The URL can be used to link to this page

03-04-25 PC Agenda and Packet A.6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS B.1 Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment for PID 25-4070020, generally located at 6651 Galpin Blvd (Planning Case #25-03) B.2 Consider Preliminary Plat with Variance to cul-de-sac length and Wetland Alteration Permit for Pleasant View Pointe (Project 25-02). C.GENERAL BUSINESS D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 18, 2025 E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS F.1 Discussion Only: Ordinance XXX: Density Bonuses Amendment G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION H.OPEN DISCUSSION I.ADJOURNMENT AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2025 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 9:00 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. 1 If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. 2 Planning Commission Item March 4, 2025 Item Consider Comprehensive Plan Amendment for PID 25-4070020, generally located at 6651 Galpin Blvd (Planning Case #25-03) File No.Planning Case #25-03 Item No: B.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Eric Maass, Community Development Director Applicant Steven Buresh and Wendy Buresh, Buresh Living Trust Present Zoning Rural Residential District (RR) Land Use Residential Large Lot Acerage 2.5 Acres Density Current density of 1.11 net units/acre Applicable Regulations The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving Comprehensive Plan amendments because the city is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. SUGGESTED ACTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve amending the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential - Large Lot to Residential - Low Density for PID 25-4070020, generally located at 6651 Galpin Boulevard. SUMMARY Requesting to reguide the property from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density. The catalyst for the land use map amendment is the addition of sewer and water service access. Section 2.13.2 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan discusses the possible extension of urban services to properties serviced by on-site sewage disposal systems. In these instances, it is the city’s policy to review land use and zoning changes on an area-wide basis. 3 BACKGROUND This property is located in the Lake Lucy Highlands development which was platted in 1986. This large-lot subdivision is a part of many similar developments that occurred right before the city placed restrictions on the development of properties at a minimum density of one unit per ten-acre development density. Since the 2020 Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent comprehensive plan updates the subject property and adjacent properties east of Galpin Blvd have been and continue to be assigned as Residential Large Lot. Properties on all four sides of the Lake Lucy Highlands plat are guided Residential Low Density. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment reguiding the subject property from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report 2040 Future Land Use - Current Designations 2040 Future Land Use - Proposed Designations 25-03 Affidavit of Mailing Affidavit of Publication 2025-03 4 Application: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Planning Case #2025-03) Staff Report Date: February 25, 2025 Drafted By: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Planning Commission Review Date: March 4, 2025 City Council Review Date: March 24, 2025 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to facilitate future rezoning and subdivision. LOCATION: 6651 Galpin Boulevard, Excelsior MN 55331 PID: 254070020 APPLICANT/OWNER: Steve Buresh & Wendy Lam Buresh PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential, RR 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Large Lot ACREAGE: 2.50 acres CURRENT DENSITY: 1.11 net units/acre LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve amending the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map from Residential - Large Lot to Residential - Low Density for PID 25-4070020, generally located at 6651 Galpin Boulevard.” 5 Page 2 of 5 The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendments because the city is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving Comprehensive Plan amendments because the city is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. Amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan are at times required to be reviewed and commented on by adjacent adjoining jurisdictions. This adjacent review can be waived if the proposed amendment involves less than 40 acres, does not change a communities growth forecasts or Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) allocations; and is either more than ¼ mile from an adjacent jurisdiction or beyond the distance the communities adopted ordinances require notice to adjacent or affected property owners, whichever distance is less. Staff has conferred with the City’s sector representative to the Metropolitan Council and the city has received a waiver of jurisdictional notice due to meeting the requirements as established by the Metropolitan Council. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The Applicant is requesting a land use map amendment from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Low Density. BACKGROUND This property is located in the Lake Lucy Highlands development which was platted in 1986. This large-lot subdivision is a part of many similar developments that occurred right before the implementation of the current one unit per ten-acre limit came into effect. In the 2020 Comprehensive Plan update and subsequent comprehensive plan updates, the subject property and adjacent properties east of Galpin Blvd have been and continue to be assigned as Residential Large Lot. Properties on all four sides of the Lake Lucy Highlands plat are guided Residential Low Density. EXISTING CONDITIONS On the east end of the property there is a wetland that flows through the natural vegetation areas within Lake Lucy Highlands. This wetland has not been delineated but is included in the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Further delineation will be required if the property owner applies for the subdivision of the lot. Based on current staff estimation 0.78 acres are considered undevelopable due to the wetland, wetland buffer, and the required setbacks. This property is heavily wooded, approximately 1.6 acres of the 2.5 total acres is forest that interconnects with surrounding properties to form a natural passageway to Lake Lucy and the 6 Page 3 of 5 Lake Ann Park Preserve. The wooded area of this property provides a protective natural buffer for the wetland. The city believes this is an integral chain of natural resources therefore requires its protection from development through the city code section 18-61(d). These existing conditions result in approximately 1.6 acres of the 2.5 total acres being undevelopable. If the applicant decides to pursue a subdivision to create an additional lot, the net density based on developable land will be approximately 2.22 dwelling units an acre, this is within the requirements of the Residential Low-Density future land use which is 1.2-4 units per acre. ANALYSIS The catalyst for the land use map amendment is the addition of sewer and water service access. Section 2.13.2 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan discusses the possible extension of urban services to properties serviced by on-site sewage disposal systems. In these instances, it is the city’s policy to review land use and zoning changes on an area-wide basis. The existing zoning of the property, Rural Residential District, RR, is consistent with the current land use designation of the property, Residential - Large Lot. Should the city approve the land use amendment to Residential – Low Density, the comprehensive plan allows less intensive land uses to remain in place. However, any approval by the city for subsequent development of the property must be consistent with the comprehensive plan and would need to meet the regulations in the city’s zoning and subdivision ordinance. The proposed land use map amendment would permit the further subdivision of the property into two lots. The property owners would like to sell their current house and build a retirement- friendly home on the new lot they would create on the south half of the property. MUNICIPAL SERVICES – SANITARY SEWER & WATER The home on this property is currently serviced by well and septic, but the property has two sanitary sewer and water stubs for the connection of the current home and a new home on the South end of the property. These service stubs were added during the reconstruction of Galpin Boulevard in the summer of 2024. The watermain predates the Galpin road project, however it is located on the west side of the road and service lines didn’t span across the road for the properties to access, with the reconstruction these extensions were added. The City of Chanhassen engineering department evaluated with the planning department ahead of this reconstruction the potential possibility of additional homes along this span of Galpin Boulevard. The planning department and engineering department concluded that it was a possibility and therefore the stubs were added to the scope of the project. The following properties currently have two sets of utility stubs: 6621 Galpin Blvd, 6651 Galpin Blvd, 6681 Galpin Blvd, and 6691 Galpin Blvd. 7 Page 4 of 5 This additional scope to the road project ensures the newly constructed Galpin Boulevard will not be torn through in the future for additional stubs, thus maintaining the longevity of the road, free of issue road patches pose. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION This grouping of properties with the land use designation of residential - large lot are all within the Lake Lucy Highlands plat. This plat consists of 19 lots and one outlot with the land use designation of parks – open space. Outside of the Lake Lucy Highlands plat the surrounding properties are residential – low density land use with some interspersed parks – open space land use. LAND USE ZONING CONSISTENCY The following zoning districts are consistent with Residential – Large Lot land use: • Agricultural Estate District, A-2; and • Rural Residential District, RR. The following zoning districts are consistent with Residential - Low Density land use: • Single-Family Residential District, RSF; • Mixed Low Density Residential District, R-4; • Residential Low and Medium Density Residential District, RLM; and • Planned Unit Development – Residential, PUD-R. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES The proposed amendment from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Low density assists in the furtherance of the following land use goals and policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. • The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. • Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. • Support low-density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in such a manner as to maintain the aesthetics of existing single-family areas, and to create new neighborhoods of similar character and quality. • Designate sufficient land to provide for a wide spectrum of housing. The proposed amendment assists in the furtherance of the following housing goals and policies of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. • A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life-cycle. 8 Page 5 of 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the land use map amendment from Residential – Large Lot to Residential – Low Density for PID 25-4070020, generally located at 6651 Galpin Boulevard. APPLICATION REVIEW STAFF COMMENTS None at this time. 9 Chanhassen, MetroGIS, Carver, Hennepin Legend Parcels Landuse 2040 Residential Large Lot Residential Low Density Parks / Open Space 2040 Future Land Use - Current Designations February 24, 2025 ± 1 in = 263 Ft 10 Chanhassen, MetroGIS, Carver, Hennepin Legend Parcels Landuse 2040 Residential Large Lot Residential Low Density Parks / Open Space 2040 Future Land Use - Current Designations February 24, 2025 ± 1 in = 263 Ft 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COLTNTYOFCARVER ) I, Jenny Potter, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 20,,2025, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice consider request for a comprehensive plan amendment at 6651 Galpin Boulevard. Owner/Applicant: Buresh Living Trust to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A"' by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereonl that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota. and by other appropriate records. Jenny , City Clerk Subscribed and swom to before me ,61, Z I day A^ C of R brva..n ,2025 (t 7flA-+---t AMY K. WEIDMAN Notary Public-MinnesotaNotary Public Elpiros Jen 31, 2027 12 Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. «Tax_name» «Tax_add_l1» «Tax_add_l2» Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. «Next Record»«Tax_name» «Tax_add_l1» «Tax_add_l2» Subject Parcel Subject Parcel 13 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Date & Time: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 6:00 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. Proposal: Consider request for a comprehensive plan amendment at 6651 Galpin Boulevard Applicant: Buresh Living Trust Property Location: 6651 Galpin Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: 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: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans for the project. 3. Planning Commission discusses the proposal. 4. Public hearing is opened taking comments from the public. 5. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission continues discussion on the project prior to voting on the project. Questions & Comments: To view project information before the meeting, please visit the city’s proposed development webpage: www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe Date & Time: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 6:00 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. Proposal: Consider request for a comprehensive plan amendment at 6651 Galpin Boulevard Applicant: Buresh Living Trust Property Location: 6651 Galpin Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: 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: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans for the project. 3. Planning Commission discusses the proposal. 4. Public hearing is opened taking comments from the public. 5. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission continues discussion on the project prior to voting on the project. Questions & Comments: To view project information before the meeting, please visit the city’s proposed development webpage: www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe 14 Tax name Tax add l1 Tax add l2 AARON J ALDRICH 2070 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4578 ALAN KEITH PETERSON 1831 LAKE LUCY LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-6504 BENJAMIN NYE 6451 FOX DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- BRANDON MELZ 1900 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-6505 BRECK O & MARLIESE JOHNSON 6621 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8022 BRIAN CONNELLY 2021 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4577 BRIAN J COHEN 2060 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4578 BRIAN K SCHIMKE AND JOAN O SCHIMKE TRUST 2040 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- BURESH LIVING TRUST 6651 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331- CHARLES & VICKI SHERMAN HICKS REV TRUSTS 1941 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8006 CHRISTIAN P & ELIZABETH PREUS 1851 LAKE LUCY LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-6504 DORIS L NIKOLAI TRUST PO BOX 1461 SHERWOOD, OR 97140-1461 ERIC NELSON 2030 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- ERIC W & GRETCHEN G LOPER 2076 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-6704 GARY BARRETT 2020 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- GUANG YE 2051 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- JARED MOHR 2021 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- JASON A HEMP 2031 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- JENNA BENTLEY 6699 MANCHESTER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- JOHN M PRICE 1961 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8006 JON PETERS 2050 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- JOSHUA KARLGAARD 821 SMITHTOWN TER EXCELSIOR, MN 55331- KIRK AND CAMILLE SWANSON REV TRUSTS 1811 LAKE LUCY LN EXCELSIOR, MN 55331- KREG Z & LISA J LEVINE 1850 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9078 MARK A & MICHELE K METTERT 2028 HIGHGATE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-6704 MARY TRIPPLER 1931 CRESTVIEW CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8006 MATTHEW D RIPLEY 6691 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331- MICHAEL J REMUCAL 2061 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4578 PAUL S TUNGSETH 2051 CRESTVIEW DR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-8008 RENO LINDELL 10085 COTTONWOOD LN N MAPLE GROVE, MN 55369-3349 ROLAND UGARTE JR & TAYLOR UGARTE 2051 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- SCOTT D & SONYA B SCHROEDER 2081 PINEHURST DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4578 15 YANIRA E BHATIA 2041 EDGEWOOD CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-4577 16 AFFIDAVN OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MTNNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLlC HEARING PLANNING cAsE NO.202$03 NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commis- sion will hold a public hoaring on Tue.sday, March 4, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a requast for a compre. hensive plan amendment at 6651 Galpin Boulevad. Owner/Appli- cant: Buresh Living Trust Project documents for this request are available for public rcview on the city's w6bsit6 at www.chanhassenmn.gov/ oroooseddevelopments or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and expr€ss their opinions with r$poct to this proposal. Rachel Arsenauh Associate Planner Email: rarsenault@chanhassen mn.gov Phone'. 952-227-'1132 Published in the Sun Sailor February 20,2025 1451773 ss I do solemly $wear that the notice, as per the prooi was published in the edition of the SS Mtka-Excelsior-Eden Prairie with the known offrce of issue being located in the county of: HENNEPIN with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of ttre facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. $331A.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for I successive week(s); the first insertion being on 0A2012025 and the last insertion being on 0212012025. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICE.S Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. $580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in $580.033, subd. 1, clause (l) or (2). If the newspaper's known ollice of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the circulation is in the Agent Subscribed and sworn to or afftrmed before me o10212012025 Aoo Notary Public Rate lnformation: (l) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $999.99 per column inch By: t/N Ad ID 1451773 Darlene tyiarie MacPherson PublicNiotary Minnesota Jan.31,2M 17 Planning Commission Item March 4, 2025 Item Consider Preliminary Plat with Variance to cul-de-sac length and Wetland Alteration Permit for Pleasant View Pointe (Project 25-02). File No.Planning Case 25-02 Item No: B.2 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Applicant Rachel Development, Inc. Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF) Land Use Residential Low Density Acerage 13.65 Acres Density 1.4 Units/Acre Applicable Regulations Chapter 18, Subdivision, Chapter 20, Article XXII, RSF Single-Family Residential District SUGGESTED ACTION Recommend approval of the requested preliminary plat with variance for cul-de-sac length, and wetland alteration permit for the proposed Pleasant View Pointe plat subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. SUMMARY The Applicant is proposing the subdivision of 13.65 acres of properties, zoned Single-Family Residential and guided for Low-Density Residential into nineteen lots and one outlot. 18 BACKGROUND The properties are divided into three prior plats: Vineland, Vineland Forest, and Troendle Addition. First is the historical Vineland plat in 1887; due to the age of this plat the roads do not match currently existing roads, nor do the street names. The scale of the area it once included is unknown due to the missing measurement units. Four of the parcels included in this subdivision and the water tower parcel next door have not been replatted since this plat. The next plat is the Vineland Forest platted in 1990. There is only one parcel in the proposed new subdivision that is from this plat and it has since gone through a lot line adjustment and lot combination in 1996. The final plat Troendle was platted in 1991; one parcel in the new proposed subdivision is included in this previous plat as an outlot. As a condition of the Troendle plat approval the developer was required to create a temporary cul-de-sac with a sign affixed at the end notifying residents of the future extension of Nez Perce. Additionally, the developer was required to place a notice on each lot’s chain of title that Nez Perce will be ultimately extended as a through street to Pleasant View. These conditions were due to the fact the plat included a dead-ending cul-de-sac 1,400 feet long. The requirements at the time of approval were vague, stating the maximum length of a dead end shall be determined as a function of the expected development density along the street, thus resulting in the conditions of approval. DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the approval of the requested preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit, and variance, for the subdivision on Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” ATTACHMENTS Pleasant View Pointe Application Pleasant View Pointe - Pre-Plat Narrative Preliminary Plat Plan Set Staff Report - All Departments Findings of Fact Pleasant View Pointe public comment via email 25-02 Affidavit of Mailing Affidavit of Publication 2025-02 19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227 -1100 I F ax.. (952) 227-1110 *ffrror APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Dale \L-ZO.Z'I PC Date y L\ -L5 ""Date: L- v -15 60-Day Review Datel Z'W 15 (Refer to the apprc.piate Awlicalion Check st fot requted submiftal information that must accompany this application) ! Comprehensive Plan Amendment....... . . .. . ... . $7OO E Subdivision (SUB) ! condirionaruse permit(cup) E ;i:l:J::r::[l'- ....... .. .. .! Single-Family Residence . ... .. ................... $400 E I,otn".. $60' = X;:::,flNTJ:'(.] "I.] E lnterim use permit (tup) E Administrative subd. (Line Adjustment) E ln conjunction with single-Family Residence.. $4oo ! rinal Plat " "'"'"' E All others. ... ............. ........ $600 g vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (vAC) n Rezoning (REz) (Additional recording fees mav applv) E Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 E Variance (VAR).................. n Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $1 OO n All Others...... ...................... $60o E Wetland Alteration Permit (wAP) E Single-Family Residence....................... E Sign Plan Review.................. . . . . .... ............. $150 E A[ Otners...... E Site Plan Review (SPR) ! Appeal of Administrative Decision...............E Administrative .. .. .............. $1OO E Residentiaucommercial/lndustrial Districts.. $750-- n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)......... NqIE: When multiple applications are processed concuftenuy, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application E Notificatlon Sign (ciryto insrart and remove). .... E Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)........... fl Conditional Use Permit - $50 E lnterim Use Permit - $50 f] Wetland Alteration Permit - $50 [ Easements (_ easements) - $85 ! Variance - $50 ! Metes & Bounds Sub (2 deeds) - $250 . $500 $12s0 $300 $150 . s1s0 $700- $300 $200 $150 $275 $200 $500 $200 .... $ per document E Site Ptan Agreement - $85 E Vacation - $85 n Deeds - $100 TOTAL FEE: "lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs. '"Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Description of proposat: Proposing a RSF compliant neighborhood/ development plan for 'lg homesites 955, 1015 Pleasant View Ave and 6535 Peaceful I Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) Section 2: Required lnformation Property Address or Location Parcel #; 13.25Total Acreage: Present Zoning RSF Legal Description PID's 258700063, 258700062, 258690130, 258710190 Wetlands Present?EYesENo Requested Zoning Low Density Res Low Density Besidential RSF Vacant and Sinqle Familv B Check box if separate narrative is attached Present Land Use Designation:Requested Land Use Designation: Existing Use of Property: 20 Property Owner and Applicant lnformationSection 3 APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as appticant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions oi approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been slgnej by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to fite the application. This appliiation ' should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. lwill keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progiess of ttris applic;tion. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibjlity studies, eic. with an esiimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name Rachel Developmenl, lnc Contact. Paul Bobinson Address: 4'180 Napier Court NE Phone 763.488.9650 City/Stateizip St, Mi ce 612.791.7080 Email Probin racheld nt.com Fax Signature Date. 12t10t2024 PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, !, as property owner, hav€ full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that ;dditional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with thestudy. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name. Beddor Enterprises, LLP Contact P hon e: Steve Beddor Address: 12555 Salem Ave Norwood Young America, I\,4N 55368 Cell: Fax. Date 6ta 3.jq 6J70 Er-air. steve@beddor Signature e-0-2 This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer io the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Depa(ment to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if aoplicable) 1rr" Alliant Engineering, lnc.Contact Phone: Mark Rausch Address: 733 lvlarquette Ave, Suite 700 763.213.9775 City/State/Zip Minneapolis, MN 55402 Cell FaxEmail. mrausch@alliant-inc.com Who should receive copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnformation : EEEE Property Applicant Engineer Othert Owner Email steve@beddor.com Name Emai I e'obnen@r&ierd*€brn6' 60 Address Email m6ueh.ca ,Enr-m mn city/state/zip Email:Email dr,.d'@h@,&h€'de.befr 6d @m INSJRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then selectSAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. suBMtT FoRM to send'a digital copy to the city for processing. Section 4: Notification lnformataon city/state/zip: 21 4180 Napier Ct NE Michael, MN 55376 Office: 763.424.1500 www.racheldevelopment.com Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat Narrative To: City of Chanhassen From: Rachel Development, Paul Robinson – Development Director Date: 12/20/2024 A. Submittal Documents 1. Narrative 2. Pre-Plat Plan Set 3. Site Plan Rendering 4. Easement Vacation Exhibit 5. Storm Wa ter Management Plan 6. ALTA Survey B. Applicant and Consultants 1. Developer – Rachel Development, Paul Robinson, Development Director 2. Builder – Charles Cudd Co., Rick Denman, Charles Cudd, Matt Olson 3. Civil Engineer(s) – Alliant Engineering - Tyler Stricherz, Mark Rausch 4. Survey – Alliant Engineering - Dan Ekrem 5. Wetland Consultant – Kjolhaug Engineering, Melissa Barrett 6. Attorneys – Larkin Hoffman, Peter Coyle, Ryan Boe C. Site Basics • Land Use Plan Guiding – Low Density Residential – 1 - 4 units/acre • Zoning – RSF • Development Acres – 14.046 • Owner – Beddor Enterprises, LP • PID’s: 258700063, 258690130, 258710190, 258700060, and 258700062. 