANGES TO IT, AND INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE KEPT AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BY THE PERMITTEE(S) WHO HAVE OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THE SITE. 18. OWNER MUST KEEP RECORDS OF ALL PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT, THE SWPPP, ALL INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE, PERMANENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS, AND REQUIRED CALCULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. THESE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED FOR THREE YEARS AFTER FILING NPDES NOTICE OF TERMINATION. 19. SWPPP MUST BE AMENDED WHEN: A. THERE IS A CHANGE IN DESIGN, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, WEATHER OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON DISCHARGE B. INSPECTIONS INDICATE THAT THE SWPPP IS NOT EFFECTIVE AND DISCHARGE IS EXCEEDING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. C. THE BMP'S IN THE SWPPP ARE NOT CONTROLLING POLLUTANTS IN DISCHARGES OR IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT. 19. CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA A. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASH-OUT CONTAINER WITH RAIN PROTECTION PER PLAN. B. CONCRETE WASH-OUT TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH SIGNAGE STATING "CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA DO NOT OVERFILL". C. CONCRETE WASHOUT WATER NEEDS TO BE PUMPED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF STANDING WATER IN WASHOUT AREA. 20. IN THE EVENT OF ENCOUNTERING A WELL OR SPRING DURING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR TO CEASE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND NOTIFY ENGINEER. 21. PIPE OULTETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER. 22. FINAL STABILIZATION FINAL STABILIZATION REQUIRES THAT ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACVTIVITIES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND THAT DISTURBED AREAS ARE STABILIZED BY A UNIFORM PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER WITH 70% OF THE EXPECTED FINAL DENSITY, AND THAT ALL PERMANENT PAVEMENTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. ALL TEMPORARY BMP'S SHALL BE REMOVED, DITCHES STABILIZED, AND SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM PERMANENT CONVEYANCES AND SEDIMENTATION BASINS IN ORDER TO RETURN THE POND TO DESIGN CAPACITY. 23. RESPONSIBILITIES A. THE OWNER MUST IDENTIFY A PERSON WHO WILL OVERSEE THE SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION AND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: CONTACT: __________________________________ COMPANY: __________________________________ PHONE: __________________________________ B. THE OWNER MUST IDENTIFY THE A PERSON WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG TERM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: CONTACT: __________________________________ COMPANY: __________________________________ PHONE: __________________________________ 24. THE WATERSHED DISTRICT OR THE CITY MAY HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR INSPECTIONS OR AS-BUILT DRAWINGS VERIFYING PROPER CONSTRUCTION OF THE BMPS. SWPPP NOTES ESTIMATED QUANTITIES DESCRIPTION UNIT TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASHOUT EA SILT FENCE (STANDARD)/TREE PROTECTION LF EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SY INLET PROTECTION EA QUANTITY 2 1 2,630 4,575 14 BIO-ROLL LF NA SITE VICINITY MAP CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER SPECIAL WATERS SEARCH MAP C3.3 PROJECT SITE * EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 6" 6" 1' TO 3'ANCHOR TRENCH 1. DIG 6"X6" TRENCH 2. LAY BLANKETS IN TRENCH 3. STAPLE AT 1.5' INTERVALS 4. BACKFILL WITH NATURAL SOIL AND COMPACT. 5. BLANKET LENGTH SHALL NOT EXCEED 100' WITHOUT AN ANCHOR TRENCH NOTE: SLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS, SOIL CLUMPS, STICKS, VEHICLE IMPRINTS, AND GRASS. BLANKETS SHALL HAVE GOOD SOIL CONTACT. ANCHOR TRENCH (SEE DETAIL AND NOTES BELOW) OVERLAP END JOINTS MINIMUM OF 6" AND STAPLE OVERLAP AT 1.5' INTERVALS. OVERLAP LONGITUDINAL JOINTS MINIMUM OF 6" STAPLE PATTERN/DENSITY SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. DI R E C T I O N O F SU R F A C E F L O W STAGGER JOINTS DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3016LOUCKS PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE STUB INV=961.83 (VERIFY LOCATION, INVERT & SIZE W/ MECHANICAL) CORE DRILL INTO EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE INV=957.97± (VERIFY INVERT & SIZE) 107 LF-6" PVC @ 2.00% WET TAP EXISTING 12" DIP WATERMAIN (VERIFY TYPE & SIZE) 8" GATE VALVE DUAL 8" COMBINED DOMESTIC/FIRE WATER SERVICES (VERIFY LOCATION, INVERT & SIZE W/ MECHANICAL) 15 LF-8" PVC WATERMAIN SANMH 1 RIM=971.89 INV(E)=960.21 INV(W)=960.11 81 LF-6" PVC @ 2.00% 11.25 DEG. 8" BEND 8 LF-8" PVC WATERMAIN STORM BOTTOM OF PIPE=968.67± WM TOP OF PIPE=966.21± DEFLECT WM AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION STORM BOTTOM OF PIPE=968.28 SANITARY TOP OF PIPE=958.98± STORM BOTTOM OF PIPE=962.34± SANITARY TOP OF PIPE=961.39± 170 LF-8" PVC WATERMAIN 121 LF-8" PVC WATERMAIN 103 LF-8" PVC WATERMAIN 11.25 DEG. 8" BEND HYDRANT W/ GATE VALVE 10 LF-6" PVC WATERMAIN 90 DEG. 8"X8" BEND 8"X6" TEE WM BOTTOM OF PIPE=965.83± SANITARY TOP OF PIPE=958.64± DEFLECT WM AS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60  23 CIVIL LEGEND C4.1 UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT , AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), 2013 EDITION. 2. ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 3. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 4. ALL STORM SEWER , SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE BUILDING FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN WATERMAIN AND ALL UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8.0 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 8.0 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED. 7. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS: WATERMAIN C900 PVC 6" TO 8" DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER PVC SCH 40 6" DIAMETER STORM SEWER DUAL WALL HDPE 12" TO 18" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC 4" TO 6" DIAMETER 9. ALL SANITARY SEWER WYES, TEES AND SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC SCH 40. 10.CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM FOR ENGINEER'S REVIEW. 11.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714. 12.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. 13.HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714: a. PIPES 4-INCH TO 10-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. b. PIPES 12-INCH TO 60-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. c. ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. d. WATER-TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING INFIL 1 53"x41" PERFORATED ARCH CSP UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM (1,055 LF TOTAL) TOP OF PIPE=961.58 OUTLET=959.97 INV=958.17 CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE DOWN TO NATIVE SOILS CLASSIFIED AS POORLY GRADED SAND W/ SILT OR SILTY SAND (SP-SM, SM) ESTIMATED TO BE AT AN ELEVATION OF 961± ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SYSTEM AND 951± ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO BACKFILL WITH FREE DRAINING GRANULAR MATERIALS (100% PASSING 3-INCH SIEVE AND 0-20% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE) UP TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SYSTEM. DET 1 54" CSP UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM (350 LF TOTAL) TOP OF PIPE=964.54 OUTLET=960.04 INV=960.04 111 LF-18" HDPE @ 1.0% OUTLET INV=959.97 FES 1 W/ TRASH GUARD AND GROUTED RIP-RAP INV=958.88 CB 10 RIM=968.88 INV=961.16 SUMP=958.16 15 LF-12" HDPE @ 4.5% INLET INV=960.48 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=969.58 INV=958.17 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=970.38 INV=958.17 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=971.51 INV=958.17 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=972.30 INV=958.17 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=971.98 INV=958.17 CBMH 20 RIM=970.18 INV(S)=964.92 INV(W)=961.16 SUMP=958.16 INLET INV=960.48 15 LF-12" HDPE @ 4.5% CBMH 21 (18" NYLOPLAST) RIM=970.00 INV=966.00 54 LF-12" HDPE @ 2.0% 25 LF-4" PVC DRAINTILE SLOPE TO DRAIN TYP-SEE DETAIL CBMH 32 RIM=969.25 INV=964.32 12" ROOF DRAIN STUB 4 LF-12" HDPE @ 2.0% INV=964.40 (VERIFY SIZE, INVERT & LOCATION W/ MECHANICAL) 12" ROOF DRAIN STUB 4 LF-12" HDPE @ 2.0% INV=964.40 (VERIFY SIZE, INVERT & LOCATION W/ MECHANICAL) CBMH 31 RIM=970.65 INV(N)=964.32 INV(E,W)=963.81 102 LF-12" HDPE @ 0.5% CBMH 30 RIM=970.40 INV=963.62 SUMP=960.62 37 LF-12" HDPE @ 0.5% 80 LF-12" HDPE @ 3.9% INLET INV=960.48 STORM BOTTOM OF PIPE=962.34± SANITARY TOP OF PIPE=961.39± 25 LF-4" PVC DRAINTILE SLOPE TO DRAIN TYP-SEE DETAIL INLET INV=959.97 OUTLET INV=960.04 OCS MH 40 RIM=970.35 WEIR=964.46 6"X6" ORIFICE=960.04 INV=960.04 14 LF-12" HDPE @ 0.5% 14 LF-12" HDPE @ 0.0% 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=969.93 INV=960.04 36" ACCESS RISER RIM=967.48 INV=960.04 CB 50 RIM=969.27 INV=964.39 SUMP=961.39 21 LF-12" HDPE @ 4.5% INLET INV=963.44 25 LF-4" PVC DRAINTILE SLOPE TO DRAIN TYP-SEE DETAIL 25 LF-4" PVC DRAINTILE SLOPE TO DRAIN TYP-SEE DETAIL CB 60 RIM=965.04 INV=961.54 SUMP=958.54 19 LF-12" HDPE @ 0.5% INLET INV=961.44 CB 70 RIM=965.70 INV=962.20 SUMP=959.20 14 LF-12" HDPE @ 1.0% INLET INV=962.06 TRENCH DRAIN 80 NEENAH R-4999-CX BOLTED RIM(W)=967.30 RIM(E)=967.30 INV(W)=966.30 INV(E)=966.14 OUT=964.14 INLET INV=963.32 41 LF-12" HDPE @ 2.0% 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60  23 CIVIL LEGEND C4.2 UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT , AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), 2013 EDITION. 2. ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 3. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 4. ALL STORM SEWER , SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE BUILDING FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN WATERMAIN AND ALL UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8.0 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 8.0 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED. 7. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS: WATERMAIN C900 PVC 6" TO 8" DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER PVC SCH 40 6" DIAMETER STORM SEWER DUAL WALL HDPE 12" TO 18" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC 4" TO 6" DIAMETER 9. ALL SANITARY SEWER WYES, TEES AND SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC SCH 40. 10.CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM FOR ENGINEER'S REVIEW. 11.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714. 12.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. 13.HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714: a. PIPES 4-INCH TO 10-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. b. PIPES 12-INCH TO 60-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. c. ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. d. WATER-TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING COORDINATE WITH MECHANICAL FOR INTERIOR DRAIN TILE CONNECTIONS TO EXTERIOR DRAIN TILE SYSTEM CONNECT TO UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM ABOVE INV=960.04 38 LF-6" SOLID PVC SLOPED TO DRAIN 445 LF-6" PERFORATED PVC DRAINTILE 410 LF-6" PERFORATED PVC DRAINTILE 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60  23 CIVIL LEGEND C4.3 UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS,THE MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, THE LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT , AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), 2013 EDITION. 2. ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION AND THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. 3. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, OR WORK IMPACTING PUBLIC UTILITIES. 4. ALL STORM SEWER , SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICES SHALL TERMINATE 5' FROM THE BUILDING FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED BETWEEN WATERMAIN AND ALL UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. ALL NEW WATERMAIN AND SERVICES MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF 8.0 FEET OF COVER. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD ADJUST WATERMAIN TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, AND SERVICES AS REQUIRED. INSULATION OF WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES SHALL BE PROVIDED WHERE 8.0 FEET MINIMUM DEPTH CAN NOT BE ATTAINED. 7. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS: WATERMAIN C900 PVC 6" TO 8" DIAMETER SANITARY SEWER PVC SCH 40 6" DIAMETER STORM SEWER DUAL WALL HDPE 12" TO 18" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC 4" TO 6" DIAMETER 9. ALL SANITARY SEWER WYES, TEES AND SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC SCH 40. 10.CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OF UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM FOR ENGINEER'S REVIEW. 11.ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATCH BASINS, LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714. 12.ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. 13.HIGH-DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, CHAPTER 4714: a. PIPES 4-INCH TO 10-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. b. PIPES 12-INCH TO 60-INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. c. ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. d. WATER-TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. DRAWN 3/2018 LOUCKS PLATE NO. EXTERIOR FOUNDATION DRAINTILE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOTE: SEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS FOR FOUNDATION DRAINTILE ON INTERIOR OF BUILDING. PIPE DETAIL 160° 90° 1 4" DIA. HOLE TYPICAL TRENCH DETAIL 2" MIN. 2" MIN.6" MIN. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION APPROVED FREE DRAINING BACKFILL MATERIAL (SEE SPECS) COARSE FILTER AGGREGATE MNDOT 3149.2H NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOUNDATION (SEE STRUCTURAL)6" PERFORATED PVC PIPE 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL C8.1 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL C8.2 VANACCESSIBLE 60"48"18" DIA.36"TYPICAL ADA PARKING SIGN / BOLLARD COMBO 12"x18" STANDARD HANDICAP PARKING SIGN WITH SEPARATE 'VAN ACCESSIBLE' PANEL. GREEN LETTERING AND BORDER ON WHITE BACKGROUND. SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY SHALL BE 4"x4" AND BE WHITE ON A BLUE BACKGROUND. USE HARDWARE PER SIGN SUPPLIER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. HC SIGNAGE PER MINNESOTA RULES 1341.0502 12"x6" STANDARD 'VAN ACCESSIBLE' PANEL. GREEN LETTERING AND BORDER ON WHITE BACKGROUND. 2" DIA. 6' LONG MIN. GALVANIZED SCHEDULE 40 STEEL PIPE. EMBED IN CONCRETE FILLED BOLLARD 6" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 GALVENZIED STEEL PIPE 6' LONG MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY HDPE DOME TOP DECORATIVE SLEEVE BLUE OR YELLOW IN COLOR. AVAILABLE FROM BOLLARDSNSLEEVES.COM OR EQUAL. COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE. NOTES: 1. BOLLARDS TO BE PLACED 12" BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR SIDEWALK (REFER TO SITE PLAN.) 2. MAINTAIN PLUMB UNTIL CONCRETE IS SUFFICIENTLY CURED. 3. HOLD CONCRETE FOOTING BELOW GRADE OF FINISHED CONCRETE TO CREATE FINAL PAVING PATTERN AS SHOWN ON PLANS. 4. SIGN CENTERED AT HEAD OF PARKING SPACE - MAXIMUM OF 96" FROM HEAD OF PARKING SPACE. DRAWN 03/2017 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2038ALOUCKS6"18"6"VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECTTO A FINE OF UP TO$ 200.00 PARKINGRESERVED TYPICAL ADA PARKING STALL STRIPING DRAWN 03/2017 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2037LOUCKS LCC 4" WIDE PAINTED LINES, TRAFFIC WHITE 4" WIDE PAINTED LINES, 18" O.C., @ 45 DEG. TRAFFIC WHITE (AISLE TO CONTAIN THE DESIGNATION "NO PARKING" COMPLYING WITH MSBC 1341.0502 IF ACCESS AISLE SIGNS ARE NOT SHOWN REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR ADA PARKING SIGN LOCATION REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR ACCESS AISLE SIGN LOCATION (AISLE TO CONTAIN THE DESIGNATION "NO PARKING" COMPLYING WITH MSBC 134.0502 IF ACCESS AISLE SIGNS ARE NOT SHOWN) REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR STALL DIMENSIONS 40"PROVIDE PAINTED INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY AT EACH DESIGNATED HANDICAP PARKING STALL. CENTER SYMBOL IN STALL. HC SIGNAGE PER MINNESOTA RULES 1341.0502 ALL LINES 4" WIDE 8" DIAMETER NOT TO SCALE 67.5° 5° 36" TYPICAL ADA ACCESS AISLE NO PARKING SIGN / BOLLARD COMBO "NO PARKING" DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. LOUCKS60"48"18" DIA.36"ATTACH SIGN TO POST WITH APPROPRIATE STAINLESS STEEL BOLTS, WASHES & NUTS. (TYP. AT TOP & BOTTOM OF SIGN) 2" DIA. 6' LONG MIN. GALVANIZED SCHEDULE 40 STEEL PIPE. EMBED IN CONCRETE FILLED BOLLARD 6" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 GALVENZIED STEEL PIPE 6' LONG MINIMUM HEAVY DUTY HDPE DOME TOP DECORATIVE SLEEVE BLUE OR YELLOW IN COLOR. AVAILABLE FROM BOLLARDSNSLEEVES.COM OR EQUAL. COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE. NOTES: 1. BOLLARDS TO BE PLACED 12" BEHIND BACK OF CURB OR SIDEWALK (REFER TO SITE PLAN.) 2. MAINTAIN PLUMB UNTIL CONCRETE IS SUFFICIENTLY CURED. 3. HOLD CONCRETE FOOTING BELOW GRADE OF FINISHED CONCRETE TO CREATE FINAL PAVING PATTERN AS SHOWN ON PLANS. 4. SIGN CENTERED AT HEAD OF PARKING SPACE - MAXIMUM OF 96" FROM HEAD OF PARKING SPACE. 5. PROVIDE (1) SIGN PER ACCESS AISLE 6. HC SIGNAGE PER MINNESOTA RULES 1341.05026"18"R28"R68" R12" 12" 28"3/4"7"10.5"SURMOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER SPECIFICATION NOTES: 1. UPON COMPLETION, CURBING SHOULD BE SPRAYED WITH A MEMBRANE CURING COMPOUND PER MNDOT 3754. 2. EXPANSION JOINTS AT MAX. SPACING OF 200'. 3. CONSTRUCT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT 2531. PAVEMENT SECTION VARIES MIN. OF 4"MINIMUM 1' BEHIND BACK OF CURBAGG. BASE UNDER CURB (IF TOTAL THICKNESS OF SECTION ALLOWS) AGG. BASE VARIES 6.5"DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2014LOUCKS SLOPE GUTTER TO MATCH PARKING LOT DRAINAGE (3/4" PER FT. TYP.) TIP GUTTER OUT AS REQ'D PAVEMENT SECTION VARIES MIN. OF 4" 3/8 " LIP MINIMUM 1' BEHIND BACK OF CURBAGG. BASE UNDER CURB (IF TOTAL THICKNESS OF SECTION ALLOWS) 7" 12"8" AGG. BASE VARIES 1/2" RAD. 20" FLAT CURB AND GUTTER (12") SPECIFICATION NOTES: 1. UPON COMPLETION, CURBING SHOULD BE SPRAYED WITH A MEMBRANE CURING COMPOUND PER MNDOT 3754. 2. EXPANSION JOINTS AT MAX. SPACING OF 200'. 3. CONSTRUCT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT 2531. DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2012LOUCKS BOLLARD 1/2" CROWN 1" CROWN 3'-6"3'-0"6"24" DIA. 2,500 PSI CONCRETE 6" DIP, CONC. FILLED, PAINTED OSHA YELLOW DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2039LOUCKS 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL C8.3 OUTLET 48" TO 72" DOGHOUSES SHALL BE GROUTED BOTH ON THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. PRECAST MANHOLE SECTIONS C OUTLET ELEVATION PIPE SIZE WILL VARY OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE - WEIR/ORIFICE INLET PRECAST BASE SLAB INLET ELEVATION A B 1 960.04 OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE ELEVATION TABLE OCS NO. A 6" E TOP OF WEIR ELEVATION WEIR TO BE REINFORCED WITH AT LEAST #4 REBAR, 12" ON CENTER. WEIR/ORIFICE E TOP OF WEIR ELEVATION H DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 4318LOUCKS RIM - (EMERGENCY OVERFLOW) D 2" 0"-8" 2" ORIFICE OPENING SIZE - F INVERT ELEVATION - G 960.04 B 960.04 C 970.35 D 964.46 E F G 6x6 H 960.04 48" ORIFICE OPENING SIZE - F INVERT ELEVATION - G1'-4"VARIABLE6"3"6"4.0' OUTLET FLOW 3'MIN.2" 0"-8" 2" NYLOPLAST SNOUT STRUCTURE OR APPROVED EQUAL. CONCRETE ADJUSTING RINGS, MIN. 4" - MAX. 10" NOTE: 24"x36" SLAB OPENING FOR NEENAH R-3067 CASTING WITH D.L., D.R. OR TYPE V GRATE. 27" ɸ SLAB OPENING FOR NEENAH R-3250 & R-1733 CASTING. SUMP CATCH BASIN / MANHOLE MINIMUM SLAB THICKNESS IS 6" FOR 14' DEPTH. INCREASE THICKNESS 1" FOR 4' OF DEPTH GREATER THAN 14'. PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE SECTIONS WITH "O"-RING RUBBER GASKETS. SLAB TOP TO BE SET IN A MORTAR BED. 6" PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB. STEPS 16" O.C. ON DOWNSTREAM SIDE. EXTRUDED ALUMINUM OR STEEL REINFORCED COPOLYMER PLASTIC.6"DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 4304LOUCKS SECTION A-A PLAN SECTION B-B DIA. 2' 2'1 4 LDIA.B B AA RIPRAP 48 15 42 36 30 24 18 12 20 8 10 12 14 18 16 8 >48 22-28 30-40 26 5 6 8 12 22 14 5 IV IV III III III III IV III III MINIMUM RIPRAP REQUIRED GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE IV EXTEND 1' UNDER APRON RIP-RAP OUT FROM THE APRON SHALL NOT BE HIGHER THAN THE APRON INVERT. GROUTED RIPRAP 1' (12"-27" DIA. PIPE) 1.5' (30" AND LARGER PIPE) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE IV NOTE: ONE CUBIC YARD IS APPROXIMATELY 1.4 TONS. RIPRAP 1' (12"-27" DIA. PIPE) 1.5' (30" AND LARGER PIPE) 6" GRANULAR FILTER MATERIAL 32-40 32 5 7 10 13 27 17 5 CMP/HDPE QUANTITY (C.Y.) RCP QUANTITY (C.Y.) DIA. OF PIPE (IN.)L (FT.)CLASS 6" GRANULAR FILTER MATERIAL GROUT GROUT DRAWN 2/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 4309LOUCKS 957.67 958.17 962.08 961.58 FREE DRAINING ANGULAR WASHED STONE NON LIMESTONE/CARBONATE MATERIAL 5/8" MIN. PARTICLE SIZE. THE MAXIMUM LOS ANGELES RATTLER LOSS SHOULD BE 35% PER AASHTO T-96 AND NO GREATER LOSS THAN 10% PER AASHTO T-104 MAGNESIUM SULFATE SOUNDNESS TEST ON THE NON-IGNEOUS PORTIONS AND AS MODIFIED BY THE MNDOT LABORATORY MANUAL (MNDOT 2005) COMPACT TO MIN. 90% STANDARD DENSITY PER AASHTO T-99 PLACED IN LIFTS OF 4-6" INSTALL CMP PIPE PER ASSHTO M-36, AASHTO SECTION 12 OR HDPE PER ASTM D2321 (CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR REVIEW) UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM (INF 1) SCALE: N/A GRANULAR BEDDING, ROUGHLY SHAPED TO FIT THE BOTTOM OF PIPE, 6" IN DEPTH. NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WRAPPING SIDES OF TRENCH & PIPE. 2" BIT. WEAR COURSE, MN/DOT 2360 SPWEA240B TACK COAT, MN/DOT 2357 2" BIT. NON-WEAR COURSE, MN/DOT 2360 SPNWB230B 6" AGG. BASE, CLASS 5 OR 2 MN/DOT 3138 APPROVED SUBGRADE FINISHED GRADE 12" SELECT GRANULAR, MN/DOT 3149.D STANDARD BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE V, MN/DOT 3733.2 DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2031LOUCKS 2.5" BIT. WEAR COURSE, MN/DOT 2360 SPWEA240B TACK COAT, MN/DOT 2357 2.5" BIT. NON-WEAR COURSE, MN/DOT 2360 SPNWB230B 8" AGG. BASE, CLASS 5 OR 2 MN/DOT 3138 APPROVED SUBGRADE FINISHED GRADE 12" SELECT GRANULAR, MN/DOT 3149.D HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC TYPE V, MN/DOT 3733.2 DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2032LOUCKS 8" COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE CL. 5 OR 2 MN/DOT 3138 APPROVED SUBGRADE FINISHED GRADE 8" CONCRETE MN/DOT 2301 CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION NOTES: 1. CONCRETE SHALL BE REINFORCED WITH FIBER REINFORCEMENT FOR INCREASED TENSILE STRENGTH. PRODUCT SHALL BY NYCON-XL-200 OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. CONTRACTION JOINS SHALL BE SPACED AT A MAXIMUM OF 8 FEET APART. JOINT SHALL BE SAWED TO A DEPTH OF 1 4 TO 1 3 OF SLAB THICKNESS. 3. 1 1 4" X 15" EPOXY COATED DOWELS SHALL BE PLACED 12" OC AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE SLAB ACROSS ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS. DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2033LOUCKS 12" SELECT GRANULAR, MN/DOT 3149.D CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTION 4" CONCRETE WALK MN/DOT 2521 4" GRANULAR MATERIAL MN/DOT 3149 DRAWN 12/2016 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2034LOUCKS 53"x41" ARCH PERFORATED CMP PIPE 53"x41" ARCH PERFORATED CMP PIPE 53"x41" ARCH PERFORATED CMP PIPE 6" 12"17.7" 6" 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL C8.4 1 PRODUCT TO BE OLD WORLD RETAINING WALL WITH FULL HIGH CAP BLOCK EMERSON BIKE RACK SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" MANUFACTURER - LANDSCAPE FORMS www.landscapeforms.com 800-521-2546 CONCRETE SURFACING COLOR TO BE STANDARD POWDER COAT COLOR TO BE SELECTED BY OWNER. BIKE RACK TO BE LANDSCAPE FORMS MODEL EMERSON OR EQUALBOTTOM VIEW 30"12 3/4" 20" 3 1/2" 2 3/4" 6" CAST ALUMINUM FRAME SET SCREW FOR SECURING COVER PLATE STAINLESS STEEL LEVELING GLIDES 1/2" HOLES FOR ANCHORING - SURFACE MOUNT PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 3 C8.4 WETLAND BUFFER LOCATION SIGN CONSERVATION AREA SIGN PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 971.40NOPARKINGNOPARKING   972974973969 96 9 96096595695795895996196296396496696796894 5 950 955 94 6947948949951952953954956957958959960 965 96196 2 96 3 96 4 966 9509 4 6 9 4 7 94 8 9 4 9 953 954 956955 959957958 9619609 6 0 9659 5 6 9 5 7 9 5 8 959 9 6 1 9 6 2 9 6 3 964 966961 952 951 950950951952953954 970 971 972 97397097096 7 9 6 8969 9 7 0 970972973974971972975 97 397 4 967 968 9519529539549 5 0 965 962963964966967968969 970 96 6 967 968 96 9 96 6 968 969 97097197 1971 971 971972973 971 97 1 9719719711 QB NS 4 ABS 3 BO SOD NS SM 1 SOD SM 2 SM 1 40 SD 27 GF SM 2 4 WB SM 1 4 WB SM 2 7 TY 30 WG 15 TY SM 2 6 PB SOD SM 1 5 AC 5 AC 3 TH 6 AC 1 KC 12 AC 1 SGM 1 AE 1 AE SOD SOD 12 AC 17 SG 2 KC 1 QB2 TH LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. LIMITS OF IRRIGATION TYP. LIMITS OF IRRIGATION TYP. LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. ALTERNATE C3 STABILIZATION ASSOCIATED WITH CITY BITUMINOUS TRAIL LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. DECIDUOUS TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE SIZE AE 2 ACCOLADE ELM Ulmus `Morton`B & B 2.5"Cal BO 3 BURR OAK Quercus macrocarpa B & B 2.5"Cal KC 3 KENTUCKY COFFEETREE Gymnocladus dioica B & B 2.5"Cal PB 6 PAPER BIRCH Betula papyrifera 25 gal SGM 1 SIENNA GLEN MAPLE Acer freemanii `Sienna Glen`B & B 2.5"Cal QB 2 SWAMP WHITE OAK Quercus bicolor B & B 2.5"Cal WB 8 WHITESPIRE BIRCH CLUMP Betula populifolia `Whitespire Sr.`B & B 8` HGT ORNAMENTAL TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE SIZE ABS 4 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY Amelanchier x grandiflora `Autumn Brilliance`B & B 1.5"Cal TH 5 THORNLESS HAWTHORN Crataegus crus-galli `Inermis`B & B 1.5"Cal SHRUBS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING AC 34 AUTUMN MAGIC CHOKEBERRY Aronia melanocarpa `Magic Carpet`5 gal 24" HGT 48" o.c. GF 27 GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC Rhus aromatica `Gro-Low`5 gal 24" SPRD 48" o.c. CONIFEROUS SHRUBS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING SG 6 SEA GREEN JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis `Sea Green`5 gal 18" SPRD 60" o.c. TY 22 TAUNTON YEW Taxus x media `Taunton`5 gal 18" SPRD 48" o.c. PERENNIALS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING WG 30 ROZANNE GERANIUM Geranium `Rozanne`1 gal 24" o.c. SD 40 STELLA D` ORO DAYLILY Hemerocallis x `Stella de Oro`1 gal 24" o.c. GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SM 2 DECORATIVE STONE RIP RAP GREY TRAP ROCK RIP RAP SIZE - 5"-12" OVER FABRIC NS NATIVE SEED BWSR SEED MIX 36-211 SM 1 STONE MULCH WASHED GREY TRAP ROCK 2.5" 3" DEPTH OVER FABRIC SOD TURF SOD PLANT SCHEDULE 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL N NOTE: EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION SHOWN IS PROVIDED BY LOUCKS. REFER TO ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY DATED 05/08/18 FOR COMPLETE SURVEY INFORMATION. Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SCALE IN FEET 300 60 L1.1 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS BUFFER YARD REQUIREMENT (470 TOTAL LF) 2 CANOPY TREES PER/100' UNIT (ONLY NEED 75% OF REQUIREMENT) TREES REQUIRED = 7 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED = 7 4 UNDERSTORY TREE PER/100' UNIT (ONLY NEED 75% OF REQUIREMENT) TREES REQUIRED = 14 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED = 9 6 SHRUBS PER/100' UNIT (ONLY NEED 75% OF REQUIREMENT) SHRUBS REQUIRED = 21 TOTAL SHRUBS PROVIDED = 23 DUE TO EXISTING PLANTINGS ON OR VERY CLOSE TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE IN THE BUFFER YARD, MINIMAL PROPOSED PLANTINGS ARE PROVIDED TO AVOID OVER PLANTING AND ENCOURAGE LONG TERM HEALTH OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL. LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIREMENTS (56,225 SF OF VEHICULAR AREA) PROVIDE 8 SF OF LANDSCAPE AREA PER 100 SF OF VEHICULAR AREA LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIRED = 4,498 SF TREE REQUIREMENTS (4,498 SF OF LANDSCAPE AREA) PROVIDE 1 TREE PER 250 SF OF LANDSCAPE AREA TREES REQUIRED = 18 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED = 34 FOUNDATION PLANTINGS SHRUBS AND TREES HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ALONG BUILDING FOUNDATION GENERAL NOTES CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID. HE SHALL INSPECT SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK. VERIFY LAYOUT AND ANY DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN AND/OR INTENT OF THE PROJECT'S LAYOUT. ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK OR MATERIALS SUPPLIED. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS, TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS. ANY DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION / MATERIAL INSTALLATION BEGINS (MINIMUM 10' - 0" CLEARANCE). ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE LAID SO THAT TRENCHES DO NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONTOURS, TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURB/GUTTER AND OTHER EXISTING ELEMENTS BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME. THE ALIGNMENT AND GRADES OF THE PROPOSED WALKS, TRAILS AND/OR ROADWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. ANY CHANGE IN ALIGNMENT MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 06-15-18 CITY SUBMITTAL © 7001 France Avenue S, Suite 200, Edina, Minnesota 55435 952-893-9020 Fax 952-893-9299 www.bdhyoung.com interiors | architecture LOUCKS 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL LOUCKS PROJECT NO. 17516NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFOR INFORMATION ONLY06-19-18 WATERSHED SUBMITTAL 07-12-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 07-27-18 WATERSHED RESUBMITTAL 08-02-18 CITY RESUBMITTAL 08-03-18 GMP PRICING SET 05-03-19 CITY SUBMITTAL L2.1 SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" PERENNIAL PLANTING Perennial.Dwg LOOSEN ROOTS OF PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR MULCH - SEE SPECS.3" DEPTH EDGER - SEE SPECS. 12" DEPTH (MIN). LOAM PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPECS. VARIES SEE PLAN TO PLANTING EDGE VARIES - SEE PLAN 4 L2.1 SHRUBS TO BE PLACED SO THAT MULCH - 3" DEEP - SEE SPEC LANDSCAPE FABRIC - SEE SPEC. PLANTING SOIL - SEE SPEC. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING LOOSEN ROOTS OF ALLCONTAINERIZED PLANTS. EDGE VARIES - REFER TO PLAN REFER TO PLAN 18" MIN. SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0" SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL EDGING MATERIAL - SEE SPEC. BUILDING WALL (TYP) TOP OF CONTAINER SITS FLUSH WITH PROPOSED GRADE. 3 L2.1 Coniferous Tree.DWG EDGE VARIES - SEE PLAN WOOD STAKE (OPTIONAL) MULCH - 4" DEEP - PER SPECS. MULCH MUST ROOT BALL SET ON MOUNDED SUBGRADE SAFETY FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE POLYETHYLENE STRAP 16"x2" POLYPROPYLENE OR HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PERIOD. STAKING IS SUGGESTED, BUT POSITION THROUGH THE WARRANTY MAINTAINING ALL TREES IN A PLUMB THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" PLANTING. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TESTING PERCOLATION RATES PRIOR TO CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT REQUIRED. ANY STAKING MUST IN A.N.A. GUIDELINES FOR STANDARD CONFORM WITH PRACTICES AS DEFINED PRACTICES IMMEDIATELY IF POOR DRAINAGE EXISTS. REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELING IN 8-12" LIFTS AND SATURATE SOIL WITH PLANTING OPERATIONS. PLACE BACKFILL WATER TREE THOROUGHLY DURING FROM TREE. AFTER PLANTING IS COMPLETE. PRUNE ANY DAMAGED BRANCHES WATER. DO NOT COMPACT MORE THAN NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN PLUMB. NOT BE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK. 2 x ROOT BALL WIDTH 2 L2.1 EDGE VARIES - SEE PLAN WOOD STAKE (OPTIONAL) SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL SAFETY FLAGGING - ONE PER WIRE TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH POLYETHYLENE STRAP 16"x2" POLYPROPYLENE OR HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF PERIOD. STAKING IS SUGGESTED, BUT POSITION THROUGH THE WARRANTY MAINTAINING ALL TREES IN A PLUMB THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" PLANTING. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TESTING PERCOLATION RATES PRIOR TO CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT REQUIRED. ANY STAKING MUST IN A.N.A. GUIDELINES FOR STANDARD CONFORM WITH PRACTICES AS DEFINED PRACTICES Deciduous Tree.DWG IMMEDIATELY IF POOR DRAINAGE EXISTS. REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELING IN 8-12" LIFTS AND SATURATE SOIL WITH PLANTING OPERATIONS. PLACE BACKFILL WATER TREE THOROUGHLY DURING FROM TREE. BRANCHES AFTER PLANTING IS COMPLETE. PRUNE DAMAGED AND CROSSING WATER. DO NOT COMPACT MORE THAN NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN PLUMB. 2 x ROOT BALL WIDTH MULCH - 4" DEEP. NO MULCH IN CUT BACK WIRE BASKET CONTACT WITH TRUNK - SEE SPECS. ROOT FLARE EVEN WITH OR JUST ABOVE GRADE. 1 L2.1 LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION: COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE. NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL COMPLETE GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. WHERE SOD/SEED ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD/SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC. SEED ALL AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING OTHER THAN THOSE AREAS NOTED TO RECEIVE SOD. SEED SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MULCHED AS PER MNDOT SPECS. SOD ALL DESIGNATED AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES, THE SOD SHALL BE STAKED TO THE GROUND. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 5 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED SHRUB HEIGHT. ORNAMENTAL TREES SHALL HAVE NO V CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 3' ABOVE ROOT BALL. STREET AND BOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6' ABOVE FINISHED GRADE. ANY CONIFEROUS TREE PREVIOUSLY PRUNED FOR CHRISTMAS TREE SALES SHALL NOT BE USED. ALL CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL BE FULL FORM, NATURAL TO THE SPECIES, WITHOUT PRUNING. PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER PLANT SCHEDULE IF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES. ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE LOCATED AND STAKED AS SHOWN ON PLAN. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL STAKING OF PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO ANY AND ALL DIGGING. NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION. ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAY BE NEEDED IN FIELD. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH DRIED BONE MEAL, OTHER APPROVED FERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS OR MAY BE TREATED FOR SUMMER AND FALL INSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 0-20-20 OF 12 OZ PER 2.5" CALIPER PER TREE AND 6 OZ PER SHRUB WITH AN ADDITIONAL APPLICATION OF 10-10-10 THE FOLLOWING SPRING IN THE TREE SAUCER. ALL PLANTING AREAS RECEIVING GROUND COVER, PERENNIALS, ANNUALS, AND/OR VINES SHALL RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 12" DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL CONSISTING OF AT LEAST 45 PARTS TOPSOIL, 45 PARTS PEAT OR MANURE AND 10 PARTS SAND. ALL AREAS RECEIVING SEED OR SOD MUST RECEIVE A MINIMUM OF 6" DEPTH OF TOPSOIL. TOPSOIL TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE UNDERLYING SOIL DURING FINAL SITE GRADING. SOIL SURFACES COMPACTED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND REMAINING PERVIOUS UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION MUST BE DECOMPACTED THROUGH SOIL AMENDMENT AND/OR RIPPING TO A DEPTH OF 18". AVOID DISTURBING UTILITIES, TREE ROOTS AND OTHER EXISTING VEGETATION. ALL PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER PLANTING DETAILS. WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE CORRUGATED PVC PIPING 1" GREATER IN CALIPER THAN THE TREE BEING PROTECTED OR QUALITY, HEAVY, WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO 12-1 AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING AFTER 5-1. BLACK METAL EDGER TO BE USED TO CONTAIN SHRUBS, PERENNIALS, AND ANNUALS WHERE BED MEETS SOD/SEED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. ALL SHRUB BED MASSINGS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AND FIBER MAT WEED BARRIER. ALL TREES NOT IN PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE A 4' DIA. TREE RING WITH 4" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK. WOOD MULCH TO BE DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. ALL ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH WITH NO WEED BARRIER. SPREAD GRANULAR PRE EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR EQUAL) PER MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER ALL MULCHED AREAS. MAINTENANCE STRIPS TO HAVE EDGER AND MULCH AS SPECIFIED/INDICATED ON DRAWING OR IN SPECIFICATION. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS CONCERNED OR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT SELECTIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS OR ANY OTHER SITE CONDITION WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR GUARANTEE, HE MUST BRING THESE DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCUREMENT AND/OR INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION OF ALL LANDSCAPE AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ON-GOING MAINTENANCE OF ALL NEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO OWNER ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A MAINTENANCE PROGRAM INCLUDING, BUT NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED TO, PRUNING, FERTILIZATION AND DISEASE/PEST CONTROL. CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEAR FROM THE DATE OF OWNER ACCEPTANCE. WARRANTY (ONE FULL GROWING SEASON) FOR LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BEGIN ON THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AFTER THE COMPLETION OF PLANTING OF ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIALS. NO PARTIAL ACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED. REPRODUCIBLE AS-BUILT DRAWING(S) OF ALL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION INSTALLATION AND PRIOR TO PROJECT ACCEPTANCE. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE THE APPROPRIATE DATES FOR SPRING PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION AND SEED/SOD PLACEMENT IS FROM THE TIME GROUND HAS THAWED TO JUNE 15. FALL SODDING IS GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 - NOVEMBER 1. FALL SEEDING FROM AUGUST 15 - SEPTEMBER 15; DORMANT SEEDING IN THE FALL SHALL NOT OCCUR PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1. PLANTING OUTSIDE THESE DATES IS NOT RECOMMENDED. ANY ADJUSTMENT MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. CONIFEROUS PLANTING MAY OCCUR FROM AUGUST 15 - OCTOBER 1 AND FALL DECIDUOUS PLANTING FROM THE FIRST FROST UNTIL NOVEMBER 15. PLANTING OUTSIDE THESE DATES IS NOT RECOMMENDED. ANY ADJUSTMENT MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PROTECT ALL EXISTING OAKS ON SITE SCHEDULED TO REMAIN. IF EXISTING OAKS ARE DAMAGED IN ANY MANNER, ABOVE OR BELOW GROUND IN THE ROOT SYSTEM, AN ASPHALTIC TREE PRUNING PAINT SHOULD BE APPLIED IMMEDIATELY AFTER WOUNDING. OAKS ARE NOT TO BE PRUNED, REMOVED OR TRANSPLANTED BETWEEN APRIL 15 AND JULY 1. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IF THESE DATES ARE UNAVOIDABLE. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ESTABLISH TO HIS SATISFACTION THAT SOIL AND COMPACTION CONDITIONS ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AT AND AROUND THE BUILDING SITE. MAINTENANCE STRIP AT BUILDING EDGE SCALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" GEOTEXTILE WOVEN BUILDING WALL SOD LANDSCAPE EDGER (TYP) SEE SPECS LANDSCAPE FABRIC ROCK MULCH - REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR MORE INFO. OR BACK OF CURB 7 L2.1 IRRIGATION NOTES: VERIFY PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT AND CONFIRM COMPLETE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION PRIOR TO SUPPLYING SHOP DRAWINGS. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN AND SPECIFICATION AS A PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK WHEN BIDDING. THESE SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR INSTALLATION. IT SHALL BE THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO INSURE THAT ALL SODDED/SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY, INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTING BUILDING FOUNDATION. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A WATERING/LAWN IRRIGATION SCHEDULE APPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND TO PLANT MATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS NOT TO SPRINKLE ACROSS PAVEMENT. CONTRACTOR TO INCORPORATE RAIN SENSOR INTO IRRIGATION SYSTEM. PLANTINGS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF IRRIGATION ARE TO BE WATERED REGULARLY UNTIL PLANTING/SOD/SEED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 23,2019, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice of Public Hearing to Consider a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit for Development within the Bluff Creek Corridor for Property located at 8077 Century Boulevard, zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD), Planning Case File No. 2Ol9-04 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid 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 ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Kim uwissen,CI Subscribed and swom to belore me thid)3J day of ,20t9. Notary Public AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE l{dbry u Subject Property olECblhor This map is neithea a l€oally leco.tbd nap nor a Survey and B nol intended to be ug€d as one. ihis map is a comrilation or aecods, infoamalioo and data located in varbus crly, @unty. sbte and ledeElofices anal olhet sources regardrng the are6 shown and is b be ufu foa relbEnce puaposes only. The City do€s not waranl thal the GeogEphc lnfonnation Syslem tGlS) Oata used to prepare this map ate eroa ftee. and the Cily doe3 not repreenl ntat d€ GIS Data can be uaed for navigatioml tracfiino or any olher purpo+ equidng oxaclrno m€a3uEment ot distance or dit€ction or p.ec&ion in the depiclion of geooraphic hatules. Tm precedang disdaimer E Plovided puEuant to Minnesota Sl,at es S,a8A.o3. SuM. 21 (m00), and the usor of this map acJ(no'vledg€s that the City shall nol be liable lor any dama96, and expessly ltBives all daim3, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harml€ss the City iorn any and all daims blought bt Ure., its employees o. agents, or third pade which alise out of lhe usefs access or use of data provided. rTAX_NAMET ITAX_ADD_LI r rTAX-ADD-L2I, rTAX-ADD-L3I (Next RecordxTAX_NAMET ITAX-ADD-LI r ITAX_ADD_L2I, ITAX_ADD_L3I F J a 5I; a -l-.1 a a7-.tI : . : rl \ "r^ l| titr Subject Property -- -I L-!.E P ObcltkrE This map is neither a legally recorded ftap nor a suNey anal is nol intended to be used as or€. This map is a ccm lation of Ecords, anfo,mation and data located in vaarous er' county. 