The URL can be used to link to this page

05-05-25 CC packet itemCity Council Item May 5, 2025 Item Consider Preliminary Plat, Site Plan, Rezoning, and Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Contract for Pioneer Ridge Development (Planning Case 25-01) File No.25-01 Item No: H.1 Agenda Section GENERAL BUSINESS Prepared By Eric Maass, Community Development Director Reviewed By Laurie Hokkanen SUGGESTED ACTION "The Chanhassen City Council approves the rezoning, preliminary plat, and site plan for a townhome development consisting of 40 attached townhomes and 14 detached townhomes, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report dated April 23, 2024, and approval of the Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Contract for Pioneer Ridge Development." Motion Type Simple Majority Vote of members present Strategic Priority Development & Redevelopment SUMMARY The city is asked to consider rezoning property and preliminary plat and site plan approval for a townhome development consisting of 40 attached townhomes and 14 detached townhomes on an 11.75- acre property generally located at the intersection of Bluff Creek Drive and Pioneer Trail. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission considered this application and held a public hearing at their meeting on February 18, 2025. At the time of the February 18 Planning Commission meeting, the proposed development consisted of 60 attached townhomes. Since that meeting, the applicant has modified the development proposal to consist of 40 attached townhomes and 14 detached townhomes based on additional feedback during the public hearing, as well as from the City Council. 303 In addition to the rezoning, preliminary plat, and site plan portions of the case, staff has included a Land Disturbance and Tree Clearing contract for City Council consideration. This is being added so that some tree clearing can be completed on-site prior to considering a final plat approval. The applicant is requesting to remove trees that would be restricted for removal later in the summer based on protections associated with the northern long-eared bat. The City Council approved a similar contract with the Pleasant View Pointe development earlier this year. DISCUSSION BUDGET RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested rezoning, preliminary plat, and site plan approval for the Pioneer Ridge subdivision. ATTACHMENTS Complete Civil Plan Set Rendering of Jasmine and Isla Attached Townhomes Rendering of Sophia and Amelia Townhomes City Staff Report - All Departments Findings of Fact and Decision Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Contract February 18, 2025 Planning Commission meeting minutes with public comment emails 304 57.2857.2857.2867.6955.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.25 5 5 . 2 5 N:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-CV01.DWG PIONEER RIDGE © 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.SHEET INDEXPRELIMINARY PLANSPIONEER RIDGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTAPREPARED FOR:PIONEER RIDGE, LLC.221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337CONTACT: CHRISTOPHER CONTRERASPHONE: 952-898-0230EMAIL: CCONTRERAS@BRANDLANDERSON.COMSITEVicinity Map(NOT TO SCALE)SHEETSREVISIONDATENO.102/05/2025REVISED SITE PLANALL204/07/2025REVISED SITE PLANALL304/21/2025REVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE4..............FORFORPLAT, SITE, GRADING, EROSIONCONTROL, UTILITIES, LANDSCAPEAND TREE PRESERVATIONPREPARED BY:PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00CONTACT: RYAN BLUHMPhone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONPIONEER RIDGECHANHASSEN, MINNESOTAFORFORPLAT, SITE, GRADING, EROSIONCONTROL, UTILITIES, LANDSCAPEAND TREE PRESERVATIONINITIAL SUBMITTAL DATE: 12/13/24SHEET: 1 OF 22PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00Sheet List TableSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLE1Cover2Existing Conditions3Preliminary Plat4Preliminary Grading Plan5Preliminary Utility Plan6Street Profiles7Details8Details9Details10Details11Details12Details13Details14Details15Overall Tree Preservation16Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan17Preliminary Tree Preservation Plan18Preliminary Tree Preservation Data19Overall Preliminary Landscape Plan20PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN & NOTES21PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN & DETAILS22PHOTOMETRIC PLAN305 93093093 0 930930930 930 930930932932 934928920920920920920 920920920918922920 920920 928926922 9 2 8 9 3 2 9349369 3 8 9409 4 6 944930930920910900890900920 910900 936 948∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆SSXXPOH POH POH POH POH POH POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHSTOSTOSANSANSANSANSANSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTO STOSTOWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWAT WATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATSTOPOH POH POH POH POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHSTO STOHH FIBER OPTICFOFOFD. 1/2 INCHOPEN IRON PIPEFD. 1/2 INCH OPENLS #12294FD. 2 INCH MNDT DISCR/W BOUNDARY CORNER B6FD. 1/2 INCH OPENLS #12294FD. 1/2 INCH OPENLS #12294FD. 1/2 INCH OPENLS #12294FD. 1/2 INCHOPEN IRON PIPER/W BOUNDARYCORNER B8FD. 1/2 INCH OPENLS #12294FD. 1/2 INCH OPENLS #12294FD. 1/2 INCH OPENLS #12043R/W BOUNDARY CORNER B9FD. 1/2 INCH OPEN IRON PIPER/W BOUNDARY CORNER B10FD. 1/2 INCH OPEN IRON PIPE;BROKEN CAPR/W BOUNDARY CORNER B11FD. 1/2 INCH OPEN IRON PIPE;BROKEN CAPR/W BOUNDARY CORNER B12P.O.B. LINE 1FD. 2 INCH MNDT DISCR/W BOUNDARY CORNER B13PER MNDT R/W PLAT NO. 10-20E 1/4 COR OF SEC. 27, TWP. 116, RGE. 23 &W 1/4 COR OF SEC. 26, TWP. 116, RGE. 23FD. 4 INCH DISCS. LINE OF THE SE 1/4 OFTHE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 27E. LINE OF THE SE 1/4 OFTHE NE 1/4 OF SEC. 27W. LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OFTHE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 28S. LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OFTHE NW1/4 OF SEC. 28NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARYPER MNDT R/W PLAT NO. 10-20FD. REBAR W/CAPR/W BOUNDARYCORNER B7R/W BOUNDARYCORNER B5LINE 1LINE 1BRICK FIREPITBRICK FIREPITBRICK FIREPITBRICK FIREPITGARDEN AREASWINGSETGARDEN AREAAPPROXIMATEMOW LINEAPPROXIMATEMOW LINEPONDGARDEN AREARE=929.30CAN'T OPENRE=924.43IE=919.73 (E)IE=913.03 (W)RE=924.39IE=920.09 (E)IE=920.29 (NE)RE=900.85IE=896.15 (NE)IE=896.15 (SE)RE=901.83IE=896.43 (SW)RE=899.85IE=895.55 (NW)IE=895.45 (NE)IE=895.45 (SE)RE=903.48IE=900.28 (NW)IE=899.98 (SW)IE=900.28 (NE)RE=904.73IE=899.33 (SE)RE=906.09IE=902.79 (NE)IE=902.79 (SW)RE=910.08IE=906.78 (NE)IE=906.78 (SW)RE=916.64IE=913.24 (SW)RE=908.74RE=909.92RE=923.28IE=919.1824" RCP20" RCP15" RCP12" RCP15" RCP12" RCP 12" RCP 12" RCP12" RCP12" RCP12" RCPPID: 256090450CITY OF CHANHASSENPID: 256090410DEEPAKAGGARWALPID: 256090400REBECCAARMAGOSTPID: 256090390ANDERSSYVERSONPID: 256090380MATTHEWSEVERANCEPID: 256090370DANIEL &NANCY GILMOREPID: 256090360AARON &JENNIFER PIERCEPID: 256090350MATTHEW &HOLLY WILDEPID: 256090340LESLIE & DANAELDERPID: 256090330GLEN & NATANIASCHOENBERGPID: 256090320NATHAN &LINDSEY BUTTONPID: 256090310JOSEPH &JENNIFER FELIUPID: 256090300RUSSELL &MEGHANHOLMESPID: 256090290JOHN &CATHERINESANTINIPID: 256090280KORY & SARAHGROSKREUTZPID: 256090270THOMAS & CASSANDRA KRAUSPID: 253620025CITY OF CHANHASSENPID: 256090460CITY OF CHANHASSENBLUFF CREEK DRIVE(PUBLIC STREET)PIONEER TRAIL(PUBLIC STREET)WIDTH VARIES US H I G H W A Y 2 1 2 (P U B L I C S T R E E T ) WI D T H V A R I E S80R/WCONTROLLED ACCESS SHOWNPER MNDT R/W PLAT NO. 10-2010 FT BITUMINOUSTRAIL 5 FT CONCRETESIDEWALKCONTROLLED ACCESS SHOWNPER MNDT R/W PLAT NO. 10-20N. LINE OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4OF SEC. 28, TWP. 116, RGE. 23CONTROLLED ACCESS PERDEED RESTRICTION12" RCP 15" RCP24" RCPCB=S20°54'41"ECH=323.84∆=079°17'21"R=253.78L=351.20N51°07'03.00"E 253.88 N69°27'12.00"E 464.59 N08°53'48. 0 0 " E 1 7 1 . 8 4 N5 2 ° 5 4 ' 3 3 . 0 0 " E 1 2 6 . 6 3 N00°26'14.75"W 253.73 N00°26'14.75"W 263.81 S80°01'29.00"E 353.71N68°45'55 .00"E 230 .69 S3 0 ° 3 6 ' 5 2 . 0 0 " W 4 3 5 . 0 9 S22 ° 5 7 ' 1 7 . 0 0 " W 1 7 3 . 0 7S87°24'40.00"W 336.72∆=037°35'13"R=852.85L=559.48S46°00'03.00"W 190.46 S88°36'33.09"E66.03N00°26'46.48"W 530.77 N 3 8 ° 0 8 ' 5 3 . 0 0 " E 8 9 0 . 9 3 ∆R/W BOUNDARY CORNER B14PER MNDT R/W PLAT NO. 10/20N:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-EXP01.DWG 222CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEEXISTING CONDITIONS221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/24MATT WELINSKI5359604/21/2025PIONEER RIDGE, LLC.PRELIMINARY PLANS© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com0'801602401" = 80'###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THESTATE OF MINNESOTAPROPERTY DESCRIPTIONThe following information was provided by Land Title, Inc., Issuing Agent for First American Title Insurance Company, File Number6872387, which has an effective date of October 25, 2023 at 7:00 am:That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, and the SouthwestQuarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, shown as Parcel 60 on Minnesota Departmentof Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered 10-20 and Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 10-43 asthe same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Carver County, Minnesota;Which lies northwesterly, northerly and northeasterly, of Line 1 described below:Line 1:Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B14 as shown on said Plat No. 10-20; thence southwesterly on an azimuth of 218degrees 08 minutes 53 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 890.93 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B13 and the point ofbeginning of Line 1 to be described; thence on an azimuth of 210 degrees 36 minutes 52 seconds for 435.09 feet; thence on anazimuth of 202 degrees 57 minutes 17 seconds for 173.07 feet; thence on an azimuth of 267 degrees 24 minutes 40 seconds for336.72 feet; thence deflect to the left on a tangential curve, having a radius of 852.85 feet and a delta angle of 37 degrees 35 minutes13 seconds for 559.48 feet; thence on an azimuth of 226 degrees 00 minutes 03 seconds for 190.46 feet; thence northwesterly for351.20 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 253.78 feet, a delta angle of 79 degrees 17minutes 25 seconds and a chord azimuth of 339 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds to the northwest boundary of said Plat No. 10-20and there terminating.Subject to the following restriction:No access shall be permitted to Trunk Highway No 212 from the lands herein conveyed.Abstract PropertyGENERAL NOTES1.Bearings of property lines shown hereon are based on the Carver County coordinate system, (NAD 83 - 2011 ControlAdjustment).2.Lengths of lines and distances between features are measured in US-Survey Feet.LEGENDGUY WIREFLARED END SECTIONBEEHIVE CATCH BASINCATCH BASINPOWER POLESIGNSTREET LIGHTSTEEL/WOOD POSTPOWER OVERHEADWATERMAINSTORM SEWERHYDRANTFENCE LINECONTROLLED ACCESSCURB & GUTTERCONCRETE SURFACEBITUMINOUS SURFACEFOUND MONUMENT (SEE LABEL)TREE LINEPOHSTOWAT∆XEASEMENT LINESECTION LINELOT LINEBOUNDARY LINERIGHT-OF-WAY LINETRAFFIC SIGNAL306 12345678910111213141516171812345678910111213141516171819202121123100.0'165.9'50.0'14' 13'123456789101112131457.28 57.28 57.2867.6955.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.25 19202,368 sf2,368 sf2,886 sf2,738 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,368 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf2,738 sf51,872 sf15,105 sf6,244 sf6,244 sf6,244 sf2,738 sf2,368 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf3732323974 3932323774 74 74 74 37323237743732323774 74 74 74373232323774 373232323774 74 74 74 743732377437323774 74 74 199057 57 57 5737323237743732323774747474373232377437323237747474743732323774373232377474747437323237743732323774 74 74 74 37 32 32 3774 37 32 32 37 747474557190 4 0238 3732323774373232377429940122 61 62 9 1 2 7 7923125 5 173 10957 57 57 1091095461616161616244747474R50'R50'OUTLOT A9,555 sf37 11517134140132124120119122127136139 10 3 15 5714337312062311877732067487,910 sf8,174 sf7,910 sf7,598 sf7,665 sf7,150 sf6,906 sf6,860 sf7,011 sf7,362 sf57,133 sf6754545454545454545454 10920 6737 75,591 sf18 0 119 327140 3492OUTLOT B OUTLOT BOUTLOT B OUTLOT C1710 9 2 3874741132 2823 24 90,097 sf17,079 sf37 1139 4346 575192 176727473842930936678143774 392823 24 3840 349143 37 7474 3774 37373774 OUTLOT D∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOH POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPIONEER TRA ILBLUFF CREEK DRIVEUS H I G H W A Y 2 1 2215444222124 B-BPOWERLINE & POLESTO BE RE-LOCATED9B LU F F A R E A BLUFF AREAEXPANDED PONDPONDPRIVATE STREETPRIVATE S T R E E T FIRE TRUCKTURN-AROUND"NO PARKING"FIRE TRUCKTURN-AROUND"NO PARKING"20' BUFFERIMPACT ZONE20' BUFFERIMPACT ZONE20 202022NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL NWLNWL NWL NWL NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL 40.00'24B-B24B-BPRIVATE STREET24B-BPRIVATE STREET40.00'POWERLINE & POLESTO BE RE-LOCATED 53292130342912342,738 sf2,368 sf2,368 sf2,738 sf373732323737323274 74 74 74 74STREET20 20 125 510 STREET16,244 sfSECTION 26 , TOWNSH IP 116 , RANGE 23060120180·EXISTING ZONING:N/A·PROPOSED ZONING:RLM·GROSS SITE AREA:11.75 ACBLUFF AREA:0.72 AC·NET SITE AREA:11.03 AC·DEVELOPMENT SUMMARYMULTI-FAMILY TOWNHOMES:40 HOMESVILLAS14 HOMES·PROJECT DENSITY:GROSS:±4.60 UN/ACNET: ±4.90 UN/ACSITE DEVELOPMENT DATAIMPERVIOUS COVERAGE1.ALL LOT DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST FOOT.2.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.3.STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY.4.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED. DRAINAGEAND UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES A.5.STREET WIDTHS ARE SHOWN FROM BACK OF CURB TO BACK OF CURB.DEVELOPMENT NOTESPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEEASEMENT LINECURB AND GUTTERLOT LINEPOND NORMAL WATER LEVELRETAINING WALLEXISTINGPROPOSEDTIP-OUT CURB AND GUTTERSITE LEGENDSITE AREAALLOWABLE COVERAGE255,915 SF511,830 SFTYPICAL MULTI FAMILY LOT DETAILSHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-PPP01.DWG 223CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEPRELIMINARY PLAT221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/24PIONEER RIDGE, LLC.04/21/202553774NICHOLAS T. MEYER© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00CONTROLLED ACCESS∆MINIMUM LOT AREALOT STANDARDSMINIMUM LOT FRONTAGESETBACKSFRONTBTWN BUILDINGSSIDE CORNER LOTREARSTANDARDMULTI-FAMILYTOWNHOMES1,800 SF30'20'20'20'10'REAR TO PIONEER TRAIL20'IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE50% MAXIMUMPROPOSED COVERAGE182,673 SF (35%)GUEST STALLS REQUIRED: .25/UNIT; 14 STALLS TOTALGUEST STALLS PROVIDED: 21 TOTAL STALLSPARKING PROVISIONSVILLAS5,445 SF55' @ 20' FRT SBK20'5' GARAGE /10' HOUSE20'30'20'TYPICAL VILLALOT NUMBERLOT AREABUILDINGSETBACK LINEDRAINAGE& UTILITYEASEMENTLOT LINEROAD RIGHTOF WAYTYPICAL LOTDIMENSION20'30'10'5'55'55'109' 109' 307 ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆BLUFF CREEK DRIVEPIONEER TRA IL HI G H W A Y 2 1 2 TNHELEV=924.149087929.86SSSB-7 EL=929.869097931.51SSSB-2 EL=931.519105931.76SSSB-3 EL=931.759112912.95SSSB-6 EL=912.959122931.76SSSB-4 EL=931.769127928.08SSSB-8 EL=928.089140947.25SSSB-5 EL=947.259176930.46SSSB-1 EL=930.46EX-MHRE = 929.30EX-MHRE = 916.64EX-MHRE = 910.08EX-MHRE = 906.09EX-MHRE = 903.48EX-MHRE = 900.85EX-MHRE = 924.43EX-MHRE = 924.39EX-MHRE = 901.83EX-MHRE = 904.73EX-MHRE = 923.28SEX-MHRE = 937.53SEX-MHRE = 937.43XXX XPOH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHSTOSTOSANSANSANSANSANSANRE=937.53IE=918.83 (E/W)8" PVCRE=937.43IE=918.13 (N/E/W)SAN8" PVCSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTO STOSTOSTOSTOWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWAT WATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATSTOSTOSTOPOH POH POHPOHHH FIBER OPTICFOFOFO 506250655066FM123 456789101112130 1 2 3 4 5FMFMFMEXPANDED EXISTINGPOND 6NWL=927.0EX 100 YR HWL =930.3PR 100 YR HWL=929.4EOF=930.4928.60PATIOGARAGEOLIVIA2-STORYPORCH12345678910111213141516171812345678910111213141516171819202121123STREET ASTREET B123456789101112131457.28 57.28 57.2867.6955.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.25 PATIOGARAGEOLIVIA2-STORY1920OUTLOT A2OUTLOT B OUTLOT BOUTLOT B OUTLOT COUTLOT D920930914914 916918922924926928932934934 934.5SOG934.5936.3SOG936.3933.0SOG933.0935.3 SOG 935.3 935.6 927.4 WO 927.4 935.0926.8LO930.0936.6928.4LO931.6932.8924.6LO927.8931.6923.4WO923.4934.8926.6WO926.6935.9927.7WO927.7932.1923.9WO923.9929.1920.9LO924.17.9%7.9%8.4%6.8%7.9%7.0%7.0%7.0%7.2%8.7% 5.0%4.1%5.3%3.1%7.8%5.2%5.3%3.3%7.8%5.0%6.1%5.2%4.0%6.3%4.4%7.1%3.2% 4.6% 4.0%7.8%7.6%5.0%7.4%8.8%7.7%7.2%4.2%8.8% 7.2% 7.0% 5.3% 7.9% 6.0% 8.5% 6.9% 6.5% 6.8% 5.7% 3.0% 4.4% 3.5%937.6929.4LO932.6934.9926.7WO926.7935.9927.7WO927.73:13:13:13:14:1 25.0%935.9 SOG 935.9 937.5 SOG 937.5 936.6 928.4 WO 928.4 33.3%932.6924.4WO924.4935.8927.6WO927.6934.5SOG934.5935.4SOG935.4937.3SOG937.3935.8SOG935.8933.3SOG 933.3930.1921.9LO925.1933.1924.9WO924.9 936.9928.7WO928.73:13:13:13:14:1 4:1 4:1920920930930930922922924924926926926928928928932930930928928932 90091092093089890290490690891291491691892292492692893290 2 90 4 906 908 912914 91 6 918 92 2 9 2 4 92 6 9 2 8 9 3 2 9 3 4 9369209209169169189189229229249249269309229229249249269269269289329349 3 6 9 3 83:13:1 NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL 9 4 0 9 3 4 9 3 4 9369369 3 8 9 4 2 944 94 4 932 934 93 6 938910920902 9 0 49069089129149 1 6918922924926928932932EXPANDED EXISTINGPOND 6NWL=927.0EX 100 YR HWL =930.4PR 100 YR HWL=929.5EOF=930.435.435.029.431.332.429.734.834.5NWL NWL NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL 35.236.035.235.034.534.835.21.1%SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF SF S F S F SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF SF SF SFSFSFSFSFSF HP33.5POND 2-REUSENWL=922.5BOTTOM = 913.0100 YR HWL = 925.6EOF=925.6BERM=926.14.6%4:10.8%0 1 2 3 4 5 1.1%35.4930932932932 934934934 936936 920920 920930 914914 916916 918 918922922 922924924924926926926928 9329209209189189229249269289209309149169189229249269289329349109209089129149169189229249263:1 9.0% 8.5% 8.0%936.7SOG936.7933.6SOG933.6931.9SOG(1)932.6934.0925.8LO929.0933.0924.8R933.0933.8925.6LO928.829.3 31.033.234.232.031.730.629.729.328.329.128.831.732.633.534.435.335.734.833.532.331.130.5 34.335.436.534.533.531.732.2HP33.0LP28.6EOF30.8EX EOF22.521:117:110:1EOF20.521.021.021.021.021.019.017.518.533.532.5930940940940932934936938942942 9209129 1 2 9149149169189 2 2 924910920904906908912914916918 922 900 910 896 898902904 906 908 912 914 91691893092492692893293491090490690891291491629.729.031.930.32.0%2.5%2.5%3.1%31.73.0%28.82.0% 2 . 0%2.2%2.0%28.031.231.52.0%30.737.337.330.932.336.036.731.329.936.336.3VALLEYGUTTER (TYP)123 456789101112130 1 2 3 4 53.45%1.71%1.71%2.28%2.28%3.50%3.50%3.50%3.45%2.00%1.25%2.00%2.25%3.91%2.25%Overall LP 0+05.99ELEV 922.52 HP 5+30.29ELEV 935.492.26% 3.39%1.95% 2 .2 6 % 2 .2 6 %SILT FENCE (TYP.)INSTALL HEAVY DUTY SILTFENCE AT NWL OF POND (TYP.)INSTALL HEAVY DUTY SILTFENCE AT NWL OF POND (TYP)26.326.226.0ROCKCONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE (TYP)NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLROCKCONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE (TYP)SURMOUNTABLECURB & GUTTER (TYP)SURMOUNTABLECURB & GUTTER (TYP)SIGHT LINE30.428.2RELOCATED WATER COURSEINLET PROTECTION (TYP)EROSION CONTROLBLANKET (TYP)DITCH CHECKS (TYP)SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-GDF.DWG 224CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEPRELIMINARY GRADINGPLAN221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.PRELIMINARY PLANS© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com0'60'120'180'1" = 60'60'12' or 6'02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00PROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPOSEDINDEX CONTOURINTERVAL CONTOUREROSION CONTROL LEGENDEROSION CONTROL NOTES982980982980SILT FENCESFSTOSTORM SEWERTPFTREE PROTECTION FENCETREE LINERETAINING WALL (MODULAR BLOCK)GRADING LIMITSGL1.NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY AND SOIL CONDITIONS MUST BE PROTECTED, INCLUDING RETENTIONONSITE OF NATIVE TOPSOIL TO THE GREATEST EXTEND POSSIBLE.2.ALL SILT FENCE AND OTHER EROSION CONTROL FEATURES SHALL BE IN-PLACE PRIOR TO ANYEXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL VIABLE TURF OR GROUNDCOVER HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. EXISTING SILT FENCE ON-SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND ORREMOVED AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT. IT IS OFEXTREME IMPORTANCE TO BE AWARE OF CURRENT FIELD CONDITIONS WITH RESPECT TOEROSION CONTROL. TEMPORARY PONDING, DIKES, HAY BALES, ETC., REQUIRED BY THE CITYSHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT.3.ALL STREETS DISTURBED DURING WORKING HOURS MUST BE CLEANED AT THE END OF EACHWORKING DAY. A ROCK ENTRANCE TO THE SITE MUST BE PROVIDED ACCORDING TO DETAILSTO REDUCE TRACKING OF DIRT ONTO PUBLIC STREETS.4.REDUNDANT PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROLS ARE NECESSARY WHEN SOIL DISTURBANCE ISWITHIN 50 FEET OF SURFACE WATERS. REDUNDANT SEDIMENT CONTROLS COULD INCLUDE:4.1.TWO ROWS OF SILT FENCE (SEPARATED BY 8 FEET); OR4.2.SILT FENCE AND A TOPSOIL BERM (STABILIZE BERM WITH MULCH); OR4.3.SILT FENCE AND FIBER LOGS; OR4.4.TOPSOIL BERM AND FIBER LOGS (STABILIZE BERM WITH MULCH).5.REDUNDANT SEDIMENT CONTROLS MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO DISTURBING WITHIN 50 FEETOF THE SURFACE WATER.6.ADDITIONAL MEASURES, SICH AS HYDRAULIC MULCHING AND OTHER PRACTICES AS SPECIFIEDBY THE DISTRICT MUSTED BE USED ON SLOPES OF 3:1 (H:V) OR STEEPER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATESTABILIZATION.7.FINAL SITE STABILIZATION MEASURES MUST SPECIFY THAT AT LEAST SIX INCHES OF TOPSOILCONTAINING AT LEAST 5% ORGANIC MATTER ORGANIC MATTER BE SPREAD ANDINCORPORATED INTO THE UNDERLYING SOIL DURING FINAL SITE TREATMENT WHEREVERTOPSOIL HAS BEEN REMOVED.8.CONSTRUCTION SITE WASTE SUCH AS DISCARDED BUIDLING MATERIALS, CONCRETE TRUCKWASHOUT, CHEMICALS, LITTER AND SANITARY WASTE BE PROPERLY MANAGED.9.ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS MUST BE MAINTAINED UNTILCOMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION NAD VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED SUFFICIENTLY TO ENSURESTABILITY OF THE SITE, AS DETERMINED BY THE DISTRICT.10.ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS MUST BE REMOVED UPON FINALSTABILIZATION.11.SOIL SURFACES COMPACTED DURING CONSTRUCTIONAND REMAINING PERVIOUS UPONOCMPLETIONOF CONSTRUCTION MUST BE DECOMPACTED TO ACHIEVE A SOIL COMPACTIONTESTING PRESSURE OF LESS THAN 1,400 KILOPASCALS OR 200 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH INTHE UPPER 12 INCHES OF THE SOIL PROFILE WHILE TAKING CARE TO PROTECT UTILITIES, TREEROOTS, AND OTHER EXISTING VEGETATION.12.ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 7 CALENDER DAYS AFTERLAND-DISTURBING WORK HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED ON A PROPERTY THATDRAINS TO AN IMPAIRED WATER, WITHIN 14 DAYS ELSEWHERE.13.THE PERMITTEE MUST ATA MINIMUM, INPSECT, MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL DISTURBEDSURFACES AND ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND SOIL STABILIZATIONMEASURES EVERY DAY WORK IS PERFORMED ON THE SITE AND AT LEAST WEEKLY UNTILLAND-DISTURBING ACTIVITY HAS CEASED. THEREAFTER, THE PERMITTEE MUST PERFORM THERERESPONSIBILITIES AT LEAST WEEKLY UNTIL VEGATATIVE COVER IS ESTABLISHED. THE PERMITTEEWILL MAINTAIN A LOG OF ACTIVITIES UNDER THIS.ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEEROSION CONTROL BLANKETTURF REINFORCEMENT MATPOND NORMAL WATER LEVELSILT FENCE-POST GRADINGPOST-SFHEAVY DUTY SILT FENCEHDSFREDUNDANT SEDIMENT CONTROLRSCINLET PROTECTIONEROSION CONTROL CHECKS/BIOROLLSRELOCATED WATER COURSE308 HYD (TYP.)HYD (TYP.)8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0 .51%8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.50%8" PVC SDR 26 @ 1.76%8" PVC SDR 26 @ 2.97% 8" PVC SD R 2 6 @ 2 . 0 8 %NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL NWL NWL NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL PATIOGARAGEOLIVIA2-STORYPORCH12345678910111213141516171812345678910111213141516171819202121123STREET ASTREET B1234567891011121314PATIOGARAGEOLIVIA2-STORY1920OUTLOT A2OUTLOT B OUTLOT BOUTLOT B OUTLOT COUTLOT DHEMLOCK WAYMAYAPPLE PASS S A N SAN SAN SANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSSSSSSSSSWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWAT WA T WA TWA TWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWAT WATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWAT ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆BLUFF CREEK DRIVEPIONEER TRA IL HI G H W A Y 2 1 2 EX-MHRE = 929.30EX-MHRE = 916.64EX-MHRE = 910.08EX-MHRE = 906.09EX-MHRE = 903.48EX-MHEX-MHRE = 900.85EX-MHRE = 924.43EX-MHRE = 924.39EX-MHRE = 901.83EX-MHRE = 904.73EX-MHRE = 923.28SEX-MHRE = 937.53SEX-MHRE = 937.43XXXX POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHSTOSTOSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTO STOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWAT WATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATSTOSTOSTOPOH POH POH POH POHPOHPOHFOFOFO LIFTSTATIONFM123 456789101112130 1 2 3 4 5FMFMFM012312345EX. 15" STMEX. 12" STMEX. 20" STMEX. 12" STMEX. 12" STMEX. 15" STMEX. 12" STMEX. 24" STMEX. TRAIL 8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.50%8" PVC SDR 26 @0.46%8" PVC SDR 26 @ 0.56%EX. TRAILMHRE=935.94IE=923.50 (8" S)MHRE=932.65IE=915.41 (8" W)MHRE=931.83IE=919.54 (8" S)MHRE=928.52IE=916.59 (8" W)MHRE=935.35IE=914.32 (8" SW)CBMH-104RE=928.89IE=923.06 (18" S)IE=922.96 (18" N)D=5.9CBMH-107RE=928.09IE=925.10 (12" N)D=3.024" FES-1009.2 CU YD CLASS III RIPRAPIE=922.50CBMH-105RE=927.28IE=923.40 (12" W)IE=923.30 (18" N)D=4.0CBMH-106RE=927.33IE=923.35 (12" E)D=4.0STMH-101RE=928.08IE=922.72 (24" W)IE=922.72 (24" NE)D=5.412" FES-864.4 CU YD CLASS III RIPRAPIE=909.97OCS-84RE=924.05IE=920.12 (12" SE)IE=910.10 (12" E)D=14.012" FES-83IE=920.50CBMH-95RE=924.90IE=914.37 (18" E)IE=914.37 (18" W)D=10.518" FES-936.4 CU YD CLASS III RIPRAPIE=913.9018" FESRE=916.33IE=914.50 (18" W)CBMH-109RE=929.37IE=926.40 (12" E)D=3.0CBMH-108RE=932.15IE=924.53 (12" S)IE=925.92 (12" W)IE=923.63 (18" E)D=8.5CBMH-103RE=929.01IE=922.82 (18" S)IE=922.72 (21" N)D=6.3CBMH-102RE=931.84IE=923.45 (18" W)IE=922.33 (21" S)IE=923.05 (24" E)D=13.54.0' SUMP=918.33MHRE=935.86IE=922.90 (8" W)MHRE=928.47IE=912.69 (8" W)MHRE=928.58IE=918.00 (4" E)CBMH-57RE=929.96IE=925.98 (12" NW)D=4.015" FES-614.8 CU YD CLASS III RIPRAPIE=925.50CBMH-91RE=925.08IE=914.26 (18" E)IE=914.26 (18" W)D=14.8CBMH-59RE=929.64IE=925.86 (12" SE)IE=925.76 (15" NW)D=7.94.0' SUMP=921.76MHRE=928.51IE= 912.154" FORCEMAINDIRECTIONALLY DRILLEDIE=916.13CONNECT FORCEMAININTO EX MHMHRE=927.26IE=912.33 (8" N)HYD (TYP.)8" GV (TYP.)12" FES-1194.4 CU YD CLASS III RIPRAPIE=912.00STMH-117RE=915.87IE=912.35 (12" SW)IE=912.35 (12" E)D=3.5STMH-118RE=915.78IE=912.14 (12" W)IE=912.04 (12" E)D=3.7CBMH-115RE=917.35IE=914.44 (12" SW)IE=914.34 (12" NE)D=3.0STMH-116RE=915.85IE=912.90 (12" SW)IE=912.80 (12" NE)D=3.0CBMH-113RE=918.65IE=915.74 (12" W)IE=915.64 (12" E)D=3.0CBMH-110RE=924.16IE=921.20 (12" S)D=3.0CBMH-111RE=924.16IE=921.14 (12" N)IE=921.04 (12" SE)D=3.1STMH-112RE=920.05IE=917.06 (12" NW)IE=916.96 (12" E)D=3.18" DIP WM 8" DIP WM 8" DIP WM18" RCP STRM@0.57%18" RCP STRM@ 0.34%12" R C P S T R M @ 0. 3 0 %EXPANDED EXISTINGPOND 6NWL=927.0EX 100 YR HWL =930.4PR 100 YR HWL=929.7EOF=930.48" DIP WM8" DIP WM8" DIP WM12" RCP STRM @ 0 .30% 21" RCP STRM @ 0.50% 18" RCP S T R M @ 0.50%12" RCP STRM @ 0.30%12" RCP STRM @ 0 .30%12" RCP STRM @1.95%12" RCP STRM @ 0.78%12" RCP STRM @1.65%12" RCP STRM @ 2.80%15" RCPSTRM @0.75%12" RCP STRM@ 0.30% 12" RC P S T R M @ 0 . 5 0 %24" RCP STRM @ 0.41%24 " R C P S T R M @ 0 . 5 1 %12" RCP STRM @ 0.50%18" RCP STRM@0.44%12" RCPSTRM @0.23%18" RCP STRM@0.51%12" RCPSTRM @0.29%POND 2-REUSENWL=922.5BOTTOM = 913.0100 YR HWL = 925.6EOF=925.6BERM=926.112" RCPSTRM @0.30%SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-UTP01.DWG 225CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEPRELIMINARY UTILITYPLAN221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.PRELIMINARY PLANS© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com0'60'120'180'1" = 60'60'12' or 6'02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00SANEXISTINGPROPOSEDSTOWATWATOVERALL UTILITY LEGEND1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONSPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THE OWNER OF ANYDIFFERENCES.2.UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, ALL MATERIALS, CONST.TECHNIQUES AND TESTING SHALL CONFORM TO THE 2018 ED.OF THE "STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATERMAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION AND SANITARY SEWERAND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION BY THE CITY ENGINEERINGASSOCIATION OF MINN." AND TO THE "STANDARDSPECIFICATION FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION" MINN. DEPT.OF TRANS., 2020 EDITION AND SUPPLEMENTALSPECIFICATIONS SEPTEMBER 2022. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLBE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ALL PROCEDURES AS OUTLINED BYTHE LOCAL AGENCY.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RECEIVE THE NECESSARY PERMITSFOR ALL WORK OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LIMITS.4.VERIFY EXISTING INVERT LOCATION & ELEVATION PRIOR TOBEGINNING CONSTRUCTION.5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONECALL" FOR FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO UTILITYINSTALLATION.GENERAL UTILITY NOTESSDTSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATER MAINHYDRANTDRAIN TILE309 STREET 29109159209259309359409109159209259309359400+001+002+003+004+005+005+753.39%1.95%2.26%PVI STA = -0+00.00PVI ELEV = 923.98PVI STA = 5+57.54PVI ELEV = 937.26L.P ELEV = 927.98L.P. STA = 1+77.24PVI STA = 2+00.36PVI ELEV = 928.51A.D. = 1.13%K = 40.9846.23' VCPVC = 1+77.24ELEV = 927.98PVT = 2+23.48ELEV = 929.29H.P ELEV = 933.06H.P. STA = 3+41.81PVI STA = 3+25.00PVI ELEV = 932.73A.D. = -1.44%K = 23.3533.63' VCPVC = 3+08.19ELEV = 932.16PVT = 3+41.81ELEV = 933.06STREET 19159209259309359409459509159209259309359409459500+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0013+503.50%-3.45%2.00%-2.00%1.25%3.91%2.25%-1.71%2.28%PVI STA = 0+05.99PVI ELEV = 922.52 PVI STA = 8+98.87 PVI ELEV = 928.18 PVI STA = 9+21.45 PVI ELEV = 928.63 PVI STA = 9+35.31 PVI ELEV = 928.35 PVI STA = 13+10.00 PVI ELEV = 936.24H.P ELEV = 927.43H.P. STA = 1+54.94PVI STA = 1+29.94PVI ELEV = 926.86A.D. = -1.22%K = 40.9350.00' VCPVC = 1+04.95ELEV = 925.99PVT = 1+54.94ELEV = 927.43 H.P ELEV = 935.49H.P. STA = 5+30.29PVI STA = 5+24.94PVI ELEV = 935.86A.D. = -3.99%K = 18.8075.00' VCPVC = 4+87.44 ELEV = 935.01 PVT = 5+62.44 ELEV = 935.22 H.P ELEV = 931.16H.P. STA = 7+99.94PVI STA = 8+24.94PVI ELEV = 930.73A.D. = -1.74%K = 28.7150.00' VCPVC = 7+99.94 ELEV = 931.16 PVT = 8+49.94 ELEV = 929.87 H.P ELEV = 931.44H.P. STA = 10+24.94PVI STA = 9+99.94PVI ELEV = 930.88A.D. = -1.66%K = 30.0550.00' VCPVC = 9+74.94 ELEV = 929.90 PVT = 10+24.94 ELEV = 931.44 H.P ELEV = 934.56H.P. STA = 11+74.94PVI STA = 11+49.94PVI ELEV = 934.25A.D. = -1.00%K = 49.9250.00' VCPVC = 11+24.94 ELEV = 933.69 PVT = 11+74.94 ELEV = 934.56 SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-DTP01.DWG 226CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGESTREET PROFILES221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com50'10' or 5'02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00310 SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-DTP01.DWG 227CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEDETAILS221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00311 SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-DTP01.DWG 228CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEDETAILS221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00312 SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-DTP01.DWG 229CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEDETAILS221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00313 SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-DTP01.DWG 2210CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEDETAILS221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00314 SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-DTP01.DWG 2211CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEDETAILS221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00315 SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-DTP01.DWG 2212CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEDETAILS221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00316 SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-DTP01.DWG 2213CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEDETAILS221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00928.5921.5912.15906.15907.0908.0909.0910.0911.0317 SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-DTP01.DWG 2214CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEDETAILS221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.007.3'7.3'6" TOPSOIL, SEED,& MULCH OR SODVARIES LAST REVISED:08/15/17TYPICAL LOTGD25AINDICATES A CUSTOM HOUSE PAD WHICH HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETELY GRADED OR PREPAREDTO PROPOSED GRADE. ELEVATIONS AND HOUSE STYLES SHOWN ARE ENGINEERS SUGGESTEDDESIGN FOR CUSTOM LOTS AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED WITH THE DEVELOPER.G980.6989.6 99980.0 983.0WO989.2 991.0983.0DRIVEWAY LOT CORNER ELEVATIONCUSTOMSOG = SLAB ON GRADE UNIT.WO = FULL BASEMENT WALKOUT, GRADED FOR 8.4' OF DIFFERENCE FROM THE REAR GROUND GRADE AT THE WALKOUT TO FRONT GROUND AT GARAGE DOOR.R = RAMBLER, GRADED FOR 7.7' OF DIFFERENCE FROM BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION TO FRONT GROUND GRADE AT GARAGE DOOR.R(1) = RAMBLER, GRADED FOR 7.0' OF DIFFERENCE FROM BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION TO FRONT GROUND GRADE AT GARAGE DOOR.LO = FULL BASEMENT LOOKOUT GRADED FOR 5.0' OF DIFFERENCE FROM THE REAR GROUND GRADE AT THE LOOKOUT TO THE FRONT GROUND GRADE AT THE GARAGE DOOR.DRAINAGE ARROWLOT NUMBERMINIMUM BASEMENTFLOOR ELEVATIONREAR GROUND GRADE ATWALKOUT/LOOKOUT (0.7'BELOW BASEMENT FLOORELEVATION FOR WALKOUT)FRONT GROUND GRADEAT GARAGE DOORNOTE:1.THE NUMBER IN THE PARENTHESIS INDICATES THE NUMBER OF BLOCKS THAT THE GARAGE IS DROPPED. EACH BLOCK=8".ROW TOWNHOMES SLAB ON GRADE (SOG)ROW TOWNHOMES LOOK-OUT (LO)ROW TOWNHOMES WALK-OUT (WO)ENGINEERED FILLENGINEERED FILLSUITABLE BEARING SOIL (TYP.)ENGINEERED FILL1:1SETBACKGARAGE FLOOR EL.1.20' TO SUBGRADE0.8'4:1 MAX3.0% MINN.T.S.1: 1SUITABLE BEARING SOIL (TYP.)0.5' TOPSOIL1:1FINISHED GRADE AFTER HOUSEFINISHED GRADE FOR PADSLAB ON GRADE VILLA (SOG) 55' Wide Lots10'HOLD DOWNLIMITSPAD HOLD DOWN = 0.70'VARIESCL ROADWAY8'R.O.W17'3'30'30'10'0.4'FINISH GRADEGROUND @BACK OF HOUSEOVER SIZING 12' MIN - 17'MAX3'OVER SIZING 5.3%4:1 MAX20'318 ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆SSXXPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOH POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHSTOSTOSANSANSANSANSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTO STOWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWAT WATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATSTOPOH POHPOHPOHPOHSTO STOHHFOFONWLNWLNWLNWLN W LNWLNWLNWLNWL NWL NWL NWL NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SFSFSFSFSFSF SF SF S F SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF SF SFSFSFSFEX EOF22.5FMFMFM04/21/202553774NICHOLAS T. MEYERSHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-TPP01.DWG 2215CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEOVERALL TREEPRESERVATION221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/24PIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00DENOTES EXISTING CONIFEROUSTREE TO REMAINDENOTES EXISTING DECIDUOUSTREE TO REMAINDENOTES EXISTING CONIFEROUSTREE TO BE REMOVEDDENOTES EXISTING DECIDUOUSTREE TO BE REMOVEDDENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING &DISTURBANCE LIMITSFTREE PRESERVATION REGULATIONSTREE PRESERVATION CALULATIONSLEGEND" T " POST OR EQUAL6' MAX.ORANGE MESH CONSTRUCTION FENCELOCATION AS SHOWN ON PLAN. MAINTAINMAXIMUM DISTANCE FROM TRUNK POSSIBLE.ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCESTAKED EVERY 6'1. PRUNING WILL BE DONE BY PROFESSIONALS DURING APPROPRIATE PRUNING SEASON.2.NO STORAGE OF MATERIALS, OPERATION OF MACHINERY, OR DEVELOPMENT OF ANY SORT WILL OCCURWITHIN THE FENCE-LINE WITHOUT APPROVAL IN WRITING FROM THE CITY.3.SITE GRADING TO BE DONE ONLY AFTER PROTECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN, CITY HAS APPROVEDFENCING LOCATIONS, AND ALL CONTRACTORS HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON TREE PRESERVATION TECHNIQUES.LAST REVISED:05/28/15TREE PROTECTIONTP08NOTES:PLANELEVATIONDRIPLINE6' METAL FENCE POST. STAKE EVERY 6'MAXIMUM.TREE PROTECTION DETAILPRELIMINARYPLANS0'80'160'240'1" = 80'BASE LINE CANOPY COVERAGE PER ACRECOMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONCOMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL / INSTITUTIONALHIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALMEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALLOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALLARGE LOT RESIDENTIAL80%-100%28%35%40%55%68%60%-79%25%30%35%46%56%40%-59%20%25%30%35%43%20%-39%14%20%25%30%35%19% OR LESS10%15%20%25%25%(2)PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS, A TREE SURVEY OF THE SITE SHALL BE PREPARED BY A REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT,LICENSED FORESTER, OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL APPROVED BY THE CITY. THE TREE SURVEY SHALL REFLECT CONDITIONS ON SITE AT THE TIME OFSUBMITTAL, OR SHALL HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND UPDATED NO MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL DATE. THIS SURVEY SHALLINCLUDE THE SPECIES, DBH SIZE, CONDITION, LOCATION OF ALL TREES OVER TEN INCHES IN DIAMETER AND ANY DAMAGED OR DISEASED TREESON SITE. ALL SIGNIFICANT SPECIAL, DAMAGED OR DISEASED TREES SHALL BE TAGGED AND IDENTIFIED BY NUMBER ON THE SURVEY. ADELINEATION OF THE EXISTING CANOPY COVERAGE AREA(S) WHICH OUTLINES ALL AREAS COVERED BY TREE CANOPY SHALL BE INCLUDED ASPART OF THE SURVEY. ADDITIONALLY, ALL DAMAGED AND DISEASED TREES SHALL BE CATALOGED WITH THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF ANYDAMAGE OR DISEASE SPECIFIED.a.BASED ON THIS SURVEY AND EITHER SITE OBSERVATION AND MEASUREMENT OR A CURRENT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (TAKEN WITHIN ONE YEAROF THE DATE OF PLAN SUBMITTAL) INTERPRETATION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE CALCULATED:1) BASE LINE CANOPY COVERAGE2) MINIMUM CANOPY COVERAGE REQUIREMENTSb.THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHALL BE USED TO DETERMINE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF CANOPY COVERAGE THAT MUST BE MAINTAINED ORPROVIDED ON-SITE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. IT SHALL REPRESENT THE MINIMUM CANOPY COVERAGE, CONSISTING OF EXISTING TREECANOPY AND/OR ADDITIONAL TREES REQUIRED FOR THE SITE. EXISTING WETLAND AREAS, BLUFF AREAS, AND DEDICATED PARK LANDLOCATED ON SITE SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CALCULATION OF SITE AREA IN THE DETERMINATION OF SITE COVERAGE. IF A FORESTED ISTO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY FOR PARK LAND, THEN THIS AREA SHALL NOTE BE INCLUDED IN THE BASE LINE CANOPY COVERAGE AREACALCULATION NOR SHALL IT COUNT TOWARDS THE MINIMUM CANOPY COVERAGE FOR THE SITE.BASE LINE CANOPY COVERAGE IS THE CANOPY COVERAGE EXISTING AT THE TIME THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IS FILED WITH THE CITY. MINIMUMCANOPY COVERAGE IS DETERMINED BY USING THE MATRIX.d. FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM CANOPY COVERAGE, THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP AFORESTATION PLAN TO BRING THE TOTAL CANOPY COVERAGE UP TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. WHERE EXISTING WOODLANDS AREREMOVED OR THERE IS A LOSS OF TREES THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE USED TO MEET THE CANOPY COVERAGE RETENTION REQUIREMENT, THEDEVELOPER SHALL DEVELOP A WOODLAND REPLACEMENT PLAN. THE REPLACEMENT PLAN MUST DESIGNATE AN AREA AT LEAST ONE ANDTWO-TENTHS (1.2) TIMES THE REMOVED CANOPY COVERAGE AREA THAT SHALL BE PLANTED WITH REPLACEMENT TREES FOR THOSE REMOVED.THESE PLANS SHALL LOCATE ADDITIONAL TREES EITHER AS A CONTINUATION OF EXISTING STANDS OF TREES THAT ARE TO BE PRESERVED ORCREATE NEW STANDS OF TREES IN DESIRABLE LOCATIONS SUCH AS ALONG ROADWAY CORRIDORS, ON THE NORTH AND WEST PERIMETERSOF THE DEVELOPMENT, IN COMMON OPEN AREAS, OR ADJACENT TO PARK FACILITIES.e. THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA SHALL BE FOLLOWED IN ESTABLISHING MINIMUM CANOPY COVERAGE:1) WHEN PLANTING TREES, ONE TREE SHALL BE DEEMED TO PROVIDE 1,089 SQUARE FEET OF REQUIRED CANOPY COVERAGE;2) TREES MUST BE FROM THE APPROVED LIST OF DESIRABLE SPECIES (PREFERENCE GIVEN FOR TREES DESIGNATED AS NATIVE);3) NO MORE THAN TEN PERCENT OF THE TREES MAY BE FROM ANY ONE TREE SPECIES, NO MORE THAN 20 PERCENT OF THE TREES MAY BEFROM ANY ONE GENUS, AND NO MORE THAN 30 PERCENT OF TREES FROM ANY ONE FAMILY;4) OVERSTORY TREES SHALL BE AT LEAST 212-INCH CALIPER AND UNDERSTORY TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 112-INCH CALIPER;5) CONIFER TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET IN HEIGHT;6) PLANT MATERIALS USED FOR THE REFORESTATION SHALL BE OF A SIMILAR SPECIES AS VEGETATION FOUND ON-SITE;7) TREES SHALL BE USED THAT APPROPRIATE TO THE SOIL CONDITIONS FOUND ONSITE;8) TREES SHALL BE FROM CERTIFIED NURSERY STOCK AS DEFINED AND CONTROLLED BY M.S. §˜§˜ 18.44 THROUGH 18.61, THE PLANT PESTACT; AND9) NOT LESS THAN 75 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL TREES REQUIRED SHALL BE OVERSTORY SPECIES.BLUFF AREA DEDUCTIONTREE CANOPYTREE CANOPY SAVED319 ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆SXXXX POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHSTOSTOSTOSANSANSANSANSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTO STOSTOSTOWATWATWAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATSTOSTOSTOHHFOFOFONWLNWL NWL NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF SF SF SF SFFMFMFMFMFM500150025003500450055006500750085009501050115013501250145015501650175018501950205021502250235024502550265027 50285029503050315190519151925193519451955196519751985199SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-TPP01.DWG 2216CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEPRELIMINARY TREEPRESERVATION PLAN221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/24PIONEER RIDGE, LLC.04/21/202553774NICHOLAS T. MEYER© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00PRELIMINARYPLANS0'50'100'150'1" = 50'DENOTES EXISTING CONIFEROUSTREE TO REMAINDENOTES EXISTING DECIDUOUSTREE TO REMAINDENOTES EXISTING CONIFEROUSTREE TO BE REMOVEDDENOTES EXISTING DECIDUOUSTREE TO BE REMOVEDDENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING &DISTURBANCE LIMITSFLEGENDBLUFF AREA DEDUCTIONTREE CANOPYTREE CANOPY SAVED320 ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆∆X XPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOH POHSTOWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL NWL NWLSFSFSFSFSF SF SF SF SF SF SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF SF SF SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFEX EOF22.550165022502350245025502650275028502950305031503250335034503550365037503850395040504150425043504450455046504750485049505050515052505350545055505650575058505950605061506250635064506550665067506850695070507150725073507450755076507750785079508050815082508350845085508650875088508950905091509250935094509550965097509850995100510151025103510451055106510751085109511051115112511351145115511651175118511951205121512251235124512551265127512851295130513151325133513451355136513751385139514051415142514351445145514651475148514951505151515251535154515551565157515851595160516151625163516451655166516751685169517051715172517351745175517651775178517951805181518251835184518551865187518851895190519151925193519451955196519751985199SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-TPP01.DWG 2217CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEPRELIMINARY TREEPRESERVATION PLAN221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/24PIONEER RIDGE, LLC.04/21/202553774NICHOLAS T. MEYER© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00PRELIMINARYPLANS0'50'100'150'1" = 50'DENOTES EXISTING CONIFEROUSTREE TO REMAINDENOTES EXISTING DECIDUOUSTREE TO REMAINDENOTES EXISTING CONIFEROUSTREE TO BE REMOVEDDENOTES EXISTING DECIDUOUSTREE TO BE REMOVEDDENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING &DISTURBANCE LIMITSFLEGENDBLUFF AREA DEDUCTIONTREE CANOPYTREE CANOPY SAVED321 SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-TPP01.DWG 2218CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEPRELIMINARY TREEPRESERVATION DATA221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/24PIONEER RIDGE, LLC.04/21/202553774NICHOLAS T. MEYER© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00PRELIMINARYPLANSTREE PRESERVATION DATA322 ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆SSXXPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOH POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHSTOSTOSANSANSANSANSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTO STOWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWAT WATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATSTOPOH POHPOHSTO STOHHFOFOEX EOF22.5FMFMFM12345678910111213141516171812345678910111213141516171819202121123STREET ASTREET B12345678910111213141920OUTLOT A2OUTLOT B OUTLOT BOUTLOT B OUTLOT COUTLOT DCODECOMMON / BOTANICAL NAMESIZEROOTSPACING O.C.MATURE SIZEDECIDUOUS TREES - 79AGGAUTUMN GOLD MAIDENHAIR TREE / GINKGO BILOBA 'AUTUMN GOLD'2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 50` W 30`HAKCOMMON HACKBERRY / CELTIS OCCIDENTALIS2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 50`-75` W 50`KDCDECAF® KENTUCKY COFFEETREE / GYMNOCLADUS DIOICA 'MCKBRANCHED'2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 50` W 40`FFMFALL FIESTA® SUGAR MAPLE / ACER SACCHARUM 'BAILSTA'2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 50`-75` W 50`FYLFRONTYARD® AMERICAN LINDEN / TILIA AMERICANA 'BAILYARD'2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 60`-70` W 30`-40`NOCNORTHERN CATALPA / CATALPA SPECIOSA2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 40`-60` W 20`-40`PREPRINCETON AMERICAN ELM / ULMUS AMERICANA 'PRINCETON'2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 60`-80` W 40`-60`REORED OAK / QUERCUS RUBRA2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 50`-70` W 40`-50`RSMRED SUNSET® MAPLE / ACER RUBRUM 'FRANKSRED'2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 45` W 35`RIBRIVER BIRCH / BETULA NIGRA2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 50`-75` W 50`SGMSIENNA GLEN® MAPLE / ACER X FREEMANII 'SIENNA'2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 40`-50` W 35`-40`SKHSKYLINE® HONEY LOCUST / GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS 'SKYCOLE'2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 50` W 30`-35`SWOSWAMP WHITE OAK / QUERCUS BICOLOR2.5" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 50`-60` W 60`-80`EVERGREEN TREES - 146BHSBLACK HILLS SPRUCE / PICEA GLAUCA DENSATA6` HT.B&BAS SHOWNH 35`-45` W 20`-25`COFCONCOLOR FIR / ABIES CONCOLOR6` HT.B&BAS SHOWNH 40`-50` W 15`-30`NRPNORWAY PINE / PINUS RESINOSA6` HT.B&BAS SHOWNH 50`-80` W 30`-40`NOSNORWAY SPRUCE / PICEA ABIES6` HT.B&BAS SHOWNH 50`-70` W 25`-30`POPPONDEROSA PINE / PINUS PONDEROSA6` HT.B&BAS SHOWNH 60`-80` W 25`-30`QYT3841716243335519202120196ORNAMENTAL TREES - 3STCSHOWTIME™ CRABAPPLE / MALUS X 'SHOTIZAM'2.0" CAL.B&BAS SHOWNH 15`-20` W 12`-15`3FIBBALSAM FIR / ABIES BALSAMEA6` HT.B&BAS SHOWNPIWWHITE PINE / PINUS STROBUS6` HT.B&BAS SHOWNARBTECHNY ARBORVITAE / THUJA OCCIDENTALIS 'TECHNY'6` HT.B&BAS SHOWN112115H 40`-65` W 15`-25`H 40'-60' W 20`-40`H 30`-35' W 10`-15`SHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-PLP01.DWG 2219CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEOVERALL PRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLAN221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/24PIONEER RIDGE, LLC.04/21/202553774NICHOLAS T. MEYER© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00PRELIMINARY PLANT SCHEDULELANDSCAPE PROVISIONS & REQUIREMENTSPRELIMINARYPLANS0'80'160'240'1" = 80'ABBREVIATIONS: B&B = BALLED AND BURLAPPED CAL. = CALIPER HT. = HEIGHT MIN. =MINIMUM O.C. = ON CENTER SP. = SPREAD QTY .= QUANTITY CONT. = CONTAINERNOTE: QUANTITIES ON PLAN SUPERSEDE LIST QUANTITIES IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY. GROUNDCOVER LEGENDSTORMWATER NATIVESEED MIX 33-261(0.21 AC)EVERGREENTREEDECIDUOUSOVERSTORYSTREET TREEORNAMENTALTREEDECIDUOUSOVERSTORYTREEPLANT LEGENDGENERAL NOTES* ALL STREET BOULEVARDS TO BE SODDED.* ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDEDUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.* ALL ROW DISTURBANCE TO BE SEEDED SOUTHERN SHORTGRASS ROADSIDE SEED MIX35-2211.TREE LOCATIONS AND SPACING ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON CONSTRUCTED PARKINGLOT, SIDEWALK, AND UTILITY LOCATIONS.2.PARKING LOT TREES SHALL BE PLANTED 5' FROM BACK OF CURB IN A LOCATION THAT DOESNOT INTERFERE WITH CURBSTOPS OR INDIVIDUAL SEWER & WATER CONNECTIONS.3.STREET TREES (ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) SHALL BE PLANTED MIN 11' FROM BACK OFCURB OR SIDEWALK IN A LOCATION THAT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH INDIVIDUAL SEWER,WATER CONNECTIONS, AND EASEMENTS.3.STREET TREES (ON THE PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAY) SHALL BE PLANTED MIN 9' FROM BACK OFCURB OR SIDEWALK IN A LOCATION THAT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH INDIVIDUAL SEWER,WATER CONNECTIONS, AND EASEMENTS.4.NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEENCOMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.5.DECIDUOUS TREES SHOULD BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 5' OFF ANY UTILITY PIPE ANDCONIFEROUS TREES TREES SHOULD BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 15' OFF ANY UTILITY PIPE.6.NO TREE SHOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN 10' OF A HYDRANT OR 15' FROM A STREETLIGHT.7.NO DECIDUOUS TREE WITHIN 5' OF A SIDEWALK OR TRAIL AND NO CONIFEROUS TREESWITHIN 15' OF A PROPOSED SIDEWALK OR TRAIL.EXISTINGCONIFEROUS TREETO REMAINEXISTINGDECIDUOUS TREETO REMAIN323 ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆SXXXX POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POH POHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHSTOSTOSTOSANSANSANSANSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTO STOSTOSTOWATWATWAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WAT WATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATSTOSTOSTOHHFOFOFOFMFMFMFMFMSHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-PLP01.DWG 2220CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEPRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLAN &NOTES221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/24PIONEER RIDGE, LLC.04/21/202553774NICHOLAS T. MEYER© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00PRELIMINARYPLANS0'50'100'150'1" = 50'1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE AT 811 OR CALL811.COM TOVERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANTSOR LANDSCAPE MATERIAL.2.ACTUAL LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO FIELD AND SITE CONDITIONS.3.NO PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEENCOMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.4.ALL SUBSTITUTIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUBMISSIONOF ANY BID AND/OR QUOTE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO YEAR GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS. THEGUARANTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S OR OWNER'S WRITTENACCEPTANCE OF THE INITIAL PLANTING. REPLACEMENT PLANT MATERIAL SHALL HAVE A ONEYEAR GUARANTEE COMMENCING UPON PLANTING.6.ALL PLANTS TO BE SPECIMEN GRADE, MINNESOTA-GROWN AND/OR HARDY. SPECIMEN GRADESHALL ADHERE TO, BUT IS NOT LIMITED BY, THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM DISEASE, PESTS, WOUNDS, SCARS, ETC.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM NOTICEABLE GAPS, HOLES, OR DEFORMITIES.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FREE FROM BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES.ALL PLANTS SHALL HAVE HEAVY, HEALTHY BRANCHING AND LEAFING.CONIFEROUS TREES SHALL HAVE AN ESTABLISHED MAIN LEADER AND A HEIGHT TO WIDTHRATIO OF NO LESS THAN 5:3.7.PLANTS TO MEET AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1-2014 OR MOSTCURRENT VERSION) REQUIREMENTS FOR SIZE AND TYPE SPECIFIED.8. PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED AS PER MNLA & ANSI STANDARD PLANTING PRACTICES.9.PLANTS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL AT SITE. PROPERLY HEEL-INMATERIALS IF NECESSARY; TEMPORARY ONLY.10.PRIOR TO PLANTING, FIELD VERIFY THAT THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR IS LOCATED AT THETOP OF THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, SOIL SHALL BE REMOVED DOWNTO THE ROOT COLLAR/ROOT FLAIR. WHEN THE BALLED & BURLAP TREE IS PLANTED, THE ROOTCOLLAR/ROOT FLAIR SHALL BE EVEN OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.11.OPEN TOP OF BURLAP ON BB MATERIALS; REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLANTS; SPLIT AND BREAKAPART PEAT POTS.12.PRUNE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STANDARD NURSERY PRACTICE AND TO CORRECT POORBRANCHING OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED TREES.13.WRAP ALL SMOOTH-BARKED TREES - FASTEN TOP AND BOTTOM. REMOVE BY APRIL 1ST.14.STAKING OF TREES AS REQUIRED; REPOSITION, PLUMB AND STAKE IF NOT PLUMB AFTER ONEYEAR.15.THE NEED FOR SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE DETERMINED UPON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS PRIORTO PLANTING. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE NEEDOF ANY SOIL AMENDMENTS.16.BACKFILL SOIL AND TOPSOIL TO ADHERE TO MN/DOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 3877 (SELECTTOPSOIL BORROW) AND TO BE EXISTING TOP SOIL FROM SITE FREE OF ROOTS, ROCKS LARGERTHAN ONE INCH, SUBSOIL DEBRIS, AND LARGE WEEDS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE.MINIMUM 4" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR ALL LAWN GRASS AREAS AND 12" DEPTH TOPSOIL FOR TREE,SHRUBS, AND PERENNIALS.17.MULCH TO BE AT ALL TREE, SHRUB, PERENNIAL, AND MAINTENANCE AREAS. TREE AND SHRUBPLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE 4" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCH TO BE USED AROUND ALL PLANTS WITHIN TURF AREAS. PERENNIAL ANDORNAMENTAL GRASS BEDS SHALL HAVE 2" DEPTH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH TOBE FREE OF DELETERIOUS MATERIAL AND COLORED RED, OR APPROVED EQUAL. ROCK MULCHTO BE BUFF LIMESTONE, 1 1/2" TO 3" DIAMETER, AT MINIMUM 3" DEPTH, OR APPROVED EQUAL.ROCK MULCH TO BE ON COMMERCIAL GRADE FILTER FABRIC, BY TYPAR, OR APPROVED EQUALWITH NO EXPOSURE. MULCH AND FABRIC TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER PRIOR TOINSTALLATION. MULCH TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE).18.EDGING TO BE COMMERCIAL GRADE VALLEY-VIEW BLACK DIAMOND (OR EQUAL) POLY EDGINGOR SPADED EDGE, AS INDICATED. POLY EDGING SHALL BE PLACED WITH SMOOTH CURVES ANDSTAKED WITH METAL SPIKES NO GREATER THAN 4 FOOT ON CENTER WITH BASE OF TOP BEADAT GRADE, FOR MOWERS TO CUT ABOVE WITHOUT DAMAGE. UTILIZE CURBS AND SIDEWALKSFOR EDGING WHERE POSSIBLE. SPADED EDGE TO PROVIDE V-SHAPED DEPTH AND WIDTH TOCREATE SEPARATION BETWEEN MULCH AND GRASS. INDIVIDUAL TREE, SHRUB, ORRAIN-GARDEN BEDS TO BE SPADED EDGE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. EDGING TO MATCHEXISTING CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE).19.ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDED OR SEEDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PARKING LOTISLANDS TO BE SODDED WITH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH AROUND ALL TREES ANDSHRUBS. SOD TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA GROWN AND HARDY BLUEGRASS MIX, FREE OFLAWN WEEDS. ALL TOPSOIL AREAS TO BE RAKED TO REMOVE DEBRIS AND ENSURE DRAINAGE.SLOPES OF 3:1 OR GREATER SHALL BE STAKED. SEED AS SPECIFIED AND PER MN/DOTSPECIFICATIONS. IF NOT INDICATED ON LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEE EROSION CONTROL PLAN.20.PROVIDE IRRIGATION TO ALL PLANTED AREAS ON SITE. IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BEDESIGN/BUILD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SHOPDRAWINGS TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATIONSYSTEM. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE OPERATION MANUALS, AS-BUILT PLANS, AND NORMALPROGRAMMING. SYSTEM SHALL BE WINTERIZED AND HAVE SPRING STARTUP DURING FIRSTYEAR OF OPERATION. SYSTEM SHALL HAVE ONE-YEAR WARRANTY ON ALL PARTS AND LABOR.ALL INFORMATION ABOUT INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THEGENERAL CONTRACTOR.21.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NECESSARY WATERING OF PLANT MATERIALS UNTIL THE PLANTIS FULLY ESTABLISHED OR IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS OPERATIONAL. OWNER WILL NOT PROVIDEWATER FOR CONTRACTOR.22.REPAIR, REPLACE, OR PROVIDE SOD/SEED AS REQUIRED FOR ANY ROADWAY BOULEVARD AREASADJACENT TO THE SITE DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION.23.REPAIR ALL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO OWNER.24.RAIN GARDEN NOTE: PROVIDE AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AT RAIN GARDENAREA SIDE SLOPES AFTER ALL PLANTING HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. BLANKET TO BE ONE SEASONGEOJUTE, MN/DOT CATEGORY 2 (STRAW 1S, WOOD FIBER 1S), OR APPROVED EQUAL. BLANKETTO BE OVERLAPPED BY 4" AND ANCHORED BY SOD STAPLES. PLACE BLANKET PERPENDICULARTO THE SLOPE. TRENCH IN EDGES OF BLANKET AREA TO PREVENT UNDER MINING. PROVIDESILT FENCE AT TOP OF SLOPE AS NEEDED. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO MATCH OTHERPROJECT PLANTING MULCH. PLACE 4" DEPTH OF MULCH AT ALL PLANTING AND EROSIONCONTROL BLANKET AREA (NO FILTER FABRIC). SEE RAIN GARDEN DETAIL FOR FURTHERINFORMATION. RAIN GARDEN TO PROVIDE PROPER INFILTRATION AND DRAINAGEREQUIREMENTS PER ENGINEERS APPROVAL.PLANTING NOTESEVERGREENTREEDECIDUOUSOVERSTORYSTREET TREEORNAMENTALTREEDECIDUOUSOVERSTORYTREEPLANT LEGENDEXISTINGCONIFEROUS TREETO REMAINEXISTINGDECIDUOUS TREETO REMAINGROUNDCOVER LEGENDSTORMWATER NATIVESEED MIX 33-261(0.7 AC)* ALL STREET BOULEVARDS TO BE SODDED.* ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDEDUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.* ALL ROW DISTURBANCE TO BE SEEDED SOUTHERN SHORTGRASS ROADSIDE SEED MIX35-221324 ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆∆X XPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOH POHSTOWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHPOHEX EOF22.504/21/202553774NICHOLAS T. MEYERSHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-PLP01.DWG 2221CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEPRELIMINARYLANDSCAPE PLAN &DETAILS221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/24PIONEER RIDGE, LLC.© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.###### or ##02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00PRELIMINARYPLANS0'50'100'150'1" = 50'PLANTING DETAILLAST REVISED:10/19/18DECIDUOUS TREEPLANTINGLA28N.T.S.SET ROOT BALL ON UNDISTURBED SUBSOILOR COMPACTED SOIL MOUND MATCHINGTREES NATURAL GROUNDLINE WITH FINISHEDSITE GRADE.REFER TO AMERICAN STANDARD FORNURSERY STOCK FOR MINIMUM BALL SIZE.ROOT FLARE TO BE PLANTED AT OR NEARFINISHED GROUNDLINE.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE.BACKFILL PLANT PIT WITH SPECIFIED BACKFILLSOIL.FORM 3" DEEP WATERING BASIN.PLACE MULCH, DEPTH AS SPECIFIED, OVERPLANT PITS - DO NOT PILE AGAINST TRUNK.TREE WRAP MATERIAL FROM GROUNDLINEUPWARD TO FIRST BRANCHES, AS REQUIRED.PRUNE OUT MISDIRECTED BRANCHES.PROVIDE ONE CENTRAL LEADER.GUYING AND STAKING, AS REQUIRED, FORONE (1) YEAR ON ALL DECIDUOUS ANDCONIFEROUS TREES:TOP STAKES 5' ABOVE GROUND (MAX.)OR TO FIRST BRANCH. BOTTOM OFSTAKE 3' (MIN.) BELOW GROUND.STAKING POSTS TO BE 2"X2" STAINEDWOOD OR PAINTED STEEL DELINEATORPOSTS. PLACE 3 POSTS EQUIDISTANTAROUND AND OUTSIDE ROOT BALL.SECURE TREE TO POSTS WITH 16" LONGPOLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE, 40MIL., 1.5" WIDE STRAP.2XBALLDIAMETERSET ROOT BALL ON UNDISTURBED SUBSOILOR COMPACTED SOIL MOUND MATCHINGTREES NATURAL GROUNDLINE WITHFINISHED SITE GRADE.REFER TO AMERICAN STANDARD FORNURSERY STOCK FOR MINIMUM BALL SIZE.ROOT FLARE TO BE PLANTED AT OR NEARFINISHED GROUNDLINE.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF HOLE.BACKFILL PLANT PIT WITH SPECIFIEDBACKFILL SOIL.FORM 3" DEEP WATERING BASIN.PLACE MULCH, DEPTH AS SPECIFIED, OVERPLANT PITS - DO NOT PILE AGAINST TRUNK.PRUNE OUT MISDIRECTED BRANCHES.PROVIDE ONE CENTRAL LEADER.GUYING AND STAKING, AS REQUIRED, FORONE (1) YEAR ON ALL DECIDUOUS ANDCONIFEROUS TREES:TOP STAKES 5' ABOVE GROUND (MAX.)OR TO FIRST BRANCH. BOTTOM OFSTAKE 3' (MIN.) BELOW GROUND.STAKING POSTS TO BE 2"X2" STAINEDWOOD OR PAINTED STEEL DELINEATORPOSTS. PLACE 3 POSTS EQUIDISTANTAROUND AND OUTSIDE ROOT BALL.SECURE TREE TO POSTS WITH 16" LONGPOLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE, 40MIL., 1.5" WIDE STRAP.2XBALLDIAMETERLAST REVISED:10/19/18EVERGREEN TREEPLANTINGLA29N.T.S.EVERGREENTREEDECIDUOUSOVERSTORYSTREET TREEORNAMENTALTREEDECIDUOUSOVERSTORYTREEPLANT LEGENDEXISTINGCONIFEROUS TREETO REMAINEXISTINGDECIDUOUS TREETO REMAINGROUNDCOVER LEGENDSTORMWATER NATIVESEED MIX 33-261(0.7 AC)* ALL STREET BOULEVARDS TO BE SODDED.* ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODDEDUNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.* ALL ROW DISTURBANCE TO BE SEEDED SOUTHERN SHORTGRASS ROADSIDE SEED MIX35-221325 BLUFF CREEK DRIVEPIONEER TRA IL HI G H W A Y 2 1 2 STOSTOSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTO STOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOPATIOGARAGEOLIVIA2-STORYPORCH12345678910111213141516171812345678910111213141516171819202121123STREET ASTREET B123456789101112131457.28 57.28 57.2867.6955.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.2555.25 PATIOGARAGEOLIVIA2-STORY1920OUTLOT A2OUTLOT B OUTLOT BOUTLOT B OUTLOT COUTLOT D31.5NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL NWL NWL NWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWLNWL0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.20.20.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.61.21.40.80.60.50.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.03.43.92.21.50.80.40.30.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.00.00.00.00.00.00.03.02.21.00.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.04.82.00.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.03.11.40.40.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.01.60.50.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.90.60.20.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.50.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.20.30.00.00.10.10.10.20.00.10.10.00.00.10.10.20.30.00.00.10.10.10.20.40.71.30.00.00.00.10.20.51.12.12.00.00.00.00.10.10.41.63.92.52.40.00.00.00.00.10.41.01.11.41.00.50.20.10.00.00.00.20.30.40.50.40.30.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.10.20.20.20.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.20.20.20.40.60.50.30.20.20.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.40.71.42.62.90.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.40.60.91.22.92.61.10.80.60.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.30.50.60.91.90.10.20.30.40.81.62.92.12.52.71.40.70.40.20.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.20.40.71.30.70.40.20.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.00.10.10.10.10.00.00.00.10.20.20.10.00.00.00.10.30.30.20.10.40.60.10.61.10.20.72.10.31.42.50.31.94.7ROADWAY CALCULATIONLALALALALALASHEET NUMBER:VERTICAL SCALE:DATE:PREPARED FOR:OFHORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone :hLWeZaWer 'rLYe 6XLWe Fax 0LnneWonNa 01 Toll Free DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0050930.00\DWG\CIVIL\PRELIM PLANS\0050930C-LL01.DWG 2222CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA04/21/2025RMBRMBEJKPIONEER RIDGEPHOTOMETRIC PLAN221 RIVER RIDGE CIRCLE SBURNSVILLE, MN 55337PIONEER RIDGE12/13/244125704/21/2025RYAN BLUHMPIONEER RIDGE, LLC.PRELIMINARY PLANS© 2025 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com0'60'120'180'1" = 60'60'12' or 6'02/05/202504/07/202504/21/2025..REVISED SITE PLANREVISED SITE PLANREVISED GRADING ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE..PROJECT NUMBER: 0050930.00EXISTINGPROPOSEDCURB AND GUTTERPHOTOMETRIC LEGEND1.0 FOOT CANDLE ISOLINE0.5 FOOT CANDLE ISOLINE0.1 FOOT CANDLE ISOLINEPOLE MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE326 327 328 Application: Requesting Preliminary Plat, Site Plan, and Rezoning (Planning Case #2025-01) Staff Report Date: April 23, 2025 Drafted By: Eric Maass, Community Development Director Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer Mackenze Grunig, Project Engineer Don Nutter, Fire Marshall Manuel Jordan, Forestry Consultant Planning Commission Review Date: February 18, 2025 City Council Review Date: April 21, 2025 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting a preliminary plat, site plan, and rezoning approval to subdivide the property located generally at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek Drive into 40 townhomes, which are grouped in structures of three, four, or five townhomes and 14 detached townhomes for a total of 54 homes. The remaining two lots consist of common area surrounding the townhomes as well as private stormwater ponds which would be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. The Planning Commission is requested to review the preliminary plat and rezoning proposals. LOCATION: Unassigned property address PID: 25.0270010 PROPOSED MOTION: Staff recommends adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation recommending approval of the requested rezoning of the property as outlined by staff and recommending preliminary plat and site plan approval for a townhome development consisting of 40 attached townhomes and 14 detached townhomes subject to the conditions included in the staff report dated April 23, 2025. 329 Page 2 of 25 APPLICANT: Pioneer Ridge LLC “Applicant” PROPERTY OWNER: Pioneer Ridge LLC PRESENT ZONING: Unassigned - Right of way 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – Medium Density (4.1 – 8.0 units/net acre) ACREAGE: 11.75 Acres (gross). 11.03 Acres (net) DENSITY: 4.60 units/acre (gross). 4.90 units/acre (net) LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a rezoning is based on whether the requested zoning district is an eligible zoning district based on the land use designation for the property as identified by the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The requested rezoning must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This is a legislative decision. 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 Site Plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the city must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT The Applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 14th, 2024. This neighborhood meeting was attended by approximately 30 attendees. As part of the event, attendees were asked to share what they were hoping to learn about, what they were nervous about, and what they were happy to have learned about from attending the open house. Attendees hoped to learn about… the proposed exterior design of the homes, drainage plans, project timeline, openness to amending plans, options for privacy, parking, and construction traffic. Primary concerns of attendees included… proximity of townhomes to existing homes, loss of previously undeveloped land, wildlife, and lack of buffer between the proposed homes and existing homes. 330 Page 3 of 25 Attendees were happy to learn that… the townhomes are not 3 stories in height, and that nothing is final and that the development team was open to changes. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet as well as all property owners within the Pioneer Pass neighborhood. This same mailing list was used for mailing invitations for the neighborhood meeting held by the Applicant. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivision, Chapter 20, Article X, “A-2” Agricultural Estate District Chapter 20, Article XIV-1, “RLM” Residential Low and Medium Density District Chapter 20, Article XXIV-2, “R-8” Mixed Medium Density Residential District Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The project is proposed to be located on land that was formerly right-of-way, which had been acquired by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). MnDOT sold the land at auction, and the subsequent owner of the property is the Applicant. The Applicant is proposing the subdivision of 11.75 acres of property which is guided for Medium Density Residential into 54 homes consisting of 40 attached townhomes and 14 detached townhomes, referred to as “villas” as well as 4 outlots consisting of roadways, stormwater infrastructure, and open space to be preserved. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DISTRICTS • Wetland Protection – Two incidental wetlands on the property. • Bluff Protection – There are two bluff areas in the northeast corner of the property. • Shoreland Management – Not within a shoreland management district. • Floodplain Overlay – Not within a floodplain overlay district. 331 Page 4 of 25 LAND USE DESIGNATION The property is assigned as both Residential Medium Density and Office designations by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This dual designation affords the property greater flexibility because it is eligible for either Residential Medium Density zoning districts or zoning districts identified as eligible under the “office” designation by the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Residential Medium Density properties must be developed at a density of between 4 to 8 housing units per net acre. In reviewing the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Subject Property held the same land use designation then. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in November 2008. REQUEST FOR REZONING APPROVAL When considering land use applications to rezone a property, the City must adopt findings of fact in support or in denial of such an application. A rezoning request is considered a legislative action by the city. Therefore, the City has discretion in approving or denying a rezoning ordinance, but the decision of the City must include findings of fact. The city utilizes the following standards when considering applications for rezoning. a) The proposed rezoning is/is not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed zoning will/will not be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed zoning does/does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed zoning will/will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed zoning can/can not be accommodated with existing and planned public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use within the zoning district is/is not within the capabilities of the streets serving the property. LAND USE – ZONING CONSISTENCY The following zoning districts are consistent with “Residential Medium Density” land use: “R-4” Mixed Low Density Residential, “RLM” Residential Low Medium Density Residential, “R-8” Mixed Medium Density Residential, and “PUD-R” Planned Unit Development Residential. The following is a summary of the proposed rezoning for the site: • Lots 1-14, Block 1 rezoned to “RLM” • Lots 1-21, Block 3 rezoned to “R-8” • Lots 1-21, Block 2 rezoned to “R-8” • Outlot A – rezoned to “A2” • Outlot B – rezoned to “R-8” 332 Page 5 of 25 • Outlot C – rezoned to “A2” • Outlot D – rezoned to “A2” The RLM district is intended to provide for single-family attached or detached residential development on land guided residential-low or medium density in the city's Comprehensive Plan. The "RLM" District is intended to be used where large areas of upland will be preserved or created as permanent open space to balance the higher lot coverage permitted on individual lots. The R-8 district is intended to provide for single-family attached and multifamily residential development at a maximum net density of eight dwelling units per acre. The A-2 district is intended to provide for the preservation of rural character while respecting development patterns by allowing single-family residential development. “Public and private parks and open space” are permitted use within the A2 district. SURROUNDING ZONING Direction Zoning Designation North Residential Low and Medium Density Residential(RLM) South Right of way (Pioneer Trail / CSAH 14) 333 Page 6 of 25 West Right of way/open space (Bluff Creek Drive) East Right of way/open space (Hwy 212) Upon review of the rezoning request, staff makes the following findings of fact: a) The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The requested rezoning of the property to a mixture of RLM, R-8, and Parks – Open Space are consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan which guides the area for Medium Density Residential with a minimum density of 4.1 units per acre and a maximum density of 8.0 units per acre. b) The proposed zoning will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. The immediately adjacent properties are primarily right of way and open space with low density residential to the north and medium density residential designation of surrounding developments. The proposed rezonings are compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed zoning does conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed zoning designations are consistent and comply with the performance standards within the city’s zoning ordinance. d) The proposed zoning will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The proposed housing zoning designations are consistent and comparable to surrounding housing zoning designations and therefore will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed zoning can be accommodated with existing and planned public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. The proposed development has analyzed existing public services and there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed zoning designations and which will not overburden the city’s service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use within the zoning district is within the capabilities of the streets serving the property. 334 Page 7 of 25 The City has reviewed a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the proposed development and zoning designations are within the capabilities of the streets serving the property. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - SUBDIVISION REVIEW When considering land use applications to subdivide a property, the City must adopt findings of fact in support or in denial of such an application. An application for subdivision is considered a quasi-judicial action and the City's discretion in approving or denying the subdivision application is based on whether or not the proposed subdivision is consistent with the City’s ordinances. The City utilizes the following standards when considering applications for subdivisions. a) The proposed subdivision is/is not consistent with the zoning ordinance. b) The proposed subdivision is/is not consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Plan; 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/are not suitable for the proposed development; d) The proposed subdivision does/does not make adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance; e) The proposed subdivision will/will not cause significant environmental damage subject to compliance with the conditions of approval; f) The proposed subdivision will/will not conflict with easements of record; g) The proposed subdivision is/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. The Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide the property at and around Bluff Creek Dr & Pioneer Trl in the NE corner. Staff reviewed construction plans developed by 335 Page 8 of 25 Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated February 5, 2025, and updated April 7, 2025 and updated April 21, 2025. The plans provided show construction of a private street, private lift station, and sanitary sewer, 14 detached townhomes and 40 attached townhomes, public water main, and an addition to the existing publicly owned storm sewer pond. Lot Area Compliance Tables: Detached Townhomes (RLM) Required (minimum) Proposed Lot Area 5,445 sf (average) 7,345 sf (average) Lot Frontage 30 feet 54 feet Lot Depth 100 feet 109 feet As currently proposed, all lots meet the minimum lot area, lot width, and lot depths required by their proposed zoning designations. Outlot A is shown for purposes of expanding an existing publicly owned stormwater pond and will be required to be deeded to the city for the continued purposes of stormwater management. Outlot B is shown for the proposed private roadways, which will serve as access to the proposed attached and detached townhomes and guest parking spaces. The city will not maintain private roadways or private guest parking spaces. Outlot C consists of bluff areas and shall be dedicated to the city for the purposes of preservation. Outlot C will be required to be deeded to the city at the time of final plat. Once owned by the city, Outlot C will be used solely for the purposes of preservation and open space. Outlot D is partially within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and the city has goals related to preservation at the time of subdivision. This outlot will be required to be deeded to the city at the time of final plat. Once owned by the city, Outlot D will be used solely for the purpose of preservation and open space. STREETS AND INTERSECTIONS The project proposes a series of private roads. City Code section 18-57(b) outlines the required minimum width of right-of-way and minimum roadway pavement width for new development. Multifamily projects with a density equal to or greater than 4 units per acre have a required Attached Townhomes (R-8) Required (minimum) Proposed Lot Area 1,800 sf 2,368 Lot Frontage 30 feet 32 feet Lot Depth 60 feet 74 feet 336 Page 9 of 25 right-of-way minimum width of 40’ and a minimum pavement width of 24’. The project proposes a right-of-way width of 40’ and a pavement width of 24’ and, as a result, adheres to city code requirements. The project proposes an access point onto Bluff Creek Drive and an access point onto Pioneer Trail. Access onto Pioneer Trail is determined by Carver County, as it is under the jurisdiction of Carver County. Carver County Public Works issued a staff report for the proposed development and those comments have been included with this report. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis, the existing hill on the southwest side of the proposed development is required to be graded back to improve sight lines for traffic seeking to turn south onto Bluff Creek Drive. The Traffic Impact Analysis found the following: • All intersections were anticipated to operate within acceptable levels of service in the AM and PM peak hours. • Left and right turn storage bays are anticipated to have adequate storage for the full buildout scenario. • Grading the exiting hill back from the roadway is required to provide the necessary sight distance for the left turn from minor road or for the right turn from the minor road. WETLANDS On May 6, 2024, Westwood Professional Services submitted a wetland delineation and joint permit application. The City of Chanhassen, in its role as the local governing unit (LGU) overseeing the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), approved the delineation. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP), which includes 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), is responsible for reviewing wetland applications, including wetland types and boundaries, as part of the WCA process. The delineation identified two small wetlands and one watercourse onsite. The Applicant provided documentation showing that these water resources were created by grading activities related to nearby developments and roadway projects. After reviewing the application and grading plans, the TEP concluded that the wetlands were incidental and not subject to WCA or city regulation. Both wetlands were linked to ditched areas excavated to manage stormwater runoff. The project plans show the watercourse being realigned to facilitate the roadway construction and to reduce steep slopes which have resulted in the severe erosion of the natural channel. GRADING & DRAINAGE The project site is located north of Pioneer Trail, east of Bluff Creek Drive, and south of Hemlock Way. It is currently undeveloped, primarily consisting of open prairie, with more forested areas to the east around the bluffs. There is an existing stormwater basin within a city-owned outlot along Bluff Creek Drive. The site is bordered to the north by single-family residences, to the east by bluffs and Bluff Creek, and to the south by County and MNDOT Right of Way. The existing 337 Page 10 of 25 stormwater basin collects drainage from the development to the north and portions of the site. About half of the site drains to the northeast down the bluff, with runoff ultimately flowing into Bluff Creek. The southern portion of the site drains under Pioneer Trail through a 24” culvert or into a swale at the southwest corner of the site, at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek Drive. Under the proposed plan, the site would be mass graded to allow for the construction of roads, utilities, and homes. The proposed drainage patterns will be similar to existing conditions. The northeastern portion of the site will continue to flow down the bluff toward Bluff Creek. The majority of the homes and roadways will drain to a water reuse pond located at the northeast corner, which will outlet down the bluff to Bluff Creek. A small portion of the roadway and homes will drain into an expanded version of the existing stormwater basin along Bluff Creek Drive. Runoff from the southeast corner of the site will be captured by an 18” reinforced concrete pipe, which will outlet into the existing 24” pipe that carries stormwater south. Overflow from the 18” pipe will flow southwest toward the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek Drive where it drains to County Right of Way. The proposed design will change how stormwater exits the site, particularly through the stormwater reuse pond outlet in the northeast. This pond and outlet will collect and convey stormwater in a more concentrated flow when compared to current conditions. Located at the top of the bluff, the concentrated flow combined with the steep, unstable bluff areas may cause erosion issues. Therefore, the applicant must develop a better solution to address this, such as routing the pond outlet through a storm sewer that conveys stormwater down the bluff. Additionally, the proposed design increases runoff rates at the southwest corner of the site, near the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Bluff Creek Drive. The runoff rate from the site cannot exceed current conditions, as such the Applicant must revise the design. Additional storage in the swale could help slow down the water leaving the site. The Applicant must resubmit a design with the final plat that ensures discharge rates match or are below those of existing conditions. Since the project alters how stormwater is discharged to the County and MNDOT Right of Way, the Applicant must obtain all necessary permits from Carver County and MNDOT. Conditional approval from all permitting agencies must be provided with the final plat application. The proposed design includes a drainage ditch along the northern edge of the property to direct runoff to two BMPs located on the east and west sides. The ditch is set at a 2% slope, the typical minimum needed to ensure proper drainage in turfgrass areas. However, it appears to compete for space with screening trees, which increases the likelihood of root intrusion and flow obstruction. This could result in nuisance drainage issues, such as consistently wet yards— particularly on Lots 13 and 14, where space near the watercourse is especially limited. While the applicant’s revised design shows some improvement, it still poses a higher risk of drainage problems. Therefore, the applicant must continue to work with staff to further improve drainage in the ditched areas along the northern portion of the property. 338 Page 11 of 25 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. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT Article VII, Chapter 19 of the City Code outlines the stormwater management development standards. Section 19-141 specifies 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 runoff abstraction and water quality treatment, requiring the removal of 90% of total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% of total phosphorus (TP). The proposed project is located within the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) and is subject to its rules and regulations. A RPBCWD permit will be required for final plat approval. A Stormwater Management Report, dated August 16, 2024, was submitted for review to confirm that all stormwater management requirements, including rate control, volume abstraction, and water quality, are being met. The proposed site plans include a stormwater pond and an associated water reuse system for irrigating the green spaces within the development. Additionally, the Applicant proposes to enlarge the existing city-owned stormwater wet pond onsite. The Applicant submitted a permit application to the watershed district at the same time as the city's preliminary plat application. Design modifications are necessary to comply with all applicable rules. Therefore, the Applicant must provide conditional approval from the watershed district as part of the final plat application. Additionally, the Applicant must submit final versions of all modeling (HydroCAD and MIDS) and the updated Stormwater Management Report to address outstanding comments and confirm that rate, volume, and water quality requirements are met before the final site plan approval. The outlet for the stormwater reuse pond is located at the top of the bluff. The Applicant should extend the outlet with storm sewer further down the bluff to a less erosion-prone area. The proposed water reuse basin must also allow for maintenance access to the pond inlets and outlet, and an operation and maintenance agreement must be in place. The Applicant is 339 Page 12 of 25 required to collaborate with staff to optimize the stormwater design, addressing concerns related to future maintenance and erosion. The design includes two proposed best management practices (BMPs) located on private property. The reuse pond BMP, situated on the northeast side of the site, is intended solely to treat stormwater from private property. Therefore, it should be privately owned and maintained. The expanded BMP pond, on the other hand, will manage both public and private stormwater. To clarify future maintenance responsibilities, it is recommended that the expanded pond be separated from the public pond. The stormwater design is still being finalized, and there may be adjustments to the BMPs on site, including changes in number, size, or type, to meet stormwater regulations. As a result, the Applicant will work with staff to optimize the stormwater design and determine the ownership of the stormwater management facilities for the development. The stormwater infrastructure for the development will be privately owned and maintained. A maintenance plan for any proposed best management practices (BMPs) will be required. The plan should include a maintenance schedule, identify the responsible party, and describe how the system will be cleaned as needed. The Applicant must submit a stormwater operations and maintenance plan as part of the final plat submittal. Additionally, the Applicant will be required to enter into a stormwater agreement with the city for any privately owned stormwater infrastructure onsite. LANDSCAPING The applicant for the Pioneer Ridge development submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. Total upland area (excl wetlands, bluff) 11.03 acres Baseline canopy coverage 29% or 3.22 Minimum canopy coverage required 25% or 2.76 acres Proposed tree preservation 9% or 1.02 acres The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage for the site; therefore the applicant must bring the canopy coverage on site up to the 25% minimum. The difference between the required coverage and the remaining coverage is multiplied by 1.2 for total area to be replaced. One tree is valued at 1,089 SF. Minimum required 2.76 acres Less canopy preserved 1.02 acres Minimum canopy coverage to be replaced 1.74 acres Multiplied by 1.2 2.09 acres or 91,040.4 sf Divided by 1089sf =Total number of trees to be planted: 84 trees 340 Page 13 of 25 The applicant has submitted a landscape plan showing a total of 228 trees to be planted in the development. Proposed Deciduous trees 79 trees Proposed Evergreen trees 146 trees Proposed Ornamental trees 3 trees Bufferyard ‘B’ as defined in City Code Chapter 20-1176, plantings are required between the development and Bluff Creek Dr. as well as Pioneer Trail. Bufferyard ‘B,’ as defined in City Code Chapter 20-1176, plantings is also required between the proposed development and the Pioneer Pass development to the north as the development site is guided for Medium Density Residential and the adjacent property to the north is guided as Low Density Residential. Required plantings / landscape area Proposed Bufferyard Plantings Bufferyard B – West prop. line, 351’ 15’ multiplier 7 Overstory trees 14 Understory trees 21 Shrubs 10 evergreens (overstory) 5 deciduous (overstory) 0 understory trees shown 0 shrubs shown Bufferyard B - South prop. Line, - 1,086’ 25’ multiplier 13 Overstory Trees 26 Understory trees 39 Shrubs 44 evergreens (overstory) 20 deciduous (overstory) 0 understory trees shown 0 shrubs shown Bufferyard B - East prop line- 349’ 15’ multiplier 7 Overstory Trees 14 Understory trees 21 Shrubs 14 evergreens (overstory) 6 deciduous (overstory) 0 understory trees shown 0 shrubs shown Bufferyard B - North prop. Line- 1016’ 20’ multiplier 16 Overstory trees 33 Understory trees 49 Shrubs 71 evergreens (overstory) 6 deciduous (overstory) 0 understory trees shown 0 shrubs shown In total, 260 buffer plantings (43 overstory trees, 87 understory trees, and 130 shrubs) would be required. The applicant is showing 176 overstory trees, 0 understory trees, and 0 shrubs. The buffer plantings are intended to provide a visual buffer between two developed areas. The proposed use of extensive evergreens (pines, spruces, and firs) combined with complementary deciduous trees provides a significant visual buffer greater than the minimum buffer outlined above. Due to the unique nature of this development, staff assessment is that 341 Page 14 of 25 the proposed extensive overstory tree plantings are a suitable alternative to the lack of understory plantings, as they focus on neighborhood screening concerns. Staff recommends planting in between the overstory tree plantings along the property perimeters to accomplish the required shrub plantings so that as the evergreen and deciduous trees get taller, there will be a lower level of visual buffering. Applicant to update the landscaping plan to provide buffer plantings (shrubs) along the western property line. The applicant shall indicate plant codes on the plan to correlate to specific quantities for each species to ensure that the landscape plan meets the city’s requirements for species diversity. As updates are made to the landscaping plan, the Applicant is to be mindful of the city’s tree species diversity requirements. No more than 10% of the trees may be from any one tree species, no more than 20% of the trees may be from any one genus, and no more than 30% from any one family. Based on the plans submitted and staff’s analysis of the proposed site plan and its conformance to City ordinances, staff makes the following findings: a) The proposed site plan is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted. b) The proposed site plan is consistent with the site plan review requirements. c) The proposed site plan preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas. d) The proposed site plan creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e) The proposed site plan creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1) An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; 2) The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 342 Page 15 of 25 4) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) The proposed site plan protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations that may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. g) The proposed site plan maintains an acceptable road system level of service. SUBDIVISION REVIEW FINDINGS Based on the plans submitted and staff’s analysis of the proposed subdivision and its conformance to City ordinances, staff makes the following findings: a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance. The subdivision as proposed adheres to the city’s zoning ordinances for the RLM and R-8 zoning districts and does not require variances to the city’s ordinances. b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans, including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Plan; The subdivision as proposed complies with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as well as applicable city, county, and regional plans. 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; The applicant has prepared the necessary engineered drawings and design to establish that the topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development. d) The proposed subdivision does make adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance; The Applicant has made adequate provisions for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance. 343 Page 16 of 25 e) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to compliance with the conditions of approval; The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage based on its compliance to the proposed conditions of approval. f) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; The Applicant has provided the necessary information to support that the proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. 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. The proposed subdivision has adequate stormwater drainage, roads, sanitary sewer systems, and adequate off-site public improvement and support systems. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW – ZONING COMPLIANCE The Applicant is requesting site plan approval for a multifamily residential development consisting of 40 attached townhomes, 14 detached townhomes, and private roadways. Below is an analysis of setbacks and height restrictions applicable to the proposed development based on the two proposed zoning designations. Detached Townhomes (RLM) Building Setback Required (minimum) Proposed Front yard 20 feet 20 feet Side yard building separation 15 feet (10’ garage side, 5’ house side) 15 feet Rear yard 30 feet 30 feet Building height Three stories / 35 feet < 35 feet 344 Page 17 of 25 Attached Townhomes (R-8) Building Setback Required Proposed Front yard 20 feet 21 feet Front yard (corner) 20 feet 40 feet Side yard building separation 20 feet (not applicable to common walls in multifamily dwelling units) 21 feet Side yard 20 feet 42 feet Building height Three stories / 35 feet < 35 feet As shown, the detached and attached townhomes adhere to the applicable minimum setbacks and height restrictions based on the proposed zoning designations. SIGNAGE Project or neighborhood signage, if incorporated into the development, will require separate permitting. OVERHEAD POWERLINE UTILITY The Applicant is proposing to relocate the existing overhead powerlines. The Applicant will coordinate the powerline relocation with Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative. PARKING The plan set shows 21 guest parking spaces. City Code requires at least 1 guest parking space for every four dwelling units for multifamily residential developments. Based on the 40 attached townhomes and 14 detached townhomes, 14 guest parking spaces are required. The 21 proposed parking spaces exceed the minimum required by city code and are appropriately placed throughout the proposed development ARCHITECTURE The City establishes design standards for multifamily developments which are outlined in City Code Division 20-XXIII-9 Design Standards for Multifamily Developments. Section 20-1088 describes the requirements for architectural style. 1. It states that “Architectural style shall not be restricted. Evaluation of the appearance of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and in relationship to its surroundings, guided by the provisions of this section. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. Designs that are incompatible with their surroundings or intentionally bizarre or exotic are not acceptable. 345 Page 18 of 25 2. Monotony of design, both within projects and between adjacent projects and its surroundings, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and siting shall provide visual interest. Site characteristics that may be used for this purpose include building and landscaping, colors, textures, shapes, massing of rhythms of building components and detail, height of roof line, setback and orientation. 3. All building shall have a minimum of 20 percent of accent material. Accent material may include brick, stone cut face block or shakes. The use of any EFIS shall not be on the first story of any building or one story in height. Sophia and Amelia attached townhomes – 44% accent materials on end units and 38% accent materials on interior units based on the front elevation. Applicant to update to include full surface area of the structures. Jasmine and Isla attached townhomes – 48% accent materials on end units and 62% accent materials on interior units based on the front elevation. Applicant to update to include full surface area of the structures. The Applicant has provided a series of renderings of possible detached townhomes to be built on the property. The detached nature allows for greater flexibility between individual homes. The detached townhomes are required to adhere to the 20% accent material requirement as the attached townhomes. Compliance of 20% accent material of the detached townhomes will be verified at the time of building permit application, as a result of the individual design being flexible compared to the attached townhomes, which have specific units proposed, and those elevations and materials have been reviewed as part of the current land use application. - Remainder of page left intentionally blank - 346 Page 19 of 25 Proposed Attached Townhomes – “Amelia and Sophia” Amelia and Sophia Units - Architectural Rendering Front Elevation Side Elevations Rear Elevation 347 Page 20 of 25 Proposed Attached Townhomes – “Isla and Jasmine” Isla and Jasmine Units - Architectural Rendering Front Elevations Side Elevations Rear Elevations 348 Page 21 of 25 Proposed Potential Detached Townhome Renderings 349 Page 22 of 25 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested site plan subject to the conditions outlined by staff listed below. STAFF REVIEW CONDITIONS PLANNING: 1. Architectural drawings for the attached townhomes provided accent material percentages based on the front elevation only. City code states “all buildings shall have a minimum of 20 percent of accent material”. Applicant to update the figure to show that accent materials meet the 20 percent material threshold for the whole building. 2. Applicant to ensure the rear of attached townhomes have variation in material treatment as the rear elevations are visible to the public right of way. 3. Staff will review the building elevations of detached townhomes at the building permit to ensure conformance with the 20% accent material requirement. Accent material may include brick, stone cut face block, or shakes. 4. Outlots A, C, and D, Pioneer Ridge, shall be deeded to the City of Chanhassen. FORESTRY 1. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities and remain installed until completion. Do not use a silt fence to delineate tree preservation 2. All trees shall be planted outside of the street right-of-way. 3. The applicant shall indicate plant codes on the plan to correlate to specific quantities for each species to ensure that the landscape plan meets the city’s requirements for species diversity. No more than 10% of the trees may be from any one tree species, no more than 20% of the trees may be from any one genus, and no more than 30% from any one family. 4. Applicant must include the condition of each tree as part of the tree survey. 5. Update the landscape plan to incorporate shrub planting in between the overstory tree plantings along the property perimeters to accomplish the required shrub plantings. 6. Update the landscaping plan to provide buffer planting (49 shrubs) along the western property line. ENGINEERING: 1. The developer shall enter into Encroachment Agreements for all private improvements located within public drainage and utility easements or the public right-of-way, as approved by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Any previously recorded easements located within the proposed public right-of-way or proposed public drainage and utility easements must be vacated prior to or concurrently with the final plat. 350 Page 23 of 25 3. The developer and their engineer must amend the construction plans to fully address staff comments and concerns. Final construction plans are subject to review and approval by staff prior to the recording of the final plat. 4. Final plans shall include the 2025 City Standard Details and Specifications. 5. Provide a drainage and utility easement over drainage swales where applicable. 6. Any retaining walls associated with this project shall be privately owned or maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). 7. Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis, the existing hill on the southwest corner of the proposed development should be graded back to improve sight lines. Revise final plans accordingly. 8. Label the proposed lift station as privately owned. 9. The grading around Lot 1 does not tie into the existing 930’ contour. Revise accordingly. 10. Detail plates shall be formatted as two rows by four columns per page. Pedestrian ramps shall be formatted as two rows by two columns to improve readability. 11. Streetlights shall be owned and maintained by Xcel Energy. Provide the agreement for documentation when complete. Luminaires shall meet City standards. 12. The developer shall verify sight distance triangles. 13. The applicant shall provide a schedule for necessary private utility relocations. 14. Final plans shall show removals and design for connection to the existing sanitary sewer. 15. All publicly owned and maintained utilities shall be located within a designated Drainage and Utility Easement, which must be clearly identified and shown on the final plats. 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. 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 13, 2025 prepared by Westwood Professional Services., 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. The applicant 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. 5. The applicant shall secure condition approval from the MnDOT and Caver County prior to submitting the final plat application to the City. Verification of conditional approval shall be provided with the final plat application. 6. The revised design shall address staff’s concerns with the northern drainage ditch, concentrated drainage down the bluff, and the discharge rates leaving the site. A memo describing the ultimate design solution may be required as determined by the City Engineer. 351 Page 24 of 25 7. The applicant shall enter into an operations and maintenance agreement with the city for all privately owned stormwater infrastructure onsite. A draft maintenance plan shall be submitted with the final plat application. An HOA shall be created for the purpose of maintaining the stormwater infrastructure onsite. 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. FIRE: 1. All private roads shall be signed as “No Parking” at any time and apply to both sides of the private roads. The same shall apply to fire apparatus turn arounds, they too shall be signed as no parking. CARVER COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS: 1. Peak stormwater discharge to the southwest existing storm sewer is shown as increasing from 7.6 cfs to 10.7 cfs. This increase should be mitigated to match the existing condition as closely as possible. 2. The catch basin on CSAH 14must be relocated to the curb line. 3. We strongly prefer the storm sewer be located in the right-of-way to minimize disturbances to private property in the event of maintenance. 4. Plans must incorporate the existing trail north of CSAH 14. ADA accessibility must be maintained, including across the proposed access. 5. Plans must include a typical cross-section of CSAH 14. 6. Plans must include cross-sections demonstrating how the proposed new pavement will tie into the existing cross slope. Cross sections must include dimensions, curb type, and material specifications to match the existing pavement. 7. Plan must include pavement striping and marking changes and any additional signage required. 8. Please provide turning movements for the largest expected vehicle, to be determined by the City of Chanhassen. 9. Right turn lane tape should be 1:15, with the shift of the trail to the north matched to maintain separation. 352 Page 25 of 25 10. Curb widening for the right turn lane should behind at the bridge approach panel for consistency with other County projects. 11. The traffic island controlling right-in/right-out to the development should be replaced with a center median on CSAH 14. Please direct the applicant to Carver County Public Works staff to discuss design specifics. 12. This project will require grading and access permits from Carver County. 353 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Brandl Anderson Homes – Planning Case No. 2025-01, Pioneer Ridge. Request to Rezone existing Right Of Wayto R-8 Mixed Medium Density Residential District (R-8), Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM), and A-2 Agricultural Estate District (A-2)Subdivision and Site Plan Approval for a multi-family residential subdivision for 40 attached townhomes and 14 detached townhomes. On February 18, 2025, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Brandl Anderson Homes for a multifamily residential development. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development, preceded by a published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently identified as right of way. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential–Medium Density uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: (See Exhibit A) 4. REZONING FINDINGS a) The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The requested rezoning of the property to a mixture of RLM, R-8, and Parks – Open Space are consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan which guides the area for Medium Density Residential with a minimum density of 4.1 units per acre and a maximum density of 8.0 units per acre. b) The proposed zoning will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. The immediately adjacent properties are primarily right of way and open space with low density residential to the north and medium density residential designation of surrounding developments. The proposed rezonings are compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed zoning does conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 354 2 The proposed zoning designations are consistent and comply with the performance standards within the city’s zoning ordinance. d) The proposed zoning will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The proposed housing zoning designations are consistent and comparable to surrounding housing zoning designations and therefore will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed zoning can be accommodated with existing and planned public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. The proposed development has analyzed existing public services and there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed zoning designations and which will not overburden the city’s service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use within the zoning district is within the capabilities of the streets serving the property. The City has reviewed a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the proposed development and zoning designations are within the capabilities of the streets serving the property. 5.SUBDIVISION FINDINGS a) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance. The subdivision as proposed adheres to the city’s zoning ordinances for the RLM and R-8 zoning districts and does not require variances to the citys ordinances. b) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the City's Comprehensive Plan; The subdivision as proposed complies with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as well as applicable city, county, and regional plans. 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; Theapplicant has prepared the necessary engineered drawings and design to establish that the topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development. 355 3 d) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance; The Applicant has made adequate provisions for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by the subdivision ordinance. e) The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to compliance with the conditions of approval; The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage based on its compliance to the proposed conditions of approval. f) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; The Applicant has provided the necessary information to support that the proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. 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. The proposed subdivision has adequate stormwater drainage, roads, sanitary sewer systems, and adequate off-site public improvement and support systems. 6.SITE PLAN FINDINGS a) Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted. b) Is consistent with the site plan review requirements. c) Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas. d) Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e) Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 356 4 a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f) Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. g) Maintains an acceptable road system level of service. 7. The planning report #2025-01 dated April 23, 2025, prepared by Eric Maass, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The City Council adopts the attached findings of fact and recommendation that the City Council approve an Ordinance rezoning portions of the subject property to Mixed Medium Density Residential District (R-8), Residential Low and Medium Density District (RLM), and Agricultural Estate District (A-2) as shown in Exhibit B and grants Preliminary Plat and Site Plan approval for a multi-family residential subdivision for 40 attached townhomes and 14 detached townhome. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this _____ day of _____________, 202_. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BY:___________________________________ Its Mayor BY:_ __________________________________ Its City Manager 357 5 EXHIBIT A That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, and the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, shown as Parcel 60 on Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat Numbered 10-20 and Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 10- 43 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Carver County, Minnesota; Which lies northwesterly, northerly and northeasterly, of Line 1 described below: Line 1: Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B14 as shown on said Plat No. 10-20; thence southwesterly on an azimuth of 218 degrees 08 minutes 53 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 890.93 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B13 and the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence on an azimuth of 210 degrees 36 minutes 52 seconds for 435.09 feet; thence on an azimuth of 202 degrees 57 minutes 17 seconds for 173.07 feet; thence on an azimuth of 267 degrees 24 minutes 40 seconds for 336.72 feet; thence deflect to the left on a tangential curve, having a radius of 852.85 feet and a delta angle of 37 degrees 35 minutes 13 seconds for 559.48 feet; thence on an azimuth of 226 degrees 00 minutes 03 seconds for 190.46 feet; thence northwesterly for 351.20 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 253.78 feet, a delta angle of 79 degrees 17 minutes 25 seconds and a chord azimuth of 339 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds to the northwest boundary of said Plat No. 10-20 and there terminating. Subject to the following restriction: No access shall be permitted to Trunk Highway No 212 from the lands herein conveyed. Abstract Property 358 6 EXHIBIT B 359 1 225440v7 LAND DISTURBANCE AND TREE REMOVAL AUTHORIZATION LAND DISTURBANCE AUTHORIZATION dated ______ _, 20__, issued by the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), to __________________, a Minnesota corporation (the "Developer"). 1.Request for Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for PIONEER RIDGE (referred to in this Contract as the "plat"). The land is situated in the County of Carver, State of Minnesota, on the land legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (“Property”). 2.Conditions of Approval. The plat has received preliminary plat approval and the Public Works Director hereby approves the proposed Land Disturbance and tree removal activity on the Property on condition that the Developer abides by the terms of this agreement as well as furnishes the security required by it subject to the following conditions: A. Land Disturbance activities shall be in compliance with tree removal and erosion control plans identified under Paragraph 3 of this Agreement which shall include the following: mobilization, tree clearing and grubbing, stabilization of exposed soils, perimeter sediment controls around the disturbed areas; and B. If applicable, Developer shall obtain all necessary permits from roadway authorities for mobilization to the Property. 3.Plans. The Property shall be disturbed and tree removals completed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this authorization. Plan A - Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Schedule dated _______ __, 2025, revised ________ ___, 2025 prepared by __________________. Plan B - Tree Inventory, Removal and Land Disturbance Plan dated _______ __, 2025, revised _______ __, 2025 prepared by ____________________. 360 2 225440v7 4.Time of Performance. The Developer shall complete the tree removal, Land Disturbance and stabilization activities by June 1, 2025. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 5.Erosion and Sediment Control. Plan A shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion and sediment control requirements as they deem necessary. All areas disturbed by the Land Disturbance and tree removal operations shall be stabilized forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion and sediment control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City or the MPCA, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to mitigate erosion and control sediment on site. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within thirty (30) days, the City may draw down the letter of credit or cash escrow to pay any costs. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the property is in full compliance with the erosion and sediment control requirements. Street sweeping shall be required as necessary to address any vehicle tracking onto public roads. Stump grubbing and further Land Disturbance operations may not proceed until erosion and sediment control BMPs are in place. City Code chapter 19-145 Erosion And Sediment Control states that an Earthwork Permit is required for land disturbance that is equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet. The developer is required to adhere to City of Chanhassen Erosion and Sediment Control regulations with the tree clearing operations. Inspection records shall be submitted to the City Engineer not less than every two weeks. 6.Clean up. The Developer shall promptly clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 7.Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this authorization, the Developer shall furnish the City with a cash escrow in the total amount of $_______. The security shall be released upon the earlier of: (i) the date the Land Disturbance and tree removal work set forth in the Land Disturbance and tree removal plan is complete and the site is stabilized in conformance with the NPDES General Stormwater Permit (vegetation uniformly established to 70% or better of the intended density) and the approved Plans; or (ii) the plat and accompanying development contract have been recorded and the security provided as required under the development contract has been received by the City which also covers the work contemplated under this Agreement. 361 3 225440v7 8.Responsibility for Costs. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the Land Disturbance and/or erosion and sediment control, including but not limited to legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the permit, the preparation of this permit, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting the Land Disturbance and erosion control. The City will deduct costs incurred by the City from the posted cash escrow outlined in Section 8. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees harmless from claims made by it and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from permit approval and work done in conjunction with it. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this permit, including engineering, site inspections, and attorney's fees by a reduction of the cash escrow. D. In the event that the cash escrow funds are fully diminished, the Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this permit within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt all work and construction. 9.Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than 48 hours in advance. This authorization is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part. 10.Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Developer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, and its employees, officials, and agents from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, arising out of Developer’s negligence or its performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. Developer’s indemnification obligation shall apply to Developer’s general contractor, subcontractor(s), or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by Developer, or anyone for whose acts Developer may be liable. Developer agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. 