22 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 2 2 D. Introduction On October 14th at the City Council work session, we presented the City Council with a concept plan for developing the Beddor property at 955,1015 Pleasant View Rd. There were two items in particular that we were seeking guidance on as a part of that review. Item one was if we should extend Nez Perce to connect to the Troendle Addition and item two was how, if at all, we should provide an alternative access point to the water tower. After some discussion, the general Council direction was to not connect Nez Perce to the Troendle neighborhood and that staff was going to review the need for an alternative water tower access. Our Concept Plan continues to comply with or exceed the requirements of the RSF zoning district. That said, one variance is required for cul-de-sac length. This comes from listening to the desires of 23 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 3 3 the adjacent neighbors at the neighborhood meeting and from subsequent City Council direction to not connect Nez Perce Drive. This is addressed in greater detail below. E. Site Characteristics 1. Woodlands We have completed a tree survey and inventory. There are 777 trees that qualifled as signiflcant for the survey. The City enforces tree preservation by evaluating the percentage of tree canopy being removed. The tree preservation plan, inventory and calculations are included on pages 14-18 of the preliminary plat submittal. Based on the City canopy preservation calculations we will be required to plant 91 trees, shown on our landscaping plan, to offset the project impact to the existing canopy. As we mentioned in our concept plan, we did try to keep the majority of trees that boarder the property and we are preserving the two endangered White Walnut (Butternut) trees shown on our survey on Lot 1, Block1 of the Preliminary Plat. 2. Topography The high point on the property is 1046 on the south end of the site near the water tower and the lowest point is 993 in the north pond area. The majority of the southern property generally fiows to the north and to the existing pond offsite to the west, with smaller site areas fiowing offsite to the east and south. Overall, there is around 50 ~ feet of topographical change across the property depending on existing pond depth. Post development the drainage patterns will be similar, however, more area will be captured and routed to a new stormwater management system and areas currently discharging offsite to the west, south and east will be reduced. 24 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 4 4 3. Wetlands There was much conversation between us and the Technical Advisory Panel (TEP) regarding the status of Pond 1. We felt that there was enough evidence of previous impacts and City approvals to call the pond a pond versus a wetland. In large part that was due to a grading permit issued by the City of Chanhassen on September 4, 1992 which authorized the construction of a new pond (Pond 1 currently on the Beddor property). This permit approved fllling an existing pond on the property and expanding and reconflguring the approved Troendle addition pond. The new pond met the NURP standards for storm water treatment for Troendle Addition but also expanded the ponding area to accommodate future roadway work and additional future development of the Beddor property. Without getting lost in the technical arguments the TEP believed that based on historical aerial photo reviews, not the grading plan approved in 1992, that a portion of the existing pond is historic wetland. At the time we are writing this narrative we have not yet received the formal Notice of Decision from the TEP. What we have heard is that the TEP was comfortable recommending that Wetland 1 and the Historic portion of Pond 1 as shown in our plans be considered wetlands in the Notice of Decision so this is what is included as wetlands in the Preliminary Plat Plan Set and calculations. 4. In our concept narrative we noted that we would be requesting a wetland alteration permit for wetland #1. We are now also expanding that request to include the area now shown as historic remnant wetland within existing Pond 1. We are submitting a wetland alteration permit/replacement plan concurrent with our preliminary plat application. 25 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 5 5 F. Plan Details • Lots – 19 • Lot Sizes o North Portion 32,745 – 64,625 sf – averaging 42,830 sf o Southern Portion 18,123 – 42,541 sf – averaging 22,746 sf • The set-backs used for the lots follow the required setback of the RSF and are shown on the site plan – see page 5 of the preliminary plat plan set. 1. Roadways • Nez Perce – As mentioned in the introduction the preliminary plat does not include a Nez Perce connection to the Troendle neighborhood. A number of neighbors at the neighborhood meeting mentioned not wanting the connection for fear of cut through traffic and that changing the exiting traffic pattern which has been in place for over 30 years did not seem necessary. A neighborhood representative also explained the neighborhood’s desires during the concept review with the City Council. The exhibit shown on the next page and a sperate plan provided with the submittal illustrates how a portion of the existing Nez Perce Drive right of way (ROW) will be vacated and a portion of the Nez Perce ROW will be retained. Within the New Perce ROW being retained, the existing roadway will be removed and replaced with a trail. Connected and adjacent to the portion of the Nez Perce ROW being retained is an Outlot A. This Outlot will be dedicated to the City and is 50’ wide to match the width of the ROW. A trail connection to the Troendle Addition will be included within Outlot A and the unvacated portion of Nez Perce. Additionally, the Outlot/ROW corridor will be used for utility connections, portions of driveways accessing homesites within Pleasant View Pointe and could also serve as a roadway connection in the future if there ever was a need for such a connection. 26 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 6 6 With the removal of the Nez Perce Drive connection Peaceful Lane will now continue south terminating in a cul-de-sac. While the ROW width has historically been 50’ in this area, the ROW width will be 60’ and roadway 31’ wide consistent with current City standards. No sidewalk is proposed which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. • Redman Lane/Peaceful Lane - A portion of peaceful land(AKA Redman Lane) which extends to the water tower was previously approved to be vacated by the City. It appears that vacation may never have been recorded. We are working with our title company to determine the official status and will either vacate Redman Lane or incorporate it into our plat as needed. 2. Easements and Vacations With our Preliminary Plat there will be a number of vacations needed to move and relocate roadways and other various easements beyond those described above. These are shown below on the following page and also on a separate exhibit provided with the submittal. 27 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 7 7 3. Variance Request With the changes described above to Nez Perce the length of cul-de-sac for Peaceful Lane will now be roughly 1,040’ long, exceeding the city standard of 750’. During concept review, it appeared that the Council and Staff would accept this variance and understood that it was a necessity if Nez Perce Drive was not connected. There was also discussion about other similar precedents within the City. A couple examples include: Della Drive at the Bluffs at Lake Lucy 1,350’ cul-de-sac approved in 2020, Gunfiint Trail 1,210’ in Highcrest Meadows approve in 2005, and Preserve Court 1,230’ in Preserve at Rice Creek approved in 2015 to name a couple. 28 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 8 8 4. Traffic Comments received from residents who participated at the neighborhood meeting are attached as an exhibit. a. Lake Lucy Road - There were a number of residents living along Lake Lucy Road, in particular, that were concerned about increased traffic creating further dangerous conditions on Lake Lucy Road. It appears to us that not connecting Nez Perce should help ameliorate those concerns. b. Peaceful Lane/Pleasant View Road – Similarly a resident on Peaceful Lane and on Pleasant View Road expressed concerns about traffic onto Pleasant View Road and asked that a direct connection to Powers Blvd should be considered. Adding an additional intersection onto Power Road (County Road 17) does not seem practical or likely to be approved by the City or County vs using Pleasant View Road which is already classifled by the City as a collector roadway. 5. Storm Water The proposed stormwater management plan will modify and enlarge the existing pond. The storm sewer inlet from Troendle additional will remain (alignment will be modifled) and proposed pond outlet will be installed in the same location as the existing pond storm sewer outlet. Currently the pond is sized to handle the wet volume NURP storage for the onsite drainage area as well as for the portion of the Troendle addition already draining to the pond. In addition to the NURP treatment there is a flltration bench that will treat the required watershed water quality volume of 1” over the proposed impervious surfaces. The flltration bench will include an underdrain/fllter submersed within a specially designed soil mix. As a part of the revised storm pond and storm water treatment system we will need to vacate a portion of the City’s previous drainage and utility easement . It will be reconflgured to coincide with the new treatment system. Additionally, we will be looking at if and how the pond could be expanded in the future to help provide additional storm water treatment from Pleasant View Road in the future when that roadway is reconstructed. The image on the next page shows and how the D & U is being modifled and expanded from 1.28 acres to 1.81 acres to accommodate additional area and work with the development plans. 29 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 9 9 6. Utilities Pleasant View Pointe will be served by existing sanitary sewer and watermain adjacent to the site. Sanitary sewer will be connected to existing sewer within Peaceful Lane with the addition of a new manhole and new trunk sewer extending south within the proposed cul-de-sac to service proposed lots 4-5, block 1 and lots 1-13, block 2. Proposed lots 1-3, block 1 will have right of way frontage along Pleasant View Lane and will make use existing sewer services previously installed. Proposed lot 6, block 1 will make use of the existing sewer service provided to the lot from Nez Perce Drive. Trunk watermain will be installed, extending an existing watermain within Nez Perce Drive west to the proposed cul-de-sac connecting to the existing watermain within Peaceful Lane. Proposed lots, 4-5, block 1 and lots 1-13, block 2 will connect to new watermain services on a new trunk watermain. Proposed lots 1-3, block 1 will use the existing services provided from Pleasant View Lane watermain and lot 6, block 1 will use the existing water service provided from Nez Perce Drive. There are existing sanitary sewer and watermain and services along the west property boundary in Redmen Lane ROW. These utilities will not be connected to and will be abandoned for those sections not currently servicing an existing resident. Sanitary sewer and water service will remain for those utilities currently providing service to the existing homes along Peaceful Lane. 30 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 10 10 7. Builder As mentioned above we are working with Charles Cudd Co. on this neighborhood. Below are some examples of the types homes that could be built in this neighborhood. 8. Outlots In the concept plan there were two Outlots, however, the proposed plan only has one, Outlot A. As described above, this outlot is for the connection between Pleasant View Pointe and 31 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 11 11 Troendle for a trail, utility connections, driveways and possible a roadway if ever needed in the future. The second Outlot which was shown in the concept plan but is not included in the Preliminary Plat was to provide a secondary connection to the water tower. Staff reviewed the need for this connection after concept review and asked us not to include it in the preliminary plat. This was also an item that a number of the Lake Lucy road residents had objected to at the neighborhood meeting. G. Neighborhood Meeting As mentioned, several times in this narrative, on July 31 we held a neighborhood meeting on the Pleasant View Pointe development plans. Approximately 30 people came to the meeting. We gave a presentation and answered a number of questions. I summarized many of the questions in the narrative we provided for the concept review. Attached is an exhibit with the same summary provided with the concept review. H. Closing We are looking forward to discussing our development plans with you. Please let us know if there is any additional information you would like to help inform your review. 32 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 12 12 Exhibit A – Developer Comment Summary from the July 31, 2024 Neighborhood Meeting 1. Traffic Concerns - Concerns about traffic in general and construction traffic are combined. There were slightly differing concerns about traffic during construction and traffic overall. a. Residents on Peaceful Lane – NOTE: There are only two residences on Peaceful Lane. The owners of one of the residences were in attendance and were concerned about the Nez Perce connection to Peaceful Lane and the traffic that they would now be experiencing. They would prefer no connection to Peaceful Lane. The Peaceful Lane resident liked the idea from the Pleasant View resident(s) that there should be a connection to Powers or that the development use Nez Perce going south without a connection to Peaceful Lane. Concerned if a connection was made to Peaceful that the roadway could not handle the wear and tear. Also, concerned that the intersection of Peaceful and Pleasant view is dangerous and cannot handle the additional traffic safely. b. Residents on Pleasant View – There were not a lot of residents in attendance from Pleasant View. Those there did not think there should be any connection to Pleasant View but that the development should connect directly to Powers instead. There was some mention of a promise made by the City Council to not connect to Pleasant View and of actions made by Frank Beddor to make a connection to Pleasant View more difficult. (NOTE: Pleasant View is considered a minor collector in the City/County roadway system) c. Residents on Nez Perce and Troendle Circle – In general concern about cut through traffic. Residents do not see the beneflt or need to connect Nez Perce. They think that all would be better off without this connection. Less traffic potential for those on Nez Perce and for those on Pleasant View and Peaceful Lane. They said they would support the project if Nez Perce was turned into a cul-de- sac/hammerhead with no through connection to Nez Perce. d. Residents on Lake Lucy Rd – In general residents on Lake Lucy Road have concerns about the amount and speed of traffic on their roadway. Concerns about safety and that connecting the development to Nez Perce will create more traffic and a potential cut through for traffic after construction and create a route for construction traffic during construction. 2. Stormwater Drainage into Lot 13 – The owner of the home adjacent to Lot 13 said they currently receive a lot of water from the Beddor property (and also City water tower property). There was a concern that this could get worse with development. Mark Rausch, the developers engineer, let the homeowner know that the watershed area fiowing into her property would actually be reduced and while there would still be some water it will be less 33 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 13 13 water after development than prior to development. In general, we cannot control water coming from areas not on our property. 3. Residents adjacent to Lot 11 – The residents of the two homes on Troendle Circle behind Lot 11 were concerned about how close the homes would be to their homes. They asked if there was any way that we could adjust to lots to make the distance larger. Our response was that it may not be possible we are meeting the standards of the zoning district but that we would look at additional plantings to help screen the lots from each other. 4. Water Tower Access Road – The residents along Lake Lucy Rd adjacent to, across from and near this potential access strenuously object to having this become a water tower access. They believe they were told by the City that this would never be needed or used as an access. Some residents had called and talked to the City Engineer and were told that no plans were being considered. We let residents know that this was coming from Charlie the Public Works Director and that he would be the one to contact. There is a 50’ wide outlot in this location. Another resident said he thought the adjacent neighbor was offered to buy the property from the City at one point. 5. Existing Tree Lines – Owners of homes adjacent to the Beddor property implored us to save the trees on the Beddor property adjacent to their properties. We said that it was generally in our mutual interest to do so. We said will try to save as many of the trees along the property lines as possible. 6. Storm Water a. Concern about Christmas Lake – Do not want any water quality impacts to the lake due to this development. We stated that we will be required to meet stormwater management requirements of the City and MCWD for rate, quality and volume control. 7. City Sanitary Sewer & Water a. Concerns about Water Pressure – neighbor(s) stated that they have very low water pressure (40 psi) and wanted to know how this could impact them. b. General questions about how we would connect to City sewer and water. 8. General Questions a. How will the lots along Pleasant View connect to the roadway system. We said that they would directly access Pleasant View much like the neighboring properties. b. Concern about lot sizes relative to neighborhood - We said they are the same if not larger than the neighboring lots. c. Is the existing home being torn down? – We indicated that the existing home would be torn down. 34 Pleasant View Pointe – Preliminary Plat December 20, 2024 Page 14 14 d. Would there be model homes or spec homes? – We said yes that there would likely be a spec home/model home. e. Questions about allowable work hours. We did not know exactly but said Monday – Saturday with Saturday we thought 7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. and no work on Sunday. f. Question about how long the development buildout would take. We mentioned we thought it would take about 3 years. 9. Types & Price of Homes - We said in general we saw the homes on the 15,000 sf lots being 1 ½ story to 2 story homes starting in the 1.3 million range. The large lots would be custom lots with a wider range of overall value above that. 10. Lot Layout/Density a. Size of Lots - Residents asked why the lots south of Nez Perce are smaller than the 6 proposed north of Nez Perce – explanation was provided that all lots meet current zoning and the design was created to match the existing lot sizes in each area. b. Larger or Fewer Lots/No Development – In general if the residents could waive a magic wand, they would have not development or would have fewer larger lots. We let the residents know that we are meeting/exceeding the standards of the zoning district and that we are on the very low end of what could be allowed based on the Comprehensive Plan guiding which could allow up to 4 units/ ac. 35 PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 1000' Shoreland District Boundary POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\COVER.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:16 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O N N City Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeCover Sheetwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Cover Sheet Existing Conditions Preliminary Plat Site Plan Grading & Drainage Plan Grading Profiles Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Plan Storm Sewer Plan PLAN SUBMISSION/REVISION MATRIX #SHEET DESCRIPTION 2024-12-13DEVELOPER Rachel Development 4180 Napier Court NE Saint Michael, MN 55376 Email: probinson@racheldevelopment.com Contact: Paul Robinson CONSULTANT Alliant Engineering, Inc. Marquette Avenue South, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612.758.3080 Fax: 612.758.3099 ENGINEER Tyler Stricherz License No. 61993 Email: TStricherz@alliant-inc.com SURVEYOR Dan Ekrem License No. 57366 Email: dekrem@alliant-inc.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT John Gronhovd License No. 59233 Email: jgronhovd@alliant-inc.com VICINITY MAP Scale: 1"=3000' N Pleasant View Pointe Chanhassen, Minnesota CONTACT LIST 0 SCALE IN FEET 50 100 200 1 19 1 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X PROJECT LOCATION Wetland Management Plan Pond Detail Landscape Plan Tree Preservation Plan Tree Inventory Demolition Plan # 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Erosion & Sediment Control Notes 17-18 19 Tree Plan Enlargements15-16 2 36 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 PARCEL 1 GU S83°48'28"W 147 . 0 2 N1°02'51"E 290.00PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 3 S88°06'51"E 294.35 S0°47'27"W 222.50PARCEL 4 PARCEL 5 S88°06'51"E 379.08 S0°47'27"W 716.87N74°5 8 ' 2 1 " W 1 7 0 . 8 1 R=173.13 L=36.12 Δ=11°57'12" C.Brg=N68°59'45"W R=204.48 L=117.26 Δ=32°51'21" C.Brg=S58°32'40"E S54° 5 4' 1 9" W 58.9 3 S18°02'55"W 198.74S36°38'01"W 457.20R=223.13 L=22.55 Δ=5°47'22" C.Brg=N72°04'40"W N74°5 8 ' 2 1 " W 1 7 0 . 8 1R=154. 4 8 L = 17 6.77Δ=6 5 ° 3 3'4 5"C.Br g=S4 2 ° 1 1'2 8"ES18°02'55"W 187.12S89°47'13"W 315.46 R=56 2 .5 4 L=81.1 3 Δ=8°15'4 6"C.Br g=S 8 6°0 4'5 4"E S83°48'28"W 58.88 S1°02'51"W 7.06 S84°03'53"E 14 6 . 3 8 S1°02'51"W 4.86 N87°22'17"W 140.00 S1°02'51"W 232.41R=175.00 L=44.19 Δ=14°28'08" C.Brg=S59°04'19"E C=44.07 N 5 1 ° 5 0 ' 1 6 " W 1 1 5 . 0 0 S0°47'27"W 3.06 PLEASANT VIEW RD R=175.00 L=71.23 Δ=23°19'16" C.Brg=N63°29'54"W REDMAN LANENEZ PERCE DRIVE TROENDLE CIRCLES89°47'13"W 118.22 Parcel 1 All of Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2, Block 3, "Vineland Forest", Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of a line drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 2 a distance of 53.53 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 2 to a point on the West line of said Lot 2 distant 66.00 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 2 and there terminating. Parcel 2 That part of Lots 5 and 6, “Vineland”, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East 129.57 feet; thence South 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds East 160.63 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 96.01 feet to the actual point of beginning, Carver County, Minnesota. Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, “Vineland”, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating. And That part of Lots 5 and 6, "Vineland", Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: viz: That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, "Vineland" lying Easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distant 168.62 feet Westerly along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5. Parcel 3 Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing on the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the parcel being described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Point A”); thence Easterly along the South line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for ingress and egress and utility purposes, appurtenant to and for the benefit of the above described Exception, which said easement is described as all that part of said Lot 5, Vineland, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning on the South line of said Lot 5 described above as “Point A”; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet more or less, to its intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 5 and there terminating. Also excepting from said Lot 5 that part thereof described as follows, viz: A 50.00 foot strip of land over and across Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, the centerline of said strip is described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 5; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 03 seconds East, on an assumed bearing, along the East line of Lot 5, a distance of 380.86 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence Westerly, a distance of 29.21 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the South, said curve having a radius of 198.13 feet, a central angle of 08 degrees 26 minutes 53 seconds and a chord bearing of North 71 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds West; thence North 76 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds West tangent to last described curve, a distance of 170.81 feet; thence Northwesterly, a distance of 124.92 feet, along a tangential curve concave to the Northeast, said curve having a central angle of 39 degrees 52 minutes 43 seconds and a radius of 179.48 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as “Point B”; thence continue Northwesterly and Northerly along the last described curve a distance of 124.92 feet and said centerline there terminating. Also excepting, a 50.00 foot strip of land over and across said Lot 5, Vineland, the centerline of said strip is described as follows: Beginning at the above described “Point B”; thence South 53 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance of 100.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. Parcel 4 Lot 6, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the North line of said Lot 6, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 96.01 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160.63 feet; thence North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 97.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 6; thence Easterly along the said North line of Lot 6 to the point of beginning. Excepting from said Lot 5 and said Lot 6 the following described premises: That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, “Vineland” lying Easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distance 168.62 feet Westerly along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5. And Lot 7, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part of said Lot 7 described as follows, viz: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 7, Vineland; thence North 1 degree 53 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 76.37 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane; thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes 34 seconds East along said Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane a distance of 174.79 feet; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 294.35 feet; thence South 1 degree 03 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 220.04 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 7; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds West along said Southerly line of Lot 7 a distance of 397.82 feet to the point of beginning. Together with an easement appurtenant to the foregoing Parcels 2, 3 and 4 for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the Westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating. Parcel 5 Outlot A, Troendle Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. All Abstract Property PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Sheet ofJOB NO.DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALEFIELD CREW:DATEDESCRIPTIONFIELD DATE:CLIENTDOCUMENTPROPERTY ADDRESSwww.alliant-inc.com Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 N I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Dan Ekrem___________________________________________________ Print Name ____________________________________________________________ Signature 12/19/2024 57366____________________________________________________________ Date License Number File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\ECON.dwg Plotted By: Joshua Taylor on December 19, 2024 at 7:52:19 AM Chanhassen, MN2 154000320-00RS,MS,LB7/24/2024 RACHEL DEVELOPMENTJDT1"=60'DPEEXISTING CONDITIONSSURVEY2 LEGEND HOUSE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 1.This Survey and the property description shown here on based upon information found in the commitment for title insurance prepared by DCA Title - The Title Team as agent for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company file no. DC240228, dated January 9, 2024 2.The basis of bearings is assumed. 3.All distances are in feet. 4. The locations of existing public utilities on or serving the property are depicted based on Gopher State One Call Ticket No. 241563124 & 241563143, available city maps, records and observed evidence locations. Lacking excavation, underground utility locations may not be exact. Verify critical utilities prior to construction or design. 5. Benchmark: MnDOT benchmark ROBERTQ MN053 RESET, located in Excelsior, 0.5 mile west along 2nd Street from the junction of 2nd Street (old Log Way Christmas Lake Road) and Trunk Highway 7, then 0.8 mile south on County Road 82, 30.0 feet northeast of County Road 82, 54.0 feet south of Christmas Lake, 93.2 feet southeast of a power pole, 45.5 feet northwest of a power pole, 36.5 feet south of a corner fence post, 1.3 feet southwest of a witness post and have and elevation of 978.994 FT NAVD88. NOTES 37 60193 (MAG FND) PARCEL 1 PARCEL 2 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 4 PARCEL 5 R=223.13 L=22.55 Δ=5°47'22" C.Brg=N72°04'40"WR=154. 4 8 L = 176.77Δ=6 5 °3 3'4 5"C.Br g=S4 2° 1 1'28"E PLEASANT VIEW RD R=175.00 L=71.23 Δ=23°19'16" C.Brg=N63°29'54"W REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\DEMOLITION.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:33 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 City Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeDemolition Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. NOTES: 1.PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. NO CONSTRUCTION OR FABRICATION SHALL BEGIN UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR HAS RECEIVED AND THOROUGHLY REVIEWED ALL PLANS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS APPROVED BY ALL OF THE PERMITTING AUTHORITIES. 