The URL can be used to link to this page

2. Preserve at Rice LakePROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density; Rezoning from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots with Variances; Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration Permit subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density; Rezoning from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots with Variances (PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE); Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration Permit. LOCATION: Southeast intersection of Tigua Lane and West 86a' 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 davenokornevna,gmail.com PRESENT 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 DENSITY: gross — 1.2; net — 4.00 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION - MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUDs, and amendments to PUDs because the City is acting in its legislative or policy - making capacity. A rezoning or PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 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. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 2 of 31 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. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning or SubdivisionOrdinances for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has limited discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit, based on whether or not the proposal meets the wetland alteration permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable wetland alteration permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving comprehensive plan amendments because the City is acting in its legislative or policy - making capacity. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The request consists of multiple applications to facilitate the development of a 16 -lot subdivision to house detached homes: Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density; Rezoning from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlets with Variances; Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration Permit. The site is located north of Highway 212 and southeast of the intersection of West 86h Street and Tigua Lane. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 3 of 31 The property 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 following is a summary of the requests: 1. Land Use Map Amendment: The first request is to amend the land use plan from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density. 2. Rezoning: The second request is to rezone the property from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R); and set standards that will govern the development. Since this land is within the shoreland district, the applicant is preserving 50% of the site as open space. 3. Subdivision: The third request is to subdivide 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots. There is no minimum lot size in this district. The lot area ranges between 10,000 and 12,723 square feet. The maximum hard surface coverage permitted per lot may not exceed 30 %. The applicant submitted a number of typical house designs he intends to build on the proposed lots. Some of the parcels are limited to a single design. A table that lists the maximum hard surface permitted per lot will be incorporated into the standards for this development. 4. Variance: The fourth request is to allow reduced setbacks from Highway 212 and length of a cul -de -sac. There will be a noise wall that will separate this development from the highway. City code requires a minimum setback of 50 feet along the perimeter of a planned unit development. The applicant is requesting a 30 -foot setback. Also, 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. 5. Site Plan Review: The fifth request is to approve a site plan for a medium density development. 6. Wetland Alteration Permit: The sixth request is to allow wetland impacts for the construction of a roadway and trails. Some of these impacts cannot be avoided while others can be avoided. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed development subject to the conditions of the staff report. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 4 of 31 EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is located north of Highway 212 and southeast of the intersection of West 86th Street and Tigua Lane. The site has an area of 13.2 acres. It contains multiple wetlands and is within the Rice Marsh Lake Shoreland Overlay District. Access is gained via West 86th Street. The property to the west is zoned PUD and guided 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. It contains single - family homes. The property to the east is zoned High Density Residential District and is guided Parks and Open Space. This land is within the Highway 212 right -of -way. M M- • S. M s 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. It contains single - family homes. The property to the east is zoned High Density Residential District and is guided Parks and Open Space. This land is within the Highway 212 right -of -way. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 5 of 31 The project proposes 16 single - family lots. The house pad widths including the garage will range between 50 and 60 feet. The front yard setback will be 25 feet while the side yards will be 10 feet on the house side and 5 feet on the garage side, which is permitted under the PUD ordinance. TYP. SETBACKS * EASEMENTS ACC. 5TRUCTURE SETBACK GARAGE SIDE hOUSE SIDE SETBACK (GYP.) SETBACK WM.) TIP. DRAINAGE < UTILRY EASEMEM Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative (MVEC) will provide electricity to this new development. MVEC has a main underground feeder that runs along the north and east boundaries of this property. The applican TJ T. BOL/.YARD I IS BLDG SETBACK I I I i I L „ „ FlOfX1iYNN J� APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 2, Amendments Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article VII, Planned Unit Development District Department of Natural Resources Shoreland Regulations BACKGROUND t shall field- verify these utility lines. On January 28, 2013, the City Council reviewed the concept plan for The Preserv e at Rice Lake - Planning Case #2013 -02. TJ ' -- - - - - -- -- eea= I 1 I I I_ - I C ry N[ APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 2, Amendments Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article VII, Planned Unit Development District Department of Natural Resources Shoreland Regulations BACKGROUND t shall field- verify these utility lines. On January 28, 2013, the City Council reviewed the concept plan for The Preserv e at Rice Lake - Planning Case #2013 -02. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 6 of 31 On February 11, 2013, City Council approved transmittal for jurisdictional review the land use amendment from Residential — Low Density to Residential — Low and Medium Density. The 60- day review period ended April 13, 2012. There were no negative comments received. LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT The applicant is requesting a comprehensive plan land use map amendment from Residential — Low Density to Residential — Low and Medium Density. This land use will permit additional flexibility in the design and development of the site and is compatible with the surrounding land uses, which are guided Residential — Medium Density to the west, Residential — Low Density to the north, Parks and Open Space to the east and Highway 212 to the south. Existing Land Use APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Proposed Land Use The city is acting within its legislative capacity in making amendments to the comprehensive plan. As part of the process, the city will be making a policy decision. Approval of the development is contingent upon approval of land use amendment. ANALYSIS Part of the difficulty in developing this site are the wetlands that are located on the property, as well as its location within the Rice Marsh Lake Shoreland Overlay District. The site is accessible via 86`h Street/Tigua lane and would follow an old farm access road through the wetland complex. This type of land use, a mix of Residential Low and Medium Density, 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 versus detached housing). Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 7 of 31 Existing Conditions 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 desire 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 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 developer would be able to build the single - family detached homes. The following elements of the comprehensive plan discuss land use policies that should be evaluated in changing the land use. Chapter 2 Land Use Element 2.5.2 Residential — low density The dominate type of development within the residential district is low- density, single - family detached housing. Net densities within this category range from 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. For projection of land demand, an average density of two dwelling units per acre was used. There are several zoning applications within the low density including RSF (Residential Single Family), R- 4 (Mixed Low Density), RLM (Residential Low and Medium Density), and PUD -R (Planned Unit Development - Residential). Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 8 of 31 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), R -8 (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 PUDs, cluster development, and innovative site plans and building types, should be encouraged to help conserve energy and resources for housing. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD The applicant is requesting to rezone 13.23 acres from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R). The project consists of 16 single - family homes. The review criteria are taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. For a property guided Medium Density Residential, zoning consistent with the land use includes RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District, R -8, Mixed Medium Density Residential District or PUD -R, Planned Unit Development — Residential. Since the developer wanted a development of single - family detached housing, the R -8 district did not work because it does not permit single - family detached homes. Initially, the developer tried to use the RLM district as well as the RSF district; however, due to site topography, shoreland overlay district and the location of wetlands, the developer could not meet the minimum standards for the lots and many lot width and area variances would have been required. Since the PUD -R district creates its own Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 9 of 31 standards, we were able to accommodate the development while preserving significant environmental features. If the property was reguided to medium density residential, the developer must maintain a minimum density of 4.0 units per acre. As proposed, the net density of the project is 4.0 units per acre. Section 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 in this instance is to allow for lot dimension flexibility. 