3tate aM federal oIic6 and othe. sourc4 reg6rding the area shof,n and is to be us€d br leElenc€ purposes only. Trle Cily does not v€rad that the Geog.aphic lnbmalbn SysEm (GlS) Data used to prepaE thb map are ero. free, and the City does not represenl tBl lhe GIS Oala cen be used tor naviFttonal, tracking or any other purpo* requidno exaclinO measuEmenl of distence o. diredion oa plecisio,l in the depidion of geogGphic features. The preceding dbclaidEr is p.ovired pur3lent to Minnesota stat(lte3 s486.03, subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map ackno|tedges that 0|e City shall not be liable for any clarnagps, and e)Qressly waives all daims, and agrcea to debnd. indemnit, and hold harmle$ the Cry fiom any and all daims b.ouoht by User, itB ernployees or aoents, or thad pa.tes which arise out of the u3e/3 acaess or use ol data provid€d. .9 c)=-c os;feEEpsEEEgBP.hv o E= o-FcESrEESs€= P et IEE:=Ex Qll >FE lio 6 o(,; (D o-eoi6-ll-- X o= !,lD=().=>3ee i3q >.= E.!! EEE:d:-*.e6 =6ri'ar- Ef .E.;Ppat€ [: eriNiE.O,1, doiF =id69.gc cD -c E rD iL -ofo()c0)(,oo(I)(.)ocooo(uoo-o()'6' o- .a Joo(u o., o() E o =tIcrtoNlc E tr 11) o.c,c(!.cq'6t; ' 0)o-go,c;c0)o,Eo)EIDoc)-o-go- 0)E o) It) o, (Ei o o=Go.9==o (oo)coo--o G (E E o) lcqcn)occ(o.c o G lIoc o)o-o E(,oE o oo E Eoo Go ,(oo)g)oo- .oo =oo'd o '6 os o-!oop ;Eqc fO m->3 fE cgQOOE F-O .o< o)oEEo'.ql 6oo do x tt8;e Eq o--c ! tre* I Z e..QsPsEPtbiiE:ii=E6f I Htr:hrD2(a:; aq€ crr-= g t,Baie-:Qc(EE-;E,E E E EE HE: .eEP 5=!(,FOC -o O-- N aO rC o or=:r 'Cr ,>o qE=o€Eora o-c':E--.9=c')':.E 6E'c I'E=E3ii c.9oo,!rl i)cagoo !E5E +.gl-xo'of!8-r7 =cEf o-o-(): o o-o! o- -oFoo eEeEsE o o) o.c E===tcE qlEgE(l)Lc,o(nJ -iL6:Ec.= o,oic'EOO€o N5te"d (J _Q}E ?e!.x>m-&gic-7 -q .E 6L5Oo =F-= -F-u)?oo 6@ oa:PoH3et 3gE EE2FEoooF.o o, oN o olF o2dloo=t-F.o)-o E(5 -c clo oI o a!oCPOo3oqr ajc=o-ooq)E}o>=ooQo-floEq) ooc9 o(,tocooq) -E'(E; EolDco(!'69 Qfoc oE a- 9,fo) a3u) 6- oc liq co o a(scIq = = = lc o EE:EEEE.aEEiEgiitEeiiiiEiggiieEaEaEigi EEg;EEEEgIIEi iiiiEEgEiiEii s;Ets:Eg;e!i€ EEE=€€ESg:PgF ' qEEEg!!9eEq: g 6 5 .q E E e E -s ! : E 3 6 5 6 z 3 9t6t !Ee P ,;<3e "5Eie+Pipe E B!iPv F.. 35!E €..o9ccoo a=itE =oo() >Et.o o.o9to-J I ii)o.= o- :iSEi= .!-C }E o t!(,oJ (l6o o o- ;Er! ..sb-ri <o a, Ei: 06 {, oo EDEoo=9.9.:o8.9.,F-E.9oEo: E'}o. .so=oG.9f,oc28 o G o .c,o E) E(,oE rDo .=6 h.eoE!E .oEEo3tDa.= oE!ro.9docza ooEEt!E(J .g! I ci .E ,E _9 E c .o F E cioIf.- o ct) oN $oca jop rl.)fF E2 co o (5 oot*f- o -o E(!E oC =oo (5- (-) o =L Co o6 q) 8f-iOiP LCo(E g(Lo- .Y dlicoooNieEE()0)uE fro d)L -f_c €o =F6(o E(Eo--oE Y!srD !?E .!? o E o(I q) f (! C .9 Ecoo 06 B .9 It)tr c _q(L o a o op coo -JJ 6c o) E o Ec .oN =f d)c.9o o)o ol(!6 c; .9 o I o P o lt,E !!E =O >3]E CEoooE F-oFO .o< q) c)-c E9 _c- I orE[-E EE .Xg H EBeaEaE ;E:€EEE i5eEgEg EoEsEse EgEEEEIo- -o f(E([o-r6idi oE )o-o(! fo E o .= o .a c')c ooE .9 -olo, .9.c o o oo- fo- lt).cF (, a, ooo E o() cl o- .g a, =EOsEE!: EpaE;trOl,dr:-2 @ E.9 :(5 E= ohEEo>'Ezde€ :E+*Ex Qll >FE "'i o c o{,/); o o-roidoe-: o= o B-i€:it*69u a Y-a.e* =6Iie'j Eiei;I E6:* ,:! =$it coE u.969gYo)EE6aL o oEoEo- -o o fc Ec 0) ([ -cc6E. oe fo oco .o G o E c) -o :o ([, 11,o -oo 0o oocoo o) GIt) -o- oq) 0'o .9E o-oo oco o) Eo o =o o ,ct fo =$o o) oN to?c Ei c) oEc(! .c,q'6 = = ?- .9 ID ([ 0, o" o,E oo E o).c, ID o 86o()c(,(tr(0 -o o- c3!; O(,o .t: 9E96' =ho(,i-> B6>. c,s-C fc o rl) E oc ?cq co o.cco.c,q'o iI; ao'ooc-ooOrfn or aj o-orD c)E} tD >. !oaQ o^ 8: EOooc9 o(,Bocooo:p(s>EooE '= ll)oloc oE d(0JOJ a8Ao. E T = 5 3 E t I E E! a g a E * i E6 E 9 9 t I o!III z a , EE 6 a b ? & c E g I d = E o e t I P ! .3 ar ! 9 E E E d a 8 6 E & B;I9s E Eo 9 e t - a E E ! E€3 - E t E I s! 8 p e !Dr6 9 no 5 I a t I I s I 4 t 3 I 9 c q ; e t : ! E g p E E a,i ! 3 e P i E q t Eg ! EII t E E P € i I ! E 3 E P i E E .EE e .e I , t 3 9 e E g p I2 I! ! 3 g = ! 6 E{ E E E E E E g 8 3 6 ! i_ E 9 E Ig E .e H I ! 9 E a I 9 E E ! a E 5 E E E 6 n s E E eI n ; .e E 3 t & 3 t E iE CE :3 E< ET Es:6 Ba :e AE -9 6 b- e 6 E I l!q; 5E>iEi "PgFE} 999a9E e.3 $ I €5 i;E EE3 E"3 o;t! E io: :E 'A E:;iE !6a .*nEs5t ;64 3E t P 56taecle EE39t 9 E FE ;6 ts !! t a; ._EF c. o (go Eoo C! e o- ad .' -98 E5<o >gtoo'Eo. lg9tGJ I ii) ar .= f'g+,o!! .tEJ =r ....o9EEoo aD=OE3Ooo .-of(L Eo Eo 6 It)o oJJ,ricoEo)cao N =)dlco)'6 IDa ll)5(E dl o)ca o GooJ JJo- o-aE6 dd>!t> !l>-)-J,-<J6<.!L)<CD=>-y>>-Y>3a:;sg;(dF=FF=Ftz2zzzzullrJar!uJar!d(J'(J(J'(JoNoorolJ)La<tF.(6da\r@(pIO@.rOl@O6oo6tcoF6l@ <lNSlLnorOo.!@ioo<lr,)Nm 66li1 601-,+ rl i - rl rl ^ Er -l F{ a',\ r..t FlX(n(nro(nmrn+ ra r,t rn r,t L/1 rJ)qLaLntnLnLn(n -tzzzzzzs>>>>>> ,\==-3 1t-t = th rrt tn u1 ^'<I tr th <I vl v1 =d<<F<<9d--<--a'zzzUZZ ><'E < { ? < {<orrsr-FUJUU>U(J ot!YceI,juJluaoSiFI=hi=Egg55l==F:rr,!Y e=gE==Fl<r O Ol O O FlXFr(O@FrslO<OOrr(o@@Ff\NOlicrF. o- u)l) G.U !J --.t !! LJo? !,(9!!irLl\; zL<=d.Eabio=s o-!?o, =roH-er!La.oa<;i-d5{ccd>ZE4?UZ\1'--r - d 5 F: f =63==eBFN.oZ(J.o(Jooooooc{NFl(n(Oiooooooooooooco Lrl oo !a Ln sl(oF.(ONr\r-ooooooLn u'! r/1 u1 rn utNr\Na\li\l N z E CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject 2019 Spring Yard Waste Collection Summary Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: L.1. Prepared By Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator File No:  SUMMARY In January 2019, Carver County stopped accepting yard waste at the Environmental Center and the city looked for ways to accommodate residents’ yard waste needs.  The city has encouraged residents to contract with their private haulers for yard waste collection, but also decided to host Yard Waste Collection Days for residents in the spring and fall.  The City’s Spring Yard Waste Day was held on Saturday, May 4 at the Chanhassen Public Works site.  The hours were 8am – 4pm.  Residents were charged $1 per bag and $8 per cubic yard for drop off.  A crew of four public works employees assisted with brush drop off, traffic direction, and managing piles of yard waste throughout the event.  One hourly employee handled the incoming vehicles and collected fees.  The event had consistent, but not overwhelming, attendance throughout the day.   May 4, 2019 Yard Waste Event Revenue Cash/Check $ 1,125.00 Credit Card $ 348.14 Total Revenue $ 1,473.14 Expense Payroll $ (2,420.45) SMSC Recycling $ (1,330.00) Total Expense $ (3,750.45) Net Revenue/Expense $ (2,277.31) Staff has tentatively set a date for the Fall Yard Waste Collection on Saturday, November 2.  There will be no changes to pricing or procedures for the day.  CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject Review of Claims Paid 06­24­2019 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: L.2. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  SUMMARY The following claims are submitted for review on June 24, 2019: Check Numbers Amounts 170936 – 171050 $617,908.21 ACH Payments $518,507.69 Total All Claims $1,136,415.90 ATTACHMENTS: Check Summary Check Summary ACH Check Detail Check Detail ACH Accounts Payable User: Printed: dwashburn 6/17/2019 4:02 PM Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount ACETRA ACE TRAILER SALES 06/06/2019 0.00 2,850.00170936 UB*01676 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 06/06/2019 0.00 138.62170937 ALLSTR ALLSTREAM 06/06/2019 0.00 490.84170938 AMETIR AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC 06/06/2019 0.00 598.50170939 BCATRA BCA 06/06/2019 0.00 105.00170940 BORSTA BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 06/06/2019 0.00 98.88170941 BUCHSTEV Steve Buchholz 06/06/2019 0.00 20.00170942 UB*01675 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 0.00 172.95170943 UB*01685 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 0.00 15.11170944 UB*01687 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 0.00 68.26170945 CARLIC CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 06/06/2019 0.00 23.75170946 CARLIC CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 06/06/2019 0.00 264.50170947 UB*01686 CCA & T 06/06/2019 0.00 18.75170948 CENENE CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/06/2019 0.00 1,622.45170949 EmbMinn CENTURYLINK 06/06/2019 0.00 713.13170950 CLACCO CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 06/06/2019 0.00 749.15170951 COMASP Commercial Asphalt Co 06/06/2019 0.00 1,259.97170952 CUBFOO CUB FOODS 06/06/2019 0.00 47.02170953 UB*01677 JOHN & KATHRYN DE SMET 06/06/2019 0.00 129.68170954 UB*01683 EDINA REALTY TITLE 06/06/2019 0.00 117.11170955 UB*01688 JUSTIN & MARYBETH EHLERT 06/06/2019 0.00 18.01170956 FraAnn Annette Fragale 06/06/2019 0.00 308.25170957 GVHea G.V. Heating & Air Inc 06/06/2019 0.00 149.60170958 GERTGREE GERTEN GREENHOUSES INC 06/06/2019 0.00 796.00170959 GILLJOSE Joseph Gillen 06/06/2019 0.00 59.25170960 GOPERM Go Permits LLC 06/06/2019 0.00 70.68170961 UB*01680 ERIN GOSS COLLIN 06/06/2019 0.00 63.86170962 GRELAK GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION LLC06/06/2019 0.00 456.13170963 UB*01672 MANAE HAN 06/06/2019 0.00 5.80170964 HARTLIFE Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company06/06/2019 0.00 1,064.64170965 HORNDAVI David Horn 06/06/2019 0.00 600.00170966 ICMART ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 06/06/2019 0.00 1,466.67170967 INGLJAN Jan Ingle 06/06/2019 0.00 20.00170968 ISCCom ISC Companies Inc 06/06/2019 0.00 20.50170969 Loc49 IUOE Local #49 06/06/2019 0.00 700.00170970 MARKTRAC Tracy Marks 06/06/2019 0.00 60.00170971 NCPERS MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 06/06/2019 0.00 64.00170972 MTIDIS MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 06/06/2019 0.00 364.04170973 NORASP NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC 06/06/2019 0.00 39,064.66170974 POST POSTMASTER 06/06/2019 0.00 235.00170975 UB*01681 SCOTT & MELISSA PROSEN 06/06/2019 0.00 6.57170976 QUAFIR Quality First Janitorial & Maintenance Inc 06/06/2019 0.00 400.00170977 UB*01678 BRENT & KARNA RICE 06/06/2019 0.00 54.16170978 RMBENV RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 06/06/2019 0.00 143.00170979 SANDCHRI CHRIS SANDBERG 06/06/2019 VOID 89.98 0.00170980 SIGNSO SIGNSOURCE 06/06/2019 0.00 285.50170981 UB*01673 JODI SOTEBEER 06/06/2019 0.00 143.25170982 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (6/17/2019 4:02 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount SWANAUDR Audrey Swantz 06/06/2019 0.00 250.00170983 UB*01670 ESTATE OF COLLEN T KELLY FKA COLLEEN06/06/2019 0.00 13.40170984 UB*01674 TERRYL SCHULTE REVOCABLE TRUST06/06/2019 0.00 22.80170985 TIMLAN TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC.06/06/2019 0.00 259.53170986 UB*01684 TITLE NEXUS LLC 06/06/2019 0.00 137.95170987 UB*01682 TITLE SMART INC 06/06/2019 0.00 37.83170988 UB*01679 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 06/06/2019 0.00 116.67170989 WastMana Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 06/06/2019 0.00 1,004.88170990 UB*01671 WATERMARK TITLE 06/06/2019 0.00 96.62170991 ACHEA AC & HEATING BY GEORGE 06/13/2019 0.00 260.00170992 ACTMOV Action Moving Services Inc 06/13/2019 0.00 150.00170993 AMETES AMERICAN TEST CENTER 06/13/2019 0.00 2,000.00170994 ASICLO ASI Cloudberries 06/13/2019 0.00 225.00170995 BAUMLAUR Laura Baumtrog 06/13/2019 0.00 750.00170996 BCATRA BCA 06/13/2019 0.00 45.00170997 BluCro BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 0.00 83,982.96170998 BNBui BN Builders 06/13/2019 0.00 500.00170999 CENENE CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/13/2019 0.00 322.41171000 CenLin CenturyLink 06/13/2019 0.00 64.00171001 CHASKA CITY OF CHASKA 06/13/2019 0.00 776.10171002 CORMAI CORE & MAIN LP 06/13/2019 0.00 1,131.72171003 CUBFOO CUB FOODS 06/13/2019 0.00 11.97171004 CulBot Culligan Bottled Water 06/13/2019 0.00 112.56171005 DECKBASE Deck and Basement Co 06/13/2019 0.00 250.00171006 DEMCON DEM-CON LANDFILL 06/13/2019 0.00 2,258.72171007 DLTSOL DLT SOLUTIONS INC 06/13/2019 0.00 2,107.00171008 FerEnt Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. #1657 06/13/2019 0.00 1,091.45171009 FMAM FIRE MARSHALS ASSN OF MN 06/13/2019 0.00 40.00171010 FLOCON Flow Control Automation LLC 06/13/2019 0.00 2,940.00171011 GONHOM GONYEA HOMES 06/13/2019 0.00 5,000.00171012 HANSDANI Daniel or Kimberly Hanson 06/13/2019 0.00 250.00171013 HartCom Hartman Companies 06/13/2019 0.00 1,200.00171014 HEALSTEV Steve Healy 06/13/2019 0.00 102.00171015 HENCHE HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEF'S ASSN06/13/2019 0.00 425.00171016 HERLAN HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 06/13/2019 0.00 120.00171017 IMOCON IMO Consulting Group Inc 06/13/2019 0.00 1,869.00171018 IRORIV Iron River Construction 06/13/2019 0.00 1,250.00171019 JMSCUST JMS Custom Homes LLC 06/13/2019 0.00 2,500.00171020 JUNSEO JUNGGON SEO 06/13/2019 0.00 250.00171021 LEAINS LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 06/13/2019 0.00 98,243.00171022 LILPAD Lily Pad Holding LLC 06/13/2019 0.00 9,125.00171023 MADGAL MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP 06/13/2019 0.00 2,243.29171024 MARXHEID Heidi Marx 06/13/2019 0.00 250.00171025 MetGar Metro Garage Door Company 06/13/2019 0.00 961.77171026 METCO2 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 06/13/2019 0.00 157,423.55171027 METPLU Metropolitan Plumbing 06/13/2019 0.00 30.05171028 MIDAMER Mid-America Sports Advantage 06/13/2019 0.00 668.88171029 