2.CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, 800-252-1166, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE PRIVATE UTILITIES LOCATED 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES, SUCH AS EXISTING GUTTER GRADES AT THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS, PRIOR TO THE START OF SITE GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROPERLY DISPOSE OF ALL MATERIAL REMOVALS. CONTRACTOR TO SALVAGE ALL MATERIALS POSSIBLE AND COORDINATE WITH OWNER ON FINAL USE. 5.PRIOR TO EARTH DISTURBANCE, INSTALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFFSITE DURING CONSTRUCTION WORK. INSTALL SILT FENCE AND INLET PROTECTION TO AT DISTURBANCE LIMITS. 6.SEE TREE PRESERVATION SHEETS FOR TREE REMOVALS AND INDIVIDUAL TREE LOCATIONS. 7.DEVELOPER OR CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE WELL SEALING RECORDS ONCE WELL SEALING IS COMPLETE.. 8.ALL REMOVALS IN AREAS OF NO MASS GRADING SHALL INCLUDE RESTORATION OF AREA COMPLETE WITH SEEDING AND APPROPRIATE EROSION CONTROL. 9.SEE SEPARATE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR FULL SITE SURVEY. 10.SEE ALSO SEPARATE EXHIBIT(S) FOR VACATED EASEMENTS/ROW. LEGEND: 3 19 3 N 38 RLS 9018 PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E = = = = = S88°06'51"E 294.35' = S84°03'53"E 146.38'S1°02'51"W232.41'L =4 4.19' R =175.00' Δ = 14°28'08" N 5 1 ° 5 0 ' 1 6 " W 1 1 5 . 0 0 ' L=71.23' R=175.00' Δ=23°19'16" = S1°02'51"W 4.86' N87°22'17"W 140.00' =S36°38'01"W457.20'S89°47'13"W 315.46'S89°47'13"W 118.22'N1°02'51"E 290.00'S0°47'27"W 716.87'S88°06'51"E 379.08'S0°47'27"W 222.50'= = = = =S18°02'55"W 343.34'S18°02'55"W 195.82'PARCEL AREA TABLE PARCEL B1-L1 B1-L2 B1-L3 B1-L4 B1-L5 B1-L6 B2-L1 B2-L2 B2-L3 B2-L4 B2-L5 B2-L6 B2-L7 B2-L8 B2-L9 B2-L10 B2-L11 B2-L12 B2-L13 OUTLOT A PEACEFUL LANE ROW PLEASANT VIEW ROW AREA SF 39,006 32,745 35,333 64,625 46,373 38,896 18,415 19,114 19,456 19,444 20,100 24,952 23,338 18,431 42,541 28,869 23,306 18,123 19,609 9,093 49,063 1,029 AREA AC 0.90 0.75 0.81 1.48 1.06 0.89 0.42 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.57 0.54 0.42 0.98 0.66 0.54 0.42 0.45 0.21 1.13 0.02 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\PRELIMINARY PLAT.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:42 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointePreliminary Platwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 4 19 4 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE R.O.W EASEMENT LINE FOUND IRON MONUMENT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: Being 5 feet in width and adjoining lot lines and 10 feet in width and adjoining right of way lines, unless otherwise indicated on the plat. NOT TO SCALE 39 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 1000' Shoreland District Boundary POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\SITE.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:55:52 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeSite PlanTyler Stricherz www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 5 19 5 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 LEGEND: TYPICAL LOT DETAIL SITE PLAN DATA: 40 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 1000' Shoreland District Boundary POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E F WW WW W File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\GRADING.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:15 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeGrading & Drainage Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 6 19 6 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 GRADING NOTES: 1.ALL FINISHED GRADES SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM PROPOSED BUILDINGS AT MINIMUM GRADE OF 2.0%. ALL SWALES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 2.00%. 2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THE ADJACENT ROADWAYS FREE OF DEBRIS AND PREVENT THE OFF-SITE TRACKING OF SOIL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND WATERSHED. 3.NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, AT (800)252-1166, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. 4.ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO CONFORM WITH CITY OF CHANHASSEN CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS SPECIFICATION, LATEST EDITION. 5.ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS POINTS. 6.REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND PROJECT MANUAL, FOR SOIL CORRECTION REQUIREMENTS AND TESTING REQUIREMENTS. 7.STRIP TOPSOIL PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. REUSE STOCKPILE ON SITE. STOCKPILE PERIMETERS MUST BE PROTECTED WITH SILT FENCE. 8.PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. NO CONSTRUCTION OR FABRICATION SHALL BEGIN UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR HAS RECEIVED AND THOROUGHLY REVIEWED ALL PLANS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS APPROVED BY ALL OF THE PERMITTING AUTHORITIES. 9.IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING GRADING OF (3:1 OR GREATER) SIDE SLOPES AND DRAINAGE SWALES, WOOD FIBER BLANKET OR OTHER APPROVED SOIL STABILIZING METHOD (APPROVED BY ENGINEER) SHALL BE APPLIED OVER APPROVED SEED MIXTURE AND A MINIMUM OF 6" TOPSOIL. 10.THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR MUST DISCUSS DEWATERING PLANS WITH ALL SUBCONTRACTORS TO VERIFY NPDES REQUIREMENTS. IF DEWATERING IS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHOULD CONSULT WITH EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR AND ENGINEER TO DETERMINE APPROPRIATE METHOD. 11.REFER TO STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) FOR ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE LOCATION, DESCRIPTIONS, NOTES AND DETAILS INCLUDING CONCRETE WASHOUT STATION INSTRUCTIONS. 12.SEE SHEET 7 FOR ROADWAY AND TRIAL CENTERLINE PROFILES. 13.SEE SHEET 7 FOR HOUSE PAD HOLDDOWNS & SEE SHEET 5 FOR CITY TYPICAL ROADWAY/STREET SECTION. 14.FREEBOARD: THE LOWEST BUILDING OPENING MUST BE AT MINIMUM 1' ABOVE THE EMERGENCY OVER FLOW ELEVATION (EOF) AND BUILDING ADJACENT TO STORMWATER BASIN SHALL BE 3' ABOVE THE 100 YEAR HIGH WATER LEVEL (HWL) RETAINING WALL NOTES: 1.ALL RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED AT A 2:1 SLOPE WITH BASE OF SLOPE AT PROPOSED WALL FACE. 2.THE RETAINING WALL SLOPE AREAS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED UNTIL RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION OCCURS. ANY EROSION SHALL BE REMEDIED AND RESTORED. 3.BUILDING PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL RETAINING WALLS 4 FEET IN HEIGHT OR GREATER AND THE WALLS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WITH DESIGN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE BUILDING PERMITS SHALL BE DIRECTED TO THE CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR. 4.A SAFETY RAILING IS REQUIRED ATOP ALL WALLS PER BUILDING CODE. 5.RETAINING WALL CONTRACTOR AND/OR RETAINING WALL STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ARE RESPONSIBLE TO REVIEW CIVIL SITE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS. ANY OBSERVED CONCERNS WITH CIVIL SITE ENGINEERING DESIGN ELEMENTS RELATED TO RETAINING WALLS THAT REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CIVIL SITE DESIGN IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO COORDINATE WITH PROJECT OWNER AND CIVIL SITE ENGINEER. IF NO COORDINATION IS REQUESTED IT SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD THAT ALL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CIVIL SITE DESIGN AND PLANS ARE ACCEPTABLE AND ABLE TO BE PROVIDED FOR IN THE RETAINING WALL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. 6.RETAINING WALLS ARE TO BE FINAL DESIGNED AND PERMITTED BY OTHERS. GRADING LEGEND: 41 PEACEFUL LANE PROFILE Trail A PROFILE BLOCK 2 HOLD DOWN DETAILS WALKOUT PAD SUBGRADE CORRECTION FULL BASEMENT PAD LOOKOUT PAD BLOCK 1 HOLD DOWN DETAILS WALKOUT PAD SUBGRADE CORRECTION FULL BASEMENT PAD PLAN VIEW: HOLD DOWN DETAIL FULL BASEMENT File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\PROFILES.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:25 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeGrading Profileswww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 0 SCALE IN FEET 25 50 100 7 19 7 PEACEFUL LANE 10' BIT TRAIL 42 3 BLOCK 1 POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 WA A'1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100099610041006996PEACEFUL LANEPLEASANT VIEW A A'File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\POND DETAILS.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:42 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O N 0 SCALE IN FEET 15 30 60 City Submittal 12-19-2024 8Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointePond-Filtration Detailwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 8 19819 FILTRATION TRENCH DETAIL (NOT TO SCALE) N OCS 101 N.T.S NOTE: 43 GU 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 GU PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E DND DND DND DND DND DND DND DND DNDDNDDND DND DND DND File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\EROSION CONTROL.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:56:57 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeErosion & Sediment Control Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 9 19 9 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE TBD: MPCA CERTIFIED SWPPP INSPECTOR INSPECTOR: EROSION CONTROL PARTIES LEGEND: DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR PROPERTY LINE LOT LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY EXISTING TREE PROPOSED SEDIMENT SILT FENCE PRE SF DO NOT DISTURB AREASDND PST SF EROSION CONTROL BLANKET (CATEGORY 3N) DESIGNER: ALLIANT ENGINEERING 733 MARQUETTE AVE. STE. 700 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 CONTACT: TYLER STRICHERZ PH: 612-767-9330 INSTALLER: (PRE GRADING) PROPOSED SEDIMENT SILT FENCE (POST GRADING) ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TBD: MPCA CERTIFIED SWPPP INSTALLER RESPONSIBLE PARTY: DISTURBED AREA 11.1 AC EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 3,458 SY SILT FENCE 6,676 LF INLET 13 EA SWPPP BMP QUANTITIES (PER PLAN): RACHEL CONTRACTING THE MASS GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION OF ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) AS SHOWN IN THE SWPPP. THE BMPS ARE TO BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM AS SHOWN IN THE PLAN, IF CONDITIONS ARISE, ADDITIONAL BMP SUPPLEMENTATION TO PREVENT SITE EROSION OR SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MAY BE NECESSARY. THE MASS GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL BMPS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE MASS GRADING ACTIVITIES. THE MASS GRADING CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL SITE STABILIZATION. UTILITY CONTRACTOR INSTALLING UTLITIES MUST MAINTAIN ALL BMPS IN PLACE. STREET CONTRACTOR INSTALLING STREETS MUST MAINTAIN ALL BMPS IN PLACE. AT THE COMPLETION OF PROJECT WORK AND SATISFACTORY SITE SOIL STABILIZATION A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) SHALL BE FILED ON MPCA WEBSITE. A NOTICE OF TERMINATION WILL CLOSE OUT THE PERMIT. NOTE TO CONTRACTOR: 1. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG ANTI-TRACKING CONTROL TEMPORARY SEED MIX 1. MnDOT-100 (OATS 20-120 DAY STABILIZATION) PERMANENT SEED MIX/STABILIZATION 1. MnDOT 34-271 2. MnDOT 35-241 STABILIZATION BMP'S 1. STRAW/HAY MnDOT TYPE 1 MULCH 2. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET MnDOT CAT. 3N 3. HYDROMULCH MnDOT TYPE 42. MnDOT-150 (1-2 YEAR STABILIZATION) 4. TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT SC250 NORTH AMERICAN GREEN 1. 2" CRUSHED CLEAR ROCK (LAND DEVELOPMENT) OR EQUAL-MNDOT CAT 6 SEDIMENT BARRIERS ACTIVE SWPPP LEGEND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MULCH BERM FIBER ROLLS / MULCH SOCKS SILT FENCE TEMPORARY MULCH COVER TEMPORARY HYDROMULCH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET ROCK DRIVEWAY / ROCK PADS INLET PROTECTION DEVICES PAVEMENT (DRIVEWAY/ROADS) SOD STOCKPILES NOTE: CONTRACTOR, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR SWPPP INSPECTOR TO COMPLETE TABLE AS GRADING PROGRESSES NOTE: 1.SEE SHEET 10 FOR ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS. A.ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION OF THE SITE HAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. B.TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN PART III, B.1.5 MUST BE USED FOR COMMON DRAINAGE LOCATIONS THAT SERVE AN AREA WITH FIVE (5) OF MORE ACRES AT A TIME. DURING CONSTRUCTION: IMPAIRED WATER REQUIREMENT 3. MnDOT 22-112 2. SILT FENCE 1 MILE INLET PROTECTION 44 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WASHED ROCK OR WOOD/MULCH PER SPECIFICATIONS 18" MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM SITE NOTES: 1. MnDOT 3733 TYPE 4 FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK OR MULCH TO STOP MUD MIGRATION THROUGH MATERIAL. 2. FUGITIVE ROCK OR MULCH WILL BE REMOVED FROM ADJACENT ROADWAYS DAILY OR MORE FREQUENTLY AS NECESSARY. 3.CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OPERATIONS ON THE SITE. 4.THE ENTRANCE MUST BE MAINTAINED IN PROPER CONDITION TO PREVENT TRACKING OF MUD OFF THE SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOPDRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL ROCK, WOOD/MULCH, OR REMOVAL AND REINSTALLATION OF THE PAD. 5.THIS ENTRANCE WILL BE USED BY ALL VEHICLES ENTERING OR LEAVING THE PROJECT. 6.THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WILL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF BITUMINOUS SURFACING. PUBLI C R O A D 50' M I N I M U M L E N G T H ROCK-6" MINIMUM DEPTH WOOD/MULCH- 12" MINIMUM DEPTH 20' MI N I M U M W I D T H NOTE: ALL SLOPES WITH A GRADE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1 REQUIRE SLOPE TRACKING. SLOPES WITH A GRADE MORE GRADUAL THAN 3:1 REQUIRE SLOPE TRACKING IF THE STABILIZATION METHOD IS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET OR HYDROMULCH. UNDISTURBED VEGETATION TRACKED EQUIPMENT TREADS CREATE GROOVES PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE DIRECTION. SLOPE SLOPE TRACKINGEROSION CONTROL BLANKET INSTALLATION OVERLAP LONGITUDINAL JOINTS MINIMUM OF 6" OVERLAP END JOINTS MINIMUM OF 6" AND STAPLE OVERLAP AT 1.5' INTERVALS. ANCHOR TRENCH (SEE DETAIL AND NOTES BELOW) ANCHOR TRENCH 1. DIG 6" X 6" TRENCH 2. LAY BLANKET IN TRENCH 3. STAPLE AT 1.5' INTERVALS 4. BACKFILL WITH NATURAL SOIL AND COMPACT 5. BLANKET LENGTH SHALL NOT EXCEED 100' WITHOUT AN ANCHOR TRENCH 6" 6" 1' TO 3' DI R E C T I O N O F SU R F A C E F L O W NOTE: SLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS, SOIL CLUMPS, STICKS, VEHICLE IMPRINTS, AND GRASS. BLANKETS SHALL HAVE GOOD SOIL CONTACT. STAPLE PATTERN/DENSITY SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\EROSION NOTES.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:08 PMFOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeErosion & Sediment Control Noteswww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 10 19 10 EROSION CONTROL SCHEDULE: FINAL STABILIZATION: EROSION CONTROL GENERAL NOTES: POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES: SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES: THE CONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL STABILIZATION IS COMPLETE, OR ANOTHER OWNER/OPERATOR (PERMITTEE) HAS ASSUMED CONTROL OF ALL AREAS OF THE SITE THAT HAVE NOT UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION. FINAL STABILIZATION CAN BE ACHIEVED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY: ALL SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITIES AT THE SITE HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND ALL SOILS MUST BE STABILIZED BY A UNIFORM PERENNIAL VEGETATIVE COVER WITH A DENSITY OF 70 PERCENT OVER THE ENTIRE PERVIOUS SURFACE AREA, OR OTHER EQUIVALENTMEANS NECESSARY TO PREVENT SOIL FAILURE UNDER EROSIVE CONDITIONS AND; A.ALL DRAINAGE DITCHES, CONSTRUCTED TO DRAIN WATER FROM THE SITE AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE, MUST BE STABILIZED TO PRECLUDE EROSION; B.ALL TEMPORARY SYNTHETIC, AND STRUCTURAL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS (SUCH AS SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS) MUST BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE SITE FINAL STABILIZATION; AND C.THE CONTRACTORS MUST CLEAN OUT ALL SEDIMENT FROM CONVEYANCES AND FROM TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS THAT ARE TO BE USED AS PERMANENT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BASINS. D.SEDIMENT MUST BE STABILIZED TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING WASHED BACK INTO THE BASIN, CONVEYANCES OR DRAINAGE WAYS DISCHARGING OFF-SITE OR TO SURFACE WATERS. THE CLEAN OUT OF PERMANENT BASINS MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO RETURN THE BASIN TO DESIGN CAPACITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON THE SITE: 1. SOLID WASTE: COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. 2. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL: OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED, INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, TO PREVENT SPILLS, LEAKS OR OTHER DISCHARGE. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. 3. CONCRETE WASHOUT IS DONE TRUCK BY TRUCK WITH A MOBILE WASHOUT SYSTEM PROVIDED AND COMPLETED BY THE CONCRETE CONTRACTOR. RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND WASTE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. 4. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. 1. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST MINIMIZE SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS AND STORM SEWER INLETS. 2. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE ESTABLISHED ON ALL DOWN GRADIENT PERMITERS BEFORE ANY UPGRADIENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN. THESE PRACTICES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 3. THE TIMING OF THE INSTALLATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE SHORT-TERM ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CLEARING OR GRUBBING, OR PASSAGE OF VEHICLES. ANY SHORT-TERM ACTIVITY MUST BE COMPLETED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND THE SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ACTIVITY IS COMPLETED. HOWEVER, SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED BEFORE THE NEXT PRECIPITATION EVENT EVEN IF THE ACTIVITY IS NOT COMPLETE. 4. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR OTHER EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS, AND CANNOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING STORM WATER CONVEYANCES SUCH AS CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS, OR CONDUITS AND DITCHES. 5. SITE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE LOCATED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 1. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION, SEDIMENT BARRIERS AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AS SHOWN TO INTERCEPT RUNOFF. 2. ALL EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATIONS SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE AND BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL THE SITE HAS BEEN RE-VEGETATED. 3. SUFFICIENT TOPSOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED TO ALLOW FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF 6" OF TOPSOIL FOR DISTURBED AREAS TO BE RE-VEGETATED. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE SITE GRADING, SO THAT THE GENERAL SITE CAN BE STABILIZED AND SEEDED SOON AFTER DISTURBANCE. SITE SHALL BE STABILIZED AND SEEDED WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER DISTURBANCE OCCURS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL EROSION CONTROL DEVICES AS INDICATED ON THIS EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIRED BASED ON MEANS, METHODS AND SEQUENCES OF CONSTRUCTION. 1. NO LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITY SHALL OCCUR UNTIL A GRADING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED FROM THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN AND THE WATERSHED DISTRICT. UNLESS EXPRESSLY EXTENDED BY A PERMIT. 2. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) REFER TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES DEFINED IN THE MPCA PROTECTING WATER QUALITY IN URBAN AREAS AND THE MINNESOTA CONSTRUCTION SITE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING HANDBOOK. 3. ALL BMP'S SELECTED SHALL BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE TIME OF YEAR, SITE CONDITIONS, AND ESTIMATED DURATION OF USE. 4. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVED PLANS. ANY DEVIATION FROM THE APPROVED PLANS SHALL REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. 5. A COPY OF THESE PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. PLANS, SWPPP TO BE LOCATED ONSITE IN MAILBOX. 6. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND DISTURBANCE LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLANS SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE DISTURBED LIMITS. 7. WHEREVER POSSIBLE, PRESERVE THE EXISTING TREES, GRASS AND OTHER VEGETATIVE COVER TO HELP FILTER RUNOFF. 8. ESTABLISH A PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER ON ALL EXPOSED SOILS WHERE LAND IS COMING OUT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. PLANT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH DENSE GRASS FILTER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND TO MINIMIZE WEED GROWTH. 9. ALL TREES NOT LISTED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE PROTECTED. DO NOT OPERATE EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE DRIPLINE, ROOT ZONES OR WITHIN TREE PROTECTION FENCE AREAS. 10. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES (BMP'S) SHALL BE INSTALLED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO LAND DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES AND THEY SHALL BE SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION HAS PASSED. 11. SEDIMENT BARRIERS ARE REQUIRED AT DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETER OF DISTURBED AREAS AND STOCKPILES. PROTECT WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES FROM SEDIMENTATION AND STORMWATER RUNOFF. 12. THE BMP'S SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND UNEXPECTED OR SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE PERMITTEE/CONTRACTOR SHALL ANTICIPATE THAT MORE BMP'S WILL BE NECESSARY TO ENSURE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ON THE SITE. DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERMITTEE/CONTRACTOR TO ADDRESS ANY NEW CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE CREATED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND/OR CLIMATIC EVENTS AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BMP'S OVER AND ABOVE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AS MAY BE NEEDED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE PROTECTION OF WATER AND SOIL RESOURCES. 13. THE BMP'S SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY BY THE PERMITTEE/CONTRACTOR AND MAINTAINED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THEIR CONTINUED FUNCTIONING. 14. LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES SHALL OCCUR IN INCREMENTS OF WORKABLE SIZE SUCH THAT ADEQUATE BMP CONTROL CAN BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. THE SMALLEST PRACTICAL AREA SHALL BE EXPOSED OR OTHERWISE DISTURBED AT ANY ONE TIME. 15. OPERATE TRACK EQUIPMENT (DOZER) UP AND DOWN EXPOSED SOIL SLOPES ON FINAL PASS, LEAVING TRACK GROOVES PERPENDICULAR TO THE SLOPE. DO NOT BACK-BLADE. LEAVE A SURFACE ROUGH TO MINIMIZE EROSION. 16. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED FROM EROSION WITHIN 7 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF GRADING IN THAT AREA. TEMPORARY SEED AND MULCH SHALL COVER ALL EXPOSED SOILS IF GRADING COMPLETION IS DELAYED LONGER THAN 7 DAYS. 17. GENERAL TEMPORARY SEED SHALL BE MNDOT MIX 190 @ 100 LBS. PER ACRE OR APPROVED EQUAL. PERMANENT SEED SHALL BE MNDOT MIX 270 @ 120 LBS. PER ACRE OR APPROVED EQUAL. (PLANTING DATES PER SPEC 2575) MULCH SHALL BE MNDOT TYPE 1 (CLEAN OAT STRAW) @ 2 TONS PER ACRE AND DISK ANCHORED IN PLACE OR APPROVED EQUAL. FERTILIZER SHALL BE 80-80-80 NPK PER ACRE (UNLESS P RESTRICTIONS APPLY) AND INCORPORATED INTO THE SEED BED. 18. POND SHALL BE SEEDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LANDSCAPE PLAN. 19. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY MEASURES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED. MAINTENANCE PROGRAM: 1. INSPECT SEDIMENT BARRIERS IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL. IMMEDIATELY REPAIR FAILED OR FAILING SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS. 2. REPLACEMENT - SHALL BE REPLACED PROMPTLY WHEN IT DECOMPOSES OR BECOMES INEFFECTIVE BEFORE THE BARRIER IS NO LONGER NECESSARY. 3. SEDIMENT REMOVAL - SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH STORM EVENT. THEY MUST BE REMOVED WHEN DEPOSITS REACH APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. 4. REMOVAL OF SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG - SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFUL PURPOSE, BUT NOT BEFORE THE UPWARD SLOPING AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. IF THE UPWARD SLOPING AREA IS TO BE EXPOSED LONGER THAN SIX (6) MONTHS, THAT AREA SHALL BE COVERED WITH TEMPORARY VEGETATION WHEN FIRST EXPOSED. 5. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE ONCE EVERY SEVEN (7) DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN 24 HOURS. 6.ALL INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONDUCTED DURING CONSTRUCTION MUST BE RECORDED IN WRITING AND THESE RECORDS MUST BE RETAINED WITH THE SWPPP RECORDS OF EACH INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY SHALL INCLUDE: A. DATE AND TIME OF INSPECTIONS; B. NAME OF PERSON(S) CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS; C. FINDINGS OF INSPECTIONS, INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTIONS; D. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN (INCLUDING DATES, TIMES, AND PARTY COMPLETING MAINTENANCE ACTIVIES. E. DATE AND AMOUNT OF ALL RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN 1/2 INCH (0.5 INCHES) IN 24 HOURS: F. DOCUMENTS OF CHANGES MADE TO THE SWPPP AS REQUIRED IN PART III.A.4. 7.WHERE PARTS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE HAVE UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION, BUT WORK REMAINS ON OTHER PARTS OF SITE, INSPECTIONS OF THE STABILIZED AREAS MAY BE REDUCED TO ONCE PER MONTH. WHERE WORK HAS BEEN SUSPENDED DUE TO FROZEN GROUND CONDITIONS, THE REQUIRED INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE MUST TAKE PLACE AS SOON AS RUNOFF OCCURS AT THE SITE OR PRIOR TO RESUMING CONSTRUCTION, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEWATERING: 1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A PLAN TO THE CITY AND PROJECT ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. THE PLAN AT MINIMUM SHALL BE A DEWATERING PLAN INCLUDING WATER ROUTING, STORAGE, AND DISCHARGE LOCATION. 2.IF ANY TEMPORARY DEWATERING IS REQUIRED ONSITE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF STORMWATER OR GROUND WATER BY USE OF PUMPS AND HOSES TO ACCEPTABLE DISCHARGE POINTS APPROVED BY THE CITY AND PROJECT ENGINEER. Know what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 45 GU PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\SAN-WM.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:18 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeSanitary Sewer & Watermain Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 11 19 11 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 LEGEND: | > PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER | >> EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANT EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE UTILITY NOTES: 1.EXISTING UTILITIES, SERVICE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2.MAINTAIN A MIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION AT ALL WATERMAIN PIPE CROSSINGS. WATER LINES TO MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER. LOWER WATERMAIN AS NECESSARY. 3.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 4.PROVIDE POLYSTYRENE INSULATION FOR ALL WATERMAIN CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS LESS THAN 18". 5.ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING GUIDELINES. 6.NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY UTILITY WORK. 7.PROVIDE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL IN COMPLIANCE WITH MNDOT "TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS-FIELD MANUAL" LATEST REVISION, FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PUBLIC R.O.W. 8.ALL SANITARY MANHOLES TO BE 48" DIAMETER CONCRETE W/NEENAH R-1642 CASTING, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 9.WATERMAIN, SERVICES, AND VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MINIMUM 7.5' OF COVER. 10.WATER SERVICES SHALL BE 1" DIA. HDPE SDR-9 W/1" CORP. STOP AND 1" CURB BOX. 11.SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE 6" PVC, SDR 26, MINIMUM 2% SLOPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE PLANS. 12.ALL 6" AND 8" WATERMAIN SHALL BE PVC C900. SANITARY SEWER SCHEDULE: HYDRANT RADII - 250' RADIUS 46 PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\STORM SEWER.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:26 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeStorm Sewer Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 12 19 12 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 LEGEND: | > PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED STORM SEWER | >> EXISTING GATE VALVE EXISTING HYDRANT EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING STORM MANHOLE EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE DT PROPOSED DRAINTILE PROPOSED DRAINTILE STRUCTURE STORM SEWER SCHEDULE: UTILITY NOTES: 1.EXISTING UTILITIES, SERVICE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 2.MAINTAIN A MIN 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION AT ALL PIPE CROSSINGS, LOWER WATERMAIN AS NECESSARY. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES TO MAINTAIN 10' HORIZONTAL SEPARATION. 3.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. 4.PROVIDE POLYSTYRENE INSULATION FOR ALL STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN CROSSINGS WHERE VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS LESS THAN 2'. 5.ALL UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE R.O.W. SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ENGINEERING GUIDELINES. 6.NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF ANY UTILITY WORK. 7.PROVIDE TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL IN COMPLIANCE WITH MNDOT "TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS-FIELD MANUAL" LATEST REVISION, FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN PUBLIC R.O.W. 47 PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\WETLAND.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:34 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeWetland Management Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of Tyler Stricherz TAS ELL 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 13 19 13 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 WETLAND SUMMARY WETLAND IMPACT CALCULATION LEGEND: 48 GU 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 GU PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 2122 23 24 25 26 2728 29 3031 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 5859 60 61 62 6364 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 7778 79 80 81 8283 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 9293 94 95 96 97 9899100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126127 128 129130 131 132 133 134 135 136137 138 139 140141142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157158 159160 161 162 163 164 165166 167168 169170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 301 302 303 304 305306 307 308309 310 311 312313 314 315316317318 319 320 321 322 323324 325 326 327328 329 330331 332333334335 336337 338339340341 342 343 344345 346347 348 349350 351 352 353354 355356357 358 359360361 362363364365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389390 391 392 393 394 395396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 1588 15891590 15911592 15931594 1595159615971598 1599 160016011602 160316041605 1606160716081609161016111612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 16501651 1652 1653 1654 1655 16561657 16581659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 16661667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 17021703 1704 1705 17061707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 17271728 17291730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 17421743 1744 17451746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 17701771 1772 1773 1774 17751776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 17831784 1785 178617871788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 180118021803 1804 1805 18061807 1808 18091810 18111812 1813 1814 181518161817 18181819 1820 1821 1822 18231824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 18311832 183318341835 183618371838 1839 1840 18411842 1843 1844 1845 184618471848 1849 1850 18511852 1853 18541855 1856 1857 1858 1859 18601861 1862 18631864 18651866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 18991900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 19371938 19391940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 19671968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974197519761977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 19891990 1991 1992 1993 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 969 970 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:52 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Preservation PlanTyler Stricherz TAS TLM 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 14 19 14 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of CANOPY CALCULATIONS: TREE PRESERVATION NOTES: LEGEND: PLAN NOTE: TREE PROTECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE SURVIVABILITY OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. NO HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHALL BE STORED WITHIN THE TREE DRIP LINE AS DESIGNATED ABOVE. ELEVATION 4' ORANGE SNOW FENCE WITH POSTS 8' O.C. AT DRIP LINE OF OUTER MOST BRANCHES DRIP LINE TREE PROTECTION FENCE NO SCALE2 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 49 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 10101020101610 1 4 1008 PLEASANT VIEW RD NEZ PERCE DR POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 P E A C E F U L L A N E 1 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157158 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 1588 1589 1590 15911592 15931594 1595159615971598 1599 1600 16011602 160316041605 1606 16071608 16091610 16111612 1613 1614 1615 1616 1617 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1636 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657 1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676 1677 1678 1679 1680 1681 1682 1683 1684 1685 1686 1687 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 17061707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 17271728 17291730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 17451746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 17701771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 17831784 1785 17861787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 180118021803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 18091810 1811 1812 1813 1814 181518161817 18181819 1820 1821 1822 18231824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 183318341835 183618371838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 18461847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 18541855 1856 1857 1858 1859 18601861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 18991900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1925 1926 1927 1928 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1972 1996 1997 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:57:56 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Perservation Plan - Enlarged - NorthTyler Stricherz TAS TLM 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 15 19 15 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 15 30 60 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of LEGEND: www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 50 GU 10101020998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 101810221016GU REDMAN LANEPEACEFUL LANE2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22 23 24 25 26 2728 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 6364 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 159160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167168 169170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338339340341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 462 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 18991900 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 19891990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 969 970 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:01 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Perservation Plan - Enlarged - SouthTyler Stricherz TAS TLM 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 16 19 16 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 15 30 60 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of LEGEND: www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 51 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:04 PMFOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Inventory ScheduleTyler Stricherz TAS TLM 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 17 19 17 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 52 File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\TREE - INV.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:09 PMFOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeTree Inventory ScheduleTyler Stricherz TAS TLM 4000320-00 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Civil Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 18 19 18 www.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 53 GU 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 123 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 BLOCK 2BLOCK 2OUTLOT A BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 1000' Shoreland District Boundary POND/FILTRATION NWL:994.0 100 YEAR HWL:998.99 PEACEFUL LANEP E A C E F U L L A N E GU PLEASANT VIEW RD REDMAN LANETROENDLE CIRCLENEZ PERCE DR 1 - RO 1 - SL 1 - NF 1 - SL 1 - BF 1 - RB 1 - BF 1 - SL 1 - RB 1 - RO 3 - BF 1 - NS 1 - RB 1 - NF 2 - CH 1 - RB 1 - NS 1 - AB 1 - BF 1 - NF 1 - CH 1 - RO 1 - RB 1 - AB 1 - SL 1 - NF 1 - AB 1 - CH1 - RO 3 - WP 3 - WP 1 - RO 1 - SL 1 - AB 1 - NF 1 - CH 1 - AB 1 - RO 1 - AB 1 - SL 1 - NF 3 - NS 1 - RB GU 1000 1010 994 10 1 0 100010161012 1010 1000 996 10041000 100010041006 9961026 1 0 2 2 10 2 0 10201022 101010201000998100610201030 1032 10361032103010301026102410 2 0 10 1 8 10181022101610 1 4 1008 3 - WP 3 - BF 2 - CH 1 - SL 1 - NF 1 - AE 1 - SW 1 - RO 1 - SW 1 - NS 1 - RB 1 - CH 1 - NS 1 - SW 1 - SL 1 - SW 1 - AE 1 - AB 1 - SW 1 - AE 1 - NF 1 - RB 1 - NF 1 - SW 1 - RO 1 - AB 1 - AE 1 - SW 1 - CH 1 - NS 1 - RO 1 - RB 1 - AB 1 - SW 1 - NS 1 - AE 1 - AE 1 - AE 1 - SW File Location: X:\4000320-00\001\40 Design\00 Sheets - Preliminary\LANDSCAPE.dwg Plotted By: Tyler Stricherz on December 19, 2024 at 4:58:30 PMKnow what's below. Call before you dig. R Dial 811 FOR R E VI E W O N L Y PRE LI MI N A R Y NOT F O R C O N S T R U C TI O NCity Submittal 12-19-2024 Chanhassen, Minnesota Preliminary Plat SubmittalPleasant View PointeLandscaping Planwww.alliant-inc.com PROJECT TEAM DATA QA/QC CHECK DateBy CERTIFICATION Date License no.DATEDESCRIPTIONProject No.: Drafted By: Designed By: Sheet of 4000320-00 John Gronhovd 59233 JG TLM I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 19 19 19 N 0 SCALE IN FEET 30 60 120 PLANTING NOTES: LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS: SEEDING NOTES: LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE: LEGEND: 1 TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.TREE STAKING IS OPTIONAL. 2.DO NOT PRUNE THE TREE AT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CROSSOVER LIMBS, CO-DOMINANT LEADERS AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES. 3.FOR TREES IN CONTAINERS, REMOVE CONTAINER PRIOR TO PLANTING. FOR BARE ROOT TREES, PLACE TREE IN MIDDLE OF PLANTING HOLE, SPREAD ROOTS OUT RADIALLY FROM THE TRUNK AROUND THE PREPARED HOLE. PREPARE PLANTING AREA 3X THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL OR PER PLAN IF PLANTED IN A BIORETENTION OR LARGER PLANTING AREA PLACE ROOTBALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL EXPOSE TRUNK FLARE, DO NOT PILE MULCH AGAINST TREE TRUNK MULCH RING, DIAMETER PER PLAN OR LANDSCAPE NOTES. PLACE MULCH SO NOT IN CONTACT WITH BASE OF TREE. COMPLETELY REMOVE AND DISPOSE OF ALL TWINE, ROPE AND BASKETS. DISPOSE INTO PROPER LOCATION. TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOT PRESSURE SO THAT THE ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT. PLANTING SOIL, BACKFILL PLACED IN 6" LIFTS GUYING PLAN SOD UNDISTURBED SUBSOIL ROOTBALL PRUNE DEAD AND BROKEN BRANCHES 16" POLY STRAP, 40 MIL. 1-1/2" WIDE 1 FLAG PER WIRE 3-GUY CABLES, DOUBLE STRAND, 14 GA. WIRES AT 120° SPACING, SEE GUYING PLAN 18" MIN.MACHINE EDGE V-DITCH AROUND ALL TREES IN SODDED AREAS 2"X2"X24" WOODEN STAKE AT AN ANGLE 54 Application: Preliminary Plat, Variance, & Wetland Alteration Permit. (Planning Case #2025-02) Staff Report Date: February 25, 2025 Drafted By: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer Planning Commission Review Date: March 4, 2025 City Council Review Date: March 10, 2025 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property at and around 6535 Peaceful Lane into nineteen lots and one outlot as well as a wetland alteration permit and variance to cul-de-sac length. LOCATION: 955 Pleasant View Road, 1015 Pleasant View Road, & 6535 Peaceful Lane PID: 258710190, 258690130, 258700063, 258700060, & 258700062 APPLICANT: Rachel Development, Inc. PROPERTY OWNER: Beddor Enterprises, LLP PRESENT ZONING: Single-Family Residential, RSF 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – Low Density (1.2 – 4.0 units/net acre) ACREAGE: 13.65 Acres PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat, wetland alteration permit, and approves the variance, for the subdivision on Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” 55 Page 2 of 14 DENSITY: 1.4 Units/Acre LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the city must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether the proposed project meets the standards in the zoning ordinance for a variance. The city has a moderate level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The city’s discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit is limited to whether the proposal meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the city must approve the wetland alteration permit. This is a quasi-judicial decision. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on July 31st, 2024. This neighborhood meeting was conducted entirely by the Applicant to gather feedback from adjacent property owners prior to the City Council workshop on October 14th, 2024 and the Planning Commission meeting on March 4th, 2025. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivision Chapter 18, Section 18-22 Variances Chapter 20, Article XXII, RSF Single-Family Residential District PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The Applicant is proposing the subdivision of 13.65 acres of properties, zoned Single-Family Residential and guided for Low-Density Residential into nineteen lots and one outlot. HISTORY The properties are divided into three prior plats, Vineland, Vineland Forest, and Troendle Addition. First is the historical Vineland plat in 1887, due to the age of this plat the roads do no match currently existing, nor do the street names. The scale of area it once included is unknow due to the missing measurement units, four of the parcels included in this subdivision and the water tower parcel next door have not been replated since this plat. 56 Page 3 of 14 The next plat is the Vineland Forest platted in 1990, there is only one parcel in the proposed new subdivision that is from this plat and since has gone through a lot line adjustment and lot combination in 1996. The final plat Troendle was platted in 1991, one parcel in the new proposed subdivision is included in this previous plat as an outlot. As a condition of the Troendle plat approval the developer was required to create a temporary cul-de-sac with a sign affixed at the end notifying residents of the future extension of Nez Perce. Additionally, the developer was required to place a notice on each lot’s chain of title, that Nez Perce will be ultimately extended as a thru street to Pleasant View. These conditions are due to the fact the plat included a dead ending cul-de-sac 1,400 feet long. The requirements at the time of approval were vague, stating the maximum length of a dead end shall be determined as a function of the expected development density along the street, thus resulting in the conditions of approval. Environmental Protection Districts • Wetland Protection – There are two wetlands on this property. • Bluff Protection – There is a bluff on the SW corner of the property. • Shoreland Management – Lots 1-6, Block 1 are within this district. • Floodplain Overlay – Not within FEMA Flood Zones 2018. SUBDIVISION REVIEW Along with the 19 lots created in this subdivision, the developer is proposing a 50-foot wide outlot with a 10-foot trail to connect Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane for pedestrians and emergency vehicles. The trail will not serve as a connection for residential traffic. The outlot is adequately sized for a road extension of Nez Perce if the city chooses to pursue this extension in the future. As currently proposed, all lots meet the minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth requirements of the zoning ordinance. The submittal indicated a driveway access for Lot 5 being located within Outlot A which is to be dedicated to the City for purposes of underground utilities and an at grade 10’ wide trail. While that placement was initially considered by city staff, after further consideration, city staff does not support this private improvement being placed within the public outlot and the driveway for Lot 5 will need to be relocated to be outside of the City’s outlot. Staff recommends revising Lot 5 to be a flag lot with access to Peaceful Lane and the width of Outlot A being reduced to 40’ in width. Lots 4 and 5 shall not share a driveway. Lot 6 shall have a driveway off of Nez Perce drive. 57 Page 4 of 14 COMPLIANCE TABLE Parcel Area Frontage Depth Lot Cover Notes B1-L1 39,006 147.02 270.97 9,751.5 B1-L2 32,745 131.5 250.28 8,186.25 B1-L3 35,333 180.25 196.36 8,833.25 B1-L4 64,625 140.83 (shortest frontage) 303.22 16,156.25 Corner Lot B1-L5 46,373 117.16 & 129.5 365.46 11,593.25 Double Frontage B1-L6 38,896 208.5 224.67 9,724 B2-L1 18,415 101 166.60 5,524.5 B2-L2 19,114 112.25 166.60 5,734.2 B2-L3 19,456 109.16 175.16 5,836.8 B2-L4 19,444 112.25 165.47 5,833.2 B2-L5 20,100 118.49 134.5 6,030 B2-L6 24,952 90.01 178.5 7,485.6 B2-L7 23,338 90.01 170.1 7,001.4 B2-L8 18,431 114.48 125.19 5,529.3 B2-L9 42,541 90.1 356.26 12,762.3 B2-L10 28,869 90 287.81 8,660.7 B2-L11 23,306 90.5 230.11 6,991.8 B2-L12 18,123 90.10 175.51 5,436.9 B2-L13 19,609 229.4 156.8 5,882.7 Outlot A 9,093 NA NA NA 50’ Wide Setbacks: Front - 30 ft., Side - 10 ft., Rear - 30 ft. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. 58 Page 5 of 14 LANDSCAPING The developer is proposing to remove the existing trees in areas to be graded and plans to save the trees around the perimeter of the lots and development as a whole. The plans for development include canopy calculations to establish the number of replacement trees required to be planted per city code, currently 96 trees will need to be planted, these are shown on the landscaping plan. The landscaping plan dated 12-19- 2024 adheres to the City’s species diversity requirements which states that the landscaping plan shall consist of no more than 10% of the trees can be from one tree species, no more than 20% of the trees can be from one genus, and no more than 30% of the trees can be from one family. VARIANCE REQUEST – MAXIMUM DUL-DE-SAC LENGTH The proposed dead ending cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum length allowed by city code. The proposed cul-de-sac is 1,040 feet long, the maximum length allowed by city code is 750 feet. The city’s zoning code establishes the criteria for granting variances from Chapter 18 which are based on state statutes. The following criteria must all be met in order to grant a variance. 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; The hardship the developer is posed with is due to minimal options for street connection. There is one street with the possibility of connection, Nez Perce, however the City Council is not in support of connecting the two streets therefore requiring a variance for the dead ending street. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; 59 Page 6 of 14 The hardship is caused by physical access to this property, the property currently has minimal street frontage on existing streets, with sizeable acreage, making it difficult to adhere to city code as a result of the City Council not supporting a road connection to Nez Perce Drive. 3. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; The subject property is largely land locked with minimal opportunities for the creation of through roads that avoid the creation of lengthy cul-de-sacs with the opportunity to reduce cul-de-sac length not being deemed a viable road connection by the City Council. 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The granting of this variance will not be substantially detrimental to public welfare as a trail connection will be created as part of the subdivision that will serve as an emergency access road for public safety vehicles in the event of an emergency or blocked roads that do not have alternative access due to their cul-de-sac nature. Based upon prior feedback from the City Council during sketch plan review of this project, the variance for cul-de-sac length is recommended for approval based on the above criteria and findings. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property at and around 6535 Peaceful Lane into nineteen lots and one outlot. Construction plans developed by Alliant Engineering Inc. dated December 19, 2024 were reviewed by staff. The plans show alteration and filling of the two onsite wetlands which require a Chanhassen wetland alteration permit and associated joint permit sequencing application to meet requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act. A sequencing application was submitted with the preliminary plat application. After review and comment from the City and Technical Evaluation Panel an updated sequencing application was submitted on January 29, 2025. This application was reviewed, and additional comments were provided to the applicant. Revised application materials were provided to the City on February 21st and 24th. This memo reflects all the wetland alternation permit submittals to date. GRADING & DRAINAGE The project site is located south of Christmas Lake and consists of five parcels with one single family residence located onsite along with a driveway, and outbuildings. The project site is bounded by Pleasant View Road to the north, Peaceful Lane to the West and single-family homes on the South and East. In the existing condition the majority of the surface runoff from 60 Page 7 of 14 the site flows into the pond/wetland on the northern portion of the site. This pond/wetland drains west through an 8 inch culvert into a wetland complex east of Powers Blvd. Runoff from the wetland/pond ultimately drains to Christmas Lake through a series of wetlands, stormwater ponds, and stormwater infrastructure. A small portion of the site drains to the east between existing homes into public storm sewer on Troendle Circle which ultimately drains into the pond/wetland located onsite. A small portion of the site drains south through properties located on Lake Lucy Road and ultimately drains to Lake Susan through a wetland complex east of Powers Blvd. In the proposed condition the site would be mass graded to facilitate the construction of public roads, utilities and homes. The proposed drainage patterns remain similar to existing conditions. The majority of the site will be captured and routed by storm sewer and drainage swales to the proposed stormwater management feature located where the existing 61 Page 8 of 14 pond/wetland is today. Drainage from the Troendle Addition will be routed to the proposed basin. Small portions of the site that are not routed to the stormwater basin would sheetflow west, south, and east similar to that in existing conditions. The proposed conditions are capturing runoff from portions of Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road and routing the stormwater to the basin via storm sewer. The proposed impervious treatment for the development is accounting for the maximum impervious for each lot. The proposed design would alter how stormwater runoff would leave the site to the south through existing home side yards. The proposed design is attempting to route stormwater through City owned property, however there does not appear to be a defined drainage channel on the property that would convey the runoff to the City’s drainage system along Lake Lucy Road. Additional design, survey and a drainage memo is required to confirm that the proposed development will not adversely impact downstream properties on the south end of the development. The applicant shall submit a memo that verifies the proposed design will not adversely impact the adjacent properties with the final plat application. EROSION CONTROL The proposed development will impact one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). A Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was included in the preliminary plat submittal. The SWPPP is a required submittal element for final plat review along with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) in accordance with Section 19- 145 of City Ordinance. No earth disturbing activities may occur until an approved SWPPP is developed. This SWPPP shall be a standalone document consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements of the permit. The SWPPP will need to be updated as the plans are finalized, when the contractor and their sub-contractors are identified and as other conditions change. An approved SWPPP shall be submitted prior to recording the final plat. All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of site grading activities. WETLANDS The proposed plans show two (2) wetlands onsite that were delineated by Kjolhaug Environmental Services on July 3, 2024. The delineation was approved by the City of Chanhassen in its role as the local governing unit (LGU) that is responsible for administering the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) made up of representatives from the city, Watershed District, MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), and Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) are all part of the WCA process in reviewing wetland applications including types and boundaries. The Wetland types and sizes on site were determined to be: • Wetland 1 - 0.08 acre wetland meadow depression 62 Page 9 of 14 • Wetland 2 – 0.67 acre wet meadow of which 0.16 areas are historic and governed by WCA The applicant submitted a no-loss application which asserted that Wetland 2 was manmade and therefore incidental. Portions of Wetland 2 were determined to be an incidental wetland by the TEP. It was determined that earth moving activities associated with past projects onsite modified the area and altered the wetland, however there were areas of historic wetland that while altered still have wetland characteristics today and are therefore governed by WCA regulations. As such only 0.16 acres of wetland 2 is governed by WCA regulations. During the design process the applicant’s Engineer discovered the grading plans associated with the Troendle Addition that showed that Wetland 1 was likely created with the grading of the subdivision. As such, the LGU and TEP support the determination that wetland 1 is incidental. The findings will be memorialized with a formal WCA decision processed concurrently with the sequencing application. The proposed plan would fill wetlands 1 and 2. The grading and filling over the wetlands would facilitate the construction of the homes and stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs), associated with the development. WCA regulations and City Ordinance were created to protect wetlands because of their value as a water resource and their numerous benefits to the surrounding area (water quality, flood mitigation, wildlife habitat, etc.). The main principles of the WCA are to avoid wetland impacts, then minimize impacts, and finally replace filled wetlands where wetland altering activities could not be avoided. The process of filling wetlands and showing the avoidance and minimization are defined in State Statue 8420 and submitted to the LGU as a Joint Permit Sequencing Application. The applicant must secure permits for the wetland impacts from the LGU prior to construction. The applicant submitted a sequencing application with the preliminary plat application which was reviewed by the TEP. The sequencing application outlines why the applicant needs the specific design, alternative designs reviewed, and actions to minimize wetland impacts. The application and review are a rigorous process. The original application was determined to be deficient with regards to demonstrating the need for the project and the quality of the avoidance and minimization alternatives provided. Staff met with the applicant to outline initial comments and requested an updated and more robust application focusing on the engineering challenges of why the wetlands could not be designed around. An updated application was submitted on January 29, 2025. The updated application focused on the water quality benefit of the proposed revised constructed wetland treatment BMP. The TEP reviewed the updated application and discussed findings during a coordination meeting on February 14th. Remaining comments were sent over to the applicant on February 17th. The applicant revised the submittal and sent over additional review materials on February 21st and 24th that answered most of the TEP’s questions. The City requested a design modification which would minimize impacts to the historic wetland area which the applicant’s Engineer completed (scenarios 1 and 2). This area would remain as a shallow pond type wetland that would function in similar fashion as it does today. The applicant also sent over a draft maintenance proposal for the native vegetation around the BMP which outlines that an HOA would be created for this purpose. 