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. The proposed development provides a compatible development with the surrounding development and is consistent with the comprehensive plan subject to the conditions of approval. The proposed rezoning assists in the furtherance of the following land use goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • Development will be encouraged within the MUSA line. • The plan should seek to establish sufficient land to provide a full range of housing opportunities. • The city will seek opportunities to provide transitions between different uses of different types. • Development should be phased in accordance with the ability of the city to provide services. The proposed rezoning assist in the furtherance of the following housing goals of the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan: • A balanced housing supply with housing available for people of all income levels. • A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life - cycle. • Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 10 of 31 Staff is proposing the following development standards govern the development of the property. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for a single - family detached development. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more - sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Except as modified by the Preserve at Rice Lake development standards, the development must comply with the Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone shall be limited to single - family detached houses and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be low- intensity neighborhood- oriented accessory structures to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include development signage, garden, gazebo, maintenance shed, picnic shelter, permanent open space, playground equipment and trails. C. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. *Lot coverage may not exceed those established in the compliance table. Setback Standards Highway 212 30 feet Exterior (Perimeter) Lot Lines 50 feet Front Yard 25 feet Side Yard: garage side and house side 5 feet/10 feet (minimum separation between buildings is 15 feet) Rear Yard 30 feet; 15 feet accessory structure Hard Surface Coverage on individual lots 30%* Single-family detached (area) 10,000 square feet Single-family detached (lot width ) 60 feet Single-family detached lot depth) 100 feet *Lot coverage may not exceed those established in the compliance table. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake - Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 11 of 31 COMPLIANCE TABLE Wetland setback: 20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft. Side: 10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage d. Monument Sign One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of West 86th Street. The sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than 5 feet in height. The sign shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. Area Width Depth Maximum (square feet) (feet) (feet) Hardcover Notes (square feet 60 at PUD 10,000 building 100 30 percent setback Ll B1 10,510 139 122 3,153 Wetland L2 BI 10,076 89 108 3,022 Wetland L3 BI 10,100 135 107 31030 Wetland L4 BI 10,353 84 141 3,150 Wetland L5 131 10,011 69 146 3,003 L6 131 10,622 62 130 3,198 L7 B1 10,017 62 120 3,005 L8 B1 10,000 62 124 3,000 Wetland L9 BI 10,041 62 128 3,012 Wetland Llo BI 10,212 61 126 3,063 Wetland Ll l BI 12,936 !75 building 121 3,880 Wetland tback L12B1 10,089 building 118 3,026 Wetland tback) Ll B2 96 (building Wetland, * area of neck 12,723* setback) 128 3,817 (5,580 sq. ft.) excluded from lot area calculations L2 B2 10,830 75 102 3,249 Corner lot L3 B2 10,096 106 127 3,029 L4 B2 10,004 91 148 3,001 Outlot A 281,352 6.46 acres open space/wetlands Outlot B 48,043 1.1 acres open space/wetlands ROW 72,309 1.66 acres TOTAL 576,299 13.23 acres Wetland setback: 20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft. Side: 10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage d. Monument Sign One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of West 86th Street. The sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than 5 feet in height. The sign shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 12 of 31 e. Lighting All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than V2-foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FINDINGS The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) effects and our findings regarding them are: a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The proposed development will be in compliance with the comprehensive plan if the amendment is approved. b) The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The proposed use is and will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area through the implementation of the design standards, landscaping, etc. c) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Finding: The proposed uses will conform with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance such as design standards, signage, durable materials, uses, etc., if the setback variance is approved. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. Finding: The proposed use could potentially add convenience to the homeowners in the area. The applicant will build a noise wall as well as extend a sidewalk that will connect to regional trails. There are added amenities to the surrounding neighbors. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Finding: The site is located within the Municipal Urban Service Area. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 13 of 31 SUBDIVISION REVIEW The developer is proposing to subdivide 13.23 acres into 16 lots and two outlots. The outlots contain wetlands, storm ponds and open space. The applicant intends to dedicate the outlots to the city. Staff believes that these outlots should be preserved as permanent open space. There are no minimum lot area or minimum lot dimensions under the medium density planned unit development district. The hard surface coverage of the individual lots may not exceed 30 %. Staff prepared a table that includes the maximum square footage of hard surface on each individual lot. Subdivision Findines 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the Planned Unit Development and the zoning ordinance subject to conditions. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance contingent upon approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and conditions. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 14 of 31 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. VARIANCE The applicant is requesting a reduced setback from Highway 212. City Code requires all buildings to maintain a 50 -foot setback from arterial or collector streets. The reason behind the variance request is the fact that there will be a noise wall that will separate the subject site from the highway. The applicant is requesting structures maintain a 30 -foot setback from the north property line. The applicant is also requesting a variance for the length of the cul -de -sac serving the subject site. City Code limits the length of a cul -de -sac to 800 feet. 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. The setback variance is addressed under City Code Chapter 20- Zoning, Sec. 20 -58. The variance for the length of the cul -de -sac is addressed under City Code Chapter 18- Subdivisions, Sec. 18 -22. Variance Findings — Setback. Chanter 20 Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 15 of 31 a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The 50 foot perimeter setback was established to separate potentially incompatible uses. In this area a noise wall will separate the uses. Additional setbacks are not necessary. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The wetlands on the property and the location of the Highway 212 right -of- way create a practical difficulty in locating houses at the 50 foot setback. In this area a noise wall will separate the uses. Additional setbacks are not necessary. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant is proposing to construct single - family home on residential property at a typical building setback. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship. The wetlands on the property and the location of the Highway 212 right -of -way create unique circumstances for the placement of homes. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. (Similar home sizes) Finding: The home will be located in the interior of the proposed development and will be compatible with the other homes. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. Variance Findings — Leneth of cul -de -sac. Chanter 18 Section 18 -22 of the City Code provides the following criteria for granting a variance: Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 16 of 31 The city council may grant a Variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience, but is due to the property being accessed from West 86`h Street and then meandering around the wetlands. No additional street access is available to the property due to the wetlands. b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land with wetlands located to the north, south and east and west of the site. c. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; Finding: The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property since it is located on property that is hemmed in by wetlands. d. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. SHORELAND REGULATIONS The site is located within the Rice Marsh Lake Shoreland Overlay District (area located within 1000 feet from the High Water Level of a lake) and is subject to the standards and requirements of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and City Code. The intent of the shoreland rules are to protect the habitat, viewscape and water quality of the waters of the state by setting design standards to this end. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 17 of 31 This property lies within the Shoreland Management District and is subject to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements. The applicant must demonstrate that by granting the flexibility that comes with a PUD, enhancements are made that would not be seen with a straight single - family residential development plan. Given that wetlands are protected under Chanhassen City Code, the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, and in many instances the Federal Clean Water Act, the act of preserving wetlands is not a benefit that would not otherwise be realized. Further, the proposed buffer areas are the minimum required and would be the same with a straight subdivision. There is no enhancement being proposed. All stormwater management is contained within the outlot areas. This is standard practice. However, these outlot areas are considered to be the 50% open space as required by the Shoreland PUD rules. The creation of these ponds results in significant disturbance in the areas to be preserved as naturalized open space. A detailed management plan shall be included to manage these disturbed areas to meet with the intent of the open space preservation. Unlike single - family lots that fall within the shoreland district and are guided low density, there are no minimum lot widths or areas for medium density lots within a shoreland district. Other design standards apply to these lots as follows The development must comply with the MN Rules Chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue their concurrence to this effect. An adequate stormwater management and erosion/sediment control plan must be provided. These will be addressed under a separate heading. DNR regulations (section 6120.3800, subp. 5. B. (2) (a)) require that "at least 50 percent of the total project area within the shoreland district, which extends 1,000 feet out from the edge of the lake, must be preserved as open space ". The total area of the site is 13.23 acres. The applicant is proposing to maintain 57% of the site as open space which exceeds the DNR requirements. BEfANO TIER m FIRSTTIER _ ..:UQ.: S:Y4`i)f? a_ _ NM'46XYVV p/ ( / Shoreland Overlay District w (� 999'STT`y .awnww acveeuv. This property lies within the Shoreland Management District and is subject to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements. The applicant must demonstrate that by granting the flexibility that comes with a PUD, enhancements are made that would not be seen with a straight single - family residential development plan. Given that wetlands are protected under Chanhassen City Code, the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, and in many instances the Federal Clean Water Act, the act of preserving wetlands is not a benefit that would not otherwise be realized. Further, the proposed buffer areas are the minimum required and would be the same with a straight subdivision. There is no enhancement being proposed. All stormwater management is contained within the outlot areas. This is standard practice. However, these outlot areas are considered to be the 50% open space as required by the Shoreland PUD rules. The creation of these ponds results in significant disturbance in the areas to be preserved as naturalized open space. A detailed management plan shall be included to manage these disturbed areas to meet with the intent of the open space preservation. Unlike single - family lots that fall within the shoreland district and are guided low density, there are no minimum lot widths or areas for medium density lots within a shoreland district. Other design standards apply to these lots as follows The development must comply with the MN Rules Chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue their concurrence to this effect. An adequate stormwater management and erosion/sediment control plan must be provided. These will be addressed under a separate heading. DNR regulations (section 6120.3800, subp. 5. B. (2) (a)) require that "at least 50 percent of the total project area within the shoreland district, which extends 1,000 feet out from the edge of the lake, must be preserved as open space ". The total area of the site is 13.23 acres. The applicant is proposing to maintain 57% of the site as open space which exceeds the DNR requirements. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 18 of 31 WETLAND PROTECTION Graham Environmental Services, Inc. (GES) performed an on -site wetland determination and boundary delineation on April 28 and May 4, 2011. This was reviewed by city staff as the local government unit (LGU) responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act and submitted to the technical evaluation panel for comment. Based upon review of the delineation, the boundaries were approved excepting that Wetland C and Wetland D were determined to be part of the same basin and Wetland B was expanded to the north. The current plan submittal appears to accurately reflect these modified boundaries. The plan set was provided by Probe Engineering Company, Inc. on behalf of J &S Ventures. While it does show all wetlands and their accurate boundaries, it does not provide unique nomenclature. As such, references to specific wetland basins refer back to the approved delineation and are summarized in the following figure. The plan shows the required buffer around wetlands A through D but fails to show a buffer around wetland E. All wetlands require the establishment of buffer areas and setbacks per Section 20 -411 of Chanhassen City Code. Any wetland buffer areas that are disturbed do not meet the requirement for native vegetation as stated in §20 -411, or which contains noxious weeds must have a detailed vegetation management plan and that plan must be followed. The submitted plan defines the extent of three impact areas. A fourth impact is inevitable based upon the proposed future trail alignment. Two impacts (both to Wetland A) are a result of the access road into the site. The proposed impacts to Wetland C are a result of the chosen trail alignment and can be avoided through a reconfiguration of the trail alignment or by moving the cul -de -sac farther north. Section 20- 401(b) reads that "The intent of this article is to avoid alteration and destruction of wetlands. When this is not feasible, mitigation must be provided to recreate the function and value of the lost or altered wetlands." Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake – Planning Case 2013-12 July 16, 2013 Page 19 of 31 Section 20-410(b)(4) reads that “The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action.” Minnesota Rules 8420 (the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act) regulates the protection of wetlands within the state of Minnesota. Section 8420.520 SEQUENCING stipulates that an LGU “must not approve a wetland replacement plan unless the local government finds that the applicant has demonstrated that they have met the sequencing requirements of the Wetland Conservation Act.” The first goal must always be to avoid a wetland impact. Minnesota Rules 8420.520 Subp. 3 C. reads as follows: (2) The local government unit must determine whether any proposed feasible and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid impacts to wetlands. An alternative is considered feasible and prudent if it meets all of the following requirements: (a) it is capable of being done from an engineering point of view; (b) it is in accordance with accepted engineering standards and practices; (c) it is consistent with reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare; (d) it is an environmentally preferable alternative based on a review of social, economic, and environmental impacts; and (e) it would create no truly unusual problems. Minnesota Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 3 C. goes on to say: (4) If the local government unit determines that a feasible and prudent alternative exists that would avoid impact to wetlands, it must deny the replacement plan. The applicant was made aware of this law on several occasions including meetings on January 2, 2013 and February 13, 2013, as well as in the staff report reviewing the concept plan dated January 15, 2013. Specifically, the location of the sidewalk and the subsequent trail extension was discussed. It was pointed out that by moving the sidewalk to the north side of the proposed road and having it connect with the regional trail between lots 11 and 12, both wetland impacts could be avoided to wetland C/D and would be feasible and prudent under the previous five criteria. Wetland impact avoidance is not the sole reason for realignment of the trail. This configuration would also provide for more cost-effective and efficient maintenance of the access to the regional trail; it would give direct access to the residents the sidewalk is meant to serve; the regional trail would not be subject surface flow over the trail creating potential safety risks; the city would save on the expense of installing a boardwalk over the wetland; and would allow for snow storage in an area that would otherwise be a trail adjacent to the wetland in question. The Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application for Water/Wetland Projects was submitted. This application did not include a sequencing discussion for the two impacts related to the trail as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The Application for Withdrawal of Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 20 of 31 Wetland Credits Form as required in item 14 on page 5 was not included with the Wetland Application and has yet to be provided to the City. Item 11 on Page 4 requires that the proposed wetland impacts are listed individually. This was not done. For these reasons, this application is incomplete and fails to meet the sequencing argument necessary to justify the impact and subsequent replacement plan. The applicant must either move the trail to the north or show conclusively why that configuration would not meet the five (5) criteria listed in Minnesota Rules 8420.520 Subp. 3 C. (2). The applicant must supply a completed Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form. The applicant must show all proposed impacts related to this project on all pertinent plan sets and itemize them within the application. Wetland Alteration Permit Findines: a. The proposed development