MIDHEA Midland Heating & Air Conditioning 06/13/2019 0.00 5.30171030 MILWIN Milbank Winwater Works 06/13/2019 0.00 12,922.90171031 MNBASE MN Basement Remodeling 06/13/2019 0.00 500.00171032 MNVAL MN VALLEY COMMUNITY BAND 06/13/2019 0.00 375.00171033 NASSPOOL NASSAU POOLS INC 06/13/2019 0.00 1,000.00171034 NEWSIG NEWMAN SIGNS INC 06/13/2019 0.00 762.15171035 NORASP NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC 06/13/2019 0.00 154,664.64171036 Pollar Pollard Water 06/13/2019 0.00 111.73171037 RAITRE RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 06/13/2019 0.00 640.00171038 RPZTES RPZ Testing Services 06/13/2019 0.00 29.85171039 Page 2AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (6/17/2019 4:02 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount SabiJane Janet Sabinske 06/13/2019 0.00 32.00171040 SHEWIL SHERWIN WILLIAMS 06/13/2019 0.00 25.67171041 SHOTRU SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 06/13/2019 0.00 82.30171042 SHRNGO Shred-N-Go Inc 06/13/2019 0.00 15.00171043 SITLAN SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 06/13/2019 0.00 903.36171044 ShaMde SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 06/13/2019 0.00 1,330.00171045 SOUSUB Southwest Suburban Publishing 06/13/2019 0.00 1,111.42171046 TayEle Taylor Electric Company, LLC 06/13/2019 0.00 2,313.00171047 TheMus The Mustard Seed, Inc.06/13/2019 0.00 127.84171048 VOLFIR ASSOC OF MINN VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS BENEFIT06/13/2019 0.00 597.00171049 ZAHPET ZAHL-PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE CO06/13/2019 0.00 1,365.70171050 Report Total (115 checks): 617,908.21 89.98 Page 3AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (6/17/2019 4:02 PM) Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Summary by Check User: dwashburn Printed: 6/17/2019 4:03 PM Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH ADAPES ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 06/06/2019 0.00 375.00 ACH AllTra All Traffic Solutions 06/06/2019 0.00 3,000.00 ACH LANZBOB BOB LANZI 06/06/2019 0.00 586.50 ACH GOPSTA GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 06/06/2019 0.00 930.15 ACH INDPLA Indelco Plastics Corporation 06/06/2019 0.00 222.98 ACH INDLAN Indoor Landscapes Inc 06/06/2019 0.00 187.00 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 06/06/2019 0.00 158.48 ACH AlHiJuli Juli Al-Hilwani 06/06/2019 0.00 285.00 ACH KIMHOR KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 0.00 93,507.26 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 06/06/2019 0.00 276.43 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/06/2019 0.00 195.36 ACH PLAYPO PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON 06/06/2019 0.00 178,901.00 ACH PRARES PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 06/06/2019 0.00 1,450.00 ACH PREMRM PRECISE MRM LLC 06/06/2019 0.00 300.00 ACH PRTURF PRO TURF 06/06/2019 0.00 2,166.00 ACH TouPoi TouchPoint Logic LLC 06/06/2019 0.00 450.00 ACH UNIWAY UNITED WAY 06/06/2019 0.00 29.40 ACH VERIZO VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 0.00 4,239.76 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 06/06/2019 0.00 3,289.38 ACH WSB WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 0.00 103,192.15 ACH A1ELE A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 06/13/2019 0.00 1,375.96 ACH BOYTRU Boyer Ford Trucks 06/13/2019 0.00 80.63 ACH BRAINT BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 06/13/2019 0.00 7,547.60 ACH CAMKNU CAMPBELL KNUTSON 06/13/2019 0.00 18,296.77 ACH carcou Carver County 06/13/2019 0.00 3,560.92 ACH CCPNIM CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 06/13/2019 0.00 4,513.60 ACH CivPlu CivicPlus 06/13/2019 0.00 10,744.97 ACH EMERES Emergency Response Solutions 06/13/2019 0.00 102.32 ACH engwat Engel Water Testing Inc 06/13/2019 0.00 500.00 ACH FirCat Fire Catt, LLC 06/13/2019 0.00 4,404.50 ACH HeaStr Health Strategies 06/13/2019 0.00 130.00 ACH IdeSer Ideal Service Inc. 06/13/2019 0.00 340.00 ACH INDPLA Indelco Plastics Corporation 06/13/2019 0.00 646.77 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 06/13/2019 0.00 372.97 ACH AlHiJuli Juli Al-Hilwani 06/13/2019 0.00 146.25 ACH KIMHOR KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 0.00 32,459.08 ACH MacEme Macqueen Emergengy Group 06/13/2019 0.00 1,115.00 ACH Marco Marco Inc 06/13/2019 0.00 970.68 ACH MatTri Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. 06/13/2019 0.00 127.05 ACH MERACE MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 0.00 814.76 ACH METCO Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 06/13/2019 0.00 7,380.45 ACH MINNOCC MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH 06/13/2019 0.00 169.00 ACH MinPum Minnesota Pump Works 06/13/2019 0.00 3,533.46 ACH MNLABO MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 06/13/2019 0.00 3,066.40 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 06/13/2019 0.00 5,545.91 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/13/2019 0.00 146.06 ACH OREAUT O'Reilly Automotive Inc 06/13/2019 0.00 73.15 ACH PotMN Potentia MN Solar 06/13/2019 0.00 5,375.43 ACH PRARES PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 06/13/2019 0.00 660.00 ACH DaniReem Reem Danial 06/13/2019 0.00 176.40 Page 1 of 2 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH MINCON SUMMIT COMPANIES 06/13/2019 0.00 500.00 ACH KubiTere Terence Kenneth Kubista 06/13/2019 0.00 50.00 ACH UniFar United Farmers Cooperative 06/13/2019 0.00 89.98 ACH WATSON WATSON COMPANY 06/13/2019 0.00 344.47 ACH WENCK WENCK ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 0.00 902.40 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 06/13/2019 0.00 1,635.40 ACH WSB WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 0.00 6,867.50 Report Total: 0.00 518,507.69 Page 2 of 2 Accounts Payable Check Detail-Checks User: dwashburn Printed: 06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM Name Check D Account Description Amount AC & HEATING BY GEORGE 06/13/2019 101-1170-4530 Check out rooftop, set gas pressure on manafold/regulator 260.00 AC & HEATING BY GEORGE 260.00 ACE TRAILER SALES 06/06/2019 400-0000-4705 Aluma 7712H Utility Trailer 2,850.00 ACE TRAILER SALES 2,850.00 Action Moving Services Inc 06/13/2019 605-6501-4300 Professional Move Estimate - Andrea Carty 150.00 Action Moving Services Inc 150.00 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 51.80 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 72.84 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.34 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.64 ALL AMERICAN TITLE CO INC 138.62 ALLSTREAM 06/06/2019 101-1160-4300 Phone system maintenance 7/18/19-8/19/19 490.84 ALLSTREAM 490.84 AMERICAN TEST CENTER 06/13/2019 101-1320-4300 Annual Safety Inspection - Bucket Truck 425.00 AMERICAN TEST CENTER 06/13/2019 101-1370-4300 Annual Safety Inspection - Auto Lift, Scissors Lift 350.00 AMERICAN TEST CENTER 06/13/2019 700-0000-4300 Annual Safety Inspection - Crane, Overhead Lifts 1,225.00 AMERICAN TEST CENTER 2,000.00 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC 06/06/2019 101-1550-4120 29X12.50-15/10 Car Multitrac C/S 598.50 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC 598.50 ASI Cloudberries 06/13/2019 101-1560-4300 6/6/19 Cloudberries Choir at Senior Center 225.00 ASI Cloudberries 225.00 Baumtrog Laura 06/13/2019 720-0000-4300 Raingarden 750.00 Baumtrog Laura 750.00 BCA 06/06/2019 101-1120-4300 Background Investigation 105.00 BCA 06/13/2019 101-1120-4300 Background Investigation 45.00 BCA 150.00 BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 101-0000-2012 July - Family 41,065.54 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 1 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 700-0000-2012 July - Family 6,667.96 BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 701-0000-2012 July - Family 4,779.02 BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 720-0000-2012 July - Family 4,155.68 BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 101-0000-2012 July - Single 21,842.91 BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 210-0000-2012 July - Single 944.76 BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 700-0000-2012 July - Single 2,550.87 BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 701-0000-2012 July - Single 1,795.04 BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 720-0000-2012 July - Single 75.58 BCBSM, Inc.06/13/2019 101-1220-4483 July - Firefighter EAP 105.60 BCBSM, Inc. 83,982.96 BN Builders 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 212 Lakeview Rd E 500.00 BN Builders 500.00 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 06/06/2019 101-1170-4510 Lamps 98.88 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 98.88 Buchholz Steve 06/06/2019 101-1539-3631 Refund - Kwik Trip Classic Men's Doubles PB Tourney 20.00 Buchholz Steve 20.00 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 55.69 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 96.09 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 18.68 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.49 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.91 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.56 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.86 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.78 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 27.19 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 39.00 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.83 BURNET TITLE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.24 BURNET TITLE 256.32 CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 06/06/2019 400-0000-4705 Title Transfer 23.75 CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 06/06/2019 400-0000-4705 License/Registration - Park Trailer 264.50 CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 288.25 CCA & T 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.88 CCA & T 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.65 CCA & T 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 9.22 CCA & T 18.75 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/06/2019 101-1190-4320 monthly charges 335.02 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/06/2019 101-1550-4320 monthly charges 80.60 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/06/2019 101-1170-4320 monthly charges 272.09 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/06/2019 700-0000-4320 monthly charges 18.41 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/06/2019 700-7043-4320 monthly charges 770.57 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/06/2019 700-7019-4320 monthly charges 145.76 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 2 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/13/2019 701-0000-4320 monthly charges 16.13 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/13/2019 101-1370-4320 monthly charges 233.02 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/13/2019 700-0000-4320 monthly charges 29.13 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/13/2019 701-0000-4320 monthly charges 29.13 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 06/13/2019 101-1600-4320 monthly charges 15.00 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 1,944.86 CenturyLink 06/13/2019 700-0000-4310 monthly service 32.00 CenturyLink 06/13/2019 701-0000-4310 monthly service 32.00 CENTURYLINK 06/06/2019 101-1540-4310 phone charges 5/21-6/20 95.40 CENTURYLINK 06/06/2019 101-1190-4310 phone charges 5/21-6/20 127.20 CENTURYLINK 06/06/2019 700-0000-4310 phone charges 5/21-6/20 15.13 CENTURYLINK 06/06/2019 700-7019-4310 phone charges 5/21-6/20 210.27 CENTURYLINK 06/06/2019 701-0000-4310 phone charges 5/21-6/20 15.13 CENTURYLINK 06/06/2019 101-1160-4320 phone charges 5/21-6/20 250.00 CENTURYLINK 777.13 CITY OF CHASKA 06/13/2019 101-1560-4300 Fagen Fighters Museum Trip-Tours, Lunch, Transportation 776.10 CITY OF CHASKA 776.10 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 06/06/2019 101-1550-4240 Rainsuit, Safety Vests, Shirt 749.15 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 749.15 Commercial Asphalt Co 06/06/2019 420-0000-4751 9.5MM Rec Wear 1,259.97 Commercial Asphalt Co 1,259.97 CORE & MAIN LP 06/13/2019 700-0000-4550 misc parts/supplies 1,131.72 CORE & MAIN LP 1,131.72 CUB FOODS 06/06/2019 101-1540-4130 Buns, Ketchup, Mustard, Chips 47.02 CUB FOODS 06/13/2019 101-1220-4290 Water 11.97 CUB FOODS 58.99 Culligan Bottled Water 06/13/2019 101-1220-4300 bottled water equipment rental fee/water 112.56 Culligan Bottled Water 112.56 DE SMET JOHN & KATHRYN 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 42.12 DE SMET JOHN & KATHRYN 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 77.05 DE SMET JOHN & KATHRYN 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 9.28 DE SMET JOHN & KATHRYN 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.23 DE SMET JOHN & KATHRYN 129.68 Deck and Basement Co 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 9297 Hawkcrest Ct 250.00 Deck and Basement Co 250.00 DEM-CON LANDFILL 06/13/2019 101-1320-4150 May 2019 Street Sweepings 2,258.72 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 3 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount DEM-CON LANDFILL 2,258.72 DLT SOLUTIONS INC 06/13/2019 101-1160-4220 AutoDesk Annual Subscription Renewal 2,107.00 DLT SOLUTIONS INC 2,107.00 EDINA REALTY TITLE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 36.85 EDINA REALTY TITLE 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 60.60 EDINA REALTY TITLE 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 17.35 EDINA REALTY TITLE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.31 EDINA REALTY TITLE 117.11 EHLERT JUSTIN & MARYBETH 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.17 EHLERT JUSTIN & MARYBETH 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 9.69 EHLERT JUSTIN & MARYBETH 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.66 EHLERT JUSTIN & MARYBETH 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.49 EHLERT JUSTIN & MARYBETH 18.01 Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. #1657 06/13/2019 700-0000-4260 misc supplies 78.31 Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. #1657 06/13/2019 700-0000-4150 misc supplies 384.15 Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. #1657 06/13/2019 101-1550-4151 misc supplies 628.99 Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. #1657 1,091.45 FIRE MARSHALS ASSN OF MN 06/13/2019 101-1220-4360 2019 Membership Renewal - D Nutter 40.00 FIRE MARSHALS ASSN OF MN 40.00 Flow Control Automation LLC 06/13/2019 701-0000-4551 Combination Air Valve 2,940.00 Flow Control Automation LLC 2,940.00 Fragale Annette 06/06/2019 101-1539-4300 Line Dancing 308.25 Fragale Annette 308.25 G.V. Heating & Air Inc 06/06/2019 101-1250-3305 Permit refund - no longer doing job 149.60 G.V. Heating & Air Inc 149.60 GERTEN GREENHOUSES INC 06/06/2019 101-1550-4150 Rapid Dry 50#, Red Infield Conditioner 50# - Ballfield materials 796.00 GERTEN GREENHOUSES INC 796.00 Gillen Joseph 06/06/2019 701-0000-4150 Reimburse for Temp Commerical Driver's License 29.63 Gillen Joseph 06/06/2019 700-0000-4150 Reimburse for Temp Commerical Driver's License 29.62 Gillen Joseph 59.25 Go Permits LLC 06/06/2019 101-1250-3301 Permit refund - no longer doing job 70.68 Go Permits LLC 70.68 GONYEA HOMES 06/13/2019 815-8226-2024 As-Built Escrow - 9150 Eagle Court 2,500.