PC Staff Report 01-15-2013PC DATE: January 15, 2013
2
CC DATE: February 11, 2013
REVIEW DEADLINE: February 12, 2013
CASE #: 2013 -02
BY: SJ
PROPOSED MOTION:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission provides the City Council with comments and feedback,
along with staff's proposed comments listed in the staff report."
PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development (PUD) on approximately 13.2 acres of land
located at the southeast intersection of Tigua Lane and West 86 Street — Preserve at Rice Lake.
LOCATION: Southeast intersection of Tigua Lane and West 86 Street. North of Highway 212.
PID 25- 0242610
APPLICANT: John Knoblauch
J & S Ventures 1, Inc.
1450 Knob Hill Lane
Excelsior, MN 55331
612 - 490 -4540
jknobs ,knoblauchbuilders.com
John Klingelhutz/Dave Pokorney
Chestnut Group, LLC
1560 Bluff Creek Drive
Chaska, MN 55318
612 - 703 -5709
davepokorneykgmail.com
ZONING: RSF — Single Family Residential District and R4 — Mixed Low Density
Residential District.
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net Density 1.2 -4 Units per Acre)
ACREAGE: 13.2 acres
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval for a general concept plan for a PUD for 15 single - family
lots. If the project is to proceed for preliminary or development plan approval, the application
would include a land use amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Low or
Medium Density, a rezoning from Single Family Residential District and Mixed Low Density
Residential District to Planned Unit Development — Residential, and a site plan review.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION MAKING:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving or denying a rezoning because the
City is acting in its legislative or policy - making capacity. A PUD must be consistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 2 of 21
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a general concept plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The
site is located north of Highway 212 and southeast of the intersection of West 86`" Street and
Tigua Lane.
'.
+/�, i 1
r jL'
, pr
Z
I .� W pJ �, p_G � �. X � \ 1 � ^I_• . . -• I_` �.
1 '
r�
It is currently zoned RSF — Single Family Residential District and Mixed Low Density
Residential District. With the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in 2008, the City
Council guided the site Residential Low Density. The request for a Planned Unit Development
concept plan allows the applicant to seek relief from the standards of the conventional zoning
districts by creating a unique zoning district rather than asking for variances.
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the
development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's
responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against
nine criteria.
The property will need a land use amendment to a mix of Residential Low Density and
Residential Medium Density, rezoning to PUD -R (allowing 4 units per acre), a variance for the
length of a cul -de -sac, and site plan approval to proceed.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 3 of 21
BACKGROUND
Staff has been working with the property owner representative for more than a year and has
reviewed numerous iterations of layouts for the development of this site to find an alternative
that would minimize impacts to the natural features. The site falls within the shoreland overlay
district of Rice Marsh Lake and contains several wetlands.
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Chapter 20: Article VIII, Planned Unit Development District,
Article VI, Wetland Protection,
Article VII, Shoreland Management district,
Concept PUD - What is required?
The intent of the concept plan is to get direction from the Planning Commission and City
Council without incurring a lot of expense. The following are the requirements for conceptual
PUD approval.
Chanhassen City Code, Section 20 -517 General concept plan.
(a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a
plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development
without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following:
(1) Overall gross and net density.
(2) Identification of each lot size and lot width.
(3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways.
(4) General location and extent of public and common open space.
(5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development.
(6) Staging and time schedule for development.
(b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be
filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement
shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the
property to a planned unit development district.
(c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures:
(1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments.
(2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together
with all supporting data.
(3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and make recommendations to
the city council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property
description, description of request, and be published in the official newspaper at
least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be
mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 4 of 21
(500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on -site notification sign
erected.
(4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning
commission, the city council shall consider the proposal. The council may
comment on the concept plan.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Z A S
Rac0, r `
?W*
i
The subject site is located north of Highway 212 and southeast of the intersection of West 86
Street and Tigua Lane. The site has an area of 13.2 acres. It contains multiple wetlands and is
within the Rice Marsh Lake Shoreland Overlay District. Access is gained via West 86` Street.
The property to the west is zoned PUD and guided Residential Medium Density. It contains the
Mission Hills Development, a mix of low and medium density residential development. The
property to the north is zoned Single Family Residential and is guided Residential Low Density.
".v
".v i.
i
The subject site is located north of Highway 212 and southeast of the intersection of West 86
Street and Tigua Lane. The site has an area of 13.2 acres. It contains multiple wetlands and is
within the Rice Marsh Lake Shoreland Overlay District. Access is gained via West 86` Street.
The property to the west is zoned PUD and guided Residential Medium Density. It contains the
Mission Hills Development, a mix of low and medium density residential development. The
property to the north is zoned Single Family Residential and is guided Residential Low Density.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 5 of 21
It contains single family homes. The property to the east is zoned High Density Residential
District and is guided Parks and Open Space.
The project proposes 15 single - family lots. The
typical house pad including the garage will be 50
feet wide. The front yard setback will be 25 feet
which is permitted under the PUD ordinance.
Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative
(MVEC) will provide electricity to this new
development. MVEC does have a main
underground feeder that runs along the north
and east boundaries of this property. The
applicant shall field - verify these utility lines.
I
ail
� �
:q
- - - - --
I
__--------____=-
-- a -' - --
---- - - - - -- --------- - - - - --
----------------------------
j,9'c
1201
's
_ �I
21U 'y d I _
yAROCOIER CI�Wi +Zn,'
I -
NOVA '3:0 q 0
I
Wa - W
„
M "
HOUSE i
21
oa.c = n3 m. a
16.0
PRIq iN7REJ ' 96 a'1 '
r
3 — Ec '_.6
fClst 57
In
j
w I
D
E a1A
w AM —.
.0
GARAGE
Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative
(MVEC) will provide electricity to this new
development. MVEC does have a main
underground feeder that runs along the north
and east boundaries of this property. The
applicant shall field - verify these utility lines.
r----
II
- - - - --
I
I
�
1201
_ �I
21U 'y d I _
yAROCOIER CI�Wi +Zn,'
I -
NOVA '3:0 q 0
I
Wa - W
„
M "
HOUSE i
21
oa.c = n3 m. a
16.0
PRIq iN7REJ ' 96 a'1 '
r
3 — Ec '_.6
fClst 57
In
2
Z I
W, .a 9x- . 1',070 1',070
.0
GARAGE
yn. I
I L
I° — � p a. I
um. wRae� Mmttx
I 11NI
~
STREET ~
Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative
(MVEC) will provide electricity to this new
development. MVEC does have a main
underground feeder that runs along the north
and east boundaries of this property. The
applicant shall field - verify these utility lines.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 6 of 21
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan classifies the subject property as Residential Low Density, which requires a
minimum density of 1.2 units per acre and a maximum density of 4 units per acre.
