No preview available
CAS-02_PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE PID 25-0242610Mohn, Jerry From: Mohn, Jerry Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 3:34 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: RE: City of Chanhassen Referral Request - Preserve at Rice Lake UPDATED 6-14-13 No additional comments. See comments dated 4/25/13. Jerritt Mohn Building Official City of Chanhassen From: Meuwissen, Kim Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:46 PM To: 'chentges@co.carver.mn.us'; 'tod.sherman@dot.state.mn.us'; 'john.gleason@dnr.state.mn.us'; 'Michael.T.Setering@usace.army.mil'; 'cbleser@rileywd.org';'cherie.monson@CenterPointEnergy.com'; 'cthompson@mediacomcc.com'; 'Biggar, Mark J';'rick.jorgensen@centurylink.com'; 'Karl. r.johnson@xcelenergy.com' Cc: Fauske, Alyson; Hoffman, Todd; Littfin, Mark; Mohn, Jerry; Jeffery, Terry; Sinclair, Jill; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: City of Chanhassen Referral Request - Preserve at Rice Lake UPDATED 6-14-13 Referral agencies: • A copy of the referral document and location map are attached. • Please review the project information and updated referral documents from the following link: http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-12 • Please respond with comments no later than July S. 2013 to (replies to this email will automatically be redirected to Sharmeen AI-Jaff): Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner 952-227-1134 saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us NOTE TO MNDOT: A noise wall is proposed to be constructed within Highway 212 ROW (see page 7 of the Traffic Noise Assessment) NOTE TO DNR & ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS: The future trail will also impact the wetland portion located in the southeast corner of the site. This impact is not shown on the plans. Kim Afeuwissen ® CITY OF CHretary GN Planning Secretary 952-227-1107 kmru» i,e Erni rr.ci. cirmrhaysen. nm. us Find us on Facebook City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 Date: April 22, 2013 Review Response Deadline: May 10, 2013 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner 952 -22N -I Subject: PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: Request for Land Use Map Amendment frdf e ential-Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density, Rezoning from Sin Fami ential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Developmen id al UD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots with Variances; to Review; and Wetland Alteration Permit. Applicant: J & S Ventures 1,##Planning Case: 2013-12 PID: 25-0242610 (d The above-described application for approval of a land development pm was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 19, 2013. The 60 -day review period ends June 1 20 In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for PI ion and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concemin a ac f this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water dminag an e cquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Whi n or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so th� e a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for considers e C hant�assen Planning Commission on May 21, 2013 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Cbanhass would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 10, 2013. You may also appear at 1 g ssion meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City DepartmentsL_ "W 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife a. City b. City C. d. Official Coordinator g4resrer Carver Soil & Water Conservation District Iq MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources -Jack Gleason 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Michael Setering 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services S. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (CenturyLink) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco Date: December 17, 2012 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Review Response Deadline: January 4, 2013 By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner 952-227-1134 saliaffna.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 17 -lot single-family development on 13.2 acres of property currently zoned RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed Low Density Residential, and located south of West 86th Street - Preserve at Rice Lake. Applicant: John Knoblaucb. Owner: Chestnut Group, LLC. Planning Case: 2013-02 PID: 25-0242610 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on December 14, 2012. The 60 -day review period ends February 12, 2013. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, stone water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on January 15, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than January 4, 2013. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official E Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources -Jack Gleason 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (CenturyLink) 10. Electric Company (MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 12/14/2012 3:24 PM Receipt No. 00206615 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Knoblauch Builders LLC 1450 Knob Hill Lane Excelsior MN 55331 - Preserve at Rice Lake- Planning Case 2013-02 ------------------------------------------------------- Concept PUD 750.00 Sign Rent 200.00 GIS Fee 279.00 Total Cash Check 6559 Change 1,229.00 0.00 1,229.00 0.00 SCANNED 17 -LOT CONCEPT PLANNOTES: 12/11/12 WETLAND IMPACTS 1. STREET EASEMENT WIDTH AS SHOWN IS 15 FEET DUE TO 50 FEET R/W. TOTAL = 6269 sq. ft = 0.14 acres TOTAL SITE AREA = 13.23 ACRES 2. BUILDING PADS AS SHOWN ARE 60'X60' alk imri �� , s� •� 01 Aw _ I I ` -- 12 _ , «. / _ _ I t� OUTLOT C j \� < �I �I 14 I �I 13 I i 15 I �I • o / \ 1 Y17 Owl Y L 4P tl OT. 11 46 Vow Sjo?, 0 100 SCALE I T j Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building OF 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 March 13, 2014 Sharmeen AI-Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVE® MAR 10 2014 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SUBJECT: Preserve at Rice Lake, MnDOT Cooperative Construction Review North side of US 212, East of MN 101 Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1013 Dear Ms. AI-Jaff: MnDOT has reviewed the detailed plans for the proposed noise wall for Preserve at Rice Lake (#S 14-004). In addition to our comments from the February 6, 2014 review letter, MnDOT has the following comments: Structures. 1) Some content was distributed among the appendices, (C and D were not provided), making the review somewhat challenging. Post numbers were referenced which were not present or distinguishable on the provided boring plan. While the borings were designated "SB -I" and similar on the logs, the Appendix A nomenclature was shown as T through '7: Further inconsistency is present in the Foundation Analysis section when the borings are given a designation "B-5" (or similar). Consistent nomenclature should be used among references; at present we are forced to assume the included references are appropriate and correct. 2) The project definition describes that cut and fill sections may exist with changes of up to 4 feet (a potentially significant amount with respect to the anticipated embedment of the noise wall posts). It is unclear how this was addressed in the analysis, which appears to be based on native soils and current ground elevation conditions. 3) It is unclear if the "methods described below" in the FROST HEAVE AND ADFREEZING PROTECTION section are present or absent, as the CONCLUSIONS section immediately follows, and some information there addresses other engineering considerations. 4) The paragraph below Table -B describes the noise wall post embedment in Appendix C. In the Table of Contents, Appendix C is Laboratory Results, which is not a logical place to locate the noise wall post embedment depths. This Appendix was not provided. It is suggested that a primary item of interest (required minimum post embedment) be contained in the report or in its own appendix such that it is clear and easy to find by the wall designers who require this information. 5) An improved presentation of the geotechnical site character with respect to the variable embedment depths would be helpful. Table -B appears to show a uniform site. The analysis describes that two different [generalized] soil types/profiles were studied- those shown in Table -B based on borings B-1 to B-5 and B-7, and other properties seen at B-6. The properties for B-6 appear to be described as representative of the rest of the small berm, although B-7 appears part of that berm. What were the B-6 properties? Are these the friction values in the table -B? Are other borings (not T- 6) shown by the cohesive values (based on the pocket penetrometer readings) in the table? The table is difficult to interpret- please identify which parameters were used for which designs. *Generally both friction and cohesion values are not used together (unless high-end drained/undrained triaxial tests and similar are conducted for combined c/phi parameters). Improved descriptions of the methodology for application of values in the table as well as the use of better labeling, or perhaps two tables would add more clarity for the review process. MnDOT is concerned that if both [undrained] cohesive and frictional values were included in the same analysis, the results may be non -conservative. 6) Comments on the water levels were notes. Likewise, comments on soil moisture (dry, damp, moist, etc...) [or similar lab tests with % moisture] should also be part of the logging process. 7) As the noise wall post numbering plan was not available, some of the measures in the conclusions section were difficult to evaluate (based on noise wall post numbering). The measures themselves seem reasonable. 8) In the conclusions, the report recommends the removal of topsoil layers if encountered. A deep topsoil lens was noted, which a post hole could intercept when installed. Does the report recommend excavation and removal of that layer (or only surface topsoil deposits)? 9) MnDOT concurs that the designers should have the opportunity to review the final designs and specifications for the project work to ensure they are consistent with the geotechnical design intent. (As an example, the minimum embedment elevation of 901.1 feet for a portion of the wall may require longer noise wall posts than other sections of the wall in order to maintain a uniform wall height. The plans should be checked to reflect this aspect in plan notes, pay quantities, provisions, and similar). Note also that an elevation of 90 1.0, as a requirement, may be a useful improvement for detailing and field surveying simplicity. 10) Overall, the report appears to be an appropriate level of effort for the evaluation of the site for the construction of the intended noise barrier. For questions concerning these comments, please contact Derrick Dasenbrock in MnDOT's Structures Section. Bridges: 1) The yellow highlighted areas of the attached specifications need to be completed and information filled in. 2) Since the noise wall is to be constructed in MnDOT right of way, the paint color of the wall needs to be coordinated with MnDOT (Bridge Office or Landscape Architecture Unit). The Bridge Office Contact is Melissa Schultz (651-366-4465). Review Submittal Options: MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent electronically can usually be turned around faster. Submit one of the following: 1. One pdf version of the plans. MnDOT accepts plans at metrodevreviews.dotQstate.mn.us, provided that each e-mail is less than 20 megabytes. 2. Three sets of full size plans. Submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Send plans to: MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One compact disk. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's external FTP site. Send files to: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/nub/incominglMetroWatersEdge/Planning. Internet Explorer may not work using ftp, using an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Send a note to metrodeweviews.dotAstate.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review contact me at 651-234-7794. Sincerely, Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor Attachment: Borate -wood noise barrier specifications Copy sent via E -Mail: Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Molly Kline, Area Engineer Pete Wasko, Noise Buck Craig, Permits Nancy Jacobson, Design Nicholas Olson, Water Resources Amber Blanchard, Bridge Douglas Nelson, Right -of -Way David Sheen, Traffic Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council Paul Oehme, Chanhassen Melissa Schultz, Bridge Derrick Dasenbrock, Structures July 25, 2011 S-1 (2422) WOOD NOISE BARRIER NOTE: The Designer is cautioned that all color/stain choices should be made in collaboration with the Bridge Office (if this applies to your Project) and/or the Landscape Architectural Unit. They MUST be consulted when deciding on this issue. This work shall consist of furnishing all materials for and constructing wood noise barrier walls complete with appurtenant concrete posts, all in accordance with the Plan details, the applicable Mn/DOT Standard Specifications, and the following: S-1.1 GENERAL All thickness and width dimensions of solid sawn wood for timber facing material indicated in the Plans for wood wall construction shall be construed to be nominal dimensions unless otherwise indicated in the Plans or these Special Provisions. S-1.2 MATERIALS (A) Concrete Posts As detailed in the Plan. (B) Mn/DOT 3426 (Structural Timber) and 3457 (Lumber): Planking and Battens 1) Except as otherwise permitted elsewhere herein, dimensional timber for planks and battens shall be any species of southern pine conforming to the requirements of Mn/DOT 3426 and/or 3457, free of natural and manufacturing defects that would impair the strength or prevent use of the piece in its full size for purposes of strength and utility intended, such as checks, decay, loose knots, holes, edge wane and warp. 2) Intermixing of wood species will not be permitted within any continuous section of wall. 3) Planks, which are constructed above ground shall be No. 1 Structural Grade and Better, dressed on two sides (S2S) or better, tongue and grooved worked. Planks, which are constructed partially above ground, such as those placed opposite the earth fill side of barriers, also shall meet these requirements. Planks, which are constructed below ground, such as those placed on the earth fill side (supporting) of barriers, and nailers shall be No. 2 Structural Grade and Better standard rough sawn. Battens and cap boards shall be No. 1 Structural Grade and Better, dressed on one side and two edges (S1S2E) or better. 4) Except as otherwise permitted elsewhere herein, all timber shall be treated with a Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate (DOT) and an exterior polymer based system that complies with ESR-1081(ICC Evaluation Service Report) as described hereinafter in this specification. 5) Moisture content shall meet the requirements of S-_.9 (MOISTURE CONTENT) of these Special Provisions. (C) Structural Steel Tubing Structural steel shall conform to the requirements of Mn/DOT 3306. Threaded rods, bolls, nuts and washers shall be galvanized in accordance with MmDOT 3392 or be electroplated in accordance with ASTM B 633, Type 111, SC 4. (D) Hardware All hardware for noise wall shall meet the following requirements: July 25, 2011 1) All battens shall be secured to planks using a No. 8, or larger, -screw that is coated with a protective layer that provides full coverage and prohibits any corrosion after an exposure of 1,000 hours to ASTM B 117, "Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus" and install with a drive system that does not strip or cause damage to the head of the screw and will penetrate completely through the batten board and through % of the thickness of the facing board in all applications. Stainless steel screws that meet the dimensional and drive system requirements are allowed without the performance of ASTM B 117. 2) The requirements as shown on Mn/DOT Standard Plan Sheet 5-297.661 (Sheets 1 & 2) "Wood Planking Noise Barrier With Concrete Posts" shall be used as a reference except for the fastener pattern as detailed in S -_.2D3 and S -_.2D4 (MATERIALS; Hardware) below. Note: if employing hand -driven nails for nailing planks to nailing components, then Standard Plan Sheet 5-297.661 (Sheet 2 of 2) applies, except as detailed below in S --.2D3; however, 8d ring shank nails (.120" minimum diameter) shall NOT be used for fastening battens (see S-_.2134 below). 3) The fastener pattern used for nailing planks to nailer components shall at a minimum meet the following requirements: a. Four (4) nails per board connection, as shown in Figure A for 3" long nails; or b. Three (3) nails per board connection, as shown in Figure B for 3 %:" long nails. The fasteners shall be placed a minimum of 1" (one inch) and a maximum of 2" (two inches) from the edges of the nailing plank. July 25, 2011 FROM PLANNING GRAIN (TYP.) i -ALIGN NAILING FROM ST GRAIN (TYPJ r I' MIN., 2' MAX. CLEAR ii (TIP. FROM ALL EDGES) MDL. 2' MAL CLEAR YP. FROM ALL EDGES) FIGURE AL NAILING PATTERN FOR 3' NAILS IGN w(TYP.) ILINFROM POSTUGRA CASE A I,•1' MIN.. 2' MAY CLEAR PLANKING CONTIMIOUS ACROSS POST• (TYP.FROM ALL EDCES) CASE B I PLANNING JOINT AT POST I• • • I I' MDL. 7 MAX. CLEAR (TV.FROM ALL EDGES) FIGURE Be NAILING PATTERN FOR 3-1/2'NAILS 4) The fastener pattern used for screwing battens, cap boards and other architectural features to planks shall utilize the following method: a. Two fasteners shall be applied on 14" (fourteen inch) centers on the batten boards (thereby hitting every other facing plank). The fasteners shall be placed a minimum of 1" (one inch) and a maximum of 2" (two inches) from the edges of the batten board. 5) When power tools and building equipment are used to drive ring shank nails into the planking, a minimum gauge diameter of 0.131" (one hundred thirty-one thousands of an inch) hot -dipped galvanized full -head round ring shank nails July 25, 2011 shall be used. The number of nails required in each pattern shall be increased by an extra 50% (fifty percent) if using 3 '/3" long full head nails to an increase of 100% (one hundred percent) if using 3" long full head nails. Clipped head nails shall not be allowed. 6) All hardware for wood noise barrier walls shall meet the requirements of Mn/DOT 3391 (Fasteners) and Mn/DOT 3392 (Galvanized Hardware) unless explicitly allowed by these Special Provisions. (E) Stain and Paint Exposed concrete and wood surfaces shall be stained and finished on all exposed surfaces in accordance with the requirements described hereinafter in this specification. Steel surfaces shall be painted and finished on all exposed surfaces in accordance with the requirements described hereinafter in this specification. (F) Caulk Caulk shall be a neutral -cure, one -component, high performance, medium modulus silicone joint sealant conforming to ASTM C920-86, Type S, Grade NS designed for general purpose caulking and glazing applications. Provide in a clear color. Apply after staining. S-1.3 DEFINITIONS (A) BORATE Treated Wood — Non -arsenic, non -heavy metal, and non -chromium pressure treated wood produced in accordance with applicable procedures and specifications, and the appropriate International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC -ES) Standards and/or applicable American Wood Preservers' Association (AWPA) Standards for exterior usage [UC3A (Use Category 3A for exterior construction, above ground, coated & rapid water runoff) and UC3B (Use Category 3B for exterior construction, above ground, uncoated and poor water runoff) approval]. The Disodium Octaborate Tetmhydrate (Na2Bi,O,3.4H,0) solution is an inorganic borate. The exterior usage is permitted through the use of an additional polymer treatment that inhibits the leaching of the borate from the wood. (B) Specialty Subcontractor — Party responsible for BORATE handling, transporting, storing, installing, protecting, sampling, and patching (damaged BORATE). This may be the Contractor if Contractor is able to demonstrate to the Engineer its expertise in this area. (C) Manufacturer — The ICC Accredited party or parties (as listed in ESR -1081) responsible for producing the BORATE treated wood and/or the preservative. (D) Retention — amount of preservative level present in the BORATE wood measured in kg/m' [lbs/ft']. (E) Water resistant — Quality of the wood to repel moisture, providing long-term protection against decay, rot, and weathering. (F) Supplier — If no Manufacturer (as defined above) exists for the Project, then the Supplier shall be defined as the facility responsible for furnishing the ICC Accredited borate -treated wood planks to the Specialty Subcontractor (as defined above). S-1.4 REQUIREMENTS (A) Materials Orderine BORATE treated wood materials shall not be ordered until the Engineer has approved the proposed materials. If the Contractor orders materials without the Engineer's written approval, the Contractor assumes all liability. (B) Preparation July 25, 2011 Dewater the site, if noted in the Plan, such that the ground water is a minimum of 305 millimeters 11 foot] below the bottom of the excavation at all locations (See Special Provisions). Do not tum off the dewatering system until select granular borrow has been placed to the specified ground line, and approval has been obtained from the Engineer. (C) Excavation Excavate and fill to lines and grades as shown in the Plans. Fill placed below the noise wall shall be placed in maximum 203 millimeters 18 inches] loose lifts and compacted to Mn/DOT standard dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) Standards. Measure moisture and density of compacted fill at the rate of one test per 382 cubic meters 1500 cubic yards] of fill or a minimum of one (1) test per day. (D) Brandin Each BORATE treated wood timber shall be individually permanently branded on the face of each timber, not the edges or ends with the following two (2) separate brands: BRAND #1 1) Name of wood treating company; 2) Treatment plant city and state; 3) "Borate'; 4) Preservative retention level; 5) "Approved for exterior use". BRAND #2 1) Name of wood treating company; 2) ICC Accredited Facility; 3) ESR -1081'. . = ICC Evaluation Service Report 1081 (E) BORATE Preservative — A borate with a binding system used to minimize leaching of the borate. The preservative shall provide protection to the wood against decay, rot, and insect attack, and act as a fungicide. 1) The preservative shall be applied at a rate by the manufacturer which will ensure that the measured retention level at the construction jobsite will be a minimum of 0.50 pounds per cubic foot for all applications where the timber will be installed, and as noted in 2) below; 2) Only Disodium Octabomte Tetrahydrate products approved for exposed conditions shall be allowed. 3) The polymer shall be applied at a rate of thirty (30) gallons per one -thousand (1000) board feet as stated in the quality manual as approved by the ICC in accordance with ESR -1081. Verification of this rate of usage shall be monitored by an independent third -party inspection agency and the resulting report will be presented to Mn/DOT upon request. S-1.5 SUBMITTALS AND CERTIFICATION All Borate Treated Wood must be sampled, tested and inspected by the Manufacturer and/or Supplier and approved by the Department prior to being incorporated permanently in the work. July 25, 2011 Unless otherwise specified, no direct compensation will be made for the costs of sampling and testing, it being understood that the costs are included in the Contract bid prices for treated wood products. This inspection shall be performed in accordance with the following: (A) A Letter of Compliance from the Manufacturer and/or Supplier certifying that the material famished meets the Specification requirements and identifying the Specification number or reference and the Project number to which the material is shipped shall be furnished to the Engineer. The report also shall include the sampling procedures and results of all quality control tests, including a description of test methods used. (B) A Letter of Compliance shall include Treatment and Inventory Audit Reports in accordance with the Quality Control Manual, Wood Treatment Products, Inc. (See Section S-_.6). This letter shall certify that all aspects of the Wood Treatment Products Quality Assurance Manual have been followed including both the retention of the borate in the wood and the appropriate amount of polymer as recorded by the treater upon treatment. (C) The Department reserves the right to request additional testing and/or verification by the Manufacturer and/or Supplier at the Contractor's expense. The Contractor is advised that he/she needs to allow enough lead time so that a Letter of Compliance can be prepared and furnished to the Engineer so as to not to interfere with the construction schedule for the completion of the wood noise barrier walls. S-1.6 ACCEPTABLE PRESERVATIVE SOURCES Disodium Octaborate Tetrahydrate (Na2BB013.4H20) is an inorganic borate and is manufactured by Envirotech Ventures International, Inc., P.O. Box 712, Sandpoint, Idaho 83864, among others. It is distributed as Envirosafe Plus r"r Wood Preservative available through Wood Treatment Products, Inc., P.O. Box 950445, Lake Mary, FL 32795-0445, and its authorized treaters, or auoroved equal. The Engineer may accept, at his or her discretion, borate preservative -treated wood from a single approved source. S-1.7 WARRANTY The Contractor shall wan -ant the installation of the BORATE treated wood against defects for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the acceptance (See Section S- _.13) by the Engineer. (Note: This warranty is separate from any warranty (ties) that the manufacturer may provide to the Contractor on the treatment chemicals and/or the treated noise wall timbers supplied). The Contractor, or its designated representative, shall repair any defects due to improper installation that occur during the warranty period at no cost to the Department. The Contractor shall furnish the Engineer with a written warranty. S-1.8 HANDLING AND STORAGE BORATE Treated Wood materials shall be delivered in wrapped bundles and stored above ground, protected from weather and moisture until use. The Contractor is reminded that due diligence and care must be exercised when moving or handling any posts or wood material from their storage area(s) on the Project. Should any damage occur to any posts or wood material being installed on the Project by the result of mishandling, the Engineer may refuse to accept the placement of any such damaged material under Mn/DOT 1607 and at the approval of the Engineer. Such damaged and unaccepted material shall be replaced by the Contractor at his cost. S-1.9 MOISTURE CONTENT The Contractor is responsible for the following: (A) Samples shall be tested for moisture content at the rate of one (1) sample per 186 square meters 12000 square feet] of installed wood material. Testing and test equipment shall meet the requirements of ASTM D4444-92 (Reapproved 2003) [Standard Test Methods for Use and Calibration of July 25, 2011 Hand -Held Moisture Meters], in particular Field Calibration (sections 5.2, 6.2, and 6.3) and Sampling Point (location) (section 6.6.1). (B) The specified sampling rate may be increased prior to installation at the discretion of the Engineer (i.e., to test samples after a precipitation event). (C) At the time of installation, the Contractor shall test and ensure the moisture content in the planking wood shall not exceed thirteen (13) percent maximum moisture content per volume tested. The moisture content for the battens shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent maximum moisture content per volume tested. Wood planking and battens which do not meet these requirements will be rejected. However, the rejected portion will be allowed to sun dry or be mechanically dried to meet moisture content requirements and then be placed with the approval of the Engineer in the noise wall installation. BORATE Treated Wood materials which fail to meet moisture content requirements shall be rejected by the Engineer and removed from the Project at no cost to Mn/DOT. S-1.10 INSTALLER AND MATERIALS STANDARDS (A) Submittals and testing qualifications of the installer of the BORATE Treated Wood shall comply with S-_.4 (REQUIREMENTS), and S-_.9 (MOISTURE CONTENT) of these Special Provisions. These instructions must be provided to the Engineer, and approved by the Engineer prior to the Contractor ordering materials. (B) The Contractor shall dispose of BORATE treated wood scraps and cutoffs in a non- hazardous municipal solid waste landfill in accordance with Mn/DOT 2104 and local regulations. BORATE treated wood scraps shall not be burned. 5-1.11 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS (A) Construction of wood noise barrier walls together with appurtenant concrete posts shall be accomplished in accordance with the Plan details, the applicable Mn/DOT Standard Specifications, these Special Provisions, or as otherwise approved by the Engineer. BORATE Treated Wood materials that must meet definite Specification requirements shall not be incorporated in the work until all preliminary inspections and tests necessary for moisture retention and preservative levels have been completed and the material is found to comply with requirements. Structural Concrete shall be of Mix IA43 placed as directed by the Plans, Specifications, these Special Provisions, and the Engineer. (B) Concrete posts and vertical wood components, such as battens, shall be plumb after installation. Horizontal wood components, such as planks and cap boards, shall be level after installation. (C) Excavated material for noise wall construction shall not be used for backfilling the post holes and shall be disposed of in accordance with Mn/DOT specifications. (D) Nailing and fastening shall be accomplished in a manner that will avoid splitting boards. When fill is retained by the wall, 6 -mil polyethylene sheeting shall be placed between planks and earth. However, the placement of the sheeting shall be done in a manner which does NOT allow the infiltration or retention of water next to the planking (i.e., the sheeting shall not be so tightly installed around the planking that a watertight area is formed next to the planking which could retain water). (E) Joints shall be constructed in a manner that will completely arrest the passage of light. No daylight shall be visible through the joints 120 days after completion of the wall; this shall be construed to be part of the Warranty as detailed in Section S- .7 of these Special Provisions. The Contractor is advised to take whatever measures necessary to avoid excessive shrinkage or shifting which would cause July 25, 2011 the passage of light. Where passage of light does occur, the Contractor shall take corrective action, by applying caulking to the satisfaction of the Engineer, at his/her own expense. (F) Planking shall be installed "groove side down" in all installations. When battens are to be joined in the construction of the wall, they shall have a 45 degree down miter joint instead of the inplace 90 degree joint (to minimize water retention issues). (G) Storage of materials within the Right of Way will be permitted only as approved by the Engineer. (R) Debris shall be disposed of outside the Right of Way. 5-1.12 STAINING, PAINTING AND FINISHING REQUIREMENTS This work shall consist of famishing all materials and labor for staining exposed concrete and wood surfaces and painting of metal surfaces of Wood Noise Barrier in accordance with the applicable Mn/DOT Standard Specifications, the Plan details, and the following: (A) Scope 1) Section includes thin-film wall coatings for concrete and wood substrates. 2) Related sections include wall materials and construction as found elsewhere herein these Special Provisions. (B) Submittals 1) Product Data: Submit manufacturer's complete technical data sheets for stains and paints for each substrate requiring finishing, including: a. Product profile b. Surface preparation C. Technical data d. Application 2) Samples for Initial Color Selection: Submit manufacturer's color charts showing full range of colors available. When specified, match Federal color standards. 3) Qualification Data: For product manufacturers and installers indicated in Quality Assurance section, indicating capabilities and list of projects completed. Provide complete contact information for each reference. 4) Product Estimates: Submit calculations for the amount of stain material needed for a two -coat application for the Project using manufacturer's average recommended coverage rate for each substrate type. (C) Quality Assurance 1) Manufacturer Qualifications: Manufacturer with 10 -years experience in stain system design, product manufacture and technical consultation services. 2) Installer Qualifications: Installer with 5 -years experience in stain application and maintenance on projects of similar scope and quality. 3) Products for Concrete and Wood Surfaces: Provide a high quality water-based acrylic polymer stain designed to provide long-term protection in exterior July 25, 2011 exposures on concrete and wood surfaces, while adding design dimension in architectural applications. For a list of approved stains see the following web site: bttp://www.mrr.dot.state.mn.us/matefials/ai)pri3rod.as a. General Requirements: 1. 100% straight acrylic polymer 2. Free of toxic metals 3. 100% organic pigments 4. Meets latest Federal VOC regulations 5. Color as specified b. Specific Requirements: 1. Solids by volume: 30% minimum 2. Solids by weight: 44% minimum 3. Viscosity: 65 KU minimum C. Obtain each specified material from the same source and maintain high degree of consistency in workmanship throughout the Project. d. Deliver, store and handle specified products according to manufacturer's instructions and application techniques. NOTE: Use 4) following only if this applies to your Project. 4) Products for Metal Surfaces: Conform to the requirements of Section SB - (STEEL BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION — Ornamental Metal Railing) in Division SB attached to this Proposal. Deliver, store and handle specified products according to manufacturer's instructions and application techniques. 5) Notification: Notify manufacturer's authorized representative at least 1 -week before starting the work of the Project as directed by the Engineer. 6) Test Panels: At location selected by the Engineer, finish a 10 -foot by 10 -foot area of each substrate requiring stain application to obtain approval for the color, finish and coverage rates before proceeding with the Project. a. Provide products, processes and techniques intended for use on permanent work. Adjust color shade of stain product as directed by the Engineer to achieve desired aesthetic appearance. b. Retain and protect accepted test sample as the visual standard for the work of this section and quality standard for permanent work. C. A one (1) pint sample of each lot number of stain to be used on the Project shall be submitted to Mn/DOT's Office of Materials for testing to verify: i) Percent Solids ; ii) Infrared Scan on vehicle; and iii) Viscosity. 1. Stain failing these tests shall be rejected, and shall not be used on the Project. 7) Colors: Provide colors for stain specified in accordance with the following selection guide: NOTE: The Designer is cautioned that all color/stain choices should be made in collaboration with the Bridge Office (if this applies to your Project) July 25, 2011 and/or the Landscape Architectural Unit. They MUST be consulted when deciding on this issue. a. Concrete Surfaces — Includes concrete posts. Match Federal Standard , Color No. (Color Description). b. Wood Surfaces — Includes wood planking, nailers, battens and cap boards. Match Federal Standard , Color No. _ (Color Description). C. Metal Surfaces — Not Used d. Architectural Features—Not Used. C. Final color selections will be determined by the Engineer using test panels provided by the Contractor. The Contractor is advised that more than one color may be field tested and that the approved color may be a custom color. (D) Construction Requirements 1) Verify that surfaces to be finished are sound, dry and free of dust, dirt, oils, efflorescence, biological and chemical residues, paint, stain, curing compounds and other contaminants which may affect performance of the stains(s) specified. 2) In addition to the moisture content test(s) performed under S--.9 (MOISTURE CONTENT) of these Special Provisions, the Contractor shall test the moisture content of all wood surfaces before applying stain specified. This testing shall be performed at the rate of one (1) sample per 186 square meters 12000 square feet] of installed wood material. Except as otherwise approved by the Engineer, surfaces having a moisture content greater than 13% shall not be stained. 3) Apply stain specified according to manufacturer's instructions and application techniques to achieve average coverage rate shown on manufacturer's technical data sheets. This data must specifically provide surface preparation and application instructions for preservative treated timber and lumber products. Apply two coats minimum using airless spray equipment with appropriate tip/atomizing pressure for equipment, applicator technique and weather conditions to produce a wet application that provides color uniformity, but avoids buildups, lap marks and runs. Finished areas lackin¢ a uniform 4) Protect and shield all surfaces that are not intended to be treated, including trees, shrubs and other plants. When multiple colors are specified, protect previously finished surfaces to avoid overspray. (E) Payment Staining, painting and finishing of concrete, wood and metal surfaces are considered an incidental expense to the respective items of Wood Noise Barrer construction, and no additional compensation will be made for this work. S-1.13 BORATE" TREATED WOOD ACCEPTANCE The Contractor shall retain ownership and responsibility of the BORATE treated wood until the Engineer accepts it. July 25, 2011 (A) The Engineer will accept the BORATE installation after: 1) All required documentation from the Contractor has been received and accepted. 2) Test reports verifying material properties have been received and accepted by the Engineer. 3) Construction of the Borate -treated noise wall is complete, including any repairs needed due to material defects or construction requirements. S-1.14 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT (A) Concrete posts of each size will be measured separately by the length of the posts furnished and installed complete in place as specified. (B) Wood noise wall construction will be measured by the square foot of BOR4TE treated timber and lumber furnished and installed complete in place as specified, including quality assurance sampling and testing, architectural treatments (battens and cap feature), fire hose access holes and staining. No increase in area will be allowed for measuring the opposite side of the wall or the architectural treatments required on this surface unless specif ed on drawings. (C) Payment will be made according to the following schedule: NOTE: Only those pay items which are applicable to this Project shall apply. Item Description Units 2411.501 Structural Concrete (I A43) Cubic Yard 2411.521 Granular Backfill (CV) Cubic Yard 2411.523 Aggregrate Backfill (CV) Cubic Yard 2422.603 Concrete Posts 12" x 18" Linear Foot 2422.603 Concrete Posts 12" x 20" Linear Foot 2422.603 Glue Laminated Rub Rail Linear Foot 2422.618 Wood Noise Barrer Square Foot 2520.501 Lean Mix Backfill Cubic Yard Payment shall be considered payment in full for all other costs incidental thereto. * = Lean Mix Backfill will be paid for only if its use is recommended by Mn/DOT's Materials Office because of soils on site. If the Contractor chooses to use Lean Mix Backfill however, he/she shall only be paid what it would cost for (2411.523) Aggregate Backfill (CV) by the Cubic Yard. City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 Date: April 22, 2013 Review Response Deadline: May 10, 2013 lb To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner 952-221 1 Subject: PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: Request for Land Use Map Amendment fre ential-Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density; Rezoning from Sm2l& Fami ential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Developmen id al UD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots with Variances; to Review; and Wetland Alteration Permit. Applicant: J & S Ventures 1, qY Planning Case: 2013-12 PID: 25-0242610 The above-described application for approval of a land development pro was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on April 19, 2013. The 60 -day review period ends June 1 20 In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for PI ion and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concemin a arc proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water dramag an e squiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Wh n or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so th� e a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for considersQeMnhassen Planning Commission on Msy 21,2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhasswould appreciate receiving your comments by no later than May 10, 2013. You may also appear at 1 gsion meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments_ 1W 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife a. City b. City Carver County c. C' I�ctor a. Engineer d. Ma al b. Environmental Services g Official r Resources Coordinator 8. Watershed District Engineer tMN ester a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River r Soil &Water Conservation District c. Minnehaha Creek ept. of Transportation 9. Telephone Company (CenturyLink) 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources -lack Gleason 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy) 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Michael 11. Mediacom Setering 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 0 CITY OF CHANAA3SEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.2271180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.2271130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner X FROM: Todd Hoffinan, Park & Recreation Director DATE: July 1, 2013 SUBJ: Request for Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density; Rezoning from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development -Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots with Variances; Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration Permit. Applicant: J & S Ventures 1, Inc. 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 Preserve at Rice Lake development would not meet this guideline. The nearest park is Rice Marsh Lake Park which is located approximately one mile away if utilizing the city's pedestrian trail network. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN The city's comprehensive trail plan calls for the future completion of Rice Marsh Lake trail to be constructed around the perimeter of the lake. This proposed subdivision should provide for and construct a trail connection to this future trail starting at the public street and extending to the southeast corner of the property. This trail connection should be situated in a public outlot or trail easement. RECOMMENDED PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL It is recommended that the following condition of approval concerning parks and trails be applied to the proposed Preserve at Rice Lake: Fifty -percent (50%) of park fees shall be collected in consideration for the dedication of Outlots A and B. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. At today's rate these fees would total $46,400 (16 lots x $5,800 per lot/2). Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing forTodayand Planning for Tomorrow Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 PUBLIC HEARING: PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: REOUEST FOR A CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 15 LOT SINGLE FAMH.Y DEVELOPMENT ON 13.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED RSF-SINGLE FAMH.Y RESIDENTIAL AND R4- KNOBLAUCH. OWNER: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2013-02. Al -Jaffa Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Before you is a request for a concept planned unit development. The site has an area of 13.2 acres. It is located southwest of the intersection of Se Street. West 86" Street and Tigua Lane. Just briefly, this site was part of the parcel located south of Highway 212 and with the construction of Highway 212 it was segmented into two pieces. The 13 acres to the north and the remainder, I believe there were 60 acres to the south which were developed by another developer as single family detached homes. So the remaining piece, the 13 acres that is before you today, it is currently zoned, it's currently guided Residential Low Density which allows for 1.2 to 4 units per acre. The westerly half of the site is currently zoned Single Family Residential which permits attached as well as detached single family homes. The easterly portion is Mixed Low Density which allows for townhomes. Some of the characteristics of this site include a complex of different bodies of wetlands all along the northerly portion, the westerly portion, as well as a few along the east side of the site. Highway 212, a four lane highway is located south of the subject site. The site falls within the Shoreland Overlay District of Rice Marsh Lake. That entire area that is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a lake is considered shoreland and it falls under specific regulations that any development would have to adhere to. The buildable area on the site. What we attempted to do was just look at the location of the wetlands and just highlight the buildable area on the site solely based on the setback from the edge of the wetlands and what you see shaded in pink, that becomes the buildable area of the site. What the applicant is proposing to do is build single family homes. If we look at, and this plan was submitted by the applicant. The typical home that they intend to build will be 60 feet in depth and will require 52 feet in width. When we have these homes on the proposed lots, some of the house pads will encroach into required setbacks. Some of the homes don't meet width requirements for the shoreland ordinance. So there are sections that will need to be addressed. They just don't meet the regulations that are required in the wetland as well as the Shoreland Overlay District. To be able to accommodate the type of product that the applicant is requesting, one of the things that the City could entertain is re -guiding this site to medium density. It would be dual guiding it to low density as well as medium density. When we guide it to medium density one of the things that the planned unit development ordinance will allow us to do is really work with the site. There is no minimum lot area. There is no minimum lot width. That will allow us to look at the features of the site and position homes so that they are respectful and conscientious of how can we develop without impacting the natural features of the site. We are recommending that the Planning Commission provide us with feedback. We have raised some issues within the staff report that are still of concern. The current plan that the applicant is, has submitted does not meet the intent of a planned unit development. We believe that it is doable. It just requires some additional work by the applicant. Aanenson: I'd like to just add a couple more comments. Can you go back to the slide? In looking at this project and the shoreland district, we've gotten feedback from the DNR that it does not meet the intent of the shoreland district so, because we believe that the single family housing product and meeting the goals of the number of units that the applicant wanted, somewhere around 16, staying at that 4 units an acre, which is low density by the City ordinance, we believe that it can fit on this site and meet the ordinance requirements, not only for the City's ordinance but for the shoreland regs and not filling any wetlands and avoidance and meeting all that. We do believe the PUD is the right tool for the fact that in order to get access to this site coming off of West 86'" Street, to go through, to get that access you are going to impact roads, no matter what product you were to put on that site. The only way to service that via sewer would SCANNED Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 have to come off that way so to narrow that road to less impact as we just talked about in the last application, we believe that the PUD is the right tool. The problem with the low density is it doesn't fit within the shoreland regs. That flexibility that we have in place so the reason we were recommending the dual guiding is that if this application wasn't to go forward and the council wanted to revisit some other application, that would give them the leeway. Again because this is concept we're just looking for direction and what we're telling you is that we don't believe that under the low density that this application could go forward under that. There's, it just doesn't fit under the current regs but we believe getting to the 4 units an acre, keeping the 509/6 open space under the medium density would make some sense so with that, with some of the conditions that we put in the staff report, we would recommend kind of moving in that direction so with that, that's kind of our position and we're looking for some direction from you and then also from the City Council on that so, I think Sharmcen did a good job kind of explaining the issues that we have so, be happy to answer any questions you have on that. Aller: Even if we were to do or look at moving toward the ... PUD with the medium density, we would still have to meet the shoreland requirements, right? Aanenson: Absolutely. Aller: ... overlay that has to be met. Aanenson: Absolutely. The difference is with, the way our shoreland ordinance is written, it's very prescriptive as far as lot size under that low density. The medium density allows greater flexibility. It's similar to what we did up on, up on the 2005 MUSA area. We have some of those lot sizes are different so it would still accommodate the single family home. We'd keep the buffers and the setbacks in the preservation area but allows for a smaller lot. It would meet the goals of trying to provide a single family lot so it doesn't have to be a 15,000 lot. It might be a 11,000 or a 12,000 square foot lot. Similarto what Ryland just did. Excuse me, what Lennar just did across the street and so. Aller: Even at the medium density which allows for flexibility, it allows us to move the lot sizes and the structure on the lot. But I don't see, based on the map that's in front of us where we would be getting 15 units. Aanenson: What you're looking at now is you're looking at it as it's laid out meeting the larger lot. If you were to go similar to what Lennar has across the street, which is the similar property, with also some of those lots fell within the shoreland. That was the RLM which allowed you to go as small as. AI -Jaffa 9,000 square feet. Aanenson: Yeah. AI-Jaff. And 63 or 64. Aanenson: Yeah, 65. I don't think they were that small in that subdivision. Al -Jaffa Correct. Aanenson: But they were selling very well there so we believe that, based on the house plans that were submitted, and reconfiguring that. Again that's up to the applicant to do that but we believe it can be met based on that and without impacting, meeting the ordinance requirements. Aller: And we're here for concept purposes. Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 Aanenson: Correct. Aller: We're not hereto make a decision or say that this plan is set in stone or even moving forward because it's really up to the developer to take the comments... Aanenson: That's correct but I guess what we're saying is under the, under the low density or the application that came in, we don't believe that could advance solely on, the other path that could be taken which we're asking your feedback on is to go towards the re -guiding of the property. Then again it would have to come back through for a public hearing but just to get your read on that. Aller: And then with some of the other issues that are in the staff report that I would see this coming forward with the hardscape requirements at 50%. With driveways and garages or patios, are going to need to meet that? AI -Jaffa They will have to provide us with all of that information so the next step will be figuring out exactly where that 50% open space is and then calculate the hard surface coverage on the site, and that would be part of the planned unit development regulations that we would put together should this project move forward. Aller: Any other questions at this point? The applicant wish to come forward and make a presentation? Welcome sir. Come forward, state your name and address for the record. John Knoblauch: Chairman Aller, staff and the Planning Commission, my name is John Knoblauch. I live at 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior, Minnesota. I'm the applicant for the Preserve at Rice Lake. Couple comments. This property, the landowner has drawn somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 different drawings on this subject parcel here we're working on. Staff's done a great job trying to work with myself in this challenging piece of property, but we have drawn about, I think we're on our eleventh shot at this as far as working with staff and trying to make a project that makes sense. The new drawing that we submitted on Monday is not shown here and that would fall closer to Kate's comments of the lots are 10,000 square feet. There's 16 lots. They meet the 4 units per acre of developable land. We have a total wetland impact I believe of point, on that new drawing I think it's .14 total and seems to be pretty close to, pretty close to what I think is a very doable project for us. So yes, we would like to ask to switch to that medium density situation so that we can proceed and work with staff to try to massage this to get it to work. The wetland impacts, just the drawing up there obviously is a little exaggerated because of the bigger lots. The V that you see coming with some red and orange, which are the buffers for the wetlands, just to make you aware. That is a 23 foot buffer so the triangle is greatly exaggerated because from the actual wetland it'd be 23 feet so those would be rounded off, just to let you know on that triangle there. We have a new drawing now that has a similar setup there in that area but we actually only have about 300 square feet of wetland that would be affected, or actually not make your buffer setback from that Type I wetland. I'm song, Type 3 wetland. So I'd like, I don't think we have that from Monday? Aller: Are these wetlands delineated now? Aanenson: No, I think at this, we didn't want to put the new plan in because I think it's kind of a moving target. I think we're trying to look at some of the macro issues and it's defining the parameters of the development. The shoreland district. The impact to the wetlands. Those were kind of the driving factors. Can we get sewer to the site? How is that connection going to be made? There's still a few question marks that need to be resolved on where that's going to be so really the goal here is before we went into actually laying out the plat is, we believe based on the parameters that are set in place that you would have to go to a smaller lot. And even if you changed the density to medium you still have to get to 4. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission —January 15, 2013 You can't go below that. So we believe that you know if we get to the 4 buildable acres at 4 units. Working through all the design, you know limitations we can make that work and the lot sizes, they're not all going to be at 9. They'll probably be closer to 11 or 12 1 think is what we were looking at. AI-Jaff: This one is 11. Aanenson: Yeah, in area which is similar to what we just did across on 212 so. Yep, and meeting the 50% open space so it would have to meet all those regulations but we didn't want to show that plan now because our whole staff report bases on this. Really the goal here tonight is to say, do you believe this is a reasonable way to, to proceed for this application to go forward? That's really the goal here because I think you know we're going to have to go through all that detail in the next iteration of the plan itself. Aller: Right, and it sounds like you're well aware of the wetland issues, which are probably will be the biggest ones that you have to face once, regardless of the zoning. John Knoblauch: Right. Aller: You'll have to deal with the other entities, the State entities with regard to how you're going to put these and what impacts. John Knoblauch: Yes, no doubt and I think you know the, as far as this design, what I think it brings a couple nice things to the table I think. You know it fits well with the surrounding area. The path which would finally get connected to the east, which would be a nice trail for the neighbors. We are proposing a sound wall to continue from the townhomes to the west in similar fashion across the next to 212 which would be, we're figuring right now, I mean we haven't completely had noise studies. We had preliminary noise study done but somewhere in the 6 to 8 feet going across the berm, which is basically across the lower part of the drawing up on the board there. And then we're planning on, if we can work out with staff the 16 lots, we're planning on this parcel to the west, which actually turned out to be about an acre and a half would end up, which is good, high ground, would end up being dedicated to the City, which would be nice open space. To the, on the east side, I'm sorry. Yeah, it's a very challenging piece of property but I think it's a really good site for my product because I build a really nice 2,800 to 3,000 square foot two story and I think, the pad area that I've got figured with patio, 3 car garage will fit well underneath the 30% hard cover, including you know driveway, sidewalk and the pad sizes we drew on that sketch. On the new sketch actually mirror this house and I actually made an attempt to oversize the garage from what we normally do to make sure that staff felt comfortable that these homes that I'm proposing will have no trouble down the road and we won't be back asking for situations that they don't enjoy so. Any questions? Aller: Anyone? Not at this time. Thank you very much sir. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I just add one other point of clarification? We didn't discuss, there's a lot of other things that need to be, we talked about the applicant just briefly talked about the noise wall that needs to take place and we still haven't finalized where that sewer location tie is going to be. There's a lot of other design issues. Again we're just kind of back talking about, is this the right way? You know we've worked through a lot of different designs that didn't seem to fit so we're just trying to decide the right path before we come back with all that detail. But there's quite a few things that still need to be addressed. Aller: Ultimately the question is if it goes forward, the best option for it may very well be the increase to allow for a PUD at the medium density so that we don't pigeon hole whether this goes forward but we don't stop another person from coming in and doing something different if this one does not go forward. Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 Aanenson: That gives you the flexibility, that's right. You have another public hearing on that. As you recall we changed the PUD ordinance so it can go down to the smallest is 11. It's the frontage requirement that's hanging us up in the shoreland district of 90 feet of frontage. That's what's hanging us up so. Aller. And staff is comfortable with that potential modification based on the 2030 plan and it fits. Aanenson: Correct. Again... ordinance requirements, correct. Aller: Can it be done water wise? Jeffery: Chairman Aller, I believe it can. Again it would be on the applicant to show that it can. You know there have been, I don't what? 11 iterations now. Every one seems to get a little closer so I guess time will tell but I think there's probably a way to make it happen. Aller: And if not this one, the flexibility would allow for another applicant to come in. It would just he a new look, a fresh look as far as you're concerned for purposes of the impact on the wetlands. That the property. Jeffery: That is correct. That is correct. Aller: ... any additional work. Okay. Let's open up the public hearing portion. Anyone wishing to come forward, please do so. State your name and address for the record. Lots of lookers, no talkers? Welcome ma'am. Mary Muirhead: Thank you. My name is Mary Muirhead and I live at 424 Monk Court so my townhouse would directly face, it directly faces the marshland. Judging from your last comments I can't quite tell whether development is a foregone conclusion. If I had my druthers the land would never be developed. It's leaving an undeveloped helps my property value at a time when everyone has experienced loss in property value. I moved here from Anoka County where I was on 4 acres on the Rum River and one of the things that just astounded me was the fact that I moved down here and I actually had a sense of being more in nature than I did at the spot that I had been living and it would make me very sad to lose that. One of the, if construction is a foregone conclusion at some point in time in the future then I think my biggest problem with this development is where the road is. I mean the road cuts as close to the townhouse property line as possible and just the thought of having headlights in the evening and then additional traffic as people are going into their homes, thatjust is a concern to me so respectfully speaking if this didn't go forward I would not be at all sadden. Aller: Thank you, and this is exactly what we're here for is the concept so that the developer and the council can get impact statements from people with regard to what they feel should be done with the property so construction is never a foregone conclusion. We have to see what happens. Things have been approved and never move forward too so thank you for coming. Mary Muirhead: So then let me be that much clearer, please leave it undeveloped. Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against, or commenting? Good evening. LuAnn Markgraf. Good evening. My name is LUAnn Markgraf and I live at 401 Rice Court and I'm in the townhouse development. I'm the very last building and the unit closest to 86" so I would be definitely impacted by the entrance the way this roadway concept is designed now. I have lots of trees. Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 It's not that far back to the wetland, to the pond. It's very narrow. I mean how you could even think of even putting a narrower street in there to accommodate the wetland, plus put a sidewalk and then try to make it more attractive by putting spruce trees up so we're not impacted by all the traffic that would be going in and out because it would be coming in and out right out, out my deck. Right straight there and there is not that much room back there. It is beautiful. I don't understand why the entrance needs to be right there against the back of that last townhome building. I do believe from everything that I've read since Saturday that there is a great impact on that roadway and all that wetland that's behind that area in that little circular area that you see there. I have lived in that townhouse since the development was fust built. I've been there since 1996. When I was, when I fust moved in there was not even one single family house and none of those homes in Mission Hills Lane were built. There has to be, this is such a great impact on the wetlands and the proximity to the townhouses and I think the association, I don't know if they have been involved in this at all. They would need to be involved because that property line, which you had said Saturday all those trees would go. I mean that, I've got some big old oak trees. I've got a dense property on that comer right there and to have all that one and to have all that traffic in and out, plus I also think it would also be problems with traffic on 86 and 101. There's already enough problems with 86'" and 101 without it being a controlled intersection. Especially coming from 212 and going north on 101. A lot of people go through the single family homes to bypass that intersection of 86'" and get onto 101 from farther down. So there is a lot of issues with this concept and just because we're a townhouse development should not bear anything that we get the bad end. Oh, you'll have the traffic in and out. You'll have you know all this beautiful area, all these trees, the wetlands back there impacted. It is absolutely horrible to even think of having that on that western edge of this development. Aller. Alright, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Good evening sir. Steve Lehto: Good evening. My name is Steve Lehto. I live at 8591 Tigua Lane so our, my wife and I have the property that's in the upper right corner of the map, which abuts this property all the way to 86's so we're going to have a lot of impact. And I'd like to echo the comments of the first person who spoke tonight that when we bought our home in the summer of 2010, one of the main reasons we fell in love with the property was the fact that it was indeed in nature and the impact of a development like this is obviously going to be significant for us. Again in line with what the fust person stated, our view is that you know it would be best for us selfishly if the property were never developed but if development is truly an inevitability, we're looking for something that is obviously going to be as, the least amount of impact obviously to our property and also to the neighborhood. I guess I don't know what different options might exist out there. What the difference really is. We're going to obviously have to do some research too but the difference between low and medium density, I'm not certain how that impacts potential developments that another applicant might bring before the council but in some ways it seems like this, the 11 drawings that were mentioned have gone some way to try to mitigate that impact so we're certainly thankful for that but again if we had our druthers the property would remain a natural resource like it is now so, thank you. Aller. Alright, thank you sir. Anyone else? Arturo Umrtia: Sure. My name is Arturo Urrutia. I'm at 408 Monk Court and I think I would like to second what the previous homeowner said. One of the reasons that I purchased my townhouse was that it afforded me a nice view of the wetlands in the back, and that's always been one of the things that I Pointed out to the people that came to visit. The first time, or the first couple of months that I had guests was, look at the nice view that I have on the other side of the house. And I don't know what the pro's and con's tax wise and development wise for the City would be. From a selfish homeowner standpoint, also with all due respect to the developers, I think it would be to our detriment to Mission Hills if something like this gets developed. Hopefully if something does get developed it would try to minimize the impact 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 traffic wise and tree wise and view wise for the current owners so I just wanted to second what other People were saying and thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Aller: Great, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one come forward we'll close the public hearing portion and open for comments from the commissioners. Anyone? It's a concept hearing so. Colopoulos: Yeah, Chairman Aller you made an earlier comment about the roadway which I think is apparently of concern here regardless of what other considerations are given to the zoning itself. You know that is, off the top of my head that to me is the biggest concern. The roadway cutting across that wetlands there. I mean obviously as this plan goes forward there's going to be several, several shall we say conflicting perceptions here. You know the views expressed by the neighbors versus the property rights of the owner of the property and their legal right to pursue application for developable plans. Where do we think the roadway issue is going to weigh in? That's as much of a question I guess as that of a comment. 1 mean how much of an influence is that going to be? Aller. I think it's going to depend on the actual plan that's put forward. Aanenson: We just need to stay for the, you know there's going, this property is developable and we've looked at all the different iterations for the roadway. I think the least amount of impact to the wetlands is in the configuration that it's shown the access to the property. You're coming across a larger portion of the wetland the further you move to the, to the west. Excuse me, east. So we had to place it there. Certainly I mean we haven't looked at all the impacts of the surrounding property. That's the first I've heard all those trees are coming down on the property. What would be the property. It's on their property if the trees would come down, on the developer's proposed property but we would look at that more closely. Colopoulos: So the concept drawing here just basically... across the wetlands and with minimum impact, that was behind that drawing there. Aanenson: I'll let Terry answer that question. Jeffery: If I may. Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator. I'm not Krista Spreiter. It's a little tough to hear, to see in this drawing and I intentionally overlaid the wetlands in a very transparent layer so that you could see what was beneath it but if you look at where the two red impacts are, there is actually no, there is a small bridge that exists right there. It's two separate wetlands. One over, one over to the, yeah. Yep, there. One to the east. One to the west. Yep, yep, so to come through up here would actually result in greater impact and then to come even further north would result in property he doesn't even have control of. Again regardless of what comes through as a final product he's going to have to meet the Wetland Conservation Act sequencing which always look at one, avoidance. Two, minimization and three, replacement of those unavoidable impacts so, and the intent of the PUD would be that there would be that trade-off where okay, we can, you get the lots but we need to provide protections that we would not otherwise be afforded if we used standard zoning. Aller: And that's why 1 don't think it would be a bad thing to comment and pass our comment along to the council that they should potentially look at this for movement towards allowing for a PUD with medium density to allow greater flexibility so that this project, or another project can come forward and allow for greater opportunity to deal with the mitigation to those wetlands. Aanenson: If I may, I think if you look at this map that's up on the screen right now, it's very illustrative of the wetland impacts. What it's not showing is the over layer of the shoreland impacts and that's where the, where the problem aligns. As we showed on the other, other drawing, part of the property is zoned 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission —January 15, 2013 for twinhomes so you know there are some different things. What we're trying to do is kind of take the best of all that. Get that 501/o open space. Minimize those impacts and we don't have all that detail yet. As the applicant said we've already worked through a number of drawings so we're saying we're really not on the right path right now. Now we want to go to a different direction and try to even do a better job of trying to reduce those impacts and move forward so that's what we're just trying to get a read on. On that issue and just anything that we would do, whether the council would recommend would have to come back through in their process so I want to make sure the residents understand that. There's plenty of time to work through some of those issues. Aller: Anything? Tennyson: Well that was a good reminder that it would come forward again and there's no being stuck with the path that could be taken. Aanenson: Correct, and there's a lot of other agencies that have review. You know the DNR. Wetland Conservation Act, all those agencies are going to have to weigh in on that so it's going to be a little bit more work on that. Tennyson: Okay. Aller: Anything further? Hokkanen: It seems to me that it's going to be difficult at some, I mean with all these agencies and the wetlands, changing it to medium density might be the best and flexible way to do it but I mean a couple of these lots here might not even be able to have, I mean a home based on what I see. So adding I don't know, I mean you have to explore the options though. It's the property owner's right. Aller: And I think that's, that's what we're here for is to comment to the council that if they're going to redirect this and put it back and consideration could be had for the medium density allows for flexibility which would hopefully leave those areas untouched perhaps but it will depend on what comes back through. Hokkanen: Right. Okay. Aller. Okay. Colopoulos: This will be a freestanding development? It's not going to be part of a nearby association? AI-Jaff: Correct. Colopoulos: Okay. It's a separate? A]-Jaff: Correct. Colopoulos: Development. Got it. Aller: Okay, I'll entertain a motion to pass comments to the City Council. Tennyson: I'll move. I'm reading two different things here. Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback and direct the applicant to address issues raised in the staff report dated January 15, 2013. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission —January 15, 2013 Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Aanenson: Can I make clarification on the motion? Tennyson: Adding the comment about staff report? Aanenson: Did we get medium density in there? Aller: We probably should because there were items in the staff report that we discussed that were not... Aanenson: Okay, I guess just to make sure that we're clear on that we're looking at a land use, potential land use amendment, just for clarification. It's in the staff report but I want to make sure that, I want to make sure you and I understand what you're recommending, if that's what your recommendation is. Tennyson: So staff report dated January 15, 2013 along with staff's proposed comments listed in the staff report. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: And with that we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback, and direct the applicant to address issues raised in the staff report dated January 15, 2013 along with staffs proposed comments listed in the staff report dated January 15, 2013. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Aanenson: And if I may Mr. Chair, just for the residents that are here. This item is going to the City Council on January 281h I believe. AI -Jaffa January 28h. Aanenson: 28h, yes so these comments will be forwarded to the City Council. Again they're going to just make a recommendation too and then it's up to the applicant if he wants to pursue, based on whatever direction that he also gets from the City Council. Aller: So the City Council won't actually be doing anything as far as an up or down vote unless they decide to...? Aanenson: That's correct Correct. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 2012 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. 13 17 -LOT CONCEPT PLANNOTES: 12/11/12 WETLAND IMPACTS TOTAL SITE AREA = 13.23 ACRES 1. STREET EASEMENT WIDTH AS SHOWN IS 15 FEET DUE TO 50 FEET R/W. TOTAL = 6269 sq. ft = 0.14 acres 2" BUILDING PADS AS SHOWN ARE 60'X60' p r n , A � T Y s �s / 4L * 'W AL 001V w Oak I Y i 1 _ --- ,� 8 10 —I \ +0 513 15 OUTLOT C,$* 14 1 j / <* I a III I �I \ i —�`�e � 17 LL U OT 14 S,�pRM IL 4I Building Inspections MEMORANDUM CITY OF TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner CHMSENFROM: Engineering Todd Hoffman, Park &Recreation Director 7700 Market Boulevard DATE: December 27, 2012 PO Box 147 Phone: 952.227.1400 pedestrian trail network. Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJ: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 17 -lot COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN single-family development on 13.2 acres of property currently zoned Administration neighborhood trail connection to the future Rice Marsh Lake Trail. RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed Low Density Phone: 952.2271100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Residential, and located south of West 86th Street - Preserve at Rice Fax: 952.227.1110 3. Construction of the 8 -foot wide neighborhood trail connection from the public Lake. Applicant: John Knoblauch. Owner: Chestnut Group, LLC. Building Inspections COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN Phone: 952.227.1180 Lake Trail to be constructed around the perimeter of the lake. This proposed Fax: 952227.1190 The city's comprehensive park plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located Engineering within one-half mile of every residence in the city. The proposed Preserve at Rice Phone: 952.227.1160 Lake development would not meet this guideline. The nearest park is Rice Marsh Fax: 952.227.1170 Lake Park which is located approximately one mile away if utilizing the city's Phone: 952.227.1400 pedestrian trail network. Finance RECOMMENDED PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PFax:952.2227110 Fax: 952.2271110 COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN Park & Recreation The city's comprehensive trail plan calls for the future completion of a Rice Marsh Phone: 952.227.1120 Lake Trail to be constructed around the perimeter of the lake. This proposed Fax: 952.227.1110 subdivision should provide for and construct a trail connection to this future trail Fax: 952.227.1110 starting at the public street and extending to the southeast corner of the property. This Recreation Center trail connection should be situated in a public outlot or trail easement. 2310 Coulter Boulevard The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission Phone: 952.227.1400 and approval. At today's rate these fees would total $98,600 (17 lots X $5,800 per Fax: 952.2271404 RECOMMENDED PARK AND TRAIL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning & It is recommended that the following conditions of approval concerning parks and Natural Resources trails be applied to the proposed Preserve at Rice Lake: Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 1. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction are collected. Public Works The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission 7901 Park Place and approval. At today's rate these fees would total $98,600 (17 lots X $5,800 per Phone: 952.227.1300 lot). Fax: 952.227.1310 2. Dedication of a public outlot or easement to accommodate the construction of a Senior Center neighborhood trail connection to the future Rice Marsh Lake Trail. Phone: 952.2271125 Fax: 952.227.1110 3. Construction of the 8 -foot wide neighborhood trail connection from the public Web Site street to the southeast comer of the property. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us g.\park\th\preserve at rice lake\memo to sha een 12-27-2012.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Gleason, John (DNR) [john.gleason@state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 12:01 PM To: Meuwissen, Kim; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Cc: Yearwood, Terri L (DNR); Shillcox, Jennifer (DNR); Petrik, Daniel (DNR) Subject: RE: CORRECTION - City of Chanhassen Referral Request for Preserve at Rice Lake CONCEPT Planned Unit Development Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal. As part of the DNR review, we looked at the City's shoreland ordinance. It came to our attention that although the city's shoreland ordinance has been approved by the DNR, it does not include state standards for PUD's in the shoreland area. The city's PUD standards are not compliant with state standards in the shoreland area. We researched the history of the city's shoreland ordinance and discovered that PUD standards were not included in the ordinance at the time DNR approved the ordinance in 1994, despite our urging that the city do so. Unfortunately this means that the DNR must approve preliminary plans for PUDs in the shoreland area of Chanhassen. We were not previously aware of this requirement but now that we are, we are obligated to inform you of this requirement. State shoreland rules chapter 6120 part 3800 addresses planned unit developments. Here is a link to Minnesota Rules 6120.3800: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=6120.3800 I have underlined the portion of subpart 1 (below) that indicates that DNR approval is necessary. Subpart 1. Scope of planned unit development provisions Local governments must consider incorporating, with approval of the commissioner, provisions into shoreland management controls to allow planned unit developments. The provisions may allow planned unit developments for new projects on undeveloped land, redevelopment of previously built sites, or conversions of existing buildings and land. The provisions must be consistent with standards in this part. During the period between adoption of parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900 and adoption of local government official controls meeting the planned unit development standards in part 6120.3800, preliminary plans for each planned unit development must be reviewed for consistencv with part 6120.3800 and approved by the commissioner before final local government approval To approve the preliminary plans, we need the attached PUD checklist completed and returned. I suggest that you ask the developer to fill it out. Also, I recommend that the City consider adopting compliant PUD standards so you don't have to deal with us on these matters in the future. I can assist you in this process — let us know if you would like to pursue this option. Please feel free to contact me with questions or for further discussion. Regards, Jack John ()ack) Gleason I Area Hydrologist - West Metro I MnDNR 1 1200 Warner Road I St. Paul, MN 55106 1 T: 651-259-5754 JOhn.Gleasonostdte.mn.us From: Meuwissen, Kim [mailto:kmeuwissen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:07 AM To: cherie.monson@CenterPointEnergy.com; Sherman, Tod (DOT); cthompson@mediacomcc.com; darylh@mvec.net; Gleason, John (DNR); chentges@co.carver.mn.us; Michael.T.Setering@usace.army.mil; Biggar, Mark ]; rick.jorgensen@centurylink.com; cbleser@rileywd.org Cc: Fauske, Alyson; Hoffman, Todd; Littfin, Mark; Mohn, Jerry; Jeffery, Terry; Sinclair, Jill; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: CORRECTION - City of Chanhassen Referral Request for Preserve at Rice Lake CONCEPT Planned Unit Development Please see CORRECTED comment response date in red below. ElRim Meuwissen CITY OF CHANHASSEN Planning Secretary 952-227-1107 knieuwissen: asci. chanhcusen. nm. us From: Meuwissen, Kim Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:24 PM To:'cherie.monson@CenterPointEnergy.com'; 'tod.sherman@dot.state.mn.us'; 'cthompson@mediacomcc.com'; 'darylh@mvec.net'; 'john.gleason@dnr.state.mn.us'; 'chentges@co.carver.mn.us'; 'Michael.T.Setering@usace.army.mil'; 'Biggar, Mark J'; 'rick.jorgensen@centurylink.com'; 'cbleser@rileywd.org' Ce: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Fauske, Alyson; Hoffman, Todd; Littfin, Mark; Mohn, Jerry; Jeffery, Terry; Sinclair, Jill Subject: City of Chanhassen Referral Request for Preserve at Rice Lake CONCEPT Planned Unit Development City staff and outside referral agencies: • A copy of the referral document and location map are attached • Please review the variance documents from the following link: http://67.63.229.140/weblink/Browse.aspx?startid=251552&dbid=0 • Please respond with comments no later than�^ ^�. ,''^'� January 4. 2013 to (replies to this email will automatically be redirected to Sharmeen AlAaff): Sharmeen AI-Jaff Senior Planner 952-227-1134 saliaffPci.chanhassen.mmus Kim Menwissen CITY OF CHANHASSEN Planning Secretary 952-227-1107 kmeuwissen a'ci. chunha sen. mn. as PUD/CLUSTER EVALUATION SHEET Part 1. DNR In-house Information: DNR Region and Area Number Checklist Preparer Date Prepared DNR PUD Approval Required?