63 Page 10 of 14 Scenario 2 Schematic Scenario 2 Grading 64 Page 11 of 14 The applicant’s preferred design (scenario 2) would fill a small portion of the historic wetland but the majority would not be graded. Additionally, the constructed wetland proposed would result in higher pollutant removals than other options reviewed and would be a net benefit to local water quality. Scenario 2 would likely increase the amount of untreated stormwater drained through the historic wetland, as such it would still result in a permanent wetland impact which requires mitigation with the purchase of wetland banking credits. The applicant’s Joint Permit Application did outline the purchase of wetland banking credits. Impacting wetlands in Chanhassen requires a wetland alteration permit as defined in Article VI, Chapter 20 of City Ordinance which must be approved by City Council. The intent of this section of code was to give the city additional control of wetland impacting activities within the city of Chanhassen and ensure that the WCA was followed by all activities that could impact wetlands. Staff and the TEP members have reviewed the updated sequencing application. TEP comments from the last submittal are still outstanding but will be provided at the March 4th Planning Commission Meeting. The Water Resources Department does not have recommendation to Planning Commission and City Council on the wetland sequencing application decision. Staff will present the facts to the Commissioners at the March 4th Planning Commission meet so an informed decision can be made. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required storm water management development standards. Section 19-141 states that “these development standards shall be reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site plans, subdivisions and water management features.” These standards include abstraction of runoff and water quality treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorous (TP). The proposed project is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and is therefore subject to the watershed’s rules and regulations. A Stormwater Management Report was submitted for review to confirm all applicable stormwater management requirements are being met. This includes rate control, volume abstraction and water quality requirements among others. All comments on the proposed design from both the city and MCWD will need to be addressed. The applicant shall provide final versions of all modeling (HydroCAD and MIDS) and Stormwater Management Report to address remaining comments and confirm rate, volume and water quality requirements are met as part of the final plat application. Additionally conditional approval from the watershed district shall be provided with the final plat application to confirm the design is meeting all applicable stormwater management requirements. The applicant is proposing to meet stormwater regulations with the construction of a constructed wetland type stormwater best management practice (BMP) with incorporated filtration located on the northwest corner of the site where the existing pond/wetland is located. An approved wetland alteration permit and associated WCA sequencing application is required to construct the stormwater management system shown in the construction plans. 65 Page 12 of 14 The BMP is located within an existing drainage and utility easement (D&U) that serves to protect the existing pond/wetland located in the area. The existing easement is larger than the current area of the pond/wetland. There are limited opportunities for stormwater management in this part of Chanhassen. The city intends to utilize the existing D&U for treatment associated with the future Pleasant View Road reconstruction project which is scheduled for 2026-2027 construction. If the design is approved and the applicant secures the required wetland permits the easement would be vacated by the city and then reconfigured. In order to approve the use of the existing D&U for the subdivision drainage the applicant must show that the proposed design will be oversized to accommodate the existing and future stormwater management needs of the city. The applicant shall complete an analysis of the area that outlines the existing and future stormwater management needs of the city in this area and shows that the proposed basin is sized appropriately. The analysis shall be submitted with the final plat application. There appears to be approximately 1 acre of the development which routes untreated stormwater to the south that ultimately drains to a wetland complex north of Carver Beach Road. There is a small city owned wet pond that would provide some level of treatment before the stormwater discharges to the downstream wetland. Standard engineering practice is to route and treat a sites runoff to the maximum extent practicable. There appears to be opportunities to optimize the design or add/enhance downstream BMPs to provide treatment so that the water leaving the site would achieve city water quality standards. As such the applicant shall work with staff to optimize the stormwater design. Additional water quality modeling and potentially a private BMP installation may be required. The proposed BMP systems shown in the preliminary plat are to be publicly owned and maintained, however there may be the need for private stormwater infrastructure with the final plans. A maintenance plan for any proposed BMPs will be required and should include the maintenance schedule, responsible party, and should include information on how the system will be cleaned out as necessary. The applicant shall submit a stormwater operations and maintenance plan as part of the final plat submittal. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff supports the Planning Commission recommending approval of the preliminary plat, variance, and wetland sequencing applications subject to the conditions of approval and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. APPLICATION REVIEW COMMENTS PLANNING: 1. The Developer shall deed Outlot A to the City. 2. Developer to revise Lot 5 so that driveway access is not within the Outlot to be dedicated to the city. Lot 5 driveway to not be a shared driveway with Lot 4. 3. Lot 6 shall have a driveway access off of Nez Perce drive. 4. Public sidewalk shall be provided at the discretion of City Staff at the time of the final plat, adjacent to Peaceful Lane and connect to the proposed public trail in Outlot A. 66 Page 13 of 14 FORESTRY 1. Developer must update the tree survey to include condition of all significant trees. 2. Developer must add tree protection fencing symbols to the legend on the Tree Preservation plan sheet. 3. Ash trees that are marked to be saved must be inspected by the Environmental Resources Specialist. ENGINEERING: 1. The developer shall enter into Encroachment Agreements for all private improvements located within public drainage and utility easements or right-of-way, as approved by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of building permits. 2. Any previously recorded easements located within proposed public right-of-way or proposed public drainage and utility easements must be vacated prior to or concurrently with the final plat. 3. Private driveways shall not be placed within the Outlot. 4. Based on existing conditions, there are two current driveway access points on Pleasant View Rd. The City will not permit additional driveways off Pleasant View. 5. Final plans shall include current City Standard Details. 6. 8” sanitary sewer main shall be at a minimum 0.5% grade. 7. Correct the jog in the Lot 1 R/W. 8. Lot 1 grading contours do not tie into existing residential lot to the East. 9. Provide D&U Easement over drainage swales where applicable. 10. If there are retaining walls with this project, they shall be HOA or privately owned. 11. The Developer and their Engineer must amend the construction plans, to fully address construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to the recording of the final plat. 12. The Developer will be required to clean & televise all sanitary sewer at connection point and submit the CCTV footage and reporting to the City Engineer for review prior to paving. 13. Many typical details were not included in the plans. Engineer to show private services, pipe profiles, pipe sizes, grade of existing driveway tie-in, . 14. Lot 6 appears to push drainage onto existing residential lot to the south. 15. Developer to remove water main and sanitary sewer pipe and structures along Redman Lane R/W that no longer is necessary. 16. Developer shall coordinate relocations & installations with private utilities prior to final restoration. WATER RESOURCES: 1. The Developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of subdivision approval and construction of infrastructure onsite. 67 Page 14 of 14 2. It is the Developer’s responsibility to ensure that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Carver County, MCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, MnDOT, etc.) prior to the commencement of construction activities. 3. The Developer and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the construction plans, dated December 19, 2024 prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc., to fully satisfy construction plan comments and concerns. Final construction plans will be subject to review and approval by staff prior to recording final plat. 4. An analysis of stormwater treatment shall be submitted with the final plat application that verifies that the design meets the existing and future needs of the City. The treatment volume shall be noted and broken down into what is provided for the existing condition, proposed subdivision, and future roadway projects. 5. The Developer shall secure a wetland alteration permit and associated joint permit sequencing application prior to or in conjunction with the final plat approval. 6. An Operations and Maintenance plan for all proposed BMPs including the inspection frequency, maintenance schedule, and responsible party shall be submitted with the final plat application. 7. The Developer shall work with staff to optimize the drainage design and verify that stormwater runoff to the south meets water quality standards. 8. The Developer shall revise the design and provide a memo which verifies that the development will not adversely impact the drainage of adjacent properties. 9. The Developer shall provide updated H&H and water quality modelling with the final plat submittal. 10. The Developer shall secure condition approval from the watershed district prior to submitting the final plat application to the City. Verification of conditional approval shall be provided with the final plat application. BUILDING: 1. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 2. Building permits must be obtained before beginning any construction. 3. Private retaining walls, if present, more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls, if present, under four feet in height require a zoning permit. 4. A building permit must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 5. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 68 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE:Application of Rachel Development for a Nineteen Lot Subdivision On March 4, 2025, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application to subdivide 13.65 acres into nineteen single-family lots and one outlot. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and made the following Findings of Fact on the remaining application. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On December 20, 2024, the City received a land use application for the property legally described in attachment Exhibit A for the following: A. A variance to the maximum dead ending cul-de-sac length. B. A preliminary plat application for a 19-lot subdivision for residential single-family. 2. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential - RSF. 3. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Low Density Residential. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse effects of the proposed subdivision. The seven effects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single- Family District and the zoning ordinance if the conditions of approval are met. b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and subdivision ordinance if the conditions of approval are met. c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development; 69 Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision will provide adequate urban infrastructure subject to the conditions specified in this report. e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to the conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) Lack of adequate stormwater drainage. 2) Lack of adequate roads. 3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets if the specified conditions of approval are met. VARIANCE FINDINGS 5. The Variances Division in Chapter 18 directs the Planning Commission to consider four general conditions for granting: a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; The hardship the developer is posed with is due to minimal options for street connection. There is one street with the possibility of connection, Nez Perce, however the City Council is not in support of connecting the two streets therefore requiring a variance for the dead ending street. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; The hardship is caused by physical access to this property, the property currently has 70 minimal street frontage on existing streets, with sizeable acreage, making it difficult to adhere to city code as a result of the City Council not supporting a road connection to Nez Perce Drive. c. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; The subject property is largely land locked with minimal opportunities for the creation of through roads that avoid the creation of lengthy cul-de-sacs with the opportunity to reduce cul-de-sac length not being deemed a viable road connection by the City Council. d. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The granting of this variance will not be substantially detrimental to public welfare as a trail connection will be created as part of the subdivision that will serve as an emergency access road for public safety vehicles in the event of an emergency or blocked roads that do not have alternative access due to their cul-de-sac nature. 5.The planning report Planning Case 2025-02, dated February 25, 2025, prepared by Rachel Arsenault, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION & DECISION The Planning Commission approves the requested variance and recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4 th day of March 2025. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:_______________________________ Eric Noyes, Chair 71 EXHIBIT A PID #258710190 (955 Pleasant View Road) All of Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2, Block 3, "Vineland Forest", Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of a line drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 2 a distance of 53.53 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 2 to a point on the West line of said Lot 2 distant 66.00 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 2 and there terminating. PID # 258700060 (6535 Peaceful Lane) That part of Lots 5 and 6, “Vineland”, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract of land to be herein described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East 129.57 feet; thence South 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds East 160.63 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 96.01 feet to the actual point of beginning, Carver County, Minnesota. Together with an easement for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, “Vineland”, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the south line of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating. And That part of Lots 5 and 6, "Vineland", Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: viz: That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, "Vineland" lying Easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distant 168.62 feet Westerly along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5. PID # 258700063 (No Address Assigned) Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing on the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the parcel being described; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5 (hereinafter referred to as “Point A”); thence Easterly along the South line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for ingress and egress and utility purposes, appurtenant to and for the benefit of the above described Exception, which said easement is described as all that part of said Lot 5, Vineland, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning on the South line of said Lot 5 described above as “Point A”; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet more or less, to its intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 5 and there terminating. Also excepting from said Lot 5 that part thereof described as follows, viz: A 50.00 foot strip of land over and across Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, the centerline of said strip is described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Lot 5; thence South 00 degrees 24 minutes 03 seconds East, on an assumed bearing, along the East line of Lot 5, a distance of 380.86 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence Westerly, a distance of 29.21 feet along a non-tangential curve concave to the South, said curve having a radius of 198.13 feet, a central angle of 08 degrees 26 minutes 53 seconds and a chord bearing of North 71 degrees 56 minutes 25 seconds West; thence North 76 degrees 09 minutes 51 seconds West tangent to last described curve, a distance of 170.81 feet; thence Northwesterly, a distance of 124.92 feet, along a tangential curve concave to the Northeast, said curve having a central angle of 39 degrees 52 minutes 43 seconds and a radius of 179.48 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as “Point B”; thence continue Northwesterly and Northerly along the last described curve a distance of 124.92 feet and said centerline there 72 terminating. Also excepting, a 50.00 foot strip of land over and across said Lot 5, Vineland, the centerline of said strip is described as follows: Beginning at the above described “Point B”; thence South 53 degrees 42 minutes 49 seconds West, a distance of 100.00 feet and said centerline there terminating. PID #258700062 (No Address Assigned) Lot 6, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows, viz: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 6, thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the North line of said Lot 6, a distance of 168.62 feet to the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds West a distance of 96.01 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160.63 feet; thence North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 97.00 feet to the North line of said Lot 6; thence Easterly along the said North line of Lot 6 to the point of beginning. Excepting from said Lot 5 and said Lot 6 the following described premises: That part of the South 45.25 feet of Lot 5 and of the North 96.01 feet of Lot 6, “Vineland” lying Easterly of a line drawn perpendicular to the South line of said Lot 5 from a point on said South line distance 168.62 feet Westerly along said South line from the Southeast corner of said Lot 5. And Lot 7, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota, except that part of said Lot 7 described as follows, viz: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 7, Vineland; thence North 1 degree 53 minutes 49 seconds East a distance of 76.37 feet to a point on the Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane; thence North 36 degrees 53 minutes 34 seconds East along said Southeasterly line of Peaceful Lane a distance of 174.79 feet; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds East a distance of 294.35 feet; thence South 1 degree 03 minutes 23 seconds West a distance of 220.04 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 7; thence South 87 degrees 50 minutes 55 seconds West along said Southerly line of Lot 7 a distance of 397.82 feet to the point of beginning. Together with an easement appurtenant to the foregoing Parcels 2, 3 and 4 for ingress and egress over and across that part of Lot 5, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota lying Westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 5; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the South line of said Lot 5 a distance of 168.62 feet; thence North 0 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds East 32.25 feet; thence North 89 degrees 16 minutes 34 seconds West 179.00 feet; thence South 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds East a distance of 32.57 feet, more or less, to a point on the South line of said Lot 5, which point is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a line running North 7 degrees 25 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of 160 feet, more or less, to the intersection of said line with the Westerly lot line of said Lot 5, and there terminating. PID #258690130 (1015 Pleasant View Road) Outlot A, Troendle Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. All Abstract Property 73 From: Bryce Fier Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 3:04 PM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; rasenault@chanhassenmn.gov <rasenault@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Fw: Nez Perce Drive Extension and Beddor Property Development Please see attached email I sent to the city council and mayor, thanks, Bryce Fier Get Outlook for iOS From: Bryce Fier Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 2:07 PM To: council@chanhassenmn.gov <council@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: Amanda Durrant ; Eric Durrant >; Geoff Seper ; Julia Seper ; Tracy ; Lisa Moser >; Subject: Nez Perce Drive Extension and Beddor Property Development My name is Bryce Fier, and I live at 1040 Lake Lucy Road. It is with great disappointment that the city of Chanhassen is strongly considering to not extend Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane. Nez Perce was suppose to be extended 30+ years ago when Troendle Circle was developed. My neighbors on Lake Lucy Road were very vocal about our concerns about the traffic fiow on our street from neighborhoods around us. We were told repeatedly that Nez Perce would be extended to Peaceful Lane so Troendle Circle owners could exit their development to Peaceful Lane. We've been waiting for 30+ years for this to happen. 74 We have complained as a Lake Lucy neighborhood about the traffic fiow (often speeding up and down our street at excessive speeds). Most of the speeding traffic comes from Troendle, Vineland and Nez Perce. We have sought action from the Traffic Safety committee, the engineering department and from law enforcement. We are still waiting for a response to our safety concerns. Many of the homes on our street have young children living in them. Some of us have young grandchildren visiting often. Now apparently, the city counsel is no longer supporting the extension of Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. I don't understand after waiting for 30 years, the promise made by the City Counsel and Frank Beddor is no longer the plan. I can only hope that you reconsider the direction you are headed in approving this development without extending Nez Perce. As an alternative, has the counsel ever considered ending Nez Perce at 6481 or 6491 Nez Perce and sending all of Troendle circle traffic and the Beddor Property development to Peaceful Lane to exit the neighborhood. While this does not extend Nez Perce it would take the traffic from 11-12 homes off our street. I hope you all give consideration to my suggestion to making our street safer for all who live on it. Respectfully, Bryce Fier, 1040 Lake Lucy Road, Chanhassen Mn Get Outlook for iOS 75 From: Julie Kaiser Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 2:34 PM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 2025 Dear Eric, We are Julie and Pete Kaiser, homeowners at 6400 Peaceful Lane. Unfortunately we are unable to attend the Planning Commission Meeting on March 4. We are very much interested and have concerns regarding the Pleasant View Pointe Project. We see there will be discussions of a Wetland Alteration Permit and Variance to the cul-de-sac length for Pleasant View Point. Not having a great understanding of how the decisions are made, are there any resources that you may share regarding these requests and their impacts? Obviously there are rules or codes that are being requested to be adjusted. I am attaching a letter we sent to the Mayor and City Council Members back in October 2024 for the Planning Commission's review. We continue to have the same concerns. We also now have concerns for the Wetland Alteration Permit and the Variance to the cul-de-sac length as we want to understand both requests and their impacts. We would also like to reiterate the concern we have for extending Peaceful Lane and the increase of traffic and impact it will have on the original two remaining houses on the Lane. If you would please conflrm receipt of this email, we would appreciate it. Thank you for your time and consideration to our concerns. Pete and Julie Kaiser 6400 Peaceful Lane 76 10.9.24 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, We are writing to you today to express our concern over the development plan for the Beddor properties at 6535 Peaceful Lane and 1015 Pleasant View Road. Although we realize change is inevitable, we were quite surprised to receive the initial concept plan from Rachel Development and the number of proposed homes in the plan. The turnout at the neighborhood meeting was well attended by neighbors on all sides of the proposed land and several concerns were raised. Being one of the two homes on Peaceful Lane, the third slated for demolition according to the plan, we felt it important to share our concerns for your consideration while reviewing and ultimately making the decision on this property development. 1. First and foremost, we are concerned with the safety of all impacted by this development. People already drive too fast in this area and Pleasant View has seen a considerable rise in traffic. The corner of Pleasant View and Peaceful used to be patrolled regularly 15-20 years ago. We no longer see that type of patrolling. This intersection is a blind spot as it is at the top of the hill and those traveling from both directions cannot see what is at the area just west of the intersection. Many residents walk, bike, jog this road and it continues to become more treacherous with added traffic and speeds. The SE corner of Powers and Pleasant View has a fence that edges the sidewalk. This fence has been knocked down every winter when vehicles travel too fast and lose control. Pleasant View has many blind driveways and bus stops along the way and the safety of children and those entering and exiting driveways is being impacted, especially anytime additional development is introduced. The road has become a cut through which has also signiflcantly increased traffic. 2. We are concerned with the number of homes being proposed, speciflcally requiring access from Peaceful Lane. We were told by Rachel Development that they aren’t requesting any variances or changes to the city’s established codes. Are there any requests for changes required for the established 6535 Peaceful Lane property? If so, what are these? How would the proposal change if 6535 was not part of the proposed development? When considering the design, why can’t the proposed area refiect the landscape and property size of the houses surrounding the pond rather than the Nez Perce culdesac, especially considering the safety and access concerns? 3. We are concerned for Peaceful Lane being connected to Nez Perce. It creates an unnecessary “short cut” for neighborhoods which will increase unnecessary traffic and likely speed concerns for both neighborhoods. 4. We are concerned for the beauty of the green landscape and the disruption of the animals. 77 5. We are concerned for the impact of our homes on Peaceful Ln with the possible number of cars passing through, especially at night with headlights. 6. We are concerned for the construction traffic and overall impact of the condition of Peaceful Lane throughout this process. Peaceful Lane receives little maintenance yet it’s a road where heavy duty trucks, trailers, and machinery park, load and unload to do work on Powers Blvd., Pleasant View, and Pleasant View properties. We want to be assured that the repair and rehabilitation of this road will fall on the construction/development side and not on the homeowners. 