As mentioned earlier, staff has reviewed several iterations of how to best develop this site. The goal
is to allow the development with minimum impact to the natural features of the site. Staff found that
in this situation the application of standard Single Family Residential regulations would be
impractical due to 1) the applicant desires to build single - family detached homes on the site, 2) the
presence of the 15,000 square -foot minimum lot size for non - riparian lots and 90 -foot frontage, and
3) wetlands. Staff finds that the applicant has proposed a plan that meets other important City
requirements to protect natural environmental features; however, a preferred alternative to achieve
this goal would be to guide the site Residential Medium Density. This category allows the clustering
of homes with no minimum lot size or frontage. In this case, the homes will be placed in locations
that will have the least impact on the natural features and will allow the applicant the opportunity to
enhance the wetlands and surrounding buffer. At the same time, the applicant will be able to build
the single - family detached homes.
The city has discretion in
amending the
comprehensive plan.
The site currently has a
low- density residential
designation. It is the
applicant's intention to
build single - family
detached homes. In
order to accommodate
the applicant's request
and minimize impact on
the natural features of
the site, staff is
proposing guiding the
site to a mix of
Residential Low and
Medium Density. This
type of land use permits
Planned Unit
Developments with clustered homes and no minimum lot size. This will allow staff to work with
the applicant to maximize preservation and enhancement of natural features. It also allows the
city to determine the best type of housing development (attached vs. detached housing).
The following elements of the comprehensive plan discuss land use policies that should be
evaluated in changing the land use.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 7 of 21
Chapter 2 Land Use Element
2.5.3 Residential — Medium density
The medium density designation is intended to accommodate multiple units including duplexes,
townhouses and lower density apartments, or condominiums. A net density range of 4.0 — 8.0
units per acre is covered by this category with an expected density of 6.0 units per acre. The
zoning options in the medium density land use include R4 (Mixed Low Density), RLM
(Residential Low and Medium density), (Mixed Medium Density Residential) and PUD -R
(Planned United Development - Residential). Medium density is viewed as transitional use
between low density and Commercial, office or high density areas.
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies
4.6 Housing Goals and Policies
Goals: Provide housing opportunities for all residents, consistent with the identified community
goals:
• A variety of housing types for all people in all stages of the life cycle.
• A community of well- maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership and
rental housing.
• Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while
striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs.
• The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the
improvement of access to a linkage between housing and employment.
• Housing development methods such as PUD's, cluster development, and innovative site
plans and building types, should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources for
housing.
• While density is given by a range in the comprehensive plan, the City shall encourage
development at the upper end of the density range.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INTENT
Sec. 20 -501. Intent.
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the
development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's
responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against
the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 8 of 21
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
Analysis: The site has multiple wetlands that will be protected with no development.
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of
land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Analysis: Staff is recommending the units be clustered to maximize the surrounding open
space.
3. High quality design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses, including both
existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect
higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community.
Analysis: Staff will insure that all materials comply with the design standards specified in
the zoning ordinance. The landscaping of the site will also be treated in a similar fashion.
4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Analysis: The single- family detached homes will be an ideal transition between the single -
family homes to the north and the townhouses to the west.
5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis: Currently, a portion of the site is guided Low Density. A land use amendment to
Medium Density Residential would be required to allow the site to develop in an
environmentally - sensitive manner. It will also become consistent with the Shoreland
Ordinance. Municipal services are available to the site.
6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such
park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail
plan.
Analysis: The city's comprehensive park plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located
within one -half mile of every residence in the city. The proposed Preserve at Rice Lake
development would not meet this guideline. The nearest park is Rice Marsh Lake Park
which is located approximately one mile away if utilizing the city's pedestrian trail network.
There is no ideal place to locate a park within this site. The city's comprehensive trail plan
calls for the future completion of a Rice Marsh Lake Trail to be constructed around the
perimeter of the lake. This proposed subdivision should provide for and construct a trail
connection to this future trail starting at the public street and extending to the southeast
corner of the property. This trail connection should be situated in a public outlot or trail
easement.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 9 of 21
7. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Analysis: Not applicable with this application. This project will be market rate.
8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and siting and the
clustering of buildings and land uses.
Analysis: The development will provide a noise wall along Highway 212. This will benefit
the current homeowners as well as the future ones.
9. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts.
Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate.
Analysis: The site will be served via a cul -de -sac off of West 86" Street.
Sec. 20 -502. - Allowed uses.
Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a development
plan.
(1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the
comprehensive plan. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be
delineated in a PUD development plan.
Finding: If the project moves beyond conceptual approval, preliminary PUD design standards
will be created that will control the development of the project.
Sec. 20 -503. - District size and location.
Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five acres except the regional/lifestyle center
commercial PUD, which must be a minimum of 30 acres, unless the applicant can demonstrate
the existence of one of the following:
(1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such
that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance
to the neighborhood or community.
(2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right -of -way from property which has
been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be
perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development.
(3) The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on a
collector, minor or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The entire site is 13.2 acres and is located in a transitional area between a low and a
medium - density residential area Fifty percent of the site must be preserved as open space as
required in the Shoreland ordinance.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 10 of 21
Sec. 20 -504. - Coordination with other zoning regulations.
The development must comply with Article II, Division 6 of Chapter 20 addressing Site Plan
Review as well as Articles V, VI and VII (Floodplain, Wetland and Shoreland District and the
Bluff Creek Overlay District).
Finding: The project will be required to meet these standards as described in the staff report.
The development must receive a land use amendment, rezoning and site plan review approvals.
Chapter 20 Article XXIII
Sec. 20 -505. - Required general standards.
Standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed
development and the surrounding use.
(a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and
purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed
development and the surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of buildings,
compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the topography of the
area and existing natural features; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed
layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and
screening of non - compatible land uses and parking areas.