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 4 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount GONYEA HOMES 06/13/2019 815-8226-2024 As-Built Escrow - 9264 Hawkcrest Court 2,500.00 GONYEA HOMES 5,000.00 GOSS COLLIN ERIN 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 19.96 GOSS COLLIN ERIN 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 34.00 GOSS COLLIN ERIN 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.73 GOSS COLLIN ERIN 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.17 GOSS COLLIN ERIN 63.86 GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION LLC06/06/2019 101-1540-4130 Drinks for Lake Ann concessions 456.13 GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA DISTRIBUTION LLC 456.13 HAN MANAE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.99 HAN MANAE 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.55 HAN MANAE 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.88 HAN MANAE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.38 HAN MANAE 5.80 Hanson Daniel or Kimberly 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 1450 West Farm Road 250.00 Hanson Daniel or Kimberly 250.00 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1120-4040 June - LTD 72.10 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1130-4040 June - LTD 49.27 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1160-4040 June - LTD 26.39 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1250-4040 June - LTD 105.95 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1310-4040 June - LTD 64.17 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1320-4040 June - LTD 134.33 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1370-4040 June - LTD 46.30 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1520-4040 June - LTD 35.96 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1530-4040 June - LTD 14.61 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1560-4040 June - LTD 11.99 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1600-4040 June - LTD 25.34 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1700-4040 June - LTD 2.82 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1550-4040 June - LTD 84.10 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1430-4040 June - LTD 4.81 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 210-0000-4040 June - LTD 18.60 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 720-7201-4040 June - LTD 5.68 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 720-7202-4040 June - LTD 5.68 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1170-4040 June - LTD 12.61 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1220-4040 June - LTD 43.14 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 701-0000-4040 June - LTD 77.20 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 700-0000-4040 June - LTD 103.93 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 720-0000-4040 June - LTD 39.16 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 06/06/2019 101-1420-4040 June - LTD 80.50 Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company 1,064.64 Hartman Companies 06/13/2019 720-7202-4300 Kerber pond park trees 1,200.00 Hartman Companies 1,200.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 5 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount Healy Steve 06/13/2019 101-1766-4300 Adult Softball Umpire - 4 games, 6/6/19 102.00 Healy Steve 102.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEF'S ASSN 06/13/2019 101-1220-4370 Blue Card SIM Training - R Weidman 425.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEF'S ASSN 425.00 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 06/13/2019 101-1550-4150 Yd Pulverized Dirt 120.00 HERMAN'S LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES INC 120.00 Horn David 06/06/2019 101-1620-4300 Summer Concert Series - Tumblin' Dice 600.00 Horn David 600.00 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 06/06/2019 101-0000-2009 6/7/19 ID #304303 1,135.42 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 06/06/2019 210-0000-2009 6/7/19 ID #304303 25.00 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 06/06/2019 700-0000-2009 6/7/19 ID #304303 151.56 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 06/06/2019 701-0000-2009 6/7/19 ID #304303 153.44 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 06/06/2019 720-0000-2009 6/7/19 ID #304303 1.25 ICMA RETIREMENT AND TRUST-457 1,466.67 IMO Consulting Group Inc 06/13/2019 601-6044-4751 Bluff Creek Trail Survey - svc 4/28/19 to 6/1/19 1,869.00 IMO Consulting Group Inc 1,869.00 Ingle Jan 06/06/2019 101-1539-3631 Refund - Kwik Trip Classic Women's Double PB Tourney 20.00 Ingle Jan 20.00 Iron River Construction 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 6950 Tecumseh Lane 250.00 Iron River Construction 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 8210 West Lake Court 250.00 Iron River Construction 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 6716 Brenden Ct 250.00 Iron River Construction 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 6421 Pleasant Park Drive 250.00 Iron River Construction 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 8286 Stone Creek Drive 250.00 Iron River Construction 1,250.00 ISC Companies Inc 06/06/2019 101-1170-4530 Belts - GAT-AX39 20.50 ISC Companies Inc 20.50 IUOE Local #49 06/06/2019 101-0000-2004 PR Batch 00407.06.2019 Local 49 dues 451.74 IUOE Local #49 06/06/2019 700-0000-2004 PR Batch 00407.06.2019 Local 49 dues 164.28 IUOE Local #49 06/06/2019 701-0000-2004 PR Batch 00407.06.2019 Local 49 dues 83.56 IUOE Local #49 06/06/2019 720-0000-2004 PR Batch 00407.06.2019 Local 49 dues 0.42 IUOE Local #49 700.00 JMS Custom Homes LLC 06/13/2019 815-8226-2024 As-Built Escrow - 7530 Fawn Hill 2,500.00 JMS Custom Homes LLC 2,500.00 JUNGGON SEO 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 2750 Sandpiper Trail 250.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 6 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount JUNGGON SEO 250.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 06/13/2019 101-1170-4483 General Liability Acct# 10002587 43,960.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 06/13/2019 101-1170-4483 Work Comp Acct# 40001925 54,283.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST 98,243.00 Lily Pad Holding LLC 06/13/2019 605-6501-4300 Relocation Payment Request for Betty Anne Bellamy and Family 9,125.00 Lily Pad Holding LLC 9,125.00 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP 06/13/2019 101-1140-4302 Labor Relations Services - svc from May 2019 2,243.29 MADDEN GALANTER HANSEN LLP 2,243.29 Marks Tracy 06/06/2019 101-1539-3631 Refund - Kwik Trip Classic Women's/Men's Doubles PB Tourney 60.00 Marks Tracy 60.00 Marx Heidi 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 3755 Red Cedar Point Road 250.00 Marx Heidi 250.00 Metro Garage Door Company 06/13/2019 101-1370-4510 Replaced springs on Northwest overhead door 961.77 Metro Garage Door Company 961.77 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 06/13/2019 701-0000-4509 Waste Water Services - July 2019 157,423.55 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 157,423.55 Metropolitan Plumbing 06/13/2019 101-0000-2033 Overpayment - Refund permit# 2019-01333 30.05 Metropolitan Plumbing 30.05 Mid-America Sports Advantage 06/13/2019 101-1550-4150 Quick Pump, Replacement Foam Pad for Super Sopper 668.88 Mid-America Sports Advantage 668.88 Midland Heating & Air Conditioning 06/13/2019 101-0000-2033 Overpayment - refund permit# 2019-01376 5.30 Midland Heating & Air Conditioning 5.30 Milbank Winwater Works 06/13/2019 700-0000-4250 Meters 12,922.90 Milbank Winwater Works 12,922.90 MN Basement Remodeling 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 8120 Pinewood Circle 500.00 MN Basement Remodeling 500.00 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 06/06/2019 101-0000-2011 PR Batch 00407.06.2019 NCPERS-Life Insurance 44.01 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2011 PR Batch 00407.06.2019 NCPERS-Life Insurance 9.57 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 06/06/2019 701-0000-2011 PR Batch 00407.06.2019 NCPERS-Life Insurance 9.63 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 06/06/2019 720-0000-2011 PR Batch 00407.06.2019 NCPERS-Life Insurance 0.79 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 7 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE 64.00 MN VALLEY COMMUNITY BAND 06/13/2019 101-1620-4300 Summer Concert Series 375.00 MN VALLEY COMMUNITY BAND 375.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 06/06/2019 101-1550-4120 Misc parts/supplies - Mounts, Bushing, Flaps, Joint 364.04 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 364.04 NASSAU POOLS INC 06/13/2019 815-8202-2024 Erosion Escrow - 2301 Boulder Rd 1,000.00 NASSAU POOLS INC 1,000.00 NEWMAN SIGNS INC 06/13/2019 101-1320-4560 Signs 762.15 NEWMAN SIGNS INC 762.15 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC 06/06/2019 420-4223-4751 Proj# 19-09 Creekwood Drive 39,064.66 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC 06/13/2019 601-6038-4751 Orchard Lane Area Street Recon 154,664.64 NORTHWEST ASPHALT INC 193,729.30 Pollard Water 06/13/2019 700-0000-4550 3/4 Rubber Meter Gaskets 111.73 Pollard Water 111.73 POSTMASTER 06/06/2019 101-1120-4330 First Class Presort 235.00 POSTMASTER 235.00 PROSEN SCOTT & MELISSA 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.31 PROSEN SCOTT & MELISSA 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.26 PROSEN SCOTT & MELISSA 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.65 PROSEN SCOTT & MELISSA 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.35 PROSEN SCOTT & MELISSA 6.57 Quality First Janitorial & Maintenance Inc 06/06/2019 101-1370-4350 May 2019 general cleaning 320.00 Quality First Janitorial & Maintenance Inc 06/06/2019 700-0000-4350 May 2019 general cleaning 40.00 Quality First Janitorial & Maintenance Inc 06/06/2019 701-0000-4350 May 2019 general cleaning 40.00 Quality First Janitorial & Maintenance Inc 400.00 RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 06/13/2019 720-7202-4300 Chan Rec Center crab spray 640.00 RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 640.00 RICE BRENT & KARNA 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 18.90 RICE BRENT & KARNA 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 31.64 RICE BRENT & KARNA 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.20 RICE BRENT & KARNA 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.42 RICE BRENT & KARNA 54.16 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 06/06/2019 101-1120-4300 Water sampling - Economic Development 143.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 8 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 143.00 RPZ Testing Services 06/13/2019 101-0000-2033 Overpayment - refund permit# 2019-01354 29.85 RPZ Testing Services 29.85 Sabinske Janet 06/13/2019 101-1560-3637 Refund - Summer Bicycle w/Basket Art #6192.103 32.00 Sabinske Janet 32.00 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 06/13/2019 101-1220-4510 Supplies 21.48 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 06/13/2019 701-0000-4140 Supplies 4.19 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 25.67 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 06/13/2019 101-1170-4510 Anchors 3.59 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 06/13/2019 101-1220-4290 Detergent, Toilet cleaner, Bleach, Pledge 36.03 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 06/13/2019 601-6038-4705 Pressure Gauge, Seal Tape 12.48 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 06/13/2019 101-1220-4510 Bolts 1.00 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 06/13/2019 101-1220-4510 Drain Opener 25.99 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 06/13/2019 101-1190-4510 Strap, Screws 3.21 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE 82.30 Shred-N-Go Inc 06/13/2019 101-1160-4300 Shredding Service - Bulk Bin 15.00 Shred-N-Go Inc 15.00 SIGNSOURCE 06/06/2019 101-1170-4110 Interior Office Sign and Name Plates 68.00 SIGNSOURCE 06/06/2019 101-1170-4110 Guidelines for Visitor Presentations 217.50 SIGNSOURCE 285.50 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 06/13/2019 101-1550-4151 Electric valves 903.36 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 903.36 SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 06/13/2019 720-7206-4300 Organics Recycling May 2019 1,330.00 SMSC Organics Recycling Facility 1,330.00 SOTEBEER JODI 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 69.30 SOTEBEER JODI 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 59.67 SOTEBEER JODI 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 10.72 SOTEBEER JODI 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.56 SOTEBEER JODI 143.25 Southwest Suburban Publishing 06/13/2019 101-1110-4340 printing/advertising 42.84 Southwest Suburban Publishing 06/13/2019 101-1120-4340 printing/advertising 190.00 Southwest Suburban Publishing 06/13/2019 101-1410-4340 printing/advertising 88.98 Southwest Suburban Publishing 06/13/2019 101-1600-4340 printing/advertising 526.40 Southwest Suburban Publishing 06/13/2019 720-7202-4340 printing/advertising 263.20 Southwest Suburban Publishing 1,111.42 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 9 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount Swantz Audrey 06/06/2019 101-0000-1027 4th of July Celebration - Change for T-shirts 200.00 Swantz Audrey 06/06/2019 101-0000-1027 Summer Concert Series - Start up change 50.00 Swantz Audrey 250.00 T KELLY FKA COLLEEN ESTATE OF COLLEN06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.43 T KELLY FKA COLLEEN ESTATE OF COLLEN06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.60 T KELLY FKA COLLEEN ESTATE OF COLLEN06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.54 T KELLY FKA COLLEEN ESTATE OF COLLEN06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.83 T KELLY FKA COLLEEN ESTATE OF COLLEN 13.40 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 06/13/2019 101-1350-4565 Furnish spare vehicle detector cards, install and program 1 1,163.