* Date of Field Inspection (DNR field inspection required when the PUD is subject to DNR approval) 'In shoreland areas, DNR approval is required when the local unit of government has not yet adopted planned unit development (PUD) standards compliant with 1989 Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900 for shoreland areas. DNR approval is required for all wild & scenic rivers planned cluster developments (PCD). This form does not apply to the Lower St. Croix Wild and Scenic Riverway Designation. Part 2. General Project Information: Project Name Is this a Shoreland District PUD? Is this a Wild & Scenic River District PCD? Lake/Stream Involved (Include Shoreland or wild & scenic rivers classification.) City &/or County Name The Project Proposal is for: New Development Resort Conversion Redevelopment of existing site Region_ Area (Name) Yes No _Yes _No Yes No (Classification) Is the project one of the following: A "residential" PUD? Residential planned unit development means a use where the _Yes No nature of residency is nontransient and the major or primary focus of the development is not service- oriented. For example, residential apartments, manufactured home parks, townhouses, cooperatives, and full fee ownership residences would be considered as residential planned unit developments. A "commercial" PUD? Commercial planned unit developments are typically uses that provide transient, short-term lodging spaces, rooms, or parcels and their operations are essentially service-oriented. For example, hotel/motel accommodations, resorts, recreational vehicle and camping parks, and other primarily service- oriented activities are commercial planned unit developments. NOTE: An expansion to an existing commercial PUD involving 6 or less new dwelling units or sites since the date the community adopted land use regulations compliant with the revised shorelandPUD standards in Part 6120.3800 is permissible as a permitted use (under DNR's shoreland rules), provided the total project density does not exceedthe density calculated in the project density evaluation calculations which follows in Part 5. A combined "residential and commercial" PUD? For the purposes of this checklist, this is a development with a mixture of uses and a combination of residential/ commercial dwelling units or sites. The total project acreage must be divided between the respective tables on page 6 for residential density analysis and page 8 for commercial density analysis. If a portion of the project area is set aside for a strictly commercial activity not involving dwelling unitsor dwelling sites (e.g., a proposed/existingmarina, restaurants, etc.), then a portion of the lot must be excluded from the density evaluation noted in the preceding sentence - this would be an area equal to creating a hypothetical lot for these facilities such that all dimensional, sewage treatment and water supply, and performance standards could be satisfied assuming this development was standing on its own. Conversion of a resort or other land use to a residential PUD? Resorts and other land uses may be converted to a residential PUD provided: 1) the proposed conversion has been initially evaluated in accordance with the criteria in Parts 5 and 6 which follow; and 2) remedial measures have been taken to correct project deficiencies as determined by the evaluation in Parts 5 and 6, all in accordance with Part 6120.3800, Subpart 5. (D) (See Attachment A, Part A). Yes _No _Yes No Yes No _Yes _No If this is a resort/other land conversion, have items I and 2 in the preceding paragraph been satisfied? This checklist is designed so that an affirmative answer to the following questions will indicate that the PUD proposal meets applicable DNR shoreland/wild and scenic rivers rules. If a question is not applicable to a given PUD proposal, then an WIA"should be entered into the "Yes" column (with an explanation, if necessary). PA Part 3. Land Use District Compatibility: Is the proposed land use permissible in the applicable zoning district? If this is a residential PUD in a Shoreland District, does the development have at least 5 dwelling units or sites? If not, the proposal does not qualify as a residential PUD. If this is a shoreland PUD, is the community requiring a Conditional Use application? Part 4. Project Development Information: Have the following project development documents been provided: Documents that explain how the PUD will be designed and will function, as approved by the DNR/local unit of government (specify which of the following have been provided): Yes No Yes No _Yes No _ A master plan/drawing describing the project and the floor plan for all commercial structures to be occupied. Yes No _ A property owners association agreement (for residential PUD's) with mandatory membership and Al in accordance with the requirements of Part 6120.3800, subpart 5. (C) (See Attachment A, Part B); and _ Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements or other instruments that: 1) properly address future vegetative and topographic alterations, construction of additional buildings, (uncontrolled) beaching of watercraft, and construction of commercial buildings in residential PUD'S; and 2) ensure the long-term preservation and maintenance of open space (in accordance with the criteria and analysis specified in Part 6. A. of this checklist). A site plan and/or plat for the project showing locations of property boundaries, _Yes _No surface water features, existing and proposed structures and other facilities, land alterations, sewage treatment and water supply systems (where public systems will not be provided), and topographic contours at ten -foot intervals or less. When a PUD is a combined commercial and residential development, the site plan and/or plat must indicate and distinguish which buildings and portions of the project are residential, commercial or a combination of the two (see discussion on combined residential and commercial PUD's ). The PUD applicant has satisfied all the necessary environmental assessment worksheet _Yes No (EAW) or environmental impact statement (EIS) requirements. The DNR/local unit of government approval cannot occur until the environmental review process is complete. If an EAW/EIS is required, do not answer this question "Yes" unless the required environmental review process is complete. In accordance with A. C. below, attach a map or drawing which shows: - how the project has been divided into tiers, and - those areas 'unsuitable" for inclusion in the density calculation. A. In a shoreland district, divide the parcel into tiers by locating one or more lines approximately parallel to a line that identifies the ordinary high water level at the following intervals, proceeding landward: SHORELAND TIER DIMENSIONS Unsewered Sewered (feet) (feet) General development lakes -first tier 200 200 General development lakes -second and additional tiers 267 200 Recreational development lakes 267 267 Natural environment lakes 400 320 All river classes' 300 300 B. In a wild and scenic river district, determine the tier depth dimensions for all tiers by dividing the minimum lot size by the minimum lot width requirement (NOTE: Certain urban reaches of wild and scenic rivers are managed by use of shoreland provisions which will require identifying tier depths as specified in A. above). C. Calculate the "suitable area" for development within each tier, excluding all unsuitable areas such as wetlands bluffs, land below the ordinary high water level of public waters, controlled access lot type areas" , and the area set aside for commercial facilities not involving dwelling units or sites. This suitable area is then subjected to either the residential (subpart D below) or commercial (subpart E below) PUD density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of dwelling units or sites. Include this suitable area figure in column 2 of the Residential PUD Table in subpart D or column 4 of the Commercial PUD Table in subpart E, as appropriate. The total site acreage equals Specify the total square feettacreage of the site which is unsuitable due to: Wetlands Bluffs Land below the Ordinary High Water Level Controlled Access Lot Area The area set aside for strictly commercial facilities *• See the discussion in Part 6. C (4) of this checklist if it is desired to provide over -water mooring spaces for nonriparian residential lot owners. To do this, additional riparian open space area will have to be provided consistent with the controlled access lot sizing calculations in the shoreland rules and as explained in Attachment A, Part C. D. For Residential PUD's, determine the allowable density by tier in accordance with Steps 1-3 below: 1. In a Shoreland District, divide the suitable area within each tier by the single residential lot size standard for lakes or, for rivers, the single residential lot width standard times the tier depth (unless the local unit of government has specified an alternative minimum lot size for rivers which shall then be used) to yield a base density of dwelling units or sites for each tier. Complete columns 2 and 3 in the Residential PUD Table on the following page; 2. In a wild and scenic river district, divide the suitable area within each tier by the single residential lot size. Complete columns 2 and 3 in the Residential PUD Table in subitem 3 which follows; and Complete the remainder of the table on the following page to the degree necessary to determine final allowable project density. RESIDENTIAL PUD ANALYSIS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tier Suitable arealsq. ft' Required Lot Sial in sq. ft. Allowable Base Density: divide Column 3 into Column 2 Density Increase Multiplier '* Total Allowable Density with Multiplier Total Density Proposed Cumulative Density Allowed "' Cumulative Density Proposed'•' 1 1.5 2 2.0 3 3.0 4 3.0 5 3.0 Column Totals *Do not include as suitable area any wetlands, bluffs, land below the ordinary high water level, any land designated as controlled access lot area, or any land set aside for strictly commercial facilities. *'The total site acreage equals , and give the total square feet/acreage of the site which is unsuitable due to: Wetlands ; Bluffs ; Land below Ordinary High Water Level Controlled access lot area : Land used strictly for Commercial Facilities The density increase multiplier in this column can only be applied to the preceding column if the provisions of Subpart F. are satisfied. ***Use this column only if allowable density is being transferred from a given tier to another tier farther back from the waterbody. Please note that density may not be transferred from a tier farther back to a tier closer to the waterbody. 4. The proposed project density is consistent with the _Yes No Residential PUD Analysis Table. E. For commercial PUD's determine the allowable density of dwelling units or sites by completing the Commercial PUD Analysis Table in item 2 on the next page. Complete the Commercial PUD table, if necessary, concurrently with the more detailed explanation in item I below: 1. Density/base dwelling unit or dwelling site calculation: a) Determine the average inside living area size (i.e., average unit floor area) of dwelling units or sites within each tier, including both existing and proposed units and sites. Computation of inside living area sizes need not include decks, patios, stoops, steps, garages, or porches and basements, unless they are habitable space. Fill in column 2 of the table on the next page. b) Select the appropriate floor area ratio from the table included as Attachment B to this checklist and complete column 3 of the table below. C) Multiply the suitable area within each tier (in column 4) by the floor area ratio (in column 3) to yield a total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling units or sites and put the answer in column 5 of the table. d) Divide the "total floor area" for each tier in column 5 by the average inside living area size in column 2 to yield a base number of dwelling units or sites for each tier, put the answer in column 6. e) Complete the remainder of the Commercial PUD Analysis Table, as appropriate. 2. COMMERCIAL PUD ANALYSIS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Tier Average Unit Floor Area/ Sit . ft Floor Area Rano/ From Appendix B Suitable Tier Area/ sq. R.` Total Floor Area Pier Tier` Column 3 multiplied by Column 4' Base Density/ Divide Column 5 by Column '• Densly Increase Multiplier '•• Total Allowable Dwelling Units/Sites with Multiplier Total Number of Units/Sites Proposed Cumulative Number of Units/sius Allowed "*'* Cumulative Number of UnitslSites Proposed 1 1.5 2 2.0 3 3.0 4 3.0 5 3.0 Column Totals * Do not include as suitable area any wetlands, bluffs, land below the Ordinary Nigh Water lever, any land designated as controlled access lots, or any land set aside for strictly commercial facilities. The Total Site Area equals: Give the total square footage/acreage ofthe site, which is unsuitable due to: Wetlands: Bluffs: ; Land below the OHW level: Controlled Access Lot area: Land fw strictly Commercial Facilities: ** This is the total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling units or sites- * ** This is the total number ofdwelling units or sites allowable per tier without a density increase. * * ** The density increase multiplier in this column can only be applied to the preceding column if the provisions of Subpart F, which follow, are satisfied **** * Use this column only if allowable density is being transferred from a given tier farther back from the waierbody. Please note that density may not be transferred from a tier farther back to a tier closer to the waterbody. 3. The proposed project density is consistent with the Commercial _Yes No PUD Analysis Table. F. Density Increases: Maximum density increases consistent with _Yes No the density multiplier in the tables in subparts D and E above are permissible only when all of the design standards in Part 6 of this checklist are fully satisfied and one of the following provisions is satisfied: The actual proposed structure setback(s) identified in Part 6. B. 5. c. _Yes No of this checklist are equivalent to 150 percent of the minimum required structure structure setback; or The actual proposed structure setback(s) identified in Part 6. B. 5. c. _Yes _No of this checklist are 125 percent of the required structure setback and the impact of reducing the structure setback from a 150 percent increase to a 125 percent increase is mitigated or reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or other methods acceptable to the local unit of government. 0 Part 6. Design and performance standards. All PUD's must meet the following design and performance standards prior to final approval by the DNR/responsible local unit of government: A. Open Space Preservation and Management _Yes No At least 50 percent of the total project area is preserved as open space and the following additional standards are met: a) Dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-way, or land covered by road surfaces, parking areas, or structures, except water -oriented accessory structures or facilities, are developed areas and are not included in the computation of minimum open space. b) Open space does not include commercial facilities or uses (except open space may contain water -oriented accessory structures or facilities consistent with Part 6120.3300, Subpart 3, (H) (See Attachment A, Part D.) or recreational facilities for use by owners or occupants of the dwelling units or sites, or the public). c) Open space includes areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries. d) The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation, and allowable uses, is preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means. e) All required open space areas are clearly identified or described in all final project drawings/plats and related project documents. NOTE: Open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems if the use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse impacts on the systems. 2. The shore impact zone (SIZ), based on normal structure setbacks, is included as open space subject to the following: a) Determine SIZ depth by multiplying the normal minimum building setback of feet by one-half to give a shore impact zone depth back from the ordinary high water level of feet; and b) reserve the SIZ as open space as follows: - For new residential PUD'S, at least 70 percent of this SIZ area is preserved in its natural state. - For new commercial PUD'S, at least 50 percent of this SIZ area is preserved in its existing or natural state. - For existing developments/conversions, at least 50 percent of this SIZ area is preserved in its natural or existing state. B. Centralization of Utilities and Structures _Yes _No 1. The PUD is connected to a publicly -owned sewer or water supply system, if available. 2. If publicly -owned utility systems are not available, the on-site water supply and sewage treatment systems are centralized and will meet the applicable requirements of the State Department of Health or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, respectively. 3. The PUD applicant has either: 1) received any required State Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permit for the sewage treatment system; or 2) the applicant has received a written statement from the MPCA indicating that it is likely that there will be no anticipated problems in issuing a permit. 4. Sufficient lawn area free of limiting factors has been set aside for a replacement soil treatment system for each sewage treatment system that is constructed. For residential PUD'S, all dwelling units or sites are clustered into one or more groups on suitable sites and are designed and located to meet or exceed the following standards for the relevant shoreland or wild and scenic river district classification: (1) Requirement of local ordinance a) Minimum structure elevation above OHW* b) Maximum structure height c) Minimum structure setback from the OHW (2) (3) Percentage of Actual that required Proposal by local ordinance NA N/A %s * d) Minimum structure setback %** from top of bluff, if applicable *Either state in number of feet or specify an elevation using a national geodetic vertical datum or assumed datum. **Divide column 2 by column I and multiply by 100. C. Placement of Shore Recreation Facilities 1. All swimming areas, docks and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps are centralized in suitable locations. 2. The number of spaces provided for continuous over -water mooring, beaching or docking of watercraft does not exceed one for each first tier residential or commercial dwelling unit or site allowable in the applicable table in Part 5. D. or E. Commercial PUD'S can also include mooring sites authorized under a DNR protected water's permit for a commercial marina. Indicate the number of over -water spaces in this proposed development, and of this the number authorized under DNR permit for a commercial marina 3. Access to the lake or river for non -first tier property owners or for occupants of non -first tier commercial dwelling units or sites is provided only by a launching ramp. The launching ramp may include a small dock for the loading and unloading of equipment. 4. As an alternative to item 3 immediately above and for residential PUD'S only, nonriparian owners have been provided over -water mooring, beaching, or docking spaces in addition to those allowed for riparian first tier owners in item 2 immediately above. This is accomplished by providing additional "open space" in an amount (area) equal to the "controlled access lot" sizing requirements in the shoreland rules in Part 6120.3300, Subp. 2. E. (1) for the number of additional spaces proposed (complete the calculations in Attachment A, Part C). The additional open space also meets the following: a) A separate [controlled access] "lot of record" has not been created/subdivided, but: 1) the riparian area used for the controlled access lot sizing calculation has been clearly shown on the PUD drawings; and 2) the allowable project densities determined in Part 5. D. and E. have been redetermined to reflect the reduced riparian tier area now available for dwelling unit or dwelling site density calculations; b) This additional open space is treated consistent with the provisions of Part 6. A.1. a - e of this checklist; and C) If nonriparian dwelling units or sites are being provided with over -water mooring spaces, then indicate the total number of mooring spaces, and of this total the number for: 1) residential/commercial first tier dwelling units or sites ; 2) the number authorized under DNR permit for a commercial marina; and 3) the number of spaces for non first tier/nonriparian residential dwelling units or sites calculated on Attachment A, Part C of this checklist. All launching ramps and on -water mooring structures/facilities for residential uses, within the meaning of Minnesota Rules, Parts 6115.0170, Subp. 20; 6115.0210; and 6115.0211, shall be exempt from a DNR permit if: 1) approved as part of a PUD consistent with Parts 6120.2500- 6120.3900; and 2) designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria of the applicable DNR agency rule cited in this subpart. D. Visibility. Structures, parking areas and other facilities will be _Yes No treated to reduce visibility as viewed from the public water and adjacent shoreland. A specific plan/planning statement has been submitted by the applicant showing how this is to be accomplished by use of vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government/DNR, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. E. Erosion Control and Stormwater Management. To prevent erosion: _Yes _No 1) If necessary, time restrictions have been specified that limit the length of time bare ground can be exposed. 2) Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips or other appropriate techniques will be used to minimize erosion potential to surface waters. 3) If necessary because of special site conditions, an erosion control plan approved by the soil and water conservation district was required. 4) The project has been designed to effectively manage the quantity and quality of runoff. The project will not result in increased erosion, sedimentation or flood discharges or stages for runoff events up to and including the 100 -year frequency event. 5) Impervious surface within any tier does not exceed 25 percent of the tier area (except that 35 percent impervious surface coverage may be allowed in the first tier of general development lakes with approved storm water management and vegetative control plans). Accessory Structures: _Yes No 1) All accessory structures and facilities, except those that are water -oriented, meet or exceed the normal structure setback standards. 2) Water -oriented accessory structures allowed within the normal building setback area are centralized and meet the standards in Parts 6120.3300, Subpart 3. B. (3) and 6120.3300, Subpart 3. (H) (See Attachment A, Part D). Appendix 7B - Attachment A SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATORY PROVISIONS A. Resort Conversions Part 6120.3800, Subpart 5. (D). C. Nonriparian Over -Water Mooring/Controlled Access Lot Sizing Part 6120.3300, Subpart E. A. Conversions B. Provisions for Property Owners Association Agreement Documents Part 6120.3800, Subpart 5. (C)_ D. Accessory/Water Oriented Structures Part 6120.3300, Subpart 3. (13)(3). Part 6120.3300, Subpart 3. (IT). Proposed conversions must be initially evaluated using the same procedures and standards for developments involving all new construction. Inconsistencies between existing features of the development and these standards must be identified. Deficiencies involving water supply and sewage treatment, structure color, impervious coverage open space, and shore recreation facilities must be corrected as part of the conversion or as specified in the conditional use permit. Shore and bluff impact zone deficiencies must be evaluated and reasonable improvements made as part of the conversion. These improvements must include, where applicable, the following: _ Removal of extraneous buildings, docks, or other facilities that no longer need to be located in shore or bluff impact zones. Remedial measures to correct erosion sites and improve vegetative cover and screening of buildings and other facilities as viewed from the water. If existing dwelling units are located in shore or bluff impact zones, conditions are attached to approvals of conversions that preclude exterior expansions in any dimension or substantial alterations. The conditions must also provide for future relocation of dwelling units, where feasible, to other locations, meeting all setback and elevation requirements when they are rebuilt or replaced. Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed the standards in Part 5 of this checklist may be allowed to continue but must not be allowed to be increased, either at the time of conversion or in the future. Efforts must be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities by requiring seasonal use, improving vegetative screening, centralizing shore recreation facilities, installing new sewage treatment systems or other means. B. Provisions for Properly Owners Association Agreement Documents Open space preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long tern reservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include all of the following protections: 10 Commercial uses are prohibited. Vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance are prohibited. Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials is prohibited. Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft is prohibited. Development, organization and functioning. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework is established when applicable, all residential planned unit developments must use an owners association with the following features: Membership is mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive purchases. Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses, and unpaid assessments can become liens on units or sites. Assessments are adjustable to accommodate changing conditions. The association are responsible for insurance, taxes, and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities. C. Controlled Access for Nonriparian Owners/Over-Water Mooring Spaces Nonriparian/non-first tier owners in residential PUD'S can be provided over -water mooring or docking spaces. Provisions of Part 6 C. of this checklist and the following provisions are satisfied. Additional riparian open space equivalent to the width and size of a standard single residential lot is provided for the first six additional watercraft allowed for nonriparian lots. For each additional watercraft above six, the width of the above -noted standard residential lot (using the same depth must be increased by the percentage from the following table and the calculations which follow: Ratio of lake size to shore length acres/mile Less than 100 100-200 201-300 301-400 Greater than 400 CONTROLLED ACCESS FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS Required increase in frontage (percent) 25 20 15 10 11 CONTROLLED ACCESS SIZING REQUIREMENTS 1. Indicate the number of nonriparian/ non -Tier 1 over -water mooring spaces to be provided 2. Indicate the standard minimum single residential lot dimensions for this lake's classification. If 6 or less additional non -Tier 1 over -water mooring spaces are to be provided, the additional riparian open space to be provided must meet these dimensions and area. Recalculate the suitable area and allowable first tier densities in the table in Part 5. D. of this checklist to reflect the loss of suitable area due to this additional dedication of open spaces. Width Depth Area 3. If more than 6 additional spaces are to be provided, then: a) Select the appropriate percentage increase multiplier from the table above _% b) Multiply this multiplier in a) by the difference between the number of spaces proposed and six _% c) Increase the lot width in 2. above by the total percentage multiplier calculated in b) immediately above. Assume the same lot depth in 2. above and recalculate the lot area. This is the area and dimensions for the additional open space and recalculate the figures in the table in Part 5. D of this checklist. Width Depth Area D. Water -Oriented Accessory Structures The structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and detached decks must not exceed eight feet above grade at any point. The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten feet. The structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must not be enclosed or used as a storage area. The structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. The structure cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. As an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbodies, water -oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including storage of related boating and water -oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area up to 400 square feet, provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 teet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline. NOTE: Water -oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the flood protection elevation determined if the structure is constructed of flood -resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is anticipated, the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind -driven waves and debris. 12 Attachment B COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FLOOR AREA RATIOS* Public waters classes ' For average unit floor areas less than shown, use the floor area ratios listed for 200 square feet. For floor areas greater than shown, use the ratios listed for 1,500 square feet. For recreational camping areas, use the ratios listed at 400 square feet. Manufactured home sites in recreational camping areas shall use a ratio equal to the size of the manufactured home, or if unknown, the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet. 13 Sewered general Second and development additional tiers first on unsewered tier on general unsewered development general lakes; development recreational lakes; urban, development Natural Average agricultural, lakes; environment unit floor tributary transition and lakes; lakes; river forested river remote river area (sq.ft.) segments segments segments 200 .040 .020 .010 300 .048 .024 .012 400 .056 .028 .014 500 .065 .032 .016 600 .072 .038 .019 700 .082 .042 .021 800 .091 .046 .023 900 .099 .050 .025 1,000 .108 .054 .027 1,100 .116 .058 .029 1,200 .125 .064 .032 1,300 .133 .068 .034 1,400 .142 .072 .036 1,500 .150 .075 .038 ' For average unit floor areas less than shown, use the floor area ratios listed for 200 square feet. For floor areas greater than shown, use the ratios listed for 1,500 square feet. For recreational camping areas, use the ratios listed at 400 square feet. Manufactured home sites in recreational camping areas shall use a ratio equal to the size of the manufactured home, or if unknown, the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet. 13 I REVISOR 6120.3800 6120.3800 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subpart 1. Scope of planned unit development provisions. Local governments must consider incorporating, with approval of the commissioner, provisions into shoreland management controls to allow planned unit developments. The provisions may allow planned unit developments for new projects on undeveloped land, redevelopment of previously built sites, or conversions of existing buildings and land. The provisions must be consistent with standards in this part. During the period between adoption of parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900 and adoption of local government official controls meeting the planned unit development standards in part 6120.3800, preliminary plans for each planned unit development must be reviewed for consistency with part 6120.3800 and approved by the commissioner before final local government approval. Subp. 2. Land use district designation. If local governments allow planned unit developments, the land use districts in which they are an allowable conditional use must be identified in their official controls and on a zoning map. Designation of the districts must be based on consideration of the criteria in part 6120.3200 and the following criteria: A. existing recreational use of the surface waters and likely increases in use associated with planned unit developments; B. physical and aesthetic impacts of increased density; C. suitability of lands for the planned unit development approach; D. level of current development in the area; and E. amounts and types of ownership of undeveloped lands. Expansions to existing commercial planned unit developments involving up to six dwelling units or sites, unless the density determined under subpart 6, item A is exceeded, may be allowed as permitted uses under standards developed by local units of government. The date of effect of official controls adopted by each local government under this part must be the base date for determination of expansions. Expansions exceeding these limits must be processed as conditional uses and meet the standards in this part. Subp. 3. Information requirements. Provisions for submission of adequate information by project proponents must be included in official controls. The provisions must include at least the following: A. a site plan for the project showing property boundaries, surface water features, existing and proposed structures, sewage treatment systems, topographic contours at ten -foot intervals or less, and other facilities; and B. documents that explain how the project is designed and will function. These ordinarily include covenants that require membership in a property owners association, Copyright 02009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 2 REVISOR 6120.3800 various easements, a concept statement describing the project, floor plans for structures, and various other drawings or plans. Subp. 4. Dwelling unit or site density evaluation. Proposed new or expansions to existing planned unit developments must be evaluated using the following procedures and standards: A. The project parcel must be divided into tiers by locating one or more lines approximately parallel to a line that identifies the ordinary high water level at the following intervals, proceeding landward: Shoreland Tier Dimensions Unsewered Sewered (feet) (feet) General development lakes - first tier 200 200 General development lakes - second and additional tiers ..267 200 Recreational development lakes 267 267 Natural environment lakes 400 320 All river classes 300 300 B. The area within each tier is next calculated, excluding all wetlands, bluffs, or land below the ordinary high water level of public waters. This area is then subjected to either the residential (subpart 5) or commercial (subpart 6) planned unit development density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of dwelling units or sites. Subp. 5. Residential planned unit development density evaluation steps and design criteria. The density evaluation steps and design criteria for residential planned unit developments are contained in items A to D. A. The area within each tier is divided by the single residential lot size standard for lakes or, for rivers, the single residential lot width standard times the tier depth unless the local unit of government has specified an alternative minimum lot size for rivers which shall then be used to yield a base density of dwelling units or sites for each tier. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the residential planned unit development are then compared with these data and map of the evaluation. Local governments may allow some dwelling unit or site density increases for residential planned unit developments above the densities determined in the evaluation if all dimensional standards in part 6120.3300 are met or exceeded. Maximum density increases may only be allowed if all design criteria in subpart 5, item B, are also met or exceeded. Increases in dwelling unit or site densities must not exceed the maximums in the following table. Copyright V2009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 3 REVISOR 6120.3800 Allowable densities may be transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the shoreland water body or watercourse, but must not be transferred to any other tier closer. Maximum Allowable Dwelling Unit Or Site Density Increases For Residential Planned Unit Developments Maximum density increase Density evaluation tiers within each tier (percent) First 50 Second 100 Third 200 Fourth 200 Fifth 200 B. The design criteria are: (1) All residential planned unit developments must contain at least five dwelling units or sites. (2) Residential planned unit developments must contain open space meeting all of the following criteria: (a) At least 50 percent of the total project area must be preserved as open space. (b) Dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-way, or land covered by road surfaces, parking areas, or structures, except water -oriented accessory structures or facilities, are developed areas and should not be included in the computation of minimum open space. (c) Open space must include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries. (d) Open space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by owners of the dwelling units or sites, or the public. (e) The shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks, must be included as open space. At least 50 percent of the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least 70 percent of the shore impact zone area of new developments must be preserved in their natural or existing state. Copyright 02009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 4 REVISOR 6120.3800 (f) Open space must not include commercial facilities or uses, but may contain water -oriented accessory structures or facilities. (g) The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation, and allowable uses, must be preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means. (h) Open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems if the use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse impacts on the systems. (3) Centralization and design of facilities and structures must be done according to the following standards: (a) Residential planned unit developments must be connected to publicly owned water supply and sewer systems, if available. On-site water supply and sewage treatment systems must be centralized and designed and installed to meet or exceed applicable standards or rules of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. On-site sewage treatment systems must be located on the most suitable areas of the development, and sufficient lawn area free of limiting factors must be provided for a replacement soil treatment system for each sewage system. (b) Dwelling units or sites must be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of the development. They must be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional standards for the relevant shoreland classification: setback from the ordinary high water level, elevation above the surface water features, and maximum height. Setbacks from the ordinary high water level must be increased for developments with density increases. Maximum density increases may only be allowed if structure setbacks from the ordinary high water level are increased to at least 50 percent greater than the minimum setback, or the impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or additional means acceptable to the local unit of government and the setback is at least 25 percent greater than the minimum setback. (c) Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Evaluation of suitability must include consideration of land slope, water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors. The number of spaces provided for continuous beaching, mooring, or docking of watercraft must not exceed one for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the fust tier. Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers. Copyright 02009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 5 REVISOR 6120.3800 (d) Structures, parking areas, and other facilities must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. (e) Water -oriented accessory structures and facilities may be allowed if they meet or exceed design standards contained in part 6120.3300, subpart 3, item H, and are centralized. (f) Accessory structures and facilities may be allowed if they meet or exceed standards in part 6120.3300, subpart 3, item H, and are centralized. (4) Erosion control and storm water management for residential planned unit developments must: (a) Be designed, and their construction managed, to minimize the likelihood of serious erosion occurring either during or after construction. This must be accomplished by limiting the amount and length of time of bare ground exposure. Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips, or other appropriate techniques must be used to minimize erosion impacts on surface water features. Erosion control plans approved by a soil and water conservation district may be required if project size and site physical characteristics warrant. (b) Be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonably expected quantities and qualities of storm water runoff. C. Administration and maintenance requirements. Before final approval of all residential planned unit developments, local governments must ensure adequate provisions have been developed for preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open spaces and for the continued existence and functioning of the development as a community. (1) Open space preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long-term preservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include all of the following protections: (a) commercial uses prohibited; (b) vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance prohibited; (c) construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials prohibited; and (d) uncontrolled beaching prohibited. Copyright I2009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 6 REVISOR 6120.3800 (2) Development organization and functioning. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework is established, when applicable, all residential planned unit developments must use an owners association with the following features: (a) Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive purchasers. (b) Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses, and unpaid assessments can become liens on units or sites. (c) Assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions. (d) The association must be responsible for insurance, taxes, and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities. D. Conversions. Local governments may allow existing resorts or other land uses and facilities to be converted to residential planned unit developments if all of the following standards are met: (1) Proposed conversions must be initially evaluated using the same procedures and standards presented in this part for developments involving all new construction. Inconsistencies between existing features of the development and these standards must be identified. (2) Deficiencies involving water supply and sewage treatment, structure color, impervious coverage, open space, and shore recreation facilities must be corrected as part of the conversion or as specified in the conditional use permit. (3) Shore and bluff impact zone deficiencies must be evaluated and reasonable improvements made as part of the conversion. These improvements must include, where applicable, the following: (a) removal of extraneous buildings, docks, or other facilities that no longer need to be located in shore or bluff impact zones; (b) remedial measures to correct erosion sites and improve vegetative cover and screening of buildings and other facilities as viewed from the water; and (c) if existing dwelling units are located in shore or bluff impact zones, conditions are attached to approvals of conversions that preclude exterior expansions in any dimension or substantial alterations. The conditions must also provide for future relocation of dwelling units, where feasible, to other locations, meeting all setback and elevation requirements when they are rebuilt or replaced. (4) Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed standards in this part may be allowed to continue but must not be allowed to be increased, either at Copyright 02009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 7 REVISOR 6120.3800 the time of conversion or in the future. Efforts must be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities by requiring seasonal use, improving vegetative screening, centralizing shore recreation facilities, installing new sewage treatment systems, or other means. Subp. 6. Commercial planned unit development density evaluation steps and design criteria. The density evaluation steps and design criteria for commercial planned unit developments are contained in items A and B: A. Density evaluation steps: (1) Determine the average inside living area size of dwelling units or sites within each tier, including both existing and proposed units and sites. Computation of inside living area sizes need not include decks, patios, stoops, steps, garages, or porches and basements, unless they are habitable space. (2) Select the appropriate floor area ratio from the following table: Commercial Planned Unit Development Floor Area Ratios* Public waters classes Second and additional tiers on unsewered general development Natural lakes; recreational Sewered general development lakes; development lakes; transition and forested first tier on unsewered river segments general development .020 lakes; urban, Average unit floor agricultural, tributary area (sq. ft.) river segments 200 .040 300 .048 400 .056 500 .065 600 .072 700 .082 800 .091 900 .099 1,000 .108 Second and additional tiers on unsewered general development Natural lakes; recreational environment development lakes; lakes; transition and forested remote river river segments segments .020 .010 .024 .012 .028 .014 .032 .016 .038 .019 .042 .021 .046 .023 .050 .025 .054 .027 Copyright 02009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 8 REVISOR First 6120.3800 1,100 .116 .058 .029 1,200 .125 .064 .032 1,300 .133 .068 .034 1,400 .142 .072 .036 1,500 .150 .075 .038 *For average unit floor areas less than shown, use the floor area ratios listed for 200 square feet. For areas greater than shown, use the ratios listed for 1,500 square feet. For recreational camping areas, use the ratios listed at 400 square feet. Manufactured home sites in recreational camping areas shall use a ratio equal to the size of the manufactured home, or if unknown, the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet. (3) Multiply the useable area within each tier by the floor area ratio to yield total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling units or sites. (4) Divide the area computed in subitem (3) by the average determined in subitem (1). This yields a base number of dwelling units and sites for each tier. (5) Determine whether the project is eligible for any additional density increases. To be eligible, projects must meet all of the design standards in item B, and exceed one or more of them. The local unit of government may decide how much, if any, increase in density to allow for each tier, but must not exceed the maximum allowable density increases listed in the following table: Maximum Allowable Dwelling Unit Or Site Density Increases For Commercial Planned Unit Developments Maximum density increase within each tier Tier (percent) First 50 Second 100 Third 200 Fourth 200 Fifth 200 (6) Allowable densities may be transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the shoreland lake or river, but must not be transferred to any other tier closer. Copyright 02009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 9 REVISOR 6120.3800 B. The design criteria are: (1) Open space. Commercial planned unit developments must contain open space meeting all of the following criteria: (a) At least 50 percent of the total project area must be preserved as open space. (b) Dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-way, or land covered by road surfaces, or parking areas, except water -oriented accessory structures or facilities, are developed areas and should not be included in the computation of open space. (c) Open space must include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries. (d) All shore impact zones within commercial planned unit developments must be included as open space, and at least 50 percent of these areas must be preserved in their natural or existing state. (e) Open space may include outdoor recreation facilities for use by guests staying in dwelling units or sites, or the public. (f) Open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems if use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse impacts on the systems. (2) Design of structures and facilities must be done according to the following standards: (a) Commercial planned unit developments must be connected to publicly owned water supply and sewer systems, if available. On-site water supply and sewage treatment systems must be designed and installed to meet or exceed applicable rules of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. On-site sewage treatment systems must be located on the most suitable areas of the development, and sufficient lawn area free of limiting factors must be provided for a replacement soil treatment system for each sewage system. (b) Dwelling units or sites must be located on suitable areas of the development. They must be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional standards for the relevant shoreland classification: setback from the ordinary high water level, elevation above surface water features, and maximum height. Maximum density increases may only be allowed if structure setbacks from the ordinary high water level are increased to at least 50 percent greater than the minimum setback, or the impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government and the setback is at least 25 percent greater than the minimum setback. Copyright C2009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 10 REVISOR 6120.3800 (c) Structures, parking areas, and other facilities must be designed and located in a manner that minimizes their visibility from surface water features, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. The structure, dwelling unit, accessory structure, or parking area must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening must be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided. (d) Water -oriented accessory structures and facilities may be located within shore impact zones if they meet or exceed design standards contained in part 6120.3300, subpart 3, item H. (e) Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps, must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Evaluation of suitability must include consideration of land slope, water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors. The number of watercraft allowed to be continuously beached, moored, or docked must not exceed one for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier, notwithstanding existing mooring sites in an existing harbor. Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers. (3) Erosion control and storm water management for commercial planned unit developments must: (a) Be designed, and their construction managed, to minimize the likelihood of serious erosion occurring either during or after construction. This must be accomplished by limiting the amount and length of time of bare ground exposure. Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips, or other appropriate techniques must be used to minimize erosion impacts on surface water features. Erosion control plans approved by a soil and water conservation district may be required if project size and site physical characteristics warrant. (b) Be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonably expected quantities and qualities of storm water runoff. Impervious surface coverage within any tier must not exceed 25 percent of the tier area, except 35 percent impervious surface coverage may be allowed in the first tier of general development lakes with an approved storm water management plan and consistency with part 6120.3300, subpart 4. Statutory Authority: MS s 105.485 History: 13 SR 3029 Posted: June 11, 2008 Copyright ©2009 by the Revisor of Statutes. State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. LOT DEN5ITY TOTAL NUMBER OF LOT5 16 SUM OF LOT AREA5 4.0 Ac LOT DEN5ITY 4.0 LOTS PER ACRE THIRD TIER OPEN SPACE TOTAL AREA 13.23 Ac LE55 LOT AREA5 4.00 Ac LE55 RIGHT OF WAY AREA I .66 Ac TOTAL OPEN SPACE 7.57 Ac (57.2% 50% MIN. REQUIRED) LE55 WETLAND5 4.04 Ac (175,799 5F) Ex. Wetland 163,187 Less Wetland Impacts 15,110 Plus New Wetland 27,722 LF55 POND HWL 0.37 Ac (16.752 5f) TOTAL UPLAND WITHIN OPEN SPACE 3. 16 Ac k SECOND TIER TIER CALCULATION5 15,110 5F MITIGATION REQUIRED 30,2205F MITIGATION PROVIDED TIER NO. AREA BASE ALLOWED MAX. DEN5ITY ALLOWED PROP05ED TOTAL MITIGATION DEN5ITY INCREASE NO. OF LOT5 NO. OF LOT5 TIER 1 0.39 Ac 4.0 LOT5/Ac 50% 2.34 0 TIER 2 4.24 Ac 4.0 LOT5/Ac 100% 33.92 9 TIER 3 2.97 Ac 4.0 LOT5/Ac 200% 35.64 6 TIER 4 2.30 Ac 4.0 LOT5/Ac 200% 27.60 I 'AREA5 DO NOT INCLUDE WETLAND5 'PRPO5ED LOT5 ARE LE55 THAN MAX ALLOWED IN EACH TIER ,, sP 8 OU -MOT A yiTbIGAs' I zn,zsc sP I 7 Lnl sr 5 � 4 10.353 _ 15 v OUTLOT B� sz.l ac sF � / 1000 FAST loSTREET, BU SMLLE. wlFsoTA M 7 PX (Wa)1.12-1000 WETLAND IMPACT5 WETLAND IMPACTED 15,110 5F MITIGATION REQUIRED 30,2205F MITIGATION PROVIDED 27,722 5F CrCdlt for Pandy (5,954 5f @ NWL x 50%) 2,977 5F TOTAL MITIGATION 30,699 5F FIRST TIER p 90 � V lo.zc3 sP ^34T sr . I gOT / =2%5P 12 J. IOOB9 tNN F ) \ W IMPACT 13 YIW 1ibNAlcb73-111i]Ii t]614vimsiX FRONT 25 FEET HOU5E 51DE 10 FEET GARAGE 51DE 5 FEET REAR LOT UNE 30 FEET WETLAND BUFFER 30 FEET 'CANTILEVER5/EVf5 MAY ENCROACH IN TO FRONT, 51DE AND REAR 5ETBACK5 BY UP TO 2 FEET, HOWEVER THEY MAY NOT ENCRAOCH INTO AN EASEMENT. "ACCE55ORY 5TRUCTURE 5nbACK5 (PATIO, GAZEBO, DECK ETC.) MU5T BE A MINIMUM Of 15 FEET FROM A WETLAND BUFFER OR REAR LOT UNE (WHICHEVER 15 M05T RE5TRICTIVE) CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2013-02 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 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 a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 17 -lot single-family development on 13.2 acres of property currently zoned RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed Low Density Residential, and located south of West 86th Street - Preserve at Rice Lake. Applicant: John Knoblauch. Owner: Chestnut Group, LLC. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web Site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-02 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: saljaffna ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villages on January 3, 2013) AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: K B [kabl1 @msn.com] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 8:00 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: development of area S of 86th st Importance: High Hi, I live on Rice Court in Chanhassen which backs up to the proposed development area called Preserve at Rice Lake. I am concerned about what will happen to the pond area and the tree line between my place and this area. There is a lot of wildlife in this area and do not want this to be affected. Also this will decrease the value of my home. The reason I bought this place was because it backed up to a natural area. We CAN NOT destroy these areas. I will not be able to make the Jan 15 meeting due to being out of the state. Please let me know the plans for this area. Thanks, Karen MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: December 18, 2012 SUBJ: Review of proposed subdivision: Preserve at Rice Lake Planning Case: 2013-02 I have reviewed the plans for the above subdivision (Concept Planned Unit Development) and have the following conditions and comments: 1. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 2. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 3. Any existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems but be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 4. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. 5. Retaining walls, more than four feet high, to be designed by a professional engineer; building permits and approvals required. G:TLAM2013 Planning Cases\2013-02 Preserve at Rice Lake Cmncept PUDWuildingofficialcomments.dcc Date: December 17, 2012 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department Review Response Deadline: January 4, 2013 By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner 952-227-1134 saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Request for Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 17 -lot single-family development on 13.2 acres of property currently zoned RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed Low Density Residential, and located south of West 86th Street - Preserve at Rice Lake. Applicant: John Knoblauch. Owner: Chestnut Group, LLC. Planning Case: 2013-02 PID: 25-0242610 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on December 14.2012. The 60 -day review period ends February 12.2013. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on January 15.2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than January 4. 2013. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources -Jack Gleason 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (CenturyLink) 10. Electric Company (MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco PLEASE PRINT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Planning Case No. 13 Applicant Name and Address:Property Owner Name and Address: - tW G. KKjok�yCA/L &2LL _rA/vT GROUP LLC 5 s v/-N7vF��s 1 TNC 15 (00 6ILc-f-' Gra-pt-lhr GI,L -moo- �F>�d X531 - S r Contact: j75 No i3 Contact: 6 HN _�GL4�-YTA_ o �� Phone: Vz-4�4-S6by Fax: 4n- ?x{-03 i3 Phone: d 763-57o Fax: Z�_ Email: T [4,ig55 4 914613vFvCf¢Email ,4 POI�GR� �Y��? (�h��� •cs I L -PS U Klub 4i l 1 t.Lxvv- NOTE: Consultation with City staff is plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit r/ Planned Unit Development( evelopmen �? Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* e- MN 55 33 / I prior to submittal, including review of development Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording tees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign- 200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNARNVAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ 1 o -L -t9.00 Pcl CIL • (oSc-9 An additional fee of $3.00 per Kr res ithin the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. �4 cV *Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: �SF_R vE /4�T- 49k:f LOCATION: F0, LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: - oaqa(,,lo TOTAL ACREAGE: / WETLANDS PRESENT: %/ YES _ NO PRESENTZONING_ RSF - Si nG�e �pGM t 'ReSictei"641 Li- Mi REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: /7 1-0/— -.114116Lzc- �} c2cY GrT ll�G��e/c��rfj— FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: 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, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. 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. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. 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 have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 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. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. ZLlyZL Signer of Applicant ( v � f �4 1-P Date � 5 f-�N1 T. (Z / ignature of F Owner Ct1 • S r G Dov r Vim- . bate �aMfo SCANNED B� rmsWevekgmenl review application.doc A"a I This mapYr,��7`� .,, oe used as one. Th Rfy� -ated in various city, county, \ .y the area shown, and is to be use joes not warrant that the Geographic In ���`t� ,nspars this map are error free, and the City does n` can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpo, in the depiction �Y`�p .easurement of distance or direction or precision �� ` .eatures. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1 ..e preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Stead. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties w[ich4" ��afs seAr,use of t ' �_' pL.� data provided. �PSEs �1sr Z z PITNEY BOWES 'Z r 02 1P $ 000.450 v > - 0003195036 JAN 03 2013 CITY OF MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 CHANHASSEN ket Boulevard '7 Minnesota 55317 /C 3ssen.mn.us A iO o -y FRANK R & THERESA M GUSTAFSON 449 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 181I1n111lnIIntill nr11n.11111111113111 111 Oil Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start I until later in the evenin , depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Proposal: 1 Vot single-family development on 13.2 acres of property currently zoned RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed Low Density Residential — Preserve at Rice Lake. A licant: John Knoblauch Property South of West Ele Street Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is tinform you about the sppllcant'A "uest and to obtain inptj�tfom A neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project, If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-02. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff Questions & by email at saliaff(d)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Comments: 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: i• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments. Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a re mmendabon. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as apart of the hearing process. The Commission will dose the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission s recommendation. Rezomngs. land use and code amendments take a simple majority vole of the City Council except rezomngs and land use amendments from residential to commerciallindustual. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s)- • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not Minutes are taken and any conespondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have L _ something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. � ,kpS� PCtST'M D g5 E/� Z PITNEY sows• 02 1P $ 000.450 ,0003195036 JAN 03 2013 N i 4 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 CITY OF I[ ;Iiiij SUBJECT 4 a,- 'i PROPERTY CH NHASSEN ket Boulevard .�� Minnesota 55317 ,sen.mn.us Ck Disclaimer ¢N, ,r „ p c pb1 � +` This map is neither a ler•%�� a �. i•`�� ,used as one. This map i>+ ¢F, °,++',. `„� �;.�� n various city, county, ste-' ,SSE "`. t; i*�' 0.1 �;�`` .a shown, and is to be us tat �` a 0.'I warrant that the Geographic h. pb ���,:�` nap are error free, and NORTH BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSN INC the City does r. 1 .or navigational, tracking or any other purpos31�. ��•'� stance or direction or precision 2681 LONG LAKE RD in the depiction c °f ♦ ,�` or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-11 ..ner is provided pursuant to Minnesota , usROSEVILLE MN 55113-1128 C" 4 Statutes §488.03, Su. user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and I. .,ess the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, • . ird parties w""sf tl jaf'�use of I LL I I II II II. 11 IL r r ll l IL I II II I data provided. "'� i r i u r r r r r r iii u r r n n i n Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not star, I until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Proposal: IVot single-family development on 13.2 acres of property currently zoned RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed Low Density Residential — Preserve at Rice Lake. Applicant: John Knoblauch Property South of West t361h Street Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the rogeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-02. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff Questions & by email at §alraff(c�ci.chanhassen.rrl or by phone at 952 - Comments: 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments. Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Pian Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a repon on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item wal be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will dose the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or parry the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonmgs and land use amendments from residential to commerciavindustnat • Minnesota state Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to Complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its Status and Scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a Contact for the dry. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighbornooc regarding their proposal Staff is also available to review the project win any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. if you wish to have Something to be included in the reportplease Contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. CITY OF CHAhHASSEN 7700 Market Bol,', P.O. Rn,. • y' y 3 p1I Z 06 KNOWN AA t7PR� 9 OA/ 812 This map is neither a legally n as one. This map is a compila „sous city, county, slate and federal o, -a shown, and is to be used for reference F ,got warrant that the Geographic Information System It „e this map are error free, and the City does not represent that tt, as used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exaclir _.,urement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer Is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties w isp out-oftuse of data provided. i ,kptFs p0.rr 5 Z rrrxer ttwwcs 021 P $ 000.450 0003195036 JAN 03 2013 t'A MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 55317 �� lt rr 1 .� MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES 2681 LONG LAKE RD ROSEVILLE MN 55113-1128 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Proposal: 11 -lot single-family development on 13.2 acres of property currently zoned RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed Low Density Residential — Preserve at Rice Lake. Applicant: John Knoblauch Property South of West 86'" Street Location: I A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses i the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-02. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen Ai-Jaff Questions & by email at saljaffCrDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Comments: 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned unit Developments. Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings. Comprehensive Plan Amendmil and code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested parry is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that incudes all pertinent information and a recommendation These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation- The dem w.11 be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process_ The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an n through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding is status and scheduling for 'y Council missing. • A neighborhood spokespc �epresematrve is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet v a neighborhooc regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interest on(s). • Because the Planning f ;con holds the public hearing, the City Council tices not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence re, .he application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be include report, please contact the Planning Stag person named on the notification. thisday of# r 2013 JYMME JEANNETTE BARK NOTARY PUBLIC • MANESOTA coir cou►IlssloN E>s REs mrJlne No ryu lir RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.59 per column inch SCANNED Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers CITY OF CBANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING State of Minnesota) PLANNING CASE NO. 2013-02 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN )SS. that the Chanhassen Planning Com- mission will hold a public hearing County Of Carver ) on Tuesday, January 15, 2013, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearingis to consider a request for a Concept Laurie A. Hamnann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized PUnit Development (PUD) agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- forr a a 17- 17 -lot single-family develop- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: ment on 13.2 acres of property currently zoned RSF-Single From. (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal fly Residential and 114 -Mixed Low newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as Density Residential, and located amended. southeast of the intersection of West 86th Street and Tigua Lane - Preserve at Rice Lake. Applicant: (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. John Knoblauch. Owner: Chestnut was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and sai Group, LLC. Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of A plan showing the location of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both the Proposal is available for public inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition review on the City's web site at and publication of the Notice: wwwci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-02 or at City Hall during regular busi- ness hours. All interested persons abcdefghijkhanopgrstuvwxyz are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions ` / / with respect to this proposal. By: VVVttt--- Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Email: saljaffCg Lchanhaecnn, Laurie A. Hartmann mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Published in the Chanhassen Subscribed and swom before me on Villager on Thursday. January 3, 2013; No. 4764) thisday of# r 2013 JYMME JEANNETTE BARK NOTARY PUBLIC • MANESOTA coir cou►IlssloN E>s REs mrJlne No ryu lir RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.59 per column inch SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2013-02 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 15, 2013, 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 a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 17 -lot single-family development on 13.2 acres of property currently zoned RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed Low Density Residential, and located southeast of the intersection of West 86th Street and Tigua Lane - Preserve at Rice Lake. Applicant: John Knoblauch. Owner: Chestnut Group, LLC. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-02 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 A]-Jaff, Senior Planner Email saljaff2 ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on January 3, 2013) SCANNED PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE - PLANNING CASE 2013-02 $750.00 Concept PUD $200.00 Notification Sign $279.00 GIS Fees $1,229.00 TOTAL $1,229.00 Less Check #6559 from Knoblauch Builders, LLC $0.00 BALANCE SCANNED Chanhassen City Council —January 28, 2013 were not included, and Mr. Oehme I guess at that point we would certainly look to your thoughts and opinions as to best course of action and for the reasons that you see most appropriate so with that I am comfortable moving forward, as we have discussed this evening and would certainly entertain a motion at this time. Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor, I move that. Mayor Furlong: Oh, you can second it if you want to. Councilman McDonald: I'll second it. Mayor Furlong: Why don't we have him make it first and then you can second it. It's a point of order thing. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. I move that the City Council orders preparation of plans and specifications for the 2013 Street Improvement Project 13-10-2 Melody Hill area. Councilman McDonald: I'll second. Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald, thank you. Motion's been made and seconded. And I think that's with the understanding of the additional information that we've requested. Any thoughts or comments or discussion on the motion? I will have one comment because I forgot to say it, thank you to the residents that came this evening and spoke to us. For those that sent the emails with their questions and thank you to staff for getting us those comments as well. There were some others in the packet and for everybody that came out to the open house, we appreciate you coming and getting involved and helping whatever happens here or doesn't happen here, make sure that it's the right thing to do. So with that if there's no other comments, we'll proceed with the vote. Resolution #2013-05: Councilman Laufenburger moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council orders the preparation of plans and specifications for the 2013 Street Improvement Project 13-01-2, Melody Hill area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE, LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST 86TH STREET, APPLICANT: JOHN KNOBLAUCH: REQUEST FOR CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 15 LOT SINGLE FAMH.Y DEVELOPMENT ON 13.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED RSF-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND R4 -MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. The application, as you mentioned is from Mr. Knoblauch. Preserve at Rice Marsh. This item, the applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting back in January 12'h and then on Tuesday, January 15"' the Planning Commission held a public hearing. This is our second experience in our new revised PUD process. As we go through it we did a detailed report as we do to again to set the course of action not only for what the staff will be reviewing but also to put the applicant on notice of the regulatory things that they must follow to go through that. Again the PUD concept has no legal standing but again in good faith we're trying to give the direction to the applicant to the right course of action. As his application was submitted has gone through several iterations and I think we finally arrived at what we believe, the staff believes is the right course. At the Planning Commission hearing on January 15'h they also concurred that they think the direction that we're going to recommend, had recommended is also the right course and while there's a lot of details in the staff report, I'll go through the power point I think to kind of explain kind of the history of this property. 011 SCANNED Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 So again this property gets access off of West 86th Street. This property here. The Mission Hills piece was actually guided for mixed use and this property here is still vacant but the access then would come through the Mission Hills, which is a medium density. Mayor Furlong: Excuse me Ms. Aanenson, are you looking at something on your screen? Kate Aanenson: Oh I'm sorry. Paul turned it off. I'm song, Paul turned it off. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Now it'll be easier for us to follow. Kate Aanenson: That's right, I'm looking at something. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I'm sure it was exactly what you were talking about. Kate Aanenson: Paul and 1 need to work out our buddy system. So anyway so yeah, we get so this property is vacant and then coming off of West 86th Street getting access to the property so this piece is actually surrounded by a couple different land uses. We've got large lot coming off of Tigua Lane and then also the Marsh Glen neighborhood that comes, has direct access with a right out onto 101. So this area was able to develop before we did the realignment of 101 so all access was gained there and some of it's changed now with the 212, and I'll go through that in a minute. Existing land use is actually guided for low density and the low density allows for I to 4 units an acre. And the zoning on the site is actually dual guided. Dual zones. Actually it's low density, so that would allow twinhomes and then single family residential for single family development. The complexity comes in on this piece of property, this site looking at it in 2005 prior to 212 being built. You can see the Mission Hills was put in place. The large lots on Tigua were in place and then the Marsh Glen neighborhood. This was all one piece with the original farmstead here and then you see with the development of the 212 it actually moved that property and cut it in half. So you ended up with the parcel split as such so now you have this piece. The pedimus to this piece are that the existing conditions are that the parcel, you know the 212 segment. What you could have balanced on the site was less, with less flexibility. It's within the shoreland district of Rice Marsh Lake which is 1,000 feet. While it's not riparian lots it does still fall within the shoreland district. There are wetlands on the site, which you can see here. And then just to point out again the DNR has jurisdiction over the, for doing a PUD and our ordinance just for the PUD section of the shoreland regs would go through the DNR so whatever approval we would give is still subject to their jurisdictional review. This is a buildable parcel. Access would be gained via West 86h Street. There was residents at the Planning Commission meeting and we did attach some of their emails that came through that were concerned about this and the layout as proposed, we didn't spend a lot of time reviewing the layout, and I'll go through that in a minute but really the goal here is to decide what the appropriate course of action would be. The closest home, proposed home on this proposed plat would be within 250 feet of the closest home here or the existing home here. So this is all a buildable area. Access would come through this wetland. Some of the neighbors at the Planning Commission asked that the road be moved over but that impacts the wetland more. We're actually kind of going through the existing part of the property that there's a conveyance. The issue with the low density zoning district, as our ordinance moved forward, it's more prescriptive in the minimum lot size and the minimum lot width so because the applicant is desiring to do a low density development, as you can see here. So with the shoreland district, low density is prescriptive in the lot width requirements and so in order to accommodate the single family detached, what we do believe is, what the applicant wants to do and we do believe is a desirable use for this site as opposed to the twinhomes, that we would have to actually upzone the property. Go to a medium density to allow the flexibility of the minimum lot size and still stay within that range. And having said that, you have to meet the minimum 4 units an acre in order to qualify for that so that would mean to get to the 16 homes, which we believe can be accomplished. 31 Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Question for you on the, if you go back to the last slide. What's that shaded area? Kate Aanenson: I'm sorry, I'm going the other way. Mayor Furlong: Other way. Kate Aanenson: Can you move it back? One more. Go the other way. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, the shaded area there, you said that's the. Kate Aanenson: That's the shoreland district. Mayor Furlong: Shoreline district. And what's the distance, is that the distance from the shore of the lake? Kate Aanenson: 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark Mayor Furlong: 1,000 feet, so that's quite a distance. Kate Aanenson: Yep. Yeah, there's actually tiers within the, the first tier within the shoreland district doesn't fall on this property. The first tier would be somewhere in this area here. The way the DNR has the shoreland regs set up under that is their goal is to try to transfer that density. Our ordinance under the low density can't accommodate that. Mayor Furlong: Can or cannot? Kate Aanenson: Cannot. We don't have that tool put in place the way our ordinance, the rules that we have in place in our low density single family which is why we're recommending going to the medium density zoning district. Did I answer that question? Mayor Furlong: Nope and that's fine. Let's keep going. I'll have other questions after. Kate Aanenson: So again when we're looking at the zoning district and what would be appropriate application we always ask the developer what's their desire for housing on the site to make sure it can accommodate because our goal is always to make sure, when we have a resident on a piece of property that the lot size is big enough to accommodate needs in the future, whether it be a patio. Some additional things that they may want to put out in their yard. A storage barn or the like, we want to make sure the lots are big enough. In this circumstance the applicant is a little bit challenged on some of those and that's where we want to make sure, we didn't give a lot of review to the proposed site plan because we believe that moderations or modifications can be made going to lower density which allow a little bit smaller lot size. For example in the PUD would allow for the 50 foot right-of-way. As such so this area here would be, this right-of-way would be 50 feet. It also allows for the 5 and the 10 foot side yard setbacks, which we have used in other medium density, and then allowing the lots to go smaller. There is no minimum lot size but would be dictated by the home size that the applicant has demonstrated so while we haven't actually done through the details on all of these lots, we do believe that these 16 lots can be accommodated with modifications. Again this isn't showing you the wetland buffer. We do allow averaging for the buffering. There is some anomalies on the site. And while you showed this colored 32 Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 drawing, 1 just want to show it for the illustrative showing the wetland and the buffering. These can be averaged to make sure that we do have enough lot area but that's the goal we want to make sure a future resident has a big enough lot area to accommodate future needs for expansion and livability of their site. Mayor Furlong: Could you expound upon that a little bit? Kate Aanenson: Sure. You have a building envelope on every lot. The PUD allows you to take, to accommodate some of this other open space to, for your green space area. But having said that you still need to have a building envelope that allows some expansion, whether it be a deck, a yard barn, a swing set, a dog run, those sort of things that you're outside of the buffer wetland requirement setbacks. Again that would be under the DNR's jurisdiction to find where those are but based on our ordinance we can average some of this buffering to make that work. Again the goal, trying to match both goals, what we believe for the land use, which we said before, low density. It meets that but because our PUD ordinance doesn't match the DNR regulations we need to change it to a medium density. Still allowing for that single family and the low end of the medium density, as I mentioned before, is 4 units an acre and that would accomplish this and we have to stay within that 4, which also under the low density the highest you would go is 4 so we're still at that 4 units an acre. Again 50% of the site pretty much would be left in open space and would accommodate that. We did put in the staff report other things that would need to be accomplished with this project would also include a sound wall along Highway 5. Councilman Laufenburger: 212. Kate Aanenson: Excuse me, 212. Thank you. And then the trail connection. Yeah, that'd be a long ways away. Yeah. So again trying to match the developer's goals and what the City had originally envisioned on this which was a lower density single family, taking into account the separation of this property by 212 and to allow for that so we would, we had recommended going to the medium density. The concern that I think we talked about and shoreland staff, what if this project went away. Would you want townhouses on there if you went with the medium density so we could always go back and go with dual guiding which would say low or medium if this project did go away for whatever reasons. If another project came back that would give you discretion of what land use you would want to pick so again we believe under that PUD, you know the goal of the developer was you know trying to do a single family detached. The City's goal is to save as many natural features on the site and following regulations with the DNR. Again we have the discretion, the City has the discretion to amend the Comprehensive Plan. We're still within that 4 units an acre, following with that single family detached we believe that meets that what we're doing is trying to find the mechanism, the tool, the right track to allow this project to proceed. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions you have but we are recommending that the process would be then if you give some direction the developer would then come back through. It does require a land use amendment. Would have to come back through another public hearing. Meeting all the requirements of the City's zoning ordinance, the DNR regulations, etc. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for staff. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Okay I have a really dumb question but I've got to ask it. Can you put that map back up there that shows the development again? Yeah, 1 think it's back. Yep, that one. Okay you said that the DNR has some control over this because of shoreline and everything but yet where that's located there's already houses above it. Why would, what's the problem because? Kate Aanenson: Can you go back to the shoreland, go back one more. It's this one right here. Yeah, the shoreland district itself when you're doing a PUD, they have jurisdiction. We have a shoreland ordinance in our code. We do it for the PUD within the shoreland district they felt that we didn't address it so they're within 1,000 feet of Rice Marsh, which is where this line here is. There's jurisdiction by the DNR 33 A Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 with what happens in there and really their goal under that is really to transfer things out and so if it was their goal it would be more of a multi -family potential project and outside that first tier, which they're outside of but they would cluster that. Mayor Furlong: When you say, they would like development outside of the shaded area? Kate Aanenson: Every tier you go outside of you can transfer density, which is what we're doing. We're keeping it at a lower scale so we're meeting those criteria by making the smaller lots, and that's their goal is to have more in preservation. Councilman McDonald: Okay so we're putting more units per acre. Kate Aanenson: We're really not. We're actually doing the same project the developer had, we just have to up zone it because our ordinance under the low density is prescriptive as far as 90 foot of frontage, 15,000 square feet. In the medium density our ordinance allows you to go to, there's the freedom to decide what lot size you need so what we ask the applicant to say is, what house size were you doing? We want to make sure the lot matches the desired house size and that we have a reasonable lot size to match the house and what a resident's expectations would be. Councilman McDonald: Okay, and that would come in with the 25% impervious surface to make sure. Kate Aanenson: Yep, it's actually would be 30% but you can account for that with all of the other, that's the other thing with the PUD, what's being preserved in the upland area. Anything else that would be in the upland area which there is some areas that are left out would be counted towards that. Councilman McDonald: Okay, and then because this is within 1,000 feet and the other developments also, what problems did we have with those developments? Was there anything special that happened there with the? Kate Aanenson: It only comes into place when you're doing this, in this circumstance, the PUD. Councilman McDonald: Oh okay. So it didn't come into effect in the other developments. Kate Aanenson: Yes, if we go back and look what we did on the south side of the Lennar project on Lake Riley, those first lots that were adjacent to Lake Riley actually fell within the shoreland district there. They did an RLM zoning district. What the RLM says you also have to preserve something so they created a park and they also preserved some additional property in order to accommodate or to secure the RLM zoning district? They met the intent of our ordinance which is what this property is trying to do. Councilman McDonald: Okay, and then. Kate Aanenson: So what they did then is those lots that fell within the shoreland district, by that zoning district had to meet the 90 foot of frontage and 15,000 square feet. Then the rest of the lots could go smaller under the RLM zoning district. In this circumstance, because the street right-of-way, we want to try to pinch that through the wetlands and some of those other things under the PUD ordinance which this allows us to do, to get the 50 foot of right-of-way, our ordinance allows you to go to a 5 and 10 foot setback on the sides and also a 25 foot front yard setbacks so it's built in the flexibility, which we've applied in other zoning districts to make it buildable so what we've done is created a zoning district to still get the same product that the applicant wanted. A 16 lot subdivision. Councilman McDonald: Okay 34 Chanhassen City Council —January 28, 2013 Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council, as you look at this slide, don't look at it as wherever it's shaded light green you can't develop in that area. What the shading is telling you, anything within that area has to follow the shoreland district regulations so you can still develop. You can put homes in there. You just need to meet the setbacks that were established in that shoreland district. It's not that you can't develop in that area, you just need to meet those requirements and that's where Kate will show you the slide with the multi -colors shows you those different setbacks. Kate Aanenson: Right. So those are the buffer areas around the wetlands and so you can see, again this isn't the project that's going. We've seen numerous iterations so I don't want anybody to be hung up on any particular project. It's going to meet our ordinance but this is just for illustrative purposes to show you that some of these lots have bigger rear yards. Some of them have less so you can average some of the buffering which our ordinance allows but what we're recommending and challenging is that we want to make sure those lots work and provide adequate rear yards for somebody into the future, which we believe through the tweaking of the development, oops. As shown here on this one. This one has 16 with some minor tweaks to this one we believe that project will meet the original intent to get 16 lots. We just needed to change the, the zoning on it. In order to change the zoning we needed to change the land use designation. Councilman McDonald: Okay so impervious surface then, because it's a PUD, we can average that across the entire development. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Todd Gerhardt: And Mayor, council, that would allow each of the lots to put a deck in the back yard. If somebody wanted to put an accessory building in the back yard. A pool, we'd have to work with. That's going to be a little tough. Councilman McDonald: It'd fill itself Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, and but from staff's perspective you could do this under a single family development. If you went with a twin home development, more than likely you probably wouldn't see the accessory buildings in the back yard. You don't see the variety in decks or play structures usually with a twin home development and your setbacks are a little different with twin homes. You probably see more density here than what's being proposed with the twin home so staff is asking for direction from council if they prefer to see single family development versus more of a twin home, townhouse type. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilman McDonald: Thank you for answering the question. At least that explained that part of it so thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Mr. Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Kate, could you talk a little bit about why the road is in this, or why the access point off 8e is here versus what appears to be a shorter distance. Mayor Furlong: Off the curve? Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, off the curve where the red car is. Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 Kate Aanenson: Sure, Councilman Laufenburger: Can you just speak to that a little bit. Kate Aanenson: Yes, in reviewing that, you're coming through a larger segment of the wetland. All this area here is actual, is wetland. Coming through here you're actually coming through an area that's not a wetland so less impacts to the wetland. Councilman Laufenburger: So it would impact the wetland less? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Councilman Laufenburger: So there would still be wetland adjustments that would have to be made, is that correct? Kate Aanenson: Yes, right. And what we're recommending and the feedback we've got from the DNR is the only impacts to this site for wetlands would be for the road itself and that would be one place and then maybe up in here would be the only other place would be impacts to wetlands for roads. A cul-de-sac. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. The second question relates to the DNR. The way you explained it earlier on you said that the DNR kind of has trumping authority over this. Can you just explain that a little bit. What jurisdiction, if the council says yep, this looks like a pretty good plan with this concept PUD. Let's go to the next step. What role does the DNR play and what could, how might they act? Kate Aanenson: Good question. As with any other project we always send it out for jurisdictional review. Whether it would be, under this circumstance MnDOT because it's adjacent to 212. And then because our PUD ordinance is, doesn't address some of these issues with the single family part of it, the DNR does have jurisdiction on that and under the shoreland regulations so when we get a project that, meets our city ordinance then we'll send it out. When it comes in for an application for jurisdictional review. At the same time we would send it up to the Met Council for, get their comments on a land use amendment. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, and do we have any history of what happens when we submit these for other jurisdictional review? Kate Aanenson: Yes, we've actually sat down, well actually we've had numerous phone conversations to make sure that we're in alignment. We don't want to go down a course of action that we believe is not going to go anywhere so we believe that we're meeting the intent of what the DNR is trying to do and we also believe that the land use amendment is keeping with the spirit of the underlying zoning district that we had before which is single family detached housing. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Kate. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? If not, Mr. Knoblauch, the applicant is here this evening. Good evening Mr. Knoblauch. John Knoblauch: Good evening Mayor, council. I'm John Knoblauch, 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Chanhassen, Minnesota. Proposing a 16 lot development on the Klingelhutz parcel north of 212. This, can we go back to the other drawing there with the, this is the most recent sketch if you will that we've come up with. My engineer, this is the actually the eleventh drawing that he's made. We've actually been, had 6 different small, short meetings with Terry from engineering staff to try to address these 36 Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 wetlands and buffers as best as possible to present a plan that will meet or exceed any ordinances or DNR issues. We think this recent drawing is a very nice drawing for single family for this parcel. It addresses, the lot sizes in this drawing are all over 10,000 square feet. Right now in Shakopee I've been building on 8,900 to 9,400 with this same house plan. This drawing also does show 8 foot setbacks on the garage side instead of 5. I'm really not a big fan of 5 foot garage side yard setbacks. Just for getting your mower into the back yard. If you have any edging or anything like that. I don't foresee this property, I definitely would develop some pretty serious covenants for these neighbors and address issues like possible pools. 1 don't see problems with these homes, I don't this price range probably not going to see a lot of pool issues I don't think but as far as decks, we have drawn some decks on these proposed house pads. We are definitely seeing smaller decks in the marketplace right now. Basically a grilling deck, some chairs and so forth. We're not seeing the monster decks of the 80's and 70's on the back of homes. A lot of decks people prefer them actually now not blocking windows in the back of the homes. We're doing a lot of decks behind the garage which has become very popular so people have better view out the back. I do plan to, I know that there'll be a landscaping plan in the event that this concept plan came forward down the line in front of your desks but I am proposing a tree plan that will be very extensive. There's a number of cedar trees east of the tree line in the middle of the property that I would propose to hopefully be able to be moved. 1 think there's about 30 or 40 of them. We'd like to heavily tree the perimeter. This whole property. And obviously along MnDOT's or the property line that abuts MnDOT's line. Alsc leave the open space to the east, which would be a nice setting in the back of the homes to the end of the cul-de-sac. And as far as the buffers go, yeah we would definitely be looking at some kind of wildflower plantings in all the buffer areas and feel that we can address that with the homeowners to make sure there's obviously signage restrictions and to keep people out of those areas. So we're asking for you to look hard at this medium density proposal. This property's 13.2 acres. We're only proposing 4, is it 4? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, less than half John Knoblauch: Yeah, less than half to go into development for these lots and feel it's the best use for this parcel. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Questions for Mr. Knoblauch. Mr. McDonald. Councilman McDonald: Ms. Aanenson mentioned something way back when about a sound wall. What are you proposing to put up? Similar to what MnDOT put up you know for the rest of the development or something else? John Knoblauch: Yeah, right now to the southwest comer of this parcel the townhome sound wall ends right at the property line. It's a, and it's about a 7 foot tall for maybe 20-30 feet at that point. We're proposing from, to connect to that and have an 8 foot sound wall on top of the berms. There's two berms. Very, very large berm that's on the south side and then those, the treed berm to the southeast. We're propose an 8 foot sound wall across both those berms. Unfortunately we've got a pretty deep hole where that one wetland area touches. It doesn't actually a wetland area. It doesn't go into MnDOT property very much. Unfortunately there would be about a 20 foot sound wall to patch that hole and connect the two berms. And we are proposing that that would be straight across hopefully as long as MnDOT would allow that. I've been told by one of the MnDOT staff they would allow up to 20 feet there. Councilman McDonald: Okay, so the wall would be 20 feet high at that one spot. John Knoblauch: It's about 60 feet, 20 feet wide. Or 20 feet high and then it's 1,150 foot wall from tip to tip. And there's about 60 feet of it only that would be the high wall. Most of it would be that 8 foot. Now we haven't done a formal, well there was a preliminary noise study done by a previous, well actually I don't think they went to, they didn't get an, they actually did some previous studies last year on this and 37 Chanhassen City Council —January 28, 2013 they were proposing a 6 foot wall which put the top of the walls at about 3 feet below soffit heights of those homes. We've actually checked a lot of elevations out there to make sure because I developed, I built some homes in Shakopee and to my dismay the developer did not put in a sound wall and it was incredibly disappointing and so we had a lot of sound problems. We were on the south side of the road, which is even worst when you got the wind direction, our dominant winds coming from the northwest. This parcel being on the north side will help but the 8 foot wall will definitely work well. The berm and the 8 foot wall, we'll have a 921, I'm sorry 923 elevation and the pond, the bottom of that pond to the right is at 896 so we feel that we give a lot of noise protection to the whole area, not just these homes. Councilman McDonald: So you'll have a consistent height then tying in with the sound wall that's by the townhomes and everything going across. And will that be at the same height as that other wall or will it be a couple feet below it? John Knoblauch: The existing townhome wall right now where we have connected is at 7 foot for maybe 20 feet. Then it goes to 8 and then it gets higher but they're not on quite as much a berm as this berm that was built here so. Kate Aanenson: If I may, they're going to do a noise study. We've got one kind of and so we'll look at that. Whether or not it needs to be a certain height in certain areas. We'll look at that. There's ways to modify it. We had to do it on the other side of the with the Lennar project on Reflections. There was some modification made there so we'll look at that to see what needs to be done to make it work and there might be some flexibility in certain parts but again the goal is to provide the noise mitigation, which is what Mr. Knoblauch wants to do so. John Knoblauch: Yeah I would mention that Lennar cut their wall short and only has chain link and they've got direct sound coming right from 101 intersection and northwest wind blows right into that neighborhood. This would be much more protection than what they've got. Mayor Furlong: Okay, other questions for Mr. Knoblauch? Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Couple questions. Can you, so these homes are going to be 1,500 square feet, is that correct? On an average. John Knoblauch: The home that's been sketched on about over half the lots actually is a two story home and it's about 1,400 square foot per level there so that's a 2,800 square foot two story. 1 believe originally I told staff that we would be hoping in that 2,500 to 3,000 square foot, two story home range. The garage, actually the drawings that you have are actually over sized by 2 feet from what I normally do. Those are 30 foot garage drawings. Just in case someone wanted a 9 foot, third stall door so I've drawn them 2 feet bigger than in this sketch here than 1 normally have built before on a 28 foot wide garage. We built a garage like this a lot where there's a little bit of room for storage in the back, either work bench and so forth so that's why the bump back area there 4 feet in the back, but no these would be two story homes mostly because you know we're proposing a 52 to 54 foot pad and as a result ramblers a little tougher to work with. Not a lot of curb appeal unfortunately in a 54 foot rambler but we wouldn't say that we wouldn't build any ramblers but chances are it'd be mostly two stories. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay and you mentioned the price range. Can you give me an idea of what the price range would, is going to be? It may have been in your report Kate but I didn't get through the whole thing so. 38 Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 John Knoblauch: Total of the home and lot package that would go in this neighborhood for instance would be probably similar to across the street at Lennar or your other projects, Pioneer Pass and LDK's project. Be very similar. $400,000 to $500,000 I would say total package. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. And Kate, I have a question for you. So when we originally talked about PUD's 1 thought that the requirement was that they had to have a 30 foot setback but it sounds like. Kate Aanenson: Nope, our PUD ordinance, it's in the findings, our PUD ordinance does allow the flexibility to go to do the narrower side yards and then it also allows you, under the PUD, to do a 25 foot front yard setback. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay. So this one is intended to be a 25? Kate Aanenson: Correct. John Knoblauch: That's correct. The new drawing, the last drawing that was up there shows 25 the front yard setback and by the way just to mention patios and decks again, we are again seeing very small decks. We're seeing a lot of patio, free standing patios. Fire pits. We're not seeing the old style patios as much in the last 5 to 10 years so we presume that will be, follow through in this development if this went forward. Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Laufenburger, questions. Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah thank you Mr. Mayor. Mr. Knoblauch, nice to have you here tonight. We always like to consider developments in the community. What's the length of the road from 86th to the end of the cul-de-sac, do you know? John Knoblauch: You know I don't. I know that. Councilman Laufenburger: Maybe Kate knows. Kate Aanenson: It's over 800 feet which is our normal. Councilman Laufenburger: It's over 800 feet. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. John Knoblauch: It's going to be over the, yeah I think it's 1,300. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Okay. John Knoblauch: And this path, as you can see, the dark line on the bottom is a sidewalk proposal. 5 foot sidewalk and I believe the park, Todd might be able to, they're looking for a I think an 8 foot blacktop path from, coming off the cul-de-sac to service into the Rice Lake trail connection. Councilman Laufenburger: I noticed that too and that was my next comment so the plan would be, you would provide, you would build that trail connection to the Rice Lake Marsh trail, is that correct? 39 Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 John Knoblauch: Yeah, my understanding with Todd was that 1 was providing the concrete sidewalk but there was budget allowed in the Rice Marsh trail to pay for the blacktopping as long as I think we prepped it to pay for the blacktopping to get to the MnDOT parcel. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay, well I'm sure you can work that out but I'm pleased to see that there's a connection there. Do you have any room for any kind of a, any kind of an outlot like a central park area. I noticed that this, the closest park would be a mile away which exceeds our Comprehensive Plan so do you have any thoughts or any plans for any kind of an outlot? John Knoblauch: Not on this parcel. You know unfortunately with, there's just not a lot of high ground with the 5 or 6 wetlands and so you know staff has said you know we really need to be very restrictive and. Councilman Laufenburger: So this is part of the covenants that you're planning to have in place for the homeowners? John Knoblauch: No, not necessarily. I'm just saying that the wetlands are very restrictive as far as having some other open. There is an open area outlot. Kate Aanenson: Outlot A, yeah. John Knoblauch: To the east. That was at least my impression from the parks department %N as that was going to be open space left open. Kate Aanenson: So that's all this area here. John Knoblauch: And as far as parks go, I really see these folks heavily using this 3 mile Rice Lake trail. You know I understand that there's a distance from over, is it a mile? From the nearest park but I see this being very desirable for a walker or a hiker that would want to go around that whole marsh which is going to be a very neat trail for the city. Councilman Laufenburger: Sure, okay. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. I guess to follow up Mr. Hoffman too, parks or access for the other homes in the neighbor, in the adjoining neighborhoods. Typically what parks they use with the trail system I guess, they can get over to Lake Susan or up to Rice Marsh. Todd Hoffman: Yeah the closest city parks are Lake Susan Park and then Rice Marsh Lake Park. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Todd Hoffman: But as the crow flies it's about a half mile so this neighborhood would fit within that neighborhood park service area but once you get on the city trail system to get there it's just about a mile. Mayor Furlong: Okay. With this connection for these homes and we're actually looking at the Rice Marsh trail connection which is I think further north of here, that's going to provide better access for all these, for everyone that lives in these areas. Todd Hoffman: It will. Mayor Furlong: Either one 40 Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 Todd Hoffman: To have connection to that 3 mile trail loop, like Mr. Knoblauch said is going to be a tremendous valuable connection. Recreational amenity to these neighbors. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Mr. Knoblauch, just a couple questions. I think we clarified here with Councilwoman Ernst that you're looking at probably 2,800 square feet on average for the homes, the two story homes. The 10,000 foot lots. Is it your sense that with the current guiding or zoning of low density, Kate's saying, Ms. Aanenson's saying let's use the PUD. Let's move it to medium density to give us the flexibility. Is that, are you in agreement with that? Is that something that you think makes sense for what you're trying to accomplish here? John Knoblauch: Well the neat thing that that does, it brings the lot size down but it definitely gives more protection to the wetlands which you know I'm a big duck hunter so obviously wetlands are important in my book but I think that's the important thing is it pulls those lots, I mean we could make 12,000 square foot lots and have these people out dabbling in these areas but it wouldn't meet the, the medium density drives us to bring those lot lines back so that we keep those people out of those areas in my opinion and they enjoy the view. They don't, out there not mowing around and it also gives the city a lot of flexibility in my opinion, because of the drainage on the north side of the property, in the springtime you get some drainage through there and that will keep people from disrupting that possibility too. Mayor Furlong: So with, and maybe back and forth between Mr. Knoblauch and Ms. Aanenson, so with the suggestion of going to a medium density with the PUD, is that going to accomplish what you were asking for in terms of the use of the lots or the expected use of the lots for these sized homes and these size lots? Kate Aanenson: Correct. So we're meeting the desire of the developer to do single family. Mayor Furlong: Yep. Kate Aanenson: It gives the right tool to allow for the smaller lot by up zoning so I think we, and preservation so it really is kind of a. Mayor Furlong: So it meets everybody's objective. Kate Aanenson: Exactly, everybody's objectives. Mayor Furlong: And goals. Okay. Alright. Okay, very good. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Knoblauch? Very good, thanks. John Knoblauch: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: 1 know there was a public hearing at the Planning Commission. 1 don't know if there's anyone here that would like to provide public comments but if there's anyone, we have read the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting but if you'd like to provide some comments, we'd be happy to listen. Good evening. Carol Lahto: Hi. My name's Carol Lahto. I live at 8591 Tigua Lane, so we are the green roofed house there at the end. Kate Aanenson: This one? 41 Chanhassen City Council—January 28, 2013 Carol Lahto: Yep. That's us. Kate Aanenson: Okay. Carol Lahto: As far as the development, l understand that this property will be developed by somebody. With that said I would suggest doing single family homes. I think at the meeting two weeks ago other people who lived in the townhouse development were here and some of their concerns were traffic. You know when and if you have a bunch of twin homes, sorry. I'm nervous, can you tell? Mayor Furlong: That's okay. You're doing fine. You're doing fine. Carol Lahto: There'll be more you know cars, more people in that area. One concern I do have is that by our driveway, 2 years ago we had a lot of rain and we actually had water coming up from that wetland. Enough that I thought we need flood insurance because it was creeping up so it's just one of the concerns I have with development, to make sure that you think about drainage and take that into consideration. Mayor Furlong: And could you just clarify. Maybe the driveway goes under the trees there. Do you share a driveway with the house to the west there? Carol Lahto: Yeah. It goes out and then it goes into the corner. Kind of that open spot. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Carol Lahto: So that would be one of my concerns. Mayor Furlong: Okay, Okay. And I guess then the question would be. Kate Aanenson: We'll check that but there is a storm water pond being proposed in that area so we'll make sure we include that in the calculations to accommodate. Mayor Furlong: Can you show where that is? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. There's a proposed storm water pond right here. So right now it'sjust sheet flowing that way so we would look at that and make sure that, in the analysis of this project that we make sure we look at what's coming this way to your property and they have to maintain that on their property. Carol Lahto: Okay. Mayor Furlong: And the water flows towards the lake here so it flows to the northwest? Kate Aanenson: Yes, exactly. So we'd make sure that this pond is, proposed pond is sized appropriately so it's not going towards their property. Mayor Furlong: Okay. I'm sorry. Councilman Laufenburger: Carol, that's your own private driveway, is that correct? So you maintain from 86"', the road that goes past the home to your house, that's a private road, is that correct? Carol Lahto: Yes. Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you. 42 Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 Kate Aanenson: And I would say too, just to remind everybody that's listening to this that this project would come back for another complete public hearing so we'll make sure that, you know if we haven't answered that, please make sure that you ask that again and all those questions are addressed as far as we would with any other subdivision. Carol Lahto: Okay, thank you. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Steve Lahto: I'm Steve Lahto and I happen to live with Carol at 8591 Tigua. One question I had Mr. Mayor and council, is the proposed change from low to medium density, would that mean if this particular plan were to fall through that two plots of land which are now zoned differently would now share the same zoning and therefore be able to have townhomes or twin homes on both of those properties where now it's just zoned for single family? Mayor Furlong: Ms. Aanenson. Kate Aanenson: That's a good question. I had to train the city attorney, Mr. Knutson on this issue but I think I was the first one to kind of recommend dual guiding and that's what we were suggesting on this one. That we'd actually still dual guide it. Keep it low density so if this project was to go away, this could would have the discretion, let's say we rezoned it or re -guided it and then the developer chose sometime down the future not to execute, then that project went away, another project would have to come back through the process and at that time this council would have the discretion to say you know what, we still want to keep it low density or change their mind and not have to go with 8 units per acre project. Steve Lahto: Excellent, thank you. Mayor Furlong: So provides flexibility and we're not making any decision for guiding tonight, correct? Kate Aanenson: Well you're going to give them a recommendation. Mayor Furlong: We're going to provide comments and recommendations on whether it's something we would consider or not. Kate Aanenson: Correct. At the next go around. Mayor Furlong: At the next go around, correct. Okay. Alright, thank you. Appreciate those comments and questions. Let's bring it back to council for thoughts and discussion. Councilman Laufenburger. I'll start. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger. Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor, I can and I would support this project. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other thoughts and comments. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I think ditto. i 43 { Chanhassen City Council — January 28, 2013 Mayor Furlong: Okay Councilwoman Tjomhom: You know there's not much, I think this has been a really good process. There were discussions in work session and now just having a relaxed, informal conversation about the vision for this parcel, right? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And how things could work or what some of the potential hazards could be. You know a lot of times, 5 years ago we'd have a development come through and no deck was planned and all of a sudden we had lots of problems with everyone wanting a deck or patio and it wasn't going to work and so I think we've learned a lot from history and I think this has been a very positive experience I think for council and hopefully the residents and the developer, just to see if it's something that really is workable and so I too would support it coming back and seeing what they have in mind for the next phase. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Great, thank you. Other thoughts? Councilwoman Ernst. Councilwoman Ernst: Yeah, and I really want to compliment Kate on all the challenges and you spent a lot of time on this project in working through many different challenges and scenarios. I would support this project. I think it's a good project and I want to make sure we do address the storm water issue, the drainage issue and with that yeah, I would support the project. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Mr. McDonald, thoughts. Councilman McDonald: I too would support the project. I'm just trying to be brief. Mayor Furlong: And everybody is. It must be getting late because you all are never this brief but, so I'll take up your time. Thanks for yielding as they say on the Senate. No I think there's been a lot of challenges and Mr. Knoblauch thank you for your efforts and I think you said this was iteration number 11 which says there's been a lot of work on everybody's side. Maybe too much work but this is a challenging parcel and I think you know there were questions raised at the Planning Commission as far as the location of the road. We talked about that tonight. Clearly this design makes the most sense as well. I think working with a PUD makes a lot of sense so thank you for coming forward with that idea. Looking at the dual guiding for medium provides the flexibility and really that's ultimately what I think to summarize what makes it easy for all of us to support this continuing forward is what's happening here is we're trying to seek the best way to accommodate the developer's goals and objectives. Staying within the rules. Staying within the guidelines but where's that flexibility that meets their objectives while meeting all the other requirements and so Mr. Knoblauch thank you for your efforts there working with staff. Kate and others, thank you for all your efforts as well. I mean this is a challenging parcel to say the least, but clearly it can support some development and it's fair to seek to, while keeping in mind the natural features of the property, do it right and that's what 1 hear happening here so thank you everybody for your efforts but I certainly would support this moving forward with the plan to look at the dual guiding, the PUD and all the other tools that we have to try to get this done so thank you. Any other questions or comments or questions from staff or Mr. Knoblauch for clarification? No? Todd Gerhardt: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Gerhardt hB Chanhassen City Council —January 28, 2013 Todd Gerhardt: I thought Mr. Knoblauch was one of our planners or engineers as much time as he spent at City Hall so I was surprised that he was the builder so, but Kate, Sharmeen, Terry, it would have been really easy just to say there's just too many hurdles on this project and to walk away from it so you know Kate and her staff just did a fantastic job of trying to figure out how to make this a successful project and they did that so look forward to getting down and getting the details out there now and appreciate everybody's efforts in making this work. Mayor Furlong: No, I hear Mr. Knoblauch's a pretty good builder of homes so if we can get through the development process I'm sure these will be 16 wonderful homes here as well so, very good. Thank you. Thank you all for your comments. For those that spoke at the Planning Commission and we look forward to seeing this back just as soon as it's ready. If there's nothing else we'll complete that item then and move onto the next item. TH 101 (LYMAN BOULEVARD TO PIONEER TRAH.) IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 12-06: RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS; APPROVE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT WITH CARVER COUNTY; AND APPROVE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH MNDOT. Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. I'd like to just briefly review, what we'd like to talk about tonight. We're giving you a quick overview of the project itself. We'll talk about a little bit of the construction and phasing and staging plans. Where we're at with right-of-way acquisitions on the project. Estimated costs and financing, we'll run through that. And then project schedule and if there's any questions at the end we'll be more than happy to try to answer that, those with, for you. Tonight Jon Horn from Kimley-Horn and Associates is here. He was the engineer on the project and he can answer some questions as well. So the purpose of the project, again the project is from reconstruction of Highway 101 from Lyman Boulevard down to Pioneer Trail. It's about three-quarters of a mile roadway. It's currently two lane, rural section roadway. We do have some documented traffic safety issues. Running off the road type of crashes. Those type of things. Capacity issues are an issue right now and currently moving forward with development, growth in the area that will increase and become a challenge for this corridor. So with that, again the issues associated with 10 L Steep grades. Sharp curves. Inadequate sight distances and blind intersections and then poor shoulders as well. With that, staff and the City did receive federal funding for this project back in 2009. With that funding we were able to partner with Carver County and MnDOT and plan for the future improvements of the roadway. The proposed improvements are to reconstruct this section of roadway to 4 lane design, urban section, including curb and gutter. Adjacent Lyman flatten out the curves and grades, basically making it to a county roadway, current county roadway design standards. 40 miles an hour design. Adding turn lanes at the intersections for public streets, at public streets. Stormwater drainage improvements are included in the project. We have 3 that are proposed. Pedestrian and bike trail and underpass by Bandimere Park. There's some Bandimere Park improvements that are associated with these improvements. I'll run through that a little later and trunk watermain is also improved, proposed along the corridor on the west side of 101. This is to facilitate future growth in the area. And then we'll also have some sanitary sewer improvements, specifically on 96'h Street. The lift station and the force main that discharges out of that area will be improved and reconstructed and then also a future stub for sanitary sewer to the Foxford Road area as well. This is a drawing of what the proposed improvements are. To the right of your screen is Lyman Boulevard. Currently that section of roadway just south of Lyman is 4 lane so the project limits are about 400 feet south of there. Moving south, the intersection at Bandimere Park would be proposed to be moved approximately 400 feet north to accommodate better sight lines, turn lanes and future park improvements as well. Moving south from there, still a 4 lane design urban section, divided roadway. There'd be a proposed underpass of 101 at this location and trail along the west side of 101 along the corridor as well. The existing trail on the east side will be realigned through Bandimere Park and then slightly as we move farther to the south as well. At Kiowa Trail intersection would have tum lanes, left 45 CITY OF CAANAASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.2271140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax 9522271110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.2271404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.2271110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen. mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: January 28, 2013 of cv SUBJ: Concept Planned Unit Development — Preserve at Rice Lake Planning Case 2013-02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On Saturday, January 12, 2013 the applicant hosted a neighborhood meeting. On Tuesday, January 15, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request which was attended by residents, who voiced their concems regarding the proposal. Summary and verbatim minutes are attached. The Planning Commission reiterated some of staff's comments in the report and recommended the City Council consider dual -guiding the site to Low and Medium Density to allow for flexibility to leave wetlands untouched. ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Summary & Verbatim Minutes dated January 15, 2013. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 15, 2013. gAptanQ013 planning cases\2013-02 preserve at rice lake concept pudlstaff report cc.doc Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning forTomorrow Planning Commission Summary — January 15, 2013 4. The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 5. The applicant must obtain, and the City must have received copy of, an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any wetland impacts. 6. A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: REQUEST FOR A CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 15 LOT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON 13.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED RSF-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND R4- KNOBLAUCH. OWNER: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2013-02. Sharmeen AI-Jaff and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. The applicant, John Knoblauch, 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior addressed the challenges associated with working with this parcel of land and asked that the Planning Commission change the zoning to medium density. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Mary Muirhead, 424 Monk Court stated if she had her druthers the land would never be developed and leaving it undeveloped helps her property value. If development is a foregone conclusion then her biggest concern would be the location of the road. LuAnn Markgraf, 401 Rice Court, which is the last building and the closest townhouse to West 96h Street, commented on the impact of the road entrance, wetlands, proximity to the townhouses, and traffic issues on 86th Street and TH 101. Steve Lehto, 8591 Tigua Lane explained the impact this development will have on his property which abuts the proposed project all the way to 86'h Street. Selfishly he would like to seethe property never developed but if development is inevitable, then he would prefer to see the least amount of impact as possible. Arturo Urrutia, 408 Monk Court stated he would like to second the comments by the previous speaker. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. After comments from commission members, the following motion was made. Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback, and direct the applicant to address issues raised in the staff report dated January 15, 2013 along with staff's proposed comments listed in the staff report dated January 15, 2013. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 2012 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Kate Aanenson provided updates on action taken by the City Council at their January 14, 2013 meeting, reviewed the schedule of future Planning Commission meetings, and informed the commission that Commissioner Kathleen Thomas will be resigning the end of April. Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 PUBLIC HEARING: PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: REQUEST FOR A CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 15 LOT SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON 13.