7. We are concerned with the impact of the wooded cut through path that connects the Powers sidewalk and Peaceful Lane. Many flnd this a hidden pathway that takes you away to “up north” if only for less than a block. While you review the development, please take into consideration the following: • Do not allow the connection of Peaceful Ln and Nez Perce. • Increase the required size of the proposed size lots 7-19 to match the area by the pond and surrounding area. Reducing the number of homes will ultimately reduce traffic and safety concerns. Consider why the previous owner of the land, did not move forward with any development of this land. Consider why the current owner of the land did not want to build out this property while living in the area. • Consider the rich history of Chanhassen and how it received #1 designation for small living by Money Magazine and why. Continue to be able to tote that Chanhassen is the Best Place to Live. • Review the plans from a “put yourselves in our shoes” perspective. What are the determining factors and whys for making the decisions? We encourage you to view and walk the area to see what it currently holds and how adding 16 (19 total) homes in a small area is going to signiflcantly change the landscape and feel of what was once considered a country town and road. Thank you for your time and allowing us to express our concerns. Sincerely, Pete and Julie Kaiser 6400 Peaceful Lane 78 79 80 From: eric Anderson Date: Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 4:25 PM Subject: Charles Cudd Development Plan - Pleasant View Pointe To: <council@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Good Afternoon Council Members, I wish to express my support for the Charles Cudd Development that is being proposed to you in the near future called Pleasant View Pointe. I understand you have a work session to discuss it on Monday. I am part of a large neighborhood group on Troendle Circle, Nez Perce and Lake Lucy that have two items that we strongly oppose related to this development: 1. We strongly oppose the plan option that would connect Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane. This would quickly become a cut through for those looking to avoid Powers to get to Pleasant View. Nez Perce (north of Lake Lucy) is a road that has a number of blind spots that create safety hazards for our neighbors that have young children and dogs. Even going 25 miles an hour on the street is too fast given all the topographic change and turns that create the blind areas. 2. We also oppose the relocation of the water tower access between 1060 and 1080 Lake Lucy Road. Currently, there is a City-owned outlot that is 50 feet wide in length that has been reserved for potential relocation of the water tower access in the future. We understand the developer is being asked by the city to provide an easement that would make the connection possible in the future. Putting an access road between two houses is a bad idea. There are children and dogs that surround the homes in that area that would make it unsafe for them if this was built. I appreciate your consideration in reviewing this request. We love our neighborhood and believe these two items could drastically change the character of the neighborhood making it less safe for residents, their young children and their pets. Sincerely, Eric Anderson 6580 Troendle Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 81 From: Sent: Saturday, March 1, 2025 3:10 PM To: emass@chanhassenmn.gov; Arsenault, Rachel <rarsenault@chanhassenmn.gov>; lhokkanen@chanhassenmn.gov - City Manager Subject: Rachel Development LLC Commission Members and City Staff: I am writing to voice my support for the variance (to NOT connect Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane) proposed by Rachel Development LLC in regards to their proposed 19 lot single- family development. I understand that this will be taken up by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 4, 2025. This connection would degrade the neighborhood traffic patterns that currently exist and are working fine for the residents of our neighborhood. Making the proposed connection would increase traffic, decrease safety, and degrade our quality of life. In regard to street or connection lengths, many other neighborhoods have faced the same issue, voiced their concerns, and been granted a similar (if not exactly the same) variance by the City. I only ask, and I think I echo the position of a majority of my neighborhood, that the same consideration and precedent be extended to the Chanhassen citizens in our neighborhood. Some residents have proffered the position that the connection would reduce traffic on Nez Perce and thereby lower traffic speeds. In my professional opinion, this is a logical fallacy and simply not true. Lower traffic volumes do not equate to lower speeds; particularly in a residential setting. I thank you for your time and consideration. Please include our comments as part of the packet presented to the Commission. Respectfully, Michael W. Johnson, PE and Gwen R. Westphal Johnson 6540 Nez Perce Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (763)458-7735 (M. Johnson PE – MN, ND, CA, FL, TX, NV) 82 From: Thomas Donnelly Sent: Friday, October 11, 2024 4:05 PM To: DL City Council <Council@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Proposed Cudd Development - Pleasant View Pointe Wanted to express my concern regarding one of the two proposed development plans for Pleasant View Point (which I understand you are discussing next Monday). I reside at 6491 Nez Perce Drive and actually purchased the last home developed by the Bedor family on the Bedor property. My concern is the concept plan that connects Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane. Nez Perce Drive to the immediate south and north of Lake Lucy Road was not designed for high traffic volumes which are certain to result if residents in the area and up to Kerber and beyond know that they can access Pleasant View to travel south without accessing Powers and for residents who are traveling north to Excelsior, accessing Powers at Pleasant View Road. Nez Perce Drive, to the south of Lake Lucy Road is quite narrow and has considerable pedestrian traffic without sidewalks - already a route that sees meaningful southbound traffic to downtown Chanhassen. Nez Perce Drive to the north of Lake Lucy Road has significant elevation changes leading to poor visibility and also includes a 90 degree left turn at the bottom of a hill in a neighborhood that has attracted young families with small children since we moved here 25 years ago. I hope you will consider alternatives that do not include this road connection for everyday traffic, as I believe it will create a significant safety hazard for families in the immediate neighborhood. I think there are other pragmatic approaches to allow for emergency vehicle access (if that is the primary city concern) to both the existing and proposed new culdesac. Thank you so much for considering these concerns as you move through your process with Cudd. Regards, Thomas Donnelly 6491 Nez Perce Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 83 From: Bryce Fier Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 11:31:21 PM To: Eric Durrant ; Amanda Durrant >; Eric J Durrant >; Denise Clarke ; Bradley Johnson Lisa Moser Tracy ; Julia Seper Geoff Seper ; Jay Lochner >; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: Bryce Fier Subject: Planning commission meeting tomorrow night To my fellow Lake Lucy Road neighbors and Mayor Ryan. I assume that all of you got the notice in the mail last week of the planning commission hearing about the development behind those of us who live on the even side of the street. I remain steadfast that the Nez Perce extension needs to go through to Pleasant View, via Peaceful Lane, to help alleviate the traffic flow on our street, and make our street safer. It is time for the city to deliver on promises made 30+ years ago. Unfortunately, Mother Nature is coming and I will no longer be able to voice my position. A Mayo Clinic appointment on Wednesday morning is forcing us to drive to Rochester Tuesday to avoid the bad weather coming. Shelly and I built our home in 1991 at 1040 Lake Lucy Road. Since 1991, there have been discussions about the Nez Perce extension. When Troendle was built we were told to be patient with our concerns about traffic flow because the Nez Perce extension would go through. The Nez Perce extension was first discussed by the city council on 9-11-89 when the Vineland Forest development concept plan was brought forth. There was significant discussion about the roadways to connect the Vineland development and the western undeveloped property (Troendle and Rachel Development being considered now). On 8-12-91 the Troendle plat was approved by the city council. The approved plat included the extension of Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. On 5-24-93, the city council voted to condemn a portion of the property and complete the extension of Nez Perce, as was approved in the 9-11-89 concept plan. The temporary end of Nez Perce has had a barricade with a sign indicating the road would be extended in the future. This sign has been in place since at least summer of 1995. The barricade and signage was paid for by the Troendle Developer. The city wanted all future 84 residents of the area (especially future residents of the Troendle development) to know what the city of Chanhassen intent was for Nez Perce extension to Peaceful Lane. It is my understanding that the approval of the Troendle Addition included the Nez Perce extension to Peaceful Lane. In August 1995, Frank Beddor agreed to a proposal to resolve the condemnation process and allow for the right of way to complete the Nez Perce extension, but not before August of 1998. It is note worthy that Carver County District court ruled in favor of the city about this road extension, and Beddor agreed to the proposed resolution, it was sitting before a Minnesota State Appeals Court. 27 years later after Beddor settled and gave the city the right of way to complete the extension we are still waiting for a road that has been in development plans for 36 years. Respectfully, Bryce Fier, 1040 Lake Lucy Road Get Outlook for iOS 85 From: Amanda Durrant Date: March 4, 2025 at 11:59:35 AM CST To: DL City Council <Council@chanhassenmn.gov>, "Ryan, Elise" <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: J Lochner , mgrunig@chanhassenmn.org, , Eric Durrant Eric J Durrant Denise Clarke Lisa Moser >, Tracy >, Julia Seper Geoff Seper >, Bryce Fier , Bradley Johnson >, Kord Brashear Dear Chanhassen City Council and Mayor Ryan, I am writing to you today in regard to the Nez Perce extension to Powers Blvd. I live at 1061 Lake Lucy Rd. I have only been living on Lake Lucy Rd for 9 years, but enough to have witnessed the exorbitant amount of speeding traffic down Lake Lucy Rd. It is frustrating to say the least. A cut through to Powers via Peaceful Lane, which has been in the plans for 30+ years, would significantly relieve the speeding cars, multiple garbage trucks, and construction vehicles traveling down Lake Lucy to get to multiple other neighborhoods every day. As my children are older now, there are still several families with younger children, and plenty with pets (including us) along Lake Lucy who would greatly benefit from less traffic. Please consider extending Nez Perce to finally give Lake Lucy residents a break! Thank you for your consideration, Amanda Durrant 86 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STA'|E OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Jenny Potter, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 20,2025, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice Consider request for a l9 lot single-family neighborhood development on approximately 13.65 acres ofland located generally at 6535 Peaceful Lane. Owner: Beddor Enterprises LP, Applicant: Rachel Development, LLC to the persons named on attached Exhibit'A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereoni that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Jenny P r, City Clerk Subscribed and swom to before me this /l dayof R 5, v orr- ,2025J (t,n 4,ia*,,.^ I tI AMY K. WEIDMAN Notary Public-Minnssota My Commltsbn Expils6 Jan 31,2027 Notary Public <X/,D!;-- 87 Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. «Tax_name» «Tax_add_l1» «Tax_add_l2» Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. «Next Record»«Tax_name» «Tax_add_l1» «Tax_add_l2» Subject Area Subject Area 88 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Date & Time: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 6:00 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. Proposal: Consider request for a 19 lot single-family neighborhood development on approximately 13.65 acres of land located generally at 6535 Peaceful Lane. Applicant: Rachel Development, LLC Property Location: 6535 Peaceful Lane A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: 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: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans for the project. 3. Planning Commission discusses the proposal. 4. Public hearing is opened taking comments from the public. 5. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission continues discussion on the project prior to voting on the project. Questions & Comments: To view project information before the meeting, please visit the city’s proposed development webpage: www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe Date & Time: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 at 6:00 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. Proposal: Consider request for a 19 lot single-family neighborhood development on approximately 13.65 acres of land located generally at 6535 Peaceful Lane. Applicant: Rachel Development, LLC Property Location: 6535 Peaceful Lane A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: 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: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans for the project. 3. Planning Commission discusses the proposal. 4. Public hearing is opened taking comments from the public. 5. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission continues discussion on the project prior to voting on the project. Questions & Comments: To view project information before the meeting, please visit the city’s proposed development webpage: www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe 89 Tax name Tax add l1 Tax add l2 ABRAHAM ALEGRIA 6390 PLEASANT VIEW CV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ADAM FONDA 981 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ADAM J & AMY WAKEFIELD 6451 DEVONSHIRE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7538 ALEX P WOLD 920 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALEXANDER EDWIN WESTLIND 825 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ALEXANDER HAAR 6560 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9344 ALEXANDER L PETRIE 900 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 AMIE MICHELS 6520 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANN ELISE WARE 6275 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9434 ANNELIESE HUML 6500 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ANTHONY DEW 5625 N XERXES AVE 323 BROOKLYN CENTER, MN 55430- ANTHONY S WALDENMAIER 6471 DEVONSHIRE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7538 ANTONIO J FRICANO 980 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 AREYAN HASHEMI-RAD 6650 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BEDDOR ENTERPRISES LP 12555 SALEM AVE NORWOOD YOUNG AMERICA, MN 55368- BRADLEY & KAROL M JOHNSON 1001 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8678 BRYCE D UZZELL 6686 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BRYCE E FIER 1040 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8677 CALEB PALKERT 6450 DEVONSHIRE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN CITY PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRIS WINGE 6511 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER D KRATOSKA 1180 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER G BUSCH 990 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER SCOTT EIMAN 1206 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9433 CHRISTOPHER T KOSVIC 960 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8679 CHRISTOPHER UNGER 1021 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8678 CURTIS BINDER 6481 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANIEL & TERESA SCHREMPP 1041 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8678 DANIEL J & KAREN A WOITALLA 6689 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9551 DANIEL M FLYNN 6581 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9345 DANIEL T O'CONNOR REV TRUST 941 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID H & MAREN K REEDER 6501 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9345 90 DAVID J ELLIOTT 6680 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9426 DAVID MICHAEL FARNEY 1000 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID MICHAEL GULLICKSON 830 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9545 DEBIN WANG 6510 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7505 DONALD R & CANDACE L DECOSSE 860 VINELAND CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9335 DOUGLAS M & DARLENE K OLSEN 901 VINELAND CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9336 EDWARD & PAMELA A CAPPELLE 6560 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9332 EDWARD W SZALAPSKI JR 850 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9545 ELIZABETH S MANNING TRUST 861 VINELAND CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ERIC J DURRANT 1061 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8678 ERIC R & KATHLEEN M ANDERSON 6580 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9344 ERIK C GAGE 6421 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FRANK BEDDOR, III TRUST 5721 VALLEY OAK DR LOS ANGELES, CA 90068 FREDERIQUE SCHANSMAN 6401 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 GEOFFREY M & JULIA M SEPER 1081 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8678 GREGORY & BARBARA J PEPPERSACK 940 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9556 JAMES B GREEN REVOCABLE TRUST 6380 PLEASANT VIEW CV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES CONWAY 6495 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES P & SUSAN M DUCHENE 961 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8680 JAMES WILLIAM BENDT 6311 NEAR MOUNTAIN RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JANICE M MASON TRUST AGREEMENT 800 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JASON LOCHNER 1100 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAY B DONOHUE 6561 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9345 JEANNE L KRAKER REVOCABLE TRUST 801 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEFFREY SANDER 820 VINELAND CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9335 JENNIFER M GOODKIND TRUST 1140 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JEROMEY STONEBURG 6511 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7505 JOHN GOODMAN 915 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9545 JOHN MICHAEL NORTON 6500 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9344 JOHN N NORRIS REVOCABLE TRUST 1214 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOSHUA D HOLLER 6620 TREETOP RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- JULIA BLUNT 6691 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- KELLY B MILLER 6483 BEATRICE WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- 91 KELLY RAAB 840 FOX CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- KIRK DEAN JACOBSON 1040 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8574 KORD A BRASHEAR 6561 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9334 LAWRENCE E & KATHLEEN M KERBER 6420 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- LAYTON B & MADELYN L PAINE 1092 SHENENDOAH CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9542 LESTER F III & JUDY L BOLSTAD 1101 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8676 LISA SLEZAK-MOSER 1060 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8677 LUCAS FILGUEIRAS DUARTE 921 VINELAND CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- LUCY 1215 LLC 100 2ND ST SE APT 406 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414- MADELYNN CHRISTINE OHLSEN 1200 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- MARK J CAVIN 149 N LAKESHORE DR FONTANA, WI 53125-1120 MARY F MEUWISSEN 4265 COUNTY ROAD 123 MAYER, MN 55360- MATTHEW C & MARGARET I HILLMER 6520 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7505 MELANIE QUAGLIA TRUST 881 VINELAND CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- MICHAEL N JACQUES 1210 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9433 MICHAEL O'TOOLE 6590 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL W JOHNSON 6540 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9332 MICHELLE M BEDDOR 860 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 NICHOLAS TORMAN 6610 TREETOP RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- NICOLETTE RANDALL 6680 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9564 PAMELA E LIBBY REV TRUST 6501 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PATRICIA J JOHANSON REV TRUST AGREEMEMT 6500 PEACEFUL LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- PATRICK DOTY 6500 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- PAUL OSLAND 840 VINELAND CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- PETER E & JULIE L KAISER 6400 PEACEFUL LN CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8326 PHILIP G & LEEANNE LARSEN 6493 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9349 RACHEL KRAKER 860 FOX CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317- RACHEL L KEHAGIAS 1020 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8574 RANDALL W & TRACY K BENSON 1080 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8677 RANDY M & LITA M CANTIN 6694 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9564 REBECCA K HADRYS 1020 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8677 REVOCABLE TRUST OF DAVID A BEDDOR 1050 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD AND DENISE CLARKE REV TR 1000 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 92 ROBBY S KENDALL 980 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9556 ROBERT & RENAE FROEMMING 6411 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9278 ROBERT B PATTERSON JR 6580 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT H & PATTI A MANNING 940 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8679 ROBERT J KAHLMEYER 921 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8680 RONALD C HAGLIND 6470 DEVONSHIRE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7539 RYAN L JOHNSON 1180 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9236 SCOTT J & JESSICA FREDRICKSON 6681 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9513 SEBASTIAN MAIZ 6531 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SHARON JAN NOVACZYK 6371 PLEASANT VIEW CV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9264 SOMASHEKARA HUCHAPPASWAMY 6381 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SOPHIA VILENSKY 6661 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEPHEN T KUEPPERS 6541 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9345 STEVEN & GLORIA RAY 920 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9556 STEVEN C & JODIE L GRADY 6540 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9344 STEVEN C CRIST 6501 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7505 STEVEN MASER 6397 CLIFFWOOD CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7713 SUSAN J DAHLIN TRUST 6451 BEATRICE WAY CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THE THOMAS AND ANNE REVOCABLE TRUST 6641 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS & FOTINI DONNELLY 6491 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9349 THOMAS A MILLER 6581 NEZ PERCE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS JOSEPH RINGWELSKI 6520 TROENDLE CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS K & ANDREA L NARR 6431 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9278 THOMAS K & ANNE H MCGINN REV TRUST 1121 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8676 THOMAS M & DEBRA J GIVEN 6521 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7505 TODD G & AMY K ANDERSON 6461 DEVONSHIRE DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-7538 TREVIS L WILLIAMSON 850 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TRUST OF DONALD & CAROL ZALUSKY 960 WESTERN DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WALTER C LINDER 900 VINELAND CT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WESLEY J HAWKINSON 6370 PLEASANT VIEW CV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9263 93 AFFIDAYM OF PUBTICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss I do solemly swear that the noticg as per the proof, was published in the edition of the SS Mtka Excelsior-Eden Prairie with the known ollice of issue being located in the county of: HENNEPIN with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. $331A.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for I successive week(s); the first insertion beineon0?J2012025 and the last insertion being on 0212012025. MORTGAGE FORECLOSI.]RE NOTICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. $580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in $580.033, subd. 1, clause (l) or (2). If the newspaper's known offrce of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's circulation is in Agent Subscribed and sworn to or affrrmed before me on0212012025 Notary Public Rate Information: (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $999.99 per column inch CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNT!ES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING cAsE NO.202*02 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commis- sion will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at 6:00 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 19- lot single.family development on approximately 13.65 acies of land located generally at 653.5 Peaceful Lane. Applicant: Rachel Develop- ment, LLC; Owner Beddor Enter- prises LP Prcject documents lor thas request are available for public review on the city's website at www.chanhassenmn.gov/ proposeddevelopments or at City Hall dudng regular business hours. All interested persons ai€ invited to attend this public hearing and exprcss their opinions with Esp€ct to this proposal. Rachel Arsenauft Associate Planner Email: rarsenauh@chanhassenmn.gov Phone: 952-227-1132 Published in the Sun Sailor Febtuary 20,2025 1451770 By: ffi Darlene Mario MacPherson ff(fuffi *f;lflNJJil'" \W My commis&n ffies Jan. 31, 2o2s Ad rD 1451770 94 Planning Commission Item March 4, 2025 Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 18, 2025 File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its February 18, 2025 meeting minutes" SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION 95 "The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its February 18, 2025 meeting minutes" ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated Februar 18, 2025 96 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 18, 2025 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noyes called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Eric Noyes, Edward Goff, Steve Jobe, Jeremy Rosengren, Perry Schwartz, and Ryan Soller. MEMBERS ABSENT: Katie Trevena. STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Jeske, Planner; Eric Maass, Community Development Director; Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer; Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Russell Holmes 1635 Hemlock Way Erin Wong 1674 Hemlock Way Geoff Wong 1674 Hemlock Way Ryan Bauer 1675 Mayapple Pass Lindsey Button 1655 Hemlock Way Glen Shoenberg 1665 Hemlock Way Natania Schoenberg 1665 Hemlcok Way Holly Wilde 1685 Hemlock Way Kristie Habermaier 1664 Hemlock Way Jeff Habermaier 1664 Hemlock Way Jason Besler 1704 Hemlock Way David Grover 2565 Highcrest Court Maureen Homa 1545 Hemlock Way Ted Homa 1545 Hemlock Way Nataraja Nallathamby 1661 Mayapple Pass Christina Graese Brandl Anderson Christopher Contreras Brandl Anderson Nancy Gilmore 1705 Hemlock Way Dan Gilmore 1705 Hemlock Way John Anderson Brandl Anderson Becky Fluegge 1671 Mayapple Pass Holly Hanson 1725 Hemlock Way Kristyn Vickman 1535 Hemlock Way Christopher Juulke 1778 Marigold Court John Santini 1625 Hemlock Way Cathy Santini 1625 Hemlock Way 97 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Consider an Ordinance Rezoning Property from Right-of-Way to R-8 Mixed Medium Density Residential District and Request for Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Approval for a 60 Unit Townhome Development (Planning Case #2025-01) Eric Maass, Community Development Director, introduced Mackenze Grunig who is the new Project Engineer. Mr. Maass introduced the project with a rendered site plan of the initial proposal, which includes 60 attached townhomes. Mr. Maass said that the city requests applicants to hold neighborhood meetings, which was done with this project. At the meeting, attendees were asked to write down feedback on small pieces of paper. Mr. Maass presented slides to review what residents were hoping to learn about during the neighborhood meeting. After the neighborhood meeting, the residents were able to share what they were still nervous about in regards to the project and what they were happy to learn. Mr. Maass said that the property is currently designed by the city’s comprehensive plan for Medium Density Residential development. He explained that municipalities are required to update their Comprehensive Plan every ten years based on different factors involving growth forecasts provided by the Metropolitan Council. The Comprehensive Plan is reviewed by the Planning Commission, adopted by the City Council, and approved by the Metropolitan Council. The current Comprehensive Plan in effect is the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that both the 2030 and 2040 Comprehensive Plans gave the site a mixed land use designation of office or residential medium density of four to eight units per acre. Mr. Maass said that the plan did not have a zoning designation, since it was MnDOT right-of-way for transportation projects before MnDOT deemed it as excess and put it up for public auction. Mr. Maass stated they received questions about areas where attached townhomes were backing up to single-family detached homes. Mr. Maass provided examples of similar layouts in Chanhassen, including Mission Homes Townhomes, Powers Place Townhomes, Lake Susan Townhomes, and Prairie Creek Townhomes. Mr. Maass reviewed public feedback about the development, including concerns about the shared boundary with the Pioneer Pass neighborhood to the north. Mr. Maass said that the plans were updated to provide more buffering through the new street becoming a private street which reduced the right of way requirement from 60 feet to 40 feet. He stated that there is now a proposed 80 to 105 feet distance between the detached rear of the single-family homes and the rear of the townhomes. Mr. Maass reviewed the two different product types proposed and said that the applicant needs to provide at least 20 percent of accent material to meet the required threshold outlined in city code. Additionally, Mr. Maass said that there needs to be more variety for architectural differences. He said that if the area is deemed to be critical bat habitat that any tree removal would need to take place prior to April 14, unless the site was reviewed by a qualified inspector and the area not deemed suitable bat habitat. Timelines regarding bat habitat are established by the United States Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Maass showed the original landscaping proposal. He said an additional 84 trees would need to be planted to offset the tree removals. The landscaping plan proposed 217 98 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 3 trees. There would need to be plant diversity to meet the city’s plant diversity requirements. Mr. Maass said that this information was added to the plan. Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer reviewed the proposed street layout, public and private utility plans, as well as proposed location of parking spaces provided in the development. Joe Seidl, Water Resource Engineer, said that the wetland delineation was completed in May 2024. The technical evaluation panel and the City of Chanhassen reviewed and approved the delineation. He stated that two small wetlands were determined to be incidental and created from other roadway projects. Since the wetlands were created incidentally, they can be graded and filled without penalty. Mr. Seidl said that there was one watercourse located in the project. He stated that permitting requirements for the water course required the city, Watershed District, and possibly the Army Corps of Engineers. He reviewed the existing conditions, such as the large hill in the middle of the site. He said that the water runoff on the east side of the site would go down to Bluff Creek, areas to the northwest would drain to the city-owned and maintained wet pond, and drainage to the southwest would drain to the existing drainage ditch system. Mr. Seidl said that there would be more volume created by the storm sewers, which could be mitigated through stormwater best management practices. Mr. Seidl proposed two options for the plan, including a stormwater wet pond reuse system that would capture stormwater and be used to irrigate the site. Mr. Seidl said that the applicant would need to complete additional permitting to ensure they meet regulations. He stated there was a stormwater wet pond located on the northeast of the site to meet water quality and rate control. He said that there would be buffers for the watercourse to meet additional rules and regulations. Mr. Seidl noted that the applicant proposed to outlet the storm sewer down the water course. The water course is highly eroded, so there were concerns that it would be exasperated if it were to take more water. Mr. Seidl said that the city will work with the Watershed and the applicant on the design. He stated an additional concern was at the southwest corner of the site, where there might be a need for some grading or water best management practices to ensure that there will not be excess water. He stated that the stormwater best management practices would be private and need to be maintained by the developer and the Homeowners Association. Mr. Seidl stated that there were standard engineering conditions to implement to address concerns. Mr. Seidl reviewed a concern discussed at the open house about drainage and flooding issues associated with the city-owned wet pond and the adjacent ditch. He reviewed previous aerial photos, which showed water saturation and that there could be potential for subsurface water interactions; the area is encompassed by a drainage and utility easement. The wet pond is on a city-owned outlot and the drainage and utility easement exists in portions of the backyard of the development to the north. He stated that when a development goes through and if there is an area that is known to be wet, the city would include a drainage and utility easement. He commented that a new development could not dump a lot of water there to make the situation worse. Mr. Seidl reviewed hydraulic and hydrological modeling to understand the drainage and reviewed stormwater events. He had a conversation with the developer’s engineer to highlight the concern and mitigate the problem in the final design to make sure the situation would not worsen. Chairman Noyes invited the developer forward to answer questions. 99 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 4 John Anderson, Project Manager for Brandl Anderson, stated that Brandl Anderson purchased the site from MnDOT at public auction. He reviewed the original anticipated plan. He commented that they held a public meeting a few weeks ago and afterward adjusted the plan set to address neighborhood concerns. The adjustments included moving from a public street layout to a private street layout to push the units adjacent to the neighborhood further south for a larger setback and to plant trees for a buffer along the property line. He stated that the water would not touch neighbors’ property, but instead go into the swale which would drain the water west to the pond. He said that they would increase the pond size, which would increase the overall level and help things from a drainage standpoint. Their engineers were trying to figure out how to best address stormwater issues at the watercourse. The existing drainage channel might need upgrades, which would be addressed in the final plan. He stated that the site meets all the required zoning requirements. He commented that the existing power line on the site would be relocated to the very south property line. He said that they received comments from the watershed district. He commented that they wanted to start work on grading, streets, and utilities in the spring, and start house construction in the late summer. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the Homeowners Association’s responsibilities of maintaining the stormwater ponds. Mr. Anderson said that there was a maintenance agreement that would require the Homeowners Association to maintain the pond. He said this typically includes requirements that the ponding does not fill up with sediment and that appropriate vegetation is planted. The Homeowners Association would also be responsible for maintaining the private streets. Commissioner Schwartz asked about marketing terms they planned to use to describe the wetland and the pond. Mr. Anderson answered that the two wetlands on site will not exist when the project is complete since they were deemed incidental. He said that they would describe the stormwater pond as a best management practice. Chairman Noyes asked for a description of the swale. He asked if it presented an elevation change and if it provided an optical or physical buffering between the development to the north and the proposed development. Mr. Anderson answered that the swale would be grass or sodded and could be mowed. He said the elevation change would be less than two feet from the normal landscape to the swale. He stated it would not create a buffer and it would be approximately twenty feet from the property line. He said that the trees would be the buffer. Commissioner Jobe questioned the design and if they accounted for a 50-year flood or 100-year flood with water run-offs. Mr. Anderson said that he did not know the answer and asked Mr. Seidl. Mr. Seidl answered that the standard regulations when designing stormwater best management practice would be two-year, ten-year, and 100-year storm events. He said that there were accepted models that differed based on your location and how much water they conveyed. He provided an example of a 100-year event in Chanhassen, which would be 7.5 inches of stormwater in 24 hours, and how the stormwater runs over that period. He explained that the calculations are standard wastewater engineering and they utilize data from Atlas 14. He said 100 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 5 that the stormwater system would be designed for a 10-year event and best management practices would be designed for a 100-year event. Chairman Noyes stated that he reviewed 517 pages regarding the proposal. He said there was a huge concern about traffic. He requested information about the findings of the traffic study and how it might mitigate resident concerns. Mr. Anderson answered that the study found that Bluff Creek Drive and Pioneer Trail can handle the additional traffic loads. He stated that a comment was that the southwest corner of the site has a hillside, so they would need to regrade this so people can see traffic coming down the hill. Mr. Grunig clarified that the access proposed onto Pioneer Trail would be a right-in and right-out access only which would reduce the conflicts of the possible traffic issues. He said there was adequate capacity on Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek Boulevard to support the homes. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the additional traffic generated by the 60 homes had been looked into with regard to adding to the existing traffic from the neighborhood to the north. Mr. Grunig answered that Bluff Creek Boulevard was designed to support the growth of additional developments. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was a way to objectively identify the discrepancy between what he said and the comments from the neighbors about the safety issues with additional traffic regarding the development. Mr. Grunig answered that he would have to discuss the information with the Engineering Department to understand the best response. Mr. Maass said that Bluff Creek Boulevard and Pioneer Trail were collector streets. He said that collector streets are designed to absorb traffic flows from neighborhoods as cities utilize the land use plan. He said that as they anticipated growth, roads needed to be built to support the growth. He said that Bluff Creek Boulevard was built to accommodate the anticipated traffic generated as land was developed in accordance with the city’s Comprehensive Plan land use designations. Commissioner Schwartz said that the neighbors to the north said that there are current safety issues regarding traffic in the neighborhood and that this development would add additional safety issues. Although Bluff Creek Boulevard is a collector road, the residents believe there are current traffic safety issues before the added development. The development could increase the issues. He asked how to resolve the discrepancies between the complaints and the information provided. Mr. Maass responded that the applicant would need to address the grading of the hill to help with the visibility to help with safety. He stated that the perception of a safety concern is not the same as a traffic study which uses accepted engineering standards to identify safety issues that require mitigation. Commissioner Soller asked if there were any changes to prevent left turns out of the neighborhood onto Pioneer Trail. Mr. Anderson answered that there was a median in the center of Pioneer Trail to help with this concern. 101 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 6 Commissioner Soller asked if it was a single-stop sign for exiting traffic but remained a through- road for north and south traffic on Bluff Creek Boulevard. Mr. Anderson confirmed this information. Mr. Anderson noted that there was a private overhead streetlight proposed at that intersection for nighttime driving and lighting purposes. Chairman Noyes asked if the wet pond expansion would be a city pond. Mr. Seidl answered that this decision was not sorted out. He explained that when you mix public and private stormwater it becomes public. The pond expansion would benefit residents. Commissioner Rosengren asked if there was a necessity for a fence or a barrier for road noise on the east side of the development since it appeared to be close to 212. Mr. Maass said that they sent the plans for MnDOT for review, but a barrier was unnecessary. Commissioner Rosengren asked if there would be new trees planted on the east side that might help with the noise. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Commissioner Schwartz asked how the city would implement their maintenance easement if the plans were private. Mr. Seidl answered that if the ponds were private, the city would not have an easement over them. He said that they would have a stormwater operations agreement that gave similar rights as an easement to inspect best management practices, but the city would not need to have an easement over it. Mr. Seidl said the city found that maintaining easements over a stormwater infrastructure made it complicated to figure out how they would be maintained. There is a standard template agreement that explains how the best management practices would be maintained. He stated that he spent a lot of time reviewing and making comments because he wanted to make sure that a future person in the water resources engineer role would understand what the city owns and maintains and what the private owner owns and maintains. Commissioner Schwartz asked if they anticipated a check and balance or an oversight on the maintenance of these ponds. Mr. Seidl answered that there were requirements with the permitting from the MPCA. The permitting process requires a program that checks in on private best management practices. He stated that the city is working on collecting data and building out a database. He commented that the general idea is in the future, the city would be auditing and doing inspections. He said that the inspection form that is standard with the agreement requires that the private owner completes an inspection every year and submits it to the city. Mr. Seidl said that he would link these inspections to the database and it would be clear what properties were not completing the inspections and the city would follow up. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there would be penalties. Mr. Seidl confirmed this information. Commissioner Schwartz provided an example of how his Homeowners Association has had many boards come and go, so the current board has no idea about their responsibilities for the maintenance of the stormwater pond. He stated that the developer sold homes with a water feature rather than a stormwater maintenance pond, and sold the houses for $10,000 more. He 102 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 7 said that residents feel confused and angry when muck appears on the stormwater ponds every year. Mr. Seidl said he would be happy to discuss this situation with him and answer questions about the maintenance of the stormwater feature in his development. Commissioner Schwartz thanked Mr. Seidl for the offer. Commissioner Goff said that the street moved from a public street to a private street, so there would be responsibilities for snow removal. He asked if any other services were impacted, such as fire. Mr. Maass said that since the width of the street was reduced, there would be no street parking to ensure that there would be access for emergency service vehicles in the event of an emergency. He explained that the north corner and the eastern corner have turnarounds that the fire department reviewed. He stated that there is a twenty-foot front yard setback in the driveways to allow for parking. Commissioner Jobe asked how much public parking was available per unit. Mr. Maass answered that the city requires one guest parking stall for every four units. He stated that since there were 60 units, the City Code would require 15 parking stalls. Chairman Noyes asked if there was a plan to revisit the visitor parking stalls since it was centralized. Mr. Maass answered that the city recommended that the applicant move some of the parking to the corner so it would be more accessible to other units. Commissioner Soller clarified the zoning changes. He said that the Comprehensive Plan had guided the future of this lot for many years. He said that the Comprehensive Plan sets things in motion, but there might be flexibility in terms of what it allows. He stated that R8 was one permissible re-zoning outcome, but asked if other potential zoning outcomes were allowed within the available zones. Mr. Maass answered that the Comprehensive Plan establishes a range that densities had to fall within. He explained that the Residential Medium Zoning District requires between four and eight units an acre. He said the Comprehensive Plan identifies four zoning districts – RLM, R8, PUDR within the Residential Medium Zoning District. He said that the R8 was one of the zoning districts allowed. Commissioner Soller asked if the city was led by the interests of the land developer if it fell within the Comprehensive Plan requirements. He wanted to understand the confines of the Comprehensive Plan and submitted proposals. Mr. Maass answered that the Comprehensive Plan shows the zoning district options. Once the zoning district is selected based on which zoning districts are eligible, there are minimum standards that need to be met with the zoning district. Chairman Noyes asked if the bike path and sidewalks were being maintained in the plan. Mr. Maass answered that they were in the city’s right-of-way and being maintained. Commissioner Soller asked if the green area was zoned A2. Mr. Maass answered that the land was owned by the city and was a part of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. He stated it had an A2 zoning designation. 103 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 8 Commissioner Soller asked if the other gray areas to the east were part of the MnDOT right-of- way. Mr. Maass confirmed that information. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the other parcels owned by MnDOT in the immediate vicinity could be sold. Mr. Maass said it was his understanding that those parcels were not intended to be sold. The other areas were not seen as developable with the interchanges and heavily wooded areas. Commissioner Soller said he wanted to understand the structure and the process behind the decision. He asked whether there were additional options or if it was a well-designed plan. Mr. Maass said that the project as proposed did not request variances, and it meets the land use parameters and zoning standards. He stated that the city staff prepared findings of fact related to the subdivision and site plan for approval. If the Planning Commission or City Council finds that there is a finding of fact that is inaccurate, they could provide concern. He commented that city staff work hard to ensure accurate findings of fact. Chairman Noyes indicated that there were sixteen letters from the public. Some of the letters were submitted before the changes to the site plan. He reviewed the themes of the letters, including tree removal, parking and traffic, potential declining traffic values, erosion, flooding, lack of a buffer, and removal of green space. He stated there would be a five-minute limit per person. He requested that they state their name and address and speak clearly in the microphone. He requested if the agreement is the same as one previously mentioned, to state the similarity rather than giving detailed information. He said if the information was new, it could be shared. Chairman Noyes opened the public hearing. Geoff Wong, 1674 Hemlock Way, voiced appreciation to the Mayor for answering questions to understand the on-site concerns. He said he understood that growth was needed, but was concerned with how it was being done. He discussed the erosion concerns and echoed agreement on the comments from the commissioner. He said that there were a lot of kids in the neighborhood, so he had safety concerns. He stated that there was a huge park to the west of the neighborhood that was utilized by the kids for recreational needs, so the collector road is frequently occupied and crossed. He stated that the traffic was a concern since Avienda was brought to light. He commented that there were concerns about emergency services being able to access the road. He asked if taxpayer money is used to improve the current infrastructure to support this type of neighborhood. He said that the infrastructure or the strain on the city would be impacted, especially if additional neighborhoods like this come up. He suggested a Comprehensive Risk Assessment Plan for the commissioners to understand the uncertainty about who was responsible for different aspects of the drainage. He said a mitigation plan should be fully understood before the site plan was approved. He asked how the 2040 Comprehensive Plan aligned with the city. He commented that Chanhassen was voted as one of the most desirable cities to live in and there was a reason for that, so it would be important to consider what was best for the neighborhood. 104 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 9 Erin Wong, 1674 Hemlock Way, voiced appreciation for the changes to the setback in some areas by Brandl Anderson. She said she did not see changes to the setback on the east side, so some homes are still pretty tight along the property. She proposed a solution to consider single- family homes against the existing single-family homes and then keeping the rest of the property of townhomes. She said that the road would be the buffer and it would be similar to the current neighborhood. She suggested they could also consider duplexes. She said these options would help keep greenspace and the feel of the neighborhood and mitigate the issues of reduced property values. She said that two neighbors moved and had to accept offers of $20,000 to $30,000 less than if the townhomes were not going to be placed in the backyard. She reiterated the traffic concerns by adding 60 townhomes and potentially 120 more cars. She often sees near- misses and has to wait often to cross the street when she is walking her dog. She commented that the trees would take twenty to thirty years for the trees to grow to provide a buffer to the townhomes. Lindsey Button, 1655 Hemlock Way, said that her property line sits approximately 20 feet from the back patio of the 290-foot proposed two-story multi-family housing structure. She commented that the structure was very different from the existing single-family homes. She said it was different to share backyard space with one family than with six families. She thanked Brandl Anderson for listening to their concerns and putting evergreens to create a buffer. She said that there was limited space and the townhouse residents could likely reach out from their patio and touch the evergreens. She commented that trees were too close and did not align with the Comprehensive Plan, which required transitions between different land uses. She said when these natural features were absent, the land use plan allowed for buffer yards with increased setbacks with landscaping and berms to improve the separation of incompatible uses. She said that there should be an orderly setback that makes sense and provided an example of the Lake Susan Development that provided 100 feet of separation between the low-density houses and medium-density houses. She asked for the same consideration when considering the development of their property. She reiterated the concerns of Erin Wong with the traffic. She commented that the road was icy and snowy in the winter and coming down the hill was dangerous, so it was a huge risk for young drivers. She said there was poor visibility on Hemlock Drive which provided additional risks for drivers. She voiced concerns about the influx of traffic with Avienda. She appreciated the discussion of the medium-density designation for the land and reviewed what the Comprehensive Plan stated. She said it would make more sense to be R4 rather than R8 when backing up to single-family homes. She commented that the land was 11.75 acres and 2.5 acres would be road and infrastructure and 2.5 acres would not be developed. She said there would be 10 dwellings per acre which far exceeded the amount allowed by R8 development. She requested to reconsider if it made sense to put 10 houses on one acre behind low-density homes. She requested that the land be redesignated to R4 to provide continuity with the other neighborhoods, provide a sense of order, and decrease traffic concerns to keep kids safe. Kristie Habermaier, 1664 Hemlock Way, stated that she was the original owner of her house and moved in in 2011. She said that she understood the need for growth in the community, but did not believe the current Pioneer Ridge proposal did not match the best interests of the neighborhood or the city. She voiced agreement with the previously stated safety concerns. She discussed the entrance added to Bluff Creek Drive. She said the hill prevented visibility, but the 105 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 10 trees also did. She commented that there was ice which provided concerns. She stated she was worried about the intersection with the newly licensed drivers and newly permitted drivers in the driveway. She commented that her daughter has an easier time pulling out of the driveway at nighttime since you can see headlights. She thought that the traffic would get worse, especially with the completion of Avienda. She said her house shares a backyard with Becky’s house on Mayapple. She appreciated that they measured her strip of Hemlock and Mayapple, but those were single-family house homes backing up to each other, not townhouses. She commented that the City of Chanhassen was voted as one of the best places to raise a family. She explained that her neighborhood acted as her village as she helped raise a family and was a tight-knit group. She commented that a few neighbors moved because of the development and other families were planning to do the same if the current proposal went through. She voiced devastation about the idea of the neighborhood being ripped apart. She said that a developer told her at a meeting that it could be worse and the townhouses could be three stories, but that did not make her feel better. She voiced appreciation that they listened to concerns and made some changes but expressed the need to consider other options such as what Lindsey Button mentioned. She asked that they reconsider the street that enters and exits on Bluff Creek Drive. She encouraged the Planning Commission to consider their own houses and neighborhoods and if this would be something that they would want. Tedd Homa, 1545 Hemlock Way, commented that his house did not back up to the proposed development. He shared the same concerns already mentioned by other neighbors. He also expressed concerns about safety westbound on Pioneer Trail, which was 50 miles per hour over the overpass. He said that the roads were not in good shape, and you could not be in the right- hand lane without sliding. He worried about increased accidents on Pioneer Trail which would be terrifying for new neighbors. He commented that he would be blocked from turning left on Hemlock Way. He said it would be necessary to consider the proposed traffic from the south to go to the industrial areas, especially the Avienda Group. Cathy Santini, 1625 Hemlock Way, said that she had three traffic questions and issues directed to the city. She asked as you are heading northbound on Bluff Creek Drive, if there would be a right-hand turn lane. She also asked if there would be a left-hand turn lane for southbound traffic. She thought a turn lane would be helpful for the traffic coming through the neighborhood. She discussed the iciness when coming south on Bluff Creek Drive and asked for the city to keep an eye on the intersection to see if it needed to be regraded. There has been a lot of snow and ice that gathered there in the past. She stated there were lights in four directions as you were headed eastbound on Pioneer Trail at the intersection. But if you were headed eastbound, you only get a yellow flashing arrow for turning and there is no green arrow. She suggested a green arrow to have the right-of-way would be helpful. Russell Holmes, 1635 Hemlock Way, commented that his property was in front of the water course. He agreed with the concerns discussed by his neighbors. He agreed with Cathy’s comments about adding turning lanes for traffic. He said that Bluff Creek has unregulated crosswalks and traffic circles, so increased traffic flow puts additional risks. He said Pioneer Trail had traffic lights, but Bluff Creek did not even though they were classified in similar ways. He thanked the Planning Commission for looking at the plan and their concerns regarding traffic and drainage. He stated he heard a lot about water drainage to the west. He said the watercourse 106 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 11 was horrendous with the erosion and the debris. He voiced concerns about relying on it as a major point of drainage but figuring out the details after the plan was approved. He asked who would maintain the watercourse long term and the agreements with the city to ensure it remains an open drainage site. He appreciates that the developer listened to concerns and added trees as a buffer, but the trees would be small for many years. Mr. Holmes suggested that the northern perimeter should also have trees so that those on the edge of the property would receive the benefit of privacy from the development. He said that the two outlots to the property should become a part of city land to ensure that they remain green space in the future. Glen Shoenberg, 1665 Hemlock Way, said that Chanhassen has had a lot of well-planned growth, but he did not think that this project was well-planned. He commented that the road came out on a hill, which made it difficult to make a left turn onto the development from the north if there was ice on the road. He said that there was a crosswalk further north up the hill to the park, but not everyone utilizes the crosswalk and choose to cross at Hemlock Way. He commented that kids do not understand the risks of crossing the road. He stated that there were sixteen guest parking spaces and no street parking, which was not enough. There was no street parking on Bluff Creek Drive or Pioneer Trail, so he voiced concerns about parking on Hemlock Way and people crossing through his backyard. He voiced concerns about safety such as trespassing. He said that people choose Chanhassen for the thoughtfulness of neighborhood design and green spaces. There was a lack of green, open space in this design. He commented that Chanhassen needed to maintain green space and environmental health and that the proposed development introduces a metropolitan atmosphere. He stated that other townhomes in Chanhassen have increased buffer spaces. He said that the 2040 Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan supports low-density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in such areas that maintain the aesthetic of single-family homes and to create new neighborhoods with similar quality. He said that the plan also requires increased buffer areas for neighborhoods of different densities. He commented that the city needed to ensure the landowner abides by these requirements and urged alternate solutions for the development of the land. He believes that the property met the zoning requirements but not the land-use goals in the Comprehensive Plan. Nancy Gilmore, 1705 Hemlock Way, said that her house backs up to the development. She agreed with the statements from her neighbors. She said today as she pulled onto Bluff Creek, she almost got into a car accident. She stated that the through traffic from Pioneer Trail to Avienda was ridiculous. She said it was difficult to cross the road to the park. She stated that the buffer of small trees would not make a difference. She said that they need to consider respect for the residents who have lived there for years. Christopher Juulke, 1778 Marigold Court, agreed with the statements shared tonight by other residents. He reiterated the safety concern and said that there were no places where the cars stop between the stoplight and the roundabout further down, so cars increase their speed while driving. He asked for additional ideas to slow the traffic and provide safe-crossing for children. Jason Besler, 1704 Hemlock Way, said the development did not directly impact his property. He stated that there were a lot of unanswered questions, so he encouraged the Planning Commission to call a time-out and hold additional discussions. 