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 06/13/2019 101-1350-4565 Repair street lighting in various locations 1,150.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 2,313.00 TERRYL SCHULTE REVOCABLE TRUST 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 7.90 TERRYL SCHULTE REVOCABLE TRUST 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.54 TERRYL SCHULTE REVOCABLE TRUST 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.20 TERRYL SCHULTE REVOCABLE TRUST 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.16 TERRYL SCHULTE REVOCABLE TRUST 22.80 The Mustard Seed, Inc.06/13/2019 101-1550-4150 misc supplies 76.70 The Mustard Seed, Inc.06/13/2019 101-1550-4150 misc supplies 51.14 The Mustard Seed, Inc. 127.84 TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC.06/06/2019 101-1550-4150 Holland Autumn Blend, Borgert Pallet 259.53 TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC. 259.53 TITLE NEXUS LLC 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 28.80 TITLE NEXUS LLC 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 69.39 TITLE NEXUS LLC 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 35.09 TITLE NEXUS LLC 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.67 TITLE NEXUS LLC 137.95 TITLE SMART INC 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.77 TITLE SMART INC 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 19.15 TITLE SMART INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.33 TITLE SMART INC 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.58 TITLE SMART INC 37.83 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 37.02 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 54.98 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 21.77 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.90 TRADEMARK TITLE SERVICES INC 116.67 VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS BENEFIT ASSOC OF MINN06/13/2019 101-1220-4483 FD Annual Renewal Fees for insurance policies 597.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 10 of 11 Name Check D Account Description Amount VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS BENEFIT ASSOC OF MINN 597.00 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 06/06/2019 101-1370-4350 garbage service - June 2019 99.23 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 06/06/2019 700-0000-4350 garbage service - June 2019 12.41 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 06/06/2019 701-0000-4350 garbage service - June 2019 12.40 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 06/06/2019 101-1550-4350 garbage service - June 2019 382.69 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 06/06/2019 101-1220-4350 garbage service - June 2019 27.57 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 06/06/2019 101-1170-4350 garbage service - June 2019 175.04 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 06/06/2019 101-1220-4350 garbage service - June 2019 71.87 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 06/06/2019 101-1190-4350 garbage service - June 2019 223.67 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 1,004.88 WATERMARK TITLE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 35.60 WATERMARK TITLE 06/06/2019 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 54.49 WATERMARK TITLE 06/06/2019 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.77 WATERMARK TITLE 06/06/2019 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.76 WATERMARK TITLE 96.62 ZAHL-PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE CO 06/13/2019 101-1370-4510 Annual Full Function Testing 1,365.70 ZAHL-PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE CO 1,365.70 617,908.21 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 11 of 11 Accounts Payable Check Detail-ACH User: dwashburn Printed: 06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM Name Check Da Account Description Amount A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 06/13/2019 700-0000-4550 Install temp power wiring and move con boxes from tower to stand 1,375.96 A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,375.96 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 06/06/2019 101-1170-4300 monthly service 125.00 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 06/06/2019 101-1190-4300 Quarterly Service 250.00 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 375.00 Al-Hilwani Juli 06/06/2019 101-1533-4300 Personal Training 285.00 Al-Hilwani Juli 06/13/2019 101-1533-4300 Personal Training 146.25 Al-Hilwani Juli 431.25 All Traffic Solutions 06/06/2019 101-1310-4300 Renewal: App/Traffic Suite/Equip Mgmt/Reporting/Image Mgmt,Alert 3,000.00 All Traffic Solutions 3,000.00 Boyer Ford Trucks 06/13/2019 700-0000-4140 Valve 73.39 Boyer Ford Trucks 06/13/2019 101-1320-4140 Heater Air Vent, Shaft Heater, Shaft -81.42 Boyer Ford Trucks 06/13/2019 101-1320-4140 Core Return -196.00 Boyer Ford Trucks 06/13/2019 101-1320-4140 Core Asy 71.44 Boyer Ford Trucks 06/13/2019 101-1320-4120 Switch Di 65.25 Boyer Ford Trucks 06/13/2019 101-1220-4140 misc parts/supplies 147.97 Boyer Ford Trucks 80.63 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 06/13/2019 720-0000-4300 Pond Sediment Sampling - svc through 4/12/19 7,547.60 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 7,547.60 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 06/13/2019 101-1140-4302 Legal Services 18,296.77 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 18,296.77 Carver County 06/13/2019 101-1120-4807 Property Tax - 25.3620040 2.16 Carver County 06/13/2019 101-1120-4807 Property Tax - 25.3620030 1,306.80 Carver County 06/13/2019 101-1120-4807 Property Tax - 25.3620020 471.96 Carver County 06/13/2019 700-7043-4320 CarverLink Dark Fiber-WWTP-May 2019 350.00 Carver County 06/13/2019 101-1160-4320 CarverLink Internet/Fiber - May 2019 540.00 Carver County 06/13/2019 700-7043-4320 CarverLink Dark Fiber-WWTP-June 2019 350.00 Carver County 06/13/2019 101-1160-4320 CarverLink Internet/Fiber - June 2019 540.00 Carver County 3,560.92 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 06/13/2019 700-7019-4320 April 2019 1,121.73 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 06/13/2019 101-1220-4320 April 2019 75.57 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 1 of 7 Name Check Da Account Description Amount CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 06/13/2019 101-1350-4320 April 2019 1,967.17 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 06/13/2019 101-1540-4320 April 2019 222.13 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 06/13/2019 101-1550-4320 April 2019 238.02 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 06/13/2019 101-1600-4320 April 2019 18.16 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 06/13/2019 700-0000-4320 April 2019 71.30 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 06/13/2019 701-0000-4320 April 2019 799.52 CCP NI MASTER TENANT 4 LLC 4,513.60 CivicPlus 06/13/2019 210-0000-4300 Annual Fee 10,744.97 CivicPlus 10,744.97 Danial Reem 06/13/2019 101-1539-4300 Zumba class 176.40 Danial Reem 176.40 Emergency Response Solutions 06/13/2019 101-1220-4530 Thread Protectors - valves w/retaining cord 102.32 Emergency Response Solutions 102.32 Engel Water Testing Inc 06/13/2019 700-0000-4300 25 water samples - May 2019 500.00 Engel Water Testing Inc 500.00 Fire Catt, LLC 06/13/2019 101-1220-4530 Fire hose testing 4,404.50 Fire Catt, LLC 4,404.50 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 06/06/2019 400-0000-4300 May 2019 tickets 930.15 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 930.15 Health Strategies 06/13/2019 101-1220-4300 Medical Exam/Physical Abilities 130.00 Health Strategies 130.00 Ideal Service Inc.06/13/2019 701-0000-4551 Service on Lift Station #3, Pump 2 motortronics 340.00 Ideal Service Inc. 340.00 Indelco Plastics Corporation 06/06/2019 700-7019-4530 Gauge Guard w/gauge 222.98 Indelco Plastics Corporation 06/13/2019 700-7019-4530 Degassing Valve 325.63 Indelco Plastics Corporation 06/13/2019 700-7019-4530 misc parts/supplies 321.14 Indelco Plastics Corporation 869.75 Indoor Landscapes Inc 06/06/2019 101-1170-4300 June Plant Service 187.00 Indoor Landscapes Inc 187.00 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 06/06/2019 101-1170-4110 Markers, Thermal paper 39.18 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 06/06/2019 101-1170-4110 Labels, Tape, Paper 119.30 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 06/13/2019 101-1170-4110 Pens, Pencils, Paper 372.97 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 531.45 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 2 of 7 Name Check Da Account Description Amount KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC06/06/2019 605-6501-4300 TH 101 Reconstruction - svc through 4/30/19 93,507.26 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC06/13/2019 601-6043-4752 City Proj #2020-02 svc through 4/30/19 32,169.08 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC06/13/2019 400-0000-1155 Private Dev Field Observ svc through 4/30/19 290.00 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 125,966.34 Kubista Terence Kenneth 06/13/2019 101-1560-4300 Presentation 6/4/19 Queen Victoria 50.00 Kubista Terence Kenneth 50.00 LANZI BOB 06/06/2019 101-1766-4300 Adult Softball Umpire - 23 games 586.50 LANZI BOB 586.50 Macqueen Emergengy Group 06/13/2019 101-1220-4520 209/E11 Perform pump test 250.00 Macqueen Emergengy Group 06/13/2019 101-1220-4520 211/E11 Perform pump test 250.00 Macqueen Emergengy Group 06/13/2019 101-1220-4520 208/T1 Perform pump test 365.00 Macqueen Emergengy Group 06/13/2019 101-1220-4520 212/E12 Perform pump test 250.00 Macqueen Emergengy Group 1,115.00 Marco Inc 06/13/2019 101-1170-4410 Monthly maintenance charges - June 2019 720.68 Marco Inc 06/13/2019 700-0000-4410 Monthly maintenance charges - June 2019 100.00 Marco Inc 06/13/2019 701-0000-4410 Monthly maintenance charges - June 2019 100.00 Marco Inc 06/13/2019 720-0000-4410 Monthly maintenance charges - June 2019 50.00 Marco Inc 970.68 Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.06/13/2019 101-1370-4170 Pro 33# Net 31#, Forklift 127.05 Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. 127.05 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 700-7019-4150 misc parts/supplies 6.29 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 700-7043-4150 misc parts/supplies 19.81 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 101-1160-4150 misc parts/supplies 51.85 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 101-1220-4140 misc parts/supplies 5.39 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 101-1220-4290 misc parts/supplies 87.46 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 101-1370-4510 misc parts/supplies 34.87 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 101-1530-4130 misc parts/supplies 5.02 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 101-1540-4130 misc parts/supplies 85.81 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 101-1550-4120 misc parts/supplies 259.65 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 101-1550-4150 misc parts/supplies 111.20 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 601-6038-4705 misc parts/supplies 62.99 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 700-0000-4150 misc parts/supplies 13.42 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 700-0000-4550 misc parts/supplies 13.12 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 701-0000-4150 misc parts/supplies 17.26 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 06/13/2019 720-7202-4320 misc parts/supplies 40.62 MERLINS ACE HARDWARE 814.76 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 06/13/2019 101-1250-3816 SAC - May 2019 -74.55 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 06/13/2019 701-0000-2023 SAC - May 2019 7,455.00 Metropolitan Council, Env Svcs 7,380.45 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH06/13/2019 101-1370-4300 Drug Screen - Greg S 62.