Finding: The project meets elements of the city's comprehensive plan if amended
including housing and transportation. The plans provide for preservation of the natural
features and will serve as a transition piece.
(b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality
architectural and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees
and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal
ordinance standards.
Finding: With the application of clustering the units, the natural features of the site will
be preserved. And with some modifications, they could be enhanced. The applicant will
preserve the wetlands, buffers, add landscaping that exceeds ordinance requirements and
add a sound wall along Highway 212. The development will meet the higher standards
established for medium density residential development by the city.
(c) Density. An increase /transfer for density may be allowed at the sole discretion of the city
utilizing the following factors:
(1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on net acreage located within the
property lines of the site in accordance with the land use plan.
(2) The area where the density is transferred must be within the project area and
owned by the proponent.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 11 of 21
(3) Density transfer in single - family detached area will be evaluated using the items
listed in sections 20 -506 or 20 -508. Density transfer eligible for multiple - family
areas are not permitted to be applied to single - family areas.
(4) In no case shall the overall density of the development exceed the net density
ranges identified in the comprehensive plan except as specified in policies
supporting the city's affordable housing goals.
Finding: The developer must calculate the net developable acres of the site and wetland
acreage. The project proposes using the area located in the center of the site to cluster
the development. The density will be 4 units per acre.
(d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are
consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density
and other standards for developments providing low and moderate cost housing.
Incentives may be approved by the city contingent upon the developer and the city
entering into an agreement ensuring that the housing will be available to low and
moderate income persons for a specific period of time.
Finding: Not applicable with this request. The project will be market rate.
(e) Hard surface coverage.
Finding: The development must be under 30 percent hardcover. The developer shall
provide the hard surface coverage calculation to confirm. The shoreland regulations are
greater than the PUD. The applicant will meet the shoreland regulations.
(f) Building and parking setbacks from public streets shall be determined by the city based
on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at
least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD.
Where industrial uses abut developed platted or planned single - family lots outside the
PUD, greater exterior building and parking setbacks, between 50 and 100 feet, shall be
required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a
determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening
may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed
plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of
uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established
by the comprehensive plan and chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code.
Finding: The project will provide buffering along Highway 212 and between the subject
site and low density development to the north. The development will be held to standards
set in the city code.
(g) More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a PUD.
Finding: This does not apply to this request since each home will be located on a
separate lot.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 12 of 21
(h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the city, all property to be included within a
PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or
covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master
development plan and final site and building plan. After approval, parcels may be sold to
other parties without restriction; however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD
development contract that will be recorded in each chain -of- title.
Finding: The project will be developed under singular ownership.
(i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in the sign plan approved by the city
and shall be regulated by permanent covenants or design standards established in the
PUD development contract.
Finding: Signage will be consistent with the city's sign ordinance for residential
development (Area identification/entrance signs. Only one monument sign may be
erected at the entrance (s). Total sign area shall not exceed 24 square feet ofsign display
area, nor be more than S feet high. More than one sign per entrance may be erected,
provided that the total sign area does not exceed 24 square feet. Any such sign or
monument shall be designed with low - maintenance, high - quality materials. The adjacent
property owner or a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of the
identification/entrance sign and surrounding grounds and landscaped areas. Such sign
shall be located so as not to conflict with traffic visibility or street maintenance
operation, and shall be securely anchored to the ground.)
(j) The requirements contained in articles XXIII and XXV of this chapter may be applied by
the city as it deems appropriate.
Finding: The project will follow the city's design standards and landscaping, tree
removal and buffering requirements.
(k) The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets,
utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city
ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets,
utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual
specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards
or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this [article] or to protect the health,
safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole.
Finding: Staff is recommending the width of the right -of -way be limited to 50 feet and the
front yard setback be reduced to 25 feet. This will allow a greater preservation of the
wetlands and surrounding buffer. In addition, staff is recommending a side yard setback
of 5 feet along the garage side and 10 feet along the opposite side.
(1) No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a
proposed or approved PUD, nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance
with the proposed or approved PUD.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 13 of 21
Finding: Not applicable at this time.
(m) Buffer yards.
(1) The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. ...in
areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density
uses and shall comply with chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City
Code.
(2) The buffer yard is not an additional setback requirement. The full obligation to
provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher
intensity use.
(3) The buffer yard is intended to provide physical separation and screening for the
higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a
combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the
buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall
be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance
as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the
obligation of the property owner.
Finding: There is a buffer yard requirement between medium and low density
developments. Buffer plantings will also be required along Highway 212. A minimum of
one tree is required within the front yard of each lot.
Sec. 20 -508. - Standards and guidelines for single - family attached or cluster -home PUDs.
(a) Generally. Single - family attached, cluster, zero lot line, townhouses and similar type
dwelling types may be allowed on sites designed for low, medium or high density
residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan.
(b) Minimum lot sizes. There shall be no minimum lot size; however, in no case shall net
density exceed guidelines established by the city comprehensive plan.
(c) Setback standards /structures and parking:
(1) PUD exterior: 50 feet.
(2) Interior public right -of -way: 30 feet.*
*The 30 foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is
demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a
minimum front yard setback of 20 feet shall be maintained.
(3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement.
Finding. With a land use amendment to medium density residential and the rezoning of
the property, the standard would be met. Additional design standards will be generated
as apart of the PUD review.
(d) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the
flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 14 of 21
tree stands, wetlands, ponds and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently
protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements.
Finding: The wetlands would be preserved with this PUD request. Without the
application of a PUD and clustering of homes, the wetlands could potentially be
impacted.
(e) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the
following:
(1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yards shall require a mix of over -story trees
and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided
to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land uses. In
place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative blocks
retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the
site's natural topography.
(2) Exterior landscaping and double fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be
provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more
intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double- fronted lots. Where
necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required.
(3) Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be
established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the
builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the
required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial
guarantees acceptable to the city.
(4) Tree preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree
survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be
developed to maximize tree preservation.
Finding: The following landscaping requirements make the proposal consistent with the
requirements:
• There is a buffer yard requirement between medium and low density
developments. Buffer plantings will also be required along Highway 212. A
minimum of one tree is required within the front yard of each lot.