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED RSF-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND R4- KNOBLAUCH. OWNER: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC. PLANNING CASE 2013-02. AI -Jaffa Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Before you is a request for a concept planned unit development. The site has an area of 13.2 acres. It is located southwest of the intersection of 869' Street. West 80h Street and Tigua Lane. Just briefly, this site was part of the parcel located south of Highway 212 and with the construction of Highway 212 it was segmented into two pieces. The 13 acres to the north and the remainder, I believe there were 60 acres to the south which were developed by another developer as single family detached homes. So the remaining piece, the 13 acres that is before you today, it is currently zoned, it's currently guided Residential Low Density which allows for 1.2 to 4 units per acre. The westerly half of the site is currently zoned Single Family Residential which permits attached as well as detached single family homes. The easterly portion is Mixed Low Density which allows for townhomes. Some of the characteristics of this site include a complex of different bodies of wetlands all along the northerly portion, the westerly portion, as well as a few along the east side of the site. Highway 212, a four lane highway is located south of the subject site. The site falls within the Shoreland Overlay District of Rice Marsh Lake. That entire area that is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a lake is considered shoreland and it falls under specific regulations that any development would have to adhere to. The buildable area on the site. What we attempted to do wasjust look at the location of the wetlands and just highlight the buildable area on the site solely based on the setback from the edge of the wetlands and what you see shaded in pink, that becomes the buildable area of the site. What the applicant is proposing to do is build single family homes. If we look at, and this plan was submitted by the applicant. The typical home that they intend to build will be 60 feet in depth and will require 52 feet in width. When we have these homes on the proposed lots, some of the house pads will encroach into required setbacks. Some of the homes don't meet width requirements for the shoreland ordinance. So there are sections that will need to be addressed. They just don't meet the regulations that are required in the wetland as well as the Shoreland Overlay District. To be able to accommodate the type of product that the applicant is requesting, one of the things that the City could entertain is re -guiding this site to medium density. It would be dual guiding it to low density as well as medium density. When we guide it to medium density one of the things that the planned unit development ordinance will allow us to do is really work with the site. There is no minimum lot area. There is no minimum lot width. That will allow us to look at the features of the site and position homes so that they are respectful and conscientious of how can we develop without impacting the natural features of the site. We are recommending that the Planning Commission provide us with feedback. We have raised some issues within the staff report that are still of concern. The current plan that the applicant is, has submitted does not meet the intent of a planned unit development. We believe that it is doable. It just requires some additional work by the applicant. Aanenson: I'd like tojust add a couple more comments. Can you go back to the slide? In looking at this project and the shoreland district, we've gotten feedback from the DNR that it does not meet the intent of the shoreland district so, because we believe that the single family housing product and meeting the goals of the number of units that the applicant wanted, somewhere around 16, staying at that 4 units an acre, which is low density by the City ordinance, we believe that it can fit on this site and meet the ordinance requirements, not only for the City's ordinance but for the shoreland regs and not filling any wetlands and avoidance and meeting all that. We do believe the PUD is the right tool for the fact that in order to get access to this site coming off of West 86'h Street, to go through, to get that access you are going to impact roads, no matter what product you were to put on that site. The only way to service that via sewer would Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 have to come off that way so to narrow that road to less impact as we just talked about in the last application, we believe that the PUD is the right tool. The problem with the low density is it doesn't fit within the shoreland regs. That flexibility that we have in place so the reason we were recommending the dual guiding is that if this application wasn't to go forward and the council wanted to revisit some other application, that would give them the leeway. Again because this is concept we'rejust looking for direction and what we're telling you is that we don't believe that under the low density that this application could go forward under that. There's, it just doesn't fit under the current regs but we believe getting to the 4 units an acre, keeping the 50% open space under the medium density would make some sense so with that, with some of the conditions that we put in the staff report, we would recommend kind of moving in that direction so with that, that's kind of our position and we're looking for some direction from you and then also from the City Council on that so, I think Sharmeen did a good job kind of explaining the issues that we have so, be happy to answer any questions you have on that. Aller: Even if we were to do or look at moving toward the... PUD with the medium density, we would still have to meet the shoreland requirements, right? Aanenson: Absolutely. Aller: ... overlay that has to be met Aanenson: Absolutely. The difference is with, the way our shoreland ordinance is written, it's very prescriptive as far as lot size under that low density. The medium density allows greater flexibility. It's similar to what we did up on, up on the 2005 MUSA area. We have some of those lot sizes are different so it would still accommodate the single family home. We'd keep the buffers and the setbacks in the preservation area but allows for a smaller lot. It would meet the goals of trying to provide a single family lot so it doesn't have to be a 15,000 lot. It might be a 11,000 or a 12,000 square foot lot. Similar to what Ryland just did. Excuse me, what Lennar just did across the street and so. Aller: Even at the medium density which allows for flexibility, it allows us to move the lot sizes and the structure on the lot. But I don't see, based on the map that's in front of us where we would be getting 15 units. Aanenson: What you're looking at now is you're looking at it as it's laid out meeting the larger lot. If you were to go similar to what Lennar has across the street, which is the similar property, with also some of those lots fell within the shoreland. That was the RLM which allowed you to go as small as. AI-Jaff: 9,000 square feet Aanenson: Yeah. AI-Jaff: And 63 or 64. Aanenson: Yeah, 65. 1 don't think they were that small in that subdivision. AI-Jaff: Correct. Aanenson: But they were selling very well there so we believe that, based on the house plans that were submitted, and reconfiguring that. Again that's up to the applicant to do that but we believe it can be met based on that and without impacting, meeting the ordinance requirements. Aller: And we're here for concept purposes. Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 Aanenson: Correct Aller: We're not here to make a decision or say that this plan is set in stone or even moving forward because it's really up to the developer to take the comments... Aanenson: That's correct but 1 guess what we're saying is under the, under the low density or the application that came in, we don't believe that could advance solely on, the other path that could be taken which we're asking your feedback on is to go towards the re -guiding of the property. Then again it would have to come back through for a public hearing but just to get your read on that. Aller: And then with some of the other issues that are in the staff report that I would see this coming forward with the hardscape requirements at 50%. With driveways and garages or patios, are going to need to meet that? AI -Jaffa They will have to provide us with all of that information so the next step will be figuring out exactly where that 50% open space is and then calculate the hard surface coverage on the site, and that would be part of the planned unit development regulations that we would put together should this project move forward. Aller: Any other questions at this point? The applicant wish to come forward and make a presentation? Welcome sir. Come forward, state your name and address for the record. John Knoblauch: Chairman Aller, staff and the Planning Commission, my name is John Knoblauch. I live at 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior, Minnesota. I'm the applicant for the Preserve at Rice Lake. Couple comments. This property, the landowner has drawn somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 different drawings on this subject parcel here we're working on. Staffs done a great job trying to work with myself in this challenging piece of property, but we have drawn about, I think we're on our eleventh shot at this as far as working with staff and trying to make a project that makes sense. The new drawing that we submitted on Monday is not shown here and that would fall closer to Kate's comments of the lots are 10,000 square feet. There's 16 lots. They meet the 4 units per acre of developable land. We have a total wetland impact I believe of point, on that new drawing I think it's .14 total and seems to be pretty close to, pretty close to what I think is a very doable project for us. So yes, we would like to ask to switch to that medium density situation so that we can proceed and work with staff to try to massage this to get it to work. The wetland impacts, just the drawing up there obviously is a little exaggerated because of the bigger lots. The V that you see coming with some red and orange, which are the buffers for the wetlands, just to make you aware. That is a 23 foot buffer so the triangle is greatly exaggerated because from the actual wetland it'd be 23 feet so those would be rounded off, just to let you know on that triangle there. We have a new drawing now that has a similar setup there in that area but we actually only have about 300 square feet of wetland that would be affected, or actually not make your buffer setback from that Type I wetland. I'm sorry, Type 3 wetland. So I'd like, I don't think we have that from Monday? Aller: Are these wetlands delineated now? Aanenson: No, I think at this, we didn't want to put the new plan in because I think it's kind of a moving target. I think we're trying to look at some of the macro issues and it's defining the parameters of the development. The shoreland district. The impact to the wetlands. Those were kind of the driving factors. Can we get sewer to the site? How is that connection going to be made? There's still a few question marks that need to be resolved on where that's going to be so really the goal here is before we went into actually laying out the plat is, we believe based on the parameters that are set in place that you would have to go to a smaller lot. And even if you changed the density to medium you still have to get to 4. Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 You can't go below that. So we believe that you know if we get to the 4 buildable acres at 4 units. Working through all the design, you know limitations we can make that work and the lot sizes, they're not all going to be at 9. They'll probably be closer to 11 or 12 I think is what we were looking at. AI -Jaffa This one is 11. Aanenson: Yeah, in area which is similar to what we just did across on 212 so. Yep, and meeting the 50% open space so it would have to meet all those regulations but we didn't want to show that plan now because our whole staff report bases on this. Really the goal here tonight is to say, do you believe this is a reasonable way to, to proceed for this application to go forward? That's really the goal here because I think you know we're going to have to go through all that detail in the next iteration of the plan itself. Aller: Right, and it sounds like you're well aware of the wetland issues, which are probably will be the biggest ones that you have to face once, regardless of the zoning. John Knoblauch: Right, Aller: You'll have to deal with the other entities, the State entities with regard to how you're going to put these and what impacts. John Knoblauch: Yes, no doubt and I think you know the, as far as this design, what I think it brings a couple nice things to the table I think. You know it fits well with the surrounding area. The path which would finally get connected to the east, which would be a nice trail for the neighbors. We are proposing a sound wall to continue from the townhomes to the west in similar fashion across the next to 212 which would be, we're figuring right now, I mean we haven't completely had noise studies. We had preliminary noise study done but somewhere in the 6 to 8 feet going across the berm, which is basically across the lower part of the drawing up on the board there. And then we're planning on, if we can work out with staff the 16 lots, we're planning on this parcel to the west, which actually turned out to be about an acre and a half would end up, which is good, high ground, would end up being dedicated to the City, which would be nice open space. To the, on the east side, I'm sorry. Yeah, it's a very challenging piece of property but I think it's a really good site for my product because I build a really nice 2,800 to 3,000 Square foot two story and I think, the pad area that I've got figured with patio, 3 car garage will fit well underneath the 30% hard cover, including you know driveway, sidewalk and the pad sizes we drew on that sketch. On the new sketch actually mirror this house and I actually made an attempt to oversize the garage from what we normally do to make sure that staff felt comfortable that these homes that I'm proposing will have no trouble down the road and we won't be back asking for situations that they don't enjoy so. Any questions? Aller: Anyone? Not at this time. Thank you very much sir. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I just add one other point of clarification? We didn't discuss, there's a lot of other things that need to be, we talked about the applicant just briefly talked about the noise wall that needs to take place and we still haven't finalized where that sewer location tie is going to be. There's a lot of other design issues. Again we're just kind of back talking about, is this the right way? You know we've worked through a lot of different designs that didn't seem to fit so we're just trying to decide the right path before we come back with all that detail. But there's quite a few things that still need to be addressed. Aller: Ultimately the question is if it goes forward, the best option for it may very well be the increase to allow for a PUD at the medium density so that we don't pigeon hole whether this goes forward but we don't stop another person from coming in and doing something different if this one does not go forward. Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 Aanenson: That gives you the flexibility, that's right. You have another public hearing on that. As you recall we changed the PUD ordinance so it can go down to the smallest is 11. It's the frontage requirement that's hanging us up in the shoreland district of 90 feet of frontage. That's what's hanging us up so. Aller. And staff is comfortable with that potential modification based on the 2030 plan and it fits. Aanenson: Correct. Again... ordinance requirements, correct. Aller: Can it be done water wise? Jeffery: Chairman Aller, I believe it can. Again it would be on the applicant to show that it can. You know there have been, I don't what? 11 iterations now. Every one seems to get a little closer so I guess time will tell but I think there's probably a way to make it happen. Aller: And if not this one, the flexibility would allow for another applicant to come in. It would just be a new look, a fresh look as far as you're concerned for purposes of the impact on the wetlands. That the property. Jeffery: That is correct. That is correct. Aller: ...any additional work. Okay. Let's open up the public hearing portion. Anyone wishing to come forward, please do so. State your name and address for the record. Lots of lookers, no talkers? Welcome ma'am. Mary Muirhead: Thank you. My name is Mary Muirhead and I live at 424 Monk Court so my townhouse would directly face, it directly faces the marshland. Judging from your last comments I can't quite tell whether development is a foregone conclusion. If I had my druthers the land would never be developed. It's leaving an undeveloped helps my property value at a time when everyone has experienced loss in property value. I moved here from Anoka County where I was on 4 acres on the Rum River and one of the things that just astounded me was the fact that I moved down here and I actually had a sense of being more in nature than I did at the spot that I had been living and it would make me very sad to lose that. One of the, if construction is a foregone conclusion at some point in time in the future then 1 think my biggest problem with this development is where the road is. I mean the road cuts as close to the townhouse property line as possible and just the thought of having headlights in the evening and then additional traffic as people are going into their homes, that just is a concern to me so respectfully speaking if this didn't go forward I would not be at all sadden. Aller: Thank you, and this is exactly what we're here for is the concept so that the developer and the council can get impact statements from people with regard to what they feel should be done with the property so construction is never a foregone conclusion. We have to see what happens. Things have been approved and never move forward too so thank you for coming. Mary Muirhead: So then let me be that much clearer, please leave it undeveloped. Aller: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against, or commenting? Good evening. LuAnn Markgraf: Good evening. My name is LuAnn Markgraf and I live at 401 Rice Court and I'm in the townhouse development. I'm the very last building and the unit closest to 86th so I would be definitely impacted by the entrance the way this roadway concept is designed now. I have lots of trees. Chanhassen Planning Commission —January 15, 2013 It's not that far back to the wetland, to the pond. It's very narrow. I mean how you could even think of even putting a narrower street in there to accommodate the wetland, plus put a sidewalk and then try to make it more attractive by putting spruce trees up so we're not impacted by all the traffic that would be going in and out because it would be coming in and out right out, out my deck. Right straight there and there is not that much room back there. It is beautiful. 1 don't understand why the entrance needs to be right there against the back of that last townhome building. I do believe from everything that I've read since Saturday that there is a great impact on that roadway and all that wetland that's behind that area in that little circular area that you see there. I have lived in that townhouse since the development was first built. I've been there since 1996. When I was, when I first moved in there was not even one single family house and none of those homes in Mission Hills Lane were built. There has to be, this is such a great impact on the wetlands and the proximity to the townhouses and I think the association, I don't know if they have been involved in this at all. They would need to be involved because that property line, which you had said Saturday all those trees would go. I mean that, I've got some big old oak trees. I've got a dense property on that corner right there and to have all that one and to have all that traffic in and out, plus I also think it would also be problems with traffic on 86` and 101. There's already enough problems with 86'h and 101 without it being a controlled intersection. Especially coming from 212 and going north on 101. A lot of people go through the single family homes to bypass that intersection of 80h and get onto 101 from farther down. So there is a lot of issues with this concept and just because we're a townhouse development should not bear anything that we get the bad end. Oh, you'll have the traffic in and out. You'll have you know all this beautiful area, all these trees, the wetlands back there impacted. It is absolutely horrible to even think of having that on that western edge of this development. Aller: Alright, thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Good evening sir. Steve Lehto: Good evening. My name is Steve Lehto. I live at 8591 Tigua Lane so our, my wife and I have the property that's in the upper right corner of the map, which abuts this property all the way to 80h so we're going to have a lot of impact. And I'd like to echo the comments of the first person who spoke tonight that when we bought our home in the summer of 2010, one of the main reasons we fell in love with the property was the fact that it was indeed in nature and the impact of a development like this is obviously going to be significant for us. Again in line with what the first person stated, our view is that you know it would be best for us selfishly if the property were never developed but if development is truly an inevitability, we're looking for something that is obviously going to be as, the least amount of impact obviously to our property and also to the neighborhood. I guess I don't know what different options might exist out there. What the difference really is. We're going to obviously have to do some research too but the difference between low and medium density, I'm not certain how that impacts potential developments that another applicant might bring before the council but in some ways it seems like this, the 11 drawings that were mentioned have gone some way to try to mitigate that impact so we're certainly thankful for that but again if we had our druthers the property would remain a natural resource like it is now so, thank you. Aller: Alright, thank you sir. Anyone else? Arturo Urrutia: Sure. My name is Arturo Urrutia. I'm at 408 Monk Court and I think I would like to second what the previous homeowner said. One of the reasons that I purchased my townhouse was that it afforded me a nice view of the wetlands in the back, and that's always been one of the things that I pointed out to the people that came to visit. The first time, or the first couple of months that I had guests was, look at the nice view that I have on the other side of the house. And I don't know what the pro's and con's tax wise and development wise for the City would be. From a selfish homeowner standpoint, also with all due respect to the developers, 1 think it would be to our detriment to Mission Hills if something like this gets developed. Hopefully if something does get developed it would try to minimize the impact 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission —January 15, 2013 traffic wise and tree wise and view wise for the current owners so I just wanted to second what other people were saying and thank you for the opportunity to express our views. Aller: Great, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one come forward we'll close the public hearing portion and open for comments from the commissioners. Anyone? It's a concept hearing so. Colopoulos: Yeah, Chairman Aller you made an earlier comment about the roadway which I think is apparently of concern here regardless of what other considerations are given to the zoning itself. You know that is, off the top of my head that to me is the biggest concern. The roadway cutting across that wetlands there. I mean obviously as this plan goes forward there's going to be several, several shall we say conflicting perceptions here. You know the views expressed by the neighbors versus the property rights of the owner of the property and their legal right to pursue application for developable plans. Where do we think the roadway issue is going to weigh in? That's as much of a question I guess as that of a comment. I mean how much of an influence is that going to be? Aller: I think it's going to depend on the actual plan that's put forward. Aanenson: We just need to stay for the, you know there's going, this property is developable and we've looked at all the different iterations for the roadway. I think the least amount of impact to the wetlands is in the configuration that it's shown the access to the property. You're coming across a larger portion of the wetland the further you move to the, to'the west. Excuse me, east. So we had to place it there. Certainly I mean we haven't looked at all the impacts of the surrounding property. That's the first I've heard all those trees are coming down on the property. What would be the property. It's on their property if the trees would come down, on the developer's proposed property but we would look at that more closely. Colopoulos: So the concept drawing here just basically... across the wetlands and with minimum impact, that was behind that drawing there. Aanenson: I'll let Terry answer that question Jeffery: If 1 may. Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator. I'm not Krista Spreiter. It's a little tough to hear, to see in this drawing and I intentionally overlaid the wetlands in a very transparent layer so that you could see what was beneath it but if you look at where the two red impacts are, there is actually no, there is a small bridge that exists right there. It's two separate wetlands. One over, one over to the, yeah. Yep, there. One to the east. One to the west. Yep, yep, so to come through up here would actually result in greater impact and then to come even further north would result in property he doesn't even have control of. Again regardless of what comes through as a final product he's going to have to meet the Wetland Conservation Act sequencing which always look at one, avoidance. Two, minimization and three, replacement of those unavoidable impacts so, and the intent of the PUD would be that there would be that trade-off where okay, we can, you get the lots but we need to provide protections that we would not otherwise be afforded if we used standard zoning. Aller: And that's why 1 don't think it would be a bad thing to comment and pass our comment along to the council that they should potentially look at this for movement towards allowing for a PUD with medium density to allow greater flexibility so that this project, or another project can come forward and allow for greater opportunity to deal with the mitigation to those wetlands. Aanenson: If I may, I think if you look at this map that's up on the screen right now, it's very illustrative of the wetland impacts. What it's not showing is the over layer of the shoreland impacts and that's where the, where the problem aligns. As we showed on the other, other drawing, part of the property is zoned Chanhassen Planning Commission —January 15, 2013 for twinhomes so you know there are some different things. What we're trying to do is kind of take the best of all that. Get that 50% open space. Minimize those impacts and we don't have all that detail yet. As the applicant said we've already worked through a number of drawings so we're saying we're really not on the right path right now. Now we want to go to a different direction and try to even do a better job of trying to reduce those impacts and move forward so that's what we're just trying to get a read on. On that issue and just anything that we would do, whether the council would recommend would have to come back through in their process so I want to make sure the residents understand that. There's plenty of time to work through some of those issues. Aller: Anything? Tennyson: Well that was a good reminder that it would come forward again and there's no being stuck with the path that could be taken. Aanenson: Correct, and there's a lot of other agencies that have review. You know the DNR. Wetland Conservation Act, all those agencies are going to have to weigh in on that so it's going to be a little bit more work on that. Tennyson: Okay. Allcr: Anything further? Hokkanen: It seems to me that it's going to be difficult at some, I mean with all these agencies and the wetlands, changing it to medium density might be the best and flexible way to do it but I mean a couple of these lots here might not even be able to have, I mean a home based on what I see. So adding 1 don't know, 1 mean you have to explore the options though. It's the property owner's right. Aller: And 1 think that's, that's what we're here for is to comment to the council that if they're going to redirect this and put it back and consideration could be had for the medium density allows for flexibility which would hopefully leave those areas untouched perhaps but it will depend on what comes back through. Hokkanen: Right. Okay. Aller: Okay. Colopoulos: This will be a free standing development? It's not going to be part of a nearby association? AI-Jaff: Correct. Colopoulos: Okay. It's a separate? AI-Jaff: Correct. Colopoulos: Development. Got it. Aller: Okay, I'll entertain a motion to pass comments to the City Council. Tennyson: I'll move. I'm reading two different things here. Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback and direct the applicant to address issues raised in the staff report dated January 15, 2013. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission — January 15, 2013 Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Aanenson: Can I make clarification on the motion? Tennyson: Adding the comment about staff report? Aanenson: Did we get medium density in there? Aller: We probably should because there were items in the staff report that we discussed that were not... Aanenson: Okay, I guessjust to make sure that we're clear on that we're looking at a land use, potential land use amendment, just for clarification. It's in the staff report but I want to make sure that, l want to make sure you and I understand what you're recommending, if that's what your recommendation is. Tennyson: So staff report dated January 15, 2013 along with staffs proposed comments listed in the staff report. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: And with that we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback, and direct the applicant to address issues raised in the staff report dated January 15, 2013 along with staffs proposed comments listed in the staff report dated January 15, 2013. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Aanenson: And if I may Mr. Chair, just for the residents that are here. This item is going to the City Council on January 28i' I believe. AI -Jaffa January 28'". Aanenson: 28'h, yes so these comments will be forwarded to the City Council. Again they're going to just make a recommendation too and then it's up to the applicant if he wants to pursue, based on whatever direction that he also gets from the City Council. Aller: So the City Council won't actually be doing anything as far as an up or down vote unless they decide to...? Aanenson: That's correct. Correct. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 4, 2012 as presented. None. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. 13 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: January 15, 2013 ❑ CC DATE: January 28, 2013 REVIEW DEADLINE: February 12, 2013 CASE #: 2013-02 BY: SJ PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission provides the City Council with comments and feedback, along with staff's proposed comments listed in the staff report." PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) on approximately 13.2 acres of land located at the southeast intersection of Tigua Lane and West 86" Street — Preserve at Rice Lake. LOCATION: Southeast intersection of Tigua Lane and West 86" Street. North of Highway 212. PID 25-0242610 APPLICANT: John Knoblauch John Klingelhutz/Dave Pokorney J & S Ventures 1, Inc. Chestnut Group, LLC 1450 Knob Hill Lane 1560 Bluff Creek Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Chaska, MN 55318 612-490-4540 612-703-5709 jknobs@.knoblauchbuilders.com daveMkomey@gmail.com ZONING: RSF — Single Family Residential District and R4 — Mixed Low Density Residential District. 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net Density 1.2-4 Units per Acre) ACREAGE: 13.2 acres SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval for a general concept plan for a PUD for 15 single-family lots. If the project is to proceed for preliminary or development plan approval, the application would include a land use amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Low or Medium Density, a rezoning from Single Family Residential District and Mixed Low Density Residential District to Planned Unit Development — Residential, and a site plan review. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. A PUD must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 2 of 21 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a general concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The site is located north of Highway 212 and southeast of the intersection of West 86"' Street and Tigua Lane. It is currently zoned RSF — Single Family Residential District and Mixed Low Density Residential District. With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City Council guided the site Residential Low Density. The request for a Planned Unit Development concept plan allows the applicant to seek relief from the standards of the conventional zoning districts by creating a unique zoning district rather than asking for variances. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against nine criteria. The property will need a land use amendment to a mix of Residential Low Density and Residential Medium Density, rezoning to PUD -R (allowing 4 units per acre), a variance for the length of a cul-de-sac, and site plan approval to proceed. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 3 of 21 BACKGROUND Staff has been working with the property owner representative for more than a year and has reviewed numerous iterations of layouts for the development of this site to find an alternative that would minimize impacts to the natural features. The site falls within the shoreland overlay district of Rice Marsh Lake and contains several wetlands. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Chapter 20: Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District, Article VI, Wetland Protection, Article VII, Shoreland Management district, Concept PUD - What is required? The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the Planning Commission and City Council without incurring a lot of expense. The following are the requirements for conceptual PUD approval. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-517 General concept plan (a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: (1) Overall gross and net density. (2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. (3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. (4) General location and extent of public and common open space. (5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. (6) Staging and time schedule for development. (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: (1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and make recommendations to the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 4 of 21 (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on-site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. The council may comment on the concept plan. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is located north of Highway 212 and southeast of the intersection of West 86h Street and Tigua Lane. The site has an area of 13.2 acres. It contains multiple wetlands and is within the Rice Marsh Lake Shoreland Overlay District. Access is gained via West 86th Street. The property to the west is zoned PUD and guided Mission Hills Development, a mix of low and medium density residential development. The property to the north is zoned Single Family Residential and is guided Residential Low Density. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 5 of 21 It contains single family homes. The property to the east is zoned High Density Residential District and is guided Parks and Open Space. The project proposes 15 single-family lots. The typical house pad including the garage will be 50 feet wide. The front yard setback will be 25 feet which is permitted under the PUD ordinance. Vt ws .nnm:mnkip +�r .uum •n P.M b4.v� . NT Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative (MVEC) will provide electricity to this new development. MVEC does have a main underground feeder that runs along the north and east boundaries of this property. The applicant shall field -verify these utility lines. \ a� ------------ ------------ r------------------- 4 -------------------------- b JJ \�• PPP \ P \ 1 1 I T�, 1 .E Vt ws .nnm:mnkip +�r .uum •n P.M b4.v� . NT Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative (MVEC) will provide electricity to this new development. MVEC does have a main underground feeder that runs along the north and east boundaries of this property. The applicant shall field -verify these utility lines. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 6 of 21 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as Residential Low Density, which requires a minimum density of 1.2 units per acre and a maximum density of 4 units per acre. As mentioned earlier, staff has reviewed several iterations of how to best develop this site. The goal is to allow the development with minimum impact to the natural features of the site. Staff found that in this situation the application of standard Single Family Residential regulations would be impractical due to 1) the applicant desires to build single-family detached homes on the site, 2) the presence of the 15,000 square -foot minimum lot size for non -riparian lots and 90 -foot frontage, and 3) wetlands. Staff finds that the applicant has proposed a plan that meets other important City requirements to protect natural environmental features; however, a preferred alternative to achieve this goal would be to guide the site Residential Medium Density. This category allows the clustering of homes with no minimum lot size or frontage. In this case, the homes will be placed in locations that will have the least impact on the natural features and will allow the applicant the opportunity to enhance the wetlands and surrounding buffer. At the same time, the applicant will be able to build the single-family detached homes. The city has discretion in amending the comprehensive plan. The site currently has a low-density residential designation. It is the applicant's intention to build single-family detached homes. In order to accommodate the applicant's request and minimize impact on the natural features of the site, staff is proposing guiding the site to a mix of Residential Low and Medium Density. This type of land use permits Planned Unit Developments with clustered homes and no minimum lot size. This will allow staff to work with the applicant to maximize preservation and enhancement of natural features. It also allows the city to determine the best type of housing development (attached vs. detached housing). The following elements of the comprehensive plan discuss land use policies that should be evaluated in changing the land use. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 7 of 21 Chapter 2 Land Use Element 2.53 Residential — Medium density The medium density designation is intended to accommodate multiple units including duplexes, townhouses and lower density apartments, or condominiums. A net density range of 4.0 — 8.0 units per acre is covered by this category with an expected density of 6.0 units per acre. The zoning options in the medium density land use include R4 (Mixed Low Density), RLM (Residential Low and Medium density), (Mixed Medium Density Residential) and PUD -R (Planned United Development -Residential). Medium density is viewed as transitional use between low density and Commercial, office or high density areas. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies 4.6 Housing Goals and Policies Goals: Provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified community goals: • A variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle. • A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and rental housing. • Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. • The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the improvement of access to a linkage between housing and employment. • Housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster development, and innovative site plans and building types, should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources for housing. • While density is given by a range in the comprehensive plan, the City shall encourage development at the upper end of the density range. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT See. 20-501. Intent. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following: Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 8 of 21 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Analysis: The site has multiple wetlands that will be protected with no development. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Analysis: Staff is recommending the units be clustered to maximize the surrounding open space. 3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. Analysis: Staff will insure that all materials comply with the design standards specified in the zoning ordinance. The landscaping of the site will also be treated in a similar fashion. 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Analysis: The single-family detached homes will be an ideal transition between the single- family homes to the north and the townhouses to the west. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Analysis: Currently, a portion of the site is guided Low Density. A land use amendment to Medium Density Residential would be required to allow the site to develop in an environmentally -sensitive manner. It will also become consistent with the Shoreland Ordinance. Municipal services are available to the site. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Analysis: 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 Preserve at Rice Lake development would not meet this guideline. The nearest park is Rice Marsh Lake Park which is located approximately one mile away if utilizing the city's pedestrian trail network. There is no ideal place to locate a park within this site. The city's comprehensive trail plan calls for the future completion of a Rice Marsh Lake Trail to be constructed around the perimeter of the lake. This proposed subdivision should provide for and construct a trail connection to this future trail starting at the public street and extending to the southeast comer of the property. This trail connection should be situated in a public outlot or trail easement. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 9 of 21 7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Analysis: Not applicable with this application. This project will be market rate. 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and siting and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Analysis: The development will provide a noise wall along Highway 212. This will benefit the current homeowners as well as the future ones. 9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Analysis: The site will be served via a cul-de-sac off of West 86s Street. Sec. 20-502. - Allowed uses. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a development plan. (1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a PUD development plan. Finding. If the project moves beyond conceptual approval, preliminary PUD design standards will be created that will control the development of the project. Sec. 20-503. - District size and location. Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five acres except the regional/lifestyle center commercial PUD, which must be a minimum of 30 acres, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: (1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. (2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. (3) The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on a collector, minor or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. Finding. The entire site is 13.2 acres and is located in a transitional area between a low and a medium -density residential area. Fifty percent of the site must be preserved as open space as required in the Shoreland ordinance. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 10 of 21 Sec. 20-504. - Coordination with other zoning regulations. The development must comply with Article II, Division 6 of Chapter 20 addressing Site Plan Review as well as Articles V, VI and VII (Floodplain, Wetland and Shoreland District and the Bluff Creek Overlay District). Finding. The project will be required to meet these standards as described in the staff report. The development must receive a land use amendment, rezoning and site plan review approvals. Chapter 20 Article XXIH Sec. 20-505. - Required general standards. Standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding use. (a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the topography of the area and existing natural features; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of non -compatible land uses and parking areas. Finding. The project meets elements of the city's comprehensive plan if amended including housing and transportation. The plans provide for preservation of the natural features and will serve as a transition piece. (b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality architectural and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. Finding. With the application of clustering the units, the natural features of the site will be preserved And with some modifications, they could be enhanced. The applicant will preserve the wetlands, buffers, add landscaping that exceeds ordinance requirements and add a sound wall along Highway 212. The development will meet the higher standards established for medium density residential development by the city. (c) Density. An increase/transfer for density may be allowed at the sole discretion of the city utilizing the following factors: (1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on net acreage located within the property lines of the site in accordance with the land use plan. (2) The area where the density is transferred must be within the project area and owned by the proponent. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 11 of 21 (3) Density transfer in single-family detached area will be evaluated using the items listed in sections 20-506 or 20-508. Density transfer eligible for multiple -family areas are not permitted to be applied to single-family areas. (4) In no case shall the overall density of the development exceed the net density ranges identified in the comprehensive plan except as specified in policies supporting the city's affordable housing goals. Finding. The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland acreage. The project proposes using the area located in the center of the site to cluster the development The density will be 4 units per acre. (d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density and other standards for developments providing low and moderate cost housing. Incentives may be approved by the city contingent upon the developer and the city entering into an agreement ensuring that the housing will be available to low and moderate income persons for a specific period of time. Finding: Not applicable with this request. The project will be market rate. (e) Hard surface coverage. Finding: The development must be under 30 percent hardcover. The developer shall provide the hard surface coverage calculation to confirm. The shoreland regulations are greater than the PUD. The applicant will meet the shoreland regulations. (f) Building and parking setbacks from public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD. Where industrial uses abut developed platted or planned single-family lots outside the PUD, greater exterior building and parking setbacks, between 50 and 100 feet, shall be required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established by the comprehensive plan and chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. Finding: The project will provide buffering along Highway 212 and between the subject site and low density development to the north. The development will be held to standards set in the city code. (g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a PUD. Finding: This does not apply to this request since each home will be located on a separate lot. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 12 of 21 (h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the city, all property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without restriction; however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain -of -title. Finding: The project will be developed under singular ownership. (i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in the sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants or design standards established in the PUD development contract. Finding: Signage will be consistent with the city's sign ordinance for residential development (Area identification/entrance signs. Only one monument sign may be erected at the entrance(s). Total sign area shall not exceed 24 square feet of sign display area, nor be more than 5 feet high. More than one sign per entrance may be erected, provided that the total sign area does not exceed 24 square feet. Any such sign or monument shall be designed with low -maintenance, high-quality materials. The adjacent property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the identification/entrance sign and surrounding grounds and landscaped areas. Such sign shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance operation, and shall be securely anchored to the ground.) (j) The requirements contained in articles XXIII and XXV of this chapter may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. Finding: The project will follow the city's design standards and landscaping, tree removal and buffering requirements. (k) The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this [article] or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. Finding: Staff is recommending the width of the right-of-way be limited to 50 feet and the front yard setback be reduced to 25 feet. This will allow a greater preservation of the wetlands and surrounding buffer. In addition, staff is recommending a side yard setback of 5 feet along the garage side and JO feet along the opposite side. (1) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved PUD, nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved PUD. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 13 of 21 Finding. Not applicable at this time. (m) Buffer yards. (1) The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. ...in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses and shall comply with chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. (2) The buffer yard is not an additional setback requirement. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. (3) The buffer yard is intended to provide physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Finding. There is a buffer yard requirement between medium and low density developments. Buffer plantings will also be required along Highway 212. A minimum of one tree is required within the front yard of each lot. See. 20-508. - Standards and guidelines for single-family attached or cluster -home PUDs. (a) Generally. Single-family attached, cluster, zero lot line, townhouses and similar type dwelling types may be allowed on sites designed for low, medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. (b) Minimum lot sizes. There shall be no minimum lot size; however, in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the city comprehensive plan. (c) Setback standards/structures and parking: (1) PUD exterior: 50 feet. (2) Interior public right-of-way: 30 feet.* *The 30 foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be maintained. (3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement. Finding. With a land use amendment to medium density residential and the rezoning of the property, the standard would be met. Additional design standards will be generated as apart of the PUD review. (d) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 14 of 21 tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. Finding: The wetlands would be preserved with this PUD request. Without the application ofa PUD and clustering of homes, the wetlands could potentially be impacted. (e) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: (1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yards shall require a mix of over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative blocks retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. (2) Exterior landscaping and double fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double -fronted lots. Where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. (3) Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. (4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. Finding: The following landscaping requirements make the proposal consistent with the requirements: • There is a buffer yard requirement between medium and low density developments. Buffer plantings will also be required along Highway 212. A minimum of one tree is required within the front yard of each lot. • City boulevard trees must be protected during construction and replaced if damaged. Trees must be shown on plans. Plantings along the roads must comply with the bufferyard B standards of the city code. • Canopy coverage for site should be around 25%. (f) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following: Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 15 of 21 (1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments... Findings: The building will be reviewed under the city's design standards for multifamily development, Chapter 20, Article MR, Division 9, including archictural style, materials, lighting, etc. as MnDOT requires that the building be designed for noise attenuation. The district permits a height of three stories or 35 feet. ROADWAYS The property lies north of Highway 212, east of County Road 101 and south of 86th Street. The proposed access on 86th Street is located so as to minimize wetland impacts. To further reduce wetland impacts staff supports a reduced right-of-way width (50 feet, with a 15 -foot front yard drainage and utility easement) and a reduced street width (28 feet) for the portion of the road that does not have any lots adjacent to it (approximately 400 feet). The remainder of the street and right-of-way shall meet the City's minimum requirements. The proposed street curves do not meet a 30 mph design speed; advanced warning and speed advisory signs would be required. The proposed cul-de-sac is approximately 1,400 feet long, which exceeds the 800 -foot maximum length stipulated in the City Code. Based on the lot configuration and wetland conditions on the site, staff supports the proposed variance. GRADING The concept plan does not include proposed grading. The anticipated wetland impacts shown on the concept plan are for the most part based on lot lines and right-of-way lines. The site grading has the potential to increase the wetland impacts. The locations of the ponds appear suitable for drainage patterns. The applicant's engineer feels the sizes shown are adequate. The applicant will need to provide calculations with a preliminary plat submittal in the event one is made. A soils report for the site was completed in 2012 after three months of below average precipitation. The report indicated that the groundwater elevation is likely to be similar to the water levels in the wetlands. Updated soils and groundwater information will be required should the applicant proceed with the proposal A 12 -inch trunk watermain extends from the townhome development to the west to the Reflections development south of Highway 212. The developer proposes to extend lateral watermain from this trunk line to service the development. Once a grading plan is developed the estimated operating water pressure and fire flow will be calculated. Some homes may require a privately -owned and maintained booster to provide a desirable water pressure since the watermain will not be looped. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 16 of 21 The developer proposes to extend lateral sanitary sewer from the 12 -inch trunk sanitary sewer northeast of the site, through MnDOT property. The developer shall obtain the necessary permits and easements from MnDOT to complete this work. The lateral sanitary sewer alignment shall minimize tree loss and provide vehicular access to the manholes. The portion of the sanitary sewer that the developer proposes to connect to is currently not in service. The developer shall televise and air test the existing pipe to ensure that it meets current standards. WETLAND PROTECTION Graham Environmental Services performed an on-site wetland identification and boundary determination in June of 2011. The Notice of Decision approving the delineated boundary was issued on July 19, 2011 with minor changes. Six wetlands were delineated on the site — wetlands C and D were later determined to be parts of the same wetland resulting in five discrete wetland basins. The city has received no evidence that the United States Army Corps of Engineers has issued a Jurisdictional Determination for the wetlands as required under section 303 of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands are placed into one of five management classes based upon the results of a Minnesota Routine Assessment Methodology (MNRAM). Only two wetlands have had a MNRAM performed. Wetland A and Wetland F are both in Management Classification 2. Staff will prepare a MNRAM for the remaining wetlands. A preliminary investigation indicates that Wetland C is likely to be in Management Classification 3 and Wetland B in Management Classification 1. The following table shows the required buffer width and setback from said buffer. Wetland Classification Principal Structure Setback from Buffer Ede Accessory Structure Setback from Buffer Ede Permanent Buffer Strip Minimum Width Percent of Buffer Strip in Native Vegetation Outstanding 50 50 50 100% Preserve 40 20 40 100% Manage 1 30 15 25 100% Manage 2 30 15 20 >50% Manage 3 30 15 16.5 >50% When overlaid on the concept plat the building pads for Lots 1 through 3 and Lots 9 through 14 all are intersected by the wetland setback line. in no instance does it appear that the setback line is depicted accurately on the concept plat. Figure 1 shows the wetland boundaries, the wetland buffers and the setback from these buffers. That area to the upland side of the purple lines is, generally speaking, that portion which is "buildable" although grading may occur within the setback areas. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 17 of 21 4 Figure 1: Buildable area based solely upon wetland setbacks. (Note: this aces not consider gnding and other udlitics.) The applicant has proposed four wetland impacts. Two of these impacts result from the road designed to access the site. This applicant has made efforts to minimize the wetland impacts associated with the road to, in the opinion of staff, the greatest extent practicable. The remaining two impacts are proposed for the purpose of creating two additional lots. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MN Rules Chapter 8420) makes it clear that avoidance of wetland impacts is always the first option that must be considered. 8420.0500 PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENT Subp. 2. Requirement. No person may impact a wetland, wholly or partially, without being eligible for an exemption or no -loss, or first having a wetland replacement plan approved by the local government unit. Before approval of a replacement plan, the local government unit must ensure that the applicant has exhausted all possibilities to avoid and minimize wetland impacts according to sequencing in part 8420.0520. Further, the local government unit must evaluate "whether any proposed feasible and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to wetlands." Minnesota Rules 8420.0520 goes on to list when an alternative is considered "feasible and prudent' in Subp. 3. Paragraph C Alternative Analysis. 1. It is capable of being done from an engineering point of view; 2. It is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices; 3. It is consistent with reasonable requirements of public health, safety, and welfare; PeveYe IS la Ua t .ros ,mane 9ulla a SM.x. E4.@i Y — tltYf u Y�MLiS -6wvY.nnY B➢� ��A v a v�_ IM Figure 1: Buildable area based solely upon wetland setbacks. (Note: this aces not consider gnding and other udlitics.) The applicant has proposed four wetland impacts. Two of these impacts result from the road designed to access the site. This applicant has made efforts to minimize the wetland impacts associated with the road to, in the opinion of staff, the greatest extent practicable. The remaining two impacts are proposed for the purpose of creating two additional lots. The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MN Rules Chapter 8420) makes it clear that avoidance of wetland impacts is always the first option that must be considered. 8420.0500 PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENT Subp. 2. Requirement. No person may impact a wetland, wholly or partially, without being eligible for an exemption or no -loss, or first having a wetland replacement plan approved by the local government unit. Before approval of a replacement plan, the local government unit must ensure that the applicant has exhausted all possibilities to avoid and minimize wetland impacts according to sequencing in part 8420.0520. Further, the local government unit must evaluate "whether any proposed feasible and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to wetlands." Minnesota Rules 8420.0520 goes on to list when an alternative is considered "feasible and prudent' in Subp. 3. Paragraph C Alternative Analysis. 1. It is capable of being done from an engineering point of view; 2. It is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices; 3. It is consistent with reasonable requirements of public health, safety, and welfare; Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 18 of 21 4. It is an environmentally -preferred alternative based on a review of social, economic, and environmental impacts; and 5. It would create no truly unusual problems. Paragraph 3 goes on to list what the local government unit must consider when evaluating the applicability of avoidance alternatives. (3) The local government unit must consider the following in evaluating avoidance alternatives as applicable: (a) whether the basic project purpose can be reasonably accomplished using one or more other sites in the same general area that would avoid wetland impacts. An alternate site must not be excluded from consideration only because it includes or requires an area not owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained, used, expanded, or managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed project; (b) the general suitability of the project site and alternate sites considered by the applicant to achieve the purpose of the project; (c) whether reasonable modification of the size, scope, configuration, or density of the project would avoid impacts to wetlands; (d) efforts by the applicant to accommodate or remove constraints on alternatives imposed by zoning standards or infrastructure, including requests for conditional use permits, variances, or planned unit developments; (e) the physical, economic, and demographic requirements of the project. Economic considerations alone do not make an alternative not feasible and prudent; and (f) the amount, distribution, condition, and public value of wetlands and associated resources to be affected by the project and the potential for direct and indirect effects over time. (4) If the local government unit determines that a feasible and prudent alternative exists that would avoid impacts to wetlands, it must deny the replacement plan. If no feasible and prudent alternative is available that would avoid impacts to wetlands, the local government unit must evaluate the replacement plan for compliance with subparts 4 to 8. Previous iterations have been presented to city staff from this applicant and others which have avoided impacts exclusive of the road. Because economic considerations alone cannot be used to justify wetland impacts and it is known that the "basic project purpose" can be accomplished without impacts at Lot 3 and Lot 14, staff cannot support this concept plan as it is not in compliance with Chapter 8420 of the MN Rules or Section 20-403 of Chanhassen City Code. As this is a conceptual plan only, no grading plan or hydrologic/hydraulic calculations have been provided. Grading for the ponds, and possibly the house pads will extend beyond the areas shown. This could potentially lead to additional wetland impacts which will need to meet the same standards of review as the impacts indicated on this plan. There is a certain expectation by a private homeowner that they have a usable yard to enjoy as they see fit and as such, staff strongly encourages the placement of wetland buffers within outlots. Figure 2 shows the various limitations that would encumber each lot with this layout. The area in green would be fully buildable based solely upon wetland buffers and setbacks. This does not account for easements, lot setbacks, etc. The area in yellow represents the area where secondary structures would be allowed. The homeowner could place a patio, gazebo, deck, swing set, etc. in this area. The area highlighted in orange could be maintained as lawn but could Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 19 of 21 not have any structure placed or constructed within it. The area in red must be maintained as a naturalized buffer and could not be used for lawn or landscaping. Figure 2. Wetland Buffer and Resulting Setbacks per Section 20-411 The wetland impact proposed for prospective Lots 3 and 12 are intended to provide adequate space to create the buffer and setback. Under Section 20-412, this practice is not allowed. (c) Additional wetland impacts shall not be allowed for the creation of buffer strips. Staff, as the LGU for the Wetland Conservation Act and when considering the City of Chanhassen's Wetland Protection ordinance, could not support the impacts proposed at Lots 3 and 12. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 20 of 21 SHORELAND Most of the parcel and all of the proposed improvements are within the shoreland overlay district. Because the applicant is requesting a PUD, there are specific requirements which must be met by state law. Further, the Department of Natural Resources must review and approve any PUD submittal. Among other criteria, the plan must: 1. Have at least five dwelling units. 2. Must contain open space meeting specific criteria including at least 50% of the total project area must be preserved in open space. It appears that the site is at approximately 48% with the pond area yet to be deducted from the open space. 3. Specific standards are set forth for the "centralization and design of facilities and structures". This includes, among other items, that the dwelling units or sites are clustered into one or more suitable areas. 4. Specific administration and maintenance requirements to preserve the open space must be met. Most importantly, an organization must exist that will provide for the maintenance of the preserved open space. PARK AND RECREATION 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 Preserve at Rice Lake development would not Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development January 15, 2013 Page 21 of 21 meet this guideline. The nearest park is Rice Marsh Lake Park which is located approximately one mile away if utilizing the city's pedestrian trail network. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN The city's comprehensive trail plan calls for the future completion of a Rice Marsh Lake Trail to be constructed around the perimeter of the lake. This proposed subdivision should provide for and construct a trail connection to this future trail starting at the public street and extending to the southeast corner of the property. This trail connection should be situated in a public outlot or trail easement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with comments and feedback along with the following comments: 1. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. At today's rate these fees would total $87,000 (15 lots X $5,800 per lot). 2. Dedication of a public outlot or easement to accommodate the construction of a neighborhood trail connection to the future Rice Marsh Lake Trail. 3. Construction of the 8 -foot wide neighborhood trail connection from the public street to the southeast comer of the property. 4. A PUD Ordinance shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 5. Buildings must meet the 50 -foot perimeter setback requirements. 6. The location of all existing utilities shall be field verified. 7. Address all issues raised in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application. 2. Concept Plan. 3. Letter from MnDOT dated January 3, 2103. 4. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 5. Email firm Karen (resident on Rice Court). g:lpian\2013 planning cases12013-02 preserve at rice lake concept pud\staff repon pc.doc PLEASE PRINT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: .:Iibi4l'3 G. KjoP?L4yCL"t­ 5�5 vjNrvRFs1 �� Contact: X75 KN c S Phone: 49z-4-74-5-66 Z Fax: 4r2-471-03 i3 Email: 7 VNci55-C4 lCNvgutvcif Bux�9FeJ Planning Case No. 13 Property Owner Name and Address: P i c�a�T r ,P,1(J P Lac Email: !4b0 r4l6b )-iiII Lnvv- Exte-(Stbr kfN 5533/ NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit t/ Planned Unit Development& Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) (Additional recording fees may apply) Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign —200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE $ 1 a-ay-ob i'cI CK tl oSS 1 An additional fee of $3.00 per res ithin the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. _I c_ t *Five (5) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. "Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME:�O(C �SF FZy� !l ,� LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: ,R5 - odgacofo TOTALACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO / PRESENT ZONING:(ZSR - S na�2 rp� r� j;l I�s,�t� E �I / P,i-{_ /✓t• REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: /% Z- or S—ZA16L �y c2C s GoT p�y� d / ca FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: 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, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. 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. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. 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 have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. f/Y�� Sign,RWe of Applicant 5 V f - i j u P eS �L S.f C� Date �Z / ignature of F Owner C S ti r G Rpv VIS ate gAp1an\rorms\developmen1 review applicalimdoc SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: 6h 5r- �f1Ss�/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: - O'A LI a(" I C) TOTAL ACREAGE: WETLANDS PRESENT: V YES NO PRESENTZONING: R-Sf:' -Srna�e_ci., "I.l PZ. REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: REASON FOR REQUEST: FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees: 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, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. 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. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. 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 have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information 1 have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Slgn a of Applicant 5 v f -Jr j u 1ir C� Date J1. (Z ( Ignature of F Owner c,�%S,-,T- -GFROU,Ltf-. iiate T R.Fss�iy—T g:\plan\f r \developm nt review application.doc SCANNED f °""`bh:% Minnesota Department of TransportationP Metropolitan District ao Waters Edge Building o r"'�� 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 January 3, 2013 Sharmeen Al-Jaff Senior Planner 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 JAN 7 2013 CIN OF CHANHASSEN SUBJECT: Preserve at Rice Lake (Formerly Knoblauch Building) MnDOT Review # S 12-058 North side of US 212, east of TH 101 Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1013 Dear Ms. Sharmeen Al -Jaffa Thank you for the opportunity to review the Preserve at Rice Lake (Formerly Knoblauch Building) plans. Since the current plans remain quite similar to the previous plans, our comments remain the same. They are as follows: Design: The proposed walk and street are very close to MnDOT right of way and will require a grading plan to determine if there are highway impacts. For questions concerning this subject, please contact Nancy Jacobson, (651-234-7647 or nancYjacobson(&state.mn.us) in the Metro Design Section. Water Resources: A MnDOT drainage permit will be required. The drainage permit application form can be found at htti)://www.dot.state.mn.us/utility/forms/index.html. The following information is required with the drainage permit application: • Final drainage plan showing storm sewer plan, storm sewer and culvert profiles and pond contours • Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows • Existing and proposed drainage/pond computations for the 2, 10, and 100 year rainfall events Addition information may be required once a drainage permit is submitted and after a detailed review. MnDOT will not allow an increase in discharge to MnDOT right-of-way. Please direct any questions regarding these issues to Hailu Shekur (651-234-7521 or hailu.shekur(&state.mn.us ) of MnDOT's Water Resources Engineering section. Permits and Right -of -Way: In addition to the drainage permit, a Limited Use Permit would be needed if any sidewalk/trail is within MnDOT right-of-way. The applicant will need to go through the Limited Use Permit process. Please contact Dan Phelps (651-234-7585 or dan.phelps(astate.mn.us). The proposed development must not extend into MnDOT right-of-way. Also, any use of or work affecting MnDOT Right-of-way and/or utilities requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's permit website at httn://www.dot.state.mn.us/pennits/. Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911 or buck.craig(astate.mn.usl of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Noise: MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 234- 7681. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either: 1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dol@state.mn.us provided that each separate e- mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftn:/ft2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/Plannine Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dotAastate.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review, please feel free to contact me at (651) 234-7794. Sincerely, Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor Copy sent via E -Mail: John Knoblauch, Knoblauch Builders, iknobsna,knoblauchbuilders.com Sharmeen Al-Jaff, City of Chanhassen saliaffna.ci.chanhassen.mn.us Hailu Shekur, Water Resources Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Peter Wasko, Design Nancy Jacobson, Design Buck Craig, Permits Dale Matti, Right -of -Way David Sheen, Traffic Engineering Clare Lackey, Traffic Engineering Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on January 3, 2013, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Preserve at Rice Lake Concept PUD — Planning Case 2013-02 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me th�is/J rA day of 12013. ��I LSA i `. 1 • 1 � .... � A A _ . Notary kblic cE KIM T. MEUWIS EN Notary Public -Minnesota �''3:i" MY Commissbn Expires Jen 31, 2015 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 15 -lot single-family development on 13.2 acres of property Proposal: currently zoned RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed currently zoned RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed Low Density Residential — Preserve at Rice Lake. Applicant: John Knoblauch Property South of West 86m Street Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-02. If you wish to talk to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-02. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff by email at saliaffCcDci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 - Questions & 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland AlteNtlons, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the nolifcation. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a 15 -lot single-family development on 13.2 acres of property Proposal: currently zoned RSF-Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed Low Density Residential — Preserve at Rice Lake. Applicant: John Knoblauch Property South of West 86 Street Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2013-02. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI-Jaff by email at saliaff(ci2ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952- Questions & 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is Comments: helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission, City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent infomiabon and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council dces not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. It you wish to have somethingto be included in the report, lease contact the PlanningStaff person named on the notification AMY B CULLEN ANNE THERESA JESKE ARTURO F URRUTIA 454 MISSION HILLS WAY E PO BOX 1041 9759 CUPOLA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7706 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-1041 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347-3622 BARBARA A FELBER BONNIE M HOGHAUG BRADLEY SCOTT MAPES 468 HEARTLAND CT 425 RICE CT 445 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7704 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY BRUCE A DRAEGER CAROLINE L KULIK 8580 MISSION HILLS LN 8541 MISSION HILLS LN 8761 REFLECTIONS RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - CHARLES MOULDER CHESTNUT GROUP LLC CHRISTINE A NELSON 455 MISSION HILLS WAY E 1560 BLUFF CREEK DR 456 HEARTLAND CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7706 CHASKA MN 55318-9519 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7704 COREY A HOEN DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING DAVID T & CORRINE A NAGEL 422 RICE CT 8550 MISSION HILLS LN 8550 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9615 DEBRA JEAN NORTON E JAMES VALDIMORE ELIZABETH J SARNESE 441 MISSION HILLS WAY E 409 MONK CT 8791 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7624 ENDA J BURGESS FRANCIS T BARUSH REV TRUST FRANK R & THERESA M 476 HEARTLAND CT 400 MONK CT 49 MIS ON 4 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7704 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 449 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 GARY & LOUANN LESLIE GEORGE J CARLYLE GEORGE SEFCZYK 470 MISSION HILLS WAY 8560 MISSION HILLS LN 420 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 HOANG MINH PHAM JAMES M SCOTT JEAN MARIE KAMRATH 417 RICE CT PO BOX 312 413 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7709 HOPKINS MN 55343-0312 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7709 JEFFREY W SANVILLE JENNIFER RENKLY JODEE A TOMASSONI 442 MISSION HILLS WAY E 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8581 MISSION HILLS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7713 JOHN D & MARY JO EICHLER JOHN W HOPKINS JONATHAN EFFERTZ 25628 CORDOVA LN 417 MONK CT 459 MISSION HILLS WAY E RIO VERDE AZ 85263-7146 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7706 JONATHAN M SCHMIT JOSEPH & GAYLE HAUTMAN JOYCE A BENNETT 412 MONK CT 8551 TIGUA LN 8789 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9615 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7624 KAREN L BLENKER KAREN L MORTENSEN KATHLEEN MJOHANNES 405 RICE CT 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 KELLY R MORRISON KENDALL J & KRISTINE R STRAND KURT D & LYNNE MILLER 8773 NORTH BAY DR 8581 TIGUA LN 8590 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9615 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9715 LARRY L & SHERRIE D DOBSON LARRY M & MARLENE R NASH LEE A AMIOT 370 86TH ST W 409 RICE CT 428 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9784 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 LESLIE M BERGSTROM LILA M ZIMMERMAN LORI LEE PROECHEL 8781 NORTH BAY DR 451 MISSION HILLS WAY E 418 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7706 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7709 LUANN M MARKGRAF MARGIE L WESTERGAARD MARK W LINDNER 401 RICE CT 425 MONK CT 8785 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7624 MARY E MUIRHEAD MICHELLE H CARPENTER MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES 424 MONK CT 464 HEARTLAND CT 2681 LONG LAKE RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7704 ROSEVILLE MN 55113-1128 NATHAN HICKS NGA DOAN NICOLE A DELANEY 478 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8799 NORTH BAY DR 8793 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7624 NICOLE D OPITZ NICOLE M EVENSON NORTH BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSN 437 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8797 NORTH BAY DR INC CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7624 2681 LONG LAKE RD ROSEVILLE MN 55113-1128 PATRICIA A ADAMS PATRICIA M HEDTKE PAUL C LYONS 429 RICE CT 405 MONK CT 8571 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9615 PAUL D JUAIRE QUIRIN & MARIA MATTHYS RACHELLE L TIMLIN 462 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8795 NORTH BAY DR 404 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7706 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS RITA HALONEN 8525 MISSION HILLS LN 8561 MISSION HILLS LN 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 ROBERT J & ARLENE T HART ROBERT M & TAMMY L SCHAEFER ROBERTA A JOHNSON 474 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8571 MISSION HILLS LN 466 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7707 RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING ROSE M KERBER ROSEMARY B WILL 8570 MISSION HILLS LN 460 HEARTLAND CT 475 FRISCO CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7704 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7718 SARA LUCY KALEY SCOTT J NELSON SHANNON HAIRIER 482 MISSION HILLS WAY E 429 MISSION HILLS WAY E 413 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 SIGNE HANSON STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT 1326 90TH AVE 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD 631 TRAN 1500 W COUNTY ROAD B2 SHERBURN MN 56171-1236 ST PAUL MN 55155-1801 ROSEVILLE MN 55113-3174 STEPHAN M BRINK STEVEN D LEHTO SUSAN M HEINEMANN 433 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8591 TIGUA LN 421 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9615 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7709 SUSAN M LETNER THOMAS D KARELS THOMAS J BOURNE PO BOX 220 416 MONK CT 471 FRISCO CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317-0220 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7718 THOMAS L SIEVERS THOMAS NIMMO TROY A & VIRGINIA L KAKACEK 475 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8561 TIGUA LN 380 86TH ST W CHANHASSEN MN 55317-7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9615 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9784 TYLOFRANO 8521 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9615 JOHN KNOBLAUCH 1450 KNOB HILL LANE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 US HOME CORPORATION VYACHESLAV KRASNOKUTSKIY 16305 36TH AVE N SUITE 600 390 86TH ST W PLYMOUTH MN 55446-4270 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9784 AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: Sent: To: Subject: Good morning Karen, AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:05 AM X B' RE: development of area S of 86th st The developer will be required to install a sound wall along Highway 212. Access to the site is limited but we will do everything we can to minimize wetland impacts. The developer will be required to add landscaping to the site. As I mentioned before, this is a concept and I will attach your comments to the staff report. Sincereh, Sharmeen .414cr f Senior Planner 952.22 7.1134 From: K B [mailto:kabllCalmsn.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:37 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: RE: development of area S of 86th st Hi, I looked at the plans. Why destroy part of the wetland area by putting a road thru it, what if that pond flooded, there is no other way out. Wouldn't a better plan be to put the road across from from lot 6 and 7, shorter road to development it doesn't destroy a good piece of the wetland. It doesn't impact our neighborhood, although traffic would increase along 86th st plus it would then cost less. Leave the wetland area alone. Another point to make would be the noise from 212. I hear traffic from my place, there is no noise reduction wall along this section, there's only a fence, that would have to be built. I would never buy anything in that area because of that. When I purchased my townhouse, I paid at least $5-6,000 more for the exact layout as another in this area because of the wooded area behind it. Like I said this will decrease the value of our property along Rice Court. Plus I like the privacy here as do my neighbors. We enjoy watching the wildlife. I have lived here since these townhomes have been built because of this, almost 17 yrs. There have been too many areas in Chanhassen that have been clear cut , beautiful old trees cut down. This needs to stop, We need to protect these areas. Thank you for considering this. Karen From: SAI-Jaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us To: kabllColmsn.com Subject: RE: development of area S of 86th st Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 21:08:29 +0000 Hi Karen, Attached is the latest concept plan. Sincerely, Sharmeen Al-Jaff Senior Planner 951.227.1134 From: K B [mailto:kabllCalmsn.