will not be detrimental to or degrade the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c. The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d. The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h. The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j. The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 21 of 31 k. The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 1. The proposed development will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the Conditional Use article. Finding: As discussed above, the proposed impacts to Wetland C are a result of the chosen trail alignment and can be avoided through a reconfiguration of the trail alignment or by moving the cul -de -sac farther north. The applicant fails to meet the sequencing argument necessary to justify the impact and subsequent replacement plan. ROADWAYS The property lies north of Highway 212, east of County Road 101 and south of West 86th Street. The proposed access on West 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. RETAINING WALLS A retaining wall is proposed on the west side of the road, in the southwest corner of the site. The maximum height of the wall as shown on the grading plan is five feet; therefore, a building permit is required to construct the wall. Plans must be submitted with the permit application and must be signed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 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. Based on the proposed elevations of the homes, the operating water pressures within the homes will meet the minimum required per 10 States Standards; however, some homes may choose to install a privately -owned and maintained booster to provide a higher water pressure. The watermain shall be 8 -inch PVC (C -900). The developer proposes to extend lateral sanitary sewer from the existing 8 -inch lateral sanitary sewer north of the site. The developer is required to get the necessary easement to complete this work prior to final plat submittal. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 22 of 31 Street and utility plan and profile construction plans must be submitted with the final plat. A portion of the trunk sewer and water hookup fees must be paid in cash with the final plat in the rate in effect at that time. The property was assessed $8,700 for the 2006 Trunk Watermain Extension. This assessment was certified to Carver County property taxes; therefore, the final payment will be made with the second half taxes or when the property is final platted, whichever event takes place first. SWMP FEE WORKSHEET DATE .L1y ;3013 F NO 13 -12 SROIEC$ Proem ilFxe Nanh Lalw Si.eA—".' 13310 Wes, 3d10 bmhk.m P.W. ZOMNG C ASWIC TION Med DenilyRwl =tW -MD Pees R."Aen Aws Ta WATEAQOALHY WATEAQOAMRY $ Z830M 9W S 87,1 ®CO R.k pn Aen Awe Tail $ Ssaca 9w $ 53881.W CREDIT$ eTEM IR'ET QDAnTQY IDiQ TOTAL Ma Ma Sbmwa4rpmd 59 $ 1,41500 S 431850 othtsweeve eech 200 $ 2,31000 S $OW 00 $ 13,3185o SWSIPPEE $ BQ832M SRMPCMITS $ 13,39&50 TOTAL SWMP FEE $ 67,d M Pees wiESendwwd NeBw muweavdbafie wu w ealnkkda.d tlutcelnlaMnis }aoridedm av ury A Surface Water Management Connection Fee will be assessed to this project. This fee is broken into water quality and water quantity and is based upon net developable acreage and a multiplier intended to reflect the anticipated burden the land use will place upon the storm sewer system relative to other land uses. Credit is then given for storm water management best management practices at a rate of % the water quality rate per acre treated. The estimated total Storm Water Management Connection fee is 67,483.50. The following table shows the calculations. EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Peak discharge rates are increased at both places where drainage will leave the site. In both instances the outlet channel has become incised and headcuts are forming within the channel. At the outfall downstream of the driveway, a surge basin was installed at some point in the past. The channel has since worked around either side of the surge basin as illustrated in the photograph to the left. The other channel is incised. The depth of this incision will increase and will almost certainly Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 23 of 31 accelerate as the discharge rate and, therefore, the scour force within the channel increases. In both instances, this channel discharges to Rice Marsh Lake and the resulting erosion will lead to increased sediment deposition into the lake. Efforts must be taken to reduce the rate of runoff or assure that the channels are stabilized to prevent further degradation. The total disturbed area is unknown but is certainly greater than one acre in size. Given the total disturbance it must be compliant with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity ( NPDES Construction Permit). As part of this permit, the applicant is required to develop a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with three elements: a narrative, plan sheets and standard detail plates. Each of these elements requires specific content. Section 19 -145 of Chanhassen City Code requires that the constriction is compliant with the NPDES Construction Permit and the SWPPP is provided to the City for review and comment. The current submittal is lacking the majority of the required SWPPP content. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has developed a checklist to determine if the required content is included. Rather than enumerate the deficiencies, the applicant and their consultant are referred to this document and Part III of the NPDES Construction Permit. Additionally, the new NPDES Construction Permit was approved on June 25, 2013 and will go into effect on August 1, 2013. It will be incumbent upon the applicant to determine if compliance with the new permit will be necessary or if this project will be permitted under the permit that expires on July 31, 2013. Staff will make available to the consulting engineer a redlined set of the current plans and an example of a SWPPP that was authored by the city. COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN The city's comprehensive park plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within one -half mile of every residence in the city. The proposed Preserve at Rice Lake development would not meet this guideline. The nearest park is Rice Marsh Lake Park which is located approximately one mile away if utilizing the city's pedestrian trail network. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN The city's comprehensive trail plan calls for the future completion of 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 outlet or trail easement. The developer shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has provided a tree inventory and removal plan for the subdivision. Bufferyard plantings are required for this development along Highway 212. Tree preservation calculations for the development are shown below. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 24 of 31 Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 413,111 SF or 9.48 ac. 66,600 SF or 1.52 ac 16% 25% or 103,277 SF 4% or 16,820 SF The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed. Additional plantings will be required to bring the baseline canopy coverage up to the minimum required. Required plantings 87 trees (66600- 16820)x1.2 54 trees required (103277- 66600) 33 trees required The applicant has proposed a total of 48 new trees and 50 transplanted evergreens in the landscape plan. The applicant is required to provide bufferyards along Highway 212. The minimum plantings required and the applicant's proposed quantities are shown in the table below. The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings along the south property line. All but a handful of trees are located offsite on MnDOT property. Staff recommends the landscaping be located on the applicant's property unless proof of MnDOT approval is given to the city. NOISE STUDY The developer has prepared a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on Highway 212. The analysis identified appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet noise standards for residential homes as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The wall is proposed to be in the MnDOT right -of -way, which shall be implemented by the developer. The following is a summary of the traffic noise assessment which was conducted by David Braslau Associates, Inc.: • Traffic noise levels have been predicted for the Preserve at Rice Lake location north of TH 212 in Chanhassen, Minnesota. • The analysis has been performed for 16 receptor locations both at the ground floor and upper or second -story level. • A noise wall on top of the existing berms that will extend the existing noise wall to the west is proposed. Required Proposed South property line - 15 overstory trees 7 overstory trees Hwy 212, bufferyard B, 31 understory trees 4 understory trees 956' 46 shrubs 50 transplant evergreens 36 shrubs The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for bufferyard plantings along the south property line. All but a handful of trees are located offsite on MnDOT property. Staff recommends the landscaping be located on the applicant's property unless proof of MnDOT approval is given to the city. NOISE STUDY The developer has prepared a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on Highway 212. The analysis identified appropriate noise mitigation measures to meet noise standards for residential homes as specified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The wall is proposed to be in the MnDOT right -of -way, which shall be implemented by the developer. The following is a summary of the traffic noise assessment which was conducted by David Braslau Associates, Inc.: • Traffic noise levels have been predicted for the Preserve at Rice Lake location north of TH 212 in Chanhassen, Minnesota. • The analysis has been performed for 16 receptor locations both at the ground floor and upper or second -story level. • A noise wall on top of the existing berms that will extend the existing noise wall to the west is proposed. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 25 of 31 • The top of the wall elevation is 924 and the wall varies in height from 8 feet on the west to 10 feet on the east, with a higher wall between the berms and on the east end, where a short wrap- around wall is proposed. • With the wall, all of the ground level receptors are predicted to be below the daytime L10 65 dBA standard for residential land uses. All second -story receptors are also predicted to be below the standard except the two closest, which are estimated to be only 2 dBA over the daytime standard. • Nighttime (6 -7 am) levels at all of the receptor sites are estimated to be over the L 10 55 dBA standard. • However, exceptions to the noise standards permit the NAC -2 or Commercial Noise Standard to be applied which is L10 70 dBA, providing certain conditions are met. With appropriate home construction, these conditions should be met so that all receptor sites will be in compliance with the state noise standards. RECOMMENDATION A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the land use map amendment from Residential — Low Density to Residential — Low and Medium Density with the following condition, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. B. REZONING Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the rezoning from Residential — Low Density (R4) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R8) to Planned Unit Development — Residential (PUD -R) with the following condition; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation and attached ordinance rezoning the property. 1. Approval of the Rezoning is contingent upon approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract. C. PRELIMINARY PLAT: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat to subdivide 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following conditions, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. All lots must comply with the following table: Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake - Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 26 of 31 COMPLIANCE TABLE Wetland setback: 20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft. Side: 10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage 2. All relocated trees shall be warranted for two seasons and replaced by developer if dead or dying within that time period. 3. The applicant shall show proof to the city of permission by MnDOT to place landscape materials on state right -of -way. Area Width Depth Maximum (square feet) (feet) (feet) Hardcover Notes (s qua feet 60 at PUD 10,000 building 100 30 percent setback Ll Bl 10,510 139 122 3,153 Wetland L2 Bl 10,076 89 108 3,022 Wetland L3 B1 10,100 135 107 3,030 Wetland L4 B1 10,353 84 141 3,150 Wetland L5 B1 10,011 69 146 1 3,003 L6 Bl 10,622 62 130 3,198 L7 Bl 10,017 62 120 3,005 L8 Bl 10,000 62 124 3,000 Wetland L9 Bl 10,041 62 128 3,012 Wetland L10 Bl 10,212 61 126 3,063 Wetland Ll l Bl 12,936 72 (building 121 3,880 Wetland setback) L12 B1 10,089 75 (building 118 3,026 Wetland setback Ll B2 96 (building Wetland, * area of neck 12,723* setback) 128 3,817 (5,580 sq. ft.) excluded from lot area calculations L2 B2 10,830 75 102 3,249 Corner lot L3 B2 1 10,096 106 127 3,029 L4 B2 10,004 91 148 3,001 Outlot A 281,352 6.46 acres open space/wetlands Outlot B 48,043 1.1 acres open space/wetlands ROW 72,309 1.66 acres TOTAL 576,299 13.23 acres Wetland setback: 20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft. Side: 10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage 2. All relocated trees shall be warranted for two seasons and replaced by developer if dead or dying within that time period. 3. The applicant shall show proof to the city of permission by MnDOT to place landscape materials on state right -of -way. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 27 of 31 4. The applicant shall increase bufferyard plantings along the south property line to meet minimum requirements. 5. Advanced warning and speed advisory signs are required where the design speed is less than 30 mph. 6. The site plan and HydroCAD model must be revised to address the following comments: a. Peak discharge rates are proposed to increase at the following locations: i. Runoff leaving the overall site for the two -year (2.8 -inch) rainfall and snowmelt events. ii. Runoff leaving the wetland located on the western portion of the site for each design event. iii. Runoff leaving the site to the north for the snowmelt event. b. Use a pond in the model at the 18 -inch culvert located north of the site. c. The analysis should reflect any overtopping of the driveway or other overland flows that may occur. d. Due to the increased velocities through thel2 -inch culvert leaving the western wetland, the developer must provide a design to address associated erosion at this location. Any required improvements outside of existing easements shall require additional easements. e. The drainage areas and/or curve number in the HydroCAD model must correspond to the Drainage Area and Curve Number Table. f Directly connected impervious areas must be modeled separately rather than included in the composite Curve Number computation. g. The applicant must provide calculations (or submit a model) demonstrating that the city's requirements for water quality are satisfied. i. If the event -based NURP standard cannot be achieved by dead pool storage, then (P8 or other) calculations should be based on equivalent annual removal efficiencies. ii. If an iron - enhanced filtration system is included in the design, calculations should be provided demonstrating the water quality treatment benefits of the BMP. Detailed plans of the system should be submitted for review with the calculations. iii. The report notes that the east pond is able to remove 87.8% of the phosphorus load. This removal efficiency appears excessively high. It is anticipated that there is either an error with the model inputs or the calculation was performed for a particular rainfall event rather than annualized removal efficiency. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 28 of 31 7. The HydroCAD model must be revised so that the impervious surface of the lots is 30 %. 8. If groundwater is encountered during site construction the lowest floor elevations must be adjusted so that there is a minimum three -foot separation. 9. The developer must provide additional information showing how the proposed "Preservation/Stormwater Volume Reduction Area" between the large wetland and the back of Lots 4 -7, Block 1 will meet the minimum requirements. 10. Storm sewer sizing calculations must be submitted with the final plat application and shall include the existing storm sewer at Tigua Lane (approximately 280 feet east of the proposed street intersection). The existing 12 -inch reinforced concrete pipe north of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1 shall also be included in the analysis. 11. The grading plan must be revised to address the following comments: a. The developer must obtain a MnDOT permit for the proposed grading within the MnDOT right -of -way. b. The grading plan must be revised at the slope down from the street to the wetland at Station 3 +00, and between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 so the slope does not exceed 3H:1 V. c. The lowest openings of Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 must be at least one foot above the emergency overflow elevation. d. The minimum floor elevation of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 1 shall be 897.6'. e. The building envelope for Lot 3, Block 2 must not encroach into the drainage and utility easement. f. The sideyard drainage and utility easements between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 must match what is shown on the plat. g. The building pad shown for Lot 1, Block 2 cannot accommodate any of the house styles provided and must be revised accordingly. h. It is difficult to discern between the proposed contours, lot lines and setback lines. The developer's engineer is requested to change the drawing line weights. 12. A building permit is required to construct the proposed retaining wall. Plans must be submitted with the permit application and must be signed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 13. Some homes may choose to install a privately -owned and maintained booster to provide a higher water pressure. 14. The watermain shall be 8 -inch PVC (C -900). Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 29 of 31 15. Prior to final submittal the developer must obtain the necessary easement to install the sanitary sewer off -site, to the north. 16. A portion of the trunk sewer and water hookup fees must be paid in cash with the final plat in the rate in effect at that time. 17. Street and utility plan and profile construction plans must be submitted with the final plat 18. The Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) must be prepared as a standalone document and submitted to engineering for review and comment. This SWPPP shall include a narrative, plan set and applicable details. 19. The SWPPP must include the required elements as listed in Part III of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity ( NPDES Construction Permit) and in the MPCA SWPPP checklist. 20. A detailed erosion prevention and sediment control plan must be submitted for review and approval per the requirements of Section 19 -145 of Chanhassen City Code and the NPDES Construction Permit. This should include, among the other listed requirements, all temporary and permanent best management practices. 21. There is significant evidence of gully erosion at both off -site discharge locations. Rates must be reduced below existing discharge rates or efforts must be taken to stabilize these discharge points to prevent further channel incision and head cutting. 22. A vegetation establishment and management plan must be developed for all areas preserved as open space including those areas graded for the construction of stormwater management practices that are above the normal water level. 23. Minnesota Department of Transportation right -of -way is outside of the City of Chanhassen's WCA jurisdiction as MnDOT is their own LGU. Chanhassen's review of wetland boundaries ended at the property limits. The applicant must get all appropriate approvals from MnDOT for work on the sound wall. 24. The development must comply with the MN Rules Chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue their concurrence to this effect. 25. Estimated Surface Water Management Connection charges due at the time of final plat are $67,483.50. Provide area of wetland buffer after development to accurately calculate credit. 26. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction are collected. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. At today's rate these fees would total $92,800 (16 lots X $5,800 per lot). 