• City boulevard trees must be protected during construction and replaced if
damaged. Trees must be shown on plans. Plantings along the roads must comply
with the bufferyard B standards of the city code.
• Canopy coverage for site should be around 25 %.
(f) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for
a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not
intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be
prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that
high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without
variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following:
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 15 of 21
(1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments...
Findings: The building will be reviewed under the city's design standards for multifamily
development, Chapter 20, Article XMI,, Division 9, including archictural style,
materials, lighting, etc. as MnDOT requires that the building be designed for noise
attenuation. The district permits a height of three stories or 35 feet.
ROADWAYS
The property lies north of Highway 212, east of County Road 101 and south of 86th Street. The
proposed access on 86th Street is located so as to minimize wetland impacts. To further reduce
wetland impacts staff supports a reduced right -of -way width (50 feet, with a 15 -foot front yard
drainage and utility easement) and a reduced street width (28 feet) for the portion of the road that
does not have any lots adjacent to it (approximately 400 feet). The remainder of the street and
right -of -way shall meet the City's minimum requirements. The proposed street curves do not
meet a 30 mph design speed; advanced warning and speed advisory signs would be required.
The proposed cul -de -sac is approximately 1,400 feet long, which exceeds the 800 -foot maximum
length stipulated in the City Code. Based on the lot configuration and wetland conditions on the
site, staff supports the proposed variance.
GRADING
The concept plan does not include proposed grading. The anticipated wetland impacts shown on
the concept plan are for the most part based on lot lines and right -of -way lines. The site grading
has the potential to increase the wetland impacts.
The locations of the ponds appear suitable for drainage patterns. The applicant's engineer feels
the sizes shown are adequate. The applicant will need to provide calculations with a preliminary
plat submittal in the event one is made.
A soils report for the site was completed in 2012 after three months of below average
precipitation. The report indicated that the groundwater elevation is likely to be similar to the
water levels in the wetlands. Updated soils and groundwater information will be required should
the applicant proceed with the proposal
UTILITIES
A 12 -inch trunk watermain extends from the townhome development to the west to the
Reflections development south of Highway 212. The developer proposes to extend lateral
watermain from this trunk line to service the development. Once a grading plan is developed the
estimated operating water pressure and fire flow will be calculated. Some homes may require a
privately -owned and maintained booster to provide a desirable water pressure since the
watermain will not be looped.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 16 of 21
The developer proposes to extend lateral sanitary sewer from the 12 -inch trunk sanitary sewer
northeast of the site, through MnDOT property. The developer shall obtain the necessary
permits and easements from MnDOT to complete this work. The lateral sanitary sewer
alignment shall minimize tree loss and provide vehicular access to the manholes.
The portion of the sanitary sewer that the developer proposes to connect to is currently not in
service. The developer shall televise and air test the existing pipe to ensure that it meets current
standards.
WETLAND PROTECTION
Graham Environmental Services performed an on -site wetland identification and boundary
determination in June of 2011. The Notice of Decision approving the delineated boundary was
issued on July 19, 2011 with minor changes. Six wetlands were delineated on the site — wetlands
C and D were later determined to be parts of the same wetland resulting in five discrete wetland
basins. The city has received no evidence that the United States Army Corps of Engineers has
issued a Jurisdictional Determination for the wetlands as required under section 303 of the Clean
Water Act.
Wetlands are placed into one of five management classes based upon the results of a Minnesota
Routine Assessment Methodology ( MNRAM). Only two wetlands have had a MNRAM
performed. Wetland A and Wetland F are both in Management Classification 2. Staff will
prepare a MNRAM for the remaining wetlands. A preliminary investigation indicates that
Wetland C is likely to be in Management Classification 3 and Wetland B in Management
Classification 1. The following table shows the required buffer width and setback from said
buffer.
Wetland
Classification
Principal Structure
Setback from Buffer
Ede
Accessory Structure
Setback from Buffer
Ede
Permanent Buffer
Strip Minimum
Width
Percent of Buffer
Strip in Native
Vegetation
Outstanding
50
50
50
100%
Preserve
40
20
40
100%
Manage 1
30
15
25
100%
Manage: 2
30
15
20
>50%
Manage 3
30
15
16.5
>50%
When overlaid on the concept plat the building pads for Lots 1 through 3 and Lots 9 through 14
all are intersected by the wetland setback line. In no instance does it appear that the setback line
is depicted accurately on the concept plat.
Figure 1 shows the wetland boundaries, the wetland buffers and the setback from these buffers.
That area to the upland side of the purple lines is, generally speaking, that portion which is
"buildable" although grading may occur within the setback areas.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 17 of 21
The applicant has proposed four wetland impacts. Two of these impacts result from the road
designed to access the site. This applicant has made efforts to minimize the wetland impacts
associated with the road to, in the opinion of staff, the greatest extent practicable. The remaining
two impacts are proposed for the purpose of creating two additional lots. The Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MN Rules Chapter 8420) makes it clear that avoidance of wetland impacts is
always the first option that must be considered.
8420.0500 PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENT
Subp. 2. Requirement. No person may impact a wetland, wholly or partially, without being
eligible for an exemption or no -loss, or first having a wetland replacement plan approved by the
local government unit. Before approval of a replacement plan, the local government unit must
ensure that the applicant has exhausted all possibilities to avoid and minimize wetland impacts
according to sequencing in part 8420.0520.
Further, the local government unit must evaluate "whether any proposed feasible and prudent
alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to wetlands." Minnesota Rules 8420.0520
goes on to list when an alternative is considered "feasible and prudent" in Subp. 3. Paragraph C
Alternative Analysis.
1. It is capable of being done from an engineering point of view;
2. It is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices;
3. It is consistent with reasonable requirements of public health, safety, and welfare;
Figure 1: Buildable area based solely upon wetland setbacks. (Note: this does not consider grading and other utilities.)
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 18 of 21
4. It is an environmentally - preferred alternative based on a review of social, economic, and
environmental impacts; and
5. It would create no truly unusual problems.
Paragraph 3 goes on to list what the local government unit must consider when evaluating the
applicability of avoidance alternatives.