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 3 of 7 Name Check Da Account Description Amount MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH06/13/2019 101-1550-4300 Breath Alcohol, Drug Screen - R Heinen 118.00 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH06/13/2019 700-0000-4300 Drug Screen - C Carlson 31.00 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH06/13/2019 701-0000-4300 Drug Screen - C Carlson 31.00 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH06/13/2019 101-1320-4300 Breath Alcohol, Drug Screen - C Burke -73.00 MINNESOTA OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH 169.00 Minnesota Pump Works 06/13/2019 701-0000-4530 Halliday X1S Retro Grate 1,214.33 Minnesota Pump Works 06/13/2019 701-0000-4530 Halliday Access Cover w/Safety Grate for Lift Station 18 2,319.13 Minnesota Pump Works 3,533.46 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY06/13/2019 101-1250-3818 Surcharge-May 2019 -62.58 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY06/13/2019 101-0000-2022 Surcharge-May 2019 3,128.98 MN DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY 3,066.40 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 06/06/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 149.57 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 06/06/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 27.85 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 06/06/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 31.94 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 06/06/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 67.07 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 06/13/2019 701-0000-4320 electricity charges 572.18 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 06/13/2019 101-1350-4320 electricity charges 4,804.90 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 06/13/2019 101-1600-4320 electricity charges 31.51 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 06/13/2019 700-0000-4320 electricity charges 137.32 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 5,822.34 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/06/2019 101-1220-4140 Wiper Blade, Oil,Fuel and Hydraulic Filters, Capsules 57.98 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/06/2019 101-1550-4120 Coolant Reservoir 13.46 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/06/2019 101-1220-4140 Steel Wheel Weights 17.87 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/06/2019 700-0000-4140 Oil Pressure Switch - Gauge 55.40 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/06/2019 101-1220-4140 BTC STL TRCK WEIGHT 28.93 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/06/2019 101-1220-4140 Oil Filters 21.72 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/13/2019 101-1220-4140 Fuel and Oil filters 25.02 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/13/2019 101-1220-4140 Radiator Cap 6.37 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/13/2019 101-1320-4140 Winter Blades, Wiper Blades 12.26 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 06/13/2019 101-1220-4140 Wiper blades, Fuel, Oil and Trans Filters 102.41 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 341.42 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 06/13/2019 700-0000-4140 misc parts/supplies 67.32 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 06/13/2019 101-1220-4120 misc parts/supplies 22.42 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 06/13/2019 101-1550-4120 misc parts/supplies 3.91 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 06/13/2019 101-1550-4120 misc parts/supplies -20.50 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 73.15 PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON 06/06/2019 401-0000-4706 Playground equipment 59,032.00 PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON 06/06/2019 401-0000-4706 Playground equipment 60,000.00 PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON 06/06/2019 401-0000-4706 Playground equipment 59,869.00 PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON 178,901.00 Potentia MN Solar 06/13/2019 700-0000-4320 April 2019 1,244.08 Potentia MN Solar 06/13/2019 101-1190-4320 April 2019 2,335.75 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 4 of 7 Name Check Da Account Description Amount Potentia MN Solar 06/13/2019 101-1170-4320 April 2019 1,795.60 Potentia MN Solar 5,375.43 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 06/06/2019 720-7202-4300 2019 Spring Prescribed Burn - Bluff Creek Prairie 1,450.00 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 06/13/2019 720-7202-4300 Bluff Creek Prairie mgmt 660.00 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 2,110.00 PRECISE MRM LLC 06/06/2019 101-1320-4310 Data Plan - April 2019 300.00 PRECISE MRM LLC 300.00 PRO TURF 06/06/2019 101-1550-4300 Application 1,379.00 PRO TURF 06/06/2019 101-1550-4300 Application 128.00 PRO TURF 06/06/2019 101-1550-4300 Application 180.00 PRO TURF 06/06/2019 101-1550-4300 Application 479.00 PRO TURF 2,166.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 06/13/2019 700-7019-4300 MCFS - Monitoring - June 2019 thru May 2020 500.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 500.00 TouchPoint Logic LLC 06/06/2019 210-0000-4300 Repair - CC AV System Recorder 450.00 TouchPoint Logic LLC 450.00 United Farmers Cooperative 06/13/2019 101-1320-4240 Jeans 89.98 United Farmers Cooperative 89.98 UNITED WAY 06/06/2019 101-0000-2006 PR Batch 00407.06.2019 United Way 29.40 UNITED WAY 29.40 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1550-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 379.97 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1520-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 42.40 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1600-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 42.40 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1530-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 42.40 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 700-0000-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 569.52 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 701-0000-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 417.39 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 720-0000-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 107.46 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1160-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 89.80 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1120-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 307.25 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1170-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 25.05 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1260-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 35.01 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1130-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 42.40 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1250-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 373.47 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1310-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 847.74 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1370-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 92.50 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1320-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 320.08 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/06/2019 101-1220-4310 phone charges 4/19-5/18 504.92 VERIZON WIRELESS 4,239.76 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 5 of 7 Name Check Da Account Description Amount WATSON COMPANY 06/13/2019 101-1540-4130 Lake Ann concession supplies 344.47 WATSON COMPANY 344.47 WENCK ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 720-0000-4300 Stormwater Ordinance Revisions - svc through 5/31/19 902.40 WENCK ASSOCIATES INC 902.40 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 06/06/2019 420-0000-4751 1/4" Fine Mix 514.25 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 06/06/2019 420-0000-4751 3/4" Blacktop 1,000.07 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 06/06/2019 420-0000-4751 1/2" Blacktop 1,775.06 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 06/13/2019 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant - 1/4" Fine mix 349.35 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 06/13/2019 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant - 1/4" Fine mix 341.70 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 06/13/2019 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant - 1/4" Fine mix 599.25 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 06/13/2019 420-0000-4751 Asphalt Plant - 1/4" Fine mix 345.10 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 4,924.78 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 420-0000-4300 2018 Trails/Parking Lot Pavement Mgmt - svc through 10/31/18 8,222.65 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6033-4752 Park Road Mill and Overlay - svc through 2/28/19 4,853.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6038-4752 Orchard Lane Area St/Utility Recon - svc through 2/28/19 1,136.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6039-4752 Lake Drive East Street Improvement - svc through 2/28/19 13,587.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 2018 Misc Ponds - svc through 2/28/19 2,996.75 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 Glendale Drive Homes Stormwater Review - svc through 2/28/19 917.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 101-1310-4010 Interim Public Works Director - svc from Feb 2019 2,437.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 700-0000-4010 Interim Public Works Director - svc from Feb 2019 325.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 701-0000-4010 Interim Public Works Director - svc from Feb 2019 325.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4010 Interim Public Works Director - svc from Feb 2019 162.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6032-4752 Street Reconstruction Proj 16-01 - svc from 2/28/19 6,924.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 700-7050-4752 West Water Treatment Plant - svc from 2/28/19 277.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 701-0000-4300 SewerCAD Model Update & Analysis - svc from 2/28/19 238.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 701-0000-4300 OMS Sewer Televising History Import - svc from 2/28/19 1,272.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 CSAH 18 and TH 41 WCA Application - svc from 2/28/19 444.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 Moments WCA Review - svc from 2/28/19 1,504.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 2018 WCA Annual Reporting - svc from 2/28/19 351.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 Holasek Farm Development - svc from 2/28/19 573.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 HS Concession Stand Sanitary - svc from 2/28/19 629.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6033-4752 Park Road Mill and Overlay - svc from March 2019 357.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6038-4752 Orchard Lane Area St/Utility Recon - svc from March 2019 3,225.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6039-4752 Lake Drive East Street Improvement - svc from March 2019 11,508.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 Galpin Development Stormwater Review - svc from March 2019 1,837.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 Glendale Drive Homes Stormwater Review - svc from March 2019 677.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 101-1310-4010 Imterim Public Works Director Servies - svc from March 2019 5,625.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 700-0000-4010 Imterim Public Works Director Servies - svc from March 2019 750.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 701-0000-4010 Imterim Public Works Director Servies - svc from March 2019 750.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4010 Imterim Public Works Director Servies - svc from March 2019 375.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6032-4752 Street Reconstruction Proj 16-01 - svc from March 2019 3,378.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 Moments WCA Review - svc from March 2019 296.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 Holasek Farm Development - svc from March 2019 943.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6033-4752 Park Road Mill and Overlay - svc from April 2019 228.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6038-4752 Orchard Lane Area St/Utility Recon - svc from April 2019 4,886.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6039-4752 Lake Drive East Street Improvement - svc from April 2019 3,776.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 101-1310-4010 Interim Public Works Director Services - svc from April 2019 2,812.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 700-0000-4010 Interim Public Works Director Services - svc from April 2019 375.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 701-0000-4010 Interim Public Works Director Services - svc from April 2019 375.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 6 of 7 Name Check Da Account Description Amount WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4010 Interim Public Works Director Services - svc from April 2019 187.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 601-6032-4752 Street Reconstruction Proj 16-01 - svc from April 2019 2,512.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 700-7050-4752 West Water Treatment Plant - svc from April 2019 1,285.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 605-6501-4300 Hwy 101 Wetland Permitting - svc from April 2019 1,868.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 Galpin Property WCA Review - svc from April 2019 499.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 Moments WCA Review - svc from April 2019 92.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 2018 WCA Annual Reporting - svc from April 2019 1,572.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-0000-4300 Halasek Farm Development - svc from April 2019 370.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-7025-4752 Ithilian Pond Maintenance Project - svc from Feb 2019 73.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-7025-4752 Ithilian Pond Maintenance Project - svc from March 2019 4,859.25 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/06/2019 720-7025-4752 Ithilian Pond Maintenance Project - svc from April 2019 518.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 720-0000-4300 Pioneer Pass Wetland Monitoring LGU Review 842.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 720-0000-4300 6650 Pawnee Dr/6657 Deerwood Dr WCA Violation-svc thru 4/30/19 116.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 720-0000-4300 Pioneer Pass Wetland Monitoring LGU Review-svc thru 3/31/19 1,073.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 720-0000-4300 Pioneer Pass Wetland Monitoring LGU Review-svc thru 4/30/19 429.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 101-1310-4300 2019 GIS/AMS Support Services-svc thru 2/28/19 1,080.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 101-1310-4300 2019 GIS/AMS Support Services-svc thru 4/30/19 1,721.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 06/13/2019 101-1310-4300 2019 GIS/AMS Support Services-svc thru 3/31/19 1,605.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 110,059.65 518,507.69 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (06/17/2019 - 4:05 PM)Page 7 of 7