11.Third Parties. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this Agreement. 362 4 225440v7 12.License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with this Agreement. 13.Acknowledgment. Developer acknowledges that approval of a Land Disturbance and tree removal activities for the Property under the terms of this Agreement does not constitute a guarantee by the City of any future subdivision approvals and that Developer grades the Property at its own risk. 14.Laws. Developer shall comply with all federal, state and local laws in connection with the Land Disturbance and excavation work on the Property and shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits for such work. 15.Termination of Prior Land Disturbance Approvals. This Agreement shall terminate all prior Land Disturbance approvals by the City for the Property. 16.Recording. The Developer agrees that the terms of this Land Disturbance and Tree Removal Development Authorization Agreement shall be a covenant running with the Property. The Developer agrees that the City shall have the right to record a copy of this Agreement with the Carver County Recorder to give notice to future purchasers and owners. 17.Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: ____________________________________., Attn: _____________,_________________________________. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: City of Chanhassen, 7700 Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317. 363 5 225440v7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: _______________________________ Elise Ryan,, Mayor And: ______________________________ Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OFCARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of ______________, 2025, by Elise Ryan and Laurie Hokkanen, respectively the Mayor and City Manager, of the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on its behalf. _________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC 364 6 225440v7 DEVELOPER: _______________________. BY: _________________________________ Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF _________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of _____________________, 2025, by ___________________________________________ the ____________________________________ of ____________________., a ______________ corporation, on its behalf. _________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL,KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: 651-452-5000 AMP/smt 365 7 225440v7 FEE OWNER CONSENT TO LAND DISTURBANCE and tree removal AUTHORIZATION Pioneer Ridge LLC, fee owner of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Land Disturbance and Tree RemovalAuthorization, affirms and consents to the provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by it. Dated this _____ day of ____________, 2025. Pioneer Ridge LLC By _________________________ [print name] Its ______________________ [title] STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF __________) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _____________________, 2025, by _____________________________________________, the ______________________________________________ of Pioneer Ridge LLC, a _________________________________, on behalf of said entity. ________________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 651-452-5000 AMP/smt 366 8 225440v7 EXHIBIT A TO LAND DISTURBANCE AUTHORIZATION AGREEMENT Legal Description PID #250270010 That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, and the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, shown as Parcel 60 on Minnesota Department of TransportationRight of Way Plat Numbered 10-20 and Minnesota Department of Transportation right of Way Plat No. 10-43 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Carver County, Minnesota; Which lies northwesterly, northerly and northeasterly, of Line 1 described below: Line 1: Commencing at Right of Way Boundary Corner B14 as shown on said Plat No. 10-20; thence southwesterly on an azimuth of 218 degrees 08 minutes 53 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 890.93 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B13 and the point of beginning of Line 1 to be described; thence on an azimuth of 210 degrees 36 minutes 52 seconds for 435.09 feet; thence on an azimuth of 202 degrees 57 minutes 17 seconds for 173.07 feet; thence on an azimuth of 267 degrees 24 minutes 40 seconds for 336.72 feet; thence deflect to the left on a tangential curve, having a radius of 852.85 feet and a delta angle of 37 degrees 35 minutes 13 seconds for 559.48 feet; thence on an azimuth of 26 degrees 00 minutes 03 seconds for 190.46 feet; thence northwesterly for 351.20 feet on a non-tangential curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 253.78 feet, a delta angle of 79 degrees 17 minutes 25 seconds and a chord azimuth of 339 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds to the northwest boundary of said Plat No. 10-20 and there terminating. 367 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 368 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 217 369 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. 370 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 371 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. 372 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 373 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. 374 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. 375 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 376 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 377 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. 378 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. 379 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 380 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 381 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 382 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. 383 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 384 From: Laurie Ambrose Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:11 PM To: McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Concerns about Pioneer Ridge Development Dear Jerry, Haley, Mark, and Josh, I hope this letter flnds you well. I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed construction of Pioneer Ridge in Chanhassen. While I appreciate the city’s dedication to providing diverse housing options, I believe that this development confiicts with Chanhassen’s vision and poses signiflcant challenges to the community, environment, and overall character of the area. The City of Chanhassen’s Comprehensive Plan sets a clear vision for maintaining low- density residential developments in appropriate areas. It emphasizes preserving the aesthetic of existing single-family homes and creating new neighborhoods of similar character and quality. Squeezing these townhouses in right next to existing single family housing neighborhood would contradict this vision and introducing medium-density housing that is incompatible with the surrounding area disrupts the community’s established identity. As I understand it, the city also highlights the importance of creating transition zones between land uses, “using natural features or buffer zones with increased setbacks, landscaping, and berming.” No such transition is planned for this project, further highlighting its inconsistency with the city’s stated goals. I can’t imagine the view the people who back up to this area would have and the detriment it would bring to the value of the homes in the Pioneer Pass neighborhood. It is hard to understand why the city would approve a re-zoning request that would immediately decrease the value and enjoyment of the homes of several Chanhassen residents who have been homeowners in the community for over a decade. One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed development is its environmental impact. The site in question currently serves as a sanctuary for wildlife, including deer, pheasants, foxes, turkeys, and coyotes. This area is a vital corridor for wildlife, with animals frequently seen crossing the land in the mornings and evenings. Destroying this habitat would not only displace these species but also erode the natural beauty that Chanhassen 385 has committed to preserving. The Comprehensive Plan explicitly states that housing developments should respect the natural environment and strive to preserve wooded areas, existing vegetation, and wildlife habitats. Proceeding with this project would directly violate those principles. Especially when you take into consideration that Avienda and the newly approved community center have/will displace wildlife from a large space on the immediate other side of this area. Traffic concerns also cannot be overlooked. New developments should avoid funneling high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods. The addition of an R-8 medium- density development alongside Avienda and a new community center will undoubtedly increase traffic through the existing neighborhood and next to Pioneer Pass Park, posing safety risks to the many children who enjoy this area. As a resident of Pioneer Pass, it is already mind-blowing to see how hard it is to safely cross the road from the park to Mayapple Pass as drivers consistently pay no attention to pedestrians and drive well above the speed limit. I know we both have goals to maintain the community’s character and preserve its natural assets. Allowing this project to proceed would set a troubling precedent that undermines the very principles guiding Chanhassen’s growth and development. In light of these concerns, I urge you to reconsider approving this development or the re- zoning of this land. It is essential to prioritize projects that align with the city’s long-term vision and respect the environment, wildlife, and character of existing neighborhoods. I trust that the City of Chanhassen will honor the commitments outlined in its Comprehensive Plan and seek alternative locations or solutions that better serve the community as a whole. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate all you do as a representative of the members of our community! Sincerely, Laurie Ambrose - 1515 Hemlock Way, Chanhassen Laurie Ambrose 386 From: Nathan Button < Sent: Friday, January 24, 2025 4:19 PM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com <lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com> Subject: Pioneer Pass Chanhassen City Council – I live in Pioneer Pass neighborhood near the proposed new development, and would like to express my deep concerns about this project as it’s currently laid out. Currently, the back of our house overlooks a beautiful, wooded area, which would be eliminated by this project. Although I hate to lose my view, this is not my biggest concern. Moving into this house, we understood that the land behind us could one day be developed, and I work for Caterpillar, so I understand the need for development and progress. However, when we moved here (about 1.5 years ago), we chose Chanhassen after hearing so many great things about the town and seeing how well the town has been planned and the care that’s been taken to maintain the feel and atmosphere. We’re originally from Iowa, but have lived in many places around the world in the past 20 years, and one thing we really appreciate about the Midwest is the intention that goes into city planning. For instance, in many parts of the South, zoning appropriately isn’t the priority that it is in the Midwest, and the look and feel of many towns there suffer as a result. Moving here and exploring Chanhassen, it was apparent that this is not the case here. Although there are medium and even higher density areas in town (which is important), there are appropriate transitions between them which helps the town feel organized and maintains the value of the properties. In fact, in our own area of town, we have medium density housing across the park from us, but due to the park and the road the transition is reasonable and maintains an organized feel to the area. That leads into one of the serious concerns we have about this new planned proposal. Without any reasonable transition between them, this project would build medium density housing within a very short space from our house (nearest building will be 25 feet from our property line). This will lead to exactly the kind of disorganized feel that I 387 described in other parts of the country and will certainly have a detrimental impact on our property values. I understand and believe that part of your job as the city council is to help grow this community, including a variety of housing types, but I also believe it’s a part of your responsibility to protect the property of the current residents. I don’t object to building on this land, but I do think it should be consistent with the current zoning since there is no natural transition between them (like a road, park, or some distance with forest). Secondly, the proposed project includes the construction of a new road that will fiow onto Bluff Creek Drive between Hemlock and Pioneer Trail. The position of this road is on a hill at a curve not far from a busy intersection. A quick drive up Bluff Creek would make it apparent that this is an unsafe place for a new intersection. Additionally, the number of proposed homes in this development will add signiflcant traffic to an already busy residential road with a lot of children in the neighborhood. Again, I’m not opposed to developing this land (though I’d love to see it stay undeveloped), but I would request that this land be zoned to something consistent with the adjacent zoning. Obviously, this will beneflt your constituents in my neighborhood, but I believe it beneflts the town as a whole. It maintains the sense of order and planning that currently exists and will help give confldence to other current and future residents that the city works to protect the community that they are investing in. Regards, Nate Button 388 From: Lindsey Button Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 6:53 AM To: lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com <lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com>; Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Pioneer Ridge Proposed Development Dear Elise, Jerry, Haley, Mark, Josh and Eric, My name is Lindsey Button. I am a resident of Chanhassen and I live at 1655 Hemlock Way in the Pioneer Pass neighborhood. I am writing to you today to seek your help regarding a proposed development project that will occur within 20 feet of my backyard as well as many of my neighbors on our street. Our family moved to Chanhassen from out of state. We looked at many different towns in the area and settled on Chanhassen due to its’ national recognition as a great place to live. We have school aged children who have beneflted greatly from the excellent schools in Chanhassen. We appreciate many things about Chanhassen whether it be the small town feel, the vast network of parks and trails, the focus on preserving natural habitat, and we resonate with Chanhassen’s vision to be a community for life, a place we can call home and enjoy living in. When we heard about the development plans of Brandl Anderson to build Pioneer Ridge, a medium density development consisting of 60 homes on 11 acres of land, we were very concerned. This proposal is concerning for many reasons, which I will identify below. The City of Chanhassen’s comprehensive plan lays out in, great detail, the vision going forward for the city. It states, “Chanhassen desires to support low density residential developments in appropriate areas of the community in such a manner as to maintain the aesthetic of the existing single family homes and to create new neighborhoods of similar character and quality. The proposed plan of Pioneer Ridge is an R-8 medium density housing plan with a proposed 60 homes in multi-dwelling structures. The site map and initial layout plans indicate that there would only be a distance of 20 feet in some areas from current residents property line and the physical structure of the buildings. This does not meet the City of Chanhassen’s 389 stated vision of “maintaining aesthetics of the existing single family homes” nor “create new neighborhoods of similar character and quality.” The City of Chanhassen’s comprehensive plan also states that, “Transitions should be created between different land uses. The more incompatible the land uses, the more important the transition zones. Natural features should be used to create transitions between incompatible uses. When these natural features are absent the Land Use Plan supports the creation of buffer yards with increased set backs containing landscaping and berming to improve the separation of incompatible uses. The Pioneer Ridge proposal does not have a transition zone between the two vastly different zoned neighborhoods, nor is there a natural feature, berm, or landscaping indicated on the current plans. The city has made it clear that there must be extra space between the buildings or another natural feature to maintain the aesthetic of the already existing single family homes. The ordinance states 20 feet set back but given the fact that these are two completely different Zones-R-8 vs R-4, it would beneflt both neighborhoods to have a larger transition space with landscaping to create privacy for both neighborhoods. Chanhassen’s comprehensive plan also states that development should be planned to avoid running high traffic volumes through residential neighborhoods. Bluff Creek Drive runs along the west side of Pioneer Pass (my neighborhood), a park, and many more houses before it reaches Audubon Rd. With an addition of 60 new homes, this would drastically increase the amount of traffic on Bluff Creek. The access road to the neighborhood is also concerning as it would intersect with Bluff Creek, an already busy road with many blind corners. This particular access road would come out on a hill, where visibility of oncoming cars would make it difficult to safely turn in and out of the development. With the park across the street, children from the neighborhood frequently cross at the cross walks to get to the park. With signiflcantly increased traffic, there would be increased risk to children and families. My flnal concern is environmental. I have always appreciated how Chanhassen has worked hard to create green space, preserve trees and habitats and maintained clean lakes and creeks. The city’s comprehensive plan states, “Housing development will respect the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate needs of variety of housing types.” “Chanhassen is committed to increasing the overall tree cover of Chanhassen.” “Chanhassen will preserve wooded areas and natural habitat, existing vegetation, and plant communities wherever possible.” 390 Chanhassen’s commitment to preserving our green spaces and natural habitat does not seem in line with what the developershave planned. They plan to eliminate hundreds of trees of many varieties. They will also destroy the natural habitat for an enormous amount of wildlife that reside in this land, turkeys, foxes, owls, deer, just to name a few that I have seen. Whenever vegetation is destroyed, there is always an environmental problem of soil erosion and sedimentation which the city has stated they will work to minimize throughout Chanhassen. The land is on a hill and all of the erosion will fiow downstream to the creeks and lakes adjacent to the proposed development which will be harmful to both the environment as well as wildlife. I understand this is a lot, but our concerns are also many. Please understand we are not opposed to the city’s vision for development and providing homes of various price points and types for the many types of people who choose Chanhassen as their home. We have two main goals. 1)Approve the proposed development land for an R-4 Low Density Zoning (not R-8) which allows (according to City of Chanhassen Land Use) 1.2-4 units per acre. This would create more space to make a suitable transition spacebetween neighborhoods that would maintain the aesthetic of the current neighborhood, while also allowing opportunities for development of smaller multi family dwellings, and which would lessen the environmental and traffic impact. 2)We invite you to come see the proposed land and see flrsthand how the houses, neighborhood, and environment will be affected by the proposed R-8 development. We would warmly invite you at a time that is convenient for you to visit our neighborhood. I know many of us would really appreciate meeting you and showing you why we love Pioneer Pass and Chanhassen. I can be reached by my email: r or cell: ) to arrange a meeting. I thank you kindly for your time and appreciate your service to our city. I look forward to meeting with you at your convenience. Best Regards, Lindsey Button 391 From: segroskreutz Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 5:13 PM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; lisa@LisaforCarverCounty.com <lisa@LisaforCarverCounty.com> Subject: Pioneer Ridge Proposal I'm writing to express my concern about the proposed Pioneer Ridge development. You are seriously and negatively impacting the values of all homes in this neighborhood by adding rows of townhomes only 25 ft off the existing property lines. This is a family neighborhood where children run free. Property lines are blurred; especially in the backyard area. By adding this much new housing, safety will be a huge factor. There will be extra vehicles on the road and increased cars parked on the streets. Speaking of safety, there is already a blind curve on Bluff Creek. It is near an area where children cross the street to access the park. I fear that by adding more cars, especially with the Avienda development down the road, this will only get worse. And adding a driveway to access the new neighborhood off of Bluff Creek will only increase an already icy intersection. This is also a neighborhood full of wildlife. The location of the new housing will seriously alter the natural landscape. I understand that houses will be built no matter what the neighborhood thinks, but we hope you at least reconsider the placement and size of this development. Sincerely, Sarah Groskreutz 1615 Hemlock Way 392 From: Kristi Habermaier Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 3:01 PM To: Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Pioneer Ridge Development Hello, My name is Kristi Habermaier. I have been a resident of Pioneer Pass in Chanhassen since 2011. I am writing in regards to the Pioneer Ridge development proposal. I was not able to make the info session last week at the Rec Center due to my work schedule. My husband attended as well as many of my neighbors. After talking with my husband and neighbors, I have some concerns about the proposal. I understand the land has been sold to a developer and it's zoned for residential. However, I do not believe this proposal is in our neighborhood's best interest (or the city's for that matter). My main concern is safety. I have major concerns about adding an entry/exit point to the new development onto Bluff Creek Drive between Pioneer Trail and Hemlock Way. Bluff Creek Drive has seen way more traffic over the past few years than it used to, and it'll only increase once the Avienda construction area is complete. It can be quite difficult to take a left or right onto Bluff Creek from Hemlock as it is now. Many cars drive way too fast past the park and up the hill as well. Visibility is reduced due to the hill and also the trees planted along Bluff Creek. This intersection already scares me. I have a new teen driver and I worry about her being able to safely turn onto Bluff Creek. This is especially tough M- F in the morning hours and later afternoon/evening when kids and parents are commuting to/from school and work. There are also several bus stops on Bluff Creek. The hill heading up Bluff Creek also can get quite icy in the winter. I worry about cars trying to pull into/out of the new development in the winter. My house doesn't back up against the new development. I am on the opposite side of the street. I feel for my neighbors who will have a house that backs up to the townhouses. I don't understand why we need to pack in so many townhouses in such a small area other than to just make money. My neighbor was told by one of the developers, "It could be worse." Yes, it could be worse. I am happy three story townhouses aren't being built, but that doesn't make me feel better. Are there any other single family home developments in 393 Chanhassen where single families (ranging from 500-700k) have townhouses that close in their backyard? It's not fair, and it's dropping home values. The plans I saw have minimal trees between the flrst row of townhouses and most of the Hemlock houses. Why can't we build less townhomes and give our residents on Hemlock the privacy they deserve? The city of Chanhassen has been celebrated as one of the best places to raise a family. I absolutely love living in Chanhassen, but every time I think about this new development it saddens me. It takes a village to raise a family, and my neighborhood in Pioneer Pass is my village. My neighbors are my family, especially the strip of Hemlock being affected. They've helped raise my kids (and continue to do so). We are a tight-knit group. One family, pillars of the neighborhood and original owners, have already sold their house and moved in November due to this new development. I know several more families planning to do the same thing if this proposal goes through. It's devastating and overwhelming to think about my neighborhood (my family) being ripped apart. The message I got from my neighbors who attended last week's information session was that the city "doesn't care." Again, I recognize this land has been sold and will be developed. I ask that you don't accept this current proposal. There needs to be less townhouses with more space between the houses that back up to the townhouses. The entry/exit points into the townhouse area need to be relooked at for safety. Adding a street that enters/exits onto Bluff Creek is not safe. Concerned homeowner, Kristi Habermaier 1664 Hemlock Way Original owner since 2011 394 From: Aaron Pierce Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 8:17 AM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com <lisa@LisaforCarverCounty.com> Subject: Concerns regarding Pioneer Ridge development Dear All, I hope you are having a great week. My name is Aaron Pierce and my family and I live on 1695 Hemlock Way. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Pioneer Ridge Development proposal in Chanhassen, MN. While I understand that development is essential for the growth of our city, I have several concerns about this speciflc proposal: Safety: •The plan to build 60 townhomes in a small area adjacent to existing single-family homes raises signiflcant safety concerns. •Increased traffic: The hill on Bluff Creek between Pioneer Trail and Hemlock Way is already busy and has a blind curve. Adding another intersection to this tight area (that also gets very icy in the winter) would be a huge hazard. •With the new Avienda development traffic also using Bluff Creek as an exit/entrance, there needs to be a much more thorough traffic study done. •Adding potentially 120 additional cars daily will signiflcantly increase the risk of accidents, both vehicular and pedestrian as there is a park across Bluff Creek from the Pioneer Pass neighborhood that sees many children and adults crossing daily. Parking: •There are already parking issues in the townhomes adjacent to Pioneer Pass, with insufficient parking spaces leading to many cars being parked on the street. •There is a potential for townhome residents and guests to park on Hemlock Way and walk through yards to access their homes. Land Erosion and Flooding: 395 •This is already a problem in Pioneer Pass, with homes along the ridge experiencing erosion. •Water runoff from the new townhomes could exacerbate fiooding issues for existing single-family homes. Impact on Existing Home Values: •The proximity of townhome structures to existing single-family homes could negatively impact property values. •The current proposal of 3 story townhomes backing directly up to single family homes has signiflcant implications for property values. •The removal of trees that currently serve as a buffer between the townhomes and existing homes would further diminish the neighborhood's aesthetic appeal. I recognize that the land has been sold and will be developed, which is beneflcial for Chanhassen's growth. However, it is crucial to consider the impact on existing residents and maintain the character of our neighborhood. I propose that the development be modifled to include single-family homes or detached villas instead of rows of townhomes. This change would better align with the beauty and feel of our existing neighborhood. We would like to arrange a meeting with the developer, city council, city planner, and residents of Pioneer Pass neighborhood to discuss these concerns and explore possible alternatives. It would be helpful for the city representatives to see the site in person to really explain and demonstrate our concerns. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerly, Aaron Pierce 396 From: Emily Newman Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 10:05 PM To: lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com <lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Concerns Regarding Pioneer Ridge Development Proposal Dear City/County Officials, I hope you’re having a great Friday! My name is Emily Newman, and I live on Hemlock Way. I’m writing to share my concerns about the proposed Pioneer Ridge Development. While I understand the importance of growth, I have several issues with this plan: Safety Concerns: • Traffic & Accessibility: Adding 60 townhomes near existing single-family homes could increase traffic and create safety risks. The hill on Bluff Creek between Pioneer Trail and Hemlock Way is already busy and has a blind curve. Adding another intersection in this area, especially one that’s icy in winter, could be dangerous. • Increased Traffic: With the nearby Avienda development also adding traffic to Bluff Creek, the area could see up to 120 more cars daily. This could increase the risk of accidents, especially with a park across Bluff Creek where children and pedestrians cross regularly. • Traffic Study: I recommend a more thorough traffic study to assess the safety impacts. Removing the Bluff Creek entrance from the development could help alleviate some of these issues. Parking Issues: • There is already a parking shortage in the townhomes near Pioneer Pass, and many cars are parked on the street. If more people park on Hemlock Way and walk through yards to access their homes, it could disrupt the neighborhood. Environmental Concerns: 397 • Erosion & Flooding: Erosion is already an issue for homes along the ridge in Pioneer Pass. Runoff from the new townhomes could worsen fiooding problems for nearby homes. • Tree Removal: The removal of trees that currently serve as a buffer between the proposed development and existing homes could increase erosion and affect the neighborhood’s visual appeal. Impact on Property Values: • The proposed three-story townhomes backing directly onto single-family homes could lower property values and change the neighborhood’s character. • Losing trees and green space would further detract from the beauty of the area and likely harm property values. Proposed Solution: While I understand the need for development, I believe a better solution would be to replace the townhomes with single-family homes or detached villas. This would better match the character of the neighborhood. Request for a Meeting: I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the developer, city council members, city planners, and other concerned residents to discuss these issues further. A site visit by city representatives would be helpful to better understand and address these concerns. Thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you and working together to flnd a solution that beneflts everyone. Sincerely, Emily Newman 398 From: Heather Wendt Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2024 10:00 AM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com <lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com> Subject: Pioneer Ridge Development Concerns Dear All, My name is Heather Wendt, and I live on Marigold Court in Chanhassen. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Pioneer Ridge Development proposal. While I understand that development is essential for the growth of our city, I have several concerns about this speciflc proposal: Safety: • The plan to build 60 townhomes in a small area adjacent to existing single-family homes raises signiflcant safety concerns. • Increased traffic: The hill on Bluff Creek between Pioneer Trail and Hemlock Way is already busy and has a blind curve. Adding another intersection to this tight area (that also gets very icy in the winter) would be a huge hazard. • With the new Avienda development traffic also using Bluff Creek as an exit/entrance, there needs to be a much more thorough traffic study done. • Adding potentially 120 additional cars daily will signiflcantly increase the risk of accidents, both vehicular and pedestrian as there is a park across Bluff Creek from the Pioneer Pass neighborhood that sees many children and adults crossing daily. Parking: • There are already parking issues in the townhomes adjacent to Pioneer Pass, with insufficient parking spaces leading to many cars being parked on the street. • There is a potential for townhome residents and guests to park on Hemlock Way and walk through yards to access their homes. Land Erosion and Flooding: 399 • This is already a problem in Pioneer Pass, with homes along the ridge experiencing erosion. • Water runoff from the new townhomes could exacerbate fiooding issues for existing single-family homes. Impact on Existing Home Values: • The proximity of townhome structures to existing single-family homes could negatively impact property values. • The current proposal of 3 story townhomes backing directly up to single family homes has signiflcant implications for property values. • The removal of trees that currently serve as a buffer between the townhomes and existing homes would further diminish the neighborhood's aesthetic appeal. I recognize that the land has been sold and will be developed, which is beneflcial for Chanhassen's growth. However, it is crucial to consider the impact on existing residents and maintain the character of our neighborhood. I propose that the development be modifled to include single-family homes or detached villas instead of rows of townhomes. This change would better align with the beauty and feel of our existing neighborhood. We would like to arrange a meeting with the developer, city council, city planner, and residents of Pioneer Pass neighborhood to discuss these concerns and explore possible alternatives. It would be helpful for the city representatives to see the site in person to really explain and demonstrate our concerns. Regards, Heather Wendt 400 From: Kristyn Vickman Sent: Friday, December 6, 2024 11:38:59 AM To: Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com <lisa@lisaforcarvercounty.com> Subject: Pioneer Ridge Development Hello, My name is Kristyn Vickman, and I live on Hemlock Way in Chanhassen. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Pioneer Ridge Development proposal in Chanhassen (adjacent to my neighborhood). While I understand that development is essential for the growth of our city, I have several concerns about this speciflc proposal: Safety: • The plan to build 60 townhomes in a small area adjacent to existing single-family homes raises signiflcant safety concerns. • Increased traffic: The hill on Bluff Creek between Pioneer Trail and Hemlock Way is already busy and has a blind curve. Adding another intersection to this tight area (that also gets very icy in the winter) would be a huge hazard. • With the new Avienda development traffic also using Bluff Creek as an exit/entrance, there needs to be a much more thorough traffic study done. • Adding potentially 120 additional cars daily will signiflcantly increase the risk of accidents, both vehicular and pedestrian as there is a park across Bluff Creek from the Pioneer Pass neighborhood that sees many children and adults crossing daily. Impact on Existing Home Values: • The proximity of townhome structures to existing single-family homes could negatively impact property values. • The current proposal of 3 story townhomes backing directly up to single family 401 homes has signiflcant implications for property values. • The removal of trees that currently serve as a buffer between the townhomes and existing homes would further diminish the neighborhood's aesthetic appeal. • The proposed set-backs for the townhomes to the single family homes are far too short. The existing homes deserve to have a larger buffer in addition to landscaping between the developments. Land Erosion and Flooding: • This is already a problem in Pioneer Pass, with homes along the ridge experiencing erosion. • Water runoff from the new townhomes could exacerbate fiooding issues for existing single-family homes. I recognize that the land has been sold and will be developed, which is beneflcial for Chanhassen's growth. However, it is crucial to consider the impact on existing residents and maintain the character of our neighborhood. We would like to arrange a meeting with the developer, city council, city planner, and residents of Pioneer Pass neighborhood to discuss these concerns and explore possible alternatives. It would be helpful for the city representatives to see the site in person to really explain and demonstrate our concerns. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Kristyn Vickman Realtor® I Edina Realty 612.227.0009 402 From: Katie Newman Sent: Friday, December 6, 2024 10:31 AM To: lisa@LisaforCarverCounty.com <lisa@LisaforCarverCounty.com>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Concerns Regarding Pioneer Ridge Development Proposal Dear City & County Officials, Happy Friday! My name is Katie Newman, and I am a resident of Hemlock Way. My family and I moved here from Eden Prairie in 2022 and have fallen in love with the Chanhassen community. I am reaching out today to share my concerns about the proposed Pioneer Ridge Development in Chanhassen. While I understand that growth and development are important for our city’s progress, I have several speciflc concerns regarding this proposal: Safety Concerns: • Traffic and Accessibility: The plan to add 60 townhomes near existing single-family homes raises signiflcant safety issues. The hill on Bluff Creek, between Pioneer Trail and Hemlock Way, already experiences heavy traffic and has a blind curve. Introducing another intersection in this area—especially one that tends to get icy in the winter—could create a dangerous situation. • Increased Traffic Volume: The nearby Avienda development is expected to increase traffic on Bluff Creek, which already serves as a primary route for local residents. With up to 120 additional cars daily, the risk of accidents, both vehicular and pedestrian, could increase, particularly with a park across Bluff Creek that is frequented by children and pedestrians. • Traffic Study: Given the anticipated increase in traffic, I believe a more thorough traffic study should be conducted to ensure safety for all. I see many of these 403 issues resolving with the elimination of the Bluff Creek entrance to the planned development. Parking Issues: • Current Parking Shortage: The townhomes adjacent to Pioneer Pass are already experiencing parking challenges, with many vehicles being parked on the street due to a lack of available spaces. • Impact on Hemlock Way: There is concern that future residents and guests may park on Hemlock Way and walk through yards to access their homes, further disrupting the neighborhood. Environmental Concerns: • Land Erosion and Flooding: Erosion is already an issue in Pioneer Pass, particularly for homes along the ridge. The water runoff from new townhomes could worsen fiooding problems for existing homes in the area. • Environmental Impact: The removal of trees that currently act as a buffer between the proposed development and existing homes may exacerbate both erosion and visual disruption. Impact on Property Values: • Proximity of Townhomes: The proposed three-story townhomes backing directly onto single-family homes could negatively affect property values. The development’s height and density may also alter the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and overall character. • Loss of Green Space: The loss of trees, which currently provide a natural buffer, could further detract from the beauty of the neighborhood and potentially diminish property values. Proposed Solution: While I recognize the value of development for the city’s growth, it is important to balance this with the needs and concerns of current residents. I would like to propose an alternative to the current development plan—one that includes single-family homes or detached villas rather than rows of townhomes. This change would better align with the character and aesthetic of the surrounding area. 404 Request for Meeting: I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the developer, city council members, city planners, and other concerned residents to discuss these issues in more detail. It would be incredibly helpful for city representatives to visit the site in person so they can better understand and address the concerns raised by the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and to the possibility of working together to flnd a solution that beneflts everyone. Sincerely, Katie Newman 405 From: Katie Newman Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 10:01 PM To: lisa@LisaforCarverCounty.com <lisa@LisaforCarverCounty.com>; Schubert, Haley <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; McDonald, Jerry <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; Kimber, Josh <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; von Oven, Mark <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Re: Concerns Regarding Pioneer Ridge Development Proposal Hi all - I got the opportunity to attend the meeting held by Brandl on Tuesday and it raised some new concerns we’d like you all to note: 1. they mentioned having to move the current sidewalk along Pioneer to make room for their development. This sidewalk is already quite close to the road and moving it even closer is bound to pose some safety risks. 2. Removing all but one existing trees between the proposed development and the current Pioneer Pass neighborhood is eliminating all sense of privacy. 3. Entrance off Bluff Creek to new development poses safety risks. They stated they did “traffic studies” but didn’t elaborate on how they will ensure safety. This road gets extremely slippery in the winter and with it being a blind curve, I am highly concerned for auto accidents as well as pedestrian safety. 4. The Pioneer Pass city park is already overwhelmed with traffic and adding another 120+ residence will further overwhelm this resource. 5. I understand this is land that will be developed on but it is sad to see a wildlife sanctuary get destroyed by this. There are many, many animals that use this space and we will be destroying their homes. I appreciate you hearing my concerns and look forward to continuing the conversation. Katie Newman From: Katie Newman < Sent: Friday, December 6, 2024 10:31:37 AM To: lisa@LisaforCarverCounty.com <lisa@LisaforCarverCounty.com>; hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov <hschubert@chanhassenmn.gov>; jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov <jmcdonald@chanhassenmn.gov>; jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov <jkimber@chanhassenmn.gov>; 406 mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov <mvonoven@chanhassenmn.gov>; eryan@chanhassenmn.gov <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov>; emaass@chanhassenmn.gov <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Concerns Regarding Pioneer Ridge Development Proposal Dear City & County Officials, Happy Friday! My name is Katie Newman, and I am a resident of Hemlock Way. My family and I moved here from Eden Prairie in 2022 and have fallen in love with the Chanhassen community. I am reaching out today to share my concerns about the proposed Pioneer Ridge Development in Chanhassen. While I understand that growth and development are important for our city’s progress, I have several speciflc concerns regarding this proposal: Safety Concerns: • Traffic and Accessibility: The plan to add 60 townhomes near existing single-family homes raises signiflcant safety issues. The hill on Bluff Creek, between Pioneer Trail and Hemlock Way, already experiences heavy traffic and has a blind curve. Introducing another intersection in this area—especially one that tends to get icy in the winter—could create a dangerous situation. • Increased Traffic Volume: The nearby Avienda development is expected to increase traffic on Bluff Creek, which already serves as a primary route for local residents. With up to 120 additional cars daily, the risk of accidents, both vehicular and pedestrian, could increase, particularly with a park across Bluff Creek that is frequented by children and pedestrians. • Traffic Study: Given the anticipated increase in traffic, I believe a more thorough traffic study should be conducted to ensure safety for all. I see many of these issues resolving with the elimination of the Bluff Creek entrance to the planned development. Parking Issues: 407 • Current Parking Shortage: The townhomes adjacent to Pioneer Pass are already experiencing parking challenges, with many vehicles being parked on the street due to a lack of available spaces. • Impact on Hemlock Way: There is concern that future residents and guests may park on Hemlock Way and walk through yards to access their homes, further disrupting the neighborhood. Environmental Concerns: • Land Erosion and Flooding: Erosion is already an issue in Pioneer Pass, particularly for homes along the ridge. The water runoff from new townhomes could worsen fiooding problems for existing homes in the area. • Environmental Impact: The removal of trees that currently act as a buffer between the proposed development and existing homes may exacerbate both erosion and visual disruption. Impact on Property Values: • Proximity of Townhomes: The proposed three-story townhomes backing directly onto single-family homes could negatively affect property values. The development’s height and density may also alter the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and overall character. • Loss of Green Space: The loss of trees, which currently provide a natural buffer, could further detract from the beauty of the neighborhood and potentially diminish property values. Proposed Solution: While I recognize the value of development for the city’s growth, it is important to balance this with the needs and concerns of current residents. I would like to propose an alternative to the current development plan—one that includes single-family homes or detached villas rather than rows of townhomes. This change would better align with the character and aesthetic of the surrounding area. Request for Meeting: I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with the developer, city council members, city planners, and other concerned residents to discuss these issues in more detail. It would be 408 incredibly helpful for city representatives to visit the site in person so they can better understand and address the concerns raised by the community. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and to the possibility of working together to flnd a solution that beneflts everyone. Sincerely, Katie Newman 409 From: Wong, Erin < Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2025 10:51 AM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Cc: Hokkanen, Laurie <lhokkanen@chanhassenmn.gov>; Howley, Charles <chowley@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: RE: {External} Re: {External} Re: Pioneer Ridge Good Morning Eric and Elise, I hope you have/had a wonderful long weekend! I’m following up on this email chain as I attended the Brandl Anderson open house on Tuesday which I really appreciated them having, but I sense there is little room for community input or proposed changes (although I did appreciate Eric Maass providing the opportunity to list what we are concerned about and am hopeful the city will take our concerns into consideration). I am not happy with the current proposal and would appreciate your consideration of my concerns: When we voiced our concerns with how close the buildings will be to existing single family homes and asked if they could consider putting single family homes there, they said that it’s the city’s requirement they need to meet and wouldn’t be able to meet it if they moved the proposed rows of townhomes further from existing single family homes, and they deflnitely could not do single family homes and meet the requirement. From what I understand, this was zoned this way in 2020, but I don’t recall residents being made aware of this. Per your response below, they just need to have 4 homes per acre, but they pointed at the city requirement to say they couldn’t do it. They also said they could have packed even more homes in and they didn’t (which felt very dismissive of our concerns as if we should be happy with the current proposal as it could have been worse). •Is this truly a city requirement that Chanhassen is required to hold fast to, or is this something that could be revised? I also asked if there were any examples of rows of town homes built directly behind existing single family homes as I have been looking as I drive through Chanhassen, Chaska, and Eden Prairie and I haven’t seen any. They flrst said, there are townhomes everywhere in the city, this is no different, but I pointed out that I haven’t seen any single-family homes with townhomes in their back yard. They were unable to provide me with any examples. I am concerned that this will decrease home values signiflcantly, ruin the look and feel of our 410 neighborhood, increase traffic signiflcantly, have the potential for visitors to park on our street (Hemlock Way) and walk through yards to get to the townhomes, and increase accidents (along with all the other concerns I have also voiced). I also asked how many renters will be allowed and they said 1 per building which means they could potentially have 25% renters. Renters are not permanent residents and typically do not care for their property the same as someone who owns their property, so I have concerns with this as well (I have personal experience with this from when I lived in a townhome for 7 years as well as my mom’s current experience in her townhome in Chanhassen as she has a rental unit next door. Her association actually dropped the number of allowed renters due to issues). •MAIN ASK: I would appreciate it if a representative from the City Council, or either of you would be willing to meet myself and potentially other neighbors to view the proposed development location in the next couple weeks so that we can show you our concerns visually and in person. How would I go about scheduling this? I assume the city council meeting will be too late to discuss concerns so I would appreciate if this could be scheduled before that meeting. Some other questions I have: •How will the citizens of Chanhassen know our concerns are being addressed? •What avenues of input do we have? •Would a petition be necessary in order to be heard? •Could we consider a similar zoning to the neighborhood off Pioneer Trail in Eden Prairie that faces Lake Riley? This is also a small sliver of land and has two rows of single family homes with plenty of room between. This could keep with the look and feel of this neighborhood and reduce the chance of lowered home values. I hope you have a wonderful day and thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Erin 411 Merry Christmas and Happy Holiday to you and your families. Nancy and I live on Hemlock Way in Pioneer Pass. We are writing to express our concern regarding the Pioneer Ridge Development proposal in Chanhassen, MN. We understand the property has been sold to Brandl Anderson and a new townhouse development is proposed to be built soon. The Pioneer Pass homeowners, and especially those that butt up against the new development property, knew one day, this beautiful piece of land that buffers Pioneer Pass and Pioner Trail would be utilized. Our hope would be a peaceful new single row of similar single-family homes, not 60 townhouses in a small, condensed area. We decided to purchase our home on Hemlock Way in 2013 because of the spectacular view, the extended back yard (albeit state owned) and the peacefulness that my wife and I needed entering our senior years. We’ve enjoyed seeing the wildlife living, moving, and growing over the last 11 years and especially enjoy seeing the deer at dusk and dawn most days. While we understand that development is essential for the growth of our city, we have several concerns about this specific proposal: 1) We understand there is already a plan to build 60 townhomes. We’ve seen the layout, and quite frankly, feel the design is extraordinarily aggressive based on the space between Pioneer Trail and the homes on Hemlock Way. Have you walked the property? 60 townhomes, approximately 180 people, and approximately 120 cars plus traffic crammed in that small area? These townhomes would have to be small and the road(s) would be tight. Congestion and all of the negative factors that come with it will be visibly and audibly concerning to both new residents and the existing homeowners. 2) Smaller townhomes crammed in a tight corner would bring on unnecessary implications to the existing Pioneer Pass homeowners, including but not limited to reduced property values. We assume the developers are not concerned with this but feel the State, County, and City of Chanhassen would have substantial concern. None of the existing homeowners are in favor of any type of reduction of home values especially when this could be avoided by an upgrade from unwanted townhomes to similar single-family homes. 3) Under the existing proposed development, the townhomes are way too close to the houses they back up against. Forcing two rows of townhouses in that small area in order to maximize profits is foolish and unwelcome. A single row of single-family homes would not have the same negative aesthetic affect. An easement of at least 25 feet should be considered between the existing property line and the new property line. There are mature trees on the land now. The Developer wants to replace them with 3’ trees bordering the property lines. A berm or larger trees should be considered. 412 4) Adding 60 small unwanted townhomes and 120 cars, trucks, and SUV’s will introduce traffic not only in that small, condensed area but will add traffic concerns to an already dangerous intersection entering the neighborhood on the Bluff Creek side. Blind spots due to hills and curves will provide higher potential for vehicle and pedestrian accidents. 5) Not only would we project 120 cars to be in constant motion throughout the day and night, but visitor parking would complicate matters even more. More traffic, more noise, more safety issues. Additionally, there are more potential safety concerns between 60 crammed townhomes and the existing Pioneer Pass homeowners. If you have not walked the area, I encourage you to do so. It’s a beautiful piece of property that aligns Pioneer Trail to include wildlife and children’s activity in both the winter and the summer. The residents of Pioneer Pass can accept this loss, but this is an extremely tough pill to swallow hearing that this great piece of land will be replaced by 60 townhomes and 120 people. This letter, and I am sure many more, recognize that this development is crucial to the City of Chanhassen’s growth. No argument. However, utilizing this space for rows of unwanted townhomes doesn’t seem to be the best choice here. A single row of similar single-family homes with similar values would be beneficial to the city and the current taxpaying residence of Pioneer Pass. In summary, we hope the City and this committee would consider the negative impact for this development: increased safety issues, lower values of existing homes, preservation of existing mature trees, distance between the proper lines, and the impact on wildlife. This proposed development has already caused some families to list their homes and to sell due to the issues pointed out above. Please reconsider the effect of an abundance of townhomes versus a row of similar single-family homes. Thank you for your consideration. Dan & Nancy Gilmore 1705 Hemlock Way 413 From: Chanhassen Website Team <webmaster@Chanhassenmn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 6:08 PM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Concerns with development at Pioneer Pass and Bluff Creek Blvd Message submitted from the <Chanhassen, MN> website. Site Visitor Name: Zhexin Zhang Site Visitor Email: Hi Eric, I'd like to raise my concerns about the density of the townhouse development at Pioneer Pass and Bluff Creek Blvd. With a high density development, I am concerned about the traffic along Bluff Creek Blvd, as well as the sight lines for safe turning in and out of the proposed development due to significant gradient of the street. Also, Bluff Creek Blvd is already a busy street so limiting additional traffic will be beneficial for existing residents in the area. This is especial important considering the children foot traffic for crossing the street to Pioneer Pass Park. Thank you for reading and if this could please be passed on to the Planning Commission and City Council, it will be much appreciated. Best, Zhexin 414 From: Glen Schoenberg Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:13 PM To: Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Proposed Pioneer Ridge Development Dear Mayor Ryan, Thank you for coming out to the proposed development site on February 6th! My name is Glen Schoenberg, and I have been a proud resident of Chanhassen since 2011, residing at 1665 Hemlock Way. I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed development of Pioneer Ridge. For nearly 14 years, my family and I have cherished our life in Chanhassen. My oldest boys, who were just two years old when we moved here, are now sixteen and sophomores at Chanhassen High School. My youngest son, born here, is nine years old and a fourth grader at Bluff Creek Elementary. We have loved living in Chanhassen for many reasons, but none more important than the strong sense of community and neighborhood feeling that deflnes our city. I have several concerns about the proposed development, and I would like to address three of them here. 1. Safety Concerns: The proposed road leading to Bluff Creek Drive and the lack of parking in the development raise signiflcant safety issues. The road connecting this development to Bluff Creek Drive is on a hill and curve with limited sight lines, which become extremely slippery during winter. The traffic study conflrms that even with excavation and grading, the recommended sight lines for an intersection cannot be achieved. The Hemlock Way intersection, which is closest to this proposed road, already has limited sight lines due to curves, making it dangerous. This new intersection would be in an even worse position. Additionally, the limited visitor parking spaces in this proposed development will lead to illegal parking on the development streets and overfiow parking in the Pioneer Pass neighborhood, congesting the intersection and creating a more dangerous situation for children crossing the road to go to the park. The lack of parking may also result in Pioneer Ridge residents and visitors parking further down Hemlock Way from the intersection at Bluff Creek Drive and then cutting through yards to access the townhouse development. With my 30 years of experience in the physical security industry that including my military background and certiflcation as a Physical Security Professional through ASIS 415 International, I can attest that this scenario poses a signiflcant safety and security risk for existing residents. 2. Lack of Green Space: Chanhassen residents have chosen this city for its thoughtful neighborhood design and incorporated green spaces. The proposed development of 60 townhouses on this narrow piece of land, which includes undevelopable areas, lacks any signiflcant green space. Over the years, Chanhassen has seen a signiflcant increase in applications for zoning permits for new infrastructure. This rampant growth is pushing nature out and reducing the open spaces that our community holds dear. According to respected urban planners, cities should retain a balance between architecture and green spaces to maintain environmental health and residents' quality of life (Johnsen, 2018). 3. Impact on Neighborhood Character: Building a townhouse development so close to a single-family neighborhood disrupts the quaint environment and introduces a metropolitan atmosphere, I would have parts of six dwelling looking into my property, with an average of six dwellings looking into two properties in the back along the property lines. While I understand that this land will be developed, I am opposed to building a townhouse development here without a reasonable transition from the existing single-family neighborhood. I have not found any examples of such a development in Chanhassen. Even the developer admitted during the neighborhood meeting that they have never seen or done a townhouse development so close to a single-family neighborhood. One of the qualities that attracted us to Chanhassen when we moved here from the Washington DC area was the city's quality layout of residential areas. Chanhassen has set a precedent for preserving neighborhood appeal and ensuring respectable transitions between different types of neighborhood densities. This proposed development contradicts every neighborhood in Chanhassen and sets a dangerous new precedent for future development. Chanhassen’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan supports the standard we are used to, speciflcally in Land Use section 1.7.1, Goal 1, which states, “Support low-density residential development in appropriate areas of the community in such a manner as to maintain the aesthetic of existing single-family areas, and to create new neighborhoods of similar character and quality.” The plan also calls for transitions and buffer yards with increased setbacks between neighborhoods of different densities. This proposed development directly contradicts both statements. I have heard it stated that since this area is guided for medium density in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the landowner has the right to build what they want. I challenge that statement, as the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has confiicting statements about the la nd's 416 use between the Land Guide and Land Use Goals. The Comprehensive Plan states that it is designed to serve as a guide for local decision-making and is a fiexible tool that can be adapted to new policies to attain stated goals. With these concerns in mind, and the recent announcement of the Met Council scaling back on density requirements, I urge you to consider alternate solutions for the development of this land. A couple of options could be: • Amend the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to designate this area for low-density housing that would integrate into the existing neighborhood and uphold the precedent Chanhassen has set over the years. • Change the design from townhomes to duplexes or small lot single family homes that would better transition from the existing neighborhood to this development. • Reduce the number of houses being built to increase the transition area and create a respectable buffer between neighborhoods, even if that means granting the developer an exemption to the zoning requirements. • At minimum: o There needs to be a 6-foot berm with evergreen trees along the border between the neighborhoods to create a year-round buffer to help alleviate drainage from the proposed development into the existing properties and help with noise and light pollution. o Remove the Northern most set of 6 townhomes that have the closest setback from the existing houses to create additional green space, parking spaces and room for a respectable buffer. As a citizen of Chanhassen, I implore the city council not to approve the pending zoning permit application for new construction. This decision will help preserve natural elements, ensure our green spaces are protected, and maintain our city's character rather than transforming it into a concrete jungle. Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. Sincerely, Glen Schoenberg 417 From: Matt Wilde Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 3:18 PM To: Maass, Eric <emaass@chanhassenmn.gov>; Ryan, Elise <eryan@chanhassenmn.gov> Subject: Re: Pioneer Ridge Development Concerns Mayor Ryan - Thank you again for coming out to our neighborhood to walk the proposed property a few weeks back. Hope you warmed up by now… I’m unable to attend the upcoming planning meeting because of work travel, but wanted to re-emphasize my main concerns. I included my original e-mail below that goes into greater detail, but here’s my biggest concerns: 1. Lack of distance and transition from existing single-family homes. (My home is the closest of all homes, even with the updated setback). 2. The developer purchased a very small parcel of land, especially when considering the slopes that make the majority of space unusable. While I understand the need for the developer to be profltable, it should not happen at the expense of existing homeowners. Under the current plan, that’s exactly what is happening. 3. I have signiflcant concerns around the future drainage issues. We already have water issues because of the clay soil and that problem will only be increased with an additional 60 homes and roads. For years, we tried to put in a pool in our yard but was not approved by the city because of non-permeable surface concerns. Now, the city is allowing acres of buildings. I worry about the repercussions of this building on both my home and yard and how that will be handled in the future if there are issues. Lastly, I’m not sure how the calculation is made, but the developer purchased 12 acres of land, but not all of that purchased land is usable, or even included on the updated plan. (A large portion of the land they bought is on top of the hill to the easy of the proposal) Those 60 homes are put on a very small portion of the 12 acres, making the density higher than stated. As you drive up and down Pioneer Trail throughout all of Chanhassen, there are trees, wetlands, and prairie from Eden Prairie all the way to Chaska. This will be the one place on Pioneer Trail that has higher density homes. 418 I appreciate your attention to an important matter, both for current neighbors, but also the precedent this sets on future Chanhassen growth. Thanks Matt Wilde 1685 Hemlock Way On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 11:16 AM Matt Wilde < > wrote: To all interested parties - I’m writing with concerns about the proposed development of Pioneer Ridge, as a direct neighbor. Many of my neighbors have sent a list of concerns that has been drafted cooperatively, so I won’t re-send those, although I share the same concerns. I want to highlight a few of my biggest concerns about the proposed development: • Proximity to existing homes and related issues: The proposal by Brandl Anderson places a signiflcant amount of medium density homes directly behind existing low- density homes with no buffer. Other developments in Carver County have included some sort of buffer, whether it be trees, berms or other natural transitions. Examples include a berm with tall trees that was built in the Avienda border, maintaining trees and more space in the new development on Audubon in Chaska and many others. Section 1.7.2 of the Chanhassen 2040 plan cites “The city will promote the mixing of housing densities…. Such mixed densities must provide appropriate transitions for existing development. • Flooding concerns: When Pioneer Pass was built, the backyards on the south side of the development were essentially swamps. Additional drainage was added after the project (by the developer) was completed but when heavy rains occur, backyards are wet for extended periods. In addition, the area that is being developed is often plagued by water, even from the lightest rains. There has been signiflcant settling and I worry that not only will the additional homes and changed drainage will cause additional impacts to my property, but also impacts to the newly developed structures. When asking Brandl Anderson about the issue during the open house, they essentially said that if the development results in additional fiooding, we will need to work with the City. 419 • Destruction of property value: No matter what, this development will result in lower property values. When my home was purchased, I paid a premium for the unobstructed view. Construction of structures in such close proximity to existing developments, speciflcally with the planned height, will considerably decrease property value. • Traffic: There is so much growth in the area, between Avienda, the proposed development to the south of Pioneer Trail, and the future light commercial on Pioneer Trail, that putting two new entrances to the neighborhood combined with this new traffic is likely to cause congestion and backup issues. • Tree removal: The property that is being developed has signiflcant amounts of mature trees that will need to be removed. These trees provide shade (another goal of the Chanhassen 2040 plan) as well as habitats for bald eagles, owls and many other birds. The proposed trees that are to be conserved are entirely on non- buildable portions of the property. Instead of just bringing up issues, I want to propose some ideas to help with the issues: • Instituting a solution to follow the 2040 Plan of providing transitions for existing developments. This could include berms, trees or other separation ideas. • Larger set back from the existing neighborhood to help protect property values and simultaneously maintain/create more of a buffer between development types through existing trees that would no longer be removed and new features to separate housing. • Pushing the development closer to Pioneer Trail to alleviate the overlapping of the existing and proposed development. • Measuring the density requirements only using the true buildable space on this property. • Decreasing the number of units and only putting homes on the southside of the proposed road parallel to Pioneer Trail. • Imposing size restrictions of the new homes, speciflcally height of new homes. Brandl Anderson bought a parcel of land that is extremely small in terms of buildable space. The lack of buildable space on this land results in concentration into one area to meet the zoning requirements. I understand the need for them to be profltable in this 420 development, but the profltability should not be at the expense of current residents, both in quality of their property or real value decreases. I am aware that Chanhassen will continue to grow and that it can beneflt all residents, I’d ask the City Leadership to consider some of the issues that have been brought up both in this message and in the broader Pioneer Pass communications from the community. Would be happy to discuss or expand on any of these issues. Appreciate your attention to an important issue. Matt Wilde 421