(3) The local government unit must consider the following in evaluating avoidance
alternatives as applicable:
(a) whether the basic project purpose can be reasonably accomplished using one or
more other sites in the same general area that would avoid wetland impacts. An
alternate site must not be excluded from consideration only because it includes or
requires an area not owned by the applicant that could reasonably be obtained,
used, expanded, or managed to fulfill the basic purpose of the proposed project;
(b) the general suitability of the project site and alternate sites considered by the
applicant to achieve the purpose of the project;
(c) whether reasonable modification of the size, scope, configuration, or density of
the project would avoid impacts to wetlands;
(d) efforts by the applicant to accommodate or remove constraints on alternatives
imposed by zoning standards or infrastructure, including requests for conditional
use permits, variances, or planned unit developments;
(e) the physical, economic, and demographic requirements of the project. Economic
considerations alone do not make an alternative not feasible and prudent; and
(f) the amount, distribution, condition, and public value of wetlands and associated
resources to be affected by the project and the potential for direct and indirect
effects over time.
(4) If the local government unit determines that a feasible and prudent alternative exists that
would avoid impacts to wetlands, it must deny the replacement plan. If no feasible and
prudent alternative is available that would avoid impacts to wetlands, the local
government unit must evaluate the replacement plan for compliance with subparts 4 to 8.
Previous iterations have been presented to city staff from this applicant and others which have
avoided impacts exclusive of the road. Because economic considerations alone cannot be used
to justify wetland impacts and it is known that the "basic project purpose" can be accomplished
without impacts at Lot 3 and Lot 14, staff cannot support this concept plan as it is not in
compliance with Chapter 8420 of the MN Rules or Section 20 -403 of Chanhassen City Code.
As this is a conceptual plan only, no grading plan or hydrologic/hydraulic calculations have been
provided. Grading for the ponds, and possibly the house pads will extend beyond the areas
shown. This could potentially lead to additional wetland impacts which will need to meet the
same standards of review as the impacts indicated on this plan.
There is a certain expectation by a private homeowner that they have a usable yard to enjoy as
they see fit and as such, staff strongly encourages the placement of wetland buffers within
outlots. Figure 2 shows the various limitations that would encumber each lot with this layout.
The area in green would be fully buildable based solely upon wetland buffers and setbacks. This
does not account for easements, lot setbacks, etc. The area in yellow represents the area where
secondary structures would be allowed. The homeowner could place a patio, gazebo, deck,
swing set, etc. in this area. The area highlighted in orange could be maintained as lawn but could
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 19 of 21
not have any structure placed or constructed within it. The area in red must be maintained as a
naturalized buffer and could not be used for lawn or landscaping.
a
j � a
a�
�MFM l
Pmwin l6laftanepl
-
MT S.m Nry
- FA9EYEM B.A.e4 M.
-+� IOT lME9 T
gTMCN3 �
�81ONY Ob1O 0IO
Wl maw
wYtir_ yu ncn clO leel
Figure 2. Wetland Buffer and Resulting Setbacks per Section 20 -411
The wetland impact proposed for prospective Lots 3 and 12 are intended to provide adequate
space to create the buffer and setback. Under Section 20 -412, this practice is not allowed.
(c) Additional wetland impacts shall not be allowed for the creation of buffer strips.
Staff, as the LGU for the Wetland Conservation Act and when considering the City of
Chanhassen's Wetland Protection ordinance, could not support the impacts proposed at Lots 3
and 12.
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 20 of 21
SHORELAND
34 . 1 4 ♦ . ai / /
1
- Pmerve 15 Lol Co—pt
law
�,�.. _ - • - _ - ' , yap � ., � o,. w
— aaryc�
Most of the parcel and all of the proposed improvements are within the shoreland overlay
district. Because the applicant is requesting a PUD, there are specific requirements which must
be met by state law. Further, the Department of Natural Resources must review and approve any
PUD submittal. Among other criteria, the plan must:
1. Have at least five dwelling units.
2. Must contain open space meeting specific criteria including at least 50% of the total
project area must be preserved in open space. It appears that the site is at approximately
48% with the pond area yet to be deducted from the open space.
3. Specific standards are set forth for the "centralization and design of facilities and
structures ". This includes, among other items, that the dwelling units or sites are
clustered into one or more suitable areas.
4. Specific administration and maintenance requirements to preserve the open space must be
met. Most importantly, an organization must exist that will provide for the maintenance
of the preserved open space.
PARK AND RECREATION
COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN
The city's comprehensive park plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within one -half
mile of every residence in the city. The proposed Preserve at Rice Lake development would not
Planning Commission
Preserve at Rice Lake Concept Planned Unit Development
January 15, 2013
Page 21 of 21
meet this guideline. The nearest park is Rice Marsh Lake Park which is located approximately
one mile away if utilizing the city's pedestrian trail network.
COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN
The city's comprehensive trail plan calls for the future completion of a Rice Marsh Lake Trail to
be constructed around the perimeter of the lake. This proposed subdivision should provide for
and construct a trail connection to this future trail starting at the public street and extending to
the southeast corner of the property. This trail connection should be situated in a public outlot or
trail easement.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission provide the City Council with
comments and feedback along with the following comments
1. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at
the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. At today's rate these fees would total
$87,000 (15 lots X $5,800 per lot).
2. Dedication of a public outlot or easement to accommodate the construction of a neighborhood
trail connection to the future Rice Marsh Lake Trail.
3. Construction of the 8 -foot wide neighborhood trail connection from the public street to the
southeast corner of the property.
4. A PUD Ordinance shall be created to govern the site and design standards.
5. Buildings must meet the 50 -foot perimeter setback requirements.
6. The location of all existing utilities shall be field verified.
7. Address all issues raised in the staff report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Development Review Application.
2. Concept Plan.
3. Letter from MnDOT dated January 3, 2103.
4. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice.