107 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 12 Glen Shoenberg, 1665 Hemlock Way, spoke again. He said that the traffic proposal said that the grading won’t meet the recommended sight lines for the proposal. Chairman Noyes closed the public hearing. Chairman Noyes said that there were a lot of comments about the traffic study and residents provided valid comments. He recognized that both of the roads were collector roads and he asked what options there were on the roads as it related to safety, such as turn lanes or roundabouts. Mr. Grunig answered that turn lanes were not a part of the project right now, and it was not recommended based on the traffic study. Chairman Noyes asked how to separate the facts from fiction as it relates to traffic and whether there were actions that the city could take to improve the situation. He asked how they were evaluated and implemented. Mr. Grunig said he would love to hear about the safety concerns specifically from residents as he is the chair of the Traffic Safety Committee and can request more enforcement. He stated that Bluff Creek Boulevard was a collector road and is designed to receive a lot of traffic. He commented that there were different ways that the city could decrease speed or improve pedestrian safety. Chairman Noyes said it would be important to review the options based on concerns. Commissioner Schwartz commented on the high usage rates of the adjacent Pioneer Pass Park and said it was an everyday issue to have difficulties crossing the street to get to the park. He asked how someone doing a traffic study could not see these issues, unless they were not accurate. Mr. Maass answered that the traffic study did not make the lived experiences untrue, but the traffic study is a science-based engineering approach to analyze the roadway capacity and design solutions. He commented that proper grading can solve the sight distance issue. The analysis did not require turn lanes, but the neighbors expressed concerns about traffic issues on Bluff Creek Boulevard. He said that these traffic issues could be brought to the city’s Traffic Safety Committee for review. He said there were additional pedestrian safety issues that could be improved by the city that the city could improve when necessary. These improvements are not connected to the development or within the boundaries of the proposed plat. Commissioner Schwartz reiterated if residents follow up with Mr. Grunig, they can be sure that there concerns about traffic on Bluff Creek Boulevard are heard. Mr. Maass answered that he took extensive notes and would take the information to the Traffic Safety Committee to discuss additional improvements. Chairman Noyes asked if potential pedestrian improvements within the road would be a parallel or a serial process to the review of this project. He asked if they could put a hold on the project until the road improvements were made. Mr. Maass answered that the two projects would be separate and were not applicable to the rezoning or the site plan. Commissioner Jobe said if the setback was set, but people were asking to reduce the size of the housing unit or the angle, the Planning Commission could only put it as a request. Mr. Maass answered that they could make it a request but not a requirement. 108 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 13 Commissioner Schwartz clarified that changing the configuration of the development, such as switching to single-family houses, would be outside of the Planning Commission’s role. Mr. Maass confirmed this information unless there were amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or a request by the property owner for a switch in which of the eligible zoning districts was being pursued. Chairman Noyes asked if they were providing feedback about zoning. Mr. Maass said they were providing recommendations on the rezoning, preliminary plat, and site plan. Commissioner Schwartz clarified that the plan meets the criteria, so the discretion to approve or not approve is based on whether it meets the criteria. He commented that since it meets the criteria, they have no choice but to confirm. Mr. Maass confirmed this information. Commissioner Soller asked about the exit onto Bluff Creek Drive and if it was required based on the flow of traffic and how people should enter and exit the new neighborhood, or if it was based on how the developers wanted to plan the neighborhood to meet market demand. He asked if there was an alternative to consider no exit onto Bluff Creek Drive since there were concerns about traffic on Bluff Creek Drive. Mr. Maass answered that access to Bluff Creek and Pioneer Trail was a recommendation of city staff. There was a limitation for cul-de-sacs of 750 feet for purposed of public safety. Anything in excess of 750 feet would require a variance and it was unclear if city staff would support such a request. Commissioner Soller clarified that the exits and entrances were for public safety. Mr. Maass answered that the recommendations for exits and entrances were a right-in and right-out on Pioneer Trail and access to Bluff Creek Boulevard. Commissioner Jobe asked if there was a 100-year flood and if areas were public, the city would service it, but if it was private, the Homeowner’s Association would be responsible. He asked about the triangle point and whether it could be made into public land for a playground or a nature preserve. Mr. Maass responded that the city would own a portion of the land for preservation excluding the pond and the best management practice area. Mr. Seidl voiced appreciation for the stance expressed for the plans to be fully figured out with no questions. He said the stormwater design was complicated and there were a lot of moving parts. He looks through developments through a specific lens to determine whether the plans are far along enough so that he can address reasonable concerns. He said during a preliminary plat review; he is conditioning things that need to be done before a final plat review. The designation of the water feature depends on the final design and if it would be considered private or public. He would not let things move forward from a stormwater perspective unless there were engineering solutions for any possible issues. Commissioner Schwartz asked if a Homeowners Association would be required to maintain a vegetative buffer around the ponds. Mr. Seidl answered that the City Code did not require a buffer around stormwater management features. He said that the wet ponds would not require a 109 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 14 native buffer, but there were rules and regulations on watercourses that the applicant would need to sort through. Commissioner Soller said that an unanswered question was about the language brought up when planning developments in the Comprehensive Plan, especially with the transition from one zone to another zone. He said that the plan felt slightly in contradiction to the language of the Comprehensive Plan about transitions from one zone to the next. Mr. Maass said that the Pioneer Pass neighborhood was zoned residential low-medium or RLM. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan looked to segmentally organize land use and that medium density residential adjacent to low density residential is an appropriate land use adjacency. He said that an example of an incompatible adjacent land use designation would be heavy industrial. He said that the modified proposal was aligned with the distances of the homes in the area, but recognized the differences between spacing with townhomes and single-family homes. He commented that the buffering area was appropriate and based on city code. Commissioner Jobe asked about privacy and separation. Mr. Maass answered that both evergreen and decisions trees were proposed for buffering and would be six-foot at installation and should grow one to two feet per year. He commented a six-foot tree was less susceptible to various issues when transplanted than larger trees. Commissioner Rosengren said he reviewed the Carver County Community Development Agency’s Housing Marke Study which was recently reviewed by the City Council. He said that the report stated that Chanhassen has a nine-month supply of land to build new houses. He said that the median cost to build a new house in Chanhassen was $800,000 and that 90 percent of the people who work in Chanhassen do not live in Chanhassen. He asked where houses would fit in Chanhassen to meet Carver County expectations. He stated that the concerns were valid and needed to be heard by the city staff, but they would need to consider how to provide different types of housing options for individuals who will move to Chanhassen in the future. He stated it was less of a concern about the zoning and whether it fit into the Comprehensive Plan, but there was a need to adapt and grow as a community while also properly addressing resident concerns. Commissioner Soller stated he questioned whether the City Code made appropriate requirements and whether the design was considered when two different zones were next to each other. He asked if the City Code considered transitions between different districts. Mr. Maass answered that the city had buffer yard requirements and design guidelines for multi-family housing. Commissioner Soller asked if the buffers and setbacks required in an R8 do not change based on the zone it is next to. Mr. Maass indicated that city code outlines the buffering requirements based on adjacent land use. Commissioner Soller said maybe the idea was unheard of in City Planning. Mr. Maass said that the downtown zoning district required a high-density residential adjacent to detached single- family homes, the rear yard setback must match the setback for single-family homes even though it is zoned for downtown designation. He explained that the downtown designation and detached single-family designation were opposite ends of the zoning ordinance in terms of density. He stated that the city could add one between R8 and RLM, but it is not in the City Code today so it 110 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 15 could not consider that as a variable applicable to the project. He stated that R8 and RLM zoning districts were similar to each other, so it might not be appropriate to mandate the same rear yard setback. He stated that they were not far off from meeting the comparison. Commissioner Schwartz said that Chanhassen has developed the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance appropriately which could be built on in the future. Chairman Noyes said he was not sold on the traffic study. He had trust in the city and that they would investigate issues and consider resolutions. He understood that people had concerns about erosion. He said that he was confident between Mr. Seidl’s team, the developer, and the DNR, the concerns with erosion and water would be addressed. He stated that the builder proposed an adequate buffer. He said that the buffer was not the issue, but that residents did not want townhomes in the area. He stated that the decrease of property values was not because they were townhomes, but because of the loss of green space in the backyard. He commented that the green space would go away no matter how the land was developed. He said that there needed to be further discussions about traffic and it would need to be a parallel process. They would not stop the project because of the traffic. He wanted the City Council to know that there were concerns with the set-up of the roads and there were some solutions that could mitigate the traffic and safety concerns expressed. He said that collector roads were designed to have a lot of traffic on them, but high-volume streets could still be made safer and fit the needs of residents. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the property values go down because the green space was being developed and if the property value differences would be offset since the townhomes would be fairly expensive. Chairman Noyes answered that he was not sure, but it was a good question. Commissioner Soller said that the City Council would need to review the concerns since they have a wider purview. He encouraged them not to stigmatize individuals moving into the townhomes. People tend to treat the neighborhood as their own and treat it respectfully. Chairman Noyes commented that the residents in the townhomes would have common goals of safety for their families. Commissioner Schwartz asked if they wanted the City Council to see their concerns and if they should change the motion or provide comments. Mr. Maass responded that he took copious notes from the meeting tonight and there would be no need to amend the motion. He said that the comments from the public meeting and the meeting minutes would be provided to the City Council. The concerns had been noted and would be addressed at the City Council. Chairman Noyes said the Planning Commission’s job is to make sure the proposals met the land use and zoning designations. The Planning Commission was a recommending body based on those factors. He wanted residents to understand that the commission could not vote no to a project just because of other merits. Commissioner Jobe moved, Commissioner Schwartz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the requested rezoning of the property to R-8 Mixed Medium Density Residential District and recommending 111 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 16 preliminary plat and site plan approval for a 60-unit townhome development subject to the conditions included in the staff report dated February 12, 2025. The motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1 (Noyes voted Nay) GENERAL BUSINESS: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 21, 2025 Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Jobe seconded to approve the Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated January 21, 2025, as presented. All voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Eric Maass, Community Development Director, updated the Commissioners, noting the City Council interviewed architecture firms for the Chanhassen Bluffs Community Center and would make the decision tomorrow. They would then notify the selected firm to move forward. Chairman Noyes asked if anything changed on Avienda. Mr. Maass responded that they were identifying the acreage that the city would buy and platting it out to leave useable outlots on either side for a future hotel. He said he had no other pending applications within Avienda to share at that time. Commissioner Schwartz asked when demolition of the hotel downtown would commence. Mr. Maass answered that the site owners received approval from the Watershed District with conditions. They are working on those conditions for final approval from the Watershed District until they move forward. There were a few things that needed to be done before taking down the building, but the building would be demolished into itself and then debris cleared. He stated that the cinema demolition would take a month and then they would move forward to the hotel. Commissioner Jobe asked if there are any changes planned for the transit facility. Mr. Maass said he was not aware of any changes to the transit facility. Commissioner Soller asked if there was a specific date for the removal of the cinema so residents could pay final respects. Mr. Maass answered they made the public aware of the project via communication channels several times, but they do not have a specific date, but it is likely soon. Commissioner Schwartz suggested sharing the demolition date with the local media and the museum to capture the last hurrah of the mural and structures. Mr. Maass responded that the Historical Society already removed items from the hotel and High Timber Lounge. 112 Planning Commission Minutes – February 18, 2025 17 Commissioner Schwartz suggested that the Paisley Park museum could do photography for historical purposes of the mural. Chairman Noyes asked if there were any agenda items for the next meeting on March 4. Mr. Maass responded that the Comprehensive Plan allows for density bonuses for the development of affordable housing. The attorney said that there needs to be specific parameters in the code for this to be utilized. The City Council would discuss this in their work session and then the Planning Commission would review the rough draft and provide feedback. Commissioner Soller asked about the current state of the cannabis ordinance. Mr. Maass said that it was on the City Council agenda for Monday evening on February 24. The City Council was discussing buffering of cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco sales from residential treatment facilities and schools. The City Attorney recommended having a baseline ordinance in place. Commissioner Schwartz asked about the Civic Campus construction. Mr. Maass responded that city staff were on the second floor of the new building for a tour, and it was moving along well. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION: None. OPEN DISCUSSION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Schwartz moved, Commissioner Soller seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Eric Maass Community Development Director 113 Planning Commission Item March 4, 2025 Item Discussion Only: Ordinance XXX: Density Bonuses Amendment File No.Item No: F.1 Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Prepared By Eric Maass, Community Development Director Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION No action suggested; discussion only. SUMMARY The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for the city allowing density bonuses in exchange for the creation of affordable housing. The City has been approached by a developer seeking to utilize this bonus policy. However, in order for the policy to be utilized as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, the city must establish rules and regulations for the program in city code. Staff has drafted the attached ordinance for planning commission feedback related to density bonuses. As currently drafted, the Ordinance would allow for up to 25% increased density for residential projects in the R-8, R-12, R-16, PUD-R, and CBD zoning districts. The Metropolitan Council's threshold for affordable housing is based on a minimum density of 8 units per acre which is staff's basis for using the 114 R-8 district as a minimum threshold. The City Council reviewed the draft ordinance during their work session on February 24th, 2025 and the council appreciated the city’s efforts to support affordable housing and suggested a number of revisions which have been incorporated into the draft ordinance which is included with this agenda item. City Council requested the removal of reduced lot size, and reduced lot width incentives in exchange for affordable bonus units as well as affirmed that bonus units should also be subject to standard guest parking calculations as outlined by city code. The City Council is scheduled to review this draft ordinance again at their March 10th work session following Planning Commission input. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION No formal recommendation. Discussion only. ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinance Establishing Affordable Housing Density Bonus 115 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. XXX AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20-924 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Sec 20-924 Development of Affordable Housing Development of affordable housing in R-8, R-12, R-16, Planning Unit Development - Residential, and Central Business District zoning districts. 1) Generally. The following development types in the R-8, R-12, R-16, Planned Unit Development Residential, and Central Business District zoning districts may be granted additional densities in order to create a certain number of affordable housing units. The amount of additional density is as calculated as follows. (1) Density Bonus. A residential development within zoning districts regulating development intensity through units per acre maximums qualify for the following density bonuses for each affordable unit provided at varying household income levels as follows: i. Each affordable dwelling unit affordable to households at or below 80 percent of AMI qualifies the overall development for one bonus dwelling unit up to a maximum 25 percent increase over current zoning density. ii. In no instance may density bonus units be allocated to parcels designated by the comprehensive plan for residential densities of less than eight dwelling units per gross acre. (2) Period of affordability. For rental developments subject to this chapter, the period of affordability for the affordable dwelling units shall be 20 years. (3) Geographic Distribution. Development projects which request to utilize this density bonus should be in general proximity to employment centers and commercial development. A density bonus will not be granted if infrastructure including but not limited to sanitary sewer, watermain, or roadways adjacent to the development site are deemed insufficient by the City to support the increased density. 116 (4) Applicable Zoning Requirements. Approval of a density bonus does not provide a waiver for any other applicable zoning requirements including but not limited to building setbacks, building height restrictions, or minimum parking standards. 2) Standards for affordable dwelling units. (1) Rent price level. The monthly rental cost for an affordable dwelling unit shall include rent, and any other non -optional monthly occupancy charges which would not include basic utility services such as water, sewer, and electricity . Affordable units shall not be charged any fee that is not also levied against market rate renters. The maximum rent amount shall be based on the metropolitan area that include s the city adjusted for bedroom size and calculated annually be the department of housing and urban development and posted by Minnesota Housing for establishing rent limits for the Housing Tax Credit Program. (2) Size and design of affordable dwelling units. The developer shall not designate specific units for affordability. They shall be the same design, size and materials as market rate units. (3) Distribution of affordable dwelling units. Affordable dwelling units shall be distributed throughout the building. (4) Number of bedrooms in the affordable units. The affordable dwelling units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportion as the market rate units. The mix of market rate and affordable dwelling units shall be approved by the city. (5) Affordable dwelling unit size. The affordable dwelling units shall have room sizes comparable to the room sizes in market rate dwelling units. (6) Tenants. Rental affordable dwelling units shall be rented only to income eligible families during the period of affordability. A household that was income eligible at initial occupancy may remain in the affordable dwelling unit for additional rental periods as long as the income of the household does not exceed 140 percent of the applicable AMI. (7) Non-discrimination based on rent subsidies. Developments covered by the chapter must not discriminate against tenants who would pay their rent with federal, state, or local public assistance, including tenant based federal, state, or local subsidies, including, but not limited to, rental assistance, rent supplements, and housing choice vouchers. 3) Affordable housing tools and incentives; general requirements. (1) The developer of any of the housing types listed in section 20-656(a), 20-508, 20-677(a), 20-685(a), or 20-738(a) is eligible to use any of the affordable housing tools and incentives described in this section. 117 (2) Land use approvals or issuance of a building permit for a development requesting a density bonus under this Section shall be conditioned upon recording of a covenant and appropriate guarantees satisfactory to the City that affordable housing requirements for the development will be in compliance with this Section for a period of no less than 20 years. (3) Use of an individual tool or incentive described in this article is prohibited if the city council determines that the resulting development has the potential to negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood and that the negative impacts outweigh the positive benefits of the opportunity units created. Section 2. Section 20-656 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-656 Development of affordable housing in the R-8 district (a) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924(a) may be eligible for development and financial incentives, as described in section 20-924. Section 3. Section 20-677 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-677 Development of affordable housing in the R-12 district (b) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924(a) may be eligible for development and financial incentives, as described in section 20-924. Section 4. Section 20-685 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-685 Development of affordable housing in the R-16 district (a) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924(a) may be eligible for development and financial incentives, as described in section 20-924(k). Section 5. Section 20-738 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: Section 20-738 Development of affordable housing in the Central Business District (a) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924(a) may be eligible for development and financial incentives, as described in section 20-924(k). 118 Section 6. Section 20-508(g) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby amended as follows: (g) Development of affordable housing in the Planned Unit Development – Residential District (1) Multifamily structures that meet the requirements in section 20-924(a) may be eligible for development and financial incentives, as described in section 20- 924(k). Section 7. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___day of _____, 2025, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota ______________________________ ________________________________ Jenny Potter, City Clerk Elise Ryan, Mayor (Published in the _________________________ on ______________________________) 119