The URL can be used to link to this page

10-10-2022 Agenda and PacketA.5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Note: Unless otherwise noted, work sessions are held in the Fountain Conference Room in the lower level of City Hall and are open to the public. If the City Council does not complete the work session items in the time allotted, the remaining items will be considered after the regular agenda. A.1 Lake Ann Park Preserve Master Plan: Open House Follow-up and Project Update A.2 Trail Maintenance Funding Discussion A.3 Discuss Temporarily Prohibiting Manufacturing and Distribution Facilities for Medical Cannabis, and THC Products and Intoxicating Cannabinoids A.4 Future Work Session Schedule B.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER (Pledge of Allegiance) C.PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS D.CONSENT AGENDA All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the city council and will be considered as one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. City council action is based on the staff recommendation for each item. Refer to the council packet for each staff report. D.1 Approve City Council Minutes dated September 26, 2022 D.2 Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 23, 2022 D.3 Approve Claims Paid dated October 10, 2022 D.4 Resolution 2022-XX: Support Carver County Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan AGENDA CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2022 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD 1 D.5 Approve Professional Services Agreement with Ehlers, Inc. for a Utility Rate Study Update D.6 Approve Agreement with Dakota Retail LLC for Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota Retail (southwest corner of Highway 5 and Dakota Avenue) E.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Visitor Presentations requesting a response or action from the City Council must complete and submit the Citizen Action Request Form (see VISITOR GUIDELINES at the end of this agenda). F.PUBLIC HEARINGS F.1 Resolution 2022-XX: Approve Vacation of a Portion of Public Right-of-Way (Alley) Abutting 7701 Frontier Trail G.GENERAL BUSINESS G.1 581 Fox Hill Drive: Request for Approval of Preliminary Plat with Variances G.2 Ordinance XXX: Amend City Code Chapter 1, General Provisions, and Chapter 20 Zoning, Concerning Short-Term Rentals G.3 Ordinance XXX: Temporarily Prohibiting Medical Cannabis Manufacturing and Distribution Facilities; and Ordinance XXX: Temporarily Prohibiting the Manufacture, Testing, Distribution, and Sale of Cannabinoids H.COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS I.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS I.1 Traffic Control Improvements at Great Plains and W 79th Street J.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION J.1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Memo dated September 23, 2022 - Environmental Review for Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements J.2 2022 Building Permit Activity K.ADJOURNMENT 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. 2 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. 3 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Lake Ann Park Preserve Master Plan: Open House Follow-up and Project Update File No.Item No: A.1 Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Prepared By Jerry Ruegemer, Park and Recreation Director Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION N/A Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY On Tuesday, September 27, the City of Chanhassen scheduled an Open House for the Lake Ann Park Preserve. The format of the Open House was established to provide information of the history of the project, recapped the 2019 Feasibility Study, to answer questions and most importantly to gather feedback and comments from the attendees. 35 people attended 19 online comments were completed Residents had the opportunity to complete online comment form for 1 week after Open House Many comments indicated to keep the preserve "As Is" Maintain "Natural" feel Desire year round walking paths Would love to complete a trail all the way around Lake Ann Staff will provide a more in depth update of the project at the October 10 work session. 4 BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS Lake Ann Preserve Open House Boards dated September 27, 2022 Presentation Open House dated September 27, 2022 Open House Online Comments 5 ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊProposed Lake Ann Park Expansion and Trail Loop Concept PlanLake Ann Parkw 78th st / cr 16park expansion boundarycr 117powers blvd arboretum blvdlake annlake lucyContinue Trail Loop around Lake AnnMake trail connection to neighborhoods (Route TBD)Make trail connection to neighborhoods (Route TBD)Connect to existing trailContinue Trail Loop around Lake AnnLegendExisting TrailExisting SidewalkProposed Bituminous TrailFuture Bituminous TrailBridgeBoardwalkPark RoadFuture Park ExpansionWetland5000 500 FeetLake Ann Park PreserveLake AnnLake LucyArboretum Blvd / 5Arboretum Blvd / 5Galpin BlvdGalpin BlvdHazeltine BlvdHazeltine BlvdPowers BlvdPowers BlvdLake Ann ParkGreenwoodShores ParkA HISTORY OF PLANNING FOR THE FUTURENone of the land around Lake Ann has been heavily developed. Historically, it has been farmed or kept in a more naturalized state of forest or prairie. Private property owners have preserved the land, which remains a unique asset for the community. The trees and open space along the edges of the lake in all directions contribute to the ecological, recreational, and scenic value of Lake Ann within the FRPPXQLW\7KHVLWHKDVORQJEHHQLGHQWL¿HGLQ&LW\SODQQLQJGRFXPHQWVIRUDWUDLOWRFRPSOHWHDORRSDURXQG/DNH$QQ1960s - The development of the Greenwood Shores neighborhood also brought the dedication of Greenwood Shores Park, with a public beach on Lake Ann, as well as frontage on Lake Lucy.19697KH&LW\DFTXLUHGWKHSDUNODQGIRU/DNH$QQ3DUNLQWKURXJKDUHIHUHQGXPFKRRVLQJWRSUHVHUYHWKHVKRUHOLQHIRUQDWXUDODQGZDWHUEDVHGUHFUHDWLRQDQGORFDWLQJEDOO¿HOGVWRWKHVRXWKEHWZHHQWKHODNHDQG+LJKZD\1970s - At least as earlyDVWKHVDFRQFHSWXDOWUDLODURXQG/DNH$QQLVVKRZQLQWKH&LW\¶V&RPSUHKHQVLYH3ODQ1980sZLWKWKHGHYHORSPHQWRIWKHSDUFHOWRWKHHDVWRI/DNH$QQWKH&LW\RI&KDQKDVVHQZDVDEOHWRVHFXUHSURSHUW\DORQJWKHODNHto create a paved trail and continue the loop for the public. 2016-2020:KHQWKHSURSHUW\WKDW/DNH$QQ3DUN3UHVHUYHVLWVRQEHFDPHDYDLODEOHIRUGHYHORSPHQWWKH&LW\ZRUNHGZLWKWKHhousing developer that purchased the property to dedicate and otherwise preserve the eastern half of the site, including approximately DFUHVRIZHWODQGDQGDFUHVRIXSODQGZLWKRYHUDPLOHRIVKRUHOLQHRQ/DNH$QQDQG/DNH/XF\Future - Development of the Lake Ann Park Preserve Property will create unique recreation opportunities, continue to protect the shoreline of Lake Ann, and extend the vision for a trail loop around the lakeFuture7KLVORQJWHUPDSSURDFKWRWKHSUHVHUYDWLRQRI/DNH$QQ¶VVKRUHOLQHIRUDWUDLOORRSZLOOKDYHSUHVHUYHGDSSUR[LPDWHO\WKVRIWKHZD\DURXQGWKHODNHZLWKDGHVLUHWRFRPSOHWHWKHORRSLIZKHQWKHFXUUHQWRZQHURIWKHSULYDWHSURSHUW\GHFLGHVWRVHOORUVXEGLYLGHthe land. A sign at Lake Ann Park showing the planned eventual connection of a trail loop around the lake.1957Lake Ann Park Preserve | History and Vision6 The CreekThe OverlookThe EdgeThe CathedralHigh Quality ForestVisual ImpactsVisual ImpactsViewsCompelling HillLake ConnectionsGreenwoodShores ParkEdges of Forest, Wetland, & GrasslandNative Species7KHODQGLVDSSUR[LPDWHO\DFUHVDSSUR[LPDWHO\VSOLWZLWKDFUHVRIZHWODQGDQGDFUHVRIXSODQG7KHUHPDLQLQJacres is largely used for grading and stormwater management related to the new neighborhood development.7KHVLWHERDVWVDSSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWRIVKRUHOLQHRQ/DNH/XF\DQGIHHWRQ/DNH$QQThe proposed trail is located within undeveloped land, which is bordered by two lakes, single-family residential development, and city parkland. The western portion of the property is dominated by a DFUHZHWODQGcomplex, which ÀRZVQRUWKLQWRLake Lucy through DQDWXUDORYHUÀRZThe site has been isolated from public access for many years, which has allowed a high quality maple basswood forest WRÀRXULVKLQWKHcentral area of the property. Invasive species, such as a buckthorn and garlic mustard are creeping into the site along the edges of the property, but much of the area is high quality, and represents historic vegetative communities.American Hog PeanutIronwoodPennsylvania Sedge Ostrich FernIronwoodSmartweedSugar Maple Sugar MapleZig Zag Goldenrod Lindley’s AsterGarlic MustardReed Canary GrassCommon BuckthornGlossy BuckthornJack-in-the Pulpit Spreading Wood FernInvasive SpeciesLake Ann Park Preserve | Existing Conditions7 WHAT DOES A FEASIBILITY STUDY CONSIDER?• Opportunities• Challenges• Constructability•Costs• Environmental• Regulatory• PhasingIn 2019, The City of Chanhassen completed a Feasibility study for the future of the Lake Ann Park Preserve Property. After exploring different options for the property and gathering public input, the City developed a plan that included:• Paved and unpaved trails• Boardwalks across the wetlands• A bridge across the creek betweenLake Ann and Lake Lucy• Enhancements to natural resourcesand removal of invasive species•,QWHUSUHWLYHVLJQDJHDQGZD\ÀQGLQJsignage• Connections to the water• Parking closer to the propertyWHAT WERE THE KEY PRINCIPLES FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY IN 2019?• Continue trails around Lake Ann to allow for aneventual loop• Preserve the land as a valued natural area inChanhassen • Connect residents with nature, trails, and parks• Protect the ecological functioning (habitat,water quality) of the site• Celebrate Lake Ann, Lake Lucy, and thisproperty as community amenitiesWHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE STUDY WAS COMPLETED?• Adjacent Neighborhood Development•,QÁDWLRQ/DERU 6XSSO\&KDLQ,VVXHVaffecting costs• Existing infrastructure is 3 years older•7KH&LW\ZRXOGOLNHWRFRQÀUPWKDWWKHplan is still in line with the community’s desires for the siteLAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE FEASIBILITY STUDYNOVEMBER 25, 2019Lake Ann Park Preserve | Feasibility Study8 PRESERVES A LARGE NATURAL SANCTUARY AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE (~35 ACRES OF WETLAND AND UPLAND) WITHOUT ACCESS TO PEOPLECONCEPT DESCRIPTION: LIMITED TRAILS THROUGHOUT THE SITEONE MAIN TRAIL CORRIDOR WITH AGGREGATE SURFACEMINIMAL AMENITIES ON THE SITEHIGH INVESTMENT IN NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION AND RESTORATIONLIMITED WINTER USEPAVED TRAIL TO BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE AROUND THE ENTIRE LAKE ANN PERIMETERSanctuaryAccess PointNatural Surface Hiking TrailShared-Use Aggregate TrailShared-Use Paved TrailBoardwalk/BridgeDevelopment Node/OverlookWetlandForestLEGENDPRESERVE NATURE CONCEPTPRECEDENT IMAGERYPRESERVES A NATURAL SANCTUARY AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE (~22 ACRES OF WETLAND) WITHOUT ACCESS TO PEOPLECONCEPT DESCRIPTION: ONE MAIN PAVED TRAIL CORRIDOR CONNECTS GREENWOOD SHORES TO NORTHERN AND WESTERN ACCESS POINTSONE SECONDARY SOFT SURFACE HIKING TRAIL THROUGH THE MAPLE BASSWOOD FORESTAMENITIES WILL INCLUDE A FISHING PIER ON LAKE ANN, AN OVERLOOK AND FISHING PIER ON LAKE LUCY, AND ONE OR TWO BENCHES ALONG THE TRAILSMODERATE INVESTMENT IN NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, FOCUSED ON BUCKTHORN MITIGATIONMAIN PAVED TRAIL MAY BE CLEARED IN WINTER FOR WALKING AND BIKINGPAVED TRAIL TO BE CONTINUED TO THE SOUTH IN THE FUTURE AROUND THE ENTIRE LAKE ANN PERIMETEROverlookOverlook + FishingBenchOveOOrlookOveOvOrloook ok ok + F+ F+ F+ F+ F+ FishingBenBenBenBenBenennchchchchchchchBenBenBenechchchOSanctuaryAccess PointNatural Surface Hiking TrailShared-Use Aggregate TrailShared-Use Paved TrailBoardwalk/BridgeDevelopment Node/OverlookWetlandForestLEGENDEXPERIENCE NATURE CONCEPTPRECEDENT IMAGERYPRESERVES A SMALL NATURAL SANCTUARY AREA ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE (~13 ACRES OF WETLAND) WITHOUT ACCESS TO PEOPLEPRECEDENT IMAGERYCONCEPT DESCRIPTION: ONE PRIMARY PAVED TRAIL CORRIDOR WITH ADDITIONAL PAVED TRAIL CONNECTIONSBOARDWALK TRAIL THROUGH EMERGENT LAKE VEGETATION ON LAKE LUCY AND ALONG WESTERN EDGE OF WETLANDS ON THE SITEAMENITIES INCLUDE FISHING PIER ON LAKE ANN, TWO CANOE LANDINGS ON LAKE ANN, AN OVERLOOK AND FISHING PIER ON LAKE LUCY, AND MULTIPLE BENCHES ALONG THE TRAILSLIMITED INVESTMENT IN NATURAL RESOURCES PROTECTION AND RESTORATIONWINTER USE MAY INCLUDE CLEARED PAVED TRAIL FOR WINTER WALKING AND CROSS-COUNTRY SKIINGPAVED TRAIL TO BE CONTINUED TO THE SOUTH IN THE FUTURE AROUND THE ENTIRE LAKE ANN PERIMETERNATURE PLAYLOT FEATURES IN THE SOUTH PART OF THE SITE TO SERVE AS SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAY AREAOverlook + FishingBenchPrairie OverlookCanoe LandingCanoe Landing + FishingNature PlaylotOveOverlorlorlorlookokokokok okoo+ FishingBenBenBenBenBenBeBechchchchcPrairie OOOOOeOvervvevloolkCanoe LandininingggCCCanoe Landing +gggg CFishinhinhgtNatNatNatNNatuureuureure PlaPlaPlaPlaPlaaaayloyloyloylotttPSanctuaryAccess PointNatural Surface Hiking TrailShared-Use Aggregate TrailShared-Use Paved TrailBoardwalk/BridgeDevelopment Node/OverlookWetlandForestLEGENDPLAY IN NATURE CONCEPTDuring the 2019 Feasibility Study, different ideas were considered for the park preserve. All were in line with a park preserve designation, but varied in terms of intensity of human use and built elementsLake Ann Park Preserve | Feasibility StudyPUBLIC INPUT7KURXJKRXWWKH&LW\¶V3DUN6\VWHP3ODQSURFHVVWKHGHVLUHIRUDFRQQHFWLRQDURXQG/DNH$QQHPHUJHGDVDNH\LQLWLDWLYHIRUWKH&LW\/DWHUDVSDUWRIWKH)HDVLELOLW\6WXG\SURFHVVWKHSODQQLQJWHDPVROLFLWHGLQSXWIURPUHVLGHQWV7KURXJKLQSHUVRQDWWHQGDQFHDWHYHQWVDQGZLWKDQRQOLQHVXUYH\WKHWHDPJDWKHUHGresponses.5HVLGHQWVZHUHRႇHUHGDOWHUQDWLYHVWRGLႇHUHQWGHYHORSPHQWDSSURDFKHVRIWKHSURSHUW\7KHNH\¿QGLQJVIURPWKHSXEOLFLQSXWZHUH»Strong desire to protecting the natural environment, especially sensitive habitat »People are excited about trails. - Sentiment mixed about material, but leans toward paved trails»9DULHGH[SHULHQFHVIRUWUDLOXVHUVLQWHUDFWZLWKWKHODNHGLႇHUHQWYLHZVVHHXQLTXHDUHDVSurveys were provided online and in person to solicit input from the public9 Lake LucyLake AnnLake Ann ParkGreenwood Shores ParkGalpin BlvdMajestic WayTopaz DrUtica LnUtica LnTecumseh LnBrinker StWindmill DrLucy Ridge LnRuby LnSapphire LnPaved Trails - Built by CityPaved Trails - Built by DeveloperPaved Trails - Rebuilt by CityBoardwalkPrefabricated BridgeNatural Surface TrailsReconstructed Trail to Lake Ann Park - WidenReconstructed Trail to Lucy Ridge Ln - Address drainageNatural Resource Preservation/Invasive Species ControlProtect center of site from Buckthorn ExpansionManage/Treat/Remove invasivesPreserve wetlandsField align trails to retain tree canopySignage and WayfindingNatural resources/historical educationTell the story of Lake Ann trail loop planningProvide directional signage for trail usersNatural Surface Trail Waterbars and drainage crossings as neededNew paved trailNew paved trailBoardwalkSet elevation >floodOrient for viewsBoardwalkSet elevation >floodNew Paved TrailBuilt by developerNew Paved TrailBuilt by developerCoordinate grading for pond and boardwalkBridgeSet elevation to allow watercraft underParking6-10 spacesN200’600’400’Lake Ann Park Preserve | Feasibility Study Plan10 LAKE ANN/LAKE LUCY CROSSINGThe creek between Lake Ann and Lake Lucy will be traversed with a prefabricated pedestrian bridge set on precast concrete abutments. The bridge should be wide enough to accommodate two ZD\WUDႈFDQGSHRSOHVWRSSLQJWRHQMR\WKHFUHHNDQGODNHYLHZVRQERWKVLGHV7KLVFRXOGLQFOXGHspace for seating.7KHEULGJHQHHGVWREHEXLOWKLJKHQRXJKWRVWD\RXWRIWKHÀRRGSODLQDQGWRDOORZIRUWKHSDVVDJHRIVPDOOZDWHUFUDIWFDQRHVND\DNV¿VKLQJERDWVHWFXQGHUWKHEULGJH7KHGHVLJQRIWKHDSSURDFKHVWRWKHEULGJHVKRXOGFRQWLQXHWKHUDLOLQJVIHQFLQJZHOOEH\RQGWKHbridge so that users have committed to staying on the bridge and are not drawn down to the ZDWHU¶VHGJH7KLVLVWRUHGXFHHURVLRQDQGGHJUDGDWLRQRIWKHEDQNVRIWKHFUHHNPARKING AND ACCESS TO THE SITE3DUNLQJLVZLOOEHSURYLGHGDWERWKHQGVRIWKHSUHVHUYHZLWKLQWKHQHZQHLJKERUKRRGDQGat Greenwood Shores. This will help mitigate visitor parking in the neighborhood and allow UHVLGHQWVWRSDUNYHKLFOHVZKLOHXVLQJWKHWUDLOVRURWKHUSDUNDPHQLWLHV6FUHHQLQJIRUDGMDFHQWODQGXVHUVLVNH\DQGZLOOEHLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRWKH¿QDOGHVLJQINTERPRETIVE SIGNAGEInterpretive signage should be incorporated into the park preserve along the trails in appropriate ORFDWLRQVWRKHOSWHOOWKHVWRU\RIWKHSDUNODQG7KHPHVVKRXOGLQFOXGH»Site Ecology»Site History»&LW\7UDLODQG3DUN3ODQQLQJIn locations where natural surface trails intersect with paved trails, foot cleaning stations should be paired with informational signage about invasive species to help prevent their spread.WAYFINDING SIGNAGEWhile many people may get to know the trail system in the park preserve, the new land will draw YLVLWRUVDQGZD\¿QGLQJVLJQDJHZLOOKHOSWKHPQDYLJDWHDQGEHWWHUXQGHUVWDQGZKHUHWKH\DUHDQGhow to get to where they want to go. Signage should be located at entries to the park preserve and at decision points where trails split.*Precedent photos are intended to illustrate the general character of development, not necessarily an exact designBoardwalks Paved TrailsBridgeConnect to the WaterNatural ResourcesNatural Surface TrailsSignageParking/AccessWATER ACCESSWhile the best location is to be determined, there is an opportunity to FRQQHFWSDUNXVHUVZLWKWKHODNHV7KLVFRXOGRFFXUZLWKD¿VKLQJSLHUor a bird blind. When locating this feature, it is important to consider both the views it provides to users and also the views the dock will EHFRPHDSDUWRIZKDWGRHVLWORRNOLNHIURPDFURVVWKHODNH"BOARDWALK DESIGN%RWKERDUGZDONVZLOOEHGHVLJQHGWRDFFRPPRGDWHZD\SHGHVWULDQDQGELF\FOHWUDႈF7KH\DOVRQHHGto be able to handle vehicle loads such as maintenance pick-up trucks. The boardwalks should be at OHDVWIHHWFOHDUZLGWKZLWKIRRWUDLOLQJV%RDUGZDONVVKRXOGDOVRLQFRUSRUDWHORRNRXWVWRDOORZWUDLOXVHUVWKHFKDQFHWRHQMR\DQGH[SHULHQFHWKHVFHQHU\7KHERDUGZDONVDUHDQWLFLSDWHGWRXWLOL]HKHOLFDODQFKRUVXSSRUWHG+GHVLJQZKHUHDQFKRUVDUHessentially drilled into the ground until they reach soils that will support the design load. As discussed above, a portion of one boardwalk will need to be removeable to allow for occasional PDLQWHQDQFHWRWKH0HWURSROLWDQ&RXQFLO,QWHUFHSWRU,QWKLVLQVWDQFHWKHVSDQEHWZHHQKHOLFDODQFKRUVis lengthened and the structure of the boardwalk under this section is supported with steel I-beams.7KHHOHYDWLRQRIWKHERWWRPRIWKHERDUGZDONQHHGVWREHVHWDERYHWKHÀRRGSODLQHOHYDWLRQVVRDVQRWWRLPSDFWWKHÀRZRIZDWHULQÀRRGHYHQWVPAVED TRAILSA continuation of the paved trails at Lake Ann Park will allow a wide range of users to use the trail system and experience the park preserve. Paving allows walkers, runners, those in ZKHHOFKDLUVRUZLWKZDONHUVELF\FOLVWVDQGVNDWHUVWRHQMR\WKHWUDLOV7UDLOVDUHGHVLJQHGWREHIHHWZLGHWRVDIHO\DFFRPPRGDWHYDULRXVXVHUVJRLQJLQHDFKdirection./D\RXWRIWKHWUDLOVRQWKHSODQLVJHQHUDOL]HGDQGD¿QDODOLJQPHQWZLOOUHTXLUHDQRQVLWHÀDJJLQJRIWKHWUDLOWREHWWHUUHWDLQWKHYHJHWDWLRQDQGWUHHFDQRS\RQVLWH7KLVDOVRKHOSVcombat the spread of invasive species, many of which thrive in disturbed areas and outcompete native species in these locations. NATURAL SURFACE TRAILSIn addition to the paved trail system, some of the natural surface trails will be preserved and enhanced to provide users with a secondary experience of the natural areas of the site. In some instances there are locations where water must be managed. In these cases, minimal improvements such as small culverts, waterbars, and plank boardwalks will be required to avoid negatively impacting the trails. The trails that exist today see minimal use and are not degraded as quickly as could happen with the transition to public park land. A key to preventing the degradation will be to manage water and avoid erosion.NATURAL RESOURCE PRESERVATIONSHORELINE MANAGEMENTWith the beaches that are available to the public at Lake Ann Park and Greenwood Shores Park, the new park land design is not focused on EULQJLQJSHRSOHWRWKHZDWHU¶VHGJHXQOHVVWKH\DUHRQDVXVWDLQDEOHsurface such as a bridge, boardwalk, or dock. This will help reduce erosion and degradation of the shoreline as well as minimize the opportunity for the spread of invasive species to these locations.FOREST MANAGEMENTEducation, signage, and paved trails will direct future park users to avoid accessing the high quality areas of the property in order to preserve the existing natural resources of the site. Encroachment into these areas will directly damage vegetation, but can also spread invasive species. 7UDLOVVKRXOGEHFOHDUO\GH¿QHGDQGGLUHFWYLVLWRUVWRDFFHVVRQO\DUHDVwhere trails exist rather than promoting hiking through the high-quality areas of the park.INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENTThe highest priority for management of natural resources on the property is to address the existing buckthorn. Garlic Mustard and Reed &DQDU\*UDVVDUHDOVRFRQFHUQV0DQDJHPHQWPHWKRGVVKRXOGEHevaluated based on cost, success rate, and the size of existing trees. Every invasive species management plan should include a phasing plan to ensure that initial and follow up treatments are planned.Screening to adjacent propertiesUse of landscaping and relocated gate to prevent unauthorized vehicular accessMinimize impacts to existing trees as much as possibleNew Neighborhood Greenwood Shores ParkPPLake Ann Park Preserve | Feasibility Study Plan11 HELP US REFINE THE DESIGN! TELL US WHAT YOU THINK!KWWSVZZZVXUYH\PRQNH\FRPU/DNH$QQ3DUN3UHVHUYH2SHQ+RXVH - or take a paper version -ACTION NOTESSecure FundingDesign and EngineeringSoil Borings Wetland borings should be done in the early winter Permitting&DQEHGRQHDW3ODQ&RPSOHWLRQRIGHVLJQHQJLQHHULQJBidding Preferred bidding environment in the fall for construction the next year&RQVWUXFWLRQSet Boardwalk Structural Supports Should be done in Winter&RQVWUXFW%RDUGZDON7RS 6KRXOGEHGRQH6SULQJ6XPPHU)DOO&RQVWUXFW7UDLO 6KRXOGEHGRQH6SULQJ6XPPHU)DOOor use the TUFRGHComprehensivePlan Park System PlanAcquireParklandFeasibilityStudyParkMaster PlanSecureFunding5HÀQHG'HVLJQWork and PermittingSubdivision of PropertyConstructionWeAreHereLake Ann Park Preserve | Next Steps12 LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE 13 TONIGHT: • Review Project History • Updates on Changes LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE 14 PROCESS OVERVIEW Comprehensive Plan & Park System Plan Acquire Parkland Feasibility Study We Are Here Park Master Plan Secure Funding Reﬁ ned Design Work and Permitting Subdivision of Property Construction LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE 15 PROJECT OVERVIEW FEASIBILITY STUDY: • Opportunities • Challenges • Constructability • Costs • Environmental • Regulatory • Phasing LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE 16 KEY PRINCIPLES FEASIBILITY STUDY - KEY PRINCIPLES: • Continue trails around Lake Ann to allow for an eventual loop • Preserve the land as a valued natural area in Chanhassen • Connect residents with nature, trails, and parks • Protect the ecological functioning (habitat, water quality) of the site • Celebrate Lake Ann, Lake Lucy, and this property as community amenities LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE 17 CONTEXTGalpin BlvdGalpin BlvdPower s Bl vdPowers B lvd Arboretum BlvdArboretum Blvd LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE 18 SINCE THE STUDY (2019): • Adjacent Neighborhood Development • Inﬂ ation & Supply Chain Issues • Existing infrastructure is 3 years older LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE DISCUSSION 19 LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE Lake Lucy Lake Ann Lake Ann Park Greenwood Shores Park Galpin BlvdMajestic Way Topaz Dr Utica LnUtica LnTecumseh LnBrinker St Walnut Curve Windmill DrLucy Ridge LnRuby LnSapphire LnPaved Trails - Built by City Paved Trails - Built by Developer Paved Trails - Rebuilt by City Boardwalk Prefabricated Bridge Natural Surface Trails Reconstructed Trail to Lake Ann Park - Widen Reconstructed Trail to Lucy Ridge Ln - Address drainage Natural Resource Preservation/ Invasive Species Control Protect center of site from Buckthorn Expansion Manage/Treat/Remove invasives Preserve wetlands Field align trails to retain tree canopy Signage and Wayfi nding Natural resources/historical education Tell the story of Lake Ann trail loop planning Provide directional signage for trail users Natural Surface Trail Waterbars and drainage crossings as needed New paved trail New paved trail Boardwalk Set elevation >fl ood Orient for views Boardwalk Set elevation >fl ood New Paved Trail Built by developer New Paved Trail Built by developer Coordinate grading for pond and boardwalk Bridge Set elevation to allow watercraft under Parking +/- 6 spaces N 200’600’400’PLAN 20 BOARDWALKS (2) & BRIDGE LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE WATER CROSSINGS 21 BOARDWALKS (2) & BRIDGE LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE WATER CROSSINGS 22 BOARDWALKS (2) & BRIDGE LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE WATER CROSSINGS 23 BOARDWALKS (2) & BRIDGE LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE WATER CROSSINGS 24 BOARDWALKS (2) & BRIDGE LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE WATER CROSSINGS 25 BOARDWALKS (2) & BRIDGE LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE WATER CROSSINGS 26 LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE Lake Lucy Lake Ann Lake Ann Park Greenwood Shores Park Galpin BlvdMajestic Way Topaz Dr Utica LnUtica LnTecumseh LnBrinker St Walnut Curve Windmill DrLucy Ridge LnRuby LnSapphire LnPaved Trails - Built by City Paved Trails - Built by Developer Paved Trails - Rebuilt by City Boardwalk Prefabricated Bridge Natural Surface Trails New paved trail New paved trail N 200’600’400’PAVED TRAILS 27 LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE PAVED TRAILS 28 LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE Lake Lucy Lake Ann Lake Ann Park Greenwood Shores Park Galpin BlvdMajestic Way Topaz Dr Utica LnUtica LnTecumseh LnBrinker St Walnut Curve Windmill DrLucy Ridge LnRuby LnSapphire LnPaved Trails - Built by City Paved Trails - Built by Developer Paved Trails - Rebuilt by City Boardwalk Prefabricated Bridge Natural Surface Trails Natural Surface Trail Waterbars and drainage crossings as needed N 200’600’400’NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS 29 LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS 30 LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE CONCEPT DIAGRAMS 31 LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE NATURAL SURFACE TRAILS 32 LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE Lake Lucy Lake Ann Lake Ann Park Greenwood Shores Park Galpin BlvdMajestic Way Topaz Dr Utica LnUtica LnTecumseh LnBrinker St Walnut Curve Windmill DrLucy Ridge LnRuby LnSapphire LnPaved Trails - Built by City Paved Trails - Built by Developer Paved Trails - Rebuilt by City Boardwalk Prefabricated Bridge Natural Surface Trails Reconstructed Trail to Lake Ann Park - Widen Reconstructed Trail to Lucy Ridge Ln - Address drainage Natural Resource Preservation/ Invasive Species Control Protect center of site from Buckthorn Expansion Manage/Treat/Remove invasives Preserve wetlands Field align trails to retain tree canopy Signage and Wayfi nding Natural resources/historical education Tell the story of Lake Ann trail loop planning Provide directional signage for trail users Natural Surface Trail Waterbars and drainage crossings as needed New paved trail New paved trail Boardwalk Set elevation >fl ood Orient for views Boardwalk Set elevation >fl ood New Paved Trail Built by developer New Paved Trail Built by developer Coordinate grading for pond and boardwalk Bridge Set elevation to allow watercraft under Parking +/- 6 spaces N 200’600’400’PLAN 33 INPUT OPPORTUNITIES Paper Comment Cards Online Survey https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ LakeAnnParkPreserveOpenHouse LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE 34 QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? LAKE ANN PARK PRESERVE 35 Chanhassen L ake Ann Park Preserve Open H ouse 1 / 6 Q1 What do you envision for the future of the Lake Ann Park Preserve? Answered: 15 Sk ipped: 4 #RESPONSES DATE 1 A plac e for ev eryone, but k eep as natural as possible. It is a beautiful piec e of property and should be kept as natural as pos s ible. 10/3/2022 8:17 PM 2 A scenic nature pres erv e wit h ac c ess to hik ing, biking, and fis hing where we can do family activities. 10/2/2022 8:48 AM 3 I envision the pres erv e to be maintained but to be lef t as is leaving its natural beaut y 9/30/2022 9:59 PM 4 Leave as-is, don’t c hange anyt hing. Neighborhood wants NO PUBLIC PARKING LOTS!!! Any thing public will bring crime and loitering, NO. We’ll f ight this legally if we have to 9/30/2022 9:58 PM 5 Maintain as much natural land as possible with trails . Thank you for our wonderful park and rec land in Chanhas s en. It is why my family moved here and has lived in Chanhassen f or 35 years. We are very proud of our green space! 9/30/2022 1:14 PM 6 Exac tly this .9/30/2022 10:04 AM 7 Walking path 9/30/2022 8:45 AM 8 A park that s erv es the whole c ommunity and provides a natural preserv e ex perience.9/30/2022 8:42 AM 9 Walking path all around Lake Ann. Snows hoe trails.9/30/2022 6:14 AM 10 I would lov e to s ee more trails and a s plash area. But my bigges t concern is safety. You c an't park there or go there in t he middle of the day anymore without worry ing/feeling uneasy. There needs to be surveillance c ameras and safety s tat ions . I shouldn't feel nerv ous taking k ids there when it's des erted. 9/30/2022 12:31 AM 11 Peac eful, well maintained.9/29/2022 10:14 PM 12 Pav ed trails that are access ible in the winter. It would be great if it was similar to EP Starring Lake path, where it goes all around the lake, a s ledding hill, park ect , and some offshoots for cros s c ountry skiing/hik ing. It would be great if this connec ted to other s urrounding neighborhoods and another way to c onnect to downtown Chanhas s en 9/29/2022 12:31 PM 13 While I appreciate the setup of Lak e Ann Park , I'd lik e to see as muc h of the natural area/paths maintained in the Pres erve portion. Part of "the draw" of this s pecial place is to feel it's nat ural beaut y and remoteness right here in the c it y. 9/29/2022 10:27 AM 14 A completely natural setting with t rails and pic nic sites , but no homes and motoriz ed v ehicles.9/29/2022 9:35 AM 15 We lik e t he c ombo natural and pav ed ac c es s.9/27/2022 6:54 PM 36 Chanhassen L ake Ann Park Preserve Open H ouse 2 / 6 Q2 Are there things you would like to see at the Lake Ann Park Preserve that are not currently shown on the feasibility study plan? Answered: 17 Sk ipped: 2 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Continue with no motorized vehicles on t he paths and on the water at Lak e Ann. Keep no park ing signs on the road by Greenwood shore beach. Keep natural paths through the pres erv e. Thank s for all the work the park and rec program/committee has done to make the happen! 10/3/2022 8:17 PM 2 It would be nice to hav e t he entire Lak e Ann loop connec ted, including the SW part that is n’t shown to have a trail, but I’m guessing that’s not an option. Also des ired, but probably out of scope for this is adding a path to the east s ide of Galpin road t o hav e a walking path connec ting Della Drive and Pearl Driv e 10/2/2022 8:48 AM 3 Flower gardens by seas on with s tones to buy for a mess age on it (idea from friends of loring park down town.) 9/30/2022 10:38 PM 4 No 9/30/2022 9:59 PM 5 NO, LEAVE AS-IS 9/30/2022 9:58 PM 6 How are you keeping c urrent residents in mind? People who have lived in these neighborhoods sinc e they were built? Ev er since Prince died and that land has been “turned over”, it has been nothing but issues . People s neaking bac k there to camp, teenagers throwing parties, all sorts of t hings happening at the small beach lik e people from “outside” coming in and doing drugs, needles found in the sand. Plus the amount of people coming through on thos e neighborhood roads where there are no sidewalk s to keep our k ids and elderly s afe? 9/30/2022 2:41 PM 7 Just in the past few y ears the traffic on Tec umseh Lane and Utic a Lane has gotten out of hand for it being a neighborhood with MANY s mall kids . People come fly ing through to get down to the lake and it is only going to get wors e now. There are no sidewalks, s treetlights, etc . in the neighborhood and it is only a matter of time unt il a child get s hit. The speed limit needs to be dras tically lowered, speed bumps, or something. It is not safe! 9/30/2022 2:33 PM 8 Lots of dogs on thes e trails . Should inc lude poop stations so owners can pick up and dis pose of stools . 9/30/2022 1:14 PM 9 Gett ing it done fas ter. Lighting coming in and out of the forest. Any sort of s afety but ton for hurt people. Lik e a Mot orola radio that could c ommunicate wit h public s afety. 9/30/2022 10:04 AM 10 A specific beach area for Dogs. To many people ignore the postings for no dogs on the swimming beach. Cleared viewing areas for benches to overlook the lakes and wetlands. 9/30/2022 8:42 AM 11 Dog beac h, to keep dog owners off public beac hes 9/30/2022 6:14 AM 12 Yes, more s ecurity/s afety features and a s plas h pad 9/30/2022 12:31 AM 13 No parking at Greenwood s hores park. The woods are a big high school hang out where they are smoking and drinking. 9/29/2022 10:14 PM 14 Would like a c onnection t o the Majes tic /Windmill/Walnut Curv e/Brinker neighborhood. Maybe add a s ledding hill sinc e the clos es t one is Power Hill. Have a res t s top where people could pic nic, us e bathroom Have trash cans so people c an put their pet was te or tras h in it . 9/29/2022 12:31 PM 15 Whenever there are pav ed paths with garbage/recycling cans, I'd like to s ee dog waste bag stations. From a water qualit y pers pec tive and the inc reas ed us age on the trails it just mak es sense to enc ourage k eeping dog poop out of the water. If maintenanc e of the containers is an iss ue, consider utiliz ing neighbors , like my s elf (Sharon McCott er), who walk the trails 4-5 times a week and would be willing to refill the bags. 9/29/2022 10:27 AM 16 Just the completion of the paths around the lak e.9/29/2022 9:35 AM 37 Chanhassen L ake Ann Park Preserve Open H ouse 3 / 6 17 NA 9/27/2022 6:54 PM 38 Chanhassen L ake Ann Park Preserve Open H ouse 4 / 6 Q3 Are there things currently shown on the feasibility study plan you would not like to see at the Lake Ann Park Preserve ? Answered: 16 Sk ipped: 3 #RESPONSES DATE 1 Continue to work with land owner to allow the path to go all the way around Lak e Ann.10/3/2022 8:17 PM 2 We would prefer the fis hing pier over the bird blind 10/2/2022 8:48 AM 3 Small park ing spaces in our neighborhood 9/30/2022 10:38 PM 4 I do not want to s ee park ing lots added to greenwood s hores . There does not need to be additional connec tions between Greenwood Shores and lak e Ann. 9/30/2022 9:59 PM 5 NO-LEAVE AS-I S 9/30/2022 9:58 PM 6 Parking s pac es at Greenwood Shores Park. The beach is not big enough for that many people.9/30/2022 8:48 PM 7 Safety. How is this k eeping residents safe. When they purc hased these homes , they didn’t sign up for this. 9/30/2022 2:41 PM 8 The park ing at Greenwood Shores . There are no parking s igns for a reas on (that no one follows or enforc es). It is way too s mall of a beac h for now even more people. People cons tantly hav e dogs, are smoking, doing drugs , etc . down t here. It has already become over populated from jus t a few years ago and it is no longer family friendly. Adding parking there is only going to mak e that wors e. That beach used to be soley for that neighborhood. The traffic coming through on Tecumseh and Utic a is going to increase and it already has no s idewalks , s treet lights , skinny roads wit h c urves . It is only a matter of time until someone is serious ly injured. 9/30/2022 2:33 PM 9 The Greenwood Shores proposed park ing spots gives me pause. As a RN and Chanhas sen citiz en who has s erv ed on our Public Safet y Commission, I worry about all the pedal bikers (lots of k ids )on the trail between the regional Lake Ann park, Greenwood Shores park (has a steep hill at top of park ) and the neighborhood; now navigating through parked cars c oming and going. I also worry about how parking closer c ould inc reas e the party act ivity -do not have t o carry liquor, tents and gasoline so f ar (the word will get out). I underst and that loc k ing a park gates at night will not happen. If park ing spaces are allowed at the bottom of the hill, who is going to enforce only 4 - 6 spots? Lot s of gras s to park on. If park ing at all, limit t o four s pots on top of hill (street lev el) before bollards to control park ing. The park is open to all and mainly used by 72 households as a neighborhood park . There are lots of s urface parking at regional Lake Ann with a trail that connec ts , s o do we really need parking spots? Greenwood Shores neighborhood is not as k ing for any amenities - just leave it as natural as poss ible. Please do not reopen adjacent s treet parking - a public s afety nightmare if change is made. I live nearby and every one attending a baby /bridal shower at my house or family gathering has to park a little way s away and walk to my hous e. This is jus t fine with me as it keeps everyone safe as they c ome round the curve and up the hill on a narrow road, es pecially the kids on skat eboards, carry ing f loating dev ice while riding their bikes, and oc c as ionally pulling their younger s ibling in a wagon by a rope tied behind t heir bik e, etc . 9/30/2022 1:14 PM 10 No its a good s tart 9/30/2022 8:42 AM 11 Parking Greenwood Shores Park 9/30/2022 6:14 AM 12 No parking at the Greenwood shores park . It’s disappointing this is being c onsidered. You need to keep your promise to the neighborhood not to allow parking. 9/29/2022 10:14 PM 13 I don't want all grav el paths . I want them maintained in winter and a paved for easy bik ing/walking and a good connec tion to the main park at lake ann. 9/29/2022 12:31 PM 14 As someone who lives on Lake Lucy, from a nois e and priv ac y pers pec tive, I would not like to have a fis hing pier or birdwatching blind on Lak e Luc y. Sinc e putting in the temporary bridge over the creek, we hav e seen and heard a s ignificant uptick in people walk ing the trails through the woods. I lik e a quieter atmos phere and added feat ures to the water would att rac t more 9/29/2022 10:27 AM 39 Chanhassen L ake Ann Park Preserve Open H ouse 5 / 6 people and more noise. I know it sounds selfish, but you asked. I could s ee an obs ervation station of some s ort on Lak e Ann, off the trail. On your map above, on Lak e Ann, it say s , New Pav ed Trail. Right where New is, t he lake bows out into a little bay. I k ayak there regularly and that area us ually has s ome of the bigger birds like herons, os prey and owls, es pecially early in the morning. There are als o a number of fish on that side too, although the water is a litt le more shallow and has a good deal of thick plant growt h. I 'm as s uming people c an and will utilize the new park ing spots and launch their waterc raft f rom Green Shores beac h so not s ure I see a need for a s pecific launch. Today, they often park at the closed gate and walk the c raft down already. Or they park at Lak e Ann main park ing and paddle ov er. 15 No, it looks great!9/29/2022 9:35 AM 16 NA 9/27/2022 6:54 PM 40 Chanhassen L ake Ann Park Preserve Open H ouse 6 / 6 63.16%12 21.05%4 10.53%2 5.26%1 Q4 What best describes your relationship to the property? Answered: 19 Sk ipped: 0 TOTAL 19 #OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)DATE 1 Todd Hoffman and now J erry Ruegemer make us proud!! Thank you f or your y ears of s erv ice!9/30/2022 1:14 PM 2 I will be moving to the west of the park in the s pring.9/29/2022 9:35 AM 3 Is t here any eta on the S W ‘farm’ selling and or of fering ac c ess to complete the loop?9/27/2022 6:54 PM 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% I l ive in the Greenw ood... I live in the neighborhood... I live elsew here in... I live outside of Chanhasse... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES I live in the Greenwood Shores neighborhood eas t of the park preserve I live in the neighborhoods just west of the park pres erve I live els ewhere in Chanhas sen I live outs ide of Chanhass en but am interested in the park preserve 41 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Trail Maintenance Funding Discussion File No.Item No: A.2 Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Prepared By Charlie Howley, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION Discussion Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority Asset Management SUMMARY Staff will present an overview of the current and projected condition of our multi-use trails, the current rehabilitation plan, and the funding associated with the improvements. BACKGROUND Similar to street pavement, we rate our trails on an Overall Condition Index (OCI) scale of 0-100 with 100 being brand new. Our stated goal is to have an overall average OCI of 70.0. The current OCI average of our trails is 75.8. A map showing the OCIs for the various trail segments is attached. Also attached is our current 5-year Capital Pavement Management Plan for trail improvements and a report of this year's annual inspections and projections. DISCUSSION 42 Trails are typically maintained by the Parks Department; however, when it comes to rehabilitation of the pavement, the Public Works Department generally administers the improvement. If a street project has a trail along the corridor, any trail rehabilitation is included in the overall street improvement project, similar to utilities and storm water management improvements. In this case, the trail rehabilitation costs are covered by the Pavement Management Program (PMP) Fund, which is where the street costs are covered. Many of our trails, however, are not along a street corridor, and therefore there is no real opportunity to attach such trail rehabilitation to a larger project. BUDGET Currently the funding for standalone trail and parking lot rehabilitation projects comes from the Transportation Infrastructure Management (TIM) Fund. The revenue associated with this fund is a general property tax levy of $406,000 (proposed for 2023), with a projected 3% annual increase to cover inflationary costs. This fund is used for various annual pavement maintenance activities with $80,000 of it (proposed for 2023) assigned for trail and parking lot improvements. This level of funding is not sufficient to support our goal of an overall OCI average of 70, which is projected to fall to approximately 64 at the end of the 5-year CIP. The current TIM and PMP fund projections are attached to this report for reference. RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS 2022 Chanhassen Trail and Parking Lot PMP Memo Trail OCI Map-2022 Trails 5-Year CIP - 2023-2027 TIM Fund Projection PMP Fund Projection 43 701 XENIA AVENUE S. SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM September 13, 2022 PREPARED FOR: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 2022 TRAIL & PARKING LOT PMP ANALYSIS Chanhassen, MN 44 Pavement Management Report Table of Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 OCI Discrepancies ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Appendix A: Trail PMP Map ................................................................................................................. 6 Appendix B: OCI Condition Map .......................................................................................................... 7 45 Pavement Management Report P a g e | 2 Summary A summary of the current pavement condition is listed below:  13 miles of City trails and 11 parking lots were evaluated in Chanhassen this year and the remainder of the pavement segments were provided with an estimated OCI based on a standard degradation curve.  The current weighted average Overall Condition Index (OCI) for bituminous trails in Chanhassen is 74.96. OCI is based on a 0 to 100 scale, with higher OCI values corresponding to better trail conditions. This weighted average is calculated from the OCI values generated on each segment of trail. A trail’s OCI is based on the quantity and severity of pavement distresses identified in the field. Any type of road maintenance (i.e. patching or crack sealing) done prior to inspections is accounted for in the OCI value.  Chanhassen breaks out its pavement condition categories as follows: Good 100-85, Satisfactory 84.99-75, Fair 74.99-50, and Poor 49.99-0. A summary of the total area of pavements in each category is shown in the following chart. Good 17% Satisfactory 41% Fair 31% Poor 11% PERCENTAGE OF TRAIL AND PARKING SURFACE AREA BY CONDITION CATEGORY 46 Pavement Management Report P a g e | 3 Appendix A contains the pavement management plan (PMP) for trails that was provided by the City of Chanhassen for it’s 5-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP). Below is a summary of the 5- year OCI projections as predicted by Cartegraph for the planned work broken down by year starting in 2023. Segments of new trail construction were not incorporated into these numbers because they do not yet exist in the Cartegraph database. A scenario on parking lots was not run because no 5-year plan was provided. Parking lot OCI numbers were projected off no work being completed. Parking Lot OCI Projection Plan Year Beginning Estimated OCI Ending Estimated OCI 2023 72.78 70.62 2024 70.62 68.49 2025 68.49 66.41 2026 66.41 64.34 2027 64.34 62.38 Trail OCI Projections Plan Year Planned Mileage Beginning Estimated OCI Ending Estimated OCI 2023 2.2 74.96 72.7 2024 2.9 72.7 70.5 2025 0.6 70.5 68.41 2026 0.2 68.41 66.37 2027 0.5 66.37 64.39 Looking at the PMP plan that the city has in place for their trail system shows there are several mill and overlay project plans that were able to be incorporated into the Cartegraph scenario. When the 5-year degradation scenario is run the starting OCI of 74.96 drops to 64.39 by the end of the 5 years. This does not meet the City’s goal of maintaining the trail system at an OCI of 70. The degradation curve that is set for trail segments should be reviewed. This is what is used to project how fast the OCI is dropping. Right now, it is the same degradation curve that is applied to city streets and is the same standard curve many other communities use. Trail pavements do not have the loading that most roadways have and the pavement structure is often different. In the future the City should look at adjusting this curve based off of data from several years of trail inspections within the city. This change would help the city more accurately run scenarios and budget for their trail system. To do this the city would have to pick a handful of representative trail segments that have at least 20 to 25 years of inspection data to start creating a modified curve. Currently the City of Chanhassen has a few segments in this range but there would need to be discussions with city staff to determine what segments would best represent the system. 47 Pavement Management Report P a g e | 4 OCI Discrepancies When reviewing the OCI discrepancies for the trail segments it was obvious that the deterioration curve for these segments is too aggressive. The parking lot sections all seemed relatively straight forward for what we were seeing when the OCI’s were reviewed. Parking lot ID # 271-10 is the only one that might warrant further investigation because it is deteriorating faster than expected and already appeared to have several repairs. 48 Pavement Management Report P a g e | 5 Appendices 49 50 51 52 53 Lake Virginia Christmas Lake Lotus Lake Brendan Pond Lake Harrison Kerber Pond Lake Susan Rice Marsh Lake Lake Riley Rice Lake Lake St. Joe Lake Minnewashta Lake Ann Lake Lucy ST15 ST18 ST14 ST17 ST61 Minnewashta Regional Park North Lotus Lake Park Meadow Green Park Lake Ann Park Chanhassen Pond Park Chanhassen Nature Preserve Chanhassen Recreation Center Lake Susan Park Rice Marsh Lake Preserve Power Hill Park Fox Woods Preserve Bandimere Community Park Bluff Creek Golf Course Hesse Farm Park Preserve Lake Susan Preserve Raguet Wildlife Management Are MN Valley National Wildlife Re MN Landscape Arboretum Seminary Fen Scientific & Nat* Bluff Creek Preserve Independent School District 11 Independent School District 112 Independent School District 276 Riley Ridge Park Lake Ann Park Preserve SA5 SA7 SA101 SA41 SA5 )212 Powers BlvdGreatPlainsBlvdLyman Blvd AudubonRdChanhassen RdA r b o r e t u m Blvd A r b o retum Blvd Pioneer TrlGalpinBlvd H w y212Hwy 212GalpinBlvdHazeltineBlvdMarketBlvdPowersBlvdHwy 7Hwy 7 Flying C l o u d D r C o R d 1 0 1 ST101 GH117 Date Created: 6/13/2022 Document Path: K:\Departments\Engineering\CIP\2023-2027\CIP_5Year_2023-2027.aprxCreated By: City of Chanhassen - Engineering Department µ0 3,000 Feet 0 0.5 Mile 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan Pavement Management - Trails (2023-2027) City of Chanhassen Legend 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2024 - By Others 54 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA FUND 420 STREET PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT (TIM - TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT) REVENUES General Property Taxes 394,490$ 205,712$ 406,000$ 418,000$ 430,000$ 442,000$ 454,000$ 466,000$ 478,000$ 490,000$ 502,000$ 514,000$ 5,832,202$ Intergovernmental*-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1,230,170$ Investment Earnings -$ 11,402$ 10,633$ 9,999$ 9,231$ 8,567$ 7,752$ 7,328$ 6,898$ 6,461$ 6,018$ 115,243$ Refunds & Reimbursements 93$ 4,550$ TOTAL REVENUES 394,490$ 205,805$ 417,402$ 428,633$ 439,999$ 451,231$ 462,567$ 473,752$ 485,328$ 496,898$ 508,461$ 520,018$ 7,182,165$ *MSA Maint funds go to PMP fund in years 2022 and beyond -$ EXPENDITURES -$ Current: Public Works 311,500$ 272,538$ 348,700$ 388,900$ 367,200$ 408,500$ 386,900$ 370,000$ 380,000$ 390,000$ 400,000$ 410,000$ 5,846,641$ (Sealcoating, crack sealing, pavement inspection, patching materials, contract patching, pavement marking, bridge inspection and minor repairs) Capital Outlay:-$ ADA Transition Plan Improvements 40,000$ 40,000$ -$ 40,000$ -$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 40,000$ 360,000$ Trail & Parking Lots repairs/rehab 72,000$ 80,000$ 82,000$ 84,000$ 87,000$ 90,000$ 92,000$ 94,000$ 96,000$ 98,000$ 100,000$ 975,000$ TOTAL EXPENDITURES 423,500$ 272,538$ 468,700$ 470,900$ 491,200$ 495,500$ 516,900$ 502,000$ 514,000$ 526,000$ 538,000$ 550,000$ 7,186,103$ REVENUES OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES (29,010)$ (66,734)$ (51,298)$ (42,267)$ (51,201)$ (44,269)$ (54,333)$ (28,248)$ (28,672)$ (29,102)$ (29,539)$ (29,982)$ (3,939)$ FUND BALANCE - JAN 1 789,149$ 760,139$ 708,841$ 666,574$ 615,372$ 571,103$ 516,769$ 488,521$ 459,849$ 430,747$ 401,208$ 371,226$ FUND BALANCE - DEC 31 760,139$ 708,841$ 666,574$ 615,372$ 571,103$ 516,769$ 488,521$ 459,849$ 430,747$ 401,208$ 371,226$ ASSETS Cash and Investments 1010 Accrued Interest Receivable Due From Other Governments Accounts Receivable Property Taxes Receivable Prepaid Items Interfund Loan Receivable TOTAL ASSETS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ LIABILITIES Accounts Payable 2020 -$ Due to Other Governments Contracts Payable -$ TOTAL LIABILITIES -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ FUND BALANCE Nonspendable Assigned Unassigned 2600 TOTAL FUND BALANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ TOTAL LIABILITIES & FUND BALANCE -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2023 BUDGET 2022 BUDGET 2022 thru 10/5/22 2024 BUDGET 2025 BUDGET 2026 BUDGET 2027 BUDGET 2028 BUDGET 2029 BUDGET 2030 BUDGET 2031 BUDGET 2032 BUDGET Total 55 CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA MSA/year 1,560,000$ 1,400,000$ 1,020,000$ 300,000$ FUND 601 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT FUND PMP Funds Drawn 3,408,000$ 3,146,000$ 3,104,000$ 2,922,000$ 2,940,000$ PMP Funds Revenue 3,018,530$ 2,977,067$ 2,955,935$ 2,979,457$ 2,930,524$ Net Use of Funds 389,470$ 168,933$ 148,065$ (57,457)$ 9,476$ 658,486$ 2022 Budget 2022 thru 10/5/22 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 REVENUES General Property Taxes 900,000$ 469,318$ 918,000$ 936,000$ 955,000$ 974,000$ 994,000$ 1,014,000$ 1,034,000$ 1,055,000$ 1,076,000$ 1,098,000$ Intergovernmental-Non MSA 1,398,000$ 88,720$ 4,200,000$ 6,260,000$ -$ -$ -$ MSA Construction 630,508$ 1,038,922$ 1,070,090$ 1,102,192$ 1,135,258$ 1,169,316$ MSA Maintenance 346,308$ 356,697$ 367,398$ 378,420$ 389,773$ Franchise Fees 1,860,000$ 468,282$ 1,860,000$ 1,860,000$ 1,860,000$ 1,860,000$ 1,860,000$ 1,860,000$ 1,860,000$ 1,860,000$ 1,860,000$ 1,860,000$ Special Assessments 208,000$ 317,235$ 177,000$ 126,000$ 88,000$ 88,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Investment Earnings 37,200$ 63,530$ 55,067$ 52,935$ 57,457$ 76,524$ 99,769$ 144,375$ 189,951$ 236,525$ 284,113$ Refunds & Reimbursements 12,500$ Other TOTAL REVENUES 4,403,200$ 1,986,562$ 8,603,760$ 10,663,854$ 4,425,525$ 4,493,135$ 4,489,613$ 2,973,769$ 3,038,375$ 3,104,951$ 3,172,525$ 3,242,113$ EXPENDITURES TOTAL EXPENDITURES 5,162,000$ 3,004,490$ 11,140,000$ 12,670,000$ 8,780,000$ 5,310,000$ 4,840,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ REVENUES OVER/(UNDER) EXPENDITURES (758,800)$ (1,017,928)$ (2,536,240)$ (2,006,146)$ (4,354,475)$ (816,865)$ (350,387)$ 2,973,769$ 3,038,375$ 3,104,951$ 3,172,525$ 3,242,113$ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES/(USES) Project Financing Issued 1,736,000$ 1,972,000$ 1,864,000$ 4,656,000$ 2,088,000$ 1,900,000$ NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 977,200$ (1,017,928)$ (564,240)$ (142,146)$ 301,525$ 1,271,135$ 1,549,613$ 2,973,769$ 3,038,375$ 3,104,951$ 3,172,525$ 3,242,113$ FUND BALANCE - JAN 1 3,258,157$ 3,258,157$ 4,235,357$ 3,671,117$ 3,528,971$ 3,830,496$ 5,101,631$ 6,651,244$ 9,625,013$ 12,663,388$ 15,768,339$ 18,940,864$ FUND BALANCE - DEC 31 4,235,357$ 2,240,229$ 3,671,117$ 3,528,971$ 3,830,496$ 5,101,631$ 6,651,244$ 9,625,013$ 12,663,388$ 15,768,339$ 18,940,864$ 22,182,977$ 56 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Discuss Temporarily Prohibiting Manufacturing and Distribution Facilities for Medical Cannabis, and THC Products and Intoxicating Cannabinoids File No.Item No: A.3 Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION Discussion Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 57 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Future Work Session Schedule File No.Item No: A.4 Agenda Section 5:30 P.M. - WORK SESSION Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION N/A Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY The City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold the following work sessions: October 24, 2022 1. Speed Limit Discussion 2. General Fund & Property Supported Funds Discussion 3. Financial Policy Discussion 4. City Council Roundtable November 14, 2022 1. CIP, Debt & Utility Rate Study Discussion 2. Tree Policy Discussion November 28, 2022 58 December 12, 2022 BACKGROUND Staff or the City Council may suggest topics for work sessions. Dates are tentative until the meeting agenda is published. Work sessions are typically held at 5:30 pm on the second and fourth Monday of each month in conjunction with the regular City Council meeting, but may be scheduled for other times as needed. DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 59 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Approve City Council Minutes dated September 26, 2022 File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves the City Council minutes dated September 26, 2022." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS City Council Regular Meeting Minutes dated September 26, 2022 60 City Council Work Session Minutes dated September 26, 2022 61 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge of Allegiance. COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilwoman Rehm, Councilman McDonald, Councilman Campion, Councilwoman Schubert. COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:None. STAFF PRESENT: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager; Matt Unmacht, Assistant City Manager; Charlie Howley, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Jerry Ruegemer, Park & Recreation Director; Kelly Grinnell, Finance Director; Richard Rice, MIS Director, Lt. Lance Pearce, CCSO; and Ari Lyksett, Communications Manager. PUBLIC PRESENT:None. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: 1. Chanhassen Lions Service Recognition Mayor Ryan stated the Chanhassen Lions Club was chartered in 1988 and is a member of Lions International, a service organization with more than 1.4 million members in 48,000 clubs around the world. The Chanhassen Lions have been active in the community and have made past donations and participated with following projects and events: Park Improvement Projects Partially funding the ballfield lighting of Lake Ann Park Ball Field #4 Purchased and installed a monument sign recognizing Lake Ann Field #4 as Lions Field Purchased and installed a memorial bench at Lake Ann Field #4 (Lions field) Purchased and installed five park benches at Bandimere Community Park Purchased and installed the Chanhassen Lions drinking fountain at Lake Ann Park playground City Service Projects Sponsorship of the Chanhassen Senior Center Summer Picnic for 20+ years and counting Fishing Contest Marshals at February Festival 100% Sponsored Senior Center Drive-In Concert Participated in Chanhassen's "Great Stuff Food Drives" and helped deliver all donations to PROP Food Shelf Volunteer at various city community events 62 City Council Minutes – September 26, 2022 2 Fire Department/Lions Pancake Breakfast Mayor Ryan stated the Chanhassen Lions have been providing service to our Chanhassen Community for 34 years. Their support and commitment to Chanhassen are very much appreciated and recognized. She invited Chanhassen Lions members Dave Hess and Greg Provo to come forward and presented them with a Certificate of Appreciation. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman McDonald moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the City Council approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations: 1. Approve City Council Minutes dated September 12, 2022 2. Receive Planning Commission Minutes dated September 6, 2022 3. Receive Senior Commission Minutes dated August 19, 2022 4. Approve Claims Paid dated September 26, 2022 5. Award Contract for Fox Hollow Drainage Improvement Project 6.Resolution 2022-69:Approve Interfund Loan for Tax Increment Financing District 12 - Lake Place Housing 7.Resolution 2022-70 Accept Donation from Kwik Trip in the Amount of $1,000 for the Parks and Recreation Department Senior Expo on September 29, 2022 8.Resolution 2022-71: Authorize Purchase of Replacement Network Server and Storage Array Located at Public Works 9.Ordinance 697:Amending the City Fees and Charges for 2022 10.Ordinance 696:Adopt Summary of Ordinance 696 for Publication Purposes - Avienda PUD Amendment All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. FIRE DEPARTMENT/LAW ENFORCEMENT UPDATES 1. Monthly Fire Department Update Mayor Ryan noted the department is currently hosting an open house and encouraged everyone to read the update in the packet. 2. Law Enforcement Update Lieutenant Pearce shared an August update noting they had 848 calls for service, 59 Group A crimes, 428 non-criminal calls, 222 traffic stops with 7 DUI arrests and 55 citations. Fraud and 63 City Council Minutes – September 26, 2022 3 theft are consistent with previous months, and there was a spike in mental health calls for service due to some frequent callers and the department has been working with the crisis team on a better response plan for those individuals. The investigator currently has 23 cases, and Lieutenant Pearce spoke about the caseload including property crimes, coercion/sextortion cases, one follow up on an overdose, and one trespassing case. He shared that the County mental health co-responder position is currently vacant, and they hope to get that filled. Lieutenant Pearce noted that there was someone who passed away while mowing the lawn and he commended Sergeant Mueller for finishing the mowing when the call was over. PUBLIC HEARINGS:None. GENERAL BUSINESS 1. Resolution 2022-72: Adopt the Preliminary Tax Levy, Budget and Establish the Truth- In-Taxation Public Hearing Date Finance Director Kelly Grinnell noted this evening is the adoption of the preliminary levy. She shared about the preliminary General Fund budget for 2023 noting a balanced budget of $14,343,095. She noted both the budget and the levy link to the Strategic Plan adopted in 2021; some priorities addressed are Financial Stability, Sustainability, and Operational Excellence. Ms. Grinnell spoke about General Fund Revenues (8.7% increase), property taxes (5.4% increase), licenses and permits (17.7% increase), charge for services (7.4% increase), and other revenue. She compared revenues to the General Fund Expenditures which are increasing 6.6% and shared about a transfer in of expenses from the Communications Department, noting there is no significant change to the spending, but it is now moving to the General Fund from the CATV Fund. Ms. Grinnell spoke about and explained expenditure increases and decreases including public safety increases, a public works decrease, and a parks and recreation increase. Ms. Grinnell shared about the General Fund Balance and Revenue Stabilization, noting fund balance are the City’s assets subtracted by liabilities and is broken down into non-spendable, restricted, committed (set aside by the City Council), assigned, and unassigned. The City has a fund balance policy that they will maintain a minimum Unassigned Fund Balance equal to at least 50% of the following year’s levied property taxes and anticipated State aid. Ms. Grinnell suggests removing the State aid portion and creating a Revenue Stabilization Arrangement via amendments to the Fund Balance policy. This would formally set aside amounts for use in revenue shortfalls and the amount would be set aside as Committed Fund Balance in the General Fund in an amount up to the succeeding year’s budgeted building permit revenue and investment income. Ms. Grinnell gave an example of how the proposed Balance and Revenue Stabilization would work if the City chose to go that direction at the end of 2022. Ms. Grinnell shared about the preliminary Capital Improvement Fund 2023-2027, including the Capital Facilities Fund, Transportation Infrastructure Management Fund, Pavement Management Fund, Capital Equipment/Vehicle Replacement Fund, and unfunded or uncertain items including 64 City Council Minutes – September 26, 2022 4 Park Renovation and Park Development Funds. Ms. Grinnell shared about each of the funds and spoke about line items, planned projects, recurring items within the plans including ADA transition improvements and trail/parking lot pavement. She noted sources for pavement projects including Municipal State Aid (MSA), non-MSA aid, franchise fees, and special assessments from benefitting properties. The Capital Equipment/Replacement Fund is used to replace equipment such as dump trucks, loaders, tractors, mowers, and a lease with Enterprise for smaller trucks, and Ms. Grinnell showed a slide regarding technology including a cloud-hosted service for building permit software. Ms. Grinnell shared some unfunded areas in the area of park renovation noting the City has a plan to replace playgrounds every 20-25 years and quite a few playgrounds are scheduled in the next few years. They also have batting cages, tennis courts, and Skate Park equipment. Currently the need is approximately $250,000 a year for those park projects; the City has also identified items for the Park Acquisition and Development Fund which has a dedicated funding source in park dedication fees paid as new development comes into the City. Ms. Grinnell spoke about levies and shared a slide showing the County Assessor’s Report for taxes payable in 2023. In 2022 the City had a tax rate of 22.4% and if the Council adopted an increase of 5.2% for 2023 that rate would be 19.9%, a 7.2% increase would result in a 20.3% tax rate. Ms. Grinnell showed examples on screen regarding the levy options, and she shared comparable cities’ preliminary levy increases noting Chanhassen is toward the lower end of the spectrum with the 5.2%-7.2% increase. Ms. Grinnell showed slides that explained the impact of the levy on homes and commercial properties of various market values. She spoke about State- wide averages and compared them to the City of Chanhassen noting the biggest difference in the property tax area; expenditures are also lower than State-wide averages. Ms. Grinnell closed by saying tonight the City Council needs to adopt a resolution to set the 2023 Preliminary Budget Levy, set the date for a public hearing, and noted Staff will continue to refine these numbers and bring them back to the City Council. On December 12 they will hold the Truth-in-Taxation public hearing and will adopt the levy, budget, and fee schedule. Ms. Grinnell noted whatever is approved tonight can be reduced but it cannot be increased. Mayor Ryan shared that the City Council has been working on the budget during work sessions and opened it up to the Councilmembers for discussion and feedback. Councilman Campion asked Ms. Grinnell what the new growth projection is for 2023. Ms. Grinnell replied for new growth such as building permit projections they are using a three-year average and they expect it will continue at its pre-2021 existing rate. Councilman McDonald noted the work that goes into putting this presentation together and would also be interested in seeing the new growth projections. He thinks the levy increase should be closer to the 5.2%; however, he understands the 7.2% and noted there are still discussions to be had about numbers and how they relate to items in the budget. He would support the 7.2% tonight with the understanding that the Council will work over the next two months to bring the levy down working towards the 5.2%. Councilman McDonald noted they are down to just a few 65 City Council Minutes – September 26, 2022 5 items, and he thinks it shows a lot about Staff’s responsiveness in helping the City Council understand what is behind those numbers. Councilwoman Rehm concurred with Councilman McDonald and the 7.2% makes sense to her. She appreciates the presentation, especially the comparison of other cities. She would like some more wiggle room to figure out how to do some of the work on the trails and parks as that fund is not in place right now. Councilwoman Schubert noted many unknowns this year in the economy and people are struggling with inflation costs in their home budgets. For this reason, she will be asking the City Council to dig deep and get closer to that 5.2% and wants to be sure they do their due diligence over the next two months to bring that levy increase as low as they can. She understands the law enforcement cost increase and having employee increases in costs year after year, so she wants to look at other areas to cut costs to level that out and not put more burden on the citizens this year. Councilman Campion agrees that the 7.2% is a not-to-exceed and justified number for the preliminary levy right now. Driven by many factors including inflation, he would like to see the City Council end up closer at 5.2% or even lower, although they would need to dig in and go through the budget in more detail. He would support the 7.2% for the preliminary levy. Mayor Ryan agreed with her fellow Councilmembers. She noted the City Council works closely with City Staff to get the numbers, go through the background, have conversations, and they recognize what is happening in the world today. She noted the concern that residents have regarding finances and shared that the City Council recognizes the importance of every single dollar whether it is at 5.2% or 7.2%. Mayor Ryan spoke about lengthy discussions that took place in the work sessions to figure out how they can continue to invest in the City. Some challenges the City has faced were due to the focus on past levy increases being as minimal as possible and, in turn, the City did not plan for the future which puts them in challenging situations. She wants to make sure they are making that investment with public safety, fire service, and parks and maintenance, and they will continue to have those conversations to plan and prepare for the future beyond 2023. Mayor Ryan wants to be sure they get down from 7.2% but will support the preliminary levy being set at that number with the expectation that the City Council works hard to get it down from that number. Councilman McDonald moved, Councilwoman Rehm seconded that the Chanhassen City Council adopt a resolution approving the 2023 Preliminary Budget with a Preliminary 2022 tax levy increase of 7.2% collectible in 2023 and establishing the Truth-in-Taxation public meeting date on December 12, 2022. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. None. 66 City Council Minutes – September 26, 2022 6 CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. 1. Southern Valley Alliance Letter dated September 13, 2022 2. League of Minnesota Cities Magazine September/October 2022 Issue-Gnomadic Gnome Scavenger Hunt Article Councilman Campion moved, Councilwoman Schubert seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Submitted by Laurie Hokkanen City Manager Prepared by Kim Meuwissen City Clerk 67 CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Ryan, Councilman McDonald, Councilwoman Rehm, Councilman Campion and Councilwoman Schubert COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager; Kelly Grinnell, Finance Director; Matt Unmacht, Assistant City Manager; Charlie Howley, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Don Johnson, Fire Chief; Rick Rice, IT Manager; Jerry Ruegemer, Park & Recreation Director; and Ari Lyksett, Communications Manager. PUBLIC PRESENT: None. Mayor Ryan called the Work Session to order at 5:30 p.m. 2023 PRELIMINARY BUDGET, LEVY, AND CIP DISCUSSION Finance Director Kelly Grinnell presented PowerPoint slides reviewing the following: • Preliminary General Fund Budget • Preliminary CIP • Market Values • Preliminary Levy, Tax Rate, & Taxes • Resolution adopting preliminary governmental funds budget, preliminary levy for taxes payable in 2023, and to set the date for the truth-in-taxation meeting Ms. Grinnell provided next steps: • September 26 City Council Meeting: Adopt resolution setting 2023 preliminary governmental fund budgets, tax levy, and set TNT public hearing date • October 24 City Council Work Session: Discuss General Fund & Property Tax Supported Funds • November 14 City Council Work Session (and November 28 if needed): Review CIP, Debt, and Utility Funds, Budgets for all funds • December 12 City Council Meeting: Hold Truth-in-Taxation Public Hearing and adopts levy, budget, and fee schedule Following the presentation, the Council discussed LED lighting in the parks, building a new city hall, creating a revenue stabilization arrangement, and determining what the levy increase amount should be. 68 City Council Work Session Minutes – September 26, 2022 2 FUTURE WORK SESSION SCHEDULE Date Item October 10 • Lake Ann Park Preserve Master Plan: Open House Follow-up and Project Update • Trail Maintenance Funding Discussion • Discuss Temporarily Prohibiting Manufacturing and Distribution Facilities for Medical Cannabis, and THC Products and Intoxicating Cannabinoids October 24 • General Fund & Property Supported Funds Discussion • Financial Policy Discussion • City Council Roundtable November 14 • CIP, Debt & Utility Rate Study Discussion • Tree Policy Discussion The work session adjourned at 6:54 p.m. Submitted by Laurie Hokkanen City Manager Prepared by Kim Meuwissen City Clerk 69 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Receive Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 23, 2022 File No.Item No: D.2 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Christine Lusian, Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council Receives the Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 23, 2022." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Operational Excellence SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 70 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes August 23, 2022 71 CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 23, 2022 Vice Chair Markert called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Heather Markert, Scott Fischer, Don Vasatka, Jim Peck, Alex Jerdee, Dan Eidsmo . MEMBERS ABSENT: Karl Tsuchiya, Matt Kutz. STAFF PRESENT: Parks and Recreation Director Jerry Ruegemer, Recreation Center Manager Jodi Sarles, Recreation Supervisor Mitchell Czech. PUBLIC PRESENT: None. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mr. Ruegemer asked to add item 4 under Reports: The Lake Ann Preserve Open House. Commissioner Peck moved, Commissioner Vasatka seconded to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Ruegemer congratulated Alex Jerdee on her reappointment as the Youth Commissioner for another year. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVE PARK & RECREATION MINUTES DATED JUNE 28, 2022 Commissioner Fischer moved, Commissioner Vasatka seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission Meeting dated June 28, 2022 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 72 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2022 2 GENERAL BUSINESS: 1. 2022-2023 Ice Skating Rink Location Recommendations Mitchell Czech, Recreation Supervisor , noted they are planning for winter and recommend flooding the 11 ice rinks at six locations and maintaining five warming houses. This is the same as the previous year. Locations are at the Chanhassen Rec Center (1 Family Rink, 2 Hockey Rinks), North Lotus (1 Family Rink, 1 Hockey Rink), City Center (1 Family Rink, 1 Hockey Rink), Bandimere Park (1 Family Rink, 1 Hockey Rink), Roundhouse Park (1 Family Rink), Pioneer Pass Park (1 Family Rink, no warming house). He shared about rink attendants, warming house hours, and recorded participant numbers from 2021-2022 season. The previous year they had 15 rink attendants whose wages totaled $16,676 with 1,445 hours worked. Mr. Czech noted they are looking forward to another great season. Staff recommends that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council that these ice skating rink locations and warming house hours be maintained for the 2022-2023 season. Vice Chair Markert asked other roles and duties of the rink attendants. Mr. Czech replied they staff the warming house to be sure everyone is behaving as they should, not vandalizing or damaging property, and to serve as a customer service person to answer questions and interact with those co ming in and out. They also check-in equipment such as the PVC pipe trainers, record attendance, an open/close the warming house. Commissioner Peck asked about the Lotus Park Hockey Rink. Mr. Ruegemer just paid 45% of the bill although the work has not started. He noted Becker will be building that and the work should begin in October to be done by the start of the season. Commissioner Vasatka asked if Roundhouse Park is worth it as less than 1% of the users are there and whether it is worth turning the heat on. Mr. Ruegemer replied that was a neighborhood “feel good” back in the day and the Park Commission debated this back in the 1990’s-2000’s on whether the building should be demolished. The Commission at the time felt it was historical and the identity of the park, and there was a volunteer effort to coordinate the painting, new windows, new roof, etcetera. The City recognizes that is not a high-volume rink location but does serve an area to the west that is land-locked by two major highways. He noted they can monitor it, have a neighborhood meeting, and they recognize that demographics change and the Commission can broach that conversation again. 73 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2022 3 Mr. Czech shared about some staffing issues the previous year as Staff were out with Covid and noted certain ice rink numbers may be a bit skewed as that rink was one of the first he would close when staffing levels were low. Commissioner Peck moved, Commissioner Eidsmo seconded to approve the Park and Recreation Commission’s recommendation to the City Council that the same ice skating rink locations and warming house hours be maintained for the 2022-2023 season. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. REPORTS: 1. 2022 4th of July Celebration Evaluation Mr. Czech gave a recap on the 4th of July Celebration and said it is estimated that over 70,000 people came to the celebration. Highlights on Saturday included the Farmer’s Market, family night at the carnival, pony r ides, and a kids’ music performance. Sunday kicked off with a Twins Youth Baseball Clinic, Water Wars, carnival, The Medicine Show (vaudeville), face painting, beer garden, kids’ activities & kiddie parade, petting zoo, and live music. On Monday, highlights included adult and kids fishing contest s, sand sculpture contest, classic car show, Taste of Chanhassen, live music, parade and historic plane flyover, and the fireworks display. Mr. Czech shared recommendations for 2023 including creative options for recruiting volunteers which is always a struggle, increasing sponsorship opportunities, contracting with an outside company for waste and recycling removal, to begin t-shirt sales after Memorial Day to increase sales, order fewer shirts to avoid leftover inventory, continue to offer children’s performances on July 2, and consider offering two waves of the kids fishing contest to reduce congestion on the fishing pier. Vice Chair Markert spoke about volunteer opportunities through Minnetonka Schools, the direct mail which was a hit, and asked whether they could do a design contest for the t -shirt sales or a tie-dye station for kids to increase t -shirt sales. Commissioner Vasatka noted the following year is 40 years and asked if there is anything special planned. Mr. Ruegemer noted thought has been given but nothing is concrete right now. They did increase the budget request for fireworks next year. Commissioner Vasatka noted they ran out of hot dogs about 40 minutes before fireworks began. Mr. Czech noted product was flying that night and he purchased more hot dog buns than he ever thought they could go through. Vice Chair Markert thanked Priya Tando n and everyone who helped make the weekend a successful event. 74 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2022 4 2. Termination of Contract with Hufcor, Inc. Recreation Center Manager Jodi Sarles shared this good news as they will be able to move on to a new chapter in the “wall saga” at the Rec Center. She noted that the previous year in May the walls came out at the Rec Center, and with Covid, supply shortages, and delays Hufcor was back in December to work on walls. However, they measured one wall 10 inches too short and after multiple times trying to hear back from the company, she finally found out in May that Hufcor is out of commission globally. The City Attorney advised sending a certified letter to find out intentions which has not received a response. City Council approved the termination of that contract the previous night at the Council Meeting on 08-22-2022. Ms. Sarles shared that of the $68,000 contract, the City has paid $16,000 for the track of the structure, repair of soffits, and repainting of the rooms. She hopes they will not have to tear everything o ut and rebuild. She noted Hufcor had invoiced the City for what is in place right now at about $34,000 , which the City did not pay due to the lack of communications and corrections. Ms. Sarles noted they will now start back at square one. Mr. Ruegemer publicly acknowledged Ms. Sarles noting she has been extremely flexible and a magician trying to make things work with the way the walls are right now. It has been a lot of juggling and has been a challenge. He thanked Ms. Sarles for that , noting it has not been easy. 3. Revised Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the City of Chanhassen and Independent School District 112 for the Chanhassen Recreation Center and Bluff Creek Elementary School Ms. Sarles updated the Park Commission and gave history that since the building opened they have been operating without a JPA. Thus far it has been handshake agreements and working together. However, both the District and the City want to have a more formalized agreement between the two entities. This JPA now reflects what each party will be responsible for at the Rec Center. 4. The Lake Ann Preserve Open House Mr. Ruegemer shared that the Referendum Task Force and the Park Referendum was paused as they felt the timing was not right with high inflation and gas prices. Many conversations are happening right now about what could happen in the future if a new City Hall is built and this current building is torn down. Perhaps it would become a civic plaza with a skate loop, water feature, adaptive recreation, or performance stage. On September 13, they will hold a meeting with all the City Commissions to look at some of those concepts and brainstorm. When the City Council and Task Force decided to pause the referendum, they both felt strongly about moving forward with Lake Ann Park Reserve. The City Council said they will use portions of the ARPA funds and some funds from the General Fund for that project. As part of the process, there is an Open House on September 27 with concepts and display boards for the community to see and 75 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes – August 23, 2022 5 give feedback on. Mr. Ruegemer hopes to get another Flash Vote out to receive additional feedback from the public. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS: None. COMMISSION MEMBER PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Eidsmo moved, Commissioner Peck 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 8:09 p.m. Submitted by Jerry Ruegemer Park and Recreation Director Prepared by Amy Weidman Administrative Support Specialist 76 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Approve Claims Paid dated October 10, 2022 File No.Item No: D.3 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Danielle Washburn, Assistant Finance Director Reviewed By Kelly Grinnell SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council Approves Claims Paid dated October 10, 2022." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Financial Sustainability SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION The following claims are submitted for review and approval on October 10, 2022: Check Numbers Amounts 178337 - 178444 $260,632.69 ACH Payments $886,940.19 Total All Claims $1,147,572.88 77 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS Check Summary Check Summary ACH Check Detail Check Detail ACH 78 Accounts Payable User: Printed: dwashburn 10/3/2022 3:47 PM Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount UB*02582 T&S Agency LLC 09/22/2022 0.00 55.32178337 UB*02586 Ancona Title & Escrow 09/22/2022 0.00 9.13178338 ARAMAR ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 09/22/2022 0.00 263.99178339 BCATRA BCA 09/22/2022 0.00 15.00178340 BerLui Luis Berrospid 09/22/2022 0.00 35,801.81178341 UB*02572 Burnet Title 09/22/2022 0.00 93.51178342 UB*02598 Burnet Title 09/22/2022 0.00 107.75178343 UB*02577 Melissa Cappiello-Wargin 09/22/2022 0.00 129.84178344 CarCouPa Carver County Parks 09/22/2022 0.00 3,021.75178345 UB*02571 CCA&T 09/22/2022 0.00 12.08178346 CENENE CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 09/22/2022 0.00 294.00178347 CenLin CenturyLink 09/22/2022 0.00 60.39178348 CHANLAI CHAN-O-LAIRES 09/22/2022 0.00 60.00178349 Cintas Cintas Corporation No. 2 09/22/2022 0.00 169.77178350 DAKSUP DAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP 09/22/2022 0.00 86.00178351 DIVEPLUM Diversified Plumbing and Heating Inc 09/22/2022 0.00 1,548.31178352 UB*02568 Edgewater Title Group 09/22/2022 0.00 5.49178353 UB*02573 Edina Realty Title 09/22/2022 0.00 9.24178354 UB*02581 Edina Realty Title 09/22/2022 0.00 17.01178355 UB*02569 Executive Title Services 09/22/2022 0.00 132.43178356 FACMOT FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 09/22/2022 0.00 125.28178357 UB*02591 Daniel Fasching 09/22/2022 0.00 200.51178358 ferwat Ferguson Waterworks #2518 09/22/2022 0.00 2,221.93178359 UB*02596 First American Title 09/22/2022 0.00 391.12178360 UB*02592 John & Jennifer Gans 09/22/2022 0.00 153.84178361 gonhom GONYEA HOMES 09/22/2022 0.00 15,750.00178362 UB*02584 Trevor & Taylor Grindland 09/22/2022 0.00 19.76178363 UB*02565 Debra & Gary Haider 09/22/2022 0.00 43.28178364 HalMar Mary Hall 09/22/2022 0.00 250.00178365 HartCom Hartman Companies 09/22/2022 0.00 3,641.00178366 HOLTOU Holt Tour and Charter Inc 09/22/2022 0.00 1,060.00178367 UB*02559 Michele & William Huspek 09/22/2022 0.00 43.94178368 UB*02574 Kerri & Jared Johnson 09/22/2022 0.00 65.70178369 UB*02597 Lake Title LLC 09/22/2022 0.00 40.48178370 UB*02599 Landtitle 09/22/2022 0.00 14.97178371 LARSCRAI CRAIG LARSON 09/22/2022 0.00 50.00178372 LawPro Lawson Products, Inc.09/22/2022 0.00 123.52178373 UB*02600 Christopher McPhillips 09/22/2022 0.00 110.53178374 MNSaf Minnesota Safety Council 09/22/2022 0.00 345.00178375 UB*02563 Minnesota Title 09/22/2022 0.00 63.60178376 UB*02578 Minnetonka Title 09/22/2022 0.00 26.01178377 MTIDIS MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 09/22/2022 0.00 928.73178378 UB*02560 Thomas Opheim 09/22/2022 0.00 13.28178379 PitBow Pitney Bowes Inc.09/22/2022 0.00 440.04178380 PULPLU PULLTABS PLUS INC 09/22/2022 0.00 13.37178381 UB*02595 Alan & Ellen Qureshi 09/22/2022 0.00 80.12178382 UB*02587 Daniel & Cheryl Reed 09/22/2022 0.00 7.80178383 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (10/3/2022 3:47 PM) 79 Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount UB*02583 Results Title 09/22/2022 0.00 8.27178384 UB*02585 Romkema Living Trust 09/22/2022 0.00 7.13178385 UB*02567 Debra Schroeder 09/22/2022 0.00 24.25178386 schcom Schwickert Company 09/22/2022 0.00 1,145.00178387 SHATRE Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 09/22/2022 0.00 240.00178388 UB*02590 James Shanesy 09/22/2022 0.00 16.21178389 SOFHOU SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 09/22/2022 0.00 617.88178390 UB*02564 Laurie & Jon Steckman 09/22/2022 0.00 21.64178391 UB*02562 Heather Stohs 09/22/2022 0.00 6.20178392 DAVTRE The Davey Tree Expert Company 09/22/2022 0.00 484.00178393 UB*02566 The Title Group Inc 09/22/2022 0.00 18.63178394 TimSav TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc 09/22/2022 0.00 558.63178395 UB*02593 Title Mark LLC 09/22/2022 0.00 33.20178396 UB*02579 Title One Agency 09/22/2022 0.00 32.41178397 UB*02588 Title Smart 09/22/2022 0.00 37.74178398 UB*02561 Trademark Title Service 09/22/2022 0.00 199.74178399 UB*02570 Trademark Title Services 09/22/2022 0.00 5.97178400 UB*02589 Trademark Title Services 09/22/2022 0.00 16.31178401 UB*02576 Watermark Title Agency 09/22/2022 0.00 19.00178402 UB*02580 Watermark Title Agency 09/22/2022 0.00 22.28178403 UB*02594 Watermark Title Agency 09/22/2022 0.00 81.53178404 UB*02575 Michael & Robbie Woitalla 09/22/2022 0.00 144.03178405 ALLPET Allstate Peterbilt of South St Paul 09/29/2022 0.00 184.20178406 AndLoDu Duane & Lori Anderson 09/29/2022 0.00 250.00178407 ARAMAR ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 09/29/2022 0.00 804.98178408 ASPEQU Aspen Equipment 09/29/2022 0.00 6,464.00178409 BOYHEA BOYER HEAVY TRUCK SALES & SERV 09/29/2022 0.00 85,165.80178410 CEMPRO CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 09/29/2022 0.00 466.00178411 CitPlym City of Plymouth 09/29/2022 0.00 350.00178412 CleSol Cleaning Solutions Services 09/29/2022 0.00 7,620.00178413 COMASP Commercial Asphalt Co 09/29/2022 0.00 699.30178414 creconc Creative Concrete, Inc 09/29/2022 0.00 500.00178415 FACMOT FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 09/29/2022 0.00 443.62178416 FauMic Michael Faustgen 09/29/2022 0.00 100.00178417 FirSaf Fire Safety USA 09/29/2022 0.00 58.00178418 GilCyn Cynthia Gill 09/29/2022 0.00 150.00178419 hach Hach Company 09/29/2022 0.00 214.80178420 HafWat Haferman Water Conditioning 09/29/2022 0.00 103.60178421 HagHol Hagen Holdings, LLC 09/29/2022 0.00 59,100.00178422 HENHEA Hennepin Healthcare 09/29/2022 0.00 150.00178423 KEOGJEFF JEFF KEOGH 09/29/2022 0.00 150.00178424 KraBros Kraus Bros Construction, LLC 09/29/2022 0.00 750.00178425 MidEgr Midwest Egress 09/29/2022 0.00 250.00178426 MNTRAN MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 09/29/2022 0.00 276.59178427 MNPLUM MN Plumbing & Home Service Inc 09/29/2022 0.00 1.25178428 MogDanAl Danny & Alba Mogollon 09/29/2022 0.00 500.00178429 NelBria Brian Nelson 09/29/2022 VOID 50.00 0.00178430 NexReq Next Request 09/29/2022 0.00 8,388.00178431 OttTrav Travis Ott 09/29/2022 0.00 610.20178432 OUTSOL OUTDOOR SOLUTIONS INC 09/29/2022 0.00 250.00178433 POST POSTMASTER 09/29/2022 0.00 646.45178434 POST POSTMASTER 09/29/2022 0.00 550.00178435 PratChri Chris Pratley 09/29/2022 0.00 37.51178436 SchKar Karen Schultz 09/29/2022 0.00 250.00178437 SHATRE Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 09/29/2022 0.00 9,480.00178438 SHEWIL SHERWIN WILLIAMS 09/29/2022 0.00 59.50178439 SutChaAm Charles & Amanda Sutter 09/29/2022 0.00 500.00178440 Page 2AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (10/3/2022 3:47 PM) 80 Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Void Checks Check Amount TruNort True North Controls 09/29/2022 0.00 1,612.00178441 VERIZO VERIZON WIRELESS 09/29/2022 0.00 40.01178442 VIBTEC VIBRANT TECHNOLOGIES INC 09/29/2022 0.00 990.00178443 DoaJen Jennifer Xuan Tuyet Doan-Nguyen 09/29/2022 0.00 610.20178444 Report Total (108 checks): 260,632.69 50.00 Page 3AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Number (10/3/2022 3:47 PM) 81 Accounts Payable Checks by Date - Summary by Check User: dwashburn Printed: 10/3/2022 3:48 PM Check No Vendor No Vendor Name Check Date Void Checks Check Amount ACH AdvEng Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, LLC 09/22/2022 0.00 1,007.00 ACH ANCTEC ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS 09/22/2022 0.00 540.00 ACH CAMKNU CAMPBELL KNUTSON 09/22/2022 0.00 18,287.94 ACH COMINT COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 09/22/2022 0.00 519.40 ACH DelDen Delta Dental 09/22/2022 0.00 4,184.77 ACH FASCOM FASTENAL COMPANY 09/22/2022 0.00 35.62 ACH HAWCHE HAWKINS CHEMICAL 09/22/2022 0.00 37,732.91 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 09/22/2022 0.00 76.52 ACH AlHiJuli Juli Al-Hilwani 09/22/2022 0.00 146.25 ACH Marco Marco Inc 09/22/2022 0.00 735.00 ACH MINGER MINGER CONSTRUCTION 09/22/2022 0.00 81,300.00 ACH MRPA MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC. 09/22/2022 0.00 175.00 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 09/22/2022 0.00 111.57 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 09/22/2022 0.00 77.22 ACH OPG-3 OPG-3, Inc 09/22/2022 0.00 1,530.80 ACH PALMPAUL PAUL PALMER 09/22/2022 0.00 76.50 ACH PinPro Pine Products Inc 09/22/2022 0.00 322.00 ACH SpeScr Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 09/22/2022 0.00 201.12 ACH USABLU USA BLUE BOOK 09/22/2022 0.00 3,955.68 ACH WatCon Water Conservation Services, Inc. 09/22/2022 0.00 422.50 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 09/22/2022 0.00 18,204.95 ACH BROAWA BROADWAY AWARDS 09/29/2022 0.00 30.37 ACH ColLif Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 09/29/2022 0.00 67.80 ACH COMINT COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 09/29/2022 0.00 1,750.00 ACH CRYINF Crystal Infosystems LLC 09/29/2022 0.00 980.00 ACH FASCOM FASTENAL COMPANY 09/29/2022 0.00 156.02 ACH Avesis Fidelity Security Life 09/29/2022 0.00 289.94 ACH GMHASP GMH ASPHALT CORP 09/29/2022 0.00 675,331.59 ACH GRANIC GRANICUS INC 09/29/2022 0.00 12,180.00 ACH HAWCHE HAWKINS CHEMICAL 09/29/2022 0.00 4,422.77 ACH HeaStr Health Strategies 09/29/2022 0.00 5,728.00 ACH InnOff Innovative Office Solutions LLC 09/29/2022 0.00 265.52 ACH JEFFIR JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 09/29/2022 0.00 164.98 ACH POTTJENN JENNY POTTER 09/29/2022 0.00 43.50 ACH AlHiJuli Juli Al-Hilwani 09/29/2022 0.00 75.00 ACH KENGRA KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 09/29/2022 0.00 161.25 ACH MatTri Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. 09/29/2022 0.00 75.00 ACH MVEC MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 09/29/2022 0.00 157.25 ACH NAPA NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 09/29/2022 0.00 431.42 ACH PedTay Taylor Pederson 09/29/2022 0.00 1,830.60 ACH USABLU USA BLUE BOOK 09/29/2022 0.00 419.31 ACH WMMUE WM MUELLER & SONS INC 09/29/2022 0.00 224.00 ACH XCEL XCEL ENERGY INC 09/29/2022 0.00 12,513.12 Report Total: 0.00 886,940.19 Page 1 of 1 82 AP Check Detail-Checks User: dwashburn Printed: 10/3/2022 3:54:03 PM Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description T&S Agency LLC 720-0000-2020 8.60 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099430-000, 260 PRESERVE COURT T&S Agency LLC 700-0000-2020 31.53 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099430-000, 260 PRESERVE COURT T&S Agency LLC 700-0000-2020 1.16 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099430-000, 260 PRESERVE COURT T&S Agency LLC 701-0000-2020 14.03 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099430-000, 260 PRESERVE COURT 55.32 9/22/2022 T&S Agency LLC 55.32 Allstate Peterbilt of South St Paul 101-1550-4140 184.20 9/29/2022 Electrical Junction Block 184.20 9/29/2022 Allstate Peterbilt of South St Paul 184.20 Ancona Title & Escrow 720-0000-2020 3.32 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020788-000, 8017 DAKOTA CIRCLE Ancona Title & Escrow 701-0000-2020 5.37 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020788-000, 8017 DAKOTA CIRCLE Ancona Title & Escrow 700-0000-2020 0.44 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020788-000, 8017 DAKOTA CIRCLE 9.13 9/22/2022 Ancona Title & Escrow 9.13 Anderson Duane & Lori 101-0000-2073 250.00 9/29/2022 Erosion Control - Permit 2022-01942 - 1750 Ringneck Drive 250.00 9/29/2022 Anderson Duane & Lori 250.00 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 1 of 21 83 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 101-1170-4110 60.50 9/22/2022 Aramark Bronze Water filter 1ct ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 101-1170-4110 203.49 9/22/2022 Caribou Blend, Caribou regular, Mocha, French Vanilla, Pike Plac 263.99 9/22/2022 ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 101-1170-4110 222.50 9/29/2022 Bronze Water Filter ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 101-1170-4110 61.83 9/29/2022 Caribou Regular ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 101-1170-4110 520.65 9/29/2022 Caribou Blend, Caribou Regular, Dunkin Decaf, GrnMtn Chai Latte 804.98 9/29/2022 ARAMARK Refreshment Services, LLC 1,068.97 Aspen Equipment 400-0000-4705 6,464.00 9/29/2022 Labor - #408 Plow 6,464.00 9/29/2022 Aspen Equipment 6,464.00 BCA 101-1120-4352 15.00 9/22/2022 Background Investigation 15.00 9/22/2022 BCA 15.00 Berrospid Luis 400-0000-1155 -7,932.50 9/22/2022 Development Inspection - Berrospid Addition Berrospid Luis 400-0000-1155 -59.71 9/22/2022 Development Inspection - Berrospid Addition Berrospid Luis 400-0000-1155 -283.25 9/22/2022 Development Inspection - Berrospid Addition Berrospid Luis 101-0000-2076 46,910.52 9/22/2022 Security Escrow - Berrospid Addition Berrospid Luis 400-0000-1155 -115.50 9/22/2022 Development Inspection - Berrospid Addition Berrospid Luis 400-0000-1155 -2,717.75 9/22/2022 Development Inspection - Berrospid Addition 35,801.81 9/22/2022 Berrospid Luis 35,801.81 BOYER HEAVY TRUCK SALES & SERV 400-4120-4704 42,766.90 9/29/2022 Oxford White - Ford F600 - F224263 BOYER HEAVY TRUCK SALES & SERV 700-7025-4704 21,199.45 9/29/2022 Oxford White - Ford F600 - F224264 BOYER HEAVY TRUCK SALES & SERV 701-7025-4704 21,199.45 9/29/2022 Oxford White - Ford F600 - F224264 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 2 of 21 84 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 85,165.80 9/29/2022 BOYER HEAVY TRUCK SALES & SERV 85,165.80 Burnet Title 700-0000-2020 4.88 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009040-000, 7278 FAWN HILL ROAD Burnet Title 701-0000-2020 52.33 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009040-000, 7278 FAWN HILL ROAD Burnet Title 720-0000-2020 36.30 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009040-000, 7278 FAWN HILL ROAD Burnet Title 700-0000-2020 2.59 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013482-000, 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE Burnet Title 700-0000-2020 31.69 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013482-000, 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE Burnet Title 720-0000-2020 19.28 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013482-000, 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE Burnet Title 701-0000-2020 54.19 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013482-000, 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE 201.26 9/22/2022 Burnet Title 201.26 Cappiello-Wargin Melissa 700-0000-2020 3.95 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097494-000, 2443 HIGHOVER TRAIL Cappiello-Wargin Melissa 701-0000-2020 96.46 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097494-000, 2443 HIGHOVER TRAIL Cappiello-Wargin Melissa 720-0000-2020 29.43 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097494-000, 2443 HIGHOVER TRAIL 129.84 9/22/2022 Cappiello-Wargin Melissa 129.84 Carver County Parks 101-1731-3636 3,021.75 9/22/2022 Revenue Split - Rec Programs 3,021.75 9/22/2022 Carver County Parks 3,021.75 CCA&T 701-0000-2020 3.68 9/22/2022 Refund Check 017674-000, 7085 RED CEDAR COVE CCA&T 720-0000-2020 6.01 9/22/2022 Refund Check 017674-000, 7085 RED CEDAR COVE CCA&T 700-0000-2020 0.81 9/22/2022 Refund Check 017674-000, 7085 RED CEDAR COVE CCA&T 700-0000-2020 1.58 9/22/2022 Refund Check 017674-000, 7085 RED CEDAR COVE 12.08 9/22/2022 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 3 of 21 85 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description CCA&T 12.08 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 700-0000-4550 466.00 9/29/2022 Air Entrainment Admixture 466.00 9/29/2022 CEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO 466.00 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 101-1530-4321 111.96 9/22/2022 Monthly Service - 2310 Coulter Blvd CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 101-1220-4321 160.24 9/22/2022 Monthly Service - 7610 Laredo Dr / 6400 Minnewashta Pkwy CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 101-1171-4321 21.80 9/22/2022 Monthly Service - 391 W 78th St 294.00 9/22/2022 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO 294.00 CenturyLink 700-7043-4310 60.39 9/22/2022 Monthly Service - Waste Water Bldg 60.39 9/22/2022 CenturyLink 60.39 CHAN-O-LAIRES 101-1560-4345 60.00 9/22/2022 Senior Expo Concert - September 29, 2022 60.00 9/22/2022 CHAN-O-LAIRES 60.00 Cintas Corporation No. 2 101-1550-4300 169.77 9/22/2022 Bandages, Antiseptic Wipes, Burn Relief, Micro Shield, Tournique 169.77 9/22/2022 Cintas Corporation No. 2 169.77 City of Plymouth 101-1520-4370 150.00 9/29/2022 Suri Surinder DEI Training City of Plymouth 101-1120-4370 150.00 9/29/2022 Suri Surinder DEI Training City of Plymouth 101-1320-4370 50.00 9/29/2022 Suri Surinder DEI Training AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 4 of 21 86 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 350.00 9/29/2022 City of Plymouth 350.00 Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1170-4511 3,000.00 9/29/2022 Chanhassen City Hall - General Cleaning Cleaning Solutions Services 701-0000-4511 60.00 9/29/2022 Chanhassen Public Works - General Cleaning Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1220-4511 240.00 9/29/2022 Chanhassen Fire Station #1 - General Cleaning Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1312-4511 480.00 9/29/2022 Chanhassen Public Works - General Cleaning Cleaning Solutions Services 101-1190-4511 3,780.00 9/29/2022 Chanhassen Library - General Cleaning Cleaning Solutions Services 700-0000-4511 60.00 9/29/2022 Chanhassen Public Works - General Cleaning 7,620.00 9/29/2022 Cleaning Solutions Services 7,620.00 Commercial Asphalt Co 700-0000-4550 699.30 9/29/2022 MV3 NW Rec, MV4 Wear Rec 699.30 9/29/2022 Commercial Asphalt Co 699.30 Creative Concrete, Inc 101-0000-2073 500.00 9/29/2022 Erosion Control - Permit 2022-01130 - 1741 Wood Duck Lane 500.00 9/29/2022 Creative Concrete, Inc 500.00 DAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP 700-0000-4550 86.00 9/22/2022 Plate, Cover Nut, Flwr Hex Blt, Cover O-Ring 86.00 9/22/2022 DAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP 86.00 Diversified Plumbing and Heating Inc 101-1550-4300 1,548.31 9/22/2022 Service Work - Vacuum Breaker, Coupling, 2" Galv Nipple, Testing 1,548.31 9/22/2022 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 5 of 21 87 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Diversified Plumbing and Heating Inc 1,548.31 Edgewater Title Group 701-0000-2020 2.12 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009043-000, 7254 FAWN HILL ROAD Edgewater Title Group 700-0000-2020 0.40 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009043-000, 7254 FAWN HILL ROAD Edgewater Title Group 720-0000-2020 2.97 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009043-000, 7254 FAWN HILL ROAD 5.49 9/22/2022 Edgewater Title Group 5.49 Edina Realty Title 700-0000-2020 6.41 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098170-000, 7195 FRONTIER TRAIL Edina Realty Title 701-0000-2020 0.75 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098170-000, 7195 FRONTIER TRAIL Edina Realty Title 720-0000-2020 1.83 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098170-000, 7195 FRONTIER TRAIL Edina Realty Title 700-0000-2020 0.25 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098170-000, 7195 FRONTIER TRAIL Edina Realty Title 720-0000-2020 5.31 9/22/2022 Refund Check 011365-000, 1950 CRESTVIEW CIRCLE Edina Realty Title 700-0000-2020 0.72 9/22/2022 Refund Check 011365-000, 1950 CRESTVIEW CIRCLE Edina Realty Title 701-0000-2020 3.78 9/22/2022 Refund Check 011365-000, 1950 CRESTVIEW CIRCLE Edina Realty Title 700-0000-2020 7.20 9/22/2022 Refund Check 011365-000, 1950 CRESTVIEW CIRCLE 26.25 9/22/2022 Edina Realty Title 26.25 Executive Title Services 701-0000-2020 61.50 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013583-000, 3840 LONE CEDAR LANE Executive Title Services 700-0000-2020 38.70 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013583-000, 3840 LONE CEDAR LANE Executive Title Services 720-0000-2020 28.41 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013583-000, 3840 LONE CEDAR LANE Executive Title Services 700-0000-2020 3.82 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013583-000, 3840 LONE CEDAR LANE 132.43 9/22/2022 Executive Title Services 132.43 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 700-0000-4120 125.28 9/22/2022 Del 24GHR 125.28 9/22/2022 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 700-0000-4140 144.62 9/29/2022 Del 48G FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 700-0000-4140 299.00 9/29/2022 Frn 30-R134 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 6 of 21 88 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 443.62 9/29/2022 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 568.90 Fasching Daniel 700-0000-2020 50.13 9/22/2022 Refund Check 005942-000, 8550 MISSION HILLS LANE Fasching Daniel 720-0000-2020 41.09 9/22/2022 Refund Check 005942-000, 8550 MISSION HILLS LANE Fasching Daniel 701-0000-2020 103.76 9/22/2022 Refund Check 005942-000, 8550 MISSION HILLS LANE Fasching Daniel 700-0000-2020 5.53 9/22/2022 Refund Check 005942-000, 8550 MISSION HILLS LANE 200.51 9/22/2022 Fasching Daniel 200.51 Faustgen Michael 700-7204-4901 100.00 9/29/2022 Waterwise Rebate 100.00 9/29/2022 Faustgen Michael 100.00 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 700-1384-4556 685.86 9/22/2022 LF 1 T10 MTR P/C USG W/O Rec *X Ferguson Waterworks #2518 701-1384-4556 685.86 9/22/2022 LF 1 T10 MTR P/C USG W/O Rec *X Ferguson Waterworks #2518 700-0000-4550 664.51 9/22/2022 Cop Deburring Tool, Pipe Cutter, Max Adpt Coup Ferguson Waterworks #2518 700-0000-4550 185.70 9/22/2022 CTS QJ Coup, Stfnr CTS PE 2,221.93 9/22/2022 Ferguson Waterworks #2518 2,221.93 Fire Safety USA 101-1220-4530 58.00 9/29/2022 Labor, Hose Repair and Pressure Test, Expansion Rings 58.00 9/29/2022 Fire Safety USA 58.00 First American Title 700-0000-2020 209.84 9/22/2022 Refund Check 014661-000, 841 LAKE SUSAN HLS DR First American Title 720-0000-2020 44.87 9/22/2022 Refund Check 014661-000, 841 LAKE SUSAN HLS DR First American Title 700-0000-2020 6.03 9/22/2022 Refund Check 014661-000, 841 LAKE SUSAN HLS DR AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 7 of 21 89 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description First American Title 701-0000-2020 130.38 9/22/2022 Refund Check 014661-000, 841 LAKE SUSAN HLS DR 391.12 9/22/2022 First American Title 391.12 Gans John & Jennifer 720-0000-2020 42.01 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020683-000, 7591 BEACON COURT Gans John & Jennifer 701-0000-2020 105.99 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020683-000, 7591 BEACON COURT Gans John & Jennifer 700-0000-2020 5.65 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020683-000, 7591 BEACON COURT Gans John & Jennifer 700-0000-2020 0.19 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020683-000, 7591 BEACON COURT 153.84 9/22/2022 Gans John & Jennifer 153.84 Gill Cynthia 101-1560-4343 150.00 9/29/2022 Speaker Fee - Grandparenting with Love & Logic 150.00 9/29/2022 Gill Cynthia 150.00 GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape Escrow - Permit 2021-05050 - 9230 Eagle Ridge Rd GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 9/22/2022 As-Built - Permit 2021-05050 - 9230 Eagle Ridge Road GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape - Permit 2021-03897 - 1957 Della Drive GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape Escrow - Permit 2021-02444 - 9255 Eagle Ridge Rd GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape - Permit 2021-03892 - 1885 Della Drive GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 9/22/2022 As-Built - Permit 2021-03843 - 9257 Hawkcrest Ct GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape - Permit 2021-03899 - 1813 Lucy Ridge Cir GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape - Permit 2021-01648 - 7055 Lucy Ridge Lane GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape Escrow - Permit 2021-02468 - 9175 Eagle Ridge Rd GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape - Permit 2021-03893 - 1933 Della Drive GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape - Permit 2022-02445 - 7015 Lucy Ridge Lane GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape - Permit 2021-02207 - 6955 Lucy Ridge Lane GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2072 2,500.00 9/22/2022 As-Built - Permit 2021-02444 - 9255 Eagle Ridge Road GONYEA HOMES 101-0000-2075 750.00 9/22/2022 Landscape - Permit 2021-01053 - 7050 Lucy Ridge Lane 15,750.00 9/22/2022 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 8 of 21 90 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description GONYEA HOMES 15,750.00 Grindland Trevor & Taylor 700-0000-2020 1.79 9/22/2022 Refund Check 102297-000, 9043 DEGLER LANE Grindland Trevor & Taylor 701-0000-2020 4.65 9/22/2022 Refund Check 102297-000, 9043 DEGLER LANE Grindland Trevor & Taylor 720-0000-2020 13.32 9/22/2022 Refund Check 102297-000, 9043 DEGLER LANE 19.76 9/22/2022 Grindland Trevor & Taylor 19.76 Hach Company 700-7019-4160 214.80 9/29/2022 Recycling Program - Chemkey 214.80 9/29/2022 Hach Company 214.80 Haferman Water Conditioning 101-1250-3306 103.60 9/29/2022 Cancelled Job - Permit 2022-02644 - 7290 Cactus Curv 103.60 9/29/2022 Haferman Water Conditioning 103.60 Hagen Holdings, LLC 605-6502-4701 59,100.00 9/29/2022 Settlement Agreement - Parcel 15 59,100.00 9/29/2022 Hagen Holdings, LLC 59,100.00 Haider Debra & Gary 701-0000-2020 17.17 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009374-000, 6543 GRAY FOX CURVE Haider Debra & Gary 720-0000-2020 10.71 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009374-000, 6543 GRAY FOX CURVE Haider Debra & Gary 700-0000-2020 13.96 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009374-000, 6543 GRAY FOX CURVE Haider Debra & Gary 700-0000-2020 1.44 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009374-000, 6543 GRAY FOX CURVE 43.28 9/22/2022 Haider Debra & Gary 43.28 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 9 of 21 91 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Hall Mary 101-1560-4345 250.00 9/22/2022 Best of the Ladies - Chan Senior Center - Ladies Luncheon 250.00 9/22/2022 Hall Mary 250.00 Hartman Companies 601-6038-4300 1,061.00 9/22/2022 Orchard Ln - Black Hills Spruce Hartman Companies 720-7025-4706 114.00 9/22/2022 Rice Marsh Lake Park - 8123 Dakota Lane Hartman Companies 720-7025-4706 575.50 9/22/2022 6695 Mulberry - SW Project @ Golden Ct Hartman Companies 720-7202-4300 1,304.00 9/22/2022 Blvd Tree Planting Hartman Companies 601-6049-4300 586.50 9/22/2022 Imperial Honeylocust - 7481 Windmill Dr 3,641.00 9/22/2022 Hartman Companies 3,641.00 Hennepin Healthcare 101-1220-4300 75.00 9/29/2022 Covid-19 Test Hennepin Healthcare 101-1220-4300 75.00 9/29/2022 Covid-19 Test 150.00 9/29/2022 Hennepin Healthcare 150.00 Holt Tour and Charter Inc 101-1560-4349 1,060.00 9/22/2022 New Ulm Trip - Senior Trip Day 1,060.00 9/22/2022 Holt Tour and Charter Inc 1,060.00 Huspek Michele & William 720-0000-2020 9.81 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097318-000, 1000 WESTERN DRIVE Huspek Michele & William 700-0000-2020 1.32 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097318-000, 1000 WESTERN DRIVE Huspek Michele & William 701-0000-2020 20.24 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097318-000, 1000 WESTERN DRIVE Huspek Michele & William 700-0000-2020 12.57 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097318-000, 1000 WESTERN DRIVE 43.94 9/22/2022 Huspek Michele & William 43.94 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 10 of 21 92 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Johnson Kerri & Jared 701-0000-2020 28.86 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099880-000, 7493 SARATOGA CIRCLE Johnson Kerri & Jared 720-0000-2020 32.47 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099880-000, 7493 SARATOGA CIRCLE Johnson Kerri & Jared 700-0000-2020 4.37 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099880-000, 7493 SARATOGA CIRCLE 65.70 9/22/2022 Johnson Kerri & Jared 65.70 KEOGH JEFF 101-1250-4370 150.00 9/29/2022 Plumbing Class 150.00 9/29/2022 KEOGH JEFF 150.00 Kraus Bros Construction, LLC 101-0000-2073 500.00 9/29/2022 Erosion Control - Permit 2021-05863 - 9320 River Rock Drive N Kraus Bros Construction, LLC 101-0000-2073 250.00 9/29/2022 Erosion Control - Permit 2022-00835 - 9320 River Rock Drive N 750.00 9/29/2022 Kraus Bros Construction, LLC 750.00 Lake Title LLC 700-0000-2020 7.33 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098599-000, 970 REDWING COURT Lake Title LLC 720-0000-2020 14.20 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098599-000, 970 REDWING COURT Lake Title LLC 700-0000-2020 1.91 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098599-000, 970 REDWING COURT Lake Title LLC 701-0000-2020 17.04 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098599-000, 970 REDWING COURT 40.48 9/22/2022 Lake Title LLC 40.48 Landtitle 720-0000-2020 5.26 9/22/2022 Refund Check 006138-000, 8011 CHEYENNE AVENUE Landtitle 701-0000-2020 4.18 9/22/2022 Refund Check 006138-000, 8011 CHEYENNE AVENUE Landtitle 700-0000-2020 4.83 9/22/2022 Refund Check 006138-000, 8011 CHEYENNE AVENUE Landtitle 700-0000-2020 0.70 9/22/2022 Refund Check 006138-000, 8011 CHEYENNE AVENUE 14.97 9/22/2022 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 11 of 21 93 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Landtitle 14.97 LARSON CRAIG 720-7202-4130 50.00 9/22/2022 Tree Rebate 50.00 9/22/2022 LARSON CRAIG 50.00 Lawson Products, Inc.101-1370-4260 119.43 9/22/2022 Steel Mach Sc Asst Lawson Products, Inc.101-1370-4150 4.09 9/22/2022 Phil Pan Machine 123.52 9/22/2022 Lawson Products, Inc. 123.52 McPhillips Christopher 700-0000-2020 3.60 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099584-000, 881 LAKE SUSAN DRIVE McPhillips Christopher 701-0000-2020 44.94 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099584-000, 881 LAKE SUSAN DRIVE McPhillips Christopher 720-0000-2020 26.79 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099584-000, 881 LAKE SUSAN DRIVE McPhillips Christopher 700-0000-2020 35.20 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099584-000, 881 LAKE SUSAN DRIVE 110.53 9/22/2022 McPhillips Christopher 110.53 Midwest Egress 101-0000-2073 250.00 9/29/2022 Erosion Control - Permit 2022-02441 - 7602 Kiowa Ave 250.00 9/29/2022 Midwest Egress 250.00 Minnesota Safety Council 101-1560-4343 345.00 9/22/2022 DDC 4hr Class 345.00 9/22/2022 Minnesota Safety Council 345.00 Minnesota Title 720-0000-2020 7.72 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020752-000, 1684 HEMLOCK WAY AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 12 of 21 94 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Minnesota Title 700-0000-2020 1.04 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020752-000, 1684 HEMLOCK WAY Minnesota Title 700-0000-2020 19.74 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020752-000, 1684 HEMLOCK WAY Minnesota Title 701-0000-2020 35.10 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020752-000, 1684 HEMLOCK WAY 63.60 9/22/2022 Minnesota Title 63.60 Minnetonka Title 700-0000-2020 8.07 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097342-000, 6960 SHAWNEE LANE Minnetonka Title 720-0000-2020 3.16 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097342-000, 6960 SHAWNEE LANE Minnetonka Title 701-0000-2020 14.36 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097342-000, 6960 SHAWNEE LANE Minnetonka Title 700-0000-2020 0.42 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097342-000, 6960 SHAWNEE LANE 26.01 9/22/2022 Minnetonka Title 26.01 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 601-6046-4752 276.59 9/29/2022 Material Testing & Inspection, Concrete Plant Inspections 276.59 9/29/2022 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 276.59 MN Plumbing & Home Service Inc 101-0000-2033 1.25 9/29/2022 2449 W 64th St - Permit 2022-03439 - Overpayment Refund 1.25 9/29/2022 MN Plumbing & Home Service Inc 1.25 Mogollon Danny & Alba 101-0000-2073 500.00 9/29/2022 Erosion Control - Permit 2022-03260 - 9409 River Rock Dr S 500.00 9/29/2022 Mogollon Danny & Alba 500.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 101-1550-4120 928.73 9/22/2022 Cylinder - Gas, Ball Bearing, Inner Tube, Tire, Wheel AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 13 of 21 95 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 928.73 9/22/2022 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 928.73 Next Request 101-1160-4226 8,388.00 9/29/2022 FOIA Workflow Platform - Std Annual Renewal 8,388.00 9/29/2022 Next Request 8,388.00 Opheim Thomas 700-0000-2020 1.08 9/22/2022 Refund Check 008412-000, 8305 STONE CREEK DRIVE Opheim Thomas 720-0000-2020 7.99 9/22/2022 Refund Check 008412-000, 8305 STONE CREEK DRIVE Opheim Thomas 701-0000-2020 4.21 9/22/2022 Refund Check 008412-000, 8305 STONE CREEK DRIVE 13.28 9/22/2022 Opheim Thomas 13.28 Ott Travis 101-1538-4343 318.20 9/29/2022 Kwan Tae Kwon Do Instruction - Summer, 2022 Ott Travis 101-1539-4343 216.00 9/29/2022 Kwan Tae Kwon Do Instruction - Summer, 2022 Ott Travis 101-1537-4343 76.00 9/29/2022 Kwan Tae Kwon Do Instruction - Summer, 2022 610.20 9/29/2022 Ott Travis 610.20 OUTDOOR SOLUTIONS INC 101-0000-2073 250.00 9/29/2022 Erosion Control - Permit 2022-02034 - 7193 Purple Pkwy 250.00 9/29/2022 OUTDOOR SOLUTIONS INC 250.00 Pitney Bowes Inc.101-1120-4410 440.04 9/22/2022 Postage Meter - SLA Tier 2 - Equipment 440.04 9/22/2022 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 14 of 21 96 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Pitney Bowes Inc. 440.04 POSTMASTER 101-1120-4330 275.00 9/29/2022 USPS Marketing Mailing POSTMASTER 101-1120-4330 275.00 9/29/2022 First-Class Presort POSTMASTER 720-1130-4330 129.29 9/29/2022 Utility Mailing - Permit 14 POSTMASTER 700-1130-4330 258.58 9/29/2022 Utility Mailing - Permit 14 POSTMASTER 701-1130-4330 258.58 9/29/2022 Utility Mailing - Permit 14 1,196.45 9/29/2022 POSTMASTER 1,196.45 Pratley Chris 101-1320-4381 23.88 9/29/2022 Meal - Training in St. Cloud Pratley Chris 101-1320-4381 13.63 9/29/2022 Meal - Training in St. Cloud 37.51 9/29/2022 Pratley Chris 37.51 PULLTABS PLUS INC 101-1560-4130 13.37 9/22/2022 Sales Tax 13.37 9/22/2022 PULLTABS PLUS INC 13.37 Qureshi Alan & Ellen 701-0000-2020 43.31 9/22/2022 Refund Check 101228-000, 6474 MURRAY HILL ROAD Qureshi Alan & Ellen 720-0000-2020 12.82 9/22/2022 Refund Check 101228-000, 6474 MURRAY HILL ROAD Qureshi Alan & Ellen 700-0000-2020 1.73 9/22/2022 Refund Check 101228-000, 6474 MURRAY HILL ROAD Qureshi Alan & Ellen 700-0000-2020 22.26 9/22/2022 Refund Check 101228-000, 6474 MURRAY HILL ROAD 80.12 9/22/2022 Qureshi Alan & Ellen 80.12 Reed Daniel & Cheryl 701-0000-2020 3.07 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013349-000, 3860 LESLEE CURVE Reed Daniel & Cheryl 720-0000-2020 4.12 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013349-000, 3860 LESLEE CURVE Reed Daniel & Cheryl 700-0000-2020 0.55 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013349-000, 3860 LESLEE CURVE Reed Daniel & Cheryl 700-0000-2020 0.06 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013349-000, 3860 LESLEE CURVE AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 15 of 21 97 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 7.80 9/22/2022 Reed Daniel & Cheryl 7.80 Results Title 701-0000-2020 4.09 9/22/2022 Refund Check 016625-000, 6842 HIGHOVER DRIVE Results Title 700-0000-2020 0.12 9/22/2022 Refund Check 016625-000, 6842 HIGHOVER DRIVE Results Title 720-0000-2020 0.90 9/22/2022 Refund Check 016625-000, 6842 HIGHOVER DRIVE Results Title 700-0000-2020 3.16 9/22/2022 Refund Check 016625-000, 6842 HIGHOVER DRIVE 8.27 9/22/2022 Results Title 8.27 Romkema Living Trust 701-0000-2020 3.21 9/22/2022 Refund Check 101078-000, 8305 ESSEX ROAD Romkema Living Trust 720-0000-2020 0.76 9/22/2022 Refund Check 101078-000, 8305 ESSEX ROAD Romkema Living Trust 700-0000-2020 0.34 9/22/2022 Refund Check 101078-000, 8305 ESSEX ROAD Romkema Living Trust 700-0000-2020 2.82 9/22/2022 Refund Check 101078-000, 8305 ESSEX ROAD 7.13 9/22/2022 Romkema Living Trust 7.13 Schroeder Debra 720-0000-2020 7.93 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020434-001, 505 CHAN VIEW Schroeder Debra 700-0000-2020 1.06 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020434-001, 505 CHAN VIEW Schroeder Debra 700-0000-2020 2.47 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020434-001, 505 CHAN VIEW Schroeder Debra 701-0000-2020 12.79 9/22/2022 Refund Check 020434-001, 505 CHAN VIEW 24.25 9/22/2022 Schroeder Debra 24.25 Schultz Karen 101-0000-2073 250.00 9/29/2022 Erosion Control - Permit 2022-02615 - 661 Sierra Trl 250.00 9/29/2022 Schultz Karen 250.00 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 16 of 21 98 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Schwickert Company 101-1220-4510 160.00 9/22/2022 Chan Fire Station - Replace Dual Run Capacitor Schwickert Company 101-1220-4510 330.00 9/22/2022 Chan Fire Station - Replace Insulation Schwickert Company 101-1220-4510 655.00 9/22/2022 Chan Fire Station - Compressor Contactor, Blower Run Capacitor 1,145.00 9/22/2022 Schwickert Company 1,145.00 Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 720-7202-4300 240.00 9/22/2022 Blvd Tree Pruning 240.00 9/22/2022 Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 720-7204-4300 1,695.00 9/29/2022 Linden Removal Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 720-7204-4300 2,760.00 9/29/2022 Willow Removal Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 720-7204-4300 735.00 9/29/2022 Boxelder Removal Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 720-7204-4300 450.00 9/29/2022 Maple Removal Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 720-7204-4300 450.00 9/29/2022 Red Maple Removal Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 720-7204-4300 1,695.00 9/29/2022 Ash Removal Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 720-7204-4300 1,695.00 9/29/2022 Ash Removal 9,480.00 9/29/2022 Shadywood Tree Experts and Landscaping 9,720.00 Shanesy James 720-0000-2020 14.08 9/22/2022 Refund Check 019816-000, 6340 TETON LANE Shanesy James 700-0000-2020 1.89 9/22/2022 Refund Check 019816-000, 6340 TETON LANE Shanesy James 701-0000-2020 0.24 9/22/2022 Refund Check 019816-000, 6340 TETON LANE 16.21 9/22/2022 Shanesy James 16.21 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 101-1320-4150 59.50 9/29/2022 Tip Latxrac X419 59.50 9/29/2022 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 59.50 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 101-1160-4203 617.88 9/22/2022 PW VMWare vSphere 7 Std Renewal AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 17 of 21 99 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 617.88 9/22/2022 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 617.88 Steckman Laurie & Jon 720-0000-2020 16.96 9/22/2022 Refund Check 016941-000, 1215 LAKE LUCY ROAD Steckman Laurie & Jon 700-0000-2020 2.40 9/22/2022 Refund Check 016941-000, 1215 LAKE LUCY ROAD Steckman Laurie & Jon 700-0000-2020 2.28 9/22/2022 Refund Check 016941-000, 1215 LAKE LUCY ROAD 21.64 9/22/2022 Steckman Laurie & Jon 21.64 Stohs Heather 720-0000-2020 0.46 9/22/2022 Refund Check 015437-000, 2019 CHICORY WAY Stohs Heather 700-0000-2020 0.70 9/22/2022 Refund Check 015437-000, 2019 CHICORY WAY Stohs Heather 700-0000-2020 2.59 9/22/2022 Refund Check 015437-000, 2019 CHICORY WAY Stohs Heather 701-0000-2020 2.45 9/22/2022 Refund Check 015437-000, 2019 CHICORY WAY 6.20 9/22/2022 Stohs Heather 6.20 Sutter Charles & Amanda 101-0000-2073 500.00 9/29/2022 Erosion Control - Permit 2022-00934 - 2300 Melody Hill Road 500.00 9/29/2022 Sutter Charles & Amanda 500.00 The Davey Tree Expert Company 720-7202-4300 484.00 9/22/2022 Lake Ann Oak Treatment - 1456 W 78th St 484.00 9/22/2022 The Davey Tree Expert Company 484.00 The Title Group Inc 700-0000-2020 1.01 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013576-001, 7096 RED CEDAR COVE The Title Group Inc 720-0000-2020 7.51 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013576-001, 7096 RED CEDAR COVE The Title Group Inc 700-0000-2020 3.58 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013576-001, 7096 RED CEDAR COVE The Title Group Inc 701-0000-2020 6.53 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013576-001, 7096 RED CEDAR COVE AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 18 of 21 100 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 18.63 9/22/2022 The Title Group Inc 18.63 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc 210-0000-4300 558.63 9/22/2022 Planning Commission Meeting - 3.75 hrs 29 pgs 558.63 9/22/2022 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc 558.63 Title Mark LLC 701-0000-2020 14.02 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009833-000, 6730 GOLDEN COURT Title Mark LLC 700-0000-2020 6.02 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009833-000, 6730 GOLDEN COURT Title Mark LLC 720-0000-2020 11.60 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009833-000, 6730 GOLDEN COURT Title Mark LLC 700-0000-2020 1.56 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009833-000, 6730 GOLDEN COURT 33.20 9/22/2022 Title Mark LLC 33.20 Title One Agency 700-0000-2020 8.85 9/22/2022 Refund Check 010130-000, 880 NEZ PERCE COURT Title One Agency 700-0000-2020 0.98 9/22/2022 Refund Check 010130-000, 880 NEZ PERCE COURT Title One Agency 701-0000-2020 15.27 9/22/2022 Refund Check 010130-000, 880 NEZ PERCE COURT Title One Agency 720-0000-2020 7.31 9/22/2022 Refund Check 010130-000, 880 NEZ PERCE COURT 32.41 9/22/2022 Title One Agency 32.41 Title Smart 701-0000-2020 16.93 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013308-000, 3920 GLENDALE DRIVE Title Smart 700-0000-2020 1.05 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013308-000, 3920 GLENDALE DRIVE Title Smart 720-0000-2020 7.84 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013308-000, 3920 GLENDALE DRIVE Title Smart 700-0000-2020 11.92 9/22/2022 Refund Check 013308-000, 3920 GLENDALE DRIVE 37.74 9/22/2022 Title Smart 37.74 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 19 of 21 101 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Trademark Title Service 701-0000-2020 114.36 9/22/2022 Refund Check 008148-000, 2139 BOULDER ROAD Trademark Title Service 720-0000-2020 21.98 9/22/2022 Refund Check 008148-000, 2139 BOULDER ROAD Trademark Title Service 700-0000-2020 60.45 9/22/2022 Refund Check 008148-000, 2139 BOULDER ROAD Trademark Title Service 700-0000-2020 2.95 9/22/2022 Refund Check 008148-000, 2139 BOULDER ROAD 199.74 9/22/2022 Trademark Title Service 199.74 Trademark Title Services 701-0000-2020 2.79 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099211-000, 7681 CENTURY BOULEVARD Trademark Title Services 700-0000-2020 3.18 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099211-000, 7681 CENTURY BOULEVARD Trademark Title Services 700-0000-2020 4.68 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098984-000, 6349 MINNEWASHTA WDS D Trademark Title Services 700-0000-2020 0.57 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098984-000, 6349 MINNEWASHTA WDS D Trademark Title Services 720-0000-2020 4.20 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098984-000, 6349 MINNEWASHTA WDS D Trademark Title Services 701-0000-2020 6.86 9/22/2022 Refund Check 098984-000, 6349 MINNEWASHTA WDS D 22.28 9/22/2022 Trademark Title Services 22.28 True North Controls 700-0000-4120 1,612.00 9/29/2022 Unlicensed Ethernet/Serial Radio 1,612.00 9/29/2022 True North Controls 1,612.00 VERIZON WIRELESS 101-1220-4310 40.01 9/29/2022 Wireless - Acct #286745894-0001 40.01 9/29/2022 VERIZON WIRELESS 40.01 VIBRANT TECHNOLOGIES INC 101-1160-4133 990.00 9/29/2022 Fiber Tranceivers, 10GB, 40KM LC SFP+ 990.00 9/29/2022 VIBRANT TECHNOLOGIES INC 990.00 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 20 of 21 102 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Watermark Title Agency 720-0000-2020 10.10 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099839-000, 150 CASCADE COURT Watermark Title Agency 701-0000-2020 7.54 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099839-000, 150 CASCADE COURT Watermark Title Agency 700-0000-2020 1.36 9/22/2022 Refund Check 099839-000, 150 CASCADE COURT Watermark Title Agency 700-0000-2020 7.81 9/22/2022 Refund Check 006505-000, 8140 HIDDEN COURT Watermark Title Agency 700-0000-2020 0.98 9/22/2022 Refund Check 006505-000, 8140 HIDDEN COURT Watermark Title Agency 720-0000-2020 7.30 9/22/2022 Refund Check 006505-000, 8140 HIDDEN COURT Watermark Title Agency 701-0000-2020 6.19 9/22/2022 Refund Check 006505-000, 8140 HIDDEN COURT Watermark Title Agency 700-0000-2020 37.50 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097495-000, 315 PRESERVE COURT Watermark Title Agency 700-0000-2020 2.83 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097495-000, 315 PRESERVE COURT Watermark Title Agency 701-0000-2020 21.73 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097495-000, 315 PRESERVE COURT Watermark Title Agency 720-0000-2020 19.47 9/22/2022 Refund Check 097495-000, 315 PRESERVE COURT 122.81 9/22/2022 Watermark Title Agency 122.81 Woitalla Michael & Robbie 700-0000-2020 5.23 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009961-001, 6712 HOPI ROAD Woitalla Michael & Robbie 700-0000-2020 41.39 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009961-001, 6712 HOPI ROAD Woitalla Michael & Robbie 701-0000-2020 58.53 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009961-001, 6712 HOPI ROAD Woitalla Michael & Robbie 720-0000-2020 38.88 9/22/2022 Refund Check 009961-001, 6712 HOPI ROAD 144.03 9/22/2022 Woitalla Michael & Robbie 144.03 Xuan Tuyet Doan-Nguyen Jennifer 101-1538-4343 318.20 9/29/2022 Kwan Tae Kwon Do Lessons - Summer, 2022 Xuan Tuyet Doan-Nguyen Jennifer 101-1539-4343 216.00 9/29/2022 Kwan Tae Kwon Do Lessons - Summer, 2022 Xuan Tuyet Doan-Nguyen Jennifer 101-1537-4343 76.00 9/29/2022 Kwan Tae Kwon Do Lessons - Summer, 2022 610.20 9/29/2022 Xuan Tuyet Doan-Nguyen Jennifer 610.20 260,632.69 AP - Check Detail-Checks (10/3/2022)Page 21 of 21 103 AP Check Detail-ACH User: dwashburn Printed: 10/3/2022 3:55:11 PM Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, LLC 700-7043-4550 1,007.00 9/22/2022 2022 SCADA Services - I&C System Services 1,007.00 9/22/2022 Advanced Engineering & Environmental Services, LLC 1,007.00 Al-Hilwani Juli 101-1530-4343 146.25 9/22/2022 Personal Training - Tammy Flolid 146.25 9/22/2022 Al-Hilwani Juli 101-1539-4343 75.00 9/29/2022 Pickleball Lessons 75.00 9/29/2022 Al-Hilwani Juli 221.25 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS 101-1260-4120 270.00 9/22/2022 APX Wireless RSM w/DUC ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS 201-0000-4705 270.00 9/22/2022 APX Wireless RSM w/DUC 540.00 9/22/2022 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS 540.00 BROADWAY AWARDS 101-1170-4110 30.37 9/29/2022 Magnetic Name Badge 30.37 9/29/2022 BROADWAY AWARDS 30.37 AP - Check Detail-ACH (10/3/2022)Page 1 of 8 104 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description CAMPBELL KNUTSON 101-1140-4302 18,287.94 9/22/2022 Legal Services - August, 2022 18,287.94 9/22/2022 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 18,287.94 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 700-0000-2008 15.30 9/29/2022 September, 2022 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 701-0000-2008 15.30 9/29/2022 September, 2022 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 101-0000-2008 37.20 9/29/2022 September, 2022 67.80 9/29/2022 Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co 67.80 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.101-1160-4211 17.00 9/22/2022 Azure AD P2 & Exchange 365 P1 - Sept COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.101-1160-4211 384.80 9/22/2022 Office365 Backup Service - Datto - October COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.101-1160-4200 117.60 9/22/2022 Aruba IAP-305 Annual Support Renewal 519.40 9/22/2022 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.101-1160-4205 300.00 9/29/2022 SSL Certification Renewal, US Domain COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN.101-1160-4200 1,450.00 9/29/2022 KACE Deployment Annual Renewal 1,750.00 9/29/2022 COMPUTER INTEGRATION TECHN. 