5. Email from Karen (resident on Rice Court).
gAplan\2013 planning cases\2013 -02 preserve at rice lake concept pud\staff report pc.doc
Planning Case No. 13
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227 -1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
PLEASE PRINT
Applicant Name and Address:
z1-W c-, K�uo _P,2LA v(A-J
5 5 v' f N Tv P_ J_ =rvc-1
Contact: _JZHY4 KMO
Phone: z,-qV- 56 6 2- Fax: 9f-L-4 7 -0 ,3� 13
Email: T 6 N 55 - Cz; �1j63L - B,a-Lp
_ C , 0 ,41_./
Property Owner Name and Address:
�sTa�T G't
Contact: o (-FN
Phone:lo A 7,',9 -5"709 Fax: 6 F
Email: 4W, /oxet"VI -C C /-If -.c .t.-
0 r-rob 4% 11 ic.Vv- k1 N 55 33 >
NOTE Consultation with City staff is recl uired prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of Right -of- Way /Easements (VAC)
(Additional recording fees may apply)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
Non - conforming Use Permit
t/ Planned Unit Developmen
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
Subdivision*
Variance (VAR)
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign - 200
(City to install and remove)
X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost *"
- $50 CUP /SPR /VAC/VAR/WAP /Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $ I PcI c0L (055 1
An additional fee of $3.00 per ad res ithin the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing. �
*Five (5) full -size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2" X 11" reduced
copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ( *.tif) format.
* *Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
SCANNED
PROJECT NAME: &6S 6- 9- /17 11
LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID:
62 S oa.g
TOTAL ACREAGE:
WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO
PRESENT ZONING: S -Sin le- 1�6 01 Ll Relq A AOI'4t'41 24- Mt' Low ��"S►C�i1�r�
REQUESTED ZONING: (j -
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST: 1'7 1-07
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees: and new employees:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate. Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
Sign2We of Applicant 5 V FW? 114 Ti11- 3.111-- Date
<9�,z i"v v
.p.
!Z /
tgnature of F Owner 'r -c P ov Lt C- ate
FR. sT-P
g: \plan \forms\development review appiicationdoc SCANNED
PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE NOTES 1'3/13
1 . :
AREAS AS SHOWN DO NOT INCLUDE WETLANDS.
■ 2. STREET EASEMENT WIDTH AS SHOWN IS 15 FEET DUE TO 50 FEET R /W.
15-LOT CONCEPT PLAN
■ TOTAL SITE AREA = 13.23 ACRES 3. BUILDING PADS AS SHOWN ARE 60'X60'
4. FRONT SETBACKS AS SHOWN ARE 25 FEET, SIDE SETBACKS ARE 10 FEET
gin
t ,
�i
i a �
° �►
ow
w- � _ _�' —. X12,491 344t . I.I 11795 W.ft:
�Flj• 7•� F / � ^ � ,756 aq.r�i1 .1210.�r
• a ,�, � a � e �.yh 1
' �o 14, 240. a o \\\ 1pl#
8 I ,` , ,, /' ^ \ \\ \ b 65 `o u g \\� A •
OUTLOT A
•! L / / £ - ' 0 Ac— t Ac of
1y821 9q .1k \ • , �S 3,O�+NRS 5 Non - Wetland Area
` / 5 \ � 6 \1H J • 1 � } 3.066 9q. ft.l for Pork DeG'<ation � ..
S . 1000 YF N£iVJlp FILL \ r
OUTLOT,,C q� ; / \� Pa b g ocREA AL AT
1 \ L q BUFFER h 5WACK \
600 SF 'M�TCAI!
2300 SF Wt TLANO FILL TO OREK EQUATE > ��
BUFFER �k SETBACK \ i4 i J \ \\ I l �p
y ems° 2 °5 N °acs ., 13 1 J P
1• �\ \� \ _ \.w LANO I'LL
�6
, 9V.ft 11,149 9V.ft. \
1 2 \ \;, \ \\ / / _ a .an. \ �" 4 k >L
� r.WSC - 'll � nausL \ \\ cW' / / i � _____� 1 l" O� .. t ,•. E �` l �
15 \� s • •
O t _ _ - --�
a aV.1L f
TEpMAIN -Now ! . S • 'i
ESTIMATED WETLAND IMPACTS 0 100 200
TOTAL = 8400 sq. ft = 0.193 aces SCALE IN FEET iiiiii
f Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan District
Waters Edge Building
°F " p 1500 County Road B2 West
Roseville, MN 55113
January 3, 2013
Sharmeen Al -Jaff
Senior Planner
7700 Market Blvd.
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
JAN V 7 2013
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SUBJECT: Preserve at Rice Lake (Formerly Knoblauch Building)
MnDOT Review # S12 -058
North side of US 212, east of TH 101
Chanhassen, Carver County
Control Section 1013
Dear Ms. Sharmeen Al -Jaff
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Preserve at Rice Lake (Formerly Knoblauch
Building) plans. Since the current plans remain quite similar to the previous plans, our
comments remain the same. They are as follows:
Design:
The proposed walk and street are very close to MnDOT right of way and will require a
grading plan to determine if there are highway impacts.
For questions concerning this subject, please contact Nancy Jacobson, (651- 234 -7647 or
nancy.iacobsongstate.mn.us in the Metro Design Section.
Water Resources:
A MnDOT drainage permit will be required. The drainage permit application form can
be found at http: / /www.dot.state.mn.us /utility /forms /index.html
The following information is required with the drainage permit application:
• Final drainage plan showing storm sewer plan, storm sewer and culvert profiles
and pond contours
• Existing and proposed drainage area maps with flow arrows
• Existing and proposed drainage /pond computations for the 2, 10, and 100 year
rainfall events
Addition information may be required once a drainage permit is submitted and after a
detailed review. MnDOT will not allow an increase in discharge to MnDOT right -of -way.
Please direct any questions regarding these issues to Hailu Shekur (651- 234 -7521 or
hailu.shekurkstate.mn.us ) of MnDOT's Water Resources Engineering section.
Permits and Right -of -Way:
In addition to the drainage permit, a Limited Use Permit would be needed if any
sidewalk/trail is within MnDOT right -of -way.
The applicant will need to go through the Limited Use Permit process. Please contact
Dan Phelps (651- 234 -7585 or dan.phelpskstate.mn.us
The proposed development must not extend into MnDOT right -of -way. Also, any use of
or work affecting MnDOT Right -of -way and/or utilities requires a permit. Permit forms
are available from MnDOT's permit website at http: / /www.dot.state.mn.us /permits / .
Please include one 11 x 17 plan set and one full size plan set with each permit
application. Please direct any questions regarding permit requirements to Buck Craig
(651- 234 -7911 or buck.craig@state.mn.us of MnDOT's Metro Permits Section.