27. Dedication of a public outlot or easement to accommodate the construction of a neighborhood trail connection to the future Rice Marsh Lake Trail. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 30 of 31 28. Construction of the 8 -foot wide neighborhood trail connection from the public street to the southeast corner of the property. 29. The applicant shall comply with all MnDOT requirements for any work within their right -of- way, i.e. noise wall, landscaping, etc. D. VARIANCES Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Variances to allow a reduced setback from Highway 212 and a cul -de -sac that exceeds 800 feet in length as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Approval of the variances is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment, Subdivision, Site Plan Review, Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit. E. SITE PLAN REVIEW Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the site plan for a medium density development as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. 2. Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 3. Execution of the Site Plan Permit. 4. Approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract. F. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the wetland alteration permit as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. Wetland buffers are required around all wetlands on site. 2. A plan should be provided showing the location of all wetland buffer signs. These signs shall be placed concurrent to the installation of erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs except when grading is proposed at a buffer monument location. Planning Commission Preserve at Rice Lake — Planning Case 2013 -12 July 16, 2013 Page 31 of 31 3. The plan must meet the sequencing requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This can be accomplished by locating the sidewalk to the north side of the proposed road and extending the regional connection between lots 11 and 12 of Block 1. 4. A completed Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form shall be provided with the Minnesota Local/State /Federal Application for Water /Wetland Projects as well as a signed and executed purchase agreement between the applicant and the bank holder. Wetland nomenclature on plan set shall be amended to correspond with HydroCAD drainage report and wetland replacement application. 6. Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment, variances, Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Final Plat, and execution of the Development Contract. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Ordinance Rezoning to PUD -R for Preserve at Rice Lake. 3. Development Review Application. 4. Letter from Minnesota Department of Transportation dated July 3, 2013. 5. Reduced Plans. 6. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List. 7. Development Review 60 -day extension letter dated May 7, 2013. g: \plan\2013 planning cases\2013 -12 preserve at rice lake\staff report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IJ0101A Application of J & S Ventures 1, Inc. and Chestnut Group, LLC for a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density; Rezoning from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots with Variances; Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration Permit. On July 16, 213, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of J & S Ventures 1, Inc. and Chestnut Group, LLC for a Land Use Map Amendment from Residential -Low Density to Residential -Low and Medium Density; Rezoning from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R); Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots with Variances; Site Plan Review; and Wetland Alteration Permit. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by 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 zoned Single - family Residential District, RSF. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential -Low Density use. 3. The legal description of the property is as follows: All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 24, Township 115, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying north of the MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 10 -17, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Carver County. Except the North 30.00 feet of the west half of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; b. The proposed subdivision is 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 storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) Lack of adequate storm water drainage. 2) Lack of adequate roads. 3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4) Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. 6. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider the following when evaluation a Site Plan: Fa 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 development is consistent with the site plan review requirements of city code; c. The proposed site plan preserves a portion of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal; 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 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 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. 7. Wetland Alteration Permit: a. The proposed development will not be detrimental to or degrade the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. c. The proposed development will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d. The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. The proposed development will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h. The proposed development will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The proposed development will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k. The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. 1. The proposed development will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in the Conditional Use article. 8. Variance Findings — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: The fourth request is to allow reduced setbacks from Highway 212 and length of a cul -de -sac. There will be a noise wall that will separate this development from the highway. The City code requires a minimum setback of 50 feet along the parameter of a planned unit development. The applicant is requesting a 30 -foot setback. a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The 50 -foot perimeter setback was established to separate potentially incompatible uses. In this area a noise wall will separate the uses. Additional setbacks are not necessary. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The wetlands on the property and the location of the Highway 212 right -of- way create a practical difficulty in locating houses at the 50 -foot setback. In this area a noise wall will separate the uses. Additional setbacks are not necessary. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant is proposing to construct single - family home on residential property at a typical building setback. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship. The wetlands on the property and the location of the Highway 212 right -of -way create unique circumstances for the placement of homes. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. (Similar home sizes) Finding: The homes will be compatible with the surrounding area. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 9. The city may grant a Variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: a. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience, but is due to the property being accessed from West 86h Street and then meandering around the wetlands. No additional street access is available to the property due to the wetlands; b. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land with wetlands located to the north, south and east and west of the site; c. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property since it is located on property that is hemmed in by wetlands; d. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the subdivision ordinance, the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. 10. The planning report #2013 -12, dated July 16, 2013, prepared by Sharmeen Al -Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preserve at Rice Lake development. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of July, 2013. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION i It's Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS: Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby amended by rezoning 13.23 acres of property located at the southeast intersection of Tigua Lane and West 86th Street and north of Highway 212, from Single Family Residential (RSF) and Mixed Low Density Residential (R4) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD -R), incorporating the following design standards: PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE a. Intent The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD for a single - family detached development. The use of the PUD zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and more - sensitive proposal. The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural standards and site design. Except as modified by the Preserve at Rice Lake development standards, the development must comply with the Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM. b. Permitted Uses The permitted uses in this zone shall be limited to single - family detached houses and their ancillary uses. The type of uses to be provided on common areas shall be low- intensity neighborhood- oriented accessory structures to meet daily needs of residents. Such uses may include development signage, garden, gazebo, maintenance shed, picnic shelter, permanent open space, playground equipment and trails. C. Setbacks The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and property lines. The following table displays those setbacks. Setback Standards Highway 212 30 feet Exterior Perimeter Lot Lines 50 feet Front Yard 25 feet Side Yard: garage side and house side 5 feet/10 feet (minimum separation between buildings is 15 feet) *Lot coverage may not exceed those established in the compliance table. COMPLIANCE, TABLE Setback Standards Rear Yazd 30 feet Hard Surface Coverage on individual lots 30%* Single-family detached (area) 1,000 square feet Single-family detached lot width 60 feet Single-family detached (lot depth) 100 feet *Lot coverage may not exceed those established in the compliance table. COMPLIANCE, TABLE Wetland setback: 