2,269.40 Crystal Infosystems LLC 101-1170-4110 980.00 9/29/2022 Toner Admin HP Printer 980.00 9/29/2022 Crystal Infosystems LLC 980.00 Delta Dental 701-0000-2013 258.31 9/22/2022 October, 2022 Dental Delta Dental 700-0000-2013 348.29 9/22/2022 October, 2022 Dental Delta Dental 210-0000-2013 45.00 9/22/2022 October, 2022 Dental Delta Dental 101-0000-2013 3,314.02 9/22/2022 October, 2022 Dental Delta Dental 720-0000-2013 219.15 9/22/2022 October, 2022 Dental AP - Check Detail-ACH (10/3/2022)Page 2 of 8 105 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 4,184.77 9/22/2022 Delta Dental 4,184.77 FASTENAL COMPANY 101-1550-4120 7.41 9/22/2022 Ext R Ring2 1/8 FASTENAL COMPANY 101-1550-4120 28.21 9/22/2022 Zerk 1/4-28 90Deg 35.62 9/22/2022 FASTENAL COMPANY 101-1310-4120 156.02 9/29/2022 IC WB Flo Pink, Rusto 2178 156.02 9/29/2022 FASTENAL COMPANY 191.64 Fidelity Security Life 720-0000-2007 6.44 9/29/2022 October, 2022 Vision Fidelity Security Life 700-0000-2007 12.07 9/29/2022 October, 2022 Vision Fidelity Security Life 101-0000-2007 265.80 9/29/2022 October, 2022 Vision Fidelity Security Life 701-0000-2007 5.63 9/29/2022 October, 2022 Vision 289.94 9/29/2022 Fidelity Security Life 289.94 GMH ASPHALT CORP 601-6049-4300 675,331.59 9/29/2022 Brinker, Longacres and Stone Creek 675,331.59 9/29/2022 GMH ASPHALT CORP 675,331.59 GRANICUS INC 210-0000-4300 12,180.00 9/29/2022 GovAccess - Maintenance, Hosting & License - Comm Cloud 12,180.00 9/29/2022 GRANICUS INC 12,180.00 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 700-7043-4160 -10.00 9/22/2022 Chlorine Cylinder - Price Adjustment AP - Check Detail-ACH (10/3/2022)Page 3 of 8 106 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description HAWKINS CHEMICAL 700-7019-4160 16,044.20 9/22/2022 Hydrofluosilicic Acid, Corrosion Inhibitor HAWKINS CHEMICAL 700-7019-4160 -10.00 9/22/2022 Chlorine Cylinder - Price Adjustment HAWKINS CHEMICAL 700-7043-4160 21,728.71 9/22/2022 Hydrofluosilicic Acid, Corrosion Inhibitor, Sodium Permanganate HAWKINS CHEMICAL 700-7043-4160 -10.00 9/22/2022 Chlorine Cylinder - Price Adjustment HAWKINS CHEMICAL 700-7019-4160 -10.00 9/22/2022 Chlorine Cylinder - Price Adjustment 37,732.91 9/22/2022 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 700-7043-4160 4,422.77 9/29/2022 Chlorine, Chlorine Cylinder 4,422.77 9/29/2022 HAWKINS CHEMICAL 42,155.68 Health Strategies 101-1220-4352 5,728.00 9/29/2022 Mask Fit - Busch, Aaron, Respirator Qualification - Horton, E 5,728.00 9/29/2022 Health Strategies 5,728.00 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 101-1170-4110 76.52 9/22/2022 Note Pad, Address Labels, Rubber Bands, Post-it Notes, Pen 76.52 9/22/2022 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 101-1170-4110 19.63 9/29/2022 Business Card - Jodi Innovative Office Solutions LLC 101-1170-4110 190.75 9/29/2022 Envelope, Facial Tissue, Paper Innovative Office Solutions LLC 101-1170-4110 55.14 9/29/2022 Paper 265.52 9/29/2022 Innovative Office Solutions LLC 342.04 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 101-1220-4260 164.98 9/29/2022 Blitzfire Tip Mechanism Upgrade Kit 164.98 9/29/2022 JEFFERSON FIRE SAFETY INC 164.98 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 101-1140-4302 161.25 9/29/2022 Labor/Employment Matters AP - Check Detail-ACH (10/3/2022)Page 4 of 8 107 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 161.25 9/29/2022 KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED 161.25 Marco Inc 101-1160-4411 735.00 9/22/2022 Konica Copiers Lease Fee - Oct 735.00 9/22/2022 Marco Inc 735.00 Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.101-1370-4150 46.00 9/29/2022 Miller Nozzel, Miller MDX-250 Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.101-1370-4150 29.00 9/29/2022 Miller Tip, Diffuser 75.00 9/29/2022 Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. 75.00 MINGER CONSTRUCTION 701-7025-4751 81,300.00 9/22/2022 Life Station 24 Slide Gate Rehab 81,300.00 9/22/2022 MINGER CONSTRUCTION 81,300.00 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC.101-1767-4130 175.00 9/22/2022 Softball Teams Registration 175.00 9/22/2022 MN RECREATION & PARK ASSOC. 175.00 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 111.57 9/22/2022 Monthly Service - Bluff Crk & Flying Cloud Dr 111.57 9/22/2022 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 118.61 9/29/2022 Monthly Service - Bandimere Park Lights MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 101-1350-4320 38.64 9/29/2022 Monthly Service - Kiowa Trl & St. Hwy 101 Lights AP - Check Detail-ACH (10/3/2022)Page 5 of 8 108 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description 157.25 9/29/2022 MN VALLEY ELECTRIC COOP 268.82 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1550-4120 77.22 9/22/2022 Oil Filter, Wipe Blade, Lamp 77.22 9/22/2022 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1170-4140 113.84 9/29/2022 Base Intermix, Spray can Inject Fee, Aerosol NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 700-0000-4120 -161.16 9/29/2022 Fuse Holder, Filter Kit, Core, Warranty - Return NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1320-4120 49.20 9/29/2022 Clr Mkr Lamp NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 101-1170-4140 429.54 9/29/2022 NAPA Adaptive one, Brake Pads, Coated Rear Brakes 431.42 9/29/2022 NAPA AUTO & TRUCK PARTS 508.64 OPG-3, Inc 101-1160-4212 1,530.80 9/22/2022 Laserfiche Participation Licenses (10) 1,530.80 9/22/2022 OPG-3, Inc 1,530.80 PALMER PAUL 101-1767-4341 76.50 9/22/2022 Softball Umpire - 3 games 76.50 9/22/2022 PALMER PAUL 76.50 Pederson Taylor 101-1537-4343 76.00 9/29/2022 Kwan Tae Kwon Do Instruction - Summer, 2022 Pederson Taylor 101-1538-4343 1,538.60 9/29/2022 Kwan Tae Kwon Do Instruction - Summer, 2022 Pederson Taylor 101-1539-4343 216.00 9/29/2022 Kwan Tae Kwon Do Instruction - Summer, 2022 1,830.60 9/29/2022 Pederson Taylor 1,830.60 AP - Check Detail-ACH (10/3/2022)Page 6 of 8 109 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description Pine Products Inc 101-1550-4150 322.00 9/22/2022 Mulch for library landscape beds 322.00 9/22/2022 Pine Products Inc 322.00 POTTER JENNY 101-1170-4381 43.50 9/29/2022 Data Practices Training to and from St. Paul 43.50 9/29/2022 POTTER JENNY 43.50 Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 101-1250-4240 201.12 9/22/2022 Sweater Fleece Jacket, Polo, Pocket Tee 201.12 9/22/2022 Spectrum Screen Printing Inc 201.12 USA BLUE BOOK 700-7043-4150 3,955.68 9/22/2022 Dehumidifer 3,955.68 9/22/2022 USA BLUE BOOK 700-7019-4530 419.31 9/29/2022 Blue-White Roller Assembly, Blue White Tube Assembly 419.31 9/29/2022 USA BLUE BOOK 4,374.99 Water Conservation Services, Inc.700-0000-4550 422.50 9/22/2022 Leak Locate - 3901 Glendale Dr 422.50 9/22/2022 Water Conservation Services, Inc. 422.50 WM MUELLER & SONS INC 420-0000-4150 224.00 9/29/2022 Lundquist CY 224.00 9/29/2022 AP - Check Detail-ACH (10/3/2022)Page 7 of 8 110 Last Name Acct 1 Amount Check Date Description WM MUELLER & SONS INC 224.00 XCEL ENERGY INC 700-7043-4320 9,180.60 9/22/2022 2100 Lake Harrison Rd XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1350-4320 128.75 9/22/2022 Service Walk Bridge 1900 Lyman Blvd, 500 Market St XCEL ENERGY INC 700-0000-4320 8,778.00 9/22/2022 Wells XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1350-4320 27.75 9/22/2022 Ped Flashers - 6328 Hazeltine Blvd XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1600-4320 27.60 9/22/2022 7700 Market Blvd XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1350-4320 34.65 9/22/2022 1178 Lake Lucy Rd XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1350-4320 27.60 9/22/2022 Ped Flashers - 6412 Chanhassen Rd 18,204.95 9/22/2022 XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1350-4320 18.72 9/29/2022 Valley Ridge Trl, Heron Dr XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1220-4320 1,280.05 9/29/2022 Fire Station #2, Library, City Hall, Fire Station #1, Old Town H XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1171-4320 40.82 9/29/2022 Fire Station #2, Library, City Hall, Fire Station #1, Old Town H XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1550-4320 -225.47 9/29/2022 Concession Stand, Tennis Ct, Ballpark, Picnic Shelter, Shed XCEL ENERGY INC 701-0000-4320 261.15 9/29/2022 Fire Station #2, Library, City Hall, Fire Station #1, Old Town H XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1600-4320 181.79 9/29/2022 Concession Stand, Tennis Ct, Ballpark, Picnic Shelter, Shed XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1312-4320 2,089.21 9/29/2022 Fire Station #2, Library, City Hall, Fire Station #1, Old Town H XCEL ENERGY INC 700-7019-4320 6,309.55 9/29/2022 East Water Treatment Plant XCEL ENERGY INC 700-0000-4320 261.15 9/29/2022 Fire Station #2, Library, City Hall, Fire Station #1, Old Town H XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1600-4320 56.37 9/29/2022 Park Shelter XCEL ENERGY INC 700-0000-4320 644.06 9/29/2022 Lift Stations XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1190-4320 -237.88 9/29/2022 Fire Station #2, Library, City Hall, Fire Station #1, Old Town H XCEL ENERGY INC 701-0000-4320 1,373.58 9/29/2022 Lift Stations XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1540-4320 1,410.86 9/29/2022 Concession Stand, Tennis Ct, Ballpark, Picnic Shelter, Shed XCEL ENERGY INC 101-1170-4320 -950.84 9/29/2022 Fire Station #2, Library, City Hall, Fire Station #1, Old Town H 12,513.12 9/29/2022 XCEL ENERGY INC 30,718.07 886,940.19 AP - Check Detail-ACH (10/3/2022)Page 8 of 8 111 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Resolution 2022-XX: Support Carver County Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan File No.Item No: D.4 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Jerry Ruegemer, Park and Recreation Director Reviewed By Jerry Ruegemer SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council adopts a resolution of support for the Carver County Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Operational Excellence SUMMARY The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission at their September 27 meeting heard a presentation from Carver County Park and Recreation Director Marty Walsh that outlined the updated Carver County Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan and how it relates to Carver County trails located within the city limits of Chanhassen. After discussion concluded, Commissioner Kutz made a motion that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve a Resolution of Support for the Carver County Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vasatka and the motion passed 7-0. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION 112 In 2006, Carver County prepared the Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan identifying a trail that would link the north and south branches of the Southwest LRT trail segments together between Victoria and Chaska. The Southwest Regional Trail would connect to the Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail (LMRT) to the north and the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail (MRBRT) to the south. In 2016, Carver County submitted an amended Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan document to illustrate the extension of the southern trail parameters of the Southwest Regional Trail (SWRT) by Chaska to end at Bluff Creek Drive where it would connect with the MRBRT. This added section of trail aligned on an abandoned railroad corridor previously owned by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) for light rail transportation, with a permit granted to Carver County for this one mile section of trail, and is currently paved with bituminous surfacing. The remainder of the trail extending northeast to Pioneer Trail along the abandoned railroad corridor remained the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail, with a permit granted to Three Rivers Park District from the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) for this approximate two-mile section of trail. The segment of the MRBRT from County Road 61 to Pioneer Trail consists of one mile of paved surface and two miles of aggregate. The MRBRT extends along the Minnesota River Valley bluff adjacent to the Minnesota DNR Scientific and Natural Area of the Seminary Fen (NSA) through natural settings, including woodlands and scenic vistas, located along the trail corridor. The MRBRT extends through Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, and Hopkins. A portion of this trail was destroyed by landslides in 2014 which remained closed between Eden Prairie and Highway 101 with detours provided until the trail reconstruction project was completed in 2021. In 2018, Carver County submitted an Acquisition Amendment Plan to identify the lands owned by the HCRRA to be acquired by Carver County, as the HCRRA wanted to divest itself of the former railroad corridor in Carver County. The HCRRA and Carver County entered into an agreement to work together to secure funding and fix the slope failure. Upon completing the slope failure repair, the property was deeded to Carver County for the purpose of trail and natural resource preservation and stewardship. The properties purchased by Carver County start from approximately County Road 61 in Chaska and extend to the eastern county line near Pioneer Trail in Eden Prairie. This acquisition resulted in approximately 90 acres of land and three miles of trail located within the corridor. The segment of the SWRT between Bluff Creek Drive and County Road 61 was further reclassified to be an extension of the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail and designated as a recreational destination trail. The 2021 Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan Amendment replaces all of the previous Southwest Regional Trail master plans and amendments. Link to Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan BUDGET RECOMMENDATION The Park and Recreation Commission recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution of Support for the Carver County Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Minnesota River Bluffs Regional LRT Trail 113 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: October 10, 2022 RESOLUTION NO: 2022-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CARVER COUNTY SOUTHWEST REGIONAL TRAIL MASTER PLAN WHEREAS,Carver County is an implementing regional park and trail agency of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS,Carver County proposes to amend and replace all of the previous Southwest Regional Trail Master Plans and amendments; and WHEREAS,the proposed Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan is consistent with the City’s plan for trails; and WHEREAS,walking and biking enhances the quality of life for our residents during all four seasons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chanhassen hereby supports the Southwest Regional Trail Master Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 10 th day of October, 2022. ATTEST: Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT 114 115 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Approve Professional Services Agreement with Ehlers, Inc. for a Utility Rate Study Update File No.Item No: D.5 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Kelly Grinnell, Finance Director Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves the professional services agreement with Ehlers, Inc. for the Utility Rate Study update in the not-to-exceed cost of $22,000." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Financial Sustainability SUMMARY BACKGROUND Ehlers, Inc. has completed several utility rate studies for the City, with the last utility rate study completed in 2020. Staff recommends that the Council approve the professional services agreement with Ehlers, Inc. to update to the last utility rate study. The study will analyze the water, sanitary sewer, and surface water management funds and result in: Options for utility rates and connection fees through 2032 Recommendations for cash balances and reserves Funding plans for future street reconstruction, utility replacement, and other capital project 116 The study will also compare the City of Chanhassen rates and fees to those of comparable cities. Ehlers, Inc. will present the initial results to the Council during a work session and a final report will be issued based on feedback from the Council. DISCUSSION BUDGET Ehlers, Inc. will perform the Utility Rate Study for the not-to-exceed cost of $22,000. The cost is proposed to be funded equally from the Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Surface Water Management funds. The City budgeted for a Utility Accountant position for the entire 2022 budget year. Since that position was not filled until August, the savings from the delay in that hire will cover the cost of the Utility Rate Study update. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Council approve the professional services agreement with Ehlers, Inc. for the Utility Rate Study update. ATTACHMENTS Ehlers, Inc. 2022 Utility Rate Study Proposal Professional Services Agreement 117 • • • • • 118 119 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 120 • • • 121 122 (651) 697-8507 123 1 201749v1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this 10th day of October, 2022, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN,a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and EHLERS, INC.("Consultant"). IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1.SCOPE OF SERVICES. The City retains Consultant for a Utility Rate Study Update. 2.CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The following documents shall be referred to as the "Contract Documents," all of which shall be taken together as a whole as the contract between the parties as if they were set verbatim and in full herein: A.This Professional Services Agreement; B.Request for quote – Email to Nick Anhut of Ehlers, Inc. dated September 20, 2022; C.Insurance Certificate; and D.Consultant’s September 23, 2022 proposal for a Utility Rate Study (“Proposal”). In the event of conflict among the provisions of the Contract Documents, the order in which they are listed above shall control in resolving any such conflicts, with Contract Document “A” having the first priority and Contract Document “D” having the last priority. 3.COMPENSATION. Consultant shall be paid by the City for the services described in the Proposal a not-to-exceed fee of Twenty-Two Thousand Dollars ($22,000.00), inclusive of expenses. Services performed directly by Consultant shall be paid at an hourly rate in accordance with the Proposal, subject to the not-to-exceed fee. The not-to-exceed fees and expenses shall not be adjusted if the estimated hours to perform a task, the number of required meetings, or any other estimate or assumption within the Proposal’s identified scope of work is exceeded. Consultant shall bill the City as the work progresses. Payment shall be made by the City within thirty-five (35) days of receipt of an invoice. 4.DOCUMENT OWNERSHIP. All reports, plans, models, diagrams, analyses, and information provided in connection with performance of this Agreement shall be the property of the City. The City may use the information for its purposes. 5.CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders, regardless of amount, must be approved in advance and in writing by the City. No payment will be due or made for work done in advance of such approval. 124 2 201749v1 6.COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS. In providing services hereunder, Consultant shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. 7.STANDARD OF CARE. Consultant shall exercise the same degree of care, skill, and diligence in the performance of the services as is ordinarily possessed and exercised by a professional consultant under similar circumstances. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is included in this Agreement. City shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies in the accuracy of Consultant’s services. 8.INDEMNIFICATION. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees, of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, including costs and attorney's fees, arising out of or by reason of the execution or performance of the services provided for herein and further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising hereunder. 9.INSURANCE. Consultant shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect Consultant from claims under the Worker’s Compensation Acts, automobile liability, and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of services under this Agreement. Such insurance shall be written for amounts not less than: Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence/aggregate Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit Professional Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence/aggregate The City shall be named as an additional insured on the general liability policy on a primary and non- contributory basis. Before commencing work, the Consultant shall provide the City a certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance coverage in a form acceptable to City. 10.INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The City hereby retains Consultant as an independent contractor upon the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. Consultant is not an employee of the City and is free to contract with other entities as provided herein. Consultant shall be responsible for selecting the means and methods of performing the work. Consultant shall furnish any and all supplies, equipment, and incidentals necessary for Consultant’s performance under this Agreement. City and Consultant agree that Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that Consultant or any of Consultant's agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the City. Consultant shall be exclusively responsible under this Agreement for Consultant’s own FICA payments, workers compensation payments, unemployment compensation payments, withholding amounts, and/or self-employment taxes if any such payments, amounts, or taxes are required to be paid by law or regulation. 125 3 201749v1 11.SUBCONTRACTORS. Consultant shall not enter into subcontracts for services provided under this Agreement without the express written consent of the City. Consultant shall comply with Minnesota Statutes § 471.425. Consultant must pay subcontractors for all undisputed services provided by subcontractors within ten (10) days of Consultant’s receipt of payment from City. Consultant must pay interest of one and five-tenths percent (1.5%) per month or any part of a month to subcontractors on any undisputed amount not paid on time to subcontractors. The minimum monthly interest penalty payment for an unpaid balance of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) or more is Ten Dollars ($10.00). 12.CONTROLLING LAW/VENUE. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of litigation, the exclusive venue shall be in the District Court of the State of Minnesota for Carver County Minnesota. 13.MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT. Consultant must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to (1) all data provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement, and (2) all data, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant is subject to all the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, including but not limited to the civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, as if it were a government entity. In the event Consultant receives a request to release data, Consultant must immediately notify City. City will give Consultant instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold City, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers harmless from any claims resulting from Consultant’s officers’, agents’, city’s, partners’, employees’, volunteers’, assignees’ or subcontractors’ unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. 14.COPYRIGHT. Consultant shall defend actions or claims charging infringement of any copyright or software license by reason of the use or adoption of any software, designs, drawings or specifications supplied by it, and it shall hold harmless the City from loss or damage resulting therefrom. 15.PATENTED DEVICES, MATERIALS AND PROCESSES. If the Contract requires, or the Consultant desires, the use of any design, devise, material or process covered by letters, patent or copyright, trademark or trade name, the Consultant shall provide for such use by suitable legal agreement with the patentee or owner and a copy of said agreement shall be filed with the City. If no such agreement is made or filed as noted, the Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims for infringement by reason of the use of any such patented designed, device, material or process, or any trademark or trade name or copyright in connection with the services agreed to be performed under the Contract, and shall indemnify and defend the City for any costs, liability, expenses and attorney's fees that result from any such infringement. 126 4 201749v1 16.RECORDS. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records of hours worked and expenses involved in the performance of services. 17.ASSIGNMENT. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, or any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 18.WAIVER. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 19.ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 20.TERMINATION. This Agreement may be terminated by the City for any reason or for convenience upon written notice to the Consultant. In the event of termination, the City shall be obligated to the Consultant for payment of amounts due and owing including payment for services performed or furnished to the date and time of termination. Dated: _______________, 2022.CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: _____________________________________________ Elise Ryan, Mayor BY: _____________________________________________ Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager Dated: _______________, 2022.EHLERS, INC. BY: _____________________________________________ Its 127 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Approve Agreement with Dakota Retail LLC for Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota Retail (southwest corner of Highway 5 and Dakota Avenue) File No.Planning Case 2014-11 Dakota Retail Item No: D.6 Agenda Section CONSENT AGENDA Prepared By Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves Development Agreement with Dakota Retail LLC for Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota Retail". Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY BACKGROUND On April 28, 2014, the City Council approved a site plan for an 8,000 square-foot multi-tenant building. On April 11, 2022, the applicant requesting an amendment to the Site Plan Agreement to reconfigure the parking lot and improve traffic circulation for the property. The required number of parking spaces per ordinance is 65. The applicant provided 55 spaces and requested deferment of adding the 10 parking spaces if the need presents itself. The City Council denied the request for deferment and required the parking spaces be provided. Adding 128 the additional 10 spaces triggered the need for a Watershed Permit and redesign of the Stormwater Pond on the site. DISCUSSION The applicant began the process of working with the watershed to obtain a permit. At the same time, a building permit application was submitted to renovate the westerly 2,753 square feet of the building into a restaurant (Tono Pizza) with a liquor license. Staff issued the building permit with the following condition: A Certificate of Occupancy for 190 Lake Drive E. #110 will not be issued until the revised site plan improvements are completed and an Operation and Maintenance Agreement has been approved and recorded for the private storm water management best management practices (BMPs). Due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control (shortage of labor, custom built estimated time of 16 weeks and timing of constructions season), the site improvements pertaining to stormwater, parking and circulation have not been started. The applicant met with staff, explained the situation and asked if he can open the restaurant and complete the site improvements in two phases. Staff and the applicant evaluated the options and reached a mutually agreeable solution. Restaurant Operation and Site Improvements Under Phase I: Widen the drive through to two (2) lanes as well as add two (2) new parking spaces to the development and relocate the trash enclosure. Phase I must be completed before the restaurant can be opened. The restaurant can be open for pickup and delivery only. Seated dining is prohibited. This will allow the space to function as a retail store rather than a restaurant. Restaurant Operation and Site Improvements Under Phase II: All site improvements shown in the exhibit attached to the agreement shall be completed and accepted by the City before restaurant seating or alcohol service can resume. Attached is an agreement detailing the requirements for this phased restaurant opening. BUDGET RECOMMENDATION "The Chanhassen City Council approves Development Agreement with Dakota Retail LLC for Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota Retail". ATTACHMENTS Development Agreement Exhibit Phase 1 Fall 2022 129 E-mail from Dario Klasic Traffic/Parking Study Letter of Credit to Watershed Parking Lot Enhancements Storm Sewer Installation 130 1 223675v1 (reserved for recording information) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) dated _____________, 2022, is entered into by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN,a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and Dakota Retail, LLLP, a Minnesota Limited liability limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as “Developer"). RECITALS A.Developer is the fee owner of certain real property located at 190 Lake Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317 in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Dakota Retail, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. (the "Subject Property"). B.Developer owns the 7,984 square foot existing building on the Subject Property, whichis used as a multi-tenant building. Developeris requesting to convert the westerly 2,753 square feet of the existing building into a restaurant. 131 2 223675v1 C.Pursuant to Section 20-1124 of the City Code, 65 parking spaces are required on the Subject Property. Dakota Retail, LLLP is proposing to provide 55parking spaces and has requested a deferment for 10parking spaces. D.Developer has claimed that due to operational restrictions of the restaurant as pickup- delivery services only, including no customer seating areas and no liquor service, that: (i) the proposed use of the Subject Property will have a parking demand less than the required parking under Section 20-1124of the City Code; and (ii) the Subject Property has sufficient property area under the same ownership to accommodate expansion of parking facilities to meet minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance if the parking demand exceeds the actual on-site supply. NOW, THEREFORE,in consideration of the recitals set forth above and the terms and conditions herein, Developer and the City agree as follows: 1.Parking shall only occur on site and in areas designated and constructed for parking in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2.Prior to receiving an occupancy permit for the restaurant spacefor pickup and delivery only, the Developer shall construct the Phase I Fall 2022 site improvements shown on the attached Site Plan Exhibit titled Coffee Shop Drive Improvements prepared for Klasic Property by Kimley Horn dated received September 26, 2022. 3.Developer hereby unconditionally guarantees to City that it shall construct additional parking spaces upon the Subject Property in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and this Agreement if the parking demand for the Subject Property exceeds the actual on-site parking supply and that concrete curb and gutter must be installed at the time the additional spaces are striped for parking. All improvements must meet the City’s and all other State and local government rules and regulations, including but not limited to, surface water management and erosion control requirements 132 3 223675v1 and be consistent with the approved Site Plan for the Property, as amended. Developer shall also execute a private stormwater operation and maintenance agreement for any private stormwater facilities required to be constructed with the additional parking spaces in accordance with the City’s standard form of agreement. 4.If, within one year of the date of this Agreement, the City determines, in its sole discretion, that the parking demand exceeds the number of constructed parking spaces, the City may terminate the parking deferment granted herein and require Developer, upon written notice from the City, to construct 10 additional parking spaces, the construction of which has been deferred pursuant to this Agreement, and install concrete curb and gutter at the time those additional 10 spaces are striped for parking. If Developer fails to construct the 10 deferred parking spaces, additional improvements required under Paragraph 3 of this Agreement, or fails to execute the private stormwater maintenance agreement required under Paragraph 2 within six (6) months after so requested by the City, the City may rescind the certificate of occupancy for the building located on the Subject Property. 5.Miscellaneous. A.Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. B.If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, sentence, paragraph, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement. C.The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be inwriting, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly 133 4 223675v1 take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or release of any term or condition herein. 6.This Agreement shall run with the land and may be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. 7.Required notices shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to Developer, its successors and assigns, or mailed to Developer by certified mail at the following address: 905 Jefferson Avenue, Unit 101, Saint Paul, MN 55102. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager or mailed 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. {The remainder of the page is intentionally left blank. Signature pages to follow.} 134 5 223675v1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: ______________________________ (CITY SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of __________________, 2022 by __________________________ of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City. ___________________________________ Notary Public 135 6 223675v1 DEVELOPER: DAKOTA RETAIL, LLLP By: Its STATE OF ______________ ) )ss. COUNTY OF ____________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________, 2022, by _________________________, the _____________________________________ of Dakota Retail, LLLP, a Minnesota limited liability limited partnership, on behalf of said entity. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 210 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: 651-452-5000 JJJ/smt 136 137 From:Dario Klasic To:Al-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject:190 Dakota Retail Date:Friday, September 23, 2022 9:54:14 AM Attachments:2017-04-26_16-07-54.png Chanhassen Coffee EEE WS 9.8.2022.pdf Chanhassen Coffee EEE WS 9.8.2022.pdf Klasic Dakota Retail Final.pdf Hello Sharmeen, Thank you for taking my call earlier this week to discuss this. Below is a recap of our conversations as well as issues that we are trying to get resolved. I will try to be as brief as possible in my email so please let me know if you need anything else from me. Current status We received estimates from few companies just on pipe work that has to go underground to be able to complete this project. First estimate we received was from a company called Triple E Water and Sewer LLC. Their estimate came to out to a whopping $335,000 (JUST FOR THE PIPE WORK estimate attached) Second estimate we received was from a company called Kusske Construction Company LLC. Their estimate came out to a whopping $424,480 Estimate to complete black top as well as concrete work necessary for this project was from Plehal Blacktopping in the amount of $145,926 for phase one and additional $80,000 to add the 10 parking spots that came in as phase 2. (Erik the owner of the company is willing to honor his pricing from last year to help us with this project. Landscaping estimate came to $40,000 Re-building the trash enclosure $35,000 Engineering -$45,000 Total for project if there are no unknown issues $680,926 I contacted Scott with water shed as well as Mike the architect to get their opinion on the piping work in particular the both said that they did not think that it was going to cost this much they felt like it would be half that just like we did. After wrapping our head around this huge amount of money we have to invest in this property we decided to move things forward and get it all done since we already invested over $800,000 into our Tono Restaurant buildout. Next challenge - When started siding these contracts with the companies mentioned above the issues is that the pipes for the work needed to complete phase 2 is about 12weeks out. When we received this information we new right away that there is no way to complete the phase 2 of the project in time before winter. Currently we are sitting with a completed restaurant where we are losing $11,000 per month since we are not open and also investing $680,926 into this project. What we are asking of the city 138 We are still planning on doing the entire project BUT are not able to get phase 2 of the project completed by next spring which means that our restaurant would stay closed. We are in process of completing the phase 1 which will widen the drive through into 2 lanes as well as add 2 new parking spots to the development. So we would have to do Phase 2 with adding 8 more parking spots in spring. I would like to ask the city to allow us to open conditionally after we complete phase 1 which will allow us to have a two lane drive through and additional 2 spaces or at minimum at least allow us to open for delivery and in store pick up until phase 2 is completed. Please let me know if you need anything else and who I could talk to to come to some sort of agreement on this. Unfortunetly we are being hit form all angles and are asking the city to help us stop the bleeding at least on the restaurant she where we are loosing $11,000 per month until we can open. Dario Klasic CEO | Owner p: 651.356.6226 m: 612.214.2069 a: 905 Jefferson ave Unit 101 Saint Paul MN 55102 w: www.klasicpropertyservices.com 139 kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197 MEMORANDUM To: Sharmeen Al-Jaff City of Chanhassen From: Mike Brandt, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: January 6, 2021 Subject: 190 Lake Drive East – Parking & Queuing Summary Chanhassen, Minnesota ________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction The site of interest is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of MN-5 (Arboretum Blvd.) and Dakota Avenue in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The existing 1.52-acre site is currently occupied by a 2,231 square foot coffee shop with drive-thru, 3,000 square foot retail store, and 2,753 square foot pizza restaurant. The proposed improvements include re-routing an existing drive-thru and eliminating one site access to accommodate the proposed extended drive-thru. The proposed site plan is included within this memorandum. The City has requested a memorandum to document the anticipated trip generation, parking demand, and queueing for the coffee shop and other strip retail uses during peak operation times. Parking Demand The proposed site plan includes a shared parking lot for the coffee shop, pizza restaurant, and mixed use. The proposed site provides 55 parking spaces (including 3 ADA spaces). This is less than the 65 spaces required by the Chanhassen City Code. In order to estimate the expected parking lot demand for the proposed site, Kimley-Horn collected parking lot occupancy data at another drive-thru coffee shop in Burnsville and fast food in Savage, Minnesota, similar to the one being proposed for this site. Parking lot data was collected at the two sites during April 2021. Parking lot occupancy data for the coffee shop was collected on two weekdays between 7:30 and 9:00 a.m. for the morning peak and between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for the midday peak. Whil e parking occupancy for the fast-food restaurant was collected between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for the midday peak and 5:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. for the p.m. peak. However, the dining room at the fast- food restaurant was closed at the time of data collectio n. The parking lot occupancy data is summarized in Table 2. 140 Page 2 kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, Saint Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197 Table 2 – Parking Lot Count Summary Store Type Store Location Peak Period Observed Average Parking Lot Count Average Maximum Parking Lot Count Coffee Shop Burnsville AM 8.2 11.0 Midday 10.3 13.5 Fast-Food Restaurant Savage Midday 3.2* 5.5* PM 3.3* 5.0* *Dining room closed during data collection Due to the nature of the two site uses, the period of peak parking lot occupancy is expected to be during the midday peak. The existing nearby coffee shop is roughly 2,000 square feet, while the proposed coffee shop would be 2,231 square feet. To predict the maximum parking demand of the proposed coffee shop during the midday peak, the average maximum parking lot count was sca led with respect to square footage. The expected maximum parking lot occupancy of the coffee shop is approximately 15 vehicles based on data collected at the nearby location. For comparison, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, Fifth Edition was also used to determine the expected average parking occupancy of a 1,300 square-foot coffee shop during the midday peak. The ITE parking demand is 5 vehicles during the midday peak. Based on this, the adjusted maximum parking lot occupancy of 15 vehicles for the coffee shop in the midday peak is reasonable. The average maximum number of parking spots used during the midday peak at the fast-food restaurant was 5.5, however this is not expected to represent actual parking demand as the dining room was closed during the data collection. To develop a better estimate of parking lot demand for a fast-food restaurant, parking demand was calculated using the standard parking generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, Fifth Edition. The average ITE parking generation rate for a 2,800 square foot fast-food restaurant without drive thru window (Land Use Code 933) was 28 parking spaces during the midday peak period. In addition to the fast food and coffee shop uses, a mixed-use tenant also occupies the space. Parking demand for this use was determined using the Institute for Transportations Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, Fifth Edition. The average ITE parking generation r ate for a 3,000 square foot Retail store (Land use Code 820) was 6 parking spaces during the midday peak period. With an adjusted average maximum occupancy of 15 vehicles at the coffee shop, 6 vehicles for the retail store and the projected average occupancy of 28 vehicles for the fast-food restaurant, the total mid-day parking demand is expected to be around 49 vehicles. As previously mentioned, the proposed site provides 55 parking spaces (including 3 ADA spaces). It is anticipated that the proposed site will approach maximum parking capacity during the mid-day peak hour. However, it is not anticipated to be near capacity for an extended period of time throughout the day. 141 Page 3 kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, Saint Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197 CONCLUSION The existing site, located on the southwest corner of the intersection of MN-5 (Arboretum Blvd.) and Dakota Avenue, includes a 2,231 square foot coffee shop with drive-thru, 3,000 square foot retail store, and 2,753 square foot pizza restaurant. Based on the parking analysis results, the anticipated peak parking demand will occur during the mid-day peak resulting a demand of 49 spaces. With the proposed site providing 55 spaces with improvements, it is anticipated the proposed site will approach maximum parking capacity during the mid-day peak hour. However, it is not anticipated to be near capacity for an extended period of time throughout the day. 142 143 144 Plehal Blacktopping, LLC 12414 Hwy 41 Frontage Rd P/ 952-445-7676 PO Box 317 F/ 952-445-7682 Shakopee MN 55379 www.plehal.com Submitted To: Project: Dakota Retail 190 Lake Dr E Chanhassen, MN Klasic Property Services 905 Jefferson Ave Unit 101 St. Paul, MN Phone: Cell: Email: Description: Parking Lot Enhancements Price Excavation, Pipe, & Base Installation Install inlet protection 3 at $250.00 each if required. $750.00 Tree protection fence 260 feet at $2.75 per foot. $715.00 Install silt fence and bio-logs 990 feet at $2.75 per LF. $2,722.50 Remove trash pad, curb, asphalt, concrete, saw cutting, storm, 6 trees, bushes and 1-light pole footing. (Light pole and disconnect by others) $25,420.00 Install 2 catch basin and storm pipe including material, export and import. $19,226.00 Dig trash enclosure. $1,895.00 Backfill trash enclosure. $2,660.00 Export soil 14 CY at $19.00 per CY. $266.00 Supply class 5 base 18 tons at $25.00 per ton. $450.00 Grade site, load out excess soil and place class 5 base. $11,885.00 Export soil 238 CY at $19.00 per CY. $4,522.00 Supply class 5 base 324 tons at $25.00 per ton. $8,100.00 Finish grade green area. $2,583.00 Supply tops soil borrow for green area 42 CY at $36.00 per CY. $1,512.00 Concrete Install 680 Lf of B612 Curb & gutter, 300 Sf 6” NRF trash slab, 400 Sf 4” NRF patio, 320 Sf 8” NRF Driveway, 330 Sf 7” NRF HD paving, 460 Sf 4” NRF sidewalk. $34,800.00 Asphalt Install 2” (compacted) of MN/Dot spec MV3 Base course, apply tack coat, and install 2” (compacted) MV4 wear course. (657 SY) $24,920.00 Stripe all pavement markings per plan. $500.00 Staking- Mark control points, back of curb and trash enclosure. Allowance: $3,000.00 Total: $145,926.00 *Excludes permitting, traffic control, survey, private locates, testing, winter conditions, irrigation repairs, landscaping, lighting and electrical, signage, utility conflicts, winter conditions. *Based on completing each phase in one mobilization. Additional mobs $1,500 ea. 145 Plehal Blacktopping, LLC 13060 Dem Con Drive P/ 952-445-7676 PO Box 317 F/ 952-445-7682 Shakopee MN 55379 www.plehal.com Any person or company supplying labor or materials for this improvement to your property may file a lien against your property if that person or company is not paid for the contributions. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents, or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workman’s Compensation Insurance. Estimator: Erik Anderson Cell: 612-919-2235 Email: e.anderson@plehal.com This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within 15 days. All depths are average and measurements are approximate. All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work is to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. See additional contract terms on reverse. ________________________________ ______________ Authorized Plehal Blacktopping Signature Date Payment Terms: Net due upon completion. Past due invoices will be charged 1½% per month Finance Charge (18% annual percentage rate). Acceptance of Proposal: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. The general provisions on the back of this contract are made a part of this contract and incorporated herein by this reference. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined. ________________________________ ______________ Signature Date 3/22/22 146 TERMS OF CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS: Any alteration or deviation from the specifications listed on the forefront that involve extra costs will be executed only upon written orders and will become an additional charge over and above the original estimate. If undesirable base is discovered in a remove and replace scope of work or more than three inches of asphalt are found during the removal work, you will be notified of the extra cost involved to bring the base to asphalt paving standards. This will be an extra charge over the original proposal amount. Plehal Blacktopping, LLC will not be responsible for pavement failure and will be paid as proposed if no corrective measures are authorized. GENERAL EXCLUSIONS: Bonds, permits, testing, engineering and surveying. Removal of hazardous materials or unforeseen sub -terrain. Damage to unmarked electric, sewer, water, irrigation systems, building foundation, or telephone/cable TV lines located on or near the construction area. Damaged grass or tree root systems, sod restoration, removal of waste caused by others. It will be at no expense to the contractor to move or tow vehicles in the construction zone after the job has been scheduled. If area is not accessible due to any of these exclusions, a re-mobilization charge will be assessed. Any increase or decrease, greater than 5% is subject to re-bid. Field measurements prevail. At times our work requires crossing over existing concrete walks, aprons and/or slabs and assume it will support our equipment. We are not responsible for damage done (i.e. cracking, etc.). We are required by law to locate all public utilities prior to any construction activity. Unless advised by an owner, we will not be responsible for damage to private underground utilities on private property (i.e. dog wires, sprinkler systems, yard lights, etc.). WARRANTY: Plehal Blacktopping, LLC guarantees all our new driveways for a minimum of two years against chuckholes, breakup and excessive cracking due to faulty installation of materials. Reflective cracks, thermal expansion and contraction cracks, and cracks caused by underground wires, pipes or tree roots are not covered. We cannot guarantee a 100% uniform appearance to the asphalt surface. Aggregate segregations, seams between passes and hand work all impact the finished product. We make every effort to minimize those transitions. WARRANTY EXCLUSIONS & OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES: • No guarantee against erosion, settlement or sinking. • Complete drainage of surface water will not be guaranteed for surfaces having less than 2% grade. • No warranty against damage done by vegetation growth, gas, oil/chemical spills or by large veh icles in excess of design capacity. • Owner is responsible for any necessary lawn grading, backfilling of edges or re-seeding after installation unless specifically included in proposal. • The edges of your asphalt are not guaranteed against invasion by grass or weeds. Grass and weeds will grow through the edges of the asphalt if not properly maintained. You are responsible for keeping grass/weeds away from the edges of the asphalt by using a grass/weed control killer. • No guarantee for damage done by placement of sharp or pointed objects such as bicycle kick stands, chair legs, tables, high heeled shoes or ladders to name a few. This can be prevented by placing a piece of plywood underneath the object. • Don’t allow large heavy vehicles in your driveway. Chances are the base has not been designed for it. • Don’t turn the wheels of your car sharply while the car is standing still as this will scuff the surface and may cause “ravel” (loose aggregate) areas in your driveway. Start the car and while moving, gradually turn the wheels as the car is in motion. Scuffing may also occur due to vehicle tires exceeding an acceptable turning radius (SUVs, all - wheel drive and 4-wheel drive vehicles in particular). FAILURE TO PAY: The failure to pay all amounts owed to Plehal Blacktopping, LLC upon completion of the work (unless otherwise stated in this contract) shall constitute a material breach of this contract. Upon such breach, the purchaser shall be lia ble to Plehal Blacktopping, LLC for all costs incurred in collecting the amount owed including collection agency/atto rney’s fees and interest at the rate of 1½% per month (18% annual percentage rate). If payment is not received in full within 90 days, then any and all warranty rights are waived, without Plehal Blacktoppin g, LLC waiving any of its lien rights. 147 Estimate Date 8/18/2022 Estimate # J4573 Provided to All Bidders Service Adress Chanhassen Coffee Shop Chanhassen, MN JOB # Total Triple E Water and Sewer LLC 5232 Hanson Court North Crystal, MN 55429 763-207-8068 Item Description Rate PER SHEET C400 DATED 7.26.2022 Storm Sewer Installation 30LF 12" HDPE PIPE 89LF 18" RCP CLASS 5 5- 48" MH 3- 60" MH 2- 60" MH w/ WEIR WALL 1- 72" MH w/ WEIR WALL 1- PRINSCO HYDROSTOR HS180 CHAMBER SYSTEM IMPORT OF 782T CRUSHED CLEAN ROCK VIA ROCK SHOOTER 1- STORMWATER QUALITY UNIT 335,000.00 Price Includes Parts Permits Labor Mobilization Traffic Control Core Drill Page 1 148 Estimate Date 8/18/2022 Estimate # J4573 Provided to All Bidders Service Adress Chanhassen Coffee Shop Chanhassen, MN JOB # Total Triple E Water and Sewer LLC 5232 Hanson Court North Crystal, MN 55429 763-207-8068 Item Description Rate Price Excludes Dewatering Winter Conditions Export of spoils Excavation of Chamber System Removals of parking lot bituminous, curb and gutter Restoration of the following (if applicable): Sidewalk Curb/gutter Lawn/Landscaping Parking Lot Page 2 Due to rising costs of material, this estimate is only valid for 15 days. Please reach out to schedule the service so that we can order material in a timely fashion and avoid any further increase in cost. $335,000.00 149 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Resolution 2022-XX: Approve Vacation of a Portion of Public Right-of-Way (Alley) Abutting 7701 Frontier Trail File No.Vacation Case No. 2022-03 Item No: F.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer Reviewed By Charlie Howley SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council adopts a resolution approving the vacation of portions of the public right-of-way, or alley, abutting Lot 10 and the west 10 feet of Lot 9, Block 4, St. Hubertus, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Asset Management SUMMARY BACKGROUND The public right-of-way was originally intended to be used for an alley. The City no longer supports the use of alleys and currently no access exists or is required through this portion of right-of-way. The public right-of-way was dedicated on the recorded plat for the St. Hubertus subdivision from 1887. DISCUSSION The requested vacation area is defined as public right-of-way (ROW), abutting Lot 10 and the west 10 feet of Lot 9 , Block 4, St. Hubertus, which was platted to facilitate the possible extension of an alley. The City no longer supports the use of alleys and the current configuration of the neighborhood does 150 not require the ROW as no existing or planned accesses would be had from the alley. The vacated ROW area will become the property of the property owner requesting the vacation north of the ROW. This will leave the south half of the ROW, or alley, to remain unvacated until petitioned by the abutting property owner to the south. There are no underground public utilities within the area to be vacated, but there are overhead utility lines. As such, a drainage and utility easement will be retained upon vacation of the ROW. BUDGET N/A RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends granting the vacation of the public right-of-way abutting Lot 10 and the west 10 feet of Lot 9 , Block 4, St. Hubertus plat. ATTACHMENTS Resolution Vacating Section of Alley Abutting 7701 Frontier Trail Vacation Application Vacation Area Survey Statement of Need St. Hubertus Plat Gopher State One Call Report Affidavit of Mailing Notice of Public Hearing 151 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA DATE: October 10, 2022 RESOLUTION NO:2022-XX MOTION BY: SECONDED BY: RESOLUTION VACATING A SEGMENT OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY (ALLEY) 7701 FRONTIER TRAIL WHEREAS,Daniel Burke (“Applicant”) has applied for vacation of a portion of alley abutting their property located at 7701 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen, Minnesota, 55317 and legally described as follows: Lot 10 and the west 10 feet of Lot 9, Block 4, ST. HUBERTUS, Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof (“Applicant Property”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 412.851 the City Council of the City of Chanhassen has conducted a hearing preceded by the statutorily required two (2) weeks published and posted notice and mailed notice to the abutting property owners, to consider the vacation of the following roadway: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 4, ST. HUBERTUS, Carver County, Minnesota; thence north 89 degrees 52 minutes 36 seconds east, assumed bearing along the south line of said Lot 10 and the south line of said Lot 9, a distance of 70.29 feet to the east line of the west 10 feet of said Lot 9; thence south 00 degrees 07 minutes 24 seconds east, perpendicular to the centerline of said alley, a distance of 8.00 feet; thence south 89 degrees 52 minutes 36 seconds west, along said centerline, a distance of 70.33 feet to the southerly extension of the east line of said lot 10; thence north 00 degrees 11 minutes 15 seconds east, along said southerly extension, a distance of 8.00 feet to the point of beginning (“Easement”); and WHEREAS, following the hearing and consideration of the proposed vacation, the City Council finds that the Easement is not needed for public purposes, except that a drainage and utility easement should be kept over the Easement for drainage and utility purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Chanhassen City Council: 1. The following Easement is vacated subject to the conditions provided in this Resolution and retaining a drainage and utility easement over the entire area located within the boundary of the Easement: The vacation of a portion of the alley located in Block 4, St. Hubertus, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: 152 2 Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 4, St. Hubertus, Carver County, Minnesota; thence north 89 degrees 52 minutes 36 seconds ease, assumed bearing along the south line of said Lot 10 and the south line of said Lot 9, a distance of 70.29 feet to the east line of the west 10 feet of said Lot 9; thence south 00 degrees 07 minutes 24 seconds east, perpendicular to the centerline of said alley, a distance of 8.00 feet; thence south 89 degrees 52 minutes 36 seconds west, along said centerline, a distance of 70.33 feet to the southerly extension of the east line of said Lot 10; thence north 00 degrees 11 minutes 15 seconds east, along said southerly extension, a distance of 8.00 feet to the point of beginning (“Easement”) 2. The vacation of the Easement is conditioned upon the retainage of a drainage and utility easement over the entire Easement. 3. The vacation shall not affect the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling the electric or telephone poles and lines, gas lines, sanitary and storm sewer lines, water pipes, mains, hydrants, and natural drainage areas thereon or thereunder, to continue maintain the same or to enter upon such way or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereof. 4. The City Clerk shall transmit a certified duplicate of this Resolution to the County Auditor and County Recorder together with the easements identified in Paragraph 2 of this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 10th day of October, 2022. ATTEST: Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor YES NO ABSENT 153 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Divisaon - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 553'17 Phone: (9521227-1 100 / Fax: (9521227-1110 *cffioICHAttHAssrtt APPLICATION FOR OEVELOPMENT REVIEW CC Datel 50-Oay Review Dale: (Refet to the appropiate Applicalion Checklist fot requircd submittal infomation that musl accompany this application) E Comprehensive Plan Amendment fl Conditional Use Permit (CUP) .. $600 E Subdivision (SUB) E Create 3 lols or less E Create over 3 lots... ......$300 E Single-FamilyResidence ....$600 + $15 per lot E Att others...... .. s325 .. $500 ( lots) ! Metes & Bounds (2 lots).................................. $300 E Consolidate Lots..............................................$1 50 fl Administrative SuM. (Line Adjustmenl)..........$150E lnterim Use Permit (lUP) ! ln coniunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325 E Final Plat + $15 per lot $700.E Alt ottrers......... $500 '(lncludes $450 escrow for attomey costs) 'Additional escJow may be required for other applications throlgh the development contracl. n Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) E Rezoning (REZ) E Planned Unit Development (PUD).................. $750 ! Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100 E All others $500 E Sign Plan Review.................. E Site Plan Review (SPR) E Administrative $i50 n Variance (vAR)..........$200 $1s0 $275 $200 $500 $100 $500 E Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) E Single-Family Residence........... E Commercial/lndustrial Districts.n Att ottrers Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand sQuare lg€tt- -" '-'--' Ll zoning Appeal"""""" " """"" 'lnclude number of ClElhg employees 'lnclude number of lqry employees:E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) E Residential Districts $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) lg!E: Whei muftiple applicatio[s are processed concufienuy, the aryropriaae feo shatl ba charyed tot each appticafon, ! Notification Sign (cityto installand remove)........... $200 f] Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre-application meeting).... $3 per address L_ addresses) E Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that appn lv)....................... $50 per document E Site Plan Agreement E wetland Atteration Permit E Deeos TOTAL FEE: tr itional Use Permit lnterim Use Permit on E Variance Metes & Bounds Subdivision (2 deeds) ! Easements (- easements) Description of Proposal Property Address or Location: Parcel #: ;L-p-ee-3eb- Legal Description .