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:16 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: Re: development of area S of 86th st Hi do you have the plans on the website? There were 2 links and I could not access the second one. Thanks, Karen Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "AI-Jaff, Sharmeen" <SAI-Jaff0ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: Good morning Karen, At this time, it's only a concept. We are trying to flush out the issues. I will include your e-mail as an attachment to the staff report so it can become part of the public record. Sincerely, Sharmeen Al Jaff Senior Planner 952.227.1134 From: K B [mailto:kabllColmsn.com] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 8:00 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: development of area S of 86th st Importance: High Hi, I live on Rice Court in Chanhassen which backs up to the proposed development area called Preserve at Rice Lake. I am concerned about what will happen to the pond area and the tree line between my place and this area. There is a lot of wildlife in this area and do not want this to be affected. Also this will decrease the value of my home. The reason I taught this place was because it backed up to a natural area. We CAN NOT destroy these areas. I will not be able to make the Jan 15 meeting due to being out of the state Please let me know the plans for this area Thanks, Karen ILna N w z a U PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE - PLANNING CASE 2013-02 $750.00 Concept PUD $200.00 Notification Sign $279.00 GIS Fees $1,229.00 TOTAL $1,229.00 Less Check #6559 from Knoblauch Builders, LLC $0.00 BALANCE 4r1,wNicr Craham Environmental Services, Inc. Chanhassen Site Wetland Delineation Report May 24, 2011 Looking West Across the Site From Wetland C Wetland Delineation Report Chanhassen Site Chanhassen, Minnesota May 24, 2011 Background Graham Environmental Services, Inc. (GES) "a retained to complete a site evaluation for jurisdictional wetlands on a parcel located in part of the NW'/. NE % and part of the NE % NSW %of Section 24, Tl 16N, R23W, Carver County. The site lies immediately north of Highway 212 and south of W. 86" Street in the City of Chanhassen (Figure 1). As shown on the U.S.G.S. Quadrangle map (Figure 2), the topography on the site is rolling. On April 28 and May 4, 2011, GES conducted an evaluation of the site and delineated five wetlands within the project vicinity as shown on a recent aerial photograph in Figure 3. Methodologies The site was assessed for wetlands using the on-site methods contained in the 'Routine Determinations" section of the U.S. Any Corps of Engineers' Wetlands Delineation Manuar (Technical Report V-87-1, 1987), as well as "Intenm Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Midwest Region' (U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, 2010). This is the methodology currently used to determine wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for implementation of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and by Local Government Units under the Wetland Conservation Ad. GES classified the wetlands under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service TM) Cowardin system, Circular 39 and Eggers and Reed methodologies. Soil colors described herein follow Munsell Soil Color Charts. Hydric soil properties described follow Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (Untied States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 7.0. L.M. Vasiliss, G.W. Hurt and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils). wetland Delineation Report Chanhassen Site - Chanhassen, MN May 24, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Results GES identified five wetlands within the property boundaries as discussed below. Welland A Wetland A is located across much o1 the northern portion of the site. The wetland is bounded by relatively gradual grades on all sides except the west which is defined by a constructed berm. The uplandhvetland boundary, was investigated along a single transect on the southern boundary. A drainage ditch drains the wetland and flows to the east. Dominant vegetation in the wegand includes read canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and sandbar willow (Salix interior). Upland vegetation is dominated by Kentucky bluegrass (Poe pratensis) and Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis). Soils were evaluated by digging soil pits along a transect perpendicular to the wetland/upland boundary and examining the profile's texture, color, and redoximorphic characteristics. Soils in the wetland in Transect 1 are described as 10 YR 3/2 loam over 1 OYR 5/1 silt loam with 1 OYR 4/6 mottles over 10YR 3/1 silt loam with 10YR 4/6 mottes over N 2/0 silt loam. Surface water measured approximately three inches in depth. Upland soils at Transact 1 are described as 1 OYR 3/2 sandy loam over 1 OYR 4/3 sandy loam. No free water or saturation was observed in the upland soil pit. The jurisdictional boundary was established where the soil profile in the upland soils demonstrates a lighter matrix tone, there is a change in plant Communities, hydrology indicators are absent in the upland and a change in topography occurs. The National Wetlands Inventory map (Figure 4) is generally consistent with our wetland delineation. Like the NWI, we would classify the wetland as seasonally flooded palustrine emergent drained (FEMCd) under the Cowardin system which would equate to Type 3 inland shallow fresh marsh under the Circular 39 system and Shallow Marsh If 313) under the Eggers and Read system. The Carver County Soil Survey (Figure 5) shows the soils in the vicinity of Wetland A to be Glencoe clay loam and Hamel loam. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Inventory (Figure 6) does not map Wetland A as a protected water or wetland. Weiland Delineation Report Chanhassen Sita - Chanhassen, MN May 24, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Wetland B Wetland B is in the eastern portion of the site and was examined along a single transect in its "stem boundary. Dominant vegetation in the wetland includes box elder (Acernegundo), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and lake sedge (Carex lacusMs). Dominant upland vegetation includes green ash and Kentucky bluegrass. Soils were evaluated by digging soil pits along a transect perpendicular to the wetland/upland boundary and examining the profile's texture, Color, and redoximorphic characteristics. Soils in the wetland are described as 10YR 2/1 silt loam over 10YR 5/1 Gay loam. Surface water was estimated to be approximately two inches in depth. Upland soils at Transect 1 are described as 1 OYR 3/2 silt loam. No free water or saturation was observed in the upland soil pit. The jurisdictional boundary was established where the soil profile in the upland soils demonstrates a lighter matrix tone, there is a change in plant communities, hydrology indicators are absent in the upland and a relatively abrupt change in topography occurs. The National Wetlands Inventory map (Figure 4) is generally consistent with our wetland delineation. Like the NWI, we would classify the wetland as seasonally flooded palustrine emergent (PEMC) under the Cowardin system which would equate to Type 3 inland shallow fresh marsh under the Circular 39 system and Shallow Marsh (1313) under the Eggers and Reed system. The Carver County Soil Sunray (Figure 5) shows the soils in the vicinity of Wetland B Transect 1 to be Hamel loam. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Inventory (Figure 6) does not map Wetland B. Wetland C Wetland C is a small wetland in the southeastern part of the site. Dominant vegetation in the wetland includes reed canary grass. Upland vegetation is dominated by green ash, smooth brume (Bromus inemiis) and Canada goldenrod. Soils were evaluated by digging soil pits along a transect perpendicular to the wetland/upland boundary and examining the profile's texture, color, and redoximorphic characteristics. Soils in the wetland are described as tOYR 2/1 silt loam with 10YR 4/6 mottles over N 2/0 silt loam over tOYR 411 clay loam with 1 OYR 416 mottles. Surface water was estimated to be E 0 E 0 m v m o ym c '-° 5 n m E a c m m 3 o E .� m E g v w o m 8 E n a c« c o 3 w W E mi° m m c c 0, T- o c o m a o 5 m a m m 3 a > c c Z5S`.m�9E5nm Stoa a�a mm3m 5Ena .EmEo-EOa m vLDmm�, Ua�3pm5a 'wc mc5cmSdg .m..n e¢ W m o«mpTCo m3 d@Lai«SW6 DovC�' m=n@moUEmrcNUwEm a'aE N@ nO O m mDd m o m E m«mE 2 o 20 ' Jm 0 0 v° L 00 >pt�o mc m 0 oExa«aW0IE om ,o ao 02 EE a OE>—Z- =Qm- camm0cE ioi'cmrnE-' m > oEm @m- Smovm nao0n�-'' at0m nmc'N @m5 m Lmc aqm SYpm� mm'm mu'�' »Em E3�Nmo 'rn°m W E3 ct EmCm �c`iS 0 o he o i" c W LL E o -Dm Tm we mw cm ZS `m wm" o'J m Tm o W = m m m� E= M. Z, m> c m m 3 m o m_ « Z s m a w L J cc3 Nom m0W'm ;.c L°�E`m ama -uUcc Nom aNm mom'` at >•Emo ngm m-» •t @$ oDa- 'o"o W � T�m t'o W cXx a oeo�m Wz cc2 mJvom TTim c m m" gu me -Em oa gm�.J cmm O -g Jc > @aQ J 6mam31== -a E0 T m m m Jc Ems o@J mm m� .0v 3 @am omJ m mom- UH W ^aZEma m'o E'»m.'-_"m .�'-_°mn w QF,La` Ute» mQy mp�0 WW@QNE @cX >� O DO @ pW�OC mW.W c La a a mm mom �+- Mm—�o 2 Awl U_`m E_`m mmmami�oc3@mmc �'n �cEX zW,DJ_ma Um�m J J a m"- a . a> t �a _ m m E o m."@ m J m m".@ .@ c ..@@w mdmo''mc SmcoJne- cnc. fflm Q0 a m S z 3 3 c 5 a m m« m m u> ci F J S a m c F Z W OI dm m O o cEd«8r-c .c E «d E ?!Cmc N3 ^ m N cad@ E w a d u� a my y m c d > o a c E o m) m d mn m c w 3 eWc m„t0m «amWrnE eE 0 o mcr@d MW m=o avw c a m m m E d'm C 0 Lm.NE E -m9O SN em Z pN0@ pOaO mNL j5a p0C_O m 0z z V d J d 3 N W d L L N L U m m « C U m a N W 6 m G d C d LL W y d T w d o o m a \ O p_n a O N O) � a O W m~ C C d C O C� C O 3 W n y y m id EZ'.6 _ �aJdS NE> SUm�V H NCmand �LiLLU az a10d ¢�.-•E� mdc Jo��o¢ aE'oSoLrnw>� n VfmCd :Nmoy Sdim CJ '�d@_' TWOk@ D3Can .=dC awamCmpd NWd UtUm Ld@,UW pmc—pLcWm@�dm.�tanYYcd -md3eamCdL'�cm°,goNood ¢m�wnW>No�'erpN c'EmmLpNa-' u _ v�mTmOOJ . m �dQ+ —a3mNnwWNC W ` �om E"c m m 5admam0 W dn Eaz o L52`y gd 0m°" w mma L"yEBmcc 72 C-60 Oa woo J @ - d 3 d >Da0m' d¢ D Dr 0 >0mmyo mao B a"m Wan0=>> m„ 3 _ Hdd omonm °WEo U~cUE 6t W -0O COyO oc%Uoc aim�cEZo m� JORES dL waD1 FcJn8a npcm C�cddCd3J 9 J8.5 F 9K � / � -6 § §}i) k§( t \ \\ /0 \ ° ] Zj �) m , � } Z) �] . , ] -6 § ƒ \ \\ \ Z) �] m . U | ; . ! 8 t M d o M d N m 3 •L N wm maci e O L N a IL 0 t .` U a vi E ` X � O 0 a IL C Q n rr h 13 Rice Mrs -- - k• It Ir 11 _ f u it n n — — �� Approximate - 21 Sde Location � Ir 0. •eLit f 101 • L ,c ` u I I+ t Laneo4 MVP CW CONova-Wepa[er complex ra EX Essexville sandy dem GL Glencoe clay loam MM Hamel dam Ka Kilkenny Lester foams, 2 to 6 percent sdpes K02 tester -Kilkenny looms, 2 to 6 percent stapes, eroded KC Lester Kilkenny looms, 6 to 12 percent sWm KC2 Lahr -Kilkenny dents, 6 to 12 percent slapm, exceed KD Lester -Kilkenny dams, 12 to 16 percent slope KD2 Lester Kilkenny dame, 12 to IS percent slope, eroded KE2 Lestar-Kilkenny deme, la to 25 percent slopes, eroded KF Lester-Klikenny dams, 25 to 00 percent slopes MK Moughton and Muskeg. lolls MP Kdasner and Muskeg. voile, p.Med N pM Kosaner muck N YC 9assePLmler-Kilkenny considers, 6 to 12 peaent slopes Not to Scab YD PmsePLeshrKllkenoy mmpsax, 12 to 18 percent slnpm Not to Scale Figure S. Carver County Soil Survey \G Chanhassen Site E+ Chanhassen, Minnesota S\ GES Project No 2011 09 Graham Enviroamrnm! Srr'im I.C. Figure 6. Minnesota DNR Cyt Protected Waters Map I�l1y�lU?/, GChanhassen Site E Chanhassen, Minnesota SGES Project No. 2011 009 Grehkill Envirpnerentel5ervim, /roe. LL LA Q LL LL } �� ll1.1% t, �.� ,, 1� � •' . n 4 111 }':`.-' l�..d y0. d'{ V^ r '.• �>� y C 1` E e E g � 021 C ma mx� E6IDR6 na4 �.n ug� sr � � n ED �5[./�'$'c Efiti O U Uu >I ;v Ems' �u 6ti zg3�Ngk so-I$lol-lolgla aQogBsgE k5 ca$ i$ _� °$s�s3 �sg88 € :age `s E $fie F O Z S LL S LL F O LL LL LL J a 6 x x I x I I I' S o 0 0 ns' Ym U Y I V Y Z Z U U 000 E apN F E S N $`s `s �a°'6'�Cai 9y�m 3�_�8k aaa f $ o e III s » § 3 E � HaEE U V I I I I I I I I I 8 a p= �I�II3131 Ipl I�I __ c 00 s S z8 E X a m Z3 c m e �ts [y 26m cRErcv -'o==��:u�jS� rv8 _wmXe � J #E s •z cg3G J oa3m I Io-� s9 III IN I� IxI� INI z8s� ;; �3a#,RaN»�`m_:3 .5 E -I a.a = #-a 2 2 a g � m �u 6ti zg3�Ngk so-I$lol-lolgla aQogBsgE k5 ca$ i$ _� °$s�s3 �sg88 € :age `s E $fie F O Z S LL S LL F O LL LL LL J a 6 x x I x I I I' S o 0 0 ns' Ym U Y I V Y Z Z U U E apN F E S N f o e » » § 3 E s`g c 00 2 2 3 F a F H .$�lslsg $ $>e w a d F j¢ z4 - •n ry m mlry lry lQ lm l$I� . s sa -2E 's€ ap =e'oa sa ma�Y ga Sc's o as aLLx x Ix x :S i �� lm l�Im l„Im e� •$ a mmlo 8`a 3 zVoSQggs_8 Sao€�$n`5ae$`s E'es„'€; .*�gn= E Qaoaa� e8g .fie L `• _ s$m �} .a �- S I 6waSSo� gill n E € e oEE s 5E E�F6e `es SsaoS'e a r-e.gg o LL a LL mho z 3a m3m s -o” Z j 1 112 s >>z % E- - imxi�p :c'w"pyC E -� �oca�ZiCpn m Ta$F�U'$Om0 oaB E g n W�N�iOQOK R L � a 3 _ 3 = 8 R E n• � �+ ry � v a�Emv _ 3� pcQ4CQ�t� 8 n. L Sc_w�mEBof ' _ „I�Io o O c S t I I I IF I„I z S 8 E ago F a F H .$�lslsg $ $>e w a d m ry m mlry lry lQ lm l$I� . s sa -2E 's€ s' =e'oa sa ma�Y ga Sc's o as aLLx x Ix x :S i �� lm l�Im l„Im e� •$ a mmlo 8`a 3 zVoSQggs_8 Sao€�$n`5ae$`s E'es„'€; .*�gn= E Qaoaa� e8g .fie L `• _ s$m �} E I I e .a-SnV2S v"�ummmv y a s 5E E�F6e `es SsaoS'e a LL a LL mho z 3a m3m s -o” J 2 O V E s a d m ry m mlry lry lQ lm l$I� . s sa nc" 4 4a as aLLx x Ix x :S i �� lm l�Im l„Im e� •$ a mmlo 8`a iso :s So zVoSQggs_8 Sao€�$n`5ae$`s E'es„'€; .*�gn= E Qaoaa� e8g .fie I I y a a LL a LL 1 112 s >>z % ss"x R m 3 3 R E 8 n. J 2 O V E EO 'Iag_ g s p's -I SI $ e ;1 3� � > E °�38:=�° H yna m¢oC 813 c QEF i.. YY my gNx g5r SoE a 'oe �$a'e� aSaSe glr �I�Irc SIE �I I �. ;sig"8g le lb l3$ 222 IIS( ; aroLLLLLL�B a <_c saa a� is n°y° u°°xyE a' 1Fe2 n c p} -C sztz. ia nSc fr Szm z 8S z x' 8E EoES?ee $�me s'e apK.N..0 S i9 g° -3R € :s- x m3h�.E E ° VI �3 In le l>Ibl °9 g e m m r 8 E q � E fN�ffLL Nu o m o n nE ET$ n NNN.°i�S¢OK N aE o ¢ IIIIIIII i ° Q 8 `s 4 x C 3 0 ervy e 2202WrvS N 05dN gi VIII IxI LSSE r� &.8 EO 'Iag_ rl'I'Im lolnl'I s p's -I SI $ e - � > °�38:=�° H yna m¢oC 813 c QEF SoE a 'oe �$a'e� aSaSe glr �I�Irc SIE �I I �. ;sig"8g le lb l3$ 222 IIS( ; aroLLLLLL�B a i Ix lxl a� is n°y° c p} -C sztz. ia fr Szm z 8S z x' 8E EoES?ee $�me s'e yYy �iY3Edd -=u'g# i9 g° -3R € :s- x m3h�.E rl'I'Im lolnl'I s fr . -I SI $ e - � > °�38:=�° glm l+I•I°Idl� �Emg g¢ � 'ci �E m 'oe �$a'e� aSaSe ! z° gO ;sig"8g mE aroLLLLLL�B a i Ix lxl is n°y° ° -Us >Izz Sy r> o +1 z o a 1 12 6x & � o e m m r 8 E o m o n S Eo E = �d 6ToriAau� ISI I Im�I a ZBillI � n $ t ° g•Y YY a r Y = ° ° zzz° s g v Illg 02b �$ N I ngria YcmislXl�;6la E yE� oia' _ 3=Efr�o�agS �N zo�aQQ x S Ia E °'nNn'8o4 $.E odg E - fmi`a E 3. x n` E 'Ye �m = 3.c� r• ae ,�', - aN 3 e S S a E f S S ? 2 •=LL3 „ � g o'I ZN�Efpp �tNH B� a n Iry on Nl v $� 9f�N v • 9¢m gv$EE- i — dpd4 �°n $id99a¢a¢ E IIIIIIIII U N Q ye A =m N Q Q_as z — `=S.�S�f • = 6°g'mm__u a9� _ _ ry n m N LL • S• s ° 5 °- ' o_ ry ay I I I INlrvl MINI € • 8 s E rx Fom S Eo E = �d 6ToriAau� ISI I Im�I a ZBillI � n $ ° a r IFI I I In I I I I ° ° zzz° s g Illg 02b �$ 8Cr 0 9 e ngria YcmislXl�;6la E yE� oia' _ 3=Efr�o�agS �N zo�aQQ x S Ia E @• - fmi`a E 3. n` - E ° a r 02b a1 0 9 e ngria YcmislXl�;6la eoLLLL,�aan oia' g w a n` Alan aN S S S S o'I B� a n Iry on Nl v — A = _ ry n m N LL S• n N n m m o_ ry s `o 0 E E J e E W S EOYI -n_ �m$jfe $m�ufr Sg Ea a 8 i mIRImI"ImI"Irl e� of EZ v a- @ _ i 3 x x x x—� LL• LL s mlNlminl N! 11Hk H E E H I s o Y „3 n psi m. E� gs'o oc 51 J_d"_ 3a ZZZ o� m �o $� _o "g g ggs m 111 S �a3a@ fiE[ 6 { AzE "€ n 0 J =z__n [ may 5 5 Y » yJat a`iai�"3 Y- rI his S sa`a `m � frEn e 'n jm �y� s'•Q Ile2 S a-3fr£gegfrZ��" Sy I S IS Yzl I I S a es' aM I m^ I m^on 3 x o s�meeo` S S c ti EEE E VOne>I> 3 3 � a' my _ y ^ 3 � =111111 � �rvn.n -rvn.m nNm.mm�m 00 -ry 8--e " ; En$�= Ec•2 E Fo am�sNh„ viva CE x$a p$3m EEo � U' fO$pvp a B gg EEg$'�$ ¢c - � � � mlmlmlJlJll�l1¢I 5 s` 8 a - on S��ary� � s`s mVgms�Ng ' .m22b2NrvON I I I I Ix I c �xSdRa e� e$m � e E W S EOYI -n_ �m$jfe $m�ufr Sg Ea a 8 mIRImI"ImI"Irl e� of EZ v a- @ _ i 3 x x x x—� LL• LL s mlNlminl N! 11Hk H E H I s o Y „3 n psi m. E� gs'o oc 51 IgI=Io�IaIesIEI�I I ZZZ o� m �o $� _o "g g ggs m 111 S �a3a@ fiE[ 6 { AzE "€ n 0 xl �I 5 5 Y » E IL `LL his sa`a `m � frEn e Ile2 S a-3fr£gegfrZ��" Sy I S IS Yzl I I S a a c t- yi t aM I m^ I m^on 3 x H3moo o 7 a mIRImI"ImI"Irl e� of g _ i 3 x x x x—� LL• LL s mlNlminl N! 11Hk H E e Y 9 y . i s o Y „3 n psi m. E� gs'o oc 51 cE o� m �o $� _o "g g ggs m 111 S �a3a@ fiE[ 6 AzE "€ ve0uuu�Un S=I=I I I 5 5 Fw IL `LL Sy I S IS Yzl I I S a aM I m^ I m^on I I =^ m o S P E 6 3 3 y ^ 3 � �rvn.n -rvn.m nNm.mm�m 00 -ry 7 mLL= ;atz �IaIIJI�IAI�ImI 'sae _' arc 11 3� afr gal 111 K _ m�Y d2 €XTAll Q Eeu €e BLL ;s25 eon ^m YE F S� oo�jy�� o°Y &`� olrvlml�lg l•I� a z =ate 1 lag x�rl &�Y • m of E'5 wa E S E C J S s III II I ZI m _ 6LLm yNt Y d s°pQa e 8 was m2 e@ E� < QSm zc � i¢•$lali n$a n sq`eigomoc EES E 3p a v �Y`E€$�o5>ae tm�a m Eu�3m`�3 eE 6 o ,gym •-,=5 E 3` S^.cgfr tg �E o` E E �' ocUl I�I MSI _ ry a i LL r u Foe - as $nze' yin "ora p K$ li i f G i V• O° O m � Y rylylylJlJlpla_Ial¢I E m n U w C SF Y cz yNH a E _ a B��ErcA °vF@S�y'p .. ei ms _aQQYyJ�m�° g I u� m8of �==rm$I-i e d _ m" Y _ •sn I�I�I MINI _ �' n 05o x. ilk E Y mLL= ;atz �IaIIJI�IAI�ImI 'sae _' afr gal 111 m�Y d2 €XTAll Eeu €e BLL ;s25 eon ^m YE F S� &`� olrvlml�lg l•I� 44 z =ate 1 lag x�rl &�Y • m of E'5 wa E S E C J S s III II I ZI m I e 3 was m2 e@ E� < QSm zc E E i¢•$lali n$a F� 'ra-oH3p�S�°o3 3p a v �Y`E€$�o5>ae tm�a m #� EaEoa�s •mmo. s �s.A#3a a'�. 5k# ,gym •-,=5 E 3` m 3• m• .`. o` J 2 Eeu €e BLL ::::5 eon ^m YE F S� &`� olrvlml�lg l•I� 44 z 88 &�Y • m of E'5 wa E S E C J S s �� o- m2 e@ zc n °$aLLn�u° n i¢•$lali n$a F� a gill - as � m � Y m n w C Y cz E _ I £- m mma _ r J 2 u n E V Sn= .3 a' LLo >I pEp Ex $ €e3 `o m m 8I ol3lo lry In l^I � nl e e g mn 8 K m LLm�§ $s maw o8E So Se 5qY E= %f s o °BEagg�es aI.I�'Id _Im I�SIE I�I�I z°z°z° ; m i LL u� U LL 0 0 2 s 6 5 6ioY�=B 3^e 5 1_ '01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. Esq E g �e_m �v aZege 1^o=9 V oi$��atE 28 C bg 0 <& m l l xl mlm I I IRI_$ m lml_ ainF i € EEE 2yu°o`n�ib _ v � a e R a y 8 8 C 3 E — a 2 ""�g86 �s 8•��8x�fe LLY= � � R s U¢$Ftf ma mpm mo $¢ @ @ nlw .I g E � lm lJ l3 lal a s` � m rvN E a gtcV I l l l lrvlxI I l 8i els € r� u n E V Sn= .3 a' LLo >I pEp Ex `o m m 8I ol3lo lry In l^I � nl e e g 8 LLm�§ $s maw o8E So Se 5qY E= %f s o °BEagg�es aI.I�'Id _Im I�SIE I�I�I z°z°z° ; m i LL u� U LL 0 0 2 s 6 5 r O u 1_ '01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. Skk�une 9 g �e_m �v aZege 1^o=9 V E§a?d 28 C bg 0 5 @I pEp Ex `o m m 8I ol3lo lry In l^I � nl e e g 8 So Se 5qY E= %f `e 'aE o °BEagg�es 4-° 4$m E; a$€s pSe&= ° m i LL u� U LL 0 2 s 6 5 r O u 1_ '01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. <& m l l xl mlm I I IRI_$ m lml_ m � a e R a y 8 8 C 3 E a ma i E 2 J J $ _I � g � j V $ z 1e a g Q _ S°c Ziff ESS aas '6 _ € 8$fr3 M__ -�. % as Ea 11H$•5` z f..jx IL my 2FZSV n`K�EVSO Ea ys k III II IIII 222 ° � 8 g� ug n E C m -mi g� c0Y jpn $o I I I E [m >r E °ZmYm$�i% YSg ZI S o�frEza-gfr i.y nim Fmm m'E 3 n m'3h= 8 �egyamo� �8� E ' • � g�$ S r u E C C 94NFFN� e p S S E E II- v �� 111111 n _ S 8 n � v�'�+gf mon °ye m E GQ$E°3090 3 E<<SEEu$'8 � �ImImIJIJI � € rc _ I¢I lal n 8 � P C oil mm. ¢ m >a o.��•All m m K a s F i n , m WI a II I Imlml :8 g� n Ea m is amfr'fr� {£�eAll,£ bf u� III$IIIII _I � g � j V $ mlm lml'Imk a g Q _ S°c Ziff ESS aas '6 _ € 8$fr3 M__ -�. % as Ea 11H$•5` z 2FZSV n`K�EVSO Ea ys III II IIII 222 ° � 8 g� ug n E C m -mi g� E $ I I I E [m >r E Lm�oa$ o�frEza-gfr i.y 3 n m'3h= 8 � � g & mlm lml'Imk e� s= $€ _ p$3 _ € 8$fr3 a mlml8lmlmI -�. % as Ea 11H$•5` z =c; Ea $s" e So • � N o ° � 8 g� ug n E C m -mi g� E $ o _ S 8 n � o fr � P C mm. m m m m K f f e V r 8sa �.�5•sfr a DAY a z jjj WEE all E cFE 4 • x x mss as 9sa EF& 2A! ?a g ASA E Q yY a a's°IrI,I„I°Isla e E �a�aaa�sg a i saaQ3-r s` ^ few A 221 g m %PSI S E N 6 c a E1¢ ..„ e aR-`t ° gjm E t I I.. ela aa`w °se i.xygg3 4-� >I 'f - M051 E `E !3` may_E n • l %$YaE J�ndFV € kE y oVm�� u_ o y V l n +11 a 3 muco d a B B mlw as yam_ S � ¢ � l�lJ lJl lel l¢l 5 s S aY� � E a � s E $ g s ]gLL.n 8 � _ %•ate a _„n.n -11o. r .= e c s>i Ec-8pc� c'S _ g s= s owayy�; ay6� V�ng:vb F°Maac , ac l'lwl is Ega e V r 8sa �.�5•sfr a DAY a jjj WEE all E cFE 4 • x x mss as 9sa EF& 2A! ?a g ASA a's°IrI,I„I°Isla sE^�'=g i 8 �a�aaa�sg a i saaQ3-r 221 g m %PSI S E N 6 c a off ° gjm E t I I.. ela !3` may_E a a jjj _ Qx • x x 2A! a's°IrI,I„I°Isla sE^�'=g i 8 �oaa3s8-a::Bcya i saaQ3-r arco°a Ze$ n ai! S E N 6 c n r O u u u 7 U 4 41 l x lX l l V l' gyaLLa I I.. ela n +11 a 3 d a S aY� E ]gLL.n _„n.n -11o. r .= e 3 E 3 n go yea ASO E•€g�V mmgg �� VIES ��a�S al'al�l„Ial�l�lLLl s m s` g m ° , mill393� ism 555 $ n . o mlm lry lm lm lnlry a 6�y ¢� L� 5fi5 o a i �ad �$ FgW IIEo( II�cS( XI Y Y Y 3 az ���s' g �� ISI ILLI I�I�I I ZEE`off a S� mIR 1 ImlRl m 5 E� iYT m a` memoma8o EeCJy�F miY mr_cn �E �LLLL<�'" >I Y �i3 uS �uiddfr_u^ii �m�35 4 3 m'3mo d SCn"S�yE L¢E m 1 11111 E�miio'£ Em • g y < 4ILL 6 '�a2860�� BE n 0-1 1 > S S S � o 111111 ' _ a3 is ry o ++1 N n $ o a$R ;,S � Zvmi$i$�WmY$ 9$ E U¢yZGop3m CCCCCmm999yyjj�� mlmlmllll¢II¢I e EYQ S'n UY> co�m$� t • Uq tl____ESaSYg 's� °Y ' n I I I Iminl I�ImI n go yea ASO E•€g�V mmgg �� VIES ��a�S al'al�l„Ial�l�lLLl s m s` g m ° , mill393� ism 555 $ n . o mlm lry lm lm lnlry a 6�y ¢� L� 5fi5 o a i �ad �$ FgW IIEo( II�cS( XI az ���s' g �� ISI ILLI I�I�I I ZEE`off a S� mIR 1 ImlRl m E� iYT m a` memoma8o `o mr_cn �E �LLLL<�'" °alolXl�mml .Ig Y �i3 uS �uiddfr_u^ii �m�35 4 3 m'3mo E f E g m ° , $ n . o mlm lry lm lm lnlry a o s8 i4 2 nnm�s ZEE`off a S� mIR 1 ImlRl m �E �LLLL<�'" °alolXl�mml .Ig }TC 4 1 11111 11 g y < 4ILL 6 6 0-1 1 > S S S � o ry o ++1 N n $ o a$R f 3 El c = wen ni a `3 t Siam -9 12Ma d I v .W p $m c=�m�c�$g 5 Yui 0�9 = a IS a m 8 z� ° ae e3� -e IS c�5 w - Ji9�n 9 $ O T N �e $ � S tee. 2f oa 8 - `gyms F 's `gym i=3 oa �9m � o� cg yoyYe —24 O I eg®8 m33o s ems �� GG�; E v �79 s Evi u m 55 e0 V sm wa8 � Ee m Fiq 6�� yq g$c �a YY Lv��i2F mam E El c = wen ni L `3 t Siam -9 12Ma d I v .W p $m c=�m�c�$g C Eaa'�rne �a = i g 3�an ° ae e3� -e IS c�5 w - Ji9�n 9 $ O T N �e $ � S tee. 2f oa 8 - `gyms F 's gg � S nC .PU��$E➢ �9m � o� cg yoyYe —24 _wQ � m33o s ems �� GG�; E v �79 s sm wa8 s�"a Ee c 6�� EE EE g$c i9 mam E an `o mac m.. -L, mmr o c VA �o aq- o �� PRE qm amii. u oz MIR S�Vi Roy c0. �oZ B Q osFgs e a�g C t-`�-" m 9 u 5 U 8auj eau Not.z = wen ni L `3 t Siam -9 12Ma d I v .W p $m c=�m�c�$g C Eaa'�rne �a = i g 3�an ° ae e3� -e IS c�5 w - Ji9�n a - e c� � ilia � �e $ � S tee. 2f oa 8 - `gyms F 's gg � S nC .PU��$E➢ �9m � o� cg yoyYe —24 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES B WSR TEP member: Ban Powell LOU TEP member (if different than LOU Contact): DNR TEP member: John "Jack" Gleason DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member) WD or WMO (ifapplicnble): Riley -Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Applicant and Landowner (if different): Members of the public who requested notice: Dave Pokorney, Community Asset Development Group Nicholas Poifa, Ploneer Engineering Michael Graham, Pioneer Engineering Corps of Engineem project Manager 5. MAILING INFORMATION DFor a list of B WSR TEP representatives, see: www bw r state mn us/sbou bwsr/worker,dW A d[ DFor a list of DNR TEP representatives, we: bwvstate.mn,uywetlandLgMNR TEP cortacts,il DRMInment of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW.R,,i,,: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. N!<Rfglpn: Cannel Region: Reg Env. Aswes. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. P.col. Southam Aeeion: Reg. Env. Assay. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Dia Co.]. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Buchmont E.Rd. 1201 E. Hwy.2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. IS gouty NE Grand Rapids, MN 55744 St.Paul, MN 551M New Ulm, MN 560D j Blenciji, MN 56601 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, sae: htly2ffilesidnr statemn.us/abouttim/dor Nwoms.odf DFor a list of Corps of Project Managers, am; www.mvo.umce a-rmv mil/tag lac tmy/default n•o?mucid=687 or send to: Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District ATfN: CO -R, 190 Fifth Steel East St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 DFor Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Welland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 6. ATTACHMENTS N addition to the site locator map, list any other atllchmenu: ® MN WCA Application for Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary ® Wetland Delineation Report prepared by CES, dated 0524/2011 with revised drawing submitted 6/22/11. BWSR Fomn 1 I-25-09 Page 3 of 3 I \ 1 er 1 110616.21-W 315.63 ff _ LJ U �+ PARCEL A 13.1269 AC 576.162 V F iz �10 w LL/ \ U w 3 \ \ /V�/ 0 ` y3 o w J [� '[ �.� n i•c: Q I f - upRllnEsr m.m ar !1( WMESr pIM1El16 M p'M1hA m, sem: f4 :P 1 NOng'21Y 5��' W; ;:i -:L" .i : t9'" v 6 T 1 III ] K a• E r rblf •� P• ,I uW Osr. > aar•t arsr r Ya1'm i !o•na: 116 NVIR Rvp• ]J Rfl. vmYM r Mr CgfM s4lw frown 6v+•I vel vY nlu F CVN Creta YM•Eb lewVnb 1 6 Nrb. R/P t] Ynvl.^armCnib YY IMY SLIw 6entl! =.a/ leer eC ' ue1• n Crow [¢nIN uYvn.q¢ •.cql rM nvs D M rsE [YGiPTNL IIIFRSROI Vv.tl 1 -11. 2 mr pslim rM !e ita4 �rrl M lee.nr�e Ry.l a Mr qm w.bY<r to -Ii. �S M6 rs ro QRlYY ro moa.urr m.T.aR.ur mwAxr, satl6r iRE orrw.nT mrrq MA- rlfs Yr m nwr Aro M awiE. w 4l i! z fAa •K 1.0E . A�me•YQ rM x Y•Iwll srAlogm zrRA fEagwfan rw IYWol Ii nIQ s+gcYs Iro )p 0 Iro �RR ESriM1Ea Yp 1ptllfp w BETA YEI XVS Er Sy vO •dR5 �R]6 �. 2 1 e. w ♦ f. ra ly ANo u s rAE[ • MlE6. Alfmuilr W K Amp11CY nAc.Ds As •gT1Ep PY YrA RM r1EL NO M 9I6! 01 K dR R M6 Q•El('olw E NiA1 QPM TU! q YY •IfiE51MgE plpi /6 A IYd 9YEN1 ROSmM EI SSE( 6 Sctlf in trot YgEsolA. M EI• W3 •afwNE AChwRC'r E 116 agiE. KS nr own r Np 13 4FCiRD 1•flpl. E[ r11 r i w` raU WYMRI n. YE w �}aR Yr plEtr 9VE9N9t dRL IE$ 217M dT S WAY. 3114 \\ ti bhp as�,in.69„e lalrcaEtiv,°yrE,¢ M134680 PARCEL C PARCEL B J ` 'A.61M AC rj 2.214,212 4 �mi n.N1 er Y•L®r DOMIIiFMr R tGrl9wi.id 1pR 6 Yf R.i! iF rym6•f b �t rcaaw cai r•n®1. •ua fo•r Carly [rayl v rot+ D m Mlt r qe bl Ml M Etl Ir0�1 Orv1r ! !•• 1Y.•tl Yr. �1md vagen Is IeW rsw�l Id l b4el Orlr > E• rE� Oe.Y r SaT X r�rll4 Ranieril [vr Cont u••tlN4 �IYE sA M 1MEIDl. mPY 11Blr 61FBwM1Y prt IM' AtlY M' ee..+o-e�r m.�.nbm)as�.•rwwrii. swera+.`. � e ��� r w E.rr r lre a� r Y.. ..Ir rola e•e r r zeNr x re f... w ti� w rrr s) a. rr�s M -•al W VM Rw ti• Yb w eP� .) viYie 6i 0 4r.. Yv r ls@ iaC er.l,.•mornaorw•lvlr o••aarr.rw Nq�.rrmwr awr .q.rm aro rw.r if vt re rE wEl�w+.rsorfr.• w a uE Y rl egvp a ssae ar IUP 4 4 . rYeia sa ssa w r vE. e• ..-e r wnm r .r • s•r r•V• r m ti� t err v at fre frM w aye u d ora. C•6 •larv�r sax w:fo r.r.E.Y.Wtlrs. rt4• loninla y.a o¢y b a• aOwl Mq • •arr M tlPIY V. e• • a•r e� r W oC0 .aro D o+c nYo MrT x 1� D r•r w �E vE • rlao r .ww+.r ...uen.lr. rr•+r « e.NrrNt • artle. a fsau r, rR • m. r r ret .¢Y,.. r ram llr «. aena =•f• r rw ti� n.. -,r w 4 R.E I O�wE I.E 3 iI iEr 3E. Ttlgw Ela R4 a btl IYl/. Inn�14 Mf ar•1 r r aYfr r 111u Yr0 f16c qn ld}) wl Ewwt S/f earl Y iPE w Y•tl fY}Yf it r wr M4•' tltr I.il ia•r x w•e S•.O w 6�•e w �Me ST oY Frk W. Y l�1 r1v it �f fV w ti� N.wElr SE o✓r E•r. • (Y•o r Twit 4lE .e w+Ei • rler r sw flit 4 i rw�r s+t �_ r r e.r rrf . rr. r wiw r tlf • mark fre r.lA Hiro r IEsx r. w��i.�w•t+oR .v r �. w.s wr�r nr rtltOr�.sEN r/rrw41�Y Kv.k[.v 1n411r•Q svlsr tK . iYs r lft9i rt re /rrli . Iryo� r 1L/1 rL _ i•s EYr >• y� DD�Isr ]�f Or f� i.v�EMw rk E� r�Wf �4 •r tla a�orilt� lr lr v~tiet is r.4ir`w�eir.E�+�r i+W•�rvemu i6 fE1Cw ppES p! gItlOR N 9A K ®i2 w SBS i w � ROr O1 alW MF Em ®® vro. voao s Eww s Iwaru [A00R EOI .row fro lqo a wY .rlolEliirs W s.o vs. E Ear mEY n nr.Nmic+z m¢oErrt EOIwr .Y.r M6 ue. rEYR v rpmr vs awwEv R. r. q yrwtl yr yttf ypn➢gt .IIO tlI � Y i4.InEl® IAr YwE.J rmI K tYS Q li Sr.rE Q MEID4 d® TR RN dY O JRC IDIG som EaE�r f wr f lr mw,I0 I Sr W� z3 Klmcgp- � Ta( C sKetc1 0.Pd� I I I ;< i I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 5��' W; ;:i -:L" .i : t9'" v 6 T 1 III ] K a• E r rblf •� P• ,I uW Osr. > aar•t arsr r Ya1'm i !o•na: 116 NVIR Rvp• ]J Rfl. vmYM r Mr CgfM s4lw frown 6v+•I vel vY nlu F CVN Creta YM•Eb lewVnb 1 6 Nrb. R/P t] Ynvl.^armCnib YY IMY SLIw 6entl! =.a/ leer eC ' ue1• n Crow [¢nIN uYvn.q¢ •.cql rM nvs D M rsE [YGiPTNL IIIFRSROI Vv.tl 1 -11. 2 mr pslim rM !e ita4 �rrl M lee.nr�e Ry.l a Mr qm w.bY<r to -Ii. �S M6 rs ro QRlYY ro moa.urr m.T.aR.ur mwAxr, satl6r iRE orrw.nT mrrq MA- rlfs Yr m nwr Aro M awiE. w 4l i! z fAa •K 1.0E . A�me•YQ rM x Y•Iwll srAlogm zrRA fEagwfan rw IYWol Ii nIQ s+gcYs Iro )p 0 Iro �RR ESriM1Ea Yp 1ptllfp w BETA YEI XVS Er Sy vO •dR5 �R]6 �. 2 1 e. w ♦ f. ra ly ANo u s rAE[ • MlE6. Alfmuilr W K Amp11CY nAc.Ds As •gT1Ep PY YrA RM r1EL NO M 9I6! 01 K dR R M6 Q•El('olw E NiA1 QPM TU! q YY •IfiE51MgE plpi /6 A IYd 9YEN1 ROSmM EI SSE( 6 Sctlf in trot YgEsolA. M EI• W3 •afwNE AChwRC'r E 116 agiE. KS nr own r Np 13 4FCiRD 1•flpl. E[ r11 r i w` raU WYMRI n. YE w �}aR Yr plEtr 9VE9N9t dRL IE$ 217M dT S WAY. 3114 \\ ti bhp as�,in.69„e lalrcaEtiv,°yrE,¢ M134680 PARCEL C PARCEL B J ` 'A.61M AC rj 2.214,212 4 �mi n.N1 er Y•L®r DOMIIiFMr R tGrl9wi.id 1pR 6 Yf R.i! iF rym6•f b �t rcaaw cai r•n®1. •ua fo•r Carly [rayl v rot+ D m Mlt r qe bl Ml M Etl Ir0�1 Orv1r ! !•• 1Y.•tl Yr. �1md vagen Is IeW rsw�l Id l b4el Orlr > E• rE� Oe.Y r SaT X r�rll4 Ranieril [vr Cont u••tlN4 �IYE sA M 1MEIDl. mPY 11Blr 61FBwM1Y prt IM' AtlY M' ee..+o-e�r m.�.nbm)as�.•rwwrii. swera+.`. � e ��� r w E.rr r lre a� r Y.. ..Ir rola e•e r r zeNr x re f... w ti� w rrr s) a. rr�s M -•al W VM Rw ti• Yb w eP� .) viYie 6i 0 4r.. Yv r ls@ iaC er.l,.•mornaorw•lvlr o••aarr.rw Nq�.rrmwr awr .q.rm aro rw.r if vt re rE wEl�w+.rsorfr.• w a uE Y rl egvp a ssae ar IUP 4 4 . rYeia sa ssa w r vE. e• ..-e r wnm r .r • s•r r•V• r m ti� t err v at fre frM w aye u d ora. C•6 •larv�r sax w:fo r.r.E.Y.Wtlrs. rt4• loninla y.a o¢y b a• aOwl Mq • •arr M tlPIY V. e• • a•r e� r W oC0 .aro D o+c nYo MrT x 1� D r•r w �E vE • rlao r .ww+.r ...uen.lr. rr•+r « e.NrrNt • artle. a fsau r, rR • m. r r ret .¢Y,.. r ram llr «. aena =•f• r rw ti� n.. -,r w 4 R.E I O�wE I.E 3 iI iEr 3E. Ttlgw Ela R4 a btl IYl/. Inn�14 Mf ar•1 r r aYfr r 111u Yr0 f16c qn ld}) wl Ewwt S/f earl Y iPE w Y•tl fY}Yf it r wr M4•' tltr I.il ia•r x w•e S•.O w 6�•e w �Me ST oY Frk W. Y l�1 r1v it �f fV w ti� N.wElr SE o✓r E•r. • (Y•o r Twit 4lE .e w+Ei • rler r sw flit 4 i rw�r s+t �_ r r e.r rrf . rr. r wiw r tlf • mark fre r.lA Hiro r IEsx r. w��i.�w•t+oR .v r �. w.s wr�r nr rtltOr�.sEN r/rrw41�Y Kv.k[.v 1n411r•Q svlsr tK . iYs r lft9i rt re /rrli . Iryo� r 1L/1 rL _ i•s EYr >• y� DD�Isr ]�f Or f� i.v�EMw rk E� r�Wf �4 •r tla a�orilt� lr lr v~tiet is r.4ir`w�eir.E�+�r i+W•�rvemu i6 fE1Cw ppES p! gItlOR N 9A K ®i2 w SBS i w � ROr O1 alW MF Em ®® vro. voao s Eww s Iwaru [A00R EOI .row fro lqo a wY .rlolEliirs W s.o vs. E Ear mEY n nr.Nmic+z m¢oErrt EOIwr .Y.r M6 ue. rEYR v rpmr vs awwEv R. r. q yrwtl yr yttf ypn➢gt .IIO tlI � Y i4.InEl® IAr YwE.J rmI K tYS Q li Sr.rE Q MEID4 d® TR RN dY O JRC IDIG som EaE�r f wr f lr mw,I0 I Sr W� z3 Klmcgp- � Ta( C sKetc1 0.Pd� ! , ��? (Q Y ,- '. _ .� a •.fir - . _ J t - < •i Tv 16 1.5 c- } T ., .. .' <, .� " v.. ev.. •✓, - {jam-' _ t R�As:rte �� _, -• _ .. .. : , _i--.,_1 0 V C.l `d^` ' tJ. ...y�h•i ••yrs 44 .r ti a� RSJC R-� 3 homes rrod r , . SOV to < q are �0; f-SIOL ���` ` of -11n►s sac wou4 �y ...., (if �. f .> 4 100 50 0 .- 0 a- of� 1�j off. ���a�;.._ , � � c-e�s Mot 3 � M� C41 � M� lrr.v n ,I Q 16 -LOT CONCEPT PLAN TOTAL SITE AREA... 13.23 ACRES • ♦ r NOTES: 1. AREAS AS SHOWN DO NOT INCLUDE WETLANDS. 2. STREET EASEMENT WIDTH AS SHOWN IS 15 FEET DUE TO 50 FEET R/W. iit. 11 11 I �I 11,048 sq.ft..// \� \ L— —�10 •may 13, 2 sq.ft. 11,5:0 sq.ft. / 12,294 sq.ft. \\ / -.. 4e� 11,019 sq.ft. 7 4 13 \\\\12,687 sq.ft'. C4 \\\\ 15 113,200 sq.fty/ / L / 11,436 / J \ 14,766 sq.ft. III 13.036 sq.ft. 16 go /1 18.677 sq.ft.` ` Sj pRM 4 -le 13,273 sq.f 13,812 89 sq.ft. i r AL yyy r x. R Legend Rice Marsh Lake Trail Ectersion E—lir, Sed—la } s, - ,. u Downtown Chanha sen ,h A 5. ryV d Jar I-elle ar b10♦ �.— O r IV " *� t Rice Marsh Rice'Mars Lake Park Lake Park Rice Marsh �wex Lake �. Proposed Trail a-1 4 P'+�r iii r , Trail extension 1 {.s � �• �, y' � �c'�' i ; i10 completed in 2011 Xn ie�11111111ji ISIOU Trail to be constructed Location of existing r with a Limited Use. '� trailway under Hwy 212 NF1'" Permit (LUP) from MnDot � •�� �� K i _ � � - ,. . - n • � � , .:, ' .. ' Eden Prairie to construct Y W -*a when Chanhassen reaches • .,- :r municipal border Property owner in discussion about 2 a residential development. City policy `� r Trail constructed ,' 0 will require construction of - [ , �.Ai from Hwy 212 to trail through neighborhood. c _L Lake Riley Blvd e T all � 3 1 77 r ¢ i in 2012 s"T'F a 'V ONESOJWO Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge Building 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 January 3, 2013 Sharmeen A14aff Senior Planner 7700 Market Blvd. PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Preserve at Rice Lake (Formerly Knoblauch Building) MnDOT Review # S 12-058 North side of US 212, east of TH 101 Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1013 Dear Ms. Sharmeen Al -Jaffa Thank you for the opportunity to review the Preserve at Rice Lake (Formerly Knoblauch Building) plans. Since the current plans remain quite similar to the previous plans, our comments remain the same. They are as follows: Design: The proposed walk and street are very close to MnDOT right of way and will require a grading plan to determine if there are highway impacts. For questions concerning this subject, please contact Nancy Jacobson, (651-234-7647 or nancyjacobson@,gate.tnn.us) in the Metro Design Section. Water Resources: A MnDOT drainage permit will be required. The drainage permit application form can be found at http://vmkv.dot.state.mn.us/utility/forms/index.htnil. The following information is required with the drainage permit application: • Final drainage plan showing storm sewer plan, storm sewer and culvert profiles and pond contours • Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows • Existing and proposed drainagelpond computations for the 2, 10, and 100 year rainfall events Addition information may be required once a drainage permit is submitted and after a detailed review. MnDOT will not allow an increase in discharge to MnDOT right-of-way. Please direct any questions regarding these issues to Hailu Shekur (651-234-7521 or hailu.sheku cr state.mn.us ) of MnDOT's Water Resources Engineering section. Permits and Right -of -Way: In addition to the drainage permit, a Limited Use Permit would be needed if any sidewalk/trail is within MnDOT right-of-way. The applicant will need to go through the Limited Use Permit process. Please contact Dan Phelps (651-234-7585 or dan.phel s a,state.mn.us). The proposed development must not extend into MnDOT right-of-way. Also, any use of or work affecting MnDOT Right-of-way and/or utilities requires a permit. Permit forms are available from MnDOT's permit website at ham://www.dot.state.mn.us/permits/. Please include one 1 I x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig (651-234-7911 or buck.craigna state.mn.us) of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section. Noise: MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in violations of established noise standards. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOTS noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 234- 7681. Review Submittal Options: MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options. Please submit either: 1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via e-mail at metrodevreviews.dot@,,state.mn.us provided that each separate e- mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disc. 4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp://ftp2.dot.state.mn.us/pub/incoming/MetroWatersEdge/Planning Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to metrodevreviews.dotnstate.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review, please feel free to contact me at (651) 234-7794. Sincerely, r C� Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor Copy sent via E -Mail: John Knoblauch, Knoblauch Builders, iknobsri,knoblauchbuilders.com Sharmeen Al-Jaff, City of Chanhassen saliaffCci.chanhassen.mn.us Hailu Shekur, Water Resources Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Peter Wasko, Design Nancy Jacobson, Design Buck Craig, Permits Dale Matti, Right -of -Way David Sheen, Traffic Engineering Clare Lackey, Traffic Engineering Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council AI-Jaff, Sharmeen From: K B [kabll@msn.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:37 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: RE: development of area S of 86th st Hi, I looked at the plans. Why destroy part of the wetland area by putting a road thru it, what if that pond flooded, there is no other way out. Wouldn't a better plan be to put the road across from from lot 6 and 7, shorter road to development it doesn't destroy a good piece of the wetland. It doesn't impact our neighborhood, although traffic would increase along 86th st plus it would then cost less. Leave the wetland area alone. Another point to make would be the noise from 212. I hear traffic from my place, there is no noise reduction wall along this section, there's only a fence, that would have to be built. I would never buy anything in that area because of that. When I purchased my townhouse, I paid at least $5-6,000 more for the exact layout as another in this area because of the wooded area behind it. Like I said this will decrease the value of our property along Rice Court. Plus I like the privacy here as do my neighbors. We enjoy watching the wildlife. I have lived here since these townhomes have been built because of this, almost 17 yrs. There have been too many areas in Chanhassen that have been clear cut , beautiful old trees cut down. This needs to stop, We need to protect these areas. Thank you for considering this Karen From: SAI-Jaff(alci.chanhassen.mn us To: kabll(d)msn.com Subject: RE: development of area S of 86th st Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 21:08:29 +0000 Hi Karen, Attached is the latest concept plan. Sincerely, Sharmeen Al-Jaff Senior Planner 952.227.1134 From: K B [mailto:kabll(almsn.com] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:16 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: Re: development of area S of 86th st Hi do you have the plans on the website? There were 2 links and I could not access the second one. Thanks, Karen Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID "AI-Jaff, Sharmeen" <SAI-Jaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: Good morning Karen, At this time, it's only a concept. We are trying to flush out the issues. I will include your e-mail as an attachment to the staff report so it can become part of the public record. Sincerely, Sharmeen Al-Jaff Senior Planner 952.227.1139 From: K B [_mailto:kabllCalmsn.com] Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 8:00 PM To: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen Subject: development of area S of 86th st Importance: High Hi, I live on Rice Court in Chanhassen which backs up to the proposed development area called Preserve at Rice Lake. I am concerned about what will happen to the pond area and the tree line between my place and this area. There is a lot of wildlife in this area and do not want this to be affected. Also this will decrease the value of my home. The reason I bought this place was because it backed up to a natural area. We CAN NOT destroy these areas. I will not be able to make the Jan 15 meeting due to being out of the state Please let me know the plans for this area Thanks, Karen ,fir tij ,-' 1 �v L� �, ...JJJ � Y p *' � a l � a � e yJ ��: a �' �. 5 K ti� N 1pmmw-- S 10 00 50 0 100 Feet b e 12' i N \= —I ,i ,I— :L: r A40 U r ..- e Legend �' • Buildable Area • Encroachments Wetlands_Tigua Wetland Buffer & Setbacks Type ----- Buffer Setback Knoblauch 17 Lot Concept ....ili Layer 7PEdge of Bit — BLDGPADS B/C — D&U Easements Plat Setbacks Pond 1 p d S MY OF '► , . i y{w^:� �, ., —Trail LUMEN N4( . l i� I villi " . Aw, f ' l ` l 4 N 1pmmw-- S 10 00 50 0 100 Feet b e 12' i N \= —I ,i ,I— :L: r A40 U r ..- e Legend �' • Buildable Area • Encroachments Wetlands_Tigua Wetland Buffer & Setbacks Type ----- Buffer Setback Knoblauch 17 Lot Concept ....ili Layer 7PEdge of Bit — BLDGPADS B/C — D&U Easements Plat Setbacks Pond 1 p d S MY OF '► , . i y{w^:� �, ., —Trail LUMEN V p 100 50 0 �7�' Ai 37 �� a, F xT<.. .A '.v �t'�., - -� �'"'�' �' .3 _. � y~�Y� •, g q 2:ut:�'w _ -. -_'\ w it -;Jr X54:6-' afxx 9la•- _: .. �,' RAF , - JAi vt L �► rm� r s v'r '/_:/ ; s � f u \♦ • � >\ I N'„'.t '$ate vY��� ,s •e= -irk., — — - 3 W - Preserve 15 Lot Concept — BLDG PADS Wetland Buffer & Setbacks — BACK of CURB Type PLAT ----- Buffer EASEMENT — Setback mp— LOT LINES Buffer Area Overlap SETBACKS Encroachments_15LOT SAN SEWER Buildable Area r� STORM POND N TRAIL VV-$ WETLAND IMPACT S miffilm �m __,s , Wetlands_Tigua WETLAND IMPACTS TOTAL = 6100 sq. k = 0.14 acres PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE 15 -LOT CONCEPT PLAN TOTAL SITE AREA = 13.23 ACRES 1 40 / 7� n � 3.8844iq.ft.\\\ / /6 \ •�* / / A� / Frt �x i �/I OUTLOT CI1F / 2000 SF `WETLAND FILL 600 SF YIETtAIE F0.L 1 /12,2661 sq.i6 BU BUFFER &..�DEORATE \ BUFFER SETBACK \4 i. 14,26t191 ft 111149 sq.k) 1 134 O�"L B PONO SlpRM GAS � i. 12/26/12 NOTES: 1. AREAS AS SHOWN DO NOT INCLUDE WETLANDS. 2. STREET EASEMENT WIDTH AS SHOWN IS 15 FEET DUE TO 50 FEET R/W. 3. BUILDING PADS AS SHOWN ARE 60'X60' -7 4 Tat I %7 sq.ft. I I 11.595 sq.ft. ." \ \ \� �. /�, I f • • 8 I I Jam`- tf 1 11.3 0ssq.k. ' G GAR. __' • j / �/ , 1 r \SARV j oR�� OUTLOT A \ / LAcres 3} of a55' q � - / / / \ Non -Wetland Area \ �t /JcJ�' �.� \ \ ..•� �q� 11 CI 'A g !1211110 \�V c� �V i i 1 # o f r P. L; 0 100 S IN FEET WETLAND IMPACTS TOTAL = 6100 sq. ft = 0.14 ocres STORM P PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE 15 -LOT CONCEPT PLAN TOTAL SITE AREA = 13.23 ACRES 12/28/12 NOTES: 1. AREAS AS SHOWN DO NOT INCLUDE WETLANDS. 2. STREET EASEMENT WIDTH AS SHOWN IS 15 FEET DUE TO 50 FEET R/W. 3. BUILDING PADS AS SHOWN ARE 60'%60' 10w IN FEET WETLAND IMPACTS PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE 12/28/12 TOTAL = 6100 sq. It = 0.14 acres NOTES: 15 -LOT CONCEPT PLAN 1. AREAS AS SHOWN DO NOT INCLUDE WETLANDS. 2. STREET EASEMENT WIDTH AS SHOWN IS 15 FEET DUE TO 50 FEET R/W. TOTAL SITE AREA = 13.23 ACRES 3. BUILDING PADS AS SHOWN ARE 60'X60' y. T � s rr � �7 r i _ , r41 7 soft. I I 11.595 sq.ft. o kl��0 • �- r. _ / � -1 8_ i ♦ �v'/. i,/ �' / 12.887 sq.ft/n\ 1I II _a 10 �� �. \ A.� • / / \ \ 15.914 bq. • 7 o / / / A ♦ �, cPt GAR. _ * 1 y�/ m L V Q' • / \�\ \ \ s°° \ p m - _ �" i um�,v castMtr+ /3,Q9 \. 9 soOUTLOT A ft. / / 1 • u _ / 1.3t Acres of 5 \� J / ss R I / Non—Wetland Areo J OUTLOT C TO CRE .. �/ �� ^C\\\ rad ae/� / j /� a\\\� •a �� / <�A a" i12�I 11 � 600 So WETEPA FLL 12,286sq.ft \\ ay.ft. " \ 2000 SF WEILAND FILL ATECOLIATE 1 \ \4 �\� \� / \�\ �c p,,�.� z \ �\ I BUFFER& 14,134 * sq -ft. 11,149 a� �:� C\ \ GAR II III. _.__'GNt \ �.•� � / /// LV � 5 I 5 \ . a SjpRM _ OW G d�- • m _ O 100 a -''s!,' IN FEET i\1� lsy �lQ. i Ir 00 50 0 100 Feet LI 1�w�'IR 15 r J4 *t' C t10',.V F 4r / I In d I j k / * .�.�� Legend T*R Buildable Area Encroachments Wetlands_Tigua Wetland Buffer & Setbacks Type ----- Buffer — Setback 40 Knoblauch 17 Lot Concept Layer NOW — Edge of Bit — BLDGPADS B/C — D&U Easements — Plat — — Setbacks + — Pond — Trail MY Of �Fra��e � se�-I�aLK c: L Legend t •I. ~--- Tigua IntermittentStream v: ry Tigua_Manage1 Tigua Manage2'? '- •I `. n �:` • z l Tigua_Manage3 e -. Ype Buffer 4 L 6 r' a.. Setback 44 5� K t' "!s.i � _ i .,ti ++ a '�. - a` a � yY, ~' ` �+4'. t �. _ • , i r � } j�1r I'i+. "r . .- s 1 e I � OX, �- - - to v<.:' -.tea sal ':avr 'tx �T,� s.•. y..y ..-' vs.P- r -- ;F !()D Feel 41h, W .:4" V\ r I yyO I w • a---..1' V i f•%4.k lie AC>w if TY Preserve 15 Lot Concept — BLDG PADS Wetland Buffer & Setback, — BACKofCURB Type PLAT ----- Buffer - -EASEMENT — Setback — LOT LINES Wetlands_Tigua SETBACKS Buildable -Area SAN SEWER N —STORM POND TRAIL W' E affOF WETLAND IMPACT y# V\ r I yyO I w • a---..1' V i f•%4.k lie AC>w if TY Preserve 15 Lot Concept — BLDG PADS Wetland Buffer & Setback, — BACKofCURB Type PLAT ----- Buffer - -EASEMENT — Setback — LOT LINES Wetlands_Tigua SETBACKS Buildable -Area SAN SEWER N —STORM POND TRAIL W' E affOF WETLAND IMPACT