20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft. Side: 10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage Area Width Depth Maximum (square feet) (feet) (feet) Hardcover Notes (s qua feet 60 at PUD 10,000 building 100 30 percent setback Ll B1 10,510 139 122 3,153 Wetland L2 131 10,076 89 108 1 3,022 Wetland L3 BI 10,100 135 107 3,030 Wetland L4 B1 10,353 84 141 3,150 Wetland L5 BI 10,011 69 146 3,003 L6 BI 10,622 62 130 3,198 L7 BI 10,017 62 120 3,005 L8 BI 10,000 62 124 3,000 Wetland L9 BI 10,041 62 128 3,012 Wetland L10 B1 10,212 61 126 3,063 Wetland Ll l B1 12,936 72 (building 121 3,880 Wetland setback L12 B1 10,089 75 (building 118 3,026 Wetland setback Ll B2 96 (building Wetland, * area of neck 12,723* setback) 128 3,817 (5,580 sq. ft.) excluded from lot area calculations L2 B2 10,830 75 102 3,249 Corner lot L3 B2 10,096 106 127 3,029 L4 B2 10,004 91 148 3,001 Outlot A 281,352 6.46 acres open space/wetlands Outlot B 48,043 1.1 acres open space/wetlands ROW 72,309 1.66 acres TOTAL 576,299 13.23 acres Wetland setback: 20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft. Side: 10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage d. Monument Sign One monument sign shall be permitted at the entrance to the development off of West 86th Street. The sign shall not exceed 24 square feet in sign display area nor be greater than 5 feet in height. The sign shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line. e. Lighting All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than %z -foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12a' day of August, 2013, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager g: \plan\2013 planning cases\2013 -12 preserve at rice lake \ordinance amendment.doc Crl'V OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED CITY OF CHANHASSEN APR ! 9 2013 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 2 %! "6WENPLANNINGDEPT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Applicant Name and Address: J c S Ven }ur-es I , 1.0c. I -i SO I< rtob WO ne s'_,ccels�or, MN 55331 Contact: :Sohn Kncblo.uclz Phone:9sz- 47L4-s66z Fax: gsz- 4)y -o-si-3 Email: .TKnobsra Knoblauckbu )c)ersrorti Planning Case No. 4P4IS I� � At-'o ao13 -6a loac- I co».9 P lc. r\ ctwv fr6w, PO 13c x S R C !- za.$)(Q M /V 5s3 18 Contact: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans X Comprehensive Plan Amendment IbO Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non - conforming Use Permit 9' 2cav^ i ACI.6 X Planned Unli'Development* --)eO -A Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review RO X Site Plan Review (SPR)*5Q04-(S'1tt')--GW A Subdivision- (D00 +(ISX llo) ❑ , %Lto Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right -of- Way /Easements (VAC) (Addldonal recording feea may apply) X Variance (VAR) 7 00 X Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) XI' Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign - $49&- N /(. per SAT (City to install and remove) X Escrow for#I�Feesj o ost ** 1150 $50 CUF AC A AP etes & Bounds - $450Min TOTAL FEE $A ,%5 17 An additional fee of 3.00 per addre within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hean *Five (5) full -size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" 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. PROJECT NAME: T M Pre s e r y e CA R 1 e, L a K e LOCATION: Aj ace_i� -i6o mr%& m,4i. o� (� ZIZ and e4s� c �w Flo( LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: S ee gAsxclle -5 1 !RCL 1 P 1 p zs -oz 4zC616) TOTAL ACREAGE: l 3 • Z.3 AC WETLANDS PRESENT: X YES NO PRESENT ZONING: R.5 F - y REQUESTED ZONING: P LA i;� PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: — _ Pie 5 iDe. rt +i g s REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Mix ©-2 BPS Low non i�� gC1d �fl5 {^%� �CtS �, REASON FOR REQUEST: Qeye(oey -%er14 e>9 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 Owners 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. 'q"" C SWatureofApp�rg ate g / Si attire of Fee Wer q CiJr1iSfil G RvQ 4e(- C_. Date g:tplan\fom \development review applicationAm APPLICATION FOR PUD REZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW Chanhassen City Staff Planning Department May 20, 2013 J & S Ventures Inc. is proposing a 16 lot single family development called Preserve at Rice Lake. It is located southeast of Tigua Lane and West 86b Street, just north of Hwy 212. The property is 13.23 acres. We are requesting a re- zoning to a PUD The site has 163,187 sq. ft. of delineated wetlands of which only 14,095 sq. ft. would be impacted. We are proposing to satisfy the 2:1 wetland mitigation requirements by purchasing wetland credits from a wetland bank. The development utilizes a portion of the upland area to create 16 lots ranging in area from 10,004 to 18,303 Sq. Ft. The overall proposed density of the 16 lots on 13.23 acres is 1.2 units per acre. This proposal leaves 3.65 acres of upland included open space. The proposed rezoning of the site is to a PUD. The PUD designation is to allow for deviations from zoning requirements in order to provide a better development while being sensitive to the wetlands and working around the site constraints. The PUD process allows the City the flexibility to create better developments by deviation from standard zoning code requirements in exchange for the expectation that the development will result in better land use taking into account the environmental features of the property. Benefits to this PUD: `g I 1. The site is essentially clustered. This clustering allows for the creation and preservation of open space within the subdivision. The development proposes to retain 57.2% open space versus the 50% minimum required. With the application of clustering the lots, the natural features and beauty of the site can be preserved. This project will have the gross density is a 1.2 units per acre, and the average lot size will be '/4 acre. 2. The vast majority of the existing wetlands will remain untouched. The main impact is due to the necessity of the access road, without which the parcel could not be developed. All wetlands have appropriate buffer areas which will be contained within outlots to be deeded to the city. The developer will place a sign or post indicating conservation area at the rear lot corners of those lots abutting the wetland outlot. 3. Behind lots 4 thru 8, Block 1, between the minimum wetland buffer strip and the rear property lines, we are proposing to keep this area as an enhanced preservation area. This would effectively enlarge the buffer area and help filter the rear yard runoff from the wetland. This would enhance and help protect the natural wetland beauty of the site. 4. The developer is currently working with the adjacent land owner to the north in an effort to connect into sanitary sewer service via a manhole located on the landowner's lot. The original plan for this project called for connecting to a manhole approximate 200 feet north of the northeast corner of the property. This original plan would have required the removal of significantly more trees in this area, and would be a large impact to the high quality wetland on the east end of the parcel. We are also in discussions with this land owner to provide them a water service hook up to City water. 5. Installation of a noise wall. As the developer we will be installing an extensive noise wall along Hwy 212 which will not only lessen the highway traffic noise for this property but for the adjacent properties as well. The wall will be constructed to match that of the adjacent existing wall. The wall will be constructed in the MnDOT right -of -way. MnDOT is aware of this proposal and is not opposed to the wall or plantings. 6. Clustering the lots allows for reduced hard surface area. While there are no individual lot hard surface requirements, the calculations below demonstrate this claim. Street Pavement Area 43,183 Sq. Ft. Sidewalk & Future Trail 10,713 Sq. Ft., Driveway 16,000 Sq. Ft. (Est. 1,000 per lot) Bidgs, Porch, Patios etc. 40,000 Sq. Ft. (Est. 2,500 per lot) Total Hard Cover 109;896 Sq. Ft. (19.07 %) 7. We also are proposing additional trees over and above what is minimally required. Minimally required are 87 trees and 46 shrubs. We are proposing planting 12 (13 % more) tree's and 54 additional ornamental grasses. Added to the shrubs, this is a 117% increase. The trees and grasses will enhance the streetscape and provide a visually .unifying element. 8. Mail Boxes. A custom designed mail box will be constructed. These will be grouped to minimize street impact and to comply with the US postal service requirements. Placement and design must have final approval by the post office prior to installation. 9. Street Element Plantings. The additional Prairie Fire crabapple trees and Purple Foliage switch grass placed approximately every 50 feet along the main entrance and at the trailhead will help to make a unified appearance for the subdivision while helping to make a visual transition from the natural landscape to the urban maintained landscape. The plant materials are native in appearance but by using them often and in a uniform pattern, the image will be one of design and not random as in nature. 10. We are proposing a 5' wide sidewalk. This sidewalk will not only be used by the residents but we believe it will be mostly used by the surrounding neighborhood as access to the future park trail to the east. This side walk will make the pedestrian feel more like they are on a continuation of the park trail to the east, instead of walking through someone's front and side yards to get to the trail. Lastly, it should be a very safe trail to walk on because on the south side of the cul de sac there are only 3 driveways. 