-2)Wetlands Presenl?E ves EftQo Requested ZoningPresent Zoning:a I ,*Q-. t .,-,+ Existing Use of Property: Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) Section 2: Required lnformation E Check box if separate narrative is attached ff"o"ested Land Use Designation 9f -J *r:*r, Subrnittal Date: _ PC Date: _ Total Acreage: Present Land Use Designation: 154 Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorizalion from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subiect only to the right to obiect at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separale documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I furlher understand thal additionalfees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Email: Signat Contact: Phone: PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to ob.iect at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: t,pg / 4,-. * t /Z Contact: Phone: Cell: Fax: Date Cell: Fax: Cell Fax Address: city/state/zip: Email: Signatu Date: PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Address: Contact: Phone: ciry/srarezip: Email: This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to delermine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. Section 4: Notification lnformation Who should receive copies of staff ieports?"Other Contact lnformation: ! Property Owner Via: n Email E Applicant Via: E Email E Engineer Via: E Email n otner via: E Email f] uaiteo Paper Copy fl uaiteo Paper copy fl tiitaibo Paper copy fl uaiteo Paper Copy City/State/Zip Email: Name Address: INSTRUCTIONS To APPLICANT: Com plete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to sen d a digital copy to the city for processing.155 156 157 1896 House, LLC 7701 Frontier Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 luly 20, ZOZ2 Application for Vacation of Alley The property was purchased in January of 2020 and has been extensively remodeled. When it was purchased, there was a fence on the proposed "vacated" property line. That fence has been removed. There is an overhead power line and no underground utilities. My wife Jeanne and I have lived next door at 225 W 77th Steet for 37 years and had the alley behind our house vacated in 2015. I would like the alley vacated so the lot lines are contiguous. Owner A 158 159 160 161 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on September 9,2022, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached Notice of Public Hearing for the Vacation of Alley Abutting Property to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and swom to before me this 12- day ol 9.n1+Ub+- .2022 ssen, City Cl JENNIFER ANN POTTER Notary Public-Minnesota Kim I tary Public ElplmsJln 3f iO27 t 162 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COTINTIES. MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF ALLEY ABUTTING PROPERTY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, October 10.2022. at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes $412.85 I to consider the vacation of a portion ofalley abutting property located at 7701 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen. legally described as Lot l0 and the west 10 feet oflot 9, Block 4, ST. HUBERTUS, Chanhassen. Carver County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof and depicted as follows: I N f All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this ProPosal. Erik R. Henricksan, PE, Project Engineer Phone'. 952-227'1165 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on September 29 & Octobet 6' 2022) e ??4 'figPruEST It= lldrI eI lf E ilE: i IE; \l"i \ -t- I I c'llrl Il 5l i tl ;rg,)l-l l Co T 163 {s I (yd,.( € -t \( \ s t \ \ 164 1896HOUSE LLC 225 W 77TH ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- DAYANIRA ZAMORANO 204 CHANVTEW CHANHASSEN, MN 5531 7.9707 GREGORY L HUBERS 224 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9613 PATRICK KOCH 7706 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- RICHARD A & ELIZABETH M NUSTAD 772.I ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 553I 7-9713 MARY E JANSEN ETAL 7720 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.97,13 JOSHUA H PAINE 7701 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- TODD KAMMEIJER 307 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9798 THOMASA&LYNNMPAULY 772,I FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9712 MATTHEW FAUST 7723 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 553,I7.9712 JOHNW&PAULAJATKINS 220 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9755 ROBERT M MORGAN 222 W 78TH ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317. JORDAN UOELHOFEN 224 W 78TH ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317. CHAD A MINKEL 7725 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9712 LINDA R VANGORKOM 205 W 77TH ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- CARVER COUNTY CDA 705 WALNUT ST N cHASKA, MN 55318-2039 AMY LOUISE DIEDRICH 221 77TH Sf W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- JEANNE M BURKE REV TRUST U/A 225 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 553.I7-9709 PHYLLIS I GROFF 5516 GRAND AVE S MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55419. KEVIN GAFFORD 319 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 553,I7. DEANC&JANETMBURDICK 206 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9707 JOHNE&KARENMKRAEMER 7703 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9612 JEFFREYW&MARYLBORNS 7199 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9605 TAYLOR S KAHL 222 CHAN VW CHANHASSEN, MN 553.17- JOHN MICHAEL ZUERLEIN 226 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317. CHAPEL HILL ACADEMY 306 78TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9734 TROY P KIMPTON 205 CHAN V|EW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- TONJA ST MARTIN 207 CHAN VIEW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.970.I GREGORYJ&KARENJODASH 221 CHAN V|EW CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9750 MARCIE ST CLAIR 3911 MEADOW VIEW LN ELKO, MN 55020- 165 COLLEEN SHELLY NUSTAD 7791 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- JOAN KENNEY CATAIN 7727 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- LARRYA&KATHLEENA SCHROEOER 7720 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9753 THEODORE VAN BLYENBURGH 303 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9798 ARUN SUBBIAH 301 W 77TH ST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- BERNARD A & COLEEN M POIRIER 304 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9798 WILLIAM P HANSON 7607 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 553.I7.9768 KAREN L ZELLER 7616 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 553,I7. BENJAMIN JOEL CAMPION 204 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 553,I7. RAYMOND J & LYNETTE M BLEDSAW 7609 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9768 JOHN MCQUILLAN 761,I FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9609 HALEY E PEMRICK 7608 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.971 5 DOUGLAS FLETCHER 222 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 553,I7.9799 NICHOLAS BEARE 7617 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317. PAULF&RITAMROJINA 220 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 553,I7.9799 CHANHASSEN CIry PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.0147 ROBERT SCOTT POLLOCK 7603 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9768 MARK BLOMQUIST 5587 BRISTOL LN MINNETONKA, MN 55343-4307 DONALDD&MARYGOETZE 7610 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9609 OOUGLAS J & WENDY K SUEDBECK 7605 GREAT PLAINS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9768 JAMES M ZIMMERMAN 7602 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317. MICHAEL H NORDERHAUG 7603 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 553.17- MARKJ & KAROL J MOTZKO 7606 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9715 KELLI N SCHUTROP 315 77TH ST W CHANHASSEN, MN 55317. 166 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item 581 Fox Hill Drive: Request for Approval of Preliminary Plat with Variances File No.Planning Case No. 2022-10 Item No: G.1 Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS Prepared By Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves a request for preliminary plat to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-way (ROW) as shown in plans, Received September 1, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision.” Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY The applicant is requesting to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot for single-family detached housing. The property is located at the southeast intersection of Carver Beach Road and Fox Hill Drive and west of Lotus Lake. Access to the site is proposed via Fox Hill Drive. The applicant is dedicating the ROW for Lotus Woods Drive to facilitate the connection to Big Woods Boulevard. The City Code requires a 60-foot ROW width. All connecting streets in the immediate vicinity range between 40 and 50 feet in width. Staff directed the applicant to dedicate a 50-foot-wide ROW. This will require a variance and is addressed in more detail in the staff report. Sewer and water are available to the site. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). BACKGROUND 167 This application was tabled at the July 19, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. On September 20, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously approved this request. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the timing of extending and building the street that will serve as a future connection between Fox Hill Drive and Big Woods Boulevard. The Planning Commission noted that they recommend the City Council evaluate the requirement to build the stub/right-of-way at this time versus waiting until there is an actual need. The streets section of the staff report has been updated to address this topic (pages 6, 7 and 8). DISCUSSION Environmental Recourses Update: The Planning Commission discussed the tree removal proposed for the development of the site and some expressed disappointment that more trees could not be saved by the developer. Since City Code allows a proposed subdivisions to go below the minimum canopy cover required, the proposed subdivision could not be denied for excessive tree removal. While the applicant’s proposed 38% canopy cover after development is allowed under the ordinance, the applicant could still incorporate development modifications that may save more trees, such as: Lot 1, Block 1. The house and driveway layout maximize hard surface coverage and tree removal on the site. The footprint of the house and driveway is approximately 116 feet x 75 feet. Compared to a 60-foot x 60-foot footprint (3600 square feet) such as the one proposed on Lots 1- 3, Block 2, the footprint for Lot 1, Block 1 is approximately 8,700 square feet, which is double the standard house pad area. The proposed house on Lot 1, Block 1, is shown as close to the lake as possible. This requires tree removal on the lot from the proposed road ROW to the 75-foot setback from the lake. The clearing comprises the maximum amount allowed on the lot and removes trees for a distance of 185 feet. Additional trees could be saved if the house was located further away from the lake, closer to the proposed ROW and the footprint was designed more efficiently to minimize the tree removal impact. Applicant has been issued a permit for the construction of a beach, patio area, and stairs to the existing home. This will impact additional trees and is not accounted for in the development application. City Code states that any trees shown as preserved on development plans that are removed during development, are required to be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. The applicant can consider combining individual stormwater best management practices (BMPs) on the lots to save additional trees. Access to Lot 1, Block 2 off of the new proposed road may result in additional tree savings. There was discussion that tree removal on the site was greatly impacted by the road connection required by the city and that by not paving the road, 8% of the site’s canopy cover could be preserved. Whether or not the road is paved does not have an impact on the canopy coverage totals for the site. The future loss of trees in the right-of-way can only be accounted for at this point in time. If the road is not paved at this time and the tree loss is not calculated, then when the road is built in the future there is no mechanism to recoup the loss of the canopy which currently accounts for 6%. (6,250SF/101,998SF=6%), not 8%, of the site. (Note that the applicant is responsible for planting additional trees to restore the site to 55% canopy 168 cover in the future.) Engineering Update: See Streets section in the staff report (pages 6, 7 and 8). BUDGET RECOMMENDATION "The Chanhassen City Council approves a request for preliminary plat to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-way (ROW) as shown in plans, received September 1, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision.” ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Signed Findings of Fact and Decision Development Review Application Preliminary Plat Received September 1, 2022 Affidavit of Mailing Public Hearing Notice to Villager Email from Bruce Johansson Received July 11, 2022 Letter from Maria and Andy Awes Dated September 12, 2022 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments (1) Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments (2) Minutes from July 19, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from September 20, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting (not yet approved by Planning Commission) 169 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: July 19, 2022 September 20, 2022 CC DATE: October 10, 2022 REVIEW DEADLINE: October 10, 2022 CASE #: 2022-10 BY: SJ, ET, EH, JR, JS, JS SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 2.47 acres into four lots and a variance to allow a 50-foot ROW. This application was tabled at the July 19, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. This staff report reflects the revised plans. LOCATION: South of Fox Hill Drive, west of Lotus Lake and east of Carver Beach Road APPLICANT: Denali Custom Homes OWNER: Fox Hill Properties, LLC Chad Mayes Andy Awes 18352 Minnetonka Boulevard 14530 Martin Drive, Suite 120 Wayzata, MN 55391 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 chad@denalicustomhomes.com andy@committeefilms.com 612-282-0918 612-396-6478 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District (RSF) 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (1.2 – 4.0 units/net acre) ACREAGE: 2.47 acres DENSITY: 1.6 units per acre LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinances for variances. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of- way (ROW) as shown in plans, Received September 1, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” 170 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 2 of 17 Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Sec. 18-22. - Variances Sec. 18-57. - Streets (a) Sec. 18-60. - Lots(f) Chapter 20, Article XII, RSF District PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot for single-family detached housing. The property is located at the southeast intersection of Carver Beach Road and Fox Hill Drive and west of Lotus Lake. Access to the site is proposed via Fox Hill Drive. The applicant is dedicating the ROW for Lotus Woods Drive to facilitate the connection to Big Woods Boulevard. The City Code requires a 60-foot ROW width. All connecting streets in the immediate vicinity range between 40 and 50 feet in width. Staff directed the applicant to dedicate a 50-foot-wide ROW. This will require a variance and is addressed in more detail later in the report. Sewer and water are available to the site. The property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 171 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 3 of 17 SUBDIVISION The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot. The lots are proposed to be served via Fox Hill Drive. The applicant is proposing to dedicate the ROW for the future extension of the Lotus Woods Drive which will connect Fox Hill Drive with Big Woods Boulevard. There is a variance attached to the application that deals with the width of the ROW. This variance will be discussed in detail later in the report. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY The preliminary plat provided illustrates mostly typical public drainage and utility easements (DUE) along the proposed subdivision’s lot lines with five foot DUE along the side and rear lot lines and a 10-foot DUE along the front lot lines. Additional DUE is being proposed along Lot 1, Block 1 along the shoreline of Lotus Lake and Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 3, Block 2 which encompass a wetland along with private stormwater best management practices (BMPs). Private stormwater BMPs to serve the needs of the development must be wholly located outside of all public easements upon submittal of the final plat. This can be accomplished by either relocating the BMPs or adjusting the public DUE. The applicant is proposing to dedicate 10 feet of right-of-way to provide for a 50-foot right-of- way width along Fox Hill Drive, 30 feet of right-of-of way to provide for a 50-foot width along Carver Beach Road, as well as a 50-foot right-of-way bisecting Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 to provide connectivity to the south for when the area further subdivides. The newly dedicated 50-foot right-of-way intersecting with Fox Hill Drive will eventually provide a needed secondary access to the area and will connect Fox Hill Drive to Big Woods Drive; the Lotus Woods subdivision to the south, recorded in 2020, provided the right-of-way connection off Big Woods Drive. While these widths are not the city’s current standard for right-of-way widths (60 feet), the dedications are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY The applicant provided an existing condition survey dated July 16, 2021. The existing condition survey describes an easement granted to the Northern States Power Company from July 22, 1941. Based on the location of the overhead power from the survey it would appear the easement may be located within right-of-way to be dedicated with the final plat. Any underlying easements within public easements, including public right-of-way, must be vacated, or released prior to recording of the final plat. 172 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 4 of 17 WETLANDS The proposed plans show one wetland onsite that was delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services on November 23, 2020. The report included a Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM). The wetland was classified as a high value wetland (manage type 1) with a minimum buffer width requirement of 20 feet and an average width of 40 feet as outlined by Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) rules. City Ordinance requires a 25-foot buffer and 30 feet principle structure setback from wetland buffers. The construction plans dated September 1, 2022 show wetland buffers and setbacks that is consistent with Article VI, Chapter 20 of City Ordinance - Wetland Protection and appears to meet watershed buffer requirements. GRADING The site’s existing and proposed grades generally slope down both east and west from a high point located near the center of the property. The developer is proposing to mass grade a majority of the site in order to construct the public street, house pads and stormwater management areas. The preliminary grading plans dated September 1, 2022 submitted for the preliminary plat review appear to be in compliance with Section 7-19 and 18-40 of City Ordinance; requirements of these sections include separation from low floor elevations of the proposed homes to the highest known groundwater elevations, ensuring lowest building openings have enough freeboard from any emergency overflows adjacent to the homes, ensuring driveway grades are within limits set by Ordinance (0.5%-10%), ensuring drainage will be routed away from building pads, illustrating adequate erosion control measures are planned for, etc. DRAINAGE In the existing condition there is a large drainage break along a hill located near the center of the project area which directs water either east or west. Stormwater runoff flows to one of three discharge points, east to Lotus Lake, northwest to Carver Beach Road or to the onsite wetland on the west side of the site. Offsite drainage from the private parcel south of the development also drains to the wetland onsite and was included in the hydraulic analysis. The wetland onsite does not have a structural outlet in the existing condition but overtops a natural spillway outlet and 173 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 5 of 17 drains northwest to Carver Beach Road when inundated. Drainage to Carver Beach Road is picked up by catch basins in the northwest corner of the intersection of Carver Beach Road and Fox Hill Drive and drains to existing stormwater pond Lotus Lake 1-2-1. The proposed condition largely maintains the existing drainage patterns, continuing to drain to the same three discharge points. The proposed design uses surface grading to convey runoff to one of four privately owned BMPs which treat the stormwater before it discharges to one of the three discharge points. The proposed BMPs include four underground infiltration systems on the four separate lots. Drainage from the proposed future road which separates Blocks 1 and 2 is proposed to be routed to the underground infiltration system on Lot 1, Block 1 for treatment. An outlet for the wetland is proposed to be directed to the underground infiltration system on Lot 1, Block 2, with a natural spillway acting as the emergency overflow and continuing to drain northwest to Carver Beach Road. The proposed design shows the private system outlet directly behind the back of curb on public drainage and utility easement located at the southeast corner of Lot 3, Block 2. Stormwater from this outlet would discharge across the roadway where it would be eventually picked up by public infrastructure located on the west side of Carver Beach Road. This configuration creates safety and city maintenance concerns, and as such shall be redesigned. The applicant shall extend the public storm sewer system across Carver Beach Road to connect the private system. Piped outlets for the proposed BMPs are directed to one of the three discharge points. The final design will likely require connections to public stormwater infrastructure along Carver Beach Road. The proposed design appears to mix private and future public stormwater associated with the future public road. The mixing of public and private stormwater systems creates difficulties with operation and maintenance. As such the system shall be reconfigured to separate the public and private stormwater BMPs. The public BMP must be sized to treat all stormwater form the future roadway. As such the applicant shall provide updated drainage computations and figures as required. Furthermore, because the drainage system on the east side of the development takes on public stormwater the downstream conveyance system must be made public to allow the city to maintain its stormwater infrastructure. The final design shall be updated to show the public portions of the stormwater system is located within drainage and utility easement. 174 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 6 of 17 The bounce in the onsite wetland is unchanged or slightly decreases for the 2-, 10- and 100-year storm events from existing to proposed conditions. Because this wetland extends onto adjacent properties the 100-year high water level (HWL) must be maintained which has been confirmed by the modeling. EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). The applicant has prepared and submitted a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City for review. The SWPPP is a required submittal element for preliminary plat review along with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in accordance with Section 19-145 of City Ordinance. No earth disturbing activities may occur until an approved SWPPP is developed. This SWPPP shall be a standalone document consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements the permit. The SWPPP will need to be updated as the plans are finalized, when the contractor and their sub-contractors are identified and as other conditions change. All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of site grading activities. There is an area on the northeast portion of Lot 1, Block 1 that is being proposed for an outfall pipe to Lotus Lake which will requiring trenching. The erosion and sediment control prevention plan (ESCP) and tree preservation plans must address this excavation and it’s impacts upon submittal of final plans for review and approval. Enhanced erosion control measures are required when excavating near bodies of waters and must be in accordance with the NPDES General Construction Permit. STREETS The proposed subdivision abuts Fox Hill Drive to the north and Carver Beach Road to the west. Access to Lot 1 , Block 1 and Lots 1-3, Block 2 of the proposed subdivision are proposed to be had from Fox Hill Drive. As discussed previously under “Drainage and Utility Easements and Public Right-of-Way” of this report, right-of-way is being dedicated to facilitate the connection of a secondary access for the neighborhood which will extend from Fox Hill Drive to Big Woods Drive. The applicant is proposing to construct the street to the maximum extent practicable within the newly dedicated right-of-way. Construction of a portion of the future street at this time is preferred rather than accepting an escrow for the cost of the future construction, including clearing and grubbing, due to the difficulty and variability in projecting the appropriate amount to escrow as it is typically unknown when future street connections will be constructed. This practice is not extraordinary; examples of street extensions (a.k.a. a street stub) approved by the city can been seen at Lakeway Lane in the Whitetail Cove (1999) subdivision or Ruby Lane in the Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition (2003) subdivision, as seen below. 175 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 7 of 17 Additionally, impacts to the future homeowners abutting the newly created ROW due to the construction of the street in the future can be avoided if the street is extended concurrently with the development. Furthermore, Lot 1, Block 2 could re-orient their driveway access to be had from the newly extended street if constructed concurrently with the development which will minimize tree loss along the Fox Hill Drive right-of-way where the driveway access is currently proposed. Having Lot 1, Block 2’s access from the newly extended street would help facilitate equitable future assessment costs when the street undergoes rehabilitation. Lastly, initial submittals by the applicant, dated June 17, 2022, which do not propose the extension of the street indicated that the area would be cleared and all trees removed, as seen below. This was proposed to facilitate the construction of storm sewer, water main, and preparing the grades for the future extension of the road. While it is possible to limit these public improvements to temporarily save existing trees, it would not impact the overall canopy cover calculations as the right-of-way will be improved at some future date and as such are required to be accounted for with this development. Also, any trees that remain temporarily in the ROW would be the City’s responsibility to maintain until the street is extended. 176 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 8 of 17 To ensure that the alignment and grades of the proposed street will be conducive to the future connection to Big Woods Drive the applicant shall provide exhibits illustrating the alignment, profile, and grades upon submittal of final construction plans and must be approved prior to approval of the final plat. SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN The newly proposed subdivision will have access to adequate public sanitary sewer and water facilities within Fox Hill Drive right-of-way. The plans illustrate tapping two new service lines for both sanitary and water and connecting to two existing services for both sanitary and water that were installed in 1975. Any existing services proposed to be connected to shall be verified prior to connection of their serviceability such as televising the sanitary stubs to the public main; any existing services not used shall be removed and abandoned accordingly. The applicant is proposing an approximately 120-foot extension of a municipal water main along the alignment of the future street which will eventually connect Fox Hill Drive and Big Woods Drive. This extension is necessary to create a water main loop to the area which will provide better serviceability, water quality, and available flows during firefighting operations. The proposed alignment of the extended municipal main is in general conformance with City Standards and Specifications. All newly installed public utilities will be required to adhere to the City of Chanhassen’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, which will be the governing specifications for said improvements. Upon acceptance by City Council the water mains will become publicly owned and maintained. A municipal sanitary sewer extension is not required. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Article VII, Chapter 19 of City code describes the required storm water 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 water quality treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorous (TP), and runoff rate control for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. The proposed development is located within the RPBCWD and is therefore subject to the watershed’s rules and regulations. A Stormwater Management Report dated August 15, 2021 (but assumed to be for August 15, 2022 based on date submitted) was submitted by the applicant to the City and provided to the watershed district concurrently as part of the preliminary plat review. Approval from the RPBCWD has not been received for the site. As outlined in the City’s Surface Water Management Plan adopted in December 2018, the City requests regional ponding areas as opposed to individual on-site BMPs. Regional systems are more efficient and are easier to maintain. Due to the large hill onsite it does not seem feasible to direct drainage from the entire site to one regional BMP. However, it does seem feasible to combine requirements and reduce the number of onsite BMPs to one BMP east of the hill (near Lotus Lake) and one west of the hill (near the onsite wetland). The City explored whether the existing Lotus Lake 1-2-1 stormwater pond could be used to provide water quality treatment for the portion of the site which drains northwest to Carver Beach Road. The site is within RPBCWD and is required to meet all applicable watershed rules which includes volume abstraction of 1.1 inches of runoff from all new or disturbed impervious for redevelopment 177 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 9 of 17 where over 50% of the project area is being disturbed. RPBCWD does allow for the use of existing regional stormwater management BMPs to meet its rules however Lotus Lake 1-2-1 does not provide the RPBCWD required volume abstraction and couldn’t be used alone to meet RPBCWD’s rules. The applicant shall investigate the potential of a more regional BMP design and submit justification for the final design configuration as part of the final plat submittal. With the currently proposed infiltration BMPs the water quality rules appear to be met since the volume abstraction requirement is met. A draft geotechnical report was included in the most recent submittal however soil boring logs were only included for three out of the four soil borings taken. The soil boring log for SB-4 should be submitted for review, and the final version of the geotechnical report should be submitted when completed. Based on the three soil borings provided the onsite soils are mostly clay with a sand/silt layer 5-10 feet below the surface across the site. The applicant is proposing to excavate to the sand/silt layer and backfill with free draining media under the proposed underground infiltration BMPs to get better infiltration. The applicant shall include justification (geotechnical recommendation, infiltration test results, etc.) for using design infiltration rates which differ from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA’s) standard design infiltration rates based on the soil types shown in the soil boring logs. Once infiltration rates are confirmed, water quality modeling will need to be updated to match the determined infiltration rates, and water quality requirements should be confirmed to still be met. The applicant shall resubmit updated models in their native form prior to recording the final plat to confirm the City’s water quality rule is met. The Stormwater Management Report and supporting Hydrologic and Hydraulic HydroCAD models were reviewed. Modeling updates are required so the models can be used for rate control and water quality analysis. The proposed design shows areas where stormwater from the development is routed to BMPs, however in several instances the surface routing in unclear. Further work is needed to update the grading plan and/or model so they better match the proposed conditions. Furthermore, the design appears to modify the upstream drainage patterns of the existing lot just south of Lot 1, Block 1. Additional analysis is required to show the proposed design will not negatively impact adjacent properties. The modeling demonstrates that rate control can be met to all three discharge events for all storm event modeled. HydroCAD modeling will need to be updated to better match the proposed conditions, and all required updates from City and watershed comments. If the infiltration rates for the different BMPs are modified to confirm rate control requirements are still being met prior to recording the final plat. As noted previously, RPBCWD rules require 1.1 inches of stormwater abstraction for all impervious area (new and existing) for the entire project area when over 50% of the project area is being disturbed. The proposed condition has an impervious area of 0.50 acres requiring approximately 2,200 CF of abstraction. The proposed BMPs have a combined volume provided of 2,331 CF exceeding the RPBCWD required volume. As noted previously, soil borings for SB- 1 through SB-3 (SB-4 not submitted) showed the onsite soils are mostly clay with a sand/silt layer 5-10 feet below the surface across the site. To confirm the BMP design an updated geotechnical report is required to show SB-4 and provide justification for infiltration rates at the new location of the infiltration BMP located on Lot 2, Block 2.The applicant is proposing to excavate to the sand/silt layer and backfill with free draining media under the proposed underground infiltration BMPs in order to get better infiltration, however justification for the design infiltration rates is required prior to confirm RPBCWD volume control requirements are 178 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 10 of 17 being met. As such the applicant shall receive conditional approval from the watershed district prior to final plat submittal to the City. As outlined in the City’s Surface Water Management Plan adopted in December 2018, the City requires at least 3 feet of freeboard between a building elevation and adjacent ponding features. The high water levels of all proposed BMPs should be noted on the plans, however based on the HydroCAD modeling results it appears all proposed buildings are meeting freeboard requirements with respect to the proposed BMPs. Freeboard requirements were confirmed to be met with respect to the onsite wetland for all existing and proposed adjacent buildings. All work proposed appears to be outside of the FEMA floodplain and above the Ordinary High Water Level of Lotus Lake, so additional permitting with FEMA and/or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is not anticipated to be required. The infiltration BMPs located on each of four lots are to be privately owned and therefore will require an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement and associated plan. The plan identifies the maintenance schedule, responsible party, and should include information on how the system will be cleaned out including the underground infiltration chambers proposed in the construction plans. The applicant must provide a signed O&M Agreement prior to the initiation of construction activities onsite. It is recommended that an HOA is created to streamline the operation and maintenance of the separate BMP systems to reduce risk and responsibility for future homeowners. STORM WATER UTILITY CONNECTION CHARGES City Ordinance 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 type, the greater the degradation of surface water. This fee will be applied to the new lots of record being created. It is assessed at the rate in effect at that time; the 2022 rate for low-density residential is $8,830.00 per acre of developable land. 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; 2022 rates for partial hookup fees are $691.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,562.00 per unit for water. The remaining partial hookups fees are due with the building permit. FEES Based on the proposal the following fees would be collected with the development contract: a) Administration Fee: if the improvement costs are less than $500,000, 3% of the improvement costs. b) Surface water management fee: $8,830.00/acre of developable land. c) A portion of the water hook-up charge @ $2,562.00/unit. d) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge @ $691.00/unit. 179 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 11 of 17 e) Park dedication fee @ $5,800.00/unit. f) GIS fees @ $100 for the plat plus $30 per parcel: $160.00 g) Final plat process (review and recording of Plat and DC): $450.00 LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The parcel is a fully wooded site. The existing trees are a mix of native species collectively known as the Big Woods. A variety of trees including sugar maple, red oak, and butternut cover the entire site with many significant trees throughout the parcel. The parcel has been wooded for many decades as evidenced by the number of large, mature trees and historic aerial photos going back to 1937. Retaining as many trees as possible is important to maintaining the character of the neighborhood with the proposed development. The proposed subdivision is low-density residential and allowed by city code to remove 45% of the trees without penalty. The applicant is proposing to remove 60% 57% of the trees on the site to build four homes. Tree preservation on Lots 1-3, Block 2 has been maximized and the robust tree preservation around the wetland on Lots 2 and 3 and will contribute to a continued wooded feel to the neighborhood. This area is proposed for a Conservation Easement and preserves a significant amount of wooded area. Average tree removal on three lots in Block 2 is around 10,000 sq. ft. and shows grading limits at the tightest extent necessary to construct the homes and stormwater management systems. Some additional tree removal is being proposed for a rain garden on lot 3. Three of the lots are employing underground runoff storage tanks, but on lot 2 a section of trees is proposed to be cleared to create an infiltration basin near the wetland. Trees provide a reduction in stormwater runoff and should not be cleared for a rain garden. Additionally, the area cleared for the infiltration basin further fragments the wooded area which increases environmental stresses on surrounding trees and reduces the wildlife benefits of the wooded buffer area. To preserve the trees and the remaining character of the site, staff recommends that an underground stormwater feature or infiltration basin be proposed in the side or rear yard of lot 2 at the edge of the wooded area and the wooded wetland buffer area be preserved mostly intact and covered with a Conservation Easement. Previous developments in the area have dedicated portions of the existing Big Woods forest type under Conservation Easements. The neighboring Big Woods and Eidsness developments to the south have Conservation Easements on all of the lots. This development would be consistent with dedicating a Conservation Easement over the wooded areas on Lots 1 and 2 2 and 3, Block 2. Canopy coverage and preservation calculations have been submitted for the Fox Hill Drive development. The applicant has calculated the following coverages: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 101,998 SF Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) 96,530 SF Baseline canopy coverage 95% Minimum canopy coverage allowed 55% or 56,098 SF Proposed tree preservation 35% or 35,699 SF 38% or 38,517 SF The developer does not meet the minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. 180 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 12 of 17 Difference in canopy coverage 20,429 17,582 SF Multiplier 1.2 Total replacement 24,514 21,098 SF Total number of trees to be planted 22 19 trees The total number of trees required for the development is 22 19. The applicant has proposed a total of 17 19 overstory trees and 9 8 ornamental trees. The applicant meets diversity requirements, however staff recommends that the Autumn Blaze maple be changed to a sugar maple variety. No bufferyard plantings are required on the site. There is additional tree removal on the site that is not reflected in the tree removal plans or calculations. The installation of the discharge pipe into Lotus Lake and the connection of the infiltration basin on lot 2 to the wetland and the home site will require tree removal. This is not shown on the tree removal plans. The applicant shall revise the tree removal plans and calculations to reflect the actual tree removal needed on site. Existing trees on site include butternut trees which are included on the Minnesota State Endangered Species List. The applicant will need to provide an approved permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources before tree removal may occur. COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN The City’s Comprehensive Park Plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within one-half mile of every residence in the city. The proposed Fox Hill Drive subdivision is located within the Carver Beach Park neighborhood park service area. The two Carver Beach parks feature the following amenities: swimming beach, playground, fishing pier, trails, basketball court, ball field, picnic shelter, canoe rack and parking area. 181 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 13 of 17 COMPLIANCE TABLE RSF Setbacks: Front: 30 feet, Side: 10 feet * Riparian lots must have a minimum area of 20,000 square feet VARIANCE City Code requires a 60-foot ROW. The surrounding area and the ROW within the Carver Beach area is between 40 and 50 feet wide. Approval of the variance will allow the street to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. This street will provide future access to the property located south of the subject site. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance. Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single- Family District and the zoning ordinance. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and subdivision ordinance. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development. Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter. Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. Lot Area (sq. ft.) Lot Width Lot Depth Code (RSF) 15,000/20,000 90 125 Lot 1, Block 1 28,801* 114.78 244.29 Lot 1, Block 2 15,037 114 131 Lot 2, Block 2 22,622 238.91 137.37 Lot 3, Block 2 17,729 115.77 183 Outlot A 6,157 Right-of-Way 15,876 Total 107,379 182 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 14 of 17 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate a house pad. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate stormwater drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. VARIANCE - FINDINGS As part of this request, a variance to allow a 50-foot-wide ROW is requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a subdivision approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land. 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. Finding: Staff recommends the variances be approved as shown in plans received September 1, 2022, for the 50-foot-wide right-of-way to allow the street to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of- way as shown in plans Received September 1, 2022, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 183 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 15 of 17 SUBDIVISION ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Any underlying easements within public easements, including public right-of-way, must be vacated or released prior to recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall provide exhibits illustrating the alignment, profile, and grades of the proposed street design from Fox Hill Drive to the future connection at Big Woods Drive upon submittal of final plat. 3. The applicant and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction plans, dated September 1, 2022 prepared by Seth Loken, PE with Alliant Engineering to fully satisfy construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to commencement of any construction activities. 4. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract and pay all applicable fees and securities prior to recording of final plat. WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Private stormwater BMPs to serve the needs of the development must be wholly located outside of all public easements upon submittal of the final plat. 2. Public stormwater infrastructure must be located wholly within drainage and utility easements or public right of way upon submittal of the final plat. 3. The applicant shall provide a copy of conditional approval from the RPBCWD as part of the final plat submittal. 4. The applicant shall provide an updated copy of the geotechnical report and infiltration test results as part of the final plat submittal. 5. The applicant must update the Hydrologic and Hydraulic models per City and watershed district comments and submit updated computations and models in their native forms with the final plat and final construction plans. 6. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will be in compliance with the 3-foot freeboard requirement to ponding features as part of the final plat submittal. 7. The applicant must confirm the stormwater routing of the site and include, underground infiltration details, and connections to public infrastructure as part of the final plat submittal. 8. The applicant must work with staff to improve the BMP configuration and stormwater design to the maximum extent given the restrictions of the site and RPBCWD rules. 9. The applicant shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for any proposed privately owned stormwater facilities which shall be recorded concurrently with the final plat. 184 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 16 of 17 Parks: 1. Full Park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the four lots. The Park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single- family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total Park fees for the three new additional homes would be $17,400. Environmental Resources: 1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activities and remain in place until construction is complete. 2. Any trees removed that are shown on plans dated as preserved shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 3. A Conservation Easement shall be dedicated over the wooded side yards on Lots 2 and 3 1 and 2, Block 2. 4. The applicant will relocate the infiltration basin to the edge of the wooded area on Lot 2 and eliminate the fragmentation of the wooded wetland buffer. 5. The applicant shall revise the tree removal plans and calculations to show tree removal for all stormwater infrastructure and utilities needed on site. 6. The applicant must provide a copy of an approved Permit to Take an Endangered Species for a Development Project from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources before any tree removal may occur. 7. No grading is allowed within any areas shown as tree preservation on page 13 Tree Canopy Coverage and Restoration Plan, dated September 1, 2022. Building: 1. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 2. Building permits must be obtained before beginning any construction. 3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed buildings meet all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction, retaining walls under four feet in height require a zoning permit. ATTACHMENTS 1. Signed Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Preliminary Plat Received September 1, 2022 4. Affidavit of Mailing 5. Public Hearing Notice to Villager 6. E-mail from Bruce Johansson received July 11, 2022 7. Letter from Maria and Andy Awes dated September 12, 2022 185 581 Fox Hill Drive September 20, 2022 Page 17 of 17 8. Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments (1) 9. Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments (2) 10. Minutes from July 19, 2022 PC Meeting 11. Minutes from September 20, 2022 PC Meeting (have not yet been approved by Planning Commission g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-10 581 fox hill dr pp and fp\staff report.doc 186 187 188 189 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CHAMIASSENPlanningDivision—7700 Market BoulevardCITY OFMailingAddress—P.O. Box 147,Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone:(952)227-1100/Fax: (952)227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date:l( 17 ' PC Date:7l i 9 1 a-CC Date: ( ) i j p Liu-Day Review Date: f i I D.-4, Section 1: Application Type(check all that apply) Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 600 ® Subdivision (SUB) Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers $100 Create 3 lots or less 300 0 Create over 3 lots 600+ $15 per lot Conditional Use Permit(CUP) 4 lots) Single-Family Residence 325 Metes&Bounds(2 lots)300 All Others 425 Consolidate Lots 150 0 Interim Use Permit(IUP) Lot Line Adjustment 150 In conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 Final Plat 700 All Others 425 Includes$450 escrow for attorney costs)* Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Rezoning(REZ) O Planned Unit Development (PUD) 750 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way(VAC)........$300 0 Minor Amendment to existing PUD 100 Additional recording fees may apply) O All Others 500 Variance(VAR) 200 El Sign Plan Review 150 Wetland Alteration Permit(WAP) Site Plan Review(SPR) Single-Family Residence 150 Administrative 100 All Others 275 Commercial/Industrial Districts*500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: Zoning Appeal 100 thousand square feet) Include number of existing employees: Zoning Ordinance Amendment(ZOA) 500 Include number of new employees: Residential Districts 500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, Plus $5 per dwelling unit(units) the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. O Notification Sign (City to install and remove) 200 Property Owners' List within 500'(City to generate after pre-application meeting) 3 per address 44 addresses) Escrow for Recording Documents(check all that apply) 50 per document Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Site Plan Agreement Vacation Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Metes& Bounds Subdivision (3 dots.) Easements ( easements) Deeds TOTAL FEE:1492 Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: Proposed lot split that would subdivide an existing residentail parcel into 4 compliant RSF lots. Proposed plat name: Fox Hill Drive Property Address or Location: 581 Fox Hill Drive Parcel#: 250010200 g Legal Description:See Narrative Total Acreage:2.47 Wetlands Present? ®Yes No Present Zoning:Single-Family Residential District(RSF) Requested Zoning: Single-Family Residential District(RSF) Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential lot CITY OF CHANIIA EN Check box if separate narrative is attached. RECEIVED JUN 1 7 Z01" CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 190 Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I,as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees,feasibility studies,etc.with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted` trares true and correct. Name: UEA/A1,I CUST:vvA 4Op SS Contact: Ctna.c\ t " A..(e5 Address: 18167 MidAl d 4 $CV tJ, Phone: G!2- 2$2- oil/ City/State/Zip:W qY ZATA , M/J 5539 t Cell: Co(el- Z$Z 09'/ft Email: ('mac Fax:Nfilr Signature: Cam.- V ' ., / Date: Co I Co' ZZ— PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees,feasibility studies,etc.with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Fox Hill Properties, LLC Contact: Andy Awes Address: 14530 Martin Dr. Suite 120 Phone: City/State/Zip: Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Cell: 612-396-6478 Email: andy@committeefilms.com Fax: Signature: Date:6/15/22 This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER(if applicable) Name: Alliant Engineering Inc. Contact: Seth Loken Address: 733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700, Minneapolis Phone: 612)767-9356 City/State/Zip: Minneapolis/MN/55402 Cell: Email: sloken@alliant-inc.com Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? Other Contact Information: E Property Owner Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Name: Applicant Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Address: Engineer Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: Other* Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields,then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. i and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital Copy t0 the city for processing. SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM 1 191 LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILPROJECT LOCATIONFOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT COVER SHEET 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1SHEET INDEX NO.1VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEFOX HILL DRIVECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTASUITE 700ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC.733 MARQUETTE AVENUEMINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402PH: 612-758-3080CONSULTANTFX: 612-758-3099SURVEYORENGINEERDAN EKREMLICENSE NO. 57366SETH LOKENLICENSE NO. 58862LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTEM: sloken@alliant-inc.comEM: dekrem@alliant-inc.comMARK KRONBECKLICENSE NO. 26222EM: mkronbeck@alliant-inc.comBUILDERCOVER SHEET2EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY5PRELIMINARY PLAT6SITE PLAN7GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN3-4DETAILS8EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN9UTILITY PLAN AND PROFILES10-11TREE CANOPY COVERAGE AND RESTORATION PLAN13-14WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLANSTORM SEWER PLAN AND PROFILES15DENALI CUSTOM HOMES18352 MINNETONKA BOULEVARDWAYZATA, MN 55391CONTACT: DAVID BIEKERPH: 612-718-1671EM: david@denalicustomhomes.comOWNERANDY AWESEM: andy@committeefilms.comLANDSCAPE PLAN1612STORM INFILTRATION SYSTEM DETAILS192 FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROADS20°28'26"E 125.32N22°37'50"W 125.86N74°50'50"E 825.86N74°50'50"E 821.10(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)32+/-41+/-LOTUSTRAILLOTUS LAKECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA581 FOX HILL DRIVELOTUS LAKE PROPERTY733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700Minneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080 612.758.3099www.alliant-inc.comMAINFAX7/16/2021DEMDTDDJOB NO.FIELD DATE ISSUEDCHECKED BYSCALEDRAWN BY1"=30'21-0122SignatureDate License NumberPrint NameDANIEL EKREMI hereby certify that this survey, plan, or reportwas prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly Licensed LandSurveyor under the laws of the state ofMinnesota.LEGAL DESCRIPTIONThe Land is described as follows:That part of Government Lot 8 in Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point in thecenter line of Lakeview Drive, distant 121.029 feet Southeasterly from the point of intersection of the center line of saidLakeview Drive with the center line of Fern Road; thence Southeasterly along the center line of said Lakeview Drive 25feet; thence North 75 degrees 07 minutes East to the high water mark of Long Lake (also known as Lotus Lake);thence Northerly along the high water mark of said lake 25 feet, more or less, to its intersection with a line bearingNorth 75 degrees 07 minutes East from the point of beginning; thence South 75 degrees 07 minutes West 866.5 feet,more or less, to point of beginning. Above mentioned Lakeview Drive and Fern Road being shown on the plat ofCARVER-BEACH, according to the recorded plat thereof. Subject to an easement granted to the Northern StatesPower Company July 22nd, 1941.andBeginning at a point in the center line of Lakeview Drive, distant 20.172 feet on a bearing of South 22 degrees 21minutes 40 seconds East from the point formed by the intersection of said Lakeview Drive and Fern Road as shownon the map entitled CARVER-BEACH, according to the recorded plat thereof; and running from thence along theSoutherly line of Fern Road on a bearing of North 75 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 880 plus orminus feet to the high water mark of Long Lake; thence in a Southerly direction along the high water mark of saidLong Lake 100 plus or minus feet to a point 100 feet at right angles to the first course, when said course is projected;thence on a course of South 75 degrees 07 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 873 feet plus or minus, to a pointin the center line of Lakeview Drive, distant 121.029 feet in a Northwesterly direction from the intersection of LakeviewDrive and Fern Road; thence along the center line of Lakeview Drive on a course of North 22 degrees 21 minutes 40seconds West a distance of 100.857 feet to the point of beginning.Torrens Property - Certificate of Title No. 34797.0LEGEND1. This survey and the property description shown herein are based upon information found in the owner's policy oftitle insurance prepared by Stewart Title Guaranty Company, File no. 21-2881, dated June 9, 2021.2. The locations of underground public utilities are depicted based on information from Gopher State One Call systemfor a “Boundary Survey locate”. The information was provided by a combination of available maps, proposed plans orcity records and field locations which may not be exact. Verify all utilities critical to construction or design.3. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the Carver County Coordinate System NAD83 (86 adj.).4. All distances are in feet.5. The area of the above described property is:Gross: 107,291 +/- square feet or 2.463 +/- acresNet(Less ROW): 104,774 +/- square feet or 2.405 +/- acres6. Bench Mark 1: Top nut of hydrant located on the southwest corner of Fox Hill Drive and Lotus Trail has an elevationof 929.52 feet NAVD88.7. Bench Mark 2: Top nut of hydrant located at the southeast quadrant of Fox Hill Drive and Carver Beach Road hasan elevation of 940.92 feet NAVD88.8. Elevations at curb line are at top of curb.9. The document for the Northern States Power Company easement references in the legal description was notprovided.10. The Ordinary High Water Level for Lotus Lake is 896.3 feet, NGVD29, or 896.35 feet, NAVD 88, and shown hereonfor reference.NOTESBOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYJULY 16, 202157366193 FOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT DETAILS 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3194 FOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT DETAILS 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 4195 LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROADS20°28'26"E 125.32N22°37'50"W 125.86N74°50'50"E 825.86N74°50'50"E 821.10(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)32+/-41+/-LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKEN15°53'53"W 11.44'N15°13'15"W 32.96'N15°29'42"W 33.77'N19°32'37"W 30.45'N15°14'45"W 16.26'PARCEL AREA TABLEPARCELB1-L1B2-L1B2-L2B2-L3OUTLOT AROWTOTALAREA SF28,80115,03722,62217,7296,15717,033107,379AREA AC0.6610.3450.5190.4070.1410.3912.465FOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY PLAT 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND:DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS:Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines and 10 feet inwidth and adjoining right of way lines, unless otherwiseindicated on the plat.NOT TO SCALE5196 FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT SITE PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 7006FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLEGEND: SITE PLAN DATA TYPICAL LOT DETAIL197 FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT ASOGWSWOSWOEX HWL 949.36HWL 949.36FOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 7007FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONGRADING NOTES: GRADING LEGEND: RETAINING WALL NOTES: 198 FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT ASOGWSWOSWOEX HWL 949.36HWL 949.36FOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 7008FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONVICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEINSPECTOR:EROSION CONTROL PARTIESLEGEND: DNDDESIGNER:INSTALLER:RESPONSIBLE PARTYNOTE TO CONTRACTOR:CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING:DURING CONSTRUCTION:IMPAIRED WATER REQUIREMENTEROSION CONTROL NOTES: ACTIVE SWPPP LEGENDSWPPP BMP QUANTITIES(PER PLAN):RPBCWD RULE C STANDARD NOTES: 199 FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT ARoad AFOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT UTILITY PLAN AND PROFILES 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 7009FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLEGEND: UTILITY NOTES: WATERMAIN EXTENSION200 FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT ARoad A PROFILECB 402-CBMH 400 PROFILEFOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT STORM SEWER PLAN AND PROFILES 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70010FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND: UTILITY NOTES: FUTURE ROADWAYCB 402-CBMH 400OCS 505-FES 500201 FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFES 201 - MH 200 PROFILEOCS 300 PROFILEOCS 100 PROFILEFOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT STORM SEWER PLAN AND PROFILES 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70011FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION LEGEND: FES 201 - MH 200OCS 301 - FES 301OCS 100OCS 100NOT TO SCALEOCS 301NOT TO SCALE202 FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT ASOGWSWOSWOEX HWL 949.36HWL 949.36FOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT STORM INFILTRATION SYSTEM DETAILS 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70012FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLEGEND: OCS 505NOT TO SCALEOCS 502NOT TO SCALE203 FOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKELOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROAD(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKEEX HWL 949.36HWL 949.36FOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT TREE CANOPY COVERAGE AND RESTORATION PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70013FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TREE PRESERVATION NOTES: LEGEND: CANOPY CALCULATION CANOPY CALCULATION INCLUDE WETLAND204 FOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT TREE INVENTORY 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70014FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION TREE INVENTORY205 LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AFOX HILL DRIVECARVER BEACH ROADS20°28'26"E 125.32N22°37'50"W 125.86N74°50'50"E 825.86N74°50'50"E 821.10(A.K.A. FERN ROAD)(A.K.A. LAKEVIEW DRIVE)32+/-41+/-LOTUS TRAILLOTUS LAKEFOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT WETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70015FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION WETLAND SUMMARYWETLAND BUFFER CALCULATIONLEGEND: BUFFER SIGN DETAIL206 LOT 1LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3BLOCK 2BLOCK 1OUTLOT AEX HWL 949.36HWL 949.36FOX HILL DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE AND TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 70016FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTSPLANTING NOTESLANDSCAPE SCHEDULELEGEND207 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 Jlly 7,2022, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice ofConsider a request for subdivision of 2.465 acres into four lots and one outlot with variences. Zoned Single'Family Residential @SF), Planning case No. 2022-10. Appticant: chad Mayes' Denali custom Homes, LLC / Property owner: Andy Awes, Fox Hill Properties, LLC to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A', by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe county Treasurer, cawer county, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. KimT.rty Clerk Subscri bed and swom to before me this? lr day of c.