Noise:
MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land
use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in
complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise
standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for
taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise
Area Classification (NAC) where the establishment of the land use would result in
violations of established noise standards.
MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the
expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. The project
proposer should assess the noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to
minimize the impact of any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding
MnDOT's noise policy please contact Peter Wasko in our Design section at (651) 234-
7681.
Review Submittal Options:
MnDOT's goal is to complete the review of plans within 30 days. Submittals sent in
electronically can usually be turned around faster. There are four submittal options.
Please submit either:
1. One (1) electronic pdf. version of the plans. MnDOT can accept the plans via
e -mail at metrodevreviews .dot( provided that each separate e-
mail is under 20 megabytes.
2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size
plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to:
MnDOT — Metro District Planning Section
Development Reviews Coordinator
1500 West County Road B -2
Roseville, MN 55113
3. One (1) compact disc.
4. Plans can also be submitted to MnDOT's External FTP Site. Please send files
to: ftp: / /ftp2.dot.state.nm.us/ pub / incoming /MetroWatersEdge/Planning
Internet Explorer doesn't work using ftp so please use an FTP Client or your
Windows Explorer (My Computer). Also, please send a note to
metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us indicating that the plans have been
submitted on the FTP site.
If you have any questions concerning this review, please feel free to contact me at
(651) 234 -7794.
Sincerely,
, rta �_ - — I �,� � �
Tod Sherman
Planning Supervisor
Copy sent via E -Mail:
John Knoblauch, Knoblauch Builders, jknobs(a,knoblauchbuilders.com
Sharmeen Al -Jaff, City of Chanhassen saljaff2ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Hailu Shekur, Water Resources
Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer
Peter Wasko, Design
Nancy Jacobson, Design
Buck Craig, Permits
Dale Matti, Right -of -Way
David Sheen, Traffic Engineering
Clare Lackey, Traffic Engineering
Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
January 3, 2013, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for Preserve at Rice Lake Concept PUD — Planning Case 2013 -02 to the persons
named on attached Exhibit "A ", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to
such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail
with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those
appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by
other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this &A day of :Yar , 2013.
t
Notary kublic
WK IM T� M U VI EN
otary Public- Minnesota
Commission Expi 31
res Jan , 2015
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start
until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a
Proposal:
15 -lot single - family development on 13.2 acres of property
currently zoned RSF- Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed
Low Density Residential — Preserve at Rice Lake.
Applicant:
John Knoblauch
Property
South of West 86 Street
Location:
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /2013 -02 If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI -Jaff
Questions &
by email at saljaff(a-)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 -
Comments:
227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland AlteNtions,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report. please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, January 15, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start
until later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:
City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for a Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a
Proposal:
15 -lot single - family development on 13.2 acres of property
currently zoned RSF - Single Family Residential and R4 -Mixed
Low Density Residential — Preserve at Rice Lake.
Applicant:
John Knoblauch
Property
South of West 86 Street
Location:
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
What Happens
public hearing through the following steps:
at the Meeting:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the project.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the City's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us /2013 -02 If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen AI -Jaff
Questions &
by email at saljaff(a)-ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952 -
Comments:
227 -1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is
helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The
staff report for this item will be available online on the
project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the
Planning Commission meeting.
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial /industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson /representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
AMY B CULLEN ANNE THERESA JESKE ARTURO F URRUTIA
454 MISSION HILLS WAY E PO BOX 1041 9759 CUPOLA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7706 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -1041 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 -3622
BARBARA A FELBER BONNIE M HOGHAUG BRADLEY SCOTT MAPES
468 HEARTLAND CT 425 RICE CT 445 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7704 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705
BRIAN M & DAWN M RODELL RILEY BRUCE A DRAEGER CAROLINE L KULIK
8580 MISSION HILLS LN 8541 MISSION HILLS LN 8761 REFLECTIONS RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317-
CHARLES MOULDER CHESTNUT GROUP LLC CHRISTINE A NELSON
455 MISSION HILLS WAY E 1560 BLUFF CREEK DR 456 HEARTLAND CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7706 CHASKA MN 55318 -9519 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7704
COREY A HOEN DANIEL T & KELLY A FASCHING DAVID T & CORRINE A NAGEL
422 RICE CT 8550 MISSION HILLS LN 8550 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9615
DEBRA JEAN NORTON E JAMES VALDIMORE ELIZABETH J SARNESE
441 MISSION HILLS WAY E 409 MONK CT 8791 NORTH BAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624
ENDA J BURGESS FRANCIS T BARUSH REV TRUST FRANK R & THERESA M
476 HEARTLAND CT 400 MONK CT GUSTAFSON
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7704 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 449 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705
GARY & LOUANN LESLIE GEORGE J CARLYLE GEORGE SEFCZYK
470 MISSION HILLS WAY 8560 MISSION HILLS LN 420 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708
HOANG MINH PHAM JAMES M SCOTT JEAN MARIE KAMRATH
417 RICE CT PO BOX 312 413 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 HOPKINS MN 55343 -0312 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709
JEFFREY W SANVILLE JENNIFER RENKLY JODEE A TOMASSONI
442 MISSION HILLS WAY E 446 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8581 MISSION HILLS LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7713
JOHN D & MARY JO EICHLER JOHN W HOPKINS JONATHAN EFFERTZ
25628 CORDOVA LN 417 MONK CT 459 MISSION HILLS WAY E
RIO VERDE AZ 85263 -7146 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7706
JONATHAN M SCHMIT JOSEPH & GAYLE HAUTMAN JOYCE A BENNETT
412 MONK CT 8551 TIGUA LN 8789 NORTH BAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9615 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624