11. Staff is also asking that the trail extension be located between Lots 11 and 12 to avoid a small wetland impact. Doing this would not be a problem except that we feel that this route not only makes the pedestrian experience not as pleasant with less of a secluded walk, but it is also more intrusive for the adjacent residences. We feel the trail as shown allows a more open view public access while still protecting the adjacent resident's privacy. We also believe that the future trail can be constructed to minimize the wetland impact. We will construct the sidewalk section within the right of way, and the rest is shown as future trail. It is our understanding that if we construct the sidewalk as shown on the plan then eventually the City Parks Department will construct the trail portion from the cul de sac to the east, shown as future trail. This property is both beautiful with its wetlands and natural areas, and yet has had many constraints that make it difficult to develop. This very beautiful single family development will provide the best situation for land use for this parcel, while still preserving a large portion for open space. This development also at the same time creates a buffering with the impact of the highway and minimizing the impact to adjacent existing neighbors. We ask the City to approve, this preliminary plat of The Preserve at Rice Lake so that this subdivision can and will be an, amenity to the City of Chanhassen and the surrounding residential neighborhoods for many years to come. r Sincerely, `a 4 !. John Knoblauch Vice President J & S Ventures Inc. !Qt Minnesota Department of Transportation Relf Metropolitan District �, Waters Edge Building °`"` 1500 County Road B2 West Roseville, MN 55113 July 3, 2013 Sharmeen Al -Jaff, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 SUBJECT: Preserve at Rice Lake MnDOT Review # S12 -058A North Side of US 212, East of TH 101 Chanhassen, Carver County Control Section 1013 Dear Ms. Al -Jaffa RECEIVED JUL S - 2013 CITY CF CHANHASSEN Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised site plan for the proposed Preserve at Rice Lake. Before any further development, please address the following issues: Proposed Noise Wall: Consistent with MnDOT's May 5, 2008 letter to John Klingelhutz, MnDOT will "grant permission for the construction and placement of noise mitigation on MnDOT right -of- way with the following conditions: 1. All MnDOT construction specifications and requirements are met; 2. Submission of noise mitigation plans. The noise mitigation plans shall contain the necessary documentation showing the effectiveness of the mitigation (a.k.a. a. "Noise Study); 3. The noise mitigation plans meet MPCA standards for noise reduction; 4. The noise mitigation design is of the same nature, or consistent with, existing MnDOT noise mitigation in the vicinity; 5. All future maintenance and ownership agreements are in place; and 6. All Appropriate permits are acquired." The details concerning these six items will need to be addressed in a Cooperative Construction Agreement between the City of Chanhassen and MnDOT. For consistency with the noise wall to the west and to avoid confusion, MnDOT is willing to take over ownership of the wall following construction. Additionally, as is typical with new wall construction, MnDOT will address issues such as graffiti on the US 212 side and the City will need to address such issues on the portion of the wall facing away from US 212. Please note that permanent structures and landscaping will be prohibited on MnDOT right -of -way due to potential drainage issues. MnDOT is allowing the noise wall to be constructed on MnDOT property because of the unique circumstances associated with this development. Future noise walls built for development adjacent to US 212 will not be allowed on MnDOT right -of -way. To initiate the cooperative construction agreement, please contact MnDOT Metro District's Area Engineer, Diane Langenbach at 651- 234 -7721. Water Resources: A MnDOT drainage permit may be required. It is MnDOT's policy that current drainage rates to MnDOT right -of -way must not be increased. To determine if a drainage permit is needed, please provide a grading plan showing existing and proposed contours. Also provide drainage area maps for the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas with flow directions indicated by arrows. This information should be submitted to: Hailu Shekur Water Resources Engineering 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 If it is determined that the project does drain to Mn/DOT right -of -way, a drainage permit will be required to ensure that current drainage rates to Mn/DOT right -of -way will not be increased. The drainage permit application, including the information below, should be submitted to: Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District - Permit Office 1500 W. County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 The following information must be submitted with the drainage permit application: 1) A grading plan showing existing and proposed contours, 2) Drainage area maps for the proposed project showing existing and proposed drainage areas. Any off -site areas that drain to the project area should also be included in the drainage area maps. The direction of flow for each drainage area must be indicated by arrows, 3) Drainage computations for pre and post construction conditions during the 2, 10, 50 and 100 year rain events, and 4) An electronic copy of any computer modeling used for the drainage computations. Please direct questions concerning drainage issues to Hailu Shekur (651- 234 -7521) or (hailu.shekurgdot.state.mn.us) of Mn/DOT's Water Resources section. Review Submittal Options: Mn/DOT'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. Mn/DOT can accept the plans via e -mail at metrodevreviews.dotgstate.mn.us provided that each separate e- mail is under 20 megabytes. 2. Three (3) sets of full size plans. Although submitting seven sets of full size plans will expedite the review process. Plans can be sent to: Mn/DOT — Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville, MN 55113 3. One (1) compact disk. 4. Plans can also be submitted to Mn/DOT's External FTP Site. Please send files to: ftp:Hftp2. dot. state. mn. us / pub / incoming fMetroWatersEdge /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.dotkstate.mn.us indicating that the plans have been submitted on the FTP site. If you have any questions concerning this review please feel free to contact me at (651) 234 -7794. Sincerely, Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor Copy sent via E -Mail: Buck Craig, Permits Sheila Kauppi, Area Manager Nancy Jacobson, Design Hailu Shekur, Water Resources Nicholas Olson, Water Resources Katherine Heinz, Water Resources Lee Williams, Right -of -Way Douglas Nelson, Right -of -Way John Isackson, Right -of -Way Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Merlin Kent, Traffic David Sheen, Traffic Pete Wasko, Noise and Air Molly Kline, Maintenance Dale Dombroske, Bridge and Structures Pat Bursaw, Transportation Operations Manager David Seykora, State Prog. Admin. Coordinator John Knoblauch, Knoblauch Builders LLC ,j_knobsgknoblauchbuilders.com Jeffrey Thompson, Office of the Attorney General Philip Forest, FHWA Sharmeen Al -Jaff, saliaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Ann Braden, Metropolitan Council / w I 1 I 1 v�� I ___�� i 6'a��IDiIA�I�t wo ma aa38S �s� °�77 �uj -1111\ 5��6 �U uj .Ilrl�ll W �N I I ww- z �w� � I/� II � 1 m i � \11V11 �111r1111 1_ �otl z p @ Iz pi x x ___ �Ipa -b �, �' �_ � x�' .'�� •� 'fig � � 1 ai!J i,a a 1 �li, Il�il Z 8 �� F „dz .zvne t#. •{ / � � 1,�11,1� 11 �Il " Z �1�� s � ,/ d ✓�B yNi II� II sZ: I Ir a �* oZ i g Z 0 .� .| R | §)| kill � $ \ §� k� §?b/ � 45 k | 0 / | 1011 : l,Mi| k gig b §, , \ ƒk z Gmm ...... (/ �or . | ! |.1 \ . \ � 2 ( ^ \ if . ( y ;, z \y)/ - � ` .� .| R | §)| kill � $ \ §� k� §?b/ � 45 k | 0 / | 1011 : l,Mi| k gig b §, , \ ƒk z Gmm ...... (/ �or . | ! |.1 \ \ ( ( if . .� .| R | §)| kill � $ \ §� k� §?b/ � 45 k | 0 / | 1011 : l,Mi| k gig b §, , \ ƒk z Gmm ...... (/ �or . | ! |.1 1 I 6S Rygyg I 1 ,��. S r „ 1 � 11 Qm 1.n d •�- 'iI�:�/ �'¢u\U 'i� ��I 1111 I v' I a '1 � I 1` \TTT 1 11 g�gg j { C 1 I 6S Rygyg I 1 ,��. S r „ 1 � 11 Qm 1.n d •�- 'iI�:�/ �'¢u\U 'i� ��I 1111 I v' 8 V LL U S R Z J ea �F Q} Z 4 K a IN I® FB � Z'zs W L W apt � 8 CZ<% �W � I I \TTT 1 { C �\ r _ r x?; 1 8 V LL U S R Z J ea �F Q} Z 4 K a IN I® FB � Z'zs W L W apt � 8 CZ<% �W �`i I III /3/� • ° +t 1I 1 II /1,. � q V, I � t To Ld \ qq W 2 qg 1 _ gx � gg¢ 1 �(1if � _ pqpQAA d a $ q E$ h o o S E I 0 D 2 2 n 0 o I a o �n m b b'�a1aIn II �5s; sgsgIns I Ti II Illil Ills. ! i� ¢ � Ili x �'.=s �"° i d '/ � Q •;':: �� ryrv� 'i ��lll �Ilill Illlll �' � ��3�b 9 \ g k 4 I TV 11 s 1 IT i a � e{ � � .xf✓. A.�i��.£i.ti1= f-r�'� 'f._K�.l.�t�.t ,11 11' � 1 �s ff _ �E s aw t �p yy pppg [s4 i€ a a Y.3 ppy § All It jig � ( w t w w y I' ii•, i t} yt a f; i #6 }i {; w �w wes. �ea�E�[� {� Addf i� �A' i #!l yw 6Fi iS fda' 31 iE is a,E $a6a sai�� i EsE i! ei'$a ='s •i � 919 C pS tly{3� �iCi Yak fr JsNIN �S r� �4 {f Gp�y zpy5� +�yp� CCCCC E r�n� 1 F Urp i mlp� 0 919 C pS tly{3� �iCi Yak fr JsNIN �S r� �4 {f Gp�y zpy5� +�yp� CCCCC E r�n� 1 F Urp 0 �5 P w i ! 1 N11, � s w i A � 9ly Y €wi €wYY€Yii€iSi € € €YY �ww }NHxwil! # #11 # #t tttowa}aY��eSe� €;6;;� "zERiiARPP /RAAAInlA14 YY9SiwwY€wlfwSYY B wYO��wYYYYYwIw €www l 9t #i #r #ii # #iiiliiiitlN111iBidilU gs i Y§w §Yi9Ywww Iioetlwl3peapege� pee es EEE6EEInIzfFAO4 § /OIf nFAItlA19AA /AR �PPililanY�Yii9wwYrii31l�iiYY i � #IwtuN�N #Iww €wN; #iNiNil1� #i!N ! t€ �! y!Y!!t!w!llydwwtto§uwoflll9�lly 1nPE /ntnngplrf urtwufpArnttE/ 1w 911wi }}�wwwwwwwwwwaw [wiiflii�iSugjiwwww8�giliit 1w 39€ w! §Y9 §Ywww�welw$w §! € §tllYwwilYY •. : - e = -- rase -. 1 e6naFepaeAEeeAEEE E!B68rEIt9PPIb AlEEE P it 1 12! 1 ii m� \ Ay5Q po &jib eCC i49 N i � � cl Cd 33, 1 fit lip gn I ,will <7 "ll"N 3;3 F �! I '. a1 iy a ;((yyY� its OU I i ii p �G li 6 e g I � !1 { 3 1 3 ! 'Milt,,:( {: 113 31 234 3379, 3, 3 O t III It; ii} �Ij; �t qoilg55i e1 A I. 7pt'� !� L " ,f� \l E a,T i e` 1.. £ 4 B m r l e w Y £ W 6 W� ZV �j Njp^ @ o n I Z � o Q R w �a � Q U �? �o ti Z Q J J � � Z w N Fd, N F; �y K a" e w Y £ W 6 W� ZV O O N ~ W LL Z_ U °o m 0 W I I..L O \W i Q J W O C N O N 0p r o r r i ar r 3 ,a s 3 � i �� ga m arm, s, _3 i r n� 8 1 3 m[ao p Nrs8 A OI A 0 Oa mN m Elemti. �� .LL .ea �..y�a °� o =� �— ewe ,�,m,a,tlaNamla �=b ,�.=eLL. ��: II.C��I ^ � _ o0o a.� � wary aBemwQ k . b �.Yiw _�" a"��.°ii °a "�:e"e °��ua �'9aa mawdo�anap -wd nu °'��'mie aip �oY y�!un Igny I ,/ tl 03nAtltl �Y' 3tltltl i 3YLL 19W .�'4 \'\\:i�� `� a \—a 0 (a �� \ a \ \�1� r 31 r� `Q e �., '� � u $ �� _ i I �: 4 ' _ � 'i �• � t �f_ nit �x +ltsv." T' � 1 �a.. i�s. •.`I Y� x. L� <c, i9 `r _ „y ,� � „ ;?1f� t I OH' �� .,� �� ,ii�t �� 'n Id b1 1' � h� t� Iii„ � . �: y rvy �tlQtl �� I a ; � , y ,�aN' �I, a LL a; "v. ��i�'q' „1; w a. ��E; ,� ,,;, Y ��,� � � � 8 ,_ ,t , 6 .t - , w - si (' .�nMu hi �� 1 � ' Q j� dd �l �� \�1 uLi W p al�Y eqi Q _ t:. � ,. iyVl ��Y tw1 �0 Z _ � { _- � F 1 - I�it1 S``'CI .. y F � I 111' O 111 _ 1 f � � � l_ � C ' c I Y6 � `� � a 4 1 } �� O , AS ,y r t } t 1 � �1� i —' \ a1 w � � �' � � a+W' � Vk � Ce .� ( � 1 e <� � .�. „ � � ,� � w Y �� ..1. ,�� '�'� + <Q ...; 4 y � to { 4 �y � 4 2 � {e 1 �,�1�� °T —f� � 1 1 1 T_ � y ..,. � �`.��\ 0 I Yiiiiii�� f. