Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 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.Joint Meeting with Economic Development Commission ­ Review 2020 EDC Goals and Potential Business Subsidy Programs 2.Follow Up Budget Discussion 3.Update on Small Business Assistance Program 4.Roundtable B.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS 1.Chanhassen Red Birds Class "B" State Champions 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 August 24, 2020 2.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated August 18, 2020 3.Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes 4.Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes 5.Receive Environmental Commission Minutes 6.Receive Senior Commission Minutes 7.Approve Updated Park & Recreation Commission Bylaws 8.Approval of Temporary On­Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2020CHANHASSEN 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.Joint Meeting with Economic Development Commission ­ Review 2020 EDC Goals andPotential Business Subsidy Programs2.Follow Up Budget Discussion3.Update on Small Business Assistance Program4.RoundtableB.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS1.Chanhassen Red Birds Class "B" State ChampionsD.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 August 24, 20202.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated August 18, 20203.Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes4.Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes5.Receive Environmental Commission Minutes6.Receive Senior Commission Minutes 7.Approve Updated Park & Recreation Commission Bylaws 8.Approval of Temporary On­Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, 9.Resolution 2020­XX: Accept a Donation from T­Mobile for the Chanhassen Senior Center Drive­in Ice Cream Social and Concert 10.Resolution 20­XX: Accept a Donation from T­Mobile for the Aug. 13 Back­to­School Kids' Concert 11.Resolution 20­XX: Accept 2020 Community Events Sponsorship Donations from Area Businesses 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.Andrew Meyers, Republican Candidate for MN House District 33B F.OLD BUSINESS 1.The Bluffs at Lake Lucy Final Plat Approval (The Park 4th Addition) G.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Approval of On­Sale Beer & Wine License for TS Food LLC, dba Med Box Grill, 600 Market Street, Suite 160­170 H.NEW BUSINESS 1.Consider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls and Variances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and Utility Easements located at 6893 Highover Drive 2.Consider an Appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District Boundary Determination Made by a City Administrative Officer for Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard I.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS J.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS K.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION 1.Review of Claims Paid 09­14­2020 2.2020 Building Permit Activity L.ADJOURNMENT M.GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Welcome to the Chanhassen City Council Meeting.  In the interest of open communications, the Chanhassen City Council wishes to provide an opportunity for the public to address the City Council.  That opportunity is provided at every regular City Council meeting during Visitor Presentations. Anyone seeking a response or action from the City Council following their presentation is required to complete and submit a Citizen Action Request Form. An online form is available at https://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/action or paper forms are available in the city council chambers prior to the meeting. AGENDACHANHASSEN CITY COUNCILMONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2020CHANHASSEN 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.Joint Meeting with Economic Development Commission ­ Review 2020 EDC Goals andPotential Business Subsidy Programs2.Follow Up Budget Discussion3.Update on Small Business Assistance Program4.RoundtableB.7:00 P.M. ­ CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance)C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS1.Chanhassen Red Birds Class "B" State ChampionsD.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 August 24, 20202.Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated August 18, 20203.Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes4.Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes5.Receive Environmental Commission Minutes6.Receive Senior Commission Minutes7.Approve Updated Park & Recreation Commission Bylaws8.Approval of Temporary On­Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community,9.Resolution 2020­XX: Accept a Donation from T­Mobile for the Chanhassen SeniorCenter Drive­in Ice Cream Social and Concert10.Resolution 20­XX: Accept a Donation from T­Mobile for the Aug. 13 Back­to­SchoolKids' Concert11.Resolution 20­XX: Accept 2020 Community Events Sponsorship Donations from AreaBusinessesE.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.Andrew Meyers, Republican Candidate for MN House District 33BF.OLD BUSINESS1.The Bluffs at Lake Lucy Final Plat Approval (The Park 4th Addition)G.PUBLIC HEARINGS1.Approval of On­Sale Beer & Wine License for TS Food LLC, dba Med Box Grill, 600Market Street, Suite 160­170H.NEW BUSINESS1.Consider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for RetainingWalls and Variances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures withinDrainage and Utility Easements located at 6893 Highover Drive2.Consider an Appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District Boundary DeterminationMade by a City Administrative Officer for Property Located at the Southeast Cornerof Highway 212 and Powers BoulevardI.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONSJ.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONSK.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION1.Review of Claims Paid 09­14­20202.2020 Building Permit ActivityL.ADJOURNMENTM.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 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 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 Tequila Butcher, 590 West 79th Street in Chanhassen immediately after the meeting for a purely social event. All members of the public are welcome. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Joint Meeting with Economic Development Commission ­ Review 2020 EDC Goals and Potential Business Subsidy Programs Section 5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.1. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  BACKGROUND This evening the EDC will present its goals, statements and objectives they have been working on since inception. DISCUSSION The EDC will be looking for feedback in particular on proceeding with creation of a business subsidy program.  In addition, they would like feedback on its other goals and priority statements that will be presented this evening. ATTACHMENTS: PPT Presentation OUR 2020 GOALS •Create a Business Subsidy program using either a levy, abatement, TIF or other financing mechanism to help offset costs of barrier of entry. (2020) •Encourage local businesses to communicate more frequently and effectively with other local businesses, city staff, elected officials, commissions, and other local business organizations including the SW Chamber and Buy Chanhassen. (2020) •Implement a feedback survey for developers and potential business owners at the various points with contact with city staff. This would include the planning department after a developer has completed a development process and the building department after a business has gone through an improvement project. (2020/2021) •Recommend the City Council improve signage in and near the downtown which will assist with walkability/connectivity of the downtown, in particular over highway 5. (2021) •Improve the relationships with our Chanhassen businesses and our local educational institutions in order to market job opportunities to support the creation of local jobs in the City. (2021) Items We Think The City Council Should Consider •The EDC would be strongly supportive of the building of a public facility that encompasses large gathering spaces in a multi-use facility that brings increased traffic and visitors to the City of Chanhassen. The facility could host local business meetings, small conferences, and resident gathering events. •The EDC strongly supports a local lodging tax for the creation and financial support of a Visitors/Convention Bureau. •The EDC believes there is a high need for affordable housing to assist our local businesses. The lack of affordable housing makes it difficult for small businesses to draw on local employees for its operations. The EDC strongly encourages the City Council to consider offering assistance for an affordable housing TIF district project. •Support of city council’s goal of improving internet connectivity to businesses and residents. OUR FIRST GOAL OF 2020: Business Subsidy Programs •The EDC supports the creation of a levy to fund Business Subsidy Programs. Examples could include: An emergency assistance grant award program (similar to the one created using CARES funds) and/or a low interest micro loan program. Benefits of such a program would include: ✓Increase the city tax base ✓Retain small businesses and assist with keeping a variety types of businesses ✓Attract new businesses which will also offer residents more choices and competitive prices ✓Allow small businesses to maintain jobs and creation of new jobs ✓Builds trust and partnerships with local small businesses ✓Shows commitment elected officials, appointed commissions and residents have to small businesses in Chanhassen ✓Attain a competitive advantage versus other communities in the area ✓Ability to improve local business perception in our marketplace OUR SECOND GOAL OF 2020: Communicate and engage more effectively with local businesses, city staff, elected officials, commissions, and other local business organizations including the SW Chamber and Buy Chanhassen •Comprehensively improve communications between local businesses and city staff, elected officials and other business support organizations •Leverage partnerships with SW Chamber & Buy Chanhassen in order to engage local businesses •Develop a voluntary opt in digital communication platform for local businesses •Engagement through partnerships for more efficient communication would allow the City and the EDC to: ✓Develop a more dynamic and supportive/competitive business environment ✓Communicate information in critical times ✓Allow for surveying and asking how the city can help ✓Sharing relevant program information ✓Enhance business to business communication Discussion Points •How would the City Council like to proceed with a business subsidy program •Type of program preferred? •Levy associated with it in which year? •More effective ways of communicating with local businesses •Invite SW Chamber and Buy Chanhassen to October EDC meeting for discussion •Select digital platform to accommodate better communications CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Follow Up Budget Discussion Section 5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.2. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  BACKGROUND At the August 24th work session, staff reviewed the General Fund budget by department.  During that discussion, staff presented three scenarios (1, 2, 3).  The City Council decided they did not want to proceed with scenario 3 as it had too many impacts to service levels and instead suggested another scenario of a 2.5% increase in the levy.  This levy would be between scenarios 1 and 2, which will for now be called scenario 1.5. In addition, staff made changes to scenario 1 to include the new technology fee and a change in the congregate dining process, which together saved $60,000 to the General Fund budget bringing scenario 1 down to a 2.77% increase in the levy. During tonight's presentation, staff will review the three scenarios, which are now increases to the levy of 2.77%, 2.50% and 1.46%.  We will walk through the impacts of each of the scenarios to services and the impact on the average home. RECOMMENDATION Staff will be recommending scenario 1 for setting a preliminary levy on September 28th. That levy would maintain all service levels and will result in only a $12­$13 increase for the entire year on the average home.  This levy also gives the City Council the most flexibility when it comes to setting a final levy on December 14th in the event any other unanticipated budget impacts occur between now and December. ATTACHMENTS: PPT Budget Discussion 9­14 Levy Impact Spreadsheet City of Chanhassen 2021 Budget •Includes reduction of $78,000 for 0% increase in Health insurance Contract •Includes elimination of Skate Park Attendants •Includes Planning Intern Position funded by additional fee (see attached white paper) •Includes additional ½ time Fire Admin Position ($45k) •Includes 2% for wage adjustments, KFS budgeted avg for 2021 is 1.9% •Includes partnership with MAAA to reduce city cost of congregate dining, no change in service •Includes technology fee for permits associated with enhanced software •Impact on Average home of $12-13/year Where we are, What these slides Represent…… CITY OF CHANHASSEN TAX LEVY 2021 Budget 2020 2021 Dollar Percent OPERATIONAL & CAPITAL LEVY Levy Levy Change Change General Fund $9,181,833 $9,503,900 Capital Replacement Fund (for equipment)800,000 800,000 Revolving Imp Street Reconstruction 728,523 930,000 Pavement Mgmt Fund (Sealcoating)93,000 353,000 Total Operational & Capital Levy 10,803,356 11,586,900 783,544 7.25% DEBT LEVY Public Works Facility 480,600 479,800 Library Referendum 457,412 Total Debt Levy 938,012 479,800 (458,212)-48.85% TOTAL TAX LEVY $11,741,368 $12,066,700 $325,332 2.77% General Fund Revenue Breakout Property Tax 77% Licenses 1% Permits 9% Fines & Penalties 1% Intergovt Rev 4% Charges For Services 5% Misc/Other 3% 2020 GENERAL FUND REVENUES Property Tax 78% Licenses 1% Permits 9% Fines & Penalties 1% Intergovt Rev 4% Charges For Services 4%Misc/Other 3% 2021 GENERAL FUND REVENUES General Fund Expenditure Breakout General Govt 19% Public Safety 33% Public Works 23% Comm Develop 5% Park & Rec 20% 2020 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES General Govt 19% Public Safety 34% Public Works 23% Comm Develop 5% Park & Rec 19% 2021 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES Budget & Levy Scenario #1 –Current Service Levels (Staff Recommendation) •There would be some adjustments within line items for certain service enhancements but no change to services. •Levy would be 2.77% ($325,332) higher than previous year. •One change noted to this scenario as compared to previous discussion. Includes technology fee and change in congregate dining process (no service level change). •Impact on Average home of $12-$13/year. Impact on Service Levels: None Budget & Levy Scenario #1.5 –Levy at 2.5% Increase Adjustments Needed to achieve Scenario #1.5: Item Impact $ Amount Total Reduction from Scenario #1 $32,000 Eliminate membership in SW Corridor Transportation Coalition Have one less lobby and informational group to have important transportation issues targeted for the city $7,000 Reduce OT for Streets & Parks Plowing No OT work to be used for clearing 1” and less snowfall w/o superintendent discretion, and if directed, only critical areas to be cleared under OT. No OT work to be used for rink flooding and rinks will be maintained during regular business hours Monday-Friday Staff will be modifying rink maintenance operations by utilizing different equipment to remove snow/ice shavings, this method will greatly reduce the number of staff required to maintain rinks on a daily basis $10,000 Institute hiring freeze of vol FF No impacts on service levels for 2021 based on current staff and expanded duty crew programs in 2020 (One time Savings in 2021)$10,000 Change rink flooding and rink cleaning process New procedure is forecasted to save overtime wages through more efficient cleaning procedures $5,000 Budget & Levy Scenario #1.5 –Levy at 2.5% Increase •There would need to be reductions of $32,000 from scenario #1, which would have some impacts to services in order to achieve. •Levy would be 2.50% ($293,332) higher than previous year. •Impact on Average home of $12-$13/year. Impact on Service Levels: Some impacts as noted on previous slide. Budget & Levy Scenario #2 –Levy at 1.46% Increase Additional Adjustments Needed to Achieve Scenario #2: Item Impact $ Amount Elimination of 2 Connections Funding was to be reallocated for website improvements, which will be delayed.$20,000 Reduce OT for Streets & Parks Plowing No OT work to be used for curb to curb clearing of mainline/critical areas, mainline trails, safe walking routes and public buildings. No OT work to be used for curb to curb clearing of non-critical areas Clearing Trail system will be delayed and will commence only during regular business hours. No OT work to be used for rink flooding and rinks will be maintained during normal business hours Monday-Friday.$13,000 Discontinue weekend cleanings at multiple city buildings Garbage will accumulate in Library and City Hall on weekends.$15,000 Reduce OT budget at Sheriff's office Some potential impacts on shift scheduling.$10,000 Institute hiring freeze of vol FF No impacts on service levels for 2021 based on current staff and expanded duty crew programs in 2020 (One time Savings in 2021)$14,000 Reduce Road Levy by $100k This equates to a decrease of roughly 1/4 mile of roadway rehabilitation.$50,000 Total Reduction from Scenario #1.5 $122,000 Budget & Levy Scenario #2 –Levy Same as Last Year •There would need to be additional reductions as compared to scenario #1.5 of $122,000 which would have some impacts to services in order to achieve. •Levy would be 1.46% ($171,332) higher than the previous year. •Would not result in a property tax increase on the average home. Impact on Service Levels: Some impacts to service levels as noted on previous slide. 2021 Budget THANK YOU! CITY OF CHANHASSEN 2021 Budget 2020 2021 Dollar Percent OPERATIONAL & CAPITAL LEVY Levy Levy Change Change General Fund $9,181,833 $9,503,900 Capital Replacement Fund (for equipment)800,000 800,000 Revolving Imp Street Reconstruction 728,523 930,000 Pavement Mgmt Fund (Sealcoating)93,000 353,000 Total Operational & Capital Levy 10,803,356 11,586,900 783,544 7.25% DEBT LEVY Public Works Facility 480,600 479,800 Library Referendum 457,412 Total Debt Levy 938,012 479,800 (458,212) -48.85% TOTAL TAX LEVY $11,741,368 $12,066,700 $325,332 2.77% Scenario #1 Scenario #1.5 Scenario #2 Levy Levy Levy Taxes applied to:General Fund $9,503,900 $9,471,900 $9,349,900 Capital Replacement 800,000 800,000 800,000 Pavement Mgmt 353,000 353,000 353,000 Revolving Imp St Recon 930,000 930,000 930,000 Total Levy subject to levy limits $11,586,900 $11,554,900 $11,432,900 Public Works Facility $479,800 $479,800 $479,800 Library Referendum Total $12,066,700 $12,034,700 $11,912,700 Tax Generation Capacity (Not actual levy, Used only for estimating the impact on the average home) Prior Year $11,741,368 $11,741,368 $11,741,368 New Construction (1.93%)$226,608 $226,608 $226,608 TIF Venue Dist 11 -$55,000 -$55,000 -$55,000 Total Capacity $11,912,976 $11,912,976 $11,912,976 Percent Change (To avg home) after New Growth & TIF 1.29%1.02%0.00% Impact on Avg Home $12-$13 $10-$11 $0 TAX LEVY CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Update on Small Business Assistance Program Section 5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.3. Prepared By Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director File No:  SUMMARY The City of Chanhassen, along with six other cites in the county, have partnered with the CDA to provide small business relief through the city's Cares Funding. Following is an update of the status of the number of requests.  Attached is the city Cares budget as well as a memo from the county updating the CDA Cares funding including the Small Business Relief. BACKGROUND Carver County CDA has allocated $700,000 and the City of Chanhassen has funded $200,000 of  Cares money.  The small business relief program intent was to use the CDA funding county wide first and then distribute each city's allocation.  As of the morning of August 31st, a total of 184 applications had been received. At that time, the City of Chanhassen had 45 applications. In the September 3rd update from the Elise Durbin , Carver County CDA Community and Economic Development Director, applications were due on September 4th at 4:30. The CDA has funds to cover 70 businesses, so at this time, the CDA ’s funds are significantly over subscribed. However, six cities are contributing enough to fund another 113 businesses within their respective communities. It is anticipated that there will be well over 200 applications by the time the application period closes. Beneficiary payments to businesses, once documentation is received, is anticipated to start going out sometime in mid to late September. Staff will keep the Council informed of the number of Chanhassen businesses requesting funding as that information becomes available. DISCUSSION As the city receives final numbers from the CDA, the Council may want to consider additional funding for small business relief. This funding would be predicated on the overall Cares budget, contracts all ready committed as well as other eligible expenses.  CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectUpdate on Small Business Assistance ProgramSection5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.3.Prepared By Kate Aanenson, AICP, CommunityDevelopment Director File No: SUMMARYThe City of Chanhassen, along with six other cites in the county, have partnered with the CDA to provide smallbusiness relief through the city's Cares Funding. Following is an update of the status of the number of requests. Attached is the city Cares budget as well as a memo from the county updating the CDA Cares funding including theSmall Business Relief.BACKGROUNDCarver County CDA has allocated $700,000 and the City of Chanhassen has funded $200,000 of  Cares money. The small business relief program intent was to use the CDA funding county wide first and then distribute each city'sallocation. As of the morning of August 31st, a total of 184 applications had been received. At that time, the City of Chanhassenhad 45 applications.In the September 3rd update from the Elise Durbin , Carver County CDA Community and Economic DevelopmentDirector, applications were due on September 4th at 4:30. The CDA has funds to cover 70 businesses, so at this time, theCDA’s funds are significantly over subscribed. However, six cities are contributing enough to fund another 113businesses within their respective communities. It is anticipated that there will be well over 200 applications by the timethe application period closes. Beneficiary payments to businesses, once documentation is received, is anticipated to startgoing out sometime in mid to late September.Staff will keep the Council informed of the number of Chanhassen businesses requesting funding as that informationbecomes available.DISCUSSIONAs the city receives final numbers from the CDA, the Council may want to consider additional funding for small business relief. This funding would be predicated on the overall Cares budget, contracts all ready committed as well as other eligible expenses.  ATTACHMENTS: CDA Cares Update Cares Funding Budget memo To: Carver County City Administrators Dave Hemze, Carver County Administrator Nick Koktavy, Carver County Assistant County Administrator From: Elise Durbin, Carver County CDA Community and Economic Development Director Date: September 3, 2020 Re: Coronavirus Relief Funds/Carver County COVID-19 Economic Support Programs update In follow up to the City/County Administrator meeting on September 3, 2020, the following is an update on Carver County’s Coronavirus Relief Funds Economic Support Programs. CARES Housing Stability Program The CARES Housing Stability Program launched on August 10 in coordination with the Carver County Health and Human Services department. CDA and County staff have worked together to create one application to streamline the process for the applicant. After the application is submitted, County and CDA staff then figure out which program the application should go to— dependent upon income level as well as rental/homeowner. The chart below shows the CDA only program results through September 2, 2020. Through September 2 Applications received for CDA program 40 Applications approved* 10 (5 renters, 5 homeowners) Applications denied 0 Applications pending (additional documentation needed) 30 Funds available for program $500,000 Funds disbursed $7,591 *Some applications have been approved, but the CDA is awaiting information from the vendor (landlord, utility company, etc.) in order to issue the payment. In this first group of approved applications, all are looking for assistance with utilities as well as rent and/or mortgage. Additionally, in some homeowner cases, applicants are also looking for assistance with Homeowners Association dues. As part of the program, CDA staff is equipped to assist applicants on housing counseling issues, as well as direct them to Carver County CareerForce/Workforce Development staff if there is unemployment or underemployment in the household. As staff has begun processing applications, in 4 out of the 5 approved applications for homeowners, the $5000 limit is not enough to help them come current on their mortgage. CDA staff is working with County staff to increase the limit for this program to $10,000 for homeowners in order to better serve our applicants to avoid foreclosure. Small Business Emergency Assistance (SBEA) Program The SBEA program started taking applications on August 17 with a deadline of this coming Friday, September 4. As of the morning of August 31, a total of 184 applications had been received. The CDA has funds to cover 70 businesses, so at this time the CDA’s funds are significantly over subscribed. However, six cities are contributing enough funds to fund another 113 businesses within their respective communities. It is anticipated that there will be well over 200 applications by the time the application period closes. Beneficiary payments to businesses, once documentation is received, is anticipated to start going out sometime in mid to late September. More information about number of applications will be known towards the end of the week of September 7. At that time, CDA staff will follow up with cities to let them know where we are at with applications. Non-Profit Emergency Assistance Fund The Non-Profit Emergency Assistance Fund is set to begin receiving applications on September 8. The application period will be open until September 21, after which time applications will be evaluated for funding. The CDA has been in contact with many non-profits who are eagerly awaiting the application as they have seen significant decreases in revenue. There are $450,000 available to support non-profits. In summary, CDA staff has been working on ramping up the programs in August—from marketing, to putting together process and protocols, to beginning to process applications. Given that the business and non-profits programs are underway, September and October will be busy months. Thank you to the cities for your support and marketing of the programs. Please feel free to reach out at any time if you have any questions or would like additional information. Estimated Budgeted Eligible Expense Estimated Budget Fire Department Duty Crews 33,000$ Sherriffs Office Public Safety Contract (up to $1.1 M eligible)- Uncovered EPSL and UIC Wages 29,000 Additional Fire Dept Duty Crews 35,000 Fire Chief Eligible Payroll Wages 35,000 Wages paid for Rec Facility Supervisors, Dance Instructors and Rec Sports Employees 27,000 Already Spent City Hall Safety Improvements (glass & Cubicles)30,000 City Hall Bathroom and Other Safety Improvements Prior to study 5,000 Election Safety Improvements 6,000 Current IT Improvements (Mostly Laptops and Temp Council Improvements)30,000 Additional IT Improvements (Meetings, Work Remote software, laptops)75,000 Forced Closure On-Sale Restaurants Grant Award 19,000 Sanitization Supplies Thru Nov 15 20,000 Masks for city employees, public visitors and public safety 10,000 Door Pulls 500 Add consultant costs for HWY 5 public input process for virtual meetings due to pandemic 20,000 Facility Audit Review Contract 14,000 Dsesign Contract for Facility Improvements 145,000 Construction Contract for Facility Improvements 1,100,000 Emergency Small Business Grant Award Program 350,000 Total Estimated Expense Needs 1,983,500 TOTAL CARES FUNDING ALLOTED 1,978,887 Note: These amounts are the best estimates with information at this time, the final dollars spent will vary. City of Chanhassen Proposed Estimated Cares Funds Budget CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Roundtable Section 5:00 P.M. ­ WORK SESSION Item No: A.4. Prepared By Heather Johnston, City Manager File No:  PROPOSED MOTION None.Approval requires a . SUMMARY Citywide review of speed limits on residential streets ­­ The City receives a number of resident comments every year suggesting lowering speed limits on neighborhood streets. A recent change in state statute now permits cities to make speed limit changes on local roads without state approval. (Ryan) Repeal of Emergency Delegation – The Council’s emergency delegation is set to expire when the Governor’s emergency declaration ends. The Council can change that date or leave as is. (McDonald) CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Chanhassen Red Birds Class "B" State Champions Section PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS Item No: C.1. Prepared By Jerry Ruegemer, Park and Recreation Director File No:  SUMMARY On Sunday, September 6th, the Chanhassen Red Birds baseball team won their 3rd consecutive Class B State Amateur Title with a 4­3 win over Moorhead. The Red Birds finished the 2020 season with a 24 and 1 record on their way to the 3 Peat. The Red Birds 3rd consecutive state title is the first time a team has won three State Titles in a row since 1946. Congratulations to the Chanhassen Red Birds on a Chantastic Season! CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Approve City Council Minutes dated August 24, 2020 Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION "The City Council approves the City Council minutes dated August 24, 2020." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: City Council Summary Minutes dated August 24, 2020 City Council Verbatim Minutes dated August 24, 2020 City Council Work Session Minutes dated August 24, 2020 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 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, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Heather Johnston, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Charlie Howley, Jake Foster, Jerry Ruegemer, MacKenzie Walters, Richard Rice, Erik Henricksen, Chief Don Johnson, Lt. Lance Pearce, and City Attorney Andrea McDowell Poehler CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Campion moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated August 10, 2020 2. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated July 7, 2020 3. Resolution #2020-49: Lake Lucy Road & Powers Boulevard Watermain Extensions Project No. 20-04-Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids 4. Resolution #2020-50: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Project No. 20-02: Minnewashta Parkway All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: FIRE DEPARTMENT RECONITIONS. Chief Don Johnson presented the honor of Firefighter of the Year Award to Gregg Geske and read a list of his accomplishments. Chief Don Johnson then performed two badging ceremonies for Fire Marshal Don Nutter who will be promoted to Assistant Fire Chief effective July 1, 2020 and Becki White who will be promoted to Assistant Fire Chief effective August 1, 2020. BOB FINN CITIZEN ACTION REQUEST. Bob Finn asked that the City Council consider renaming short sections of Audubon Road and McGlynn Drive near Paisley Park after Prince City Council Summary – August 24, 2020 2 Rogers Nelson. Mark Webster who is a friend of Prince and works in Chanhassen concurred with the idea of installing signage to memorialize Prince. FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Chief Don Johnson provided an update on staffing levels, calls for service, training, installation of a complete suppression system in the old Gedney Pickle building, and assisting with the search firm for the new city manager position. Lt. Lance Pearce presented calls for service numbers for July, and pointed out changes made to the new revamped Carver County website. APPROVAL OF FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. Heather Johnston provided background information on action taken by City Council at their last meeting. Charlie Howley discussed details of the construction contracts for public facilities improvements. Brad Barickman with RJM Construction reviewed what has changed in the scope of the project resulting in a reduction in costs. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council authorizes entering into a contract with RJM as Construction Manager at Risk for the CARES Act Funding Facility Improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE INFLOW AND INFILTRATION PROGRAM. Erik Henricksen presented the staff report on this item. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification of houses built after 1969 with foundation drains and associated costs for repairs and issues with the point of sale program affecting homes being sold. Councilwoman Coleman asked for clarification of the surcharge program through MCS. After comments and discussion amongst council members the following motion was made. Councilman Campion moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council authorizes the Engineering and Public Works Departments to move forward with recommendations from the 2019 Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) study to address private infrastructure I&I by a mandatory inspection program for all homes built on or before 1969 but not requiring mandatory repairs. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. City Council Summary – August 24, 2020 3 Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Submitted by Heather Johnston Interim City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 24, 2020 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, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Heather Johnston, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Charlie Howley, Jake Foster, Jerry Ruegemer, MacKenzie Walters, Richard Rice, Erik Henricksen, Chief Don Johnson, Lt. Lance Pearce, and City Attorney Andrea McDowell Poehler Mayor Ryan: Again good evening everyone and welcome to our council meeting. To those of you that are watching at home or livestreaming on the Chanhassen website, thank you for joining us. For the record we have 4 of our members here. One of our members, Councilwoman Bethany Tjornhom is absent with an excused absence. Our first action is our agenda approval. Council members are there any modifications to the agenda as printed? If not we will move forward with the published agenda. There are no public announcements this evening so next we have the consent agenda. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Campion moved, Councilman McDonald seconded to approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated August 10, 2020 2. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated July 7, 2020 3. Resolution #2020-49: Lake Lucy Road & Powers Boulevard Watermain Extensions Project No. 20-04-Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids 4. Resolution #2020-50: Approve Change Order No. 1 for Project No. 20-02: Minnewashta Parkway All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 2 FIRE DEPARTMENT RECOGNITIONS. Mayor Ryan: So Chief I will welcome you in. Chief Don Johnson: Thank you Mayor, council, good evening. Tonight I’ve got a couple of presentations to give. First and foremost I’d like to introduce our Engineer Gregg Geske. He’s a 28 year veteran of the Chanhassen Fire Department also serving two different terms as the Fire Chief. Three different terms as the Fire Chief back a few years ago. A little bit about the Firefighter of the Year award. It’s decided by nominations from the firefighter peers themselves so we have an award process. We have an award form and those nominations come in through the fire department and as an officer group we get together. The officers vet those nomination forms out and they make a final approval to myself who names the Firefighter of the Year. Unfortunately we do these at our banquet which was side curbed from what we’ve got going on with our pandemic right now so we weren’t able to present this in front of the department and the retirees like we normally do but we did get to surprise Gregg and his family at the station after an event so Gregg was honored for his expertise and knowledge in aiding and replacing the fire apparatus fleet which many of you have had the opportunity to be a part of over the last couple of years and Gregg kind of mixes his fire service, which is well over 30 years if you combine his time with Victoria before coming to us, as well as selling fire pumps and calf system for his regular day job. Gregg is very quick to train. He’s very patient. He’s got a wit and a sense of humor that sometimes is a little bit difficult to deal with but overall it says and speaks volumes for Gregg that firefighters in this department still honor the contributions that he made to the point where they feel that he should be the Firefighter of the Year so I present Gregg Geske and last year’s, or this year’s Firefighter of the Year for 2019. Gregg Geske: I thought it was my last time that I’d have to come to a council meeting except for the retiring in a couple years as I used to come as being Chief for 6 years. I still get the honor of like I say, it’s a great honor to be recognized by your peers on the fire department for what you do. I really enjoy I guess passing on what I have as one of my superiors referred to as tribal knowledge. I don’t know if you can say tribal knowledge anymore but to be politically correct but I enjoy passing that information on and I get some excitement out of it. I still enjoy the fire department. My truck, my new Ford pick-up that I just got was fire truck red and it will be the last one that I have when I’m on the fire department here so, still fun riding in big red trucks and driving them. As I get older I push the people into the back seat and I’ll drive the truck and you guys can do the grunt work so, but like I say I enjoy it and in 2 years I’ll be back here and when I retire so thanks. Mayor Ryan: Wonderful. Well Mr. Geske I want to, I have to take my mask off so I can speak clearly but first on behalf of council I want to say congratulations on this distinguished award. It is certainly most deserved. As the Chief said and you said there’s something really special that you are nominated by your peers. That they have decided that because of your wit, sense of humor, commitment and dedication and really your leadership is something why they nominated you and you received this award so I’m disappointed that we didn’t get to have the celebration in Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 3 front of your peers this year. I know last year we were dancing in 70’s gear but although we can’t celebrate in style I just want you to know how much we value and appreciate your service. Not only to the citizens of Chanhassen but the leadership that you provide to your entire fire house so thank you for your long standing commitment and congratulations on this most distinguished and deserved award so congratulations to you. Gregg Geske: Thank you. I’ve got my plaque prominently displayed on my desk at work so, and I have one last goal in the next 2 years if I can get the firefighters to fold the towels that are in the dryer and put the towels in the washing machine because I do it at home. Of course one of my sons is a firefighter up there so I’d better not catch him putting wet towels in the dirty clothes but if I can go up there one time and the dryer is empty and they’re all folded and the dirty towels are in the washing machine I’ll be happy so. Mayor Ryan: Great, congratulations. Chief Don Johnson: I’d have to say I think the engine, Engine 1 probably was in the tune of about $650,000. The ladder truck was about $990,000. I’d pretty much say that Gregg saved us probably in the $50,000 to $60,000 dollar range on between those two builds so just that industry knowledge and the knowledge of the trucks was irreplaceable with those two builds so. Next I’ve got two badging ceremonies. Again because of what’s going on we’re unable to do this in a smaller environment or in a larger environment. Just to lay the ground work I’ve been, I had a vacancy of an Operations Chief since last November. I’ve been carrying that load myself and this year about a month and a half ago, a month ago I lost another assistant chief to a job opportunity so I’ve been carrying two, would have had two assistant chief vacancies that would have been open and that isn’t something that we can sustain so it was time to promote some folks and I’ve two very capable people that I’m going to introduce you tonight and the Mayor will help swear in so I’d like to start off with Fire Marshal Don Nutter. Don was promoted to Assistant Chief effective July 1st. This is a formal reclassification of his full time position. It incorporates his fire marshal responsibilities into a management function on the command team. Don has been with Chanhassen since 2017 serving as the Fire Marshal and held the fire ground rank of Fire Captain since his start date. Don has finalized his course work with Hennepin Tech with a degree in Fire Science. He’s also actively enrolled in Purdue’s University Bachelor program. Don has approximately 15 years of service combining with Plymouth Fire and as Golden Valley Fire where he served as a paid on call firefighter with Plymouth and a full time firefighter and fire inspector for the City of Golden Valley. Don has extensive training experience and has been actively assisting with training in Chanhassen since coming aboard. Chief Nutter will be assigned as Chief 4 and will assume the training chief role in addition to his day to day community risk reduction responsibilities associated with being the City’s Fire Marshal. Accompanying Chief Nutter tonight is his wife Christina, son Brockton and daughter Maddie. Mayor Ryan: If you can stand up front. Alright so please repeat after me. I, state your name. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 4 Don Nutter: I Don Nutter. Mayor Ryan: Do solemnly swear. Don Nutter: So solemnly swear. Mayor Ryan: That I will serve the citizens of Chanhassen. Don Nutter: That I will serve the citizens of Chanhassen. Mayor Ryan: And the officers and firefighters. Don Nutter: And the officers and firefighters. Mayor Ryan: Of the Chanhassen Fire Department. Don Nutter: Of the Chanhassen Fire Department. Mayor Ryan: With integrity and professionalism. Don Nutter: With integrity and professionalism. Mayor Ryan: I promise that I will. Don Nutter: I promise that I will. Mayor Ryan: At all times. Don Nutter: At all times. Mayor Ryan: Conduct myself in a manner. Don Nutter: Conduct myself in a manner. Mayor Ryan: That reflects positively. Don Nutter: That reflects positively. Mayor Ryan: On the department and the City. Don Nutter: On the department and the City. Mayor Ryan: I promise to follow policies. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 5 Don Nutter: I promise to follow policies. Mayor Ryan: On the fire department. Don Nutter: On the fire department. Mayor Ryan: City ordinances. Don Nutter: City ordinances. Mayor Ryan: And uphold the laws of our State and Nation. Don Nutter: And uphold the laws of our State and Nation. Mayor Ryan: And that I will discharge my duties. Don Nutter: And that I will discharge my duties. Mayor Ryan: As Assistant Chief. Don Nutter: As Assistant Chief. Mayor Ryan: To the best of my ability. Don Nutter: To the best of my ability. Mayor Ryan: So help me God. Don Nutter: So help me God. Mayor Ryan: Congratulations. Chief Don Johnson: Alright next in line I have Firefighter Becki White will be promoted to the Assistant Chief effective August 1st. Becki has 17 years of experience with Eden Prairie Fire Department serving from 2003 to 2019. Becki has had a progressive fire career from paid on call firefighter to a full time assistant chief of training from 2014 to 2019. Becki has a masters degree in education from St. Mary’s with her undergrad in education from St. Cloud. She’s completed the Fire Science degree at Hennepin Tech and has obtained her Executive Fire Officer’s Certification from the National Fire Academy which is a national benchmark for Fire Chief Officers. For Chief Officers in the fire service and this is, was at the time a 2 year program. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 6 Becki White: Four years. Chief Don Johnson: It is still now and still a 4 year program so again kudo’s to a very low percentage of us in this field that actually go and obtain that fire officer certification under the National Fire Academy. Chief White will be taking a vacant paid on call operations chief role which will begin with the finalization of our new standards and operating guidelines which she will then be supervising. Accompanying Chief wife tonight is her husband Aaron who’s currently a Sergeant with the Edina Police Department and their two sons, Trevor and Adam. Mayor Ryan: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, state your name. Becki White: I, Becki White. Mayor Ryan: Do solemnly swear. Becki White: Do solemnly swear. Mayor Ryan: That I will serve the citizens. Becki White: That I will serve the citizens. Mayor Ryan: Of Chanhassen. Becki White: Of Chanhassen. Mayor Ryan: And the officers and firefighters. Becki White: And the officers and firefighters. Mayor Ryan: Of the Chanhassen Fire Department. Becki White: Of the Chanhassen Fire Department. Mayor Ryan: With integrity and professionalism. Becki White: With integrity and professionalism. Mayor Ryan: I promise that I will. Becki White: I promise that I will. Mayor Ryan: At all times. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 7 Becki White: At all times. Mayor Ryan: Conduct myself in a manner. Becki White: Conduct myself in a manner. Mayor Ryan: That reflects positively. Becki White: That reflects positively. Mayor Ryan: On the department and the City. Becki White: On the department and the City. Mayor Ryan: I promise to follow policies. Becki White: I promise to follow policies. Mayor Ryan: Of the fire department. Becki White: Of the fire department. Mayor Ryan: City ordinances. Becki White: City ordinances. Mayor Ryan: And uphold the laws of our State and Nation. Becki White: And uphold the laws of our State and Nation. Mayor Ryan: And that I will discharge my duties. Becki White: And that I will discharge my duties. Mayor Ryan: As Assistant Chief. Becki White: As Assistant Chief. Mayor Ryan: To the best of my ability. Becki White: To the best of my ability. Mayor Ryan: So help me God. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 8 Becki White: So help me God. Mayor Ryan: Congratulations. Chief Don Johnson: Thank you Mayor and council. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Chief. Chief Don Johnson: Appreciate it. BOB FINN CITIZEN ACTION REQUEST. Mayor Ryan: Our next visitor presentation that is scheduled is a citizen action request form submitted by Mr. Bob Finn and he is looking for City Council guidance regarding the feasibility of naming relatively short sections of Arboretum Boulevard and Audubon Road adjacent to Paisley Park. Hello sir, welcome. Bob Finn: Hi there. How are you guys? Mayor Ryan: Well, how are you? Bob Finn: Good, good. Is it okay if I leave my mask on? Mayor Ryan: You can take it off to speak. Bob Finn: Well I’m a nearly 27 year resident of city of Chanhassen. Julia’s been to my house while she was campaigning and I just, I met a new friend that we’ve gotten into a discussion about naming, trying to get Audubon Road or just a short section of Audubon Road named in honor of Prince Rogers Nelson. I don’t know if anyone has ever come to the council with that type of request before. We’re looking at Audubon Road and also McGlynn Drive there right by the entrance into the visitor entrance there. You know talking about just the naming of the streets you know that’s still up for debate but looking at guidance and suggestions by the council for the possibility of that. Mayor Ryan: Sure. Bob Finn: My friend Mark would like, Mark Webster would like to say a few words about it as well. Mayor Ryan: Absolutely. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 9 Bob Finn: He’s a staff member at Paisley Park but and a long time friend of Prince’s so looking just to honor this man. He, you know he did a lot for the community. For the world and we’re also looking at getting a memorial perhaps on Highway 5. I do know in doing some research that Highway 5 also has a designation for a long time legislator, Oggie Mueller who was a legislator for Nicollet, Sibley and McLeod counties many, many years ago. But this is Carver County and you know we’re looking at perhaps memorial signage for Prince maybe at the start of the Highway 5 split from 212 out to Galpin Boulevard where his home was. I’ve got emails into both Scott Jensen, Senator Jensen and Representative Greg Boe. I have not yet heard back from them but explaining the feasibility of the state highway piece of that so I know all of the rules and regulations along that line so just wanted to present that to the council. I know that’s probably a separate piece with the state highway part of it. But the city streets I just wanted to present that to the council so. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Yean well thank you for coming forward. I think it’s a fun idea. We haven’t had anyone come forward yet in terms of this. As you know The Park development, it’s a Lennar development right off of Galpin and so all of those roads, that was the developer’s decision obviously council approved but their recommendation or asked that all of the roads inside the park development are named, have some affiliation with Prince’s family so you’ve seen those. Bob Finn: I’ve seen those, yep. Mayor Ryan: Yep, but I understand the desire to have something closer to Paisley Park so I’m, familiar with McGlynn road and where that’s at. I know staff reached, followed up when you submitted your citizen action request form to tell you kind of the process, or explain the process in terms of reaching out to the legislators to maybe move the ball in terms of the state highway. I don’t know in terms of the local roads renaming, what’s the process for renaming local roads? Heather Johnston: Madam Mayor, members of the council, we certainly could take, if the council’s desire was to rename a local road we could certainly take that, look at the possibilities and bring you back something for consideration. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Heather Johnston: And also if the council wanted to direct staff to draft a letter in support of the State highway request we could certainly do that as well to help Mr. Finn in his efforts. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Council I know we don’t typically take things under consideration right as something is coming across during a visitor presentation. If there is an overwhelming level of support from council tonight we can make that decision tonight. Otherwise this is certainly something that we can bring back to a work session and a round table that we have in advance of other meetings and it gives us an opportunity to kind of outside of this moment right now to follow up with staff and have some follow up questions so I look to council to see if you want to Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 10 wait and have a discussion in work session or if you are wanting to move forward with pulling something together tonight. Mr. McDonald? Councilman McDonald: I have a question. Are we talking about a brown sign which is a memorial sign? Bob Finn: That was the initial thought. You know as far as the City signage you know just, if it would be just a short distance on Audubon Road from like where it starts right there on Highway 5 and then maybe to the, to where Lyman Boulevard or even shorter than that. I mean just something to recognize Prince in that short distance. And also McGlynn they’re right there as well so that was the thought process right there. And then it was, if it was just the, the actual street sign itself or a separate stand alone sign. I was thinking it would be a street sign but now you’re getting into you know businesses down, up and down that road. Will they have to change or residents or whatever would they have to change their address? I mean that opens it up for other. Councilman McDonald: Well that’s why I was thinking about that’s what a brown sign does. It you know memorializes a street without maybe affecting people’s addresses. Bob Finn: Well that would be probably the easier way to go about it. We have no problem seeking the funding necessary for that so it would be a decision, if that’s a city own decision to do that you know. We could go that route if it doesn’t create too much problem on the street address piece of it so. Councilman McDonald: Okay. I guess Madam Mayor I’d be in favor of bringing this back to a work session and direct city staff to look at the options. It’s either a memorial sign or okay if we’re going to change the street name what impact does that have up and down that street and yeah I’d like to get some of that information. Mayor Ryan: Sounds good. Councilwoman? Councilwoman Coleman: Agreed Madam Mayor and thank you Mr. Finn for bringing this idea forward. I would also like to just in a 15 minute work session lay out the options and then decide from there once we have all the facts and available options to us. Mayor Ryan: Great, thank you. Councilman Campion? Councilman Campion: I agree with the other council members. I want to hear a little bit more but I’m supportive of the idea so. Mayor Ryan: Alright. I think the answer is that we are going to bring this back to a work session and what that means is that one of our upcoming, before our council meetings we meet a couple hours, it’s a more informal conversation and it gives the opportunity, we’re going to ask Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 11 staff to pull together different options. Is it McGlynn make the most sense? Does it make more sense to do something along Audubon? What does that mean? Is it a brown sign? What are the procedural measures that need to be taken so once the staff can pull that together for us then we can discuss it as council and then we can move the ball forward but we’ll keep you in the loop as we do so, so there’s obviously interest. We just have to know what the options are and what the process will entail. Bob Finn: Okay. Mayor Ryan: And we will circle back with you. Bob Finn: That sounds great. Do we have any timing on like with, we were looking at maybe something for his next birthday next June. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Well usually we get requests for next month so yes we’ll get it on. Bob Finn: The state highway piece then I would just have to wait for Senator Jensen or Representative Boe to get back to me and let me know what their support is and then go from there from the state level, is that correct? Mayor Ryan: Yes, and we’ll find out exactly what the process, yeah go ahead. Heather Johnston: Madam Mayor, members of the council. I think we did print out the process that the State and I think we did share that with Mr. Finn as well. We do have extra copies for folks who want to join in on that effort about what the State process is and so that usually takes a while so it sounds like you’ve already started the process but to kind of keep on that time line. Bob Finn: Okay, I sent it to their legislative email addresses so I think they’re in session right now. I’m not sure what their schedule is so. Heather Johnston: They have a very specific process laid out and we have some information available for folks today. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Well Ms. Johnston will be in touch with you and keep you in the loop in terms of kind of where we’re at and the timing of everything but don’t hesitate to reach out to Mr. Johnston or one of us as well but we will continue this conversation and if, I didn’t know if your friend wanted to come forward and say anything as well. You’re welcomed to come forward. Bob Finn: Appreciate the time. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, appreciate it. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 12 Bob Finn: Thank you for your support, yeah. Appreciate it. Mayor Ryan: Hello sir. Just your name and address. Mark Webster: Yes my name is Mark Webster. W-e-b-s-t-e-r. Webster. I do not live in Chanhassen but I do work here. And I can say that what me and Bob talked about is someone that I admired all my life. I basically grew up around. We wonder sometimes why Prince came all the way out to Chanhassen to build a mega beautiful place to record and do a lot of things and it just came to mind one day about 5 years ago that, I just felt that there’s something that Chanhassen can really give to, back to his community and that was renaming Audubon to Paisley Park Drive. Trying to get Highway 5 into Prince Rogers Nelson Highway and McGlynn to NPG. NPG is New Power Generation is one of his bands that he really truly liked so to say this to sums it up real quick is that it’s a passion and this is not Paisley Park sending me here to make this address. This is me and there’s about 100 other people who said Mark, go do this. Go do this. Go do this. It so happened Bob Finn pulls up on me and we’re just talking and he’s a resident here and he was one of the first people who were at Paisley Park when Prince passed away and so we started talking and I gave him my idea and I thank him for introducing this to you and I hope that we can make something happen out of this. I think Prince has done a tremendous job in this community. He loved it. He died here. He done a lot of good things in this community and I just feel as a human being, as a person who loved him also, I think Chanhassen would be a great city with a great mayor and great city council to remember him by designating a street or a highway after him. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Well thank you for your thoughts. We appreciate it. Mark Webster: And I really thank you very much for allowing me to come here and speak too okay. Mayor Ryan: Absolutely. Mark Webster: And can I ask one more thing. You said the brown sign. I don’t know too much about you know signs and stuff but if it was for me, to me I want to see a green sign but then again it could be purple. You know so when you’re coming down Highway 5 you see Paisley Park, you know you see all that stuff so thank you again for allowing me to come and speak. And I want to thank Bob. I want to thank Ben. You know I want to thank. Denise: Denise. Mark Webster: Denise. They live out here in Chanhassen. These are people I’ve met and encouraged me to come forward and do this so thank you very much. Mayor Ryan: Great thank you sir. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 13 Mark Webster: You’re welcome. Mayor Ryan: Are there any other visitor presentations for this evening? Okay. FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATE. Mayor Ryan: Chief I think you’re number one. Chief Don Johnson: Thank you Mayor, council. Department staffing remains at 44. We have had 2 of our staff affected by COVID but got through it pretty quickly and didn’t affect others and impacting things. July we had 78 calls for service and if we can focus a little bit on the past conversation. 18 of those were day only calls which are a limited number of staff that includes, we left that off the CSO slides. Both of CSO’s part time are firefighters so they also assist during the day. We had 42 duty crew calls so out of 78 calls 42 were handled by that crew in station at some point which then leaves 18 general alarms for the month which to make it good standing you need to make 4 calls so as far as what we’ve done to, for the betterment of the firefighters in the city, a lot more of this has been now shifting to what we discussed. Shifting to on staff stations and I know I can speak for a couple in the room but at 2:00 in the morning when the crew goes out and you don’t hear that general alarm anymore because it’s pretty evident that some things have changed around here in regards to the firefighters so 4 of those calls, we had 49 rescue and EMS calls with 3 motor vehicle accidents. Responded to 2 fires. One major loss fire on Lake Point which I’ll wrap into the fire investigation point. That was an accidental fire. We teamed up with the insurance companies and started doing kind of a more forensic dig to determine what the issue was. Obviously it was the 5th of July at 2:00 in the morning so there was some understanding with some fireworks around in the area but that investigation subsequently stopped so the insurance companies pulled out and it’s an accidental fire. It’s a major loss so again it started in the garage. We’re not sure how or what so, and then we had a mutual aid to a Minnetonka fire. On shift EMS training was on poisons and toxins. We had small group response training going down in the highly hydranted Gedney building and again kudos to planning, buildings and the owner of that building because the use of it is now where it was sprinkled in only a very small portion of it. Working with the owner and wanting to expand the use of that building they were very cooperative in the nature that now the whole building has a full suppression system on it and they’re able to use the 250,000 gallon tank that was there to supply the water and we actually put hydrants that we can tap down there so complete approved suppression system. We spent the entire month down there in small groups due to COVID working with those new systems. Working through the building. Hooking up to stand pipes. Hooking up to the hydrant systems that gives us enough water to deal with a building of that size under a fire load so a pretty good example of our team working together and a real cooperative owner and wanting to change some use and turning that into something that’s real useable. I know we’re still working through the hemp thing and the plans and what’s going on in there. We can all read in the paper what’s going on but pretty exciting for me and for our fire service to see a building that could be a potential problems and no suppression system. Large commercial structure. No water systems. To be able to turn that into what it is right now where I’m really Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 14 comfortable with that suppression system and what’s going on down there so. Virtual Professional Development seminar for several of us on the fire department and small group sessions for fire apparatus operator that was hosted by Gregg Geske. The only other activities were, I assisted with a small committee here with city leadership to search and recommend the search firm for the city manager position and we’ve, a lot of my staff were involved with submission with the budget process so that’s all I have. Mayor Ryan: Great, thank you Chief. Council any questions? Chief Don Johnson: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. Lieutenant Pearce. Lt. Lance Pearce: Madam Mayor and council. I’m going to cover the July calls for service. Last month we had 1,023 calls for service. A majority of those, 4 happened to be traffic and also non-criminal. Non-criminal has been the pattern that we’ve seen consistently in the past. Medicals, suspicious activity and disturbances kind of highlight that group. The other things that I’ve been tracking with the city manager and you folks the last couple months, we are trending up in domestics and domestic assault and that does continue through July but mental health and fraud and theft complaints are trending back down. The peak that we saw in June for the fraud had to do with the unemployment insurance fraud and those have almost completely gone down to zero. So we’re still tracking those. A couple other things I wanted to mention. This month I looked at some calls for service just to see where we’re at for the year and I looked at last year and January to July of 2019. We had 6,657 calls. For this year even with the pandemic we’re at 6,473 so we’re only 2.8 percent below where we were last year and I would say we’re probably back to a normal call service as far as trending wise. A couple other things I wanted to mention here. Kudos to a couple employees that work here. Sergeant Nate Mueller and Deputy Nick Eischens. Unfortunately we had a local family experience a loss of a family member a few weeks ago and one of our chaplains happened to be at the scene and I’ll read an email that he happened to send to me. I just wanted to point out the great work that those two did. I’ll read it out loud here. Several family members expressed to me their gratitude and appreciation of how professional, caring and informing Sergeant Nate Mueller and Deputy Nick Eischens were. One family member commented that quote, this is what true police officers are like. A job well done during a difficult time for a family from an unexpected death. So I just wanted to point kudos out to those two deputies. And if I can have somebody help me get on the Carver County website. Ms. Aanenson can you help by chance? I just want to show you the new revamped county website and I’ll show you there’s a crime map on there that citizens can access. Sorry Kate didn’t mean to call you out. I figured she’d help me out. Kate Aanenson: Here we go. Hang on one second. Lt. Lance Pearce: Just go to the Carver County, there you go. Just the regular county website. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 15 Kate Aanenson: Not the sheriff’s one? Lt. Lance Pearce: No, just the regular county website. Kate Aanenson: Got it. I thought he said sheriff’s so that’s my fault. Lt. Lance Pearce: Okay if you click on government on the main bar. Go to the county sheriff there on the left. Okay, scroll all the way down. All the way down to the bottom. Okay, under sheriff resources in the middle there it says crime map. Okay this is for citizens that want to see what’s going on with the sheriff’s office for calls in their neighborhood, the city. This is a public website completely accessible to anybody. If you click on any of those dots under there it will show you the basics of what the call is. You’re able to on the left hand side and under the layers and stuff it will show you a time period. You can search by different time periods. It defaults to the last 30 days so if citizens have questions on what is going on in their neighborhood they certainly can access this and this just came out last week. Or the revamped website so I just wanted to point that out. Mayor Ryan: I know they’re kind of working on it right now to show how it works but I looked at it last week, Ms. Johnston shared it with me and it’s very interesting and I know we get a lot of questions on where crimes are being committed in our area and to be able to go on and look at the type of crime that’s been committed and the type and location. So if you want to you know obviously if you type in an address and then it will zoom in to maybe if you could do the city hall address and it will zoom in on that location and then you can see what’s happening around there. Speaking and while they’re still kind of, council you have any questions for Lieutenant Pearce at this time? So as you’re probably aware that there was recent perceived uptick in car theft. Car break in’s. Lt. Lance Pearce: Theft from vehicles. Mayor Ryan: Crimes of opportunity. Those types of things. And once one or two of those are posted online from in neighborhood websites they kind of trend towards what’s happening and what’s the sheriff’s office doing to patrol our neighborhoods and our community and so if you just could share what you’re doing to address this perceived uptick in crime. Lt. Lance Pearce: Sure. And obviously I get all of this information that the public sees in a different format that’s not public and we also get updates from all of our neighboring agencies to do collaborative efforts, we were just working with Eden Prairie this morning on some similar crimes as far as car theft and theft from vehicle so we certainly know where these trends are and as the liaison up here I direct my staff to try to address these to try to curb some of the incidents specific to the opportunistic ones. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 16 Lt. Lance Pearce: So we’re doing what we can. Mayor Ryan: Right and I think it was last summer where there was groups kind of hitting different parts of the metro area. Is that a similar pattern that you’re seeing happening now? Lt. Lance Pearce: No. Mayor Ryan: No it’s not that. Lt. Lance Pearce: No. Mayor Ryan: The same. Lt. Lance Pearce: It’s certainly not the same as we saw last summer. Last summer we were seeing a small crew if you want to call it that hitting several communities across the metro and they certainly weren’t remaining where they lived per se. They were traveling all over the 7 county metro area last year. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Lt. Lance Pearce: We’re not seeing that this year. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Lt. Lance Pearce: At least to this point no. Mayor Ryan: And I know that you just, I mean you just went through your numbers and you know it’s below where we were at last year but in the last month have you seen an increase in those types of activities? Lt. Lance Pearce: A slight increase but it’s not a marked increase, no. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Lt. Lance Pearce: No not like some of the other things that I reported on when we were talking about mental health and some of the other stuff. There’s certainly not a marked increase those no. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Then my last question for you because I was asked this by a resident, so if there was a car that was broken into and then do you send officers to patrol that neighborhood at an increased level? What is the response from the sheriff’s office when there’s crime that’s happening in somebody’s neighborhood? Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 17 Lt. Lance Pearce: We would certainly do that if we believe that that might be a pattern or a, if we know that for example if we see a pattern on the weekends then we’ll direct staff to do some extra patrol in that area for on the weekends. So if we can find a trend or a pattern we will certainly do that. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Lt. Lance Pearce: If it’s in an area we don’t typically find crimes or incidents happening and it’s just a one time thing we may or may not. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Lt. Lance Pearce: We certainly do have a focus on the neighborhoods in particular this year because of COVID and we know that more people are staying home and we know that people are trying to realize some more normalcy but we know people are more at home so we do have an additional focus on neighborhoods this year in particular. Mayor Ryan: Okay, thank you. And I know you’ve said it and we’ve been told many times before a lot of them are crimes of opportunity so make sure you shut your garage doors. Lock your cars if they’re outside. Lt. Lance Pearce: Don’t leaves your valuables in your car that people can see. Mayor Ryan: Right, okay perfect. Thank you. Lt. Lance Pearce: Okay any other questions? Mayor Ryan: Any other questions? Alright thank you Lieutenant. Lt. Lance Pearce: Thank you. APPROVAL OF FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. Mayor Ryan: Next is old business and this is a facilities improvement construction contract. I’m not sure who’s taking the lead on this. Greg Sticha: You want to take the lead Charlie? …we’ve been tagging in this three different ways. Charlie Howley: Do we have a power point? Greg Sticha: No just the attached contracts. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 18 Mayor Ryan: So if somebody, before we get into the details of the contract, I don’t know if you want to Ms. Johnston or Mr. Sticha maybe give us a quick background on you know what we’re doing tonight versus what we approved at our last meeting just to get everybody up to speed in what this is. Heather Johnston: Madam Mayor, members of the council. So at our last meeting you had two things before you. You had the design contract which you approved and we moved forward with that and then you also had an item about the construction contract and that really was just a list. We weren’t quite ready to take action on the construction contract yet and so there was really just a list of the things that were in the estimated budget of $1.4 million that we were planning on spending on our facilities related to the COVID-19 improvements. We do have representatives from our construction partner here today. We have finally worked out the details of the contract which I know you all got relatively late and so we thought it might be helpful to have him come forward and talk about what, how it’s changed because the good news is that we’re actually, this contract is less than we brought to you before. There were some things that we took out of the scope and some fine tuning of the pricing so with that Charlie is going to give you better background. Charlie Howley: Thank you Madam Mayor, councilors. So this is the staff report from your agenda. Sorry staff doesn’t have a power point to go through but essentially what we’re asking for tonight is a motion to authorize entering into a contract with RJM as a construction manager at risk and that term is a different type of procurement but generally they’re the contractor. The general contractor. And this is for the facility improvements. In summary I think the most important thing to focus on is the schedule which is in front of us here. So we have a background of what we’ve done to date. Again we hired an architectural firm. They did an audit. We reviewed the audit. We you know had a rough cost estimate put together and we entered into a design with the architect to put final plans and specs together and now tonight we’re taking the next step in the logical process to get a contractor on board. And the reason why that’s important is the future schedule down here, we work background from when we have to get everything complete in order to use the CARES funding. You know they’ve got a lot of work to do in a short period of time and the next council meeting we have is on the 14th right? So that is only one more council meeting before they got to start work, right? So we wanted to get in front of you. Get this contract executed. They can start working on some pre-construction services. We’re going to get the design plans from the architect on 8/31. We’ve got to turn it around right away. They’re going to make changes and then they’re going to submit their permits and then they’re going to start building. So if we think about it that way, that’s why this has been rushed like we’ve been dealing with this contract over the last week and had the attorneys talking and we got a good plan together and the scope is now itemized with a cost. A guaranteed maximum price is what GMP stands for and essentially that’s the grand total not to exceed for the scope of work. And the scope of work could change over the next 2 weeks but it’s only going to change subtly right? Minor stuff like it’s not all of a sudden we’re going to add a whole building in right so the designer’s working on the design and we potentially have to do an amendment in the future if the scope changes but we don’t foresee that. Any changes would Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 19 be relatively minor so with that let’s ask Brad to come up from the contractor, RJM and really just give many any holes that we left out or maybe the current GMP and why it’s different than what we had in the original facility audit. I think that’s important. Mayor Ryan: Okay before you begin. I know one of the biggest concerns and it was Mr. Knutson’s biggest concern, and I think Mr. Campion brought it up was, you know what if they’re not able to get the equipment or the pieces that were going into contract with. We’re going under contract. What happens if they can’t deliver? Charlie Howley: Do you want to go or do you want me to go? Brad Barickman: I can answer that question. Charlie Howley: Okay go ahead. Brad Barickman: Good evening Mayor and members of the council. Thank you for the little introduction there. I’m Brad Barickman with RJM Construction and also a Chanhassen resident so excited to potentially finally work here in the city that I live in. To answer that specific question I would say by September 14th we have a really good handle of what we can and cannot do. We’ve already worked with staff and Leo A. Daly to outline a scope of work that the team is confident can be completed within the timeframe that we have to operate in and then over the next couple of weeks we start to finalize agreements with sub-contractors. Physically completing the work is not the challenge. The biggest challenge is actually getting materials in hand. We’ve done preliminary research and feel confident in the information that we’ve assembled here today that it can be completed within that timeframe but before September 14th we would be able to guarantee that the products can be in hand within the timeframe that we’ve established here. Mayor Ryan: Before September 14th? Brad Barickman: Yes. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Brad Barickman: And we would also create out clauses within the sub-contracts if for whatever reason something comes up and they’re not able to deliver. That we are not committing any dollars to those materials so we’re not pre-paying for any of the materials. There’s no restocking fees and things like that to further protect the City as well as RJM Construction. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Heather Johnston: Madam Mayor if I can just add to that. We are continuing to be in conversations with our legislative partners. The Municipal Legislative Commission and there Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 20 are other lobbying groups have been continuing to work with Minnesota Management and Budget. Some of the folks from the legislature believe that November 15th is an incurred date so as long as we’ve had this contract going forward they believe that that should be sufficient if we have a delay in delivery but what we’re trying to do is work with them to get very specific examples in front of them so that we can ensure that we get sort of the best interpretation of that November 15th date as well but we’re hearing a little bit of movement there from the Legislative partners. We haven’t quite heard the clarification from MMB yet but we’re looking forward to that as other folks align so. Mayor Ryan: Because as it stands today is the assumption that the work has to also be completed by November 15th? Heather Johnston: Madam Mayor yes. Mayor Ryan: Yes, okay. Brad Barickman: And I think I heard a question about what changed from the last cost estimate that was presented a few weeks back on August 10th. I would say the primary differences are we removed the sheriff’s suite work as well as the work within the council chambers minus the council Dias so that’s the primary reduction in scope. Collectively with Leo A. Daly and staff we weren’t comfortable recommending to move forward with those scope of work within the timeframe that’s been outlined today. Mayor Ryan: Okay thank you. Councilman Campion did you have a question? Councilman Campion: No my concerns were just two fold along those lines. One is you know making sure that the money’s being used efficiently and you know I was curious if you have any comparison on these items bid, how much the price tag is inflated over what would have been the same service or the same HVAC system upgrade performed last year. Brad Barickman: So in terms of cost comparison today versus last year? Councilman Campion: Yeah. Brad Barickman: Or just the program for the accelerated work. Councilman Campion: Yeah the accelerated work and the presumed spike in demand and you know artificial shortage of supply. Brad Barickman: Sure. We’ve actually seen a reduction in pricing here since the COVID situation that has come up. Contractors have less work. We’ve seen more aggressive pursuit of that work and that aspect a reduction in cost. I would say every project that we’ve bid in the last Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 21 2 to 3 months we’ve seen a reduction in 5 to 10 percent in pricing so from that aspect we’re seeing a decrease in pricing but I would certainly say that’s, we’re paying a premium here. Councilman Campion: I’m sure. Brad Barickman: Because the demand issue as well as the timeframe, it’s hard to say what that really is. Can we say it’s a wash? You know 5 to 10 percent decrease in pricing because of the market but then the demand and as well as the accelerated schedule, so it’s probably about the same. If I had to roughly compare from last year. Councilman Campion: Okay. And then my other is just a question or concern for, to share with staff which is you know if come September 14th and we find out there are certain work that can’t be done or materials that can’t be obtained, that we have other uses earmarked for those funds otherwise they evaporate right? Heather Johnston: That’s correct Councilman Campion. We are definitely going to come back and have, Greg has put on his thinking cap and we are all going to be brainstorming about additional uses. We’ve actually had a couple conversations at the management team about other places that we could spend those monies. We plan to spend them all. Councilman Campion: Okay. Good, thank you. That’s all for now. Mayor Ryan: Great. Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Coleman? Okay. And so tonight we’re agreeing to go into a contract for the construction of the improvements and then on, at our next council meeting, what is the consider an amendment? What is that? Charlie Howley: Madam Mayor, so tonight there’s actually a GMP amendment document. It’s an AIA document in there that we are approving and that’s naming the guaranteed maximum price. The $1.044 million or whatever. If at that time we learn what the scope is different, dramatically different we could then do another amendment to further amend the GMP up or down I guess right? Normally you wouldn’t really raise it down but that’s what that is for. That’s a place holder for if we need further action to adjust the GMP based on a revised scope that comes out through the final design process. Brad Barickman: And I can add to that a little bit. Our pricing is based on preliminary design information from Leo A. Daly and then over the next several weeks they wrap up that final design. We do a final confirmation of price. These numbers do have contingencies in it and our assumption and intent is that those contingencies cover any up and down within that scope and design so that the number that we do bring on September 14th is less than what we presented here today. Is the ultimate goal. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 22 Mayor Ryan: And then so September 14th is when you would be looking for that, you know the final number. Final approval and then if that gets approved, whatever that is, then that, then the construction begins after that. Correct? Brad Barickman: That is correct. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Council if you have any further questions for anybody or would stand a motion for this item. Councilman McDonald: I’ll do the motion. Mayor Ryan: Alright Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Okay I would propose the City Council authorizes entering into a contract with RJM as Construction Manager at Risk for the CARES Act Funding Facility Improvements. Mayor Ryan: Thank you. We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilman Campion: Second. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilman Campion. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council authorizes entering into a contract with RJM as Construction Manager at Risk for the CARES Act Funding Facility Improvements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Ryan: Glad you can do work in Chanhassen. Brad Barickman: Thank you yeah, looking forward to it. Mayor Ryan: That’s great, thank you. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE INFLOW AND INFILTRATION PROGRAM. Erik Henricksen: Alright thank you Mayor, council members for meeting again on a program recommendations from the private I&I study that was conducted in 2019 in concert with SEH. Today our objective through this presentation is to seek approval of some I&I reduction programs aimed at reducing I&I from the private sources within the city and that were identified in the 2019 study. For reference the second draft study is supplied with you on your agenda item today. So with the adoption of an I&I program, regardless of which program it is, there are 3 Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 23 simple steps that will, staff will have to conduct in order to implement and to implement the private property inspection program. The first is going to be the updating of the sewer ordinances to ensure that the program is enforceable. Development and implementation of public education and public outreach to alert and notify and educate the public on these new programs and then finally would be the development and implementation of the selected programs. Through the study four programs were recommended and these programs are also being used within the metro area within the cities. The four programs are sump pump inspection program, point of sale program, voluntary and/or mandatory in-home inspection program and a main line launch inspection program. A sump pump inspection program is a mandatory type of program where an inspector would go to visually look for sump pumps that are directly connected to the sanitary sewer system. A little history is on the city’s experience with sump pump inspection program was that in 1990 we did implement one. In the 90’s we inspected all the properties in Chanhassen which is about 4,900 properties. 313 were found to have that illicit sump pump connection and by 2003 all of them were brought into compliance. However one of the limitations of a sump pump inspection program is you don’t get the full system inspection so there’s a possibility of missing foundation drains, service lateral leaks and other sources of I&I. Another program that was recommended through the study was a point of sale inspection program which is once a property transfers ownership it flags the inspection or full system inspection of a home to ensure compliance with code. Code would be that no clear water can enter into the sanitary sewer system. In 2006 there was an I&I reduction plan or another study that was done. This was in reaction to the MCS’s surcharge program but this study also identified that a point of sale program was a recommended option for the City to take for I&I reductions. One of the limitations of a program like this is that you are only able to complete an inspection for homes that actually over on the market. Another program that was recommended was the voluntary mandatory inspection program. This is a program where you are inspecting again the full system similar to a point of sale but it’s not triggered by the transfer of property. It’s either voluntary so this would just be at the homeowners or the property owners discretion or be mandatory so be mandated by ordinance to have the inspection done. Some of the program limitations are listed here but for voluntary, so when those are non-complied they’re typically not going to volunteer. Things of that nature. Also there’s higher level of effort for staff to administer such programs. And one of the last programs that was recommended is what’s called a main line launch inspection program. That’s where you’ll televise or while you’re televising cleaning your main lines or your public lines a camera will go up the service lateral to inspect any defects. One of the limitations here is just like with a sump pump program it’s not a full system so you can miss many of the different sources of I&I from the private side. With any of these programs once, with these programs you’re going to find certain defects eventually. Typically it’s either sump pumps, foundation drains or defective private laterals so they range in cost that can be associated with these repairs. While sump pumps are typically $1,000 or even less a defective lateral can go upwards of almost $10,000 so there are different funding options that different cities and municipalities have undertaken to help subsidize or put it either fully on the City or on the property owner. From the study on these recommendations or these programs we developed a decision matrix and came up with 5 evaluation criteria that are important to any I&I program when first implementing which is cost. That would be the annual cost to implement Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 24 and maintain the program over time. Public is the level of disruption to the public to implement such a program or while the program is going on. Ordinances, both the level of effort required for us to update the ordinance and then also to educate the public on the update to the ordinance and the program itself. Risk which is one of the key factors is where you have the potential for not achieving the reduction in I&I that the program should be providing. And then lastly time, how long a program would take to implement or how long it would take to actually be actionable. From the evaluation criteria, the decision matrix before you is presented. It’s pretty colorful but one of the things staff looked at was again a focus on was that risk. The whole point of an abatement program or I&I program is to mitigate I&I and to in fact decrease it so the lower the risk the better the program essentially. Also again there are, or there is a detailed breakdown of each of these categories and how they’re ranked according to low, medium, high which is available to the public and has been provided to you in previous work sessions. Staff’s recommendations. Again based on having risk as one of the highest weighted factors but also in taking into account kind of the rest of the decision matrix is a point of sale and mandatory inspection program and you’ll see a little note, pre-1969 which we’ll talk about in a moment. So the point of sale program is one of the programs being recommended. It would require that prior to a property transferring ownership that it undergoes a sanitary sewer inspection to certify it’s compliance which is essentially saying that no clear water will enter the system. This program and one of the benefits and why it’s low risk is that you would essentially ensure that over time all homes would be inspected and brought into compliance which is kind of one of those nice residual effects of a point of sale program. When a point of sale program is developed there’s about 4 steps that would be required in order to complete the program. First would be a property owner will verify the need for an inspection. With point of sale programs compliance letter or a certificate of compliance would be issued for a property so the property could check to see if they already have certificate of compliance. If not then they would submit an application so the City could track and log that this program was started and then the property owner would have to schedule an inspection in which the City would review the inspection to ensure that the full sanitary sewer system is in compliance. If it is they get their certificate of compliance which could daylight from 5-10 years or what not or if it isn’t compliant then they would have to, the City would issue what the repair mechanism would be and they’d have to have those repairs prior to the transfer of property. Fairly similar to other cities. The mandatory inspection program. This one focuses on the highest risk properties for I&I which are properties that were developed prior to 1969. Prior to 1969 the plumbing code allowed for cross connection of sanitary sewer and storm sewer so this is direct connection for I&I so these are highest risk for private property infiltration and inflow so by focusing the mandatory inspection program on the highest risk properties or the highest risk property I&I contributors they would achieve the highest return of I&I reductions from the recommended programs. Also there’s about 733 parcels that were built on or before 1969 so this program would be broken out over about 3 to 5 years to make it manageable. If this program was developed essentially would follow 4 steps as well. One would be public outreach. So the City would reach out to the 733 parcels. Let them know that there’s a mandated inspection program. Kind of explain why but also highlight the importance of reducing I&I to have more of an onboarding of the program. Then the City would secure a contractor for the inspection program. It wouldn’t just be for the inspection. The Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 25 contractor would also schedule. They would notify the residents. They would do the inspection. They’d do the report and they will provide the City, they would provide the report to the City which leads to item 3 which is then the City would review the inspection. Annually staff will assess how many parcels are contributing to I&I to analyze the cost of repairs for the type of I&I contributions. As you saw from the previous slide anywhere from one, around $1,000 for a sump pump disconnect all the way up to $10,000 is a lot for homeowners to bite off but if we can take a look at the issues that are actually contributing to I&I we might be able to help subsidize that but again that would really require the reports and the findings of those inspections. And then staff would annually present the findings of the program to council to review kind of what we’re finding. The cost associated with them and discuss that further. Couple other points on the point of sale program is that staff would be ready to start educational outreach and public outreach by the end of the year. One of the points in the decision matrix was that the time to get this actionable is high so this would take approximately about a one year lead time to get this off the ground and running. Coordination with the County and what we’d have to do here at the City just to kind of get it off the ground would take about that amount of time. The cost to private property owners for conducting the inspections is about $200 an inspection and then obviously any repairs that would be necessary to bring the home into compliance. And then lastly a couple points on the mandatory inspection program. Order updates just like with the point of sale program and public outreach could be conducted by the end of the year. We would anticipate beginning inspections in 2021 so it’s something we could really get on the ground and run with. What staff has found and what we would primarily focus on with the first and maybe even second year would be focusing on sub-sewer sheds 5, 5A, 7 and 7A. From the study these four sub-sewer sheds are the highest contributors of private I&I so we would want to tackle kind of both the highest potential I&I sources with where we’re experiencing the highest I&I rates. From the map you can see these areas are highlighted in purple and then the peach shaded parcels are ones built in 1969 and before. And then once those homes have been inspected in those zones, or properties I should say, a wrap up program where we’d wrap it up with conducting the rest of the parcels of the 733. The cost for this program would be approximately $40,000 annually. This is $200 in inspection that the City could utilize through it’s I&I fund. Again I think the fund is $200,000 a year right now and the cost to the private property owner would be the cost of the repair from whatever was found in the inspection and then we potentially could subtract some share from the City. And again that kind of goes back to the analysis of looking at what kind of repairs are we looking at? What the cost would be and if the City actually has funds to help assist in that so that’s kind of to be determined. With that I can open it up to question and answers. A little Q and A and then I’ll leave the proposed motion here before you. Mayor Ryan: Council any questions? Councilman McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Yeah I read through all this and where I’m a little unclear is, I know you mentioned in there about foundation drains and those things and a couple years ago I know when we had a back flow into the sanitary sewers. It all came in through a bunch of people’s sanitary drains so that seems to have been a common practice and these homes were you know Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 26 just a few blocks from here so they were all built after 1969. Are we going to say that if that’s the case that a foundation drain is hooked up to the sanitary sewer you have to correct that? Erik Henricksen: Yes. Currently that is city ordinance as well. So if there is a foundation drain which is collecting ground water, essentially clean water, and then discharging it directly into the sanitary sewer system, already that’s against city ordinance so it is, it’s technically already a violation. Councilman McDonald: But the home was built that way and it wasn’t then, again we’re going to put the burden of the correction and that’s got to be expensive. So how is that going to work? Erik Henricksen: Foundation drains are typically, again these are kind of your typical dollar figures but about $3,000 or less to disconnect. I guess the idea of trying to eliminate I&I, if we allow those sources to maintain we will always be contributing to the problem. It not only helps with the health of our local sanitary sewer system but it also helps with the district and the area as a whole. So I guess I would advocate that it, it is something that would need to be disconnected and as a part of the inspection programs that would be something that would be one of the mandates. If a direct connection to the sanitary sewer system that’s pumping in clear water, ground water, rain water, storm water, that would have to be remedied. Councilman McDonald: But if this was something built and all these homes were inspected by the City so if that was allowed at that point how do I tell a resident okay now you’ve got to spend $3,000 and dig up a bunch of stuff and correct the problem because you still need a drain so it’s got to go someplace and so that’s some more work. How do I tell someone they’ve got to do that? Erik Henricksen: I think one of the, with so I think point of sale, the cost is kind of built into the sale of the home I guess. But when it comes to the mandatory inspections that’s something we want to kind of on the first round kind of take a look at how many illicit connections there are. Quantify how much that might cost homeowners to get repaired and look at different funding mechanisms to help abate the cause or help abate the issue of I&I. Charlie Howley: Mayor, councilor. I would say look at it this way. There’s lots of I guess code issues that when somebody asks or submits for a project, a permit, whatever they have to bring things up to code. This would be bringing something that’s not legal up to code. And just because it was. Councilman McDonald: Well I would argue with you on that because that would be grandfathered in. That was inspected and that was said okay, you’re fine. You can’t now come back. And I wish our attorney were here but as I understand that would be grandfathered in. Mayor Ryan: Andrea’s here. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 27 Charlie Howley: Well one of the goals of this would be to get rid of grandfathered in things that you know need to meet current standards because it causes a problem to our infrastructure that we pay for so that’s why it’s a decision for council to say yes or no. On this. And I’ll let Andrea speak. Andrea McDowell Poehler: Councilmember McDonald, that is the type of property code issue that would not require a grandfather clause. You’re thinking about in terms of a zoning sort of issue but when the City changes it’s ordinances for the benefit of it’s own public infrastructure you are able to require homes to meet those standards. Councilman McDonald: Okay well I just imagine a lot of push back. We get enough push back on roads. You know we go pushing this and this is going to create a problem. Especially if you’re talking about some of these are $10,000. Charlie Howley: I think with the cost that’s why we’re going to be really intrigued to find out how much of a subsidy the City could provide because we have a decent amount of money in the program. The I&I program annually to spend and if we can use a portion of that to subsidize 10- 15 homes a year because of what we find, that might be a good use of money that we could help. We just don’t know if we got 733 problems or we’ve got 2 problems. Councilman McDonald: Well I can see it going back on the pre-1969 homes and you can find out just how bad the problem is. Where I see a problem coming in is if we now do point of sale that means a house is in the process of being sold. You’re on a timeline there. You know to get this house sold and the inspection could be a contingency and suddenly a resident loses a sale. They’re not going to be happy about that. So yeah I think we need to do something there to lessen the burden on a homeowner especially again all homes are inspected in Chanhassen. They’re supposed to be. All the plumbing and all like that is supposed to be a part of a process and if it passed the city inspection because was allowed at that time then I think yeah we need to come up with some kind of program to lessen the burden on the residents. Erik Henricksen: Just to add to the issue of cost. Another I think way staff can look at it and I think the city as a whole is, when we have I&I surcharges that’s something MCS directly can charge to the City. They give us options where you can either pay the surcharge directly or over the course of 5 years implement improvements to lessen our contribution of I&I. In 2014 our surcharge was, I believe it was around $1.3 million dollars so if we don’t look at pushing the issue of I&I and getting it fixed we’re only going to continually see these surcharges come year over year. So just when it comes to cost looking at it through kind of a different lens I think also as a community as a whole trying to fix the issue. The other problem is with I&I what we’re finding, what the study kinds of alludes to and finds is that private property is a very large contributor. Private property sources of I&I is a large contributor that we need to find a program or need to find a way to lessen it because from over 20 years we’ve been working on lining and improving our main lines but almost 60 percent of our, the infrastructure for sanitary sewer is on private properties so I think it is, I think cost is definitely an important topic because it would Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 28 affect a homeowner and property owner but I think if we look at it in that larger sense that the 10,000 level as a community as a whole, looking at it through that lens I think puts it into better perspective as well. I don’t know if that. Councilman McDonald: Well I’m just saying an individual homeowner, the $1.6 million means absolutely nothing. The $10,000 means a great deal. It will all depend upon your perspective of which end of the spectrum are you at. I understand and I supported all this from the city standpoint that we’ve got to get I&I under control but if we’re now looking and we don’t have a plan for how do you get a homeowner to be able to fix this without spending a lot of money I think we’re creating a big problem for ourselves. Just the push back from residents of why am I having to spend all this money when I bought this home I was told everything was fine. That’s the only thing I’m concerned about is there’s got to be a…we can solve the I&I and yet at the same time not place the full burden upon the residents. Erik Henricksen: Well if the, one of those programs the point of sale program would fix that argument with when I bought this home why wasn’t it brought up to standard. The point of the point of sale program would be to bring every home over time up to compliance with the ordinance and the policy of not having clear water into our sanitary sewer system. Councilman McDonald: Well I agree with all that but again if you’re talking about putting that cost in the same of the home, that means the homeowner just lost that money because as part of the negotiations just like with a road assessment that you know if coming, you’re going to end up paying for part of that even though you’re leaving. Well it’s going to be the same thing here and again at that point you’re under a much shorter timeline to get something fixed and that, I’m just saying these could be problems and they need to be looked at. I need to have answers as to how we’re going to deal with this. That’s all I’m asking for. Charlie Howley: Mayor, council. If the issue is we don’t want the private property owner to have to foot the bill for the repair an option certainly is well the City will fund the entire repair. I don’t think you definitely, I don’t know if you’d want to go there because that’s going to be an expensive proposition. Councilman McDonald: Yeah that’s going to be expensive. Charlie Howley: But we’ve got $1.3 million dollars potentially coming our way every surcharge event that is going to cost the City money. And this is again the studies are showing that this is where the problem is so we’ve got to solve the root problem of the problem. The root cause. How we get there, who pays for it, you know that’s where we need your direction of course but this is one of the main root causes of the problem and that’s what we have to fix. Councilman McDonald: Okay I’m just saying then find some way to be able to subsidize this and if it’s taking the $1.1 million each year. Divide it up between so many houses and you fix it and you keep doing that, that’s fine. Then it’s a long term process but in the meantime again Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 29 point of sale there’s got to be something to accommodate that because of time constraints and those things and if suddenly we’re torpedoing the sale of a home you’re going to have a mad person there too. So those are things that I think you need to look at and they’re very real problems from the perspective of the residents. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilman. Councilman Campion? Councilman Campion: I agree with what Councilman McDonald was saying. I feel like we need to budget for this somehow and that it can have a return as you’re saying with the surcharges that we’re seeing. I don’t know if there’s a way to conduct the inspections without you know committing to do the work immediately right. We tally our list of you know how many properties need to be resolved and then we could budget for doing the repairs afterward. You know I realize with the point of sale inspection I don’t know if that, if there’s a way of getting around that right because you’d just you’d note the issue but then the homeowner’s left or the purchasing party is left scratching their head with what that means and so I think if we do this we need to be clear. Either we’re, you know the City’s going to plan to fund 100 percent of it whenever the work is done or some percentage of it. And I don’t know if there’s any way of estimating of what was it 733 homes or something like that, that are in that bucket of you know pre-1969 in those zones, is there any indication of how many of those, I mean we can’t know right? How many of those would be potentially fall. Charlie Howley: Mayor, council we’d be throwing darts of course so I mean one of the directions could be move forward with point of sale. Move forward with mandatory inspections. Don’t make the improvements mandated at this point but make the inspection on a point of sale mandated. Then we have it. Then we put it on our list and every year we’d say okay we had 8 point of sales that we have this amount of work to do and we had 38 mandatory inspections and we have this amount of work to do. Let’s budget for that in the following year. I mean that’s one way to approach it. Councilman Campion: Right. Charlie Howley: And that’s just then part of our normal budgeting cycle right? We could. Councilman Campion: But I agree because this could otherwise be crippling to a homeowner. I mean if someone’s lived in their home for that long and say they’ve paid off their mortgage right and all of sudden out of nowhere they get a bill for $3,000 to $10,000 dollars, and it’s not like they’re getting a new road in front of their house or something in return for that money so that’s a scary proposition. Councilwoman Coleman: I have just a quick question. Is there any projection in your studies on when we would start to see cost savings once this program is implemented if it could be, if would we see cost savings if we only did a portion at a time as far as the number of people doing you know renovations? Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 30 Erik Henricksen: Cost savings in the form of I&I reduction? Councilwoman Coleman: Yes. Erik Henricksen: And then how much that would contribute? Not directly no. Not through this study was there a look at how one of these recommendations if implemented could then over time you’d see a reduction. I would say if you take the broad number of 60 percent of our infrastructure is in the private side and we can fix 60 percent you would hope to have 60 percent reduction but there’s no in the study there was no formal analysis of that point. So just a quick answer to that. Charlie Howley: That’s what I would have answered. Councilwoman Coleman: Sure, and could you restate for me. I think I heard you say something earlier about the options, if we are working towards improvements is paying over 5 years? Erik Henricksen: So the surcharge program which MCS doesn’t call it that anymore. When it was implemented in 2006 that was the title and that’s all the reports I read is called that so I call it that still but essentially you, we are billed for how many millions of gallons were dumped into the system through a rain event or usually it’s a rain event and they bill you on the usage essentially with that much use for sewer so in 2014 we experienced a surcharge volume amount which equated to $1.3 million dollars in costs or how much it would be if it was sewer. So with that what they allow you to do is then turn to a 5 year improvement program so you can essentially pay the surcharge by investing into your infrastructure. Public. Not too much on the private side. There’s limitations to how much actually counts towards the surcharge and there’s also limitations on what type of improvements you put into the system count towards the surcharge because the focus of it is to decrease I&I but there are some measures out there where you improve the system which aren’t necessarily directly I&I contributors so if you re-laid a new piece of pipe it’s not hopefully it won’t leak or it shouldn’t be leaking but that value is also adding to the longevity of it and not just directly I&I so in short that’s kind of how the surcharge program works. Or you can just cut a check every you know year to pay that amount off. Councilwoman Coleman: And so subsidizing homeowners to make these repairs would not go towards paying that off over 5 years? Erik Henricksen: Currently we just finished our surcharge program so right now we are essentially out of the program so from the 2014 event and the 2019 cycle we invested that amount. So there are portions yes of the surcharge program where if you contribute or use funds to put into the private infrastructure, private property lateral repairs, lining and things like that where it would contribute to the surcharge reduction. Councilwoman Coleman: Okay. Those were my questions, thank you. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 31 Mayor Ryan: And are there not grants available for I&I that we can apply for? Erik Henricksen: MCS is the typical people that we go to for that. They did have a grant program for multiple years running and we applied and we received grant monies. This year there was no grant money available. What they ended up doing is having a really large grant for a study to be conducted similar to the study that we actually conducted but it went to West St. Paul, or St. Paul. I forget which exactly and they were awarded about $500,000 to kind of further investigate the impacts of private I&I because again MCS in general will stave 80 percent of the I&I’s attributed to private property so they want to see a little bit more data on that just as we did our study. Mayor Ryan: Well here’s kind of where I’m at and then curious for council feedback as well. I think Councilman McDonald you nailed it by the overwhelming concern that what the impact, financial impact is going to be to a resident when and if they discover that they have to make this correction, right? So we think it’s $3,000. It could be $10,000. We really don’t have any idea and I think that’s kind of where I’m to the point of obviously we’ve been talking about I&I reduction for the last few years and more intently in the last couple years by going through this program. Performing this study in 2019 and while I think the study and the recommendation gets us to the point of okay these are the two ways that we’re going to go about identifying where we need to make some I&I corrections, I don’t if we’ve gone far enough to really understand, nor can we because we need to implement this program first to really understand what the real impact is going to be to the resident and so I really like your recommendation Mr. Howley about moving forward with the recommendation of saying yes, let’s implement this program but let’s give it a year to see what the impact is going to be. How many homes are going to be affected. What is the possible, or the potential cost to the resident and then at the same time as we’re talking after this meeting about budget, this is going to be part of our 5 year budgeting planning is I&I and funding for I&I and so I think that is kind of the next step in this I&I program is figuring out the budgeting component after we have a better understanding of how many points of sale homes have, you know have to be corrected. How many of those 733 homes are impacting and then we can say okay here’s the data. Now let’s figure out how we’re going to fund this and that would be the direction that I’d be comfortable with because I’m just very concerned about the impact to somebody that’s trying to sell their house or somebody that has lived in their house for 30 plus years and are you know going to live off of their, what they’re going to make on their home and then they get hit with a $5,000 ticket of repairing their home so that’s really where I’m at with how I’d like to move forward but open to council’s feedback as well. Anybody? Councilwoman Coleman: Madam Mayor I’m in agreement with your, all of our concerns regarding this. I did have a question of if the motion changes then. Charlie Howley: We would, Madam Mayor and council we would want to be specific in your motion to make sure that it didn’t include mandated repairs or something along those lines just to Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 32 make sure it’s clear and that would be my recommendation anyway. I would look to Andrea to see if she agrees. Andrea McDowell Poehler: No. Right I would agree. You would just clarify that this motion would not include the mandatory repairs. Only the mandatory inspection based on the two options that have been provided. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Thank you. Any other thoughts, comments, questions? Councilman McDonald? Councilman McDonald: I’ve got a question then. Reading through the motion it looks like we’re saying that yeah, go ahead and go forward but you’ve got to come back with a plan so, are part of what you’re asking us is to say yeah, go ahead and go forward but don’t mandated changes at this point? Council will take that all under consideration. Charlie Howley: Mayor, council, I think the motion is intended to move forward with the program. As part of the program make sure the ordinances aren’t written so that it mandates the repairs and then the results on the program on an annual basis will be able to make scope and budget decisions annually of what the City wants, how much we want to do. If they all cost 5 grand a piece and we’ve got 10 of them to do, do we want to spend 50 grand in ’23 to do those or whatever that scope ends up being. We don’t know what the scope is until we do the investigation so we wouldn’t want to get too far ahead of ourselves with the ordinance changes that then all of a sudden puts us where we clearly aren’t getting direction to be so. Councilman McDonald: Okay I would want to want to make sure all that happens and I would support all of this but yeah I’m just not ready to go all the way where okay we found something wrong. Now homeowner you’ve got to fix it. Charlie Howley: That direction is very clearly heard. Erik Henricksen: And another point to it that would address that is, and I guess it’s not the clearest on this slide but one of the first things that we would need to do to even develop or I should say implement any of these programs would be updating the sewer ordinances which would be something that would be presented before you as well. So kind of another backstop I think to the program even getting off the ground. We can start to develop these programs which for the point of sale, again that’s something that will take some time. It’s, it is a larger program. There’s a lot of wheels turning on that one. Mandatory kind of know how that works so that wouldn’t take as much time but even prior to being able to implement these kind of programs they have to, they have to be parallel with the implementation of the sewer ordinance updates which would be before you too. Mayor Ryan: So does it make more sense then knowing that we’re not going to potentially not going to mandate repair, that the focus, since there’s a lot of up front legwork with changing Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 33 some of the sewer ordinances to only move forward with the 700, just do the mandatory. I’m trying to think of the, the mandatory inspection program versus the point of sale program. Or is it, does that not matter? Is it still important to do both simultaneously? Erik Henricksen: Well I think both programs blend well together first off. Getting the ordinance updated would be separate so I guess they kind of it would be best to have them going on at the same time so that if the decision is to kind of move forward with both of them that the ordinances work with each other, yeah. Charlie Howley: Yeah I would say if we move forward with something very similar to what’s written that point of sale program, like I say we, it could be a year before the first one ever actually happens anyways. Mayor Ryan: Right, okay. Charlie Howley: So there’s going to be no risk of mandated repairs that we would have to consider on the point of sale stuff for quite some time. Councilman Campion: Just a thought. I mean ideally before instituting the point of sale program it would be, or the point of sale inspections, it does make some sense to complete the inspections for the 733 first and then we might have a program established you know a funding plan for repairs. Opposed to just flagging and issue during a home inspection in the final sales of a home purchase and then this question mark of, but we don’t know what’s going to happen. We don’t know who’s going to have to pay for this because that seems like it, it’s just going to, you know like Councilman McDonald was saying, it’s going to potentially cause some sales to not happen of homes. Charlie Howley: And Mayor, council I would say if we think about a point of sale right, if some home that was built in the 80’s or 90’s or 2000’s. Councilman Campion: Odds are there’s no. Charlie Howley: There’s going to be no foundation connections in theory because it would have been against code at that time right? The risk that a sewer lateral was completely busted in a newer home is much less than an older home. Councilman Campion: Right. Charlie Howley: And so you might just find the sump pump kind of connection which is super easy to repair and it might cost a plumber $230 right? Or up to $1,000 if there’s a lot of piping that has to be done so those are very, in moving forward with the mandatory inspection program that is the low hanging fruit that we want to get to is to support kind of what you’re saying. The point of sale you don’t know how old the homes are going to be and if they are pre-’69 anyways Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 34 they’re going to be a part of the other program already so the point of sale is from my perspective the least of the two that we really want to focus on. Councilman Campion: Yeah I mean just as we’ve discussed this more that is my thought. The point of sale is less likely to flag a problem and you know the labor necessary to conduct those inspections would be much better spent focused on the 733 for the pre-1969 homes. Erik Henricksen: I guess one thing I would add to that is, one of the benefits where this conversation is going is not mandating repairs but having the inspection program in place. If the point of sale maintains, if that recommendation maintains at least we’re getting those data points to see what these age of home, a lot of different matrix that can go into helping us better assess scoping and then budgeting. Kind of moving down the road even after the 733 are completed because again that’s the critical properties I think that would potentially have those cross connections where they’re just discharging a lot of clear water into the sanitary sewer system but if we are able to at least capture those data points it might give us better informed you know decisions kind of to speak to Councilwoman Coleman’s point too about that. Mayor Ryan: But I mean I agree with Councilman Campion because I, you know you get nervous when you’re getting your house inspected. Everything’s, you’re right to the finish line and you’re ready to move on and all of a sudden you get dinged for not having or you know having an illegal connection and then we don’t have any follow up to it. That doesn’t really mean anything. You just have a ding on your inspection and does that then result in a loss of sale because nobody can really articulate what that means or when the City’s going to come back and do something so until we have a plan in place I don’t know if it’s, you know worth the hassle for a homeowner trying to sell a home to have this inspection and then this ding against them as they’re trying to sell their house when nobody really then knows what that means. I think that just puts the City in a tough spot and I certainly think you know that it puts the person that’s trying to sell their house in a spot so you move forward with the 733. Then we have some data points to analyze. Does the program work? What is the cost associated with it? Is there a funding mechanism from the City’s perspective and then we can, and I absolutely understand your point that when it turns over it’s great to have those once we get through the 733 but I just without being able to clearly define what this program is going to mean to the residents I get concerned about that burden when you’re trying to sell your house and make sure everything goes smoothly so with that I would rather just move forward with the mandatory inspection program with mandatory. So anybody? Councilman Campion: I’ll make a motion. Councilman McDonald: I guess. Mayor Ryan: Go ahead. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 35 Councilman McDonald: Well I was going to say you know speaking in defense I understand you need data points so we need to find out exactly what the programs are. I mean if it’s a sump pump connection you’re right. That’s not a big deal. My concern is, is you’ve got to start digging up stuff it becomes a big deal so if it’s just a sump pump and an illegal connection there, that is not a big deal to fix so I think we do need to find those because if I read the report and I’ve heard what you all have said, the biggest contributor is illegal sump pump hook ups more than anything else. These other would be contributing factors but you really don’t know what is the biggest contributing factor? Is it sump pumps or is it illegal connections within the plumbing so we do probably need to find that out. That’s the only reason I would be in favor of moving forward with both programs so you can begin to get this put together and maybe part of it is, if you’ve got a sump pump yeah you’ve got to fix that and then we may have to circle back later if there’s a bigger problem and maybe that falls under a different program. I just I understand the need for getting data points is what I’m saying. We need to find out just what kind of a problem are we dealing with and then we can begin to address it but I do agree sump pumps are easy to fix so that’s kind of where I’m at on this. Councilman Campion: My counter to that just thinking is that, you know it’s opening up that can of worms that yeah if it happens to be the sump pump connection then it’s easy but if it is that odd case of you know you’ve got a broken line and it’s expensive. It’s the can of worms is open and then what do we say? Councilman McDonald: Well but I mean do you think that we could have staff, again if it’s sump pump yeah you’ve got to fix that. If it’s something else we take it under consideration and we tell people that that’s a potential problem and then we’re going to have to come back later and again that’s where the program needs to look at how we could take care of this. Councilman Campion: So I guess the only thing I’m throwing out is, how long would we expect it to take to inspect 733 homes? I would imagine that’s not a, that will be done by November type thing. Charlie Howley: No. Mayor, council, we 3 to 5 years if we took $40,000 dollars a year from our budget and hired a contractor to do the 733 homes, did I get that right Erik? That would take you know 3 to 5 years. Councilman Campion: And so that’s where I’m going with this is, I mean if we go ahead and proceed and start the inspection of a chunk of the 733 homes and we revisit this again next year and if we find that we’re having a high hit rate with those and you know we need to start doing something about them, we could revisit whether we implement the point of sale inspections next year considering we’ve bit off 5 years of inspections already. Councilman McDonald: I could agree with that. I mean yeah, I’m not going to push that hard for point of sale but I do think it is important at some point but you’re right. There’s probably too many unanswered questions at this point. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 36 Councilman Campion: Yean. Mayor Ryan: Do we need to do it in, could we do it in phases? Or approve both programs because I think we all agree that the point of sale program is an important piece but we’re not ready to move forward with it yet so if we approve the program as it’s been presented today, but you know and I don’t know if this is part of the motion or this is just a conversation that or understanding of staff is that we’re moving forward initially with the mandatory inspection. We’re going to have that year of collecting the data and if it, as Dan said, Councilman Campion said you know it’s a high hit rate then we can continue to move forward with that. If we’re looking for other data points then we can implement the point of sale program at that time and you don’t have to, it’s not a process where you then have to come back before council. So I guess is it better to approve and I’m looking at you Ms. McDowell or is it better to approve the whole program or break it out? Andrea McDowell Poehler: I would break it out. I would recommend that you approve the mandatory inspection program now and you can revisit. You’ve got the concepts for the point of sale if you’re going to review it in a year’s time after you’ve got the data from the mandatory inspection and then you review whether you want to continue with that point of sale program and whether you want to budget for potential funding for these repairs in 2022 so. Mayor Ryan: Okay alright, thank you. That makes sense. Alright Councilman Campion I think you were going to make a motion. Councilman Campion: Yeah I will attempt to make a motion. Alright so I propose that the City Council authorizes the engineering and public works departments to move forward with recommendations from the 2019 Inflow and Infiltration I&I study to address private infrastructure I&I by a mandatory inspection program for all homes built on or before 1969 but not requiring mandatory repairs. Mayor Ryan: Is that a valid motion? Andrea McDowell Poehler: That’s valid. Mayor Ryan: Okay. Councilman Campion: Okay. Mayor Ryan: We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Councilman McDonald: I’ll second. Chanhassen City Council – August 24, 2020 37 Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilman McDonald. With a valid motion and second, all those in favor. Councilman Campion moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council authorizes the Engineering and Public Works Departments to move forward with recommendations from the 2019 Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) study to address private infrastructure I&I by a mandatory inspection program for all homes built on or before 1969 but not requiring mandatory repairs. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Ryan: That motion carries 4-0. Thank you. Thank you very much. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Ryan: Alright with that I would entertain, and council we are going to stay here afterwards to finish the budget conversation that we started in the work session but with that I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Submitted by Heather Johnston Interim City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AUGUST 24, 2020 Mayor Ryan called the work session to order at 5:00 p.m. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, and Councilwoman Coleman COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Councilwoman Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Heather Johnston, Kate Aanenson, Greg Sticha, Charlie Howley, Jake Foster, Jerry Ruegemer, MacKenzie Walters, Richard Rice, Chief Don Johnson, and Lt. Lance Pearce POWERS RIDGE SENIOR HOUSING DISCUSSION. Kate Aanenson provided background information on this item before introducing Todd Simning who discussed the need for TIF assistance for 19 years to make this senior housing project affordable. Kate Aanenson explained that there would be a follow up on this request with the City’s financial advisor. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification of the definition of affordable housing. Councilwoman Coleman asked if TIF assistance is necessary. Councilman Campion asked Greg Sticha to discuss the need for the TIF request. Mayor Ryan explained that the next step for City Council is to decide whether they want to move forward with this project so the applicant can proceed through the Planning Commission and work with a financial advisor. After comments it was the consensus to move forward with the project. DISCUSS POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS. MacKenzie Walters reviewed highlights of the proposed city code amendments. Councilwoman Coleman asked about liability insurance with owning a goat. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the amendment to the nuisance ordinance and asked that due to recent events that this amendment be fast tracked through the system. DETAILED DISCUSSION OF 2021 GENERAL FUND BUDGET. Heather Johnston explained changes made to the budget presentation this year. Greg Sticha discussed changes included in the budget and explained highlights of the 2021 detailed general fund budget proposal. Jake Foster discussed accomplishments for the Administration Department and 2020 KFS goals. Greg Sticha continued discussing accomplishments and 2020 KFS goals in the Finance Department before reviewing highlights of the legal, and property assessment funds. Richard Rice discussed accomplishments in the MIS department. Greg Sticha discussed the City Hall building, elections, and library funds. Mayor Ryan asked about the use City Council Work Session – August 24, 2020 2 of CARES Act funding for any of these items. Lt. Lance Pearce discussed 2020 accomplishments from the police administration department. Chief Don Johnson discussed 2020 accomplishments from the Fire Department. Kate Aanenson discussed 2020 accomplishments in code enforcement. Greg Sticha discussed that there were no significant changes for the 2021 budget in community service. Charlie Howley discussed the KFS 2020 goals and accomplishments in engineering, street maintenance, street lighting and signals, and the fleet budget. Kate Aanenson discussed 2020 accomplishments for the Planning Commission, planning administration, and Senior Commission. Jerry Ruegemer discussed 2020 accomplishments for the Park and Recreation Commission, park and recreation administration, Recreation Center, Lake Ann operations, park maintenance, Senior Center, recreation programs, self-supporting programs, and recreation sports. Mayor Ryan thanked Jerry Ruegemer for the changes made in the park and recreation department during the COVID-19 pandemic shut down. Greg Sticha discussed the chart showing KFS levy comparisons since 2012 before reviewing three budget and levy scenarios being proposed by staff and associated impacts to service levels. Councilman McDonald asked about the affect of reducing overtime at the Sheriff’s office. Councilman Campion asked for clarification on cost reductions items. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification on permit fees for technology improvements, and instituting a hiring freeze for volunteer firefighters. Mayor Ryan recessed the work session at 6:50 p.m. It was reconvened at 8:50 p.m. CONTINUATION OF DETAILED DISCUSSION OF 2021 GENERAL FUND BUDGET. Greg Sticha continued with discussion of the 2021 budget by presenting Scenario #3 and impacts to service levels before noting that it is staff’s recommendation that the City Council set the preliminary levy using Scenario #1. Charlie Howley and Jerry Ruegemer discussed changes made with snowplowing which will only occur for snowfalls of 1 inch or more and what roads and public facilities will be priority and changes made to ice rink flooding and how trails are cleared which will result in a reduction in overtime. Councilwoman Coleman asked about a safety concern with not plowing at the current rates. Greg Sticha asked for feedback on the proposed scenarios. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification of the different scenarios impact on road reconstruction projects. Mayor Ryan asked staff to discuss the slide showing the use of the library levy money for the revolving assessment construction fund and sealcoating fund and the reduction of MSA funding. Greg Sticha discussed how Chanhassen budget and levy compares to the KFS cities. Mayor Ryan discussed the need for a long term plan for proceeding with the budget in the future to address ongoing needs. Councilman Campion discussed comparing the budget scenarios like an ala carte menu and what to keep and what could be reduced. Councilman McDonald discussed the reduction in services and stated he would like to dismiss scenario #3 and find a budget and levy somewhere between Scenarios #1 and #2. Heather Johnston explained how departments heads presented budget cuts and the impacts on service levels and that staff is working on making a long term financial plan. Charlie Howley explained the process for determining how and when snowplowing occurs and how the street and parks departments work together. Jerry Ruegemer explained the need to improve City Council Work Session – August 24, 2020 3 efficiencies in communication for rink flooding and snowplowing being mindful on the need to reduce overtime. Councilman Campion expressed his concern with decreasing the level of service for snow and ice removal. Councilwoman Coleman agrees with eliminating Scenario #3 and doing an ala carte discussion on items in Scenario #2. Councilman McDonald stated he would like to see a number around 2.5 percent increase which is inbetween scenario #1 and #2 and the need to find a balance with snowplowing of roads and trails. Mayor Ryan summarized the comments made from council members wanting to see specific numbers associated with service levels and emphasized that she would not support a reduction in road funding. Mayor Ryan adjourned the work session at 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Heather Johnston Interim City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated August 18, 2020 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 August 18, 2020.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated August 18, 2020 Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated August 18, 2020 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, and Mark Von Oven MEMBERS ABSENT: Eric Noyes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Charlie Howley, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; and Steve Ferraro, Engineer Technician PUBLIC PRESENT: Mark W. Kelly 2925 Stone Creek Drive, #120 Joan and Larry Synstelien 6893 Highover Drive Tim Block 6903 Highover Drive Melissa and David Wargin 2443 Highover Trail Weick: I will remind everybody here in the chambers and also participating through the Zoom the guidelines are a little bit different and please bear with us as we move through this evening’s meeting. I always and will again ask that commission members not hold chats, texts, or discussions that are not audible or visible through the Zoom application. All discussions need to be made public and be part of the public record. Tonight we have two public hearings on tonight’s agenda. We present the items as follows. The first the staff presents their report. At that time the Planning Commission members may ask for clarifications or questions or staff. When that is complete the applicant is, the applicant may make a presentation if they wish and also answer questions or comments from the Planning Commission. When that is complete we would open the public hearing portion of the item. We will summarize any emails for the record. Anyone who is here in person who would like to speak will have the opportunity to do so and we are also accepting telephone calls and at the appropriate time that number will appear on the screen and you can phone in and express your opinions on the item as well. When everyone has been heard we will close the public hearing. At that time the Planning Commission will discuss among themselves the item and we would have a motion, a second and we will take a roll call vote similar to how we did attendance at the beginning. As mentioned tonight we have two items. The first item is number 2020-15. It is an appeal of the City’s denial of an Encroachment Agreement for retaining walls and variances for structures within drainage and utility easements at 6893 Highover Drive and with that MacKenzie I will turn it over to you. Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 2 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE CITY’S DENIAL OF AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR RETAINING WALLS AND VARIANCES FROM THE CITY’S PROHIBITION OF LOCATING STRUCTURES WITHIN DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED AT 6893 HIGHOVER DRIVE. Walters: Alright we’ll wait one second for the power point to come up. Thank you. As the Chair mentioned this is Planning Case 2020-15, 6893 Highover Drive. The applicant is appealing the administrative decision to partially deny a request an Encroachment Agreement and is requesting a variance to allow two retaining walls to remain in the drainage and utility easement. If appealed or if not approved or denied by a three-fourth majority vote this will go to the City Council on September 14th. Before we start I just want to make a note that there are several historic and ongoing concerns associated with this property however I wanted to clear the purpose of this meeting is to determine two things. If staff made an error in denying the requested Encroachment Agreement for two of the retaining walls and if a variance should be granted to permit these retaining walls to remain within the drainage and utility easements. Comments and discussions should reflect those two points. So appeals don’t happen too often so I’d like to quick give a brief overview of that process. Essentially the city code designates the Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. This empowers them to hear and decide appeals once alleged that staff has made an error of Chapter 20. And that’s the City’s zoning code. So the error can be in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by staff pertaining to any provision of Chapter 20. The decision threshold is the same as for a variance so if three-fourths of the members present vote one way the decision is final unless appealed to the City Council. However in a split vote or a vote by less than three-fourths of the members present it will then automatically go to the City Council for final decision. So the property in question is located at 6893 Highover Drive. It’s zoned residential single family. The minimum lot size for that district is 15,000 square feet. This is a corner lot which means it has a 30 foot setback on both street frontages and then 10 yard setbacks along the non-street lot lines. It’s limited to 25 percent lot cover under the code and the property has 10 foot drainage and utility easement along 3 of it’s lot lines and a 5 foot drainage and utility easement along the south lot line here. The current conditions on the property, it’s a lot of 22,774 square feet. Existing lot cover is 5,895, just under 26 percent. Retaining walls, there are three non-conforming retaining walls located within the north and west D and U’s. And then four new retaining walls have been constructed within the eastern, southern and western drainage and utility easements and we’ll talk more about those later. There’s also a deck which encroaches approximately one foot into the eastern drainage and utility easement. So a brief background of the case history. On August 16th staff started working with the homeowner on grading for the property. The homeowner was informed of the City’s permitting requirements and that retaining walls could not be placed in drainage and utility easements. On October, 2017 staff performed a final inspection for the grading permit and determined that the property had not been graded to plan and that retaining walls had been built without permits. On February, 2019 staff received a survey of the property showing that retaining walls had been built in the drainage and utility easement and that one of the walls exceeded in 4 feet in height. That’s a threshold where a building permit and engineered Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 3 design is required instead of just a zoning permit. On April, 2019 the homeowners applied for a retroactive permits and an Encroachment Agreement. Staff determined that additional information was required at that time. In February of 2020 the City Engineer partially denied the requested Encroachment Agreement and on July, 2020 the homeowner appealed the denial and applied for a variance to permit the walls to remain as built. So the applicant’s appeal. The applicant alleges the errors that staff’s denial of the requested Encroachment Agreements for Walls F here and Wall I here was incorrect. As I mentioned the applicant had applied for an Encroachment Agreements. The encroachment had 9 different encroachments that they requested for the City’s easements labeled here as A through J. Staff granted all of the encroachments except for Wall F and I. The applicant believes this was an error because there are no utilities located within the easement. There is a very limited encroachment in the easement for Wall F. They believe the potential conflict could be resolved through an Encroachment Agreement. They’ve stated that Wall F is necessitated by the location of the door under the deck and that the code does not require the removal of the wall. They’ve stated that Wall I does not alter the property’s drainage and that the installed French drain system does not negatively impact properties and conveys the water to the street. So an appeal of an administrative decision, staff did respond to each of the points within the staff report. However at it’s simplest essence the question before the Planning Commission is did staff make a mistake, an error in denying the Encroachment Agreement requiring the walls to be relocated. If the Planning Commission determines staff correctly interpreted and applied the city code, no error has occurred and staff’s decision should be upheld. If staff did not correctly interpret and apply the city code an error occurred and staff’s decision should be overturned. So the relevant section to city code is Section 20-908(6). This governs the placement of structures within easements. The bold text is relevant. Retaining walls may be permitted within an easement with an Encroachment Agreement if they do not alter the intended use of the easement and at the discretion of the Community Development Director or designee. In this case the designee is the City Engineer. Staff’s interpretation of this section is that staff is only permitted to issue Encroachment Agreements for structures that do not alter the intended use an easement. Drainage and utility easements serve two functions. They provide for both the installation of utilities and facilitating drainage. Staff determined that the proposed retaining walls impacted the drainage function of the easements. In this case the city code does not allow for the issuance of an Encroachment Agreement for a structure that impacts the intended use of an easement. Given the above staff believes staff was correct in denying the requested Encroachment Agreement and the city code does not allow structures in easements without an Encroachment Agreement which is what requires that the retaining walls be relocated. It should also be noted that Section 20-908(6) does not require the issuance of an Encroachment Agreement and places the issuance of an Encroachment Agreement at the discretion of city staff. With that I believe engineering will go through why staff determined that there was an impact on the easement and it's drainage functions. Ferraro: Good evening. This is a photo that was taken in 2016 after grading had started already occurring on the property. This is the approximate property line and the black line and the drainage coming to the north unobstructed in the drainage and utility easement. This is a side by Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 4 side comparison of the two. The property in 2020 on the right where you can see the grading towards the east. This is an excerpt of the approved grading permit showing blue arrows as the grading as it was supposed to be graded per the approved grading plan showing drainage following the drainage and utility easements both on the east property line and the south property line. This is a snapshot of the as built survey performed by the applicant showing the drainage going to the east onto the neighboring property and the Wall I obstructing the drainage and utility easement as well as Wall F. Walters: So the second part of this request is a request for a variance. This requested variance be from the ordinances prohibition on retaining walls and structures remaining in the D and U. Sorry being placed in the drainage and utility easement. The applicant’s variance request or justification is that the retaining walls facilitate the location of sidewalk and landscaping, both elements of which are reasonable uses for residential property and that the retaining walls do not negatively impact adjacent properties. They have noted that the applicant is not responsible for the location of the retaining walls. The retaining walls were sited and placed in the drainage and utility easement by their contractor without the applicant realizing that this would present an issue down the road. They’ve noted that the retaining walls are not highly visible from the street and they do not believe they change the essential character of the area. And again the walls in question are Wall F and Wall I here. All of the other walls have been either retroactively legitimatized through a zoning permit or engineering was able to grant an Encroachment Agreement for. So staff’s assessment of these walls is that the homeowner was made of all permitting requirements and restrictions when they applied for the grading permit. They worked directly with staff. The homeowner worked directly with Mr. Ferraro to develop the grading plan at which time retaining walls permitting requirements and the location of drainage and utility easements were discussed. The property was not graded in accordance with the approved grading plan. The retaining walls in question were not shown on any of the permit applications for the grading permit, deck or door and all of these improvements could have been constructed within the bounds of city code. Ultimately the homeowner is responsible for work performed on their property by contractors they have hired. As has been discussed the walls in question interfere with the function of the drainage and utility easements and divert water in a manner detrimental to adjacent properties. Given that the applicant’s request does not meet the criteria for issuing a variance under the city code. With that staff will be happy to answer any questions the commission may have. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie and thank you Steve as well for the information. At this time I think we’ll go ahead and just open it up for the Planning Commissioners to speak if it seems like we need to control the flow a little bit we’ll go ahead and just do a roll call style but for right now let’s see if there’s any comments or questions for MacKenzie or Steve regarding the staff report. McGonagill: Okay MacKenzie this is Commissioner McGonagill. Go, if you could because I, if you could just to be sure I think it’s something to highlight. Go to the original grading plan for me on the overhead if I can see it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 5 Walters: Is this the slide you’re requesting? McGonagill: Yeah there’s more of a plot that showed the grading plan. That one. Is that the original one? Walters: No Commissioner McGonagill. This is the as built survey done after the work was complete. We have the additional, the full grading permit is in your packet as an attachment. However this photo here is a screen shot of the full layers of the approved grading permit. So it shows the berm the applied for. Retaining wall being relocated here. Drainage swale. Drainage arrows and the drainage system there. McGonagill: So in the original grading plan they did have the berm, or the retaining wall set back like it was supposed to be away from the edge and they had the other ones in here where they terminated before they go in the utility easement, is that correct? Walters: That is correct. McGonagill: Okay and then when you go to, because it still has even when you look at that grading plan there is some contour coming from the back of the house down to where that berm is because I’m just looking at the lines, the flow so it’s still got quite a bit of some relief dropping down because this house is on the really at the end of a hill that drops down. There’s quite a bit of relief that’s moving down so let’s go to the one as is. On this one basically what they ended up doing did they not just flat top the whole thing and away and that’s where these berms come in? Just basically they pushed the yard out flat from the back of the house all the way to the edges? Walters: Mr. Ferraro conducted the final inspection on the grading permit so I’ll defer to him as he’s most familiar with the property as it stands. Ferraro: Yes the grading in the back yard was raised and elevated approximately a foot and a half to two feet, if that’s what you’re inquiring about. McGonagill: Yeah that’s just when I was looking at that topographical deal it basically, and that’s what Wall I you call it really is doing. It’s allowing it to be pushed out and actually raised the whole yard above the existing grade. Is that correct? Ferraro: Yes it’s hard to confirm your question being as that before the grading permit was applied for and approved there was no preliminary survey done on the property. McGonagill: Okay good point. Appreciate that. The other question just for, just because MacKenzie went through this at a real high level but I just wanted to be sure that I understood this. I’m looking on the staff report page 4 and so, are you there MacKenzie? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 6 Walters: Yes I am. Sorry I was flipping to page 4. McGonagill: Okay what I see here is you, well excuse me I’m on page 3. So in September of 2016 is really it started in August 15th of 2016 about grading was done without erosion control so it went through that. Got erosion control established on the site by, in a month. About a month later. It took a month for that to come in and then a draft grading plan was submitted and so that’s September. And then staff came back and said notes on what the grading plan should look like. Final version was submitted in October. Permit was signed and then in November we kind of go forward to look for several permits and then we just kind of move forward and suddenly we find that the grading plan was not followed. And this came from some comments both from the contractor and also from some homeowners around the site that, and due to inspections that it was not, the grading plan was not followed. So that was in October of 2017 that you find that the grading wasn’t followed and that was pointed out. We pointed out to the homeowner. Also pointed out to the homeowner in October, 2017 that there were I think it was 7 retaining walls in there that were put in without permit. I think the number 7 if I remember right. And then it moves forward through the next two years working through the process the homeowner and then ultimately to the attorney and finally you get a survey what looks like in March of last year. And that’s when this whole thing starts on the Encroachment Agreement and the issues of what retaining walls should have to be in or out of the area. Okay. So one thing that’s not in the report and maybe I just missed it. It’s possible like a lot of things. Did we ever get a formal, any sort of formal complaints for the homeowners around that about the water coming in? Walters: My recollection is we received numerous complaints about erosion leaving the site and concern about the changes of grades on the property. Mr. Ferraro do you have memories of specific complaints about water? Ferraro: I had one, it was a voice call I had received. I don’t remember exactly when from the neighboring property to the south concerned about the ponding of water on their property. McGonagill: Yeah okay that would make sense because that one, that house has a walkout, has a lookout basement if I remember. Not a lookout but, it doesn’t have a walkout. It’s got just a regular basement with wells. Window wells around it so it would make sense the one to the south. Okay. Thanks. Okay Mr. Chairman that’s my questions. I just wanted to be sure I had everything in order. Weick: Thank you Commissioner McGonagill. Other comments or questions from commission at this time? Randall: I have one. Weick: Yes please. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 7 Randall: What was the, had any damage happened to the neighbors property or has it actually improved water drainage issues or not? Walters: I am not aware of any damage being done to the neighbor’s property. However I would defer to Mr. Ferraro for staff’s assessment on the impact on the drainage. Ferraro: As of today I haven’t had any reports of damage being occurred. Randall: Okay. And I’ve got another question too. In the water flow diagram that we have where we have the I and L I think it was where it showed the flow of water. Walters: It’s up now. Randall: Is it up now? Walters: Yep. Randall: So if we’re looking at the retaining wall for the deck that seems to be not causing any issues with direction of water flow correct? Walters: I would defer to Mr. Ferraro on that. Randall: Okay. Ferraro: That particular wall is inside the drainage and utility easement and based on the elevation of that wall, the footing of that wall it’s, how it’s back filled and everything would, you’d have to back fill the foundation of that wall for it to hold itself and inherently the drainage then goes to the east. Randall: Gotch ya. Because I wasn’t sure if like that wall, the bottom on that’s in the curve. If you see that little off shoot. Yeah right in there. Is that causing the water to drain over to the neighboring property? Whereas the wall that’s closer to the deck area is not causing that? Ferraro: You’re correct in saying that the wall here that I’m highlighting is pretty much, 100 percent sheeting the water to the east as indicated by the red arrows whereas the wall in purple here is still allowing water to travel northeasterly but still onto the neighboring property. Randall: Okay. Okay those are my two questions that I had. I appreciate it. Thank you. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Randall and I would like to follow up on that because that just raised a question in my mind. It was my understanding that the intention of the original grading Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 8 plan was to have basically those red arrows point parallel to the property line. Not at the property line. Ferraro: That’s correct. Weick: So the water’s supposed to flow down to the street and the issue is it’s not. Ferraro: Yes that’s correct. Skistad: I have a question. Weick: Please go ahead Commissioner Skistad. Skistad: Yeah so I mean I understand the wall’s there but then it sounds like there’s also a French drain that was put in to try to mitigate that and send it to the road, is that correct? Is there a French drain there also that goes to the road? Ferraro: That is correct. Skistad: All those retaining walls. Ferraro: Yes it. Skistad: But you’re saying that, or what are you saying? You’re saying that the drain doesn’t provide enough drainage that direction? Drain tile. Ferraro: I’m trying to understand the question. Skistad: If like you’re saying that there’s still directional flow to the other property and that it’s not the French drain is not performing it’s task in a sense providing the directional flow to the street? Ferraro: Yes that’s correct. The French drain is capturing on this here you can see the French drain inlets are right here. And then the water is directed towards the street underground. So it aids in the, getting water towards the street but ultimately any sheet draining or any water that lands in the yard is not being contained in the drainage and utility easement. McGonagill: Clarifying question. On that French drain especially that one right there running down that line it’s not an exposed French drain. It’s underground isn’t it? I mean there’s lawn and sod and everything there. I mean it’s, some French drains will have gravel almost looks like a creek bed. That one is not that way. I think perhaps the one on the back side is but is that right? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 9 Ferraro: Yeah the French drain system as installed has I believe 5 or 6 inlets that are approximately one foot or 10 inches in diameter along this southerly property line. McGonagill: But there’s none on the eastern property line? Ferraro: Not that I’m aware of and none that show up on the as built survey. McGonagill: So really the French drain is not doing any good in a sense on the east side is that correct? Ferraro: It’s not aiding any of the drainage on the east side, correct. McGonagill: Correct that’s a better way of stating my question. Thank you. Reeder: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Reeder. I just wanted to report that I did join you a little bit late. Sorry about that. Weick: That’s not a problem. Thank you for joining. Welcome and Commissioner Randall sounded like you had a follow up question? Randall: Yeah. So if we’re to deny the appeal and ultimately what would happen to the property? What changes would have to be made? Walters: The property would need to be brought in compliance with the grading permit issued in 2016 so the retaining walls located within the drainage and utility easements would need to be relocated and the grading would need to become conducive to the northward flow of water as approved in the grading permit. Randall: Okay. And how easily is that accomplished? Walters: That I’m not positive of. McGonagill: You wouldn’t require the whole site to be graded is that right MacKenzie but just the, this what we’re talking about here is a, because you’ve already granted. You’ve already granted the other encroachments to be okay. It’s the stuff’s that’s actually in these lines where you’re saying that needs to be done to get the drainage correct is that right? Walters: Correct. Staff would not require that for instance all of the walls built without permits be ripped out or anything of that extent. Staff is solely concerned with the two walls that interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utility easement and making sure that the function of that easement is restored. So the applicant could provide a grading plan removing and relocating those walls that restored the function that would be acceptable to staff. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 10 McGonagill: And Wall F is like 2 ½ feet isn’t it into this area? Walters: That is correct. McGonagill: Okay. And the width, the width of the utility easement is how wide? 10 feet? Walters: It’s a 10 foot easement. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Weick: Those are good questions. I will speak slowly and give a few moments for anyone else to jump in for clarifications. And hearing nothing at this time I would invite the applicant to come forward and make a presentation. And I would say as you come up we’ve wrapped the microphone so if you could be really extra loud into the microphone. It is hard for the folks on the Zoom to hear. Hear you so I just would ask that, thank you. Mark W. Kelly: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Mark W. Kelly. I’m an attorney. I’m here representing Larry and Joan Synstelien who are present. And for the benefit of those in attendance we have a selection of photographs of the lot that perhaps MacKenzie can hand out. Weick: Is that something we should also try and show as well? Mark W. Kelly: Well I’d like to thank the staff for their report. As has now been identified quite clearly the City felt that it was appropriate and necessary to bring this matter to a conclusion and that an Encroachment Agreement be applied for which we’ve done. And as the city report shows the City has and is quite prepared to agree to Encroachment Agreements for 5 walls. There are two at issue. We’re not trying to call out anybody in particular. We are simply trying to exercise our rights from the standpoint of the code and the law in the state statute which allows us to challenge a decision by a city administrative officer and failing that appeal the decision and hopefully we only have to get to that at all. I’m going to diverge from some planned remarks to point out something that I think is very, very important. Wall F, the wall that runs parallel and along the easterly edge of the as built new deck is, can be seen in photographs. It’s third to the last page or so if you can see it on the screen. There it is yes. So this is a top view of the wall. You can see it barely breaches grade and that wall runs, is approximately sits one foot inside the 10 foot deep drainage and utility easement. I would point out that the City has a 10 foot drainage and utility easement for the property lying immediately to the east so your total surfaceable area for drainage and utility in this area is unencumbered, 19 feet. The next page you can see the wall on the left side of the photograph. You can see this is virtually at grade. And this next item shows the, the red line shows where the grade was before this was regroomed, regraded into it’s present state. We don’t have an image for you tonight but the Synstelien’s bought this property in 1999 and the grading at that time around the house as built sent water to the southeast. It ran and they were the recipients of all water coming from the south for various yards of property. Maybe 4 or 5 to the south drained right into their yard which necessitated their action to regrade Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 11 the lot. And as has been identified you can see that that regrading used a French drain system that collects the water along the south line and redirects it around to the east and out to a soft connect in the street. The grading has not increased the water onto the property to the east so we’re not acting in contrary to water law in that regard. We are making this application to the Planning Commission and City Council for a ruling on the decision to refuse an Encroachment Agreement for this wall along the deck and for the stub end of the garden wall which I’ll show you. Here you see the stub end of the garden wall that does lie, that curb stub does lie within the City’s drainage and utility easement but as I was indicating drainage has not been increased onto the property to the east. We believe that were an Encroachment Agreement to include these two items the issues between the City and the Synstelien’s would be resolved and it could be resolved amicably and immediately. That’s in the City’s interest. It’s in their interest and it would avoid further disturbance of the lot or the neighbors through construction and regrading. Encroachment Agreements are routine matters. The City staff has the authority to approve them. That’s been acknowledged by city staff. And as I noted these are not per se prohibited. They’re under the memorandum of the City they’re approving 5 in this instance. And if we focus for a moment on the wall along the deck the idea that that has to be now taken out will require disturbing the entire section of the yard that way. Perhaps jeopardizing the deck as built because the wall is necessary in one shape or another and would then have to be built under the deck and leading to engineering issues and construction issues which I cannot present at this time but are apparent to everyone if we now have to build a deck, a wall underneath the deck. There’s also been some allusion to the idea that walls were built that were higher than 48 inches and that was, these walls were exactly 48 inches above grade and at the City’s request we did obtain a structural engineer’s memorandum who inspected it and satisfied to the City administration that they were properly constructed and not improperly constructed requiring their removal so the City no longer objects to the placement of those walls or their construction as built and it shouldn’t be assumed that those walls have been built in any way that are inappropriate and needs to yet be addressed. The city staff summary simply says that the wall along the deck cannot be approved because it, it is inconsistent with the approved grading plan to the detriment of the neighboring properties and as you’ve heard discussed here tonight by staff there’s been a tacit acknowledgement that the wall itself is not actually redirecting the water but it’s pointed out that the grade, the soil backed up against the wall may be inappropriately graded but the wall itself in and of itself does not in any significant manner impact and redirect water to the property to the east. Imposing a demand or refusing to grant an Encroachment Agreement for that wall that comes into the drainage and utility easement only one foot is therefore unreasonable. It’s very arbitrary especially when the other 5 walls are being permitted. We would ask that the City Planning Commission acknowledge that and also acknowledge that to bring this matter to a close where matters, there’s no reason to be discussing this deck or this wall. Approving and recommending that it be included in an encroachment agreement is entirely reasonable all things considered. Now the second wall which you see now up on the screen, if the camera turns to that, that does curve into the drainage and utility easement and as has been noted it’s about a foot and a half change in grade. The wall itself is not significantly altering anything because you can see that there’s landscaping to it’s south and as I noted earlier the water in that area had always run in a southeast direction. So this is not increasing or accelerating or redirecting the water in Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 12 any significant manner from that which it once flowed. That again is a challenges the idea that it is cannot be approved because it’s to the detriment of neighboring properties. I would suggest to you that again forcing this to be ripped out based on an estimate that there may be some surface flow that was once there before but somehow now can no longer be there is unreasonable. Now we hope it doesn’t become necessary to, for the body to consider the, whether or not to grant or recommend that a variance be granted by the City Council in this regard but if it is we would want you to know that of course variances can be granted when there is practical difficulties being presented. The practical difficulty here is a three prong test. First is the proposed use of the property reasonable for the zone in which it’s located and I would put it to you that a retaining wall, a landscape retaining wall, a retaining wall for a deck is a reasonable structure and use of a residential lot and common throughout the city of Chanhassen. It also if variances were to be granted giving rise to approving the Encroachment Agreement those retaining walls do not change the essential character of the locality. Not in any fashion. These are all, these retaining walls are made out of materials that are commonly used in Chanhassen homes and throughout the area. The last question is whether or not the plight of the owner is due to circumstances that are related to the land and not created by the landowner. The City must acknowledge that the Synstelien’s did not themselves do the grading, the planning and the execution of the drainage system. They relied on a contractor and the city staff has asserted that while that doesn’t really mean anything because the citizens should be held responsible for that. Still all things considered it is not unreasonable to grant the variance here because the plight of the owner was not knowingly permitted or created. It wasn’t personally done and it’s adverse impact on the community is none. Moreover if we can move beyond this moment we can bring this matter to a conclusion. You’ve already heard that this matter dates to 2016. There’s a need to have some kind of closure on this matter and we have made the application for the Encroachment Agreement at the instruction and advice of city staff. We’re doing everything we can to meet the city staff’s concerns and we’re not interested in impugning the integrity or the judgment of any city staff member at all but we are faced with a conundrum. What can we possibly do to meet the City’s need for a proper application of it’s code, all things considered. My clients worked with city staff. Staff was at this site repeatedly for a number of years and clearly here we are now so it isn’t like nobody knew that anything was going on on this lot. It was available to be observed and was observed. It’s unfortunate that we’re here now and that we are now frustrated by a ruling that no, you can’t have an Encroachment Agreement. Especially an Encroachment Agreement regarding a wall that is parallel to the drainage and utility easement adjacent to the deck which in and of itself does not direct water to the east. The simple landscaping wall that you see on the photograph does not significantly alter the drainage in that area. So I would respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider approving the grant of a Encroachment Agreement if only to bring this to a conclusion in a manner that is in the interest of the City and the citizens and certainly of the applicant Joan and Larry Synstelien. With your permission I’d like you to have the opportunity to hear from Joan. Council? Weick: Absolutely, thank you. Mark W. Kelly: Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 13 Weick: And thank you for your presentation. Welcome. Joan Synstelien: Can this come off when I talk? Weick: Well yes? Walters: Yes. Joan Synstelien: It’s okay. Otherwise it fogs my glasses and I can’t read what I have here. And I was requested to kind of speak off the cuff here. Being nervous, never having done this before I will speak off the cuff but it will look incredibly like I’m reading what I wrote and that is what I will do here. My name is Joan Synstelien and I reside at 6893 Highover Drive since January of 2001 and I’m one of the few nearly original members of the Highover community. I’m married to Larry who is over here and I have four boys that grew into young men under the care of Larry and I and the Highover village. I’ve read this a few times and cry every time so I’ll try to hold it together here. My boys played with neighborhood children. The Block’s kids. They spent countless winters with these children sledding on our slopes and it was a great place to raise the kids and my home has always been where I’ve wanted to be reside and live and vacation for that matter. I want to review the bit of the history of this recent home improvement and give you a sense of the flavor of this project. In a nutshell because our project was purchased essentially new we began the ominous task way back when of making a safe yet appealing yard for our children to play in and they were young. They were 7, 5, 3 and 1 at the time but they were strong and smart and they helped wheeled wheelbarrows. Dumped dirt and smashed the plants into the ground as only young boys could do. Our neighbors at the time were gracious. The Block’s supported us with our work with cold beer. The Lorrie’s brought over marshmallows and chocolates when we put in our fireplace and it was just great. It was kind of a Mayberry situation. The neighbors to the east who have since left shared with us with a bottle of champagne and it was great but time passed and the weeds popped up and our young teens took to mowing rights and they were in demand by many of the neighbors for both landscaping help and animal care including the Michael’s, the Toole’s, the Block’s, Mulhausen and the Hayworth’s and while we enjoyed the property we certainly focused on the boys more than keeping the property up to date. But as they entered college we reached a point of stability and thought it was time to make some changes and invest in the home and we began tackling the work with both the use of a contractor which we had not done in the past and our own sweat equity. It started very small with the planting of a couple plants. We didn’t have big plans at the time and that was back in the dates you all have provided us several years ago. But we clearly along the way made mistakes with this project. We’re sorry about the mistakes and we continued to try to work to resolve these. At the time that we started this we had access to a Bobcat so we began moving plants to make a berm. We actually thought about a pool and we brought in a pool consultant but decided that would be incredibly disruptive so we decided not to make a pool in the back yard. The original plans had a pool in them. We brought in the city people to discuss the plans. There was a building official named Jared Moen who came out to Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 14 look at our grading line that we were proposing. He left a card and said we did not need a permit for what we were doing and if the neighbors had concerns they should give him a call. Through this suffice to say the City has provided us with outstanding suggestions, comments, and insights. Mr. Ferraro and Mr. I don’t see him but I know I’ve heard it a million times. Walters: Walters. Joan Synstelien: Yep, yep. We’ve talked about many times the great insights they had and they were at our property constantly. They mentored us on drainage, water flow, building requirements, timelines, and how to handle neighbor interactions. It went very well but complaints were beginning to be lodged because this project was kind of going on and on. Many stops and starts. Huge delays caused by both weather and the complaints of the neighbors that frequently brought us to closure and we had to start over again. The City was actually very wonderful through all of this. Again we had suggestions. Steve many, many suggestions from you that we took to heart and it completed the project and we kept getting better and better with everything you brought to us. Most of the issues were because of complaints and you all encouraged us to continue while providing guidance and suggestions. We were approved again and again and again and cleared to do more project on the, or to continue the project. Once the grass was installed things quieted down and while we still have some finishing touches we have about 99 percent of the work done. Neighbors now walk by and talk about how wonderful our gardens looked. We had one neighbor who stopped and just started crying and said that the property reminded her of her New England home. We’ve asked many of them to tour, or they have asked us many times to take them on tour of the back yard and talk about how beautiful it looks. How we had, apparently the kids got together and did a poll and said our home was the best looking home in the neighborhood so I was very pleased with that. It has really grown and looks good. Functions well. I believe the remaining Encroachment Agreement issue is the last matter and if we can approve this it will be to everyone’s benefit. I know the Block’s are pleased with the outcome. I think Mr. Block might be speaking a little bit later. The Wargin’s continue to think that the water’s diverted to their property but we have greatly, the grading has greatly reduced the water. The other neighbors that lived there prior, their home was flooded every year and I don’t believe that’s happened and it sounds like no complaints have been lodged so we have greatly improved that while that wasn’t our first goal, great outcome of that. They have benefitted from that regrading. We don’t feel that eliminating a retaining wall adjacent to the new deck or diverting the few feet of garden edging warrants the upheavals that would have to occur if those need to be ripped out. So thank you for allowing me to share my story and we ask that you don’t have us rip up our yard again. Weick: Thank you very much and thanks for presenting your views and story. We really do appreciate that and do take that to heart. I would say, I would open it up now. It’s an opportunity for the planning commission to ask any questions either of yourself about your home and your project or the attorney if any such questions exist. So at this time I’ll open it up for commissioner questions. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 15 Von Oven: This is Commissioner Von Oven with a question for Mrs. Synstelien. Weick: Go ahead. Von Oven: Great. Thank you first of all for taking us through that portion which obviously is not, we don’t get all of that context from the staff report. It surprised me a little bit. The glowing remarks about working with city staff given all that we see in here and pleasantly surprised. My question I guess would be in your opinion at what point, what event, what milestone did that change because I think what we’re here to do today doesn’t seem like that would have been where all of this ended. So was there a point in time or was there an event or was there a disagreement that that changed for you? Joan Synstelien: I do not believe there was a point in time. We have consistently been thankful for the guidance from the city and consistently it appeared they were encouraging us. I think the more the complaints were coming in from I would, I didn’t look them up but I assume it was a few of the neighbors but not a lot of them. The more and more complaints that got lodged the more the City felt they had to do something and were pressured into doing something but I’m just speculating. Von Oven: Gotch ya. Okay thank you. And then either yourself or the attorney, given the fact that our job today as the Planning Commission is pretty straight forward and that is to understand and determine whether an error was made in this previous judgment. Can you or your attorney please clarify for me succinctly what is the error that you believe was made in this administrative decision. Joan Synstelien: Can I say something to that first? Mark W. Kelly: You may. Joan Synstelien: Okay. I think the error was in assuming that the waters were flowing into our easterly neighbor’s property at a greater increase than they are. It is way less water on their property than ever has been the case due to the fact that they just aren’t getting flooded and we’ve had some pretty wet seasons so I think the error was in maybe not going back or understanding how badly that was being impacted over there on the Wargin’s side of the property line. That’s my piece of it. Mark W. Kelly: I believe Joan has stated that well. I would point out that the justification given by the administrative officer is that it adversely impacts the neighboring property owner but given the fact that the Synstelien’s grading plan and French drain now capture the water coming from the south which originally then slid either into the Synstelien house or southeast to the property on the Synstelien’s east lot side, that was has now been captured and redirected and into the French drain into the soft connect in the street and the grading of this has, the effect of regrading has greatly reduced the amount of water that naturally flowed in that direction and then Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 16 of course I would point out the fact the idea that the wall adjacent to the deck is redirecting the water doesn’t follow given the fact that the wall has no curve to it and doesn’t redirect water in any shape or in any manner to the east. It is the grading in the area that might be addressed but we don’t believe that needs to be addressed in order to approve the requested Encroachment Agreement for that wall. As to regard to the small stub end of the south garden wall, for all the reasons I’ve just indicated haven’t captured the water that originally flowed in that direction and largely redirected it. That wall does not significantly impact adversely the property to the east. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Von Oven. Any follow up questions? McGonagill: Yes Mr. Chair I’ve got a couple. Weick: Great. Hold on one second Commissioner McGonagill. I just want to be sure Commissioner Von Oven has finished on this topic. McGonagill: Sorry. Von Oven: Yeah just, sorry just one more and I was looking for the exact date and I can’t find it so I’m just going to go off the cuff here but in 2017 the proposed deck was reviewed by staff. There it is. Okay May 17th. And then the actual, the actual construction of the deck and the walls, all of the pieces in question, can you just quickly point me to the date when that was. I’ve lost it and it’s the basis for my next question. Weick: We’re looking right now Commissioner Von Oven so. Von Oven: Yeah. Walters: So Commissioner Von Oven I didn’t put a permit by permit interaction by interaction summary of the deck because the deck is not directly in question here but the work on the deck would have occurred primarily between May and I believe September. Von Oven: Of 2017 right? Walters: Yep in 2017. I believe that’s correct Mr. Ferraro as well. Ferraro: Yeah. Von Oven: Okay. So let’s just call it September of 2017 all of these things have been built and now there’s complaints from neighbors sometime, maybe multiple times between 2017 and now there is so the City is coming out and saying hey this isn’t to plan. My question is for the homeowners. Are there any changes between September, 2017, any physical changes made. Were there any physical changes made to the property as a result of the guidance that the City had been giving you and can you clarify what those were? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 17 Mark W. Kelly: Mr. Synstelien? Larry Synstelien: I’m not quite sure I understand the question. Von Oven: Let me make it super simple. So of all of the things that are in question today, walls, lips, you know these guys are better at this than I am but all of the things in question after September of 2017 as the City poking around and saying hey we’re not sure the grading plan was followed. You know all this, were there any physical improvements made between September, 2017 and now that were, oh you know if you guys just did this we could. Larry Synstelien: Yeah there was never a if you guys could just do this kind of scenario so the. Von Oven: Okay, so from that point on it was always we’ve got to rip down a wall or we’re got to scrap something. Larry Synstelien: Yeah exactly. That’s exactly correct and if you add to that the carefully eliminated deck was actually built after the retaining walls were put in place and in addition to that Mr. Ferraro had asked to come out at any time and I said he certainly could and he said he had been out there looking at it every weekend and as you know it takes a little while to do grading and he went out and inspected the soft connect. Made no indication at all that there should be a change. Made no indication of the change to the grading so we did final grading based on all the inspectors for the deck, for the grading itself. No new walls were put up. Instead of using black edging, if you look at the back and I heard one of the commissioners say that that wall was put up to push earth against. That’s not correct. The final grading was done and the contractor simply asked us do you want us to put standard black edging in or would you like to continue with the retaining block. Retaining blocks cost more but looks a lot nicer and we got it back lit so the back yard looks very nice. It’s not holding any earth going one way or the other. It’s not a structural wall. It was simply an elective we picked instead of using lower quality black edging so I want to make sure that comes across so you kind of understand the perspective from our point of view. Does that answer the question? Von Oven: Yeah I’ll just clarify the last part. No retaining walls were ever shown or approved as part of the deck plan because what you just told us is they were never part of the deck plan. After or during the project they said hey you know what, what if we change to this and that’s when a retaining wall was actually became part, is that what I heard correctly? Larry Synstelien: Well yeah, there’s a couple of things. One is to build the deck there needed to be that retaining wall that we’re talking about right now. That’s actually a wall, it’s about 3 feet. We were instructed we did not need a permit for that because it wasn’t above 4 feet. We were instructed we didn’t need engineering to approve that. So that was built before we built the deck so that was out there and then the edging part, that’s in the back part, the back berm. The berm was approved and instead of using black edging we put in the retaining block. We just, the Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 18 contractor asked us and we said whatever would look the nicest so it’s not structurally affecting that whatsoever. Does that? Von Oven: Thank you. That’s all my questions. Thank you. Weick: Thank you and thanks Commissioner Von Oven. I cut you off Commissioner McGonagill. If you’d like to go ahead. McGonagill: The question I have and I can put this to the attorney or the homeowners. It doesn’t, which ever wants to answer it. In October of 2016 you signed a grading permit for the site, correct? Larry Synstelien: I don’t have anything in front of me but that sounds about right. McGonagill: Excuse me I can’t hear you. Larry Synstelien: That sounds about right. I don’t have it right in front of me but that sounds correct. We had initially gone to the City I think as Joan mentioned and someone with the City a couple years earlier had come out. Looked at the stake lines that we put in and said yeah I totally understand why you’d want to grade it this way and said you don’t need a grading permit. Just if the neighbors call or complain here’s my card. Have them give us a call so we started with that in mind. That that’s all we were going to have to do. And then we believe there were some calls made. That Mr. Ferraro and as my eloquently said Steve provided massive inputs to create a much larger project which involved drain tiles coming out of all our eave spouts. A French drain system which if you look at that easterly side wall it does handle a lot of water there because it is only you know 3 or 4 inches of soil but then after that it’s all clear coat all the way to the bottom. So as soon as that saturates it actually goes down and we never intended to really change the grade between the two properties. That was always sort of flush grade and if you look at the drawing that the attorney showed it matches the original grade. McGonagill: So I come back to the question though. You have a grading plan submitted and it was approved and you as the homeowner received a permit for the grading plan in 2016. Is that correct? Larry Synstelien: Correct. McGonagill: Okay and then as we go through what Commissioner Von Oven went through there were plans submitted for a deck that didn’t have any retaining walls in it. Then as we move into 2017 we start issuing, we start, staff has stated being made aware of issues and we then had, and I’m just kind of going through my list here. Sorry I’m just kind of going through but it suddenly we find in 2017, a year later that the grading plan that was approved was not followed. Is that correct? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 19 Larry Synstelien: That’s the contention. McGonagill: Say again. I didn’t hear you. Larry Synstelien: I think that’s what Mr. Ferraro was alluding to. We disagree with that right. We disagree with the assumptions on the water’s that being shown there and if you look at that, there were a number of projects that were going on that the City approved. There was an egress door. An egress window. The full renovation of the basement along with the building of the deck so there was city inspectors out there continuously. There were building inspectors out there all of the time including Mr. Ferraro looking at the soft connect of the drain tile. There was never a single issue brought up regarding the grading permit. As you know that takes a while to do. There was not a single thing brought up until after the final grade and after the sod was put in. And after everything was landscaped. McGonagill: I understand sir but again I’m just trying to get my timeline straight. That you had a grading plan. You had a contractor that you’re holding accountable to follow the grading plan and you received it and then a year later suddenly things start happening and then it’s observed by staff in October of 2017, if I’m understanding this correct, that the grading plan had not been followed. And in addition the grading plan did not match the plans and additionally suddenly it appears that there I want to say 7 retaining walls had been built without permits. So okay. Larry Synstelien: But the part that I’d like. McGonagill: Let me state my question because I’m not trying to, I’m just trying to understand this. Larry Synstelien: Yep. McGonagill: The point, I understand. You’re doing the landscaping. You look at a way to make it look better using the brown block you did. I get that. I understand. I understand how that can occur but what I’m not following is okay when the staff raised those issues to you in 2017 it’s like this kept going on and I’m going well what was going on that led you to believe that now you didn’t do this when they had told you they could do it. Larry Synstelien: Yeah I think that the issues brought up after it was completed. It was startling to us that they brought up issues because they had been out there all the time and when those items were completed there was nothing brought up by staff. There was not, as you are aware right when you’re doing any kind of project and we are painfully aware when an inspector comes out, the issue you know fix or change this. At no time did the staff do that. All of a sudden in October, as you said, the project had been completed and then they started coming up with things and there’s a litany of items that they’ve gone through. That we’re a moving target and I’ll, you know it’s been a moving target since October just on the grading side. We’ve been able to finish all the other aspects of the project so. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 20 McGonagill: Well and I think staff, my opinion, you know just opinion has worked well with you because of the multiple retaining walls that are in, there’s only really that weren’t enough permits. They’re only call you to issue on two of them. Is that correct? Larry Synstelien: I believe so. I hope so. I look to staff on that. McGonagill: Well I mean that’s what staff has said tonight. Larry Synstelien: And that’s true and that’s great. Hopefully that’s the case and then we’re explaining why their argument for those two is not correct pertaining to the drainage and it affecting the drainage negatively. McGonagill: Okay and so another question. Was there a pre-construction survey of the site that would show the way the original drainage existed before you began your work? Larry Synstelien: Yeah that’s a great question. We pulled that topo plans from the original plot of the land so it wasn’t done specifically for our project and we’ve shown them to Mr. Ferraro so he is keenly aware that the water to the south of us, 3 lots would flow down into our lot and then into the neighbor’s lot the Wargin’s and those topo maps clearly show that drainage. McGonagill: Yeah…the elevation that’s there. I can see what happened. Larry Synstelien: Yeah. So the changes we have made the biggest benefit of that is to the property to the east which is benefiting from all the water that used to flow down from the other lots is now hitting the berm, which the berm was approved and in that berm on the other side is a catch basin. The City originally asked for one in the plan and we looked at it and said you know what we should increase the capacity so we added more catch basins and a better French drain and it was. McGonagill: You’re talking about on the south of your lot correct? Larry Synstelien: Correct, yep. Absolutely correct. And that was under. McGonagill: …you’re talking about that is in yes and that leveled your yard. Larry Synstelien: Yes. It didn’t completely level but there is a grade but it greatly improved the grade in the back yard that’s correct. Mark W. Kelly: It’s Mark Kelly again. Here’s the submitted with our application for variance and challenging the decision. This is a photocopy of the Synstelien lot survey that they got at the time. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 21 McGonagill: I can’t see it sir, Mark. Could you please get up to put it up so I can see it. Mark W. Kelly: Can we activate that camera? Walters: Yeah it’s on the camera. One second. Mark W. Kelly: Okay I’m going to turn this so it’s oriented I think better this way. There we go, okay. So here’s the corner and the property line that we’re talking about is here and you notice that when they obtained this lot here’s the home to the east. The water flowed from the south downhill and then veered south and it was directed to the southeast as well. Now there was apparently some bit of a swale in here that’s what that line is but water in this locale always flowed this way and the wall, the stub wall that we’re talking about is approximately in this location and the wall along the deck is over here. McGonagill: And the grading plan was it not to really take along that line, I’m going to point maybe it’s point 1066 that you were going to swale it through there to cause the water to run down the property line to the street is that correct? Mark W. Kelly: I believe that’s what they intended to do and we think we’ve largely done that but I can’t speak to it more than that. McGonagill: Now how do you think you say you largely done that? Mark W. Kelly: Well the as built grade doesn’t show a significant deviation from this illustration from approximately 20 years ago. McGonagill: Oh I understand the water is still going to the east but I thought the original grading plan was going to modify that so it would run to the street and stay off the neighbors property to the east. Larry Synstelien: I’d like to step in on that. That is not the purpose for what that grading permit was at all. That’s absolutely incorrect and the lines that you alluded to, the arrows that Mr. Ferraro referred to as grading arrows is not correct also. If you look at those we were showing underground flow of water in the French drain which there are 9 drain tiles underneath there. The absolutely the intent if you looked at the topo lines, the grading permit, the grading lines that we supplied we matched and it was intended just basically to blend in and match what we had before. There’s nothing, there’s never an intention ever to try to change this part of it because we knew, Ferraro knew that when we built this berm we would be deflecting all of the water flowing from all, 3 or 4 lots to the south and that used to all flow down into this property and that no longer does that. The minor, the minor, the smallest amount of a little bit of runoff from this is insignificant compared to all of the drain eave spouts from our roof that shed this way and then from the lots that came down this way and it all used to flow into their back yard and we knew the neighbors before and Tim can attest to that too that when you’ve got a lot of water it didn’t Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 22 hit us all that terribly bad but it poured into this poor lot because this lot is significantly lower than our’s. There was never, ever an intention to change this element of the grade here. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I’m kind of getting into the weeds on this technically on whether or not on the berms as opposed to the real question whether the appeal, if the decision by city staff was proper or not so I apologize to that to get into the weeds with it so I’ll, I defer. Weick: Okay thank you Commissioner McGonagill. I think it’s all useful. All the information we’re reviewing I think is important and I think your questions are helpful. But I respect your desire to move on and if there are other commissioners. McGonagill: Well the reason I’m doing that Mr. Chairman is I’m starting to look at the technical aspects of the water flow, etcetera, etcetera, where the berms would go. Not go and that’s not the question before us. The question before us did city staff make an error in their determination is that not correct? Weick: That’s correct. McGonagill: So that’s why I apologize and just stop because it’s not the issue in front of us right now. Weick: That’s fair. Other commissioners with questions or comments for the applicant? Randall: I have a question. Weick: Yes Commissioner Randall. Randall: One goes back to the staff report on page 13 of the staff report. Is the, there’s two photos there. There’s one that’s an aerial satellite photo or aerial photo and the other one’s a drawing. And the one on the right which shows the red arrows, was that, were those red arrows added by staff or is that part of the permitting process that were submitted? Walters: The red arrows were added by staff. The picture on the left is all of the layers of the grading permit that the applicant signed off on for the intended grading of the property but the red arrows on the right were added by staff to illustrate staff’s assessment of the as built grading on the, drainage on the property. Randall: Okay. Well then. Oh go ahead. McGonagill: So just because that’s a great point Commissioner Randall. If I look at the grading plan which is on the left, if that’s what you’re saying MacKenzie is that correct? Walters: That is correct. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 23 McGonagill: While it does show water going down the property line from south to north. Walters: Yes and also contours indicating the creation of a swale to convey that water over land on that grading plan. McGonagill: Swales to, from the south to the north? Walters: That is my understanding. Mr. Ferraro could you confirm that I am reading that correctly? For the approved grading. Ferraro: I’m sorry I don’t have that in front of me what we’re looking at. Walters: The approved grading plan from 2016. Ferraro: Okay and what was the question again? McGonagill: I’m taking Mr. Randall’s, Commissioner Randall’s time so I’m just going to ask this and I’ll let it continue. When I look at the grading plan, I’m looking at the blue arrows on that. That’s approved drainage pattern showing that the flow as they were moving it around a lot there was intention to take it from the back to the west and also down the grade, French drain system and surface swales or I would say flow down the property line. In other words they were, that was part of the grading plan because usually grading plans that’s why you do them is you’re trying to control water flow. And so is that correct? Is that what the grading plan was intended to do? Ferraro: Yes. The blue arrows on the grading plan intend overland drainage and the black lines on the approved grading plan is the underground French drain piping. McGonagill: Thank you. Mr. Randall, or Commissioner Randall I’m sorry for butting in. Randall: That’s fine. My second question is to the homeowner. What was the response from the contractor in regards to all this and the issues with the City? Larry Synstelien: I can answer that. So we provided the contractor with the grading plan. We provided him with all the documentation we had. They executed to that and their response was they felt it was within the grading plan. Randall: Okay. Did the contractor come up with the grading plan? Larry Synstelien: No that was working with Mr. Ferraro and his input and it was given to the contractor to implement. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 24 Randall: Okay. Okay. Alright. I don’t have any further questions at all. Weick: Thank you. Are there other commissioners with questions for the applicant at this time? Applicants. Okay hearing no one speak up, thank you very much again. I do appreciate your openness and calmness in describing the situation. I really do appreciate that. I understand this can be a frustrating situation. At this time I would open the public hearing portion of this item. I don’t believe we had any emails for the record. Anyone here in chambers is welcomed to come forward at this time. Please state your name and address for the record and offer your comments on this item. Yes. Melissa Wargin: Melissa Wargin. Weick: Oh up to the, yeah microphone and again real loud into that plastic covered microphone. Melissa Wargin: Hello I’m for the record I’m Melissa Wargin and we’re the neighbors to the east of the Synstelien’s. Weick: Welcome, thank you. Melissa Wargin: So there’s so many facets to their tales. So let’s start with the grading. So our yard you know would get flooding since we bought it 5 years ago and we put in a special type of sump pump which worked but there’s other flooding that happens and has been happening and once they started their construction it got worst because what they did was they added over a foot of dirt. At least a foot. I only know how at least a foot because our sprinkler guys that Clearwater had to come in and raise our sprinkler head once they were after 2 ½ years. I mean we could have them raise it and then fix it and would get run over constantly and that’s the one that’s inbetween our yards. So that’s an easy way to know how high the dirt went so it was at least a foot if not more. I mean the guys were very casual about it so there, the constant backhoe beeping. I mean that’s how you actually know that there’s this stuff going on but the neighbors themselves actually were doing the work. When they said at one point during this hearing that they weren’t doing the work, they were. Adding dirt. Constantly adding rock. So what happened just for the grading and just for where the berm is what happens now is the water travels, hits that and then comes down into the driveway inbetween the trees and our yard and then some of it falls right into whatever they dug. You know where they put the door. So it just goes poush and down and out the spreads out to our driveway, our yards and then down into the street. The pictures don’t really show on our side inbetween their yard and our’s how it kind of drops off into the sidewalk. So what happens right before winter comes that whole sidewalk area freezes now. Just freezes like it’s sheer ice because of that grading too so it’s not just underground that’s happening. It’s over too. I don’t know where to go with this but the projects that they start they don’t always finish and as you’ll see in some of these photos actually that they took themselves, I mean so these trees were put in on Saturday. Okay, so those were put in on Saturday. You can see all the extra dirt here because that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 25 McGonagill: Ma’am we can’t hear you. Could you speak into the mic? Melissa Wargin: I’m sorry. So here I see where the water flows inbetween the Block’s yard and their’s because of all the extra dirt they had put in. Here’s a good example of where the water is coming and now just dumps into that part of our yard instead of just going the whole way so it creates more of a, it funnels it. So here is an area that fills with water. I’ve seen them out there digging below here. And you’ll see it’s still unfinished. They wanted to put windows in there. I don’t know why. So then you’ll see where they put the new trees in and the water, I mean I don’t know what’s going to happen there but I don’t know if the trees will suck in more water. I really don’t know. And you can see how this is below. So when we had like those torrential rains the other day I have no idea what went on down there. But then you have a door there which wasn’t there beforehand. So when they started the project I talk to them. I talked to Larry about it and Joan isn’t very easy to talk to so it kind of goes in circles with them too. So asking for the plans you know we went to the City. We went here and we couldn’t get any structured plan and usually you submit it to the HOA too but it didn’t matter so these projects went on without sort of an idea, or maybe they had an idea for years. They’re still going on and the water pooling is getting, it’s worst or I mean it’s not better. It just now is funneling harder a certain way instead of going through our entire yard and more of the yard can absorb it. It no longer can because it’s blocked a little bit more but we still have the other neighbors that have sprinklers. There’s rain. We still get water but that’s, that part hasn’t gotten worst. What’s gotten worst is it coming down the sides now. Anyway if you have any questions for me direct that would be great because then I can maybe specifically answer them. Weick: Thank you and I share with you the same appreciation that I shared with the applicant. I do appreciate you coming forward and expressing your opinion as well. Melissa Wargin: Right so I don’t understand why the attorney thinks that nothing is going on. Constantly saying that. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there other, anyone else wishing to come forward. Please do so at this time. And again please state your name and your address for the record. Tim Block: Hi, so thank you very much for letting me talk today. My name is Tim Block and I am a teacher here in Chanhassen. Physics teacher at the high school. Lived in the northern property since 2002 so just after the Synstelien’s and have been at that property since. I guess the first question I have because I really want to take advantage of your time is to ask staff to put up the first slide that they put up because I wanted to know what we’re focusing on. If it’s just the two retaining walls but there seemed to be a third request and that’s what I was looking at. And that one being that they had to somehow comply with the grading requirements. Walters: If we could show the power point please. I believe I have the slide he’s requesting. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 26 McGonagill: Is he talking about the motion? Walters: Is that the slide? Tim Block: Yeah. That’s what I had missed before. Okay, or is there something before that as well about other? Okay. So what I’m wondering about is when I read the report they were talking about the two walls. Wall F and Wall I I believe. They’re at stake but then there was also a request that there be some compliance with the grading requirement and that’s really, I mean if I was to provide the commission with any information that’s where I would be able to provide it. The east wall is on the Wargin’s side. I can’t see it from my yard. I can provide some historic information about how the water would flow but I’m just wondering if that’s part of that, and I just wanted to show briefly so we can get a little bit more of an idea of what happened. It will only take me a couple minutes. So first of all here’s a picture. And here’s a picture of the Wargin house from my house 19 years ago and so this is, all the trees have grown up. I can no longer see their house but this is my yard right here and the Synstelien’s yard would be right over here. And if you can see the way that the property was designed was that everyone from the south, which is two up the hill. So we’re at the highest level of Chanhassen. Highover Drive. All that water would funnel down through my yard and into the Synstelien’s yard and it would actually go through, I don’t know if you guys call it a swale or a gully or something like that but you can see how the property is, here’s the property corner, is actually higher so actually the water was entering the Synstelien’s yard about 10 to 15 feet to the west of the property line. It was not flowing on that property line and so if you look at. McGonagill: Could you orientate me to where I’m looking at? Am I looking north? South? East? West? Am I south of the Synstelien’s? I’m a little confused. Tim Block: I am, you’re north of the Synstelien’s on my property. Okay? And you’re looking at the Wargin house so right here is the property corner between the, this would be. Sorry, this would be the lot line right here between the Synstelien’s and myself and this would be the lot line right here between the Wargin’s. The east lot line and this is the north line right here. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Now I understand where I’m looking. Tim Block: Okay. And so you can see how all that water wasn’t really flowing on the easement. The water was flowing in our yards okay. And so when the berm was installed, if you can imagine Highover Drive. The highest point in Chanhassen, three lots would empty out through my yard into the Synstelien’s yard and that’s where most of the water was coming from and the, from my perspective, I don’t want to put words in their mouth was they needed to stop that water and they needed to stop it badly and so they built the berm. And that berm looks like this. So this is my house to the left and this is the property line which is the north property line and that is where the water now comes into there and pools. Flow is now west to those drainage, to the French drains and that was originally the idea was just to let it stop there. Let it pool there and let it keep pooling until it could get to a point where it was high enough that it would actually Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 27 flow into the, into Highover Drive so it would actually pool up here and actually flow all the way up through here. Okay. And so the neighbors complaints that you heard from were at the time well we cannot have you damming up the water into our yard. You can see as if, if we dammed up the water too far well then we’re going to start putting pressure on my, on my foundation and so lastly here is a picture of what has actually happened. So this is the, one of the rain storms where we had 6 ½ inches of rain so it’s really just once in a 2 or 3 process but you can see about 10 to 20 feet of water dammed up on that property line. That’s what happened in our yard. And that’s the water that is being diverted now in those French drains so I cannot tell you whether or not I’m here to oppose this project because the reality is if it’s just those two walls I can’t have much to say but I can tell you that it is kind of scary that that much water can be dammed up onto my property in the city without somebody saying wait a second. Okay. And I think the City did. They said wait a second. You cannot change that much water without some significant amount of thought process and there is now the French drains that the Synstelien’s have put in and it works very nicely about 95 percent of the time. But last Sunday when we had 6 inches of rain those drains were overwhelmed. Again that is exactly the picture that you see. This is from before. I don’t have a picture from that night because it was dark but you can see, here if we look at this. The water goes up to a light that we had installed for a ice rink that we no longer have so you can see that water up to that marker so you can see on this picture how much water must actually be pooling here. Alright. And so it’s really significant from a standpoint that it scares me but at the same point I have to admit that that amount of water is being diverted now from the east side. All that water is no longer going to the Wargin property and that’s just the fact. The reality is that on that Sunday night that water build up into a pond onto my property and eventually hit a height where it had to go somewhere so it flowed to the west over the Synstelien’s driveway and released that way and so it never really got to the point where it was impacting my walkout. Or my lookout windows there. Don’t know what would happen if everything was frozen. Don’t know what would happen if somebody allowed more construction further west to stop that water going there and so if there is something to be done here about the grading I would just say that we need to be careful. We need to be careful because right now the process has worked. The lot is much better looking. The neighborhood has calmed down and everybody is happy again and so we’re all trying to be supportive of each other and I think that that’s important because we lived through 2 years of a lot of problems but at the same time I don’t want the Wargin’s to get more water into their house and I don’t want any more water in mine. Weick: Thank you very much. Great perspective and pictures. Thank you very much. Anyone else present who would like to come forward and offer comment on this item may do so at this time. I believe we also at one point had the telephone number up on the screen and there it is and we’ll keep an eye on the phone over here in front of Mr. Ferraro in case someone has the urge to phone in as well. I will speak slowly and allow people to dial. Nothing coming in? Not yet okay. I’ll just give it a minute. And take this moment again to thank everybody for their perspective and detail in offering information on this item for us. It’s incredibly helpful. With that hearing no one come through on the phone I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open the item for commissioner discussion. And again I think it’s been working with, I Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 28 don’t think we need to do a roll call at this moment so if you just wanted to speak up and talk about this item. I guess I would remind, and I don’t know if there was a slide on this one or not but I’ll remind you what we are considering. It might be helpful MacKenzie if we put that up but we’re considering if there was an error in the execution of the city code in regards to Items F and I as well as a potential variance request as well. Walters: That is correct. I have the appeal of administrative decision slide up. I believe that’s the slide the Chair was requesting. Weick: Okay. And then how does the variance play into this? Walters: So the applicant is also requesting a variance to allow the structure to be located within the drainage and utility easement. I would in absolute theory the commission could uphold the denial of the Encroachment Agreement and then exempt the property from needing an Encroachment Agreement. However I don’t know that I would recommend that course. I would recommend either upholding both or denying both. Weick: Right, okay. McGonagill: So MacKenzie, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McGonagill. I’ve got a question for you. So really the first question is, did the staff error, make an error in the determination of what, of how they interpreted the code so it’s really an up or down vote on that error, is that correct? Walters: Yes. After hearing the position of the appellant and looking at the staff report the Planning Commission is being asked to determine if in fact staff correctly understood the situation and correctly applied the city code. McGonagill: Okay so let’s say we uphold staff. This is a hypothetical question Mr. Chairman. If we uphold staff but then want to consider the walls. You know Wall A, one of the walls or both the walls as a variance then that is a separate proceeding? Or not. Weick: I don’t think it’s not separate no. Walters: No. They have to remain linked because we, no matter what the City would need to have an Encroachment Agreement present to have walls located within the drainage and utility easement so if the Planning Commission believes that the walls, that it’s appropriate for the walls to be located there they should find that staff made an error and that Encroachment Agreement should be issued and a variance should be granted to allow the structures to be located within the D and U. Reeder: Mr. Chair? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 29 Weick: Yes Commissioner Reeder, yes. Reeder: Question to staff. If the permits had been executed as they were issued in this case would the neighbors still have the problems that she was describing if it was done right? Ferraro: To answer your question, if the grading plan was followed overland drainage would provide any rain water or water in the yards to flow freely through the drainage and utility easements both to the west and to the north so the neighboring properties on either side, the drainage would not be adversely impacted. Reeder: Thank you. So that leads me to the conclusion that staff did exactly as they should have. Weick: Thank you. McGonagill: Commissioner Reeder I agree. Staff you know the, as unfortunate as it is, I understand that but I don’t see where staff made an error. In fact I believe staff has gone a long way to work with the homeowner to approve retaining walls for which there was no approval. Reeder: I agree with you. McGonagill: And so I think that particularly I get confused. It’s retaining wall I’m going to call it I, the one that actually comes across the utility easement just from my casual observation. I walk around this area quite a bit and when I kind of look up that line and I can see how it blocks it and push the water to the east because it definitely slopes down through there. There is no as far as I can tell on the survey, there’s no swale at all between those two lots. It just flows directly into the adjacent driveway as I believe the neighbor next door commented so I can’t hold them, see a basis for which saying that staff made an error. Reeder: I totally agree with you on that. I wasn’t trying to indicate that staff was in error. I think they were correct and it should have been the way they had approved the design. Weick: Appreciate your comments. I did find and I don’t mean to confuse the issue anymore but on page 14 there is an attempt I think to clarify what the variance means. If I could read that. If the Planning Commission determines that the City Engineer did not make an error in denying the Encroachment Agreement the applicant would like to receive a variance to permit the walls to remain within the drainage and utility easement. Walters: That was staff’s understanding of the request we received. Weick: Okay. Walters: Again staff’s position is that it’d be very difficult to break the two issues up like that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 30 McGonagill: Well MacKenzie, Mr. Chairman my question though is the issue with the drainage. It’s not so much, at least from my rudimentary understanding. The walls are causing part of the issue but isn’t the bigger issue the fact that the original grading plan wasn’t followed and because of that the whole drainage is screwed up in a way. You follow me MacKenzie? Walters: I follow you. I will defer to Mr. Ferraro as has the…on that. McGonagill: Yeah that’s correct. Thank you MacKenzie. Ferraro: Not really an expert but yes. If the original grading plan had been followed the drainage we would not be seeing them presently. McGonagill: Okay. So in granting really what the technical solution, I’m not saying it’s the proper solution or what the Planning Commission should recommend but the technical, the proper technical solution, they’ve done a lot already with the French drains. And good on for doing that. That’s great but really the grade needs to be redone to the correct, to the east of the property. Is that correct Mr. Ferraro? Ferraro: Yes that’s correct. The east property line with removal of Wall I and Wall F kind of if you will stand in the way of that swale from going out towards the street to the north to direct the drainage along that property line. McGonagill: Yes that swale needs to be there from what you’re telling is that correct Mr. Ferraro? Ferraro: Yes that’s correct and that’s a part of the approved grading plan. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Mr. Chairman I’d defer back to you. Weick: Thank you. That’s actually really good clarification. Thank you Mr. Ferraro. Other comments from commissioners. Thoughts. I know that we’ve covered quite a bit this evening and I want to be sure you have a moment to collect your thoughts and offer comments. Thank you to Commissioner Reeder and Commissioner McGonagill for trying to break it down hopefully to a simpler, to a simpler aspect or decision but certainly open to hear other opinions. Skistad: I guess I do have, or I’m sorry if I’m speaking over someone else but it seems like from the testimony of Mr. Block, I think that was his name. The other guy that there has always been drainage problems with all of these neighbors so I’m, so I’m having trouble understanding how that slight, how that grading change would have solved all the problems of all the neighbors when it’s all flowing in that direction from, you know I think the City has done their best. The neighbors have done their best and I think that this is the unfortunate situation of drainage issue that there has always been with these properties because none of them apparently were ever Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 31 correctly graded in the way that they were supposed to work together to funnel it the correct direction. I mean that’s what I hear everyone’s testimony that’s what I think and that we’re trying to fix what went on maybe when it was originally built way back when with all the lots that flow together so it’s not just one lot. One lot unfortunately is, was faced with the dilemma of trying to solve it. They didn’t solve it and the City didn’t solve it. Nobody solved it but we solved some problems but we created other problems and I don’t know if there’s another way to think about it so that we could alleviate this. You know I mean this possibly needs to be more neighbors working together to get that done. I don’t know what my, you know I can’t understand how one simple grading on one side would fix all of this. It just doesn’t make sense to me that one grade would fix it all knowing how much water flows one direction. Von Oven: Yeah I think it’s a good point. Commissioner Von Oven here. It’s a good point. I think my opinion would be, I think the City plan and everyone following the rules and going with the permitting process and what it recommends all of that together is intended to fix the problem. One lot won’t fix the problem but one lot not complying with what was permitted and then being issued a reprieve by this body I think opens the door for other lots which then creates more neighborhoods that fall into this same situation. For me this is a super complicated issue and one of the most complicated ones I’ve had since I’ve been on this commission but at the same time it’s very, very simple. Our job here today is to decide whether or not staff made an error and I don’t see it. Not from the, not from the report. Not from the testimony. I was like I said I was even surprised to hear how above and beyond staff sounds like they went to accommodate this whole process and I was glad to hear that. But at the end of the day I don’t believe that staff made an error and I’ll be voting in favor to affirm the partial denial. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Von Oven. I would say that at any moment or at any time, do not want to cut off any commissioners that still want to offer opinion but I will say that I would accept any form of a motion if someone wanted to, wanted to provide one. We’re certainly. Randall: Chairman do you mind if I speak real quick? Weick: Yeah I didn’t want to cut anybody off. I just wanted to say. Randall: I understand the frustration that they’re dealing with. I built a home in Chanhassen. I understand the inspection process. I have worked with other cities. Friends that have built houses in other cities and how hard that can be and difficult at times. I really look at did it improve, what they did, did it improve the situation and I think it might have helped a little bit but there was one piece that came up in testimony that I was really concerned about and I wanted to put it back on the contractor and under testimony the property owner said that the contractor thought it would go through and, the contractor probably was correct. They thought like oh this isn’t that big of a deal but it turned out to be a big deal and it didn’t follow the plan on the drainage issue. There was concerns from neighbors and that was the one piece that I went back to. I would hope that they can get a variance for this. They can work with homeowners or the neighbors and maybe they might have to put some money into the neighbor’s property to make it Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 32 flow and work right but at the same time they mentioned in testimony that they had a lot going on at the site. There was multiple construction areas going on and it probably got lost in the clutter. Working for the government, I’ve done that for 20 years, I always try to side with the citizen on it and I can see that happening. However when it came out that the contractor thought it would go through that was my deciding point on it that the City did not act, or the City followed it’s direction and followed what they needed to do in this matter. That’s all I have to say. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Randall. I appreciate your perspective. I think we have heard from everybody but I certainly want to allow you the opportunity to speak again. Give you a moment to read the motion as it’s presented by City. You are free to amend that as you wish, whoever is, if you want to propose a motion you are free to adjust this motion as you would like. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I’ll propose the motion as written. This is Commissioner McGonagill; Weick: Okay. McGonagill: Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms the City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the Encroachment Agreement and denies that the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located with the drainage and utility easement and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner McGonagill. Do we have a second? Von Oven: Commissioner Von Oven seconds. Weick: Mr. Von Oven seconds. Any final comment from commissioners before we vote? McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I have one comment. The reason that I believe the variance should be denied is that, what I’d like to see is a variance come in with some revised grading plans. What they’re going to do to flow the water. Work with the neighbors as one of the commissioners talked about. I believe a couple did. What is the solution that you can do here to do here, to do what needs to happen. Do you follow me Mr. Chairman? Weick: I do and I appreciate you offering a comment for the record and that will be added to the record. You know I hear that you would like to see this come to a, you know some type of cooperation whether it be with neighbors or with the City but as it pertains specifically to the appeal here, you know and to the specifics of what we’re looking at this evening and what we’re taking into consideration is whether an error was made by the City. I think we all agree that it was not. At least what I hear from everybody. But that said you know respecting the amount of work that’s put into the property and the amount of improvements that’s been made to the property it sounds like it is your hope that there is still an opportunity for some type of Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 33 compromise whether it be with neighbors or with the City. Do I understand you correctly Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Well I think cooperation with the neighbors, the City and I do believe it will take some revision to the grading on the property. Weick: Understood. McGonagill: …move the water away. You know if this was a variance to come up I would just say I would be looking for that. What has been changed to make that water move away from the neighbor to the east. Weick: Okay, thank you. McGonagill: But that’s just clarifying adding little comments because that’s not what’s in front of now. This motion is the one in front of us and go ahead Mr. Chairman. Weick: Okay thank you. We will do a roll call vote on the motion. McGonagill moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms the City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the Encroachment Agreement and denies that the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utility easement and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: The motion passes 6 to 0. MacKenzie any final words? Walters: This either the neighbors or the applicant do have four days to submit an appeal. If we do not receive an appeal by 4:30 Monday this decision would be final. If we do receive a written appeal then it would go before the City Council. Weick: Thank you for the clarification MacKenzie and thank you again to everybody who presented and who has put so much into this. We appreciate, we appreciate the depth of this issue and hope that everyone appreciates the consideration that the commission has given this evening. We do have one more item this evening. Let’s give it. Yeah we need to take a 3 minute break and then we will restate so give you guys a chance to take a break. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT COUNDARY DETERMINATION MADE BY A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 34 PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 212 AND POWERS BOULEVARD. Weick: Mr. Generous is presenting this evening. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman before we begin this, I just want to make it, I’m going to recuse myself from this discussion. Weick: Okay. McGonagill: I do not have a financial interest in this property however I just do know the applicant quite personally and some of the other people and I think it’d be proper for me to just to sit on the sidelines and watch this one. I don’t want any questions about it. Weick: Well we will miss your expertise for sure but thank you for letting us know and for the record we do still have a quorum in order to vote without Mr. McGonagill this evening. So thank you again Commissioner McGonagill and appreciate your candor. Generous: Okay thank you Mr. Chairman. Planning Case 2020-13 as you stated is an appeal of an administrative decision for the determination of the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary. This property is located at the southeast corner of Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard. It’s part of an outlot for the development, actually the lot that was platted was here and the rest of this property is one big outlot. The property is guided for office use in the future when urban services become available. It’s currently zoned agricultural estate district. In developing the Bluff Creek Overlay District the City first in 1994 began looking at the Bluff Creek corridor. They established a steering committee and a technical committee to review the natural environment of the corridor from basically Minnewashta, Lake Minnewashta down to the Minnesota River valley. To look at identifying and preserving a continuous greenway that would connect natural resources, wildlife habitat throughout the, the Bluff Creek watershed district encompasses approximately 40 percent of the city’s land area and this runs approximately 6.6 miles through the city so it was a significant corridor that the City wanted to preserve. At the end of 1996 the study was completed. It was presented to City Council. As part of the study the group looked at topography as one of the primary considerations in the corridor. They also looked at soil types, vegetative communities, wetlands. There were 5 districts that came out of the study. The uplands area which is the land north of Highway 5 to Lake Minnewashta. The Meadowlands area which is from Highway 5 down to Lyman Boulevard. The Lowlands area which is from Lyman to Pioneer Trail. The Gorge area which is the significant drop. It’s a 70 foot elevation change south of Pioneer Trail that takes Bluff Creek down to the Minnesota River valley. And then finally there an East Gorge area that’s east of Highway 101 near the Mustard Seed. It’s that ravine system that’s over there. Unfortunately as part of our ordinance we only did the western part. The East Gorge was left out of it. From that study the City did in 1998 adopted the Bluff Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 35 Creek Overlay District. This district was established by Ordinance 286 to protect the Bluff Creek corridor, the wetlands, bluff and significant stands of mature trees in the area. The property is located in what’s the Lowlands area. It’s significant because there is a, I’ve got to find which page I wrote this on. A natural area extended from Great Plains and Lyman Boulevard southwest to Pioneer Trail, a forested ridge containing an oak woodland. It linked several better quality wetlands within the corridor and areas that the City really wanted to preserve. So after the study the ordinance was adopted. It required that any development within the Bluff Creek corridor, and especially those that had the primary zone in it needed to receive a conditional use as part of their development approval. Additionally there was a 40 foot structure setback from the primary zone boundary with the first 20 feet being a buffer zone. The Bluff Creek corridor consists of the primary zone which is the area that’s to be preserved as permanent open space and the secondary zone which is where the City should look at low impact development types to reduce any impacts to the Bluff Creek corridor or primary zone in this case. Again the primary zone runs from Highway 41 north of Highway 5 all the way down to the Minnesota River valley. And it has two tributaries. One that comes from Arboretum Business Park and comes into the main branch and then one that comes from 101 and Lyman Boulevard down through this property. Crosses Pioneer and comes and meets the trail again. And then the third one on Pioneer Trail that runs from Audubon over to the main branch of Bluff Creek and again down to the Minnesota River valley. The specific areas within the low land, the portion that we’re looking at is a small 3 acre segment right here adjacent to the Highway 212 interchange. And I should as part of the City’s development review process we look at not only lines that are immediately adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor but those that are adjacent to some of the tributary areas. There’s two instances of development to the east of Mr. Erhart’s property that are, have portions located in the primary zone. Fox Wood development has part of the wetland complex in the upland area adjacent to that. All of this Outlot A is all part of the Bluff Creek primary zone and it connects into the Fox Wood preservation area which then connects into Mr. Erhart’s property in his northwest corner. To the north of this development across that wetland is the Arbor Glen development. It includes the wetland and buffer area and as part of this development review the watershed district took an additional buffer area north of our Bluff Creek primary zone and this area ultimately remained permanent open space. Now you look at a tributary to the west and we have the Arboretum Business Park. As part of the Control Concepts site plan review the eastern quarter of the property was in the primary zone. This area is being preserved as part of the Overlay District and it will be permanent open space. As part of the development we did get a trail connection into a trail system that we have there. And finally I’m showing the Avienda development which is west of Powers Boulevard, north of Highway 212. Approximately 15 acres in the southwest corner of this site is part of the Bluff Creek primary zone. This is a wooded hill that’s an example of Big Woods. It’s not directly adjacent to the Bluff Creek itself but it does contribute to the watershed so. In looking at the drainage patterns for the Bluff Creek watershed district we see that Bluff Creek watershed drains from actually east of Highway 101 at Lyman Boulevard through that wetland complex through Mr. Erhart’s property and across Powers Boulevard to Bluff Creek which runs approximately here. So it’s now pipe. At one time this whole area was overland flow of drainage for the Bluff Creek corridor until Powers Boulevard was extended and Highway 212 was put in place. The applicant Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 36 has requested that this approximately 3 acres of his site be removed from the Bluff Creek primary zone and so the boundary would be revised to take out this area. As part of his request at the time the City didn’t have a Water Resources Coordinator so we hired WSB to do a review of the watershed district boundaries and whether or not it would be appropriate to make any changes to it. The applicant, to make an appeal the ordinance allows the property owners to provide scientific data, topography, vegetation, flora, fauna, to show why the land should be excluded from the primary zone boundary. He did provide, this is a survey that Mr. Erhart provided. It’s part of the existing conditions survey that he provided. It shows areas of steep slope. Areas where water drains through the property. Areas of Woodlands. This is that ridge line that was talked about as part of the Bluff Creek Overlay. The study that said the oak savannah type. I should note that this line is actually follows the wood tree line on this side. This is an area in the future where the City is actually looking at a potential lift station for development. We did as part of the review we submitted the study to the WSB and they reviewed it based on all the criteria that we have in our ordinance. Soils, wetland, topography, vegetation, significant stands of trees and they found that with some modifications the Bluff Creek primary zone designation that the City has is appropriate. At the time, they did show that the primary zone should not include land that drains to the east because that doesn’t impact Bluff Creek corridor and so the top of the ridge line they recommended that we take that out of the Bluff Creek primary zone. However they also showed that our line should be moved a little bit east on the south end of this property to the top of the ridge line to take in all the land that drains to the west. And so that’s based, based on that recommendation we sent Mr. Erhart our determination that the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary should not be revised pursuant to what he said. He had requested. And now we’re back to, again we have an appeal that he believes there was an error in our determination of the Bluff Creek primary zone and that Section 20-28 of city code allows the Planning Commission as a Board of Appeals and Adjustment to determine if we made an error in our determination of the city code. With that we’re recommending that the Planning Commission affirm our decision for the Bluff Creek primary zone and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Great. I will open it up to the commission. Anyone please speak up if you have questions at this time for Mr. Generous. Von Oven: I have a quick question. If we could bring the slides back up and go to the last slide before the proposed motion. I got a little confused on this. This assessment. This picture is from whom? Who created this? Generous: WSB put it together from topography and an aerial view of the site. They added the coloring for the primary zone which is red here. These bright red areas are areas of steep slopes. They were 25 percent or more. Von Oven: Got it. And sorry I didn’t get to step back. The, the applicant had the ability to have scientific data put together and that was, that’s this is what I’m looking at here? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 37 Generous: Yes. Von Oven: Okay. And the aerial shot from WSB, this is the City hired WSB to do that in the absence of an existing water manager or something, right? Generous: That’s correct. Von Oven: Got it, okay. Thank you. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Von Oven. And roughly we’re on the next slide, roughly where does the property in question. Not this slide but the one, where is the property in question on this? Generous: Well it’s all this. Weick: It is? Generous: Yeah. Because this is just a primary zone boundary which would be this area. The primary zone boundary of the east edge of it runs along this top of this ridge line. Weick: Okay. Generous: And continues up to the northeast. And then it runs over to, actually it used to encompass Highway 212. That interchange but with the development of the road that portion would disappeared. Weick: Okay. Generous: And so it runs basically the west edge of that is the bottom on that ridge line and the wooded area that went across and it’s the existing canopy coverage. Aanenson: Bob could you go to the second slide? Or with all the blue on it. There. Can you just maybe illustratively show where you are based on this? Generous: Yeah the 3 acres is right in this corner. Aanenson: Does that help? Weick: Yeah, thank you. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Generous from commissioners? Okay, hearing none at this time thank you Mr. Generous. Hearing none at this time I would invite the applicant to come forward and make a presentation. And welcome. It’s nice to see you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 38 Tim Erhart: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you commissioners. Appreciate the time and effort everybody makes on this. I had my turn on the wheel many years ago for 6 years. It was one of the greatest experiences, are you hearing me okay? Greatest experiences I really had. Learned how our city works. Met a lot of great people including when Kate came on board so a lot of fun so appreciate the opportunity to have this side. I’ve got a few slides. Maybe it will help some of the questions about where this, where exactly this 3 acres exists. There we go. So we can go right into the next one Bob. Okay so here’s a Google view of the area. You can see 212 on, swinging across at an angle across the top. Powers Boulevard north and south on the left and winding 101, still winding 101 kind of down the middle and our property kind of runs, I’d say the bottom, kind of the bottom half of that area. It’s 120 acres we’ve owned since 1980. You can see the area from this photo. You can see that area is nothing but trees, wetlands, swamps. It’s to be honest with you we were very fortunate to somehow buy this piece of property when we got married and moved onto it. It’s in our view the most beautiful piece of property in all of Chanhassen. It’s, at one point before Gonyea developed that with the permission of Jim Wilson and Frank Fox, the prior owner of Fox Woods had 4 ½ miles of trails through this whole area and there’s still substantial trails and I encourage and allow everybody to walk on the still 3 miles of trails that are on my property so you can kind of see. The area in question, I don’t know if I got, if I can do. Yeah Bob’s got the idea there. It’s kind of in this area down here where it’s not fully wooded. There’s a hay field right there where he’s got his dot. It’s about 2 acres and then there’s open area to, well yeah the 2 acres is in the middle but 3 areas to the left of that is 9 acres that’s guided, guided office. So maybe the next slide we can, maybe shows a little better. So here’s a sketch of kind of what things look like today and inclusive of what a 40 year person living there has kind of laid out a sketch of how I think I’d like to see this developed and I think it’s pretty consistent with city staff and Hoffman. Todd Hoffman and Jerry Ruegemer and I love walking those trails and making those trails and we want to see them continue to be used. The 3 acres on the left where Bob has his dot and 9 to the left of that and then if you go up in Fox Woods and on our property there you can see what trails exist today. Aanenson: If I may Tim, I might just interject. I don’t know if everybody knows but the City did purchase the Fox Woods property a number of years ago so that’s a preserve area. Tim Erhart: That’s Fox Woods preserve today yeah. And then I’ve kind of laid out if you look at the whole area there kind of what potentially the street layout could be. Some of them that exist. It’s kind of the intent of there. You can see within this whole 400 acres there it’s a tremendous natural area where there will be some enclaves of beautiful houses and great settings. Great natural opportunities so. And then there’s the one last thing I want to mention is that there will be a connecting trail from Bandimere Park through this whole thing. I’ve shown it on the top along the top of those ponds there and I don’t know if that one will be a nature trail or a paved bike trail. I’m not sure what the plan of that is but it will, everything will be connected so okay we can go to the next one Bob. I don’t think this one, oh yeah this one is I just want to summarize the site features here. Just what I’m talking about and why I’m kind of, I’m very passionate about getting this development done correctly. This 9 acre, if we add the 3 it’s 12 to Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 39 13. It’s right at the intersection. Has great access to transportation to the rest of the Twin Cities. The access is right through Powers Boulevard. The cut is there available to use. There’s a preliminary base of a street already installed. It will be close to a bus stop. The site has great views. Great views of the site from eastbound traffic coming on 212. If someone’s looking for a high level office you would be able to have signage and a great view. It’s right next to the Fox Woods Preserve. People who use that either office or live there would basically walk out their door and be in the preserve on the trail system. You can go to Bandimere Park but another trail. Another nice amenity of the system and because of the hills that Bob’s referring to it’s isolated from what’s planned, single family to the east across the large, let’s see it would be yeah. What Bob is showing there is single family to the east of that planned and then to the south of that there’s some existing single family and as we found out when Fairview came in, we kind of want to be isolated from them too. There’s concerns from that and in summary it’s just a stunning setting so thanks, I think we can move on then Bob. I think what we, I’m trying to get to with this site. Because of all those, those list of things, I think it’s a perfect site for office which it’s guided. I think the size of that office should be 150,000 to 200,000 square feet. My experience in having people inquiring about this space for a corporate headquarters or in the case of Fairview Medical which proceeded to quite far along. Through Planning Commission and did it go to council? Yeah the whole thing was approved yeah so I mean that was 160,000 square feet they wanted to invest in. I think that’s the kind of thing we can attract to this site. It doesn’t come along every day. I get, I do get inquiring from time to time on it. I think it has potential if we do the proper planning for that. The other option is the high density residential. In that case the same amount of square feet that could equivalent to about 150 to 200 units so, and/or senior housing so either way. Next Bob. Let’s see, yeah let’s back up. Let’s back up to the two slides. One more. Yeah okay. So Bob introduced the idea here of how do we establish the real position of these Bluff Creek overlay boundaries. You know the ordinance states the boundaries shall be determined by using topographical survey, a flora fauna survey and soil data but nowhere in the ordinance does it actually tell you how to apply this information to determine the exact location of the line. The real setting of that line is really, left up to the planner. City planner specifically or the planning department and I’m not suggesting that the City doesn’t apply a consistent process for putting on that line but it is not, it is not laid out in the ordinance itself. The initial line for my corner up there was because there, when the ordinance was put in place there really wasn’t any of this data readily available so we used aerial photography and some on site survey work to set up where the original boundaries were with the idea that when someone comes in for development we would relocate the line depending on more information coming in but it still was a process that was basically established by the planning department. The first line on that particular project or property through aerial photographs was put on a fence that separated a cultivated field from a pasture line that had some trees in it. When Fairview came in we did a more detailed survey of the area. Tried to accommodate what they wanted to do and the line was moved further to the east approximately where it is today. Is that clear from the map there? Because of our, what we learned from the Fairview process, one is that there is a market for a high grade office or medical building in the area but typically as I mentioned they’re looking for, they’re really looking for 20 acres is usually the starting point. I’m not suggesting at all that we want to try to eek out 20 acres on this site but I think it’s reasonable to come up with 12 or 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 40 based on our experience. My view is to accommodate that as we take the 2 acre hayfield and we add a 1 ½ acre hill with the trees on it and try to move that line east to encompass that yields the acreage I think we need to attract a high, a big, a major investment. I think in my view of, I think it’s a beautiful ordinance that we have, the Bluff Creek ordinance or overlay district and that it gives us, it’s designed to give us the flexibility to develop property, protect the natural areas and to preserve the corridor as a whole with what remains of the Bluff Creek watershed. As Bob stated the primary goal is to create the greenway from Lake Minnewashta to the Minnesota River and it’s not intended to obstruct development. And I think in this case we’re asking to have the flexibility to put this line where I think it reasonably can use this area in a way it should. So in our proposed line, if you go, look to the east it’s at the bottom of a very steep rise up to that hill that separates that pond from and there from the west. It’s all natural vegetation and it has very large high value trees on it. This area to the west of our proposed line is identical to what you see up in Fox Woods Preserve today and the 60 or so acres that ultimately we would envision from our property to be added to Fox Woods Preserve. Assuming we call it, if we call the whole area Fox Woods Preserve so. I’m not asking it to be called Erhart Preserve. Yeah Tim’s Woods but it really is consistent with that whole thing and we would, I would never suggest that we move that line any further into that. That’s a beautiful area. It’s very steep and we want that to remain and the trails that are in it. In contrast the areas on the west of our proposed line it’s more like the 9 acres that’s already guided for office. As I mentioned it consists of 2 acres of a hay field and, with a 1 ½ acre hill and on that hill there’s 18 oak trees. Large oak trees. That was formerly pasture and now I mow that tree and it’s become known as Tim’s park so it’s pretty impressive when you walk out there because these oak trees stand alone without brush around them so it’s like going to a really nice city park. I think one of the issues what’s happened here is that now the City kind of deems these 18 trees as kind of unique and a lot of attention to not, not losing these 18 trees which I don’t want to lose these 18 trees either but I think in putting this in context in Fox Woods Preserve there are over 1,000 trees that are 12 inches in diameter and larger and I’m guessing that there’s 250 of those are over 24 inches trees. There’s a lot of, as you saw from the previous picture there’s a lot of trees here. We just completed a tree survey on that area. See that little loop in there Bob? Can you throw that? Yeah right in there. There’s a 20 acre piece there that we just completed a tree survey. There’s 500 trees in that little area that are over 12 inches diameter. My point being that you know I love the 18 oak trees but these are not unique. In fact I would venture to say that within a mile radius there’s tens of thousands of trees similar to those trees. Particularly as you get down in what you’re calling what, the lower lower area of Bluff Creek? Generous: The lowlands. Tim Erhart: The really lowland and it just goes on forever so. Secondly is there’s no reason to think that these 18 trees would be removed during development of this site. The trees are really an asset and to flatten the hill on there would be quite an undertaking. One that’s really not necessary to develop it. Can you jump ahead a couple slides Bob? We have some, put together a couple ideas on how you would develop the, let’s say 13 acre site and preserve the trees. Here’s one that’s office and you can see it involves, in this case two buildings and a third which Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 41 could be retail or office. We would use the hayfield as a parking lot and the buildings would butt up against the hill so if the trees are there and we would not attempt to disturb the hill. The next one is an apartment complex idea where you come in and we have apartments here with underground parking and the hay field becomes one of the apartment buildings with an entranceway and then two other buildings closer to the intersection of the freeway. Here this concept includes an additional trail that might, would have a bridge over the entranceway to the upper apartment building. That’s a very narrow pass there and it would join up with the trail that already exists that comes from the northwest there. Kind of a fun idea. They call it the Bridges I guess so. Anyway you know my wife and I have owned this property for 40 years and during that time we’ve restored 4 wetlands. We’ve planted thousands of trees on this property and our vision for this is to have people, have a lot of people work or live there and I agree with the staff that this is a unique piece of property. But I think it’s a little bit different. My view is I think it’s unique in what it contributes to our community at large in it’s use. It’s maximum use as a high end office. Corporate office or an apartment building that would allow some people on this Fox Woods Preserve. I was just in there Sunday. I hike that area quite often. You hardly see anybody in that park today. It’s just, it’s a really under used asset for us. I did for the second time this summer ran into a mom and a kid, his son so I stopped and I asked I said you must be from Fox Woods. Oh no, we’re from Eden Prairie. I said why do you come out here? Why do you drive out here to use this trail? Well he said there’s nobody ever on it so. So you know it’s just begging for some people to come in and use it so the request we’re asking for is to provide that opportunity to maximize it’s use. To provide today clear, a clear, a clear way to describe the property to a potential investor as opposed to well it’s 9 acres and yeah maybe you could get another 3 if you’re nice you know. It’s really hard to sell a concept that way. The last, okay with that I just summarize what we’re asking for. Adjust the Bluff Creek Overlay District boundary to align with the property’s existing characteristics and the land use which two-thirds of it is agricultural today. All the best use. Potential for tax generation. I didn’t mention that but that’s something we all have to think about and attract a really superior investment and lastly to allow us to offer it both as a, there’s one more slide Bob. One as office or apartment or high density residential. So those are the two things that we’re requesting so that’s it. Weick: Great. Thank you very much. In. Tim Erhart: Oh I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Dan has something that he’d like to add, is that? Weick: Is that part of the? Okay then yeah. Come on up. Tim Erhart: Dan Blake. Dan Blake: Mr. Chairman and commission, my name is Dan Blake. I’m with the Pemtom Land Company and been doing various development type things for a long time and I just told Tim I would talk a little bit about you know kind of the planning concept but I’m going to back up a little bit of history of things that Tim won’t say. He did mention that he bought a farm 4 years Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 42 ago. It was a dairy farm. He did not expand the dairy operation. Instead he’s been planting trees as he mentioned for 40 years. He did not cut down those oak trees that are considered kind of prime but could have. Why because he cares more about that site than probably the City does and in that regard he’s not the big bad developer. Maybe I am but I’m not his developer. I’m just a friend. He, I’ve been working with him to put a vision for this plan, the entire site so that even if he doesn’t develop it, it gets developed the way his vision has been evolving over 40 years and he cares about some of the things. Some of the things you just heard he cares about a lot which is you know I want people to use this. I want people to see this. I don’t want 7 houses backing up to this wetland. I want people to drive by the wetland and see it. I want people to see the trees. I want my apartment buildings to be next to the big trees so that people can walk out their door, through the little park and be into it so you know from that regard Tim as a landowner is not typical. I understand there’s a challenge in getting a firm commitment from him and the future landowners and how this all met but his goal in this corner is to create something with high value. You know Tim didn’t ask for 212 to be built. He didn’t probably even ask for Powers to be built but the result of that is a corner that makes sense for some type of a higher intensity use and the City has recognized that in guiding it office. There is though a parcel size that tends to drive the type of, the value and type of use and even though it’s proximity is fabulous if it’s too small you get a daycare. I don’t know what will end up there. You know it needs to be big enough to attract a high value use and that’s what I think that Tim is trying to accomplish in this discussion about where is that boundary. You know there’s, I mean if we build it they will come doesn’t really work in land planning. Somebody some day wants a high value use in the southwest metro, whether it’s housing or office and they’re going to look for the size property they need and if they can’t fit it here it will go somewhere further out which is contrary to good planning in that we have an interchange with access. We have, you know because of the uses, the road uses are probably not going to be single family kind of uses. There’s probably going to be you know it makes sense for a higher intensity use. Not even sure if it’s, you know you’ve got to preserve the real natural features that are there but it’s not even ideal to preserve those next to the freeway but that’s part of this but my point being is if someone wants their 13 or 15 acre site they’re going to, they’re going to find it. Maybe it will be in Chan or maybe it will you know somehow it’s going to be further away from the freeway or further down the road and it’s going to cause more people to be driving further and not using the transportation system as efficiently as we can to use that and so the, looking at this boundary which as Tim mentioned, you know it’s not arbitrary but it’s, there’s an element of arbitrariness to that boundary so I listened to the last presentation and the question was did staff make a, an error. That’s going to be hard to define error because it’s pretty fuzzy as far as how that boundary can exist. I think we’re trying to show that it’s somewhat arbitrary. The logic of moving it is just as sensible and there’s a great purpose in why that would be there so that we’re not chasing that high value use to a different location you know out, further away from the transportation system. Thank you. Weick: Alright thank you very much. I appreciate it. I was scribbling notes so I apologize but are there questions at this time for the applicant? For Mr. Erhart from the commission. And as maybe we’re waiting I’m trying to figure out in my head how to ask kind of a similar question Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 43 that was asked in the previous item we heard. Which is I guess why, why move the line? Like what if you could summarize, I mean you’ve given a really good background on sort of why it makes sense but more specific to that boundary line, could you kind of summarize kind of some of the key points as to why it would make sense to move it up or down? Tim Erhart: Okay yeah. Weick: If you yeah. Tim Erhart: Well one is I think the line that we propose has more technical support than where the line is today. Okay as I mentioned it starts at a very steep hill and natural vegetation with a lot of big trees. Okay where the line today is kind of drawn down the middle of a hill and through a hay field, okay. Secondly is our experience is that in order, as Dan mentioned in order to attract a really big investment in that area 9 acres is tight. We found with Fairview we were, well I mean it was, we were cutting into hills. We were putting in 15 foot retaining walls and we found out we should have moved the whole building site farther north to get it further away from, to get a wider area if you include that 3 areas. It’s wider and bigger and further away from the existing homes in the south. And I just it’s a great opportunity I think for Chanhassen to maximize it’s taxes from that area. The community’s use for it and I, the reason we need that today is I need to be able to communicate to someone when they call in or contact me is that this is the area we’ve got to work with. It’s not 20. It’s not 9. It’s 12 to 13. Otherwise it’s real difficult to kind of keep it kind of, make that conversation. Weick: Okay. Thank you. I mean that’s a good answer. Anyone else with questions for the applicant at this time? Von Oven: Commissioner Von Oven with a question. Weick: Go ahead. Von Oven: So Mr. Erhart first of all you are a wonderful story teller. I just met you and I feel like I’ve known you forever so thank you for that presentation. That was great. You’re also, I also love the fact that you’re an alumni of what we’re trying to do here today so that allows me to make statements like you know how this works. So as part of what I read in the staff report you have the ability or the you shall provide appropriate technical information and you just mentioned that you feel as though that the boundary lines as you’ve drawn them are more technically accurate I think you said. I’m not sure I’m quoting you correctly and it says in here that you provided a topographic survey and a tree survey, both of which I think were shown earlier. The picture that I saw from, is it WSB or let’s say the City provided, while I’m not an expert at reading that it seems like pretty hard evidence of moving certain lines both you know in your favor and another against your favor so I think my question for you is, after seeing what the City had provided and knowing that if you could provide appropriate technical information the staff would have just approved this. Is it that technical information does not exist to move the Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 44 lines where you want to move them and or was there just not the resources to be able to provide it? Tim Erhart: Excellent question. The thing is that almost all the surveys that they asked for is not measurable data. I mean it’s flora and fauna. Okay so we’ve got the trees. That’s measurable. But the flora and you know the soils, erosion, I mean these are all kind of subjective and you have to put this together all collectively which is what WSB did in their view when you collect the information in their view the line should be where it’s at and one of the points there is that, you know I’m as the applicant kind of have to approve, kind of show why it should be moved whereas the City kind of is in a position to say well this is where the line is and so I’m trying to show why it should be moved and why it’s a benefit to the City. But there is no clear. There is no clear actual data. Even the reference to the 25 percent slopes. There’s nothing in the ordinance that says 25, other than in the secondary zone there’s some minor reference to it. There’s nothing that says 25 percent slopes should automatically make this in the primary zone. It’s not in the ordinance. Again that’s a process and it’s kind of a subjective view that the City has taken. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying this is the problem with this whole thing. It’s not, there’s no magic formula to put in a calculator and a line draws out okay. It’s a view. Does that answer the question? Von Oven: Yes, thank you very much. Weick: Good question. Others anyone might have. Give you a chance to think. Hearing none at this time, thank you Mr. Erhart. I appreciate your presentation. And I will open the public hearing portion on this item. Anyone present wishing to make a comment on this item may come forward at this time. We are also accepting calls. The number is 952-227-1100 and is on the screen. I’ve heard some beeps from over there but I don’t think it’s an actual phone call. This is always my favorite part when I try and figure out a way to stall long enough to have someone come forward. No one is present in the chambers to come forward and speak on this item and I do not believe we had emails submitted either on this. Generous: None that we’re aware. Weick: Okay. Generous: I had well one email but it wasn’t directly related to this. It was related to all development. Weick: Okay. Aanenson: A call? Generous: Yeah that was a call. Well it was the email. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 45 Weick: Okay perfect. Well hearing no phone calls as well I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open for commissioner comment. And I will, I’ll kind of open the comment as people maybe collect their thoughts. You know for me I’ll just be very open about how, my thoughts on this item and they might not be exactly correct or appropriate but I guess I would say if this came to us in a form of like there was a development and they asked for a variance on 3 acres to put in you know a health care or an apartment or something like that, to me it is, it makes sense. Like I don’t think there’s enough to, it’s hard to decide where that line is I think especially through that property and I think if there was someone sitting in front of us here that said we can’t develop unless we have this 3 acres I would personally be inclined to say yeah. Let’s do it. That’s not the question in front of us today. I get that but to me the question’s less about really right or wrong and you know error or anything that’s been made. You know the question is, is there enough doubt in how that line could be drawn in order to support you know moving it one way or the other. Because I think honestly we could put that line, I feel like it could be placed in several different places that would make perfect sense to me through that property. So just kind of throwing out some ideas and some thoughts about where my head’s at. You know this is such important property I think for the City based on where it’s located off of 212 there. It requires our real you know sincere consideration at this time. Commissioner Reeder, it looks like you might be wanting to say something. Please jump in. Reeder: If I can figure out how to talk in here. Weick: Yep. Reeder: My request is to hear staff talk about their concerns in moving this line. I understand the original engineering study suggested it should be where it is but I’d like to hear staff comment about the, their concerns about moving this line. Generous: I’ll take a shot at it. The concern is establishing precedence in not following the city ordinance. This boundary came about from a study that was years in the making. It was then implemented through a public hearing process where we established these lines and the criteria for us to revise a line. We want to have, give people the idea that if you can provide sufficient data or information to say that well it should be shifted then that would be one thing but in this case as our current water resources person said there wasn’t sufficient information provided to create support for changing the boundary. Aanenson: I’d just like to add one other thing if I may. So the question came up you know regarding I think the Chairman brought it up regarding when a project comes forward. It’s always easier when a project’s going forward so let’s step back and look at the overlay district and how it was put in place. When we adopted the overlay district it was contemplated that we would buy all the right-of-way in the overlay district. Some of it was inside the urban service area. Some was out so there’s a price difference so at that time when the ordinance was put in place it was determined that as each project came through we would verify that if someone wanted to do earlier like Mr. Erhart wanted to he has the right to pursue that action to say I don’t Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 46 think the boundary is correct. So as we’ve applied it as each project comes in. We get more refined data so there’s a definition of flora and fauna. It’s the different types of vegetation that have unique characteristics whether in a wooded area, a wet areas so all the scientific things. It’s not just the planners. We have a lot of technical people that would look at that. We walked Mr. Erhart’s property a number of times and he has been a good steward of that property. I don’t want to dismiss that at all but what we’ve always done is apply typically with a project going forward so when you look at Avienda on this project. Maybe we didn’t preserve but what we have done and preserved that is there’s value to when something is in the overlay district so I don’t want to take Mr. Erhart’s ability to have value to that property but as were shown in the slides earlier there’s other residential projects, some of those were given different lot size configurations so but given the property for the overlay district they were able to have RLM zoning district which is a zoning district that says if you contribute a significant amount of upland area then you get credit for that. So in this circumstance let’s say they came in with an apartment building or this project came in as an office building and they could use that green space in the upland area for that preserve area for the green space so it would still have some value. Just like Avienda where we preserved the 15-17 acres of green space or wooded area, they get credit for that through their green space which allows them to intensify the area that’s not in there. If that makes sense. So the value is that there again. Now not always can you recapture that value. Sometimes it’s more difficult if you’re looking at an industrial zone. Typically those buildings have a certain footprint. They all go taller and an office building could go taller. Apartment building could go taller so that’s kind of how we’ve worked it out. So I’m not saying it’s not appropriate to have discussion now but it’s just a little easier when you have a project in front of you just to kind of you know to say well who’s giving and taking and that sort of thing so yes, this is a prime piece of property and with the visibility. Would it be more value to the owner with additional property in there? Not disagreeing with that. Reeder: So Mr. Chairman maybe a question goes to Mr. Erhart, what’s the concern about what I’m hearing from staff is that when you come in with a project this is something, switching some of the land could be considered. Why can’t we go that way? Tim Erhart: That means deferring the question until development. And again I think it’s important to be able to convey to potential investors exactly the amount of land area that they have to work with. Otherwise it’s a guessing game and as Mr. Blake stated you know if it doesn’t meet their criteria of 13, 14 acres they’re going to move onto the next spot. There just isn’t enough time in today’s world to play the games. Well maybe it’s 9. Maybe it’s 13. In our view this 3 acres is, is readily developable. Generally flat except for the hill in the middle and moving this line, I didn’t mention it but really have zero negative impact on what we’re trying to accomplish with that whole nature area and that 360 acre block. Did that answer your question? Skistad: Yeah I have a comment. Weick: Commissioner Reeder, did that answer your question? I think it was his question wasn’t it? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 47 Generous: Yeah. Weick: Yeah okay. Well let’s assume it did. I think it did. I think we’re clear. Commissioner Skistad. Wait. Yes Commissioner Reeder. Reeder: As soon as I learn how to work this thing I’ll answer your questions. Weick: You’re fine. You’re fine. Reeder: I think it does. I’m still thinking that while discussion I think needs to take place sometime that we’re without a proposal I think it’s difficult to determine at this time that we should change the boundary so it seems to me that it’s premature. Weick: Understood, thank you. Commissioner Skistad. Skistad: I think what was interesting to me when I was looking at the presentation was which direction the water flowed and it looks like it flows from that little parcel to Powers, is that right? So I think what, so to me when I was looking at his presentation he’s looking here’s the part that flows into Powers versus the part that flows the other direction which would be the watershed area so that to me that was, you know when I looked it how I would differentiate that and how I would say well it’s already flowing into the road then I have a hard time seeing that the impact because it’s already going that direction. Weick: So you think that line makes sense? Skistad: It makes sense to me when I look at, once I finally orientated it correctly which I had to do using my phone and an aerial view so, I mean that really helped me see the direction and how it made sense where the preserve is. I think it’s north of there basically northeast or northwest. Or is it northeast? Northeast yeah, northeast of that location so I mean I think that he made a case for it for me as far as the way the direction of the water flow. Weick: Okay. That is helpful as well. Yes Commissioner Randall. Randall: I think we’re really kind of splitting hairs here on this. I agree though too. I thought he made a good case for where that line should be. I get it. It’s kind of a fluid line a little bit but I almost feel like we’re almost not the committee to decide this almost you know. I feel like it’s more technical than what was presented to us almost. I’d kind of like to hear a third party on it that’s more neutral I guess. That would just be kind of my thought on it but I kind, I feel like he made a very good presentation on where the line should be. Also after looking at it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 48 Weick: I would say though I think the third party is WSB who suggested the line basically not move. I mean right there, they’re a third party consultant that. I mean I’m not trying to sway you any way. I’m just stating what happened. Von Oven: On that note could we, could we get another look at the WSB chart? I was going to ask a question about that. Yeah and it’s there. Man I don’t know how to do this. You’re opening my eyes a little bit earlier when you in some sense reminded me or brought up the fact that we’re talking about 3 acres here. So can you point out for me on this chart which 3 acres? Maybe just, maybe in a circle. If you can outline the 3 acres. Generous: It includes this open area which Tim refers to as the hay field. Von Oven: The hay field which is in the middle of all the red tornado. Generous: Yes that’s the steep slopes. Von Oven: Yes the steep slopes going down towards the southeast which is, that’s a lake there and then, and then north. Generous: It splits about here. This blue line would be the top of that ridge and so this goes into that wetland complex that Tim created and this one goes to Bluff Creek. Von Oven: Got it. Okay. And so the WSB recommendation, the green part was A, this is currently part of Bluff Creek primary zone and shouldn’t be because this water is running off into a different body of water. And then the blue one down there was hay but if we’re going to giveth and taketh away right, that kind of thing right? Generous: That’s correct. Von Oven: Okay. Can, I know I’m asking weird questions here but if I’m in the middle of that green section there on the line as they’ve drawn it, yeah so from where your pointer is down to that line about how far would you say that is? Generous: Tim? Von Oven: I know it’s a weird question. Generous: Yeah from the field to the top of the ridge. Tim Erhart: From the edge of the field or the middle of the field? Middle of the field? Generous: Yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 49 Tim Erhart: Yeah I was just going to say 300 feet. Dan says 100 yards. Generous: They estimate about 300 feet. Von Oven: 300 feet, okay. And with the data that we have would you say that 300 feet is within the margin of error? You don’t have to answer it because I think you’d be speculating but since we’re just sort of giving positions here. I on one hand I look at this and I say alright, there’s the applicant did not provide sufficient data as to why and so therefore it is denied. On the other hand I look at and go well, you know I was reminded that we’re really talking about 3 acres here. Now on one hand 3 acres is a big deal when you’re trying to attract developers. I get that and I appreciate that. On the other hand if we’re talking about moving a line 300 feet here, and again I’m not an expert here but I could vote consciously in favor of moving this line given the fact that it probably is within the margin of error given the data that is available and so you know I’m also on the side of Mark that I’m not so sure we’re the right committee but I think it’s, we have to. Here we are. Tim Erhart: Can I comment Bob? Weick: Please. I would say yes. Tim Erhart: I just want to point out the line only moves to the beginning of that red steep area there. It doesn’t move to the top of the ridge. It moves to the bottom of the ridge so it’s not really, I would estimate that to be half that, half of that 300 feet so maybe the whole width of that. Well if it’s 2 acres the whole width of that’s probably, probably 300 feet so then half of it. From the center to where the proposed line would be would be 150 feet. Does that seem right? Yeah. Von Oven: Thank you. Weick: Okay great dialogue. We are and again I’m as I said before I’m not trying to cut anybody off. I just will remind you that we are at a point where we would, or can consider a motion. And you may word that motion as you wish. This is a version that would confirm that the current line as determined by staff is correct. You’re certainly welcomed to word a motion as you wish. You also I do not want to cut off the conversation at all if there is more comment or question. Now is a great time to talk through that with your fellow commissioners. Von Oven: What is the logical next step if this commission does not affirm this boundary determination? Generous: If you come to a majority decision, 75 percent decision that the line should be adjusted then it gets adjusted. Aanenson: Or if you deny it they could, the applicant could appeal it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 50 Generous: Right. Or if it doesn’t, if it’s not a super majority then it automatically goes to City Council. Von Oven: Got it. So by not affirming it gets adjusted as the applicant has requested. By affirming with a majority vote but not a super majority it goes to City Council and by affirming with a super majority it’s done to move the line. Generous: But the applicant could appeal that. Von Oven: Got it. I see. Weick: And either, this is a question. Either motion if we vote that the line should be moved that has to be approved by 75 percent or more. Or else it would also go to the City Council so it’s not, either way we vote it has to be a 75 percent or greater majority for it not to go to City Council. Does that make sense? Von Oven: Got it. Yeah. Weick: Okay. Where or where should the line be drawn? Randall: I’ll make a motion. Weick: Here we go. Randall: The Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as a Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Randall. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Reeder: I will second that. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Reeder. At this time I give opportunity for comment on the item. And hearing none we will vote on the motion as presented. Again it will be a roll call vote. Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as a Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Commissioners Weick and Reeder voted in favor; Commissioners Von Oven, Skistad and Randall voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Commissioner McGonagill was recused from the vote. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 51 Weick: The motion does not pass at a 3 to 2 which is not a 75 percent. Well it didn’t pass anyway so. Aanenson: It will go to City Council. Weick: Okay, the motion was to affirm the current delineation. It did not pass. Generous: It failed. Aanenson: It fails, yep. So that will go to the City Council that recommendation. Weick: And no appeal is required? Aanenson: Well yeah because it didn’t make the super majority. Generous: Yeah it’s not a 75 percent… Weick: So it automatically will go to City Council. Aanenson: Yeah and we have it scheduled for the 14th of September. Generous: September 14th is the date it would be at City Council. Weick: Okay. I’m sorry I have trouble. Aanenson: That’s alright. Weick: Even when I say it so clearly at the beginning it’s, when it actually happens I get very confused. So okay thank you. I’ll just reiterate it was 3 opposed, 2 passing that motion. Aanenson: So let’s be clear. The motion kind of failed because the motion was to affirm it so 3 people didn’t affirm it and 2 did so that’s how it will be presented to the City Council. Weick: Correct. Tim Erhart: Do we want to get a survey on whether we want to dual guide this or? Aanenson: That wasn’t on the, that wasn’t on the agenda so that’s a land use zoning so. Weick: Sorry folks, we’re just having a couple side conversations. Some clarifications. But it stands as we voted and will go to City Council on September 14th. Thank you again to everybody. City as well as Mr. Erhart. Appreciate it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 52 Commissioner McGonagill rejoined the meeting at this point in the discussion. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman this is Commissioner McGonagill, I’m back with. Weick: Welcome back. Did you listen? McGonagill: Yes absolutely. Weick: Alright, I don’t want to hear. I just wondered if you listened. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 7, 2020 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: And Kate? Aanenson: Yes I have a couple administrative presentations. Weick: Thank you. Aanenson: First I’ll give you the council update. So let’s see your last meeting was on July 7th so I’ve got a few things here. The revised preliminary plat for Avienda was approved. They approved the request for variance for construction of the water orientated structure. I think that was one that, was that appealed? Generous: Yes that was appealed. Aanenson: Yeah that was appealed. The water orientated structure on the outlot on White Oak Lane. That was the one that I think there was some ambiguity on the motion there. Then on the 27th they approved the development contract for Boylan Shores. That was a metes and bounds. Again metes and bounds subdivisions go strictly to the, straight to the City Council. If there’s just the two lot and they meet the frontage requirements so that was approved. And then they approved the amendment to the Chaparral PUD and then they also approved the Hemp Acres and I hope people have gotten the opportunity to read in the Chan Villager the nice article. It was a good article so pretty excited about that. Working on getting their building permit so that’s the update from the council. And I just want to share with you a couple things that are coming up on our agenda. We only have 4 more meetings before the end of the year because we do not meet on election day so we do have items. Your next meeting will then be September 1st and the 15th so there’s a couple variances on for the September 1st meeting. And then excuse me. Generous: Code amendments. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 53 Aanenson: It’s code amendments, yes. Code amendments. And then on the 15th we have a couple variances so, and we do anticipate there’s a couple projects that are floating out there. Just for concept to just kind of, we do have the opportunity instead of doing a full hearing just kind of see what you’re feeling about it first before we get, before the developer makes too much of a commitment on that so there’s two actual. One’s going to get your feedback on it. The other one’s going to go for a PUD and just submit the full application so we’ll see where that goes. So we do have meetings except for the 3rd all the way through December 1st. We only have one meeting in December so four more meetings so again appreciate you letting us know if you’re unavailable so we make sure we get a quorum. McGonagill: Kate I will not be, this is Commissioner McGonagill. I will not be here on the 15th. Aanenson: Thank you for the heads up. And that is all I had Chairman. Weick: Thank you Kate. Any presentations from the commissioners this evening? I will say that regarding Hemp Acres my mother read the article and was disappointed that I was so in favor of selling pot. Yeah. Yeah, my mom thinks that I’m all in favor of selling pot now so that’s on the record but yeah. Aanenson: Share the article with her though. Weick: I know it’s, you know. Maybe a generational thing and I don’t know. Anyway I tried to explain it to her and it was, it only made it worst. McGonagill: Just say yes mom. Weick: Exactly right. Anytime you try to explain something like that to your parents it never gets better but anyway thanks again to everybody this evening. Aanenson: Yeah I want to say that too. These are two very complex things. We don’t often see appeals. We saw two in one night on very complex issues but that is a process, or one of your functions so I appreciate everybody sticking with it and coming to a conclusion on something very complex. Weick: Yeah, yeah I appreciate all the input and really the sincere consideration is crucial to what we do so thank you. Reeder: Mr. Chair? Weick: Yeah go ahead. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020 54 Reeder: Well I will not be here on the 15th either. Commissioner Reeder. Weick: Got it. Aanenson: Okay so we’ve got 2 gone. No one else can. Weick: Now it’s starting to get a little dicey. Von Oven: When we’re down to, when we’re down to the skeleton crew does that mean that we meet physically? What is it, it’s a real question actually. What is our protocol going forward for these meetings? Aanenson: They’re still going to stay on Zoom for a while. Because the, when we have 7 in here we can’t socially distance and if we did do that it’d be hard to get the microphones moved around and then it limits the capacity of people coming into the meeting. So can 3 people be here? Sure. I think we try to limit staff. That first item was pretty complex so the City Engineer was also here so we’re just kind of looking at it month by month. But I think if you’re going to come in let us know. We’re okay with less than 2 great but many more want to come in fine otherwise we’ll just stay on Zoom for a while. Again I always want to make sure people feel comfortable coming in too so we’re all here then it’s harder to, it works pretty well. We’ve been using the senior center so people, kind of put people in the on deck circle in there so then when their item’s up and the council does the same thing, they just invite them in so they can see the meeting during that process too. Did that answer your question? Von Oven: Yeah it sounds like a sign up in advance. Aanenson: There you go. Weick: Great. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Randall moved, Von Oven seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 18, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, and Mark Von Oven MEMBERS ABSENT: Eric Noyes STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Charlie Howley, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; and Steve Ferraro, Engineer Technician PUBLIC PRESENT: Mark W. Kelly 2925 Stone Creek Drive, #120 Joan and Larry Synstelien 6893 Highover Drive Tim Block 6903 Highover Drive Melissa and David Wargin 2443 Highover Trail PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE CITY’S DENIAL OF AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR RETAINING WALLS AND VARIANCES FROM THE CITY’S PROHIBITION OF LOCATING STRUCTURES WITHIN DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED AT 6893 HIGHOVER DRIVE. Bob Generous and Steve Ferraro presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner McGonagill asked for clarification of the timeline from 2016 to present. Commissioner Randall asked if there was any damage done to neighboring properties. Commissioner Skistad asked about the function of the French drain moving water towards the street. Mark W. Kelly, the attorney representing the applicants, discussed the warrants of their case. The applicant Joan Synstelien provided her personal story on living in this neighborhood and the projects that have occurred. Commission members asked Larry Synstelien for clarification on the timeline of interaction with the City from 2016 to present. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. Melissa Wargin, the neighbor to the east, explained the flooding that has occurred on their property which has gotten worst since the Synstelien’s started construction. Tim Block, a physic teacher at Chanhassen High School, showed pictures of water pooling on his property during heavy rain events. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing. After discussion amongst commission members the following motion was made. Planning Commission Summary – August 18, 2020 2 McGonagill moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms the City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the Encroachment Agreement and denies that the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utility easement and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT COUNDARY DETERMINATION MADE BY A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 212 AND POWERS BOULEVARD. Commissioner McGonagill recused himself from this item due to having a personal relationship with the applicants. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. The applicant Tim Erhart presented information on his case to take 3 acres out of the Bluff Creek primary zone. Dan Blake with Pemtom Land Company provided historical background on the property and potential development options. After clarifying questions for the applicant Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After comments from commission members the following motion was made. Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as a Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Commissioners Weick and Reeder voted in favor; Commissioners Von Oven, Skistad and Randall voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Commissioner McGonagill was recused from the vote. Commissioner McGonagill rejoined the meeting at this point in the discussion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 7, 2020 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson provided the City Council action update from their July 13th and July 27th meetings and discussed items on future Planning Commission agendas. Randall moved, Von Oven seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.3. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Park and Recreation Commission minutes dated as follows: January 28, 2020 February 26,2020 July 28, 2020.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: January 28, 2020 Verbatim Minutes January 28, 2020 Summary Minutes February 26, 2020 Verbatim Minutes February 26, 2020 Summary Minutes July 28, 2020 Summary Minutes July 28, 2020 Verbatim Minutes CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28, 2020 Chairman Boettcher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Meredith Petouvis, Joe Scanlon, Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz, Haley Pemrick, and Zoe Erpelding MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandy Sweetser STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor PUBLIC PRESENT: Cathy Erpelding 9061 Springfield Drive APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Boettcher: Moving onto approval of the agenda. Any changes, updates, deletions? Hoffman: None. Boettcher: Hearing none motion to approve. Tsuchiya moved, Pemrick 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. None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission Meeting dated December 10, 2018 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. MOVE FEBRUARY PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE. Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 2 Boettcher: Based on the fact that we have caucus night on Tuesday the 25th the plan is to move the meeting to Wednesday, February 26th. Any thoughts? Any discussion? Commissioners conflicts? Pemrick: Works for me. Boettcher: Works for you. Scanlon: I can do it. Boettcher: You can do it? Commissioner Petouvis. Petouvis: I imagine I can come. Boettcher: Can you? Okay. Commissioner Tsuchiya. Tsuchiya: I’ll have to find alternate transportation for my kids but I should be able to make it. Boettcher: Okay. Commissioner Kutz? Kutz: I don’t see an issue but I have some kid issues to work through but I think it shouldn’t be an issue now that I have enough notice. Boettcher: And I think are we looking for a motion on this or just? Hoffman: Yeah we attempted to keep it on the Tuesday but our attorney, City Attorney said we should move it. Boettcher: Alright then I’ll look for a motion to move the meeting from Tuesday the 25th to Wednesday the 26th. Tsuchiya: Would that be the same time? Boettcher: Same time. 7:30 p.m. Hoffman: 7:30 which by the way we didn’t have a time on your agenda, we apologize. 7:30. Tsuchiya: I’ll make that motion. Boettcher: Alright we have a motion. Do we have a second? Pemrick: I’ll second. Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 3 Tsuchiya moved, Pemrick seconded to approve changing the February Park and Recreation Commission meeting date from Tuesday, February 25th to Wednesday, February 26th. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPOINT ZOE ERPELDING AS YOUTH COMMISSIONER. Boettcher: Now we have our new youth commissioner Zoe. You want to do, Todd would you like to do an introduction and then we’ll ask Zoe to introduce herself. Hoffman: Yep. So your proposed motion is that the Park and Recreation Commission appoints Zoe Erpelding as the Park and Recreation Youth Commissioner with a term of one year term. 1/28/20 to 4/28/20. Boettcher: Should that be 21? Hoffman: Correct 21, thank you. So commission bylaws allow for the appointment of one or two youth commissioners. This past go around we had no youth candidates come forward but Commissioner Sandy Sweetser worked with the Chanhassen High School and Ms. Erpelding came forward so we’re happy about that. Zoe’s a junior at Chanhassen High School. She worked for the park and recreation department this past summer as a playground leader. We hope she’s coming back. Are you coming back do we know yet? Don’t know yet. Yeah you can press your button. Erpelding: Yeah I need to email you back. Hoffman: Fantastic. That was intentional to put her on the spot and get her hired and she also volunteered in the City’s teen volunteer program and she’s expressed interest in becoming more involved in local park and recreation issues so we’re happy to have her here and I’ll allow Zoe to introduce herself a little bit more to the commission. Erpelding: Yeah I’m a junior at Chanhassen High School. I’m on the cross country team so I use a lot of paths in the city and I’m on the Nordic team right now and I’ll be on the track team again this spring. I don’t really know what else. Yeah I did the, I worked this summer for the City and I really enjoyed it and I really enjoyed working in the parks with the kids and stuff. It was really fun just to be outside all summer and enjoy the nice weather and. Boettcher: So are you a life long member, residents of Chanhassen or? Erpelding: I moved when I was 2 yeah Boettcher: That’s close enough. Erpelding: Lived here for all I can remember. Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 4 Hoffman: And you can introduce your mom. Erpelding: That’s my mom. Hoffman: Her name. Erpelding: Her name’s Cathy Erpelding. Hoffman: Hi Cathy, welcome. Boettcher: And she’ll be responsible for getting you to the meetings? Is that right? Erpelding: Ah no I can drive myself. She just wanted to come to this one. Boettcher: Well before we officially vote I’d like to welcome you. I think it’s great. I think it’s been, has it been 2 years since we had a youth commissioner? Ruegemer: Well probably Lauren Dale. Boettcher: Yeah Lauren Dale was the last one. That’s at least 18 months wasn’t it? Ruegemer: Yeah. Tsuchiya: Wasn’t Grant at the same time? Petouvis: Yeah. Tsuchiya: Okay. Hoffman: Sounds right and so you’re a voting, full voting member and so you have the same debate rights that the other commissioners too. You can talk the subjects. You can introduce your thoughts and then you’re a full voting member so now there’s a vote of 7 and with you they’re a vote of 8 so we get a 4-4 tie then you would have to go back and re-argue your point and hopefully get the vote switched to your side. Many votes are unanimous but there are some issues where we have split votes so just be aware of that but as a youth commissioner you are a fully vested voting member of the commission. Boettcher: The pay is not great but it’s a good time. Hoffman: Cake and sodas. Petouvis: Some t-shirts too. Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 5 Boettcher: So does someone want to make the motion. We’ll have to make the change to the motion that the end term is 4/28/2021 instead of 2020 as written. Would someone like to make that a motion? Pemrick: So moved. Boettcher: And a second. Tsuchiya: Second. Boettcher: We have a motion and a second. Pemrick moved, Tsuchiya seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission appoints Zoe Erpelding as the Park and Recreation Youth Commissioner with a term of one year term from 1/28/20 to 4/28/21. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Boettcher: Welcome Zoe really. We appreciate you taking your time out. OLD BUSINESS. Boettcher: Old Business, anything here Todd? You had this key financial strategy is that? Hoffman: Yeah we can briefly talk about that. So this was voted on last night by the City Council and this strategy for discussion was approved by the City Council. It will be scheduled on a calendar later on this week or next week so at some point here in the year we’ll be talking about the possibility of building refrigerated ice in the city. Permanent restrooms at Lake Ann. That would be near the ballfields. Bandimere Park, that would be a new building and then City Center Park that would be a new building. One of the things we get quite a bit of discussion on, especially when people come from outside the community. They come to our events they’re like you know great parks and everything but Port-a-Potties. You know everyplace else we go has modern restrooms. Or at least a lot of the tournament type setting places have modern restrooms. Build a community splash pad attraction at Bandimere Park. It’s kind of the same thought process. Many new families move into Chanhassen. They kind of get settled and they go oh, well where’s the water facility? Where’s the outdoor pool? There’s nothing here so same kind of conversation. A lot of new families would enjoy that kind of a feature. You remember we have some concept plans for the splash pad. We have some concept plans for these park shelter buildings already so we can bring those back. Update the numbers. I’d like to bring this information to the commission just prior to taking it to the City Council to a work session and then members of the commission can attend that as well and listen to the conversation. And then identify funding source and timeline for the Lake Ann Park Preserve trail expansion. If you remember the feasibility study identified the cost. Proposed cost and now it’s just identify a Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 6 funding source. Right now the best topic of conversation is around bonding for it so go ahead and issue bonds to build that trail and those improvements at some point in the near future. The thought process is as new houses are continuing to be built in the Park that you want to get these trail improvements in so when new residents are moving in the trails are there and ready to go. They’ll be discussed individually but as a package and so the council could opt for one, none or all and so we’ll keep you informed as we schedule this and then get to the City Council but just prior to that we’d like to get it back here in front of the commission so you can have some conversation about it and then prepare that presentation at the City Council at one of their work sessions. Boettcher: So anticipation of the council’s discussion, are we looking March timeframe? Hoffman: City Manager will set that schedule and we haven’t discussed that yet since yesterday. He was busy with a variety of other issues today. He couldn’t do some calendar work so maybe tomorrow or the next day. Boettcher: Because this may be something we meet with the council, is it like the first or second week in April? Hoffman: Yep. Boettcher: Our meeting… Hoffman: You can definitely have some conversation about that. Whether it’s formalized to the point of having some cost estimates and some renderings we don’t know that but yeah this would definitely be a probably your entire conversation that night. Boettcher: I mean, and you know it as well as I do that splash pad, I think that was 6 years ago that that first was brought up with all the stuff we wanted to do at Bandimere. I know it was always, I mean it would be great. I hear the same thing. People always say why don’t you have anything, you don’t have a pool in Chanhassen? But I mean I think that would be a great attraction with everything that’s over there. This is good I like that. Anyone else have any discussion on it? Any points of view? Hoffman: Yeah and the ideas all started here so thank you for that and when we forward them to the council and it looks like you’ve got some, their attention so that’s good news. Kutz: Well I’d just like to say talking about the covered outdoor ice you know with the weather we’ve had the last month, I mean I think you know with climates changing and 40 degree weather and you know this is an opportunity to make our statements like our surrounding communities all have covered ice facilities. This is our chance to you know build on our experience of what hockey or recreational ice time should be like and I think we can come up with really cool ideas that the other communities don’t have and I really think we could make it a Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 7 center, what do you call it? A center stone point of our winter sporting experience here and also our summer time experience too where we could really do something special at the recreational center and lots of ideas so I mean I don’t know if this is the right time to talk about them but we can definitely go through that in the coming meetings. Boettcher: Well and I think you’re right. I mean the covered outdoor rink, Jerry was telling me a couple weeks ago about flooding the rink and the north wall, the ice just doesn’t, it’s there for 2 days and it’s gone. People complain about it and you go over and look at it and you flood it and flood it and flood it but with the little sunlight that we have it just takes it away. Kutz: I mean Adam and crew they do a great job. I mean I’d just to build on what they’ve got and I think they’d be excited to work on something like that as well so we do have a large contingent of hockey families in the area. I mean our association’s growing. I think it’s probably like the fourth or fifth biggest association in the state so it’s a priority sport in this area and I think we can use it for recreation as well as other sporting events so. Boettcher: Anything else on Old Business Todd? That’s it? Alright moving on. REPORTS: 2019 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY REVIEW. Boettcher: First is the 2019 tree lighting ceremony review. That looks like Priya. Tandon: Well thank you Chair Boettcher and thank you commissioners. Just summarize the 2019 tree lighting ceremony was held on Saturday, December 7th of 2019 from 5:00 too 6:00 p.m. Deputy Mayor Dan Campion was the one, it was his son who flipped the switch to illuminate City Center Park at about 5:15 that day. The weather was really great and there was an excellent turnout. We estimated that there 600 people in attendance in our City Center Park. It’s a wonderful holiday celebration that many people enjoy. So going through the different components. Refreshments were coordinated by Buy Chanhassen representative Vernelle Clayton coordinated the food and drink donations from business community so Lunds and Byerlys, Caribou Coffee, Cub Foods and Americana Community Bank all contributed to the refreshments provided. S’mores were provided by the Southwest Chamber of Commerce representative Kelly Darcourt. She brought 200 S’mores for attendees to roast over the fires. The fires were set up by park maintenance who did a great job with the windy and chilly conditions. It was a great place for kids to warm up and enjoy some S’mores. The visit from Santa Claus was coordinated by the Mustard Seed Landscaping and Garden Center. Kelly Lorenz of the Mustard Seed Landscaping and Garden Center has been a great sponsor and they’re excited to coordinate Santa’s visit again next year. The live reindeer, we had two live reindeer at the event from Kendallville Farms in Excelsior. This was really popular especially with the kids and families as a whole. You know the could take pictures. They could pet the reindeer so it was a really great interactive part of the event. Carolers came from Living Christ Lutheran Church of Chanhassen. They provided about 20 carolers and were excited to be there and again excited to be there next year. And the gingerbread display. So we had 5 entries for the Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 8 11th Annual Gingerbread House decorating contest. There were 3, there were 2 winners. Most creative, most difficult and then we had an honorable mention as well. And then looking ahead for next year, in the past we’ve done a Toys for Tots donation station. Southwest Metro Transit has kind of coordinated this and they brought their Christmas Trolley and so I’m hoping next year we should look in having that back. We did run out of cookies and S’mores very quickly and I think that had a lot to do with the weather because it was so nice. We had so many people come so maybe having some more of that next year but otherwise I think the event went really well and people really enjoy it. Boettcher: For the number, 600 because of the weather, was that an increase from last year do you know? Tandon: I wasn’t here but I would say so because last year 2018 there was a lot of snow so from what I understand it was a pretty big increase. Ruegemer: Probably double. Boettcher: Really? Wow. Pemrick: I drove by because I wanted to stop by and I could not find parking for about 4 blocks so I just kept driving. But it looked packed and it looked awesome so yeah. Tsuchiya: I was there and wonderful. I brought 2 kids and 2 not my kids so I was, it was busy. The loved the reindeer. They liked the sugar and they also liked all the, once the lights were on the snowflake. The big snowflakes ones on the tiered so those were fascinating to them. But yeah it was a good time. Hoffman: And the lights stay on til January 15th each year as part of our schedule. Tsuchiya: Yeah and they looked beautiful. Adam and crew did a great job setting that up. Boettcher: Alright. Great job. Thank you everybody. 2020 FEBRUARY FESTIVAL PREVIEW. Boettcher: And looks like still for the Feb Festival, Priya you’re still here. Tandon: Yeah well thank you Chair Boettcher and thank you commissioners again. So I’ll just do a quick preview and then we have a power point presentation for you. The City of Chanhassen’s 27th Annual February Festival will be held this Saturday, February 1st at Lake Ann Park. The event runs from 12:00 noon to 3:00 p.m. and has winter activities, horse drawn wagon rides, ice skating, sledding, bonfires, kick sledding. We’ll kind of go through all of that. Door prizes as well and the ice fishing contest is a big component of those events and that runs from Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 9 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. with over $6,000 in top fish prizes so that’s very exciting. To promote this event we had event flyers and registration forms and rules mailed to past participants. There were about 4,000 of those went out. We also advertised with the schedule of events insert in the Chanhassen Villager twice so once on January 16th and once on January 30th and then once in the Chaska Herald as well on the 30th coming up. …made on the City Facebook page to promote the event every few days at least there’s something about Feb Fest going up on the Facebook page and then we do have a Facebook event as well which over 800 people have RSVP’d that they’re either going to or interested in the event so then they’ll all see posts in that event page which we’re doing as well to kind of encourage people to buy their tickets and make sure it stays relevant. And a fun thing that happened today was I was contacted by a representative of WCCO looking to do a feature on Feb Fest on Saturday morning so that was a fun surprise and hopefully we’ll have a feature Saturday morning to encourage people to come stop by our event. And then before we go on the slideshow I just wanted to mention again that February Festival would not be possible without the support of all of our local businesses and service organizations. The Chanhassen Rotary has been great. They’re providing concessions again this year and coordinating volunteers to drill 1,000 holes which obviously we can’t drill 1,000 holes by ourselves and won’t go through all the other organizations that are involved in this event. And then we also have a Feb Fest flyer at all of your seats for you to take a look at and let me know after the meeting if you’d like some more to bring with you as well. So we’ll look at the slide show. So like I said here’s our schedule of events starting on Monday, so that would have been yesterday our medallion hunt started so kind of preceding Feb Fest. One clue goes out per day at 9:00 a.m. Then on the day of the event, February 1st starting at 10:30 a.m. we have door prize tickets available and fishing tickets available so people can come, purchase their tickets. Be around and then be ready for the start of the event at noon where we have our free winter activities and concessions. So a kick sled demo’s. Fat tire bike demo’s. Dog sled rides. Snowshoeing, that’s all free. The boy scouts are selling live bait and S’mores and the Rotary will be coordinating the concessions and beer garden which are all for purchase and then we also have bonfires, music just free. Fun winter activities and then the ice fishing contest from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Here’s some photos of the ticket sales and I have some…with this as well. We’re doing really well on ticket sales I think this year so we really are pushing the pre-registration so online, in person and mail in. We have the highest that I can find at least since 2017 so as of now we have 193 tickets purchased which is great. 61 of those are two ticket purchases and then 71 are one ticket purchases so we estimate that’s about 132 people who have already bought their tickets which is key to keeping the lines down at the event and just you know so we know kind of how many people are coming. And to incentivize people pre-registering online we also are offering $100 gift card to Cabin Fever Sporting Goods in Victoria just again to encourage the online registration. The Rotary Club of Chanhassen again is coordinating the hole drilling. They drill over 1,000 holes for the event. And they also coordinate the concessions so this year we’re doing new beer, spiked hot cocoa and cider. Non-spiked hot cocoa and cider. Pop, candy, and we’re very appreciative of all they do to make this event a success. Chanhassen Boy Scout Troop 330 will be selling bait and S’mores again. They’re selling crappie minnows, suckers, minnows and wax worms if you know much about bait. That’s what they will have. Bonfire warmth. This is great for kids, families, fisher people, whoever to come roast marshmallows Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 10 over the fire. Warm up a little bit. One on each end of the fishing contest area. Kick sleds will be provided by Carver County Parks. This is a popular fun activity. It’s free. Horse drawn wagon rides provided by Kenmar Farms which they’ve been doing this event for many years. 12 years. Free activity. Ice skating, free activity although it is bring your own skates. We have dog sled rides provided by Silent Land Adventures. This is also a free activity. We have snow shoeing provided by Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed district. Free activity. Alright so moving into our medallion hunt. So we’re offering a $500 prize pack for the winners. That includes like gift cards and merchandise and what not donated from various community event sponsors. The first clue went out Monday, January 27th and if you want to just take a look at the clues here. There’s day one and day two. I can’t give you day three and beyond because they haven’t come out yet but these are on the website if you’d like to take a look. Hoffman: And we know that man’s looking right now. Ruegemer: Repeat winner. Tandon: Oh yes this is coming a little bit later but to kind of go over it now. This year we do have a new sponsor for our medallion hunt. It’s Charter Bank in Chanhassen. They’re excited about finding new and unique ways for then to get involved. They’re already a new sponsor for this year and so they wanted to go above and beyond I guess just their cash donation and so they wrote the clues. They’re posting clues on their front door. They’re sharing our medallion hunt Facebook post to promote the hunt so they’re very excited about it and I think it’s a great partnership that we hope to continue. Moving forward to the ice fishing contest. So like I said this is 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. This year there are over $6,500 in total fish prizes. I think there are a lot of great prizes. They’re listed on your flyer if you’d like to take a look many of which are donated again by community event sponsors. Just to recap in 2019 664 tickets were sold so at $10 per ticket that’s $6,640 in ticket revenue. And we have a max of 2 tickets per person. Door prizes donated by community event sponsors. Over $3,400 in total prizes this year. Door prize tickets are free. You get one per person and you don’t have to have purchased a fishing ticket to do this. It’s just anyone who comes to the event gets a door prize ticket and then drawings start at 1:00 p.m. And new for 2020 the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed district is doing a kids winter scavenger hunt. They’re another one that when I asked them about the snow shoeing they wanted to find another way to get involved so they came up with this activity. And then like I was mentioning earlier we do have our new sponsor for the medallion hunt which is Charter Bank in Chanhassen. Some fun Feb Fest memories. And just because this is our first community event of 2020 I’ll just do a brief overview of where we’re at for our community event sponsor program. So we currently have 51 committed sponsors and 27 of them are local sponsors which means that they have $1,000 or over in contributions. Total value of pledged contributions we have right now is about $43,000. $35,000 of that is in so we’re waiting on $8,000 but it has been pledged or confirmed. I also currently have new sponsors or current sponsors that want to do more or are interested in getting involved in this so hopefully this number will grow over the coming months and this number is higher than it has been in recent previous years, at least through 2016 is as far back as I went so very excited about that. And I’ve Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 11 said it a few times but we have many thanks to give to put on this event. Event partners, community sponsors, volunteers, staff, service organizations so Chanhassen Rotary for concessions and… The Chanhassen Lions are going to return as event marshals this year. Boy Scout Troop 330 for selling bait and S’mores. Carver County Sheriff’s Department and Chanhassen Fire will both be at the event making sure everything goes smoothly or they’re there in case of any incidents or injuries. Park maintenance, thanks to them for all of their hard work to set up for this event. Again we couldn’t do it without them. They do a lot to get the event set up and ready. And all of our event partners, sponsors, volunteers, and staff. And that is all. Boettcher: Looks good. I think it will be a fun day. Weather is supposed to be pretty good? Tandon: It’s supposed to be warm. 37 degrees was the last I heard. Pemrick: High of 33, low of 30. Tandon: That’s pretty good. Boettcher: As long as there’s not wind coming in too intense. And I’ve never asked this Todd, there’s always a story behind the story. How did this start? Were there 2 guys ice fishing out there 27 years ago and they said we ought to make this an event? Or what was the start of Feb Fest? Hoffman: So Lori Sietsema who hired me challenged me to start a winter festival and so we started Feb Fest. Boettcher: There you go. Pemrick: Do you guys have enough volunteers for hole drilling? Hoffman: No. Pemrick: Or how is that coming along? Hoffman: We need more. Sign up. Sign up is at? Ruegemer: We have another list here tonight. We can put your name down so we’re looking…that volunteer. Tandon: Yeah I’m looking for more volunteers across the board so hole drilling, ticket sales. We pull a lot from the high schools and so they just finished their finals week and so a lot of advisors are re-posting the opportunity now but specifically we’re looking with you guys for door prize distribution and fish weighing. If you guys are interested in volunteering in those Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 12 capacities please let me know. I have the sign up genius all printed out so I can get your name and information down. We’d really appreciate the help and love to have you there. Ruegemer: We had live trout the first year or two. Boettcher: Is that like in a separate tank. Ruegemer: Separate tanks and. Hoffman: Well they were released and if you caught one you got $1,000 but nobody caught one. It was insured by Rich Larson at MGM. Ruegemer: MGM, he put up the money. Hoffman: He put up the money yeah. Ruegemer: He was nervous. Nobody ever caught one. Hoffman: And then the second year we caught one fish or no fish for the third year so we moved it to Lake Ann. We started at Susan because Ann gets so many events already so thought we’d try Susan but the lake didn’t produce for the fishing people so we moved it to Lake Ann and they’ve been catching fish ever since. Boettcher: Kind of a big change in attendance from. Hoffman: Oh gosh yeah. Oh yeah. We’ve had all sorts of conditions but never cancelled all 27 have gone on. Ruegemer: We set fireworks on the lake that first year too, yeah. Hoffman: Oh lots of different events the first years yeah. If you recall we just came out of one of the coldest stretches of weather in the past few years. It was historic cold just before Feb Fest and it was 37 degrees… Tsuchiya: Weren’t we talking last year about how thick the ice was? Hoffman: Yeah it was really thick yeah. Tsuchiya: Yeah. Hoffman: Because it was 27 below for 5 days. Just before that event school was cancelled for 4 days in a row and then…just broke. It was a beautiful day. We got lucky and the event was always around mid February but we get a lot of melt, ice melt that time of year so it got moved Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 13 up to the first Saturday. And the real push is just to expand things outside of the, for people that don’t want to fish just to continue to make it a winter festival. I foresee the day when there’ll be events up town maybe on different day or a different evening. You could start the event on Friday downtown and Saturday just to make it more of a winter carnival festival type of event and I think as the community grows you’ll see some of those kind of changes. Boettcher: It could. It could change into the winter version of the 4th of July. Three day event. I was at a watershed district meeting last night and they were talking about the snow shoe event and two of the people that worked there, they’re not snow shoers but they’re going to go out there and lead people so bring your cell phones. Take plenty of pictures. Shame publicly but I appreciate their enthusiasm but I will not be one of them. It sounds like a good thing. Really looking forward to it. Anyone else that can volunteer definitely do sign up. Any other questions? No, thank you very much. Tandon: Yeah thank you. Boettcher: One thing I wanted to add, this is report related or I guess things are going on. We’re talking about commissioner applications. There are 3 commissioners whose terms expire in April and that would be Commissioner now Schubert, Petouvis and Tsuchiya, is that correct? Those 3 so. Hoffman: Applications are open right now. Boettcher: They’re open until, what’s the date? Tsuchiya: Friday. I think it says Friday yeah. Hoffman: So reapply and take your old application. Reapply. Boettcher: Recycle it. Tsuchiya: If I can find it. Hoffman: And you’ll be interviewing and the council will be interviewing here shortly. Boettcher: Interviews will be in late March probably? Hoffman: Yep. Boettcher: Okay. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 14 COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Boettcher: In the administrative packet there was something that was not good and someone is retiring. We had an early discussion before the meeting started that we were going to boycott that and not let it happen. Hoffman: You can try. Boettcher: We knew it was coming but it’s something you never, it’s anticipated but it’s not, it’s probably dreaded more than anything but at least you can move on. Petouvis: Well we should clarify. Dreaded by us. Hopefully celebrated. Hoffman: Celebrated yeah. Petouvis: Congratulations. Hoffman: Thank you. Boettcher: At the Hoffman household I’m sure there’s happy, happy, joy, joy dances. Hoffman: There’s a lot going on. I’ll share a few comments if I could and I’ll pass out a couple of documents you’ll enjoy those. Those are both originals. As you go down those so it is, it’s really a celebration of just a great time here working in the City of Chanhassen. I’m always inspired by our citizens and I’m always inspired by our commissions and then I really rely on our staff to make it all come together. We are a small group, all of us that do a lot in this community and so I’m going to share a few comments just tonight. I want to let you know what I told, you saw my retirement letter obviously. I want to share what I told my staff and so I said good morning Jerry, Jodi, Adam, Mary and Priya. As we enter my final 6 months of employment with the City please let me know if there’s anything you need or would like to know about this transition. I have attached my approximate work calendar through July 31st. Over the past 33 years I have been humbled by the tremendous value that citizens place on the public services we provide and the associated responsibilities we earned in that relationship. Thanks for being great friends, co-workers and division leaders in our department. Our time together in Chanhassen will always stand out as one of the most impactful chapters of my life and so that’s one of the points of inspiration that I thought and since Priya’s arrived I’ve been taking some time and just having conversations with her about things like the 4th of July. When you have 60,000 people in your town you’re responsible for that you can have a tremendous impact on the quality of the experience that they enjoy that particular day and you know that will all tie back and so we’re humbled by how much people value what we do. The commission I know some days it seems a little bit monotonous maybe with all of the formal motions and the structure but you know if you Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 15 keep your eye on that end result what it can really turn into in the end some of the things that I can, we all can look back that have happened in this room and then have been implemented in our community in physical features, parks, structures, events and then just really shaping and affecting people’s lives, it’s pretty tremendous. The second thing just some comments about tonight. About commissioners. Dear Commissioners, serving with you for these past 30 years, plus years have been tremendously satisfying. Chanhassen is blessed with a remarkable group of park and recreation staff that are extremely dedicated. I know I will be leaving the department and the City in capable hands. During this change in leadership I encourage all commissioners to take extra steps to ensure that the transition is a smoot one and so this is where I’m really going to lean on you guys as commissioners to have some extra conversations. And so this is a transition. It’s a change in leadership. Step up to that opportunity. Have some conversations. Keep in touch with Mayor Ryan. Keep in touch with the City Council members. Obviously they’re wondering what the future holds. And then City Manager Gerhardt will be naming a new department leader in the future and I anticipate that you will be kept informed about that change and about that announcement. Thank you for all you do as volunteer park and recreation commissioners. It has just truly been an honor, a joy to serve with all of you these past years. And then again going back to the citizens. And so I find my energy and you know what they value in our community. This magazine is a new one. It’s been around for a little while. Chanhassen Neighbors and so it comes into our mailbox and really warms my heart when you read things. So this is the Miller family. Been around Chanhassen but when they talk about what is it that you really value. What do you like about the community? One of the Miller’s favorite community traditions is the Chanhassen 4th of July celebration. Where they love to participate in the kids parade and the fun carnival rides and then they watch the sky light up at night with fireworks at Lake Ann. They also participated in the Halloween event this past year at the Chanhassen Rec Center and are looking forward to attending February Fest again at Lake Ann. This time they’re going to have the boys try ice fishing and enjoy the S’mores cookout. And so that’s just the social engineering, the social network of our community. I’ve always said baseball games, softball games, yeah that’s why you go there so your kids and everybody can be out in the, on the field learning these sports but what’s happening on the sidelines. Community’s being built. Relationships are being forged and so parks and recreation sometimes doesn’t get the same credit as a lot of other public services. I can tell you that. It’s just one of those little things where oh yeah that’s all really good stuff but we’re just not going to talk about how much money we want to invest in that. We really probably shouldn’t invest as much money as we do in parks and recreation. There’s these other real you know maybe more important services but I can tell you it’s an essential service. Once it’s all said and done, once you’ve gotten home. Once your family has gathered what are the activities that are going to bond you as a family. It’s all those park and recreation services. The lakes. The trails. The community events and so it’s really been a joy for me to be a part of that. 1987 to 2020 we’ve grown from 6,000 people when I came here to 26,000 people today so I’ve served with mothers and now daughters on the park commission so really just humbled to have had the opportunity and I look forward to the last 6 months. Once we get a new leader in here I look forward to transition that person. I can guarantee they’ll be here running these meetings before I’m done and so that’s just my pledge. That’s part of the transition. I will be here on my last meeting in July to say goodbye but that Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 16 person will be here once they’re named taking over and being the new leader of the department. We’ve got big things to do. This community’s got big things to do. We have Lake Ann acquired but we’ve got to build one of the most magnificent trails probably in the metro area and so that’s going to be a great opportunity for somebody in the future so that’s the news and thanks for accepting my resignation. I can’t be talked out of it. Boettcher: We can only try. We don’t accept it but we will. We’ll live with it. I was going to ask. I looked at the, I always like the old stuff like that but the letter where you’re notified that you got the position and your pay was going to be $4.50 an hour. Are you up to $5.00 now? Hoffman: I was up to $6 .50 before the end of my first 3 months because I was hiring people for a higher wage than I was getting paid so that was my first discussion with management. Ruegemer: You had to bring your own desk and you had to get your own phone. Hoffman: I did…desk down the hall yep. Pemrick: I think my favorite Todd Hoffman story is on your way, well on your way home from the hospital. Hoffman: With a kid. Pemrick: With a kid. Hoffman: We stopped to get 4th of July t-shirts. Pemrick: Stopped to get 4th of July t-shirts. Hoffman: Liz was not happy. That was Claire. Baby Claire yep. Yeah absolutely. Claire was crying. My mom was in the car and we were in a Honda Civic and I stopped to buys 4 boxes of 4th of July t-shirts for my mom, and Liz and the baby. Boettcher: Well you w ill definitely be missed I can tell you that. So you didn’t have a 30 year celebration for you 3 years ago so this year we’re going to have some kind of celebration. We don’t know what and you will be able to go fishing every week after July 31st. Hoffman: I will be. Boettcher: Alright, alright. My schedule is clear. No definitely Todd I mean I see a lot of people, I see a lot of people what they do in cities and I mean you’ve, I’ve lived in 5 cities around 5 different states and I mean what you do is exemplary definitely so thank you. Hoffman: Great team. Great team. Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 17 Boettcher: Anyone else have anything? And the one other item on the administrative packet I wanted to look at or just mention briefly was the capital improvement program looking at the existing park equipment that is scheduled to be replaced now and for the next 5 years. What is the dollar amount we have? Is it $250,000? Hoffman: $250,000 a year and that is yep, that’s in the park replacement program that you worked on as a part of the master plan with the council. Boettcher: There is a lot of stuff there. A lot of parks are being affected and updated which is really good so. And with that anyone have anything else to add? Tsuchiya: I actually just thought of, Todd if you could enlighten us. Is there anything with the Arboretum trail that you can report on? Hoffman: Sure can. So it’s in redesign and, there was a meeting here at city hall 2 weeks ago. There was over 18, maybe 20 people in that room all to talk about wetland permitting and there was probably 7 agencies, maybe 8 represented and the DNR is just really pushing this project for on their wetland permitting issues and so it will continue to go forward if they get a design that’s approved by the DNR then it needs to get bid and there has to be a contract in place and a pay request by June or the federal money goes away. Tsuchiya: June, okay. Hoffman: Everybody’s in favor. The DNR was there. The conference call. They got the message loud and clear. They don’t want this trail to go away. They want to get something approved. Get a contract but then again you still have to bid it and get a successful contract as well so there’s still ground to be made up. Last night at the City Council there was even a much larger project, the Highway 5 corridor study in the Arboretum area so from 41 to Rolling Acres Road and then beyond the west side of Victoria and so the entire project is Highway 41 to the west side of Victoria and that, the trail was talked about as a part of that and one of the council just asked, could we just move the trail. They asked the County could we move the trail up onto the bridge. Well that’s a $4 million dollar addition to that bridge because in the causeway between the Arboretum and Lake Minnewashta that will all be coming out. That soil will all come out so that lake will be restored and so that’s what the County was telling the DNR at this trail meeting. You know in the future we’re going to be doing a lot of really good things in this area. We’re going to be taking all that soil out that was put into the lake and then building a bridge and so there’s going to be a lot of restoration into the future so there’s dual projects now going on. The trail is pending and then this Highway 5 corridor study is you know maybe 5 years out. Maybe 10 years out. Lots of funding but take a look. It’s, you can watch a video. Go to the County website. Probably even the City website. You can take a look at a study. Really some tremendous work going on in getting that corridor expanded for traffic capacity and the County’s committed to the trail project. The County’s committed to the corridor study and so Park and Recreation Commission – January 28, 2020 18 there’s lots of good work going on but we’re going to know shortly. It was an important meeting. It was right here at city hall. Went on for 2 ½ hours just over wetlands and you know not going to say it’s, it is what it is but wetland issues have become the lynchpin of most projects and so where it was much easier years and years ago. Now it’s very difficult. If there’s any way you can stay out of a wetland, it doesn’t matter what the cost is, you almost have to do it and so it’s really, really challenging. Tsuchiya: Okay. Boettcher: And last month at our Carver County Park Commission meeting Marty Walsh went over I think there were 9 options for the trail routing so, I think number 3 was the one that was initially planned and hopefully they’ll keep it away from the highway. I don’t want, you know because one of the layouts is where the trail would go right up along the side of Highway 5 for a hundred and some yards but I mean you’ve got a family, you’ve got kids, you got dogs and whatever, I’d like to keep people away from Highway 5 especially with the expansion of it so. Tsuchiya: Yeah it doesn’t make any sense to build it just to have it torn up 5-10 years. Hoffman: The whole conversation was going off the rails because they didn’t want a trail on a berm and so I spoke up once in that meeting of 20 people and I just said once in 30 years of building trails we’ve built dozens on top of berms. They work very well. When you build them on top of berms over utilities that provide a very convenient access to those utilities so if you have to repair or improve them into the future you don’t tear up along alignment and so we got that conversation back on track and again leaving in a really good place to put that trail on top of that berm. There’s a little berm. If you drive west from the Arboretum and you’re looking just towards the learning center, that’s where you can see a little berm in the middle of those wetlands. That’s where the trail’s going to be. It’s going to cut from the south to the north along that little berm and then turn west again and continue over to the underpass and that’s what this whole conversation is about is that little berm that’s in there and it’s for utilities so it’s built so some utility lines could go in there. But now when you have a berm inside a wetland it exhibits wetland vegetation and so then they say it’s a wetland. You can’t put a trail on top of that wetland. You need to build a boardwalk and you could go 15 feet over and build a boardwalk on top of that and so we got to the conversation where that would just be more impactful doing that than building the trail on top of this little earthen berm so I think they’re going to approve that but you can never tell. Boettcher: Alright any other business? Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Tsuchiya moved, Kutz seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JANUARY 28, 2020 Chairman Boettcher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Meredith Petouvis, Joe Scanlon, Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz, Sandy Sweetser, Haley Pemrick, and Zoe Erpelding STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor PUBLIC PRESENT: Cathy Erpelding 9061 Springfield Drive APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Tsuchiya moved, Pemrick 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. None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission Meeting dated December 10, 2018 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. MOVE FEBRUARY PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING DATE. Tsuchiya moved, Pemrick seconded to approve changing the February Park and Recreation Commission meeting date from Tuesday, February 25th to Wednesday, February 26th. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. APPOINT ZOE ERPELDING AS YOUTH COMMISSIONER. Todd Hoffman introduced Zoe Erpelding as the new youth Park and Recreation Commissioner. Pemrick moved, Tsuchiya seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission appoints Zoe Erpelding as the Park and Recreation Youth Commissioner with a term of one year Park and Recreation Commission Summary – January 28, 2020 2 term from 1/28/20 to 4/28/21. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. OLD BUSINESS. Todd Hoffman discussed key financial strategies concerning potential park improvements. REPORTS: 2019 TREE LIGHTING CEREMONY REVIEW. Priya Tandon reviewed events that took place at the Tree Lighting Ceremony held on Saturday, December 7th at City Center Park and plans for next year. 2020 FEBRUARY FESTIVAL PREVIEW. Priya Tandon previewed activities, community sponsors and organizations involved with February Festival being held on Saturday, February 1, 2020 at Lake Ann Park. Chairman Boettcher asked about the origin of Feb Fest. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Todd Hoffman provided information on his upcoming retirement from the City of Chanhassen. Commissioner Tsuchiya asked for an update on the status of the Arboretum trail. Tsuchiya moved, Kutz seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 26, 2020 Chairman Boettcher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Meredith Petouvis, Joe Scanlon, Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz, and Youth Commissioner Zoe Erpelding MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandy Sweetser, and Haley Pemrick Schubert STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Boettcher: Any additions or deletions at this time? I wanted to add a couple. One, Todd had sent us the information about the new mountain bike trail with the transfer of the land through Carver County and Carver Trails is doing the construction. I wanted to add that under New Business as number 2. And then another one if I could as number 3, those of you that were there last year in April when we met with City Council when the Mayor challenged us and said I want you to think out of the box and come up with something unique. This is still something we’d like to be, I would hope that we all could present something to the council at our April meeting with a, one thing real briefly. I just had a thought about extending Feb Fest to a full day or even a day and a half thing. I talked to the Mayor about it briefly at Feb Fest earlier this month so if we could add that as number 3 to talk about that and get us all on a list of months to talk about it and next month at our meeting Todd’s going to have some info to go over with us. We’re going to have a cheat sheet to talk from and if we can do some personal deep dives even those of us that aren’t going to be here anymore your opinions will still count and be appreciated so I’ll add that for number 3 so other than that any, if no other additions and deletions can I get approval of the agenda. Tsuchiya: So moved. Boettcher: Got a motion. Kutz: Second. Tsuchiya moved, Kutz seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions under New Business: 2. Carver County Mountain Bike Trails Park and Recreation Commission – February 26, 2020 2 3. Discussion of Extending the Number of Days for Feb Fest All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Boettcher: Public announcements, Todd anything? Hoffman: We have the Luminary Walk but that’s also on the agenda so. Tandon: Yeah the Luminary Walk is tomorrow, Thursday, February 27th from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Chanhassen Nature Preserve so on the corner of Century and 5. There’s one mile trail through that Chanhassen Nature Preserve that will be lit with luminaries to walk and then afterwards some hot cocoa, cookies, snacks and a bonfire for after the walk so you’re all invited and we would love to see you there for a fun winter stroll. Kutz: I’m sorry what time does that start? Tandon: 6:00 p.m. Kutz: 6:00 p.m. Boettcher: Where’s the parking for that Priya? Tandon: It’s in the Tweet Pediatric Dentistry parking lot so it’s right on the corner there. There should be ample parking. Boettcher: Should be, okay. Good alright, thank you. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded to approve the verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated January 29, 2020 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 2020-2022 4th OF JULY FIREWORKS CONTRACT. Boettcher: And we’re already onto New Business. 2020 to 2022 4th of July Fireworks Contract and Jerry I believe this is you. Park and Recreation Commission – February 26, 2020 3 Ruegemer: It is, thank you Chair Boettcher. Good evening commissioners. Just wanted to go through the multi-year contract here with the commission tonight. So in preparing for the upcoming 4th of July celebration quotes were solicited for the 2020, 2021 and the 2022 firework shows from Precocious Pyrotechnics, Ace Pyrotechnics, Hollywood Pyrotechnics and Pyrotechnic Display Inc. So staff did send out kind of a quote and RFP with a budgeted amount of $23,000 for all companies to take a look at and then to develop a quote or a bid for the process. The City received only one quote back from Pyrotechnic Display. After reviewing the quote from Pyrotechnic Display they met all specifications in offering a quality show with an opening body, main body, mid show barrage and a grand finale. Pyrotechnic Display has been providing Chanhassen 4th of July displays for over 30 years. During this time Pyrotechnic Display has consistently displayed a high level of professionalism, great safety record and always offered a variety of high quality products to produce excellent shows. Pyrotechnic Display has provided a very strong quote by fulfilling all of the quote requirements, offering a balanced and enjoyable show that will include a mid-show barrage. So it is staff’s recommendation that the Park and Rec Commission recommend to the City Council to approve the 3 year 4th of July contract for the years of 2020, 2021 and 2022 with Pyrotechnic Display Incorporated in the amount of $23,000 per year. This amount is included in our 1600 fund budget and the 2020 fireworks display will take place on Saturday, July 4th at 10:00 p.m. at Lake Ann Park so the attachments, the RFP was attached with your agenda item tonight. Pyrotechnic Display’s quote, the contract with Pyrotechnic Display and then our City Attorney recommended that we attach an addendum to the contract and Pyrotechnic Display did also review that addendum and were agreeable to all the items listed within that addendum so that was put into the contract as well and language was identified in there for the approval. So that is staff’s recommendation. Boettcher: Anyone have any questions for Jerry regarding this? Tsuchiya: Jerry any idea why the other 3 companies didn’t submit a bid? Ruegemer: You know a variety of reasons. You know a lot of them like Pyrotechnic Display have shows in other cities that they’re doing and kind of going through the process they maybe feel it wasn’t work it to submit a bid Tsuchiya: Alright. Kutz: One question, is the dollar amount is that similar to last year? Is that more than last year? The same, less or have we trended up in our amount or where are we at with that? Ruegemer: It is the same exact dollar amount of many years of the past and as well as last year. Boettcher: Any other questions for Jerry? If not could I get a motion to approve as written? Kutz: Motion. Park and Recreation Commission – February 26, 2020 4 Boettcher: Second? Petouvis: Second. Boettcher: We have a motion and a second as written in the proposed here. Kutz moved, Petouvis seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council approve a three year 4th of July Fireworks contract (2020-20220) with Pyrotechnic Display, Inc. in the amount of $23,000 per year. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Boettcher: Looks like we’re going to have fireworks for 3 years. Thank you Jerry. Ruegemer: Thank you commissioners. CARVER COUNTY MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS. Boettcher: Todd do you want to talk a little bit about the mountain bike trail? Hoffman: Thanks Chair Boettcher, members of the commission. So a couple years ago you remember some bike trail enthusiasts came here perhaps on a couple of occasions. When they first started they were just talking about give us bike trails anyway, anyplace and then they actually went off and found this excess piece of right-of-way on their own modeling a trail system in Mankato. So in Mankato just as you drive into Mankato on the left hand side there’s a piece of MnDOT right-of-way that the community of Mankato and the high school use for some bike trails so this land lies within Highway 212. Between Highway 212 and Pioneer Trail and the blue lines would be the tracks themselves. And then this is the right-of-way of Pioneer Trail. This is the right-of-way of Highway 212. The city line is right up in here and so you’d see, this is Pioneer Pass Park and that city line comes just down through that general area and then crosses right in here. So this is Chanhassen trails. These trails are in Chaska. These trails are in Chaska. It’s mostly in MnDOT right-of-way and then there was some significant portions of Carver County right-of-way. So two things had to happen. Carver County was interested in the project but they really didn’t want to have the liability associated with having bike trails within their right-of-way and so they said we will give you this right-of-way or transfer this right-of- way to both Chaska and Chanhassen and so that’s what has happened in Chaska. They’ve already approved the transfer of the property from Carver County to the City of Chaska right-of- way. By the action on the council that’s coming up on the 9th Carver County would transfer right-of-way up in this area to the City of Chanhassen. And then the second act, action that evening is to approve an MOU, a Memorandum of Understanding between Chaska, Chanhassen and the Carver Trails group to build and operate the trails. So great kudos out to this group so, for working for a couple of years to make this happen and that’s the overall plan. They will construct the trails with volunteers. They have the proper liability insurance. The school district Park and Recreation Commission – February 26, 2020 5 is onboard for parking and those type of things and once these go in they’ll be highly used by not just the high school team but general mountain bikers in general. Boettcher: So a question there where the dog walker is and the hazards, is that across, a surface street crossing there or do they not cross the street? Hoffman: Yep. There’s a semaphore crossing right here. Boettcher: It is semaphore, okay. Hoffman: Yep. Boettcher: It’s just, when you look at it, it looks so confusing as close as the trail runs together, I mean the lines are ready, I mean borders and such. So what’s, is it just the surface? There’s no. Hoffman: It’s dirt. The trail’s about that wide. Boettcher: That’s it? Hoffman: Yep that’s it. And so if you’ve looked at that right-of-way at all it’s quite sloped and so you really can’t see it from 212. You’ve got to get up and over the hill and then you’d be able to see the trails. Kutz: It’s quite hilly too. Hoffman: Yes, it is and wooded on our side. It’s going to have to be some interesting terrain. In general these trails are fairly tight. They like the, they like to have some terrain and some slopes and the trees on the, on our side are some of the strongest attributes of going around the pond will be fun so it’s going to have some pretty good visibility that people are going to be able to see it. It’s going to be one of those recreation activities where the people driving by are going to be able to see the bikes. The bikes will be able to keep track of the traffic so that’s a good use of some excess right-of-way which other than that would be left for grass and other wildlife but it’s going to be used for bikes. Boettcher: Have they figured out if they straighten it out how long it would be total? Hoffman: I think they have. I don’t remember. Boettcher: Somebody got out there with that unicycle wheel. Hoffman: I don’t recall the distance but they’ve got that determined. Boettcher: And then wintertime use the Carver Trails maintains it? Keeps it clear or not? Park and Recreation Commission – February 26, 2020 6 Hoffman: No. There’ll likely will be some wintertime use but it would depend on conditions of the trail. Boettcher: Okay. CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 2020 Chairman Boettcher called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Meredith Petouvis, Joe Scanlon, Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz, and Youth Commissioner Zoe Erpelding MEMBERS ABSENT: Sandy Sweetser, and Haley Pemrick Schubert STAFF PRESENT: Todd Hoffman, Park and Rec Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; and Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Tsuchiya moved, Kutz seconded to approve the agenda with the following additions under New Business: 2. Carver County Mountain Bike Trails 3. Discussion of Extending the Number of Days for Feb Fest All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Priya Tandon invited the commissioners to attend the Luminary Walk being held on Thursday, February 27th at the Chanhassen Nature Preserve. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS. None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded to approve the verbatim and summary minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated January 29, 2020 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 2020-2022 4th OF JULY FIREWORKS CONTRACT. Jerry Ruegemer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Tsuchiya asked why there was only one bid. Commissioner Kutz asked about the dollar amount. Kutz moved, Petouvis seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council approve a three year 4th of July Fireworks contract (2020-20220) with Pyrotechnic Display, Inc. in the amount of $23,000 per year. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Park and Recreation Commission Summary – February 26, 2020 2 CARVER COUNTY MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS. Todd Hoffman discussed mountain bike trails that are being designed to go into the MnDOT right-of-way between Highway 212 and Pioneer Trail and associated agreements between the City of Chaska, the City of Chanhassen and Chaska Trails Group. EXTENDING HOURS OR DAYS FOR FEBRUARY FESTIVAL. Chairman Boettcher discussed ideas for possible activities to expand the length of time for February Festival. OLD BUSINESS. Todd Hoffman informed the commission that the results of the community survey had been received and the questions regarding the $250,000 in annual maintenance and the $9 million dollars for park improvements were received positively. REPORTS: 2020 FEBRUARY FESTIVAL EVALUATION. Priya Tandon presented the evaluation of the 2020 February Festival. Chairman Boettcher provided his observations from the event and suggestions for next year. Commissioner Kutz suggested giving rides on vintage snowmobiles. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. None. Tsuchiya moved, Petouvis seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Todd Hoffman Park and Rec Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JULY 28, 2020 The Park and Recreation Commission met prior to the regular meeting to tour Power Hill Park, Chanhassen Recreation Center and Pickleball/Tennis courts. Chairman Boettcher called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Joe Scanlon, Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz, Haley Schubert, Sandy Sweetser, Jim Peck and Youth Commissioner Zoe Erpelding STAFF PRESENT: Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor; and Jodi Sarles, Rec Center Manager APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman Boettcher approved the agenda as published. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Jerry Ruegemer thanked commission members who attended Todd Hoffman’s retirement celebration and recapped speakers and accomplishments of Todd over his 33 plus year career with the City of Chanhassen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Tsuchiya moved, Schubert seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the May 27, 2020 Park and Recreation Commission meeting as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. Tsuchiya moved, Sweetser seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the June 23, 2020 Park and Recreation Commission meeting as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. ARBORETUM TRAIL UPDATE. Jerry Ruegemer provided an update on the status of the Arboretum trail project. REPORTS: 2020 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION EVALUATION. Priya Tandon presented highlights from the 2020 4th of July celebration. FISHING ACADEMY TO GO EVALUATION. Priya Tandon presented highlights from the Fishing Academy To Go program which partnered with Chaska’s Fishing with Friends program. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. Park and Recreation Commission Summary – July 28, 2020 2 COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. Karl Tsuchiya discussed activities happening at Bandimere Park. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Commissioner Tsuchiya asked for an update on the Highway 101 road project. Tsuchiya moved, Kutz seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by Jerry Ruegemer Recreation Superintendent Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 2020 The Park and Recreation Commission met prior to the regular meeting to tour Power Hill Park, Chanhassen Recreation Center and Pickleball/Tennis courts. Chairman Boettcher called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Boettcher, Joe Scanlon, Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz, Haley Schubert, Sandy Sweetser, Jim Peck and Youth Commissioner Zoe Erpelding STAFF PRESENT: Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Superintendent; Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor; and Jodi Sarles, Rec Center Manager APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman Boettcher approved the agenda as published. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Boettcher: Public announcements Jerry? Ruegemer: No just a thank you for the commissioners who came last night to Todd’s kind of retirement celebration I guess last night so it was a nice event. Had it out at the City Center Plaza by the water fountain last night so had a decent amount of people there. We had some speakers. Mayor Ryan did present Todd with a Key to the City. Proclamation was Todd Hoffman Day yesterday. A nice framed piece of art from one of the first February Festivals out at Lake Susan Park so Feb Fest and 4th of July, a lot of those events is obviously really near and dear to Todd’s heart and his family’s heart so they loved participating. Particular in Feb Fest. They’re crazy for ice fishing so every dog gone one of them are great fisher people so they love that event and Todd obviously was really the driving force to starting that event in 1994 so that was, it was really kind of a cool framed art with the logo and stuff on it and I know that meant a lot to him. He just wanted to obviously thank all of you for all your support through the years with projects and policy and all that type of thing so he just was very appreciative of present and past not only park and rec commissioners, City Council, Mayor type of things. Todd had a legacy. 33 plus year career with the City. Was instrumental in much of the park development that happened through whether it be acquisition or new playgrounds, ballfields, trail system. He had a great vision. Was a great leader for us and our department so he’ll be missed with that so I just wanted to thank everybody that was able to come out last night and wish him well so, Glenn Stolar one of our ex-Park and Rec Commission Chairs. He was on the commission from I think ’02 to 2011 I think it was. He was there and had some real nice, kind words to say about Todd so Todd I know appreciated that as well so just wanted to thank everybody again to come out last night and it was a beautiful night out. Had some cake and just trying to reflect so it was a nice event. Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – July 28, 2020 2 Boettcher: Yeah and Jerry was naturally there. I was there. Commissioner Schubert. One of the other things was the, when the Mayor said it was Todd Hoffman Day I said you know it’s 7:00 in the evening. We’re 19 hours through the day. Maybe you should have told him this at 12:01 a.m. or something like that but it was really, pretty much everybody cried who knows what a family man Todd is. His wife was there naturally. His four kids and his one sister. I guess she still lives down… Ruegemer: Yep. Boettcher: But there was a lot of tears in the family and I told someone afterward, I said you know I was tearing up too and he said really. I said yeah I got here and all they had was cake and no cookies…but it was a really good send off for Todd. Such a great guy. Everything that he’s done so really enjoyable. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Boettcher: Alright looks like we have two months worth of Minutes here. Can we do this as one motion? Ruegemer: We should probably do separate please. Boettcher: You want to do separate? Ruegemer: Yes. Boettcher: Okay so those of you that looked at it, the May 27th Minutes. Sandy they’re no longer confusing you with Meredith. Sweetser: No I think we’re good. Kutz: I don’t think she was there Jim. Boettcher: Huh? Kutz: I don’t think Meredith was there. Boettcher: That’s what I’m saying. So if no one has any corrections or updates for the May Minutes can I get a motion to approve? Tsuchiya: So moved. Boettcher: Second? Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – July 28, 2020 3 Schubert: Second. Tsuchiya moved, Schubert seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the May 27, 2020 Park and Recreation Commission meeting as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. Boettcher: And also for the June Minutes. Anyone have any changes, deletions, corrections for June’s Minutes? Hearing none motion to approve. Tsuchiya: So moved. Boettcher: And a second? Sweetser: Second. Tsuchiya moved, Sweetser seconded to approve the verbatim and summary Minutes of the June 23, 2020 Park and Recreation Commission meeting as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. ARBORETUM TRAIL UPDATE. Boettcher: New Business we have nothing, is that correct? Ruegemer: That is correct. For this month. Boettcher: For this month, okay. Old Business, Arboretum trail update. Jerry is this going to be you? Ruegemer: Yep we’re doing verbal here. So I just kind of wanted to give the commission an update. We’ve had a couple pre-con Zoom meetings here the last couple weeks here so kind of what’s happening right now is this week in particular, here’s the schedule for the week here. Just got that today so the White Companies is the company that was awarded the bid for the project. They’re in the process of kind of mobilizing this week so you’ll start to see a lot more activity. There’s a lot of utility companies that are out there kind of relocating underground utilities and marking utilities and everything so all that work is going to start here. So they’re going to have an off site construction site on site. What’s going to happen is they’re going to start on the west side of the Arboretum itself so kind of in the Chan/Victoria border. Start on that side and then work their way east okay so, so I know that representatives from the Arboretum and the construction company did walk through and the alignment is all set to go right now for that. What’s going to happen is that they’re in the process of mobilizing and getting erosion control and all that kind of stuff put down so probably in the next couple days there’ll be substantial clearing of the trail alignment so all that is kind of in the process right now so it will be, it will be Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – July 28, 2020 4 a long process to get that done. Completion, I think you look on the, it was in the Administration packet. It looks like it’ll probably be July of 2020, or I’m sorry 2021 will be the completion date for that right now so it will go in stages with that. It looks like the box culvert going underneath Highway 41 is probably going to be April-May of next year for that so that will include road closures on 41 to a certain degree so they’ll kind of do that hopefully as quick as they can with that but, so we’ll be doing weekly zoom kind of pre-con meetings so today was only like a 20 minute, 25 minutes so it’s just kind of a lot of updating at this point with that. They’ll do kind of a like 3 week schedule so it’ll be kind of going out with that so I’ll be more than happy to kind of share that progress with the commission as it comes up. So everybody knows the Arboretum trail did get approved by City Council with that. Obviously everybody knows, the commission probably knows that the trail cost exceeded what was in the CIP so the excess is what another $479,000 above the $1.2 million that was allocated for this project was now the County agreed then to kind of finance. Give the City essentially a 5 year note on that interest free for that so the thought is, is that as we have park development that comes in, Avienda, housing, residential areas, corporate centers, that type of thing, as that money comes in that replenish that CIP fund and make essentially the payment over the course of the next 5 years so hopefully that will be the case on that. So that’s kind of thought here. The County has been doing a lot of that you know kind of carrying the financing portion of a lot of these projects. The Lyman Boulevard road project. The County’s doing that as well for the City portion of that. The County I believe is doing also the Arboretum portion of their trail for the Arboretum trail so they seem to be in the, kind of the holding the funding on that which is fine so then that certainly was, certainly a topic of conversation on the council level with that but ultimately the council did pass the Arboretum trail and approve it 4 to 1 so we’re extremely happy. I know Todd was extremely happy. It’s really a project that’s been on the books for many, many years with that so that’s really an important corridor along a busy Highway 5. You know you back up and you look at the amount of entities that are involved in that project with the Arboretum and the State of Minnesota, you know Life Time Fitness, the County, the City. There’s a lot of people that really had a lot of cooperative agreements to make that happen and all the really the, the planets were aligned I guess on this project so it’s really, it’s a feel good. It’s going to, we’re going to have a little temporary pain with that so really our CIP projects through the course of the next 5 years or so are going to be pretty non-existent so obviously as a commission we’ll have to get creative on things that we’re going to be working on. Whether we certainly can look at things that don’t cost. Look to do in-house maybe for on the maintenance side of the equation. There’s new programming ideas. New policy that we’re kind of looking to do. Rec Center, Senior Center, up at City Hall type of thing. Ballfields. We certainly would, it’s time for us to kind of look at our ballfield allocation policies. That will be something coming down the line here as well so it gives us an opportunity, I guess I have to try to look at things positively so it gives us an opportunity to focus on a couple things, some other things that we haven’t been focusing on so. And hopefully we can still get our park replacement. We can still do some playgrounds and that sort of things here but that will remain to be seen throughout the course of time here so obviously with the road funding, with the COVID situation, people just around the state have not been driving as much so a lot of the gas tax and the revenue generated from that is, was way below projections so that affected a lot of the road funding that went to fund you know the Lake Lucy Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – July 28, 2020 5 or Minnewashta project. Lyman Boulevard so you know the City on those type of projects are over $2 million dollars short on that so. There’s a lot of discussions going at City Hall how we can balance everything and see through COVID times we saved a lot of money not doing what we normally do. We saved a ton of money on seasonal wages and program expenses. We didn’t do the 4th of July by and large so we saved a pretty good chunk of money there so everybody’s kind of really watching. Making revenue wherever we can type of thing so we’re going to be okay. Building permits are up. Or they’re doing pretty good so that’s going to kind of make us a lot better shape than what we thought we were going to be so, so all that kind of ties into the whole Arboretum trail project and CIP in the future type of thing but super excited about the Arboretum trail. It’s going to be a lot of work but you can all be very proud of that project and it’s going to be a fantastic project when it’s all said and done. I know Life Time Fitness is completely onboard with it so just a lot of people that are always really going the right direction with people working together and not charging people for right-of-ways and land acquisitions and that sort of thing here too that Arboretum certainly is looking forward to getting more people into their area and getting more visitors with that. It took certainly a change of leadership to get to that point with that so I just want to let everybody know that there is, this is, I’ll get you an official invitation as well but the groundbreaking ceremony for the Arboretum trail project is going to be next Tuesday, August 4th. 11:00 a.m. and I’ll shoot you an invitation. I think Marty Walsh is going to send that out from the County by the next day or two for that so you’re all invited. Right now I’ll get you more of a formalized invitation here when that becomes available so 11:00. And I’ll get the Life Time Fitness, kind of between the two corporate buildings out there right along Highway 5. There’s kind of a break in the parking right there between the two buildings that kind of butts up to the, along Highway 5 in the berm area so it’ll be kind of right in that area. Marty is going to include a map and an invitation so I’ll make sure I get that to you guys so it’s going to be kind of short and sweet but less than an hour so 11:00 to noon roughly on August 4th so if you guys have some time love to have you there and we’ll kind of go from there so it’s really kind of the start of it for that so we’re pretty excited about that. It’s going to be a great trail project for that so. Boettcher: There was one thing Jerry. It came up at a County Park Commission meeting that the County even agreed if we needed two additional years on top of the 5 would we get it? Ruegemer: Those are certainly discussions that are being, a lot of the terms in that conversation are all kind of, it’s kind of a global, kind of bigger conversation with the Lyman Boulevard road project so obviously with the County Administrator, Dave Hemze and Heather Johnston our Interim City Manager, all of our mayors, everybody is kind of, and the County Board, everybody’s kind of talking about this whole situation of you know what can work for the terms of that but so I know there has been conversations about if needed but all that would have to be kind of an updated joint powers agreement in language with that as well. Boettcher: Any other questions for Jerry? REPORTS: 2020 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION EVALUATION. Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – July 28, 2020 6 Boettcher: Alright let’s go to, right into reports. We have the 2020 4th of July celebration evaluation. Priya this looks like it’s your’s. Tandon: Yep, thank you Chair Boettcher and thank you commissioners. So this year’s 4th of July celebration was the 37th year of the annual event. I know we’ve talked about it a lot but this year most of the events were either cancelled or held virtually or modified from what is normally done. Normally there, we estimate there are over 80,000 people enjoying at least one aspect of the celebration and this year we kind of had to modify that. So just going through what we did do. June 29th through July 4th, so that was the week proceeding the 4th of July which was on a Saturday. We had an online Business Expo… It was coordinated by the Southwest Metro Chamber of Commerce available for people on the website. Advertised on both of our social media pages for people to kind of enjoy and that was a modification of the typical business expo that occurs as part of the celebration. And then we also did a virtual chalk it up contest. That’s another component that normally happens in person but instead participants had the whole week prior to the 4th to draw their chalk drawings at home. Submit them and it was pretty good in terms of participation. We had 39 entries which was great and everyone was very excited about not running and there was a lot of positive feedback on the aspect of the celebration. And the most of our events happened on Saturday, July 4th. So we had the Chanhassen Farmers Market which runs every Saturday through October 3rd. Just happened to fall on a Saturday so that was great this year. Four vendors were present. They have local produce, fresh cut flowers, hand made goods. Normally at the farmers market there are more like 8 or 9 vendors but I think with the 4th of July, people being out of town that’s why it was around that 4 number. We also did the historic plane flyover that the Rotary Club of Chanhassen once again coordinated. That happened at 2:30 p.m. on July 4th. There were 4 historic World War II airplanes and they started kind of in southeast Chanhassen. Flew up north. Passed downtown and then looped around south and they did a few more loops than they’ve done previously just to make it a little bit more of event for people to enjoy. Ruegemer: Priya just to Haley, Pete Pemrick, Haley’s dad is very instrumental and responsible for that whole plane flyover so thank you to Haley and your family for making that happen. I know it doesn’t always happen but we appreciate your efforts on that so it’s very, very cool. It’s a great tradition. People love it. Tandon: Absolutely. Also a lot of positive feedback on that that people were very excited about it. And just in general the Rotary Club of Chanhassen’s a great partnering organization with their volunteer support and their financial support so hopefully we’ll be able to continue that in 2021 with the parade and the Taste of Chanhassen and the Beer Garden but still in a modified form very greatly appreciated. We did do the 2020 fireworks display. It was contracted through Pyrotechnics Display and was the first year of a three year contract. The display was about 20 minutes and the big thing with this of course was to remain in compliance with the current Executive Order. Greenwood Shores Park and Lake Ann Park were closed beginning at 5:00 p.m. to spectators. That all went great. At 5:00 p.m. people packed up. Left. Were very, very respectful. Really no problems at all with that so we were very pleased and impressed that Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – July 28, 2020 7 people you know were so very respectful. Two options were available for viewing the fireworks virtually. One was through Facebook Live on the City’s Facebook page and one was through the City website. Very similarly to the way people would view a City Council meeting. On Facebook Live at it’s high point over 470 Facebook accounts were watching the fireworks display so that was cool to see. People making use of that. Suggestions for 2021. Of course this depends on if event limitations exist. If they do people seemed to have positive responses to the virtual events or the modified events. I think they appreciated making the effort to keep the tradition and celebration of the 4th of July going even if things had to be modified. We can consider expanding upon that potentially with the Taste of Chanhassen or modified kiddie parade or any other ideas of course that the commission may have. And then no event limitations exist. Continue partnering with the Chanhassen Rotary, the Southwest Metro Chamber of Commerce, the Chanhassen Villager. All of our partnering organizations and then a few more event logistics that have been suggested previously. And then attached is then the expense report that shows unfortunately the no revenue that was brought in and then the expenses that we did incur this year to run the 4th of July. And that’s pretty much all. Boettcher: I was watching it live on the Twin Cities website and I was sitting out on the deck so I’ve got my tablet there and I’m watching the live and then looking at, I’m thinking well those were green and yellow and white and I’m looking at blues and reds. I finally realized it was about a one minute delay. The pops weren’t matching up. I mean we’re just over a half a mile away and I thought what’s going on here and I kept looking at, I was looking at the time of my watch and thinking oh okay. So I’ll see the yellow and the blue and the green in about, so the delay and trying to watch both venues. One live and one online but online it was great. I mean the photography and everything. Getting the close up’s and all it was really good. Schubert: I would say too the sheriff’s did a really good job. Eric and I were driving home right as it ended and traffic control, because everyone was parked along West 78th and they did a really good job with traffic control. I felt like no part got too crazy backed up at any given point so and there was one blanket and chair set up on the parade ground. I laughed, I saw that and I giggled. Ruegemer: Right. I certainly want to thank both Jodi and Priya. People probably don’t know, Priya was out on the dock, the rental dock at Lake Ann Park bundled up so the mosquitoes wouldn’t completely eat her alive with the tripod video taping or going Facebook Live at Lake Ann Park. Jodi was back at city hall. What time did you get there like quarter to 9:00-9:00? Sarles: Yeah. Ruegemer: On July 4th at city hall kind of doing the whole Granicus city web page thing so kudos to both these guys for making that happen. We had a little bit of minor glitch. Sarles: Jim you probably saw the glitch if you were watching the feed. Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – July 28, 2020 8 Ruegemer: Well at quarter to 9:00 we were scrambling to get the problem fixed on July 4th and you know through Priya and Jodi’s perseverance and help from Matt Kerr, one of our IT people at the city the problem, crisis was averted. We were back online and nobody ever knew but… But just you know like I said it takes a village around here. I mean we’re a small staff. We all need to kind of pitch in. These two did a fantastic job with that while I was sitting in the air conditioning in the emergency center here at Lake Ann Park so thank you for that. Appreciate that. But no just thanks again to all staff who participated and made a modified version of this annual event happen so. Boettcher: Good job. Anything else for Priya on this? If not we’ll move onto the fishing academy to go. FISHING ACADEMY TO GO EVALUATION. Boettcher: Priya this is still your’s. Tandon: Yep thank you Chair Boettcher and thank you commissioners. So the City of Chanhassen Parks and Recreation Department partnered with Chaska Area Fishing with Friends organization to present Fishing Academy To Go program. Chaska area Fishing with Friends put together 50 at home fishing kits that included a 5 foot fishing pole. A tackle box with bait and tackle. Or maybe just tackle. And then some informational booklets and put together a QR code for people to use to kind of get started with fishing. Kick off for those kids was Thursday, July 16th at the Chanhassen American Legion who is a sponsor of Chaska area Fishing with Friends so it was great to kind of pull them into it as well. Families were offered one of two time slots to pick up their kids. Either 10:00 a.m. to noon or 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. to try to accommodate you know various family schedules and just keep pick up contact lists. Masks were highly encouraged at the time of pick up. It worked out really well. Chaska area Fishing with Friends just had the parents open up their trunks or whatever and put the kids in the back seat so that worked really well. The program was extremely popular. All 50 kids were spoken for within pretty much a few days of opening registration and there was a wait list of 3 or 4 families. 40 of the 50 registrations were Chanhassen residents and 10 were non-residents and then in response to popularity of this program staff in the Chaska area Fishing with Friends are going to look into seeing if another one of this program or a similar program would be possible to hopefully get more families into the organization know what organization and getting started with fishing. And then attached was also the flyer that we used to promote the event. Boettcher: Good. Sounds like fun. Thank you Priya. Tandon: Thank you. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS. None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS. Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – July 28, 2020 9 Boettcher: Karl you’ve got something you… Tsuchiya: Been frequently going to Bandimere. Boettcher: There you go. Tsuchiya: Picking up over there. Was it Saturday? No, one of the weekend mornings there’s a fitness class that’s out there with their boom box going and they’re doing aerobics in the parking lot if it’s sunny because of the tree cover or in the hockey rink if it’s nice. Sweetser: Yeah they started doing that in the spring. We walk the dogs, I mean during the week too. Tsuchiya: Yean. Sweetser: They would meet really early in the morning and I’m like holy. Tsuchiya: I love seeing it. I walk my kid and my dog there in the morning if it’s cool and they go play in the playground for a while and I’m watching these people just do like an hour of aerobics like good on you. So that and I also see the soccer groups you know out there doing some small group training and some people in the ballfields doing small practicing so it’s nice to see some activity in the park. Sweetser: I did see a game there the other night too. Tsuchiya: Did you? Sweetser: Yeah it’s not MYSA I don’t think. It’s probably the other league. Ruegemer: It’s a combination of Chanhassen Athletic Association and the Minnetonka Baseball program is playing out there as well so they are doing a modified season. Started after the 4th of July and they’re going to go until about August 12th for that so kind of all the stuff that we had done prior to COVID. Had all the permits in. Everything was out. Everything was ready clicking away. We were waiting for the opening of the season and then things kind of happened so really all that was kind of turned upside down. We had to kind of start that process all over again so we have a lot of COVID preparedness plans. Pdf fil now. Everybody had to present all that how they’re going to keep everybody safe to the point, to Sandy’s point, you know we’ve got to watch from the outfield fence and look in when your kids are up to bat but you know I think everybody is kind of adapting to that. We’re doing adult softball out at Lake Ann Park Thursday nights through a lot of modifications for that so you know we certainly encourage people to wear masks if they would like to. Since it’s outdoors it’s not mandatory but social distancing as much as we can. We’re disinfecting balls. We’re…having teams, you know Team Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – July 28, 2020 10 A uses the same ball for their team. Team B uses their ball so there isn’t any softballs kind of cross contaminating so to speak so if a ball goes out of play the umpires will get it back in and disinfect it. We have like Jodi kind of said there’s rags of disinfectant. We wipe down everything. We wipe everything down and at night the dirty rags go into a dirty bucket so we’re trying to kind of do our part that we’re not having hot zones out there and certainly encouraging people to play their games and go. Go home. Did things differently as far as format this year. We’re not doing, typically in the past we’ve had teams change fields for two games for their double headers. We’re doing baseball double headers right now so you’re playing the same team twice so you’re not moving dugouts and everybody seems to be good. I got roasted on that a number of years ago like why are you doing that? You’re stupid you know. And so I changed it all. So other than that but now people seem to embrace it. I think they like not moving. Tsuchiya: You’re just a visionary. Ruegemer: Yeah. You know you do this business long enough it rotates a little… Boettcher: Is there still vending at Lake Ann Park? Ruegemer: There is not. No all the watercraft rentals and the concession stand was closed for the year. You know just kind of looking at that whole operation, it was really tough to kind of go through that whole process because the guidelines really for life jackets, I mean really by the State guidelines they should all be taken out of commission. Sprayed down with disinfectant. Let air dry for 3 days and then put back into rotation. Well we don’t have that luxury of doing that and just kind of with that whole process with disinfecting and the number of staff we had available and everything so we just elected not to do that. At that time so. But that’s sort of going on your evaluation or are we done with that? Tandon: Oh I think we’ve covered, all good. ADMINISTRATIVE PACKET. Boettcher: The last thing is administrative packet. I noticed that there was print out of the two items and it says Park and Rec Commission recommends. Was that just, there’s nothing we have to do to take action on the last two items? Ruegemer: No. Which one? Boettcher: Highway 5. Ruegemer: Yeah Trunk Highway 5. That was, this is our park secretary’s first packet so there might have been some oopsies up there so. Tsuchiya: I know Jerry I have a question. Do you have any update on the 101 project at all? Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission – July 28, 2020 11 Ruegemer: The road project? Tsuchiya: Yeah. Ruegemer: Well I was down on the lower wye yesterday. Actually last weekend and I know that they’ve got substantial, not completion but pretty good part of the road project done going to the north. I know they’re, you can only get down to about Bluff Creek Drive right now so I don’t know where they’re at as far as percentage of completion but they’re moving along. Tsuchiya: Yeah I know 101’s closed because I had to get down to Shakopee for something and had to go around which is fine. Ruegemer: I made that same mistake. Actually I stopped at the farmers market and I was going to go down to Prior Lake on Saturday and I started going down 101. Got down by Halla Greens and it’s like oh that’s right so I had to back track a bit. Tsuchiya: Can’t you just flash your badge? Ruegemer: That doesn’t work. Don’t you know who I am? Boettcher: Alright with nothing else I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Tsuchiya moved, Kutz seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 8 to 0. The Park and Recreation Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by Jerry Ruegemer Recreation Superintendent Prepared by Nann Opheim CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Receive Economic Development Commission Minutes Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.4. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the Economic Development Commission summary minutes for the following dates: January 14, 2020 March 10, 2020 May 12, 2020 June 9, 2020 July 14, 2020 August 17, 2020." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: January 14, 2020 Summary Minutes March 10, 2020 Summary Minutes May 12, 2020 Summary Minutes June 9, 2020 Summary Minutes July 14, 2020 Summary Minutes August 17, 2020 Summary Minutes CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVEVLOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 14, 2020 Chairman Sanford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Sanford, Kathleen Donovan, Jim Ebeling, Steve Stamy and Adam Schafer STAFF PRESENT: Greg Sticha, Finance Director; Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager Adam Schafer introduced himself as the newest commission member before existing commission members and staff introduced themselves to Adam Schafer. Donovan moved, Ebeling seconded to amend the agenda to include discussion of a possible work session after New Business. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Donovan moved, Ebeling seconded to approve the Summary Minutes of the Economic Development Commission meeting dated December 11, 2019 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. DISCUSS 2020 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. Greg Sticha outlined conditions for discussing possible goals and objectives to be presented to the City Council at the joint meeting in March or April. Adam Schafer asked for clarification on how the Economic Development Commission operated in the past. Greg Sticha explained that the City Council continues to act as the Economic Development Authority but the Economic Development Commission is a new commission. Kathleen Donovan suggested advising the City Council on economic matters affecting the business community, new development, and diversity in attracting new businesses. Jim Ebeling suggested diversity in attracting different types and sizes of business. Chairman Sanford discussed having a vision for the economic development of Chanhassen and changing from being reactive to proactive. Kathleen Donovan suggested using the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as a guideline for economic development in the future. Steve Stamy explained that after discussions with current business owners the possibility of making downtown more walker friendly, diversity of business i.e. retail, commercial, and industrial, and educating residents on what they would like to see in Chanhassen. Kathleen Donovan continued with suggesting looking for additional employment opportunities, improving quality of life for current residents, and marketing opportunities for Chanhassen. Steve Stamy suggested recruiting businesses from outside of the city limits, and the possible need for commission members to have business cards. Greg Sticha explained the need to have one voice from the commission Chanhassen Economic Development Commission – January 14, 2020 2 rather than individual ideas and that direction will need to come from City Council on how the commission members should proceed with discussions with individuals and businesses. Chairman Sanford discussed the possible need for a business subsidy program to attract diversity, improving connectivity in the city’s infrastructure, the use of Tax Increment Financing Districts and Economic Development Districts, and the use of sales tax to raise revenue. Kathleen Donovan continued with how to communicate with the City Council, and providing an annual report. Chairman Sanford asked about the definition of the downtown area and how to draw people into Chanhassen from outside the city, look at ways to promote development in the city such as working with the Southwest Chamber of Commerce. REVIEW OPEN HOUSE AGENDA AND FLYER. Greg Sticha reviewed items included in the agenda and flyer for the Open House being held on February 25th. Adam Schafer asked about marketing for the open house. Chairman Sanford suggested contacting Buy Chanhassen and Southwest Chamber of Commerce for their email lists. Steve Stamy asked for clarification of how the open house will operate. POSSIBILITY OF A WORK SESSION IN FEBRUARY. Greg Sticha discussed that staff did not have agenda items for the February 11th meeting so the only meeting will be the open house being held on February 25th. Chairman Sanford suggested a possible work session in March to review what will be presented to the City Council at the joint meeting in April. Donovan moved, Schafer seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Economic Development Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Greg Sticha Finance Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 10, 2020 Chairman Sanford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Sanford, Kathleen Donovan, James Ebeling, and Steven Stamy MEMBERS ABSENT: Adam Schaefer STAFF PRESENT: Greg Sticha, Finance Director; and Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ebeling moved, Stamy seconded to approve the summary Minutes of the Economic Development Commission Meeting dated January 14, 2020 as amended to change the name of Jim Ebeling to James Ebeling. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0. REVIEW COMMENTS FROM OPEN HOUSE AND SET 2020 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION GOALS. Greg Sticha explained the process of reviewing comments received at the open house. Ann Miller, 6561 Fox Path discussed her concerns with ownership of strip malls in the city and in particular the condition of the strip mall that houses Ace Hardware. She also asked that more benches be installed in front of businesses, expressed her concern with traffic and speed, encouraged taking care of existing businesses, and making the city more pedestrian friendly. Greg Sticha continued with reviewing highlights of comments received at the open house and in particular comments suggesting businesses feel it can be difficult dealing with city staff. He suggested a goal could be implementing a customer survey regarding dealing with the planning and building staff at the city. Chairman Sanford asked for clarification about points of contact and the process for businesses moving into the City, communication and interaction among businesses and interaction with city staff. Greg Sticha suggested a goal could be to look for ways the Economic Development Commission can help local businesses to communicate and interact better with other businesses, Buy Chanhassen, and Southwest Chamber of Commerce. Chairman Sanford discussed the issue of improving walkable connectivity of downtown. Jake Foster discussed work being done by city staff to improve pedestrian safety and walkability in downtown. James Ebeling asked about comments about diversity of businesses in Chanhassen. Chairman Sanford discussed the possibility of developing a community gathering center along with park amenities similar to what Chaska has done. Greg Sticha explained that the City Council is currently discussing that topic which would involve an increase to the levy but encouraged the commission to make it a goal. Steven Stamy asked for clarification on how the Economic Development Commission members should handle community outreach with businesses. Greg Sticha encouraged the commission to have that discussion with the City Economic Development Commission – March 10, 2020 2 Council. Kathleen Donovan discussed the concern expressed by businesses with a shortage in the labor force and the possibility of holding a job fair in the community. Greg Sticha discussed the fact that the City Council is considering implementing a lodging tax in association with Meet Minneapolis and asked if the commission supported that partnership as a goal. Chairman Sanford asked about incentives or subsidies to encourage businesses to come to Chanhassen, improvements to internet productivity, and an attempt to help create a health insurance consortium as an incentive to attract new businesses to Chanhassen. In discussing prioritization of goals Greg Sticha suggested to include discussing a business subsidy program, create a customer survey related for points of contact with city staff, look for ways the Economic Development Commission can encourage local businesses to communicate more effectively with each other, city staff, elected officials and Buy Chanhassen, City Council should consider a public facility that encompasses large gatherings and multi use facility which brings visitors to the city to host local business meetings and other gathering events, have the Economic Development Commission support along with Buy Chanhassen a local job fair somewhere within the city, and using health consortiums as incentives to small businesses. After discussion among commission members the following list was created as priorities: 1. Create a business subsidy program. 2. Look for ways for businesses to communicate more effectively with each other, city staff, elected officials and Buy Chanhassen. 3. Community Development department present the process of communicating with potential new businesses with the possibility of creating a customer satisfaction survey. 4. Address the issue of affordable housing, employment opportunities and holding a local job fair somewhere in the city. 5. Look at making the city more walkable and pedestrian friendly. James Ebeling moved, Steven Stamy seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Economic Development Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by Greg Sticha Finance Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MAY 12, 2020 Chairman Sanford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Sanford, Kathleen Donovan, James Ebeling, Steve Stamy and Adam Schaefer STAFF PRESENT: Greg Sticha, Finance Director; and Jessica Cook, Ehlers and Associates APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ebeling moved, Donovan seconded to approve the Summary Minutes of the Economic Development Commission meeting dated March 10, 2020 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Donovan moved, Stamy seconded to accept the agenda as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. OLD BUSINESS. Greg Sticha provided an update on the status of City Council action and that they will not be holding joint meetings with commissions in the near future. The June EDC meeting will be held via Zoom. INITIAL DISCUSSION OF EDC GOAL – CONSIDERATION OF CREATION OF BUSINESS SUBSIDY PROGRAM. Greg Sticha reviewed the EDC’s list of goals which includes consideration of creation a business subsidy program for the City of Chanhassen before introducing Jessica Cook with Ehlers and Associates who reviewed highlights of the power point presentation including policy formation, statutory requirements associated with business subsidy programs, and why consider providing business subsidy as part of an economic development strategy in offering economic diversity. She explained the pros and cons of economic business subsidy programs being used in other cities such as using levy monies, SAC and WAC fee deferral and assessment programs, creating special service districts, façade improvement grants, business retention and expansion programs, business micro loan program, downtown code improvement program, the use of TIF and Tax Abatement for workforce housing, commercial kitchen revolving loan programs to be used by restaurants, jobs for fees program, and options for WAC and SAC waivers. In reviewing the next steps to establish economic development strategies Greg Sticha asked commissioners to digest the information presented and explained that the EDC will discuss this item further at the June meeting. Chairman Sanford asked about other places to look for additional guidelines that could be used by the EDC and if the City Council acting as the EDA presents any difficulties. Greg Sticha explained that after talking with Mayor Ryan she is open to any and all possibilities Economic Development Commission – May 12, 2020 2 and encouraged the EDC to present a couple options for the City Council to discuss and consider. Commissioner Stamy asked for clarification on how much success other cities have experienced with their business subsidy programs and how information is presented to businesses in town. Commissioner Ebeling asked about the impact to residents of an increased tax levy. Chairman Sanford asked for clarification of the City’s current practice with SAC and WAC fees. Greg Sticha asked commissioners to bring their high level goals back for discussion at the June meeting. Ebeling moved, Donovan seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Economic Development Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Submitted by Greg Sticha Finance Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 9, 2020 Chairman Sanford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Sanford, Kathleen Donovan, James Ebeling, Steve Stamy and Adam Schaefer STAFF PRESENT: Greg Sticha, Finance Director; and Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Donovan moved, Ebeling seconded to approve the Minutes of the Economic Development Commission meeting dated May 12, 2020 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION OF EDC GOAL: CONSIDERATION OF CREATION OF BUSINESS SUBSIDY PROGRAM. Greg Sticha reviewed highlights of a power point presentation by Ehlers and Associates at the previous meeting before asking for questions or comments from commission members. Adam Schaefer asked for clarification of the current business subsidy policy versus program. He suggested a forbearance bullet point could be beneficial. Chairman Sanford asked for clarification of what the City charges businesses currently. Adam Schaefer discussed establishing something to help historic entities, establish long term care opportunities in the city, and possibilities to enhance marketing the City of Chanhassen in the future. Chairman Sanford asked about the status of the proposed regional lifestyle center, Avienda and revitalization of the central business district with the use of tools associated with business subsidy programs. James Ebeling discussed enhancing entertainment type businesses in the city i.e. Top Golf type, community centers, and curling center with the use of micro loan programs, and ways to encourage development of affordable housing available for employees in these type of businesses. Stephen Stamy asked for clarification on the status of the current business climate due to the pandemic, how the City can enhance recruiting businesses to locate in Chanhassen, clarification of the use of TIF Districts, and the possibility of retail development in southern Chanhassen after completion of Highway 101. Kathleen Donovan agreed with what has been suggested previously regarding affordable housing, recruiting businesses to relocate in Chanhassen, and the possibility of the City providing vouchers to residential and small business retail properties to frequent local businesses. Greg Sticha summarized what he heard from commission members regarding affordable housing, incentivize more entertainment type businesses in Chanhassen, some type of small business relief mechanism, and attracting professional office businesses to locate in Chanhassen with the use of some type of small business subsidy programs. Stephen Stamy asked who markets the City of Chanhassen currently. Greg Sticha explained that there is no one staff person in charge of marketing. Economic Development Commission – June 9, 2020 2 Chairman Sanford discussed the use of a Chamber of Commerce or inviting someone from Buy Chanhassen to a future commission meeting. Greg Sticha asked for further clarification on how commission members want to incentivize entertainment and new small businesses to locate in Chanhassen and what tools and criteria will be used. Schaefer moved, Donovan seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Economic Development Commission meeting was adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Greg Sticha Finance Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 14, 2020 Chairman Sanford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Sanford, Kathleen Donovan, Steve Stamy and Adam Schaefer MEMBERS ABSENT: James Ebeling STAFF PRESENT: Greg Sticha, Finance Director; and Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Schaefer moved, Stamy seconded to approve the Minutes of the Economic Development Commission meeting dated June 9, 2020 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Greg Sticha asked that the agenda be amended to discuss item E-2 prior to D-1. DISCUSSION OF CARES ACT FUNDING GRANTS FOR LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES. Greg Sticha presented information on this item for the City’s share of the CARES Act Funding Grant in the amount of $1,978,000 and discussed eligible expenses, i.e. city facility safety improvements, and small business grant award program. He explained that this grant money must be spent by November 15, 2020. Chairman Sanford asked if there will be rules and regulations published about eligibility for this grant funding, if the City’s payroll suffered due to the COVID-19 pandemic, if Carver County received any grant money for public safety payroll, and penalties for using the eligible money incorrectly. He suggested more research be done on allocating dollars through the small business award program and the financial impact on small businesses. Greg Sticha explained that it will be staff’s recommendation to hire a firm through Carver County to handle the small business grant application process. FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION OF EDC GOAL – CONSIDERATION OF CREATION OF BUSINESS SUBSIDY PROGRAM. Greg Sticha provided background information on previous discussions and presented three items for review. Adam Schaefer favored using the grant program moving forward. Chairman Sanford suggested the City not go too narrow for a business subsidy program after determining a funding source. Greg Sticha agreed that a funding source needs to be determined but that the commission needs to let the council know examples of how the business subsidy program should be considered. Chairman Sanford asked for clarification on the role of the Economic Development Commission in advising the City Council on a business subsidy program. Chanhassen Economic Development Commission – July 14, 2020 2 Commissioner Stamy asked what kind of presentation will be presented at the joint meeting with City Council and the possibility of holding a special meeting to come up with that information. Commissioner Donovan stated she did not think a special meeting was necessary and the need to keep the presentation at a high level and not too specific. Greg Sticha explained how he will set up a power point presentation suggesting the emergency grant assistance program and low interest micro loan program is what is being considered by the commission and asked that commission members email a list of community benefits for these two programs. Jake Foster reminded commission members not to discuss amongst themselves via email which would violate the open meeting law. DISCUSSION OF GATHERING LOCAL BUSINESS CONTACT INFORMATION. Greg Sticha explained that Steven Stamy suggested that this item be added for discussion. Commissioner Stamy discussed his thoughts behind the need for establishing a local business contact list to get local businesses more information. Chairman Sanford suggested commission members attend a Buy Chanhassen and Southwest Chamber of Commerce meetings. Jake Foster stated that he would contact Vernelle Clayton with Buy Chanhassen and the Southwest Chamber of Commerce to get discussion started. DISCUSSION OF BUSINESS/COMMUNITY SURVEY OF LOCAL BUSINESSES. Commissioner Stamy explained the need for better communication with local businesses. Commissioner Donovan suggested after the City receives the local business contact information, then do a Survey Monkey. Greg Sticha advised on the risks associated with the commission communicating with local businesses who maybe don’t want to be notified by the City. Donovan moved, Stamy seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Economic Development Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Greg Sticha Finance Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17, 2020 Chairman Sanford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Sanford, Kathleen Donovan, James Ebeling, and Adam Schaefer MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Stamy STAFF PRESENT: Greg Sticha, Finance Director; Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Jake Foster, Assistant City Manager APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Donovan moved, Ebeling seconded to approve the Minutes of the Economic Development Commission meeting dated July 14, 2020 as presented. UPDATE ON CARES ACT FUNDING GRANT FOR LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES. Greg Sticha provided an update on how the CARES Act funding grant program will work with local small businesses. Kate Aanenson discussed how the grant program for local small businesses will function in conjunction with Carver County CDA who will oversee the program with Next Stages who will administer the program. She reviewed what businesses are eligible as small businesses and how funds will be dispersed. Chairman Sanford asked for clarification on eligible uses for grant funds. Kate Aanenson continued with discussion of which cities are partnering with Carver County CDA in this program. Greg Sticha explained how the marketing plan will work and asked that commission members spread the word to small businesses as funds have to be distributed by November 15, 2020. Chairman Sanford asked if this includes non- profit businesses. Kate Aanenson explained there’s a separate program available for non-profits and apologized for the confusion on information sent out to commission members. Commissioner Ebeling asked how COVID-19 has affected development in the city. Kate Aanenson explained that both housing and office industrial are being developed, and provided an update on the status of the Avienda project. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Receive Environmental Commission Minutes Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.5. Prepared By Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives the following Environmental Commission summary minutes: December 12, 2019 January 8, 2020 February 12, 2020 March 11, 2020 May 13, 2020 June 10, 2020.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: December 12, 2019 Summary Minutes January 8, 2020 Summary Minutes February 12, 2020 Summary Minutes March 11, 2020 Summary Minutes May 13, 2020 Summary Minutes June 10, 2020 Summary Minutes 1 Chanhassen Environmental Commission (EC) Regular Meeting December 12, 2019 Members Present: Bill Chappell, Keith Butcher, Greg Hawks, Jeff Harken, Don Vasatka, Rachel Popken, Kristin Fulkerson Members Absent: Staff Present: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist; Guests Present: AP Government students from Holy Family Minutes: November minutes were approved. 2020 Work Plan: The commission decided to add a tour of the Environmental Center to the 2020 work plan. They talked about when to fit it in the schedule and thought June might work well. Jill will find out when a tour would be possible and if a short meeting could be held at the facility as well. Jill said she will update the 2020 dates for the annual events, such as recycling day or Arbor day. The work plan was approved with that action item. Villager article: Kristin submitted the article to the Villager and it should be in next week’s paper. A call out for the boy scout Christmas tree recycling was added to the article which the commission agreed was a good idea to promote. Spring Connection article: Jeff submitted the first recycling article for the city newsletter and it covered the 4 R’s. Kristin suggested that the next article by about what things not to throw into recycling. The fall article is yet to be determined and the winter one will be about Reuse/reduce during the holidays. WaterWise: Jill introduced the commission to the WaterWise rebate program. She explained that the city was approved for a grant from the Met Council focusing on water use reduction. The rebates are used for homeowners who replace existing products with more water efficient products. The rebates apply to toilets, clothes washers and smart irrigation controllers. The program starts Jan. 1. Chanhassen Nature Preserve: Jill shared that the city will be collaborating with Great River Greening to host a restoration planting project in the Chanhassen Nature preserve where the buckthorn removal project took place. The community-wide event will take place on May 30. General Discussion: • Bill offered to contact Jenny Potter at DemCon regarding the July 3 trade fair. 2 • Jan. 22 Environmental Commission regional meeting – the commission was invited to send 3 commissioners to the event. Greg is planning on attending, Jeff maybe, Bill no, Kristin maybe, Don no. Greg will take lead and follow up with commissioners. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm Minutes prepared by Jill Sinclair 1 Chanhassen Environmental Commission (EC) Regular Meeting January 8, 2020 Members Present: Bill Chappell, Greg Hawks, Jeff Harken, Don Vasatka, Rachel Popken, Kristin Fulkerson Members Absent: Keith Butcher Staff Present: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist; Minutes: December minutes were approved. 2020 Arbor Day Poster Contest Theme selection: This is the 20th year of the themed Arbor Day poster contest. The commission discussed how to work that into this year’s selected theme. After much brainstorming the commission voted to select “Trees are Terrific….In Chanhassen!” with kids encouraged to include the subtitle “Celebrating 20 years of Arbor Day!” Arbor Day event planning: To acknowledge the poster contest anniversary, the commission discussed adding special activities to the Arbor Day event at Meadow Green Park. Ideas included having a potting station for the seedlings so that attendees can take home a potted tree; Planting a garden/pollinator garden/rain garden at the park; Hosting a plant swap or encouraging people to bring plant splits to donate to the park; Mulching the existing trees; Making plant bombs (Don has recipe). Jill research viability of each of these and bring back to commission. Summer Connection article: Jeff volunteered to do the summer article. It will focus on ‘how to’ or basics of recycling, what the advantages are; what can/can’t be recycled, local info on haulers and DemCon and EC, and will close the article with the July 3 event. Commissioners suggested contacting haulers and asking what their #1 complaint was concerning items thrown into recycling. Commissioners also suggested referencing the Recycling Association of Minnesota website. Jill said that local recycling options can be found at recyclecarver.org. Jeff will have an article to submit by Jan. 27. 2020 Work Plan: The commission talked about their fall event and July 3 event. Bill said that the DemCom trailer is unavailable for the July 3 event. The commission then considered using it for the fall education event. Commissioners thought it might be challenging to have the trailer outdoors in the evening in October because of weather and daylight. Zero Waste West Metro, an education workshop teaching folks how to generate less waste was then discussed and seemed to be a good fit for the fall event. The commission directed Jill to reach out to them and the library and try to book a date. The July 3 event was discussed and it was decided that the commission would put together a recycling display based on the DemCom information about what can/can’t be recycled. Another idea was to have the city offer residents tour of the DemCom facility. It was decided the logistics were challenging. The commission will focus on recycling and reducing, maybe invite a Zero Waste rep? The activity at the 2 booth could include having 3 bins and 7 items to sort. Commission still needs to decide on giveaway items. For a handout, commission could have list of local recyclers – Furnishare, goodwill, Prop Shop, Soles4Souls, etc. General Discussion: • Commissioners whose term ends in March – Rachel and Keith • Feb. meeting will be interviews. The commission decided to use existing questionnaire and ask follow-up questions unique to the candidate if necessary. • Regional Environmental Commission meeting on Jan. 22. Greg and Jeff will attend and represent Chanhassen commission. • The commission decided to tour the Environmental Center for its May meeting. Meeting adjourned at 7:45 pm Minutes prepared by Jill Sinclair 1 Chanhassen Environmental Commission (EC) Regular Meeting February 12, 2020 Members Present: Keith Butcher, Greg Hawks, Jeff Harken, Don Vasatka, Rachel Popken, Kristin Fulkerson Members Absent: Bill Chappell Staff Present: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist; Minutes: January minutes were approved. Commission candidate interviews: The commission interviewed three applicants: Dr. Jesse McAtee, Markus Fischer, and Lucy Rehm. Arbor Day event planning: Jill updated the commission on activity planning for the day. Species and locations for the plantings have been generally set. After the snow is gone, Jill will verify the locations with the park staff. Jill has ordered the supplies for the seed ‘bombs’ and for potting up tree seedlings. Jill has also ordered acorn seeds for a Guess the number of Acorns game. Jill has asked the street dept to supply her with small stumps and tree discs for use on Arbor day. Ideas were to create a large tic tac toe or checkers game on the lawn with the discs and use stumps for seating or climbing. A 20-year anniversary cake will be ordered along with the usual donuts and beverages. Earth Hour promotion: The commission decided they will only promote this on FB. Regional Environmental Commission meeting: Jeff and Greg attended the regional meeting held on Jan 22. They estimated that there were around 50-60 attendees. There were 3 breakout sessions on Clean Energy, Efficient Buildings and Transportation. The focus was on energy. Greg attended Clean Energy and heard that many cities are setting a goal to be self-sufficient by 2030. Jeff attended Efficient Buildings and learned that city code can’t be more strict than State code and so there is potential movement at the state level towards upgrading the State code regarding energy efficiency in buildings or eliminating the city restrictions in that part of the code. One way to get around that is if a city gives money to a building project then it can have a say in the energy efficiency in the building. Some cities are now requiring Efficiency Scores in real estate. Jeff and Greg also leaned that the commissions in Edina, St Louis Park and Eden Prairie among others seem to be solely focused on climate. Wayzata has a brand new EC – they haven’t even met yet – called the Energy and Environmental Commission. General Discussion: • Don said he was at the high school and noticed a poster for a Environmental Commission there. He gave the contact info to Jill. • Jill told the commission that the joint meeting with City Council is scheduled for Mon, April 13 at 6 pm 2 Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm Minutes prepared by Jill Sinclair 1 Chanhassen Environmental Commission (EC) Regular Meeting 6:00 pm March 11, 2020 Members Present: Keith Butcher, Bill Chappell, Kristin Fulkerson, Jeff Harken, Greg Hawks, Rachel Popken and Don Vasatka Members Absent: None Staff Present: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Minutes: February minutes were revised and approved. Select Arbor Day Poster Contest Winners: The commission looked at all the submittals and selected a group of seven finalists. From the finalist group, one was chosen as the contest winner: Ester Gilbertson of Bluff Creek Elementary School. Review Onboarding Packet: The commission reviewed the onboarding document and made changes to the document. List of Term Accomplishments for Joint Meeting April 13: Bill Chappell agreed to work on updating the document and getting it back to the committee by April 3, 2020. Bill requested that members provide him with any suggestions and additions via email. The group discussed that they focus on education and the events that the commission sponsors. GreenStep Cities update: The city was certified as a step 2 city in 2019. The group discussed how they should emphasize the benefits of the GreenStep Cities programs and the number of communities that have joined the program and the benefits that it has provided the city. Section 8.5 needs to be expanded and have more description of the practices the city has done and will do (Village on the Ponds, Avienda, downtown) General Discussion: • Bob Generous gave a quick update on development within the city including The Park, Avienda and the Highway 101 road project. • Kristin said the someone from GreenStep program was coming to her congregation. She intends to ask them about how they address negativity toward the program. • Greg discussed attending the Recycling seminar and how he had met Rusty and the Crew who presented a two-hour presentation on recycling. Bill noted that they want to make a business out of it, but currently operate through grants. He asked if the Crew would be interested in making a presentation in Chanhassen. There was some discussion of whether it should be as a stand-alone presentation at the library, part of the July 3rd program or in conjunction with the fall event. Greg noted that they were very anti-plastic. He also wanted to know if the city 2 could purchase some of the stick-on decals for the July event. Greg would check to see if they were interested in the July 3rd event. • Rachel pointed out to the group that you can go onto Amazon and ask to have your packaging as compostable or decomposable rather than plastic. She believes this can be included in your profile. The idea is to let Amazon know that there is interest in reducing the use of plastic packaging. • Rachel brought the Twin Cities Eco Rotary, which establishes a monthly challenge to help the environment. Once a month, they put out a small challenge for actions that will reduce pollution or improve the environment. • Don asked if anyone was interested in presenting the Environmental Commission ideas at the Joint City Council – Environmental Commission meeting. It was agreed that the items could be split up for three or more commissioners to have parts. It was also suggested that the group ask City Council for their priorities for the environment. Thank you to Rachel and Keith for your service on the Environmental Commission. Your contribution and commitment was much appreciated. Meeting adjourned at 7:04 pm Minutes prepared by Bob Generous \\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\plan\js\311 ec meeting\3-11-20 min.docx 1 Chanhassen Environmental Commission (EC) Regular Meeting via Zoom Online Meeting 6:00 pm May 13, 2020 Members Present: Bill Chappell, Kristin Fulkerson, Jeff Harken, Greg Hawks, Don Vasatka, Lucy Rehm and Markus Fischer Members Absent: None Staff Present: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist Minutes: March minutes were approved. Introductions to New members: The commissioners each gave a brief introduction to the new members and welcomed them to the commission. Annual Review of By-laws: The following changes were recommended for the by-laws: • 1.1 …benefits and necessity of conserving Chanhassen’s natural resources. • 2.3 … may shall result in .. • 3.2 (capitalize) Commission The commission voted and approved the changes. Election of Chair/Vice-Chair: The commission unanimously voted Kristin Fulkerson as Chair and Jeff Harken as Vice-Chair. Arbor Day and Poster Contest update: Jill shared that the tree planting scheduled for Arbor Day at Meadow Green Park will go ahead as planned with the contractor planting the trees. The trees will be planted in late May/early June by Hartman Tree Farm. The poster contest awards presentation is scheduled for the June 8 City Council meeting. Jill has sent letters to all of the families of the winners and has heard back from about half as to their attendance at the presentation. There’s a chance that the presentation could be cancelled, but no change has been made as of yet. The commission talked about other ways to recognize the winners. Ideas included posting the posters on the city’s Facebook page and submitting them to the Chanhassen Villager. Jill will look into both of those options. 2020 Focus Topic Approach – Recycling: The commission discussed how to provide public education on their 2020 focus topic in light of events being potentially cancelled for the year. Greg was directed to get in touch with the recycling team who was going to attend the Trade Fair and see if they have videos 2 or other methods of communication that the commission could share with the public. The discussion also included talk of the commission making a video or creating online quizzes. Perhaps there’s an opportunity to share a video with the ‘virtual trade fair’ being explored by the chamber. The commission will discuss again in June. Fall Connection Article: Lucy volunteered to write the fall newsletter article. The topic will be Zero Waste and will potentially include an interview with Ashley Kennedy who runs a Zero Waste consulting company in Chanhassen. City Event/Natural Resources Project Updates: Jill gave the following updates on spring events and projects: • Brush Day- still waiting to reschedule event at Public Works. Hope to have a June date for yard waste collection. • Paper Shredding event – event has been scheduled for May 30, 9-Noon at Public Works. Recommended to arrive early since event ends when truck is full. • Recycling Day at Env Center – waiting to re-schedule event at Environmental Center. Maybe June or July? • Env Comm tour of Env Center – hope to reschedule tour for a summer date. • Joint meeting with council – postponed indefinitely • July 4 th – only fireworks and fly over scheduled. No trade fair. • Chanhassen Day at Arb in August – unknown if this can be held or will be cancelled. • Chanhassen Nature Preserve – Great River Greening and the city still planning on completing a native species planting project. No date set for the work. It will be done by contractors, GRG and city staff possibly. • Pollinator Meadow at Bluff Creek Nature Preserve – project to install a 1 acre pollinator meadow at the north end of Century Blvd is moving forward. Grant received from CSWD to contract with Prairie Restorations to install meadow. Seeding and planting will be done in August/Sept. • WaterWise program – rebates happening now for purchases of WaterSense toilets and smart irrigation controllers and EnergyStar clothes washers. Irrigation consultations to maximize efficiency taking place with High school and parks dept.. HOAs also being offered irrigation consultations. General Discussion: • Commissioners reported that the Environmental Commission was no longer included on the city’s website. It didn’t come up in a search and is no longer listed under ‘Boards and Commissions’. Neither was the Planning, Park and Rec or Senior. Jill said she will look into it tomorrow. • Kristin updated the commission on the GreenStep Cities talk that was to have been held at her church earlier this spring. The event was cancelled due to Covid-19, but hopefully it will be rescheduled in the future. 3 • Greg gave a watershed update. The watershed district (WD) is working on a new project – the Lake Riley midstream connection which will restore the creek slope to eliminate the existing erosion problems. The Bluff Creek streambed restoration project is complete. The 101/Pioneer wetland restoration project is going forward but may take 2 years to complete. Part of the project will be removing fill to create open water conditions. • Markus asked about commission training in light of all in-person training and education opportunities are cancelled for the near future. Jill said she would be on the lookout for any online or virtual training that commissioners could take advantage of. Meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm Minutes prepared by Jill Sinclair \\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\plan\js\311 ec meeting\3-11-20 min.docx 1 Chanhassen Environmental Commission (EC) Regular Meeting via Zoom Online Meeting 6:00 pm June 10, 2020 Members Present: Bill Chappell, Kristin Fulkerson, Jeff Harken, Greg Hawks, Don Vasatka, Lucy Rehm and Markus Fischer Members Absent: None Staff Present: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist Minutes: May minutes were approved after agreeing that all acronyms will be spelled out. City updates: Jill let the commission know that city hall is still closed to the public but will probably be opening in June. The 4th of July will be a flyover and fireworks only. Road projects are still moving ahead – Minnewashta Parkway reconstruction, Powers/Lake Lucy pedestrian crossing, Hwy 101. 2020 Focus Topic Approach – Recycling: The commission discussed how to provide public education on their 2020 focus topic in light of public events being cancelled for the year. The commission will try to plan a fall event with the Zero Waste group. Lucy and Jeff are working on an article with the group for the fall city newsletter. The event could take place in a park so that there’s space for everyone. Greg says The Blue Couch group is also available. Could there be a virtual meeting perhaps? Could both be planned at once? Or should the event be postponed until winter 2021. The decision will need to be made by mid-July. It would be beneficial to do a virtual event so that it could be archived and available for viewing in the future. Jeff will ask Ashley and Greg will ask The Blue Couch to see if there’s interest from either group. The commission also discussed asking the watershed district to do a promotional video on the adopt-a-drain program. Perhaps Sharon M could do a video to tie in with the fall leaf clean up event. Jill will check with the city manager to see if the fall event could be a go. Fall Connection Article: Reduce/Reuse will be the winter connection article. Markus volunteered to write it. Jeff said he would send past articles to him. Markus said he looked through the recycling online content for the city, haulers, and neighboring communities. He wonders if there’s a way to improve the recycling communication. DSI has a great recycling page. Could the EC review existing city info and improve upon it? Markus found that all haulers communicate 3 basic pieces of information: What to/not to recycle, No plastic bags, Don’t put recycling in plastic bags. Contamination is a big issue. The EC could focus on reducing contamination. He suggested commissioners check out the DSI website. Waste Management has good videos too. Maybe the commission could partner with Carver County to leverage resources. Hennepin County has a great site with lots of good resources. Markus will put together a PowerPoint and communicate objectives. He’ll send it out the commission. Discussion of it will be added to the July agenda. 2 GreenStep Cities Updates: Jill had no updates at this time. General Discussion: • Greg reported that Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District granted Avienda a waiver. • The commission suggested sharing the Arbor Day poster on Facebook and twitter. • The commission suggested making an agenda item each month to decide what to post on fb/twitter. Could post the same on both sites. • The commission suggested submitting the posters to the Villager. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm Minutes prepared by Jill Sinclair \\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\plan\js\ EC\20 min\6-10-20 min.docx CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Receive Senior Commission Minutes Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.6. Prepared By Sharmeen Al­Jaff, Senior Planner File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council receives summary minutes for the Senior Commission dated as follows: January 7, 2020 June 19, 2020 July 17, 2020.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. ATTACHMENTS: January 17, 2020 Summary Minutes June 19, 2020 Summary Minutes July 17, 2020 Summary Minutes CHANHASSEN SENIOR COMMISSION MINUTES January 17, 2020 MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Cerchia, Bhakti Modi, Ruth Lunde, Mack Titus, Lisa Lyon, Dorina Tipton. MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Buesgens STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Mary Blazanin. GUESTS PRESENT: Dawn Plummer Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Modi moved to approve the Agenda. Commissioner Lunde seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Senior Commission Minutes: Commissioner Lunde moved to approve the Minutes. Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. All voted in favor. 4th of July Charity: Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented letter from Chaska Area Fishing indicating their 2019 activities and how pleased they were to be selected once again for the July 4th 2020 donations. Aging with Gusto: Dawn Plummer presented information on a two-hour program – “Aging with Gusto” - on April 14 from 1-3:30 pm on seniors’ views on aging – specifically the impact on health and wellbeing, and the role seniors can play in positive views on aging. 4 senior commissioners indicated they would attend the seminar. Senior Companion/Foster Grandparent: Commissioner Lunde reported on the Senior Companion Program administered by Lutheran Services. Senior Commissioners had indicated interest in this program as Commi ssioner Lunde currently supports three clients. Commissioner Lunde also reported on the Foster Grandparent program where volunteers age 55+ can make a lasting difference in the lives of children. Foster Grandparents can positively influence youth in a variety of setting by preparing children for success and making a difference by improving reading, tutoring in various school subjects or simply being a sounding board. Carver Co. Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) – Housing Action Committee: Dawn informed us that this was an ACTION group, not a COMMISSION. Its purpose is to find ways to improve the housing/living conditions for those in need. Ruth Lunde will be the Senior Commission’s representative to this action group and will update us as needed. Goals and Objectives: Senior Commissioners reviewed and discussed each goal on the Chanhassen Strategic Plan. Items and wording were amended to ensure all goals had appropriate descriptions, indicated who was involved, who was accountable and would include status updates. Updated goals will be presented to the City Council in April for approval. Senior Commission Comments: • Commissioner Modi indicated she will finalize Website update project plan on new hire finalization of city staff. • Commissioner Lyon provided Rotary Club of Chanhassen information and programs. • Commissioner Tipton and Lunde advised they would attend seminar at Deephaven Woods Senior Living on “How Dementia Affects the Brain, Behavior, Cognition and Personality”. • Chairman Cerchia reminded everyone that the Feb 21 Senior Commission Meeting would be reserved for Senior Commission vacancy interviews. Adjournment: Chairman Cerchia called for meeting adjournment. Commissioner Titus moved to adjourn; Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Prepared and submitted by Sharmeen Al-Jaff CHANHASSEN SENIOR COMMISSION MINUTES June 19, 2020 MEMBERS PRESENT via ZOOM: Jerry Cerchia, Bhakti Modi, Ruth Lunde, Mack Titus, Lisa Lyon, Dorina Tipton, Linda Haight, David Crouch. MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Mary Blazanin. GUESTS PRESENT: none Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Titus moved to approve the Agenda. Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. All singly voted in favor. Senior Commission Minutes: Commissioner Titus moved to approve the Minutes. Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. All singly voted in favor. Election of Officers: Mack Titus nominated Commissioner Cerchia as Chair. Commissioner Tipton seconded the motion. All singly voted in favor. Commissioner Tipton nominated Commissioner Lunde for Vice Chair; Commissioner Cerchia seconded the motion. All singly voted in favor. Appointment of Advisory Board Representative: Current Commissioner Lunde stated that she wanted to give another Commissioner the opportunity to work with the Advisory Board. Commissioner Height expressed interest in the position. Chairman Cerchia appointed Commissioner Height as the Advisory Board Representative. 4th of July Bingo Event: Sharmeen Al-Jaff provided explanation due to COVID 19 pandemic 2020 Bingo Event was cancelled. Decision was primarily due to popularity and difficulty in social distancing. Additionally, it would be impossible to sanitize all bingo cards and keep public safe. ACT on Alzheimer’s Update: a. July 3rd Promotional Table Cancelled – same reasons mentioned for cancellation of 4th of July Bingo Event, the promotional table where significant interaction with the public occurred and Alzheimer’s material sanitation would be difficult to be contained. b. Dementia Friends Training – Commissioner Tipton stated that she had conducted two Dementia Friends Training sessions 1. March 12 at Union Place, Excelsior MN where 10 people participated 2. March 25 via ZOOM where 3 people from Centra Pro Painters participated. c. Memory Café – The Maple Corner Café officially cancelled all future meetings during COVID 19 to ensure our vulnerable senior population was kept safe. Mary Blazanin has been creating activity kits to distribute to caregivers and other vulnerable seniors to ensure they are not suffering distress during their isolation. Connecting with Caregivers and Vulnerable Seniors has been a high priority and all Senior Commissioners have been involved in maintaining this connection. Commissioner Tipton mentioned that The Maple Corner Café was now listed in the national Memory Café Directory. This will enable caregivers and anyone with memory loss to attend/join meeting in person when memory cafés re-open when it is safe following COVID 19. 2020 Goals and Objectives: Commissioner Cerchia provided overview on how the senior commissions sets annual goals and presents them to Chanhassen City Council where they are reviewed and approved. He also spoke directly as to what our major focus will be ,,,Aging in place.. Draft Onboarding Document: Sharmeen Al-Jaff distributed the draft Onboarding Document to ensure all new Senior Commissioners are aware of Commission By Laws, how we operate together as a team, how decisions are made collectively, the projects the commission members participates in, and how we develop the annual strategic plan. Senior Commission Comments: None Adjournment: Chairman Cerchia called for meeting adjournment. Commissioner Titus moved to adjourn; Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. All singly voted in favor. Prepared and submitted by Sharmeen Al-Jaff 1 CHANHASSEN SENIOR COMMISSION MINUTES July 17, 2020 MEMBERS PRESENT AT THE SENIOR CENTER: Jerry Cerchia, Mack Titus, Lisa Lyons, David Crouch. MEMBERS PRESENT via ZOOM: Bhakti Modi, Ruth Lunde, Dorina Tipton, Linda Haight. MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Mary Blazanin. GUESTS PRESENT: none Approval of Agenda: Commissioner Titus moved to approve the Agenda. Commissioner Cerchia seconded the motion. Approved. Senior Commission Minutes: Commissioner Titus moved to approve the Minutes. Commissioner Lyon seconded the motion. Approved following spelling changes highlighted by Commission Haight. Draft Onboarding Document: Sharmeen Al-Jaff provided overview of the important highlights of the draft Onboarding Document to ensure all Senior Commissioners are aware of how Senior Commissioners need to operate together as a team and how decisions are made collectively. Sharmeen reiterated that this document will evolve and any and all changes and recommendations can be made either at regularly scheduled meetings or via email to Sharmeen directly. ACT on Alzheimer’s Update: Commissioner Tipton updated the Senior Commission on her contacts with caretaker attendees at The Maple Corner Café prior to all meeting cancellations due to COVID 19. It appears that caretakers and their loved ones are managing ok with the help of family and friends. None wish to connect virtually via Zoom, but all are happy to receive regular phone contact. 2 2020 Goals and Objectives/Joint Session with City Council: This topic will be reviewed when we receive confirmation re City Council future meetings. Since we will probably not have a face to face meeting with City Council this year, Commissioner Cerchia will draft a “This Was The Year That Was” letter and have it sent to Mayor Ryan. DISCUSSION ON AGEISM FROM V.A.N. Commissioner Cerchia reminded us that we need to constantly be encouraging intergenerational understanding in order to dispel myths about aging. Discussion on VAN info on New Habitat for Humanity direction as it pertains to our Aging in Place/Universal design initiative: - Habit for Humanity is prioritizing “Age Well at Home” by creating universal design plans in new construction. Commissioner Lunde provided info on new program for US to help people stay longer where they currently live. There are currently 75 projects in the Twin Cities. Funding comes from grants and Health Care organizations. Eligibility will be based on senior income; there may be sharing of cost between seniors and community. Based on one of our Major goals of education on ageing in place, there would seem to be a natural tie in to working with Habitat for Humanity. Commissioner Cerchia stated that we will try to incorporate what they are doing in our long-term plan. - “Aging with Gusto” sessions will be offered via Zoom such as what does “aging with gusto” means and creating life plans for our aging process. Chairman Cerchia shared excerpts from Aging in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Avoiding Ageism and Fostering Intergenerational Solidarity “First, with the pandemic there has been a parallel outbreak of ageism. What we are seeing in public discourse is an increasing portrayal of those over the age of 70 as being all alike with regard to being helpless, frail, and unable to contribute to society. These views are being spread by social media, the press, and public announcements by government officials throughout the world. This is problematic for a number of reasons. Behavioral scientists know that older adults are an extremely heterogeneous group. They differ in life experiences, cultural backgrounds, genetics, and health histories. Further, the process of aging itself is highly diverse and context-dependent; this is a fundamental insight of biological, behavioral, and social aging research. In addition, innumerable older persons defy the image of being frail and helpless, with countless older adults making valuable contributions to society. We know from stereotype embodiment theory that negative age stereotypes can be internalized by people of all ages and when these views become self- 3 relevant, influencing older persons’ beliefs about their own aging, they can detrimentally impact health. The second way that evidence from the behavioral sciences of aging can contribute to the response to the pandemic is by highlighting the value of strengthening solidarity between the generations. The distinction between young and old, as well as language about “walling off the old” that is stressed in current public discourse reinforce our already age-divided societies. As older adults are portrayed as susceptible to the negative effects of the COVID-19 outbreak, younger people tend to view themselves as immune to the virus and, thus, engage in risk behaviors with consequences that ultimately will need to be addressed by an already stressed health care system. The growing division between young and old also allows younger people to direct their anger and resentment about the situation towards older adults, who are clearly portrayed as the out group. In the future, this age division and negative portrayal of older adults and aging may affect younger people’s aging process as they too internalize negative messages about old age and aging in the context of the current pandemic. As behavioral scientists, it is our responsibility to stay alert to these dynamics and to educate the public about their dangers. Rather than pitting generations against each other, we should facilitate intergenerational exchange and solidarity. At times of scarce resources, intergroup conflicts are likely to emerge. Because behavioral scientists know about the risks inherent in such intergroup conflicts, the current emergency situation is exactly the time when we need social and intergenerational solidarity the most One major step to tackle the current pandemic of ageism and intergenerational divide is to avoid the use of arbitrary age cutoffs. In fact, recent research suggests that younger adults are at greater risk of psychological distress and loneliness during COVID-19 lockdowns than older adults. Further, those with more negative aging attitudes were also more likely to report higher distress and loneliness during the lockdown Pointing Out Consequences of Physical Distancing Given the promotion of physical distancing practices and the increasing reliance on digital technology to manage daily functioning, limited access to technology or limited ability to use technology might become major risk factors for depression and loneliness. These factors may be especially risky for some older adults by preventing them from accessing goods and services and obtaining the social support they may need during the outbreak. Thus, taking into account the “digital divide” that may exist for disadvantaged older adults also deserves attention.” 4 Commission Task Force report on recommendations for driving the “Information, Education and Outreach” goal. Commissioner Crouch, Modi and Lyon provided overview of what will be required to create changes to city website so seniors can obtain appropriate information with minimum clicks. Once their outline and recommendations are complete, they will work with city staff to implement easy to use headers to get to information required. Resource Guide: Discussion held off until next month. Senior Commission Comments: Commissioner Titus complimented Commissioner Cerchia for his senior housing editorial in the Chanhassen Villager. Adjournment: Chairman Cerchia called for meeting adjournment. Commissioner Titus moved to adjourn; Commissioner Haight seconded the motion. Approved. Prepared and submitted by Sharmeen Al-Jaff CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Approve Updated Park & Recreation Commission Bylaws Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7. Prepared By Jerry Ruegemer, Park and Recreation Director File No:  PROPOSED MOTION The City Council approves the changes and modifications to the Park and Recreation Commission bylaws. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY The Park and Recreation Commission bylaws call for review every five years at the meeting in April.  With the Park and Recreation Commission's April meeting cancelled due to the COVID­19 pandemic, this item was scheduled for review at their August 25, 2020 meeting. The bylaws were last reviewed in April of 2015. BACKGROUND The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed their bylaws and made the following recommendations: Section 2:Meetings: 2.1 Time: Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 7700 Market Boulevard, unless otherwise directed by the Chairperson, in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members.  Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 10:30 p.m., which may be waived at the discretion of the Chairperson.  All unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The Commission is recommending changing their monthly meeting start time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in order to stay consistent with start times of the City Council and other city Commissions.  The curfew is also recommended to changed from 10:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3.3   Quorum:  Half plus one (5) Park and Recreation Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.  Whenever a quorum is not present, no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting. The Commission changed the quorum language to read: "Half plus one (5) Park and Recreation Commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business." CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectApprove Updated Park & Recreation Commission BylawsSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By Jerry Ruegemer, Park and RecreationDirector File No: PROPOSED MOTIONThe City Council approves the changes and modifications to the Park and Recreation Commission bylaws.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYThe Park and Recreation Commission bylaws call for review every five years at the meeting in April.  With the Parkand Recreation Commission's April meeting cancelled due to the COVID­19 pandemic, this item was scheduled forreview at their August 25, 2020 meeting. The bylaws were last reviewed in April of 2015.BACKGROUNDThe Park and Recreation Commission reviewed their bylaws and made the following recommendations:Section 2:Meetings:2.1 Time: Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:30 p.m.in the City Council Chambers at 7700 Market Boulevard, unless otherwise directed by the Chairperson, in which caseat least 24 hours notice will be given to all members.  Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 10:30 p.m., which maybe waived at the discretion of the Chairperson.  All unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular Parkand Recreation Commission meeting.The Commission is recommending changing their monthly meeting start time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in order tostay consistent with start times of the City Council and other city Commissions.  The curfew is also recommended tochanged from 10:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.3.3   Quorum:  Half plus one (5) Park and Recreation Commission members shall constitute a quorum for thetransaction of business.  Whenever a quorum is not present, no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting.The Commission changed the quorum language to read: "Half plus one (5) Park and Recreation Commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business." Commissioner Schubert made a motion to change the meeting starting time to 7:00 p.m. and curfew to 10:00 p.m. and to change the quorum language as amended, seconded by Commissioner Tsuchiya. The motion passed 7­0. ATTACHMENTS: Park and Recreation Commission Bylaws BYLAWS PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY OF CHANHASSEN The following bylaws are adopted by the Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission to facilitate the performance of its duties and the exercising of its functions as a commission established by the City Council. Section 1: Duties And Responsibilities: 1.1 To hold meetings of its members, to consider such matters pertaining to parks and public recreation programs in the City as shall be referred to the Commission by the Council, or as the members of the Commission themselves deem proper. 1.2 To prepare a comprehensive plan for the future development of the City park and recreation system, to be submitted to the City Council for implementation, and to maintain said plan, and recommend amendments to the plan to the City Council, as may become necessary or desirable. 1.3 To act in an advisory capacity to the Council in all matters relating to a park and recreation program in the City. 1.4 Establishment of Subcommittees: The Park and Recreation Commission may, as they deem appropriate, establish special subcommittees comprised solely of their own members. Section 2: Meetings: 2.1 Time: Regular meetings of the Commission shall be held on the fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd., unless otherwise directed by the Chairperson, in which case at least 24 hours notice will be given to all members. Regular meetings shall have a curfew of 10:00 p.m., which may be waived at the discretion of the chairperson. All unfinished business will be carried over to the next regular Park and Recreation Commission meeting. 2.2 Special meetings: Special meetings shall be held upon call by the chairperson or in his/her absence, by the Vice-Chairperson, or any other member with the concurrence of four other members of the commission, and with at least 48 hours notice to all members. Notice of all special meetings shall also be posted on the official city bulletin board. 2.3 Attendance: Park and Recreation Commission members shall attend not less than seventy-five (75%) percent of all regular and special meetings held during a given (calendar) year, and shall not be absent from three (3) consecutive meetings. Failure to meet this minimum attendance requirement shall result in removal from the commission. Section 3 Commission Composition, Terms and Vacancies: 3.1 Composition: The commission shall consist of seven (7) voting members. Additionally, the commission may also have one or two youth representatives who shall also be voting members. Commissioners shall be appointed by the Council and may be removed by the Council. 3.2 Terms and Vacancies: The council shall appoint members to the commission for staggered terms of three (3) years; however, youth commissioners shall serve one year terms. Vacancies C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\04CFB8DE-8911-4EA9-9E2C- DE07B5E341DD\Chanhassen.7017.1.PRC_Bylaws_2020.doc during the term shall be filled by the council for the unexpired portion of the term. All members shall serve without compensation. 3.3 Quorum: Half plus one (5) Park and Recreation Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Whenever a quorum is not present, no final or official action shall be taken at such meeting. Section 4 Organization: 4.1 Election of Officers: At the first meeting in April of each year, the Park and Recreation Commission shall hold an organizational meeting. At this meeting, the commission shall elect from its membership a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. Each member shall cast its vote for the member he/she wishes to be chosen for Chairperson. If no one receives a majority, voting shall continue until one member receives the majority support. Vice-Chairperson shall be elected from the remaining numbers of the same proceeding. 4.2 Duties of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson: The Chairperson, or in his/her absence the Vice-Chairperson, shall preside at meetings, appoint committees from its own membership, and perform other such duties as ordered by the commission. The Chairperson shall conduct the meeting so as to keep it moving as rapidly and efficiently as possible and shall remind members, witnesses, and petitioners to preserve order and decorum and to keep comments to the subject at hand. The Chairperson shall not move for action but may second motions. Section 5 Procedure: 5.1 Parliamentary Procedure: Generally, or as appropriate, Parliamentary Procedure, governed by Roberts Rules of Order Revised, shall be followed at all regular meetings. At special work session meetings, and when appropriate, the commission may hold group discussions not following any set parliamentary procedures except when motions are before the commission. Section 6 - Public Hearings: 6.1 Purpose of Hearings: The purpose of a hearing is to collect information and facts in order for the commission to develop a rational recommendation for the City Council. 6.2 Hearing Procedure: At hearings, the following procedure shall be followed in each case: a. The Chairperson shall state the case to be heard. b. The Chairperson shall call upon staff to present the staff report. Required reports from each city department shall be submitted to the Park and Recreation Commission before each case is heard. c. The Chairperson shall ask the applicant to present his case. d. Interested persons may address the commission, giving information regarding the particular proposal. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\04CFB8DE-8911-4EA9-9E2C- DE07B5E341DD\Chanhassen.7017.1.PRC_Bylaws_2020.doc e. Petitioners and the public are to address the Chairperson only, not staff or other commissioners. f. After all new facts and information have been brought forth, the hearing shall be closed and interested persons shall not be heard again. Upon completion of the hearing on each case, the Park and Recreation Commission shall discuss the item at hand and render a decision. The Park and Recreation Commission, if it so desires, may leave the public record open for written comments for a specified period of time. g. The Chairperson shall have the responsibility to inform all of the parties of their rights of appeal on any decision or recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission. 6. 3 Schedule: At meetings where more than one hearing is scheduled, every effort shall be made to begin each case at the time set on the agenda, but in no case may an item be called for hearing prior to the advertised time listed on the agenda. Section 7 Miscellaneous: 7.1 Park and Recreation Commission Discussion: a. Matters for discussion which do not appear on the agenda shall be added to the agenda immediately following roll call. b. Matters which are added shall be discussed at an appropriate time in the agenda as assigned by the chairperson. 7.2 Suspension of Rules: The commission may suspend any of these rules by a unanimous vote of the members present. 7.3 Amendments: Amendment of these bylaws may be made at any regular or special meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission but only if scheduled on the meeting agenda in advance of the meeting. 7.4 Review: Every Five Years, at the first meeting in April or as deemed appropriate, these bylaws shall be read and adopted by the Park and Recreation Commission. Chairperson:__________________________________ Date: _______________________Updated 8/2020 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Approval of Temporary On­Sale Liquor License, St. Hubert Catholic Community, Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.8. Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, Office Manager File No: LIQ St. Huberts PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the temporary on­sale liquor license request from St. Hubert Catholic Community for their Drive­in Movie event on  October 2, 2020. The fee for said license will be $1.00.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY St. Hubert Catholic Community has submitted an application for a temporary on­sale liquor license for a Drive­in Movie event on October 2. The event will be held in the church parking lot and they intend to sell beer and wine and food.  Liquor liability insurance has been provided for the event. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request from St. Hubert Catholic Community for a temporary on­sale liquor license for a Drive­in Movie event on October 2, 2020. The fee is $1.00. ATTACHMENTS: Application Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1600, St. Paul, MN 55101 651-201-7513 Fax 651-297-5259 TTY 651-282-6555 APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A 1 DAY TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE Name of organization Date organized Tax exempt number Address City State Zip Code Name of person making application Business phone Home phone Date(s) of event Club Charitable Religious Other non-profit Type of organization Organization officer's name City State Zip Code Organization officer's name City State Zip Code Organization officer's name City State Zip Code Location where permit will be used. If an outdoor area, describe. If the applicant will contract for intoxicating liquor service give the name and address of the liquor license providing the service. If the applicant will carry liquor liability insurance please provide the carrier's name and amount of coverage. City or County approving the license Date Approved Fee Amount Permit Date Date Fee Paid Signature City Clerk or County Official APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT City or County E-mail Address City or County Phone Number CLERKS NOTICE: Submit this form to Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 30 days prior to event. ONE SUBMISSION PER EMAIL, APPLICATION ONLY. PLEASE PROVIDE A VALID E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR THE CITY/COUNTY AS ALL TEMPORARY PERMIT APPROVALS WILL BE SENT BACK VIA EMAIL. E-MAIL THE APPLICATION SIGNED BY CITY/COUNTY TO AGE.TEMPORARYAPPLICATION@STATE.MN.US Microdistillery Small Brewer CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Resolution 2020­XX: Accept a Donation from T­Mobile for the Chanhassen Senior Center Drive­in Ice Cream Social and Concert Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.9. Prepared By Mary Blazanin, Senior Center Coordinator File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council accepts a donation of $2,400 from T­Mobile as a contribution to the Senior Center for a drive­in ice cream social and concert scheduled for September 11, 2020 in the parking lot at the Chanhassen Recreation Center, and directs staff to prepare a letter of thanks to T­Mobile’s Regional Marketing Manager, Tony Wirz. A letter of thanks will also be prepared for the Chanhassen Lions Club for their part in providing ice cream treats and volunteers for the day of the event." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND The Senior Center, with the help of Chanhassen Lions Club volunteers, hosts this free Drive­in Social with ice cream and music for our active older adult attendees. T­Mobile generously agreed to donate for the costs of event organization and set up, outdoor music (local band “Purgatory Creek”), promotional materials and other costs generated to run the event. The Chanhassen Lions Club is providing the ice cream treats. This event was designed to help our isolated seniors gather in a safe, outdoor community setting while enjoying a cold treat and great music. The north end of the Chanhassen Recreation Center Parking Lot will be closed off for this event.   RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution accepting the $2,400 donation from T­Mobile for the Senior Center Drive­In Ice Cream Social on September 11, 2020. Additionally, staff will prepare a letter of thanks to both T­Mobile and The Chanhassen Lions Club for their involvement and generous donations. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution T­Mobile Local Marketing Agreement Event Flyer/Registration Form CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: September 14, 2020 RESOLUTION NO: 2020-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM T-MOBILE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL hereby accepts a $2,400 donation from T-Mobile for the Senior Center Drive-In Ice Cream Social and Concert on September 11, 2020 to be held in the parking lot of the Chanhassen Recreation Center. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED staff will prepare letters of thanks to both T-Mobile and The Chanhassen Lions Club for their involvement and generous donations. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 14th day of September, 2020. ATTEST: Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT Page 1 of 6 LOCAL MARKETING AGREEMENT This Local Marketing Agreement, along with the Standard Terms and Conditions attached as Exhibit A and the Health and Safety Guidelines attached as Exhibit B (collectively, “Agreement”), effective as of the date of full execution (“Effective Date”), sets forth the terms and conditions between City of Chanhassen (“Producer”) and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”), regarding T-Mobile’s sponsorship of Producer’s Drive- In Ice Cream Social for Active Older Adults (“Promotion”). 1. Promotion. T-Mobile will participate in the Promotion and Producer will provide the benefits outlined below to T-Mobile in connection with the Promotion in accordance with the terms set forth in this Agreement. 2. Promotion Date(s) and Time(s): September 11, 2020; 12:30 – 2:00 PM 3. Promotion Location(s): Chanhassen Recreation Center parking lot (2310 Coulter Blvd. Chanhassen, MN) 4. Rights/Benefits to T-Mobile (“Rights/Benefits”): T-Mobile will be the title event sponsor and will receive the following benefits: a. Placement of T-Mobile logo and sponsorship crediting on all marketing and invitational flyers, social media posts, website notices and any other written or electronic material related to the Promotion b. T-Mobile logo and sponsorship credit on two 36” x 48” sandwich boards at the entrance to the parking lot and in front of the bandstand area c. T-Mobile logo on 20” x 30” arrow signs used by parking lot attendants d. T-Mobile logo on several 11” x 17” signs placed in visible, orange cones used throughout the parking lot for traffic flow e. T-Mobile will be given sponsorship credit in two separate news releases announcing the Promotion in the local Chanhassen Villager f. T-Mobile branded gift bags (“community connection bags”) containing T-Mobile brochures/flyers, masks, water, and other small gifts will be distributed to attendees i. T-Mobile will provide 200 such bags and 200 brochures/flyers to Producer ii. All other bag contents to be provided by Producer iii. Producer will fill/assemble all gift bags g. T-Mobile will receive an outdoor 10’ x 10’ tent space, provided that it will not be a breach of this Agreement if T-Mobile does not use the space for the Promotion h. T-Mobile has the opportunity, but not the obligation, to help serve ice cream and hand out gift bags at the Promotion 5. Producer will comply with Exhibit B in connection to all COVID-19 regulations and government guidance in connection to the Promotion. 6. Fee: T-Mobile will pay $2,400 to Producer for the above outlined Rights/Benefits. Producer may invoice T-Mobile after full execution of this Agreement. T-Mobile will pay Producer within 30 days following receipt of invoice. Accepted and Agreed to by: DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BF34440-9C3B-4F2E-8656-2A6992615525DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CE22E6D-5731-4359-AD80-1E2DDB5FF42D Page 2 of 6 T-Mobile USA, Inc. City of Chanhassen By: _________________________________ By: _______________________________________ Name: _______________________________ Name: _____________________________________ Date: ________________________________ Date: ______________________________________ DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BF34440-9C3B-4F2E-8656-2A6992615525DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CE22E6D-5731-4359-AD80-1E2DDB5FF42D 8/24/2020 Mary Blazanin Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT A Standard Terms and Conditions In addition to the foregoing, the parties agree to the following Standard Terms and Conditions: 1. Exclusivity: T-Mobile shall be the exclusive telecommunications services and products sponsor of Promotion. During the term of the Promotion, Producer agrees that it will not provide any sponsorship rights to the Promotion to any other party that is in the business of advertising, selling, or promoting telecommunications services and/or products. 2. Right of First Refusal: To the extent sponsorship of the next Promotion is offered to third party entities by Producer, Producer agrees to offer such sponsorship opportunity to T-Mobile prior to offering it to any other third party. If T-Mobile does not accept such offer within thirty (30) business days of the receipt thereof, or upon the refusal of such offer or notice containing such offer, whichever occurs first, the Producer may elect to make a similar offer to any other company. 3. Representations and Warranties: The parties have the full right and legal authority to enter into and fully perform this Agreement in accordance with its terms. T-Mobile shall have no responsibility for the operation of the Promotion, including the operation of the Promotion in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations (including, without limitation, any applicable privacy or commercial disclosure requirements), the safety and security of any visitors to or participants in the Promotion (including at T-Mobile’s booth, if applicable), and the securing of any talent to appear or perform at the Promotion, if applicable. Producer further represents and warrants that it is responsible for securing any required license or permits to conduct the Promotion, that any materials and/or content it creates pursuant to this Agreement will not infringe on any third party rights, and that it has applicable insurance policies and/or funds in place to cover its indemnification obligations herein. 4. Use of Trademarks: T-Mobile grants a limited, personal, non-exclusive, non-assignable, non- sublicensable, revocable, royalty-free license or sublicense (as applicable) to use and reproduce the T-Mobile trademarks and logos provided by T- Mobile (the “T-Mobile Marks”) to Producer solely in connection with Producer’s performance of its obligations hereunder, during the term of the Promotion, and in the specific media and/or at the specific locations in the United States described herein. The T-Mobile Marks, along with all intellectual property rights and the goodwill of the business symbolized thereby and associated therewith, are the property of the licensor of such marks, Deutsche Telekom AG (“DT”) or T- Mobile USA, Inc. (as applicable). Any use by Producer of the T-Mobile Marks will inure to the benefit of DT or T-Mobile. Except for the limited rights granted to Producer, Producer expressly disclaims all right, title and interest in and to the T-Mobile Marks. Any and all permitted use of the T-Mobile Marks by Producer will be subject to T- Mobile’s prior review and approval. Producer must meet and comply with all of the specifications, requirements and standards prescribed by DT and T-Mobile with respect to use of the T-Mobile Marks and such other quality standards as may be imposed by DT and T-Mobile in their sole discretion from time to time, including T-Mobile’s Marks Rules (available at http://www.t-mobile.com/marksrules or https://www.metrobyt-mobile.com/terms- conditions/marksrules.html, as applicable) and branding guidelines. T-Mobile reserves the right to demand a sampling of any and all Producer media bearing the T-Mobile Marks at any time, and Producer will provide such sampling to T- Mobile within five (5) business days. Upon expiration or revocation of the license granted hereunder for any reason, Producer will immediately terminate all use of the T-Mobile Marks and will transfer to T-Mobile any media in its possession that bears the T-Mobile Marks. Producer hereby grants T-Mobile the right to use Producer’s trademarks, logos, and trade names (as provided by Producer) as necessary for T-Mobile to exercise its rights of benefits as set forth herein. 5. Media: Any and all media advertising content produced by Producer that refers to T-Mobile or includes any T-Mobile Marks or mentions T- Mobile (“Media”) and is intended to run on any public platform (including, but not limited to, tv, radio, print, out of home, web, or social media, whether paid or unpaid), shall require the prior written approval of the content by T-Mobile. If T- Mobile provides Media to Producer, Media shall not to be altered by Producer, or any other third- party, without the express, prior written consent of the T-Mobile. 6. Make Good Benefits: If the Producer is unable to DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BF34440-9C3B-4F2E-8656-2A6992615525DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CE22E6D-5731-4359-AD80-1E2DDB5FF42D Page 4 of 6 provide the benefits or perform its responsibilities called for within this Agreement, Producer shall promptly notify T-Mobile in advance, and Producer and T-Mobile shall mutually agree on reasonably equivalent make good elements for benefits not received (“Make Good Elements”). If reasonably equivalent Make Good Elements cannot be mutually agreed upon after five business days following Producer’s notice to T-Mobile, T- Mobile shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to a refund of the reasonable value of such change in or unavailable benefits. 7. Responsibility for Sweepstakes: Producer will be responsible for all aspects of any sweepstakes or prize giveaways conducted pursuant to the terms of this Agreement (each, a "Sweepstakes"), including without limitation, compliance with all applicable laws, the collection of entries, preparation of rules, winner selection, obtaining appropriate releases from winners, and prize fulfillment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Producer shall bear no liability associated with any faults, deficiencies, or otherwise as relating to any prizes or other materials provided by T- Mobile for use in or in relation to any Sweepstakes, provided that such prizes or other materials are used in the form in which, and for the purposes for which, provided by T-Mobile. Producer acknowledges and agrees that sweepstakes, contest, promotion, and advertising laws are unique and require statutory and legal compliance and legal review. All Sweepstakes materials including, without limitation, official rules, abbreviated rules, winners’ affidavits and releases, and advertisements for the Sweepstakes (including any social media posts to the extent that the content of such posts materially deviates from otherwise approved materials), and all subsequent material modifications thereto, shall be subject to T-Mobile’s prior written approval. T-Mobile shall have three business days to review and approve in writing any submissions by Producer. Any submission that is not approved by T-Mobile in writing within such review period shall be deemed disapproved. Producer agrees and acknowledges that any approvals given by T-Mobile in connection with the Sweepstakes are approvals solely as to (i) the inclusion of the T-Mobile Marks (as defined in herein) in Sweepstakes materials, (ii) the proper description of any prize provided by T-Mobile to Producer, and (iii) the inclusion of a release of T-Mobile’s liability in Sweepstakes rules and winners’ affidavits and releases, and that such approval is not a representation or warranty by T-Mobile that any portion of Producer’s activities complies with applicable laws, rules, or regulations. 8. Ownership: Each party hereto shall retain ownership of, and neither party will acquire any right, title or interest in, all trademarks, logos, designs, copyrights, trade names and all other intellectual property rights which it owns or has rights to and which are used in any way in materials in connection with this Agreement. Any materials developed, provided, or contributed by any party in connection with this Agreement shall be owned by the party that developed, provided or contributed them, subject to the other parties’ rights in and to any of its trademarks, copyrights, or other intellectual property contained therein. 9. Indemnification: Each party agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the other party, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent and related companies, officers, directors, agents, and employees (collectively, the “Indemnified Parties”) harmless from and against any and all third party claims, settlements, judgments, liabilities, damages, losses, suits and expenses of any nature whatsoever, including reasonable outside attorneys’ fees (and fees incurred in enforcing this provision), arising out of, based upon or in connection with any material breach by any party of its obligations or responsibilities under this Agreement, including any of its representations and warranties hereunder. Producer further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the T-Mobile Indemnified Parties harmless for any breach of its representations and warranties specified hereunder, including, without limitation, the operation of the Promotion in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances, securing any talent, if applicable, and any required license(s) or permit(s) to conduct the Promotion, the safety and security of any visitors to or participants in the Promotion (including at T- Mobile’s booth, if applicable), and Producer’s creation of any materials and/or content pursuant to this Agreement. The indemnity obligations set forth herein shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement. 10. Insurance: Producer will obtain and maintain commercial general liability insurance, on an occurrence basis, covering all operations by or on behalf of Producer against bodily injury (including death) and property damage (including loss of use), including premises/operations, personal and advertising injury, products/completed operations, and contractual liability. This commercial general liability insurance will be in limits of liability of DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BF34440-9C3B-4F2E-8656-2A6992615525DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CE22E6D-5731-4359-AD80-1E2DDB5FF42D Page 5 of 6 not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence, combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage, with a $4,000,000 general aggregate. Producer will include T-Mobile as an additional insured under Producer’s commercial general liability insurance policy on endorsement CG 20 10 11/85 or its equivalent, to include ongoing and completed operations. 11. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by T-Mobile in the event of an uncured material breach by Producer, if said breach is not cured, to the extent such breach is curable (in T-Mobile’s sole discretion), within a one (1) day period after written notification of such alleged breach. If T- Mobile makes such a determination, the termination rights of T-Mobile shall be available immediately and T-Mobile shall have the right to prompt reimbursement of the Fee paid less actual costs and expenses for services rendered and benefits received by T-Mobile prior to termination. T-Mobile can terminate this Agreement for any reason with 5 days written notice. Supplier will promptly refund any pre- paid funds for un-completed deliverables. 12. Amendment: This Agreement constitutes the whole and entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement and it shall not be modified or amended in any respect, except by a written instrument executed by both parties. 13. Force Majeure: If because of an act of God, inevitable accident, fire, lockout, strike or other labor dispute, riot or civil commotion, act of terrorism or war, act of government or government instrumentality (whether federal, state or local), failure of performance by a common carrier, or other cause beyond the reasonable control of a party, either party is unable to perform any or all of its obligations hereunder, then such inability will not be a breach of this Agreement. If, however, due to this Section, Producer is unable to perform any or all of its obligations hereunder, Producer shall provide T-Mobile with a reasonably equivalent make good or a pro-rata refund of the Fee paid (based on benefits/rights actually received by T-Mobile), to be chosen at T- Mobile’s sole discretion. 14. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, without regard to conflicts of law provisions, and the parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state courts located in King County Washington or the federal courts in the Western District of Washington. 15. Confidentiality: The parties agree that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and shall not be disclosed, except to the respective parties’ advisors or as may be required by legal order or government authorities and the disclosing party has been notified in advance prior to such disclosure. 16. Notices: All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and may be emailed, personally delivered, sent by reputable overnight courier or certified mail, return receipt requested, or sent by fax and confirmed by fax answerback and in each case addressed to the parties as follows: If to T-Mobile: T-Mobile USA, Inc. 12920 SE 38th Street Bellevue, WA 98006 Tel: 715.210.0170 Email: Anthony.wirz@t-mobile.com Attn: Anthony Wirz With a copy of legal notices: Attn: General Counsel If to Producer: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Tel: 952.227.1124 Fax: 952.227.1100 Email: mblazanin@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Attn: Mary Blazanin DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BF34440-9C3B-4F2E-8656-2A6992615525DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CE22E6D-5731-4359-AD80-1E2DDB5FF42D Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT B Health and Safety Guidelines Producer will comply with the following guidance and obligations in regards to the public safety in connection to COVID-19 (“COVID”) for the outlined Promotion: 1. Producer will follow ensure all Producer staff and attendees of Promotion follow all CDC, the State of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Public Health, and local guidelines as it pertains to COVID and all safety guidelines. 2. Additionally, Producer will require the following of T-Mobile Personnel/attendees of the Promotion: a. The event will be limited to 200 attendees, with maximum of 65 socially distance parking spots and chalked areas available for groups up to 6. b. “Social distance” circles will be chalked on the parking lot and sidewalks nearer the outdoor band. Circles will be a minimum of 6 feet apart from one another. Each group/car will be required to pre-register for a parking space or a chalked circle (each holding a maximum of 6 individuals.) Groups of 1-6 will stay in their designated spot for the duration of the event. c. Participants may choose to stay in their cars, use personal folding chairs in a distanced parking space, or move to a socially spaced area near the outdoor band. d. All attendees will be encouraged to wear masks for the duration of the event if they choose to leave their cars. Masks will be provided in all gift bags being given out by T-Mobile. Attendees will be escorted to their parking spaces by parking attendants. e. Volunteers and staff at the event will also be asked to wear masks. f. Rules surrounding COVID-19 (mask usage, social distancing, not coming to the event if sick) will be publicized with the event. g. Signage will be used at the event, reminding attendees of COVID-19 rules and guidelines. DocuSign Envelope ID: 1BF34440-9C3B-4F2E-8656-2A6992615525DocuSign Envelope ID: 5CE22E6D-5731-4359-AD80-1E2DDB5FF42D For more information, please call the Chanhassen Senior Center at 952.227.1124. Mail in or drop off registrations. Participant’s Name: DOB: Participant’s Name: DOB: Address: City, State, Zip: Home Phone: Alt. Phone: email: PROGRAM REGISTRATION FORMParticipant Signature: Date: For Office Use Only – Date Registered: Recorded By: Celebrating Patriot’s Day is cool, and what better way to so than with ice cream! This year, we’ll commemorate it with the Chanhassen Lions Club and T-Mobile as they serve up treats at our first ever drive-in ice cream social in the Recreation Center parking lot. Enjoy the music of Purgatory Creek Band while staying parked in your car or while sitting in your folding chair in a socially distanced listening area. Reservations required. Deadline is Friday, Sep 4. DRIVE-IN ICE CREAM SOCIAL – FRIDAY, SEPT. 11TH – 12:30-2PM – COST: FREE COVID-19 Safety Information: ● Preregistration is required for this event. Space cannot be guaranteed for nonregistered patrons. ● Follow the directions of parking lot attendants as you enter the Chan Rec Lot, 2310 Coulter Blvd. You are allowed up to 6 people per parking spot; we strongly encourage you to carpool as able. ● Masks are strongly encouraged ● Please do not attend the event if you or anyone you know has been in contact with, are sick with, or is exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19, such as a cough, fever, headache, or fatigue. ● Please arrive ½ hour prior to event start. Drive-in spots are reserved per car, up to 6 people per stall/car. ● Outside, distance seating is limited to 6 people per “pod.” Please bring your personal folding chair for outdoor seating. The Chanhassen Lion’s Club and T- Mobile PRESENT WITH THE CHANHASSEN SENIOR CENTER Outdoor Concert& Ice Cream Social Friday, Sept. 11th, 12:30-2pm LOCATION: Chan Rec Center Parking Lot FREEEvent! Please list all people with whom you’ll be sitting or carpooling (up to 6): CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Resolution 20­XX: Accept a Donation from T­Mobile for the Aug. 13 Back­to­School Kids' Concert Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.10. Prepared By Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor File No:  PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council accepts a donation of $1,750 from T­Mobile as a contribution for a kids' concert held on August 13, 2020 on the field at the Chanhassen Recreation Center, and directs staff to prepare a letter of thanks to T­Mobile's Regional Marketing Manager, Tony Wirz."  Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND The Chanhassen Parks & Recreation Department hosted this free outdoor Back­to­School kids' concert with ice cream treats and music for children and family attendees. T­Mobile generously agreed to donate towards the costs of event organization and set up, outdoor music (local musician, Will Hale & the Tadpole Parade), promotional materials, and other costs generated to run this event. This event was designed to give families with young children a safe form of entertainment to celebrate the end of summer and return to school or distance learning.  RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution accepting the $1,750 donation from T­Mobile for the kids' concert held on August 13, 2020. Additionally, staff will prepare a letter of thanks to T­Mobile for their involvement and generous donation. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: September 14, 2020 RESOLUTION NO: 2020-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM T-MOBILE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL hereby accepts the $1,750 donation from T-Mobile for the August 13 Back-to-School Kids’ Concert event in 2020. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is directed to prepare correspondence thanking T-Mobile for their generous contribution. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 14th day of September, 2020. ATTEST: Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Resolution 20­XX: Accept 2020 Community Events Sponsorship Donations from Area Businesses Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.11. Prepared By Priya Tandon, Recreation Supervisor File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves a resolution accepting donations totaling $40,134.43 from area businesses for the 2020 Community Events Sponsorship Program. Furthermore, staff is directed to prepare correspondence thanking each business for their generous contribution."  Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. BACKGROUND In typical years, the city presents four community events: February Festival, Easter Egg Candy Hunt, 4th of July Celebration, and Halloween Party. Due to the ongoing COVID­19 pandemic, some of these events have been modified or cancelled, with other forms of modified recreation developed to replace them. All 2020 sponsors have generously agreed to apply their sponsorship dollars and/or merchandise to remaining 2020 programs, or to help fund 2021 community events. To date, $40,134.43 has been donated to the 2020 Community Events Sponsorship Program in increments of $500 or more to support this and next years’ events and recreation programs. Numerous smaller donations have also been received, bringing the total amount contributed to $43,921.43 to date. All donations exceeding $500 must be approved by the City Council.  The generosity and civic pride of our business community is one of the many reasons why Chanhassen is a great place to live and raise a family. All of the community events and modified recreation programs are made possible through generous donations from the local business community. RECOMMENDATION It is staff's recommendation that the City Council approve the attached resolution accepting donations totaling $40,134.43 from area businesses to offset costs associated with the community events and modified recreation programs. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: September 14, 2020 RESOLUTION NO: 2020-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING DONATIONS FOR THE 2020 COMMUNITY EVENTS SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM WHEREAS, each year the city presents four community events: February Festival, Easter Egg Candy Hunt, 4th of July Celebration, and Halloween Party. In the year 2020, some events were modified and/or cancelled, and replaced with other modified forms of events and recreation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL hereby accepts the following donations to help offset the costs of these events and modified events: Business Name Donation Chanhassen Dinner Theatres $3,500.00 Old National Bank $3,000.00 Emerson $3,000.00 Ridgeview Medical Center and Clinics $1,500.00 Lunds & Byerlys Chanhassen $1,000.00 IWCO Direct $1,000.00 Country Inn & Suites Chanhassen $1,113.00 Tweet Pediatric Dentistry $1,000.00 Park Dental Eden Prairie $1,000.00 Eden Trace Corp. $1,000.00 Charter Bank $1,000.00 PMT Corporation $1,000.00 Americana Community Bank $1,000.00 Café Thyme $1,000.00 Chanhassen American Legion $1,000.00 The Mustard Seed Landscaping $1,000.00 and Garden Center Chick-fil-A Chanhassen $1,000.00 Kwik Trip $1,000.00 J&R Complete Auto Repair $1,000.00 Merlin’s Ace Hardware $1,000.00 Automotive Unlimited $1,000.00 ABC & Toy Zone $1,000.00 Bluff Creek Dental $1,000.00 Pizzaioli $1,000.00 Wink Family Eye Care $1,000.00 TGK Automotive $1,000.00 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is directed to prepare correspondence thanking each business for their generous contributions. Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 14th day of September, 2020. ATTEST: Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT EPS Inc. $750.00 Waytek $500.00 Houlihan’s Restaurant + Bar $500.00 Chanhassen Dental $500.00 Seedlings Gifts + Books $500.00 Power Systems AHS, LLC $500.00 Xcel Energy $500.00 Chanhassen Smiles Dentistry $500.00 Roberts Automatic Products $500.00 TOTAL DONATIONS $40,134.43 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Andrew Meyers, Republican Candidate for MN House District 33B Section VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Item No: E.1. Prepared By File No:  CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject The Bluffs at Lake Lucy Final Plat Approval (The Park 4th Addition) Section OLD BUSINESS Item No: F.1. Prepared By Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer File No:  PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves The Bluffs at Lake Lucy, Final Plat, Development Contract and Plans and Specifications”. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY The Bluffs at Lake Lucy (The Park 4th Addition) will not be developed by U.S. Home Corporation (dba Lennar). With the preliminary plat of The Park, Comerica Bank & Trust held this portion of the property, approximately 30 acres, with an option for Lennar to purchase. This summer, Lennar passed on the purchase and Chan Three Development, Inc. is now pursuing the final plat. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy is bound by the conditions of the preliminary plat and The Park PUD. The applicant, Chan Three Development, Inc., is requesting approval of The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. The subdivision will create 31 lots, two outlots, and right­of­way for public streets for the property. BACKGROUND On March 11, 2019, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following: The Rezoning of 191 acres from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development ­ Residential, PUD­R; including the PUD ordinance 'Galpin Design Standards';  The Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; and The Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 169 lots, three outlots and dedication of public right­of­way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated February 28, 2019, to be modified to match the site plan presented on March 11, 2019, with the reduction of four lots, subject to the following conditions:  Stated in the Conditions of Approval section. On April 5, 2019, Lennar submitted a revised preliminary plat that was consistent with the Conditions of Approval of the March 11, 2019 City Council action. Those plans were modified on May 24, 2019. On July 7, 2019, the City Council reviewed the changes in the preliminary plat and approved a grading plan. The 8­ stall parking lot has being relocated to the south side of the street from its current location. The approved PUD governs the standards for the development including the maximum of 31 Villa homes.  On August 12, 2019, the Chanhassen City Council approved the final plat for The Park which included 50 lots and the CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectThe Bluffs at Lake Lucy Final Plat Approval (The Park 4th Addition)Section OLD BUSINESS Item No: F.1.Prepared By Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer File No: PROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves The Bluffs at Lake Lucy, Final Plat, Development Contract and Plans and Specifications”.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYThe Bluffs at Lake Lucy (The Park 4th Addition) will not be developed by U.S. Home Corporation (dba Lennar).With the preliminary plat of The Park, Comerica Bank & Trust held this portion of the property, approximately 30acres, with an option for Lennar to purchase. This summer, Lennar passed on the purchase and Chan ThreeDevelopment, Inc. is now pursuing the final plat. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy is bound by the conditions of the preliminaryplat and The Park PUD.The applicant, Chan Three Development, Inc., is requesting approval of The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. The subdivision willcreate 31 lots, two outlots, and right­of­way for public streets for the property.BACKGROUNDOn March 11, 2019, the Chanhassen City Council approved the following:The Rezoning of 191 acres from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development ­ Residential,PUD­R; including the PUD ordinance 'Galpin Design Standards'; The Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; andThe Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 169 lots, three outlots and dedication of public right­of­way as shownin plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated February 28, 2019, to be modified to match the site planpresented on March 11, 2019, with the reduction of four lots, subject to the following conditions:  Stated in theConditions of Approval section.On April 5, 2019, Lennar submitted a revised preliminary plat that was consistent with the Conditions of Approval ofthe March 11, 2019 City Council action. Those plans were modified on May 24, 2019.On July 7, 2019, the City Council reviewed the changes in the preliminary plat and approved a grading plan. The 8­stall parking lot has being relocated to the south side of the street from its current location. The approved PUD governs the standards for the development including the maximum of 31 Villa homes.  On August 12, 2019, the Chanhassen City Council approved the final plat for The Park which included 50 lots and the dedication of 50 acres of public park. On January 27, 2020, the City Council approved the plat for The Park 2nd Addition subdivision. The Park 2nd Addition will create 57 lots, four outlots, and right­of­way for public streets for the property. RECOMMENDATION The City Council approves The Bluffs at Lake Lucy, Final Plat, Development Contract and Plans and Specifications. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Development Contract Application Final Plat PUD Ordinance Landscaping Plan Carver County Letter Lot Tabulation CITY OT CIIAI'IIIASSXN Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for T0m0rrow MEMORANDUM TO:Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager FROM:Kate Aanenson, AICP Community Development Director Erik Henricksen, EIT, Project Engineer Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator Jerry Ruegemer, Park and Recreation Director DATE: September 14,2020 SUBJ:Approve the Final Plat, Development Contract and Pians and Specifications for "The Bluff at Lake Lucy" - Planning Case No. 2019-01 PROPOSED MOTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves The Bluffs at Lake Lucy, Final Plat, Development Contract and Plans and Specifications". Approval requires a simple majority vote of City Council. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The Bluffs at Lake Lucy ("The Park 4th Addition") will not be developed by U.S. Home Corporation (DBA Lennar). With the preliminary plat of The Park, Comerica Bank & Trust held this portion of the property, approximately 30 acres, with an option for Lennar to purchase. This summer Lennar passed on the purchase and Chan Three Development Inc. is now pursuing the final plat. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy is bound by the conditions ofthe preliminary plat and The Park PUD. The appticant, Chan Three Development [nc. is requesting approval ofThe Bluffs at [,ake Lucy. The suMivision will seate 3l lots, 2 outlots, and rightof-way for public streets for the property. On March I l, 2019. the Chanhassen City Council approved the following: The Rezoning of l9l acres from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development - Residential, PUD-R; including the PUD ordinance 'Galpin Design Standards'; I/OO I4ARKET BOULEVARD.PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317 BACKGROUND o The Wetland Alteration Permit of 1.28 acres of wetland impacts subject to conditions in the staff report; and PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . Fx 952.227.1110 The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 2 a The Subdivision Preliminary Plat creating 169 lots, three outlots and dedication ofpublic right- of-way as shown in plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated February 28, 2019, to be modified to match the site plan presented on March I 1, 2019, with the reduction of four lots, subject to the following conditions: Staled in the Conditions of Approval section. On April 5, 2019, Lennar submitted a revised preliminary plat that was consistent with the Conditions of Approval of the March 11, 2019 City Council action. Those plans were modified on May 24,2019. On July 7, 2019, the City Council reviewed the changes in the preliminary plat and approved a grading plan. The 8-stall parking lot has being relocated to the south side of the street llom its current location. The approved PUD govems the standards for the development including the maximum of 3l Villa homes. On January 27 ,2020, the City Council approved the plat for The Park 2nd Addition suMivision. The Park 2nd Addition will create 57 lots, four outlots, and right-olway for public streets for the properfy. SUBDI\ISION REVIEW The Bluffs at Lake Lucv t a. - On August 12,2019, the Chanhassen City Council approved the final plat for The Park with included 50 lots and the dedication of 50 acres of Public Park. ( \ 1il vv-v The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 3 /./ I - t! I OLlL(II A THE BLUFFS AT LAKE LUCY I I 6 I 3=::<"', tI \ I I I 6t i r7tfrirE!:rttltt El (\ \) I tZ' I The Bluffs at Lake LucY September 14,2020 Page 4 T. DOC. NO.THE BLUFFS AT LAKE LUCY R '-€,taiiL t2* ta eg.-**E_ ---4!Sr- 9 8 f-a- 89 6 it ! l'. Ei I 2 5 46,:RAC; OUTLOT B '--lGtall. OUTLOT I INSET CINSET B l- - ier-J. \I ,--l I INSET A ? 5 2 2 The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 5 Auached is a spreadsheet demonstrating that all lots meet the standards of the PUD. These lots will have custom homes built on them. These lots have a minimum area of 15,000 square feet with at 90-foot frontage. See attached lot tabulation. The outlots areas and intended uses are outlined below and will be dedicated to the City. Outlot A is the remaining dedication of parkland conditioned upon the preliminary plat, and Outlot B is the location ofa surface water management feature and wetland. Outlot A 12.67 aues Parkland, trail, wetland & stormwater pond Outlot B Wetland & stormwater pond REVIEW CONDITIONS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL Park and Recreation 2.17 acres l. Dedication of 100+/- acres ofwooded open spaces and wellands in the eastem half ofthe property to the City of Chanhassen for parkland in exchange for a housing density transfer and fulfillment of a nine +/- acre parkland dedication requirement. Outlot A was dedicated to the city with the l't Addition The remaining parkland (Outlot A) will be dedicated with this plat 2. Acknowledgement that the dedicated land may be developed at the city's discretion as parkland for public use and may include, but is not limited to trails, boardwalks, bridges, structures, and signage. W l C)eeurred with the Develepnrent €entraet fer the lst phase. Will be added to the Development Contact. l. ThePadc-All trails and sidewalks shall be constructed as shown on the street plan or as modified by construction plan redlines. 4. All trails shall meet all city standards for trail construction. Condition te-be was added to the Development Contract for The Park 5. The east/west trail shall maintain a minimum lo-foot setback from outside edges oftrail to private properry and be designed to minimize encroachment of wetland buffers. Condition te-be was added to the Developmetrt Contract for The Park 6. if,eas The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 6 7. The eas/rvest trail shall be designed and eenstrueted se as net te require retaining rvalls, 8. The entirety efthe easUwest trail and asseeiated bu{fers shall be eenstrueted within t}re 9. The planning, engineering and construction of the l0-foot wide bituminous trails connecting both Street "Z" and Topaz Drive/Ridge Lane to the planned trail at the western edge of Lake Lucy including trail ezrsements. Condition te*e was added to the Development Contract for The Park. Plannine 1. All 191 acres must be included in the PUD. condition to be added to the Development Contract for The Park Engineerinq L Any requircments set by the MCES to work within the MCES's sewer and utility easement shall be addressed by the applicant. Condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat; Condition does apply for The Park 2od Additional Final Plat; condition does apply for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 2. An executed agreement between the developer and the MCES allowing work within the MCES's easement shall be provided to the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. Condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat; Condition does apply for The Park 2od Additional Final Plat; Condition does apply for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy- 3. The width ofthe public right-of-ways shall be called out on the final plat prior to acceptance and recording, this includes radii cul-de-sac bulbs. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 4. Thirty-foot (30-foot) wide drainage and utility easements, for the purpose of accessing utilities and basins, shall be provided tretween bulne*limited-te Lots l30and-lll abutting Public Streetq "2" prior to acceptance and recording. Condition has been 4{![99! for clarity and has been met for The Park Final PIat and The Park 2o'r Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake L,rcy, 5. Right-of-way dedication in conformance with the Carver County Development/Access Review Comments, subject to review and approval by the county and city prior to acceptance and recording ofthe final plat. Condition has been met for The Park Finat Plat and The Park 2ud Addition Final PIat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 6. Ongoing coordination with the county and city regarding future improvements to Galpin Boulevard. The aoplicant shall address all conditions associared with the County's review. Also see Condition ?5 20. Condition has been gqsdlfgd for clarity and still applies. 2. All lots and homes must be developed consistent with the standards in the Compliance Table. Condition to be added to the Development Cotrtract for The Park The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 7 7. The developer shall locate on the existing condition survey all existing wells and septic fields. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2'd Addition Finat Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 8. The developer shall abandon all existing wells and septic fields in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulatory agency standards, and obtain all necessary permits for said abandonments. Prior to commencement of abandonment activities, a copy of all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be provided to the city. Condition still applies. g. Provide an updated existing condition survey that illustrates the MCES sanitary and utility easements on parcels 25.0100400 and 25.7580040. Condition no longer applies. 10. The applicant shall submit a mass grading plan or a phased grading plan (as applicabte) for review and approval by the city prior to issr.aneeof grading pemi+s. Condition has been 4!!1fu! for clarity and has been met for The Park Final PIat and The Park 2trd Addition Final PIat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 11. Proposed spot elevations shall be shown on the grading plans at the center ofthe proposed driveway at the curb line for review prior to issuaneeef grading pemits. Condition has been 4!![9! for clarity and has been met for The Park Final PIat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake LucY. 12. Proposed spot elevations shal! be shown on the gading plans at top of curb for review prior to issua,r€€-€f $ading pemi+s. Condition has been 4g!![9! for clarity and has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 13. Drainage anows for all EOF routes shall be included on the grading plans prior to issuaneeef gading permi+s. condition has been 4!i[gg! for clarity and has been met for The Park Final Plat and stitl apptied to The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and has been met for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 14. Grading within bluff setbacks is subject to review and approval by the city prior to issl*asee ef grading pemi+s. Condition has been modified for clarity. Condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat or The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition applies for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 15. All existing buildings and structures within the city's Well House #3 property abutting Galpin Boulevard shall be included on the $ading plans. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Finat Plat; Condition does not apply for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 16. Grading plans shall be updated to include the location and grade ofthe improved and relocated access driveway to Well House #3 offGalpin Boulevard. Condition no longer applies. 17. Grading plans shall be updated to include the location and protection methodology ofthe significant oak tree on the Well House #3 site. Condition does not apply for The Park Final PIat or The Park 2od Addition Final Plat or The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 18. The applicant shall submit revised grading plans and stormwater plans so that no stormwater runoffflowsdirect1yontothepubtictrail@.Conditionhas The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 8 been 4g!!Sg{ due to updated plans and has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final PIat; Condition still applies for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 19. An updated geotechnical report assessing slope stability immediately east ofLot I l0 abutting Street "A" shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance ofgrading permits. Condition no longer applies. 20. Final grading plans, including pond locations, sizing and analysis, along with right-of-way dedications offGalpin Boulevard, shall conform to the future Galpin Boulevard reconstruction project. Cross reference of grading plans, profiles, and respective cross sections are to be provided at key locations such as intersections, ponds, or other special features required by the county and city for review prior to acceptance and recording ofthe final plat. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and stilt applies for The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition still applies for The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. 21. All retaining walls exceeding four (4) feet in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance ofbuilding permits. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition still applies for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 22. The retaining wall south ofLots 108-l l1 abutting Street "A" shall be adjusted to accommodate a 1.5:1 buffer from the bottom ofthe proposed stormwater line to the bottom ofthe proposed retaining wall foundation. Condition no longer applies. @Conditionisthesameas#l4andisnotnecessary. 24. All newly constructed streets and the extension ofany existing streets shall be public streets, owned and maintained by the city, after acceptance ofthe public improvements by the City Council. Condition still applies. 25. All newly constructed public streets shall be designed to meet the current standard specifications and detail plate for residential streets (Detail Plate #5200), unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and Tbe Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition still applies for The BIuffs at Lake Lucy. 26. Any and all conditions associated with the alignment and configuration of ::Mati+€ireler "Della Drive" set by the Planning Commission or City Council shall be addressed by the applicant prior to acceptance and recording of the final plat. Condition does not apply for The Park Final Ptat or The Park 2nd Addition Finel Plat; Condition has been modified for clarity and met for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 27. The developer shall abandon the existins access. construct a new access and provide aD eurb euland access easement for parcel 25.0100400 onto Street "2" "Della Drive". Condition no longer apptied to The Park l't Addition Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; The condition has been 4g!![g! for clarity and still applies for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 28. A water service lateral shall be stubbed off the of ,:Ma*ie€i+eld.: "Della Drive" water main for the future connection to parcet 25.0100400. Condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 9 or The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition has been 4g!!!9{ for clarity and still applies for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. i€* A eeotechnical eneineerine shall be on-site durine eradine ooerations. If qroundwater is encoun tered during grading, grades shall be adiusted to maintain a foot seoaration from the ttom floor elevation and s to the recommendations of the soil ensineer on site. C ses to srades shall be submitted to the citv for revlew aooroval Condition has been modified due to updated plans and still applies. 30. Sidewalks shall be extended along the cul-de-sacs Lane and-:Z: and shall be constructed in accordance with detail plates for concrete sidewalks. Condition has been appty for The Park Final Plat or The Park 2nd Additio The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 31 . All curb ramps shall be constructed to meet ADA standards and the city's Detail Plates #5215-521 5D. Condition still applies. 32. Intersection improvements to provide pedestrian access at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and StreeraEr Pearl Drive shall be constructed in accordance with MUTCD best management practices. Condition has been 4!![9g[ for clarity. Condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat; Condition applies to The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 33. A detail of the proposed street lights shall be provided prior to the issuance ofbuilding permits. Condition still applies. 34. An enumerated list ofall street lights and their proposed locations shall be provided for review and approval prior to the recording of the final plat. Condition has been met for The Park Final PIat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat and The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. 35. Street lights within the develooment shall be owned and bv the electric utility companv. be installed at all intersections and at the end ofeach cul-de-sac subject to review and approval by the city prior to issuance of building permits. Condition has been 4!![9! for clarity and still applies. 36. The site plan shall be updated to provide proposed street grades (centerline gradients). Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Finat Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 37. All newly constructed water mains shall be public water mains, owned and maintained by the city, after acceptance ofthe public improvements by the City Council. Condition still applies. 38. Water mains located on Drive. and Paislev Path shall be tied into the hi gh-pressure zone located on Galpin Boulevard. Water main extensions on Topaz Drive and Lucy Ridge Lane shall be tied into the existing water main stubs (low-pressure zone). Condition has been 4g!![99! for clarity and still applies. 39. The water main located on St+eeFZz Maeie€irele Della Drive shall be tied into the existing stub off Ruby Lane and a gate valve near the connection point shall be installed. The gate valve shall located off S+ree*r9-r;:tGi Lucy Ridge the city's standard specifications and mod1Egd for clarity. Condition does not n Final Plat; Condition has been met for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page l0 be closed to separate the pressure zones. Condition has been modified for clarity. Condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat; Condition applies to The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. 40. The developer shall field verify the location ofall water main taps to the existinq public mains off Gal in Boulevard prior to @ commencement of any utilitv construction and update the plans accordingly. Condition has been 4g!![g! for clarity and still applies. 41. The developer's contractor shall schedule a preconstruction meeting with Engineering and Public Works Utilities departments prior to the commencement of any work to the water main installation and tapping from Galpin Boulevard. Condition has been modified for clarity and still applies. 42. Updated plans indicating the location ofall underground utilities on the east and west side of Galpin Boulevard, along with plans and profiles ofany utility crossings on the east and west side of Galpin Boulevard, shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuanee-eFbuiklhg pemits commencement of any utility construction. Condition has been 4!!!9g[ for clarity and still applies. 43. An agreement that lists the conditions and required improvements for the land swap between the developer and the city regarding Lot 163 and a portion ofthe Well House #3 site, shall be executed and recorded prior to the acceptance and recording ofthe final plat. Condition no longer applies. 44. All utility crossings ofpotable water and sanitary and/or storm mains will require l8 inches ofvertical separation and 10 feet of horizontal separation. The developer shall submit construction plans with profiles and plan views of the utilities for review and approval prior to th€jssnaaeesf Uuilgingpemits the commencement of anv utility construction. Condition has been 4!![9! for clarity and stilt applied for The Park lst Addition and The Park 2nd Addition; Condition has been met for The Bluffs at Lake LucY. 45. All utility crossings ofpotable water and sanitary sewer that do not meet vertical seoaration requirements will require that the sanitary sewer main at that crossing be constructed of PVC C900 water main material. The developer shall submit construction plans indicating material type at these locations for review and approval of the city prior to issuanee<#br*ldi+gpemi+s the co ent of anv utiliw on. Condition has been g!![9! for clarity and still applied for The Park l.t Addition and The Park 2od Addition; condition has been met for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 46. The developer shall submit construction plans indicating that pipe lengths of sanitary sewer mains are centered over potable water crossings. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 47. Water mains shall be constructed at a minimum of 7.5 feet below grade, or insulated, and constructed in conformance with the city's standard specifications and detail plates. Condition has been modified for clarity and still applies. 48. Cluster valves located around water main tees shall be installed at a minimum of five feet from the tees to the valves, where feasible. All valve locations and any other water main The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page I I appurtenances shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Public Works departments prior to issuanee-efbuilding:pemirs the commencement of any utilitv construction. Condition has been ryg!![g! for clarity and still applies. 49. All comments and conditions regarding fire appurtenances, spacing, and location set forth by the Fire department shall be addressed by the applicant. Condition still applies. 50. All newly constructed sewer mains shall be public sewer mains, owned and maintained by the city, after acceptance ofthe public improvements by the City Council. Condition still applies. 51. A 30-foot utility easement shall be recorded over the existing public sewer line, within Outlot A located near the south-central area ofthe preliminary plat, prior to acceptance of final plat' Condition no longer applies. 52. All conditions set forth by the MCES for the direct connection and installation of an access manhole to their trunk line shall be addressed by the applicant, and all permits required for the connection and installation of the manhole shall be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. Condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat or The Park 2od Addition Final PIat; Condition applies for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 53. The applicant shall ensure the city's sanitary sewer nomenclature is incorporated in the construction plans. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat; Condition still applies for The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. 54. Profile sheets for all public utilities, including sanitary sewer, shall be required for review and approval by the city prior to issuaaeeof$uilding..pemie the commencement of anv utilitv construction. Condition has been modified for clarity and has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2'd Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 55. PVC sanitary sewer pipes that will be constructed at a burial depth of0-16 feet shall be constructed ofpipe class SDR 35, burial depths of 16-26 feet shall be of pipe class SDR 26, and burial depths of greater than 26 feet shall be of pipe class C900. Condition still applies. 56. Inverts that have a 2O-inch or greater differential shall be supplied inside drops per city standards and be constructed per the city's Detail Plate No.2104. Condition still applies. 57. No roadway connection shall be made to Topaz Drive. Condition does not apply for The Park Final PIat or The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat; Condition applies The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. Ensineerins: New Conditions B ased on Review of The Park Preliminary Plat Revisions 1. The developer shall underground all overhead utilities from the southem property line to the northern property line of the development per City Ordinance Sec. 18-78(12). A $364,400.00 cash escrow for the construction of this public improvement shall be fumished to the city prior to recording of final plat. If the public improvement is not completed by January I , 2023 or upon commencement of the future Galpin Boulevard Improvement Project, whichever occurs first, the security will be used by the city for these improvements. Condition no longer applies. 2. Untreated or stormwater from lots not captured and routed to treatment facilities, particularly in backlots, require a conveyance system to be installed to route storrnwater to treatment basins. Additional condition does not apply to The Park Final Plat; Condition does apply to The Park 2nd Addition Final PIat; Condition does apply to The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 3. No sump stuctues shall be installed in backyard pickups. Additional condition applies. 4. Access routes to storm basins shall have a slope no geater than 3: L Additional condition does not apply to The Park Final Plat; Condition does apply to The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition does apply to The Bluffs at Lake Lucy' 5. Access had Ilom Galpin Boulevard to Outlot E shall be abandoned. Additional condition does not apply to The Park Final Plat or The Park 2od Addition Final Plat or The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 6. All public sanitary sewer utilities and sanitary sewer services shall have tracer wire installed. Detail plates and specifications shall be provided to the developer to meet this requirement and shall be defrned in the supplemental provision for The Park Utility and Street Construction Project Manual. Additional condition applied to The Park Final Plat, however this condition will be met for all future additions due to updated City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates (2020). 7. All public streets' base course shall utilize an asphalt binder grade of"C" in accordance with MnDOT asphalt grades (Table 2360-2), plates and cross-section details shall be updated accordingly. Additional condition applied to The Park Final Plat, however this condition will be met for all future additions due to updated City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates (2020). Ensineerin N ew Conditions Based on Review of The Park Final P lat 1.DrivewaysshallbeSetback@flinesinaccordancesection 20-1122 of City Ordinances. Condition has been modilied for clarity; The condition still applies. 2. All driveways shall be located outside side lot drainage and utility easements. Condition still applies. 3. A $300 fee per light shall be collected with the development contract for electricity costs for the first year of operation. Condition still applies. 4. The developer shall coordinate with the Building Department and Public Works Utility Depafiment to determine which homes shall be required to install pressure reducing valves prior to the issuance ofbuilding permits. Condition still applied for The Park lst Addition and The Park 2od Addition; Condition does not apply for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 5. The contractor shall contact the city inspector for inspection ofall insulated pipe crossings Condition still applies. 6- On Sheet I .3, provide a separate, enlarged inset detail of the proposed connection to the 24" DIP water main at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Hunter Drive/"Paisley Path" that includes plan and profile views ofthe location ofall existing utilities. lnclude a note to coordinate The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 12 this work with the Public Works Utility Deparfiient and city inspector 48 hours prior to wet tap. Condition has been met. 7. On Sheet 1.5 of the sanitary sewer and water main plans: DIP tees for risers on "Purple Parkway" shall be updated to be C900 wyes; the 20' DIP stubbed out of MH 16-078 shall be PVC, also add note to address proper pipe support (compaction) under influence zone ofpipe. Condition has been met. 8. For all storm sewer plans: any HDPE pipe shall be called-out as'N-l2" in accordance with city standard specifications. Condition still applies. Ensineering: New C onditions Based on Review of The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat l. The final plat shall be updated to include Outlots C & D to be encumbered in their entirety by a drainage and utility easement. Condition has been met. 2. All plans, specifications, project manuals, and submittals shall be in conformance with the most recent version of city Standard Specifications and Detail Plates ://www.ci.c n.mn.us/436/Standard-S lio l-Plates . Condition still applies. 3. On Sheet 3 ofthe Grading Plans: The emergency over flow for the low point near station l8+00 along Pearl Drive is routed between Lots 2 and 3, Block 6, the plans shall be updated to show swale between the lots to direct the EOF towards Basin 300. Condition has been met. 4. On Sheet 4: The emergency overflow locations for the low point near station 4+00 along Purple Parkway shall be illustrated on updated plans, currently it appears water would overflow between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 on the northeast side ofthe road; grading is proposed on the city's property where well #3 is located, a temporary construction easement shall be executed prior to commencement of grading operations; grading is proposed to impact a MCES utility easement, an executed agreement with MCES shall be secured and provided to the city prior to commencement of grading operations; the grades on the south side oflot 2, Block 5 are 2:1 and shall be adjusted to maintain slopes no steep€r than 3:1 . Condition has been met. 5. On Sheet 5: An updated erosion control plan shall be submitted that meets the requirements of Sec. 19- 145 of City Ordinances, no gpding operations shall commence prior to review and approval of the updated submittal. Condition has been met. 6. On Sheet 7: In the "Grading Sequence" notes the minimum topsoil depth shall be adjusted to 6"; in the "General Notes" ltem 3 shall be updated to state a copy of the grading and erosion control plans must be on site at all times; Item 10 shall add the requirement of topsoil (6" minimum) required for all permanent turf areas; Item 12 shall indicate the requirement ofa vacuum sweeper truck is required to clean tracking. Condition has been met. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 13 The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 14 7. The Utility & Street Construction Plans sheet numbers must be updated to reflect the proper sequencing ofsheets for clarity, e.g. Sheet 1.1 of28 does not have a Sheet 28 within the set. Condition has been met. 8. On Sheet I .1 of the Utility & Street Construction Plans: Provide a separate, enlarged inset detail of the proposed connection to the 14" HDPE water main at the intersection of Galpin Boulevard and Longacres Drive/"Pearl Drive" that includes plan and profile views ofthe location of all existing utilities. The updated plan is required prior to the commencement ofany construction activities in this location, pending review by the city. The newly installed 8" C900 water main shall be installed with a casing pipe with no bends, any conflicting utilities shall be lowered. Condition has been met. 9. On Sheet 1.1: An air release valve and manhole shall be located near the high point ofthe water main, pending revisions from Condition 8 (above); construction note 5 shall indicate "l" I.P.S. PE'; the gate valve located near station 5+ 15 along "Pearl Drive" over the sanitary main shall be offset 5' to the east; the irrigation service stubbed near station 0+95 along "Pearl Drive" must be PE and not DIP and shall be 1"; ifa larger diameter service line is required, ajustification must be submitted to the city for review; all water main within 7.5' of catch basins shall be insulated, e.g. at stations 1+60 and 4+75 along "Pearl Drive"; all hydrants shall be located l0' away from light poles, e.g. at the intersection of "Pearl Drive" and "Purple Parkway"; on the profile, the future water main shall be called out as such and the plug should be illustrated for clarity. Condition has been met. 10. On Sheet 1.2: Lower water main to avoid the conflicts with storm sewer catch basins and to minimize the required drops/bends/fittings, up to a maximum of 10' below grade water main will be accepted, pending review and approval; all sanitary sewer shall have a minimum slope of 0.50%, e.g. pipe runs between MH 16-085 to 16-094 maintait 0.40Yo; where "see water main offset detail" is called out on plans indicate the page number for clarity. Condition has been met. I I . On Sheet I .3: MH 16-084 shall be lowered to maintain a 4% grade between MH 16-084 and MH 16-083; water main shall be lowered to avoid conflicts and to maintain a consistent grade past station 4+00; water and sanitary services to Lot 6, Block 4 and Lot 9, Block 3 shall be adjusted away from catch basins and be insulated if necessary; a gate valve shall be installed near the connection to the existing C900 off"Purple Parkway" near station 9+75; the note calling out "connection to existing 8" DIP" shall be adjusted to 8" C900, for clarity. Condition has been met. 12. On Sheet I .4: The hydrant located between Lots 20 and 21 , Block 4 shall be relocated between Lots 21 and 22, Block 4; water and sanitary services to Lot 4, Block 5 shall be adjusted away from catch basin and be insulated if necessary. Condition has been met. 13. On Sheet 1.5: The submitted temporary traffic control plan indicates the use of MnDOT Traflic Control Layout 6K-17, however the provided proposal does not adhere to this standard and must be adjusted accordingly, e.g. the required buffer space is well below the standard; where CL-5 aggregate is called, a note is to be added identiffing that the aggregate shall be rolled and compacted prior to opening the bypass; note 3 shall clearly state this work is to be conducted by the contractor and/or their subcontractor(s); the scale provided should be updated to a typical engineering scale; The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 15 review and approval ofthe temporary traffrc control plan by the county shall be provided to the city prior to any work on County Road 117. Condition has been met. 14. On Sheet 1.6: Add "Road Work Ahead" sign 600 feet before the "One Lane Road Ahead" signage; add additional "Flagger Ahead" sign south of Wynsong Lane. Condition has been met. 15. OnSheet2.l: "Storm Sewer Construction Notes" indicate usage of Neenah casting R- 3067VB at catch basin low points, however the structue table does not indicate any "VB" structures, update accordingly; the formatting under "Storm Structue Table Notes" is not clear, it appears the notes are all related to water tight structures, if this is the case offsetting the sub-bullets (A-D) may make this clearer, update accordingly. Condition has been met. 16. On Sheet 2.2: Ensure all storm sewer conveyance pipe is entirely below road sections, e.g. between CBMH426 arrd CBMH-425 the pipe would encroach into the road section as the cover from top ofpipe to proposed grade is 36", adjust storm sewer accordingly; profile shall be updated to include stationing; FES-433 shall include trash guard; all catch basins throughout the plan set shall be located perpendicular to each other when on opposing sides of the road, e.g. CBMH-43 I and CBMH-430 should be updated accordingly. Condition has been met. 17. On Sheet2.3: Update plan view to show entire pipe run as CB-351 onplan view is not shown. Condition has been met. 19. On Sheet 2.6: CBMH-303 shall have a 4-foot sump with SAFL baffle and the detail sheets shall be updated accordingly; update plans to indicate type ofplug identified east of CBMH-306; remove trash guard from FES-300. Condition has been met. 20. OnSheet3.l: The pedestrian mmp t)?e called out in the legend (MnDOT 7036F) is a 2004 detail plate and has been discontinued, update accordingly; maintain a l0' separation from pedestrian ramps and catch basin castings at all times, e.g. in front ofLot 5, Block 6; a sidewalk detail should be included as typical either on the plan sheets or within the detail sheets and called out accordingly; construction notes regarding street sign locations and installations should be included, coordination with Public Works is required; plans shall be updated to incorporate the pedestrian improvements at the intersection of Longacres Drive and Galpin Boulevard as conditioned upon approval of preliminary plat. Condition has been met. 21. On Sheet 3.2: There is a call-out "???" over Lot 8, Block 6, either remove or clarif,. Condition has been met. 22. On Sheet 3.4: The "eyebrow", or half cul-de-sac bubble, between stationing 3+00 and 4+00 should be constructed so that the flow line for street drainage is to be maintained t 5.5' from centerline of"Alphabet Streef', this is required in order to minimize the amount of street drainage 18. On Sheet 2.4: CBMH-336 and CBMH-335 should be relocated to achieve a perpendicular alignment per condition 16 (above). This may be accomplished by locating it near station 1+20 to avoid conflict with Lot 1, Block 2 driveway, furthermore this would allow for a recommended 2'x3' catch basin rather than a catch basin manhole. Condition has been met. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 16 being routed around the eyebrow and creating a "bird bath" or drainage issues abutting Lot 20, Block 4. Condition has been met. Engineering: New Conditions Based on Review of The Bluffs at Lake Lucv Final Plat l. As the property is within the Lake Ann Sewer District, a sewer interceptor charge and a sub- trunk charge will be due at the time of building permit issuance for each lot. For 2020, the Lake Ann Interceptor Fee and Lake Ann Subtrunk Fee are $1,970.00 and $2,068.00, respectively. 2. All retaining walls within the development shall be owned and maintained by a Homeownen Association. 3. All sidewalks not abutting plaued Lots (e.g. on Della Drive abutting Outlot B) within the development shall be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. 4. Any retaining wall located within a public drainage and utility easement shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. 5. The "specifications for The Bluffs at Lucy Lake" prepared by Sathre-Berquist, Inc. provide Special Provisions that are not in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications or Detail Plates. These Special Provisions shall be updated to either amend any modification that would conflict with the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates or be removed entirely. Ifthe Developer and their Engineer elect to modify the Special Provisions, the City will provide redlines to assist with their modifications, however in accordance with previous conditions, all plans, specifications, project manuals, and submittals shall be in conformance with the most recent version of city Standard Specifications and Detail Plates (htto://www.ci.c mn.us/436/Standard- Specific ations-Detail-Plates) and their conformance is ultimatel y the responsibility ofthe Developer. 6. On sheet 4 of4 on the Final Plat: Block 3 Lot 4's ten (10) foot drainage and utility easement located in the middle of the lot shall be twenty (20) feet wide to accommodate maintenance activities for the designed drainage on the lot; the right-of-way shall be extended at the end of "Topaz Drive", between Block 3 Lots 5 and 6 to reflect the approval of the Preliminary Plat for "The Park"; Block 3 Lot 8's southerly drainage and utility easement is illustrated at ten (10) feet wide which is oversized, it is possible to lessen this width to five (5) feet. 7 . On sheet I of 23: In the zoning index, cul-de-sacs are called out to have a 45' radius, this shall be updated to 48' per Detail Plate #5205; the "City Project No." is 2020-12, update accordingly. 8. On sheet 2 of23: It is recommended that detail plates remain on the sheets specified as "Detail Sheets" (sheets l7-23) and not be incorporate on random sheets thoughout the plan set for clarity which will also allow for larger plan views on the corresponding sheets; the remnant driveway entrance north of "Della Drive" shall not be removed in association with the development, the City will assess its removal upon commencement of the Galpin Boulevard improvement project; throughout the Street and Storm Plans it was found that draintile does not extend on both sides and the full extents ofthe streets, the plans shall be updated to ensue draintile is installed on both sides of the street per Detail Plate #5200 and extend the full length of the proposed streets; street lights shall be located more closely to hydrants at the end ofcul-de-sacs (where applicable) in order to allow for better snow storage practices; in addition to changing the castings at the end ofRuby Lane, a note shall be added to coordinate with the City to assess ifadditional repairs are required to the catch basins; Street Note #2 should be updated to clarifi sidewalks are 6" thick and curb ramps shall be constnrcted in accordance with Detail Plate 5215-5215D; it is recommended that Street Note #4 be updated to eliminate the use ofplastic rings as the City prefers concrete rings; add to Street Notes the requirement that all work outside platted areas are to be coordinated with the City and Residence, which includes R&D of Ruby Lane and Laky Lucy Ridge, prior to construction activities commencing; add to Street Notes that all signs associated with the development are to be fumished and installed by the contractor in coordination with City review, and that signs within County right- of-way will require coordination with the County; ensure that all trail intersections have a 20' radius as required by Detail Plate #5216; add to Street Notes that cluster mailboxes shall be installed at the throat ofcul-de-sacs, this is required to facilitate better snow storage practices at cul-de-sacs. 9. On sheet 3 of23: Horizontal scales shall be provided on all profiles within the plan set; while driveway gJades are provided, the general location and layout ofproposed driveways and building pads are not illustrated, the plans shall be updated to illustrate proposed driveway and building pad locations for review and approval by the City; the newly proposed sidewalk along "Della Drive" shall terminate at the north side ofthe cul-de-sac throat; an exhibit illustrating the proposed driveway location and grades to parcel 25.0100400 shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the commencement of grading, the location ofthe driveway entrance, in accordance with Carver County's review memo, shall be no closer than 100' to Galpin Boulevard and grades along the proposed driveway shall meet City Standards, lastly the water service should align with the newly proposed &iveway location. 10. On sheet 4 of23: The dimensions of the cul-de-sac bubble at the end ofTopaz Drive shall be illustrated; the R&D note for the area ofLucy Ridge Lane calling out "Restore Yards: irrigation and sod" shall also include all privately owned underground improvements (e.g. invisible dog fences); plans to be updated to illustrate clearly that the sidewalk along Lucy Ridge Lane shall comect between the newly proposed alignments to the existing "R&D" areas; the newly proposed sidewalk along Lucy Ridge Lane shall be extended to and terminate at the east side ofthe cul-de-sac throat; the sidewalk along Topaz Drive shall be removed; the plan and profile stationing for Topaz Drive shall begin from the end of the cul-de-sac (reverse stationing); there appears to be an erroneous call out near Topaz Drive profile C'CL-CL Lucy fudge Lane Sta: 06+48.90"), update accordingly; the extension ofpublic trait dead-ends with no tumaround provided, a tumaround shall be shown on the plans for review and approval. I l. On sheet 5 of23: As no sanitary mains are proposed to be C900 note I is unclear, clarification is required; note 2 shall be updated as sewer services shall be 6" SDR 26 solvent, non- gasketed weld joints; note 4 should be eliminated as no DIP will be allowed or is proposed in the sanitary sewer system, only PVC C900 when required (e.g. at the inside drop connection); note 11 shall be updated to state that all services shall extend to the property line (per Detail Plates #1005 The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 17 The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page l8 and 2001) unless otherwise noted as services may extend past the property line where sidewalk is located; note 13 shall be updated to correctly call out the city's standards as "Standard Specifications and Detail Plates"; note 13 shall be updated to state that the exception is for sanitary and water services past the property line or curb stop which is in-line with City Ordinances, for clarity; note 17 shall be updated to state all watermain shall be PVC C900 DR 18; note 19 should be updated to provide the contractor the City's Utility Department phone number 9 52-227 -1300; a note should be added that Rieberlok gaskets on all C900 PVC shall be used in accordance with City Standards. 12. On sheet 6 of23: The plan view shall be adjusted or an inset provided illustrating the water main connection required ofthe proposed water main between Lots 3 and 4 and the existing water main off Ruby Lane; the water main shall be located on the southem side of Della Drive to facilitate separation from CBMH l9's sump stnrcture, limit the depth of any possible water main lowering, and ensure that the water main does not go lower than the sanitary sewer main's grade; a detail shall be provided specific to MH I which should account for the compactior/fill around and up to the 8" PVC C900 connection for the inside drop; show all utility crossings, including water main, in all profile views including the inset for the inside drop MH connection; all existing utilities need to be identified in the profile views, especially under, east and west of Galpin Boulevard to ensure no conflicts are present; due to the complexity ofnotes and existing utilities near around Galpin Boulevard where the proposed water main will tie-in to the existing water main. a separate inset should be provided; the call-out for connect to existing should be updated to "connecl to" and not "wet tap" and include reference to the high pressure zone; casing is required for the extents of water main proposed under Galpin Boulevard; a gate valve shall be installed on the east side ofthe tee located near 8+60; certain areas of sanitary sewer e called out at less than 0.5% grade, it is highly recommended that grades be adjusted to maintain a minimum of 0.5% for constructability as any sanitary sewer mains below the minimum allowable grade will be required o be removed and re- installed; where grades e greater than 16' sanitary sewer main shall be PVC SDR 26, i.e. at locations east of MH 2 or north of MH 8; clarifo the nomenclature "HBOE"; update line work for proposed storm sewer in profile to follow the color style consistently (appears grey when it should be green). 13. On sheet 7 of23: There is a yellow line identified in the plan view for Topaz Drive, ctarifr accordingly; it is unclear where hydrant assemblies transition fiom 8" water main to 6" in plan view, clarify accordingly; gate valves shall be installed north and west ofthe tee located at the intersection of Topaz Drive and Lucy Ridge Lane; update call-out in profile view of Topaz Drive for the removal ofplug and add removal of hydrant as well, for clarity; maintain ten foot separation between Block 4 Lot 7's sanitary and water services and MH 9; update call-out in profile view of Lucy Ridge Lane where existing stub is located to "8" PVC SDR 26", per as-builts. 14. On sheet 8 of23: Add note that trash guards are only to be installed on inlets or FES 24" or gleater; castings on catch basins at low points shall be "V8", update accordingly. 15. On sheet 9 of 23: It is unclear what the low opening elevation is from the grading detail to the plans due to the use ofdouble parentheses, e.g. when evaluating if lowest opening is I foot above emergency overflow on Block 3 Lot 4 the EOF elevation is 1013.0 adjacent to the lot while the call- The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 19 out of((1013.8)) appears to indicate the "adjacent grade to low opening" per grading plan, which is out of compliance, update plans accordingly and/or clarifr; catch basin 7 needs to be relocated to a minimum of l0 feet away from the curb ramp; catch basin 12 and 13 shall be relocated to achieve a 90 degree connection; there is a portion ofnew impervious area on Lucy Ridge Lane that will not be captured by the proposed stonn system, verif, that the new impervious area will not inundate the existing storm sewer system north of Lucy Ridge Lane; Block 4 Lot 7's backyard drainage sheet flows over the trail, no private drainage shall flow over the public trail system and needs to be accounted for in the storm plan (grading, back-yard storm conveyance, etc.); relocate CBMH 2 to the east in order to eliminate the double crossing of the public trail; relocate CBMH l0 to be centered on the property line (typ. ofall backyard CBMHs); show all utility crossings on profiles (typ); add suffrcient depth between CBMH 4 and CBMH 2 to decrease velocities below 12 fos, all RCP laid at slopes gteater th an 5Yo grade shall be tied; clearly illustrate where 86 curbing locations are for review and approval; add note that all FES shall have a witness post installed, the City will fumish witness posts; the outlet structue detail for Pond #2 should be updated and drawn to reflect proper elevations (i.e. the outlet pipe is above the inlet pipe as drawn); add note to ensure outlet structures meet Detail Plate #3109A. 16. On sheet 10 of23: Update profile to ensure inverts connecting to in structures match crown elevations (HGL), typ; the RCP pipe between CBMH 20 and CMBH 19 shall be CL. 5. 17. On sheet 12 of23: Profile from approximately l+50 to 0+00 shows inadequate cover over 27" RCP pipe, adjust accordingly. 18. On sheet l3 of23: The indentation and spacing ofall notes should be updated for clarity; note 2 discusses removal of sand/silt in ponds, a decompaction note should accompany this requirement as infiltration is a proposed surface water management technique; note 5 should reference the street detail and/or should be accompanied by a cross-section; note 6 should be updated to allow for a minimum of 0.5% slope on driveways per Ordinance; notes referencing MnDOT seed numbers appear to be obsolete and should be reviewed and updated accordingly; note 13 should be updated from "the retaining walls" to "all retaining walls"; notes or the plan shall be updated to incorporate locations ofbench marks, stockpiles, haul routes, staging areas, and dewatering plan, and typical lot benching detail; add note that all walls over 6' in height require fencing or other barrier; adjust all retaining walls to be located wholy on private property and not City owned Outlots and/or wetland buffers. 19. On sheet 14 of 23:. swales between lots shall be graded to ensure drainage is routed along property lines and within drainage and utility easements, e.g. between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 2 drainage would be routed more or less onto Lot 4, adjust for all lots accordingly' 20. On sheet 16 of23: The provided erosion control plan does not fully meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 of City Ordinances, and shall be updated accordingly, furthermore no SWPPP has been provided meeting the requirements of NPDES General Construction Permit and shall be provided prior to the issuance of the fught to Proceed. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page20 21. On sheet 17 of23: Details appear illegible or difficult to read as printed on full size plan sheets, the detail pages shall be updated to a maximum of 8 per page, or to achieve legible details, for clarity. Stormwater Conditions & Wetlands 1. Wetland permitting is required due to the proximity of and proposed impacts to wetlands on site. . Grading permits will not be issued until approved wetland permits have been received. Condition has been modified for clarity and has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 2. Wetland review will include ensuring hydrology is maintained to all wetlands to be preserved as well as review of proposed stormwater impacts. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 3. Storm sewer sizing calculations should be provided to confirm storm sewer is sized to convey the l0-year storm event. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 4. An NPDES permit and accompanying Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required prior to the start of eenstfl*etien gradine. Condition has been gqgg!![gg[ for clarity and has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Finat PIat; Condition still applies for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 5. An operations and maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater management system will be required prior to approval. Condition has been met for The Park Finat Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat; Condition still applies for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 6. Provide infiltration test results per MPCA requirements in the location ofeach proposed infiltration area. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final PIat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 7. All comments and conditions set forth by the fuley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District shall be addressed by the applicant. Condition still applies. 8. Show all existing storm sewer and other water resource-related features in plans. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2'd Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 9. Adjust and show all easements over the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services' sanitary sewer on the preliminary and final plat. Condition has been met for The Park Final PIat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 10. Clearly indicate what storm sewer will be private and what will be public. All public storm sewer will be required to be shown in profile view. Applicant should confirm there are no conflicts The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 2l with the water main or sanitary sewer throughout the site. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 11. The following comments pertain to all proposed ponds that include an infiltration bench (Basins 100,200 and 300): Infiltration test results will be required in the location ofall proposed infiltration benches and infiltration basins. Infiltration test results have not been submitted in the location of proposed Basin 100. If filtration is to be used, the applicant will need to provide a specification for amended soils. Condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat or The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat; Condition has been met for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. a The exhltration above the piped outlet elevation should be included in the HydroCAD model and the exfiltradon rate should correspond to what is presented in the infiltration test results. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. . The proposed infiltration benches will be required to meet the 48-hour drawdown ,.qui."..rt. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. o Outlets from the pond should be moved out ofthe permanent pond area and should be moved away from the inlet to minimize the risk of short circuiting. Condition has been met for The Park Final PIat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. 12. The proposed piped outlet being modeled for Basin 400 is not shown in the plans. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 13. Access routes for all proposed stormwater basins are required for maintenance purposes. Applicant should call out access locations for all proposed stormwater basins. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 20d Addition Final Plat and The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. 14. A defined riprap EOF spillway will be required for all stormwater basins per details provided on Sheet 33. Applicant should include location and elevation of all EOF spillways on the storm sewer plans. Condition stilt applied to The Park Final Ptat and The Park 2od Addition Finat Plat; Condition has been met for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 15. The soil borings provided show that there are clay soils throughout the site. Modeling should be updated to reflect the D soils present. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. a The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page22 16. Proposed and existing HydroCAD models should be modeling the salne area' There is roughly 120 acres included in the existing conditions model that is not included in the proposed conditions model. All offsite drainage should be included in the models. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2'd Addition Finat Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 17. Existing and proposed conditions drainage area maps should be updated to show the location and boundaries ofall subcatchments included in the models. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Finat Plat and The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. 18. Time of concentrations should be calculated in HydroCAD and not directly entered to confirm accuracy. Provide supporting calculations for all directly entered times of concentrations. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 19. From the drainage area maps, it appears that P'LU 2-6 (P.E. Edit) in the existing model corresponds to Pond 500P in the proposed conditions model. The modeled storage for the wetland differs between the existing and proposed conditions models but no wetland impacts are shown on Sheet 37 for this wetland. Applicant should update the models so that they have the same storage modeled for the wetland. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat rnd The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. 20. There is a proposed piped outlet from this wetland that is over four feet lower than the current natural spillway outlet. The applicant will be required to show that this does not change the hydrology ofthe existing wetland as part ofthe wetland permit requirements. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 21. The onlv remainine inconsistencv to uodate is the we in OCS 4008 should be chan ln HvdroCAD from a four -foot weir to a five-foot weir. Condition has been modified due to updated plans and has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 22. The same total area should be modeled in P8 as in HydroCAD. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2ud Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 23. The model should be run for at least 50 years and should include the most recent precipitation data included in the precipitation file to get accurate removal efficiencies. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Finat Plat. 24. The modeling ofthe proposed stormwater ponds with filtration benches is incorrect and is overestimating the removal efficiencies of the basins. The applicant should update the model for the stormwater basins in the following way: The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page23 The design infiltration rate should be added to the flood pool section ofthe stormwater pond devices where applicable. This will model infiltration above the outlet elevation. The design infiltration rate should match what is being modeled in HydroCAD. Condition has been met for The Park Finat PIat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat and The BIuffs at Lake Lucy. The infiltration basins should be removed from the model (except for Device 600i). Condition has been met for The Park Final Ptat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. . Applicant should confirm total phosphorus and total suspended solids removal requirements are still being met after the model has been updated. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final PIat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 25. Watersheds 201 and 600 are only modeling the impervious area. The pervious area in these watersheds should be added to the model. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy, 26. Watershed 300 in the P8 model has 25%o impervious while the corresponding HydroCAD subwatershed has 4570 impervious modeled. Applicant should update the models to be consistent with one another and representative ofthe plans. Condition has been met for The Park Final PIat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 27. The total areas listed in the table in Section III.A of the Stormwater Management Plan are inconsistent with the total area called out in the plans and the total area being modeled. Applicant should include the entire site in the areas shown in the table. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2'd Addition Final Plat and The BIuffs at Lake Lucy. 28. Any projects seeking a wetland alteration permit subject to this article will also be required to submit the following: Existing and proposed drainage areas to wetlands; Buffer strip plan meeting the criteria of subsections 20-411(c) and (d). Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 29. Sec. 20-416. Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall be undertaken on site. If this is not feasible, then mitigation may occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible, then mitigation may occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accomplished on site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation offsite, then the applicant shall be responsible for providing off-site mitigation within the major subwatershed, as designated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, or purchasing wetland credits from the state wetland bank. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 30. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by City Code. Condition still applies. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page24 31. If a Wetland Alteration Permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (l) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland, (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation, (3) It shall not adversely change water flow, (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action, (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas, (6) The disposal ofany excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures, (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited dwing waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning, and (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value ofthe wetland. Condition has been met for The Park Finat Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 32. The alteration shall not alter the hydrological pattems in the remainder ofthe wetland, ifa portion of the wetland remains, unless exempted under Sec. 20-417. Show how hydrologic pattems will not be altered for the remaining wetlands. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 33. Sec. 20-405. Wetland delineation. An electronic copy ofthe delineated wetland boundaries must be submitted in a format compatible with the city's GIS database. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 34. Sec. 20-406. Wetland classification. All wetlands delineated under Sec. 20-405 ofthis article that have not been previously classified shall be classified using the results from the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version 3.0), or future versions. A MnRAM shall be completed by the property owner or applicant for each previously unclassified wetland. An electronic version of the MnRAM evaluation must be submitted to and approved by the city to establish the classification ofeach wetland prior to any alteration or impact to the wetland. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lrke Lucy. 35. Staff review will be conditional upon the approved Wetland Replacement Plan. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 36. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 37. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on site. Please indicate wetland buffer widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in the city's guidance document. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Altemative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. Wetland buffers The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 25 and buffer set backs oursuant to section 20-4 consistent with the preli Dlat must be memorial with a recorded wetland buffer agreement with the countY recorder 's office. Condition has been modified from updated plans and still applies. 38. Sec. l9-146. Wetland elements. o Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to two feet and duation not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destnrction of wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. . Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to discharge into wetlands. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. o Variable bottom contours should be considered to provide deeper holes and flat shallow benches. This feature will provide habitat for diversity ofplants and wetland inhabitants for wetland mitigation sites and stormwater basins. Condition has been met for The Park Finat Plrt and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat and The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. New Stormwater and Wetland Condi tio ns based on the review of The Park Final Plat I . The storm sewer calculations provided match The Park plans. The storm sewer calculations for future phases were inconsistent with the storm sewer shown in the preliminary plans. The applicant shall ensure storm sewer calculations match what is shown in the plans for fuure submittals. Additional condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat and has been met for The Park 2'd Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply to The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 2. Where possible, the applicant shall update all storm sewer so the maximum pipe velocity is 12 feet per second. Ifnot possible, pipe velocities should not exceed l5 feet per second per MnDOT guidance. Additional condition applies for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply to The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 3. Storm sewer from CB-241 to CB-240 is missing in the storm sewer calculations. Additional condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat or The Park 2od Addition Final Plat or The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 4. Add pipe and structure callouts for storm sewer between CBMH-343 and CBMH-345. Additional condition does not apply for The Park Final Plat; Condition has been met for The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply to The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. 5. The 15" outlet pipe from CB-490 should be included in the HydroCAD model to ensure the pipe does not restrict flow and back up water at the low point. The 19" horizontal orifice should be iouted to the 15" pipe. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply to The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page26 6. The slope of the outlet pipe from Wetland 12 should be updated in the HydroCAD model to match what is illustrated on the plans. Condition has been met for The Park Final PIat and The Park 2'd Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply to The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. 7. For the basins where filtration is proposed, the infiltration in P8 should be routed to the downstream waterbody instead of out of the system for accuracy. It appears the proposed $ormwater system will still meet water quality requirements after the updates. Condition has been met for The Park Final Ptat and The Park 2od Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply to The Blufrs at Lake Lucy. 8. Grading permits will not be issued until a USACE permit for impact to Wetland 14 has been issued and received by the city. Condition has been met for The Park Final Plat and The Park 2nd Addition Final Plat; Condition does not apply to The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. New Sto r and Wetland Conditions on the review of The at Lake Lucv Final Plat l. It appears the applicant is showing contours within the filtration areas under the final surface elevation ofthe filtration areas. It is recommended the applicant callout the final surface elevation within the filtration areas and that the applicant add in cross sections (across the pond and filtration basins) to clariff the critical elevations within the basins. 2. Applicant shall confirm drainage from the hill west ofthe proposed home on Lot I along Della Drive is not being directed to the home, adjust grading accordingly. 3. Inlet protections are to be added to catch basins 6, 10, I I and the catch basin to the west of the Topaz Drive cul-de-sac. 4. The applicant is using a constant 0.4 coeflicient value for the rational method storm sewer calculations. Previous additions within the development used varying coefficients determined by the impervious/pervious percentages of each catch basin drainage area. The applicant shall either modify the storm sewer sizing calculations to use varying coefficients determined by the impervious/pervious percentages similar to how the previous storm sewer was sized or provide calculations demonstrating the use of a consistent 0.4 coefficient is valid. 5. The applicant shall update all storm sewer so the maximum pipe velocity is 12 $s. 6. The Stormwater Management Plan shall be updated to ad&ess the needs of additional volume for the future Galpin Boulevard Improvement Project outlined in Kimley-Hom's memorandum date d May 29, 20 | 8. 7. Applicant is showing at catch basins 4, 18, and 19 the spread at the inlet will extend over l0 feet into the street. The applicant shall add additional catch basins at these points to reduce the spread into the roadway. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page27 8. In the overall plans for the Park development dated 5/20/19 the proposed outlet for Wetland 2was a24" pipe but in the The Bluffs at Lake Lucy plans the outlet is an 18" pipe. It is noted that the existing outlet for Wetland 2 is an 18" CMP pipe. However, the HydroCAD modeling suggests the proposed lS" wetland outlet will cause an increase in the 100-year HWL within Wetland 2 when compared to overall development proposed conditions model and when compared to existing conditiors (see table below). Applicant should confirm a larger outlet pipe is not needed and/or that the increase in the wetland HWL will not have any negative impacts on Galpin Avenue or any adjacent structues. Existing Conditions Wetland 2 HWL Overall Development Model Wetland 2 HWL (5/16/19) Proposed Wetland 2 HWL in 4'h Addition Model 973.39 974.06 g. In the Pond t OCS detail the outlet pipe is shown as an 18" but is being modeled as a 27" in the proposed HydroCAD model (assumed to be Device #l). Applicant shall update the plan and/or HydroCAD model to be consistent with one another. 10. The HydrocAD model uses an exfiltration rate of 0.35 in/lr within Pond I but the stormwater narative and the P8 model both have an infiltration rate of 0.8 in/tr. Applicant shall confirm the appropriate infiltration rate and update all references to be consistent I t. The following updates to the P8 model need to be confirmed: a. It is unclear why for both ponds a 12" orifice outlet is being used for the normal outlet directed to either the adjacent filtration or infiltration bench. Applicant should change the normal outlet to a weir outlet based on the berm sepamting the pond and the infiltration/filtration bench or should provide reasoning behind using a 12" orifice b. The flood pool elevations/volumes for Pond I and 2 should be calculated a1979 &d 968 respectively based on the EOF elevations noted on the plans. The infiltration outlet for the Pond 2 hltration bench should be routed to the downstream waterbody instead ofout of the system for accuracy' Similarly, in the P8 model where Pond I is being modeled as a filtration bench, the infiltration outlet should be routed to the downstream waterbody. Applicant should clariff what the wetland boundary infiltration device is that is being modeled in the proposed condition P8 models and confirm it should not also be included in the existing conditions P8 model for accuracy' e. The bottom surface area for Pond 2 should be updated to 0.008 ac (or 0.01 if needed) to be representative ofthe plans. c d 973.05 The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 28 Landscap ine and Tree Preservation 1. The developer shall conduct a walk-through ofthe grading limits on site prior to removals with city staff to inspect for oppornrnities for additional tree preservation. This condition still applies. 2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities and remain installed until completion. This condition still applies overall and to each addition. @Thisconditionhasbeenmodified.Anywellhouseaccess road shall avoid removals of any significant trees in the outlot. No significant oaks may be removed. This{odditioD-s epplies. This condition has been met. 7 . Autumn Blaze maples shall be eliminated from the plant schedule. This-ceaditien+as+ee* @ This condition has been met. 8. Northem Pin Oak shall be reptaced with White, Bur, Red or Bicolor oak species in the plant schedule. This eenditien still opplies ererall ead te eaeh additien- This-esaditien-has-been-met @ This condition has been met. 9. Additional selections of tree species shall expand the breadth of tree types and take into consideration soil conditions and future hardiness zone changes. This condition has been met. 10. No tree Genus shall comprise of more than 20% ofthe total number oftrees and no tree species shall comprise of more than 10% ofthe total number oftrees. The applicant shall add 2 selections of trees to the landscape plan to reduce maple quantities. +niseeng*iea-se'+applies e+erelFr*+te-eoetseddi*ieo. This condition has been modified. 1 I . The applicant shall revise the plans to show the bluff impact zone on both bluffs and eliminate grading within these areas. This condition has been met. 3. All trees shall be planted outside of the street right-of-way. This condition still applies overall and to each addition. 4. els9}+rees. This condition has been modified. The applicant shall meet the minimum requirement of 461 trees for the development. All required trees must meet minimum size requirements for deciduous and evergreen species. This condition has been met. 5. Buffer plantings shall be added to the east of the city well building. Five evergteen trees shall be planted to the east ofthe well house. M This condition does not apply 6. The dlr'ee eal<s en eity prep€rty (not inventoried) te tlre soutlr ofthe eity well bEilding shall The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page29 12. Private lot boundaries shall not encroach into bluff areas. This condition has been met. 2. The Tree Preservation Easement legal description for Block 3 shall be corrected to include the correct lots: Lots l, 4, and 5, Block 3. 3. The restored slope on Lots I and 2, Block I shall be planted with trees in a random pattem from top to toe ofslope. Trees shall be acceptable if one year from planting there is a75o/o survival rate ovet 75%o of the slope area. +. The landscape plan shall be updated to include a sheet on seeding specifications for slopes and outlots. Seed mixes shall be MNDOT native mixes approved by the city. RIGHT.OF.WAY AND EASEMENTS There is an existing 20-foot wide Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) sewer and utility easement located on the property as illustrated on the submitted plans. Generally, the easement traverses from the northwest comer to the southeast comer ofThe Park PUD, bisecting the site diagonally. The PUD proposed to impact the easement at two locations. The first location is within the northwest corner of the site where grading and construction of "Della Drive" and Basin 200 (Pond # I ) are proposed, which are associated with The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. The second location is to the east of "Visionary Court" where grading is proposed behind Lots I l9-120 and not associated with The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. The MCES has been supplied the applicant's site plans and all comments and conditions set forth by the MCES shall be addressed by the applicant. An agreement to construct any of the proposed improvements over the MCES's easement must be executed and supplied to the city for review prior to the issuance of grading permits. The applicant is proposing standard drainage and utility easements (D&U's) around the majority of the lots on the provided final plat. Additional 20-foot wide D&U's have been provided within Lots 3-11 abutting "Della Drive" and Lots 2-3 abutting Topaz Drive. However, Lot 4 will also require a 20-foot wide D&U to facilitate proper maintenance ofthe proposed overland drainage improvements in the area. These 20-foot wide D&U's are provided for stormwater collection and conveyance systems located in backyards that fall outside the standard D&U's. Furthermore, 30-foot wide 13. I €ts with signifiearlt E€e e f,ets 50t;504;505 *re let eentaining existing ferest, Speeifieally; the rear 40 feet eftet 501;tlre rear 100 feet eftets Lots I and 2, block I shall have Tree heservation Easements over the easterly 300' of Lot 1, Blk I and the westerly 200'oflot 2, block l. Lots 1,4 and 5, block 3 shall have Tree Preserveation Easements in their rear yards. This condition has been modified. New Landscapinq and Trge Preservation Conditions based on review of Bluffs at Lake Lucv 1. Park property boundary signs shall be installed at prop€rty comers on Lots 1-6, Block 4 and Lots 1-l 1, Block 2. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 30 D&U's between Lots I and 2 abutting Lucy Ridge Lane's cul-de-sac have been proposed to provide access to proposed utilities and stormwater ponds. Also, a 30-foot wide D&U's between Lots 3-4 abutting ,bella Drive" have been proposed to provide access for a water main extension to Ruby Lane. Righrof-way dedication will be required along the east side of Galpin Boulevard per Carver county's review and comments (see "Carter County Development / Access Review comments" attached), the Highway 117 Corridor Study, and the typical roadway sections identified in the county's Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Conidor Study identifies specific right-of-way needs and the plat will be required to follow and be consistent with the preferred roadway altemative. The right-of-way shall tie into the existing highway right-of-way north the proposed development. The final plat proposal shall be reviewed and approved as to form and content by the county surveyor and city. After review by the city ofthe proposed final plat for The Park, it appears adequale right- of-way has been dedicated (17 feet). The applicant will be required to underground all overhead utilities within the development. Underground utilities reduce the risk ofaccidents, such as vehicles colliding with poles and service impacti such as storms knocking down limbs on lines. It also improves the overall esthetics of roadway corridors and neighborhoods, which improves and promotes livability. Lastly, as experienced during the construction ofThe Park (l't Addition), Galpin Boulevard was utilized as a staging area for construction tmffic. This method of staging on a collector road causes a hazard to motorists utilizing the corridor, especially as Galpin Boulevard adjacent to the development has poor sight lines. In an effort to mitigate this occurrence during The Bluffs at Lake Lucy build-out, the developer and their contractors shall submit a plan to ensrre that no construction traffrc stages on Galpin Boulevard or obstructs any travel lanes. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY No water wells or septic fields have been identified on the existing conditions survey provided in association with The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. However, ifdiscovered during the course of construction, the abandonment of all existing wells shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Department of Health's review and regulations, and the abandonment ofall existing septic systems shall be in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's review and regulations. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be obtained prior to the commencement of any abandonment(s). GRADING The applicant is proposing to construct two stormwater ponds to serve the development. Through the preliminary grading plan and grading details, drainage from individual lots will be routed away from buildings into a series of catch basins and HDPE pipe located within drainage and utility easements in backyards. Drainage from proposed public streets will be collected through catch basins located next to curbs, and routed to stormwater ponds around the site. The applicant has The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 3l provided an overall grading plan but not a phased grading schedule and should be provided. Generally the grading plans conform to city ordinances and standards for grading, with minor changes required. The applicant shall meet all the conditions that impact grading and enumerated with the development contract prior to commencement of grading operations. There are proposed driveways that approach the maximum 10%o gtade (e.g. Lot 5 abutting "Della Drive" is at 9.1% erade) allowed by city ordinance. Staff recommends limiting maximum grades in order to achieve a higher level of constnrctability. eny constructed street or driveway that exceeds maximum allowable grades upon final inspection will be required to be removed and replaced. There are two bluffs within the site. One bluff is located west of Lots 3-7 abutting Lucy Ridge Lane, and a second bluff is located south of Lots 2-3 abutting "Della Drive". The grading plans indicate the locations and extent of the bluffs and their appropriate buffers and setbacks. All grading operations have been proposed to be outside the bluff impact zones except for a small area near Lots 3-7 abutting Lucy Ridge Lane. Staff has evaluated the impacts ofthis topographic alteration and finds that it is within the bounds of City Ordinance. The grade changes will decrease the rate of drainage entering the bluffwhile lessening the likelihood ofconcentrated flows within the bluff area. The plat's final grading plans, ponds, and right-of-way along Galpin Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the county and the city to show how they conform to the potential future Galpin Boulevard reconstruction. A cross reference of grading plans, profiles, and respective cross sections should be provided at key locations such as intersections, ponds, or other special featwes for review by the county and city prior to acceptance. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT This phase is not in the shoreland management area. RETAINING WALLS There are multiple retaining walls proposed within The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. All retaining walls are being proposed at a height greater than 4 feet. All retaining walls shall be constructed in accordance with the plans prepared by the applicants registered engineer (Trevor Axner, License No. 45470 with The Hanson Group Structuml Engineers). All retaining wall will be required to be owned and maintained by the Developer or a Homeowners Association. Walls exceeding 6' in height shall be required to install a fencing over the top of wall, or some other barrier. STREETS The applicant is proposing construction ofone new street ("Della Drive") and the extension ofone existing sfieet (Lucy fudge Lane which will include Topaz Drive cul-de-sac) that shall be owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. All newly constructed street sections shall be designed to meet the current standard specifications and detail plates for residential streets. These new streets and extensions will result in three cul-de-sacs with The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page32 two of the three proposed cul-de-sacs meeting current city code and standard specifications. "Della Drive", a proposed street and cul-de-sac in the development, exceeds the maximum length for a cul- de-sac per city ordinance; however, it was approved in the preliminary plat by City Council. Access to "Della Drive" is from Galpin Boulevard, a collector road. There is an existing driveway 30 feet south of "Della Drive" providing access to Parcel 250100400. This spacing does not meet Carver County's requirements for access points offof collector roads, as addressed in their review memo. The parcel's access from Galpin Boulevard will be abandoned and realigned to tie into "Della Drive" in accordance with Carver County's requirements. Thus, the applicant shall update plans to "Della Drive" to ensure proper grades are constructed along this portion of "Della Drive", along with the grades associated with the new driveway access, for review and approval. Additionally, a water stub for future connection shall be installed to serve the property near the location ofthe future driveway connection. The city has had discussions with the resident ofthis property and has obtained verbal agreeance ofsuch a realignment and water service connection. The applicant has supplied a geotechnical evaluation report that was completed by Braun Intertec Corporation on June 29, 2018. The report discussed and explored desiga and construction recommendations for roadway sections, amongst other topics. It will be required of the developer to have a geotechnical engineer onsite during grading operations. If groundwater is encountered during grading, grades shall be adjusted to maintain a 3-foot separation from the bottom floor elevation of proposed buildings. Subsequent changes to grades shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. Sidewalks and pedestrian access points have been proposed on a majority ofthe streets throughout the development with the need for minor amendments addressed during the preliminary construction plan review. Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with city standard specifications and detail plates. All curb ramps shall be constructed to meet ADA standards and the city's detail plates. Street lights have been proposed throughout the development. Street lights will be required at all intersections and at the end of each cul-de-sac, but shall be placed in harmony with fire hydrants to maximize available snow storage within cul-de-sac bubbles, i.e. approximately 10 feet from each other. The developer will need to work with Xcel Energy on the installation of city-approved street lights. A $300 fee shall be collected with the development contract for each street light for the purpose of electricity costs for the first year ofoperation. The applicant is proposing to constnrct 8" PVC C900 water main throughout the development that shall be owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. The development is located beween two pressure zones in the city; a high pressure zone and a low pressure zone. To the west, in the Longacres neighborhood, is a high pressure zone' To the north in the Ashling Meadows neighborhood is a low pressure zone. The city has modeled the impact of the development based on the proposed usage. It was found that in order to provide adequate pressures and fire flows, water mains serving "Della Drive" shall be tied into the high WATER The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 33 pressure zone located on Galpin Boulevard. This will result in some areurs ofthe development experiencing pressures above 90 PSI. Therefore, a portion of the homes will likely require individual pressure reducing valves. The developer will need to work with the Building Department and Public Works Utility Department to determine which homes will require pressure-reducing valves. In the northwest area of the development where Lucy fudge Lane will be extended, the developer is proposing to tie into the low-pressure water system via the existing 8" PVC water mains. Engineering does not anticipate any extraordinary impacts to the water system's pressrre or fire flow for the proposed 15 connections. As "Della Drive" will be tied into the high pressure zone via the existing water main offGalpin Boulevard and is an approved cul-de-sac by way of acceptance ofthe preliminary plat, the water system would have created a long dead end system. The Public Works Utility Department required the preliminary plat applicant (Lennar) to tie in the proposed water main on "Della Drive" to the existing water main stub located off Ruby Lane, to the north, which is now being proposed with the updated preliminary plans for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. Because "Della Drive" will be within the high-pressure zone, and the north tie-in location on Ruby Lane (Ashling Meadows neighborhood) is within the low-pressure zone, updated construction plans shall call out a gate valve to be installed where the system ties in. This gate valve will remain closed in order to separate the two zones, and will be opened by city forces during any maintenance or repair work in order to "back feed" the system, as necessary. Since water main connections will be tied into the high zone water system off Galpin Boulevard, the applicant shall verifu and illustrate the location of the connections on the construction plans. All mainline water main connections and required water main testing shall be witnessed by the city. A pre-construction meeting prior to the commencement of any work shall be scheduled by the developer's contractor with the city. Additionally, all underground utilities on the east and west side of Galpin Boulevard have not been illustrated on the plans. Thus, prior to the commencement of public utility construction, all underground utilities in this area (east and west of Galpin Boulevard) shall be surveyed and illustrated in the profile sheets in order to identift any potential conflicts. From the proposed preliminary water plans, there are multiple areas where water main and sanitary sewer mains will cross. All crossings of water and sewer utility mains are required to have I 8" of vertical separation and 10' of horizontal separation, measured from the edge of pipe. Where water mains cross sanitary sewer mains and do not meet vertical or horizontal separation requirements, the sanitary sewer shall be constructed ofC900 water main material and shall also be approved by the Minnesota Departrnent of Health, and all crossings shall be required to have the sanitary sewer pipe length centered over the water main crossing. The preliminary plans delineate areas where water main will run closely adjacent to, or under, stormwater catch basins. This may cause a potential for freezing ofthe water main at these locations due to inadequate ground cover from catch basin bottoms (sumps) to the water main. Water mains shall be constructed at 7.5' below grade, or be insulated, and constructed in conformance with the The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 34 City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Plan and profile sheets provided with the construction drawings of the water main shall include the location and depth of catch basins and their sumps for review and approval prior to issuance of a notice to proceed. The applicant shall ensure all fire hydrant spacing meets fre codes and are subject to the review and approval of the Fire Department. SANITARY SEWER The applicant is proposing to construct 8" PVC sanitary sewer main throughout the development that shall be owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. The entire sanitary sewer system will operate as a gravity system and connects to existing sanitary sewer mains at two locations; Lucy fudge Lane and a direct connection to the MCES sanitary sewer trunk line via an existing manhole from "Della Drive." All conditions set forth by MCES shall be addressed by the applicant for the direct connection to their system, and all permits required shall be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. The preliminary plans submitted do not utilize a nomenclature for identifying proposed manholes that aligrrs with the city's. The city will provide a list of appropriate manhole identifien to be incorporated prior to acceptance of final construction plans. This will ensure an e{ficient transition of the newly constnrcted public improvements into the city's asset management system for sanitary sewer manholes. Profile sheets for all public utilities, including sanitary sewer, shall be required for review and approval by the city prior to issuance of building permits for all phases. Based on the provided profile and plan sheets for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy, the applicant is proposing sanitary sewer that reaches a maximum depth requiring PVC SDR 26. PVC sanitary sewer pipes that have a burial depth of0-16 feet are required to be class SDR 35 and burial depths of 16-26 feet requires class SDR 26. The applicant shall update the proposed sanitary sewer pipes falling within these burial depths to have the appropriate class ofPVC. Article VII, Chapter l9 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 1.0 inch of runoff from the new impervious surfaces created by the project and water quality treatrnent resulting in the removal of90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorous (TP). The applicant's initial stormwater managemenl proposal generally meets the standards set forth in Chapter 19 for TSS and TP removals and abstraction. The applicant submitted a preliminary Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) produced by Justin Thomas Klabo, P.E. (MN No. 48701) with Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 35 The applicant proposed treatrnent of stormwater runoff with the use of an infilEation and./or filtration ponds located around the development. Based on the information and analysis provided regarding treatment of stormwater for TS and TPP, the infiltration/filtration method proposed was sufficient to meet the quality requirements of the city. Furthermore, rate controls have been shown to reduce post-construction flows from pre-existing flows, meeting City Code, along with adequate ibstraction. It appears Pond #1, adjacent to Galpin Boulevard, is adequately sized to accommodate additional stormwater from future public improvements (an additional 140,000 cubic feet of storage is available between the HWL and the EOF elevations). As it was a requirement of The Park PUD approval to provide additional storage, which was incorporated based on analysis Kimley-Hom (nremo dated May 29,2018), the SMP shall be updated to specifically address this requirement. An operations and maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater management systems must be entered into with the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) and the applicant. Once stormwater ponds have been constructed and are approved and accepted by the City, the City will enter into the agreements to take ownership. All comments and conditions set forth by the RPBCWD shall be addressed by the applicant. WETLAND ALTERATION The plan set shows no intent to impact wetlands on site. A Wetland Replacement Plan application was iubmitted to the city and reviewed per the WCA during the preliminary plat phase' A Notice of Decision and Approval for the Wetland Replacement Plan was sent on June 6, 2019 for wetlands impacted in the build-out of The Park l't Addition, 2nd Addition and 3'd Addition. wetland miiigation was approved through the purchase of wetland credits with wetlands beiag replaced at a ratio of 2: I . Wetland 14, proposed to be impacted during The Park f i Addition, required a lJnited States Army Corps of Engineering (USACE) permit as it was determined to be a USACE jurisdictional wetland. The approved permit was submitted to the city. Wetland buffers using bufler averaging have been applied to the project. Wetland buffers and buffer setbacks pursuant to section 20-411 and consistent with the preliminary plat must be memorialized with a recorded wetland buffer agreement filed with the county recorder's ofhce. EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre ofdisturbance 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). The applicant has yet to prepare and submitted a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the city and obtain an NPDES Construction Permit. An updated erosion and sediment control plan meeting the requirements of City Ordinance Sec. 1 9- 145 shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the commencement of any grading operations. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 36 LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that meets city code requirements and was previously approved when first proposed as The Park, however a few minor changes are needed. The quantity of maple trees proposed exceeds the maximum percentage allowed by city code. A new species or two will need to be added to the plant schedule to bring the quantities into line with city requirements. The applicant has proposed a tree preservation easement over Lots 1, 2 and 5, Block 3, but needs to correct the legal description which incorrectly lists the Lots as 1, 4, and 5. The applicant also needs to add tree preservation easement to Lots I and 2, Block l. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE STORMWATER UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGES Section 4-30 of City Code sets out the fees associated with surface water management. A water quality and water quantity fee are collected with a subdivision. These fees are based on land use type and are intended to reflect the fact that the more intense the development tyfle, the greater the degradation of surface water. This fee will be applied to the new lot of record being created. It is calculated as shown in the table below: SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT FEE AREA PER ACRE FEE ACRES FEE GROSS AREA s8,490 32.4t s 275,160.90 OUTLOT A s8,490 12.67 $ (107,568.30) OUTLOT B $8,490 2.t7 $ ( 18,423.30) RIGHT OF WAY s8,490 s (32,346.90) NET AREA 13.76 $ l r6,822.40 To guarantee compliance with the grading plan, and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be fumished to the city before a fught to Proceed is issued for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. The escrow amount shall be $2,157,627 .12, which is I l0% of the estimated costs of construction for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy. The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls and acceptance of dedicated public streets and public utilities. 3.81 The total estimated SWMP Fee is $116,822.40 for the entire subdivision at rates in affect for 2020. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 37 ASSESSMENTS Water and sewer partial hookups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hookup fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time. The remaining partial hookups fees are due with the building permit. As the development is within the Lake Ann Sewer District the Lake Ann Interceptor Fee and Lake Ann Subtrunk Fee will be due at the time of building permit issuance in accordance with City Ordinance Sec. 4-30. The 2020 rates for the Lake Ann Interceptor Fee and Lake Ann Subtnmk Fee are $1,971.00/unit and $2,068.00/unit, respectively. FEES Based on the proposal, the following fees would be collected with the development contract: o Administration Fee: Ifthe improvement costs are between $500,000 and $ 1,000,000, 2% of the improvement costs. If the improvement costs exceed $1,000,000, 2.5% of the first $1,000,000 plus L5% of the remainder. r Surface Water Management Fee for the entire subdivision at 2020 rates: $l 16,822.40 o A portion of the water hook-up charge: $2,392lunit (@ 3 l units : $74,1 52.00) o A portion ofthe sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $691/unit (@ 31 units = $21,421.00) . GIS fees: $25 for the plat plus $10 per parcel r Street light operating fee for one year: $300 per light r Final plat process (attomey fee for review and recording ofPlat and DC): $450.00 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE BLUFFS AT LAKE LUCY FINAL PLAT Dedication of Outlots 1. The remaining parkland (Outlot A) will be dedicated with this plat 2. Acknowledgement that the dedicated land may be developed at the city's discretion as parkland for public use and may include, but is not limited to trails, boardwalks, bridges, structures, and siguge. 3. All trails and sidewalks shall be constructed as shown on the street plan or as modified by construction plan redlines. Outlot A 72.67 acres Parkland, trail, wetland & stormwater pond Outlot B 2-17 acres Wetland & storrnwater pond 4. All trails shall meet all city standards for trail construction. Park and Recreation The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 38 Plannine l. All l9l acres must be included in the PUD. 2. All lots and homes must be developed consistent with the standards in the Compliance Table. En 1. Any requirements set by the MCES to work within the MCES's sewer and utility easement shall be ad&essed by the applicant. 2. An executed agreement between the developer and the MCES allowing work within the MCES's easement shall be provided to the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. 3. Ongoing coordination with the county and city regarding future improvements to Galpin Boulevard. The applicant shall address all conditions associated with the County's review. Also see Condition 7. 4. The developer shall abandon all existing wells and septic fields in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulatory agency standards, and obtain all necessary permits for said abandonments. Prior to commencement of abandonment activities, a copy of all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be provided to the city. 5. Grading within bluff setbacks is subject to review and approval by the city prior to grading. 6. The applicant shall submit revised grading plans and stormwater plans so that no stormwater runoff flows directly onto the public trail. 7. Final grading plans, including pond locations, sizing and analysis, along with right-of-way dedications offGalpin Boulevard, shall conform to the future Galpin Boulevard reconstruction project. Cross reference of grading plans, profiles, and respective cross sections are to be provided at key locations such as intersections, ponds, or other special features required by the county and city for review prior to acceptance and recording ofthe final plat. 8. All retaining walls exceeding four (4) feet in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance ofbuilding permits. 9. All newly constructed streets and the extension ofany existing streets shall be public streets, owned and maintained by the city, after acceptance ofthe public improvements by the City Council. 10. All newly constructed public streets shall be designed to meet the current standard specifications and detail plate for residential streets (Detail Plate #5200), unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. 11. The developer shall abandon the existing access, construct a new access and provide an access easement for parcel 25.0100400 onto "Della Drive". 12. A water service lateral shall be srubbed offthe of "Della Drive" water main for the future connection to parcel 25.0100400. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 39 13. A geotechnical engineering shall be on-site during grading operations. If groundwater is encormtered during grading, grades shall be adjusted to maintain a three foot separation from the bottom floor elevation and adhering to the recommendations ofthe soil engineer on site. Changes to grades shall be submiued to the city for review and approval. 14. All curb ramps shall be constructed to meet ADA standards and the city's Detail Plates #5215-5215D. 15. A detail of the proposed street lights shall be provided prior to the issuance ofbuilding permits. 16. Street lights within the development shall be owned and maintained by the electric utility company, be installed at all intersections and at the end of each cul-de-sac subject to review and approval by the city prior to issuance of building permits. 17 . All newly constructed water mains shall be public water mains, owned and mainlained by the city, after acceptance ofthe public improvements by the City Council. 18. Water mains located on Della Drive shall be tied into the high-pressure zone located on Galpin Boulevard. Water main extensions on Topaz Drive and Lucy Ridge Lane shall be tied into the existing water main stubs (low-pressure zone). 19. The water main located on Della Drive shall be tied into the existing stub offRuby Lane and a gate valve near the connection point shall be installed. The gate valve shall be closed to separate the pressure zones. 20. The developer shall field verifo the location ofall water main taps to the existing public mains off Galpin Boulevard prior to commencement of any utility construction and update the plans accordingly. 21. The developer's contractor shall schedule a preconstruction meeting with Engineering and Public Works Utilities departrnents prior to the commencement of any work to the water main installation and tapping from Galpin Boulevard. 22. Updated plans indicating the location ofall underground utilities on the east and west side of Galpin Boulevard, along with plans and profiles ofany utility crossings on the east and west side of Galpin Boulevard, shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the commencement ofany utility construction. 23. Water mains shall be constructed at a minimum of 7.5 feet below grade, or insulated, and consructed in conformance with the city's standard specifications and detail plates. 24. Cluster valves located around water main tees shall be installed at a minimum of five feet from the tees to the valves, where feasible. All valve locations and any other water main appurtennnces shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Public Works departments prior to the commencement of any utility constnrctiort" 25. All comments and conditions regarding fire appurtenances, spacing, and location set forth by the Fire department shall be addressed by the applicant. 26. All newly constructed sewer mains shall be public sewer mains, owned and maintained by the city, after acceptance ofthe public improvements by the City Council. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 40 27. All conditions set forth by the MCES for the direct connection and installation of an access manhole to their trunk line shall be addressed by the applicant, and all permits required for the connection and installation ofthe manhole shall be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. 28. The applicant shall ensure the city's sanitary sewer nomenclature is incorporated in the construction plans. 29. PVC sanitary sewer pipes that will be constructed at a burial depth of0-16 feet shall be constructed of pipe class sDR 35, burial depths of 16-26 feet shall be ofpipe class SDR 26, and burial depths of greater than 26 feet shall be ofpipe class C900. 30. Inverts that have a 20-inch or greater differential shall be supplied inside drops per city standards and be constructed per the city's Detail Plate No. 2104. 31 . No roadway connection shall be made to Topaz Drive. 31. Untreated or stormwater from lots not captured and routed to treatment facilities, particularly in backlots, require a conveyance system to be installed to route stormwater to treatment basins. 32. No sump structures shall be installed in backyard pickups. 33. Access routes to storm basins shall have a slope no greater than 3: I ' 34. Driveways shall be setback in accordance section 20-1122 ofCity Ordinances. 35. All driveways shall be located outside side lot drainage and utility e.rsements. 36. A $300 fee per light shall be collected with the development contract for electricity costs for the first year of operation. 37. The contractor shall contact the city inspector for inspection ofall insulated pipe crossings. 38. For all storm sewer plans: any HDPE pipe shall be called-out as "N-12" in accordance with city standard specifications. 39. All plans, specifications, project manuals, and submiuals shall be in conformance with the most recent version of city Standard Specifications and Detail Plates chanhassen.mn.,+6/Standard-S -Detail-Plates 40. As the property is within the Lake Ann Sewer District, a sewer interceptor charge and a sub- trunk charge will be due at the time ofbuilding permit issuance for each lot. For 2020, the Lake Ann Interceptor Fee and Lake Arur Subtrunk Fee are $1,970.00 and $2,068.00, respectively. 41. All retaining walls within the development shall be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. 42. All sidewalks not abutting plafied Lots (e.g. on Della Drive abutting Outlot B) within the development shall be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 41 43. Any retaining wall located within a public drainage and utility easement shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. 44. The "specifications for The Bluffs at Lucy Lake" prepared by Sathre-Berquist, Inc. provide Special Provisions that are not in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications or Detail Plates. These Special Provisions shall be updated to either amend any modification that would conflict with the City's Standard Specification and Detail Plates or be removed entirely. Ifthe Developer and their Engineer elect to modiry the Special Provisions, the City will provide redlines to assist with their modifications, however in accordance with Engineering Condition 39, all plans, specifications, project manuals, and submittals shall be in conformance with the most recent version of city Standard Specifications and Detail Plates (htto://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/436/5tandard- Soecifications-Detail-Plates) and their conformance is ultimatel y the responsibility ofthe Developer 45. On sheet 4 of4 on the Final Plat: Block 3, Lot 4's ten (10) foot drainage and utility easement located in the middle of the lot shall be twenty (20) feet wide to accommodate maintenance activities for the designed drainage on the lot; the right-of-way shall be extended at the end of "Topaz Drive", between Block 3, Lots 5 and 6 to reflect the approval ofthe Preliminary Plat for *The Park"; Block 3, Lot 8's southerly drainage and utility easement is illustrated at ten (10) feet wide which is oversized, it is possible to lessen this width to five (5) feet. 46. On sheet I of23: In the zoning index, cul-de-sacs are called out to have a 45' radius, this shall be updated to 48' per Detail Plate #5205; the "City Project No." is 2020-12, update accordingly. 47. On sheet 2 of23: It is recommended that detail plates remain on the sheets specified as "Detail Sheets" (sheets 17-23) and not be incorporate on random sheets throughout the plan set for clarity which will also allow for larger plan views on the corresponding sheets; the remnant driveway entrance north of "Della Drive" shall not be removed in association with the development, the City will assess its removal upon commencement of the Calpin Boulevard improvement project; throughout the Street and Storm Plans it was found that draintile does not extend on both sides and the full extents ofthe streets, the plans shall be updated to ensure draintile is installed on both sides of the street per Detail Plate #5200 and extend the fulI length of the proposed streets; street lights shall be located more closely to hydrants at the end ofcul-de-sacs (where applicable) in order to allow for better snow storage practices; in addition to changing the castings at the end ofRuby Lane, a note shall be added to coordinate with the City to assess ifadditional repairs are required to the catch basins; Street Note #2 should be updated to clarify sidewalks are 6" thick and curb ramps shall be constructed in accordance with Detail Plate 5215-5215D; it is recommended that Street Note #4 be updated to eliminate the use ofplastic rings as the City prefers concrete rings; add to Street Notes the requirement that all work outside platted areas are to be coordinated with the City and Residence, which includes R&D of Ruby Lane and Laky Lucy fudge, prior to construction activities commencing; add to Street Notes that all signs associated with the development are to be fumished and installed by the conractor in coordination with City review, and that signs within County right- of-way will require coordination with the County; ensue that all trail intersections have a 20' radius as required by Detail Plate #5216; add to Street Notes that cluster mailboxes shall be installed at the throat of cul-de-sacs, this is required to facilitate better snow storage practices at cul-de-sacs. 48. On sheet 3 of23: Horizontal scales shall be provided on all profiles within the plan set; while driveway grades are provided, the general location and layout ofproposed driveways and building pads are not illustrated, the plans shall be updated to illustrate proposed driveway and building pad locations for review and approval by the City; the newly proposed sidewalk along "Della Drive" shall terminate at the north side ofthe cul-de-sac throat; an exhibit illustrating the proposed driveway location and grades to parcel 25.0100400 shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the commencement of grading, the location ofthe driveway entrance, in accordance with Carver County's review memo, shall be no closer than I00' to Galpin Boulevard and grades along the proposed driveway shall meet City Standards, lastly the water service should align with the newly proposed driveway location. 49. On sheet 4 of23: The dimensions ofthe cul-de-sac bubble at the end ofTopaz Drive shall be illustrated; the R&D note for the area ofLucy fudge Lane calling out "Restore Yards: irrigation and sod" shall also include all privately owned undergromd improvements (e.g. invisible dog fences); plans to be updated to illustrate clearly that the sidewalk along Lucy Ridge Lane shall connect between the newly proposed alignments to the existing "R&D" areas; the newly proposed sidewalk along Lucy Ridge Lane shall be extended to and terminate at the east side ofthe cul-de-sac throat; the sidewalk along Topaz Drive shall be removed; the plan and profile stationing for Topaz Drive shall begin from the end ofthe cul-de-sac (reverse stationing); there appears to be an erroneous call out near Topaz Drive profile C'CL-CL Lucy Ridge Lane Sta: 06+48.90"), update accordingly; the extension ofpublic trail dead-ends with no tumaround provided, a turnaround shall be shown on the plans for review and approval. 50. On sheet 5 of23: As no sanitary mains are proposed to be C900 note I is unclear, clarification is required; note 2 shall be updated as sewer services shall be 6" SDR 26 solvent, non- gasketed weld joints; note 4 should be eliminated as no DIP will be allowed or is proposed in the sanitary sewer system, only PVC C900 when required (e.g. at the inside drop connection); note 1 I shall be updated to state that all services shall extend to the property line (per Detail Plates #1005 and 2001) unless otherwise noted as services may extend past the property line where sidewalk is located; note 13 shall be updated to correctly call out the city's standards as "Standard Specifications and Detail Plates"; note 13 shall be updated to state that the exception is for sanitary and water services past the properry line or curb stop which is inJine with City Ordinances, for clarity; note 17 shall be updated to state all watermain shall be PVC C900 DR 18; note 19 should be updated to provide the contractor the City's Utility Department phone number 952-227-1300; a note should be added that Rieberlok gaskets on all C900 PVC shall be used in accordance with City Standards. 5 l. On sheet 6 of 23: The plan view shall be adjusted or an inset provided illustrating the water main connection required ofthe proposed water main between Lots 3 and 4 and the existing water main off Ruby Lane; the water main shall be located on the soutlem side of Della Drive to facilitate separation from CBMH 19's sump structure, limit the depth of any possible water main lowering, and ensure that the water main does not go lower than the sanitary sewer main's grade; a detail shall The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 42 The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 43 be provided specific to MH 1 which should account for the compaction/fill around and up to the 8" PVC C900 connection for the inside drop; show all utility crossings, including water main, in all profile views including the inset for the inside drop MH connection; all existing utilities need to be identified in the profile views, especially under, east and west of Galpin Boulevard to ensure no conflicts are present; due to the complexity ofnotes and existing utilities near around Galpin Boulevard where the proposed water main will tie-in to the existing water main, a separate inset should be provided; the call-out for connect to existing should be updated to "connect to" and not "wet tap" and include reference to the high pressure zone; casing is required for the extents of water main proposed under Galpin Boulevard; a gate valve shall be installed on the east side of the tee located near 8+60; certain areas of sanitary sewer are called out at less than 0.5%o grade, it is highly recommended that grades be adjusted to maintain a minimum of 0.5% for constructability as any sanitary sewer mains below the minimum allowable grade will be required o be removed and re- installed; where grades are greater than 16' sanitary sewer main shall be PVC SDR 26, i.e. at locations east of MH 2 or north of MH 8; clarify the nomenclature "HBOE'; update line work for proposed storm sewer in profile to follow the color style consistently (appears grey when it should be green). 52. On sheet 7 of23: There is a yellow line identified in the plan view for Topaz Drive, clarifr accordingly; it is unclear where hydrant assemblies transition from 8" water main to 6" in plan view, clariff accordingly; gate valves shall be installed north and west of the tee located at the intersection of Topaz Drive and Lucy Ridge Lane; update call-out in profile view of Topaz Drive for the removal ofplug and add removal of hydrant as well, for clarity; maintain ten foot separation between Block 4 Lot 7's sanitary and water services and MH 9; update call-out in profile view oflucy Ridge Lane where existing stub is located to "8" PVC SDR 26", per as-builts. 53. On sheet 8 of23: Add note that trash guards are only to be installed on inlets or FES 24" or greater; castings on catch basins at low points shall be "VB*, update accordingly. 54. On sheet 9 of23:lt is unclear what the low opening elevation is from the grading detail to the plans due to the use ofdouble parentheses, e.g. when evaluating if lowest opening is I foot above emergency overflow on Block 3 Lot 4 the EOF elevation is 1013.0 adjacent to the lot while the call- out of((1013.8)) appears to indicate the "adjacent grade to low opening" per grading plan, which is out ofcompliance, update plans accordingly and/or clarifu; catch basin 7 needs to be relocated to a minimum of l0 feet away from the curb ramp; catch basin 12 and 13 shall be relocated to achieve a 90 degree connection; there is a portion ofnew impervious area on Lucy Ridge Lane that will not be captured by the proposed storm system, verifu that the new impervious area will not inundate the existing storm sewei system norrh of Lucy Ridge Lane; Block 4 Lot 7's backyard drainage sheet flows over the trail, no private drainage shall flow over the public trail system and needs to be accounted for in the storm plan (grading, back-yard storm conveyance, etc.); relocate CBMH 2 to the east in order to eliminate the double crossing of the public trail; relocate CBMH 10 to be centered on the property line (typ. of all backyard CBMHs); show all utility crossings on profiles (typ); add sufficient depth between CBMH 4 and CBMH 2 to decrease velocities below 12 fps, all RCP laid at slopes greater than 5% grade shall be tied; clearly illustrate where 86 curbing locations are for review and approval; add note that all FES shall have a witness post installed, the City will fumish The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 44 witness posts; the outlet structure detail for Pond #2 should be updated and drawn to reflect proper elevations (i.e. the outlet pipe is above the inlet pipe as drawn); add note to ensue outlet structues meet Detail Plate #3109A. 55. On sheet 10 of23: Update profile to ensure inverts connecting to in stnrctures match crown elevations (HGL), typ; the RCP pipe between CBMH 20 and CMBH 19 shall be CL. 5. 56. On sheet 12 of23: Profile from approximately l+50 to 0+00 shows inadequate cover over 27" RCP pipe, adjust accordingly. 57. On sheet 13 of23: The indentation and spacing ofall notes should be updated for clarity; note 2 discusses removal of sand/silt in ponds, a decompaction note should accompany this requirement as infiltration is a proposed surface water management technique; note 5 should reference the street detail and/or should be accompanied by a cross-section; note 6 should be updated to allow for a minimum of 0.570 slope on driveways per Ordinance; notes referencing MnDOT seed numbers appear to be obsolete and should be reviewed and updated accordingly; note 13 should be updated from "the rctaining walls" to "all retaining walls"; notes or the plan shall be updated to incorporate locations ofbench marks, stockpiles, haul routes, staging areas, and dewatering plan, and typical lot benching detail; add note that all walls over 6' in height require fencing or other barrier; adjust all retaining walls to be located wholy on private property and not Ciry owned Outlots and/or wetland buffers. 58. On sheet 14 of23: swales between lots shall be graded to ensure drainage is routed along property lines and within drainage and utility easements, e.g. between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 2 drainage would be routed more or less onto Lot 4, adjust for all lots accordingly. 59. On sheet 16 of23: The provided erosion control plan does not fully meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 of City Ordinances, and shall be updated accordingly, furthermore no SWPPP has been provided meeting the requirements of NPDES General Construction Permit and shall be provided prior to the issuance ofthe Right to Proceed. 60. On sheet 17 of 23; Details appear illegible or difficult to read as printed on full size plan sheets, the detail pages shall be updated to a maximum of 8 per page, or to achieve legible details, for clarity. Stormwater Conditions & Wetlands 1. An NPDES permit and accompanying Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required prior to the start of grading. 2. An operations and maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater management system will be required prior to approval. 3. All comments and conditions set forth by the Riley Purgatory BluffCreek Watershed District shall be addressed by the applicant. The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 45 4. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by City Code. 5. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on site. Please indicate wetland buffer widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in the city's guidance document. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Altemative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. Wetland buffers and buffer setbacks pursuant to section 20411 and consistent with the preliminary plat must be memorialized with a recorded wetland buffer agreement filed with the county recorder's office. 6. It appears the applicant is showing contours within the filtration areas under the final surface elevation ofthe filfiation areas. It is recommended the applicant callout the final surface elevation within the filtration areas and that the applicant add in cross sections (across the pond and filtration basins) to clarifu the critical elevations within the basins. 7. Applicant shall confrm drainage from the hill west of the proposed home on Lot I along Della Drive is not being directed to the home, adjus grading accordingly. 8. Inlet protections are to be added to catch basins 6, 10, 1l and the catch basin to the west of the Topaz Drive cul-de-sac. 9. The applicant is using a constant 0.4 coeffrcient value for the rational method storm sewer calculations. Previous additions within the development used varying coefficients determined by the impervious/pervious percentages ofeach catch basin drainage area. The applicant shall either modify the storm sewer sizing calculations to use varying coeffrcients determined by the impervious/pervious percentages similar to how the previous storm sewer was sized or provide calculations demonstrating the use of a consistent 0.4 coefficient is valid. 10. The applicant shall update all storm sewer so the maximum pipe velocity is 12 fos. 11. The Stormwater Management Plan shall be updated to address the needs ofadditional volume for the future Galpin Boulevard Improvement Project outlined in Kimley-Hom's memorandum dated May 29,2018. 12. Applicant is showing at catch basins 4, 18, and 19 the spread at the inlet will extend over l0 feet into the street. The applicant shall add additional catch basins at these points to reduce the spread into the roadway. 13. In the overall plans for the Park development dated 5/20119 the proposed outlet for Wetland 2 was a24" pipe but in the The Bluffs at Lake Lucy plans the outlet is an 18" pipe. It is noted that the existing outlet for Wetland 2 is an 18" CMP pipe. However, the HydroCAD modeling suggests the proposed 18" wetland outlet will cause an increase in the 100-year HWL within Wetland 2 when compared to overall development proposed conditions model and when compared to existing conditions (see table below). Applicant should confirm a larger outlet pipe is not needed and/or that the increase in the wetland HWL will not have any negative impacts on Galpin Avenue or any adjacent structures. Existing Conditions Wetland 2 HWL Overall Development Model Wetland 2 HWL (5/16/19) Proposed Wetland 2 HWL in 4th Addition Model 973,39 973.05 974.06 14. In the Pond I OCS detail the outlet pipe is shown as an l8" but is being modeled as a27" in the proposed HydroCAD model (assumed to be Device #1). Applicant shall update the plan and/or HydroCAD model to be consistent with one another. 1 5. The HydroCAD model uses an exfiltration rate of 0.35 in/hr within Pond 1 but the stormwater narrative and the P8 model both have an infiltration rate of 0.8 in/hr. Applicant shall confirm the appropriate infiltration rate and update all references to be consistent 16. The following updates to the P8 model need to be confirmed: a. It is unclear why for both ponds a 12" orifice outlet is being used for the normal outlet directed to either the adjacent filtration or infiltration bench. Applicant should change the normal outlet to a weir outlet based on the berm separating the pond and the infiltration/filtration bench or should provide reasoning behind using a 12" orifice b. The flood pool elevations/volumes for Pond 1 and 2 should be calculated at 979 and 968 respectively based on the EOF elevations noted on the plans. The infiltration outlet for the Pond 2 filtration bench should be routed to the downstream waterbody instead ofout of the syslem for accuracy. Similarly, in the P8 model where Pond I is being modeled as a filtration bench, the infiltration outlet should be routed to the downstream waterbody. d. Applicant should clari! what the wetland boundary infiltration device is that is being modeled in the proposed condition P8 models and confirm it should not also be included in the existing conditions P8 model for accuracy. e. The bottom surface area for Pond 2 should be updated to 0.008 ac (or 0.01 if needed) to be representative ofthe plans Landscaoins and Tree Preservation l. The developer shall conduct a walk-through ofthe grading limits on site prior to removals with city staff to inspect for opportunities for additional tree preservation. 2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities and remain installed until completion. c The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 46 The Bluffs at Lake Lucy September 14,2020 Page 47 3. All trees shall be planted outside of the street right-of-way. 4. No tree Genus shall comprise ofmore than 20% ofthe total number oftrees and no tree species shall comprise of more than 10% of the total number oftrees. The applicant shall add 2 selections of trees to reduce maple quantities to meet ordinance requirements. 5. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall have Tree Preservation Easements over the easterly 300'oflot l, Block I and the westerly 200' oflot 2, Block 1. 6. The Tree Preservation Easement legal description for Block 3 shall be corrected to include Lots l,4, and 5, Block 3 7 . Park property boundary signs shall be installed at property comers on Lots l -6, Block 4 and Lots 1-l l, Block 2. 8. The restored slope on Lots I and 2, Block 1 shall be planted with trees in a random pattem from top to toe ofslope. Trees shall be acceptable if one year from planting there is a75Vo survival rale over 75Yo of the slope area. g:VlanUol9 planning clses\1941 galpin site preliminary plat and rczoning pud\_the bluffs at lalie lucy (the padi 4lh addn)\staffreport c{ 9.l4.20.docx 9. The landscape plan shall be updated to include a sheet on seeding specifications for slopes and outlots. Seed mixes shall be MNDOT native mixes approved by the city. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA THE BLUFFS AT LAKE LUCY DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) i TABLE OF CONTENTS SPECIAL PROVISIONS PAGE 1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL ............................................................................ SP-1 2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL ........................................................................ SP-1 3. DEVELOPMENT PLANS ............................................................................................ SP-1 4. IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................ SP-2 5. TIME OF PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................... SP-2 6. SECURITY .................................................................................................................... SP-2 7. NOTICE ......................................................................................................................... SP-3 8. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS................................................................................ SP-3 9. GENERAL CONDITIONS ........................................................................................... SP-5 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. RIGHT TO PROCEED ................................................................................................. GC-1 2. PHASED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ GC-1 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS ................................................................................ GC-1 4. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS ..................................................................... GC-1 5. IMPROVEMENTS ....................................................................................................... GC-1 6. IRON MONUMENTS .................................................................................................. GC-2 7. LICENSE ...................................................................................................................... GC-2 8. SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ......................................................... GC-2 8A. EROSION CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING OR OTHER BUILDING ......................................................................................... GC-2 9. CLEAN UP ................................................................................................................... GC-3 10. ACCEPTANCE AND OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS .................................... GC-3 11. CLAIMS ....................................................................................................................... GC-3 12. PARK DEDICATION .................................................................................................. GC-3 13. LANDSCAPING .......................................................................................................... GC-3 14. WARRANTY ............................................................................................................... GC-4 15. LOT PLANS ................................................................................................................. GC-4 16. EXISTING ASSESSMENTS ....................................................................................... GC-4 17. HOOK-UP CHARGES ................................................................................................. GC-4 18. PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING..................................................................................... GC-4 19. SIGNAGE ..................................................................................................................... GC-5 20. HOUSE PADS .............................................................................................................. GC-5 21. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS ................................................................................ GC-5 22. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT ......................................................................................... GC-6 22. MISCELLANEOUS A. Construction Trailers ........................................................................................ GC-6 B. Postal Service .................................................................................................... GC-7 C. Third Parties ...................................................................................................... GC-7 D. Breach of Contract ............................................................................................ GC-7 E. Severability ....................................................................................................... GC-7 ii F. Building Permits ............................................................................................... GC-7 G. Waivers/Amendments ....................................................................................... GC-7 H. Release .............................................................................................................. GC-7 I. Insurance ........................................................................................................... GC-7 J. Remedies ........................................................................................................... GC-8 K. Assignability ..................................................................................................... GC-8 L. Construction Hours ........................................................................................... GC-8 M. Noise Amplification .......................................................................................... GC-8 N. Access ............................................................................................................... GC-8 O. Street Maintenance............................................................................................ GC-8 P. Storm Sewer Maintenance ................................................................................ GC-9 Q. Soil Treatment Systems .................................................................................... GC-9 R. Variances........................................................................................................... GC-9 S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations ..................................... GC-9 T. Proof of Title ..................................................................................................... GC-9 U. Soil Conditions................................................................................................ GC-10 V. Soil Correction ................................................................................................ GC-10 W. Haul Routes ......................................................................................................... GC-10 X. Development Signs .............................................................................................. GC-10 Y. Construction Plans ............................................................................................... GC-10 Z. As-Built Lot Surveys ........................................................................................... GC-11 SP-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) THE BLUFFS AT LAKE LUCY SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated September 14, 2020 by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and, CHAN THREE DEVELOPMENT, INC., a Minnesota Corporation (the "Developer"). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A". 2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract, furnish the security required by it, and record the plat with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within 30 days after the City Council approves the plat. 3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A: Final plat approved September 14, 2020, prepared by Sathre-Berquist, Inc. Plan B: Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated July 29, 2020, prepared by Sathre- Berquist, Inc. Plan C: Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated July 24, 2020, prepared by Sathre- Berquist, Inc. Plan D: Landscape Plan dated August 11, 2020, prepared by Nordby and Associates. SP-2 4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: A. Sanitary Sewer System B. Water System C. Storm Water Drainage System D. Streets E. Concrete Curb and Gutter F. Street Lights G. Site Grading/Restoration H. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, telephone, CATV) I. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments J. Surveying and Staking K. Landscaping L. Erosion Control 5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements except for the wear course on public streets by November 15, 2020. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City Engineer. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements, and construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit in the form attached hereto, from a bank acceptable to the City, or cash escrow ("security") for $2,157,627.12. The amount of the security was calculated as 110% of the following: Site Grading/Erosion Control/Restoration $ 391,530.20 Sanitary Sewer $ 178,367.50 Watermain $ 148,225.00 Storm Sewer, Drainage System, including cleaning and maintenance $ 414,014.50 Streets $ 667,385.00 Sub-total, Construction Costs $ 1,799,522.20 Engineering, surveying, and inspection (7% of construction costs) $ 125,966.55 Landscaping (2% of construction costs) $ 35,990.44 Sub-total, Other Costs $ 161,957.00 TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $ 1,961,479.20 SECURITY AMOUNT (110% of 1,961,479.20) $2,157,627.12 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restriction on the use of the security. The security shall be subject to the approval of the City. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for SP-3 any violation of the terms of this Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the security may be reduced from time to time as financial obligations are paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a point less than 10% of the original amount until (1) all improvements have been completed, (2) iron monuments for lot corners have been installed, (3) all financial obligations to the City satisfied, (4) the required “record” plans have been received by the City, (5) a warranty security is provided, and (6) the public improvements are accepted by the City. 7. Notice. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Craig Allen Chan Three Development, Inc. 10850 Old County Road 15, Suite 200 Plymouth, MN 55441 Phone: 952-270-4473 E-mail: caig@gonyeacompany.com Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317, Telephone (952) 227-1100. 8. Other Special Conditions. A. FEES 1. Prior to release of the plat for recording and prior to scheduling a pre-construction meeting, Developer shall submit to the City $252,273.23 for the following City fees: Administration fee (based on estimated construction cost of $1,799,522.20, 2.5% for the first $1,000,000 + 1.5% of the remainder) $ 36,992.83 GIS fee: 31 parcels @ $10/parcel + $25 for the plat $ 335.00 Partial payment of City sewer and water hookup fees: 31 units @ $691/unit (sewer) + $2,392/unit (water) $95,573.00 Street light operating fee: 7 lights @ $300/light $ 2,100.00 Attorney Fee for Review and Recording of Plat and DC $ 450.00 Surface Water Management Fee $116,822.40 Total $252,273.23 B. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SP-4 Conveyance of Outlots At the time of recording the final plat, the following outlots must be conveyed to the City free and clear of any encumbrances: Outlot A 12.67 acres Parkland, trail, wetland & stormwater pond Outlot B 2.17 acres Wetland & stormwater pond Park and Recreation 1. All trails and sidewalks shall be constructed as shown on the street plan or as modified by construction plan redlines. 2. All trails shall meet all City standards for trail construction. Planning 1. All property within the plat must be included in The Park PUD (“PUD”). 2. All lots and homes must be developed consistent with the standards in the Compliance Table. 3. Documents establishing a homeowners association for the plat must be submitted by the Developer with application for final plat approval and recorded with the final plat against the property within the final plat, except for Outlots A and B. The HOA documents are subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. Engineering 1. Any requirements set by the MCES to work within the MCES’s sewer and utility easement shall be addressed by the Developer. 2. An executed agreement between the developer and the MCES allowing work within the MCES’s easement shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. 3. Developer shall continue to coordinate with Carver County (“County”) and the City regarding future improvements to Galpin Boulevard. The Developer shall address all conditions associated with the County’s review. Also see Condition 7. 4. The Developer shall abandon all existing wells and septic fields in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulatory agency standards, and obtain all necessary permits for said abandonments. Prior to commencement of abandonment activities, a copy of all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be provided to the City. 5. Grading within bluff setbacks is subject to review and approval by the City prior to grading. 6. The Developer shall submit revised grading plans and stormwater plans so that no stormwater runoff flows directly onto the public trail. SP-5 7. Final grading plans, including pond locations, sizing and analysis, along with right-of- way dedications off Galpin Boulevard, shall conform to the future Galpin Boulevard reconstruction project. Cross reference of grading plans, profiles, and respective cross sections are to be provided at key locations such as intersections, ponds, or other special features required by the County and City for review prior to acceptance and recording of the final plat. 8. All retaining walls exceeding four (4) feet in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance of building permits. 9. All newly constructed streets and the extension of any existing streets shall be public streets, owned and maintained by the City, after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. 10. All newly constructed public streets shall be designed to meet the current standard specifications and detail plate for residential streets (Detail Plate #5200), unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. 11. The Developer shall abandon the existing access, construct a new access and provide an access easement for parcel 25.0100400 onto “Della Drive”. 12. A water service lateral shall be stubbed off the of “Della Drive” water main for the future connection to parcel 25.0100400. 13. A geotechnical engineering shall be on-site during grading operations. If groundwater is encountered during grading, grades shall be adjusted to maintain a three foot separation from the bottom floor elevation and adhering to the recommendations of the soil engineer on site. Changes to grades shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. 14. All curb ramps shall be constructed to meet ADA standards and the City’s Detail Plates #5215-5215D. 15. A detail of the proposed street lights shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits. 16. Street lights within the development shall be owned and maintained by the electric utility company, be installed at all intersections and at the end of each cul-de-sac subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of building permits. 17. All newly constructed water mains shall be public water mains, owned and maintained by the City, after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. 18. Water mains located on Della Drive shall be tied into the high-pressure zone located on Galpin Boulevard. Water main extensions on Topaz Drive and Lucy Ridge Lane shall be tied into the existing water main stubs (low-pressure zone). 19. The water main located on Della Drive shall be tied into the existing stub off Ruby Lane and a gate valve near the connection point shall be installed. The gate valve shall be closed to separate the pressure zones. 20. The Developer shall field verify the location of all water main taps to the existing public mains off Galpin Boulevard prior to commencement of any utility construction and update the plans accordingly. SP-6 21. The Developer’s contractor shall schedule a preconstruction meeting with Engineering and Public Works Utilities departments prior to the commencement of any work to the water main installation and tapping from Galpin Boulevard. 22. Updated plans indicating the location of all underground utilities on the east and west side of Galpin Boulevard, along with plans and profiles of any utility crossings on the east and west side of Galpin Boulevard, shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the commencement of any utility construction. 23. Water mains shall be constructed at a minimum of 7.5 feet below grade, or insulated, and constructed in conformance with the City’s standard specifications and detail plates. 24. Cluster valves located around water main tees shall be installed at a minimum of five feet from the tees to the valves, where feasible. All valve locations and any other water main appurtenances shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Public Works departments prior to the commencement of any utility construction. 25. All comments and conditions regarding fire appurtenances, spacing, and location set forth by the Fire department shall be addressed by the Developer. 26. All newly constructed sewer mains shall be public sewer mains, owned and maintained by the City, after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. 27. All conditions set forth by the MCES for the direct connection and installation of an access manhole to their trunk line shall be addressed by the Developer, and all permits required for the connection and installation of the manhole shall be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. 28. The Developer shall ensure the City’s sanitary sewer nomenclature is incorporated in the construction plans. 29. PVC sanitary sewer pipes that will be constructed at a burial depth of 0-16 feet shall be constructed of pipe class SDR 35, burial depths of 16-26 feet shall be of pipe class SDR 26, and burial depths of greater than 26 feet shall be of pipe class C900. 30. Inverts that have a 20-inch or greater differential shall be supplied inside drops per City standards and be constructed per the City’s Detail Plate No. 2104. 31. No roadway connection shall be made to Topaz Drive. 31. Untreated or stormwater from lots not captured and routed to treatment facilities, particularly in backlots, require a conveyance system to be installed to route stormwater to treatment basins. 32. No sump structures shall be installed in backyard pickups. 33. Access routes to storm basins shall have a slope no greater than 3:1. 34. Driveways shall be setback in accordance section 20-1122 of City Ordinances. 35. All driveways shall be located outside side lot drainage and utility easements. SP-7 36. A $300 fee per light shall be collected with the development contract for electricity costs for the first year of operation. 37. The contractor shall contact the City inspector for inspection of all insulated pipe crossings. 38. For all storm sewer plans: any HDPE pipe shall be called-out as “N-12” in accordance with City standard specifications. 39. All plans, specifications, project manuals, and submittals shall be in conformance with the most recent version of City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates (http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/436/Standard-Specifications-Detail-Plates). 40. As the property is within the Lake Ann Sewer District, a sewer interceptor charge and a sub-trunk charge will be due at the time of building permit issuance for each lot. For 2020, the Lake Ann Interceptor Fee and Lake Ann Subtrunk Fee are $1,970.00 and $2,068.00, respectively. 41. All retaining walls within the development shall be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. 42. All sidewalks not abutting platted Lots (e.g. on Della Drive abutting Outlot B) within the development shall be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association. 43. Any retaining wall located within a public drainage and utility easement shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. 44. The “Specifications for The Bluffs at Lucy Lake” prepared by Sathre-Berquist, Inc. provide Special Provisions that are not in accordance with the City’s Standard Specifications or Detail Plates. These Special Provisions shall be updated to either amend any modification that would conflict with the City’s Standard Specification and Detail Plates or be removed entirely. If the Developer and their Engineer elect to modify the Special Provisions, the City will provide redlines to assist with their modifications, however in accordance with Engineering Condition 39, all plans, specifications, project manuals, and submittals shall be in conformance with the most recent version of City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates (http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/436/Standard-Specifications-Detail-Plates) and their conformance is ultimately the responsibility of the Developer. 45. On sheet 4 of 4 on the Final Plat: Block 3 Lot 4’s ten (10) foot drainage and utility easement located in the middle of the lot shall be twenty (20) feet wide to accommodate maintenance activities for the designed drainage on the lot; the right-of-way shall be extended at the end of “Topaz Drive”, between Block 3 Lots 5 and 6 to reflect the approval of the Preliminary Plat for “The Park”; Block 3 Lot 8’s southerly drainage and utility easement is illustrated at ten (10) feet wide which is oversized, it is possible to lessen this width to five (5) feet. SP-8 46. On sheet 1 of 23: In the zoning index, cul-de-sacs are called out to have a 45’ radius, this shall be updated to 48’ per Detail Plate #5205; the “City Project No.” is 2020-12, update accordingly. 47. On sheet 2 of 23: It is recommended that detail plates remain on the sheets specified as “Detail Sheets” (sheets 17-23) and not be incorporate on random sheets throughout the plan set for clarity which will also allow for larger plan views on the corresponding sheets; the remnant driveway entrance north of “Della Drive” shall not be removed in association with the development, the City will assess its removal upon commencement of the Galpin Boulevard improvement project; throughout the Street and Storm Plans it was found that draintile does not extend on both sides and the full extents of the streets, the plans shall be updated to ensure draintile is installed on both sides of the street per Detail Plate #5200 and extend the full length of the proposed streets; street lights shall be located more closely to hydrants at the end of cul- de-sacs (where applicable) in order to allow for better snow storage practices; in addition to changing the castings at the end of Ruby Lane, a note shall be added to coordinate with the City to assess if additional repairs are required to the catch basins; Street Note #2 shall be updated to clarify sidewalks are 6” thick and curb ramps shall be constructed in accordance with Detail Plate 5215-5215D; it is recommended that Street Note #4 be updated to eliminate the use of plastic rings as the City prefers concrete rings; add to Street Notes the requirement that all work outside platted areas are to be coordinated with the City and Residence, which includes R&D of Ruby Lane and Laky Lucy Ridge, prior to construction activities commencing; add to Street Notes that all signs associated with the development are to be furnished and installed by the contractor in coordination with City review, and that signs within County right-of-way will require coordination with the County; ensure that all trail intersections have a 20’ radius as required by Detail Plate #5216; add to Street Notes that cluster mailboxes shall be installed at the throat of cul-de-sacs, this is required to facilitate better snow storage practices at cul-de-sacs. 48. On sheet 3 of 23: Horizontal scales shall be provided on all profiles within the plan set; while driveway grades are provided, the general location and layout of proposed driveways and building pads are not illustrated, the plans shall be updated to illustrate proposed driveway and building pad locations for review and approval by the City; the newly proposed sidewalk along “Della Drive” shall terminate at the north side of the cul-de-sac throat; an exhibit illustrating the proposed driveway location and grades to parcel 25.0100400 shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the commencement of grading, the location of the driveway entrance, in accordance with Carver County’s review memo, shall be no closer than 100’ to Galpin Boulevard and grades along the proposed driveway shall meet City Standards, lastly the water service must align with the newly proposed driveway location. 49. On sheet 4 of 23: The dimensions of the cul-de-sac bubble at the end of Topaz Drive shall be illustrated; the R&D note for the area of Lucy Ridge Lane calling out “Restore Yards: irrigation and sod” shall also include all privately owned underground improvements (e.g. invisible dog fences); plans to be updated to illustrate clearly that the sidewalk along Lucy Ridge Lane shall connect between the newly proposed alignments to the existing “R&D” areas; the newly proposed sidewalk along Lucy Ridge Lane shall be extended to and terminate at the east side of the cul-de-sac throat; the sidewalk along Topaz Drive shall be removed; the plan and SP-9 profile stationing for Topaz Drive shall begin from the end of the cul-de-sac (reverse stationing); there appears to be an erroneous call out near Topaz Drive profile (“CL-CL Lucy Ridge Lane Sta: 06+48.90”), update accordingly; the extension of public trail dead-ends with no turnaround provided, a turnaround shall be shown on the plans for review and approval. 50. On sheet 5 of 23: As no sanitary mains are proposed to be C900 note 1 is unclear, clarification is required; note 2 shall be updated as sewer services shall be 6” SDR 26 solvent, non-gasketed weld joints; note 4 shall be eliminated as no DIP will be allowed or is proposed in the sanitary sewer system, only PVC C900 when required (e.g. at the inside drop connection); note 11 shall be updated to state that all services shall extend to the property line (per Detail Plates #1005 and 2001) unless otherwise noted as services may extend past the property line where sidewalk is located; note 13 shall be updated to correctly call out the City’s standards as “Standard Specifications and Detail Plates”; note 13 shall be updated to state that the exception is for sanitary and water services past the property line or curb stop which is in-line with City Ordinances, for clarity; note 17 shall be updated to state all watermain shall be PVC C900 DR 18; note 19 must be updated to provide the contractor the City’s Utility Department phone number 952-227-1300; a note must be added that RieberLok gaskets on all C900 PVC shall be used in accordance with City Standards. 51. On sheet 6 of 23: The plan view shall be adjusted or an inset provided illustrating the water main connection required of the proposed water main between Lots 3 and 4 and the existing water main off Ruby Lane; the water main shall be located on the southern side of Della Drive to facilitate separation from CBMH 19’s sump structure, limit the depth of any possible water main lowering, and ensure that the water main does not go lower than the sanitary sewer main’s grade; a detail shall be provided specific to MH 1 which should account for the compaction/fill around and up to the 8” PVC C900 connection for the inside drop; show all utility crossings, including water main, in all profile views including the inset for the inside drop MH connection; all existing utilities need to be identified in the profile views, especially under, east and west of Galpin Boulevard to ensure no conflicts are present; due to the complexity of notes and existing utilities near around Galpin Boulevard where the proposed water main will tie-in to the existing water main, a separate inset shall be provided; the call-out for connect to existing shall be updated to “connect to” and not “wet tap” and include reference to the high pressure zone; casing is required for the extents of water main proposed under Galpin Boulevard; a gate valve shall be installed on the east side of the tee located near 8+60; certain areas of sanitary sewer are called out at less than 0.5% grade, it is highly recommended that grades be adjusted to maintain a minimum of 0.5% for constructability as any sanitary sewer mains below the minimum allowable grade will be required o be removed and re-installed; where grades are greater than 16’ sanitary sewer main shall be PVC SDR 26, i.e. at locations east of MH 2 or north of MH 8; clarify the nomenclature “HBOE”; update line work for proposed storm sewer in profile to follow the color style consistently (appears grey when it must be green). 52. On sheet 7 of 23: There is a yellow line identified in the plan view for Topaz Drive, clarify accordingly; it is unclear where hydrant assemblies transition from 8” water main to 6” in plan view, clarify accordingly; gate valves shall be installed north and west of the tee located at the intersection of Topaz Drive and Lucy Ridge Lane; update call-out in profile view of Topaz SP-10 Drive for the removal of plug and add removal of hydrant as well, for clarity; maintain ten foot separation between Block 4 Lot 7’s sanitary and water services and MH 9; update call-out in profile view of Lucy Ridge Lane where existing stub is located to “8” PVC SDR 26”, per as- builts. 53. On sheet 8 of 23: Add note that trash guards are only to be installed on inlets or FES 24” or greater; castings on catch basins at low points shall be “VB”, update accordingly. 54. On sheet 9 of 23: It is unclear what the low opening elevation is from the grading detail to the plans due to the use of double parentheses, e.g. when evaluating if lowest opening is 1 foot above emergency overflow on Block 3 Lot 4 the EOF elevation is 1013.0 adjacent to the lot while the call-out of ((1013.8)) appears to indicate the “adjacent grade to low opening” per grading plan, which is out of compliance, update plans accordingly and/or clarify; catch basin 7 needs to be relocated to a minimum of 10 feet away from the curb ramp; catch basin 12 and 13 shall be relocated to achieve a 90 degree connection; there is a portion of new impervious area on Lucy Ridge Lane that will not be captured by the proposed storm system, verify that the new impervious area will not inundate the existing storm sewer system north of Lucy Ridge Lane; Block 4 Lot 7’s backyard drainage sheet flows over the trail, no private drainage shall flow over the public trail system and needs to be accounted for in the storm plan (grading, back-yard storm conveyance, etc.); relocate CBMH 2 to the east in order to eliminate the double crossing of the public trail; relocate CBMH 10 to be centered on the property line (typ. of all backyard CBMHs); show all utility crossings on profiles (typ); add sufficient depth between CBMH 4 and CBMH 2 to decrease velocities below 12 fps, all RCP laid at slopes greater than 5% grade shall be tied; clearly illustrate where B6 curbing locations are for review and approval; add note that all FES shall have a witness post installed, the City will furnish witness posts; the outlet structure detail for Pond #2 shall be updated and drawn to reflect proper elevations (i.e. the outlet pipe is above the inlet pipe as drawn); add note to ensure outlet structures meet Detail Plate #3109A. 55. On sheet 10 of 23: Update profile to ensure inverts connecting to in structures match crown elevations (HGL), typ; the RCP pipe between CBMH 20 and CMBH 19 shall be CL. 5. 56. On sheet 12 of 23: Profile from approximately 1+50 to 0+00 shows inadequate cover over 27” RCP pipe, adjust accordingly. 57. On sheet 13 of 23: The indentation and spacing of all notes shall be updated for clarity; note 2 discusses removal of sand/silt in ponds, a decompaction note must accompany this requirement as infiltration is a proposed surface water management technique; note 5 must reference the street detail and/or must be accompanied by a cross-section; note 6 shall be updated to allow for a minimum of 0.5% slope on driveways per Ordinance; notes referencing MnDOT seed numbers appear to be obsolete and shall be reviewed and updated accordingly; note 13 shall be updated from “the retaining walls” to “all retaining walls”; notes or the plan shall be updated to incorporate locations of bench marks, stockpiles, haul routes, staging areas, and dewatering plan, and typical lot benching detail; add note that all walls over 6’ in height require fencing or other barrier; adjust all retaining walls to be located wholy on private property and not City owned Outlots and/or wetland buffers. SP-11 58. On sheet 14 of 23: swales between lots shall be graded to ensure drainage is routed along property lines and within drainage and utility easements, e.g. between Lots 3 and 4 of Block 2 drainage would be routed more or less onto Lot 4, adjust for all lots accordingly. 59. On sheet 16 of 23: The provided erosion control plan does not fully meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 of City Ordinances, and shall be updated accordingly, furthermore no SWPPP has been provided meeting the requirements of NPDES General Construction Permit and shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Right to Proceed. 60. On sheet 17 of 23: Details appear illegible or difficult to read as printed on full size plan sheets, the detail pages shall be updated to a maximum of 8 per page, or to achieve legible details, for clarity. Stormwater Conditions & Wetlands 1. An NPDES permit and accompanying Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be required prior to the start of grading. 2. Developer shall enter into an operations and maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater management system with Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District prior to the City issuing a right to proceed. 3. All comments and conditions set forth by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District shall be addressed by the Developer. 4. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by City Code. 5. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on site. Wetland buffer widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet must be identified in accordance with the City’s guidance document. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Alternative signs (by the City or Developer) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. Wetland buffers and buffer setbacks pursuant to section 20-411 and consistent with the preliminary plat must be memorialized with a recorded wetland buffer agreement filed with the County recorder’s office. 6. It appears the Developer is showing contours within the filtration areas under the final surface elevation of the filtration areas. It is recommended the Developer callout the final surface elevation within the filtration areas and that the Developer add in cross sections (across the pond and filtration basins) to clarify the critical elevations within the basins. 7. Developer shall confirm drainage from the hill west of the proposed home on Lot 1 along Della Drive is not being directed to the home, and shall adjust grading accordingly. SP-12 8. Inlet protections are to be added to catch basins 6, 10, 11 and the catch basin to the west of the Topaz Drive cul-de-sac. 9. The Developer is using a constant 0.4 coefficient value for the rational method storm sewer calculations. Previous additions within the development used varying coefficients determined by the impervious/pervious percentages of each catch basin drainage area. The Developer shall either modify the storm sewer sizing calculations to use varying coefficients determined by the impervious/pervious percentages similar to how the previous storm sewer was sized or provide calculations demonstrating the use of a consistent 0.4 coefficient is valid. 10. The Developer shall update all storm sewer so the maximum pipe velocity is 12 fps. 11. The Stormwater Management Plan shall be updated to address the needs of additional volume for the future Galpin Boulevard Improvement Project outlined in Kimley-Horn’s memorandum dated May 29, 2018. 12. Developer is showing at catch basins 4, 18, and 19 the spread at the inlet will extend over 10 feet into the street. The Developer shall add additional catch basins at these points to reduce the spread into the roadway. 13. In the overall plans for the Park development dated 5/20/19 the proposed outlet for Wetland 2 was a 24” pipe but in the The Bluffs at Lake Lucy plans the outlet is an 18” pipe. It is noted that the existing outlet for Wetland 2 is an 18” CMP pipe. However, the HydroCAD modeling suggests the proposed 18” wetland outlet will cause an increase in the 100-year HWL within Wetland 2 when compared to overall development proposed conditions model and when compared to existing conditions (see table below). Developer shall confirm a larger outlet pipe is not needed and/or that the increase in the wetland HWL will not have any negative impacts on Galpin Avenue or any adjacent structures. Develoepr shall provide a larger outlet pipe if necessary. 14. In the Pond 1 OCS detail the outlet pipe is shown as an 18” but is being modeled as a 27” in the proposed HydroCAD model (assumed to be Device #1). Developer shall update the plan and/or HydroCAD model to be consistent with one another. 15. The HydroCAD model uses an exfiltration rate of 0.35 in/hr within Pond 1 but the stormwater narrative and the P8 model both have an infiltration rate of 0.8 in/hr. Developer shall confirm the appropriate infiltration rate and update all references to be consistent. 16. The following updates to the P8 model need to be addressed: SP-13 a. It is unclear why for both ponds a 12” orifice outlet is being used for the normal outlet directed to either the adjacent filtration or infiltration bench. Developer should change the normal outlet to a weir outlet based on the berm separating the pond and the infiltration/filtration bench or should provide reasoning behind using a 12” orifice. b. The flood pool elevations/volumes for Pond 1 and 2 should be calculated at 979 and 968 respectively based on the EOF elevations noted on the plans. c. The infiltration outlet for the Pond 2 filtration bench should be routed to the downstream waterbody instead of out of the system for accuracy. Similarly, in the P8 model where Pond 1 is being modeled as a filtration bench, the infiltration outlet should be routed to the downstream waterbody. d. Developer should clarify what the wetland boundary infiltration device is that is being modeled in the proposed condition P8 models and confirm it should not also be included in the existing conditions P8 model for accuracy. e. The bottom surface area for Pond 2 should be updated to 0.008 ac (or 0.01 if needed) to be representative of the plans Landscaping and Tree Preservation 1. The Developer shall conduct a walk-through of the grading limits on site prior to removals with City staff to inspect for opportunities for additional tree preservation. 2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities and remain installed until completion. 3. All trees shall be planted outside of the street right-of-way. 4. No tree Genus shall comprise of more than 20% of the total number of trees and no tree species shall comprise of more than 10% of the total number of trees. The Developer shall add 2 selections of trees to reduce maple quantities to meet ordinance requirements. 5. Developer shall provide tree preservation easements to be recorded with the final plat over Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and Lots 1, 4 and 5, Block 3 as follows: easterly 300’ of Lot 1, Block 1, the westerly 200’ of Lot 2, Block 1, the northerly 100’ of Lots 4 and 5, Block 3 and the westerly 40’ of Lot 1, Block 3. 6. Park property boundary signs shall be installed at property corners on Lots 1-6, Block 4 and Lots 1-11, Block 2. 7. Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the approved landscape plan. SP-14 9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this Contract are attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. SP-15 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Elise Ryan, Mayor (SEAL) AND: Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20__, by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and by Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC SP-16 Chan Three Development, Inc.: BY: Craig Allen, President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20__, by Craig Allen, President of Chan Three Development, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, on behalf of the company. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 EXHIBIT "A" TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. AND That part of Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 89, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the North Quarter corner Section 10, Township 116, Range 23, said Carver County; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 45 minutes 14 seconds East, along the North-South Quarter line of said Section 10, a distance of 515.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 87 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds East, along a line parallel with the North line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 10, a distance of 1661 feet plus or minus to the east line of said Tract B and the shoreline of Lake Lucy and there terminating. Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 40268.0 That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the North Quarter corner of said Section 10; thence South along the North-South Quarter line of said Section 10 a distance of 409.69 feet; thence West along a line parallel with the South line of the North Half of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 435.76 feet to the centerline of the Excelsior-Shakopee Road; thence Northeasterly along said centerline a distance of 419.39 feet to the North line of said Section 10; thence East along the North line of said Section 10 to the point of beginning, all according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof. Torrens Property Torrens Certificate No. 27048.0 MORTGAGE HOLDER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT , which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this day of , 20 . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20___, by . NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FEE OWNER CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT , fee owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, affirm and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by them. Dated this day of , 20 . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20___, by . NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. ___________________ Date: _________________ TO: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of (Name of Developer) and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $____________, available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. __________, dated ________________, 2______, of (Name of Bank) "; b) Be signed by the Mayor or City Manager of the City of Chanhassen. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 30, 2______. This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty- five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Chanhassen City Manager that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Chanhassen City Manager, Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317, and is actually received by the City Manager at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 600. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. BY: ____________________________________ Its ______________________________ GC-1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) EXHIBIT "B" GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Title’s Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City Engineer has issued a letter that the foregoing conditions have been satisfied and then the Developer may proceed. 2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multiphased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. Park charges and area charges for sewer and water referred to in this Contract are not being imposed on outlots, if any, in the plat that are designated in an approved preliminary plat for future subdivision into lots and blocks. Such charges will be calculated and imposed when the outlots are final platted into lots and blocks. 3. Preliminary Plat Status. If the plat is a phase of a multi-phased preliminary plat, the preliminary plat approval for all phases not final platted shall lapse and be void unless final platted into lots and blocks, not outlots, within two (2) years after preliminary plat approval. 4. Changes in Official Controls. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract. 5. Improvements. The improvements specified in the Special Provisions of this Contract shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which have been prepared and signed by a competent registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services and other pertinent agencies before proceeding GC-2 with construction. The City will, at the Developer's expense, have one or more construction inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part-time basis. The Developer shall also provide a qualified inspector to perform site inspections on a daily basis. Inspector qualifications shall be submitted in writing to the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its project engineer/inspector to respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer's design. The Developer or his engineer shall schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. 6. Iron Monuments. Before the security for the completion of utilities is released, all monuments must be correctly placed in the ground in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 505.02, Subd. 1. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. 7. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development. 8. Site Erosion and Sediment Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any utility construction is commenced or building permits are issued, the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion and sediment control requirements if they would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion and sediment control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion and sediment transport. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion and sediment control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion and sediment transport at the Developer's expense. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Erosion and sediment control needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been restored, even if construction has been completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion and sediment control, the City will authorize the removal of the erosion and sediment control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. The Developer shall remove and dispose of the erosion and sediment control measures. 8a. Erosion Control During Construction of a Dwelling or Other Building. Before a building permit is issued for construction of a dwelling or other building on a lot, a $500.00 cash escrow or letter of credit per lot shall also be furnished to the City to guarantee compliance with City Code § 7-22. GC-3 9. Clean up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 10. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance by the City of the work and construction required by this Contract, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement to the City Engineer certifying that the project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The appropriate contractor waivers shall also be provided. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City Council resolution. 11. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, materialmen, or others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further proceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees. 12. Park Dedication. The Developer shall pay full park dedication fees in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements. The park dedication fees shall be the current amount in force at the time of final platting pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions. 13. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan D. Unless otherwise approved by the City, trees not listed in the City’s approved tree list are prohibited. The minimum tree size shall be two and one-half (2½) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the boulevard (area between curb and property line). In addition to any sod required as a part of the erosion and sediment control plan, Plan B, the Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a minimum of six (6) inches of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at the time a certificate of occupancy is requested, a financial guarantee of $750.00 in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. These conditions must then be complied with within two (2) months after the certificate of occupancy issued, except that if the certificate of occupancy is issued between October 1 through May 1 these conditions must be complied with by the following July 1st. Upon expiration of the time period, inspections will be conducted by City staff to verify satisfactory completion of all conditions. City staff will conduct inspections of incomplete items with a $50.00 inspection fee deducted from the GC-4 escrow fund for each inspection. After satisfactory inspection, the financial guarantee shall be returned. If the requirements are not satisfied, the City may use the security to satisfy the requirements. The City may also use the escrowed funds for maintenance of erosion control pursuant to City Code Section 7-22 or to satisfy any other requirements of this Contract or of City ordinances. These requirements supplement, but do not replace, specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project approval. 14. Warranty. The Developer warrants all improvements required to be constructed by it pursuant to this Contract against poor material and faulty workmanship. The Developer shall submit either 1) a warranty/maintenance bond for 100% of the cost of the improvement, or 2) a letter of credit for twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the original cost of the improvements. A. The required warranty period for materials and workmanship for the utility contractor installing public sewer and water mains shall be two (2) years from the date of final written City acceptance of the work. B. The required warranty period for all work relating to street construction, including concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and trails, materials and equipment shall be subject to two (2) years from the date of final written acceptance. C. The required warranty period for sod, trees, and landscaping is one full growing season following acceptance by the City. 15. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building permits, an acceptable Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control including silt fences, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot for review and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from buildings and that tree removal is consistent with development plans and City Ordinance. 16. Existing Assessments. Any ex isting assessments against the plat will be re-spread against the plat in accordance with City standards. 17. Hook-up Charges. . At the time of final plat approval the Developer shall pay 30% of the City Sewer Hook-up charge and 30% of the City Water hook up charge for each lot in the plat in the amount specified in Special Provision, Paragraph 8, of this Development Contract. The balance of the hook-up charges is collected at the time building permits are issued are based on 70% of the rates then in effect, unless a written request is made to assess the costs over a four year term at the rates in effect at time of application. 18. Public Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for public street lights in accordance with City standards. The public street lights shall be accepted for City ownership and maintenance at the same time that the public street is accepted for ownership and maintenance. A plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $300.00 for each street light installed in GC-5 the plat. The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity and maintaining each public street light for twenty (20) months. 19. Signage. All street signs, traffic signs, and wetland monumentation required by the City as a part of the plat shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the Developer. 20. House Pads. The Developer shall promptly furnish the City "as-built" plans indicating the amount, type and limits of fill on any house pad location. 21. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City Staff time and overhead for items such as review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction progress, processing pay requests, processing security reductions, and final acceptance of improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for construction inspections. The fee shall be calculated as follows: i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than $500,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs; ii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is between $500,000 and $1,000,000, three percent (3%) of construction costs for the first $500,000 and two percent (2%) of construction costs over $500,000; iii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over $1,000,000, two and one-half percent (2½%) of construction costs for the first $1,000,000 and one and one-half percent (1½%) of construction costs over $1,000,000. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit with the City a fee based upon construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon actual construction costs. The cost of public improvements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special Provisions. B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City for providing construction and erosion and sediment control inspections. This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the construction. Payment shall be due in accordance with Article 21E of this Agreement. C. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. GC-6 D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees. E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of building permits for lots which the Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges and special assessments may be imposed such as, but not limited to, sewer availability charges ("SAC"), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees. G. Private Utilities. The Developer shall have installed and pay for the installation of electrical, natural gas, telephone, and cable television service in conjunction with the overall development improvements. These services shall be provided in accordance with each of the respective franchise agreements held with the City. H. The developer shall pay the City a fee established by City Council resolution, to reimburse the City for the cost of updating the City’s base maps, GIS data base files, and converting the plat and record drawings into an electronic format. Record drawings must be submitted within four months of final acceptance of public utilities. All digital information submitted to the City shall be in the Carver County Coordinate system. 22. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 23. Miscellaneous. A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on-site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre-construction meeting for installation of public improvements. Trailers shall be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Contract. The City is not a guarantor of the Developer’s obligations under this Contract. The City GC-7 shall have no responsibility or liability to lot purchasers or others for the City’s failure to enforce this Contract or for allowing deviations from it. D. Breach of Contract. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. The City may also issue a stop work order halting all plat development until the breach has been cured and the City has received satisfactory assurance that the breach will not reoccur. E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. F. Building Permits. Building permits will not be issued in the plat until sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and accepted by the City, and the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface and the site graded and revegetated in accordance with Plan B of the development plans. G. Waivers/Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the property . After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance of such a certificate, individual lot owners may make as written request for a certificate applicable to an individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing. I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain until six (6) months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $500,000 for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. J. Remedies. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, expressed or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time GC-8 to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. L. Construction Hours. Construction hours, including pick-up and deliveries of material and equipment and the operation of any internal combustion engine, may only occur from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays with no such activity allowed on Sundays or on legal holidays. Contractors must require their subcontractors, agents and supplies to comply with these requirements and the Contractor is responsible for their failure to do so. Under emergency conditions, this limitation may be waived by the written consent of the City Engineer. If construction occurs outside of the permitted construction hours, the Contractor shall pay the following administrative penalties: First violation $ 500.00 Second violation $ 1,000.00 Third & subsequent violations All site development and construction must cease for seven (7) calendar days M. Noise Amplification. The use of outdoor loudspeakers, bullhorns, intercoms, and similar devices is prohibited in conjunction with the construction of homes, buildings, and the improvements required under this contract. The administrative penalty for violation of construction hours shall also apply to violation of the provisions in this paragraph. N. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway improvements shall be the responsibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat. O. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for all street maintenance until streets within the plat are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage. The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall not be responsible for reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing operations. The provision of City snow plowing service does not constitute final acceptance of the streets by the City. P. Storm Sewer Maintenance. The Developer shall be responsible for cleaning and maintenance of the storm sewer system (including ponds, pipes, catch basins, culverts and swales) within the plat and the adjacent off-site storm sewer system that receives storm water from the plat. The Developer shall follow all instructions it receives from the City concerning the cleaning and GC-9 maintenance of the storm sewer system. The Developer's obligations under this paragraph shall end two (2) years after the public street and storm drainage improvements in the plat have been accepted by the City. Twenty percent (20%) of the storm sewer costs, shown under section 6 of the special provisions of this contract, will be held by the City for the duration of the 2-year maintenance period. Q. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any violation/disturbance of these sites shall render them as unacceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. R. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat are buildable without the need for variances from the City's ordinances. S. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations. In the development of the plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities: 1. City of Chanhassen; 2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3. United States Army Corps of Engineers; 4. Watershed District(s); 5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. T. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed purchasers to enter into this Development Contract. U. Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. V. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. On lots which have no fill material a soils report from a qualified soils engineer is not required unless the City's building inspection department determines from observation that there may be a soils problem. On lots with fill material that have been mass graded as part of a multi-lot grading project, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City issues a building permit for the lot. On lots with fill material that have been custom graded, a satisfactory soils report from a qualified soils engineer shall be provided before the City inspects the foundation for a building on the lot. GC-10 W. Haul Routes. The Developer, the Developer’s contractors or subcontractors must submit proposed haul routes for the import or export of soil, construction material, construction equipment or construction debris, or any other purpose. All haul routes must be approved by the City Engineer X. Development Signs. The Developer shall post a six foot by eight foot development sign in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5313 at each entrance to the project. The sign shall be in place before construction of the required improvements commences and shall be removed when the required improvements are completed, except for the final lift of asphalt on streets. The signs shall contain the following information: project name, name of developer, developer’s telephone number and designated contact person, allowed construction hours. Y. Construction Plans. Upon final plat approval, the developer shall provide the City with two complete sets of full-size construction plans and four sets of 11”x17” reduced construction plan sets and three sets of specifications. Within four months after the completion of the utility improvements and base course pavement and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the City with the following: (1) a complete set of reproducible Mylar as-built plans, (2) two complete full-size sets of blue line/paper as-built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4) location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing and swing ties of all utility stubs including draintile cleanouts, (6) bench mark network, (7) digital file of as-built plans in both .dxf & .tif format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current County coordinate system), (8) digital file of utility tie sheets in either .doc or .tif format, and (9) a breakdown of lineal footage of all utilities installed, including the per lineal foot bid price. The Developer is required to submit the final plat in electronic format. Z. As-Built Lot Surveys. An as-built lot survey will be required on all lots prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. The as-built lot survey must be prepared, signed, and dated by a Registered Land Surveyor. Sod and the bituminous driveways must be installed before the as-built survey is completed. If the weather conditions at the time of the as-built are not conducive to paving the driveway and/or installing sod, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be issued and the as-built escrow withheld until all work is complete. Rev. 3/31/06 AND Pailsey Park Facilities, Inc Andrea Bruce , CEO CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 640 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code,the city's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning all property described within Exhibit A from Rural Residential District, RR, to Planned Unit Development Residential, PUD-R. Section 2. The rezoning of this property incorporates the following development design standards: The Park Zoning Standards a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a Planned Unit Development(PUD)for single-family detached housing. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more-sensitive proposal. The development will preserve 50 acres of woods adjacent to Lake Ann. There are a number of housing collections with a variety of housing styles and exterior materials within each collection serving different life stages. Except as modified by this PUD ordinance, the development shall comply with the requirements of the Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM. The property shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. 1. Preliminary Plat(revised plan dated April 4, 2019) 44 im, S sem,, ,, 2.. r l .R i ._... a I 1 2. Landscaping Plan (revised plan dated April 4, 2019) I1 mmolomo cureoszerreammememin e— --- III co:I=casmim 7 Z:' ate,,. - 41tot4e4kt ' l -•'. n. r F s x'n:4 #Win: 91 i" Y iii*k D CC7 -s:...w• e- _fir Is:ew I._--_ i ,,.auan.. I .--4'''...-- i .-___ . i"I 3. Tree Preservation Plan 1 4. 4:1;„.,,,...44. 41 l 4\„.„........._ yam 1 y i rt J '• 4+p', 40 to;; 7.40;t07",,,, %, S 3:5' V 9 44 4. House Plans b. Permitted Uses 1. The permitted uses in this zoning district shall be single-family detached houses and their accessory uses. House plans include the Lennar Lifestyle, Luxury, Landmark, Classic, and 31 Villa home plans or similar or equivalent plans. c.Design Standards 1. Development-Amenities Design 2 Integrate pathways with the local street system to maximize access and flexibility of use. 2. House designs There shall be a mix and a variety of housing materials. Linear repetitive streetscape appearance and building facades shall be avoided by providing variation between the front elevations. No two identical facades shall be located next to each other. The same front or rear elevations shall not be located directly across from one another. No similar material/colors shall be located adjacent to each other. There shall be articulation of wall planes, a variety of roof forms, variation in roof heights or other architectural treatments. If side loaded garages are incorporated into the development, the front facing wall must be architecturally integrated with the design of the home (no blank wall). d. Lot Requirements and Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following table displays those setbacks: THE PARK COMPLIANCE TABLE The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following tables displays those setbacks. Lots with a minimum 90 feet of frontage Minimum Lot Dimensions and Maximum Lot Cover Lot Area(SF) Lot Width(Feet) Lot Depth (Feet)Max Lot Cover(SF) 15,000 90 125 5,500 Lot Setbacks Front Setback Rear Setback Side Yard Setback Corner Setback CR 117 Setback 20 feet* 25 feet 7.5 feet 20 feet 50 feet 25 feet with sidewalk Bluffs: 30-foot setback,20-foot impact zone. Wetland Buffer Setback: 20 feet. Lots with a minimum 65 feet of frontage Minimum Lot Dimensions and Maximum Lot Cover Lot Area(SF) Lot Width(Feet) Lot Depth(Feet)Max Lot Cover(SF) 8,450 65 125 4,400 Lot Setbacks Front Setback Rear Setback Side Yard Setback Corner Setback CR 117 Setback 25 feet 25 feet 7.5 feet 20 feet 50 feet Bluffs: 30-foot setback,20-foot impact zone. Wetland Buffer Setback: 20 feet. 3 Section 3. The zoning map of the City of Chanhassen shall not be republished to show the aforesaid zoning, but the Clerk shall appropriately mark the zoning map on file in the Clerk's Office for the purpose of indicating the rezoning hereinabove provided for in this ordinance, and all of the notations,references,and other information shown thereon are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance. Section 4. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of March, 2019 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Elise Ryan, Mayor Published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 6, 2019) 4 EXHIBIT A Legal Description: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 89, files of Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Minnesota. That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the North Quarter corner of said Section 10; thence South along the North- South Quarter line of said Section 10 as distance of 409.69 feet; thence West along a line parallel with the South line of the North Half of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 435.76 feet to the centerline of the Excelsior-Shakopee Road; thence Northeasterly along said centerline a distance of 419.39 feet to the North line of side Section 10; thence East along the North line of said Section 10 to the point of beginning, all according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof. That part of the South half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116, Range 23 Carver County, Minnesota lying easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117, also known as Galpin Boulevard, and lying North of the South 186.00 feet of said South half of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter thereof. Together with: That part westerly 183.00 feet of each of the following two tracts: 1) That part of the South 186.00 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117 (also known as Galpin Lake Road and formerly known as Chaska and Excelsior Road and as Excelsior and Shakopee Road). 2) That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying Easterly of the centerline of County Road No. 117 (also known as Galpin Lake Road and formerly known as Chaska and Excelsior Road and as Excelsior and Shakopee Road). 5 Which lies northerly of lines described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 49 minutes 08 seconds West, along the North line of said South half of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 588.71 feet, to the beginning of the lines to be described; thence South 65 degrees 37 minutes 15 seconds West a distance of 98.69 feet; thence Northwesterly a distance of 141.37 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the Southwest having a radius of 180.00 feet and a central angle of 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, the chord of said curve is 137.77 feet in length and bears North 46 degrees 52 minutes 45 seconds West; thence North 69 degrees 22 minutes 45 seconds West, tangent to said curve a distance of 40.00 feet and said line there terminating. 6 FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBRBBOBOBOBOBOBORMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMRMAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAESOSOSOSOWPWPWPWPWPWPWPWPWPWPWPWPWPWPWPWPBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHBHFMAEAEAEAEAEAEAEAE123451235478691011123544123567123Removing 5203 - 10" ashSaving 3872 - 13" oakRemoving 5353 - 10" elmRemoving 5463 - 15" oakRemoving 5464 - 21" oakRemoving 5468 - 21" oakRemoving 5439 - 21" OakRemoving 5470 - 24" oakSaving 5161 - 23" oakSaving 3868 - 24" oakSaving 3871 - 24" oakSaving 3869 - 27" oakSaving 3870 - 11" elmSaving 3800 - 10" elmSaving 3798 - 16" ashSaving 3799 - 11" ashSaving 3791 - 10" ashSaving 3787 - 14" ash3788 - 15" ash3789 - 10" ashRemoving 5022 - 10" mapPONDACCESS102010181016101410121014 101 4 10 1 2 101410121010 1010 100210081006100410021000998996990988986984982980978976974972970968966964962962960 958 95696496296696896896696496296099899699499299098898698498298097 8 976 97 4 972 9709681 0 1 0 10061000 1 0 0 2 100610041002 1008101010121014101610 1 2 1010100810061004 1002992994996998100010021004100610081010101210141016101810201020986984982980978 976 974 972972970968966964990988980978976974978 978980980 97697497297298297897497 0 9689669 6 4 9929909889869789769749729709689669641002 1000998996994992990988986984982980101010081006100410021000998996994992990980978976974972970LUCY RIDGE LANETOPAZ DRIVEDELLA DRIVEGALPIN BLVD (CR 117) RUBY LANE ASHLING MEADOWS 2NDASHLING MEADOWSWetland 28080FT PRESERVE WETLAND BUFFERPER WATERSHED D IST ICT ( 40FT M IN . )Pond #2NWL-964.0HWL-967.1Filter #2NWL-964.0HWL-967.1(21" Sand/3" Compost B962.0)Bluff 30' Bl u f f S e t b a c k 30' Bluff Setback30' B luff SetbackBluffx 1 010 .8x 1010.7x 1 020 .4 x 1021 .2x 1022 .4 x 1020 .7x 1021 .6x 1022 .3x 1019 .8x 1019 .8 x 1 0 2 5 . 6 x 1 0 2 8 . 9 x 1 0 2 7 . 8 x 1026.7STUBINV:994.17Pond #1NWL-973.0HWL-976.0Filter #1NWL-973.0HWL-976.0(21" Sand/3" Compost-B971.0)x 10 2 0 . 2x 1020.2x 1 0 2 1 . 4x 1021.8x 1 0 1 9 . 1x 1019 .1ASHLING MEADOWS 2nd ADDASHLING MEADOWS 2nd ADDOUTLOT BOUTLOT A5' WALK5' WALK5' WALK5' WALK5' WALK10' TRAIL10' TRAIL10' TRAIL10' TRA IL R&D 475 lf curb, 175 lf of walk,8,500 sf of pavement and streetsection. Restore Yards:irrigation and sod.F u t u r e 1 0 ' T r a i lWetland 1(Preserve)Buffer Reduction to 40 ft (14,760 sf)Buf fer Increase to 100 f t (14 ,840 s f)SAN MH 53TC:984.32PLAN INV.948.82 +/-Bld: 35.5'INV. 968.64INV.968.14EX. 30"RCPSawcut 80 lf - R&D andgrade out existing drivewayChange Castingto R4342Change Castingto R4342EX 20" WMEX 20" WM x 985.4x 985.5x 988.0x 987.4x 987.4x 992.7x 992.2x 989.4x 990.5x 992.5985.1 X990.1 Xx 989.8x 989.1x 987.7x 988.9993.7 X992.4 X991.2 XCTV E 991.2 X992.9 X993.8 X993.4 X991.5 XCTV B 991.2 X1000.8 X1000.3 Xx 1002.21001.4 Xx 1001.0 WCSx 1001.5x 999.2x 998.9998.6 X995.3 X995.9 X996.0 X995.4 X995.2 X996.1 X996.2 Xx 995.0x 995.3x 995.2x 995.1x 995.1x 994.7FOPFOPRAW WTR RAW WTRGASTEL TELGASELCSAN HPLPAEBORMRBFMSOBHWPDRAWN:CHECKED:L1I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATIONOR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULYREGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDERTHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAKEVIN NORBY REGISTRATION #: 20144GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES:1)THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE EXISTINGCONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE WORK.2)THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN OR INTENTOF THE LAYOUT.3)THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES,REGULATIONS, AND PERMITS GOVERNING THE WORK.4)THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING ROADS,CURBS/GUTTERS, TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION.DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AND/ORREPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.5)VERIFY ALL UTILITIES, INCLUDING IRRIGATION LINES, WITH THE OWNER FOR PROPRIETARYUTILITIES AND GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING. CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ANY DAMAGES TO SAME. NOTIFY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS TO FACILITATE PLANT RELOCATION.6)THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE.7)THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN SITE CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR WARRANTY. UNDESIRABLE SITE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TOBEGINNING OF WORK.8)THE PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST. QUANTITIESSHOWN IN THE PLANTING SCHEDULE ARE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE. CONTRACTORTO VERIFY QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN.9)THE SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PLANTING NOTES AND GENERAL NOTES.10)EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED TO THE DRIP LINE FROM ALLCONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, STORAGE OF MATERIALS ETC. WITH 4' HT. ORANGE PLASTIC SAFETY FENCING ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY STEEL FENCE POSTS 6' O.C. MAXIMUM SPACING11)LONG-TERM STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES ON-SITE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST IN WRITING, A FINAL ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION.PLANTING NOTES:1)TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL BE FRESHLY DUG AT TIME OF DELIVERY UNLESS CONTAINER GROWN, IF CONTAINER GROWN, PLANTS SHALL BE WATERED EVERYDAY AND KEPT IN A PARTIALLY SHADED AREA UNTIL PLANTED.2)TREES TO BE PLANTED EXCEPT MULTI-STEM TREES SHALL HAVE A SINGLE STRAIGHT LEADER AND TAPERED TRUNK. ALL TREES SHALL BE FREE OF GIRDING ROOTS THAT HAVE ENCIRCLED THE TREE, TREES MUST BE IN GOOD HEALTH AND FREE OF DISEASE.3)ALL TREES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6" HARDWOOD BARK MULCH 6' DIAMETER RING AROUND THE BASE OF THE TREE. KEEP MULCH OFF TREE TRUNK.4)THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PLANTS WHICH ARE DEEMED TO BE UNSATISFACTORY BEFORE, DURING OR AFTER INSTALLATION5)PLANTING HOLES SHALL BE FREE OF WEEDS, ROCKS, SOD, CLAY CLUMPS, CLASS V AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.6)TOPSOIL FOR BACKFILLING PLANTING HOLES SHALL BE A MIXTURE OF NATIVE ANDTOPSOIL AT A RATIO OF 1:1.7)CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE 8" OF SOIL IN ALL LANDSCAPE BEDS, REPLACE WITH 8" OF UNSCREENED TOPSOIL, ENOUGH ESTABLISH A POSITIVE GRADE FROM STRUCTURES, FOUNDATIONS, PATIOS, ETC..8)PLANTING BEDS PROPOSED WITH ROCK MULCH SHALL BE LAID OVER MIN. 6 MIL. BLACK POLY.9)PLANTING BEDS PROPOSED WITH BARK MULCH, A PRE EMERGENT HERBICIDE SHALL BE SPREAD AT PRODUCT RECOMMENDED RATIOS BEFORE BARK MULCH IS SPREAD. POLY AND FABRIC UNDERLAYMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED UNDER BARK MULCH.10)ALL VINYL EDGING TO BE STAKED 7' ON CENTER, HORIZONTALLY.11)NO PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL FINAL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEENCOMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREANORTHTHIS PLAN SET AND THE CONCEPTSREPRESENTED HEREIN ARE THE PROPERTY OFNORBY AND ASSOCIATES LANDSCAPEARCHITECTS. CHANGES TO OR USE OF THISPLAN SHALL REQUIRE PRIOR WRITTENAPPROVAL BY NORBY ASSOCIATESLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, LLC.CLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:CLIENT:PROJECT LOCATION:CERTIFICATION:COPYRIGHT:DATEMKKNISSUED:RE-ISSUED:REVISIONS:BY:DATE:REMARKS:PROJECT #:CITY #:8/6/20208/11/2020PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN THE BLUFFS AT LAKE LUCY8/11/2020200806------------------------------------------------MKREVISE PER CLIENTTREE PLANTING DETAILPROVIDE RODENT/ANIMAL PROTECTIONROOT FLARE AND ROOT BALLSHALL BE EXPOSED 1" ABOVE GRADE(NO SOIL SHALL COVER ROOT FLARE)NO MULCH SHALL TOUCH TRUNKSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH 6" DEPTHEXPOSE TOP OF ROOT BALL FROM WIREAND BURLAP4" HIGH EARTHEN BERM AT EDGE OF ROOT BALL50/50 TOPSOIL MIXED WITH NATIVE SOILSCARIFY HOLE EDGESSET ROOT BALL ON UNDESTERBED OR COMPACTEDSUBGRADEPLANTING PIT4-6" DEEPERTHAN ROOT BALLUNDISTERBEDSUBGRADE2x DIAMETER OFROOT BALLCONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE TREES REMAIN PLUM ,DURING WARRENTY PERIOD. IF STAKES ARE TO BE USED,USE THE 2/3 STAKE METHOD WITH TRUNK WEBBING.(NO WIRE IS TO BE USED ON TRUNK)30" MULCHRINGCITY NOTES:108 TOTAL TREES PROPOSED/ REQUIRED PER PRE APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLANREFORESTATION TREES TO BE PLANTED AS BARE ROOT WHIPS, PLANTED 10' O.C.TREES ON PRIVATE LOTS TO BE PLANTED AFTER HOMES ARE BUILTCONIFERS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 6' IN HEIGHT WITH AN AVERAGE OF 7'FRONT YARD DECIDUOUS TREES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 2.5"ALL OTHER DECIDUOUS TREES TO BE A MINIMUM OF 1.5" WITH AN AVERAGE OF 2.5" Carver County Public Works 11360 Highway 212, Suite 1 Cologne, MN 55322 Office (952) 466-5200 | Fax (952) 466-5223 | www.co.carver.mn.us CARVER COUNTY December 28, 2018 Review of Preliminary Plat Letter against Final Plat for The Park 4th Addition/The Bluffs at Lake Lucy (August 21, 2020 review appears in blue italics font) City of Chanhassen, c/o Paul Oehme, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer 952-227-1169 poehme@ci.chanhassen.mn.us c/o Kate Aanenson Community Development Director 952-272-1139 kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Re: Development / Access Review Comments: Nelson Property Preliminary Plat on CR 117/Galpin Blvd. Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject development in the City of Chanhassen. Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and County Codes, the following are comments and recommended conditions of approval and as potential requirements for any necessary permits to be issued for the project: 1. The subject plat and development has been reviewed against several other major planning and infrastructure projects, with the result that several changes and/or cross-checks of the subject plat will be required. CR 117/Galpin Blvd. is planned as turn back project and studied as part of a Highway 117 Corridor Study. Galpin Blvd is also identified in the County’s Comprehensive Plan as an Urban/Urbanizing Collector, with a guided access spacing of 1/4-mile full access and 1/8-mile secondary access. In addition, a draft master stormwater and pond management was developed, based on planned development and road design elements. a. Information 2. In terms of access management, the proposed accesses across from Hunter Dr. and Longacres Dr. meet the guideline for full access. These two access points are also identified in the Highway 117 Corridor Study for full access. a. Information 3. In terms of access management, the access across from Wynsong Ln. meets the 1/8 spacing guideline for a secondary access. Note that this access could be restricted to a right-in/right-out access in the future. As such, it is recommended the City and developer consider a local through road connection instead of the proposed cul-de-sac. As a condition 2 | P a g e of the secondary access across from Wynsong Ln, the driveway from parcel no. 250100400 will need to be removed from CR 117/Galpin Blvd. and connect to the proposed new local road. a. Condition still applies. Revision needed to connect driveway from 7011 Galpin Blvd. (parcel no. 250100400) to the proposed new local road (Della Dr.), removing the existing driveway connection from CR 117/Galpin Blvd. Driveway connection to new roadway (Della Dr.) is recommended to be set back a minimum of 100 ft. from new intersection for safe traffic operations. 4. Exclusive left turn and right turn lanes should be required at all full access points across from Hunter Dr. and Longacres Dr., and if full access allowed at Wynsong Ln. Left turn lanes are preferred over right turn lanes if space is a premium. These are shown conceptually in the preferred alternative from the Highway 117 Corridor Study. The Hunter Drive location looks like it will need additional right of way and / or special design transitions to the south to fit the recommended turn lane lengths and transition tapers. a. Condition has been modified. A right turn lane is required at the Wynsong Lane/Della Drive intersection to serve the new roadway connection on the eastern leg of the intersection. This is consistent with the preferred alternative for CR 117 at other similar intersections. 5. Right of way dedication will be required along the east side of CR 117/Galpin Blvd. per the above considerations, the Highway 117 Corridor Study, and the typical roadway sections identified in the County’s Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Corridor Study identifies specific right of way needs and the plat will need to follow and be consistent with the preferred roadway alternative. The right of way will need to tie into the existing highway right of way north and south of the proposed development. The preliminary and final proposal will need to be reviewed and approved as to form and content by the County Surveyor. Specifically, given that most all of the existing corridor is platted at approximately 100-ft total now, this new plat’s right of way could also be a total of 100 ft total or 50-ft on center. The typical roadway section for a 2-lane urban undivided with continuous left turn lane (intersection) should be followed and revised to fit in the 100-ft right of way planned, with an exact cross-section to be reviewed and approved by the County and City. The recommended cross-section could run as follows from west to east: 1’-offset; 8’-trail- 5’-blvd; 2’-gutter; 4’-bike lane; 12’-right turn lane; 12’-thru lane; 12’-left turn lane; 12’-thru lane; 12’-right turn lane; 4’-bike lane; 2’-gutter; 5’-blvd; 8’-trail; 1’-offset (with variations in offset and/or blvd). Potentially, the right turn lanes could be shared Thru/Right Turn Lanes as exclusive left turn lanes are preferred over right turn lanes if space is a premium. It could be that the left turn lane or center left turn lane could be left out of the section where Pond “C” Wetland is existing to keep the road narrower in this section. From the Corridor Study centerline stationing reference numbers, it looks like the typical left turn lane is about 600-800-feet long, such that the LT lane at Hunter Drive falls at Sta 32+00 to Sta 40+00; and the LT lane at Longacres Dr falls at Sta 40+00 to Sta 48+00; and so on 3 | P a g e to the north. More exact design layouts can verify some of these details. a. Condition has been modified and met. Final Plat meets right of way requirement for dedication of 50 ft. from roadway centerline. 6. The technical details of the plat, its boundaries and form(s) will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Surveyor. a. Condition still applies. 7. The plat’s final grading plans, ponds, and right of way along CR 117/Galpin Blvd. will need to be reviewed and approved to show how this is set up for the potential future CR 117/Galpin Blvd. reconstruction. A cross reference of grading plans, profiles, and respective cross sections should be provided at key locations such as intersections, ponds, or other special features. a. Condition still applies. 8. A new a draft master stormwater and pond management will need to be developed for this plat and area, based on planned development, road design elements, and the draft ponds planned from the Corridor Study Storm Drainage Plan. Ponds “D”, “C”, and potentially “B” will need to be verified accordingly. a. Condition has been met. 9. Prior to any work affecting or on County highways or in County right of way, the applicant shall coordinate plans with the County Engineer and obtain a Utility or Excavating/Filling/Grading Permit(s) from Carver County Public Works: (http://www.co.carver.mn.us/how-do-i/apply-for/a-permit). Final details of locations, grades, and profiles affecting County roads as well as any utility connections will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any permits. a. Condition still applies (future requirement). 10. Any damages, modifications, or changes incurred on County highways from current or approved conditions will need to remedied or updated at development expense, including costs incurred by the County. a. Condition still applies (future requirement). These are comments at this time. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at dmccormick@co.carver.mn.us or by phone at (952) 466-5208. Sincerely, 4 | P a g e Dan McCormick, P.E. PTOE Transportation Manager Carver County Public Works These are the County’s comments at this time (August 21, 2020). If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact staff noted below: Joan Guthmiller Administrative Technician Carver County Public Works 952.466.5201 jguthmiller@co.carver.mn.us Angie Stenson AICP Sr. Transportation Planner Carver County Public Works 952.466.5273 astenson@co.carver.mn.us Dan McCormick, P.E. PTOE Traffic Services Supervisor Carver County Public Works 952.466.5208 dmccormick@co.carver.mn.us s.f. 0.98 acres s.f. s.f. 0.98 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 1.11 acres s.f. s.f. 1.11 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.39 acres s.f. s.f. 0.39 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.38 acres s.f. s.f. 0.38 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.63 acres s.f. s.f. 0.63 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 3.50 acres s.f. s.f. 3.50 acres s.f. 0.50 acres s.f. s.f. 0.50 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.36 acres s.f. s.f. 0.36 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.36 acres s.f. s.f. 0.36 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.35 acres s.f. s.f. 0.35 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.35 acres s.f. s.f. 0.35 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.35 acres s.f. s.f. 0.35 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.35 acres s.f. s.f. 0.35 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.36 acres s.f. s.f. 0.36 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.36 acres s.f. s.f. 0.36 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.36 acres s.f. s.f. 0.36 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.36 acres s.f. s.f. 0.36 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 4.06 acres s.f. s.f. 4.06 acres s.f. 0.42 acres s.f. s.f. 0.42 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.40 acres s.f. s.f. 0.40 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.35 acres s.f. s.f. 0.35 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.47 acres s.f. s.f. 0.47 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.57 acres s.f. s.f. 0.57 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.42 acres s.f. s.f. 0.42 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.41 acres s.f. s.f. 0.41 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.37 acres s.f. s.f. 0.37 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 3.41 acres s.f. s.f. 3.41 acres s.f. 0.55 acres s.f. s.f. 0.55 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.44 acres s.f. s.f. 0.44 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.38 acres s.f. s.f. 0.38 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.38 acres s.f. s.f. 0.38 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.35 acres s.f. s.f. 0.35 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.35 acres s.f. s.f. 0.35 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 0.37 acres s.f. s.f. 0.37 acres +/- l.f. s.f. 2.81 acres s.f. s.f. 2.81 acres s.f. 12.67 acres s.f. s.f. 10.45 acres s.f. 2.17 acres s.f. s.f. 2.17 acres s.f. 14.84 acres s.f. s.f. 12.62 acres 17,877 Total Lot 7 0 The Bluffs at Lake Lucy Chanhassen, Minnesota 15,514 15,574 15,761 15,882 15,440 15,300Lot 5 3120-079 Date September 8, 2020 Contact: Nate Herman Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. 150 Broadway Ave. S. Wayzata, MN 55391 10850 Old County Rd 15 #200 Plymouth, MN 55441 97.2 97.4 Project # 15,300 Chan Three Development, Inc.Prepared by:Prepared for: WIDTH @ SETBACK Lot 5 Block 3 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA 94 Lot 6 tel:tel: 952-476-6000 Block 1 WIDTH @ SETBACK 90.9 90 Total 176,797 Lot 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 15,761 15,882 15,440 91 101.7 Contact: Jared Averbeck 0 176,797 105 105 21,667 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK 16,257 148,343 48,444 16,791 95 15,300 Lot 2 0 B 94,684 0 94,684 Total 646,414 96,492 549,922 Lot 3 0 16,751 93 Lot 4 16,405 0 16,405 Lot 1 Lot 8 Lot 1 18,092 Block 4 15,576 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 WETLAND AREA Lot 2 Lot 3 42,893 GROSS AREA NET AREA Lot 1 42,893 0 0 16,749 27,425 Lot 4 Lot 7 Lot 8 0 Lot 5 Lot 1 0 0 Block 2 Total 152,302 0 Lot 3 Lot 4 0 0 0 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA Lot 6 Lot 2 15,300 100 100 27,425 21,667 0 0 0 0 0 48,444 16,791 16,749 0 90 90 90 152,302 NET AREA WIDTH @ SETBACK 15,300 15,482 0 15,300 90 0 18,092 90.1 24,768 0 24,768 23,800 18,363 93.7 17,877 92 18,363 0 0 23,800 20,501 90 148,343 16,257 90.70 0 92.4 16,751 Lot 5 15,032 0 15,032 90 Lot 6 15,030 0 15,030 90 A 16,237Lot 7 0 16,237 99.8 Total 122,226 0 122,226 OUTLOT GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA 0 15,576 90.2 551,729 96,492 455,237 18,971 95.618,971 94.9 15,482 15,514 15,574 NET AREA 17,455 0 17,455 90 15,030 0 15,030 90 20,501 0 s.f. 3.81 acres s.f. s.f. 3.80 acres s.f. 32.41 acres s.f. s.f.30.20 acres1,411,887 96,492 1,315,395 TOTAL GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA R/W 165,805 323 165,482 GROSS AREA WETLAND AREA NET AREA CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Approval of On­Sale Beer & Wine License for TS Food LLC, dba Med Box Grill, 600 Market Street, Suite 160­170 Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: G.1. Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, Office Manager File No: LIQ MED BOX GRILL PROPOSED MOTION “The City Council approves the request for an on­sale beer and wine license from TS Food LLC, dba Med Box Grill.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY This office has received a request for an on­sale beer and wine license from TS Food LLC dba Med Box Grill. This will be a new restaurant that will occupy approximately 2,796 square feet in Market Street Station located at 600 Market Street, Suite 160­170.  The restaurant started out as a food truck four years ago. The menu specializes in Turkish Mediterranean food such as Turkish gyros, chicken kabobs, falafel, hummus, Turkish rice, baklalava, and other kabob styes. The restaurant will seat 99 inside and there is seating for another 28 on the attached outdoor patio. The applicant will be required to comply with city code as it relates to fencing and liquor service on the outdoor patio.  The restaurant is anticipated to open September 22, 2020. BACKGROUND Law Enforcement conducted a background investigation, including criminal history, driving records, outstanding warrants, financial, and references on Ayhan Semih and Tuncay Ozdenak, equal partners of TS Food LLC.  No negative comments were found. A public hearing notice was published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 27, 2020 and sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the site (see attached list). As of the date of this writing, staff has not received any comments from the public. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the request for an on­sale beer and wine license from TS Food LLC dba Med Box Grill contingent upon receipt of liquor liability insurance associated with the application.  Approval of this license requires a simple majority vote of the council. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectApproval of On­Sale Beer & Wine License for TS Food LLC, dba Med Box Grill, 600 MarketStreet, Suite 160­170SectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: G.1.Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, Office Manager File No: LIQ MED BOX GRILLPROPOSED MOTION“The City Council approves the request for an on­sale beer and wine license from TS Food LLC, dba Med BoxGrill.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYThis office has received a request for an on­sale beer and wine license from TS Food LLC dba Med Box Grill. Thiswill be a new restaurant that will occupy approximately 2,796 square feet in Market Street Station located at 600Market Street, Suite 160­170.  The restaurant started out as a food truck four years ago. The menu specializes inTurkish Mediterranean food such as Turkish gyros, chicken kabobs, falafel, hummus, Turkish rice, baklalava, andother kabob styes. The restaurant will seat 99 inside and there is seating for another 28 on the attached outdoor patio.The applicant will be required to comply with city code as it relates to fencing and liquor service on the outdoor patio. The restaurant is anticipated to open September 22, 2020.BACKGROUNDLaw Enforcement conducted a background investigation, including criminal history, driving records, outstandingwarrants, financial, and references on Ayhan Semih and Tuncay Ozdenak, equal partners of TS Food LLC.  Nonegative comments were found.A public hearing notice was published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 27, 2020 and sent to all property ownerswithin 500 feet of the site (see attached list). As of the date of this writing, staff has not received any comments fromthe public.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the City Council approve the request for an on­sale beer and wine license from TS Food LLC dba Med Box Grill contingent upon receipt of liquor liability insurance associated with the application.  Approval of this license requires a simple majority vote of the council. ATTACHMENTS: Property Report Card Market Street Station Site Plan Seating Plan Public Hearing Notice Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice Property Card Parcel ID Number 254460010 Taxpayer Information 20Iiits4 Taxpayer Name l t 11 3te=e' MI Ai g r KRAUS-ANDERSON INC s r11AI ,4L% .. 71 L Mailing Address k 525 S 8TH ST MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404-1030 1 I 4 1 Property Address V; 11Aif... 1 Address IIA . t580MARKETST 1 vs, City CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 1 Parcel Information Uses Commercial GIS Acres 5.26 Net Acres Deeded Acres Plat MARKET STREET STATION Lot 001 Block 001 Tax Description LOT 1 EXC THAT P!0 LOT 1 LYING ELY SLY ELY & NLY OF LINE DESC AS: COMM AT MOST SELY CORN Building Information Building Style Above Grade BedroomsFinishedSqFt Year Built Garage Miscellaneous Information School District Watershed District Homestead Green Acres Ag Preserve 0112 WS 064 RILEY PURG BLUFF N N N Assessor Information Estimated Market Value 2019 Values 2020 Values Payable 2020) Payable 2021) Last Sale Land 2,398,300.00 2,398,300.00 Date of Sale Building 4,670,300.00 3,770,100.00 Sale Value Total 7,068,600.00 6,168,400.00 The data provided herewith is for reference purposes only.This data is not suitable for legal,engineering,surveying or other similar purposes.Carver County does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained herein.This data is furnished on an'as is.basis and Carver County makes no representations or warranties,either expressed or implied,for the merchantability or fitness of the information provided for any purpose. This disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes§466.03 and the user of the data provided herein acknowledges that Carver County shall not be liable for any damages,and by using this data in any way expressly waives all claims,and agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless Carver County,its officials,officers,agents,employees,etcfrom any and all claims brought by anyone who uses the information provided for herein,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of user's access.By acceptance of this data,the user agrees not to transmit this data or provide access to it or any part of it to another party unless the user includes with the data a copy of this disclaimer. Wednesday, July 22, 2020 Carver County, MN EXHIBIT A Market Street Station Site Plan i 1 x't t'Al•F'AF.1 ut,..-,,, tJ E.A. 4:6-414'. !..! 11 1 1 1 F4 441 f..4.'•41 'i',ri—11 aii I i 9 r 4 IIi 1, i 1 . 1 Ili 1 . d 12 • I I61,4 ..!•*, --...,: „„..-:\40 1 1 4, 1VP s. 4, 41+‘ 4 NEI. , 0T I - i iht 0 1,i '• 47-.4. t 2e . - 1._ 11,17.F4".. 4%:- le . til . . I t Fir 9 71 IP '; •ss• -4.. 23441,—.. - n2 0 40, filk 4-" --... 06144 406 ., do, vott it , 4 Illmr var.- N - NO i i ,;vti,'.r,, 4 14-11171 LAI:LGRI N' imeli"redmilimmomos 11 1€VIPSC4-41 SFIARLIOW 11 I tlebii It IC ,'INI t MARKET STREET STATION A wail-A-1Am P' ME M ARKL I SIRE!I STATION PARINI liSHIP. I 1.1', TO BE ATTACHED TO AND BECOME A PART OF THAT CERTAIN LEASE AGREEMENT COVERING SPACE IN MARKET STREET STATION. ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT E ELEVATOREQUIPMENT E E EE E E EE E a110 furniture plan level 1 kp/ks as noted I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed architect under the laws of the state of Minnesota. name scale license number date issue for permit 08.18.2020 name 118 E. 26th Street Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55404 P:612-879-8225 F:612-879-8152 www.tanek.com The Med Box Grill 600 Market St Suite 160 Chanhassen, MN project copyright Tanek 2016 signature 23542 8.18.2020Kenneth E. Piper CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR AN ON-SALE BEER & WINE LICENSE TS FOOD LLC DBA MED BOX GRILL 600 MARKET STREET, SUITE 160-170 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 7700 Market Boulevard, to consider issuing an on-sale beer and wine liquor license to TS Food LLC, DBA Med Box Grill located at 600 Market Street, Suite 160-170. All interested persons may appear and express their opinions regarding this application at said time and place. Chanhassen City Code requires that all property owners within 500 feet of the site be notified in writing. If you have any questions, contact Kim Meuwissen at 952-227-1107. Heather Johnston Interim City Manager (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 27, 2020) 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 August 27, 2020, 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 Request for an On-Sale Beer & Wine License for TS Food LLC DBA Med Box Grill,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. X14`1--. Ki T. Meuwissen,ty Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of August, 2020. 1 } JEAN M STECKLING Notary Public-Minnesota J ti*/ Aly ConrNeelon Evins Jen 31,2004 Notary Public CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR AN ON-SALE BEER& WINE LICENSE TS FOOD LLC DBA MED BOX GRILL 600 MARKET STREET, SUITE 160-170 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 14, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 7700 Market Boulevard, to consider issuing an on-sale beer and wine liquor license to TS Food LLC, DBA Med Box Grill located at 600 Market Street, Suite 160-170. All interested persons may appear and express their opinions regarding this application at said time and place. Chanhassen City Code requires that all property owners within 500 feet of the site be notified in writing. If you have any questions, contact Kim Meuwissen at 952-227-1107. Heather Johnston Interim City Manager Published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 27, 2020) N oc-1 Lo o N co N m 0 M 00 N n 0 Q N N o Ln 00 O M Q) Ql N 0 N i O 4i 00 N 00 lD O o n A. ri " r ri O O Ln N c I Ln o r^-1 .-1 .-1 4 O i-1 M r-1 /-11 00 M Tr M m CO M CO Cr M . m LnLn Ln Ln Ln lD Ln Z Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln co Lfp Ln M M Z J z O o O Ln z 2 M z z Z z Z dr Z M Ln z N z 0 N z z J z O Z Vi Z Z Z z ui Q L Vi Z 2 Z J W J w f"' 2 J W W 2 W 2 2 'J J 2 W 01 v) W a 0 Q N _z O V) V) ua N Q a s uj z VV) i Q = LL v) Vi a. Q z O 2 w Z_ z E L., _ 2 cc w = = Q = a O z w u ( _ i Z 0 z Y Y ccH-- Z O O z Z Z 0 Z z H < Z z Lt Z X Q 0 z a a w •Q Q O U _z Q Q Q w p z- - Ix = w U Q M -1 - 2 = = o u m > 2 u u o u Lu z ? 2 L 0 O N Z o } D N a N N 0 W W V) r-1 r1 CC lip C' V~) V) r-1 W O I- 1 O N LL V) N In 0 O F- z H V) 0 Z Z 'n 1_ O LL O w2 Z Z Oa Z F- 0 I' ." O W z C7 O CC cc rn U w in z C7 ri w Q Q JI 000 O Y = 2 r-1 N A z N N O cn Q F- lD = o Q = N 0 Vl F- Q V) V) ri A N O W -" Cr = J 00 V) 00 J F- D www Q ' Ln o_ _ = X x X oo x Q Q x 2 , N- 1 O m Q O D U m m m 00 Q `" m ' = 3 0 m c:),- 1 Ln alXwM00lDLn0Ctr1chLnNlD0) Q O o A r-1 r-1 O O O r1 Ln N O N M O 4 in O 00 rn N CO Cl- N Cr c1 rel 0_ 0_ 0_ ri CO LI) O_ cr cr LI) r-1 N 0_ N N N CO U JJ CL Z U 1 U o_ Q Z Q_ J = O_ N Q V) W CC CCF- 0 J Z O U w o_ J CC CI- Z = Z J J U J d V) 0 J Z W O Q >- cc V) J V) J _ E > N O r J LLJ 0 l7 Q z 2 V) N 0_ z z W W J (7 F- J al U O F- O Z = F CC < CC F- Q F- F- V1 Z W J z N N = I- 0 z a W w w cco_ Z Z O C7 0_ F- N Ln L) Z Q H N N w 2 a 0 0 N o 0 H N Z Q Q Z z = v) Q Z o_ cc cc w O cc w LLJ 0 11 L 1 N Q Lei U w > U 0 O LJ_ LL J J o_ cc > V) cc c U V) c u_ J > O Lu Q Q J Q (- W O Q _ U w w w w w w w w 0 0 J = N N Y CC v7 H JD 2 2 w N N Vim) LNn V` n) V` n) tn.' Z N cn _ z w Q Z z W N J a F- 7LL, 0° a a a a a a a a t- H 0 = 2 m 0 - a 0 Z = W O Z z Z Z z Z Z D Y Y C U H F- U-1 !? Z Z QO Q rn C7 cc OJ = _ _ _ _ _ = cQc Q Q w w CC CC 0 o: Q 0 c w H N < m U U U U U 0 U Y z z O N N O I- > CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Consider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls and Variances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and Utility Easements located at 6893 Highover Drive Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: H.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No:  PROPOSED MOTION The Chanhassen City Council upholds the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments' affirmation of the City Engineer's partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denial of the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utility easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY On August 19, 2020, staff received an appeal of the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments’ decision to affirm the City Engineer’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls located in the city’s drainage and utility easements and decision to deny a variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utilities easements. This appeal stems from Planning Case 2020­15, the staff report, Findings of Fact adopted by the Chanhassen Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and all documents submitted by the appellant and city staff have been provided as attachments. A brief summary of Planning Case 2020­15 is provided below: On October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at 6893 Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, staff determined that retaining walls had been built on the property without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with the issued grading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and the provisions of the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrative appeals before trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. The City Engineer subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachment agreement.These two retaining walls are located within the drainage and utility easement. The City Engineer requested that they be removed and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. The applicant has not complied with this request. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectConsider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls andVariances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and UtilityEasements located at 6893 Highover DriveSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council upholds the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments' affirmation of the CityEngineer's partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denial of the variance request to allow the retaining wallsto be located within the drainage and utility easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn August 19, 2020, staff received an appeal of the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments’ decision toaffirm the City Engineer’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls located in the city’s drainageand utility easements and decision to deny a variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within thedrainage and utilities easements.This appeal stems from Planning Case 2020­15, the staff report, Findings of Fact adopted by the Chanhassen Boardof Adjustments and Appeals, and all documents submitted by the appellant and city staff have been provided asattachments.A brief summary of Planning Case 2020­15 is provided below:On October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at6893 Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, staff determined that retaining walls had been builton the property without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with theissued grading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and theprovisions of the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrativeappeals before trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. The CityEngineer subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachmentagreement.These two retaining walls are located within the drainage and utility easement. The City Engineer requestedthat they be removed and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. The applicant has not complied with this request. The applicant appealed the denial of the encroachment agreement. The applicant indicated that the denial was unreasonable and unfair. The applicant asserted that the walls were built in their location by a third­party contractor, that the walls do not interfere with the use or intent of the drainage and utility easements, and that requiring their removal and the regrading of the property would create an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship for the homeowner. Staff’s position was that the City Engineer’s denial of the requested encroachment agreement was necessitated by the fact that the retaining walls in question have altered the property’s drainage in a manner inconsistent with the approved grading plan to the detriment of neighboring properties. Staff notes that despite informing the homeowner in 2016 and 2017 that permits would be required to relocate or install new retaining walls, the applicant did not file any permits until after the walls were completed and legal action was initiated. Since the applicant knowingly had walls installed without the required permits, the hardship was self­inflicted and staff recommended that the Planning Commission affirm the City Engineer’s decision and deny the requested variance request. A summary of the comments made by members of the public during the public hearing and the Planning Commissioners' discussion, comments, and questions can be found in the Background section below. BACKGROUND On August 18, 2020, 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 appeal of the city’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls and variances from the city’s prohibition of locating structures within drainage and utility easements preceded by published and mailed notice.  The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 6­0 to affirm the City Engineer’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and deny the requested variance. This decision was subsequently appealed by the applicant on August 19, 2020. During the Public Hearing, two members of the public addressed the Planning Commission. A summary of their statements is as follows: Ms. Wargin (east neighbor): Stated that her property had a long history of issues with flooding which had necessitated buying a special sump pump. She acknowledge that the flooding issues predated the Synstelien’s grading projects, but stated that the changes made by her neighbors had exacerbated the issues. She noted that the over one foot of dirt they added along the lot line causes water to flow into her yard, onto her driveway, and onto the public sidewalk, where it freezes during the winter. She stated that the changes have made the water pooling worse rather than better, because instead of flowing over the entire yard where more water could be absorbed, it is now funneled down the side yard. She mentioned that she knew they had changed the grade by at least one foot because she needed to raise the height of her sprinklers located on the lot line by one foot. She also stated that Synstelien’s, in addition to hiring contractors, had done significant portions of the work on the property themselves, most recently adding landscaping along the property line on the weekend of August 15­16th. She expressed concern that the work that has been done on the property seems to have been done without a structured plan. Mr. Block (south neighbor):Noted that the way the subdivision was designed, the water from all of the surrounding houses would go through the Synstelien’s yard via a swale. He stated the water entered the Synstelien’s property about 10­15 feet west of the property line and did not flow along the property line. He observed that the berm created by Mr. Synstelien was likely intended to stop the flow of water into their yard. He stated that the berm caused the water to pool there until it got high enough to flow down into Highover Drive. He stated that he believed the French drain worked well 95 percent of the time to address the pooling issues caused by the berm, but that in heavy rain event, like on August 16th, the French drains get overwhelmed. He observed that the water pooling on his property behind the berm was no longer going to the Wargin property and that it did not pool high enough to threaten his walkout. He expressed uncertainty as to how the system would work under frozen conditions. He was also concerned about the impact that any future grading or construction to the west would have on the situation. He asked that any additional grading be well thought out and carefully considered. He noted that the completed project at the Synstelien residence looked good and that the neighborhood had calmed down after two years of CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectConsider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls andVariances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and UtilityEasements located at 6893 Highover DriveSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council upholds the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments' affirmation of the CityEngineer's partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denial of the variance request to allow the retaining wallsto be located within the drainage and utility easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn August 19, 2020, staff received an appeal of the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments’ decision toaffirm the City Engineer’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls located in the city’s drainageand utility easements and decision to deny a variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within thedrainage and utilities easements.This appeal stems from Planning Case 2020­15, the staff report, Findings of Fact adopted by the Chanhassen Boardof Adjustments and Appeals, and all documents submitted by the appellant and city staff have been provided asattachments.A brief summary of Planning Case 2020­15 is provided below:On October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at6893 Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, staff determined that retaining walls had been builton the property without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with theissued grading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and theprovisions of the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrativeappeals before trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. The CityEngineer subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachmentagreement.These two retaining walls are located within the drainage and utility easement. The City Engineer requestedthat they be removed and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. Theapplicant has not complied with this request.The applicant appealed the denial of the encroachment agreement. The applicant indicated that the denial wasunreasonable and unfair. The applicant asserted that the walls were built in their location by a third­party contractor,that the walls do not interfere with the use or intent of the drainage and utility easements, and that requiring theirremoval and the regrading of the property would create an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship for thehomeowner.Staff’s position was that the City Engineer’s denial of the requested encroachment agreement was necessitated by thefact that the retaining walls in question have altered the property’s drainage in a manner inconsistent with the approvedgrading plan to the detriment of neighboring properties. Staff notes that despite informing the homeowner in 2016 and2017 that permits would be required to relocate or install new retaining walls, the applicant did not file any permitsuntil after the walls were completed and legal action was initiated. Since the applicant knowingly had walls installedwithout the required permits, the hardship was self­inflicted and staff recommended that the Planning Commissionaffirm the City Engineer’s decision and deny the requested variance request.A summary of the comments made by members of the public during the public hearing and the PlanningCommissioners' discussion, comments, and questions can be found in the Background section below.BACKGROUNDOn August 18, 2020, 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 appeal of the city’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls and variances from the city’sprohibition of locating structures within drainage and utility easements preceded by published and mailed notice.  ThePlanning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 6­0 to affirm the CityEngineer’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and deny the requested variance. This decision wassubsequently appealed by the applicant on August 19, 2020. During the Public Hearing, two members of the publicaddressed the Planning Commission. A summary of their statements is as follows:Ms. Wargin (east neighbor): Stated that her property had a long history of issues with flooding which hadnecessitated buying a special sump pump. She acknowledge that the flooding issues predated the Synstelien’s gradingprojects, but stated that the changes made by her neighbors had exacerbated the issues. She noted that the over onefoot of dirt they added along the lot line causes water to flow into her yard, onto her driveway, and onto the publicsidewalk, where it freezes during the winter. She stated that the changes have made the water pooling worse ratherthan better, because instead of flowing over the entire yard where more water could be absorbed, it is now funneleddown the side yard.She mentioned that she knew they had changed the grade by at least one foot because she needed to raise the heightof her sprinklers located on the lot line by one foot. She also stated that Synstelien’s, in addition to hiring contractors,had done significant portions of the work on the property themselves, most recently adding landscaping along theproperty line on the weekend of August 15­16th. She expressed concern that the work that has been done on theproperty seems to have been done without a structured plan.Mr. Block (south neighbor):Noted that the way the subdivision was designed, the water from all of the surroundinghouses would go through the Synstelien’s yard via a swale. He stated the water entered the Synstelien’s propertyabout 10­15 feet west of the property line and did not flow along the property line. He observed that the berm createdby Mr. Synstelien was likely intended to stop the flow of water into their yard. He stated that the berm caused thewater to pool there until it got high enough to flow down into Highover Drive. He stated that he believed the Frenchdrain worked well 95 percent of the time to address the pooling issues caused by the berm, but that in heavy rainevent, like on August 16th, the French drains get overwhelmed. He observed that the water pooling on his propertybehind the berm was no longer going to the Wargin property and that it did not pool high enough to threaten hiswalkout. He expressed uncertainty as to how the system would work under frozen conditions. He was also concernedabout the impact that any future grading or construction to the west would have on the situation. He asked that any additional grading be well thought out and carefully considered. He noted that the completed project at the Synstelien residence looked good and that the neighborhood had calmed down after two years of problems now that the project was complete. He also stated that he did not want anyone, himself or the Wargin’s, to have water issues. Summary of Commissioner Comments, Questions, and Responses: 1. Commissioner McGonagill asked staff if in the approved grading plan the berm and retaining walls were setback from the property line and terminated before reaching the drainage and utility easement. Staff confirmed that this was the case. 2. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the homeowner had essentially flattened the rear yard. Mr. Ferraro stated that they had raised the rear yard elevation by 1.5 to 2 feet, but that it was impossible to be sure of the exact change due to the lack of a preliminary survey. 3. Commissioner McGonagill asked if during the time the project was ongoing if staff received complaints specifically about drainage. Mr. Ferraro stated that he had received one complaint about water ponding due to the work being done. 4. Commissioner Randall asked if any damage to the neighbors’ properties had occurred due to the grading changes. Staff stated they were not aware of any property damage. 5. Commissioner Randall asked if the deck retaining wall caused problems with the direction of water flow. Mr. Ferraro stated that the fill associated with the wall pushes the drainage east onto the neighbor’s property but does not completely block the northward flow of water. 6. Commissioner Weick asked if the intention of the approved grading plan was for the water to parallel the lot line. Mr. Ferraro stated that that was the intent. 7. Commissioner Skistad asked if the French drain was intended to convey the water to the road.  Mr. Ferraro stated that that was the intent but that water not picked up by the French drain was still sheet draining and was not being contained within the drainage and utility easement. 8. Commissioner McGonagill asked if there were any inlets to the French drain system along the eastern property line. Mr. Ferraro stated that there were not and that it was not adding any of the drainage on the east side. 9. Commissioner Randall asked what would happen on the property if the appeal were to be denied. Mr. Young­ Walters responded that the property would need to be brought into compliance with the approved grading permit and the retaining walls not covered under the encroachment agreement would need to be removed. 10. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the whole site would need to be regraded? Mr. Young­Walters clarified that only the walls interfering with the function of the drainage and utility easement would need to be removed, and that any grading plan relocating those walls and restoring the function of the easement would be acceptable to staff. 11 . Commissioner VonOven asked when issues between staff and the applicant arose. Ms. Synstelien responded that she believed the issues are the result of the city feeling pressured to do something due to a few neighbors calling repeatedly. 12. Commissioner VonOven asked what specific error the applicant felt staff had made. Ms. Synstelien said she felt the error was assuming that the grading had increased the amount of water directed to the east. She believes there is currently less water flowing than previously. Mr. Kelly stated that the French drain system addresses staff’s concerns regarding impact of the grading on the area’s drainage, that the deck retaining wall does not redirect water to the east, and that the south garden wall does not redirect water to the east. For these reasons, he feels that the encroachment agreement should have been granted and that any existing grading issues could be addressed with the wall present. 13. Commissioner VonOven asked if at any point the city had provided the applicant with options to address concerns with the grading beyond removing the walls. Mr. Synstelien said the city never provided a “do this to address the situation” option, and that the final grading was done based on the deck and decision to extend the garden wall to the property line. 14. Commissioner VonOven asked if retaining walls were ever shown or approved as part of the deck plan. Mr. Synstelien stated that the wall was needed to build the deck and that they were told they did not need a permit because it was under four feet. 15. Commissioner McGonagill asked why the applicant installed improvements beyond what was approved in the grading permit. Mr. Synstelien stated that issues were not brought up until the project was complete, despite numerous inspections occurring as the alterations where being made. 16. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he felt staff worked well with the applicant due to the number of unpermitted improvements that were subsequently approved. Mr. Synstelien responded that was correct that most had been approved, but that he disagreed with staff’s assessment that two of the retaining walls negatively CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectConsider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls andVariances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and UtilityEasements located at 6893 Highover DriveSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council upholds the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments' affirmation of the CityEngineer's partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denial of the variance request to allow the retaining wallsto be located within the drainage and utility easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn August 19, 2020, staff received an appeal of the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments’ decision toaffirm the City Engineer’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls located in the city’s drainageand utility easements and decision to deny a variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within thedrainage and utilities easements.This appeal stems from Planning Case 2020­15, the staff report, Findings of Fact adopted by the Chanhassen Boardof Adjustments and Appeals, and all documents submitted by the appellant and city staff have been provided asattachments.A brief summary of Planning Case 2020­15 is provided below:On October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at6893 Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, staff determined that retaining walls had been builton the property without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with theissued grading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and theprovisions of the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrativeappeals before trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. The CityEngineer subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachmentagreement.These two retaining walls are located within the drainage and utility easement. The City Engineer requestedthat they be removed and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. Theapplicant has not complied with this request.The applicant appealed the denial of the encroachment agreement. The applicant indicated that the denial wasunreasonable and unfair. The applicant asserted that the walls were built in their location by a third­party contractor,that the walls do not interfere with the use or intent of the drainage and utility easements, and that requiring theirremoval and the regrading of the property would create an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship for thehomeowner.Staff’s position was that the City Engineer’s denial of the requested encroachment agreement was necessitated by thefact that the retaining walls in question have altered the property’s drainage in a manner inconsistent with the approvedgrading plan to the detriment of neighboring properties. Staff notes that despite informing the homeowner in 2016 and2017 that permits would be required to relocate or install new retaining walls, the applicant did not file any permitsuntil after the walls were completed and legal action was initiated. Since the applicant knowingly had walls installedwithout the required permits, the hardship was self­inflicted and staff recommended that the Planning Commissionaffirm the City Engineer’s decision and deny the requested variance request.A summary of the comments made by members of the public during the public hearing and the PlanningCommissioners' discussion, comments, and questions can be found in the Background section below.BACKGROUNDOn August 18, 2020, 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 appeal of the city’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls and variances from the city’sprohibition of locating structures within drainage and utility easements preceded by published and mailed notice.  ThePlanning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 6­0 to affirm the CityEngineer’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and deny the requested variance. This decision wassubsequently appealed by the applicant on August 19, 2020. During the Public Hearing, two members of the publicaddressed the Planning Commission. A summary of their statements is as follows:Ms. Wargin (east neighbor): Stated that her property had a long history of issues with flooding which hadnecessitated buying a special sump pump. She acknowledge that the flooding issues predated the Synstelien’s gradingprojects, but stated that the changes made by her neighbors had exacerbated the issues. She noted that the over onefoot of dirt they added along the lot line causes water to flow into her yard, onto her driveway, and onto the publicsidewalk, where it freezes during the winter. She stated that the changes have made the water pooling worse ratherthan better, because instead of flowing over the entire yard where more water could be absorbed, it is now funneleddown the side yard.She mentioned that she knew they had changed the grade by at least one foot because she needed to raise the heightof her sprinklers located on the lot line by one foot. She also stated that Synstelien’s, in addition to hiring contractors,had done significant portions of the work on the property themselves, most recently adding landscaping along theproperty line on the weekend of August 15­16th. She expressed concern that the work that has been done on theproperty seems to have been done without a structured plan.Mr. Block (south neighbor):Noted that the way the subdivision was designed, the water from all of the surroundinghouses would go through the Synstelien’s yard via a swale. He stated the water entered the Synstelien’s propertyabout 10­15 feet west of the property line and did not flow along the property line. He observed that the berm createdby Mr. Synstelien was likely intended to stop the flow of water into their yard. He stated that the berm caused thewater to pool there until it got high enough to flow down into Highover Drive. He stated that he believed the Frenchdrain worked well 95 percent of the time to address the pooling issues caused by the berm, but that in heavy rainevent, like on August 16th, the French drains get overwhelmed. He observed that the water pooling on his propertybehind the berm was no longer going to the Wargin property and that it did not pool high enough to threaten hiswalkout. He expressed uncertainty as to how the system would work under frozen conditions. He was also concernedabout the impact that any future grading or construction to the west would have on the situation.He asked that any additional grading be well thought out and carefully considered. He noted that the completedproject at the Synstelien residence looked good and that the neighborhood had calmed down after two years ofproblems now that the project was complete. He also stated that he did not want anyone, himself or the Wargin’s, tohave water issues.Summary of Commissioner Comments, Questions, and Responses:1. Commissioner McGonagill asked staff if in the approved grading plan the berm and retaining walls weresetback from the property line and terminated before reaching the drainage and utility easement. Staff confirmedthat this was the case.2. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the homeowner had essentially flattened the rear yard. Mr. Ferraro statedthat they had raised the rear yard elevation by 1.5 to 2 feet, but that it was impossible to be sure of the exactchange due to the lack of a preliminary survey.3. Commissioner McGonagill asked if during the time the project was ongoing if staff received complaintsspecifically about drainage. Mr. Ferraro stated that he had received one complaint about water ponding due tothe work being done.4. Commissioner Randall asked if any damage to the neighbors’ properties had occurred due to the gradingchanges. Staff stated they were not aware of any property damage.5. Commissioner Randall asked if the deck retaining wall caused problems with the direction of water flow. Mr.Ferraro stated that the fill associated with the wall pushes the drainage east onto the neighbor’s property butdoes not completely block the northward flow of water.6. Commissioner Weick asked if the intention of the approved grading plan was for the water to parallel the lotline. Mr. Ferraro stated that that was the intent.7. Commissioner Skistad asked if the French drain was intended to convey the water to the road.  Mr. Ferrarostated that that was the intent but that water not picked up by the French drain was still sheet draining and wasnot being contained within the drainage and utility easement.8. Commissioner McGonagill asked if there were any inlets to the French drain system along the eastern propertyline. Mr. Ferraro stated that there were not and that it was not adding any of the drainage on the east side.9. Commissioner Randall asked what would happen on the property if the appeal were to be denied. Mr. Young­Walters responded that the property would need to be brought into compliance with the approved gradingpermit and the retaining walls not covered under the encroachment agreement would need to be removed.10. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the whole site would need to be regraded? Mr. Young­Walters clarified thatonly the walls interfering with the function of the drainage and utility easement would need to be removed, andthat any grading plan relocating those walls and restoring the function of the easement would be acceptable tostaff.11 . Commissioner VonOven asked when issues between staff and the applicant arose. Ms. Synstelien respondedthat she believed the issues are the result of the city feeling pressured to do something due to a few neighborscalling repeatedly.12. Commissioner VonOven asked what specific error the applicant felt staff had made. Ms. Synstelien said she feltthe error was assuming that the grading had increased the amount of water directed to the east. She believesthere is currently less water flowing than previously. Mr. Kelly stated that the French drain system addressesstaff’s concerns regarding impact of the grading on the area’s drainage, that the deck retaining wall does notredirect water to the east, and that the south garden wall does not redirect water to the east. For these reasons,he feels that the encroachment agreement should have been granted and that any existing grading issues couldbe addressed with the wall present.13. Commissioner VonOven asked if at any point the city had provided the applicant with options to addressconcerns with the grading beyond removing the walls. Mr. Synstelien said the city never provided a “do this toaddress the situation” option, and that the final grading was done based on the deck and decision to extend thegarden wall to the property line.14. Commissioner VonOven asked if retaining walls were ever shown or approved as part of the deck plan. Mr.Synstelien stated that the wall was needed to build the deck and that they were told they did not need a permitbecause it was under four feet.15. Commissioner McGonagill asked why the applicant installed improvements beyond what was approved in thegrading permit. Mr. Synstelien stated that issues were not brought up until the project was complete, despitenumerous inspections occurring as the alterations where being made.16. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he felt staff worked well with the applicant due to the number of unpermitted improvements that were subsequently approved. Mr. Synstelien responded that was correct that most had been approved, but that he disagreed with staff’s assessment that two of the retaining walls negatively impacted the drainage. 17. Commissioner McGonagill asked if there were pre­construction survey’s showing the drainage. Mr. Synstelien stated that they had used the subdivision grading plan as a base, and installed the berm to stop the flow of water and direct it into the French drain system. Mr. Kelly stated that the original grading caused water to flow from the south, then veered south and it was also directed southeast with an apparent swale designed to convey the water. 18. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the approved grading permit had a swale along the lot line to convey the water to the road without diverting it to the east. Mr. Kelly stated it did and he believed that had been accomplished. Mr. Synstelien stated that that was incorrect and that the grading plan was not intended to convey water overland, with the flow arrows only referring to the subsurface conveyance of water via drain tile. He further stated that the topographic changes were designed to match existing conditions and that the berm had largely solved the drainage issues. 19. Commissioner McGonagill asked if on the original grading permit it showed water going down the property line from south to north. Mr. Young­Walters confirmed that it did, and noted that the contours on the grading plan indicated the creation of a swale to covey water overland. Mr. Ferraro also confirmed that the grading plan showed a swale to facilitate the overland conveyance of water to the street as well as the subsurface French drain system. 20. Commissioner Randall asked what the contractor’s response to the city’s concerns were. Mr. Synstelien stated that the contractor stated they felt the performed work was within the grading plan. 21. Commissioner Randall asked if the contractor developed the grading plan. Mr. Synstelien stated that he worked with Mr. Ferraro to develop the grading plan. 22. Commissioner Weick asked how the variance request played into the appeal. Mr. Young­Walters said that in theory they could use the variance to remove the requirement for the property to get an encroachment agreement, but that he would not recommend that course. Mr. Young­Walters further clarified that it would be extremely problematic to permit the walls to remain, and that if the Planning Commission felt it was appropriate to allow the walls they should find that staff made an error, rather than grant the variance. 23. Commissioner Reeder asked that if the grading had been done according to the permits, would the neighbor to the east still be having the issues she is reporting. Mr. Ferraro sated that if the grading had been followed overland, drainage would have been facilitated and the area’s drainage would not have been adversely impacted. 24. Commissioner Reeder stated that he felt staff did exactly as they should have. 25. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he could not see where staff made an error and that he felt staff had went out of their way to work with the homeowner regarding the other walls built without approval. He also noted that it is readily apparent that no swale was created along the east property line. 26. Commissioner Weick asked for staff to clarify the statement that in the report that the variance was being requested if the Planning Commission did not determine an error occurred. Mr. Young­Walters clarified that this was staff's understanding of the request, but that staff felt it was difficult to separate the two issues. 27. Commissioner McGonagill asked if a larger issue was not that the original grading plan was not followed. Mr. Ferraro stated that if the approved grading plan had been followed there would not be issues with the property drainage. 28. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the grading along the east property line needed to be redone. Mr. Ferraro stated that the retaining walls prevented the creation of the swale that would be needed to rectify the grading. 29. Commissioner Skistad stated that she felt there were longstanding issues with drainage in this area and that she felt the grading done was an attempt to fix those historic problems. She stated that a neighborhood level solution was likely needed to truly address the issue, and that just regrading the east side of the applicant’s property would not address all of the area’s water issues. 30. Commissioner VonOven agreed that a neighborhood solution was likely needed and that the situation was complicated, but that, regarding the case at hand, he could not see how staff had made an error. 31. Commissioner Randall stated that he understands the applicant’s frustration, but that since they had made a decision to deviate from the grading plan and this change had caused concern for the neighbors, he felt the city had acted appropriately. 32. Commissioner McGonagill noted that he felt any proposed variance would need to include a revised grading plan to address the drainage, possibly working with several of the neighbors to address regional issues. Verbatim minutes from the August 18, 2020 Planning Commission meeting have been included in the City Council CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectConsider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls andVariances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and UtilityEasements located at 6893 Highover DriveSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council upholds the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments' affirmation of the CityEngineer's partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denial of the variance request to allow the retaining wallsto be located within the drainage and utility easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn August 19, 2020, staff received an appeal of the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments’ decision toaffirm the City Engineer’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls located in the city’s drainageand utility easements and decision to deny a variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within thedrainage and utilities easements.This appeal stems from Planning Case 2020­15, the staff report, Findings of Fact adopted by the Chanhassen Boardof Adjustments and Appeals, and all documents submitted by the appellant and city staff have been provided asattachments.A brief summary of Planning Case 2020­15 is provided below:On October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at6893 Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, staff determined that retaining walls had been builton the property without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with theissued grading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and theprovisions of the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrativeappeals before trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. The CityEngineer subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachmentagreement.These two retaining walls are located within the drainage and utility easement. The City Engineer requestedthat they be removed and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. Theapplicant has not complied with this request.The applicant appealed the denial of the encroachment agreement. The applicant indicated that the denial wasunreasonable and unfair. The applicant asserted that the walls were built in their location by a third­party contractor,that the walls do not interfere with the use or intent of the drainage and utility easements, and that requiring theirremoval and the regrading of the property would create an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship for thehomeowner.Staff’s position was that the City Engineer’s denial of the requested encroachment agreement was necessitated by thefact that the retaining walls in question have altered the property’s drainage in a manner inconsistent with the approvedgrading plan to the detriment of neighboring properties. Staff notes that despite informing the homeowner in 2016 and2017 that permits would be required to relocate or install new retaining walls, the applicant did not file any permitsuntil after the walls were completed and legal action was initiated. Since the applicant knowingly had walls installedwithout the required permits, the hardship was self­inflicted and staff recommended that the Planning Commissionaffirm the City Engineer’s decision and deny the requested variance request.A summary of the comments made by members of the public during the public hearing and the PlanningCommissioners' discussion, comments, and questions can be found in the Background section below.BACKGROUNDOn August 18, 2020, 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 appeal of the city’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls and variances from the city’sprohibition of locating structures within drainage and utility easements preceded by published and mailed notice.  ThePlanning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 6­0 to affirm the CityEngineer’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and deny the requested variance. This decision wassubsequently appealed by the applicant on August 19, 2020. During the Public Hearing, two members of the publicaddressed the Planning Commission. A summary of their statements is as follows:Ms. Wargin (east neighbor): Stated that her property had a long history of issues with flooding which hadnecessitated buying a special sump pump. She acknowledge that the flooding issues predated the Synstelien’s gradingprojects, but stated that the changes made by her neighbors had exacerbated the issues. She noted that the over onefoot of dirt they added along the lot line causes water to flow into her yard, onto her driveway, and onto the publicsidewalk, where it freezes during the winter. She stated that the changes have made the water pooling worse ratherthan better, because instead of flowing over the entire yard where more water could be absorbed, it is now funneleddown the side yard.She mentioned that she knew they had changed the grade by at least one foot because she needed to raise the heightof her sprinklers located on the lot line by one foot. She also stated that Synstelien’s, in addition to hiring contractors,had done significant portions of the work on the property themselves, most recently adding landscaping along theproperty line on the weekend of August 15­16th. She expressed concern that the work that has been done on theproperty seems to have been done without a structured plan.Mr. Block (south neighbor):Noted that the way the subdivision was designed, the water from all of the surroundinghouses would go through the Synstelien’s yard via a swale. He stated the water entered the Synstelien’s propertyabout 10­15 feet west of the property line and did not flow along the property line. He observed that the berm createdby Mr. Synstelien was likely intended to stop the flow of water into their yard. He stated that the berm caused thewater to pool there until it got high enough to flow down into Highover Drive. He stated that he believed the Frenchdrain worked well 95 percent of the time to address the pooling issues caused by the berm, but that in heavy rainevent, like on August 16th, the French drains get overwhelmed. He observed that the water pooling on his propertybehind the berm was no longer going to the Wargin property and that it did not pool high enough to threaten hiswalkout. He expressed uncertainty as to how the system would work under frozen conditions. He was also concernedabout the impact that any future grading or construction to the west would have on the situation.He asked that any additional grading be well thought out and carefully considered. He noted that the completedproject at the Synstelien residence looked good and that the neighborhood had calmed down after two years ofproblems now that the project was complete. He also stated that he did not want anyone, himself or the Wargin’s, tohave water issues.Summary of Commissioner Comments, Questions, and Responses:1. Commissioner McGonagill asked staff if in the approved grading plan the berm and retaining walls weresetback from the property line and terminated before reaching the drainage and utility easement. Staff confirmedthat this was the case.2. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the homeowner had essentially flattened the rear yard. Mr. Ferraro statedthat they had raised the rear yard elevation by 1.5 to 2 feet, but that it was impossible to be sure of the exactchange due to the lack of a preliminary survey.3. Commissioner McGonagill asked if during the time the project was ongoing if staff received complaintsspecifically about drainage. Mr. Ferraro stated that he had received one complaint about water ponding due tothe work being done.4. Commissioner Randall asked if any damage to the neighbors’ properties had occurred due to the gradingchanges. Staff stated they were not aware of any property damage.5. Commissioner Randall asked if the deck retaining wall caused problems with the direction of water flow. Mr.Ferraro stated that the fill associated with the wall pushes the drainage east onto the neighbor’s property butdoes not completely block the northward flow of water.6. Commissioner Weick asked if the intention of the approved grading plan was for the water to parallel the lotline. Mr. Ferraro stated that that was the intent.7. Commissioner Skistad asked if the French drain was intended to convey the water to the road.  Mr. Ferrarostated that that was the intent but that water not picked up by the French drain was still sheet draining and wasnot being contained within the drainage and utility easement.8. Commissioner McGonagill asked if there were any inlets to the French drain system along the eastern propertyline. Mr. Ferraro stated that there were not and that it was not adding any of the drainage on the east side.9. Commissioner Randall asked what would happen on the property if the appeal were to be denied. Mr. Young­Walters responded that the property would need to be brought into compliance with the approved gradingpermit and the retaining walls not covered under the encroachment agreement would need to be removed.10. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the whole site would need to be regraded? Mr. Young­Walters clarified thatonly the walls interfering with the function of the drainage and utility easement would need to be removed, andthat any grading plan relocating those walls and restoring the function of the easement would be acceptable tostaff.11 . Commissioner VonOven asked when issues between staff and the applicant arose. Ms. Synstelien respondedthat she believed the issues are the result of the city feeling pressured to do something due to a few neighborscalling repeatedly.12. Commissioner VonOven asked what specific error the applicant felt staff had made. Ms. Synstelien said she feltthe error was assuming that the grading had increased the amount of water directed to the east. She believesthere is currently less water flowing than previously. Mr. Kelly stated that the French drain system addressesstaff’s concerns regarding impact of the grading on the area’s drainage, that the deck retaining wall does notredirect water to the east, and that the south garden wall does not redirect water to the east. For these reasons,he feels that the encroachment agreement should have been granted and that any existing grading issues couldbe addressed with the wall present.13. Commissioner VonOven asked if at any point the city had provided the applicant with options to addressconcerns with the grading beyond removing the walls. Mr. Synstelien said the city never provided a “do this toaddress the situation” option, and that the final grading was done based on the deck and decision to extend thegarden wall to the property line.14. Commissioner VonOven asked if retaining walls were ever shown or approved as part of the deck plan. Mr.Synstelien stated that the wall was needed to build the deck and that they were told they did not need a permitbecause it was under four feet.15. Commissioner McGonagill asked why the applicant installed improvements beyond what was approved in thegrading permit. Mr. Synstelien stated that issues were not brought up until the project was complete, despitenumerous inspections occurring as the alterations where being made.16. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he felt staff worked well with the applicant due to the number ofunpermitted improvements that were subsequently approved. Mr. Synstelien responded that was correct thatmost had been approved, but that he disagreed with staff’s assessment that two of the retaining walls negativelyimpacted the drainage.17. Commissioner McGonagill asked if there were pre­construction survey’s showing the drainage. Mr. Synstelienstated that they had used the subdivision grading plan as a base, and installed the berm to stop the flow of waterand direct it into the French drain system. Mr. Kelly stated that the original grading caused water to flow fromthe south, then veered south and it was also directed southeast with an apparent swale designed to convey thewater.18. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the approved grading permit had a swale along the lot line to convey thewater to the road without diverting it to the east. Mr. Kelly stated it did and he believed that had beenaccomplished. Mr. Synstelien stated that that was incorrect and that the grading plan was not intended toconvey water overland, with the flow arrows only referring to the subsurface conveyance of water via drain tile.He further stated that the topographic changes were designed to match existing conditions and that the bermhad largely solved the drainage issues.19. Commissioner McGonagill asked if on the original grading permit it showed water going down the property linefrom south to north. Mr. Young­Walters confirmed that it did, and noted that the contours on the grading planindicated the creation of a swale to covey water overland. Mr. Ferraro also confirmed that the grading planshowed a swale to facilitate the overland conveyance of water to the street as well as the subsurface Frenchdrain system.20. Commissioner Randall asked what the contractor’s response to the city’s concerns were. Mr. Synstelien statedthat the contractor stated they felt the performed work was within the grading plan.21. Commissioner Randall asked if the contractor developed the grading plan. Mr. Synstelien stated that he workedwith Mr. Ferraro to develop the grading plan.22. Commissioner Weick asked how the variance request played into the appeal. Mr. Young­Walters said that intheory they could use the variance to remove the requirement for the property to get an encroachmentagreement, but that he would not recommend that course. Mr. Young­Walters further clarified that it would beextremely problematic to permit the walls to remain, and that if the Planning Commission felt it was appropriateto allow the walls they should find that staff made an error, rather than grant the variance.23. Commissioner Reeder asked that if the grading had been done according to the permits, would the neighbor tothe east still be having the issues she is reporting. Mr. Ferraro sated that if the grading had been followedoverland, drainage would have been facilitated and the area’s drainage would not have been adverselyimpacted.24. Commissioner Reeder stated that he felt staff did exactly as they should have.25. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he could not see where staff made an error and that he felt staff had wentout of their way to work with the homeowner regarding the other walls built without approval. He also notedthat it is readily apparent that no swale was created along the east property line.26. Commissioner Weick asked for staff to clarify the statement that in the report that the variance was beingrequested if the Planning Commission did not determine an error occurred. Mr. Young­Walters clarified that thiswas staff's understanding of the request, but that staff felt it was difficult to separate the two issues.27. Commissioner McGonagill asked if a larger issue was not that the original grading plan was not followed. Mr.Ferraro stated that if the approved grading plan had been followed there would not be issues with the propertydrainage.28. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the grading along the east property line needed to be redone. Mr. Ferrarostated that the retaining walls prevented the creation of the swale that would be needed to rectify the grading.29. Commissioner Skistad stated that she felt there were longstanding issues with drainage in this area and that shefelt the grading done was an attempt to fix those historic problems. She stated that a neighborhood level solutionwas likely needed to truly address the issue, and that just regrading the east side of the applicant’s propertywould not address all of the area’s water issues.30. Commissioner VonOven agreed that a neighborhood solution was likely needed and that the situation wascomplicated, but that, regarding the case at hand, he could not see how staff had made an error.31. Commissioner Randall stated that he understands the applicant’s frustration, but that since they had made adecision to deviate from the grading plan and this change had caused concern for the neighbors, he felt the cityhad acted appropriately.32. Commissioner McGonagill noted that he felt any proposed variance would need to include a revised gradingplan to address the drainage, possibly working with several of the neighbors to address regional issues. Verbatim minutes from the August 18, 2020 Planning Commission meeting have been included in the City Council packet and provide a complete record of the presentations, public hearing, and resulting discussions. DISCUSSION During the applicant’s presentation and the resulting discussion, several points were brought up that should be addressed: 1) The placement of Wall “F” is necessitated by the deck. The city’s Building Official has stated that this is not the case. The location of Wall “F” approximately 2.5 feet into the drainage and utility easement was dictated by the applicant’s desire to enclose the area under the deck. The applicant started construction on this enclosure without a permit. Neither the enclosure nor retaining wall were included in the deck permit (5­25­2017). The deck permit specifically notes “all structures out of easement areas”. When staff became aware of work being conducted on the enclosure, staff issued a stop work order (9­18­2017). During discussions with the contractor on 9­27­2017, staff indicated that no permit would be issued to enclose the area under the deck as it would be considered lot cover and the property was at its limit. 2) Wall “F” does not redirect water. Wall “F” retains soil that slopes to the neighbor’s lot line. The slope created by this grading pushes water east onto the neighboring property. The approved grading permit showed a swale, which would have conveyed water to the road instead of the neighboring property, rather than a continuous slope in this location. Wall “F” and the soil it retains prevents the creation of the swale. 3) The retaining walls are at or below 48” above grade, therefore permits were not needed. Wall height is measured from footing to top, not from grade to top. Any wall over that height requires a building permit. Additionally, walls under 48” in height require a zoning permit. Mr. Synstelien was made aware of the zoning permit requirement in an August 17, 2016 letter, and in numerous subsequent communications with city staff. Many of these conversations pre­dated the submittal of the deck permit application in May of 2017 and the construction of new retaining walls on the property. 4) Staff was on site repeatedly and should have called out problems before October of 2017. The applicant repeatedly changed the scope of work without amending permits, pulling required permits, or consulting with staff. Completion of the grading permit was repeatedly pushed back due to additional projects (deck, walkout door, etc.) being started. Many of the referenced inspections were conducted by building inspectors looking at specific building related issues; as retaining walls under four feet are not governed by building permits and the property had an open grading permit, they assumed walls were being addressed under those permits. No new wall obviously exceed the 4­foot threshold. All inspections are done at request to look at specific items, and final grading cannot be evaluated until grading is final. The grading was not finalized until October of 2017. 5) It is arbitrary to deny two walls when five others were approved. The other five walls do not impact the function of the drainage and utility easement. It is not arbitrary for staff to review individual walls to determine their individual compliance with the criteria for granting an encroachment agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectConsider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls andVariances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and UtilityEasements located at 6893 Highover DriveSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council upholds the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments' affirmation of the CityEngineer's partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denial of the variance request to allow the retaining wallsto be located within the drainage and utility easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn August 19, 2020, staff received an appeal of the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments’ decision toaffirm the City Engineer’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls located in the city’s drainageand utility easements and decision to deny a variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within thedrainage and utilities easements.This appeal stems from Planning Case 2020­15, the staff report, Findings of Fact adopted by the Chanhassen Boardof Adjustments and Appeals, and all documents submitted by the appellant and city staff have been provided asattachments.A brief summary of Planning Case 2020­15 is provided below:On October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at6893 Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, staff determined that retaining walls had been builton the property without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with theissued grading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and theprovisions of the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrativeappeals before trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. The CityEngineer subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachmentagreement.These two retaining walls are located within the drainage and utility easement. The City Engineer requestedthat they be removed and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. Theapplicant has not complied with this request.The applicant appealed the denial of the encroachment agreement. The applicant indicated that the denial wasunreasonable and unfair. The applicant asserted that the walls were built in their location by a third­party contractor,that the walls do not interfere with the use or intent of the drainage and utility easements, and that requiring theirremoval and the regrading of the property would create an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship for thehomeowner.Staff’s position was that the City Engineer’s denial of the requested encroachment agreement was necessitated by thefact that the retaining walls in question have altered the property’s drainage in a manner inconsistent with the approvedgrading plan to the detriment of neighboring properties. Staff notes that despite informing the homeowner in 2016 and2017 that permits would be required to relocate or install new retaining walls, the applicant did not file any permitsuntil after the walls were completed and legal action was initiated. Since the applicant knowingly had walls installedwithout the required permits, the hardship was self­inflicted and staff recommended that the Planning Commissionaffirm the City Engineer’s decision and deny the requested variance request.A summary of the comments made by members of the public during the public hearing and the PlanningCommissioners' discussion, comments, and questions can be found in the Background section below.BACKGROUNDOn August 18, 2020, 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 appeal of the city’s partial denial of an encroachment agreement for retaining walls and variances from the city’sprohibition of locating structures within drainage and utility easements preceded by published and mailed notice.  ThePlanning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 6­0 to affirm the CityEngineer’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and deny the requested variance. This decision wassubsequently appealed by the applicant on August 19, 2020. During the Public Hearing, two members of the publicaddressed the Planning Commission. A summary of their statements is as follows:Ms. Wargin (east neighbor): Stated that her property had a long history of issues with flooding which hadnecessitated buying a special sump pump. She acknowledge that the flooding issues predated the Synstelien’s gradingprojects, but stated that the changes made by her neighbors had exacerbated the issues. She noted that the over onefoot of dirt they added along the lot line causes water to flow into her yard, onto her driveway, and onto the publicsidewalk, where it freezes during the winter. She stated that the changes have made the water pooling worse ratherthan better, because instead of flowing over the entire yard where more water could be absorbed, it is now funneleddown the side yard.She mentioned that she knew they had changed the grade by at least one foot because she needed to raise the heightof her sprinklers located on the lot line by one foot. She also stated that Synstelien’s, in addition to hiring contractors,had done significant portions of the work on the property themselves, most recently adding landscaping along theproperty line on the weekend of August 15­16th. She expressed concern that the work that has been done on theproperty seems to have been done without a structured plan.Mr. Block (south neighbor):Noted that the way the subdivision was designed, the water from all of the surroundinghouses would go through the Synstelien’s yard via a swale. He stated the water entered the Synstelien’s propertyabout 10­15 feet west of the property line and did not flow along the property line. He observed that the berm createdby Mr. Synstelien was likely intended to stop the flow of water into their yard. He stated that the berm caused thewater to pool there until it got high enough to flow down into Highover Drive. He stated that he believed the Frenchdrain worked well 95 percent of the time to address the pooling issues caused by the berm, but that in heavy rainevent, like on August 16th, the French drains get overwhelmed. He observed that the water pooling on his propertybehind the berm was no longer going to the Wargin property and that it did not pool high enough to threaten hiswalkout. He expressed uncertainty as to how the system would work under frozen conditions. He was also concernedabout the impact that any future grading or construction to the west would have on the situation.He asked that any additional grading be well thought out and carefully considered. He noted that the completedproject at the Synstelien residence looked good and that the neighborhood had calmed down after two years ofproblems now that the project was complete. He also stated that he did not want anyone, himself or the Wargin’s, tohave water issues.Summary of Commissioner Comments, Questions, and Responses:1. Commissioner McGonagill asked staff if in the approved grading plan the berm and retaining walls weresetback from the property line and terminated before reaching the drainage and utility easement. Staff confirmedthat this was the case.2. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the homeowner had essentially flattened the rear yard. Mr. Ferraro statedthat they had raised the rear yard elevation by 1.5 to 2 feet, but that it was impossible to be sure of the exactchange due to the lack of a preliminary survey.3. Commissioner McGonagill asked if during the time the project was ongoing if staff received complaintsspecifically about drainage. Mr. Ferraro stated that he had received one complaint about water ponding due tothe work being done.4. Commissioner Randall asked if any damage to the neighbors’ properties had occurred due to the gradingchanges. Staff stated they were not aware of any property damage.5. Commissioner Randall asked if the deck retaining wall caused problems with the direction of water flow. Mr.Ferraro stated that the fill associated with the wall pushes the drainage east onto the neighbor’s property butdoes not completely block the northward flow of water.6. Commissioner Weick asked if the intention of the approved grading plan was for the water to parallel the lotline. Mr. Ferraro stated that that was the intent.7. Commissioner Skistad asked if the French drain was intended to convey the water to the road.  Mr. Ferrarostated that that was the intent but that water not picked up by the French drain was still sheet draining and wasnot being contained within the drainage and utility easement.8. Commissioner McGonagill asked if there were any inlets to the French drain system along the eastern propertyline. Mr. Ferraro stated that there were not and that it was not adding any of the drainage on the east side.9. Commissioner Randall asked what would happen on the property if the appeal were to be denied. Mr. Young­Walters responded that the property would need to be brought into compliance with the approved gradingpermit and the retaining walls not covered under the encroachment agreement would need to be removed.10. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the whole site would need to be regraded? Mr. Young­Walters clarified thatonly the walls interfering with the function of the drainage and utility easement would need to be removed, andthat any grading plan relocating those walls and restoring the function of the easement would be acceptable tostaff.11 . Commissioner VonOven asked when issues between staff and the applicant arose. Ms. Synstelien respondedthat she believed the issues are the result of the city feeling pressured to do something due to a few neighborscalling repeatedly.12. Commissioner VonOven asked what specific error the applicant felt staff had made. Ms. Synstelien said she feltthe error was assuming that the grading had increased the amount of water directed to the east. She believesthere is currently less water flowing than previously. Mr. Kelly stated that the French drain system addressesstaff’s concerns regarding impact of the grading on the area’s drainage, that the deck retaining wall does notredirect water to the east, and that the south garden wall does not redirect water to the east. For these reasons,he feels that the encroachment agreement should have been granted and that any existing grading issues couldbe addressed with the wall present.13. Commissioner VonOven asked if at any point the city had provided the applicant with options to addressconcerns with the grading beyond removing the walls. Mr. Synstelien said the city never provided a “do this toaddress the situation” option, and that the final grading was done based on the deck and decision to extend thegarden wall to the property line.14. Commissioner VonOven asked if retaining walls were ever shown or approved as part of the deck plan. Mr.Synstelien stated that the wall was needed to build the deck and that they were told they did not need a permitbecause it was under four feet.15. Commissioner McGonagill asked why the applicant installed improvements beyond what was approved in thegrading permit. Mr. Synstelien stated that issues were not brought up until the project was complete, despitenumerous inspections occurring as the alterations where being made.16. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he felt staff worked well with the applicant due to the number ofunpermitted improvements that were subsequently approved. Mr. Synstelien responded that was correct thatmost had been approved, but that he disagreed with staff’s assessment that two of the retaining walls negativelyimpacted the drainage.17. Commissioner McGonagill asked if there were pre­construction survey’s showing the drainage. Mr. Synstelienstated that they had used the subdivision grading plan as a base, and installed the berm to stop the flow of waterand direct it into the French drain system. Mr. Kelly stated that the original grading caused water to flow fromthe south, then veered south and it was also directed southeast with an apparent swale designed to convey thewater.18. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the approved grading permit had a swale along the lot line to convey thewater to the road without diverting it to the east. Mr. Kelly stated it did and he believed that had beenaccomplished. Mr. Synstelien stated that that was incorrect and that the grading plan was not intended toconvey water overland, with the flow arrows only referring to the subsurface conveyance of water via drain tile.He further stated that the topographic changes were designed to match existing conditions and that the bermhad largely solved the drainage issues.19. Commissioner McGonagill asked if on the original grading permit it showed water going down the property linefrom south to north. Mr. Young­Walters confirmed that it did, and noted that the contours on the grading planindicated the creation of a swale to covey water overland. Mr. Ferraro also confirmed that the grading planshowed a swale to facilitate the overland conveyance of water to the street as well as the subsurface Frenchdrain system.20. Commissioner Randall asked what the contractor’s response to the city’s concerns were. Mr. Synstelien statedthat the contractor stated they felt the performed work was within the grading plan.21. Commissioner Randall asked if the contractor developed the grading plan. Mr. Synstelien stated that he workedwith Mr. Ferraro to develop the grading plan.22. Commissioner Weick asked how the variance request played into the appeal. Mr. Young­Walters said that intheory they could use the variance to remove the requirement for the property to get an encroachmentagreement, but that he would not recommend that course. Mr. Young­Walters further clarified that it would beextremely problematic to permit the walls to remain, and that if the Planning Commission felt it was appropriateto allow the walls they should find that staff made an error, rather than grant the variance.23. Commissioner Reeder asked that if the grading had been done according to the permits, would the neighbor tothe east still be having the issues she is reporting. Mr. Ferraro sated that if the grading had been followedoverland, drainage would have been facilitated and the area’s drainage would not have been adverselyimpacted.24. Commissioner Reeder stated that he felt staff did exactly as they should have.25. Commissioner McGonagill stated that he could not see where staff made an error and that he felt staff had wentout of their way to work with the homeowner regarding the other walls built without approval. He also notedthat it is readily apparent that no swale was created along the east property line.26. Commissioner Weick asked for staff to clarify the statement that in the report that the variance was beingrequested if the Planning Commission did not determine an error occurred. Mr. Young­Walters clarified that thiswas staff's understanding of the request, but that staff felt it was difficult to separate the two issues.27. Commissioner McGonagill asked if a larger issue was not that the original grading plan was not followed. Mr.Ferraro stated that if the approved grading plan had been followed there would not be issues with the propertydrainage.28. Commissioner McGonagill asked if the grading along the east property line needed to be redone. Mr. Ferrarostated that the retaining walls prevented the creation of the swale that would be needed to rectify the grading.29. Commissioner Skistad stated that she felt there were longstanding issues with drainage in this area and that shefelt the grading done was an attempt to fix those historic problems. She stated that a neighborhood level solutionwas likely needed to truly address the issue, and that just regrading the east side of the applicant’s propertywould not address all of the area’s water issues.30. Commissioner VonOven agreed that a neighborhood solution was likely needed and that the situation wascomplicated, but that, regarding the case at hand, he could not see how staff had made an error.31. Commissioner Randall stated that he understands the applicant’s frustration, but that since they had made adecision to deviate from the grading plan and this change had caused concern for the neighbors, he felt the cityhad acted appropriately.32. Commissioner McGonagill noted that he felt any proposed variance would need to include a revised gradingplan to address the drainage, possibly working with several of the neighbors to address regional issues.Verbatim minutes from the August 18, 2020 Planning Commission meeting have been included in the City Councilpacket and provide a complete record of the presentations, public hearing, and resulting discussions.DISCUSSIONDuring the applicant’s presentation and the resulting discussion, several points were brought up that should beaddressed:1) The placement of Wall “F” is necessitated by the deck.The city’s Building Official has stated that this is not the case. The location of Wall “F” approximately 2.5 feet into thedrainage and utility easement was dictated by the applicant’s desire to enclose the area under the deck. The applicantstarted construction on this enclosure without a permit. Neither the enclosure nor retaining wall were included in thedeck permit (5­25­2017). The deck permit specifically notes “all structures out of easement areas”. When staffbecame aware of work being conducted on the enclosure, staff issued a stop work order (9­18­2017). Duringdiscussions with the contractor on 9­27­2017, staff indicated that no permit would be issued to enclose the area underthe deck as it would be considered lot cover and the property was at its limit.2) Wall “F” does not redirect water.Wall “F” retains soil that slopes to the neighbor’s lot line. The slope created by this grading pushes water east onto theneighboring property. The approved grading permit showed a swale, which would have conveyed water to the roadinstead of the neighboring property, rather than a continuous slope in this location. Wall “F” and the soil it retainsprevents the creation of the swale.3) The retaining walls are at or below 48” above grade, therefore permits were not needed.Wall height is measured from footing to top, not from grade to top. Any wall over that height requires a building permit.Additionally, walls under 48” in height require a zoning permit. Mr. Synstelien was made aware of the zoning permitrequirement in an August 17, 2016 letter, and in numerous subsequent communications with city staff. Many of theseconversations pre­dated the submittal of the deck permit application in May of 2017 and the construction of newretaining walls on the property.4) Staff was on site repeatedly and should have called out problems before October of 2017.The applicant repeatedly changed the scope of work without amending permits, pulling required permits, or consultingwith staff. Completion of the grading permit was repeatedly pushed back due to additional projects (deck, walkoutdoor, etc.) being started. Many of the referenced inspections were conducted by building inspectors looking at specificbuilding related issues; as retaining walls under four feet are not governed by building permits and the property had anopen grading permit, they assumed walls were being addressed under those permits. No new wall obviously exceedthe 4­foot threshold. All inspections are done at request to look at specific items, and final grading cannot be evaluateduntil grading is final. The grading was not finalized until October of 2017.5) It is arbitrary to deny two walls when five others were approved.The other five walls do not impact the function of the drainage and utility easement. It is not arbitrary for staff to reviewindividual walls to determine their individual compliance with the criteria for granting an encroachment agreement.RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial) Development Review Application Appeal Letter Appeal Narrative Lot Survey Subdivision Grading Building Department Memo Engineering Memo Oct­Sept Grading Permit Email Approved Grading Permit Affidavit of Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: August 18, 2020 CC DATE: September 14, 2020 REVIEW DEADLINE: September 15, 2020 CASE #: PC 2020-15 BY: MYW, EH, ET, SF SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is appealing the administrative decision to partially deny a requested encroachment agreement by City Engineer Howley and requesting a variance to allow the retaining walls in question to be located within the city’s drainage and utilities easement. LOCATION: 6893 Highover Drive APPLICANT: Larry and Mary Synstelien 6893 Highover Drive Chanhassen. MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” – Single Family Residential District 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .52 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: When deciding an appeal, the city has the discretion to determine whether or not an error was made in any order, requirement, decision, or determination by city staff in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. The city has a very high level of discretion with an appeal because the appellant is alleging an error occurred. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the 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 On October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at 6893 Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denies the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utilities easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 2 staff determined that retaining walls had been built on the property without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with the issued grading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and the provisions of the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrative appeals before trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. City Engineer Howley subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachment agreement. These two retained walls are located within the drainage and utilities easement. City Engineer Howley requested that they be removed, and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. The applicant has not complied with this request. The applicant is appealing this denial. The applicant indicated that the denial is unreasonable and unfair. The applicant asserts that the wall was built in its location by a third-party contractor, that the walls do not interfere with the use or intent of the drainage and utilities easements, and that requiring there removal the grading of the property would create an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship for the homeowner. Staff’s position is that City Engineer Howley’s denial of the requested encroachment agreement is necessitated by the fact that the retaining walls in question have altered the propert y’s drainage in a manner inconsistent with the approved grading plan to the detriment of neighboring properties. Staff notes that despite informing the homeowner in 2016 and 2017 that permits would be required to relocate or install new retaining walls, the applicant did not file any permits until after the walls were completed and legal action was initiated. Since the applicant knowingly had walls installed without the required permits, the hardship is self-inflicted, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the City Engineer’s decision and deny the requested variance request. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 7, Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Chapter 20, Article II, Division 1, Generally Section 20-28.- Board of appeals and adjustments Chapter 20, Article II, Division 1, Generally Section 20-29.- Board of appeals and adjustments variance and appeal procedures Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Non-conforming Uses Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-908, Yard regulations Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5, Fences and Walls Section 20-1019, Location Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5, Fences and Walls Section 20-1025, Retaining Walls 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 3 BACKGROUND General In July of 1999, the city issued a permit to construct a house on the property. Abbreviated Case History On August 15, 2016, staff received a complaint about grading work being done on the property without erosion controls. On August 16, 2016, staff inspected the property and determined that grading in excess of 50 cubic yards was being conducted without a grading permit or any form of erosion control. On August 17, 2016, staff sent homeowners a letter informing them of the city’s permit requirements and requiring them to cease work and apply for the required permits. This letter specifically noted that the construction of retaining walls required a permit. On August 19, 2016, homeowner called staff in response to the August 17, 2016 letter. The homeowner explained the scope of work and landscaping. Since no new walls were proposed staff informed him that he needed a grading permit. On August 22, 2016, homeowner called staff to discuss lot cover and a potential patio. Staff confirmed that given the proposed scope of work only a grading permit would be required. From August 23 to September 12, 2016, staff received numerous complaints about the property. Staff attempted to contact the homeowner by phone and three letters to address lack of erosion control and grading permit. The third letter sent September 12th gave the homeowner until September 16th to establish erosion control, noting that after this date the situation would be referred to the City Attorney. On September 13, 2016, the homeowner contacted staff and expressed an intent to comply with ordinances. Email dated September 13, 2016, from MacKenzie W. informing other staff members of the details of his conversation with the homeowner notes “That his current scope of work would not trigger a zoning permit (arguably his “repairs” on the retaining walls might, but we can figure out what he is doing there from the grading permit and I wanted to focus him on the above items). He is not currently planning on installing a patio or other structures and says the walls will be the exact same as they were, just repaired.” On September 15, 2016, erosion control was established on the site. On September 26, 2016, a draft grading plan was submitted. On September 26, 2016, staff spoke with the homeowner and explained what would be required for a zoning permit. In an email dated September 26, 2016, the homeowner acknowledged that 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 4 he would apply for a zoning permit for a patio and boulder wall repairs and relocation once the grading permit was finalized. On September 27, 2016, staff sent the homeowner notes on the proposed grading plan stating that the proposed retaining walls could not extend into the drainage and utility easement. On October 3, 2016, the final version of the grading permit was submitted. On October 4, 2016, staff informed the homeowner that the grading permit was ready to be issued pending their signature and payment of fees. On October 7, 2016, the homeowner signed the permit. On November 9, 2016, staff emailed the homeowner to inquire about status of zoning permit. Note that despite the fact that a grading permit had been issued, a zoning permit would be required if the property hardcover changed or if the location of any retaining wall was changed. On November 10, 2016, the applicant stated that he would call in the next day or two to discuss zoning permits. From November to 11, 2016 to April 9, 2017, staff sent multiple emails requesting a zoning permit be submitted and noting that at the very least, a permit would be needed for the new retaining wall location. During this period, staff received multiple complaints about the state of the property, performed several inspections, and notified the homeowner of various violations. The grading permit was found to have expired and was subsequently extend to June 15, 2017. On April 10, 2017, the contractor hired by homeowner contacted staff to let the city know they would be starting work to finish the remaining grading activities. On May 17, 2017, staff finished their review of a proposed deck. No retaining walls were shown or approved as part of the deck plan. From June 23 to July 25, 2017, staff received multiple complaints about the site and contacted the applicant to ensure he was aware of his obligation to keep the debris off the street during construction. Additionally, the homeowner was informed that the grading permit had expired. On July 26, 2017, the homeowner requested that grading permit be extended as a new egress door and deck were being constructed with valid permits. None of these permits showed retaining walls. On September 18, 2017, the city issued a stop work order due to an enclosure being built under the deck and presence of stairs not indicated on the deck plan. On September 25, 2017, staff sent a notice of noncompliance for erosion control requiring the area be restored by September 29, 2017. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 5 On September 27, 2017, staff discussed the enclosure under the deck with the contractor and indicated that since it would interfere with lateral movement of water, it would be considered lot cover, and a permit would not be issued. On October 4, 2017, staff sent a second notice of noncompliance for erosion control requiring deficiencies to be addressed by October 8, 2017. On October 24, 2017, staff performed a final inspection of the property to verify compliance with the grading permit. Numerous elements were observed not to comply with the approved grading plan and a meeting was subsequently scheduled to discuss these issues. On October 25, 2017, staff met with homeowner and gave a deadline of November 6, 2017 for the homeowner to provide a survey showing all improvements and elevations on the property. During the meeting, it was noted that based on field inspections, retaining walls had been built without permits and grading did not appear to match plans. From November 9, 2017, to January 23, 2018, staff attempted to obtain a survey of the property from the homeowner. On January 24, 2018, staff referred the case to the city attorney for enforcement. From January 25, 2018, to February 3, 2019, the respective attorney’s and city staff exchanged numerous correspondences regarding the facts of the case and the city’s requirements. On February 4, 2019, the homeowner’s attorney provided staff with a survey of the property. On February 6, 2019, staff met with the homeowner’s attorney to discuss needed revisions for the provided survey. Of particular concern was the height of the retaining walls shown on the survey. On March 19, 2019, staff received a revised copy of the survey. On April 2, 2019, the homeowner’s attorney applied for an encroachment agreement, grading permit, and zoning permit. Staff determined there was insufficient information to evaluate a zoning permit and encroachment agreement and subsequently requested additional information. Regarding the grading permit, staff indicated that a new grading permit was not required and that the owner needed to resolve the outstanding issues with the existing grading permit. On April 15, 2019, the city attorney made the homeowner’s attorney aware that the property had outstanding grading issues, that several retaining walls would need to be removed, that engineered designs were required for walls exceeding 4 feet in height, and that zoning permits were required for walls under 4 feet in height, and that several sections of sidewalk damaged during construction needed to be repaired. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 6 From April 16, 2019, to February 11, 2020, the respective attorneys and city staff exchanged numerous correspondences regarding the facts of the case the city’s requirements. On February 12, 2020, the City Engineer partially denied the requested encroachment agreement. On February 18, 2020, the homeowner’s attorney applied for zoning permits for the retaining walls under 4 feet in height and building permits for the retaining walls over 4 feet in height. On February 19, 2020, staff denied the zoning and building permits due to the presence of retaining walls within the city’s drainage and utilities easements. On March 3, 2020, staff sent the homeowner’s attorney the materials necessary to appeal the city’s denial of the encroachment agreement. On March 19, 2020, the homeowner’s attorney requested a delay to the appeal due to Covid-19. The city assented with the condition that the appeal would take place within 30 days of the end of the state of emergency. On May 21, 2020, the homeowner’s attorney indicated that they would like to file the appeal. On July 8, 2020, the city attorney informed the homeowner’s attorney that if an appeal were not filed by July 31, 2020, the homeowner would forfeit their right to appeal. On July 17, 2020 the homeowner’s attorney filed the appeal. SITE CONSTRAINTS Zoning Overview The property is a corner lot zoned Single-Family Residential District and is partially located within the shoreland management district. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Corner lots are required to meet the required 30-foot front yard setback along all street frontages, but the remaining lot lines are subject to side yard setbacks. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 22,744 square feet and has 5,895 square feet (25.92 percent lot cover). Staff believes the lot cover to be pre-existing. Three pre-existing non-conforming retaining walls encroach into the city’s north and west drainage and utilities easements. Four new retaining walls were constructed without permits within the city’s eastern, southern, and western drainage and utility easements. The deck was built in 2017 encroaching 1 foot into the city’s eastern drainage and utility easement. The driveway has a pre-existing non-conforming width of 26 feet at the property line. The house and other features appear to meet all other requirements of the City Code. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 7 Bluff Creek Corridor The property is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Bluff Protection There are not bluffs on the property. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. Shoreland Management The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District; however, the property is not riparian so the only impact is that the property is limited to 25 percent lot cover and is not entitled to use pervious pavement systems to increase its lot cover by 5 percent. Wetland Protection There is not a wetland located in the development site. NEIGHBORHOOD Highover The plat for this area was recorded in January of 1998. Most elements of the city’s current zoning code were in place and in their current form at that time, with the largest change being the requirement for zoning permits for impervious surfaces, small accessory structures, and retaining walls under four feet in height which were added between 2004 and 2007. Due to the lack of zoning permit requirements during the subdivision’s early years, some properties have non-conforming lot cover and/or retaining walls; however, the majority of properties appear to comply with current zoning standards. Variances within 500 feet: There are no known variances within 500 feet of the subject property. ANALYSIS 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 8 Historic Overview Staff started working with the appellant on their grading project in August of 2016 after neighborhood complaints brought the situation to staff’s attention. Early on in the process, the applicant was made aware that relocating existing walls or building new walls would require permits from the City. In an email exchange with staff, the applicant was also made aware of the existence and location of their property’s drainage and utilities easements and that retaining walls could not be placed in that areas. The applicant then modified the proposed grading plan to minimize the encroachment of drain tile into the drainage and utilities easement and submitted a plan showing all retaining walls clear of the drainage and utilities easement. Subsequent inspections throughout 2017 found that the property had not been graded to plan and that numerous retaining walls not shown on the grading plan had been constructed, some within the city’s drainage and utilities easements. In November of 2017, staff requested a survey to verify the location and extent of encroachment into the city’s drainage and utilities easements. In 2019, after multiple requests and the initiation of legal action, the applicant provided the city with a survey showing retaining walls encroaching into the city’s drainage and utilities easements in seven places. Four of these walls were new walls for which no permit had been applied, despite the applicant being informed and acknowledging that all new or relocated retaining walls would require a permit. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 9 In April of 2019, the applicant first applied for an after-the-fact zoning permit and encroachment agreement for the retaining walls. Staff requested additional information and on February 12, 2020, determined that two of the seven retaining walls, walls “F” and “I”, interfered with the function of the city’s drainage and utility easement and would need to be removed. Subsequent zoning and building permits submitted for the walls on February 18, 2020, were denied due the presence of these walls within the easements. On July 17, 2020, the homeowner filed an appeal of the city’s decision to deny the encroachment agreement and requested a variance from the provision of the city code that prohibits the location of structures within the drainage and utilities easement. Appeal The placement of retaining walls within drainage and utilities easements are regulated by two sections of the City Code. The relevant sections read as follows: Section 20-908(6). - Yard regulations: (6) The placement of any structure within easements is prohibited, except for those structures specified herein. Fences, retaining walls, nonstructural fire pits, sidewalks, pathways, and patios not integral to the principal structure (the first ten feet adjacent to the principal structure shall be considered integral), and other encroachments may be allowed within an easement with an encroachment agreement if they do not alter the intended use of the easement and at the discretion of the community development director or designee. A driveway or sidewalk from the street to the house crossing drainage and utility easements at the front of the property are exempt from this requirement. Section 20-1019(a). - Location: “Generally. All fences and retaining walls shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence or retaining wall owner unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence or retaining wall may be erected on the property line of the respective properties. Such agreement shall be submitted at the time of building permit application. Encroachment into a city easement shall require an encroachment agreement between the property owner and the city. Fences shall not be placed within the public right-of-way.” 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 10 The applicant applied for an encroachment agreement to legitimize the placement of six retaining walls within the drainage and utilities easement, two of these walls were pre-existing and four were newly constructed. The applicant had neither applied for nor received permits for the four newly constructed walls, one of which encroaches into the easement in two places. Staff reviewed the location of the proposed wall and their impact on the drainage and utilities easement and denied the requested encroachment agreement for one wall and a section of another wall, both of which interfered with the easement’s drainage function. The encroachment agreement also requested the city approve a section of deck encroaching approximately 1 foot into the drainage and utility easement and a future fence. Staff approved the deck encroachment, but denied the fence as it is not city policy to issue blanket encroachment agreements for future projects. The homeowner believes that the City Engineer’s determination that the walls interfere with the function of the easement is incorrect and is appealing the denial of the encroachment agreement for walls “F” and “I”. Section 20-28(b)(1) of the City Code empowers that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments: “To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative office in the enforcement of this chapter.” The homeowner’s appeal states that the City Engineer did not provide a rational for denying the requested encroachment agreement and outline reasons why they feel the denial was in error. For wall “F”, their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. That there are no utilities within the drainage and utilities easement; 2. Since the wall only encroaches one foot into the easement, the city has a sufficient amount of unobstructed drainage and utility easement to serve its function; 3. That potential conflicts between the wall and use of the easement can be resolved through an encroachment agreement; 4. That the wall is essential the functionality and serviceability of the newly installed walkout door, an emergency exit door, and deck; 5. And, that the City Code does not require the demolition of the wall. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 11 For wall “I”, their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. Water previously drained onto the property to the east, and this is not a new condition created by the appellant; and, 2. The installed French drain system does not adversely impact adjacent properties because it prevents the water from being diverted onto adjacent properties, instead conveying it to the street. Staff will respond to each of the points above individually; however, it should be noted that under Section 20-908(6), city staff is not required to grant an encroachment agreement. The section merely allows for the possibility of structures encroaching into the drainage and utility easement if staff determines that they do not interfere with the intended function of the easement. The section explicitly grants staff discretion in granting or denying encroachment agreements. Permits are required for structures that could impact the drainage and utility easements precisely to allow staff to evaluate a structure’s potential impact before it is built and to prevent the construction of features for which an encroachment agreement should not be granted. Despite the lack of permits and structures, i.e. the deck not being constructed in the location stipulated by their building permit, staff performed a good-faith evaluation of the walls and granted six of nine requested structural encroachments and noted that additional information would be required to evaluate the proposed fence. Regarding the applicant’s contention that the denials of two sections of wall was in error, a summary of staff’s response is provided below each point in italics. A more full discussion can be found in the attached memos from the city’s Engineering and Building Departments. For wall “F”, their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. That there are no utilities within the drainage and utility easement; Drainage and utilities easements exist both to provide a location for the installation of utilities and to facilitate drainage. The presence or absence of utilities is not the sole determiner of the function of the easement; thus, when staff reviews the location of proposed structures within drainage and utility easements the review includes how drainage will be impacted. In this case, the easement does not have utilities but does serve an important drainage function. Wall “F’s” encroachment into the drainage and utilities easement alters the area’s drainage and diverts water onto the adjunct property. Staff’s decision to deny the encroachment agreement for wall “F” was based on its interference with easements drainage function, not its utilities function. It should also be noted that this drainage and utility easement does contain utilities for Mediacom, CenturyLink, and Xcel Energy, and that during the unpermitted grading on the property, a communication line for neighboring property was severed. Staff notes this as a factual correction to the above statement. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 12 2. Since the wall only encroaches one foot into the easement, the city has a sufficient amount of unobstructed drainage and utilities easement to serve its function; At its maximum extent, wall “F” encroaches two feet five inches into the drainage and utilities easement, as shown on the survey provided by the applicant to city staff. This encroachment combined with the grading changes associated with its placement and construction alters the easements drainage pattern in manner that diverts drainage to the neighboring property. This alteration of the intended function of the drainage and utility easement is one of the reasons staff denied the requested encroachment agreement. 3. That potential conflicts between the wall and use of the easement can be resolved through an encroachment agreement; An encroachment agreement would not alter wall “F’s” impact on the drainage and utility easement. Wall “F” currently has a detrimental effect on the functionality of the drainage and utility easement, and the existence of an encroachment agreement would not correct that. Additionally, the City Code does not allow encroachment agreements to be issued for structures that interfere with the function of a drainage and utility easement. Since the wall interferes with the drainage function of this easement, an encroachment agreement cannot be issued. 4. That the wall is essential the functionality and serviceability of the newly installed walkout door, an emergency exit door, and deck; The east walkout door is not an emergency exit zone as the only required egress door for the property is the front door to the house. The east walk out door could have been installed without the retaining wall by grading the yard to accommodate its placement. Had the wall been included on the submitted building permit application, staff would have required it to be relocated to be clear of the easement. While relocating the wall to be clear of the easement will necessitate regrading, it will not negate functionality and serviceability of the door. 5. And, that the City Code does not require the demolition of the wall. As noted above, the City Code does not permit the city to issue encroachment agreements that interfere with the function of drainage and utility easements. As the city has determined this wall interferes with the drainage function of the easement, an encroachment agreement cannot be issued. Since an encroachment agreement cannot be issued, the wall cannot remain in the easement and must be relocated to comply with City Code. For wall “I”, their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. Water previously drained onto the property to the east and this is not a new condition created by the appellant; and, 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 13 Due to work in the property commencing without a permit, no existing conditions survey is available. Staff used the Highover Subdivision’s grading plan to determine the drainage pattern and intended function of the drainage and utility easement. Based on this information, staff determined that the grades did in fact allow for drainage to be conveyed by the drainage and utility easements. As built, wall “I” extends the width of the drainage and utility easement, fully blocking and obstructing the overland flow of drainage and intensifying the amount of drainage being routed to adjacent properties. It should also be noted, that the approved grading permit, which was not followed, shows the intended conveyance of drainage via the drainage and utility easement. Due to its interference with the intended and approved function of the drainage and utility easement, staff was required by City Code to deny the encroachment agreement. 2. The installed French drain system does not adversely impact adjacent properties because it prevents the water from being diverted onto adjacent properties, instead conveying it to the street. During optimal conditions, the French drain system and drain tile can effectively convey water directly to the street and prevent it from being diverted onto adjacent properties; however, it will not prevent all overland water flow from entering adjacent properties since the approved grading plan was not followed. Furthermore, during the winter, these systems and the ground around them freeze. This freezing prevents the underground conveyance of water and requires a viable overland drainage route. As was discussed above, wall “I” cuts off the overland route that the drainage and utilities easement is intended to create and preserve. Similarly, French drain systems can become plugged over time and shallow underground drainage pipes can be crushed. Both of these circumstances can prevent the French drain system from functioning as designed. For the reasons both overland drainage needs to be provided for and the presence of the French drain system does not mitigate wall “I” impact on the function of the drainage and utilities easement. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 14 Variance The applicant is also requesting a variance from the City Code’s prohibition on locating structures within drainage and utilities easements. Staff understands this request to mean that if the Planning Commission determines that the City Engineer did not make an error in denying the encroachment agreement, the applicant would like to receive a variance to permit the walls to remain within the drainage and utility easement. The applicant states that the variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The retaining walls facilitate the location of a sidewalk and landscaping, both elements are reasonable uses for a residential property. The retaining walls do not negatively impact adjacent properties. 2. The applicant is not responsible for the location of the retaining wall. It was placed in the drainage and utilities easement by their contractor without the applicant realizing there would be an issue. 3. The retaining walls are not highly visible from the street and do not change the essential character of the area. Section 20-58 outlines six criteria that all must be met for the city to issue a variance. Staff has listed the criteria below and stated in italics staff’s application of the criteria to the case. (1) 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. The intent of prohibiting retaining walls from being located within the drainage and utilities easement is to insure that the easements can serve their function and that structures are not placed near property lines that will redirect water onto adjacent properties. The function of these easements is both to facilitate the installation of utilities and to manage stormwater drainage. The location of the two retaining walls within the drainage and utility easements in question prevent the drainage and utilities easements from serving their drainage function and redirect surface water onto neighboring properties. Permitting the retaining walls to remain within the drainage and utilities easement would violate the intent of Section 20-908(6) of the City Code. Additionally, this section of the City Code states encroachment agreements should only be granted when they do not interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utilities easement. Allowing the encroachment of a structure that the City Engineer has determined to interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utilities easement would violate the intent of Section 20-908(6). (2) 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. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 15 Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The applicant had received an approved grading permit for a grading plan that effectively managed the property’s stormwater without locating new retaining walls within the drainage and utilities easement. Furthermore, plans for both the deck and walkout level door were approved without any retaining walls shown within the drainage and utilities easement. The applicant’s difficulty in complying with zoning code is not the result of the code not permitting reasonable use of the property (lower level door, walkway, landscaping, etc.) but rather it is the result of improvements not shown on any plans being constructed without permits in locations where they are not permitted. If the applicant had followed the approved grading and building permits, the property would have similar amenities and comply with the City Code. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The applicant cites the expense involved in regarding the property to comply with the approved grading permit as a reason why the variance should be granted. This economic consideration does not justify the granting of the requested variances. (4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is entirely the result of work on the property being done without permits; there is no inherent circumstance unique to the property that would prevent it and its improvements from complying with the City’s Zoning Code. The landowner started a grading project with no permit. The landowner worked directly with staff to develop a grading plan, upon which a subsequent grading permit was based and approved. During these discussions, the landowner was made aware of the location of the drainage and utilities easements, the restrictions on what could be placed within them, and on the need for permits for new and/or relocated retaining walls. In response to this information, the landowner revised elements of their grading plan to minimize the placement of drain tile and other elements within the drainage and utilities easement and assured staff retaining walls would not be located within it. The grading and construction activities that were subsequently conducted on the property are significantly different from what was approved and feature numerous walls located within the drainage and utilities easement. The applicant has stated that all of these improvements were located and installed by their contractor without the landowner understanding that there would be an issue; therefore, the plight was not created by the landowner. Given that city staff had numerous conversations with the landowner and developed the approved grading plan by working directly with the landowner, staff disputes that the landowner was unaware of what the property’s grading was supposed to be or the approximate locations of the property’s drainage and utilities easements. The landowner hired contractors to install improvements on the property and is 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 16 ultimately responsible for the improvement installed at their request. If the landowner provided the contractor with the approved grading plan and the contractor took it upon themselves install improvements beyond the scope of that plan or failed to obtain the required permits as specified in their contract, the proper remedy is civil action between the homeowner and contractor. A variance should not be issued to legitimize improvements installed in violation of City Code at the landowner’s request. (5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff agrees that the presence of retaining walls and the associated landscaping does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Numerous properties in subdivision have broadly similar retaining walls and landscaping features. These features are not aesthetically incompatible with the area. (6) Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. This does not apply to this request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirm City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and deny the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utility easements, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision 2. Development Review Application 3. Appeal Letter 4. Appeal Narrative 5. Survey 6. Subdivision Grading 7. Building Department Memo 8. Engineering Department Memo 9. Oct-Sept Grading Permit Email 10. Approved Grading Permit 11. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-15 6893 highover drive var\staff report_6893 highover drive_pc_revised.docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (Denial) Larry and Mary Synstelien are appealing an administrative decision to partially deny a requested encroachment agreement by City Engineer Howley and applying for a variance to allow the retaining walls in question to be located within the city’s drainage and utilities easement on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2020-15. Due to the fact that city staff interacted with Mr. Larry Synstelien regarding this matter, the Findings of Fact and Decision will refer to him as the “applicant” or the “landowner” interchangeably throughout. On August 18, 2020, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the appeal and variance request. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal and proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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 3, Block 3, Highover 4. Appeal Findings: City Engineer Howley’s assessment that the retaining walls interfere with the intended drainage function of the drainage and utilities easement is correct. Since the retaining walls interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utilities easement, City Engineer Howley was correct in denying the encroachment agreement and in requiring the relocation of the retaining walls. 5. 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 prohibiting retaining walls from being located within the drainage and utilities easement is to insure that the easements can serve their function and that structures are not placed near property lines that will redirect water onto adjacent properties. The function of these easements is both to facilitate the installation 2 of utilities and to manage stormwater drainage. The location of the two retaining walls in question within the drainage and utility easements prevents the drainage and utilities easements from serving their drainage function and redirects surface water onto neighboring properties. Permitting the retaining walls to remain within the drainage and utilities easement would violate the intent of Section 20-908(6) of the City Code. Additionally, this section of the City Code states encroachment agreements should only be granted when they do not interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utilities easement. Allowing the encroachment of a structure that the City Engineer has determined to interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utilities easement would violate the intent of Section 20-908(6). 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 applicant had received an approved grading permit for a grading plan that effectively managed the property’s stormwater without necessitating the placement of new retaining walls within the drainage and utilities easement. Furthermore, plans for both the deck and walkout level door were approved without any retaining walls shown on the plans within the drainage and utilities easement. The applicant’s difficulty in complying with zoning code is not the result of the City Code not permitting reasonable use of the property (lower level door, walkway, landscaping, etc.), but rather it is the result of improvements not shown on any plans and being constructed without permits in locations where they are not permitted. If the applicant had followed the approved grading and building permits, the property would have similar amenities and would comply with the City Code. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The applicant cites the expense involved in regrading the property to comply with the approved grading permit as a reason why the variance should be granted. This economic consideration does not justify the granting of the requested variances. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The plight of the landowner is entirely the result of work on the property being done without permits; there is no inherent circumstance unique to the property that would prevent it and its improvements from complying with the city’s Zoning Code. The landowner started a grading project with no permit. The landowner worked directly with staff to develop a grading plan, upon which a subsequent grading permit 3 was based and approved. During these discussions, city staff made the landowner aware of the location of the drainage and utilities easements, the restrictions on what could be placed within them, and of the need for permits for new and/or relocated retaining walls. In response to this information, the landowner revised elements of the grading plan to minimize the placement of drain tile and other elements within the drainage and utilities easement and assured city staff retaining walls would not be located within it. The grading and construction activities that were subsequently conducted on the property are significantly different from what was approved and feature numerous walls located within the drainage and utilities easement. The applicant has stated that all of these improvements were located and installed by his contractor without the landowner understanding that there would be an issue; therefore, he claims that the plight was not created by the landowner. Given that city staff had numerous conversations with the landowner and developed the approved grading plan by working directly with the landowner, the city disputes that the landowner was unaware of what the property’s grading was supposed to be or the approximate locations of the property’s drainage and utilities easements. The landowner hired contractors to install improvements on the property and is ultimately responsible for the improvement installed at their request. If the landowner provided the contractor with the approved grading plan and the contractor took it upon themselves to install improvements beyond the scope of that plan or failed to obtain the required permits as specified in their contract, the proper remedy is civil action between the homeowner and contractor. A variance should not be issued to retroactively authorize improvements installed in violation of City Code at the landowner’s request. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The presence of retaining walls and the associated landscaping does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Numerous properties in the subdivision have broadly similar retaining walls and landscaping features. These features are not aesthetically incompatible with the area. 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. 6. The planning report #2020-15, dated August 18, 2020, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, et al. is incorporated herein. 4 DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denies the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utilities easement. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of August, 2020. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-15 6893 highover drive var\findings of fact and decision 6893 highover drive (denial)_revised.doc cofxlril?Y DEITE OPnEil? EprFflEln Phnnlng [}vu€n - 77(n llE kd Boalarsrd Mdline Ad !.r -p.o. Box t,l7, chnrhllton, Mt{ 5s}17 PhonB: (9Sl) 22?-1400 i Fsx: (952) 227. i t r 0 fftT0rcfiAilHrx$[fl APPUCANOI FOR DEYELOPUET{T REVIEIi/1ln I slz>*o."8!3[e-."*fu]&I rslaa n,*,t b tr }#,WEA Ap#,du, Crt,ddrt tb.,tc,id clbafr frffi5t; 76,r w*Atnf lN WdD qomeld|.rlrlvs Pfrl tuncodrnod........,.,..............U tlf,no. HJSA trn. tr {at&le o&.t .of,r!..... I Cond$on:{ Us p.nnh (c{JP) Raidooe D tnbrtm tka Pumh (lUP)EtnEal *th Slnd+Fenly Rrrldence., t800 $1m tB25 t42t t325 0/.2t fl *E*c(REzlU PbnnEd Unlt DaaloEr.{a (pt,E) _.,.........-...tl fnnor Afirmdilffi !o dns PUD-..--.... . ..,.I ett orrxs....... . ...........,.....:....... -.... .....,....... u v.1€ion Aelanracnpm<r+iny (VAC)........ $m(.ffi '! rllt rf,Srrt8750tls t500 tr Sign Plrfi Rarkr .....-........... tiSO [] Seb Pbn Roybqr (sPR)oo Adnlnbft[n. Cdrurr{eiaut,1&ritrhl D6tIr!. g10o ll8o fi! vrtnor{vrn...-.............,........................ O Wethnu llrrdon Perrnft (WAP) Rooidonce 3150 ,215 BJ zonrre rppcet,. D Zontq OrOtnenot ArclrrtrrGrt eOA) .,,..... ........ $5OO !!SB rh?q*or9PE ,- -tE- Gt.l.lrr.rr tta rrPls.h b rll- h.irr..t td dr +caanD.\ ,....3$ p.. rddIm doalmanl Prrmit o H Alcrdiun Pcrrnl TOTALFEE: $673.P0 - Pir tto F 1,000 Em ttorlulrfrB rs:C- ltErerd tsrar!$it)aldd3flrnr srlb|E $laaqFE - 'tralll ar'rlr d ru tilttr:i nmua oom-I,,-... ...,.,....-.:--.- 'uA;Plrll ?3 p( dildhe tn[ (- unt8] E r{*u 8fi{qrilils, ts ftsady Omor!' Lld$filn EoO (crtblrrrtr,rtFr-Hc$r6{t............-. m Eacrg{rt tor Recording Oocrtm.dr (chact a[ E0 Coldftonsl U!3 Porrnit VacBli{x1 Vli€fbtd Daedsthb & Bouldr sub.ltvbloo (3 rb...)( r.l.lrrlnB) DcrcrlNon of Propolal: Proparty Addrolr or Loc{lon:6893 Elohover Dri va Par6lt 253490r 20 l€g D.rcn ion:Lot 3, Slock 3r Elghover Iot l Arrrgrra2rT@-5q.JEL wsrr6. Pr!..nr o Yc. B r,b PEssnl Zonkq:Scbcr Ou tS1 RGqu6bd Zoring:Sctacl Otr! Xgp Prsreirt Lrnd Ui! D@muon:Selccl Onr BSP R.qu!.r.d L.nd Utc Drshnltlon: Exirtng Ula ol SF Slngl,B fanll 320o ' Elchd( bor( u r0erc. mtr*,. h sthdr.d. v Resldent1al Sg&d Ons $HblOrlu tr Sit€ Alr th.t 5i.,:1;}i: l. qatl i.r,a..l lrrlr,r.'r1r. ri c.rtrol T-ir:eir. r I l!irccl.,.,ll ilr.rt rl),)l Namcr Adt ra53' C[Y/sh/zb: Enril: Cont ct Phone: Ceo: Frxsbn{urc: - o!b: FROPERfY O-yXEli !n :S{nC thE rppthrtion, t, as Eoparty oryner, haw tt I bgel cspEdty ro, end he8by do,authodro thc ,i{ng. ot s$s rpprcalbn. I lP?rsqfd ltot 9-dftoos or.pprova, &I' onaini roi :gjrc. ra ua ti".,a oy oorcfe.qqtl.sf.l mly 6uie{t{& lsdc{ht h..(bg*ordtt.tqe tr..F.t pcdodi.l rrfl l6+rnpa[ rnh,'rl|d d tha dcadlllEs lor .lomi$ion d m.b.ir! rnd hc progrG of thr epptcatioi. I tu;the. unddslrnd fiar ;dm*rar fa" mey b€ $8t9od lor consultt{ ba6, ftatbilty !tudb., eta wtth sn e3Iim.E prbr to sny euthori2irion to praceod u/ah lhestudy. I clrtty that the inbrmdiofl ed e)6bts sub.Diftld alB trrc and core<r Nsrn€: Joan Synstel i.e-n/f,arry Synstellen Addrcss 6893 Etgbover Drive ctty/SldZip:Chanhas sen, l,lN 553 17 Ernar: Co rct: Pioo.: _ Cat q 32-01 1-o6?q . Fer - Noo€ Oale: contsct - PllelE:_ 06x: - Fer: 1 Ttt appHon mua Dc oo.np&d h fu[ ard nIJ{ ba scconTrolrd by aI i&.lr&t &d plons rquirld bf .pplbible City frh.rca provblof:3. Bdon fl[U thts 8pptcaton. r.hr to h! Tproprt ts Apdb8tion Ch6&ist and cofitsr wih th. PbnnrB OoF.rtoant to (rat8frine th€ !p.cl0c ordinrnc. and appllcsbb proccduat Gquilurcnts 8nd fses. A detominston ol corplston.se ol fte Eppucathn sht[ bo mrdo wlhh 'l S bwlri66s dr],s of applcation eubmttrl. A vnittan no0c. d @Xssdon dddqndca drol bs maltrd b lhc applcrnt wihin I 5 budnrs dalB ot qpp&ceIoh . SEnatuIa: PRoTEC? E IG0{EER (if eppllcebh} 1tVt- Urho should rloctt't coplar ot ltrrf rDport?oltrffiIfrnDdbn: lur}lc ..._.-.--- Addllor:Cry/fuZlp:.-- Enul: --.- UtrtrD E Dtr :.Jtrtrtr Enuil Em.il Emsil Emall tllabd Prpar Copy Mailcd Papcr Copy Maibd P.Fcr Copy Malled Faper Copy : Comphts a8 neoesssry 6orm tLts3, lh€n sel6d SAVE. FORlrl to saw a aopy to tout to clty slong wi& rcquir€d documonts rnd payncrn. SUB IT FORiI to send a dtgltal INSTRUCT|o T TO AFPLICA'{T devEe. PRIXT FOA *'rd de0Ycr copy lo th8 city tor prcc€s3lr€,sAvE troftta tirxt toftr SUBTIIT FORi ApplicalltSecti()l) 3: IJ nlrdOu, r rer lntoruatlon APPLICAI{T oTltER IH I PRoPEf,IY-otry E8: ln sEning thb appticatirn, t, as sppfc nt, repraeont to haye obt8ir.dauthorizsuoi fmm rh. proporty ouner to fie tha ap,g{ixuon. iagrea io Oe OwnO Uy ,ii,Oiti""i .iq;;;,'il,i,g"a onry O'.hc right to obJod st liB hsr,1gB on 68 aDpricadon or during t-* apncal pctud. rihb sFpltcdron fiii nJ bui "En"O Uythe p.ororry orrE , r ha,e alhdrcd s.pente &qrrEfibtio;ot tuif 6gr ;+rdty to rn [i" qppijdi*.'ii,h [pri""rr-silouid ba procesrcd h my naflro .lE I 8rn $. parv rhom th€ cry lEodd contia cgaroia'iny ,r,"t1o, prr ,irg to ttruepplbdros. r r,ilroep nlEdirbrrEd o{ $', oedftcs rq rubrn[rftn or meoria afr ti ir"gie""-iiiic- ilpqorun. rturther undcrsBnd thel addidoflEr tu s rTny b: chipo-d q consu&n9i!c!, ibcsbuty srudll,iic. ;th ,, "ii,[ao p.io, roany autlrorizalion tD proc.ed rfi&| tic atudy. t Ertily thst Uts lnfwmition and txtriUitir rulmitica aro tui "nO ,r*"r. t{<lc; AaErBsr Cilyrgrtczs; E nail: .-.-_- Soction 4: Notrricatior nlcrl,luatio|r PrqpsrU O{r!, \iir:Applc.nt \fa: Eflginorr . Vis:oltlcr' ME: KelI-v Lew Orncps Ettablished 1 E 7975 STONE CREEK DRIVE, SUTTE T2l} CH.ANH]{SSEN. MINNESOTA 553T7 MARK W. KELLY WILLIAM F. KELLY ( 1922.1995> 1952t 171-5977 FAX 471-9575 kellyl.wof lic.s@.io.coE July 17,2O2O Todd Gerhardt City Manager City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re Larry Synstelien, Appeal to the Board ofAppeals and Adjustments City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Re: 6893 Highover Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota Encroachment Agreement Dear Mr. Gerhardt: I represent Joarr and Larry Synstelien. Enclosed please find Appeal to the Board of Appeals and Adiustments by Joan and Larry Synstelien. Synsteliens Appeal the February 12,2O2O decision of Chanhassen Administrative Officer Charles J. Howley denying, in part, issuance of an Encroachment Asreement. The Synsteliens also hereby make Application for Variance, as needed, if needed, to permit an Encroachment Agreement in conjunction herewith. Please advise any errors or omissions, and we will address them Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your advice on when the hearing will be held. Sincerely, .4 M W. Ke1l-v MWK/tas Enclosure cc: Synstelien APPEAL TO T}M BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA RE: 6893 HighoverDrive, Chanhassal MN 55317 Encroachment A$eement Partial Denial APPELLANTS: Joan and Larry Synstelieru owners of 6893 Highover Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 553 17, (hereinafter "Synselien Family".) COMES NOW, Appellants Joan and Larry Synstelien acting pusuant to Mn. Stat. 5462.157, SuM. 6, which provides for appeal to the city of Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments by a person affected by compliance with conditions imposed by the Municipal Zoning Ordinance. ADMIMSTRATIVE DECISIONS IN ERROR HEREBY APPEALED: Administrative Decision APPealed: Decision by City of Chanhassen Administrative Officer Charles J. Howley, PE' LEED AP' Director of Public Works/City Engineering, by letter of February 12,2020 ke: 6893 Highover Drive Encroachment Agreement for various areas of 6893 Highover Drive. Therein, the Synselien Family's Application for m Encroashment Aseement was approved in part and denied in part. Specificalty, the following items in Synstelien's Encroachment Aqreement Application were'denied: #1. Item "F'(Block Wa[)' and #2. Item "I" @ortion of Block Wall Wirhin Easement Area), (Modular Block Garden Wall) (See Exhibit "A".) 1 #l - Item "F' Glock Wall'l Mr. Howley's 02llA2O20 denial of an Enuoachment Ageement for Item "F" (Block Wall) does not state a reason for the denial. The city,s 02119/2020 Residential Permit/Survev Routine Form, Engineering sectiorl prepared in relation to this wall states as follows: "Wall in D + U ESMT. Needs to be moved out of D + U ESMT. Label top + bottom of walls including all elevation changes. Design does not address walls over 4' or staged walls nearby. Design is vizual only Bot Eng. Certificate of wall construction or operation."* @mPhasis added.) (See Exhibit "B".) * [The foregoing refertnce to walls over 4' and their construction fails to acknowledge that any issue related thereto berween the city and Applicants Synstelien was resolved last November after submission ofa civil Engineer's report veriling that the on-site walls over 4' were built to code, and that this no longer an issue.l "I" (Po on of Bl Wall Easement Area Mr. Howley's 02 tl2l2o2} denial of an Encroachment Agreement for ltem "I" (Portion of Btock watl) does no, state a reason for the denid. It only states: 'tall will need to be removed." The city's 02119/2020 Residential Permit/Survey Routine Form. Engineering section, prepared in relation to this wall states as follows: ..wall must be removed from D + U ESMT. @ Area regraded to keep overland flow in D + U easement on Foperty. will need encroachment for all walls atlowed to remain inD+uESMTareas. (See Exhibit "C".) SCOPE OF REVIEW The Chanhassen Board of Appeals aod Adjustnents has the power: (l)Tohearanddecideappealswhereitisallegedt}ratthereisanerrorinany 2 order, requirement, decision, ol determination made by an Administrative Offrcer in the enforcement ofthe Zoning Ordinance; and (2) To hear requests for variances from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance including restrictions placed on non-conformities. REOUES TED RELIEF and VARIANCE The Synstelien Family appeals the above decisions of the Director of Public works/city Engineer Howley, and requests the chanhassen Board ofAppeals and Adjustnents: (l) ovemrle the above-described Administrator decisions as an error, and/or (2) grant, as needed, variances to applicable code to permit the walls at issue to remain in place, as built, and suppo( inclusion of said walls in the Appellants' requested Encroachment Agrcement. DISCUS SION - Item "F" (B lock Wall) Item "F" (Block WaIt) is a retaining wall, built of common sand colored landscaping blocks' used throughout the synstelien property and neighborhood, holding back the soil on the East sideoftheAppellants'home.Itwasbuilt,bycontractor,inconjunctionwithanexcavation oftheeastsideyardtoaddabasementwalkoutingressandegressdoor'anddeckbuilt under approved Building Permit. The Block wall, immediately east of the eastelly footings of the new deck, encroaches approximately l foot into the City,s l0-foot deep Drainage (9 footfromthepropertyline)andUtilityEasement.Thelocationofthewallwasdetermined by the third- party contractor, and not the Synstelien Family' Theneighborhoodisfullydeveloped.Allneededutilityservicesareinplace.Sewerand water service are in the street. There are no utilities located in the east Drainage and Utility Easement, or impacted, or obstructed in the construction of the Block Wall ' When the l0-foot Drainage and Utility Easernent upon the residential property to the East is takenintoconsideration,intotalthecityhasatleastlgfeetofunobstructedeasement 3 between these homes. In the remote possibility that the Block Wall might, at a future date' become an obstruction, the Synstelien's understand the wall is subject to removal by the city, which is reasonable and acceptable to the Synstelien Family. This Block Wall is essential to the functionality and serviceability of the newly installed East walkout door, an emergency exit mne, along with the newly built deck and should not be required to be demolished. The wall shields visual site line ofthe underdeck from view, hence, increasing visual appeal and security. The present demand that the Block Wall be demolished and removed from the easement, when an encroachment agreement providing for future removal - as needed, if needed - can resolve the issue, is per se unreasonable. Demolition of the wall is not dictated by city code, especially when code provides for encroachment agreements. Any conflict with city code can be answered by the grant of a variance. Failure to over-rule the administrative decision at issue, and grant the needed variance, will unjustifiably and unduly penalize the synstelien Family and adversely impact the surrounding neigbbors through the need for heavy equipment, lawn removal, side walk impedimurt,andnoise-terribleinconvenienceanddisruptionoftheirreasonable enjoyment oftheir property and incursion of considerable, needless expense WhentheSynstelienfamilyrelieduponitscontractortoplanandexecutetheeastsideyard walkorx improvement, they never knew or understood the Block Wall would be improperly located by the third-party contractor in the city easement' Nor did he know that an EncroachmentAgleement,toanswerstaffobjectionsastoitsplacement,wouldbearbitrarily denied. The final location of the encroaching Block Wall was made by the Applicant Synsteliens' contractor, not the Synstelien Family' TheCityinspectedtheDeckandGradingseveraltimesduringtheconstructionprocessandat notimeissuedastopworkorderonthewallduetoitspositioning.onlyseveralmonthsafter theendoftheconstructionandcompletionoftheprojectwasanissueraisedoftheneedfora possibleencroachmentagreement.TheCityapprovedtheencroachmentofthedraintile. The wall makes less of an impact to the easement than the drain tile' TheSynstelienFamilyrespectfi:llysubmitsthattheAdministrativeofficer'sdecisioninthat Item "F" (Block WalI) must be removed' and it cannot be ganted permission to remain in placeunderanEncroachmentAgreement.CityCodeSection20-908YardRezu]ations, 4 paragraph (6) provides: ,.... retaining wall... and other encroachments may be allowed within an easement with an Encroachment Agreement if they do not alter the intended use of the easement and at the discretion of the community development director or designee. The Administrative officer's decision denying an Encroachment Agreement for Item "F" (Block Wall) rureasonable. The Board of Adjusments should determine that the determination was unreasonable in that an Encroachment Agreernent for the synstelien Family property should include Item "F". Variances are permitted under the practical diffrculty standard of M'S' 5462.357 , Subd. 6. The Synsteliens meet that standard hereon' Manner of Use Appellants Synsteliens' planned manner ofuse ofhis residential property - a sidewalk out employing the retaining wall as located (above described) - is a reasonable manner ofuse of a residential property in the applicable residential zone. Item "F" Block wall is below the easement gmde. With only l-2 feet visible fiom the Synstelien house under the Synstelien's deck, it makes no noticeable visual prcsence and does not adversely impact the quiet and peaceful use and enjoyment of adjacent residential properties. In fact, it enhances the neighborsviewbyshieldingtheareabelowdeckfromview'Thisalsoprovidesenhance securitytothepropertybyshieldingviewoftheegressdoor.Thewall'slocation9feetback ftomthelotline,and2gfeetWestofresidencetotheEast'makesnoimpactontheadjacent property. Pliqht of the ADpellants TheplightofAppellantssynstelienwascreatdbytheirthird-partycontractor.TheAppellants didnotknow,approve,orrequestthewallwouldbebuiltonefootintothecityeasement'Mr' and Mrs. Synstelien have no training or experience as builder or surveyor. Their plight is not oftheirownmaking.Rather,itistheproductofdesignandconstructiondecisionsbya third.partycontractorreliedupontodesigil,locate,andconstructtheEastbasementwalk.out and overlying deck. I ofN Thevarianceifgranted,willnotchangetheessentialcharacterofthelocality.Thisis because,asnote4theBlockWallisbelowgradeandnotvisiblefromthestreet.Thewall 5 sits parallel and b€low the new deck. Consequently, the wall is subordinate thereto and does not appear as a separate stnrch[e and blends even with the grass line. . Lastly, built of standard landscaping blocks, commonly in use, and matching blocks used elsewhere upon the Synselien property, the wall blends in, and is not of an objectional character. DISCUSSION - Item "I'' (Portion of Block Wall Within Easement Area) (Modular Block Wall) Item 'f' (Ponion of Block Wall Within Easement Area) is a modular block garden wall built of common sand-colored landscaping block which defines the line between sod and gardens on the south portion of the Appellant's lot. This wall was built by a contractor in coqjunction with a regrading of the Synstelien yard and the installation of an in-ground French drain. The most southerly tip of the modular block garden wall incidentally encroaches upon the City's Drainage and Utility Easement along the south line of the Synstelien lot. This encroachment was not objected to by the Administrative Offrcer and will be permitted under the requested Encroachment Agreement. The most easterly tip ofthe modular block garden wall encroaches on the easterly Drainage and Utility Easement. The newly installed French drain, in the Easterly Drainage and Utility Easement, collects water which inundates the Synstelien property on a rcgular basis from water draining from the north. The French drain directs the water rmderground to a soft connect in the public street. Prior to the regrading of the lot water reaching the Synstelien lot drained orito the property to the east. This was an existing condition not created by synstelien. (See Exhibit "D"). with the regrading of the Lot and new French Drain, watel reaching the Synstelien property from the south - originally destined for the property to the East - is now drained rmderground to the street and is greatly reduced and is not significant' The synstelien,s request to include the Easterly terminus of the modular block garden wall under Encroachment Agreement, is necessary to avoid demolition and regrading of the Synstelien lot one more time. The Synstelien family relied upon a conmctor for grading and install of the garden wall and wasnotaware,didnotrequest,orapprovedtheinstallationofthewallwithintheeast Drainage and utility Easement. The synstelien family respectfirlly submits that the 6 Administrative Officer's decision that Item "I" (Portion of Block Wall Within Easement Area) be removed and not granted permission to remain in place under an Encroachment Agrcement is unreasonable and unnecessarily punitive to the Synsteliens and to surrounding neighbors who would unnecessarily have endure construction vehicles, noise and sod removal and replacement. . The City Code allows Encroachment Agreements for retaining walls that do not alter the intended use of the City Drainage and Utility Easement (20-908(6)). The easterly garden wall terminus does not alter the use ofthe City's easement. The denial ofan Encroachment Agreement her€on was arbitrary, capricious and punitive. An Encroachment Agreement is reasonable under the circurnstances and should be granted. The Synstelien family requests the City Board of Appeals and Adjustments ovemrle the Administrative Officer's decision regarding Item "I" (Portion of Block Wall Within Easement Area) and, as needed, grant Applicant Synstelien a variance. Variances are permitted under the practical diffrculty standard of M.S. $462.357, Subd. 6 Reasonable Manner of Use Appellants Synsteliens' planned manner ofuse ofhis residential property - a decorative garden wall as located (above described) - is a reasonable manner ofuse ofa residential propefiy in the applicable residential zone. The Block Wall is no more than 14" above grade, decreasing to no more than 6" above grade on the easterly tip. With minimal block wall visible above grade, and primarily visible ftom the Synstelien's backyard porch it makes no noticeable visual presence and does not adversely impact the quiet and peaceful use and enjoyment of adjacent residential properties. ln light ofthe new French drain, the wall's easterly terminus, as buil! makes no measurable adverse impact on the property to the East. Plieht of Aooellants The plight ofAppellants Synstelien was created by his third-party contfactor. The Appellants did not know the wall would be built in the City Drainage and Utility Easement. Mr. and Mrs. Synstelien have no training or experience as builder or surveyor. Their plight is not of their oun making. Rather, it is the product of design and construction decisions by a third- party contractor relied upon to desigrr, locate, in the consauction of the garden wall. of the Area 7 No Imoact on Essential Character No Imnaat ooEgsiotial Cttrtctsr of ths Arsa Tbc vaiuca if granls4 uiin nd changp thc e*seotial clrsacter of the locality. This is bocauoc il is a corrnou lmdscaping anrnity,largely below grade md notvisible whcre tbc gnde drops ald more u$ll blocks 8rc e)Qolad- Thc gard€o$l8il is subordioate to all oher lot struc$rcs. Buill of stmdardlardscrying blocks, comuonly iruse asd matching blooks usod else*hore upontte Syt#ticnproperly, tbevrall bleodsiq ondismt of an obitcticnal 8lchiEctural chEsstsr. cortcl.r.rsloN Aprpellonts Syustelio ralrests &at fre City 's Bmxt of AAcak ao'd Adjustoents rccopize rha tbe $ouine pnaoticaL diffiarlrieg bciog imposd upoe the Synstelien family by the rmreasonable aod unfrir dcrnad tr6 they now dencolkh thr aa ecfuting Item 'f" Bbck \tralt atd ltqn *I" fb ca*edy tenninug of tre gflrden uall and thd 6c &mily sbould not bear the bwdcn associs&d $ith rcbuildiqg a rtainirg walls md rc.ladscapirg thc bac.k yrd. The dcrnand trar thc walls be ikmolishcd is unresollablc as it daies thc Syn elien Furily tre reasonable use of thsh propcrty and imposes urduc expenses tbd ae punitive in ndr:rc' The city can eccom$odslc ib nceds md rccomruodatc &e $ynstdiem Funlly by simply agreebg o inckde tlc two walb io t* requestad ErstscMent Ag$@q!ot. tn thc unlikcty avciltat$c city svertss *eod to ms ftc Draina6o mdtlility a8tcm8tt, aodlqnovs same, it do so laudrlly. .rl AP?ELLANTS SYNSTEI,II,N ( For reference a copy of the 09/07/18-.Synstelien Lot survey is attached as Exhibit "E". R Dusd: CITY OT CIIAI,IHASSXI{ Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tornonow February 12,2020 Larry Synstelien 6893 Higbover Drive Chanhassen,MN 55317 RE: We have intemally reviewed thc submitted plan requesting encroachment agreements for various areas at 6893 Ilighover Drive. Dear Mr. Synstelien: After reviewing the survey dated 3/19119 that was submitted as part of your request to have multiple improvements on your property be allowed to stay in-place, t-e will support granting encroachments for the improvements in the areas labeled *A, B, C, D, G, H & .P'' We would like to note that these areas were constructed without permits and do encroach in drainage and utility easement areas. Item *E ' (the future fence) which has not been constructed will require a building fence permit and separate encroachment agreement showing the location on a fi:ll size survey meeting all the requirements for fences in Chanhassen. Item "F" (block wall) is denied and will need to be rcmoved' Item .T" (portion of block wall within the easement area) is denied and will need b be removed. This area wlfl also necd to te gradtng to direct drainage witrin tbe msement and not onto &e neighboring proPertY. The drainage inlets and drain tile located along the southerly lot line needs more information ,no*n oo ,i" survey showing piping runs and sizes. The area wilhin the easement will need to be regraded to not adversely shed water onto the neighboriug property' '-Z/ Charles J. Howley,E, LEED AP Director of Public Works/City Engineer c: Stwe Ferraro, Corstrrction Managcr, Enginecr Tcd IV Steve Lenz, Engineering Technician III PH 952.2fr.1 I O0 . www.ci.chanhass€n.mn.us' FX 952.227.111 0 *qlili A _ 700 MARKET B0ULEVARD 'P0 BOX 147'CHANHASSEN 'HINNES0TA 55317 Address:lrt Legal: Permil for: Home Other RESIDEN TIAL T/SURVEYROUTING FORM La h3 Dare Receivea ) Addition Detached Structure t)0>0 Explain:, Route permi*/Survevs r.ngin eering wlll order in the fotlowhrg order. nole eny charges you require and forward to next departmenr.new s*rvcys as requested ard route for approvak ir rcyerse ortrer. egal descri ptiop,building footpriut,building lype matehes survey (walhouq lookoug etct t', t Approved @lN Dare.ra1r:Lbe_ By,,T Required corrcctions: Revi sed suwey/plans approved Y/N Date:_ By:--.-- Setbacks,trce presewation, wetlaads,zone heigbt,area, bluff setbacls. Appoved y,@ Dde Required comctions: By: h..A,^ or-- z*./ EA lecJct f. at* 'l a*R i,t. d.tt;"ap u.l uulttye$enr4- By: ?'tl-tt-za Elevation, building typq grading/drairuge easemerts. By: "tri,Y,i;ffi #f, *Iivi#tffi #$r##trN*xm S,ttT r^al/s' "U*q, Erosion Coatol Appoved lvrN Date: ',' ,)'j'1" L,'By: ExHrBrr.:.B- ttt/ Deck eareilyo.N'oo 7)'1 surface I Revised sruvey/pians approyed Y /N Date: Approved YIN Date;_ Bf...- Approved Y/@ D*a-bfi:ltl By:-ll!l3=-_ , ,, Revised survey/plans approved Y/N Date:- Reguired cdrcc{ions; irla)^fdnbarEodra t rf-f,*f .t -*r,f F t \ E t \ It {i! 1 fj.5 s\ i F t !( I I X. +.i a I :"ar,& MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner FROM: Eric Tessman, Building Official DATE: July 28, 2020 SUBJ: Appeal of city’s denial of an Encroachment Agreement for retaining walls within Drainage and Utility Easements and variances from the city’s prohibition on locating structures within Drainage and Utility Easements for a property located at 6893 Highover Drive. Zone Single-Family Residential District (RSF) Planning Case: 2020-15 I have reviewed the request for the above appeal/variance and have the following comments (my comments are specifically concerning discussion item F): 1. The claim that the block wall is essential to the functionality and serviceability of the newly installed East walkout door is simply not true. There are three reasons for this: a. The east walkout door is not an emergency exit zone, the only required egress door for this property is the front door to the house. The need to have a walkout door in the basement is not required by code, it is simply there for convenience. b. the east walkout door could have been installed without the need to build a retaining wall, the yard could have been just simply regraded to make this occur c. had the property owner indicated that he was intending to locate a retaining wall within the easement on his permit for the east walkout door, we would have informed him the the wall encroached into the easement and advised him to relocate the wall out of the easement. 2. The building inspection department conducts inspections at the request of either the contractor or the homeowner. The building department did multiple inspections of the deck located on the property at the request of the deck contractor. When we conduct our inspections of the deck, we are only looking at building code requirements related to the deck. At no point did the property owner request that the building department conduct an inspection on a retaining wall, as there was no building permit obtained for retaining walls until well after the retaining walls were constructed. The building inspectors assumed that the walls were under four feet and were being constructed under a zoning permit, which is not subject to inspections by the building department. Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Charles Howley, PE, City Public Works Director/City Engineer George Bender, PE, City Assistant City Engineer Steve Ferraro, Construction Manager Date: 8/6/2020 Re: Appeal to Denial of Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls within D&U at 6893 Highover Drive – Planning Case 2020-15 The Engineering Department has reviewed the submitted appeal of the city’s denial of Encroachment Agreements for retaining walls within Drainage and Utility Easements (D&U) for the property located at 6893 Highover Drive (Planning Case 2020-15). The appellants are requesting that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments overrule the decisions of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer which denied the issuance of Encroachment Agreements for unpermitted, newly constructed and in-place retaining walls within the D&U and required their removals and the regrading associated with the removals. Furthermore, the appellants are seeking variances, as needed, to City Code to permit the retaining walls remain in place. It is the conclusion of the Engineering Department that the retaining walls and the alterations to surrounding grades altered the intended use of the D&U in regards to drainage and should not be allowed. As built, the retaining walls have altered drainage patterns to route water outside of the D&U and onto adjacent properties. One of the intended uses of a drainage and utility easement is to provide a path between properties for stormwater drainage, and the erection of structures such as retaining walls can create impediments to this purpose while adversely altering drainage patterns. While seven other unpermitted, yet newly constructed and in-place, encroachments in the D&U were approved, the two unpermitted, in-place retaining walls were denied (Item “F” and Item “I” found in the 2/12/2020 denial letter) based on the justification above. The following comments are responses directly related to the appellant’s assertions regarding wall “F” and “I”: For wall “F” their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. That there are no utilities within the drainage and utility easements. Response: A Drainage and Utility easement’s intended use is not limited to the installation of utilities. Drainage is also a factor on how the easement is used. Thus, when staff reviews for the approval of structures or other objects to be placed within D&U’s, the review includes how drainage and overland water flow during rain events will be impacted through the D&U. An example is when fences are placed within the D&U, it is standard to have the following language in the Encroachment Agreement: “The fence must allow water to pass under it, so as not to impede overland water flow during rain events.” Wall “F”, as built, alters drainage by encroaching into the D&U and diverting drainage onto adjacent property. Furthermore, there are small utilities that utilize the D&U abutting the appellant’s property. Small utility pedestals belonging to Mediacom, CenturyLink, and Xcel Energy are all located within the appellant’s D&Us. Also, during the course of the unpermitted grading, a communication line for a neighboring property was severed in the D&U. Therefore, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “F” as it altered the intended use of the D&U is correct. 2. Since the wall only encroaches one foot into the easement, the city has a sufficient amount of unobstructed drainage and utilities easement to serve its function. Response: Wall “F” encroaches up to two feet five inches into the D&U based on the provided boundary topographic survey dated 3/19/19 by Rory L. Synstelien (License No. 44565) of CivilSite Group. Wall “F”’s encroachment, coupled with the grade changes associated with its construction, alters the drainage pattern to divert drainage to the neighboring property. This alters the intended use of the D&U which is to convey overland water flow during rain events between property lines. Therefore, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “F” as it altered the intended use of the D&U is correct. 3. That potential conflicts between the wall and use of the easement can be resolved through an encroachment agreement. Response: Staff does not believe that an Encroachment Agreement would correct wall “F”’s impact to the D&U, specifically as it relates to the alteration of the drainage pattern. While it would allow the City to remove the wall and regrade the area to restore the D&U to its intended use at the owner’s expense, an Encroachment Agreement in and of itself does not correct the alteration of the drainage. Therefore, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “F” as it would not correct the alteration of the intended use of the D&U is correct. 4. That the wall is essential to the functionality and serviceability of the newly installed walkout door, an emergency exit door, and deck. Response: Engineering has no comment to this assertion as staff does not conduct reviews of buildings. 5. That the City Code does not require the demolition of the wall. Response: Chanhassen City Code § 20.908(6) specifically prohibits the placement of any structure within an easement. Nevertheless, the property owner constructed a retaining wall in the easement. The City Code does not need to specify that any unauthorized structure must be demolished or removed. Since the placement of the retaining wall is prohibited by the City Code, it must be removed from that location. The City Code is clear that the structure is prohibited without an encroachment agreement, and that encroachment agreements can only be issued for a structure that “does not alter the intended use of the easement and at the discretion of the community development director or designee.” Chanhassen City Code § 20.908(6). As previously outlined, the unpermitted wall “F” alters the intended use of the D&U by diverting the drainage pattern and changing the grading of the property. Therefore, staff determined that it is not appropriate to issue an Encroachment Agreement. Since the wall has already been constructed without permit or authorization from the City, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “F”, as it altered the intended use of the D&U, and to seek the removal of the wall is correct. For wall “I” their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. Water previously drained onto the property to the east, and this is not a new condition created by the appellant. Response: Since the work was not permitted, the property owner did not provide an existing condition survey to the City prior to earthwork or alterations to the property for staff to review. When staff received multiple complaints about the property and work being done, the City conducted an on-site visit. The on-site visit showed the grade at that time was unobstructed and was not diverting drainage to the east (see photos below). However, staff also reviewed the Highover Subdivision’s grading plan to determine the drainage pattern and the intended use of the D&U. Based on this review, staff determined that the grades did in fact allow for drainage to pass between both property lines (the appellant’s east property line). Furthermore, wall “I” as built, fully blocks and obstructs overland flows by extending the full width of the D&U to the east property line, which only intensifies the amount of drainage being routed to adjacent properties. Lastly, the approved grading permit has not been closed out due to the grading not being performed as per the approved plan. This approved grading permit illustrates that the intended use was to route drainage between the appellant’s eastern property line. Therefore, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “I” as it altered the intended use of the D&U is correct. 2. The installed French drain system prevents the water from being diverted onto adjacent properties, instead conveying it to the street. Response: While the French drain system and draintile does aide in diverting some stormwater from rain events, it will not prevent all overland water flow from entering adjacent properties as the approved grading plan (Permit #16-12) was not followed (intended to route drainage between properties). Additional considerations and concerns staff had regarding the ability of the private drainage system to accommodate all overland water flow were: a) the drainage systems inlets become plugged, or covered with lawn debris & leaves b) the shallow underground drainage pipes are crushed c) during frozen conditions the entire draintile system would be plugged, which is entirely installed within the frost zone (less than 3.5 foot depth) d) the drainage system is connected via a “soft” connection to the city owned draintile at the back of curb along Highover Trail, and if that connection becomes inundated with sediment, roots or other obstructions the system would be plugged Since the French drain system will not adequately route drainage in all circumstances, and it alters the intended use of the D&U, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “I” is correct. 1 Walters, MacKenzie From:Ferraro, Steve Sent:Tuesday, October 4, 2016 11:17 AM To:larry synstelien Cc:Joan synstelien; Walters, MacKenzie Subject:RE: 6893 Highover Drive Earthwork Permit and Proposed Elevations Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Larry, This looks good now. You can stop in anytime to sign the written permits and submit payment for application fee of $50 and submit escrow of $500. All paperwork is ready and waiting at the engineering desk. I will be out the rest of the week attending classes. Thank you, Steve Ferraro Construction Manager Engineering Tech IV City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Office # 952-227-1166 Mobile # 763-286-1623 From: larry synstelien [mailto:larry.synstelien@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 1:18 PM To: Ferraro, Steve <SFerraro@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Joan synstelien <joan.synstelien@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 6893 Highover Drive Earthwork Permit and Proposed Elevations Steve, Thanks for the feedback. Attached is the updated plan and below are responses to your comments. Thanks again for your help. Larry & Joan On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Ferraro, Steve <SFerraro@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: Larry, 2 Looking better and better. I have a couple things for you and then I think we are good. >> Thank you for the help and input to improve the plan.  I have attached a survey of your property in pdf form for you to mark up where the boulder retaining wall are going in. The thing to note here is they cannot extend into the drainage and utility e asement. You will need this marked up for your zoning permit as well. Boulder walls are usually drawn as a series of small circles representing the boulders. >> Layer added with lot survey and boulder retaining walls.  Note that while you are allowed to put draintile in the drainage and utility easement, it is still that and may be disrupted in the future. It would be best to keep the draintile nearer the edge or outside of it if possible. >> Adjusted drain tile as much as practical to avoid encroachment onto utility easement.  Also with the draintile. A suggestion: combine some of your draintile runs as a 4” pipe will carry a lot of water. You do not need individual draintile runs for everything. If it were me I would combine two downspouts per 4” run of non- perforated. Then combine all the perforated into one run and just TEE or WYE into the main 4” run. See the attached marked up sheet. Again this is just a suggestion and you can put draintile as you have shown if you like. >> Thank your for the suggestion. Combined perforated drain tile using WYE or TEE. Kept individual 4" non=perforated drain tile for each drain spout due to run length, slope, roof area and drain spout size  Add two draintile yard boxes for yard drainage pick-up and they double as cleanouts. You can then run a garden hose or whatever through it to make sure it’s clean or to unclog if it ever becomes plugged. We had discussed the one on the other side of the plantings. Looking at the survey the is less than 0.5% of grade on that side and will be needed. >> Added to yard boxes to drain tile layer Right now I will start writing up the actual grading permit and should be able to have it done tomorrow. Make these corrections and resend them back over. Then we would just need you or Joan to come in and pay the application fee and security escrow. >> Great! Thanks for getting the paperwork process started. Let us know the status and amount. We can stop by anytime. Looking forward to the next rendition. Regards, Steve Ferraro 3 Construction Manager Engineering Tech IV City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Office # 952-227-1166 Mobile # 763-286-1623 From: larry synstelien [mailto:larry.synstelien@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:19 AM To: Ferraro, Steve <SFerraro@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Joan synstelien <joan.synstelien@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 6893 Highover Drive Earthwork Permit and Proposed Elevations Steve, Thanks for the feedback. The updated files are attached and responses are below. Additional changes: 1) patio area material changed to similar gravel/rock as fire pit area 2) proposed elevations file contains separate layers (erosion control, grading elevations, rock areas, boulder walls, drain tile routes, etc) Please review and let us know of any additional changes you would like to see. Thanks for your help. 4 Larry & Joan On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Ferraro, Steve <SFerraro@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: Larry, Thank you for the submittal. I do see some things that need to be corrected. I will list those below:  Remove the city to repair sidewalk in both places. I have contacted our street dept and they will be looking into getting those fixed. >> Updated proposed elevation file contains separated layers  The retaining wall lengths are not accurate. Measure those out and put in correct measurements. Also from the rocks you had onsite they measured roughly 18” and that will be used for the width. There will have to be a hardcover calculation done for the patio and the retaining walls will have to be taken into account for that. >> Measurements updated  Draw lines showing the location of 4” perforated draintile and any yard drain boxes and where it will daylight. >> Added drain tile route layer  Remove the soft connection to storm drain from sheet as this is the grading plan and that connection will require a different work in right of way permit, plus we are 100% sure that the storm drain draintile goes that far to even make this connection possible. >> Added daylight to soft connection segment  Modify the description of work to be done on the permit form to include installing 4” draintile lines, river rock fire pit area, and pervious paver patio. And remove the excavating for egress window and basement window. >> updated application text  You will need to apply for a zoning permit for the patio and boulder wall repairs and relocation. Along with that would be the hardcover worksheet. >>if the proposed earthwork permit looks ok we'll proceed with the zoning permit. I will discuss with Mackenzie and show him where you are at with things, but you should call him and get the zoning stuff squared away and permits in. 5 >> Thanks for your help Email over again after you have made the changes. Thanks, Steve Ferraro Construction Manager Engineering Tech IV City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Office # 952-227-1166 Mobile # 763-286-1623 From: larry synstelien [mailto:larry.synstelien@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 9:55 AM To: Ferraro, Steve <SFerraro@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Joan synstelien <joan.synstelien@gmail.com> Subject: 6893 Highover Drive Earthwork Permit and Proposed Elevations Steve, Thank you for stopping by last week to go over our landscaping project. Based on our discussion, please review the attached application for earthwork and proposed elevations. Let me know if you would like any additional information and/or changes. 6 Again thanks for your help with the project and were eager to get the go ahead to complete the work. Thanks, Larry & Joan CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( ss. COLTNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 6,2020, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice ofa Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal ofthe City's denial ofan Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Watls within Drainage and Utility Easements and Variances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and Utility Easements at 6893 Highover Drive, Zoned Single-Family Residential, Planning Case File No. 2020-15 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 of such owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Kim T M ssen, Depu JEAI{Jf,d M SIECKLINGhgo.nr,eo Subscribed and srxom to before me thislrX^ day of {L-u^z,l ,2020.0 Notary Public llmrEt fr fi, rma Subject Ar6a Dltchlrnar This map b nether a legally reco.ded map nor a suNey and is not inten(bd to be w€d as one. This rmp is a compihiion of reco.&, intormation and data located in vaious cjty. counly. state and fede6l ofices and olher sources regalding the area shorm, and is to be us€d br relereoce purposes only. Th€ City does not wanant that the Geooraphic lnfomatton System (GlS) Data used lo pepare this map are eror tee. and the City doe-s not lepreaent that the GIS Data can be used fo( navigational. ttlddno o, any olher porpose rBquidng exactng moasuemeot of dBtance or direclion or p.ec6aon in the def*aion of oeographic Eatures. The pecedino disdaimer b p@vid6d puBuant to irinnBota StaMes 5.{66-03, Subd. 21 (2000). and $e user of tlis map aarnofll€dg€s tlat the City shall not be liable for any damag6, and erpr$3ly traives all daims, and ag.ees to debnal, indemnify. and hold harmless the city iorn any and all daim3 b.ouoht by U3er, its employe€ or aoentg, oa third pades wttich a69e out of the use/s acaeag or use ol datra provided. ITAX_NAMET tTAX_ADD_Lll <TAX ADD L2tr rNext RecordrrTAX_NAMET rTAX_ADD_Lir ITAX ADD L2r DLcLlntat This map B rcither a legally aecoaded map .lor a qrNey and is not intended to be Used as one. This map b a compilation of rEcards, info.matio.l and daia locat€d in various city, county, siale and federal olice3 end other sources re96.dirE the area thown. and is to be us€d for rehlence purpoces only. The CiV doss not wara that the Geooraphic lnionnation SyrErn (GlS) Data u3cd to prepaE tri3 map are ero. fr6e, and the City doea not epfesent thal the Gls oeta aan be used fo. navigational, Fdatang or any other purpoGe Equirino exactn9 n€asuremenl of distrnce or direction or pfec$ion in the dedclion of geogEphic ,eature5. The p.rceding disdaimer E provt ed puBuanl to Minn6ota St t.ttes 5468.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user ot this map acknowledg€s that $e City shall not be liaue tor any alama0e6. a.d exprBsly waiws all daim3, and agrees to d€lbM, indemniry. and hold harml€as the City ttom any and all daims broughl by User. its employe6 o. agenls, or third padie3 wttiah ali3e oul ot the u8ef8 accass or use of data povided Subiect Arga a t ( E)i -I t. LI i. L-l"/ rG 9o 6ErD .:_ cd, ci: OoOor F-i (u lr)o&(\o Oic! :' odE EPo)- <bjs $=E' Or.fg E' 6 o CI oot-f.- !; o -o Eo-co c =o oI =^E -a- = >, >. E a O= = (!:,J".=o E cs FBX c E :,.d c6 9l .EE !E E6E c O-= o) 99a3=9PE5E .EFb3d, E E,r p6 € ESEE: El9 b-LUE cNBcFo;o(!'-c=o.+Oo:'i;gEH #ESB,tr c .qE a o oJc .9 0) c @ c6o o9'--o6 o:>ts crc =oa3 @-(o< oi o ll g, q)'6.< o- lD : Eo- 6or: a8;eE C! -c -o Eo-l: 3l e'i E6.EEi=E 6 .lP 6PE>rrq)O)hd,>(,i :=AH€ g 6tor'].oorE h E'9 eEE E; =;EEE g EeEEa(/)F()CE -6i..it -or-C€;s_ rD.= Ji:E€ Eo-..x.E 9_Eg=!- ;Bg'eac>Y;Eo5 EE qH -c- Y oqEo< E (E -9 .9 AE: Err3fll-'= O'O.! =(l)o;* s (EiO-o-E o= 6 (5 E EE: 5:^-E EoHE-= (,, EEfE*' rirc (, a) E 9o = v'E (d-tlE e E l€6it. g EIEE;EIE Ei;EIEi!iE t EIfrEIEfi E:EE *IgHE; E !: r"EElBtlsgEEi EecI;E,ieBtE i5i|E$HIEEi o.lf E,9 o o E Ec ac Ecq) (5 -cc([ Eq'6 >; ' lt(, E o)o,ooroc{'-o(l)rn Eg 6E;g 9-a6> (Evo{)iE -c Pe XE ;E !=c):s cao6 OE,> '= 8ppb eEo= JCcEotL @P =9![ illsffiilliiiiii LEEiiiiEEEiiiiEEi l#sEisEEiitesaiEEE t a E a ! ag 3 a iti E F o. o Go o l!(,oJ ::t!oo CIg o- ij(, 'o oo.o o- (! 6 I ii) o-.= *Ef,=ao =5 c6 ..o9ccoo o=OE =ooo Btr G'o =EEDO -=4:.e.,ErE .9oEo,EDo- .E oE O.!.9E OEza oo c(!to EI' Eoo E EtcEO Ll,t! rt(, .=IEoE=o€odes.Lotr .EE6iza 6 IAo .c,Et!Eo Eo s= ocd) o-c Oooo, l'* E(! ()oSNO Re coE <bj6(!=E' O)r .:) g 6 d){o =ooNF. oi 0,! EoEo cJo o-3o 3E5aE. ?.=b g;; E p,e EC c69l .EEo - E !!=!5 s6!!2-Oc.Y E O-= (D o661>e9.IjE e {'3 E.F .= k 6 r-9 EE# PHI3aE? ;UJP FN o(!'-c=o"s o o h ap EE E EESE# c tl) o) c U) (EJ c .o6 c o Eoo o o I o B o9>='=-o6g; (rc =oro*o6 (o< =P frO -n n+tE g' : EcEs E *" 8.=:a ^E A--c.o E^ !+:'cD o- = =Il L.= f ! c O--Yo c 5 9 :o o-':6cl5 E9c-P EE qg !'eEEt= X.P I Hts EEEE EiHE3#:r Pi€ EHgEE: E HEE g f $:-E eEf;.EEE tr5Eo;-.id+ .ats.c(BeE ?6!f; so ;l. =.9 EEE*EYOE^E - CE O Ege*:3 i; EEP = etr 9'E 5E sEE s H.EE co,E E OE HEEP9 Ev)\)--6 : e.g 6'E 3A:Es ni or.9'E Pc) c o> f - O I o-C NE€lEa H g+E; E o ,EE9E :9 i9ai !xao- .cw cle SEEl e aEste orEEl $ EIgB P fr :IE EI -E or !l.9El * * EIEEI g AflE E E $gHi s$ ilEi olf E .9t o o E =oc )c Ec o) ([ coEq'5 i;i (t,EE 0)o,(5 oroce EoEsi 6E Eg2oEr6oo(Di= -cqo .!iHg; b8 =scroc)'6o b8 O.tE.>= o=E6 eEo=a?!cE or) L 24>Y IU:zii EtEtsEEilEEsii:i IiEEEHiiEiiHii 6 B E E] 6 ! t l 8 a 8 t a I ! (, E F .a o (lo o o(,oJ :,;!!oo CII o- (,c 'o toeo o >Eto(, '!o..!eto-J I ii) @.= +'EeOr!E =r E .9 l!(,oJ Eo CL e o- .6..o9CEoo 6=!,E:ooo Jr>r zz zf f f f f f f r F f - E t""88 5 5 5 5 5 E 5 5 6=68 b b E 5 UG, t G, E G, d, A, G, E C, d, G, d. E d, E s. E G. A. t G, t G, e, G, d. E c. E t A. G,uJ uJ ul uJ ul LlJ uJ l! uJ uJ LlJ lrJ a, lrJ lf/ trJ uJ trJ L! u, uJ l! El uJ uJ tfl tfJ t! rJJ Et t! Et uJoooooooooooo<oooooooooooooooooooo- ----- ----- -!4 -- I- I -I -- --- E-I- IE --o(,(,9(99(9(,e(,9(,9i9(,gggg(,g(,ggggg(9(Jg(,g(,or---:E-I-tI-IL)I-----II-I------IIr-3 o co o av) tl N m ,o m ro o o .-r o r-r =l oo .i N (o..t 6 m o m !n u) € ro r\ st rn rr = N €aO Cn O Fl (\ rn <f sf l'n ln .Yl .! .-l .-J .-l N S lr1F.6(n O OO !i -,1 N.\.l.n.n sl = lr) rn lr) ro <t t t <t <l tt t t N o ao o oo 6 6 @ @ 6 o ot d\ dt o ol o! ot or or €llr/) N N a! N N N (\ N N (\ t\l 6r (O rO r.o (o (l) (l) ll, (O (!l rcl (O \O |€| (c| (cl (O (O (O @ r.O (ct <t Ol t sl t rn <l.O <l t t oOO COd O€ 6€cO 6 F t\ l\ l\ N Fl Fl N li r-l<rtts FF,NF,F.F.NN (o (l, (o (o (o (.o (o (o € (l) (r) (o O rO (.o N F. () (!, NN t\ N u1 rA rA la t rA rA rn l.,) l^ |J) rn tJ,) ra rn rn ul !n !,1 ta o ul La rn ln ul sl !n$ <t sl F. N t. I\ F N N N F. N t\ F- F I\ F N F. F F- F ta t. t. F. F N N F. N |\ F T\ N N N F N N F F. OI T\ F T. F F N T\ F. F F I\ F. F N N N F F. F. F.r.l r< t-l r.l -l -l ..1 t-l Fl Fl Fl Fl O r{ .i .l Fi ..1 !.1 -l Fl Fl .t ri i.l ..1 ..1 Ft Ft Ft Ft ri r-td) an ln (n ln an an ln an ft1 m m Fi mln an d) an ln m .rtm dl d) an ln ln anm maY) rn d)rau)tarnLarnu1 .a l,l1 ln rn rn N t tn ur s.,t t.ll u) rn La !a l.,.) !n !n g) !n u) Ln !n !n t, !nlr1 rJl !n r.t1 r, rJ1 rJ1 r,) r.a ln !a ta ob !n rJ1 l, t ul ln !n rn rr1 u.t lJ) tJl t) u1 u) Ln u) La t rr1Z ZZ ZZ ZZZ ZZZZ.1 ZZZZ ZZ ZZ ZZZZZZZZzZZZ ^2 2 i i i i i i i i i i2 i i i i ; i i i i i i i i i i i ii i ij LrJ lrl l! lll lrl lrl lrl l! lrl uJ l! uJ - uJ uJ lrJ lrl LrJ r! lrJ uJ uJ EJ uJ trJ !r,t tfJ trJ t! uJ gJ lrJ t !J-| q't vt vl vl vl qt vl vl v| vt q't vt t ul vt t t ttt an tn v| v1 vl ta t4 ..rt vt r^ tn vl tll .!l vt t t ^ Ul V\ V'l Vl Ul ul V) Vl U) V1 Ul l./'t - ul t^ th tn t^ tA t^ ta Vl V\ Vt ah t^ th ti t/\ th tt\ t't tt =------I-I---->------tII------:EI-I--tz z z z z z z z z z z z 6 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z. z z z <-I--I-I-I---I-------I-II------I--F () (,)U (JQ (J QU QU (J (,,) 9 (J (J (JU (JU (JU (J (J (J L,}U (J(J (J (J (J (J (J -'-i-, zz zrf -.rrrrf r F - F 3 5 t t E E 5 E 5 E 5 5 =EEb b 5 E bc. d, d. d. &. G, G,E G, G. A. d. d,t G. G. G. c, G, G. A, d, C.n d.E ca c, cz cc G, EIr.' l/J lrJ lrJ trl lrl lrJ IfJ lrl lrJ lrl lr.J lr./ lrJ trJ tJJ u.l IJJ uJ trJ lfJ ul tfJ lrJ uJ uJ !./ uJ t.l. t! uJ trJ:i o oo o oo ooo oo o : oo ooo oo oo oo o oo oo oo o o^r r - r - r !:E E t - t - r; - r - - - - - - r E E r r - - - - - - t9i (, (,(, (, I (, (J (, (9 (99 (, ; (, (9 (,(,(9 (,(, (,(9 (,(,19 (,(9 (, (, (,(,(9 (, ===i==iiiiiiiF=======iiiiii======i-l o rr} € dr ai i\r m (D m |o O 6 { O -r st o Fr N (cr N 6 an c| rn ra u1 6 (o r\ <r !n riX N 6€(,1 O FrN ln sl t rn rn N Fl Fl F{ Fl (\ <l !n F 6CrtOO O-r Fr ^l N rn.l1 <t< (n m .n ?tr t tl <t tt \t <t <i rt o o 6 o 6 € 6 6 oo o @ ot ot ot ('t or ot ol or ol otF 6l N (\l r\ N .\l N 11 i\ N a\l N (O (O (O r.o (.o (.o (O (() (l) (I) t.c, (o (o (o rO r.o lo r.o (o € (l) -= EEEEEE=gl;#E =;lE=;*===E=E;#EEEi oQooQoe)QoQooQoooQooooooooooooooooN @ Fr ql O o\ O 0O .{ (O O F O N * Fl O rtr Or aO F r.o N U) (n -{ S + Fr N .n |..1 lnO O a O n O < Q n O n a @ lJ.,) O lJ,) l,) o tt <t <l t Fl sl .'r .i F{ <' (\ N <f .r ^roooooooQoooooooooooooooooooooooooF F. F- F F Or Ol Or qr qr Ot qr I or cD cD ot or ot ol ot ('r c,t (D ot r\ 6 dr 6 0t clr ot otFr Fi Fr -r Fr <t <t t <t <t <i <l e) <l <t <t tt <t st t <l <t <t <i + -i { t + + n + + - sl <t sl <l $ m m ln m m rn m o .n l!,r m (n .n m .n m m m tn ln s d) m d) m d) .r1 l'a rn rn rJ') ul rJ''t rn rJl rr1 ul rJl ut u) ra l. ra Lr1 rrl tn Lrl tn g) u) tn rn ln l.l.) |.() u1 u) t4 ta l'o ulE ..r N ..1 N .\l (\r N 6r (\r N .\l N r\l 6t at N N a\l 6t N N ^t N N N (\i l\i ..i - N N rt - NN)N'NJI\'NA,,NN(, ur vr l, l, (,t ur gl ur5 UJ irJ iJJ lr) (rJ (,J u) ('P55S55855{(o(otoroc)(ll(o(oooooooooorJN,,5llIJNP519Nu'rPro{5(nPoooPoooo(,o -?1v?:{!Z=E=68!335rY<=4,^---L!F=;F;Eq!'-2OrZ>D<t4(12ic.,?t4=Q ='!i0i==d 06=b=s z= =- ttr iz!!- ^l rn-r<{vCttI \l ot ot cn cr\ or or (tr (n(,rl(oror.o(o(lllcl|o(o{{orcD(,rultr(Jr5urPoralourPoot<-------- >66)6)6)6)6.}6)6)E------I-<oooooooo -lErrl1mmmmrnm(1 'VV UVV ' V;oo(1o11ggo--l7t--a7t-l:,.7t-.t2ZZZ ooo()r)r)11r)()-----I---z2zzzzz2z--r------ tlt t t alhattlnlav\vtvtv,v\lnlnl lmmmml?lmmmlnzzzzzzzzz<<<3<<3<<zzzzzzzzz(rt lJ1 (, lJr vt ur (,/,r (Jl ultrurulururqln(rutt, (, ur (! (! (1, (, (, u, PPPIJPPPPF'{{\t{{\r{{{ { \,1 {l't ur ur{ (,1 \JlJ\JP ct! ctr ot 01 or or or or o!(o(o(o(oro(o(ll(c,(oP {(,1 cn ul(,l, !n 5rJlPotS(ourPOor ---------6666666ctd----r-r--ooooooooo rnmmmrnmmlnm,7VVVVVzV =q9q9qgB9z2zz CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Consider an Appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District Boundary Determination Made by a City Administrative Officer for Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: H.2. Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­13 PROPOSED MOTION City Council affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY Pursuant City Code Section 12­55 (b) The community development director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated watershed zone boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied. The applicant may appeal the community development director's determination of the watershed zone boundary and type to the City Council. The applicant requested an adjustment in the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Primary Zone boundary.  Staff denied the boundary adjustment and the applicant is appealing that decision. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 2020 to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance regarding the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary.  A motion to affirm the staff determination of the Primary Zone failed with a vote of 2 ­ 3.  The Planning Commission did not feel they were the appropriate body to make that determination. The Planning Commission minutes of August 18, 2020 are in the City Council Consent Agenda for this meeting. As part of the discussion, the Commission believed that if the boundary change request came as part of a development proposal, then the boundary change or approval of an encroachment variance may  provide more validity to justify the change.  It was suggested that it would  easier to evaluate the change  in the context of a specific development.  Historically, that has been when the Primary Zone boundary has been evaluated. However, as part of the development review process, developers like more certainty, i.e. it is either 10 or 13 acres of developable land. As part of the development review process, the city looks at trade­offs to provide the owner with a value for the CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectConsider an Appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District Boundary Determination Made by a CityAdministrative Officer for Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Highway 212 andPowers BoulevardSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.2.Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­13PROPOSED MOTIONCity Council affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary and adopts the Findings of Factand Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYPursuant City Code Section 12­55 (b) The community development director shall make a determination to maintainthe officially designated watershed zone boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and mapsbased upon the data that is supplied. The applicant may appeal the community development director's determination ofthe watershed zone boundary and type to the City Council.The applicant requested an adjustment in the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Primary Zone boundary.  Staffdenied the boundary adjustment and the applicant is appealing that decision.BACKGROUNDThe Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 2020 to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged thatthere is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in theenforcement of the zoning ordinance regarding the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary.  A motion to affirm the staffdetermination of the Primary Zone failed with a vote of 2 ­ 3.  The Planning Commission did not feel they were theappropriate body to make that determination. The Planning Commission minutes of August 18, 2020 are in the CityCouncil Consent Agenda for this meeting.As part of the discussion, the Commission believed that if the boundary change request came as part of a developmentproposal, then the boundary change or approval of an encroachment variance may  provide more validity to justify thechange.  It was suggested that it would  easier to evaluate the change  in the context of a specific development. Historically, that has been when the Primary Zone boundary has been evaluated. However, as part of the developmentreview process, developers like more certainty, i.e. it is either 10 or 13 acres of developable land. As part of the development review process, the city looks at trade­offs to provide the owner with a value for the preservation of the Primary Zone through density transfer or hard surface increases in the developing area with preservation of the green space in the Primary Zone. The Commission felt that the technical analysis did not provide a definitive determination of the appropriate Primary Zone boundary. While  the boundary may not be quantifiable there may be factors that would warrant an adjustment to the boundary.  There is sufficient doubt as to where the line should be drawn. Based on the information, there are several different locations that could be the Primary Zone boundary. DISCUSSION The site is located within the BCOD. This district was created in 1998 based upon the findings and recommendations of the 1996 Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources and Management Plan. The Bluff Creek Primary Zone does not only include land adjacent to Bluff Creek but also all those areas within the Bluff Creek Watershed which drain to the creek and contain significant natural areas.  The corridor extends to the northeast from Erhart’s property to Highway 101. The applicant did not provide sufficient data as to why this specific area should be excluded from the BCOD. The city hired WSB to review the proposed boundary change. While their report dated December 19, 2019 recommended a change to the boundary to exclude the land east of the top of the ridge, this adjustment does not include the area requested by the applicant. The applicant proposes that the 3+ acres adjacent to the 9­acre area guided for commercial use be removed from the Primary Zone and be combined with that area for development purposes. This area is readily developable. More similar to the 9­acre site, the site is ideal for commercial use in that it is at the intersection of Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard, and when combined creates a large enough site to attract a high­end user. The proposed boundary is where the steep slopes begin and are maintained over a substantial distance and support natural vegetation consisting of trees, shrubs and underbrush, yet allows reasonable and best use of the property that is flat or gently sloping. The site's drainage path to Bluff Creek in no way resembles a natural­undisturbed connection to these waters. The 3+ acres contain no wetlands. The site, while containing mature trees, also has a grassland or hay field which is harvested annually. The site is relatively flat compared to areas directly to the north and southeast. The site will provide more value for Chanhassen residents as a commercial site than as open space. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the motion affirming staff's determination of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision. Should City Council wish to direct staff to revise the Primary Zone boundary as requested by the applicant, then Council should approve the motion approving the applicant's boundary delineation and adoption of the corresponding Findings of Fact and Decision. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, September 14, 2020SubjectConsider an Appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District Boundary Determination Made by a CityAdministrative Officer for Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Highway 212 andPowers BoulevardSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.2.Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­13PROPOSED MOTIONCity Council affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary and adopts the Findings of Factand Decision.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYPursuant City Code Section 12­55 (b) The community development director shall make a determination to maintainthe officially designated watershed zone boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and mapsbased upon the data that is supplied. The applicant may appeal the community development director's determination ofthe watershed zone boundary and type to the City Council.The applicant requested an adjustment in the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Primary Zone boundary.  Staffdenied the boundary adjustment and the applicant is appealing that decision.BACKGROUNDThe Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18, 2020 to hear and decide appeals where it is alleged thatthere is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in theenforcement of the zoning ordinance regarding the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary.  A motion to affirm the staffdetermination of the Primary Zone failed with a vote of 2 ­ 3.  The Planning Commission did not feel they were theappropriate body to make that determination. The Planning Commission minutes of August 18, 2020 are in the CityCouncil Consent Agenda for this meeting.As part of the discussion, the Commission believed that if the boundary change request came as part of a developmentproposal, then the boundary change or approval of an encroachment variance may  provide more validity to justify thechange.  It was suggested that it would  easier to evaluate the change  in the context of a specific development. Historically, that has been when the Primary Zone boundary has been evaluated. However, as part of the developmentreview process, developers like more certainty, i.e. it is either 10 or 13 acres of developable land.As part of the development review process, the city looks at trade­offs to provide the owner with a value for thepreservation of the Primary Zone through density transfer or hard surface increases in the developing area withpreservation of the green space in the Primary Zone.The Commission felt that the technical analysis did not provide a definitive determination of the appropriate PrimaryZone boundary. While  the boundary may not be quantifiable there may be factors that would warrant an adjustmentto the boundary.  There is sufficient doubt as to where the line should be drawn. Based on the information, there areseveral different locations that could be the Primary Zone boundary.DISCUSSIONThe site is located within the BCOD. This district was created in 1998 based upon the findings and recommendationsof the 1996 Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources and Management Plan. The Bluff Creek Primary Zone doesnot only include land adjacent to Bluff Creek but also all those areas within the Bluff Creek Watershed which drain tothe creek and contain significant natural areas.  The corridor extends to the northeast from Erhart’s property toHighway 101. The applicant did not provide sufficient data as to why this specific area should be excluded from theBCOD. The city hired WSB to review the proposed boundary change. While their report dated December 19, 2019recommended a change to the boundary to exclude the land east of the top of the ridge, this adjustment does notinclude the area requested by the applicant.The applicant proposes that the 3+ acres adjacent to the 9­acre area guided for commercial use be removed from thePrimary Zone and be combined with that area for development purposes. This area is readily developable. Moresimilar to the 9­acre site, the site is ideal for commercial use in that it is at the intersection of Highway 212 and PowersBoulevard, and when combined creates a large enough site to attract a high­end user. The proposed boundary iswhere the steep slopes begin and are maintained over a substantial distance and support natural vegetation consistingof trees, shrubs and underbrush, yet allows reasonable and best use of the property that is flat or gently sloping. Thesite's drainage path to Bluff Creek in no way resembles a natural­undisturbed connection to these waters. The 3+acres contain no wetlands. The site, while containing mature trees, also has a grassland or hay field which is harvestedannually. The site is relatively flat compared to areas directly to the north and southeast. The site will provide morevalue for Chanhassen residents as a commercial site than as open space.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends approval of the motion affirming staff's determination of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundaryand adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision.Should City Council wish to direct staff to revise the Primary Zone boundary as requested by the applicant, then Council should approve the motion approving the applicant's boundary delineation and adoption of the corresponding Findings of Fact and Decision. ATTACHMENTS: Findings of Fact and Decision Affirm Findings of Fact and Decision Adjusting Boundary Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision Development Review Application Applicant's Narrative Existing Conditions Map Hydric Rating Map Letter to Tim Erhart dated February 5, 2020 regarding Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary Email from Jerry Reugemer Affidavit of Mailing Erhart Concept Plan Erhart Concept Map 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Timothy A. & Dawne M. Erhart appealing staff’s determination of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2 – Planning Case #2020-13. On August 18, 2020, 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 appeal preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments motion to affirm staff’s determination failed on a vote of 2 – 3. City Council received and reviewed the Planning Commission report and minutes from the public hearing. City Council held a hearing on September 14, 2020 to review the proposed boundary appeal. City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Office Use. 3. The legal description of the property is Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. 4. The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. 5. The Primary Zone boundary is located on the subject property. 6. The Primary Zone includes the forested area of the site and the wetlands contained therein. 7. The Bluff Creek Primary Zone does not only include land adjacent to Bluff Creek, but also all those areas within the Bluff Creek Watershed which drain to the creek and contain significant natural areas. 2 8. Boundaries as established by officially adopted city maps shall be prima facie evidence of the location and type of watershed zone. The official maps shall be developed and maintained by the planning department. 9. The applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact watershed zone boundary. 10. The community development director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated watershed zone boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied. 11. The information provided by the applicant does not show that the boundary should be amended. 12. The planning report #2020-13, dated August 18, 2020, prepared by Robert Generous, et al and the WSB report dated December 19, 2019 are incorporated herein. DECISION The City Council denies the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary appeal and affirms staff’s boundary determination. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 14th day of September, 2020. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Elise Ryan, Mayor g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\findings of fact and decision - appeal.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Timothy A. & Dawne M. Erhart appealing staff’s determination of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2 – Planning Case #2020-13. On August 18, 2020, 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 appeal preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments motion to affirm staff’s determination failed on a vote of 2 – 3. City Council received and reviewed the Planning Commission report and minutes from the public hearing. City Council held a hearing on September 14, 2020 to review the proposed boundary appeal. City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Office Use. 3. The legal description of the property is Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. 4. The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. 5. The Primary Zone boundary is located on the subject property. 6. The Primary Zone includes the forested area of the site and the wetlands contained therein. 7. Boundaries as established by officially adopted city maps shall be prima facie evidence of the location and type of watershed zone. The official maps shall be developed and maintained by the Planning department. 2 8. The applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact watershed zone boundary. 9. The community development director made a determination to maintain the officially designated watershed zone boundary. 10. This area of the Primary Zone adjustment is readily developable. The site is ideal for commercial use in that it is at the intersection of Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard, and when combined creates a large enough site to attract a high-end user. 11. The proposed boundary is where the steep slopes begin and are maintained over a substantial distance and support natural vegetation consisting of trees, shrubs and underbrush. 12. The information provided by the applicant creates a consensus that the Primary Zone boundary should be adjusted. 12. The planning report #2020-13, dated August 18, 2020, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The City Council approves the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary appeal and directs staff to make the boundary adjustment. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 14th day of September, 2020. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Elise Ryan, Mayor g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\findings of fact and decision cc - approval applicant's change.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: August 18, 2020 CC DATE: September 14, 2020 (if necessary) REVIEW DEADLINE: September 14, 2020 CASE #: 2020-13 BY: RG, EH, MU SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is appealing staff determination that the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary remain in its current location. LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard APPLICANT: Timothy A. & Dawne M. Erhart 9611 Meadowlark Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A-2 2020 LAND USE PLAN: ACREAGE: Three Acres on Parcel of 114.5 Acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. The board shall be empowered to decide appeals when the decision of the board is by an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members present. A vote of less than three-fourths of the members present shall serve only as a recommendation to the City Council, who shall then make the final determination on the appeal. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant requested an adjustment in the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Primary Zone boundary. Staff denied the boundary adjustment and the applicant is appealing that decision. The Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals may make a decision on the appeal. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary.” Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 2 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Sec. 20-28. - Board of appeals and adjustments. Chapter 20, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District https://library.municode.com/mn/chanhassen/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CICO_CH20ZO_A RTXXXIBLCROVDI BACKGROUND On February 10, 2020, the City Council adopted the 2040 City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, which guided an additional three acres of the site for office use, which corresponds to the area being requested to move out of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone. On May 26, 2009, the Chanhassen City Council approved (Planning Case #2009-06) the following: A. “Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Office & Institutional District, OI.” Please note that the rezoning of the parcel is only effective with the final platting of the subdivision; Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 3 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc B. “Conditional Use Permit with Variances to encroach into the Primary Zone and required buffer for development in the Bluff Creek Corridor; C. “Subdivision (Preliminary Plat) creating one lot, two outlots and dedication of public right- of-way, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009; D. “Site Plan with Variances (Powers Crossing Professional Building) for building height and Bluff Creek Primary Zone setbacks for a two-phase, three-story, 160,000 square-foot professional office building, and up to a 731-stall, five-level parking ramp on Lot 1, Block 1 of the development, plans prepared by Pope Associates, Inc. and Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009; and E. “A sign size Variance request to permit an eight (8) foot tall sign with up to 64 square feet of sign display area. (This project never went forward for development.) Fairview Chanhassen Medical Center (Planning Case #2008-16) As part of the city’s review of the Medical Center, a two-phase, three-story, 160,000 square-foot medical center, and a 731-stall, five-level parking ramp, and signage, the city proposed granting significant relief from the zoning regulations. • The city revised the Primary Zone boundary to remove that portion impacted by grading north of the pond and that portion impacted by the construction of TH 212. • Allowed encroachment into the Primary Zone, a Conditional Use Permit with a Variance, which made the site more developable. • Approved a setback variance from the Primary Zone boundary as part of the site plan review. • Used the green space within the Primary Zone to meet the majority of the pervious surface for the office development. • Prior to the development, the city approved a land use map amendment to the area encompassing Lot 1, including the proposed right-of-way turn back area, from Residential Low Density to Office (total area 10 acres). While the Primary Zone must be retained as permanent open space, it may be used to meet a development’s required green space. Additionally, for residential purposes, this area may be included in calculating permitted density, provided it is not excluded by being undevelopable due to wetland or bluff. (This project became Planning Case #2009-06) On October 23, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Wetland Alteration Permit #06-32 for the construction of an access and stormwater pond. Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 4 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc The Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). This district was created in 1998 based upon the findings and recommendations of the 1996 Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources and Management Plan. SITE CONSTRAINTS Bluff Creek Corridor This parcel is encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. Section 20-1255 of the Chanhassen City Code requires a conditional use permit for all development within the Bluff Creek Corridor. The Bluff Creek Corridor Primary Zone is located on the property. The Primary Zone is designated open space. All structures must meet a 40-foot structural setback from the Primary Zone boundary as required by Chanhassen City Code. In addition, no grading is allowed within the first 20 feet of the Primary Zone. Bluff Protection There are bluffs on the property. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. Shoreland Management The property is not located within a Shoreland Protection District. Wetland Protection There is a wetland located in the development site. At this time, no development proposal has been submitted. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The Bluff Creek Overlay District was created in conjunction with the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan in December 1996 to provide protection for Bluff Creek from the deleterious effects of urbanization through the promotion of “innovative development techniques such as cluster development...to measurably reduce the amount of impervious cover compared to traditional development...” Another primary plan goal was the provision of educational Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 5 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc opportunities for the students of Bluff Creek Elementary School and others. The Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan identifies the preservation of a continuous greenway from Minnewashta Regional Park to the Minnesota River to provide a continuous corridor from Minnewashta to the Minnesota River providing habitat, a greenway corridor and recreational opportunities as a goal. The preservation of a greenway will also protect Bluff Creek from the effects of increased runoff volume and rates. Lastly, the preservation of a greenway will help meet the requirements of the Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation. The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District, BCO, by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. This parcel is partially encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. A conditional use permit shall be issued by the city for all subdivisions, site plans, and prior to the erection or alteration of any building or land within the BCO. The Primary Zone is designated open space. All structures must meet a 40-foot structural setback from the Primary Zone boundary as required by Chanhassen City Code. The first 20 feet of the setback are required to remain buffer. ANALYSIS The site is located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). This district was created in 1998 based upon the findings and recommendations of the 1996 Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources and Management Plan. The District was intended to have several functions. The primary function of the District is to protect the geomorphology and hydrology of Bluff Creek, a 303d listed impaired water, and to preserve the natural corridor from the Minnesota River Valley to Lake Minnewashta Regional Park for aesthetic, recreational and wildlife benefits. Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 6 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc Bluff Creek Primary Zone The Primary Zone includes the forested area of the site and the wetlands contained therein, which included the wetland that was filled as part of the approved wetland alteration permit in 2006. The Bluff Creek Primary Zone does not only include land adjacent to Bluff Creek but also all those areas within the Bluff Creek Watershed which drains to the creek and contain significant natural areas. The corridor extends to the northeast from Erhart’s property to Highway 101. Bluff Creek itself is truncated by many four-lane roadways along its path including Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 117), Highway 5, Coulter Boulevard, Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18), Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14), Highway 101 and Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61). The drainage map for this portion of the Bluff Creek Watershed is shown below: Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 7 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc As can be seen, this area contributes to Bluff Creek. At one time, this area drained overland to Bluff Creek. With urban development, the drainage has been confined in certain areas to pipes and culverts. The drainage pattern on top of the bluff takes local drainage and directs it west towards Powers Boulevard. It also serves as the EOF for the large water body immediately east of the wooded area. Lastly, there is a mitigation area located northerly on the property. Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 8 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc Part of the discussion should be about the effects of urbanization on channel characteristics and flow hydraulics. As the area tributary to Bluff Creek is converted from prairie and woodland conditions to urbanized conditions, the following occurs: 1. Base flow is decreased which leads to a failure to support aquatic vertebrates. 2. The flashiness of the flows increase as water is directed to the creek faster than under natural conditions. 3. The duration of the elevated flows is increased. Even with the installation of detention ponds, it still leads to a longer duration of peak flows even if the peak flow is decreased from an urbanized condition without ponds. 4. All of this leads to increased scouring, head cutting, escarpment formation and sediment loading and deposition. 5. This increased sediment load falls out of suspension downstream and leads to an embedded condition meaning there is a diminished fish habitat as the small riffles formed in the cobbled substrate disappear. This also leads to an increase in water temperature and a decrease in transitivity of light and reduced plant and plankton production. It is for this reason that we look at the entire watershed and not just that which is immediately adjacent to Bluff Creek. To facilitate the preservation of the natural resources on this property, the city proposed as part of Planning Case #2009-06 the dedication of a conservation easement over the Primary Zone north of the proposed access road and east of the office building. Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 9 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc City Code specifies how the Primary Zone boundary is determined: Section 20-1555 (b) Boundaries; maps. The primary and secondary zones include land that is generally defined in this ordinance and in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. Boundaries as established by officially adopted city maps shall be prima facie evidence of the location and type of watershed zone. The official maps shall be developed and maintained by the planning department. The applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact watershed zone boundary. The community development director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated watershed zone boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied. Data for watershed zone delineation shall be generated and provided by a qualified professional specializing in watershed management, environmental science or other related profession. The applicant may appeal the community development director's determination of the watershed zone boundary and type to the city council. (Emphasis added) Per Sec. 20-1555 of the City Code, in order to make an accurate boundary determination for the Bluff Creek Overlay district, “the applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact watershed zone boundary.” While the applicant provided both a topographic survey and a tree survey, none of these materials sufficiently show that Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 10 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc the boundary should be amended. The topographic survey shows a number of areas on the site with slopes greater than 25%, and a review of the Web Soil Survey shows that highly erodible soils exist on site. These are key factors when considering areas for boundary revision as both can more easily result in drainage and erosion issues that would ultimately lead to Bluff Creek. In addition, the tree survey shows that many native, mature trees exist on the site, including red oak, bur oak, aspen, basswood, eastern red cedar, and elm. Along with the trees, there are grasses and prairie habitat in this area. This combination of native trees and grasses provides valuable habitat that serves to limit erosion, promote infiltration, and decrease runoff on that landscape that eventually leads to Bluff Creek. In their most recent submittal dated June 18, 2020, the applicant states that because the factors listed above (native trees, steep slopes, etc.) exist in other parts of the city that might be developable, that they also should be allowed to be developable. While it is true that these factors exist throughout Chanhassen, each time they are reviewed for proposed development, they should be evaluated and considered on an individual basis. This is especially true when within an environmentally sensitive corridor such as the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The area in appeal has a quality mix of native tree species including oaks, basswood, maples, aspen, elm and more. A tree survey was completed in 2019 and shows that the parcel contains a range of sizes and species indicating a healthy, regenerating native woodland. A number of large oaks exist on the parcel indicating a historically wooded environment. This significant stand of mature trees is the type of cover specifically intended for protection by the BCOD. The area is also separated by a natural topographic break from the adjacent property that received an adjustment of the BCOD line. The area currently within the boundary contains a steep knoll and adjacent low area that are naturally occurring topographic features of the site. Like the existing vegetation, these significant topographic features meet the criteria for inclusion within the overlay district and remain protected. In conclusion, given that the applicant did not provide sufficient data as to why this specific area should be excluded from the Bluff Creek Overlay District, staff recommends that the proposed boundary revisions should be denied. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirm staff’s Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary determination. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision 2. Development Review Application 3. Narrative 4. Existing Conditions Map 5. Hydric Rating Map 6. Letter to Tim Erhart dated February 5, 2020 regarding Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary 7. Email from Jerry Ruegemer to Bob Generous dated August 7, 2020 8. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Timothy A. & Dawne M. Erhart appealing staff’s determination of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2 – Planning Case #2020-13. On August 18, 2020, 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 appeal preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Office Use. 3. The legal description of the property is Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. 4. The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. 5. The Primary Zone boundary is located on the subject property. 6. The Primary Zone includes the forested area of the site and the wetlands contained therein. 7. The Bluff Creek Primary Zone does not only include land adjacent to Bluff Creek, but also all those areas within the Bluff Creek Watershed which drain to the creek and contain significant natural areas. 8. Boundaries as established by officially adopted city maps shall be prima facie evidence of the location and type of watershed zone. The official maps shall be developed and maintained by the planning department. 9. The applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact watershed zone boundary. 2 10. The community development director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated watershed zone boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied. 11. The information provided by the applicant does not show that the boundary should be amended. 12. The planning report #2020-13, dated August 18, 2020, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary appeal and affirms staff’s boundary determination. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments this 18th day of August, 2020. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steve Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\findings of fact and decision - appeal.doc Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES 5001 Bur Oak 25 Dead 5002 Bur Oak 38 Dead 5003 Red Oak 12 Biologically Damaged 5004 Colorado Spruce 10 5005 Colorado Spruce 11 5006 Colorado Spruce 10 5007 Colorado Spruce 11 5008 Colorado Spruce 13 5009 Colorado Spruce 10 5010 Colorado Spruce 11 5011 Colorado Spruce 10 5012 Colorado Spruce 10 5013 Colorado Spruce 10 5014 Colorado Spruce 12 Biologically Damaged 5015 Colorado Spruce 13 Biologically Damaged 5016 Colorado Spruce 10 5017 Colorado Spruce 11 5018 Colorado Spruce 10 5019 Colorado Spruce 12 5020 Colorado Spruce 10 5021 Colorado Spruce 10 5022 Eastern Red Cedar 12 5023 White Pine 17 5024 Red Pine 12 5025 Red Pine 13 5026 Red Pine 11 5027 Red Pine 13 5028 Colorado Spruce 10 Biologically Damaged 5029 Red Pine 11 Biologically Damaged 5030 Colorado Spruce 12 5031 American Elm 10 Physically Damaged 5032 Bur Oak 10 5033 Eastern Red Cedar 16 5034 Eastern Red Cedar 12 5035 Eastern Red Cedar 10 5036 Eastern Red Cedar 11 Biologically Damaged 5037 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5038 Colorado Spruce 10 5039 Colorado Spruce 11 5040 Colorado Spruce 10 5041 Colorado Spruce 12 5042 Boxelder 14 5043 Siberian Elm 20 5044 Siberian Elm 10 Dead 5045 Eastern Red Cedar 15 5046 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5047 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5048 Eastern Red Cedar 14 5049 Black Cherry 11 5050 Eastern Red Cedar 13 5051 American Elm 14 5052 Basswood 12 5053 Basswood 14 5054 Ironwood 15 5055 Basswood 15 5056 Basswood 16 5057 Hackberry 11 5058 Eastern Red Cedar 16 5059 Bur Oak 10 5060 Black Cherry 10 Dead 5061 Eastern Red Cedar 15 5062 Bur Oak 12 5063 Black Cherry 11 5064 Basswood 16 5065 Hackberry 12 5066 Basswood 13 5067 American Elm 14 Dead 5068 Basswood 36 5069 Bur Oak 32 5070 Basswood 12 5071 Basswood 13 5072 Basswood 10 5073 Basswood 13 5074 Red Oak 15 5075 Basswood 13 5076 American Elm 10 Dead 5077 Bur Oak 20 Dead 5078 American Elm 11 5079 Basswood 10 5080 Basswood 11 5081 Paper Birch 10 5082 Eastern Red Cedar 15 Biologically Damaged 5083 Eastern Red Cedar 16 Biologically Damaged 5084 Red Oak 12 5085 Paper Birch 10 5086 Basswood 10 5087 Ironwood 17 5088 Ironwood 10 5089 Ironwood 10 5090 Basswood 11 5091 Basswood 12 5092 Basswood 11 5093 Basswood 11 5094 Siberian Elm 10 5095 Bur Oak 30 5096 Bur Oak 32 5097 Bur Oak 24 5098 Bur Oak 30 5099 Basswood 11 5100 Basswood 10 5101 Basswood 11 5102 Eastern Red Cedar 11 Biologically Damaged 5103 Eastern Red Cedar 13 5104 Basswood 11 5105 Basswood 10 5106 Aspen 11 5107 Aspen 10 5108 Aspen 12 5109 Aspen 10 5110 Aspen 10 5111 Ash 10 5112 Bur Oak 18 5113 Black Cherry 10 5114 American Elm 10 5115 American Elm 10 5116 American Elm 12 5117 Bur Oak 33 Dead 5118 Bur Oak 44 5119 Yellow Birch 10 5120 Ash 10 5121 Aspen 10 5122 Aspen 12 5123 Aspen 12 5124 Aspen 12 5125 Aspen 10 5126 Aspen 10 5127 Aspen 11 5128 Aspen 10 5129 Eastern Red Cedar 10 5130 Aspen 10 5131 Aspen 12 5132 Aspen 10 5133 Aspen 10 5134 Aspen 12 5135 Aspen 12 5136 Aspen 11 5137 Aspen 10 5139 Aspen 10 5140 Eastern Red Cedar 9 5141 Red Oak 13 5142 Aspen 12 5143 American Elm 13 Dead 5144 Aspen 10 5145 Basswood 11 5146 Basswood 10 5147 Basswood 11 5148 Basswood 11 5149 Basswood 12 5150 Basswood 16 5151 Bur Oak 26 Dead 5152 Red Oak 11 5153 Red Oak 13 5154 Red Oak 12 5155 Bur Oak 23 5156 Sugar Maple 30 5157 Bur Oak 29 5158 Bur Oak 20 5159 Bur Oak 26 5160 Bur Oak 36 5161 Red Oak 11 5162 Bur Oak 26 5163 Bur Oak 39 5164 Bur Oak 20 5165 Bur Oak 25 5166 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5167 Bur Oak 32 Dead 5168 Red Oak 10 5169 Eastern Red Cedar 10 5170 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5171 Bur Oak 39 5172 Bur Oak 27 5173 Bur Oak 29 5174 Bur Oak 30 5175 Basswood 15 5176 Basswood 10 5177 Bur Oak 34 5178 Bur Oak 26 5179 Eastern Red Cedar 17 5180 Eastern Red Cedar 19 5181 Siberian Elm 16 5182 Eastern Red Cedar 17 5183 Bur Oak 30 5184 Bur Oak 26 5185 Bur Oak 29 5186 Bur Oak 30 5187 Bur Oak 24 5188 Bur Oak 31 5189 Bur Oak 32 5190 American Elm 12 Dead 5191 Basswood 16 5192 Bur Oak 40 5193 American Elm 10 Dead 5194 Bur Oak 28 5195 Black Cherry 11 5196 Bur Oak 30 5197 Bur Oak 28 5198 Sugar Maple 10 5199 Bur Oak 25 5200 American Elm 13 5201 Bur Oak 28 5202 Bur Oak 31 5203 Siberian Elm 12 5204 Red Oak 12 5205 Red Oak 13 5206 Hackberry 12 5207 Hackberry 12 5208 Bitternut Hickory 10 5209 Black Cherry 13 5210 American Elm 13 Dead 5211 Eastern Red Cedar 15 5212 Red Oak 14 5213 Red Oak 12 5214 Red Oak 12 5215 Red Oak 17 5216 White Pine 15 5217 Eastern Red Cedar 15 5218 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5219 Eastern Red Cedar 10 5220 Red Pine 11 5222 Red Pine 14 5223 Eastern Red Cedar 14 5224 Black Walnut 10 5225 Red Pine 15 5226 Black Cherry 10 5227 Black Cherry 10 5228 Black Cherry 10 5229 Black Walnut 13 5230 Basswood 10 5231 Bur Oak 24 5232 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5233 Red Oak 11 5234 Red Oak 11 5235 Bur Oak 28 5236 Eastern Red Cedar 19 Biologically Damaged 5237 Sugar Maple 10 5238 Eastern Red Cedar 13 Biologically Damaged 5239 Sugar Maple 15 5240 Bur Oak 32 5241 Ironwood 12 5242 Bur Oak 19 5243 Bur Oak 29 5244 Bur Oak 20 5245 Bur Oak 29 5246 American Elm 10 5247 Bur Oak 21 5248 Bur Oak 24 5249 Bur Oak 25 5250 Bur Oak 18 5251 Ironwood 10 5252 Ash 10 5253 Ash 10 Dead 5254 Bur Oak 32 5255 Aspen 14 5256 Aspen 15 5257 Aspen 14 5258 Aspen 12 5259 Aspen 15 5260 Bur Oak 32 5261 Bur Oak 30 5262 Bur Oak 26 Dead 5264 Bur Oak 31 5265 American Elm 13 5266 Ironwood 13 5267 Bur Oak 29 5268 Black Cherry 12 5269 Basswood 13 5270 Ironwood 10 5271 Bur Oak 23 5272 Bur Oak 20 5273 Bur Oak 14 5274 Bur Oak 36 5275 Eastern Red Cedar 10 Biologically Damaged 5276 Bur Oak 18 5277 Eastern Red Cedar 10 5278 Bur Oak 17 5279 Bur Oak 21 5280 Bur Oak 20 5281 Bur Oak 31 5282 Red Oak 10 5283 Bur Oak 26 5284 Bur Oak 27 5285 Bur Oak 29 5286 Bur Oak 23 Dead 5287 Bur Oak 12 5288 Bur Oak 26 5289 Bur Oak 27 5290 Bur Oak 16 5291 Bur Oak 24 5292 Bur Oak 21 5293 Bur Oak 61 5294 Eastern Red Cedar 10 Biologically Damaged 5295 Bur Oak 17 5296 Bur Oak 17 5297 Bur Oak 16 5298 Bur Oak 18 5299 Bur Oak 13 5300 Bur Oak 20 TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Carver County, Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/28/2019 Page 1 of 5496414049642104964280496435049644204964490496456049646304964700496414049642104964280496435049644204964490496456049646304964700456350456420456490456560456630456700456770 456350 456420 456490 456560 456630 456700 456770 44° 50' 4'' N 93° 33' 9'' W44° 50' 4'' N93° 32' 48'' W44° 49' 44'' N 93° 33' 9'' W44° 49' 44'' N 93° 32' 48'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 40 80 160 240 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,960 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Carver County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 13, 2018 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 12, 2010—Aug 2, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Carver County, Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/28/2019 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI GL Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 100 0.8 1.7% HM Hamel loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 90 10.2 22.1% KB Kilkenny-Lester loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 3.3 7.2% KB2 Lester-Kilkenny loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 0 2.5 5.3% KC Lester-Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0 7.2 15.6% KC2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded 5 4.0 8.7% KD2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 10 to 16 percent slopes, moderately eroded 5 3.6 7.9% KE2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 16 to 22 percent slopes 5 8.8 19.0% KF Lester-Kilkenny complex, 22 to 40 percent slopes 0 0.5 1.0% MK Muskego and Houghton soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes 100 3.3 7.2% TB Terril loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 8 2.0 4.2% Totals for Area of Interest 46.3 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Carver County, Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/28/2019 Page 3 of 5 Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Carver County, Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/28/2019 Page 4 of 5 Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Carver County, Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/28/2019 Page 5 of 5 CITY OT CHAI'IHASSXN Chanhassen is a Community for Life - providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow February 5, 2020 Mr. Tim Erhart 961 I Meadowlark Lane Chanhassen, MN 553 I 7-8695 Re: BluffCreek Primary Zone Boundary Dear Mr. Erhart I am writing to respond to your request to modifl the BluffCreek Overlay District primary zone boundary map as it relates to your property east ofPowers Boulevard (PID 251550022\. The city hired WSB to review your property to determine ifa primary zone boundary adjustment was appropriate. Based on their review ofthe information you supplied, City Code, applicant request, and city and Riley Purgatory BluffCreek Watershed District documents, and rules regarding the definition and determination for a bluffoverlay district and available GIS mapping and information, the consultant recommended that a small portion ofthe site be removed from the primary zone from the east side ofthe primary zone, but the westem boundary not be modified. (See attached Memorandum from WSB dated December 10, 2019.) This recommendation is consistent with the city's review dated May 19,2016 (attached). Ifyou do not agree with this interpretation, then you may appeal this decision to the Board ofAppeals and Adjusments pursuant to Section 20-29 ofthe Chanhassen City Code. A development review application and $ 100.00 appeal fee must be submifted for an appeal. Ifyou have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227 -1139 or kaanenson{7 c i.chanhassen.mn. us. Si v Kate AICP Community Development Director Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Bob Generous, Senior Planner Charlie Howley, City Engineer/Public Works Director Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator Andi Moffatt, WSB The city will implement the revision of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary removing the area shown in green and correcting the map to show the area shown in blue, which is within the subwatershed zone draining west ofthe ridge top, on the attached Map 3, Potential Exclusion Area. Enclosures PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227.1110 3lblro\bluff.re.k\.rlwt btdff cr..l primrry roo. r.tporE. btt.r:dod 77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I47. CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55JI7 E.*WSbo g:\pl.n\bluff creet\erhan bluff cr.€l primary lone response lett€r.door r It,d Ef *rr*r ErrnoE -acr- or.rE tr6 !euat"rl-cEtoctt 116 !a1r':sEr*ri-Bla-rrac- { u r ri, t$ ,, 4 -/7 E ;rr .)t) )I a / rEe i:r I t T 'l s ( iii I.p s - Potd t l Erotura.rn &!. t tn trEL Ct d Ch.rtEl. ir i WSb Memorandum To: Fron: Date: Re:Review of BCOD br Erhart Property \rtBB Project No. 15183-{D0 On behalf of the Gity of Chanhassen, please see the review and determination of the Erhart Property adiustment requesl as it pertains to the City's Blufi Creek Overlay District ordinance d. Foster the creation of a greenway conn€c{ing Lake Minnewashta Regional park and the Minnesota River Valley. The greenway will serve as an unintenupted pedestrian hail, bikeway system, and wildlib conidor afioding opporhrnities for recreation, education, physical fitness and nonmotorized transportation. Bob Generous, Cig of Chanhassen Oecember 10, 2019 =oo oz lrl @ = ! z =6 o o- u,z2 = UJF IUDz ul s2 u, Background lnformrtio0 The Citfs Blufi Creek Overlay Disfict (BCOD) was developed in March 1997 as the end product of the Blufi Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management plan. The purpo€e of the BCOD is to: Protecl the Blufi Creek Conirlor, weflands, bluffs, and significant stands of mature fees through the use of careful site design, probctive @venants, sensitive alignment and desbn of roadways and utilities, incorporation of natural batures, landscaping, techniques outlined in the cit/s surface mter management plan, and the praciices delineated in the civs surhce water managemer plan. b. Encourage a development patbm that allows peopb and nature to mix spanning multiple ecosystems. Development in the coridor should be ecologir=lly desened and built around natural featurE suct as fees, wethnds, and blufrs. SEnificant natural batures should impac-t devslopment ralher han development impac{ing significant nafural Eahlr€s. The natural qualilies of the conidor should be preserved to ensure suffcient habitat area br wildlib. c. Promote innovative developrn€nt tecfiniqu€s sudl as duster development and open space subdivisions to measurably reduce the arnount of impervious cover compared to traditional de\relopment practices resulting in s(rnificant portions of a site being retained as pemanent, protecied open spsce. a e ,. lmphment the polft:ies and recommenddions bund in the Blufr Creek Watershed Nafural Resources Management Plan. Encourage cost efiective site development. Op€n space design practices can reduce infrastructure engineering and construction costs because of lot configurations, shortened strBets, and reduced utility runs. Long term cost savings can also be realized by the City of Chanhassen associated with infrastructure maintenance costs. Kr015183& .ffiDoc.tr/Euo - 120a19 - BCOO R4i(!* Coiduadt .doc( tuidi Mofiatt, WSB lratt Unmac-ht, WSB December 10, 2019 Page 2 3. ThemapoftheBcoDiscurren0ymaintainedbythecityasa.Glslayer.Alandownerdeveloper, ;,ty ;t;;il"&", or offrer may present eviden-ce as.to why the boundary should be placed in a specifi; bcation. This argument must consider the following: l.Drainageboundaries-ifthesitedoesnotdrainintotheBluffCreekthenitshouldnotbe inciuOel in he BCOD. Drainage does not need to be a direc't connection but must simpty have a hydraulic nerus _ cuMert, ditch, overland, sheet llotv or other @nveyance. Existence of natiye communities - does the area have a unque or potected nafural ,"*rra"t"ta"t"stomeettheobiec{ivesoffreBlufrCreekNaturalResourc6 Management Plan?'-'-'a."-wenanos provide surface wdar dstention, watef quality, fiood abatement habitat and educdional opPorhinities O. Wooatanos provid absbaction and decreas€ runofi to Blufi Creek They limit- "noi* ""0'p.t*e infibaton whidl can bonefit bas€ iox's within the deek' They abo provue habitat and a€!fiGtic velue' c. Praiirle and meadow areas also prornote infilffiion thereby decreasing runofi'- td;, ;."i.", and llashiness within the ctannel and other beneffis sucfi as bse flor within Blufi Creek. Topography - are blufrs, sGep slop€s defned as areas with av-erage slopes exceeding ZS'pe-dnt, or o$er hnd mat'are iuscedible to erosion and mass soil movernent presenO 2 Findlngs Drainage boundaries: The City's subwabrshed mapping is attacfied in X'p {' This ;hil"tt-p",1i"" ort," pat"ir rt"t It within thG Blufi Creok vrdershed, Bc-As' 12 iru;".riii. it e topolraprry uased on LiDAR datBd 2012 h6 et o been reviewed and [-Jt,i" "" tr.p i. rfis-subv;tgrshcd appea]s b drain to l co .nstuded pond adjacent to Fowers Boulevard and then overllow t6 the south, wtri*r then b direc'ted under a curveri unoer ure rcao b ur€st. Ther€fore, th€re is a hydrologic connection to Blufi creek. i;;;;;;ih". t a srnal .edion within 6,€ BCOD th;t does not drain to Blufi Creek and 166r"i O.iinjto ne east to Lake Rilsy, and is within the Riley Creek Subqratershed. This small area that drains east is highlighted on th€ f.P 3' The findings br the drainage boundary-a]e thet the P9OP and the portion of.this parcel n&J in Ol ACOO do€s dAin to Btuftoro€k, except br the small erea that drains to Lake Riley. Thb area could be removed from the BCOD' Native communitbs:---'". -w"una": Based on National Wotlind lnventory, city mapdng' and aif .plgtog'- t "r" i.i r.rg" wefland on the east of the efea in quGtion within the PlD, but ttra ls not w#rin tre Blufi Cre€k drainage area' There appeas to be a storm . ffid ulat;;-a*at"d imrnadiately a-diacent to Porcrs Boulevard - this area b h& consltered yr€[anO. There Oo-not Lppsar to be any other wetlands within the abr Creek suhmte|Ehed within Orb piriet. Aas€d on $is infomatbn' here do naappeartoUeweUandswithinslbper6l'ssubu'atershedthatprovUebenefit to Blui Cteek, so this land cover is not apPlicable' 1 2 K\015183{00\AdminEocs\tulEMo-'l2O41S-BCODReviewConclusionsdocx December 10, 2019 Page 3 b. Woodlands: Air photos show various areas of wooded areas or scattered trees. The landowner provided a tee inventory dabd August 2, 2019. Based on the hee inventory within the existing blufr overhy disfbt there are difiering tree specbs within the parcel. Th6e trees primarily include red oak, bur oak, aspen, basswood, easEm r6d cedar, and elm. Thes€ are native species to Minnesota. Based on the inbrmation proviled in the tee survey, it appears there is suffcient native rvoodlands that would provide valuable habitrat wilhin the Blufi Creek watershed. c. Grasslands: Ba6€d on a review of aerbl phob6, there arc grasslands in the BCOD arBa. These areas promote infiltration and reduce runofi creating benefits within the BCOD. The findings fur the presenoe d native mmmunitbs are that the area within Ore BCOD does contain native woodhnd phnt communiti€s, as well as grassland areas hat provide ben€fits to fl€ BCOD. 3. Topography: The ordinance states that slopes exceeding 25 percent shall be preseNed in a nafural state. map 2 shows arEas that have slopes greater than 25olo Addibonally, soils that are erosive in nature should be consirered. rp 4 shou6 the soils categorized based on their erodibility. There are erodible soils and steep slopes within the BCOD area within the parcel. Scils infumation uas also reviersd from the County Soil Surwy. Th€ soils wihin the exbting BCOD are a8 bllow5: . HM - Hamel Loam. KB - Kilkenny-L€sbr loems The findings regarding topography and eoils show that there are highly erodible or pobntially highly erodible soils and sGep slopes within the BCOD area wihin the parcel. Protecning and defining tfi6e areas wihin the BCOD b appropriate per the BCOD ordinance. Goncluslona The property in questbn was revieryed wih respect to tle above criterie. The PID contains a numb€r areas that uould qualiry it to b€ indud€d in the Blufi Creek Overlay Disfict. The majority of the aree in question drains to Blufi Cre€k. Of th€se ar€as, the majodty contain ether excessively steep slopes, erodible soils, or u/oodland or grasshnd habitat. There is one small area that is within the parcel but not within the Bluff Creek Suhratershed, and topography shows this area would not drain to Blufi Creek. As su€fi, thb area can be consUered for exclusion ftom the BCOD. The remaining areas appear to qualify to remain in the BCOD. lf you have any questions, please call fiE al76!287-7196 or email me al amo fat@ 6beno.corn. K1015183-000\Admin\Docs\t\rEMO - 12U19 - BCOD Review Conclusions.docx tapl -PrclectLocatlon E{h.ft PmPCttY Clty dCh.nhet, tlt{ t N A 0I 1 ind /IRflOA/ [M8,00 [ffifl [na8p trlG-,l&C2 BSflA{@il60ts+83 B0c"\a00 &M&3B&tua!{ [Rfl84 -Z L-.utdgffi&€rB @dE@ &*tuftrd&B@4ei8 &130 B@45,(7 @.AA{0 BCd5.{3 m46,{5 ftinEastEs E@4e{84 //,,l _//ru I % a3 I \ @ \ ,//,'# -@ @ @ 856 I' @@ @ e8c €@.--,----- ) €FT , 7/ -@- ,.@ @ 8S EBBS ID ) .c9d \"*- - \,'-@ --€@ n 7/ Z @sBm l I a j a,'r;l @r ,/---=-J --- - \l'----: t.-. - ', ) . EP d3.H'/p \t/ / @ I I "(9.-. i. I BBB / ili ,,i 1 {V===_-_-tl ----=----,--------- Z \ti \ll @ llt>I [nilg{ ) "o g"" Z %,ri 928, str' il't a' eo" $s6 A. i. 89?, a-:, I sp 886 ,2,./t , /:ni/ \\\\F"* @ sN@ @ q @ @ @ ,7-- 856 % @ '2 ..f,O w --r-{I €03@ SEBE z II @ '/ :.= ',;i'$1Y I tl @ 67 I7/ lt- ,-- May 19, 2016 Mr. Tim Erhart RE: Bluff Creek Overlay District Dear Mr. Earhart, This letter is meant to be illustrative of the purpose and delineation of the Bluff creek overlay District' especially as it pertains to your property located east of Powers Boulevard and north of Pioneer Trail' The Bluff creek overlay District first came into existence in March of 1997 as the end product of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. The plan identified five primary goals and these goals were further resolved based upon a variety of factors' They are as follows: 1. protection, restoration and enhancement of natural resources. This goal sought to divide the watershed into regions and set management goals and techniques for these regions to protect habitat and water quality. 2. Acquire and develop a continuous greenway corridor for aesthetics, recreation, water quality protection and wildlife habitat preservation' 3. Minimize and/or avoid the impacts of development pressures' 4. Provide educational opportunities for all ages' 5. Development of a Natural Resources Management Plan that spans multiple jurisdictions' These realizations were supported and/or expounded upon in the 1997 Bluff Creek Corridor Feasibility study and then again in the 2oo9 Bluff creek TMDL BioloSical stressor ldentification Report, the 2013 Bluff creek watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Report: Turbidity and Fish Bioassessment lmpairments and lmplementation Plan. Allthese reports supported the basic underlying premise that the cause for the degradation of Bluff creek is the urbanization of the contributing watershed and subsequent alterations to the flow regime. The last identified The map currently maintained by the city as a Gls layer as well as contained within the Bluff creek Natural Resources Management Plan is prima facie evidence but is not considered the definitive boundary.Alandowner,developer,cityrepresentativeorothermaypresentevidenceastowhythe boundary should be placed in a specific location. This arSument must consider the following: 1. Drainage boundaries. lf the site does not drain into the Bluff creek than it should not be included in the BcoD. Drainage does not need to be a direct connection but must simply have a hydraulic nexus - culvert, ditch, overland sheet flow or other conveyance' 2. Existence of native communities. Does the area have a unique or protected natural resource that serves to meet the objectives of the Bluff creek Natural Resources Management Plan? a.Wetlandsprovidesurfacewaterdetention,waterquality,floodabatement,habitatand educational oPPortunities. b. Woodlands provide abstraction and decrease runoff to BluffCreek. They limit erosion and promote infiltration which can benefit base flows within the creek' They also provide habitat and aesthetic value' c. Prairie and meadow areas also promote infiltration thereby decreasing runoff, scour, erosion, flashiness within the channel and other benefits such as base flow within Bluff Creek. 3. Topography. Are bluffs, steep slopes or other land that are susceptible to erosion and mass soil movement present? 4. Connectivity. Will this site serve continuation of the green corridor, a trail corridor or other recreational or educational purpose? With the original 1996 plan, the BCOD was approximately as show in red in Figure 1. The shaded green shows the current BCOD per the proposed Fairview limits. These boundaries are overlaid upon the 1991 aerial photoSraph showing the conditions that existed at the time the BcoD was created. Figure 7. Site conditions io 1997 with cufient BCOD oreo in green, oiginalwestem limit oI BCOD in red ond proposed boundory lrom Westwood exhibit in yellow. Figure 2. Site conditions in 2014 with curreot BCOD oreo in gteen, originol westem limit ol BCOD in red ond prcWed boundory lrom westwood exhibit in yellow. Given the criteria set forth for establishing the boundary, I do not see the justification for moving the western boundary as shown. A i'\Si flID [ir.9, / J -t7 s\d \J \c -qd ,L. oJ ,o I t lht+zl,,r- 4c e1r o -)"'f F\ c,ll ItrI/'o 2 '*,..J arvi tcFl) City of Ghanhassen 4 o i t Bluff Creek Overlay District I ol C3 Pdmary Corrtoor I so' eurer secondary corddor rr,- Bluff cre6k f,, g,..rr# { \u, 4 February 27 ,2012 (cB Oqt rr+rg -_Jl)LiL,()! - r__-__-____--tF11rE +l--{- Lffi --trt-r ==r+ffiI UL-I LIE-' I t ,g EsdI iPaiIo ru t a "*- ?FAIRVIEW M ED ICAL CENTER REVIEED BCOD 20O8 AERIAL 7 i ffi ',\ --tt^r o . .":- J- '9'_ r r, -#:..,-,OA'18 Ll i I I t: I '-*t"- " 'b=tr ) 'l i & \ .2.- 1 F.{.tq#*t F \ J If;E +r L *.*I Approximate Area of Conservatlorr Easement grJ sld lv,.tlrft ) I dfirr? A aittER:luT t*\lrl,.tt',\ F! ,gL* \ -.tllt Aa i {-lE f IITJt i E I x ttl, 3J0 .J" Pt n A: Com.ct d Bhnftqqtycm,SLPbE Cr, d C!riel'. I{ ftlnt E E H-l !ItI z-- -x I l -/1 Preservcd Land a,/ l 7/ 7 qlail :':t " :.1 t N IITTITI --I-Ir-ll Minor Arteaial Mirlo Collec6. Sfeet Co.Yr€<tio.r Trdil Vr6Y Conidot N Mlnor Arta.ial Minoa Collector Prir.ata Stect T.all Yre Co.ridor ffi" Pb B: Conn cbdffi4dtu:.rrEfti Prqqly Ccr.?td Sft Hdrs A N IIIIIII -t----rr F$n 2 l N o 3d 60(y PlJl A: hd.parxhfit Eltt Prqrtc@tc Sr! PbsClrcri !,rffi III tI 4 : I tIIIE ,J tandPrer+rved t.-1\ { / IIt l" ,]f- 7 l A-- \ \ Zr f.r, t..Iv\. t' 1 - ?' I ! It tl Mirb. Arterhl Minc CdL<tor Privfie Sreet Trail vl6, Corrido. IIIIIII r-r----I Fei,l I Iz"*,-!9PGO() ru'E= o+rU I9,Q> IdoA,qt e.! mgfl6 tIEi'IiiiEUr!II,i : I 'I e t1 \ trl I r t!l r!\. _- .\:. 'ii:'. r- It t d :r:l r, f' I I) r, ll '; €l J-iJL l*I { I \ It v#. \ ) I it )J \-I i'i!l EIiIPooo y'E =; o, I,, .:YXLOOL5g3aeasE08> : Lo: o 9c'rriO *"z !; 59 tz"8TE ix ,i E! :! 5 $ a P II ts T <€ €EgE P 6 b,L \fr ..t .1 ( I ,,i I n --E:En POITEPS BLVO' -- -.t'-&' --'€:)t ST {z I t 7 : I I :a I -t a k_ .? \ ;i r :t \\ ::!"\ L L. i L 4 I7\ aE-. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 6,2020, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice of a Public hearing to consider a boundary appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District boundery determination made by a city administrative officer for property located at the southwest corner of Highw ay 212 end Powers Boulevard; Tnned Agriculture (A2)' Planning Case File No.2020-13 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 firlly prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Kim . Meuwissen, D eputy Subscribed and s m to befo nle (Seal) JEAII I'SIECKLING t{oaary Hflodl,h.to8da thisLff dayof ,2020 No tary Public 90#t Er.5a,z}2 ut Ae*' Subiect Area Otschl.|Er This map is neither a legally re@rded map no. a survey and is not intended to te used as one. This map is a compilation of records, informalion and data located in various city, county, gtate and federal ofices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be osed for reierence purF,oses only. The City does not warant that the Geographic lnlomatjon System (GlS) Data us€d to prepare this map are enor free, and the Cfty does not rcpresent thal the Gls Data can be used for navigational. tracking or any other purpose aequiring exactng measurement oI dBtance ol directlon or precrsiofl in the depiclion of geogEphic features. The p.eceding disdaimer is Povided pursuant to Minnesota StaMes y66.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the Crty shall not be liable for any alamages. and expressly waives all daims. and agaees to delbnd. indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and alldaims b.ought by User. its employees or agents, or third padies whidr adse out of the usefs acaess or use of data provided. Dilcbim€r This map is neither a legally €coded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one This map is a @mpilation of recods. inlormatiofl and data located in various city. county, state and federal ofrces and othea sources regarding the area shown. and is lo be used lor refeEnce puDoses only. The City does not wanant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare thas map are enor free, and the Cfty does not repres€nt that the Gls oata can be used for navigatronal. Itacling or any other pupose requ'ring exacting measu€menl oI clistance or direction or preosion in the deprction of gpographic Ieatures. The precedang dasdaamer is provided pu6uant to Minnesota StaMes 5{66.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map actnowledges hat the Crty shall not be liable for any alamaO6. and epressly waiv* all daams, and agrees to deiend, jndemnify, and hold harmless the city from any and all daims brought by User, its employees or agents, or thid partles which arise out of lhe usefs a@ess or use of data provrded. Subject Area \" .. d) x* = 4 I ll -+-scmo- I i I ,_. <TAX_NAMET ITAX_ADD_L1> tTAX_ADD_L2> (Next RecordxTAX_NAMET tTAX_ADD_L't r tTAX_ADD_L2r il hrl GGffiI u -v* r .$ = ' :.:.:a i ' , ,. ! B e f f ee g i8i P; Eis =Ea#iEE3E sEHE*f*E asEliflEgslrE ;it|E$if,EEEE gEiIE;*EpEEF c{d 65 qo) c!:Oooa,FE (E (l)oB NE, .oE or-5.=<bjso=E' O.ef(! ! .>dl o (! =ooF.F. u; o.) -o Eo-co oc:, o (E- (.) t, 0)c.'q! >iEE9I EEE-ofos8 g EETqi;7, bi5.Eo >EQ(!E-E {n.cE>.p6E.E .Y (E(!(I)-(l)oa i tl a, .CE IBId eai s 6SEiE EPO C f :(EEf;sE 3E O- at c,F oE<f t(s E ul Etr 2(D oio(L ! odN.9 FE ;= :o olicdl 6e>9 -u, Io9 66!g9oOl! oL 9"9tL< -(l,r-c€ -*p 6 i:e= -ge E E€ee I re Ec'=-- O--C -O tr':4P6, 9::6i IE E 3:P:gfi; -8, ; E-E; EE BE AEES:HE; EEHTn g*Ei ;=EAT EIEE iHEiE5l-E E Ee 3€ 3o =-c .= o0DFO(LE.r'- CDd ofEP6#;ni..i+ a; ID (! ,/;opcoo)o o) (, q, E dr; =6 TE (tr-ooo)E =a9lna'>cE 6.99o.ro >oo 63E 1tr;o E it€ iD O.Qqr5i>o!8E! oIBo.i F 66-.c6aa_ooaE; uJ .= izE, lEilEEilsEEsiisi EiiiEiiEgiEEiEEE x;eE3q:llE;E:EEiC ;EEE$EEi;iEgflfiEI t 6 d g 3 E ; 3 g o.g o. ? ,98-E; <o Eo t! oJ {, CI eo- 9 ii,o:9E F* -O!!.t =; 06 .,o9trEoo o=itEfogo o .EF 06 o llto o GooJ ::ooo EL eA Eg a,o =g 9r.o.:o EErE9oEo =tDo- .E oEo(!.98 OEz3 6G Eoso EDc oo =EEL(0(Ea6o=IEoE=o€ (.)dp OE EE6ize 6o !E .CEt! (, loE,g :a e.EEc 3E 6EbE: q9' ,!) Ete-e E 3e E'= dor9 *s€ E9.c.=S X c 6.Qo c 5 or To orv;Ec' = E25E EEaE :gEE €E [i E EEEna3:i ;;H 1s Ei;9sBEEE; EEEi-3=HEE4 +$etj =##5ie: lI, = (l)=tr5EEg-o.i..j+ 2l=- e * -IlE=eB*: E EI: E B= E:E = tl8 ;e.9 e EollE X; o 6(l aHii;EeEoElrl R c;t P I :EilEEEEE€ 9.6 Et',t e E EEEE,T*E =s83Cfi5EEE =., oNoN o ? E ootttt!E t! .l (, ]i 3 o) o -go- cic =o(l) E IIJs.. E6.P o)EP -69-o 39otI-c (., EOl,o- 9_a!:5h6ao =EO_= ='t E o E .9.i Jo For6g EOci: Oo9PF-€ OQodN! NE' -f asor- <bj-s(!= EC O)! .t! !2dl 0) o oOFt- U; o-o Eo.c oE:o oI a ErurE.Yo ciE-o=ooPo EEEqi;6 bi5 Eo >EQ (oo -E 6.99>. Po6'E -y (! E EaaIo oS EE E e:6 E.? EEEE tst E€i (B Ero*tD h tt)o o.:g E< oiD oF rszrN tsoE uJ Ei: oi -o a; :o cr4 N; '€!a c>bEOo oa 9o 6! 95 "!5< Y2&co c,..o9EEoo o=OEfooo o;o a; o =-J-o= '6 .gr €9 eP EE 8Eo,q oE *E62 PE l; E' U; o Go, ,/;o!q q)otG .E oo E oE =co G.q oc o) o !c(0 o Eo o .=o E o o. tn ;ul2 E a a d t , tu .EF c6 (l, t!6 o ll'(., oJ i; Gtto.Lo A ij ,o CIo o-> .9a4 o GooJ ioo.o o. o 6 I ii)o.= -sEIO E=EO =5 zzzzzJJJJJoo600J<<<<<EUJUJUJUJUJIFFFFF"tn th v1 t, u1 uJtlJ l.J LlJ El trJ>=>>>=oooooo!2o--II-o-{ .-r ,r -r -r .r .r!!r,!(oN@orN I Ft Fl .i d .'{ lY)(a r.t F.l !.1 i-.1 r-{ -l rYt rYl tn tn tn Lr1 -l -i ..{ H -{ Ch(o(o(o(o(og-1 (lt0909o9o909H 09 NFFt\F.ooiF. anm(tmdt3@mLa r.6 r,t Ln rn r: F.t U.!!nlJ)LaLn.nfl'J!|.n ZZ.Z.ZZ6qZ>>>=Ezf;Er - r - -s ul-.z2zzz4-zj rrJ r,u uJ ur u, ,.i = Lrlttt 0t tt tt tl\ - > A ^'t^ th t^ th ah = - tn =<<<<<a-'<-,zzzzz=<2.)<'< < < < < !2 4 <<f---I.(F-F(J(JU(J(JGi,U z GF Fl(n(oo_>111111 d a ;;;;; "*EUEEe>t= -tqlrtinLoLa<!9Ort!uJtrJuJuJrE/-a ^l ===>2==<Hooooo iga--I--,.O4lF{ Fl Fl Fi t-l 1/! - Fl)<U)(ONAOIGIIJ'lFl< rt .r d !i r-{ d) Crl (D F Fl F{ r.l !i Fl N (l) (rl i ai,* =u.Ja(E=. a =[-f8 ? >eQr3 ; r;i=u c, .o=lZi E f3E= -r H=i*Zd!2-o=d==d3;EEE:5iI<-d>sra<OI r=;gE=E;EooooOOo..r(oN@oroo6tNFr !-r r-r r-{ N (D (o oooooooooooooo(o(oLnr.{ !.{ F{ Fl r< N a! lJ1 -(O(O(O\O(OOO-lz ir t\ gr r.t1 (,t !n La Ln da.lNc.lNNN(!l\l RETAIL 1 INF/POND 7 4 1 56POWERS BLVDCLASSIFICATION ASSUMED: MANAGE 2 - CITY, MEDIUM RPBCWD BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: 20' MIN.,40' AVG., 80' MAX - RPBCWD 20' MIN. + 30' SBK - CITY WETLAND OR POND? APPEARS AREA MAY HAVE BEEN EXCAVATED IN 2011 OR 2012? TRAILHEAD PARKING 10 6 5 8 9 3 2 55 54 CLASS A OFFICE CLASS A OFFICE INF/POND INF/PO N D INF/PONDTRAIL TRAILCLASS A OFFICE POND LIFT STATION TRAIL TH 212 RAMP ERHART PROPERTY CHANHASSEN, MN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject Review of Claims Paid 09­14­2020 Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: K.1. Prepared By Greg Sticha, Finance Director File No:  SUMMARY The following claims are submitted for review on September 14, 2020: Check Numbers Amounts 173800 – 173992 $1,926,326.23 ACH Payments $896,066.56 Total All Claims $2,822,392.79 ATTACHMENTS: Check Summary Check Summary ACH Check Detail Check Detail ACH Accounts Payable User: Printed: dwashburn 9/4/2020 12:04 PM Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount ABCCLE ABC Cleaning, LLC 08/20/2020 0.00 90.00173800 UB*01994 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 08/20/2020 0.00 8.56173801 UB*01995 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 08/20/2020 0.00 48.14173802 UB*02009 CHAD & LAUREN ANDERSON 08/20/2020 0.00 9.99173803 ASPMIL ASPEN MILLS 08/20/2020 0.00 566.24173804 BORSTA BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 08/20/2020 0.00 205.78173805 UB*01996 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 0.00 135.96173806 UB*02002 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 0.00 161.51173807 UB*02003 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 0.00 136.49173808 CJoLan C. Johnson Landscape Design Group 08/20/2020 0.00 500.00173809 CEMPRO CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 08/20/2020 0.00 448.50173810 CENENE CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/20/2020 0.00 182.69173811 ConBui Contemporary Builders Inc 08/20/2020 0.00 250.00173812 CoyBar Barbara & Michael Coyle 08/20/2020 0.00 250.00173813 DECKBASE Deck and Basement Co 08/20/2020 0.00 250.00173814 DEMCON DEM-CON LANDFILL 08/20/2020 0.00 896.81173815 UB*02016 PAVEL DOBINDA 08/20/2020 0.00 54.38173816 DUPCON DUPONT CONSTRUCTION 08/20/2020 0.00 250.00173817 EasCar Eastern Carver County School 08/20/2020 0.00 45.00173818 UB*02007 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 08/20/2020 0.00 20.49173819 EHLERS EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 08/20/2020 0.00 625.00173820 ENGCONS Engelsma Construction 08/20/2020 0.00 49,942.80173821 EPIEVE EPIC EVENT RENTAL 08/20/2020 0.00 204.50173822 UB*02000 EXCECUTIVE TITLE SERVICES 08/20/2020 0.00 8.39173823 ferwat Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 0.00 6,327.80173824 FlePri FleetPride, Inc.08/20/2020 0.00 138.37173825 FRAINC FRANEK INCORPORATED 08/20/2020 0.00 250.00173826 GarBui Gardner Builders Minneapolis, LLC 08/20/2020 0.00 38,804.00173827 gonhom GONYEA HOMES 08/20/2020 0.00 7,500.00173828 GosAll Allyn & Lauree Goshy 08/20/2020 0.00 250.00173829 GreDes Greenwood Design Build LLC 08/20/2020 0.00 750.00173830 UB*02015 GERALD & SHERRY HAGA 08/20/2020 0.00 12.45173831 UB*01997 JOHN HANSON 08/20/2020 0.00 26.34173832 HeaPar HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 0.00 65,823.16173833 IDCAUT IDC Automatic LLC 08/20/2020 0.00 6,782.00173834 ITPROTV ITProTV 08/20/2020 0.00 445.00173835 KarChe Karl Chevrolet, Inc 08/20/2020 0.00 24,767.44173836 KRABRO KRAUS BROS LANDSCAPING & REMODELING LLC08/20/2020 0.00 250.00173837 UB*02011 RONALD LAUDNER 08/20/2020 0.00 18.94173838 LawPro Lawson Products, Inc.08/20/2020 0.00 54.85173839 LecBro Lecy Bros. Homes 08/20/2020 0.00 250.00173840 UB*02005 LEGACY TITLE 08/20/2020 0.00 51.61173841 UB*02008 JOHN & VALERIE MCCAIN 08/20/2020 0.00 18.02173842 MILWIN Milbank Winwater Works 08/20/2020 0.00 1,379.36173843 MNHEAL MN DEPT OF HEALTH 08/20/2020 0.00 20,642.00173844 MolMai Molly Maid of Chanhassen 08/20/2020 0.00 700.00173845 MTIDIS MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 08/20/2020 0.00 199.89173846 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (9/4/2020 12:04 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount PULTGROU Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 0.00 10,625.00173847 RivMech Riverside Mechanical Inc 08/20/2020 0.00 114.00173848 ROBAUT ROBERT'S AUTOMATIC 08/20/2020 0.00 279.18173849 RouJea Jeanne Rouch 08/20/2020 0.00 25.00173850 RudEnt Rudick Enterprises, Inc 08/20/2020 0.00 500.00173851 SHEWIL SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/20/2020 0.00 87.46173852 SOFHOU SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 08/20/2020 0.00 2,108.30173853 SoutDes SOUTHVIEW DESIGN INC 08/20/2020 0.00 924.15173854 SouRen Southwest Rental & Sales 08/20/2020 0.00 1,898.75173855 SOUSUB Southwest Suburban Publishing 08/20/2020 0.00 224.09173856 UB*02010 JUSTIN & KATHRYN STUEVE 08/20/2020 0.00 171.47173857 UB*02006 ERIC & HEATHER SUGARMAN 08/20/2020 0.00 32.70173858 TIMLAN TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC.08/20/2020 0.00 1,476.94173859 UB*01998 TITLE ONE INC 08/20/2020 0.00 67.72173860 UB*01999 TITLE ONE INC 08/20/2020 0.00 30.32173861 UB*02013 TITLE SPECIALIST INC 08/20/2020 0.00 17.11173862 triedeea DeeAnn Triethart 08/20/2020 0.00 19.88173863 UB*02004 TRUWEST LLC 08/20/2020 0.00 21.68173864 TWIHAR TWIN CITY HARDWARE 08/20/2020 0.00 33.81173865 VALRIC VALLEY-RICH CO INC 08/20/2020 0.00 4,353.00173866 WastMana Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/20/2020 0.00 332.07173867 UB*02001 WATERMARK TITLE 08/20/2020 0.00 142.99173868 UB*02014 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/20/2020 0.00 81.29173869 UB*02012 WEST TITLE LLC 08/20/2020 0.00 57.28173870 WINGRICH RICHARD WING 08/20/2020 0.00 100.00173871 ZAHPET ZAHL-PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE CO08/20/2020 0.00 950.25173872 CARLIC CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 08/20/2020 0.00 1,666.88173873 ACHEA AC & HEATING BY GEORGE 08/27/2020 0.00 362.00173926 AMEPUM American Pump Company 08/27/2020 0.00 248.02173927 AMETIR AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC 08/27/2020 0.00 1,191.16173928 ASPEQU Aspen Equipment 08/27/2020 0.00 320.00173929 ASPMIL ASPEN MILLS 08/27/2020 0.00 697.90173930 CenLin CenturyLink 08/27/2020 0.00 59.80173931 CORMAI CORE & MAIN LP 08/27/2020 0.00 113.00173932 CRYDIS CRYSTEEL DISTRIBUTING INC.08/27/2020 0.00 732.00173933 CucMar Margaret Cuccia 08/27/2020 0.00 1,500.00173934 DAYCON DAYCO CONCRETE COMPANY 08/27/2020 0.00 3,800.00173935 DefoDale Dalen Defoe 08/27/2020 0.00 100.00173936 DONSOD DON'S SOD SERVICE 08/27/2020 0.00 1,860.00173937 FLOTOT FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 08/27/2020 0.00 14.50173938 GorNic Nicki Gordon 08/27/2020 0.00 434.12173939 KatCon KAT Construction LLC 08/27/2020 0.00 8.00173940 LamSon Lametti & Sons Inc 08/27/2020 0.00 178,645.55173941 LeoDal Leo A Daly 08/27/2020 0.00 23,561.75173942 LubTec Lube Tech ESI 08/27/2020 0.00 67.00173943 MCKMED McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc 08/27/2020 0.00 24.62173944 MNTRAN MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 08/27/2020 0.00 1,078.44173945 MNPOL MN Pollution Control Agency 08/27/2020 0.00 9,600.00173946 MolMai Molly Maid of Chanhassen 08/27/2020 0.00 1,400.00173947 MOLTRU MOLNAU TRUCKING LLC 08/27/2020 0.00 58,793.59173948 POST POSTMASTER 08/27/2020 0.00 618.70173949 RAITRE RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 08/27/2020 0.00 16,130.40173950 RilPur Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District08/27/2020 0.00 300.00173951 RMBENV RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 08/27/2020 0.00 416.00173952 SCOUBARB BARBARA & DAVE SCOULER 08/27/2020 0.00 473.84173953 SEH SEH 08/27/2020 0.00 13,282.86173954 SHEWIL SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/27/2020 0.00 25.51173955 Page 2AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (9/4/2020 12:04 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount SIGNSO SIGNSOURCE 08/27/2020 0.00 1,325.50173956 SUBRAT SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 08/27/2020 0.00 1,383.00173957 TayEle Taylor Electric Company, LLC 08/27/2020 0.00 382.00173958 TFOFIN TFORCE FINAL MILE 08/27/2020 0.00 66.38173959 ALLSTR ALLSTREAM 09/03/2020 0.00 490.84173960 ARAMAR ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 09/03/2020 0.00 575.42173961 IgoArk Igor Arkhipenkov 09/03/2020 0.00 250.00173962 ASPMIL ASPEN MILLS 09/03/2020 0.00 964.89173963 BarGar Gary Barrett 09/03/2020 0.00 250.00173964 BCATRA BCA 09/03/2020 0.00 60.00173965 CLACCO CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 09/03/2020 0.00 96.20173966 DreJam James Dressen 09/03/2020 0.00 100.00173967 DupCons Dupont Construction 09/03/2020 0.00 250.00173968 MorEri Eric Mortenson Construction Inc 09/03/2020 0.00 250.00173969 ferwat Ferguson Waterworks #2518 09/03/2020 0.00 2,263.80173970 FreJak Jake Freeland 09/03/2020 0.00 286.00173971 gonhom GONYEA HOMES 09/03/2020 0.00 13,550.00173972 josroy Joseph Roy Construction 09/03/2020 0.00 250.00173973 KENGRA KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 09/03/2020 0.00 5,708.69173974 KODCUS KODIAK CUSTOM LETTERING 09/03/2020 0.00 308.00173975 LasSte Stephanie Lasley 09/03/2020 0.00 125.00173976 LECCON LECY BROS CONSTRUCTION INC 09/03/2020 0.00 1,500.00173977 NguLon Long Nguyen & Liz Pham 09/03/2020 0.00 250.00173978 METHOM Metropolitan Homes LLC 09/03/2020 0.00 250.00173979 MNHEAL MN DEPT OF HEALTH 09/03/2020 0.00 150.00173980 MNTRAN MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 09/03/2020 0.00 4,646.88173981 NexSta NextStage 09/03/2020 0.00 6,820.00173982 NOVSOL NOVEL SOLAR THREE, LLC 09/03/2020 0.00 12,234.57173983 PetLee Lee Peterson 09/03/2020 0.00 250.00173984 RajSan Santosh Rajuri 09/03/2020 0.00 250.00173985 RMBENV RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 09/03/2020 0.00 104.00173986 RynDaw Dawn & Eric Rynders 09/03/2020 0.00 250.00173987 SHEWIL SHERWIN WILLIAMS 09/03/2020 0.00 7.79173988 SMHEN SM HENTGES & SONS 09/03/2020 0.00 1,293,679.66173989 TayEle Taylor Electric Company, LLC 09/03/2020 0.00 2,200.00173990 TFOFIN TFORCE FINAL MILE 09/03/2020 0.00 61.04173991 UnitRent United Rentals (North America), Inc.09/03/2020 0.00 1,804.03173992 Report Total (141 checks): 1,926,326.23 0.00 Page 3AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (9/4/2020 12:04 PM) Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Summary by Check User: dwashburn Printed: 9/4/2020 12:05 PM Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH z-a1acr A1 Acrylics Inc 07/16/2020 0.00 838.35 ACH z-act1ta Act 1 Talent 07/16/2020 0.00 -4,144.00 ACH Z-Amazon Amazon 07/16/2020 0.00 5,103.01 ACH Z-Apple Apple.com 07/16/2020 0.00 1.98 ACH z-artwor Artworks Art and Frame 07/16/2020 0.00 219.54 ACH Z-BatPlu Batteries Plus 07/16/2020 0.00 75.24 ACH z-bird Bird RF online Store 07/16/2020 0.00 232.70 ACH Z-BrePoi Breezy Point Resort 07/16/2020 0.00 182.00 ACH z-corfee Corporate Card Annual Fee 07/16/2020 0.00 48.00 ACH Z-CubFoo Cub Foods 07/16/2020 0.00 280.53 ACH z-delfir Del Fire Store 07/16/2020 0.00 151.75 ACH z-deppho Depositphotos Inc. 07/16/2020 0.00 321.05 ACH z-dissch Discount School 07/16/2020 0.00 69.65 ACH z-doltre Dollar Tree Stores Inc 07/16/2020 0.00 25.13 ACH Z-firmar Fire Marshals Association of Minnesota 07/16/2020 0.00 40.00 ACH z-flefar Fleet Farm 07/16/2020 0.00 49.99 ACH z-fliLig Flight Light Inc 07/16/2020 0.00 698.28 ACH Z-GERTEN Gertens 07/16/2020 0.00 454.20 ACH z-gloequ GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 07/16/2020 0.00 2,318.91 ACH z-govpay GovPayNet 07/16/2020 0.00 46.00 ACH Z-HACCOM Hach Company 07/16/2020 0.00 158.17 ACH Z-HALCOM Hallock Company 07/16/2020 0.00 321.12 ACH z-hartco Hartman Companies Inc 07/16/2020 0.00 390.76 ACH Z-HOMDEP Home Depot 07/16/2020 0.00 422.26 ACH z-intcod International Code Council 07/16/2020 0.00 817.60 ACH Z-KWITRI Kwik Trip 07/16/2020 0.00 5.22 ACH z-lamcom Laminator.com 07/16/2020 0.00 186.62 ACH Z-MENARD Menards 07/16/2020 0.00 351.18 ACH z-HagMik Mike Hage Distinctive Concrete & Masonry 07/16/2020 0.00 1,050.00 ACH z-mybind MyBinding.com 07/16/2020 0.00 226.56 ACH Z-OffMax Office Max/Office Depot 07/16/2020 0.00 70.49 ACH z-parcit Party City 07/16/2020 0.00 8.56 ACH Z-Post Postmaster 07/16/2020 0.00 19.75 ACH z-potbel Potbelly Sandwich Shop 07/16/2020 0.00 109.84 ACH z-PriGlo PrintGlobe 07/16/2020 0.00 396.69 ACH Z-pubsur Public Surplus 07/16/2020 0.00 11.80 ACH Z-PUMALA PumpAlarm.com 07/16/2020 0.00 50.13 ACH Z-Shewil Sherwin-Williams 07/16/2020 0.00 56.27 ACH Z-Target Target 07/16/2020 0.00 101.52 ACH z-tatdis Tattersall Distilling 07/16/2020 0.00 180.00 ACH Z-TeaLab Team Lab 07/16/2020 0.00 647.00 ACH Z-THEGAR The Garden By The Woods 07/16/2020 0.00 490.15 ACH z-TooHyd Tools & Hydraulics 07/16/2020 0.00 117.80 ACH Z-USreba US Bank Rebate 07/16/2020 0.00 -1,417.72 ACH z-WerEle Werner Electric 07/16/2020 0.00 406.57 ACH z-zinio Zinio 07/16/2020 0.00 19.99 ACH Z-zoom Zoom 07/16/2020 0.00 42.95 ACH ColFun Colliers Funding, LLC 08/19/2020 0.00 115,348.07 ACH 3DSPE 3D SPECIALTIES 08/20/2020 0.00 271.56 Page 1 of 3 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH ADAPES ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 08/20/2020 0.00 270.00 ACH AdvEng Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 08/20/2020 0.00 678.64 ACH CAMKNU CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/20/2020 0.00 16,914.19 ACH carcou Carver County 08/20/2020 1,666.88 0.00 ACH Choice Choice, Inc. 08/20/2020 0.00 181.83 ACH COMINT COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 08/20/2020 0.00 118.00 ACH LARSDALE DALE LARSEN 08/20/2020 0.00 189.57 ACH DAMFAR DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES 08/20/2020 0.00 1,255.25 ACH DelDen Delta Dental 08/20/2020 0.00 2,377.70 ACH DIAVOG DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS 08/20/2020 0.00 1,546.20 ACH EmeRes Emergency Response Solutions 08/20/2020 0.00 3,408.00 ACH FASCOM FASTENAL COMPANY 08/20/2020 0.00 447.99 ACH FORAME FORCE AMERICA INC 08/20/2020 0.00 181.46 ACH HOOPTHRE Hoops & Threads LLC 08/20/2020 0.00 144.00 ACH JEFFIR JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 08/20/2020 0.00 545.93 ACH MausKerr Kerry Maus 08/20/2020 0.00 281.25 ACH MACEQU MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 08/20/2020 0.00 90.73 ACH Marco Marco Inc 08/20/2020 0.00 106.92 ACH MatTri Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. 08/20/2020 0.00 152.46 ACH MilAut Milestone Auto Inc. 08/20/2020 0.00 220.00 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/20/2020 0.00 113.62 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/20/2020 0.00 134.31 ACH NYSPUB NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 08/20/2020 0.00 1,051.06 ACH PRALAW PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 08/20/2020 0.00 59.09 ACH PRARES PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 08/20/2020 0.00 925.00 ACH PreWat Premium Waters, Inc 08/20/2020 0.00 75.39 ACH PRTURF PRO TURF 08/20/2020 0.00 128.00 ACH PUMMET PUMP AND METER SERVICE INC 08/20/2020 0.00 71.44 ACH RBMSER RBM SERVICES INC 08/20/2020 0.00 7,304.47 ACH RDOEQU RDO EQUIPMENT CO 08/20/2020 0.00 359.83 ACH RICLAK RICE LAKE CONSTRUCTION GROUP 08/20/2020 0.00 69,396.92 ACH SPRPCS SPRINT PCS 08/20/2020 0.00 103.44 ACH STRGUA STRATOGUARD LLC 08/20/2020 0.00 176.00 ACH MINCON SUMMIT COMPANIES 08/20/2020 0.00 60.00 ACH USABLU USA BLUE BOOK 08/20/2020 0.00 966.45 ACH VIKIND VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 08/20/2020 0.00 48.33 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/20/2020 0.00 614.22 ACH WSB WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 08/20/2020 69,396.92 0.00 ACH WWGRA WW GRAINGER INC 08/20/2020 0.00 135.30 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 08/20/2020 0.00 12,626.48 ACH A1ELE A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 08/27/2020 0.00 638.41 ACH ALEAIR ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC 08/27/2020 0.00 155.00 ACH AFLAC American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 08/27/2020 0.00 39.78 ACH LANZBOB BOB LANZI 08/27/2020 0.00 204.00 ACH BOLMEN BOLTON & MENK INC 08/27/2020 0.00 2,179.00 ACH BRAINT BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 08/27/2020 0.00 2,624.00 ACH carcou Carver County 08/27/2020 0.00 250.00 ACH PedrChri Christine Lea Pedretti 08/27/2020 0.00 299.00 ACH COLELE Collins Electrical Construction Co 08/27/2020 0.00 521.68 ACH ELEPUM ELECTRIC PUMP INC 08/27/2020 0.00 1,522.40 ACH EmeRes Emergency Response Solutions 08/27/2020 0.00 259.49 ACH Avesis Fidelity Security Life 08/27/2020 0.00 202.14 ACH HAWCHE HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/27/2020 0.00 4,534.84 ACH HeaStr Health Strategies 08/27/2020 0.00 6,489.00 ACH KATFUE KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 08/27/2020 0.00 12,274.77 ACH KIMHOR KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 08/27/2020 0.00 108,070.84 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/27/2020 0.00 95.96 ACH PEABRO PEARSON BROTHERS INC 08/27/2020 0.00 119,456.22 ACH UNIWAY UNITED WAY 08/27/2020 0.00 30.40 Page 2 of 3 Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH VIKIND VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 08/27/2020 0.00 119.88 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/27/2020 0.00 1,251.05 ACH WSB WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 08/27/2020 0.00 6,760.20 ACH WWGRA WW GRAINGER INC 08/27/2020 0.00 1,405.14 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 0.00 10,579.80 ACH CarCDA Carver County CDA 09/03/2020 0.00 200,000.00 ACH COLELE Collins Electrical Construction Co 09/03/2020 0.00 158.08 ACH ColLif Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 09/03/2020 0.00 99.16 ACH CRYINF Crystal Infosystems LLC 09/03/2020 0.00 1,585.89 ACH EmeRes Emergency Response Solutions 09/03/2020 0.00 28.14 ACH GOPSTA GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 09/03/2020 0.00 843.75 ACH IMPPOR IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 09/03/2020 0.00 4,661.00 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 09/03/2020 0.00 332.29 ACH KIMHOR KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 0.00 146,124.41 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 09/03/2020 0.00 9.80 ACH OREAUT O'Reilly Automotive Inc 09/03/2020 0.00 86.09 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 09/03/2020 0.00 358.32 ACH WSB WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 0.00 10,261.00 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 0.00 222.94 Report Total: 71,063.80 896,066.56 Page 3 of 3 Accounts Payable Check Detail-Checks User: dwashburn Printed: 09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM Name Check Da Account Description Amount ABC Cleaning, LLC 08/20/2020 101-1170-4350 Carpet Cleaning 90.00 ABC Cleaning, LLC 90.00 AC & HEATING BY GEORGE 08/27/2020 700-0000-4530 Service 362.00 AC & HEATING BY GEORGE 362.00 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.43 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.41 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.60 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.12 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 10.16 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 22.56 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.92 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.50 ALL AMERICAN TITLE 56.70 ALLSTREAM 09/03/2020 101-1160-4300 Mitel Phone System Maintenance 490.84 ALLSTREAM 490.84 American Pump Company 08/27/2020 101-1320-4120 Parts 248.02 American Pump Company 248.02 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC 08/27/2020 700-0000-4140 Tires 369.24 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC 08/27/2020 101-1550-4120 Tires 821.92 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS INC 1,191.16 ANDERSON CHAD & LAUREN 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.06 ANDERSON CHAD & LAUREN 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.36 ANDERSON CHAD & LAUREN 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.99 ANDERSON CHAD & LAUREN 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.58 ANDERSON CHAD & LAUREN 9.99 ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 09/03/2020 101-1170-4110 Office Supplies 575.42 ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 575.42 Arkhipenkov Igor 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 Erosion Control Refund - 6340 Trap Line Circle 250.00 Arkhipenkov Igor 250.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 1 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount Aspen Equipment 08/27/2020 101-1550-4120 Headlight Kit 320.00 Aspen Equipment 320.00 ASPEN MILLS 08/20/2020 101-1220-4240 Uniforms - Fire Department 566.24 ASPEN MILLS 09/03/2020 101-1220-4240 Clothing for Assistant Fire Chief 616.69 ASPEN MILLS 09/03/2020 101-1220-4240 Clothing for Assistant Fire Chief 188.25 ASPEN MILLS 09/03/2020 101-1220-4240 Clothing for Assistant Fire Chief 159.95 ASPEN MILLS 08/27/2020 101-1220-4240 Badges 192.70 ASPEN MILLS 08/27/2020 101-1220-4240 Badges 157.70 ASPEN MILLS 08/27/2020 101-1220-4240 Uniforms 347.50 ASPEN MILLS 2,229.03 Barrett Gary 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 Erosion Control - 2020 Edgewood Court 250.00 Barrett Gary 250.00 BCA 09/03/2020 101-1120-4300 Criminal Background Investigation 60.00 BCA 60.00 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 08/20/2020 101-1170-4510 Supplies 52.18 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 08/20/2020 700-0000-4530 Materials 153.60 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 205.78 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 41.12 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 71.22 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 19.78 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.84 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 47.55 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 84.96 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 24.29 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.71 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 58.58 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 14.00 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.72 BURNET TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 61.19 BURNET TITLE 433.96 C. Johnson Landscape Design Group 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 429 Pleasant View Rd - Permit 2020-01039 500.00 C. Johnson Landscape Design Group 500.00 CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 08/20/2020 400-4120-4704 #161 License and Registration 1,666.88 CARVER COUNTY LICENSE CENTER 1,666.88 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 08/20/2020 701-0000-4553 Materials 448.50 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 448.50 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/20/2020 101-1220-4320 Monthly Service 93.07 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/20/2020 101-1530-4320 Monthly Service 29.56 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 2 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/20/2020 101-1171-4320 Monthly Service 17.06 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 08/20/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 43.00 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 182.69 CenturyLink 08/27/2020 700-7043-4310 Monthly Service 59.80 CenturyLink 59.80 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 09/03/2020 101-1320-4240 Safety Equipment 96.20 CLASS C COMPONENTS INC 96.20 Contemporary Builders Inc 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 6484 Murray Hill Road - Permit #2020-00914 250.00 Contemporary Builders Inc 250.00 CORE & MAIN LP 08/27/2020 700-0000-4550 Parts 113.00 CORE & MAIN LP 113.00 Coyle Barbara & Michael 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 757 Carver Beach Road 250.00 Coyle Barbara & Michael 250.00 CRYSTEEL DISTRIBUTING INC.08/27/2020 400-4120-4704 Equipment 732.00 CRYSTEEL DISTRIBUTING INC. 732.00 Cuccia Margaret 08/27/2020 815-8202-2024 6740 Golden Ct - Erosion Escrow 1,500.00 Cuccia Margaret 1,500.00 DAYCO CONCRETE COMPANY 08/27/2020 700-0000-4552 Materials 3,800.00 DAYCO CONCRETE COMPANY 3,800.00 Deck and Basement Co 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 7253 Rogers Court - Permit # 2020-01645 250.00 Deck and Basement Co 250.00 Defoe Dalen 08/27/2020 720-7204-4901 Waterwise Rebate 100.00 Defoe Dalen 100.00 DEM-CON LANDFILL 08/20/2020 101-1320-4150 Waste Disposal 896.81 DEM-CON LANDFILL 896.81 DOBINDA PAVEL 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 23.62 DOBINDA PAVEL 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 27.16 DOBINDA PAVEL 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.11 DOBINDA PAVEL 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.49 DOBINDA PAVEL 54.38 DON'S SOD SERVICE 08/27/2020 101-1550-4300 Sod 1,860.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 3 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount DON'S SOD SERVICE 1,860.00 Dressen James 09/03/2020 720-7204-4901 Waterwise Rebate 100.00 Dressen James 100.00 DUPONT CONSTRUCTION 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 8860 Reflections Rd 250.00 Dupont Construction 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 295 Preserve Court - Permit 2020-01786 250.00 Dupont Construction 500.00 Eastern Carver County School 08/20/2020 101-1541-3634 Picnic Refund 41.91 Eastern Carver County School 08/20/2020 101-0000-2021 Picnic Refund 3.09 Eastern Carver County School 45.00 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.38 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.12 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.41 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.58 EDGEWATER TITLE GROUP 20.49 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 08/20/2020 480-0000-4300 TIF Reporting 625.00 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 625.00 Engelsma Construction 08/20/2020 400-4003-4706 Fire station improvements 49,942.80 Engelsma Construction 49,942.80 EPIC EVENT RENTAL 08/20/2020 101-1600-4130 Rental Equipment 204.50 EPIC EVENT RENTAL 204.50 Eric Mortenson Construction Inc 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 6820 Ruby Lane - Permit 2020-01768 250.00 Eric Mortenson Construction Inc 250.00 EXCECUTIVE TITLE SERVICES 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.78 EXCECUTIVE TITLE SERVICES 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.46 EXCECUTIVE TITLE SERVICES 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.47 EXCECUTIVE TITLE SERVICES 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.68 EXCECUTIVE TITLE SERVICES 8.39 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-0000-4250 Water Meters 4,920.00 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-0000-4250 Water Meters 4,934.49 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-7055-4705 Water Meters 8,445.60 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-0000-4150 Materials 370.32 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-0000-4550 Materials 73.96 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-0000-4550 Materials 115.12 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-0000-4250 Water Meters 3,400.39 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-0000-4250 Water Meters 8,910.00 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-0000-4250 Water Meters -39,716.00 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-0000-4250 Water Meters 14,685.02 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 4 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount Ferguson Waterworks #2518 08/20/2020 700-0000-4120 Parts 188.90 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 09/03/2020 700-0000-4250 Belt Clip Transceiver 2,263.80 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 8,591.60 FleetPride, Inc.08/20/2020 101-1370-4170 Fluid 138.37 FleetPride, Inc. 138.37 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 08/27/2020 101-1170-4530 Key by Code 14.50 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 14.50 FRANEK INCORPORATED 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 2122 Boulder Road - Permit #2020-01378 250.00 FRANEK INCORPORATED 250.00 Freeland Jake 09/03/2020 101-1560-4300 Class 286.00 Freeland Jake 286.00 Gardner Builders Minneapolis, LLC 08/20/2020 400-4148-4706 City Hall Improvements 33,258.55 Gardner Builders Minneapolis, LLC 08/20/2020 400-4148-4706 Project 20-1086 - Admin improvements 3,795.00 Gardner Builders Minneapolis, LLC 08/20/2020 400-4148-4706 Project 20-1086 - Admin improvements 1,750.45 Gardner Builders Minneapolis, LLC 38,804.00 GONYEA HOMES 08/20/2020 815-8226-2024 9325 Eagle Ridge Road - Permit # 20196-01015 2,500.00 GONYEA HOMES 08/20/2020 815-8226-2024 7550 Fawn Hill Road - Permit #2018-00263 2,500.00 GONYEA HOMES 08/20/2020 815-8226-2024 9215 Eagle Ridge Road - Permit # 2019-02918 2,500.00 GONYEA HOMES 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 9220 Eagle Ridge Road 2,500.00 GONYEA HOMES 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 9317 Hawkcrest Court - Permit 2018-02463 3,100.00 GONYEA HOMES 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 9315 Eagle Ridge Road - Permit 2019-00426 2,250.00 GONYEA HOMES 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 9180 Eagle Court - Permit 2018-02880 2,500.00 GONYEA HOMES 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 7575 Fawn Hill Road - Permit #2018-00300 3,200.00 GONYEA HOMES 21,050.00 Gordon Nicki 08/27/2020 601-6043-4751 Minnewashta Parkway 434.12 Gordon Nicki 434.12 Goshy Allyn & Lauree 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 680 Sierra Trail - Permit 2020-01000 250.00 Goshy Allyn & Lauree 250.00 Greenwood Design Build LLC 08/20/2020 815-8201-2024 7050 Redman Lane - Permit # 2018-02097 750.00 Greenwood Design Build LLC 750.00 HAGA GERALD & SHERRY 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.57 HAGA GERALD & SHERRY 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.88 HAGA GERALD & SHERRY 12.45 HANSON JOHN 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 26.34 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 5 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount HANSON JOHN 26.34 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 720-0000-2012 September Insurance 2,230.77 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 101-0000-2012 September Insurance 16,712.27 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 101-0000-2012 September Insurance 633.04 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 210-0000-2012 September Insurance 633.04 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 700-0000-2012 September Insurance 2,706.24 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 701-0000-2012 September Insurance 1,440.16 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 720-0000-2012 September Insurance 1,297.73 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 101-0000-2012 September Insurance 31,863.42 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 101-0000-2012 September Insurance -1,898.12 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 210-0000-2012 September Insurance 395.53 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 700-0000-2012 September Insurance 4,904.54 HealthPartners, Inc.08/20/2020 701-0000-2012 September Insurance 4,904.54 HealthPartners, Inc. 65,823.16 IDC Automatic LLC 08/20/2020 400-0000-4702 Door replacement at Lake Ann Shed 6,782.00 IDC Automatic LLC 6,782.00 ITProTV 08/20/2020 101-1160-4370 ITProTV Subscription Renewal 445.00 ITProTV 445.00 Joseph Roy Construction 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 781 Belmont Lane - Permit #2020-01904 250.00 Joseph Roy Construction 250.00 Karl Chevrolet, Inc 08/20/2020 400-4120-4704 2020 Chev Silverado 24,767.44 Karl Chevrolet, Inc 24,767.44 KAT Construction LLC 08/27/2020 101-0000-2033 Overpayment - Permit 2020-02279 8.00 KAT Construction LLC 8.00 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 09/03/2020 605-6502-4300 Professional Services 5,708.69 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 5,708.69 KODIAK CUSTOM LETTERING 09/03/2020 101-1220-4240 Polo Shirts 308.00 KODIAK CUSTOM LETTERING 308.00 KRAUS BROS LANDSCAPING & REMODELING LLC08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 1751 Pheasant Circle - Permit 2020-01369 250.00 KRAUS BROS LANDSCAPING & REMODELING LLC 250.00 Lametti & Sons Inc 08/27/2020 601-6043-4751 Minnewashta Parkway Rehab 178,645.55 Lametti & Sons Inc 178,645.55 Lasley Stephanie 09/03/2020 101-1541-3634 Park Refund 116.41 Lasley Stephanie 09/03/2020 101-0000-2021 Park Refund 8.59 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 6 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount Lasley Stephanie 125.00 LAUDNER RONALD 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.41 LAUDNER RONALD 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.53 LAUDNER RONALD 18.94 Lawson Products, Inc.08/20/2020 101-1370-4260 Tools 54.85 Lawson Products, Inc.08/20/2020 101-1370-4260 Tools - Return -33.48 Lawson Products, Inc.08/20/2020 101-1370-4120 Tools 33.48 Lawson Products, Inc. 54.85 LECY BROS CONSTRUCTION INC 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 6641 Minnewashta Parkway - Permit #2019-02318 1,500.00 LECY BROS CONSTRUCTION INC 1,500.00 Lecy Bros. Homes 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 6641 Minnewashta Parkway - Permit 2019-02510 250.00 Lecy Bros. Homes 250.00 LEGACY TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.66 LEGACY TITLE 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 24.63 LEGACY TITLE 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.07 LEGACY TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.25 LEGACY TITLE 51.61 Leo A Daly 08/27/2020 212-0000-4300 Covid Response Facility Asses 4,337.03 Leo A Daly 08/27/2020 212-0000-4300 Covid Improvement Design & CA 19,224.72 Leo A Daly 23,561.75 Long Nguyen & Liz Pham 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 7587 Walnut Curve - Permit #2020-01559 250.00 Long Nguyen & Liz Pham 250.00 Lube Tech ESI 08/27/2020 101-1370-4350 Waste Removal 67.00 Lube Tech ESI 67.00 MCCAIN JOHN & VALERIE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.24 MCCAIN JOHN & VALERIE 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 8.24 MCCAIN JOHN & VALERIE 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.32 MCCAIN JOHN & VALERIE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.22 MCCAIN JOHN & VALERIE 18.02 McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc 08/27/2020 101-1220-4130 Supplies 24.62 McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc 24.62 Metropolitan Homes LLC 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 10053 Trails End Road - Permit 2020-01056 250.00 Metropolitan Homes LLC 250.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 7 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount Milbank Winwater Works 08/20/2020 700-0000-4552 Parts 1,379.36 Milbank Winwater Works 1,379.36 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 08/20/2020 700-0000-4509 Community Water Supply Service Connection 20,642.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 09/03/2020 700-7025-4509 Plan Review 150.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 20,792.00 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 08/27/2020 101-1310-4300 Inspections 1,078.44 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 09/03/2020 605-6502-4752 Structural Metals 4,646.88 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 5,725.32 MN Pollution Control Agency 08/27/2020 605-6502-4751 Hwy 101 Improvements 9,600.00 MN Pollution Control Agency 9,600.00 Molly Maid of Chanhassen 08/20/2020 212-0000-4300 Lake Ann Restroom Cleaning 700.00 Molly Maid of Chanhassen 08/27/2020 212-0000-4300 Lake Ann Restroom - July 19 - July 25, 2020 700.00 Molly Maid of Chanhassen 08/27/2020 212-0000-4300 Lake Ann Restroom Cleaning - August 09 - August 15 700.00 Molly Maid of Chanhassen 2,100.00 MOLNAU TRUCKING LLC 08/27/2020 720-7055-4751 Pleasantview Road Channel Improvement Project 58,793.59 MOLNAU TRUCKING LLC 58,793.59 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 08/20/2020 101-1550-4120 Supplies 199.89 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 199.89 NextStage 09/03/2020 212-0000-4902 Carver County Small Business Emergency Assistance 6,820.00 NextStage 6,820.00 NOVEL SOLAR THREE, LLC 09/03/2020 101-1350-4320 Monthly Solar Service 198.27 NOVEL SOLAR THREE, LLC 09/03/2020 700-0000-4320 Monthly Solar Service 7,779.73 NOVEL SOLAR THREE, LLC 09/03/2020 701-0000-4320 Monthly Solar Service 4,256.57 NOVEL SOLAR THREE, LLC 12,234.57 Peterson Lee 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 1760 Pheasant Circle - Permit #2020-01360 250.00 Peterson Lee 250.00 POSTMASTER 08/27/2020 700-0000-4330 Utility Statement Postage 309.35 POSTMASTER 08/27/2020 701-0000-4330 Utility Statement Postage 309.35 POSTMASTER 618.70 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 744 Stonegate Rd 416.66 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 748 Stonegate Rd 416.67 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 752 Stonegate Rd 416.67 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 733 Wildflower Lane 625.00 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 724 Wildflower Lane 416.67 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 728 Wildflower Lane 416.67 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 8 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 732 Wildflower Lane 416.66 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 703 Rockburn Rd 625.00 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 707 Rockburn Rd 625.00 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 742 Stonegate Road 416.66 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 746 Stonegate Road 416.67 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 722 to 732 Wildflower Lane 2,500.00 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 750 Stonegate Road 416.67 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 722 Wildflower Lane 416.66 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 726 Wildflower Lane 416.67 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 730 Wildflower Lane 416.67 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 701 Rockburn Rd 625.00 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 705 Rockburn Rd 625.00 Pulte Group Pulte Homes of MN LLC 10,625.00 RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 08/27/2020 720-7202-4300 2020 EAB Treatments 16,130.40 RAINBOW TREE COMPANY 16,130.40 Rajuri Santosh 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 Erosion Control - 9061 Degler Circle 250.00 Rajuri Santosh 250.00 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District 08/27/2020 720-0000-4120 Equipment 300.00 Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District 300.00 Riverside Mechanical Inc 08/20/2020 101-1250-3306 Permit Fee Refund 114.00 Riverside Mechanical Inc 114.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 08/27/2020 720-0000-4300 Beach Monitoring 104.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 08/27/2020 720-0000-4300 Beach Monitoring 104.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 09/03/2020 720-0000-4300 Beach Monitoring 104.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 08/27/2020 720-0000-4300 Testing 104.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 08/27/2020 720-0000-4300 Beach Monitoring 104.00 RMB Environmental Laboratories Inc 520.00 ROBERT'S AUTOMATIC 08/20/2020 700-0000-4552 Restroom rental due to water main break 279.18 ROBERT'S AUTOMATIC 279.18 Rouch Jeanne 08/20/2020 101-1539-3631 Line Dance Refund 25.00 Rouch Jeanne 25.00 Rudick Enterprises, Inc 08/20/2020 815-8202-2024 4000 Crestview Dr 500.00 Rudick Enterprises, Inc 500.00 Rynders Dawn & Eric 09/03/2020 815-8202-2024 2821 North Manor Rd - Permit #2020-01481 250.00 Rynders Dawn & Eric 250.00 SCOULER BARBARA & DAVE 08/27/2020 601-6043-4751 Plumbing Service 473.84 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 9 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount SCOULER BARBARA & DAVE 473.84 SEH 08/27/2020 701-7052-4300 Sewer Subshed 5-3 Investigation 13,282.86 SEH 13,282.86 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/20/2020 101-1170-4260 Supplies 15.45 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/20/2020 420-0000-4751 Paint 34.43 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/20/2020 420-0000-4751 Paint 37.58 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 09/03/2020 701-0000-4150 Supplies 7.79 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 08/27/2020 101-1320-4120 Equipment 25.51 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 120.76 SIGNSOURCE 08/27/2020 101-1550-4560 No parking sign 785.50 SIGNSOURCE 08/27/2020 700-0000-4120 Department Decals 540.00 SIGNSOURCE 1,325.50 SM HENTGES & SONS 09/03/2020 605-6503-4751 CSAH 101 Improvement 134,913.60 SM HENTGES & SONS 09/03/2020 605-6502-4751 CSAH 101 Improvement 1,158,766.06 SM HENTGES & SONS 1,293,679.66 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 08/20/2020 101-1160-4220 Webroot Clients & DNS License Renewals 2,108.30 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 2,108.30 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN INC 08/20/2020 701-0000-4553 Irrigation Repairs 924.15 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN INC 924.15 Southwest Rental & Sales 08/20/2020 101-1320-4410 Rental Equipment 759.50 Southwest Rental & Sales 08/20/2020 101-1550-4410 Rental Equipment 759.50 Southwest Rental & Sales 08/20/2020 101-1550-4410 Rental Equipment 379.75 Southwest Rental & Sales 1,898.75 Southwest Suburban Publishing 08/20/2020 101-1110-4340 Public notices 129.02 Southwest Suburban Publishing 08/20/2020 101-1180-4340 Public notices 23.77 Southwest Suburban Publishing 08/20/2020 101-1410-4340 Public notices 30.56 Southwest Suburban Publishing 08/20/2020 400-0000-4340 Public notices 40.74 Southwest Suburban Publishing 224.09 STUEVE JUSTIN & KATHRYN 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 65.25 STUEVE JUSTIN & KATHRYN 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 81.31 STUEVE JUSTIN & KATHRYN 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 20.87 STUEVE JUSTIN & KATHRYN 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.04 STUEVE JUSTIN & KATHRYN 171.47 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 08/27/2020 101-1310-4360 2020 Membership Assessment 1,383.00 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 1,383.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 10 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount SUGARMAN ERIC & HEATHER 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 16.01 SUGARMAN ERIC & HEATHER 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 13.88 SUGARMAN ERIC & HEATHER 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.35 SUGARMAN ERIC & HEATHER 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.46 SUGARMAN ERIC & HEATHER 32.70 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 09/03/2020 601-6045-4752 Electrical Service 2,200.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 08/27/2020 700-0000-4552 Street Light Repair 382.00 Taylor Electric Company, LLC 2,582.00 TFORCE FINAL MILE 09/03/2020 101-1410-4300 Delivery Service 61.04 TFORCE FINAL MILE 08/27/2020 700-0000-4330 Delivery 66.38 TFORCE FINAL MILE 127.42 TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC.08/20/2020 101-1550-4150 Materials 1,422.45 TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC.08/20/2020 101-1550-4150 Materials 54.49 TIMBERWALL LANDSCAPING INC. 1,476.94 TITLE ONE INC 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 24.59 TITLE ONE INC 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 35.51 TITLE ONE INC 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 6.38 TITLE ONE INC 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.24 TITLE ONE INC 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 11.48 TITLE ONE INC 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.31 TITLE ONE INC 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 5.47 TITLE ONE INC 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.06 TITLE ONE INC 98.04 TITLE SPECIALIST INC 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.97 TITLE SPECIALIST INC 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 1.93 TITLE SPECIALIST INC 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 11.91 TITLE SPECIALIST INC 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.30 TITLE SPECIALIST INC 17.11 Triethart DeeAnn 08/20/2020 101-1170-4110 Paper Plates 19.88 Triethart DeeAnn 19.88 TRUWEST LLC 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 21.68 TRUWEST LLC 21.68 TWIN CITY HARDWARE 08/20/2020 101-1170-4510 Parts 33.81 TWIN CITY HARDWARE 33.81 United Rentals (North America), Inc.09/03/2020 720-7025-4410 Equipment Rental 1,804.03 United Rentals (North America), Inc. 1,804.03 VALLEY-RICH CO INC 08/20/2020 700-0000-4550 Equipment 4,353.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 11 of 12 Name Check Da Account Description Amount VALLEY-RICH CO INC 4,353.00 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 08/20/2020 101-1550-4300 Monthly Service 332.07 Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc 332.07 WATERMARK TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 70.64 WATERMARK TITLE 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 42.17 WATERMARK TITLE 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 25.28 WATERMARK TITLE 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 4.90 WATERMARK TITLE 142.99 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 25.19 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 40.68 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 12.92 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 2.50 WATERMARK TITLE AGENCY 81.29 WEST TITLE LLC 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 22.37 WEST TITLE LLC 08/20/2020 701-0000-2020 Refund Check 30.54 WEST TITLE LLC 08/20/2020 720-0000-2020 Refund Check 3.66 WEST TITLE LLC 08/20/2020 700-0000-2020 Refund Check 0.71 WEST TITLE LLC 57.28 WING RICHARD 08/20/2020 101-1220-4350 Station 2 Cleaning 100.00 WING RICHARD 100.00 ZAHL-PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE CO 08/20/2020 101-1370-4510 Annual Testing 950.25 ZAHL-PETROLEUM MAINTENANCE CO 950.25 1,926,326.23 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-Checks (09/04/2020 - 12:06 PM)Page 12 of 12 Accounts Payable Check Detail-ACH User: dwashburn Printed: 09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM Name Check D Account Description Amount 3D SPECIALTIES 08/20/2020 101-1320-4560 Signs 271.56 3D SPECIALTIES 271.56 A1 Acrylics Inc 07/16/2020 212-0000-4300 Clear Acrylic Shield 838.35 A1 Acrylics Inc 838.35 A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 08/27/2020 700-0000-4530 Service on Well House # 8 170.00 A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 08/27/2020 700-0000-4530 Service on Well # 7 468.41 A-1 ELECTRIC SERVICE 638.41 Act 1 Talent 07/16/2020 101-1535-4300 Refund for cancelled dance competition -4,144.00 Act 1 Talent -4,144.00 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 08/20/2020 101-1190-4300 Quarterly Service 270.00 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 270.00 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 08/20/2020 700-0000-4300 Project P05126-2020-002 678.64 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, Inc 678.64 ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC 08/27/2020 101-1220-4530 Quarterly Air Quality 155.00 ALEX AIR APPARATUS INC 155.00 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1170-4110 Office supplies 35.84 Amazon 07/16/2020 700-7043-4120 Supplies 28.00 Amazon 07/16/2020 700-0000-4150 PPE - Shoe & Boot Covers 69.96 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1550-4140 Vehicle Supplies 359.97 Amazon 07/16/2020 700-0000-4150 Supplies 9.14 Amazon 07/16/2020 700-0000-4310 Supplies 9.00 Amazon 07/16/2020 701-0000-4310 Supplies 8.99 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4110 Covid - office supplies 19.95 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4110 Covid office supplies - thermometers 109.96 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4110 Covid - office supplies 43.89 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1170-4110 Office supplies 33.18 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1170-4110 Office supplies 17.92 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1170-4110 Office supplies 67.90 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1565-4130 Memory Cafe Kit supplies 24.31 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1565-4130 Memory Cafe Kit supplies 14.53 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1565-4130 Memory Cafe Kit supplies 32.16 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1565-4130 Memory Cafe Kit supplies 27.54 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 1 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1565-4130 Memory Cafe Kit supplies 6.97 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1565-4130 Memory Cafe Kit supplies 79.99 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1565-4130 Memory Cafe Kit supplies 50.58 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1565-4130 Memory Cafe Kit supplies 27.74 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1600-4130 Camp-in supplies 7.38 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4130 water cup dispenser 18.80 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4350 disposable towels for sanitizer 54.68 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4350 Sprayers for hand sanitizer & disinfectant Senior & Rec Center 17.99 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4350 Spray bottles for sanitizer & disinfectant 17.94 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4130 Disposable cups & personal disinfectant bottles for fitness cent 76.96 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4150 Disinfectant for Rec Center & Sr Center 164.95 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1220-4290 Tri Fold Towels 29.65 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1220-4290 Additional mattress covers for crew rooms 74.82 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 Replacment Docking Station and Lightning Cable 17.49 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 Replacement Docking Station and Lightning Cable 169.99 Amazon 07/16/2020 700-0000-4705 Network Switch - Lift Station 24 870.00 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1160-4300 Sewer Videos - May Access Fees 1.15 Amazon 07/16/2020 700-0000-4705 Wall Mount Bracket - Lift Station 24 Switch 38.56 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 Replacement Battery Pack - PW UPS Unit 479.99 Amazon 07/16/2020 400-4126-4703 Replacement Admin Switch HP 2540A 1,387.78 Amazon 07/16/2020 400-4126-4703 Rack Extender Power Adapter for Admin Switch Aruba 2540A 22.87 Amazon 07/16/2020 400-4126-4703 Rack Extender Power Adapter for Admin Switch Aruba 2540A 38.70 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 Replacement keyboard for Nann 36.79 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 replacement phone cable Alison V headset 27.00 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 replacement wireless phone setup for Alison V 188.20 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4260 Webcam for Zoom/COVID 19 97.98 Amazon 07/16/2020 212-0000-4260 wide angle web cam zoom COVID 19 77.99 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 Replacement batteries for UPS 99.98 Amazon 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 Replacment Phone Screen Protectors 7.85 Amazon 5,103.01 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus08/27/2020 101-0000-2008 August Insurance 39.78 American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus 39.78 Apple.com 07/16/2020 701-0000-4310 Storage Plan 0.99 Apple.com 07/16/2020 101-1220-4310 iCloud Storage 0.99 Apple.com 1.98 Artworks Art and Frame 07/16/2020 720-7202-4130 Arbor Day poster framing 100.00 Artworks Art and Frame 07/16/2020 720-7202-4130 Arbor Day poster framing 119.54 Artworks Art and Frame 219.54 Batteries Plus 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 Replacement UBS Batteries 75.24 Batteries Plus 75.24 Bird RF online Store 07/16/2020 700-0000-4530 Attenuators 232.70 Bird RF online Store 232.70 BOLTON & MENK INC 08/27/2020 601-6045-4300 Professional Services 1,370.00 BOLTON & MENK INC 08/27/2020 601-6045-4300 Professional Services 809.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 2 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount BOLTON & MENK INC 2,179.00 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 08/27/2020 601-6039-4300 Lake Drive Improvements 450.00 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 08/27/2020 601-6043-4300 Mnnewashta Parkway Rehab 2,174.00 BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION 2,624.00 Breezy Point Resort 07/16/2020 101-1220-4290 Errant Personal Charge - Reimburse City with personal check 182.00 Breezy Point Resort 182.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 08/20/2020 101-1140-4302 Professional Services 16,914.19 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 16,914.19 Carver County 08/27/2020 101-1210-4300 Liquor License Investigation 250.00 Carver County 250.00 Carver County CDA 09/03/2020 212-0000-4902 Small Business Emergency Assistance 200,000.00 Carver County CDA 200,000.00 Choice, Inc.08/20/2020 101-1220-4350 Cleaning of the Fire Station 181.83 Choice, Inc. 181.83 Colliers Funding, LLC 08/19/2020 480-0000-4804 TIF payment 115,348.07 Colliers Funding, LLC 115,348.07 Collins Electrical Construction Co 08/27/2020 101-1170-4510 New Outlet 521.68 Collins Electrical Construction Co 09/03/2020 101-1220-4510 Photocell Replacement 158.08 Collins Electrical Construction Co 679.76 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 09/03/2020 101-0000-2008 August Premium 60.72 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 09/03/2020 700-0000-2008 August Premium 19.22 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 09/03/2020 701-0000-2008 August Premium 19.22 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 99.16 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.08/20/2020 101-1160-4220 Aruba AP Annual Support 118.00 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 118.00 Corporate Card Annual Fee 07/16/2020 101-1130-4300 Corporate Card Annual Fee - Gary Berg 12.00 Corporate Card Annual Fee 07/16/2020 101-1130-4300 Annual Fee 12.00 Corporate Card Annual Fee 07/16/2020 101-1130-4300 Annual Fee 12.00 Corporate Card Annual Fee 07/16/2020 101-1130-4300 Corporate Card Annual Fee 12.00 Corporate Card Annual Fee 48.00 Crystal Infosystems LLC 09/03/2020 101-1170-4110 Magenta Toner 103.00 Crystal Infosystems LLC 09/03/2020 101-1170-4110 Toner 1,370.36 Crystal Infosystems LLC 09/03/2020 101-1170-4110 Toner 112.53 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 3 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount Crystal Infosystems LLC 1,585.89 Cub Foods 07/16/2020 101-1320-4120 Water 149.52 Cub Foods 07/16/2020 101-1731-4130 Camp-in kit at-home program supplies 102.09 Cub Foods 07/16/2020 101-1565-4130 Memory Cafe Kit supplies 28.92 Cub Foods 280.53 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES 08/20/2020 400-0000-4706 Paver Replacement - Project 20-131 1,255.25 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES 1,255.25 Del Fire Store 07/16/2020 101-1220-4120 Bands 151.75 Del Fire Store 151.75 Delta Dental 08/20/2020 101-0000-2013 September Dental 1,651.20 Delta Dental 08/20/2020 101-0000-2013 September Dental 30.20 Delta Dental 08/20/2020 700-0000-2013 September Dental 288.00 Delta Dental 08/20/2020 701-0000-2013 September Dental 257.80 Delta Dental 08/20/2020 720-0000-2013 September Dental 150.50 Delta Dental 2,377.70 Depositphotos Inc.07/16/2020 101-1120-4360 photo subscription for social media use 321.05 Depositphotos Inc. 321.05 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS 08/20/2020 420-0000-4751 Paint 1,546.20 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS 1,546.20 Discount School 07/16/2020 101-1731-4130 Camp-in kit at-home program supplies 69.65 Discount School 69.65 Dollar Tree Stores Inc 07/16/2020 101-1565-4130 Memory Cafe Kit supplies 25.13 Dollar Tree Stores Inc 25.13 ELECTRIC PUMP INC 08/27/2020 701-0000-4551 C3102-435 Impeller 1,522.40 ELECTRIC PUMP INC 1,522.40 Emergency Response Solutions 08/20/2020 101-1220-4530 Equipment 3,408.00 Emergency Response Solutions 09/03/2020 101-1220-4530 Equipment 14.07 Emergency Response Solutions 08/27/2020 101-1220-4530 Equipment 259.49 Emergency Response Solutions 09/03/2020 101-1220-4530 Equipment 14.07 Emergency Response Solutions 3,695.63 FASTENAL COMPANY 08/20/2020 101-1220-4140 Supplies 4.28 FASTENAL COMPANY 08/20/2020 700-0000-4240 Safety Equipment 37.99 FASTENAL COMPANY 08/20/2020 700-0000-4550 Supplies 405.72 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 4 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount FASTENAL COMPANY 447.99 Fidelity Security Life 08/27/2020 101-0000-2007 September 2020 167.07 Fidelity Security Life 08/27/2020 700-0000-2007 September 2020 13.49 Fidelity Security Life 08/27/2020 701-0000-2007 September 2020 13.47 Fidelity Security Life 08/27/2020 720-0000-2007 September 2020 8.11 Fidelity Security Life 202.14 Fire Marshals Association of Minnesota 07/16/2020 101-1220-4360 Fire Marshals Assn of MN 40.00 Fire Marshals Association of Minnesota 40.00 Fleet Farm 07/16/2020 700-0000-4240 Clothing Allowance 25.00 Fleet Farm 07/16/2020 701-0000-4240 Clothing Allowance 24.99 Fleet Farm 49.99 Flight Light Inc 07/16/2020 700-0000-4530 LED Single Obstruct Light 698.28 Flight Light Inc 698.28 FORCE AMERICA INC 08/20/2020 101-1320-4310 Parts 181.46 FORCE AMERICA INC 181.46 Gertens 07/16/2020 101-1550-4150 Begonia Bronzeleaf Mix 454.20 Gertens 454.20 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 07/16/2020 400-4148-4706 Water Bottle Refilling Station 1,201.97 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 07/16/2020 400-0000-4706 Bottle filling drinking fountain 1,116.94 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 2,318.91 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 09/03/2020 400-0000-4300 Calls 843.75 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 843.75 GovPayNet 07/16/2020 101-1120-4360 MCFOA Annual Dues 46.00 GovPayNet 46.00 Hach Company 07/16/2020 700-7019-4120 Testing Materials 158.17 Hach Company 158.17 Hallock Company 07/16/2020 701-0000-4530 Parts 142.04 Hallock Company 07/16/2020 701-0000-4530 Parts 179.08 Hallock Company 321.12 Hartman Companies Inc 07/16/2020 720-7202-4300 Minn Manor rain garden wood chips 390.76 Hartman Companies Inc 390.76 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 5 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount HAWKINS CHEMICAL 08/27/2020 700-7019-4160 Chemicals 4,534.84 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 4,534.84 Health Strategies 08/27/2020 101-1220-4300 Medical Examinations 6,489.00 Health Strategies 6,489.00 Home Depot 07/16/2020 101-1550-4130 Supplies for Lake Ann Concession stand sink project 36.97 Home Depot 07/16/2020 202-0000-4300 Sod for cemetery plot 137.10 Home Depot 07/16/2020 202-0000-4300 Sod for cemetery plot 85.69 Home Depot 07/16/2020 700-7043-4150 Materials 162.50 Home Depot 422.26 Hoops & Threads LLC 08/20/2020 700-0000-4240 Custom Embroidery 72.00 Hoops & Threads LLC 08/20/2020 701-0000-4240 Custom Embroidery 72.00 Hoops & Threads LLC 144.00 IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 09/03/2020 101-1550-4400 Portable Restrooms 4,661.00 IMPERIAL PORTA PALACE 4,661.00 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 09/03/2020 101-1170-4110 Office Supplies 42.18 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 09/03/2020 101-1170-4110 Office Supplies 10.74 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 09/03/2020 101-1170-4110 Office Supplies 279.37 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 332.29 International Code Council 07/16/2020 101-1250-4210 new code books for the new State Building Code 817.60 International Code Council 817.60 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 08/20/2020 400-4105-4705 Safety Equipment 397.93 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 08/20/2020 400-4105-4705 Safety Equipment 148.00 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 545.93 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 08/27/2020 101-1370-4170 Fuel 12,274.77 KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 12,274.77 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 08/27/2020 601-6046-4300 2020 Pavement Rehab 34,370.51 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 08/27/2020 601-6046-4300 2020 Pavement Rehab 35,657.26 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 08/27/2020 601-6046-4300 Minnewashta Parkway Rehab 31,707.59 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 08/27/2020 601-6046-4300 Minnewashta Parkway Rehab 6,335.48 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 605-6502-4300 TH 101 Reconstruction - Services through May 31 81,541.17 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 605-6502-4300 TH 101 Reconstruction 64,583.24 KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES INC 254,195.25 Kwik Trip 07/16/2020 701-0000-4170 Non-Ox Fuel 5.22 Kwik Trip 5.22 Laminator.com 07/16/2020 101-1170-4110 Office supplies 186.62 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 6 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount Laminator.com 186.62 LANZI BOB 08/27/2020 101-1766-4300 Softball Umpire 204.00 LANZI BOB 204.00 LARSEN DALE 08/20/2020 101-1320-4240 Work Boots 189.57 LARSEN DALE 189.57 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 08/20/2020 701-0000-4120 Equipment 90.73 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 90.73 Marco Inc 08/20/2020 101-1170-4110 Office Supplies 106.92 Marco Inc 106.92 Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.08/20/2020 101-1370-4170 Supplies 152.46 Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. 152.46 Maus Kerry 08/20/2020 101-1539-4300 Line Dancing 281.25 Maus Kerry 281.25 Menards 07/16/2020 420-0000-4751 Cedar Posts 112.80 Menards 07/16/2020 212-0000-4240 Mask 1.00 Menards 07/16/2020 700-7043-4150 Supplies 22.54 Menards 07/16/2020 700-7043-4510 Materials 6.44 Menards 07/16/2020 700-7043-4150 Materials 14.88 Menards 07/16/2020 700-7043-4530 Supplies 193.52 Menards 351.18 Mike Hage Distinctive Concrete & Masonry 07/16/2020 700-7019-4550 Service Work 1,050.00 Mike Hage Distinctive Concrete & Masonry 1,050.00 Milestone Auto Inc.08/20/2020 700-0000-4520 Parts 220.00 Milestone Auto Inc. 220.00 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/20/2020 101-1350-4320 Monthly Service 113.62 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 08/27/2020 101-1350-4320 Monthly Service 95.96 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 209.58 MyBinding.com 07/16/2020 101-1170-4110 Office supplies 226.56 MyBinding.com 226.56 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/20/2020 101-1550-4120 Supplies 111.99 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 08/20/2020 101-1170-4120 Supplies 22.32 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 09/03/2020 101-1260-4140 Vehicle Supplies 9.80 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 7 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 144.11 NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 08/20/2020 101-1170-4110 Letterhead 1,051.06 NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMPANY INC 1,051.06 Office Max/Office Depot 07/16/2020 700-7019-4150 Office Supplies 4.26 Office Max/Office Depot 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 Charging Cables - Shop Cell Phones 23.49 Office Max/Office Depot 07/16/2020 101-1160-4530 Replacement USB-C Network Adapter 42.74 Office Max/Office Depot 70.49 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 09/03/2020 101-1550-4140 Vehicle Supplies 86.09 O'Reilly Automotive Inc 86.09 Party City 07/16/2020 101-1731-4130 Camp-in kit at-home program supplies 8.56 Party City 8.56 PEARSON BROTHERS INC 08/27/2020 420-4224-4751 2020 Sealcoat 119,456.22 PEARSON BROTHERS INC 119,456.22 Pedretti Christine Lea 08/27/2020 101-1539-4300 Yoga Instruction - March - April 2020 299.00 Pedretti Christine Lea 299.00 Postmaster 07/16/2020 700-0000-4330 Signs return 10.55 Postmaster 07/16/2020 101-1120-4330 CAFR binding supplies 9.20 Postmaster 19.75 Potbelly Sandwich Shop 07/16/2020 101-1110-4370 City Council Dinner 109.84 Potbelly Sandwich Shop 109.84 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 08/20/2020 700-0000-4150 Parts 35.76 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 08/20/2020 101-1320-4120 Parts 23.33 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN 59.09 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 08/20/2020 720-7202-4300 Prairie Management WNTP 925.00 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 925.00 Premium Waters, Inc 08/20/2020 101-1550-4120 Water Service 75.39 Premium Waters, Inc 75.39 PrintGlobe 07/16/2020 101-1110-4375 Lapel pins 396.69 PrintGlobe 396.69 PRO TURF 08/20/2020 101-1550-4300 Spring Fertilization 128.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 8 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount PRO TURF 128.00 Public Surplus 07/16/2020 101-0000-2033 Auction fees public surplus 11.80 Public Surplus 11.80 PUMP AND METER SERVICE INC 08/20/2020 700-0000-4120 Supplies 71.44 PUMP AND METER SERVICE INC 71.44 PumpAlarm.com 07/16/2020 700-0000-4550 Service Plan 49.99 PumpAlarm.com 07/16/2020 700-0000-4310 Service Plan 49.99 PumpAlarm.com 07/16/2020 700-0000-4310 Service Plan -49.85 PumpAlarm.com 50.13 RBM SERVICES INC 08/20/2020 212-0000-4350 Sanitization of Public Works after election 250.00 RBM SERVICES INC 08/20/2020 101-1190-4350 Library cleaning 3,471.10 RBM SERVICES INC 08/20/2020 101-1170-4350 City Hall Cleaning 3,583.37 RBM SERVICES INC 7,304.47 RDO EQUIPMENT CO 08/20/2020 101-1320-4120 Parts 359.83 RDO EQUIPMENT CO 359.83 RICE LAKE CONSTRUCTION GROUP 08/20/2020 700-7050-4751 Chanhassen West WTP 15-03 69,396.92 RICE LAKE CONSTRUCTION GROUP 69,396.92 Sherwin-Williams 07/16/2020 101-1530-4510 Paint & trays 56.27 Sherwin-Williams 56.27 SPRINT PCS 08/20/2020 700-0000-4310 Monthly Cellular Service 51.72 SPRINT PCS 08/20/2020 701-0000-4310 Monthly Cellular Service 51.72 SPRINT PCS 103.44 STRATOGUARD LLC 08/20/2020 101-1160-4300 Proofpoint Email Filtering Service 176.00 STRATOGUARD LLC 176.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 08/20/2020 700-7019-4530 Annual Fire Extinguisher Inspection 60.00 SUMMIT COMPANIES 60.00 Target 07/16/2020 101-1731-4130 Camp-in kit at-home program supplies 25.78 Target 07/16/2020 212-0000-4130 3 funnels for P & R for Sanitizer fills 5.37 Target 07/16/2020 212-0000-4130 Tables for sanitizer stations 64.48 Target 07/16/2020 101-1530-4130 Whiteboard for Front Desk 5.89 Target 101.52 Tattersall Distilling 07/16/2020 212-0000-4130 Hand Sanitizer for P & R 180.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 9 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount Tattersall Distilling 180.00 Team Lab 07/16/2020 700-7043-4510 Chemicals 647.00 Team Lab 647.00 The Garden By The Woods 07/16/2020 101-1550-4120 Plants 357.00 The Garden By The Woods 07/16/2020 101-1550-4120 Plants 133.15 The Garden By The Woods 490.15 Tools & Hydraulics 07/16/2020 101-1370-4120 Repair Kit 117.80 Tools & Hydraulics 117.80 UNITED WAY 08/27/2020 101-0000-2006 PR Batch 00428.08.2020 United Way 30.40 UNITED WAY 30.40 US Bank Rebate 07/16/2020 101-1130-3903 US Bank Rebate -1,417.72 US Bank Rebate -1,417.72 USA BLUE BOOK 08/20/2020 700-0000-4150 Equipment 966.45 USA BLUE BOOK 966.45 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 08/20/2020 700-0000-4240 Safety Equipment 24.17 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 08/20/2020 701-0000-4240 Safety Equipment 24.16 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 08/27/2020 701-0000-4120 Supplies 119.88 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 168.21 Werner Electric 07/16/2020 701-0000-4530 Power Supply 406.57 Werner Electric 406.57 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/20/2020 420-0000-4751 Materials 614.22 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 09/03/2020 720-7025-4290 Materials 91.05 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/27/2020 720-7025-4290 Materials 41.31 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/27/2020 720-7025-4290 Materials 270.91 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/27/2020 720-7025-4290 Materials 136.38 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/27/2020 720-7025-4290 Materials 282.46 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/27/2020 420-0000-4751 Materials 173.13 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 08/27/2020 420-0000-4751 Materials 346.86 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 09/03/2020 720-7025-4290 Materials 139.27 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 09/03/2020 420-0000-4751 Materials 128.00 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 2,223.59 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 08/27/2020 601-6046-4300 Lake Lucy Road Rehab - Project 20-03 4,176.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 08/27/2020 420-0000-4300 2020 Chanhassen Pavement Management 642.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 08/27/2020 420-0000-4300 2020 Chanhassen Pavement Management 1,941.20 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 601-6039-4300 Lake Drive East Street Improvement 3,753.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 601-6039-4300 Lake Drive East Street Improvement 2,849.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 601-6039-4300 Lake Drive East Street Improvement 953.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 10 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 601-6039-4300 Project 18-02 - Professional services 1,102.50 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 720-0000-4300 Storm Water OMS Inspections 172.00 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 101-1310-4300 2020 GIS/AMS Support Services 286.20 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 101-1320-4300 2020 GIS/AMS Support Services 286.20 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 700-0000-4300 2020 GIS/AMS Support Services 286.20 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 701-0000-4300 2020 GIS/AMS Support Services 286.20 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 09/03/2020 720-0000-4300 2020 GIS/AMS Support Services 286.20 WSB & ASSOCIATES INC 17,021.20 WW GRAINGER INC 08/20/2020 101-1170-4510 Materials 52.84 WW GRAINGER INC 08/20/2020 701-0000-4120 Supplies 82.46 WW GRAINGER INC 08/27/2020 700-0000-4120 Chemicals 269.43 WW GRAINGER INC 08/27/2020 700-0000-4530 Chemicals 1,004.40 WW GRAINGER INC 08/27/2020 700-0000-4530 Chemicals 131.31 WW GRAINGER INC 1,540.44 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/20/2020 700-7043-4320 Monthly Service 9,147.79 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/20/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 290.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/20/2020 101-1350-4320 Monthly Service -21.07 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/20/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 14.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/20/2020 700-0000-4320 Monthly Service 3,155.76 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/20/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 40.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 28.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 14.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1600-4320 Monthly Service -25.95 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1350-4320 Monthly Service 11.32 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 700-0000-4320 Monthly Service -34.85 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 14.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1350-4320 Monthly Service 1.54 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 14.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1600-4320 Monthly Service 11.43 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 14.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1350-4320 Monthly Service 10.61 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1350-4320 Monthly Service 11.32 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 14.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1170-4320 Monthly Service -1,673.45 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1190-4320 Monthly Service -1,741.34 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1220-4320 Monthly Service 1,250.02 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1370-4320 Monthly Service 1,445.82 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 700-0000-4320 Monthly Service 180.73 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 101-1171-4320 Monthly Service 11.83 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 701-0000-4320 Monthly Service 180.73 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 688.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 290.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 700-7019-4320 Monthly Service 3,854.51 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Service 580.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 08/27/2020 700-0000-4320 Monthly Service 5,429.53 XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 101-1540-4320 Monthly Charges 775.69 XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 101-1600-4320 Monthly Charges 55.33 XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 101-1550-4320 Monthly Charges -288.44 XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Charges 388.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 101-1350-4320 Monthly Charges -42.90 XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Charges 28.00 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 11 of 12 Name Check D Account Description Amount XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 701-0000-4320 Monthly Charges -667.95 XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 700-0000-4320 Monthly Charges -496.29 XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Charges 398.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 101-1600-4320 Monthly Charges 45.50 XCEL ENERGY INC 09/03/2020 601-0000-3080 Monthly Charges 28.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 23,429.22 Zinio 07/16/2020 101-1160-4210 PC Magazine Renewal 19.99 Zinio 19.99 Zoom 07/16/2020 212-0000-4300 monthly zoom webinar charge/COVID 42.95 Zoom 42.95 896,066.56 Accounts Payable - Check Detail-ACH (09/04/2020 - 12:31 PM)Page 12 of 12 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, September 14, 2020 Subject 2020 Building Permit Activity Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Item No: K.2. Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No:  ATTACHMENTS: Building Permit Date ­ August YTD 2020 Building Permit Activity August YTDCity of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-227-1100 40Residential Single-Family 27 8 5 Residential Townhomes 0 0 0 0 Apartmentvsenior Facilities 0 0 0 0 27 I 5 40Total Residential 0New00 0 0 0 0Redeveloped 9 24 l0 43Remodeled I 24 l0 43Total Commercial 156 t5t 111Single-Family Lots 24Residential Townhom€ Lots 24 I't 5 168Total Available Lots 180 2l 46 40485549 t2 24 00t256Townhomes 268 0 0 0Apartmentvsenior Facilities 76 0 4310967582865Commercial 6t 135 83Total Number of All Permits l.t.)134 431 g:bdminforms\buildiog permit activity 2020 Id.doc 'tY \ + tY [[\ o 4 Residential Building Permits l't Quarter 2'd Qurrter 3'd Quarter \.TD 4tb Quarter Total YTD Commercial Building Permits l'r Quarter 2'd Quarter 3'd Quarter YTD 4th Quarter Totel YTD 0 Available Lot InYentory (end of Ouarter) 3'd Quarter Il" Quarter 2nd Quarter Yt'D 4rh Quarter Total Permit History 2016 2017 2018 Jan-July 2019 2019 2020 Singte-Family g I e s 3 = s 2. e 2. 9 I ?t d { 3I ! n I ?, ? E ! € : z E E g t. E 3 E F !!2 -r: a :a : I E E ? ! a 3 3 a = a =a a 3 l : z- ? = : 3 2 a ts 2 , 3 = 8 2 ; 3 -a a a a 2 a Z a !! 9* 6 I ll ll 'lIt t'| | lt IlI ll : I I I t.t t.t I I I I I I t.l I I I I t.t I I I I I I I ltEl |||ll 'I |I|l -l-H+ffi ||llI .I tl r llt 6l