(-,2022. JEAII M STECKLIilG lroEy Rt5{fino.oblr*t r+t hll,z(,3a E J Or<\ Notary Public 208 Subject Parcel OlrcLlmar ThB mao 6 nedher a legally Ecoftled map nor a gurvey and rs nol rnteided to be u3ed as one. ihls map is a cornFilaton ol recods. nfoamation and data loaat€d In varioG city' countv state and lederaldfices and other sources regEading the area shown, and is to be u& ,or reference purposas only. The Cty do€! not wafiant that the GeogEphrc lnfornEtion Syslem (GB) Oatr us€d to p,epare this map ale ero. free, and ttE Cily does not reoreseni that tlre GIS Oata can be u3€d for naugetonal, trackrno or any othe' outDo6e requinnE €xactng meaSuemeol of distanco oa dleaton or paeqglon in the ifedrtion ot geogoptrc lgat',re!. The p.ecadino dildeimer b p'ovialed putsuanl lo Minnerota StaMes 546e 03. SuM 21 (2000), and the user of this map irctnorEogEs trat Ure Cig sran na be fiable tor any damagcs, and expreiBly wair/€a all daims, and aorees lo d;fend, indemnifY. and hold haml€s the Ciy from any and alldaims btought b; User, its employees oI aoents. o. $id partie6 trtlidl anse out d the users access or use of data provided. <TAX-NAMEtr <TAX-ADD-Ll tr cTAX-ADD-L2r (N6xt RecordxTAX-l'lAMEr ITAX-ADD-LI r rTAX-ADD-L2tr Subj6ct Parcel lr{rclatr|orna mao ie neifE a leoallv lecoded map noa a suNey and is not lntended to be u8€d ,. i* rrris mao is a cornoilation of leco.ds, intormatjon and data locateo n vanoul ctly' irliir. iiii"i"i r*"'al ;tu€6 and ourer lources egatdrng the arca 3iown' and is b ;-;;ar-il;6il purpose. onlv. The cnY does not ranant that the Geoofttphic lnL-n id SV"r". tOr6t fiaa ,seo to p.epate t'is maP ale ero' free'.atrd tE-Crty 'loesi"i r"o.*"ni urar tire Gts oata can be urcd ior na\doatonal t'-ackrng or any o$er ;;;;;';;;;"il measr,e.ent or distance or dreclioo or prcosion rn trle &ffi" ;;d;ph;Gtuel rne p.ecedng d€daim€r.is .provrded puouanl to iil;;;irh;;'5466 03. subd. 21 (2ooo). and the use' of thi3 map ac*no{€oget [iji 6iic,tv irtirr n& ue liable lo. anv damag€6, and expr*slv waives all daims' and ii,iJiJiirinir. ,o".n v. and hold hamtejs tre citv trom anv aftl alldaims broulm ;; u;;;riry.* * 6gem. o, t,tt pa'tes *'ttrch anse oul of the use/s accest or use of data plovided. xl5q E { t \.- c I n ll L 209 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing ChanhasBon Planning Commisaion Meeting startnotTishhemaymanng0222atJu1puTsdeavvtheaofordertheonndrdlaterlhneuntOate & Time: C vdBIarket00M77bersmitnchaIaCouIHLocation:nto Ifou462acresvtsofronfousbdnoderstaCrequest amSiedle-Fs.ance Zonvari ilyoutlotngoneandlots Residential RSF Planni Case No. 2022-10PropoBal Fox Hill PA rties LLCProOwnet: Chad SometomHsaDenCutiSicant: ls on tho revorao 3lds ol this notlce.A location map 581 Fox Hill DriveProperty Location steos: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed pro,ect' 2. The applicant will present plans on the project' 3. Commints are received from the public' 4. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission thautbostonformicnhearisbthofThespuurposep thnfromonbtaiauestndput,Saican reqpp ethmeetiDuflnthen9isect.th sborhoodhenproig th ro thehtcublwillleadughCap discusses the ro What HapPons at the Meeting: cen P na n nthtoecoideES swillpStafftheetimprovofng la bleavamitewilbefothsstaffThenreportomISSICom web thee&M utesnndsaCes pagatlinethnAgoity nSSIeetnmomComhenPlantofloruhrsdT Questions & Commenta: notification endaswhenSmeetintextd/or agganmailuntorecelveNEWtpsistooGtoloadeduareScitydeonutesndpampackets sl Unto C,ly 500 Tuesday, July 19,2022 at 7:00 p.m. This hesring may not start ndi on the order ot theuntil laler in the evenDate & Time: 7700 Market BlvdHall Council ChamCLocation Consider a request for subdivision of 2.465 acres into four lots and one outlot with variances. Zoned Single-Family Residential Case No. 2022-10RSFPlannin Propo6al: LLCFox Hill PAndAweProperty Owner: Denali Custom HomesApplicant: 581 Fox Hill Drive A locatlon map ls on tho lrve]lo llde o, thls notlco Proporty Location: The purpose of this public hearing is to i applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this pro,ect. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the follot ,ing steps:1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the proiect. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission nform you about the discusses the ect What Happon6 at the meeting: To view proiect documents, please visit: www,ChanhassenMN.oov/ProposedDoYeloDments. lf you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AlJaff aI952-227 -1134 ot Sal-Jatf@ci.chanhassen.mn, us. lf you choose to submit written comments, please send one copy to staff in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Planning Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at the City's Agendas & Minutes webpage the Thursda rior to the Plannin Commission dotificationwhNSmeetientextureceiveagenngtoEWtNSignp ht cte S website Go toaeosUreloadedtotnmautesvidndty'ppackets, unto Clty U 500 A n.lohborrbod !pok6ipc..o.rr.pr6$ .lrE 13 on.ourlg.d lo nl.€r -w h lh. n.'gtborhood EgErd,lg lhor Fopold stan13.l stafi C'lyCrly c 60951!r9 cC'lY s) c C'lY Ic 7:009, with you to about followingthehearing visit:documents, website.the Chad Mayes, Question6 & Comments: and/oremail 210 TAX-NAM E JON ALAN LANG FOX HILL PROPERTIES LIC MRP 4O1K PLAN & TRUST ARTCRAFT HOMES INC RANDAL C RUTLEDGE MATTHEWT & LISAA KOEPPEN ANDREW J LEMKUIL RICHARD ARTHUR SHEA MICHAEL VOI-Z IAN P O'CONNEtt MICHAEL N SWEET KATHLEEN HANSEN JEOFF T WILL ARTICTE 4 TRST UNDER TYLER REEDER FMLY T SAMUELR&NANCYLCOTE ANITA R TEWIS TRUST RICKI IEE HALE RICHARD HINTZ TRUST FRANCIS CHRISTY CHRISTOPHER M TANDON JENNY A NIETFETD JUSTIN BIKERS KEITH & BARBARA THOMAS JENNIFER URICK CONSTANCE M CERVILLA JAMESV&MARYLFRERICH JEFFREY L KLEINER REV TRUST GEOFFREY J SCHROF JAMES HENDERSON ELIEZER MUNOZ JOHN D JR & IISA I-ENSEGRAV IEFFREY B & MARYV KING STARITA HARDWOOD FLOORS LLC MARKW&VALERIENELSON TAX-ADD-11 130 CYPRESS VIEW DR 2044 SCHOOLMASTER DR 3385 HARDSCRABBLE RD N 3581 WILDS RDG NW 4511 FAIRVIEW AVE 515 BIG WOODS BLVD 517 BIG WOODS BLVD 533 BIG WOODS BIVD 548 BIG WOODS BLVD 549 BIG WOODS BLVD 565 BIG WOODS BIVD 580 FAX HILI DR 581 BIG WOODS BLVD 590 BROKEN ARROW RD 597 BIG WOODS BIVD 599 BROKEN ARROW RD 600 FOX HILL DR 606 CARVER BEACH RD 620 CARVER BEACH RD 620 FOX HILL DR 621 BROKEN ARROW DR 621 CARVER BEACH RD 530 CARVER BEACH RD 631 BROKEN ARROW RD 650 CARVER BEACH RD 651 BROKEN ARROW DR 555 CARVER BEACH RD 671 BROKEN ARROW DR 678 BROKEN ARROW DR 585 CARVER BEACH RD 6880 TOTUS TRL 6886 LOTUS TRL 6890 LOTUS TRt 6890 NAVAJO DR TAX-ADD-12 NAPLES, Ft 34113 CHASKA, MN 55318 MOUND, MN 55354 PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 MINNETONKA, MN 55343 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.4504 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.4504 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4504 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.4504 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9538 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4504 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9512 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9512 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-2101 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-2101 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9569 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.2101 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9559 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317.9569 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9559 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9559 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 553I7-9571 SITEADD 640 CARVER BEACH RD 581 FOX HILL DR 599 CARVER BEACH RD 695 CARVER BEACH RD 680 CARVER BEACH RD 516 BIG WOODS BLVD 517 BIG WOODS BLVD 533 BIG WOODS BI-VD 548 BtG WOODS B|_VD 549 BIG WOODS BIVD 565 BIG WOODS BIVD 580 FOX HILL DR 581 BIG WOODS BLVD 590 BROKEN ARROW RD 597 BIG WOODS BLVD 599 BROKEN ARROW DR 600 Fox Httt DR 606 CARVER BEACH RD 520 CARVER BEACH RD 620 FOX HILI DR 621 BROKEN ARROW DR 621 CARVER BEACH RD 630 CARVER BEACH RD 631 BROKEN ARROW DR 650 CARVER BEACH RD 651 BROKEN ARROW DR 655 CARVER BEACH RD 671 BROKEN ARROW DR 678 BROKEN ARROW DR 685 CARVER BEACH RD 5880 TOTUS TRL 6886 LOTUS TRL 6890 LOTUS TRT 6890 NAVNO DR PIN 250010100 250010200 257602L20 251602160 25t602230 251090090 251090060 2510900s0 254390020 251090040 251090030 251602420 2s1090020 2s1601052 251090010 25t60237L 251602410 250125600 254390010 2s1502400 251602340 2s1502130 250125900 251602330 250010300 251602390 251602180 251602310 251602240 251500430 251602270 251602300 251501051 251602210 211 MICHAEL KLISANICH LANA tEE MATSON MARIA HELENA MORENO REV TRUST PATRICK T MCRAITH BRITTANY WEISSENBU RGER ROBERT WRIGHT SUSAN P DOWDS DANIEL L OKSNEVAD CURTIS C &JUDITH N QUINER KENNETH W & COLLEEN J VERMEER 6891 NAVAJO DR 6893 NAVAJO DR 5896 NAVAJO DR 6900 TOTUS TRL 691 CARVER BEACH RD 6911 YUMA DR 5940 LOTUS TRt 720 PREAKNESS [N 725 PONDEROSA DR 730 PREAKNESS tN CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN, 55317 55317-9572 55317 55317-9559 55317 55317-9560 55317 55317-9238 55317 -9479 55317-9238 6891 NAVAJO DR 6893 NAVAJO DR 6896 NAVAJO DR 6900 LOTUS TRL 691 CARVER BEACH RD 6911YUMA DR 6940 LOTUS TRL 720 PREAKNESS LN 725 PONDEROSA DR 730 PREAKNESS LN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN 251602260 25t602290 251602250 257602410 251500431 251602072 25t602440 258590110 251602090 258590100 212 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2022-10 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for subdivision of 2.465 acres into four lots and one outlot with variances on property located at 581 Fox Hill Drive. Zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF). Property Owner: Andy Awes, Fox Hill Properties, LLC / Applicant: Chad Mayes, Denali Custom Homes. Project documents for this request are available for public review on the City’s website at www.ChanhassenMN.gov/ProposedDevelopments or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Sharmeen Al-Jaff Senior Planner Email: Sal-Jaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on July 7 , 2022) g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-10 581 fox hill dr pp and fp\ph notice to villager - fox hill dr.docx 213 Al-Jaff. Sharmeen From: Sent: To: Subject: Bruce Johansson <sandmanjohansson@yahoo.com > Monday, July '11, 2022 7:O1 PM Al-Jaff, Sharmeen 581 Fox Dr. Proposed Development Hello Sharmeen, My input with regards to the Fox Hill proposed development by Denali Customs Homes. I am opposed to it as unnecessary and harmful posing continued degradation to the Carver Beach neighborhood. I am speaking on behalf of that lot as the last remaining stand of Big Woods. Considering what was done to adjoining development called (was) Big Woods. There will be little or nothing left of the beauty peace and sanctuary it provides. Trees will be cut, earth moved, animals ( big and small) displaced , large foundations built with oversized 35' high trussed up houses on top. Asphalt driveways, sodded lawns with pesticides. More water runoff and higher taxes for everyone. Each house will have at least two vehicles and road impact and damage will continue. That little charm will be destroyed. I would propose another use for the property. lncorporating it as part of Carver Beach Park as a Sanctuary Preserve. The benefits would be many and forever. A much better outcome than l2 3 or 4 Oversized boxes that further destabilize the character and economic mix of Carver Beach. lf the above is dismissed for bureaucratic reasons then please consider a more modest approval of construction. 2 house max with greater blending with environment ala the Stinson development on Frontier trail. l've been invested for 30 years now in Carver Beach, owning 2 homes and built one (699 Carver Beach Rd.). l've lived my beliefs to maintain the charm this neighborhood has. Chopping up every parcel for short term profit and tax revenue is not a good way to define progress. lf more time could be set aside to explore other options, other buyers, another way to approach the landowners desire to cash out. Thank You Bruce Johansson 6711 Mohawk Dr I 214 September 12, 2022 To: The Chairman and Members of the Chanhassen City Planning Commission and Fox Hill Neighbors, My name is Maria Awes and my husband, Andy, and I are eager to come before the Commission in just a few weeks to discuss plans for our lot at 581 Fox Hill Drive. We have been hard at work over the past several months with Denali Custom Homes and Alliant Engineering to develop and then revise a plan to subdivide the land into three additional lots while also maintaining a lake lot of our own on which we hope to build a home. 581 Fox Hill is a beautiful piece of property and it is our heartfelt desire to keep it as such while also giving more families the opportunity to live in such a wonderful community. My husband and I have lived in Chaska for the past 17 years and raised our two kids in the Eastern Carver County School District. We couldn’t have had a better experience and are eager to stay in the same community while moving into our next chapter of life. We weren’t able to be at the last meeting, but have watched the meeting online and have worked diligently to address concerns that were brought up at that time, primarily having to do with the percentage of tree canopy being maintained. I wish we could have been in attendance, as there is a lot I would have said. The key issue that we were asked to take a second look at was whether or not more tree canopy could be maintained. To address this, we did the following: • Met with the city arborist, Jill Sinclair, to discuss the project in general terms and followed her recommendations to re-examine the storm water drainage systems for each lot in order to save more trees o The result is an additional 3 % of tree canopy. • Developed a plan with the MN DNR to reforest Butternut trees o The result is this tree species will now be able to thrive in a more hospitable environment far into the future. • Developed a proposal for the City of Chanhassen to consider a smaller private access road rather than the currently required full-size road in order to save more tree canopy. While we were just told on 9/9/22 that the City’s public works department and the fire department would not support this option, which is very disappointing, we think it’s important to point out what the positive impact on the tree canopy could have been, because we spent time and money exploring this, as the Commission asked us to do, in an effort to save more trees. And, this option would have had a very significant, positive impact on the woods. o If approved, the private access road we proposed would still have been of an appropriate size to allow emergency vehicles necessary future access and would have saved an additional 4% of the tree canopy. o Worthy of discussion is the fact that If the City and its departments could acquiesce to overwhelming neighborhood demand for the elimination of the road requirement entirely, 8% of the tree canopy would be saved – for a total of 46% across the entire subdivision. 215 ▪ As we are told, neither of the two neighbors on the lake side have any intention of selling their homes in the near future. It is frustrating as the homeowner that we are required to build – and to pay – for the development of a ‘road to nowhere’ at the expense of the trees; essentially a public works improvement that the City doesn’t have to pay for. Unlike larger subdivided plots with massive neighborhoods being built where such costs are more easily absorbed, the City is asking for a road that only runs between two homes and will cost tens of thousands of dollars and may never connect to any other roads. ▪ All homes that are part of our subdivision proposal will be thoroughly accessible on Fox Hill or Carver Beach Road. We believe that should the other lakefront homes south of us sell in the future, there are other options for accessibility that could be explored, including improvements to the existing private road. Also, to even trigger road improvements on those properties, not only would someone have to purchase those lots, they would also have to go through subdivision - and the shape of those lots could make that challenging, meaning this road may very well never connect to the stub on Big Woods Blvd. ▪ If we must build the road, can the City share in this cost? Respectfully, it seems that we’re being unfairly penalized for this road, twice: monetarily and in public opinion. It is expensive, and we are prevented from being able to save more tree canopy (8%) which would please us and the neighbors. Holding money is escrow indefinitely for a future build is also not an attractive option for us, a couple putting two kids through college. • Increased the overall amount of tree canopy being saved – all of the above being said, we did what the Commission asked and we are excited that we have been able to come up with a new plan that means the total tree canopy being saved will now be at least 38 percent – which is 3 percent more than the previous proposal presented in July of 2022. 64 additional caliper inches of trees will now be saved. It is one thing to talk about tree canopy and tree preservation in theory – it is another to see how many trees are being saved with your own eyes. We are inviting you to do just that. Please venture out to 581 Fox Hill and take a look. There is a huge swath of land where trees will go untouched which has now been marked off, and additional trees will be saved in other areas. The building pads for the three additional lots have been marked with fluorescent green ribbon. The pink ribbon along the back side of the lots indicates the boundary of our development work. In addition to the extensive amount of trees that would remain untouched on the lake lot, all trees not encircled with green ribbons would be saved. This is an area roughly 215’ by 135’. Some other things we would like to point out that can’t be understated. 216 o This property has been earmarked for subdivision previously as part of the City of Chanhassen’s comprehensive plan for the area, and there are actually stubs for utilities in place already for these homes. The City previously stubbed 4 sanitary and water services in anticipation of the development of this property. o The number of homes being built on this existing property is less than the number of lots on the shorter side of Fox Hill opposite of us – and far fewer than were built on Big Woods Boulevard in the same length of space. o Tree canopy is not the same as total number of trees – we are actually saving almost HALF of all the trees on the property - roughly 46.8 percent of them, to be specific - which is a lot when considering how much clearing can take place during subdivisions. o The City of Chanhassen has parameters in place that allow for a lesser percentage of tree canopy to be maintained during the subdivision process than the goal of 55%. We are abiding by all such rules and we are the property owners of this parcel, and should be able to proceed in accordance with the law and its provisions. o Despite what was said in the last meeting, not everyone in this neighborhood opposes this project. In fact, we have spoken with many people directly adjacent or on neighboring blocks who support this project wholeheartedly. We look forward to seeing you in person and thank you for the opportunity to revisit our plan and come up with the best possible path forward for all involved. Thanks, Maria and Andy Awes 217 www.alliant-inc.com 733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 700 612.758.3080 MAIN | 612.758.3099 FAX Minneapolis, MN 55402 Fox Hill Drive Memorandum RESPONSE TO COMMENTS To: Scott Sobiech PE, Barr Engineering and Terry Jeffrey RPBCWD District Administrator From: Seth Loken PE CC: Denali Homes, Andy and Maria Awes Date: August 15th, 2022 Subject: Response to Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Comments This memo provides a response to watershed district comments. Since the last submittal, a geotechnical of draft borings has been provided. Due to the heavily wooded nature of the site and city application for subdivision, removal of significant trees is prohibited at this time which would be necessary to conduct infiltration tests. Additional updates include responses to Rule B and G comments IC1. Because the project involves land-disturbance below the 100-year floodplain of Wetland 1 (949.25 ft) and Lotus Lake (897.46 ft), the project must conform to all the criteria in RPBCWD Rule B. Some of the needed information includes computations documenting the proposed project will provide full compensatory storage all fill below the 100-year flood level, in accordance with RPBCWD Rule B.3.2 and the project must demonstrate no adverse impact (Rule B, Subsection 3.3). The installation of storm sewer to wetland 1 has been removed at the request of the city to preserve as much existing canopy as possible. The installation of storm sewer and rip rap to Lake Lotus has been updated to discharge at water’s edge. This will involve cut only. Typical detail for rip rap installation includes overcutting of diameter of rip rap and installation with fabric and rock. IC2. Because the project proposes a new outfall to a public water (Lotus Lake), the project must conform to all applicable criteria in RPBCWD Rule G-Waterbody Crossings and 218 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 2 www.alliant-inc.com Structures, including but not limited to subsection 3.1, 3.3, and 3.7. Noted. See further responses below. IC3. Please provide detailed plan view and scaled profile of the proposed outfall to Lotus Lake and Wetland 1, including riprap, slope grading, etc. Detailed view of storm sewer to Lotus Lake provided. IC4. There does not appear to be soil borings or infiltrometer tests provided in the submittal. Please provide site specific soil borings and infiltration testing at the proposed stormwater management facilities. The soil borings and in-situ infiltration testing must be completed by a state licensed soil scientist, engineer, or geologist in accordance with RPBCWD Rule J.5.4. Soil borings have been added. IC5. Please provide a detailed design of the proposed surface and underground infiltration facilities, including the outlet structure, cross sections with elevations and materials listed, and pretreatment (per Rule J, Subsection 5.4.d) Engineer design of systems included. Full system design to be completed by others when contractor is chosen. Final details will be provided to the city. Because the project appears to involve work below the 100-year flood elevation of two waterbodies (Wetland 1 and Lotus Lake), the project must conform to the requirements in the RPBCWD Floodplain Management and Drainage Alterations rule (Rule B, Subsection 2.1). To conform to the RPBCWD Rule B the following revisions are needed: B1. The project proposes to install storm sewer discharging into wetland 1. Because the plans to not appear to include the profile for the FES300 to FES302, additional information is needed to demonstrate either no fill will occur, or that full compensatory storage is provided for this work in accordance with RPBCWD Rule B.3.2. Please provide documentation that sufficient storage will be provided adjacent to the same waterbody to compensate for the loss of floodplain storage from this wetland. Alternatively, please demonstrate that no fill will be provided for the placement of the storm sewer and riprap. No longer discharges below 100 year HWL of wetland per city request. B2. Project proposes a new outfall into Lotus Lake (FES 500). While this work is above the 100-year elevation of Lotus Lake (897.46 ft), the grading for the installation of riprap (shown on the plan view) has the potential to result in fill within the 100-year floodplain of Lotus Lake. Additional information is needed to demonstrate either no fill will occur, or that full compensatory storage is provided for this work in accordance with RPBCWD Rule B.3.2. Please provide documentation that sufficient storage will be provided adjacent to the Lotus Lake to compensate for the loss of floodplain storage. Alternatively, please demonstrate that no fill will be provided for the placement of the storm sewer and riprap. See standard city detail required for rip rap installation. Requires a low point creation as part of the rip rap design and subcut for installation of fabric and granular material. B3. Please provide documentation and modeling to verify the grading conducted below the 100-year floodplain of the wetland 1 and Lotus Lake will not have adverse offsite impacts and will not adversely affect flood risk, water quality, and channel stability in accordance with RPBCWD Rule B.3.3. Existing and proposed modeling of the project meets the required rate control requirements 219 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 3 www.alliant-inc.com per district. 100 year increase in volume is shown from existing to proposed as part of modeling however the project proposes to treat a portion of Fox Hill Drive (2400 SF impervious) and ROW that was previously routed untreated to Lotus Lake. See included plans for flared end update from city. B4. Add a note to the drawings requiring construction be conducted so as to minimize the potential transfer of aquatic invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, etc.) to the maximum extent possible. Noted. Because the project will involve the alteration of 50 cubic yards or more of earth and involves more than 5,000 square feet of land-disturbing activity, the project must conform to the requirements set forth by the RPBCWD Rule C - Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control. To conform to the RPBCWD Rule C, the following revisions are needed before the application will be considered complete: C1. FES500 appears to discharge runoff above the normal water level of Lotus Lake. While riprap is proposed at the FES, there appears to be the potential for erosion to occur on the Lotus Lake shoreline. Please provide detailed, scaled profile of the proposed outfall to Lotus Lake, including riprap, slope grading, etc. and computations to confirming that any surface flow on the bank will not lead to erosion. Per this comment the flared end section was extended to Lotus Lake and outlets at the surveyed water level. Rip rap will extend below the water level. C2. Name, address and phone number of the individual who will remain liable to the District for performance under this rule and maintenance of erosion and sediment-control measures from the time the permitted activities commence until vegetative cover is established (per Rule C, Subsection 4.3a). This information does not need to be provided prior to making a recommendation to the RPBCWD Board but will be needed before the permit is released. Will provide when NPDES permit is applied for. Because runoff from the site is tributary to Wetland 1, the project must conform to the requirements set forth by the RPBCWD Rule D – Wetland and Creek Buffers. To conform to RPBCWD Rule D, the following revisions are needed before the application will be considered complete: D1. RPBCWD’s review of the MNRAM provided results in the wetland being considered medium value, thus requiring a 40-foot average, 20-foot minimum buffer. Computations have been updated based on this information. D2. There appears to be a retaining wall proposed within the Wetland 1 buffer. Rule D, subsection 3.3d does not allow structures within the buffer area. Please revise the buffer plan or design to remove the retaining wall from the buffer. Retaining wall has been removed. D3. While the buffer area is clearly shown on sheet 13, the buffer monument locations appear to be missing on the plan view. Please update the plan to show the monument locations. Location(s) for markers, at a minimum along each lot line, with additional markers at an interval of no more than 200 feet and, for subdivisions, on each lot of record to be created (Rule D, Subsection 3.4) Buffer monuments have been added. 220 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 4 www.alliant-inc.com D4. Please update the plans to require that all disturbed areas within the buffer be restored with native vegetation (Rule D, Subsection 3.3). Note added to wetland plan. D5. Before any work subject to District permit requirements commences, buffer areas and maintenance requirements must be documented in a declaration recorded after review and approval by RPBCWD in accordance with Rule D, Subsection 3.4.This can be provided after the RPBCWD Board considers the permit application and will be included as a recommended condition for Board consideration. Noted. Because the applicant proposes to place a new outfall Lotus Lake, a public waterbody, the project must conform to RPBCWD’s Waterbody Crossings and Structures Rule (Rule G). To conform to the RPBCWD Rule G, the following revisions are needed before being considered complete: G1. Have you confirmed with the city that there is not an existing storm sewer and outfall to Lotus Lake that the project could connect to rather than proposing a new outfall to Lotus Lake. See plansheet from city. Flared end referenced is 300’ away and would require significant disturbance in order to connect into. G2. Please provide information demonstrating that the proposed outfall provides a public benefit (Rule G, subsection 3.1). Currently there is no secondary emergency access to Big Woods Blvd resulting in a 1200 LF dead end street which exceeds city standards. In order to treat the proposed stub road and the fact that any existing outfall to Lotus Lake is not in close enough proximity to connect to a new outfall is being proposed. The outfall is being proposed in a manner to minimize disturbance to Lotus Lake and existing shoreline. As part of the work for the development the property owner will be restoring the shoreline which has been neglected further providing a benefit to Lotus Lake. G3. The following information and analysis must be provided to demonstrate the construction of the proposed outfall: a. FES500 appears to discharge above the normal water level of Lotus Lake. This has the potential to result in significant bank erosion and does not appear consistent with Rule G, subsection 3.3a which requires minimization of disturbance and erosion of natural shoreline and bed resulting from peak flows; See previous comment response. b. when feasible, utilize discharge to stormwater treatment ponds, artificial stilling or sedimentation basins, or other devices for entrapment of floating trash and litter, sand, silt, debris, and organic matter prior to discharge to public waters; and c. use natural or artificial ponding areas to provide water retention and storage for the reduction of peak flows into waterbodies to the greatest extent possible. There is a natural berm near the Lake according to topography taken via survey. The flared end discharges at this point to allow water retention and storage to maximum extent possible. G4. Please provide detailed plan view and scaled profile of the proposed outfall to Lotus Lake, including riprap, slope grading, etc. Provided. 221 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 5 www.alliant-inc.com G5. The plan set needs to include notes to address criteria 3.7a, 3.7b, 3.7c. Added. G6. Subsection 3.7 requires compliance with the applicable criteria in Rule F subsection 3.3. Please provide information demonstrating that the criteria in Rule F subsection 3.3 are achieved. City detail is specified on plans which conforms to these rules. G7. Permit applicant must provide a maintenance and inspection declaration for the outfall. A maintenance declaration template is available on the permits page of the RPBCWD website (http://www.rpbcwd.org/permits/). A draft declaration must be provided for District review prior to recording. This information does not need to be provided prior to making a recommendation to the RPBCWD Board Noted. Because the project will involve more than 5,000 square feet of land-disturbing activity, the project must conform to RPBCWD’s stormwater management rule as described in Rule J, Subsection 3. Because the proposed activity will increase the site imperviousness by more than 50%, the criteria of Section 3 will apply to the entire project site, subsection 2.3. Under paragraph 2.5 of Rule J, Common Scheme of Development, activities subject to Rule J on a parcel or adjacent parcels under common or related ownership will be considered in the aggregate, and the requirements applicable to the activity under this rule will be determined with respect to all development that has occurred on the site or on adjacent sites under common or related ownership since the date this rule took effect (January 1, 2015). Because a permit is being considered at the July 13, 2022 meeting for the shoreline restoration work (permit 2022-043), the current activities proposed must be considered in aggregate with the activities proposed under this application, Permit 2022-053.To conform to the RPBCWD Rule J, the following revisions are needed before being considered complete: J1. The proposed conditions drainage map suggests that the driveway work within the ROW will not be routed to a BMP for abstraction, water quality, or rate control. Please update all of the stormwater computations to account for all the existing and proposed impervious surfaces on the site. This must include the imperviousness associated with the work in the right of way and associated with permit being considered at the July 13 meeting for the shoreline restoration work (i.e. permit 2022-043). Imperviousness has been updated. 2400 SF of previously untreated existing impervious is now treated as part of this project. J2. Please provide additional information to clarify how the driveways for Lots 1 & 2 of Block 2 are captured and routed to the underground stormwater facility on Lot 1. The grading appears to suggest that runoff from the driveways and potentially a portion of the roofs would flow directly north to Fox hill drive. Please update the drawing/design to ensure the contractor understand these areas must be routed to the BMP. If the design is relying on gutter flow along the south side of Fox Hill Drive to turn the corner and be captured in the proposed CB, please demonstrate that flows up through the 100-year event will take the corner rather than overflowing to the east. The existing “curb” on fox hill drive is a bit roll curb. Upon installation of curb cut for the road stub the water will be directed towards the low point in the stub road. 222 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 6 www.alliant-inc.com J3. The drainage arrow for Lot 1 Block 1 also indicates runoff from the driveway will flow north to Fox Hill drive. Please clarify on the drawings to ensure this runoff is routed to the stormwater facility. Driveway graded to create low point in driveway where flow will cross driveway to be routed to the stormwater treatment facility. J4. The drainage arrow for Lot 3 Block 2 also indicates runoff from the driveway will flow north to Fox Hill drive. Please clarify on the drawings to ensure this runoff is routed to the stormwater facility. As much drainage as possible is routed to stormwater facilities as physically possible without further tree removal. J5. The plans will need to ensure erosion prevention between the FES500 outfall and Lotus Lake. The current outfall design as the potential to cause soil erosion downstream of the proposed riprap and at the shoreline. Please provide computations documenting that erosion will not occur or consider alternatives to convey the runoff to Lotus Lake without exacerbating erosion potential. Please revise design to account for erosion prevention modifications. Stilling basin and silt fence are included as part of storm installation. J6. Comments related to HydroCAD modeling: a) The rainfall depths used in the 24-hour rainfall simulations (2-year, 10-year, and 100- year) must be revised to 2.87”, 4.27” and 7.41”, which are the point estimates for the RPBCWD centroid. Adjusted. b) The current snowmelt modeling appears to only be generating 6.95 inches of runoff. Please update the snowmelt modeling to produce 7.2 inches of runoff. Adjusted. J7. Comments related to MIDS modeling: a) The MIDS modeling only include 2.303 acres of the 2.465 acres site boundary. Please confirm the only area exclude is the Wetland 1 buffer areas? Correct. Only areas excluded will be wetland buffer or areas the city would require as conservation area. b) MIDS modeling results for abstraction and water quality are dependent on the soil conditions below the proposed BMPs. Without soil boring information it is not possible to confirm the abstraction and water quality criteria are achieved. Please complete soil borings at each BMP location.Noted. J8. There does not appear to be soil borings or infiltrometer tests provided in the submittal. Please provide site specific soil borings and infiltration testing at the proposed stormwater management facilities. The soil borings and in-situ infiltration testing must be completed by a state licensed soil scientist, engineer, or geologist in accordance with RPBCWD Rule J.5.4. Noted and included. J9. Please provide a detailed design of the proposed surface and underground infiltration facilities, including the outlet structure details, cross sections with elevations and materials listed, and pretreatment identified (per Rule J, Subsection 5.4.d) Noted and included. One note, these are engineer designed but not designed yet by manufacturer. Final manufacturer designed plans will be included in as built to city and watershed. 223 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 7 www.alliant-inc.com J10. In accordance with RPBCWD Rule J.3.6, no structure may be constructed or reconstructed such that its lowest floor elevation is less than 2 feet above the 100-year event flood elevation in accordance with RPBCWD Rule J.3.6. Please provide a summary showing that all proposed low floor elevations for proposed and existing lots adjacent to wetland 1, proposed surface and underground stormwater facilities, meet the rules. J11. Provide computations demonstrating the drawdown of the required abstraction volume will be drawn down within the required 48 hours. J12. Permit applicant must provide a maintenance and inspection declaration. A maintenance declaration template is available on the permits page of the RPBCWD website (http://www.rpbcwd.org/permits/). A draft declaration must be provided for District review prior to recording. This information does not need to be provided prior to making a recommendation to the RPBCWD Board. 224 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 8 www.alliant-inc.com 225 www.alliant-inc.com 733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 700 612.758.3080 MAIN | 612.758.3099 FAX Minneapolis, MN 55402 Fox Hill Drive Memorandum RESPONSE TO COMMENTS To: Erik Henricksen, PE, Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Joe Seidl, PE, City of Chanhassen From: Seth Loken PE CC: Denali Homes, Andy and Maria Awes Date: August 8th, 2022 Subject: Response to City Planning Commission Comments This memo provides a response to city planning commission comments. On July 19 th the project was tabled by City of Chanhassen planning commission for a request to explore saving more trees throughout the property. Two exhibits have been added to demonstrate what we believe to be max savings: Removal of the stub road requirement completely, conversion of full public ROW to private roadway contained within outlot, but it is our understanding that the stub road is a requirement per city comprehensive planning. We will continue to work with city staff to increase the canopy coverage to the maximum extent possible but believe based on the requirements of both city and watershed district, this will be the maximum canopy coverage for the additional 3 lots. Since the planning commission, a geotechnical investigation has occurred, and this plan is updated to reflect the initial findings. Responses to city comments are shown below in red. SUBDIVISION Engineering: 1. Any underlying easements within public easements, including public right-of-way, must be vacated or released prior to recording of the final plat. Noted 2. An additional 10 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along Carver Beach Road prior to recording of final plat providing a 50-foot-wide right-of-way in total. 10’ of additional ROW shown. 226 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 2 www.alliant-inc.com 3. The ESCP and tree preservation plans must address the excavation of the proposed stormwater conveyance system on Lot 1, Block 1 and it’s impacts upon submittal of final plans for review and approval. Erosion control has been updated. 4. The street within the newly dedicated 50-foot right-of-way extending from Fox Hill Drive shall be constructed to the maximum extent feasible. Road has been extended to the maximum extent possible. 5. The applicant shall provide exhibits illustrating the alignment, profile, and grades of the proposed street design from Fox Hill Drive to the future connection at Big Woods Drive upon submittal of final plat. Noted. Will provide with final ppat. 6. The applicant and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction plans, dated June 17, 2022 prepared by Seth Loken, PE with Alliant Engineering to fully satisfy construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to commencement of any construction activities. Noted. 7. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract and pay all applicable fees and securities prior to recording of final plat. Noted. Water Resources Recommendations: 1. Private stormwater BMPs to serve the needs of the development must be wholly located outside of all public easements upon submittal of the final plat. Noted. 2. The applicant shall provide a copy of conditional approval from the RPBCWD as part of the final plat submittal. Noted. 3. The applicant shall provide a copy of the geotechnical report and infiltration test results as part of the final plat submittal. Geotechnical report provided. Shows seams of sandy/silty soil with clay soils. Infiltration tests were not conducted initially as to not remove any trees. Based on preliminary findings, infiltration tests will occur. 4. The applicant must update the Hydrologic and Hydraulic models per City and Watershed District comments and submit updated computations and models in their native forms with the final plat and final construction plans. Noted. 5. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will not raise the 100-year high water level of the onsite wetland as part of the final plat submittal. Noted. 6. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed project will be in compliance with the 3-foot freeboard requirement to ponding features as part of the final plat submittal. Freeboard in general is well over 3’. See grading plan/stormwater. 7. The applicant must confirm the stormwater routing of the onsite BMPs and include pipe profiles, details of outlet control structures, underground infiltration details, and connections to public infrastructure as part of the final plat submittal. Noted. 8. The applicant must work with staff to improve the BMP configuration to the maximum extent given the restrictions of the site and RPBCWD rules. The applicant and engineer 227 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 3 www.alliant-inc.com understand the city’s desire to consolidate BMP’s. Watershed rules stipulate that abstraction volume must be provided prior to discharging to a wetland, in order to provide this to meet the watershed’s rules the site needs a BMP prior to discharging to the wetland. The alternative to providing the BMP would be to pipe all disturbed area and impervious surface that drains to the west, this would result in significant tree removals and change in hydrology to the wetland. The alternative BMP configuration for drainage that is routed directly to Lotus Lake would be to pipe all disturbed area and impervious surface to a BMP downstream of lot 1 block 1. In order to do this would result in a significantly larger footprint meaning further tree removal and disturbance to existing lakeshore and slopes. Additionally, the BMP for lot 1 block 1 is confined due to existing utilities near the lakeshore. 9. The applicant shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement for any proposed privately owned stormwater facilities which shall be recorded concurrently with the final plat. Noted. Parks: 1. Full Park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the four lots. The Park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single- family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total Park fees for the three new additional homes would be $17,400. Noted. Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activities and remain in place until construction is complete. Noted. 2. Any trees removed that are shown on plans dated as preserved shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. This is noted based on a final approved plan. 3. A Conservation Easement shall be dedicated over the wooded side yards on Lots 1 and 2. To be provided at final plat. 4. The applicant will relocate the infiltration basin to the edge of the wooded area on Lot 2 and eliminate the fragmentation of the wooded wetland buffer. Infiltration basin moved towards the home to eliminate fragmentation of wooded wetland buffer. 5. The applicant shall revise the tree removal plans and calculations to show tree removal for all stormwater infrastructure and utilities needed on site. Tree removal plans have been provided. 228 Fox Hill Drive Response to Comments PAGE 4 www.alliant-inc.com Building: 1. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Noted. 2. Building permits must be obtained before beginning any construction. Noted. 3. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed buildings meet all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review Noted. 4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction, retaining walls under four feet in height require a zoning permit. Noted. 229 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 13 will be done by the construction equipment and he thinks it is a reasonable question in asking who will be responsible for maintain and repairing the damage that will be done. Chair von Oven noted there is a reason they are called private streets, everyone knows who is responsible for it: the people who live on it. He noted this is a tough answer to give but when one buys property on a golf course, golf balls will come at your house; when you buy property on a private street, you know what you are getting into. For Chair von Oven, the private street comes up at the Planning Commission every single time but he holds the same position on the private street every time. Will there be extra traffic on that street? Possibly. For a homeowner who has a right to do what he or she wants to do with their property, the concern of the private street which everyone knew was their responsibility, it is a concern for him because it is the public’s concern. However, it is not on his list of concerns because people know what they are getting into with a private street. He noted this is the single most comprehensive, well though-out, strategic presentation he has ever seen from the public and he is in each one of their shoes on the topics brought forward. In some of their 72 questions, it comes down to education and part of the process is that there are not final numbers right now. Chair von Oven see two things that need to be decided which are whether the property can be rezoned and subdivided into two lots. There is a final Watershed check that will get the real numbers and then this project will or will not go forward. He spoke about drainage, the reducing of Wetland A, and noted the landowner had two developments grow up around him is now asking for one house, not even a development. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning of property from Rural Residential District (RR) to Single Family Residential District (RSF), preliminary plat to subdivide 4.75 acres into two lots as shown in plans received June 16, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 581 FOX HILL DRIVE: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION OF 2.47 ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT WITH VARIANCES Senior Planner Al-Jaff gave a presentation on the item stating it is a riparian lot with a single family home on the parcel with a subdivision all parcels will meet the required lot area, width, depth, and access to each parcel is from Fox Hill Drive. Project Engineer Henricksen spoke about access and right-of-way, noting the applicant is proposing to dedicate some additional right-of-way to meet the 50 feet typical to the neighborhood. It is substandard to current standards of 60 feet but matches the neighborhood and would be consistent with the needs for the road network. He spoke about the Lotus Woods subdivision from 2020 and a connection to Fox Hill Drive which he showed on screen. Sanitary sewer and water is adequate to meet the needs and there is a need for an additional fire hydrant to be installed to meet fire code. Water Resources Engineer Seidl spoke about drainage and grading noting a high point at the center of the property with storm water flowing to Lotus Lake, the wetland, or stormwater infrastructure along Carver Beach Road. Mass grading is proposed to prepare the site for home 230 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 14 construction, install storm water BMPs, and infrastructure before discharging water offsite. The proposed position conveys the water to four individual storm water BMPs which increases the wetland stormwater volumes and increases the 100-year high water level which is seen as an adverse impact and is something that will need to be addressed during final design submittal. He noted the project is within the Riley Purgatory Watershed District and is subject to the City and Watershed’s rules and regulations. A geotechnical analysis and related infiltration testing will be needed so the BMPs can be property designed. Ms. Al-Jaff spoke about parks and trails, trees on the site, and a conservation easement. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide and a variance for the 50-foot right-of- way. Commissioner Schwartz asked staff to comment on Mr. Johanson’s email about concerns with tree removal, animal displacement, stormwater runoff, and pesticide contamination. Ms. Al-Jaff replied that Mr. Johanson is not opposed to development but noted his concern was the size of the potential homes in the future. If these parcels meet ordinance requirements and guidelines for subdivision, staff will typically recommend approval. This development has met all of those requirements and Mr. Johansen requested the size and height of the homes be limited; the City must abide by the single-family residential district and as long as they meet setbacks, hard surface coverage, and height limitations, they are permitted to build homes that would be in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Schwartz asked if Jill Sinclair has weighed in on any environmental issues. Ms. Al-Jaff had conversations with Ms. Sinclair about the woods. As has been done with Big Wood Boulevard, the City exercised similar practices by reducing the right-of-way and required the applicant to push the homes closer to the right-of-way with a preservation easement at the rear of the property. She noted the applicant will be 22 trees short of the maximum removal and will be replacing those trees on site. She believes as they finalize and define the location of the storm pond they can save additional trees. Commissioner Johnson noted with infiltration basins it raises a flag and asked if there are options to change those. Mr. Seidl replied the Watershed does not waive their abstraction volume requirement which is why they will need a test to prove those rates. There is a workaround which is a void space created from a rock layer under the infiltration practice to capture that volume which allows a longer time for the water to infiltrate the soil. Underground infiltration BMPs are typically a more cost-effective option. David Bieker, Denali Custom Homes, said the owner of the property will be constructing a new home on the lake side of the property. The applicants are lovely people who have lived in Chanhassen for years and are looking forward to living in the home; they are very into the environment and the outdoors. Their full intention is to plant many trees in strategic spots. He spoke about the potential road extension as well as the stormwater drainage system. 231 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 15 Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. Ella Hale, 600 Fox Hill Drive, thanked the Commissioners and noted she has lived in her house for almost 30 years and she loves the neighborhood. Everyone calls the area a hidden gem; they love the woods, wildlife, and if this were to change that wildlife would have nowhere to go. This area is the last big plot of woods and is very special. She cannot imagine it not being there anymore, it affects her everyday life and she would be lying if she said she has not cried every single day since this property was sold last summer because she did not have a million dollars to buy it and she has never been more mad at herself. She wants to keep it the way it is and this is such a thin stretch of land and noted no one wants the road. It is such a quiet area, and in putting four homes there it would double the entire neighborhood. In taking most of the trees… how can someone say they love nature if they are only going to leave 35%, that is ridiculous to her, so many trees will be gone that she has watched grow since she was a kid and she played in those woods. The previous owner left it the way it was because they loved it that way. Ms. Hale understands that people want to build a home and spoke about the cottage that is currently there. It is crazy for someone to see this and want to build as many homes as possible. She asked the Commissioners to please come out to the neighborhood if they haven’t already to look at how special it is. She wishes the project could be scaled back as it will change everyday life and it will lose the magic. She spoke about growing up and the big woods seemed to go on forever and she does not believe that the trees would be replanted. She stated nobody in the neighborhood wants this and it will affect everyone else, animals, water, and so many things. She asked the Commissioners to scale it back to two homes or three but not to devastate the entire forest for one person to have all their friends live in the same strip. Francesca Landon, 620 Fox Hill Drive, noted her house looks directly into the current wetland area and years ago during the Lotus Woods development she had concerns that all the trees would be gone. She spoke about deer and fawns, barn owls, red-tail hawks, and noted she is having a difficult time visualizing the four houses as the three acres does not seem like it will fit the houses. She is not opposed to change but her concern is taking 65% of the trees down and she does not think that qualifies as loving nature. Ms. Landon noted that 65% proposed does not include what was taken down at the lakefront last summer and she does not think it includes the trees taken down by the road the last couple of weeks. She noted this is truly a gem and it is not so much about their view as it is about drainage. She spoke about Page 4 of the staff report where the developer proposes to mass grade a majority of the site and asked how that will be done without removal of trees. Right now water goes to the corner of Outlot A and pools/overflows the corner and goes into the street; there is a neighbor down there who has lost some of his lot to the wetland due to the amount of drainage that goes there. She noted the road is very small and she does not know how construction trucks will go on the road and thinks the road will be demolished. There are a lot of issues, she thinks it is an excessive building plan and it would be better if it were two or three houses total. Chairman von Oven noted the City Code of Chanhassen requires that Planning meetings end at 10:30pm by law. He is not allowed to continue and noted this is the first time he has had to do this. 232 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 16 Ms. Aanenson noted they can continue this item but cannot start another item. John Stutzman, 6901 Yuma Drive, is on the other side of the pond from Big Woods and has lived in the City for 14 years. He has utmost respect for staff and elected officials and said the common theme from neighbors tonight is to scale the project back. They understand development and it is an owner’s right to develop land within City Code and other governing bodies. As Ms. Landon said, the excessive nature of this seems to be a common theme and a tough area to develop. It is a very passionate issue for the neighborhood and he requested if there are ways to increase the conservation easement to save more trees and reduce the lot numbers, and he noted the bottom lot will be interesting to develop. He said if there is a way to avoid the road he would also propose that. He encouraged the Planning Commission, staff, and the developer to think about scaling this project back and be respectful of what the neighbors are asking. Deeann Hale, 600 Fox Hill Drive, grew up in Chanhassen and she has seen a lot of growth, some good change and some bad change. She was very happy many years ago when Mayor Mancito believed in conserving more trees. Ms. Hale was home one day when surveying and tree tagging was happening and one of the young men she was talking to noted there were a lot of old trees there and some were very rare and are not seen anymore. Ms. Hale said it is sad because someone will move in and not appreciate it but knock it down. Ms. Hale kept her fingers crossed that the property would stay as much the same as possible and said building four houses with the rare trees and wildlife that depend upon them is a shame. She is beginning to wonder if they appreciate what they have. As someone said “they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.” She asked if that is what is going to happen. If they remove two-thirds of the trees, where will the deer and wildlife go. Ms. Hale noted they cannot save this for the deer but they were there first, and said let’s not destroy what they enjoy and what the neighborhood enjoys. She asked the Commissioners to consider it and questioned why people buy lots only to knock it all down, she does not understand it. The way it will be developed she will have two driveways across from her driveway and will be interesting to get out at the same time. She does not know if the Commissioners have been out to see it but invited them to take a look. She spoke about Big Woods and all the trees taken out there noting it is a funny name as there are no woods. Mr. Bieker noted people keep mentioning they should scale it back and noted there are eight houses between the street and the lake at Big Woods and the applicant is only proposing four in the same amount of distance. He thinks that is a lot more reasonable than what has been done in the past; there will be a lot more greenspace, there is hardly any greenspace in Big Woods, and it will not be like that. He thinks they are being mindful on the number of houses and he thinks it might be possible to do more but that is not what is happening. In another area of Chanhassen, he built 12 homes and now there are more trees that tower above the houses. He noted the trees will be replenished and the character of the neighborhood will come back. Mr. Bieker stated they will work with the City to save every tree that they can and he appreciates what the neighbors are saying. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz wonders if the current owner would consider selling the property to the City, County, or a preservation organization such as a Sierra Club or Nature Conservancy, 233 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 17 assuming they would get fair-market value of the land. He would ask that of the owner before proceeding. As proposed, he thinks this project is a travesty which is his personal opinion. When he drove into that neighborhood he was blown away and had no idea there was that degree of huge trees on the property and once it is gone it will never come back. He thinks it needs to be rethought. Commissioner Also stated given that her current house and childhood home are within .5 miles of this lot she will be recusing herself from the vote and that they would still have a quorum. Chairman von Oven lives across the lake on Lotus. He has driven through the neighborhood, and Commissioner Schwartz is right, these trees are different. He admitted he struggles a bit and as stated earlier he believes in the rights of a land owner to do what they want with their property within the boundaries of the law. The Lotus Woods subdivision in 2020 had a tree preservation of 29% and in looking at the google map now he thinks it does not look so bad, although they are not the same trees but were placed as a penalty for removing trees. He noted they are big, beautiful trees on Big Woods Boulevard and he does not know where he stands but would like to discuss if there is a right number. He is hopeful that there are ways of moving around of the puzzle pieces such as the infiltration system and downstream effects, which might affect the proposed tree preservation. He spoke about the number from the City plan that says it must be 55% or higher and then paying a tree penalty if it is below that has always been a thorn in a Commission predecessor’s side and has become a thorn in this case and in this neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson agrees, he has walked the street a number of times and noted the area is pretty special. He understands the tree debate but also understands an owner’s right to do what they want with their property. He hopes they can come up with a solution or compromise, whether reducing the lots, changing stormwater, or whatever they can do to save trees. Commissioner Soller feels the same and almost bought a house in the neighborhood; he has been through the area and likes it a lot. This is a tough one and he noted it may be in the purview of the City Council and City regarding conservation but perhaps it needs to be looked at such as increasing the penalty for taking out so many trees. He thinks the City has some leverage but finds it difficult to tell a property owner that they cannot work on this. Commissioner Soller likes the idea of compromise. It does not feel right to Chair von Oven to restrict the number of lots. He believes the number the Planning Commission can affect that does not put him at odds with his beliefs about landowner rights is the tree preservation number. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan requires 55% but has an out clause for certain situations and the proposal right now is 35%. He does not know what it would do to the project for that minimum canopy coverage to remain at 55% and be completely in compliance with the Code. Seth Loken, Alliant Engineering, said the Watershed has stormwater rules and in order to meet those they must treat discharge to the wetland prior to it getting to the wetland and to do that they must clear trees for that infrastructure. 234 Planning Commission Minutes – July 19, 2022 18 Ms. Al-Jaff clarified staff noticed this application with variances. One thing they did with Big Woods and why many cannot tell which trees they saved, the homes were pushed 10 feet closer to the right-of-way to save the trees behind, and they increased the rear yard to 40 feet for the conservation easement. If that is something the Commissioners wish to consider, staff will look at it. Commissioner Schwartz wants to make it clear that he also respects property rights of homeowners and property owners. He asked if it is possible at this stage to think out of the box and asked Ms. Aanenson whether the City could consider purchasing the property and keeping it the way it is. Ms. Aanenson replied at this stage she is not sure it would be appropriate to try although it is something that could have been considered. She clarified the tree preservation ordinance, noting the City has a very rigid tree preservation easement and it is not a one-size-fits-all. She noted they have a lot of deer in town travelling through the whole community and that is something the City wants to keep. Ms. Aanenson said the applicant has indicated if the City wants additional right-of-way, which is taking away some of the trees, the applicant is getting penalized for that. She thinks the best way is to Ms. Al-Jaff’s point and to look at ways to cluster the houses, shift them, figure out those significant trees and try to work around those. She is not sure they would have a willing seller but the City could offer that up although she is not sure the City has those funds right now. She noted it is a bit harder on a smaller scale but there are different zoning techniques that have been employed such as RLM or PUD to save a natural resource. Chair von Oven is not in a position to reject or approve the proposal and asked Ms. Aanenson about the best course of action to send it back. Ms. Aanenson replied they can ask for additional time and make a recommendation to table. Staff could then go back and revisit some issues to see what they can do (i.e.variances, what they can save, etc.) They have 120-days to review and would take the extra 60 days. Chairman von Oven moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded to table this item and allow staff and the developer to work towards achieving a greater percentage of tree canopy preservation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0 (Commissioner Alto recused herself from the vote). PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING IMPROVEMENTS AND ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC EASEMENTS Ms. Aanenson noted this is a Code Amendment recommendation. Currently, staff must make everyone that wants to put a fence in an easement area must apply for an encroachment agreement which is a legal document constructed by the attorney. The city attorney is saying these need to go to the City Council for their approval and signature. Staff is creating a website with all easement agreements and development contracts. The purpose of this would be to amend the City Code to say if there is not an active easement, one can put up a fence and sign a document saying if the City would have to activate that easement, the fence owner could take care of that. This would affect 90% of people who must wait 3-4 weeks to get a fence permit. 235 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, Edward Goff, Kelsey Alto. MEMBERS ABSENT: Erik Johnson. STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer, Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer, Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist. PUBLIC PRESENT: Maria and Andy Awes 581 Fox Hill Drive David Bieker Denali Custom Homes Seth Loken Alliant Engineering Francesca Landon 620 Fox Hill Drive Paige Will 581 Big Woods Boulevard Deeann Hale 600 Fox Hill Drive Ella Hale 600 Fox Hill Drive Gary Renneke 3607 Red Cedar Point Road Jada Sanders 3609 Red Cedar Point Road Dave Bloomquist 8800 Powers Boulevard Mark Bliss 7333 Hazeltine Boulevard PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 581 FOX HILL DRIVE: RECONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION OF 2.47 ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT WITH VARIANCES Senior Planner Al-Jaff gave a presentation on the item, noting the application is for a subdivision of 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a 50-foot right-of-way variance where the City requires 60 feet. The Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this item on July 19, 2022 with direction for the Applicant to reduce tree removal on the site. The four lots meet the minimum requirements for lot area, depth, and width of the single-family residential district. Engineer Henricksen spoke about staff’s recommendation for the dedication of right-of-way to meet the surrounding neighborhood at 50 feet, which is the reason for the variance. Based on comments received, he wants to clarify right-of-way versus roads: right-of-way is an easement 236 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 2 area but is not the actual street width itself. The updated materials from the Applicant addressed all right-of-way dedication on the resubmittal. Mr. Henricksen spoke about the history of the development, street connectivity, and the 50-foot right-of-way easement. Water Resources Engineer Seidl spoke about the proposed drainage design which largely maintains existing drainage patterns on the lot with stormwater routed to an existing wetland that naturally overflows onto the public roadway and across Carver Beach Road where it is captured by public infrastructure and routed to downstream BMPs and then to Lotus Lake. He noted there will be four underground infiltration BMPs to treat and discharge the stormwater. Environmental Resource Specialist Sinclair noted this is a heavily wooded site with 95% canopy coverage and is a mix of red oak and sugar maple. For low-density residential City Code requires a minimum of 55% coverage be maintained after development. The Applicant is proposing to have a 38% coverage after development which is allowed by Code. When a developer goes below the minimum amount required they take a penalty of 1.2 times the difference between the required minimum and proposed minimum. When that calculation is done it is divided by standard square footage for a tree which is 1,089 square feet. The developer is going below the minimum required but is replanting trees and by replanting those trees they bring the minimum required back up to 55% according to the City’s calculations. The Applicant was asked to find ways to preserve more trees and saved canopy cover on Lot 2 by moving one BMP underground and Lots 1-3 have tried to minimize tree removal as much as possible. Ms. Sinclair spoke about a proposed conservation easement area on the property to protect trees. Ms. Al-Jaff spoke about parks serving the site and noted the Commission has the option to receive additional comments from the public. Staff recommends approval of the application, noting it meets all requirements of the subdivision and zoning Ordinance regulations. The variance for right-of-way was directed by staff to reduce the amount of overall grading and remain consistent with characteristics of Carver Beach. Commissioner Alto asked why there is a need for the road to go through the middle of those lots. Engineer Henricksen showed a slide on screen demonstrating the lack of connectivity for emergency services in the area, as they do not have a redundant way to get to residents along the corridor if there was an emergency. He noted they usually want redundancy in case there was a failure or a tree down blocking a road. Fire and Emergency services plans for the worst and since 2005 it was recognized that having a street here would provide a redundant access. Commissioner Schwartz asked Ms. Sinclair about the conservation easement bleeding over onto Lot 2 and Lot 3, which would be private property, and asked over time how do they protect that conservation easement from future owners. He asked if there will be some markings, a fence, or something to identify the space. Ms. Sinclair replied in the affirmative noting in the past the City has required developers to put up signs saying it is a conservation easement, it is also on building permit surveys, copies are sent to homeowners, and many times in neighborhoods that legacy is also verbally passed on. 237 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 3 Chair von Oven asked about trees and whether someone could raze the entire site and plant their way back to the minimum. Ms. Sinclair noted technically in a subdivision one could. If a property starts under the minimum, such as a two-acre lot with a couple of trees in the middle which were cut down, they essentially clear-cut the lot. Therefore yes, one could go all the way to the bottom and work their way up. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the minimum caliper inch for the replacement tree. Ms. Sinclair noted it is 2.5 inches diameter. Commissioner Soller asked about the redundancy of the road and asked, until the physical street could be built, what is the point of the right-of-way. Engineer Henricksen noted if the City does not secure the right-of-way easement at the time there is no opportunity to have it; it is baked into the subdivision. If it was stricken from this application there is a 99% chance the City would never obtain that to meet a future connection. Maria and Andy Awes, Applicants, purchased this lot hoping to build their dream home. They have invested a lot of time and energy into making this a perfect place and noted they very much love the trees, and even tapped maple trees this year. They have done everything they possibly can to save as many trees as feasible and Ms. Awes walked the woods with Ms. Sinclair and thinks there can be some benefits to planting some new generation growth and planting new trees for the future. She noted if the road was not there they could increase the tree canopy by 8% and it is difficult because they are a couple with a small subdivision and they are being asked to build a road, pay for the road which is very expensive, and they are trying to do their very best to please everyone in this situation. They are trying to navigate all of this as best as possible and have worked very hard to try to get to this point. Mr. Awes knows there are concerns in the neighborhood about the number of trees and he wishes there was a way to save more trees and noted not requiring that road is a way to save more trees. He noted there is no redundancy now, there will not be a redundancy after they build it, and there may never be. He would still be willing to give the right-of-way if they did not have the requirement that they must cut down trees and lay asphalt now. Ms. Awes said many factors go into this and there were utilities stubbed for four properties before they even got to this point. The parcel is longer than the opposite side of Fox Hill with fewer homes, and a dedicated wetland and conservation area. They are trying to do their very best. Commissioner Schwartz said assuming they could get fair market value for the property, would the Applicants consider selling it to the County, the City, the nature conservancy or another organization that would preserve 100% of the canopy. Ms. Awes thinks there are a lot of factors as there are other people who want to live there and have been planning for that. 238 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 4 Mr. Awes noted there is also the question of all the time and money they have already put in at this point. He stated they also want to live there. He spoke about three lots versus four lots and feasibility of making things work and noted at that point they may not have a choice but to consider that option. David Bieker, Denali Custom Homes, would like to answer some questions from the letter turned in by homeowners south of the property. The type of homes to be built will be 1.5 stories or 1 story and he showed examples on screen noting if another developer came in they may put in two stories to maximize what they can get out of the properties; that is not what the clients are requesting. He shared lot sizes of .66 acres, .34 acres, .52 acres, and .41 acres, noting most are significantly larger than 1/3 acre lots. Regarding water runoff, they have been working with Alliant and they do not want to impact anyone outside of the property they are working on. Regarding the road, none of them want the road, everyone is willing to give the right-of-way, everyone loves the trees, and it could potentially be a very long time until that road is of any use to anyone. He understands the economics of asking for a road to be built now as it will cost more in the future, however they do not know how long that will be. He hopes the Commissioners will consider this project and noted the Applicants own the property, they have a right to develop the property, have met all the requirements with a small variance for a road they do not want or need, and they will replace the trees. He spoke about tree counts versus canopies and noted the percentage differences. Commissioner Schwartz noted the road is for safety purposes and assuming the road was not built and a fire occurred or someone had a heart attack, who would Mr. Bieker hold to account that an emergency vehicle could not get to the property in time to save a house or save a life. Mr. Bieker would answer that by saying when the road is able to go through all three properties (two other property owners have to decide to develop and decide to give up part of their land) but until those two properties do anything, whether the road is there or not does not affect anyone’s safety. They will not have the redundancy they are looking for. To him, it would make more sense to dedicate the area, make it available for the future, have money escrowed for that road to be built sometime in the future, but not to build a road until they can actually build it all the way through as it is not helping anyone at this point. Commissioner Schwartz asked Engineer Henricksen if it is possible to escrow money based on the engineering estimate for the cost of the road plus 5-10 years out, accounting for inflation, so instead of dumping $45,000 for what the road will cost today they would require $60,000 or $75,000 and if it only costs $70,000 they would get back $5,000. Mr. Henricksen has not seen that occur within the City and historically he has not seen an attempt to try to estimate a timeline of when a street might go through. The practice of constructing a street prior to connectivity happening is not extraordinary as there are multiple examples within the City where street connections are stubbed and extended to the property line to facilitate future development. It has been common practice for many years. 239 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 5 Seth Loken, Alliant Engineering, asked to address the concern about the wetland by a citizen, he noted most of the perimeter of the wetland is at elevation of 949’ and the EOF for the wetland at existing occurs at a 949.45’ allowing for runoff to occur almost immediately. There is not a lot of ponding depth in this wetland and the elevations on the south side are 956’, 954, 952’ so in order for it to flood up and go to the property on the south it would have to flood up six feet. They will continue to work with City Staff to improve the condition of the road overland. He shared that they proposed to move the stub road to the east to allow for maximum tree savings noting if they keep the red line shown on screen there is a 25 foot wetland buffer, 30 foot wetland setback, and a 30 foot front setback which more or less makes that lot undevelopable. He also noted looking at trees from a caliper-inch perspective versus tree canopies, they are more in the range of 45% tree savings versus the 38% canopy cover with the road. Chairman von Oven opened the public hearing. He stated to the public, if they have already made a comment at a previous meeting, the Commissioners have pored over the notes from the last meeting, and if they have comments on new information or on the changes he would like to hear those. Paige Will has been friends with Andy and Maria for 17-18 years, they are wonderful people, wonderful neighbors, and she has no doubt that they will do an amazing job if they are allowed to go forward with this development. That said, living on Big Woods Boulevard, Ms. Will has concerns about the road. She noted they enjoy living on a quiet cul-de-sac, there are lots of kids there, it is a neighborhood without sidewalks, very narrow roads, and she thinks in putting that road in, it does not make sense to do it prematurely. She noted if they are willing to put it in paperwork and put it in escrow it makes sense to do that because it does not make sense to add more pavement to the neighborhood, dig up more of the neighborhood, and most of the people in this room are very passionate about the neighborhood. Ms. Will stated she lives on a conservation easement and takes that very seriously, however she does not think it makes sense to put the road in right now. Francesca Landon is happy to hear that nobody wants the road. She knows that both of the people that live along the lake are not interested in a road, either and asked for clarification regarding the road, when they say “when those roads are developed” does that mean physically developed or when there is change of ownership? Mr. Henricksen clarified that means the property owner (current or future) would have to come to the City and go through the development review process to subdivide. It would have to be a willing property owner who wants to subdivide their property. Ms. Landon spoke about drainage and pointed out on the slide shown as the water comes down by the fire hydrant, the drainage systems are a little above the “G” shown on screen. She has concerns about the water flowing to the bottom of the street and flooding that area. She is also deeply concerned about trees only going from 35% to only 38% and was hoping for a better solution. Deeann Hale, 600 Fox Hill Drive, was talking to the owner of the property that Ms. Landon was just speaking about and if they get a good rain it comes down his gravel driveway and goes into 240 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 6 his backyard which has been flooded. The owner was concerned and unfortunately could not be here tonight but asked her to please share about the runoff because that will be a problem. He also spoke about the lift station noting when they put in Big Woods there was a problem with it and they had sewer drainage into Lotus Lake. Ms. Hale’s disappointment is that the City told them to come back with 55% tree coverage and they came back with 36% with a planting of 19 trees that are 2.5 inches. She thinks the Commissioners have received information from someone who belongs to the Sierra Club and she and her husband went out to measure the diameter of many of the trees, and many are well over 100 years old encroaching in to 200 years. The increase of trees on the plot shows most of the increase around the conservation area which is not where most of the legacy trees are. She wishes the owner would try to preserve some of those, although she knows in building a home one does have to take down trees, she thinks they need to pay special attention to some of the trees that are old and beautiful. Ms. Hale asked about the rest of the people who live on the lake? What happened to being neighborly and talking to a neighbor about this? She would be very upset if she lived on the lake and it affected her possibility of getting as much as she can when she retires and moves away. In cutting away some of her land, what is she to do? From what Ms. Hale understood from the woman who sold to the owners, they were going to be good stewards of the land and try to preserve as much as they can but she is not hearing that. Commissioner Noyes asked about the neighbor with flooding concerns. Is he asking that the problem is fixed, is he more concerned that it will be made worse, or is he trying to bring attention because it needs to be looked at? Ms. Hale replied he was concerned that it would make it worse for him. Ms. Awes noted the tree percentage was actually 38% and 3% may seem like a small amount to some people, but she noted they have tried to work with every single thing they could relating to the Watershed District requirements, and all the other requirements to get to that percentage. She noted they are sort of hamstrung with the road and stated there is nothing they can do about that big piece. It is a little disturbing for Ms. Awes to hear that someone trespassed on their property to measure the size of trees and noted that is an issue for her. They really just want to be good neighbors for everyone and she wants to restate that it was recommended for approval before, the Applicants have done even more, it has been recommended again, and they are trying so hard here. Ella Hale stated when the house was sold, Bob’s widow had the art sale and she bought his father’s life story that he used a typewriter to write it on. She read part of it and assures the Commission that this was never supposed to happen or be developed like this. A lot of these trees are sugar maples which is what the town is named after. If they destroy the trees they will never see them again in their lifetime. When the Applicants bought the property they said they were trying to conserve it and she had turned down other offers from people trying to develop the land because she did not want the whole place to get pimped out like it is now. She cannot explain why one would put four homes on such a small plot and then pimp it out to all their friends to make it cheap for everyone. She stated the owners plead their case to the Commissioners but they should really “be talking to us because you are going to have to live among us and you are not welcome here.” She noted they are threatening her home and it is just 241 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 7 sad with all the trees and animals that will be displaced, she noted every year they have a family of deer, turkeys, fox, and many animals and now that place will not be special and will not be a home anymore. She asked how they can call it Lotus Woods when there will not be any trees at all, she wishes the Commissioners could look at this and see that maybe this is not the right thing. If the owners really wanted to conserve they would just build a lake house and then sell the rest to conserve it. Mr. Awes clarified they were never misleading anyone about their intentions regarding the property. In the marketing materials, the previous owner put forth that this land was a potential for subdivision, it was in the real estate materials and she knew very well what their intentions were when they purchased. Ms. Will spoke about tree conservation noting trees have died on her property and Ms. Sinclair came out to her property and they had a great discussion. She learned that sometimes by taking out an old dead tree that is not thriving they can help some other trees thrive and open up sunlight. When she walks through the neighborhood she observes a lot of trees in the area that are going down and noted Texas Governor Abbott is paralyzed because a tree fell on him many years ago. She worries about the old trees in the neighborhood that are coming down naturally and she thinks there is an obsession with saving the trees but there is some natural tree loss on a regular basis in that neighborhood. Ms. Will thinks this is good to consider when talking about trees, replanting and taking some out will potentially make some of them grow. She noted there are plenty of saplings all over and she does not think they have to worry about trees replicating themselves there. Chairman von Oven closed the public hearing. Chair von Oven asked if developers are in any way required to provide a conservation easement. He asked if that was a requirement or a choice. Ms. Sinclair replied there is nothing in the City Code that requires a conservation easement. They usually come about between City Staff recommending it because there is a desirable, healthy stand of trees. Sometimes the developer offers it because they know they can protect the trees and it helps their overall canopy cover. She noted it is not required. Commissioner Schwartz acknowledged that the Applicant have increased the canopy, even by 3%, is a lot. In his perspective it is not nearly enough, however they are in compliance and so everyone in the room understands if a property owner is in compliance there is little if nothing the Planning Commission or City Council can do to prevent the property owner from doing what they want on their property. If there is someone to point the finger to in his perspective it is the City of Chanhassen for not requiring a greater amount of trees to be preserved on a piece of property. He noted once those trees are gone they are gone forever and the nature of that neighborhood will be significantly changed. That said, Commissioner Schwartz is sure these Applicants will do the very best job to build on their property the nicest homes they can and make it a pleasant thing. 242 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 8 Commissioner Soller wants to talk about a main point in a letter received on September 16, 2022 speaking about the impact of the right-of-way on the potential future value of their properties, especially if taking the yellow route rather than the red route on screen. He noted it really does seem that they are cutting into that property’s future value in terms of the size of the lot between the right-of-way and the lake. He asked if the City gives consideration to potential negative impacts to that property owner. Chair von Oven said if he refers to the property just south of Fox Hill as “property 2” the dotted lines are considered a ghost plat, meaning that right-of-way never exists if the owner of property 2 never decides to subdivide their property. If and when the owner of property 2 decides to subdivide they come before this Commission in the same way that Fox Hill Drive is coming before them tonight and they will have a very similar discussion about where and how the right- of-way should go. Should they never decide to subdivide, this road never actually exists, therefore the effect on their property from a value standpoint is if and when they decide to sell it they are probably required to disclose the ghost plats. Ms. Al-Jaff replied typically if one can demonstrate these parcels have the potential for further subdivision that could be an added value. Mr. Bieker noted one opinion and stated the top of the subdivision shown on screen where the yellow is, they are building a dream house so there is plenty of room to the east to build a nice house. If it was red they are getting into the wetlands and by moving it to the east it is giving a bit more room if they did want to subdivide. Commissioner Noyes does not want to see big trees cut down, however in his role as a Planning Commissioner he does not get to make the judgment as to what is desirable or undesirable. He thinks big trees are more desirable but this plan is within what is allowed by City Ordinance. He appreciates what the neighbors want and has empathy for them, however when one buys a property like this they also get the right to develop it. This is one of the things that is great about the City of Chanhassen, they allow people to develop their properties. From what he has heard tonight the Applicants have a thoughtful plan and are trying to be good neighbors and take into account everyone’s input. The fact that there is a conservation easement shows that these trees are front of mind for the Applicants and that is a good thing. Is Commissioner Noyes impressed with 38%? No, but he has seen the property and understands the limitations. He thinks the whole road thing is ugly, it is a beautiful property and having the road go through is ugly but his opinion is that it is never going to go through because the owners of the other lots get to determine if the road ever goes through. If they do not like it, they say they will not subdivide, but if they decide to subdivide they will probably be happy that they can at least push towards having a road go through. Commissioner Noyes noted a comment from someone about one developer’s plan and the effect on the value of their property, he understands that but the reverse is also true. Their opinions are affecting the owners of another property here because they do not want the development and it is a two-way street. Commissioner Goff asked about the road and what happened in the Lotus Woods subdivision because it looks like they have a skirt and a stub. He asked if the water is underneath or not. 243 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 9 Mr. Henricksen replied the water main was extended to the property line. There is a temporary hydrant there. There is also sanitary sewer. Commissioner Goff noted the homeowner used that stub as their driveway. Mr. Henricksen replied in the affirmative, their driveway is accessed through there. In the Lotus Woods subdivision they showed a grading concept that ensured when the road went through they would have an adequate connection with their driveway. Commissioner Goff asked if, instead of putting the road in, could they just put a skirt and a stub on the Fox Hill subdivision. Mr. Henricksen replied they could construct a temporary intersection to indicate a future road connection. He noted the reason Lotus Woods did not extend the street was due to grades and the ability to extend the street and not encroach onto surrounding properties. Commissioner Goff agreed if those two homeowners never decide to subdivide this may never happen. He asked why they want a road to nowhere? It would be suggestion to just put a stub in and he is trying to see if they can minimize. Mr. Henricksen noted municipal services usually get extended. With streets there is a practice where if it is not reasonable to have the street stub extended to the property line it is escrowed similar to Lotus Woods. He defers to past comments and the staff report regarding impacts and complications. Chair von Oven asked if the property he previously referred to as “property 2” was before the Commission tonight, would the City be asking the property owner to build a small street that ends on both sides of the property? Mr. Henricksen would defer to fellow staff members but noted that could be deemed a premature subdivision because they would not have adequate access to the extension of the public street. Chair von Oven noted these two properties might run into barriers to subdivide because the outside properties had not subdivided yet and done the work they are trying to do tonight. Ms. Al-Jaff replied that is correct. Mr. Henricksen noted precedence was probably set with the Eidsness metes and bounds subdivision which then granted the easement and set in motion the idea of the planned development. Ms. Al-Jaff stated they extended utilities, as well. Commissioner Schwartz is curious about how the Fire Chief, Sherriff, and EMTs would weigh in on the value of this road from a health and safety perspective. He gets that the road is ugly and is a road to nowhere right now. His understanding is that neighborhoods need redundant access 244 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 10 because if access is limited to one way in and one way out, in the event of an unpredictable catastrophe, it seems that the City is being thoughtful and reasonable in wanting to ensure the health and safety of residents by requiring redundant access. He is struggling to understand why there is objection. Chair von Oven does not think anyone here is objecting to, if all four of these properties were to subdivide, that they need a road cutting through for the health and safety of everyone. They are discussing that while the City may require the right-of-way in this property, do they actually have to build the road because the road serves no purpose until it is connected. The road is valuable if and when it exists but it can only exist if all four properties subdivide, come before this committee, and go through the process. Commissioner Schwartz asked Mr. Henricksen if it is correct that the only way this road will be built is if the other two properties south of Fox Hill Drive decide to subdivide. Mr. Henricksen replied 99.9% yes. There is always the ability for the City, if a right-of-way is in need (he noted the City does not practice this), to have right-of-way grabs where they can take the right-of-way and construct the street if there is a need. However, that is not a practice in the City of Chanhassen and he cannot recall on a local street scenario where that has happened. To answer the question, yes, it would require the subdivision of those lots to the south. Commissioner Schwartz said assuming the road was built through the Fox Hill Drive subdivision and stopped that short road would not allow redundant access because it would not connect with Big Woods Boulevard. Mr. Henricksen replied in the affirmative, the intent is to connect Fox Hill Drive with Big Woods Boulevard. Commissioner Soller acknowledged that this is not extraordinary and he has seen a ton of developments but many times these happen in corn fields and other places. He wants to continue to acknowledge the unique and special characteristics of the neighborhood. That being said, breaking this down, the recommendation on screen is the approval of the plat to subdivide, the variance of the 50-foot public right-of-way, and noted there is nothing in the recommendation referring to the actual construction of the road. He asked if it is in the purview of Planning Commission to add language to recommend against the construction of a road until it can go all the way through. Commissioner Alto thinks it is and that is her problem with the road itself, it is a waste of time, money, and resources for something that could possibly not happen. Why would they build and let something decay that may never connect which the City would then have to pay to fix, to then connect. She also has an issue with collecting $45,000 from someone and letting it sit in a City account potentially forever. What happens to that money if people never decide to subdivide? Why is the City collecting that when it does not impact those houses at all and does not impact their safety? Yes, getting the easement from the property owners is a recommendation; they should get it and leave the trees there. Commissioner Alto does not agree with the collection of the money, although if that is the way the City does it, if it is in the City Code that is fine, and if 245 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 11 the Applicants just want to pay and be done to move on that is okay, also. That is her two-cents, she does not agree with either of those practices. Chair von Oven noted they can absolutely put language in the recommendation to the City Council who makes the final decision. He noted Commissioner Alto would just add that language to whatever she believes the right motion to be. When he read the packet and saw the number went from 35% to 38% he reflected on it and went through the notes, coming back to the realization that this committee, whether they were here or not the last time they adopted the City plan, is responsible as they are the ones that adopted it and said it is okay to go from whatever tree cover one is at down to completely nothing as long as they plant some. That said, he does not know that the Planning Commission has the right to tell a property owner that they do not like that number because built into the plan is a recourse for when they do not like that number. Chair von Oven is overly appreciative that they got to 38% and is sure it was no small feat. He likes 46% better and there is no route where he would say to forget about the right-of-way as it is not needed; however, the big question is: do they need to build it right now? He does not know what will happen at City Council and thinks the Planning Commission could come to an agreement such as securing the right-of-way but it does not need to be built, escrowing the money and there can be a special assessment in the future to pay for it, but he is very curious to see what City Council will do with it. He believes securing the right-of-way is the right plan but he does not think they must take that extra step now, and he thinks it is a nice way to exhibit that they do believe this is a different and exceptional place. It does not give them the right to take away rights from developers but it does give them the right to add language to say “can we treat this one a little bit differently.” He asked Ms. Aanenson if they can add language to the conditions of approval regarding the road. Ms. Aanenson replied in the affirmative. Chair von Oven clarified they can add language to the conditions of approval that get at the spirit of securing the right-of-way but not forcing the construction at this time. Commissioner Noyes would be much more comfortable with the Planning Commission making sure they have heavily noted their concern about building this road at this point in the process and making sure City Council is aware of that to take it under advisement that the Commission thinks it is a bad practice. He noted there may be other reasons why this may be considered and he does not think they should stop the project because of this road. He wants to save the trees and likes 46% also but does not feel he is in the position to write something that is technically accurate. He would rather make the City Council strongly aware of Commissioners’ position. Commissioner Alto agrees. She does not want it to go, and if the condition is not agreeable to City Council this comes to a stop. She noted if there is a way to not built right now or to evaluate the escrow portion as well, she would strongly advise City Council to reconsider the City building at this time. Ms. Aanenson suggested making the motion and then adding to that motion that the Planning Commission would like the City Council to consider Commissioner Noyes’ comments regarding the handling of the right-of-way. 246 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 12 Chair von Oven asked if that would be part of the motion or separately. Ms. Aanenson replied it would be after they make the motion, they would add that the Planning Commission would also like the City Council to consider the following. Commissioner Schwartz wants to be sure the language is accurate and appropriate and asked if the City Attorney or staff needs to look at this further to get the exact language down. Chair von Oven noted this is a recommendation and ratification of whatever language happens at the City Council level. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Soller seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.47 acres into four lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-way (ROW) as shown in plans, received September 1, 2022, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. The Planning Commission would like to note that they recommend City Council evaluate the requirement to build the stub/right-of-way at this time versus waiting until there is an actual need. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 2. 3609 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SHORELAND SETBACK AND OTHER VARIANCES Associate Planner Young-Walters gave the staff report on the item, noting the Applicant is requesting a 22.3-foot shoreland setback variance to accommodate the construction of a single family home. If decided by less than a 3/4 majority of the Planning Commission the item will go before the City Council on October 10; if decided by 3/4 majority or higher and not appealed it will be decided in four days at the close of the appeal window. Mr. Young-Walters noted it is a riparian property, located on a peninsula with lakeshore on two sides, these properties have a 20,000 minimum lot area, 10-foot sideyard setbacks, 75-foot shoreland setback, 25% maximum lot cover, structures are limited to a 35-foot maximum height and are permitted one water- oriented accessory structure (WOAS) which can be set as close as 10 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). This parcel is 16,501 square feet with 13.4% lot cover, a non-conforming 4.5-foot west sideyard setback, a non-conforming 65-foot south shoreland setback, a non- conforming 79-foot lot width, a private street bisects the property, and a portion of the northern lot is located within the floodplain. The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing home and build a new single-family home on the parcel, they will bring the non-conforming 4-foot sideyard setback into compliance, they feel the variance is similar to what has been previously granted in the area, and the building area is constrained by the two shoreland setbacks. Mr. Seidl noted findings that there is adequate room on the property to build a home that would meet all setback requirements. As such, Water Resources and Engineering cannot support the requested variance. He noted it would reduce the size of the home being proposed. He stated stormwater treatment in the area is deficient and there is a proposed project in the Capital Improvement Program that will invest public dollars into constructing public stormwater 247 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 13 infrastructure in this area to provide more treatment. If the variance were approved Mr. Seidl would ask that the Planning Commission look into creating the natural shoreline buffer areas which have many benefits including filtering pollutants from stormwater, creating wildlife habitat, and improving the aesthetics and value of the land and adjoining properties. The Applicant could dedicate a small portion of the property as drainage and utility easement where funding from the Capital Improvement Program could construct a proposed rain garden in the one area that would solve some of the issues brought up from the Applicant. Mr. Young-Walters noted staff agrees and appreciates removing the non-conforming sideyard setback, however he showed on screen there is a reasonable building pad clear of the shoreland setback. The Applicant is requesting a house that is about 80 feet from the furthest point of the screen porch to the furthest point of the deck. The City feels the private drive bisecting the property does force a southern shift which is unique and grants some variance from the shoreland setback but not to the 22.3 foot requested. Past practice has been to limit shoreland setbacks to extent of existing non-conformity, in this case a 10-foot setback variance. Staff concluded the extent of the variance request is primarily the result of the Applicant’s design choice. Staff’s recommendation is to deny the 22.3-foot variance and approve a 10-foot variance in keeping with the existing non-conformity. Commissioner Schwartz noted in the staff report it is indicated that this would set precedence so subsequent Applicants would also want the same amount. Mr. Young-Walters stated that is definitely one of staff’s concerns. In the staff report he went through all 21 variances that have been granted in the area and there are two where the City has allowed someone to go closer than the non-conforming setback. One was in the mid-1980’s and the house was not actually built that close to the lake, and the second was due to the very unique circumstances of a lot and the City Council decided to give them an additional 3 feet to have adequate off-street parking. In this case, while staff felt the private drive justified some variance, it did not justify the extent of the variance being requested. Brad Kerber has been working with the Applicant on this plan and they have redesigned multiple times to have courtesy toward the neighbors. He hopes the letter from the Sanders paints the picture of what they are hoping to do on the property and fit in with the neighborhood and respect their neighbors’ views. Commissioner Alto asked about the square footage of the home. Mr. Kerber replied the main level is 2,270 square feet with an upper level. Mr. Young-Walters calculated just under 5,000 square feet of living area. Mr. Kerber noted it would be a slab on grade with one level above. Chairman Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. 248 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 14 Gary Renneke, 3607 Red Cedar Point Road, lives next door and has enjoyed getting to know the Sanders. He asked to understand where things stand now and noted he does not think he has an objection to the current staff recommendation. He asked if they can show the property lines and proposed setback lines and asked if that would make everything line up or if someone will be sticking out in front of someone else. Chair von Oven clarified the recommendation from staff is that wherever the end of the Applicant’s deck ends right now is where the end of anything in the future would end regarding future development. The setback is the setback whether it is the house or deck, it would be exactly what it is today. Mr. Renneke stated that is a little more relief than he needs, he understands the City’s constraints on that, but if it went farther out than that the Rennekes would not scream bloody murder on it. Mr. Kerber showed an overhead view of the property on screen for Mr. Renneke and demonstrated the proposed home and covered deck. Mr. Renneke noted it looks like it extends further south than his house. Mr. Young-Walters noted if they want a covered deck he thinks that will need a lot cover variance and then they are talking about something quite different than staff is understanding. The survey does not include that deck area in the lot cover, in which case Mr. Young-Walters would recommend to table the item because it will change how staff looks at it. Chair von Oven asked Mr. Renneke about his thoughts about a covered deck versus an uncovered deck. Mr. Renneke replied if the deck is not covered he has no objection to it at all. If it is covered he wants to understand if he is looking to the southwest, is it now interfering with the view he has. He does not know whether he would object or approve until he knows what it actually is and where it would actually be. Chair von Oven noted the original application was 12 feet further than it is today. Jada Sanders, Applicant, showed a photo on screen with a line drawn from the decks of the two homes. She noted they are asking to build their deck to the same distance as the neighbors’ decks. They would still not come in front of the green line on screen and she noted the decks and Gary’s patio (which was inherited) are non-conforming setbacks. Commissioner Alto asked if the intention is to enclose it into a porch or have a deck. Ms. Sanders replied the intention is to have it open, to have a pergola over a dining table in the middle, and possibly have a roof over a future hot tub. Commissioner Alto asked Mr. Young-Walters if this needs to be tabled. 249 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 15 Mr. Young-Walters stated the Applicant has roughly 250 square feet to work with in lot cover. In theory doing quick math, could a roof go over the hot tub? Yes, and that would then cut off any future shed or anything else on the property. Ultimately, the Applicant can choose how to re- appropriate lot cover within the parcel. He has double-checked the math on the survey and is fairly confident roofs are not included in the deck portion. Commissioner Schwartz asked whether they should table until staff has an opportunity to review the plans. Commissioner Noyes thinks the Commission should discuss the variance before sending the Applicant off so if they have to alter plans they understand where the Commissioners sit. Mr. Renneke is not sure drawing the line from his deck is the right spot because he has corner windows on the house so sightlines there could be affected. Again, a basic deck he does not care about but if it has roof, walls, screens, it is all sight/view things he is concerned about. He commented about drainage issues in the area and would like to make sure whatever construction does not adversely affect the current stormwater runoff for his property which is not problematic right now. Chairman Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Noyes asked Mr. Young-Walters if the two neighboring properties are non- conforming today with the lakeside setbacks. Mr. Young-Walters noted the one to the east definitely is, he thinks the primary structure to the west meets the lakeshore setback but the deck and patio encroach into it. Commissioner Noyes asked if drawing those lines is a valid part of the construction. As it relates to the setbacks themselves the City is measuring it on the merits of the project rather than where non-conforming structures sit next to it. Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative and said staff’s perspective is the strictest interpretation of the Ordinance. To grant a variance they need to find a unique circumstance of the property in question that justifies the requested variance. That is where staff’s conclusion was that while neighbors got to go closer because they built before current rules were in place, when he looks at the Applicant’s parcel he believes it can be achieved with a smaller variance. Commissioner Noyes follows two tenets as a Commissioner: first, people have a right to develop their land in Chanhassen but there are rules around it. The second is that he is not a big fan of creating precedent, especially on lakeshore. He is very concerned and noted the most egregious variance in the area was three feet. This would basically change the Ordinance going forward; if they grant 22 feet that is then the standard. He understands this is a unique property which requires unique solutions but that solution may be a design change to make this better fit into the space. 250 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 16 Mr. Young-Walters said historically the City has given some large shoreland setback variances in this area. In his memory there are three times the City has granted a shoreland setback variance in excess of 20 feet. However, staff’s policy has always been that they will never recommend going closer to the lake than the existing non-conformity. What Commissioner Noyes was referencing was one where the City Council allowed it to go three feet closer than the existing non-conformity and he believes it was a 49-foot setback which is probably the largest granted because the road was built partially on their property which was the unique circumstance. Commissioner Soller asked if they grant a 10-foot variance the setback would be 65 feet and if they build the existing structure today what does that go out to. Mr. Young-Walters stated it would need a 10-foot variance. He clarified as a non-conforming use the Applicant has the right to bulldoze the house and build a new house in exactly that footprint without any variances. Commissioner Goff noted Commissioner Noyes’ comments were straight on and the City also grandfathers in if there is an existing structure, they give preference to that line and will hold that as a setback. Commissioner Schwartz stated setbacks and buffers are there for a reason unless there was a unique circumstance and there does not appear to be one in this case that cannot be solved by a redesign of the home. A member of the public asked if the houses on each side would redevelop, they would be grandfathered in and could build back to the patio area. Chair von Oven clarified the City, in recommending the granting of a variance, would regularly recommend holding the line where it exists today. If the homes went through a redevelopment they would still have to come before the Commission to request a variance, but staff would draw the line at the existing non-conformity but not go past it. Mr. Young-Walters clarified noting he does not believe it likely that staff would recommend the principal structure to cover the deck and patio area. Staff would say the principal structure can go to the edge of the existing principal structure, a new deck could go to the edge of the existing deck, and a new patio could go to the edge of the existing patio because under non-conforming law that is what they are allowed to do. They would not allow an intensification of that non- conformity within the shoreland, for instance converting the deck to living area. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 22.3-foot shoreland setback variance, and approves a 10-foot shoreland setback for the construction of a home and deck, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. 251 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Ordinance XXX: Amend City Code Chapter 1, General Provisions, and Chapter 20 Zoning, Concerning Short-Term Rentals File No.Item No: G.2 Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner Reviewed By Kate Aanenson SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council adopts an ordinance amending Chapter 1, General Provisions, and Chapter 20 Zoning, concerning short-term rentals and establishing licensing and regulations for operating short-term rentals; and approves the Summary Ordinance for Publication." Note: Passage of the Ordinance requires a simple majority vote, approval of the Summary Ordinance requires a 4/5 majority vote. Motion Type 4/5 Vote Strategic Priority Operational Excellence SUMMARY Short-term rentals are not currently addressed by the City Code; however, due to their potential to become nuisance properties, the City is considering adopting licensing and performance standards to mitigate their potential impacts on surrounding properties. BACKGROUND February 12, 2018, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work session, and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it Key Financial 252 Strategy for 2018. January 28, 2019, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work session, and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it Key Financial Strategy for 2019. July 25, 2022, due to an increased volume of complaints the City Council asked staff to prepare a briefing on short-term rentals. The City Council reviewed this briefing and directed staff to investigate possible approaches to regulating short-term rentals. August 8, 2022, staff presented information from Host Compliance, a service that helps municipalities monitor short-term rentals, and proposed several possible regulatory approaches. The City Council directed staff to draft an issue paper and ordinance amendment to establish a licensing system for short- term rentals. September 6, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this item. After hearing from various members of the public, the Planning Commission tabled the item and directed staff to revise the proposed ordinance to incorporate feedback form both the Planning Commission and public. September 20, 2022, the Planning Commission again took public comment on this item. After hearing from various members of the public, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of an amended version of the proposed short-term rental ordinance. The minutes from the September 6th and September 20th Planning Commission meetings are provided as attachments. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission held meetings on September 6th and September 20th to discuss short-term rentals and garner public feedback. During both meetings there was extensive discussion on how to balance the typical use of short-term rental properties (i.e. daytime base of operations for extended families) with their potential to impact neighboring properties (i.e. nighttime parties), and on providing regulations allowing the City to take action against nuisance properties while allowing responsible hosts to continue their operations. The Planning Commission expressed a preference for not reiterating regulations present in other parts of the City Code within the short-term rental ordinance and for not applying guest limits to the daytime use of short-term rentals. They also supported allowing staff to approve higher occupancy and parking limits for specific properties over a proposal to exempt certain zoning districts from the ordinance. Based on the direction staff received from the Planning Commission, the following changes have been made to the initially proposed Short-Term Rental Ordinance: 1. Clarify that accompanying children do not count towards the proposed occupancy limit. 2. Allow the City to approve higher occupancy limits based on home size, number of beds, and distance from neighboring properties. 3. Allow the City to approve higher parking limits based on presence of off-street parking pads, driveway length and width, and availability of street parking. 4. Clarify that City Staff only is requesting permission to access exterior areas of the property when responding to complaints. Remove limit on the number of daytime visitors. 5. Clarify hours for which overnight parking rules apply. 253 6. Remove provisions reiterating the nuisance ordinances noise regulations. 7. State that licensee can appeal staff's determination on occupancy/parking limits to City Council. In order to provide time for staff to conduct education campaigns, develop appropriate forms, and enter into an agreement with an external organization to help administer and enforce the proposed ordinance, the proposed ordinance would not go into effect until January 1, 2023. The original staff report is provided for reference. BUDGET The estimated cost of the contact with Host Compliance would be $3,100 per year. Staff believes a substantial portion of this cost can be offset by the annual licensing fee. For example, if a fee of $150 is established and 20* of the estimated 37 short-term rental properties apply for and receive licenses, $3,000 of license fees would be generated to offset the annual cost of administering the program. The exact fee will be established when the City Council adopts the 2023 fee schedule, and could be adjusted each year as desired to defray the City's expenses. *Staff believes that some of the identified properties are properties that were rented in the past but are no longer being rented. It is anticipated that these property owners will remove their properties from short-term rental sites rather than apply for a license they do not intend to use. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City define short-term rentals and adopt regulations requiring them to register with the City and abide by performance standards. The proposed ordinance is included as an attachment. ATTACHMENTS PC Staff Report Ordinance Summary of Ordinance - Short-Term Rental Good Neighbor Flyer (To Be Updated) Email from resident 1 Email from resident 2 Email from Resident 3 Email from Resident 4 Email from Resident 5 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 6, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes dated September 20, 2022 254 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner DATE: September 6, 2022 SUBJ: Short-term Rentals Issue: Short-term rentals are not currently addressed by the City Code, due to their potential to become nuisance properties the City is considering adopting licensing and performance standards to mitigate their potential impacts on surrounding properties. Summary: Short-term rentals provide property owners with an opportunity to use their home to generate supplemental income and can help make the City a desirable destination for tourists by supplementing the traditional hospitality industry; however, these properties can also become nuisances when they are used to host noisy gatherings and parties in residential neighborhoods. Recently the City has experienced an increase in complaints associated with short-term rentals and the City Council has directed staff to look into possible options for addressing residents’ concerns with these properties. There are three regulatory approaches that the City could adopt: 1) ban short-term rentals; 2) adopt additional general standards to regulate aspects of the short-term rentals not currently addressed by the nuisance ordinance; or, 3) require short-term rentals to be licensed. In the third approach, performance standards would be attached to the license and violations of these standards would result in the revocation of the short-term rental’s license. Staff believes that the first approach would unduly penalize responsible short-term rental owners and that the second approach would not be any more successful at addressing problematic short-term rentals than the current approach of using the nuisance ordinance to respond to reported violations. Staff is PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20, concerning short-term rentals.” 255 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 2 of 9 recommending the third approach because it will allow responsible short-term rentals to continue to operate in the city while providing additional tools to address problematic properties. Under the proposed license system, short term rentals would be defined as the rental of all or part of a residential property for a period of less than 30 days. Any short-term rental would be required to apply for and receive a license. Each short-term rental would be approved for a maximum number of overnight guests and overnight parking. Additional standards would reiterate the City’s most applicable nuisance provisions (i.e. noise and trash) and regulate parking and daytime visitors. Finally, owners would be required to display The Good Neighbor Brochure (attached) and to grant the City the right to enter the property in response to a complaint to determine if an ordinance violation had occurred. If a short-term rental accrued three violations in a year, the license would be revoked, and any individual violation would constitute a misdemeanor. Staff is proposing that the City contract with an outside organization to help identify short-term rental properties and operate a 24/7 reporting system. Staff believes that the proposed license system combined with additional monitoring and enforcement tools will help ensure that for the short-term rentals in the City operate with a minimal impact on surrounding properties Relevant City Code: Chapter 13 Nuisances, prohibits noisy gatherings, establishes quiet hours, prohibits accumulations of trash/junk, etc. Background: Timeline: February 12, 2018, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work session, and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it key financial strategy for 2018. January 28, 2019, the City Council reviewed the issue of short-term rentals during this work session, and due to the low number of units and low volume of complaints chose not to make it key financial strategy for 2019. July 25, 2022, due to an increased volume of complaints the City Council asked staff to prepare a briefing on short-term rentals. The City Council reviewed this briefing and directed staff to investigate possible approaches to regulating short-term rentals. August 8, 2022, staff presented information from Host Compliance, a service that helps municipalities monitor short-term rentals, and proposed several possible regulatory approaches. The City Council directed staff to draft an issue paper and ordinance amendment to establish a licensing system for short-term rentals. 256 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 3 of 9 Survey of Comparable Cities: As part of staff’s research on this issue a survey of comparable cities was conducted. The results of this survey are described below: Not Regulated Regulate Same as Long Term Rentals Specific Short-term Rental Regulations Prohibit Short-term Rental 5 5 1 3 The one city that had specific short-term rental regulations caped the number of days they could be rented at a maximum of 60 days per year, but had no other short-term rental specific standard. Cities that defined the term short-term rental did so based on the duration of the rental, using either 15, 30, or 60 days as the criteria. Cities with rental regulations or prohibitions indicated they used complaint based enforcement to ensure compliance with their short-term rental ordinances. Five cities charged license fees for rental properties, with fees ranging from 60 dollars to 205 dollars. Analysis: Issue 1: Overview Over the last decade, there has been a rapid growth in the short-term rental industry. Property owners can use websites like Airbnb to list either a room or entire property as available for rent. Some individuals use these sites to rent out a room once or twice a year, while others own numerous properties and make their living renting out these properties. Neighbors, especially 257 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 4 of 9 those living next to non-owner occupied rental properties, often feel that renters are less respectful of nuisance ordinances and neighborhood norms than fulltime residents are; however, property owners using their property for short-term rentals feel that these concerns are overstated, that they have a right to rent out their property, that short-term rentals make the community more desirable for tourists, and note that property owners sometimes rely on the supplemental income to help them maintain their homes. Based on data provided by Host Compliance, a service that helps cities identify and regulate short-term rentals, there are approximately 37 short-term rentals operating in Chanhassen. Staff believes that this number may include a number of properties that were listed once, but are not actively being rented. The available date shows that 85 percent of these rentals are single-family homes and in 95 percent of cases the entire home is being offered for rent. The average price is $468.00 per night. While not necessarily indicative of the number of short-term rentals in the City, there has been a recent increase in calls asking about the possibility of using for homes for short-term rentals. So far in 2022 staff has received 4 inquires, this compared to 3 inquiries between 2021 and August 2016 (no records are readily available prior to August 2016). Two of the inquiries received this year were from individuals looking to buy for sale homes for use as short-term rentals. As staff was not tracking this issue as closely in previous years, the available notes are not sufficiently detailed to determine if the inquiries made between 2021 and 2016 where from current or prospective property owners. Due to the fact the complaints are received by different departments (i.e. Community Development, Code Enforcement Specialist, and Carver County Sheriff’s Department) and that complaints may not specify if the property is a short-term rental or not, it is not possible to provide concrete numbers on the number of complaints involving short-term rentals that the City receives. Anecdotally, staff believes that while the overall number of complaints is still low in absolute terms, the number and severity of complaints has increased in the last couple years. Given the increased interest in short-terms rentals and the presence of several problematic properties in the City, staff is recommending that the City adopt a regulatory scheme to address these types of uses. Issue 2: Regulatory Approaches Ban The City could pass an ordinance banning short-term rentals. In this scenario staff would work to identify all short-term rentals in the City and require them to cease operating. Staff would likely need to utilize the court system to enforce the ban in cases where owners chose to continue operations despite the ban, and past experience with home occupations leads staff to believe that in these cases enforcement would be a resource intensive process. Since most short-term rentals have not generated any complaints, staff believes that a ban would address the issue of a small number of problematic properties by preventing everyone, including 258 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 5 of 9 responsible operators, from using their property in a manner that had previously been permitted. Given that there is a market for this service, that most short-term rentals are not causing issues, and considering the benefits that residents can accrue from using their properties as a short-term rental, staff is not recommending that the City ban short-term rentals. General Standards The second regulatory approach that the City could adopt would be passing an ordinance establishing performance standards for short-term rentals. Under this approach the City would adopt various rules governing noise, parking, and other elements of the short-term rental businesses and then enforce these rules when a complaint is received. This approach would be consistent with how the City addresses most other nuisances and how issues with short-term rentals are currently addressed. The difficulty with this approach is that the City’s general enforcement practices are designed to address violations that can be tied to a specific occupant or present owner. For example, if a resident violated the noise ordinance by hosting a noisy gathering, they could be given a citation. Since the person controlling the property is the person penalized, they have an incentive not to repeat the violation. In the case of a short-term rental, the citation given in response to the noise violation would be to the renters, and the operator of the short-term rental would not be penalized and would not have an incentive to prevent future violations. The other issue with this approach is that it is reactive. While staff can engage in educational activities, past experience shows that some residents will not be aware of the new rules until they receive a letter stating they have violated the rules. Often times by the time a neighbor reports a violation, they are already very frustrated by multiple infractions and want a quick resolution to the issue. When dealing with a short-term rental property where the operator may not reside in the community it can take staff a significant amount of time to get in touch with the owner and in some cases, such as the noise example above, the owner may have little incentive to substantively address the issue. For these reasons, staff does not believe that adopting general standards will effectively address the issues the City is facing with short-term rental properties. Especially considering that several of the most common complaints (noise and trash) are already addressed by the City’s existing ordinances. Licensure The final regulatory approach would be requiring a license for the operation of short-term rentals in the City. Under this system properties seeking to operate as short-term rentals would need to provide the City with the operator’s contact information as well as information to determine the property’s parking and occupancy limits. Staff is proposing an occupancy limit of two adults plus two adults per bedroom and a parking limit of two cars plus one car per garage stall. The City would establish rules for short-term rentals and a process for revoking the license of any short-term rental that violated the rules three times in a given year. Violation of the rules governing short-term rentals would also be a misdemeanor which would make it easier for the 259 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 6 of 9 City to take enforcement action against the property owner, rather than just the temporary occupant. A condition of the license would be that property owners grant the City permission to enter the yard/property when responding to a reported violation of the license in order to ascertain if the property is in fact in violation. The City would bar properties that had previously had a short-term rental license revoked from receiving a new license for stipulated period of time. Under this approach, the City would contract with an outside organization to identify short-term rentals operating in the City and would send these properties letters notifying them of the license requirement and associated standards. A license fee would be established defray the cost of this service and the staff time associated with processing and monitoring the licenses. Staff would use the provided contact information to notify owners of any violations and work with them to prevent future violations. When necessary, licenses could be revoked. While there is still the potential for enforcement issues for problematic properties that attempt to operate without a license, this approach provides the City with a more robust tool set for ensuring that short-term rentals do not negatively impact surrounding properties. It will also allow for responsible short-term rentals to continue to function with minimal changes to their operation. For these reasons staff is recommending that a license requirement be adopted. Issue 3: Performance Standards The most common complaints the City receives regarding short-term rentals are related to noise, trash, and parking. To address these issues the City will require that short-term rentals prominently display the City’s Good Neighbor Brochure which will make sure occupants are aware of the City’s nuisance ordinances. The license standards will prohibit noisy gatherings and require that occupants adhere to the City’s quiet hours. They will also restrict the number of daytime guests that the renters can have at the property between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. to four adults. Overnight parking will be limited to the maximum parking stipulated by the property’s license, and in no case will vehicles be allowed to obstruct emergency vehicle access or access to neighboring properties. Staff believes these provisions will help deter short-term rental operators from letting their properties be used as party houses. Staff is also proposing additional standards requiring the provision and proper storage of an adequate number of trash receptacles to help address complaints about excessive trash generated by some of these properties. Issue 4: Enforcement Staff is proposing to contract with an outside organization to identify short-term rentals operating in the community. Using this information staff would contact those properties and inform them of the licensing requirements and standards. If necessary, the City would utilize the court system to require properties refusing to get a license to cease operations. Staff is also proposing to contract with an outside organization for a 24/7 reporting system which will permit neighbors to report suspected violations. This hotline has the ability to reach out to property owners through their 24/7 telephone number to inform them of the violation and 260 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 7 of 9 encourage prompt resolution of the issues. As part of the service the reporting system allows the uploading of photos/videos which will help staff determine the extent of the violation. In the case of egregious violations or situations where the property owner failed to resolve the situation, the proposed ordinance makes the violation of its standards a misdemeanor. The City can use this language to pursue a variety of remedies. A final enforcement tool under the proposed ordinance is the ability to revoke a short-term rental’s license. If a property had three violations within a calendar year the ordinance would permit the City to revoke a short-term rental’s license. If a license is revoked the property would be ineligible to receive a license for a seven year period. Staff feels the use of a 24/7 reporting system, misdemeanors, and ability to revoke licenses will provide superior enforcement tools compared to what is currently available under the nuisance ordinance of the City Code. Alternatives: 1) Do nothing. The City would continue to respond to complaints against specific properties through its nuisance ordinance, but no specific provisions would address short-term rentals. 2) Define and ban short-term rentals. 3) Define short-term rentals, require them to register with the City, and adopt regulations governing them. 4) Define short-term rentals and adopt regulations governing them. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City define short-term rentals and adopt regulations requiring them to register with the city and abide by performance standards. The proposed ordinance would read as follows: Section 1-2 Rules of Construction and Definition Short-term Rental means the renting or offer to make available for compensation or consideration, of residential property, a dwelling unit, or a portion thereof, for a period of 30 days or less. Section 20-961 Short-term Rentals (a) Intent. The City recognizes that short-term rentals provide an opportunity for residents to use their property to generate supplemental income; and, when properly managed, short- term rentals have a minimal impact on surrounding properties. When not properly managed, short-term rentals have the capacity to generate noise, traffic, and trash beyond what is typically present in a residential neighborhood creating a nuisance. These issues can be especially acute when the owner of the property does not reside in the home. In order to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the 261 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 8 of 9 community, the City facilitates and regulates the use of residential properties for short- term rentals by: a. Requiring the licensure of short-term rentals. b. Establishing standards pertaining to noise, maximum occupancy, parking, and waste generation for short-term rentals. c. Establish procedures for revoking the licenses of short-term rentals violating the provisions of this section. (b) License Required. No property shall be used as a short-term rental without a license issued by the City. The procedure for receiving a license shall be as follows: a. Application for a license shall be made to the City upon a form furnished by the City. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established by the ordinance adopting fees shall be paid to the City when the application is filed. b. In order to be issued a license the applicant must: i. Provide the name and contact information, including a 24-hour telephone number, for the party responsible for managing the property. ii. State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental. The maximum occupancy shall be two adults plus an additional two adults per bedroom. iii. State the maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the property. The maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the property shall be two vehicles plus one for each garage stall. iv. Agree that City Staff has permission to access their yard/private property when responding to a reported violation of the standards in this section in order to ascertain if a violation has occurred. v. Not have any unresolved Code Enforcement or Property Maintenance cases. vi. Not have had a short-term rental license revoked by the City of Chanhassen within the last seven years. vii. If the owner of a short-term rental fails to apply for a license within thirty days of being notified of the need for a license by the City, they shall be ineligible for a license for a period of one year from the date of the notice. (c) Standards. The following standards apply to all short-term rentals: a. Guests shall not be permitted to participate in any party or other gathering of people giving rise to noise, unreasonably disturbing the peace, quiet, or repose of another person. The operation of any such set, instrument, machine, or other device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at the property line is prohibited. b. An appropriate number of waste containers must be present to accommodate the amount of trash generated by the short-term rental. Waste may not be stored outside of approved containers. All waste containers must be stored outside of public view, except on day of collection. 262 Short Term Rentals September 6, 2022 Page 9 of 9 c. Between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. no more than the maximum number of overnight guests stipulated in the license may be present on the property. At no time may more than four adults in addition to the number of overnight guests stipulated in the license be present on the property. d. Overnight parking is limited to the property’s garage stalls and a maximum of two vehicles parked in the driveway. At no time may vehicles be parked on grass or so as to obstruct access to neighboring residences, the public right-of-way, or emergency vehicle access. e. The Good Neighbor Brochure must be posted on the inside of the front door and the primary door to the backyard, or in a conspicuous location near each such door. (d) Violation constitutes a misdemeanor. Any person who violates a provision of this section, or any person who permits the violation of any of the provisions of this section upon any property they own or occupy, and any person who shall fail to comply with any order made under a provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (e) Revocation. a. If a short-term rental or its occupants violates any of the above standards or any other provision of the City’s Code the owner of the short-term rental shall receive a written notice of violation form the City, regardless of if a misdemeanor or citation is issued. b. If a property with a short-term rental receives three notices of violation within a 365 day period, its short-term rental license shall be revoked. c. A property owner may appeal the revocation of a short-term rental license using the process outlined in Section 20-29 of the City Code. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Good Neighbor Brochure 263 Page 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDIANS: Section 1.Section 1-2 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended to add the following definitions: Enterprise means any corporation, association, firm, partnership, limited liability partnership, or other legal entity. (20) Managing Agency or Rental Agent means a person, enterprise, or agency representing the owner of the short-term home rental unit. (20) Remuneration means compensation, money, or other consideration given in return for occupancy, possession, or use of real property. (20) Rent means the consideration or remuneration charged whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a short-term vacation unit, valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor, or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits, property, or services of any kind. Rent may include consideration or remuneration received pursuant to an option to purchase whereby a person is given the right to possess the property for a term of less than thirty (30) days. (20) Rental means an arrangement between a transient and a homeowner whereby rent is received in exchange for the right to possess a residential structure. (20) Short-term Rental means any residential property, a dwelling unit, or a portion thereof that is rented to a transient for less than thirty (30) consecutive days. (20) Transient means any person who, at their own expense or at the expense of another, exercises occupancy or possession, or is entitled to occupancy or possession, by reason of any rental agreement, concession, permit, right of access, option to purchase, license, time-sharing arrangement, or any other type of agreement for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. (20) Section 2. The Chanhassen City Code is amended to add Section 20-961 to read as follows: 264 Page 2 Section 20-961 Short-term Rentals (a)Intent. The City recognizes that short-term rentals provide an opportunity for residents to use their property to generate supplemental income; and, when properly managed, short-term rentals have a minimal impact on surrounding properties. When not properly managed, short-term rentals have the capacity to generate noise, traffic, and trash beyond what is typically present in a residential neighborhood creating a nuisance. These issues can be especially acute when the owner of the property does not reside in the home. In order to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community, the City facilitates and regulates the use of residential properties for short-term rentals by: 1. Requiring the licensure of short-term rentals. 2. Establishing standards pertaining to noise, maximum occupancy, parking, and waste generation for short-term rentals. 3. Establish procedures for revoking the licenses of short-term rentals violating the provisions of this section. (b)License Required.No property shall be used as a short-term rental without a license issued by the City. The license once issued shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance and must be renewed annually. The procedure for receiving a license shall be as follows: 1. Application for a license shall be made to the city upon a form furnished by the City. A nonrefundable fee in the amount established by the ordinance adopting fees shall be paid to the City when the application is filed. 2. In order to be issued a license the applicant must: i. Provide the name and contact information, including a 24-hour telephone number, for the party responsible for managing the property. ii. State the maximum occupancy of the short-term rental. 1. The maximum occupancy shall be two adults per bedroom plus an additional two adults. 2. Accompanying children shall not count towards the occupancy limit. 3. A property own my request a higher occupancy limit in writing at the time of the application. The City may approve or deny a higher occupancy limit after considering factors such as home size, number of beds, and distance from neighboring properties. iii. State the maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the property. The maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the property shall be two vehicles plus one for each available garage stall. 1. A property owner may request a higher overnight parking limit in writing at the time of the application. The City may approve or deny a higher parking limit after considering factors such as the presence of off street parking pads, driveway length and width, and availability of street parking. iv. Agree that the City has permission to access exterior areas of the property when responding to a reported violation of the standards in this section in order to ascertain if a violation has occurred. v. Not have any unresolved Code Enforcement or Property Maintenance cases. vi. Not have had a short-term rental license revoked by the City of Chanhassen within the last seven years. 265 Page 3 vii. If the owner of a short-term rental fails to apply for a license within thirty days of being notified of the need for a license by the City, they shall be ineligible for a license for a period of one year from the date of the notice. (c)Standards.The following standards apply to all short-term rentals: 1. Listings advertising the property’s availability for rent must state the license number, maximum occupancy permitted by the license, and the maximum number of vehicles that may be parked overnight on the property. 2. An appropriate number of waste containers must be present to accommodate the amount of trash generated by the short-term rental. Waste may not be stored outside of approved containers. All waste containers must be stored outside of public view, except on day of collection. 3. Between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. no more than the maximum number of overnight guests stipulated in the license may be present on the property. 4. Between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. parking is limited to the maximum number of vehicles stipulated in the license. At no time may vehicles be parked on grass or so as to obstruct access to neighboring residences, the public right-of-way, or emergency vehicle access. 5. The Good Neighbor Brochure provided by the City must be posted on the inside of the front door and the primary door to the backyard, or in a conspicuous location near each such door. 6. Property must have working smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in each bedroom or sleeping area and the owner must provide any transient renting the property with information regarding emergency egress. 7. Property must be in compliance with all state and local laws and regulations. (d)Violations 1. Unlawful Acts: It shall be unlawful for a person, firm or corporation to be in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of this Section or other provisions of this code. 2. Notice of Violation: The code official shall serve a notice of violation on the licensee. 3. Prosecution Of Violation: If the notice of violation is not complied with, the code official shall institute the appropriate proceeding at law or in equality to restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to require the termination of the unlawful occupancy of the structure in violation of the provisions of this chapter or of the order or direction made pursuant thereto. 4. Violation Penalties: Any person who shall violate a provision of this section, or fail to comply therewith, or with any of the requirements thereof is guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense. Licenses may be revoked or suspended for violations of this section. 5. Abatement of Violation: The imposition of the penalties herein prescribed shall not preclude the city attorney from instituting appropriate action to restrain, correct or abate a violation, or to prevent illegal occupancy of a building in violation of this section, structure or premises, or to stop an illegal act, conduct, business or utilization of the building, structure or premises. 6. Fees and Charges: The property owner of record shall be responsible for any city costs in enforcing the provisions of this chapter including inspection fees, or other fees, charges or penalties that are imposed as permitted by law. (e)Suspension and Revocation. 266 Page 4 1. In the event of any potential health or safety violations, the City Manager may suspend the license until the violation is corrected. 2. If a property with a short-term rental receives three notices of violation within a 365 day period, its short-term rental license shall be revoked. The license may be revoked after a single violation if the violation is not immediately corrected pursuant to a notice of violation. (f)Appeal. The licensee may appeal the occupancy limit, parking limit, denial, suspension, or revocation to the city council. The licensee must file with the city clerk a notice of appeal within ten days of an issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation. The council shall consider the appeal at a regularly or specially scheduled council meeting on or after 15 days from service of the notice of appeal upon the city clerk by the licensee. Hearing on the appeal shall be open to the public and the licensee shall have the right to appear and be represented by legal counsel and to offer evidence in behalf of licensure. At the conclusion of the hearing, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the council may order: 1. The denial, suspension, or revocation of the license. 2. The denial, suspension, or revocation by the city manager be lifted and the license be returned to the licensee. 3. Additional terms, conditions and stipulations to be imposed on the licensee to mitigate problems. 4. A higher occupancy or parking limit than approved by the City. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective January 1, 2023. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10h day of October, 2022 by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor (Summary Ordinance XXX published in the Chanhassen Villager on [Insert Date]) 267 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO.XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS, AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE The purpose of these Code amendments are as follows: Amend Section 1-2 of the City Code to include definitions related to short-term rentals, including the terms: enterprise, managing agency or rental agent, remuneration, rent, rental, short-term rental, and transient. Add Section 20-961 to include provisions requiring an annual license for short-term rentals, establish standards that the owners and renters of short-term rentals must abide by, provide an enforcement mechanism for the license requirement and associated standards for short-term rentals, and create appeals process for licensees. This ordinance shall go into effect on January 1, 2023. A printed copy of Ordinance No.XXX is available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk. PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION this 10th day of October, 2022, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen. (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on [insert date]) 268 CITY OF CHANHASSEN | QUESTIONS 952.227.1100 | WWW.CI.CHANHASSEN.MN.US | VIOLATIONS 952.227.1607 City Codes In order to keep Chanhassen neat and clean and a community in which we can all be proud of, we wish to make you aware of popular property violations. If you have questions, please feel free to call 952.227.1607 Animal Control Future animal control violations could result in being issued. If you have any questions or need assistance, please call a Community Service Officer at 952.227.1607 Storage of Recreation Vehicles Animal at Large Grass & Weeds Barking Dog Nuisance Animal Garbage & Refuse Waste Cleanup Snow Removal No more than 1 (one) recreational vehicle may be parked or stored in the side or rear yard behind the required setback on a surfaced or unsurfaced area. Additional recreational vehicles may be kept within an enclosed structure. Recreational vehicles must be maintained in a clean, well-kept, operable condition. Unmounted slide-in pickup campers must be stored not higher then 20 inches about ground and must be securely supported at least at 4 (four) corners by support mechanisms. Recreation vehicles may not be occupied or used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes for more than 7 (seven) consecutive days. No dog or cat shall be allowed by its owner to run at large. The police or animal control officers of the city shall take up and impound any dog or cat found at large in violation of this section. A dog or cat is con- sidered to be at large when it is off the premises of the owner and not under restraint. Any grass or weeds over the height of 12 inches on any occupied or unoccupied property is prohibited and must be cut.No person owning, operating, having charge of, or occupying any building or premise shall keep or allow to be kept one or more animals that unreasonably disturbs the comfort or repose of any person by its frequent or continued noise. (Commonly, any animal that noise can be heard from a location outside the building or property where the animal or animals being kept.) Chanhassen City Code prohibits accumulations of manure, rubbish, garbage, junk, debris, or other waste which are kept so as to result in offensive odors, or unsightly conditions to the discomfort or the annoyance of adjacent property owners or the public. The following items are examples of rubbish: cans, paper, cardboard bottles, wood (not firewood), appliances, furniture, tires, bricks, cement etc. or any household refuse or materials The owner or a person having control of a dog shall immediately remove any feces left by the dog not on property of the dog owner or the person in control of the dog. A person walking a dog off the owner’s property must have in their possession equipment for picking up and removing the feces. It is our pleasure to welcome you and hope you have a great time experiencing Chanhassen. Many visitors to our area choose to rent a home to fully enjoy their stay. Renting a home offers that “at home” feeling while giving you space to bring family and friends. It is the responsibility of the homeowners to remove all snow and ice from public sidewalks within 12 hours after the time of snow fall. It is our pleasure to welcome you and hope you have a great time experiencing Chanhassen. Many visitors to our area choose to rent a home to fully enjoy their stay. Renting a home offers that “at home” feeling while giving you space to bring family and friends. An added benefit for vacation home renters is the peace that permanent residents enjoy year-round. It is an extraordinary feeling to view the beauty of nature in a quiet and safe surroundings. We hope that you too will embrace this special sense of being close to nature and respect the quiet neighborhood with courtesy. Good Neighbor Policy FOR VACATION RENTALS IN CHANHASSEN Keep In Mind... Your permanent neighbors have a right to peace and repose and this must be respected at all times of the day but especially into the evening hours. For information regarding Chanhassen ordinance codes please go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/codes 269 From: Jessica Bliss <oehr0007@umn.edu> Sent: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:26 AM To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals Hi MacKenzie, I am hoping that me or my husband Mark can attend the meeting on Tuesday. If not, I thought that I should send an email with my thoughts on the proposed ordinance. I agree that short term rental properties should be required to be licensed, and if they have a certain amount of violations that their license be revoked. Given that we have had multiple issues over the last 8 months of living next door to a short term rental, and Airbnb still allowing the property owner to rent out their property (even after multiple complaints and parties - which violates Airbnb's own terms), we are hoping that this ordinance will ensure that our neighboring rental property will be more compliant in the future. I read over the ordinance, and I agree with the parking limitations - I do get concerned about the amount of cars during the daytime not having a numerical limitation, because in our experience, renters and party-goers seem to have their own interpretation as to what is occluding our driveway and not, they have even attempted to park in our private driveway on our property. But I think 2 in the driveway and 1 per garage stall is fair. I also didn't see anything listed in the ordinance about renters that are bringing pets - we have had dogs running loose on our property from their neighboring rental, and the dogs are relieving themselves in our yard, unattended and we get to clean it up. This is also a safety concern from the point of us having small children and having our own dog, I can't say I'm thrilled to have unfamiliar dogs running loose on our property. The Airbnb site for our listing next door does have rules for pets - but it doesn't seem to be helping the issue, so I'm hoping that this could be addressed in the ordinance. I also was hoping to see more about property maintenance - since we did 100% of the snow removal this past winter (the Airbnb property was purchased Jan 2022) on our shared driveway an the owner never offered to help, hire a service, or even a "thanks" for regularly clearing the long driveway for his renters. However, I realize most people living next to an Aribnb are not sharing a driveway. In our situation, the owner of the neighboring property is allowing the yard to turn completely to weeds, and trash cans are overflowing in public view - clearly it's not something they are concerned about, since the owner doesn't live at the property. Trash day seems to be getting missed by the renters and owner, and the overfilled trash cans are attracting various wildlife. The fact that nobody is continuously living in this property or monitoring it is affecting our neighbors - we are the ones that are having to call in reports when trash is blowing onto our property and into the road. I am very happy that the issue of parties is being addressed - since we have had party buses pulling into our driveway, and it is frustrating when they are arriving past midnight with large numbers of inebriated people, waking up our children and our dog. Airbnb seems to be doing nothing about this, even after our photos, videos, etc. we've submitted, because the rental property continues to allow this to happen. 270 Lastly, I want to thank you for your hard work addressing this issue - this has been extremely frustrating for our family and neighbors. especially since Airbnb continues to allow this property to list on their website and the issues keep recurring. We hope that this ordinance helps improve our neighborhood as well as other Chanhassen residents that are experiencing the same issues we are. Jessica Bliss 271 From: Dave Bloomquist <d.bloomquist@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 11:22 AM To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Proposed Ordinance Section 20-961 Short Term Rentals I thank you all for the opportunity to appear before you this evening regarding the proposed rules on short term rentals. I live in Chanhassen and I also have a short term rental house in Chanhassen on VRBO. My main issue is the one size fits all proposal for short term rental properties. When you do a search on VRBO for a Chanhassen location, we are number one on the search engine. We have over 100 five star reviews and have not had a single issue. We have many customers that immediately rebook for the next year upon their departure. I wanted to address several of the points of the section 20-961 proposal. Referencing section (b), license required. (b) License required b. In order to be issued a license i. Provide name and phone number, all my neighbors have my phone number, if they have issues they would contact me. iv. Agree that City Staff has permission to access the yard/private property at any time This is a clear violation of my 4th amendment rights. (c) Standards a. Noise related to disturbing the peace As I was talking with Dan Campion previously, I was looking out at my back yard and looking at the distances of the houses, and the ambient noises, and I could see if a homeowner was not selective in whom he rented to, had sensitive neighbors and disrespectful renters, noise could be a problem. We’ve lived in Chanhassen for 31 years on a typical Chanhassen lot and never had a noise issue with any of our neighbors. However, a cookie cutter statute is not appropriate. Noisy groups would be a real issue for apartments and condos. 272 My rental property is four acres, which is 14 times the size of a normal Chanhassen lot, which is less than 1/3 acre lot. The nearest distances of neighbors: To the north, 232 feet. My nearest neighbor behind which is up the hill and through the woods, is 314 feet, the nearest neighbor to the south is 444 feet, the nearest neighbor to the east is 1,637 feet. My neighbor to the south was mowing his lawn earlier this week and he has an old, inexpensive, noisy riding lawn mower. So I walked down there and did some decible readings and at 50 feet he was producing more than 80 db. So when I went back to my house 275 feet away, the decibel was down to 65, which is equivalent to the cars on Powers Boulevard. If a loud outdoor party was producing 70 db, by the time it reached any of the neighbors it would be 1/16th as loud or equivalent to a whisper or rustling leaves. Here are some comparibles Loud restaurant 70 db The TV with a soundbar turned all the way up, can get to 65 db Normal group conversation 60 db, which, comparing it to the loud restaurant, is half as loud. A refrigerator is 50 db A whisper or soft music is 30 db What I found was an online calculator to input a know decibel reading and a known distance, but not taking into consideration the forest or other obstructions. And, the neighbor to the south, if the sound from my house or anywhere around it was 65 db, by the time it got to him would be 27 db, which is equivalent to the sound of a whisper or rustling leaves. Keep in mind that the road noise from Powers Blvd. continuously exceeds those numbers. I even did the same calculations at 70 db, which is a “loud bar” and 3x louder than a jet, and 3x louder than Powers Blvd, at 240 feet it still was only 38 db. Renters have held family events at the base of our hill, and the neighbor on the south told me that he couldn’t even hear them. 273 b. waste containers I have three trash cans and two recycle bins and they are checked bi-weekly or before any wind event. I have too large an area to clean up after, and I don’t want the mess. My driveway, at that point, is 330 feet from the road, so the cans cannot be seen. c. At no time may more than 4 adults in addition to the number of overnight guests stipulated in the license be present on the property. I have four acres, 200,000 square feet, 14 times the normal city lot. My wife has 28 people in her family, with grandparents, brothers and sister, grandkids and great grandkids, on holidays we would have to do three shifts to meet this rule. The majority of our clients are coming back to visit family and friends, wedding parties, family gatherings for holidays, etc. Our overnight guest limit is 10 people and we pre screen our guests for gatherings and set an appropriate limit based on the size of the house, the maturity or age of the renters, and the season. This lot is 14 times the size of a normal city lot. Based on the proposed density, That would mean that the entire property could have only 1 person per city lot. Only 14 people for a four acre lot. d. overnight parking To give you an idea, my driveway is 295 feet long. The parking area up on top is 48 x 45’ plus an additional 22 x 14. To give you perspective, I can take my full size SUV with a long trailer, go all the way up the driveway, do an 180 degree turn without backing up and go all the way back down the driveway without touching a blade of grass. I can easily park 12 cars there. And now I’m going to be limited to 2 plus the garage stalls. Also part of 2. d. at no time vehicles parking on the grass Due to the size of my driveway, no one has any need to park anywhere on any other property or public right of way. I was thinking about how to rectify this licensing issue by how to deal with the problem homeowners. Doing research, it was surprisingly difficult to find information on short term rentals but I came up with something that was interesting from St. Louis Park. Apparently in those tiny houses with the tiny 274 yards in St. Louis Park, they want to put a tiny house in the back yard, so they have regulations, but its based on how the property is zoned. Restrictions apply to properties R1, R2, R3 and R4. My property is zoned Ag 2. If you look to see what the zoning commonalities are with the problem properties, then apply the rules to those zones. For example, it is reasonable not to allow 14 people in an apartment. It’s reasonable to limit parking when they are not parked on the hard surface on the property. There needs to be different requirements for properties in different zoning, that recognize the different needs for condos, city lot home rentals and large acreage lot rentals (Ag 2 zoned). Thank you for your time. 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 1 Young-Walters, MacKenzie From:Brad Bladine <bbladine@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:40 PM To:Young-Walters, MacKenzie Subject:Short term rental policy feedback Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hello MacKenzie, I would recommend that the applicable term for the proposed short-term rental policy be 27 days or less. The argument for this would be that in MN if an annual lease is not renewed it may revert to a month-to-month lease. This means that any long term rental that reverts to the month-to-month would need to apply for a short- term license for just the month of February, each year. Regards, Brad Bladine 612-655-7125 282 From: Dave Bloomquist <d.bloomquist@outlook.com> On Behalf Of Dave Bloomquist Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 12:39 PM To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Planning Meeting Presentation--Including property photos attached MacKenzie, Please forward this to the City Planning Commission members as soon as possible. Thank you. I thank you again for the opportunity to be heard regarding the short term rental issue in Chanhassen. I would like to discuss a few issues with the latest proposal. Under section 20-961 (b) 1. Non refundable amount, the amount is not mentioned for the application or the amount of the licensing fee. (b) 2. iii Maximum number of overnight vehicles, 2 vehicles plus one for each available garage stall. The city may approve or deny a higher parking limit. I think that these rules need to be better explained. It has by my experience that the City employees have made personal decisions on how rules will be enforced, rather than following the code. As explained before, Sharmeen did nor allow me to file for a 1 foot variance on the back corner of my home garage, because they didn’t want to set a precedence. She said “You should have purchased a different house.” As a result, I have a garage that tapers by one foot. When we originally purchased this property we use for short term rental, we had to make a decision to put in a new mound septic system or connect to city sewer. We opted to go city sewer, because it was permanent, got the approval for the plans, and as they were finishing, Paul Oehme, City Engineer came out and made the decision that because sometime in the future the property could be developed, that they wanted a manhole and two street boxes put in and repair the asphalt that had to be excavated to do that, which cost me an additional $7,590 plus tax, which was completely unexpected. Paul Oehme refused to pay any portion of the increase in price of the sewer and water to connect to their service, even though it is the city’s property. After I paid for this manhole, and it is well up on my property, even though the city claims it to be their property. I worked with City Council member Vicki Ernst and County Commissioner Gayle Degler and Paul Oehme refused to move. Vicky sent a letter to Paul Oehme and Todd Gerhardt and Gerhardt stood by Oehme. In my letter to Vicki Ernst, I pointed out that the change of directions after the purchase and the seemingly arbitrary decision of who pays, makes it appear that there was a lack of consistency and a lack of forethought when the line was originally installed, and then I had to pay for it myself. To this day, 14 years later, the area has still not been developed. After the connection I noticed that my sewer only fees were substantially higher than my sewer and water bill combined at my primary residence. Working through the billing dept. I was basically told that Greg Sticha is difficult to work with and won’t bill it at the minimum. I explained that I am the only 283 person on that lift station so they know exactly how much water I am using. With this issue, I was finally able to get the billing changed after Greg Sticha left, because the billing department admitted it was wrong to be billing a house that was unoccupied half of the time at twice the rate. For occasional water testing, I used to work with Craig Carlson at the water treatment plan and he offered to run some simple tests, just to make sure the water is safe and what the hardness was. When Craig retired and Mike Wegner took over for Craig, I spoke with Mike earlier this year to get the water tested. He said you are not on city water, so I’m not going to test it. I said I am on city water at my house. He said, “we will test it just this one time.” So Craig Carlson had said any time, and I had been doing it every few years. The new guy came in and he said basically no. When I got the test results the person he handed the test off to said, “No problem, any time.” The reason I brought it to the city of Chanhassen is because the water has to be tested in four hours or the results will change, and the nearest testing facility is New Ulm. I do it to confirm my self test results and that my water is safe. I have all the emails backing up this information. While I am sitting before the current City planning commission right now, the members here will change in 2023, as well as the city council members, and the rules will be again subject to different interpretation. When I bought the property, I found out that I have two acres of buckthorn which Minnesota has listed as a non-native invasive and needs to be destroyed. It cannot be transported, and the seeds remain viable for seven years. I worked with Mark Litfen, former fire chief, and he would come out and see the piles (which were huge) and give the green light to burn it, always in the dead of winter when no one is outside and there is snow on the ground. He said just left me know and Carver County know. I had multiple piles, the trees cannot be composted, so the only option is to destroy them on site. The piles were always in clearings but I wasn’t moving them far and they were big piles. I estimate that I got rid of a million buckthorn. Jill Sinclair was a great help on how to make the removal happen. They have to be individually cut and the stump killed. It was a multi-year process. When Don Nutter stepped in as fire chief, he said “I’m not Mark Litfin” I’ll let you do this one time, it has to all be moved out into the open and in the future we won’t allow it because we moved the area where you can do a burn to the intersection to the south of you. They moved previous boundary where burning was allowed 1250 feet, or ¼ mile from my property. Now, I and the two neighbors have huge brush piles, which in and of itself is a huge fire hazard, for which this city offers no remedy. So forgive me about the skepticism about the loose interpretations on city rules. 20-961 (b) 2 iv If a Short term rental permits dogs, must be enclosed buy suitable fencing How do I explain this to guests, yes you can see this great big yard that it is bigger than a baseball field, but your dog cannot play in it. But I have to buy a dog kennel for the dog to walk around in. (See attached photo.) (c) Standards 284 2. Guests shall not be permitted to participate in any party or gathering that gives rise to noise between 10:00 pm and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at the property line is prohibited I have already established that the noise of a loud restaurant at my house would be the equivalent of wind in the trees or a whisper by the time it reaches a neighbor, yet Powers Blvd is still 65 dB. This can again be subject to arbitrary interpretation. What limit are you setting, would these noise limits be similar or below Powers boulevard noise which is regularly 65 dB? We can easily tell our guests the city doesn’t allow loud outside music. So it is my understanding that a city employee would have to stand just off the property to determine if the noise is offensive, but somehow compensating for the noise on Powers Blvd and Highway 212. 4. Maximum number of guests stipulated by the license, any visitors must go home by 10:00. I understand on a small lot this is needed, but on my property it is inappropriate. 5. Maximum number of vehicles on the property, two plus the number of garage stalls. Again, as we’ve discussed, I can park 12 on my parking pad alone. 6. Pets kept on a leash. We already tell them that, but keep in mind people like to play with their pets. Keep in mind it is a very long way to the neighbors and to the road. 7. Good neighbor brochure. The city wants it taped to the doors. We can easily put it inside or welcome book with the rules of the house. To tape it to the doors is tacky. 8. Owner must provide any renters information on emergency egress, seems fairly obvious and doesn’t need mention. What would you like mentioned? If you can’t get out the door, jump out any window? We do tell them there are fire extinguishers on each floor. (f). Appeal As I mentioned before, with the changing of the guard, both with City Planners and City Council by 2023, they retain the right to arbitrarily deny any variance from this document, including dogs on a leash, parking, etc. As I am applying for a license again in 2023, I am back to fighting all over again for the ability to continue renting the house. And since it is an annual license, I again have to apply for exceptions in 2024. I feel the pain for the neighbors that are dealing with the bad property managers, but their has to be common sense applied to these restrictions. Keep in mind with all these new restrictions, the bad actors aren’t going to change and the people that are being good renters are being punished. You have got to have a way of granting exceptions where it is not appropriate. Thank you. Dave Bloomquist 612-716-8167 285 286 287 288 289 From: Jessica Bliss <oehr0007@umn.edu> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 1:34 PM To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals Hi MacKenzie, I'm guessing you will be at the meeting this Tuesday, and my husband should be there. I just want you to consider limiting cars during the daytime (not just nighttime), since we continue to have bachelorette parties next door, and this weekend it affected our ability to get in/out of the driveway again. Once again, we contacted Airbnb, let them know they were having a party (which is banned by Airbnb!) and the number of cars in their driveway exceeded the 6 allowed per their Airbnb policy. This happens over and over again, and Airbnb is not halting their ability to rent the property out. Here are some photos from the weekend, proving that bachelorette parties are happening and a large amount of cars are being parked. Thank you for your time and help. Jess 290 291 292 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chair von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Commissioner Noyes, Mark Chair von Oven, Erik Commissioner Johnson, Perry Commissioner Schwartz, and Kelsey Commissioner Alto. MEMBERS ABSENT: Ryan Soller and Edward Goff. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young- Walters, Associate Planner. PUBLIC PRESENT: George Bizek 8750 Powers Boulevard Mark Bliss 7333 Hazeltine Boulevard Dave Bloomquist 8800 Powers Boulevard Brad Bladine 6791 Briarwood Court Bruce Geske 7325 Hazeltine Boulevard Don Giacchetti 6679 Lakeway Drive Chris Mozina 6670 Pointe Lake Lucy Drive PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. SHORT TERM RENTAL CODE AMENDMENT Associate Planner Young-Walters gave a presentation on the item and shared background information noting over the past year the City has seen an uptick in complaints about short-term rental properties. City Council directed staff to look into the issue with intent towards acting and coming up with a system. The most common concern is the properties being used as party houses and causing parking and noise issues for surrounding neighborhoods. The existing Ordinance is not well-suited to dealing with these issues. Staff proposes defining short-term rentals as rental of a property for a period of less than thirty days, requiring the properties have a license which establishes maximum occupancy, parking, and to provide the City with a 24/7 contact number to reach out in the event of complaints or problems, placing standards on the license reflecting the nuisance Ordinance, occupancy, and parking limits, and establishing an enforcement procedure for violations of the annual license. Commissioner Alto asked how they will know if it is a short-term rental, other than the Applicant coming forward to apply for the license. Mr. Young-Walters shared staff met with an external vendor who has a proprietary AI that surfs 40-50 sites for short-term rentals. The AI determines which are located within the community 293 Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022 2 and found a list of 37 short-term rentals that are currently active in the City of Chanhassen. They would run regular checks, notify the City, and then staff would notify people regarding the rental regulations and requirements. Commissioner Schwartz noted in the memorandum it said that short-term rentals have the potential to become nuisance properties and adopting these standards will mitigate the potential impacts and operate with a minimal impact on surrounding properties. He asked if it is reasonable to ask surrounding owners to accept minimal impact. Mr. Young-Walters noted minimal is a subjective standard and they must balance the property owner’s right to use their property with the impact on neighbors. He shared about potential impacts and responses including parking on a public street versus consistently parking in front of someone’s driveway, having loud parties, or having trash all over. A property that had a few extra cars a few times a year would be a slight impact and would be the minimal threshold which they believe is a fair balance. He spoke about one instance within the City which is a shared private drive and is challenging for municipal enforcement as the City does not own that right- of-way which is governed by private agreements between neighbors. While the Ordinance would allow the City to address many behaviors of a short-term rental there may be issues outside the purview of municipal jurisdiction. Chair von Oven asked when an owner resides in the short-term rental residence, are they subject to the maximum occupancy rules. Mr. Young-Walters replied in the negative. The company they have contracted with on the enforcement has a 24-hour complaint line; for example, on Thanksgiving Day it would go to the 24/7 contact (presumably the homeowner) and they could reply that it is the large extended family present and is not being used as a rental. The City would log it and note it is not a violation and no action would be taken by the City. Chair von Oven asked if violations “double up” on misdemeanors so if there truly is an infraction the short-term renter and the owner could face a misdemeanor. Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative. In theory the renter could be prosecuted for violating the City’s noise Ordinance and the City could go after the property owner for allowing that violation to happen. The idea was to create a mechanism to put pressure on some of the less responsible owners to take more ownership of their properties. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the renter is from out of state and how that would affect the violation process and prosecution. Mr. Young-Walters replied the renter would either get a citation the day-of from the Carver County Sheriff (in an extreme situation) or they will be out of town. The problem is less with one-off renters than with properties that have a series of one-off renters that violate community norms. That is why the City wanted to shift enforcement toward the property owner rather than the renters. 294 Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022 3 Commissioner Noyes noted one licensing requirement is to grant the City ability to enter the property which is a vague term to him. He asked if that is to access the lot, enter the home, facilities, or building. He stated it seems the City would need that fully defined. Mr. Young-Walters spoke about the exact language stating yard/private property and the intention was external rather than internal on the property. The provision exists in the City’s stable Ordinance and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) standards. The City Attorney reviewed the draft Ordinance and did not raise a flag on that issue. If the Commission would feel more comfortable having that defined as exterior only, they can certainly recommend that. He stated the standards say that a “good neighbor brochure” must be present which outlines City Ordinances and they could make it clear that if one generates a noise complaint staff has the right to inspect the property in response to that complaint. Commissioner Noyes thinks the mention of adults-only in the definition of occupancy rates is a little too strict. He does not want someone to say the City is not allowing them to rent to families. He asked whether they need to change the language “adults” to “person” or “people.” Commissioner Noyes spoke about size of property or type of property and that some may apply to this and others may not. Chair von Oven asked whether the City has ever issued licensing and a process for exemption. Community Development Director Aanenson replied the City has very few licensing requirements. The City is trying to capture something that is equitable. Mr. Young-Walters stated if one is running an operation that is not bothering neighbors or creating an issue, he does not feel these standards would be super onerous as one would be asked to apply for a license annually. If there was something that absolutely could not work for the way one has historically run their operation, they could go through the variance process. He would prefer that than trying to hard-bake an exemption clause. Commissioner Schwartz asked if trash and noise is part of the complaint, why would the City need access to the property as they could stand on the street and hear the noise. Mr. Young-Walters replied in the case of a loud and energetic pool party behind a six-foot privacy fence, and perhaps they had more than 25 people, if the City has access to the property they would know whether one knowingly broke the licensing restriction of 10 people. Commissioner Alto asked if the Sheriff is considered City Staff. Mr. Young-Walters replied in this context, yes. Chairman Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. George Bizek 8750 Powers Boulevard, lives next to Mr. Bloomquist’s short-term rental and noted he has never had any issues. Being on such a large lot, Mr. Bloomquist keeps the property 295 Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022 4 spotless and must be very good at screening renters as Mr. Bizek has never had an issue and does not have trouble with the rentals next door. Mark Bliss, 7333 Hazeltine Boulevard, noted he and his wife Jessica have two daughters aged 4 and 6 and a German shepherd. They moved to Chanhassen for the small community feel, great schools, quiet neighborhoods, and access to parks and trails. Their home shares a driveway with 7331 Hazeltine Boulevard which is four 1-acre lots. In January of this year the neighbor sold and the property became an AirBNB rental. Mr. Bliss stated living next to an AirBnB can be interesting and unfortunately in his case has been more negative than positive; the property owner lives in Florida, the property manager is in California, and he has observed a steady list of renters nearly every night for the last two months including wedding families, bachelorette parties, German businessmen, tourists, college meet-up groups, and some nice, quiet families. Mr. Bliss stated he has seen intoxicated fights break out in the backyard, trash blowing against his fence, burning of Styrofoam in the fire pit, and nine cars in his driveway. He noted they share the driveway and these cars blocked their exit. He shared about party buses pulling into the driveway at 2:00 a.m., renters parked in the driveway, cleaning crews waiting in the driveway, trash left on the street for days on end, and cans overflowing because the property manager depends on its renters to take out the trash and many forget. Mr. Bliss agrees a proposed Ordinance is needed and he is happy about that, however the current proposal addresses most concerns except three. First daytime parking, as currently written the neighbors can have two cars in the garage and two cars in the driveway at night. During the day there are not defined limits of additional cars and the Bliss family would like it limited to four cars. He said at one time there were nine cars and his wife who is a nurse could not get to work. The family called the Sheriff, however the Sheriff does not have jurisdiction to enter the shared driveway because it is private. Mr. Bliss noted there is also nothing in the Ordinance about off-leash animals and pets or defecation standards and he thinks all pets should be on-leash or within a fenced-in area. He noted he has a very friendly German shepherd but dogs have wandered into his backyard. Mr. Bliss spoke about general property upkeep such as snow removal noting the neighbor did not plow from January to March and he spoke about lawn standards which often goes two weeks without mowing. In his experience, the rental owners are trying to make a quick buck and do everything possible to limit their expenses. Right now the yard is dead and Mr. Bliss asked for some lawn standard rules or text. He also spoke about general property maintenance including asphalt, dead trees, and branches. Mr. Bliss asked whether the Sheriff will have jurisdiction to enter the property and/or will a Community Service Officer (CSO) have that jurisdiction. Chair von Oven asked if Mr. Bliss has any legal documentation that helps govern the shared driveway. Mr. Bliss replied when they built the house it was three lots that were subdivided which was approved by the City Council with one common driveway and four split-offs. He noted there is nothing written as to what it is although there is a survey. There is no agreement as it was kind of handshake and now it is a free-for-all. He spoke about instances with nine cars parked on the side and his family cannot get out. What if something was wrong, his wife could not get to work and what if she is on-call? If things go wrong and they call the Sheriff, they cannot fix it and he asked what they do when a party bus comes on the property? He said at 2:00 a.m. when the dog and kids are awakened it is a pain. 296 Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022 5 Chair von Oven thinks if this were to pass the answer to the question would be yes, the Sheriff and CSO would be able to enter the property. Mr. Bliss noted they live on the walking path with hundreds of people walking by. Many people coming in to the rental property cruise in very fast and he noted there could be an accident with someone getting hurt. There is nothing posted about slowing down or a stop sign at his address. The previous weekend there was a head-on collision and he stated people drive very fast. Mr. Young-Walters recommended bringing that up to the Traffic Safety Committee who will then investigate and take appropriate action. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the noise and nuisance Ordinance would apply to Mr. Bliss’ concern regarding dogs. Mr. Young-Walters replied, the property maintenance and general nuisance Ordinance apply to all properties in the City. For efficiencies sake he chose not to fully reiterate every provision of the nuisance Ordinance within the short-term rental. However, if a dog was running loose that generated a complaint that would be a violation of the standard of license and would be grounds for the City taking action against the short-term rental as it is currently written. The pet waste issue may be nebulous because it is on private property, but he would have to read through it to be sure. Dave Bloomquist, 8800 Powers Boulevard, noted when one searches on VRBO in Chanhassen his property is the top search and he has over one hundred 5-star reviews and not a single issue. Many customers immediately rebook as soon as they leave. He spoke about the proposal regarding providing a name and number to all neighbors and noted his closest neighbor and the only one within 300 feet is George Bizek. Regarding City staff having access, he sees the house being private property and is a fourth amendment issue. Related to noise and disturbing the peace, Mr. Bloomquist was speaking with Dan Campion earlier in his backyard with kids playing on a trampoline and he could see on a normal City lot (under 1/3 acre), if someone is sensitive or it is late at night they may be annoyed. Mr. Bloomquist thinks the cookie-cutter Statute is not appropriate and noted his neighbors are hundreds of feet away with the house in the middle of the property. He spoke about decibel ratings and shared about family events at the base of the hill even closer to the neighbor to the south who shared they never heard anything. He spoke about trash cans and recycle bins noting he checks it bi-weekly or whenever they drive by it. He spoke about the stipulation limiting guests and noted he has 4 acres, 200,000 square feet (14 times the size of a City lot) and if his wife’s family gathered for a holiday that is 28 people and they would have to take three shifts. Many families want to get together like that on the property at Christmas or New Year which are always booked. He noted it does not seem appropriate as he could subdivide the property into eight lots. Regarding overnight parking, his driveway is 295 feet long with a parking area of 45x48 and it will easily hold 12 cars but he would be limited to two plus two. In finding ways to rectify the licensing issue and deal with problem home owners, in St. Louis Park they had a resolution based on how a property is zoned. Mr. Bloomquist noted his property is zoned agriculture and he thinks the City should be looking at zoning commonalities with offenders and go after them that way. It is not reasonable to limit the parking 297 Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022 6 on his property because they are 300 feet off the road and he thinks there need to be different requirements based on zoning to recognize the differences. Commissioner Noyes asked if the proposed Ordinance was passed and Mr. Bloomquist had the ability to come before the City and ask for a variance such as parking, amount of guests, etcetera, would that meet the need? Mr. Bloomquist replied that puts him in another meeting before the Commission in hopes of convincing them that he is not a problem. He shared they pre-screen their renters and his wife goes with chocolate chip cookies to meet everyone, shares how the house works, and gives them the rules and where the book is which covers all the rules (a welcome packet). Regarding a variance it is a risk; if it was based on how it is zoned, then it becomes clear who the troublemakers are. Commissioner Schwartz commended Mr. Bloomquist for being a model short-term rental owner. He noted it seems that is unusual if not unique, given what staff has said about a wide range of properties in the City including the Bliss family at the opposite spectrum. It would appear to be very difficult to write an Ordinance that covers each and every instance which is why the Commission thinks a variance may be the answer and he cannot imagine why there would be any issue with Mr. Bloomquist receiving said variance. Mr. Bloomquist replied a long time ago they put a third stall on their existing home and had dealings with Sharmeen whose reply was that it is 100 feet to the next door neighbor and they should have bought a different house. He is obviously hesitant on that route, but noted he received the third stall because he worked with the City Engineer who saw that it would not be a problem and shared ideas on how to fix it. Mr. Bloomquist noted one individual kind of soured the batch. He noted the starting age for renting the property is age 30+ and the Bloomquists find out the reason they are coming to the property. Bruce Geske, 7325 Hazeltine, is a neighbor of Mark Bliss and has lived at the residence since 1984 and was part of the planning on the trail system that went through. His concern is not as much with the house although he has heard the noise and complaints but his concern is that someone is going to get killed, the City will be held liable, and he fears he will also be held liable as he allowed the City to have an easement to put the trail across his property. This weekend he witnessed a renter come in too fast who then got out of the car and swore at the family that was walking. Mr. Geske warned the City that if they do not do anything and do not take heed to this matter someone will get hit and killed and there will be multiple lawsuits. Mr. Young-Walters noted staff will relay these concerns to the Traffic Safety Committee who will be looking into the situation. Brad Bladine, 6791 Briarwood Court, shared that most of his concerns have been talked through already. One of his concerns is around the day occupancy limit noting his extended family does not fit Chanhassen’s small family ratio so when they get together for holidays, funerals, or weddings they have a very large gathering. He noted his seven siblings and their families could not ever be at the same rental property. 298 Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022 7 Chair von Oven clarified if he owns the home, Mr. Bladine could have as many people as he wanted there. However, if he decided to rent it to his family that would be a problem. Mr. Bladine understands and noted it limits the use. The way his family operates, they like to spend time together and have been in other short-term rental properties for those experiences. They can get loud but not rambunctious; they just like to spend time together. His concern is about the day occupancy rate noting they will not all be living together in a rental and suggested taking into consideration the number of bedrooms and square footage of the rental. Chair von Oven asked what the clause is in the proposed Ordinance regarding daytime occupancy. Mr. Young-Walters stated it is written that a nighttime occupancy (# of bedrooms x 2 + 2) and the daytime occupancy states no more than 4 additional adult guests can be on the property. Mr. Bladine suggests a different kind of limit or way to manage that such as number of cars but not the number of heads. Chairman Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Schwartz asked if something should be added relative to the square footage of the home and how many people it can adequately and safely contain. Mr. Young-Walters replied the main issue is the larger the group the higher the chance of the property being used as a party house. He also thinks the formula could get overcomplicated as an unfinished basement does not provide the same amenities as a fully finished house. He suggested the Commissioners talk about whether a daytime occupancy limit is necessary to protect the parking and noise issues. If they feel the 10:00 p.m. quiet hours plus the maximum overnight vehicles present is sufficient to ensure no late-night parties, then perhaps the daytime occupancy limit is moot. He noted excessive noise can always go under the noise Ordinance. Commissioner Alto asked if there is a City Code about occupancy. Mr. Young-Walters believes at some point the Fire Code is involved but he is not certain on the thresholds. Ms. Aanenson noted it is pretty open as long as it is a family unit without separate kitchens, etcetera which may be a large family living together or four college students. Commissioner Schwartz is intrigued by the variance concept and would like to discuss adding it to the Ordinance is special circumstances such as Mr. Bloomquist’s. Chair von Oven stated they never want to create an Ordinance knowing that it already will not work for some people. At the same time he does not see a path where they can make it work. He asked about the zoning of agricultural and how much that was explored. 299 Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022 8 Mr. Young-Walters replied it was not extensively explored. It is possible Mr. Bloomquist is the only agricultural or there may be more. If the Commission wants to build in relief he suggests directing staff to put in a clause that allows staff to approve higher occupancy and parking limits based on specific characteristics of the property. At that point anyone could appeal a staff decision to the City Council. He thinks this may be a stronger route than forcing someone to go through the variance process where they would have to prove Practical Difficulties, etcetera, which are not well-suited to these situations. This would also prevent the situation where someone with a large A-2 property decides to rent it out to ATV Clubs or other situations the City would want to avoid. Chair von Oven is in favor of building that relief in for these properties rather than forcing people to go through a variance. Commissioner Alto noted Mr. Bloomquist has five acres but it is a four bedroom three bathroom house and she wonders where the City draws the line. Although they have more acreage, that does not mean they can pack 10 more people at night into a house that size. Commissioner Noyes thinks they can put a stipulation explaining the permit process, requirements, and say if one is both zoned agricultural and the property is five acres or more the parking limit and daytime occupancy limit do not apply. Chair von Oven noted they are trying to put a maximum number of people because lots of people make noise, however the City has a noise Ordinance. He said if it is his house and he is living in it he can have 20 people sleep there if he chose to. If 20 quiet people are sleeping on the floor the neighbors probably do not care. He is not in favor of eliminating the maximum number of people but if they are unable to choose the right amount of people maybe they do eliminate the maximum and allow the noise Ordinances, pet Ordinances, and other nuisance-type things. He does not know if that is the right solution. Commissioner Noyes noted they could say the same thing about parking and thinks some things need to be defined and the number of people spending the night is critical to him although the daytime occupancy is less so. If they start to get loud there is already a mechanism in place to take care of that. Commissioner Alto noted a popular situation after Covid is to rent a large home and have a wedding there with the entire wedding party staying there. They should discuss whether they should allow large parties as an agricultural five acre could advertise to host weddings because they have a large yard. She again asked where they draw the line for short-term rentals to also be a short-term venue. Chair von Oven asked Commissioner Alto if she would be opposed to Mr. Bloomquist renting to someone for a wedding. Commissioner Alto replied if it was every weekend, because then it is a wedding venue without meeting the proper permitting, business license, or alcohol license. 300 Planning Commission Minutes – September 6, 2022 9 Commissioner Noyes noted the emails the City received show two very different extremes with a large property, very well managed, and zero issues. Then they have another one that is a complete crap show with owners there to make a profit, who are not managing it, and there are problems. Commissioner Noyes thinks today the Commissioners are trying to address that side of it and he does not want to address the situation and cause problems on the good side of it which is what they need to think through. Commissioner Schwartz agrees they need to find a way to make exceptions while providing relief for properties like the Bliss family. He thinks they need to focus on how to solve the problem while still making it possible for Mr. Bloomquist to run his business in the manner he would like to given he is such a good property owner. Mr. Young-Walters reiterated his earlier suggestion to put in standards that based on unique characteristics of the property staff can approve a higher overnight occupancy and parking limit. If an individual was not happy with what staff settled on, it would be appealable to the City Council who could look at it and overrule. Commissioner Noyes asked if Mr. Young-Walters is putting himself in a difficult position by granting variances for one property over another. Mr. Young-Walters would likely draft some more concrete standards as guidelines for staff. However, because the owner can appeal to the City Council he is confident in staff’s ability to provide a written reply as to why they were or were not granted an exception. Ultimately if staff is wrong, the City Council will tell them. Chair von Oven stated if the Commission decides to table this, then Mark Bliss will still be waiting. If they table, Chair von Oven would like to find a way to get this back by the next meeting. Commissioner Alto noted nothing would change until January so they would still have time. Commissioner Johnson suggested tabling and getting it back in front of the Commission as soon as possible while giving Mr. Young-Walters time to work on some of the items. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded to table until the next Planning Commission in two weeks. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2. APPEAL REGARDING ALLEGED ERROR IN AN: ORDER, REQUIREMENT, DECISION, OR DETERMINATION, MADE BY A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ON THE GAYLE MORIN ADDITION - 1441 LAKE LUCY ROAD Ms. Aanenson noted she received an email from the party requesting the appeal which she has not had a chance to look at. The City Attorney has advised regarding the new information that it arrived too late to be addressed. Before the Commissioners tonight are the allegations that were made which is what staff presented their findings on. She wants to be clear on the record that if 301 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 2022 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Perry Schwartz, Ryan Soller, Edward Goff, Kelsey Alto. MEMBERS ABSENT:Erik Johnson. STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner, Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer, Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer, Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist. PUBLIC PRESENT: Maria and Andy Awes 581 Fox Hill Drive David Bieker Denali Custom Homes Seth Loken Alliant Engineering Francesca Landon 620 Fox Hill Drive Paige Will 581 Big Woods Boulevard Deeann Hale 600 Fox Hill Drive Ella Hale 600 Fox Hill Drive Gary Renneke 3607 Red Cedar Point Road Jada Sanders 3609 Red Cedar Point Road Dave Bloomquist 8800 Powers Boulevard Mark Bliss 7333 Hazeltine Boulevard GENERAL BUSINESS 1. Short Term Rental Code Amendment Associate Planner Young-Walters noted on September 6, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this item. After hearing from various members of the public, the Planning Commission tabled the item and directed staff to revise the proposed Ordinance to incorporate feedback form both the Planning Commission and public and bring it back today. Staff heard that residents were concerned that the proposed standards were too rigid, did not adequately consider unique circumstances, and did not align with how people actually use the properties during the day. There were also concerns about dogs, daytime parking, and property upkeep. Commissioners directed staff to amend the Ordinance and based on that staff made the following proposed changes to the Ordinance: 1. Clarified that accompanying children do not count towards the proposed occupancy limit. 302 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 2 2. Allow the City to approve higher occupancy limits based on home size, number of beds, and distance from neighboring properties. 3. Allow the City to approve higher parking limits based on presence of off street parking pads, driveway length and width, and availability of street parking. 4. Require fencing for short term rentals permitting dogs. 5. Clarify that City staff only is requesting permission to access exterior areas of the property when responding to complaints. 6. Remove limit on the number of daytime visitors. 7. Clarify hours for which overnight parking rules apply. 8. Require pets to be leashed when not in fenced in portion of yard. 9. State that licensee can appeal staff's determination on occupancy/parking limits to City Council. Mr. Young-Walters stated a few outstanding questions from residents including language about pets and whether it is excessive, whether the daytime noise and nuisance Ordinance is enough to deal with situations of noisy pool parties, and the suggestion to exempt properties zoned A-2. He found 125 A-2 properties with houses, 22 of which are on lots of less than 1 acre, 40 are from 1- 2.5 acres, and the rest are over 2.5 acres. Many properties have the ability to impact each other in a way similar to the other districts. For this reason, staff does not believe the large lot zoning A-2 guarantees lower impact and staff feels strongly that the Ordinance should be global to all short- term rentals. Commissioner Schwartz asked about addressing an exemption based on a property’s unique circumstances. Mr. Young-Walters stated staff’s understanding was that the concern was that the parking and occupancy limits did not make sense for those properties; their way of granting exemption was not to exempt them entirely from the need to be licensed but to give them the ability to request exemption from the standards to guarantee the license they are issued allows them to conduct business in the manner they are accustomed. In Mr. Bloomquist’s case he has a very long driveway and staff could discuss it with Mr. Young-Walters likely signing off on it and if he did not, Mr. Bloomquist could appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Noyes noted it would be an exception rather than an exemption. Commissioner Soller asked if they will write guidelines for staff in granting the exceptions or if it is purely up to the opinion of the employee in that role at that time. Mr. Young-Walters put loose guidelines in place and there is administrative discretion in that, however if someone was granted a license one year with no issues it would be atypical for staff to reverse course and change it the following year. The City Council appeal process also adds a level of consistency because if staff cannot defend their decision before the City Council it will be overturned. Commissioner Soller asked if he applies the first year and gets exceptions, in year two is it the default that those exceptions would continue. 303 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 3 Mr. Young-Walters would assume it would continue. He has not drafted the forms and would probably include that in the paperwork. Commissioner Schwartz asked if parking in the driveway excludes street parking. Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative noting when one asks for an overnight parking limit staff will assume the most restrictive conditions. In Chanhassen that is in winter where one cannot park overnight on the streets. Any parking granted for overnight would have to be entirely off-street in garage stalls and driveway only. Commissioner Schwartz asked about a request from Ms. Bliss regarding daytime parking limits. Mr. Young-Walters stated it gets very challenging to track down who owns a vehicle, especially with street parking during the day. He tries not to put things in that he does not feel there is a practical way to enforce. A daytime vehicle limit would be very challenging. Commissioner Schwartz noted given the photo Ms. Bliss included in the email it is obvious that she has a huge problem to deal with on a daily basis. Commissioner Alto said if Ms. Bliss is blocked in and calls the City to report it, what is the violation track and at what point does the City revoke the permit. Mr. Young-Walters noted in Ms. Bliss’ case it says “at no time may vehicles be parked on grass or so as to obstruct access to neighboring residences.” If Ms. Bliss sent the City a photo they would note that as one strike and for something severe like obstructing access the City could jump to suspending a license. To be honest, the City would figure that out based on how the owners react. Chairman Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Dave Bloomquist, noted under B1 the non-refundable amount is not determined although he heard $50 thrown around. He noted that needs to be clarified. Maximum overnight vehicles, he thinks these rules need to be better explained and it is his experience that City employees have made personal decisions on how rules are enforced rather than following Code. Mr. Bloomquist stated the members of the Planning Commission will change January of 2023 along with members of the City Council; he noted the rules will be subject to interpretation and they need to be tightened up a lot. Chair von Oven noted every word the Commissioners are discussing is recorded tonight so future members may always go back and listen to understand their intent. Mr. Bloomquist spoke about dogs noting it must include suitable fencing and asked how he explains he has a big yard (bigger than a baseball field) but someone’s dog cannot play in it? Regarding listing the advertising property license, Mr. Bloomquist shared that there will be people who will backtrack that, go onto a VRBO, look up the license, figure out who owns it and then go around VRBO to rent it directly from the owner. Contact information is not given until the renters have paid and are one week away from moving in and also do not know the location. If people know where the property is they can work around the system and cutting VRBO out of 304 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 4 the system VRBO will not cover liability insurance. He spoke about noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and noted it would be hard for noise to leave his property due to the size, and the ambient noise from High 212 and Powers Boulevard is about 65 decibels. He asked how someone would measure that? They would have to go out, stand off the property, wait for Powers to die down and say they can hear something. Commissioner Noyes knows Mr. Bloomquist has an impeccable record with his property and he seems to be nitpicking what the Commissioners are doing here as it relates to other property owners. Mr. Bloomquist is looking at his property and it is very hard for noise to leave his property and even hard to overcome the ambient road noise. Commissioner Schwartz replied the Commissioners understand all that. Mr. Bloomquist is the exception. Commissioner Noyes agreed, he is not worried about Mr. Bloomquist, he is worried about the other homeowners. Commissioner Schwartz stated they are trying to get relief for Mr. and Mrs. Bliss. Commissioner Soller asked if Mr. Bloomquist is the exception or if Mr. and Mrs. Bliss are the exception. He thinks they should consider that. Mr. Bloomquist spoke about vehicle parking and the long driveway, noise, the posting of a good neighbor policy. Regarding providing renters information on emergency egress, Mr. Bloomquist noted it is fairly obvious if the house is on fire, they get out, if one cannot get out a door they get out a window. He asked how does he translate that? There are fire extinguishers on every level which is told to the renters. He is hoping the City targets the bad actors rather than one which is a large lot. He does not think the Ordinance can be a one-size-fits-all and suggests the rules apply to properties zoned Residential and granting exemptions where appropriate. Mark Bliss sees where Mr. Bloomquist is coming from with a big property that will not have problems. Mr. Bliss is not so fortunate, the previous weekend was a bachelor party and even though the owner said it wasn’t, it was just a “staging area” there were still 10 cars there, 14 people, his parents could not get up his driveway, and he said some of the modifications the City is making is good. Mr. Bliss is still concerned that there should be some limits on daytime parking, noting the neighbors’ house is a 4 bedroom which is 10 people per the overnight limit. He asked should 20 people be there with 10 cars out front? It is getting a little old every weekend and he noted this is the 3rd or 4th bachelor party. Mr. Bliss asked how will residents become aware of overnight parking limits granted to the licensee if they receive an exemption and if there is an appeal process where Mr. Bliss can push back? He asked if the homestead status will be questioned, because in looking at the neighbor’s house it is a rental but still listed as a homestead. It is clearly not a homestead and is a commercial property. Mr. Bliss asked if the City will go back and review the homestead status? He sees where Mr. Bloomquist is coming from but noted he is trying to help all of Chanhassen living on the 1/3 acre houses because there are problems there. He noted it is getting old. 305 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 5 Chair von Oven asked if the revised Ordinance tonight were in place, speaking about the last bachelorette party, does Mr. Bliss understand what recourse he would have? Mr. Bliss does, noting one problem from that party, he complained to Air BNB, and when they checked out the owner of the property was notified and asked Mr. Bliss if next time can he not notify Air BNB as they do not want the site getting notified of the complaint because it will get a ding against them. Mr. Bliss noted it is not his place to manage their property and all the cars. The owner is asking the Bliss’ to go around the system which they are not going to do. Mr. Bliss noted it is not the noise, it is the cars, the people, and asked if they want 10 cars with 15-20 people coming into the residential neighborhoods in Chanhassen because it will spread. He never thought this house would rent out so much but it is non-stop every night for the last two months. He noted they have Prince’s estate, downtown Excelsior, weddings, and there is more and more demand. Mr. Bliss shared they do not have on-street parking because it is Highway 41 so there are no options other than the shared driveway being filled to capacity, the grass is all gone from people parking on it, and he noted his recourse is to call it in but it is a nuisance. Chair von Oven clarified regarding the bachelorette party, he assumes the women were there for the night, as well. Mr. Bliss replied it was three nights. Chair von Oven noted they would have violated what is being proposed for the nighttime vehicle limit. Mr. Bliss would then make that complaint to the City which would be strike one against this homeowner. Two more times and that license would be revoked. Mr. Young-Walters clarified the nighttime limit is two vehicles plus available garage stalls. The service the City is looking at to help with this has a 24/7 phone number which would be texted in, immediately send a text to the Air BNB/VRBO short-term rental owner noting this issue has been reported, and they must deal with it and tell how you have dealt with it. Depending on that response the City may issue a strike or, if the response was extremely lackluster, the City may just suspend the license at that point until the owner gives an improvement plan. Mr. Bliss would be okay with that. He is glad about the verbiage regarding blocking the driveway and still thinks there needs to be some bounds to daytime parking. He noted they are attracting a certain vibe by allowing 8-10 cars during the day. Chair von Oven noted if they only had four cars during the day yet are blocking Mr. Bliss’ access they are also in violation. He appreciates the Commissioners looking at this. A member of the public asked if the City requires a license and someone does not follow the rules and the license is taken away, how will they actually get them to stop renting the house. Mr. Young-Walters replied worst case scenario, the City would have to go with a court order. A member of the public asked if the City is prepared for that. Mr. Young-Walters replied in the affirmative, noting he thinks the City Council is, they directed staff and have talked through enforcement. In 2017-2018 when this came up they discussed the 306 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 6 challenges of enforcing these Ordinances when there is someone who does not want to cooperate. The City Council is aware of that, directed staff to draft this Ordinance, and draft licensing. He has to assume that means the City Council is committed to following through on it. Mr. Bliss asked in documenting these infractions, does he have to call it in or is photo evidence sufficient. Mr. Young-Walters understands from the vendor that Mr. Bliss can text the complaint to the number and include photo documentation. He also believes there is online reporting for small videos to be included which goes into the record. If the City needs court action that becomes what is handed to the attorney. Ms. Aanenson noted that is one of the reasons they went with the vendor, they get more documentation, it saves staff work trying to put the work forth for enforcement, and that is one of the benefits of this system. A member of the public asked once this passed to an Ordinance, if there is a problem the public would go to the police? Or would they bring the problem to the City? Mr. Young-Walters noted it depends a little bit on the problem. If it is a life safety issue, they should call 911. If it is a technical violation of an Ordinance standard such as the Bliss’ private drive, that limits law enforcement authority, so for a license violation they should contact the hotline for the license violation. If they are being extremely loud and disorderly, certainly the Carver County non-emergency number is one route to go as they can respond to a noise nuisance or violation. Mr. Young-Walters would also suggest they still report to the City so they can hit them on both ends. Ms. Aanenson shared the City will put a lot of information out to potential neighbors and also the vendors so they would know what the process will be. Mr. Bloomquist asked if there is a notification process for his neighbors in the case of an exception that says he has a little different scenario than the rest of the City. Mr. Young-Walters noted that is definitely something the City can and should add. Commissioner Noyes spoke about the shared driveway and asked if the permit could say shared driveways cannot be parked on. He thinks that is another thing to think about as staff writes their final documents. Mr. Young-Walters noted shared driveways are tough because they are governed by a private agreement and he does not know that he can override something such as “all parties have the right to park on it.” Staff does the best they can but he cannot create an Ordinance that perfectly touches on everything. Mr. Bloomquist asked how far out do they go with contacting neighbors. Chair von Oven thinks it would be the same as what they do for proposed developments which is 500 feet. 307 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 7 Mr. Young-Walters noted they can fine-tune that. Mr. Bloomquist stated he has one neighbor within 300 feet. Chair von Oven noted Mr. Bloomquist will be so good with this Ordinance when it is all done. Chairman Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Soller noted fences for dogs are in the proposed Ordinance. Chair von Oven noted it does not matter if one has a rental property or not, they cannot just let dogs run wild and people cannot make all the noise they want. On Mr. Bloomquist’s property they can do both because nobody is going to complain. The rules are in place but if nobody complains it will be perfectly fine. He does not feel the need to repeat those rules as part of this because it says “property must be in compliance with all State and local regulations.” This includes keeping a dog on a leash and not violating the noise Ordinance. Commissioner Soller would prefer it not be in the Ordinance. Chair von Oven agrees and thinks they can strike numbers 2 and 6. Mr. Young-Walters shared item C2 is essentially a restatement of the City’s noise nuisance Ordinance. Staff’s rationale was that things that are super important such as the noise Ordinance, it was justified to reiterate and make it front-and-center that an outside entity not familiar with the City’s Ordinance had it flashing red in their face. Chair von Oven clarified the inclusion of items 2 and 6 is more for the prevention based on knowledge and education of the renter. The Commissioners discussed the verbiage about suitable fencing for dogs. Commissioner Soller noted B2 subpoint 4 seems like overkill to him. Commissioner Noyes asked if they keep it do they want to change “dogs” to “pets.” Mr. Young-Walters noted if they keep the phrase yes, if they strike it the animal Ordinance would prevail. Chair von Oven is a fan of not duplicating and removing item B2 subpoint 4 altogether, as well as removing items C2 and C6 at the time of licensing the City could point out noise and pet information within the City. Mr. Young-Walters would also include that in the good neighbor brochure that they ask renters to display. Commissioner Goff asked if fees collected from licenses will cover the administrative expense and the 24/7 service at a net zero. He wants to clarify that this will not cost Chanhassen taxpayers money. 308 Planning Commission Minutes – September 20, 2022 8 Mr. Young-Walters shared ultimately fees and budgets are outside the purview of this Commission which is why they were not discussed. The City Council will determine the fee structure. He believes the goal is to offset the majority of administrative costs with fees. Commissioner Schwartz asked at what point is a rental property no longer a “homesteaded property” for tax purposes. Mr. Young-Walters clarified if one does not live there it cannot be homesteaded. The County is a little behind on their GIS updates and he strongly suspects the property is not still homesteaded but the public-facing records have not been updated to reflect that. He noted he could be wrong. Commissioner Noyes owns properties in Chanhassen and can vouch for that, they are still classified as homesteaded but the taxes are accurately reflected. Chairman Chair von Oven moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 1 and Chapter 20 of the City Code concerning short-term rental licensing, striking Sections B.2.4 under License Required, striking Section C.2 and Section C.6 per duplication of the existing local laws and regulations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 Commissioner Noyes noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 6, 2022 as presented. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Ms. Aanenson updated regarding the last City Council meeting, noting approvals for RSI Marine and Avienda and shared about the agenda for the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Soller moved 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 309 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Ordinance XXX: Temporarily Prohibiting Medical Cannabis Manufacturing and Distribution Facilities; and Ordinance XXX: Temporarily Prohibiting the Manufacture, Testing, Distribution, and Sale of Cannabinoids File No.Item No: G.3 Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council adopts the following ordinances: An interim ordinance temporarily prohibiting medical cannabis manufacturing and distribution facilities; and An interim ordinance temporarily prohibiting the manufacture, testing, distribution, and sale of cannabinoids." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY The City Council directed City Staff to study the need for local regulation regarding the sale, testing, manufacturing, or distribution of THC Products, Intoxicating Cannabinoids, Cannabinoid Products and Medical Cannabis Products within the City of Chanhassen. Staff must also study the need for creating or amending zoning ordinances, licensing ordinances, or any other ordinances to protect the citizens of Chanhassen from any potential negative impacts of THC Products, Intoxicating Cannabinoids, Cannabinoid Products and Medical Cannabis Products. Upon completion of the study, the City Council, 310 together with such commission as the City Council deems appropriate or, as may be required by law, will consider the advisability of adopting new ordinances or amending its current ordinances. BACKGROUND Medical Cannabis Dispensary Regulations Minnesota’s medical cannabis program is regulated by Minn. Stat. sections 152.21-.37, and regulations in Minn. R. chapter 4770. Under those regulations there are two approved manufacturers. The manufacturers also operate the dispensaries. The Commissioner of the Department of Health sets “geographic service areas;” each manufacturer may operate up to eight total dispensaries but no more than two dispensaries in a single geographic service area and no dispensary may be opened within 1,000 feet of a school. Prior versions of the law stated that each manufacturer shall operate four dispensaries (so eight total, two manufacturers each operating four dispensaries), one per service area, and the Commissioner initially designated the eight congressional districts as the eight geographic service areas. Staff confirmed that the geographical areas are based on congressional districts. Each dispensary can have up to 2 dispensaries in each congressional district, but only up to a total of 8 within the state. One dispensary has maxed on their locations, but the other only has 6 at this point. So there is a possibility for them to locate within Chanhassen, as they only have one in the congressional district. Production, Compliance Checks, or Sales of THC Products By enacting 2022 Session Law Chapter 98, Article 13, the Minnesota Legislature amended Minn. Stat. §151.72 and permitted the sale of edible and nonedible cannabinoid products that contain Tetrahydrocannabinol, commonly known as THC (“THC Products”). The new law does enact some requirements for labeling and testing, but the law provides no parameters regulating production, compliance checks, or sales of THC Products. The new law does not prohibit local regulation. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd. 4, the City is authorized to enact by ordinance a moratorium to regulate, restrict or prohibit any use within the jurisdiction to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Specifically, the City is authorized to enact a moratorium ordinance to allow it to undertake a study to determine whether to adopt any regulations or restrictions, including siting and location of uses, related to the sales, testing, manufacturing, and distribution of THC Products and Intoxicating Cannabinoids. Pursuant to its general police powers, including but not limited to, Minn. Stat. § 421.221, subd. 32, the City may enact and enforce regulations or restrictions on THC Products and Intoxicating Cannabinoids within the City to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, including restrictions and a moratorium on the use of sales, testing, manufacturing, and distribution, during the pendency of a study to determine the need for police power regulations, including but not necessarily limited to licensing and permitting. The moratorium would only apply to new sales locations, and would not restrict existing outlets. Many metro cities have adopted similar moratoriums, including Edina, Shakopee, Prior Lake, Savage, Stillwater, Lino Lakes, and others. The City of Edina recently completed their study and is implementing an ordinance that: 311 Reinforces state law prohibiting THC sales to people under age 21 No vending machine sales No sales out of a “movable business” such as a truck or van Violations include not meeting labeling and testing requirements as outlined in state statute No sampling All products must be sealed while on the premises Compliance checks will be performed on each retailer at least once per year using would-be customers who are over 15 but younger than 21 DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council adopt the following ordinances: An interim ordinance temporarily prohibiting medical cannabis manufacturing and distribution facilities; and an interim ordinance temporarily prohibiting the manufacture, testing, distribution, and sale of cannabinoids. ATTACHMENTS Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Medical Cannabis Distribution Facilities Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting Cannabinoid Products 312 223291v1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING MEDICAL CANNABIS MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. A. The City Council finds that it is necessary to temporarily preserve the status quo regarding the City’s regulation of land uses through its official controls with regard to the sale of medical cannabis under Minnesota’s medical cannabis program as authorized by Minnesota Statutes sections 152.21–.37. The medical cannabis program does not prohibit the City from placing additional location limitations or regulatory requirements on medical marijuana distribution facilities beyond those contained in the statutes. B. The City has received an inquiry about potential medical marijuana distribution facilities in the City. C. The City finds that medical marijuana manufacturing and distribution facilities represent new land uses not presently addressed in the City’s official controls and never previously studied by the City. D. The City finds that such uses should be studied for the purpose of determining whether amendments or additions to the City’s official controls may be necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS: The following terms when used in this ordinance shall mean: Official controls. “Official controls” or “controls” means ordinances and regulations which control the physical development of the city or any part thereof or any detail thereof and implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Official controls include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps. Medical Cannabis. Any species of the genus cannabis plant, or any mixture or preparation of them, including whole plant extracts and resins, and is delivered in the form of: 313 223291v1 (1) liquid, including, but not limited to, oil; (2) pill; (3) vaporized delivery method with use of liquid or oil; (4) combustion with use of dried raw cannabis; or (5) any other method approved by the commissioner. Medical Cannabis Manufacturer. An entity registered by the Minnesota Commissioner of Health to cultivate, acquire, manufacture, possess, prepare, transfer, transport, supply, or dispense medical cannabis, delivery devices, or related supplies and educational materials. Distribution Facility. A center for the distribution of medical cannabis operated by a medical cannabis manufacturer. SECTION 3. INTENT AND AUTHORIZATION: A. It is the intent of this ordinance to allow the City of Chanhassen time to complete an in-depth study concerning adoption of revisions of the City’s official controls for medical marijuana manufacturing and distribution facilities and in the interim to protect the planning process and health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the community. B. City staff is authorized to conduct a study of the City’s official controls that may need to be adopted or amended to protect the public health, safety and welfare as they relate to medical cannabis manufacturing and distribution facilities. SECTION 4. TEMPORARY PROHIBITION: Pending the completion of the above referenced study and the adoption of appropriate official controls, the following uses are prohibited within the City: • Medical Cannabis Manufacturer • Distribution Facility SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT. The City may enforce this Ordinance by mandamus, injunctive relief, or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, to initiate any legal action deemed necessary to secure compliance with this Ordinance. A violation of this Ordinance is also subject to the City’s general penalty in City Code § 1-9. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and shall remain in effect for one year from the effective date of this ordinance or until the adoption of the official controls being studied, whichever occurs first. 314 223291v1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of , 2022, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: _______________________________________ Elise Ryan, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ______________________________) 315 223617v1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN INTERIM ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY PROHIBITING THE MANUFACTURE, TESTING, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF CANNABINOIDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. A. By enacting 2022 Session Law Chapter 98, Article 13, the Minnesota Legislature amended Minn. Stat. §151.72 and permitted the sale of edible and nonedible cannabinoid products for human consumption. This law permits the sale of such products so long as they contain no more than 0.3%, or 5mg per serving if edible, of tetrahydrocannabinol commonly known as THC. There is no limit for the serving size of other cannabinoids in this law aside from a prohibition on those cannabinoid products which are sold with the intent to intoxicate. Minn. Stat. §151.72, Subd. 3, paragraph (b). B. The new law does enact some requirements for labeling and testing, but provides no parameters regulating production, compliance checks, or licensing of Cannabinoid Products retailers. The new law does not prohibit local regulation. C. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd. 4, the City is authorized to enact a moratorium to temporarily prohibit a use within the jurisdiction to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the City and undertake a study of the issue for future regulation. D. Pursuant to its general police powers, including but not limited to, Minn. Stat. § 421.221, subd. 32, the City may enact regulations regarding to promote the health, safety, order, convenience, and the general welfare of the City. This power permits the City to implement a moratorium to study the sales, testing, manufacturing, and distribution of cannabinoid products to determine if regulations are necessary for the sake of good order of the City. E. The City Council finds that it is necessary to there is a need to study cannabinoid products and uses and businesses related thereto, in order to assess the necessity for and efficacy of regulation and restrictions relating to the sales, testing, manufacturing, and distribution of cannabinoid products, including through licensing or zoning ordinances, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its residents. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS: The following terms when used in this ordinance shall mean: 316 223617v1 Official controls. “Official controls” or “controls” means ordinances and regulations which control the physical development of the city or any part thereof or any detail thereof and implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Official controls include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps. Cannabinoid Product. “Cannabinoid Product” means any edible or nonedible product which contains one or more chemical compound derived from the cannabis plant or derived from hemp and is authorized for sale in Minnesota Statute and is for human consumption. cannabinoid products may include, but are not limited to, vape pens, flower buds, tinctures, lotions, seltzers, and food products. SECTION 3. INTENT AND AUTHORIZATION: A. It is the intent of this ordinance to allow the City of Chanhassen time to complete an in-depth study concerning adoption of revisions of the City’s official controls for the manufacturing, testing, distributing, and selling of Cannabinoid Products. B. City staff is authorized to conduct a study of the City’s official controls that may need to be adopted or amended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare as they relate to medical cannabis manufacturing and distribution facilities. SECTION 4. TEMPORARY PROHIBITION: A. Pending the completion of the above referenced study and the adoption of appropriate official controls, the following is prohibited within the City: The manufacturing, testing, distributing, and selling of Cannabinoid Products. B. This moratorium does not apply to Cannabinoid Products wherein the only cannabinoids present are non-intoxicating cannabinoids, including but not limited to Cannabidiol (“CBD”) or Cannabinol (“CBN”). SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT. The City may enforce this Ordinance by mandamus, injunctive relief, or other appropriate civil remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, to initiate any legal action deemed necessary to secure compliance with this Ordinance. A violation of this Ordinance is also subject to the City’s general penalty in City Code § 1-9. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and shall remain in effect for one year from the effective date of this ordinance or until the adoption of the official controls being studied, whichever occurs first. 317 223617v1 PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of , 2022, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: _______________________________________ Elise Ryan, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ______________________________) 318 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Traffic Control Improvements at Great Plains and W 79th Street File No.Item No: I.1 Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION Informational Item for the planned signing and striping improvements. Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY Attached is the plan we’re going to implement over the next couple of weeks. This is a pilot project to see the effectiveness of the “do not block intersection” markings. The cost of this work is approximately $5500, mainly due to the need of a contractor for the custom pavement marking stenciling. If it is deemed effective, we will make it a permanent condition until such time Great Plains would be reconstructed, which is not currently identified in our 5-yr CIP. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET 319 RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS Great Plains and W 79th Sign and Striping Proposals 320 79th & Great P lains - Sign and Striping Proposals August 29, 2022 Map Po w ere d By DataLink 1 in = 100 ft ± 321 322 323 324 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Memo dated September 23, 2022 - Environmental Review for Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements File No.Item No: J.1 Agenda Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Prepared By Kim Meuwissen, City Clerk Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION N/A Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 325 MPCA Memo dated 09-23-2022 326 ovCetrc€ g'{{[4 520 LafayetteRoad North I St.Paul,Minnesota 55155-4194 | 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 | Useyourpreferredrelayservice I info.pcapstate.mn.us I Equal OpportunityEmployer September 23,2022 To All lnterested Citizens, Organizations and Government Agencies Subject:Environmental Review for Wastewater Treatment Plant lmprovements Loan Applicant Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Loan Project Name: MCES Blue Lake WWTP lmprovements Loan Project Number: 280763 The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services has applied for a construction loan under the Minnesota Clean Water Revolving Fund. The funding rules require an environmental review to be completed on this project. The information received by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) indicates that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is not mandatory for this project. The enclosed Environmental Summary (ES) describes the proposed project and outlines potential environmental issues. Significant environmental impacts from the project are not anticipated. This project has completed the section 105 review process, and a determination has been made that no historic properties will be affected by this project as currently proposed. We continue to invite written comments from the public at this time. Comments are due by 4:30 p.m on October 24,2022 Comments can be submitted in writing via email to Beniamin.carlson-stehlin@state.mn.us or to the mailing address on this document. Please contact me at 651-757-2682 with any other questions or concerns. We will review and respond to all comments received by the due date ITtru IIT,T [l',_',i""?,:Y, o N Bu"fa"r"". e*b"r,- 7"h0ir*, ? e. This document has been electronically signed. Benjamin Carlson-Stehlin, P.E Engineer Municipal Division BRC:jg Page | 1 327 ENVIRONMENTAL SUMMARY l. Project Name: MCES Blue Lake WWTP lmprovements Project Proposer: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services 390 Robert Street North Saint Paul, MN 55101 Legal Description: Section 2, T115N, R22W, Scott County, Minnesota The MCES Blue Lake WWTP is located in Northeast Scott County in the southwest Twin Cities Metropolitan area of Minnesota. The proposed project includes the following: The facility plan lays out 3 phases of construction over the next 20 years. Phase I and ll will be approved forthis project timeline. Phase I is planned to be constructed between 2025-2030. Phase I includes: . Retrofit of the existing grit collection system and other miscellaneous improvements identified for liquid waste receiving (LWR) o Primary treatment improvements for scum handling, including fats, oils and grease (FOG); replacement of grit removal pumps and piping; and elevation of the primary clarifier weirs and scum boxes to maintain treatment performance during peak flows . Modification of existing aeration tanks to increase secondary treatment process stability, efficiency and operability; replacement of air mixing in the existing aeration tanks; addition of 2 secondary clarifiers, a mixed liquor distribution structure and a second effluent channel/pipeline to increase capacity . Effluent process improvements, including rehabilitation of stormwater pumps and the addition of effluent pumping standby power . Site Buildings architectural (Arch) renewal for, Screening Building, East Primary Clarifiers, West Primary Clarifiers, Blower Building and Secondary Clarifiers & Building . Addition of 1 digester to increase digestion capacity . Renewal of solids treatment facilities in the Final Stabilization Facility (FSF) building and associated building expansion . Renewal of the plant process control system, including replacement of 25 supervisory programma ble logic controllers . Expansion of liquid waste receiving (LWR) Phase ll is planned to be constructed following Phase I Phase ll includes: . New primary treatment complex, including expansion of the screenings building with an additional grit classifier, the addition of 2 primary clarifiers and piping to expand primary treatment capacity, and renewal of existing primary clarifiers . Addition of tertiary filtration to meet proposed permit requirements . Digester complex improvements for the renewal of digester gas utilization equipment and new chemical addition facilities . Addition of one gravity belt thickener (GBT) . Rehabilitation of the plant effluent structure Page | 2 328 ll. Alternatives Considered The Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) alternative analysis completed an in-depth alternative evaluation of six BNR technologies/flow schemes as summarized below: r Alternative 0 - Current Operations (Baseline) . Alternative 1 - Baseline with wet weather step feed . Alternative 2 - Modified Johannesburg (JHB) with wet weather step feed . Alternative 3 - Side stream enhanced biological phosphorus removal (S2EBPR) side stream reactor (SSR) with wet weather step feed . Alternative 4 - 52EBPR side stream reactor with carbon (SSRC) with wet weather step feed o Alternative 5 - Modified JHB with wet weather step feed and secondary effluent equalization A review of tertiary treatment technologies was completed with the goal of selecting three alternatives for detailed analysis. Based upon goals of minimizing capitalcosts, annual,operating costs, and consumables, and proven applications at similar sized facilities, the following technologies were selected for detailed evaluation: . Alternative 1- Conventional Filtration . Alternative 2 - Cloth Media Filtration . Alternative 3 - Single-stage continuous deep-bed backwash filtration Four phosphorus management strategies were considered including: . Alternative 1- Ferric chloride (FeCl3) addition to the anaerobic digesters and side stream centrate. (Baseline). . Alternative 2 - Baseline with magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) addition to the anaerobic digesters. . Alternative 3 - Anaerobic Digestion with Centrate Struvite Harvesting. . Alternative 4 - Anaerobic Digestion with Phosphorus Sequestration. During planning multiple biosolids stabilization alternatives were identified. From these alternatives only ones that produce a non-liquid, Class A final product and are well-established were further developed. The two viable alternatives for the Blue Lake WWTP are thermal drying and hydrolysis. Future Digester Gas Production Utilization the following alternatives were considered . Alternative 1- Flare all Gas o Alternative 2 - Current Use (34% Flare) . Alternative 3 - 100 % Digester Gas in Dryer . Alternative 4 - Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Current Rate o Alternative 5 - CHP Future Rate . Alternative 6 - Renewable Natural Gas lll. Present Wastewater System and Need The existing WastewaterTreatment Plant utilizes a combination of biological, chemical, and physical treatment processes to remove pollutants from the raw wastewater. The liquids treatment process includes influent screening, grit removal, primary clarification, activated sludge operated for nitrification and phosphorus removal, secondary clarification, aerated polishing pond, chlorination and de-chlorination facilities, effluent pumping, and cascade aeration. The solids treatment process Page | 3 329 consists of sludge thickening, anaerobic digestion, sludge dewatering, sludge drying and biosolids storage. The Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant lmprovements project includes improvements to address anticipated growth and development in the Blue Lake Service area, potential future regulatory requirements, and the need to rehabilitate aging equipment and infrastructure. lV. Environmental lmpacts of Proposed Projects The primary impacts of the project are short-term construction related disturbances such as dust and noise. The short-term impacts will be mitigated by the use of standard construction practices. Erosion and sedimentation control measures that are recommended by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and Department of Natural Resources will be followed. This project has completed the section 106 review process, and a determination has been made that no historic properties will be affected by this project as currently proposed. The proposed project is expected to result in no direct impacts to: threatened or endangered plant or animal species or their habitats; wetlands, floodplains, nearby farmland, historic, architectural, cultural, or archaeological features, shorelands, or air quality non-attainment areas. V. Public Participation Program On March 75,2O2L, a public hearing was held via Webex. The project alternatives, monetary cost, environmental impacts, operational considerations, and proposed financing of the wastewater treatme nt faci I ity im proveme nts were d iscussed. Vl. Map of Project Location Page | 4 330 vll Address questions and submittals requested above to: Benjamin Ca rlson-Stehlin, P. E Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone: 657-757-2682 Email : beniamin.ca rlson-stehlin @state.m n.us Page | 5 Btue Lake rt 1 Frsh+, .o4e i t i ll ,/ i 331 City Council Item October 10, 2022 Item 2022 Building Permit Activity File No.Item No: J.2 Agenda Section CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION Prepared By Jenny Potter, Sr. Admin Support Specialist Reviewed By SUGGESTED ACTION Correspondence Motion Type N/A Strategic Priority N/A SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 2022 Building Permit Activity September Year to Date 332 2022 Building Permit Activity September YTI)City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-227-1100 15 t4 39Residential Single-Family 0 0 0 0Residential Tormlromes 0 0 0 0Apartrnents/Senior Facilities 15 l0 14 39Total Residential Residential Building Permits l'r Quarter 2od Quarter 3d Quarter 4fr Quarter Totat YTD I 0 I 2Neu. 0 0Redeveloped0 49Remodeledl5l0 5tl025Total Commercial Commercial Building Permits I't Quarter 2d Quarter 3d Quarter 4rt Quarter Total YTI) Single-Family Lots 7'7 88 75 53 53 53Residential Toumhome Lots 130 141 128Total Available Lots Available Lot Inventor5 of Quarter) l" Quarter 2'd Quarter 3d Quarter 4t Quarter (end 49 40 98 39Single-Family 55 l8 0 0 0Tourhomest256 0026800110Aparment/Senior Facilities 66 5lCommercial675862 t34 431 120 134 282 90Total Number of All Permits Total Permit Historv 2017 2021 2022 g:\adminuorrs\building permit activiry 2022 yld.doc l0 0 t4 l6 2018 2019 2020 68 333 6 2 e.,:i 4 E q c == T z z .! E 9 , z ,: :a ll[[lltililtilil[ lllIl II illltIlt IIilITI llII IIllI il IIil T illltil llII lt rrI IllllI I ilt II il ilt !!IIl Ill I ITI llIll IllI ll[[[tllllilllililililt IIII ilII illI ilillrllllllillll lil liltllllilllil il[lililtllI ltillllt ll il II I il lt [ilil[ 5 = aa r I 334