KAREN L BLENKER KAREN L MORTENSEN KATHLEEN M JOHANNES
405 RICE CT 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705
KELLY R MORRISON KENDALL J & KRISTINE R STRAND KURT D & LYNNE MILLER
8773 NORTH BAY DR 8581 TIGUA LN 8590 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9615 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9715
LARRY L & SHERRIE D DOBSON LARRY M & MARLENE R NASH LEE A AMIOT
370 86TH ST W 409 RICE CT 428 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9784 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708
LESLIE M BERGSTROM LILA M ZIMMERMAN LORI LEE PROECHEL
8781 NORTH BAY DR 451 MISSION HILLS WAY E 418 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7706 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709
LUANN M MARKGRAF MARGIE L WESTERGAARD MARK W LINDNER
401 RICE CT 425 MONK CT 8785 NORTH BAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624
MARY E MUIRHEAD MICHELLE H CARPENTER MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES
424 MONK CT 464 HEARTLAND CT 2681 LONG LAKE RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7704 ROSEVILLE MN 55113 -1128
NATHAN HICKS NGA DOAN NICOLE A DELANEY
478 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8799 NORTH BAY DR 8793 NORTH BAY DR
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624
NICOLE D OPITZ NICOLE M EVENSON NORTH BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSN
437 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8797 NORTH BAY DR INC
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 2681 LONG LAKE RD
ROSEVILLE MN 55113 -1128
PATRICIA A ADAMS PATRICIA M HEDTKE PAUL C LYONS
429 RICE CT 405 MONK CT 8571 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9615
PAUL D JUAIRE QUIRIN & MARIA MATTHYS RACHELLE L TIMLIN
462 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8795 NORTH BAY DR 404 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7706 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708
RAYMOND C ORTMAN JR RICHARD K & THERESA A HESS RITA HALONEN
8525 MISSION HILLS LN 8561 MISSION HILLS LN 438 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705
ROBERT J & ARLENE T HART ROBERT M & TAMMY L SCHAEFER ROBERTA A JOHNSON
474 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8571 MISSION HILLS LN 466 MISSION HILLS WAY E
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7707
RONALD S & BARBRA T EWING ROSE M KERBER ROSEMARY B WILL
8570 MISSION HILLS LN 460 HEARTLAND CT 475 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7713 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7704 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7718
SARA LUCY KALEY SCOTT J NELSON SHANNON HARER
482 MISSION HILLS WAY E 429 MISSION HILLS WAY E 413 MONK CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708
SIGNE HANSON STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT STATE OF MINNESOTA - DOT
1326 90TH AVE 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD 631 TRAN 1500 W COUNTY ROAD B2
SHERBURN MN 56171 -1236 ST PAUL MN 55155 -1801 ROSEVILLE MN 55113 -3174
STEPHAN M BRINK STEVEN D LEHTO SUSAN M HEINEMANN
433 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8591 TIGUA LN 421 RICE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9615 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709
SUSAN M LETNER THOMAS D KARELS THOMAS J BOURNE
PO BOX 220 416 MONK CT 471 FRISCO CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -0220 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7718
THOMAS L SIEVERS THOMAS NIMMO TROY A & VIRGINIA L KAKACEK
475 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8561 TIGUA LN 380 86TH ST W
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9615 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9784
TYLOFRANO
8521 TIGUA LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9615
JOHN KNOBLAUCH
1450 KNOB HILL LANE
EXCELSIOR MN 55331
US HOME CORPORATION VYACHESLAV KRASNOKUTSKIY
16305 36TH AVE N SUITE 600 390 86TH ST W
PLYMOUTH MN 55446 -4270 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9784
AI -Jaff, Sharmeen
From: AI -Jaff, Sharmeen
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 11:05 AM
To: X B'
Subject: RE: development of area S of 86th st
Good morning Karen,
The developer will be required to install a sound wall along Highway 212. Access to the site is limited but we will do
everything we can to minimize wetland impacts. The developer will be required to add landscaping to the site. As I
mentioned before, this is a concept and I will attach your comments to the staff report.
Sincerely,
Sharmeen Al -.Taff
Senior Planner
.952.22 7. 1134
From: K B [ mailto:kabllCa>msn.com ]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 7:37 PM
To: AI -Jaff, Sharmeen
Subject: RE: development of area S of 86th st
Hi, I looked at the plans. Why destroy part of the wetland area by putting a road thru it, what if that pond flooded, there
is no other way out. Wouldn't a better plan be to put the road across from from lot 6 and 7, shorter road to development
it doesn't destroy a good piece of the wetland. It doesn't impact our neighborhood, although traffic would increase along
86th st plus it would then cost less. Leave the wetland area alone.
Another point to make would be the noise from 212. I hear traffic from my place, there is no noise reduction wall along
this section, there's only a fence, that would have to be built. I would never buy anything in that area because of that.
When I purchased my townhouse, I paid at least $5 -6,000 more for the exact layout as another in this area because of
the wooded area behind it. Like I said this will decrease the value of our property along Rice Court. Plus I like the privacy
here as do my neighbors. We enjoy watching the wildlife. I have lived here since these townhomes have been built
because of this, almost 17 yrs.
There have been too many areas in Chanhassen that have been clear cut , beautiful old trees cut down. This needs to
stop, We need to protect these areas.
Thank you for considering this.
Karen
From: SAI- Jaff(aci.chanhassen.mn.us
To: kabli @msn.com
Subject: RE: development of area S of 86th st
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 21:08:29 +0000
Hi Karen,
Attached is the latest concept plan.
Sincerely,
Sharmeen Al Jaff
Senior Planner
952.227.1134
From: K B [ mailto:kabli @msn.com
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 1:16 PM
To: AI -Jaff, Sharmeen
Subject: Re: development of area S of 86th st
Hi do you have the plans on the website? There were 2 links and I could not access the second one.
Thanks,
Karen
Sent from my l/eazon Wireless 4G L TE DROID
"AI -Jaff, Sharmeen" < SAI- Jaff(@ci.chanhassen.mn.us wrote:
Good morning Karen,
At this time, it's only a concept. We are trying to flush out the issues. I will include your e -mail as an attachment to the
staff report so it can become part of the public record.
Sincerely,
Sharmeen Al -.laff
Senior Planner
952.227.1134
From: K B [ mailto:kabl1Omsn.com ]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 8:00 PM
To: AI -Jaff, Sharmeen
Subject: development of area S of 86th st
Importance: High
Hi,
I live on Rice Court in Chanhassen which backs up to the proposed development area called Preserve at Rice Lake. I am
concerned about what will happen to the pond area and the tree line between my place and this area. There is a lot of
wildlife in this area and do not want this to be affected. Also this will decrease the value of my home. The reason I
bought this place was because it backed up to a natural area. We CAN NOT destroy these areas.
I will not be able to make the Jan 15 meeting due to being out of the state.
Please let me know the plans for this area.
Thanks,
Karen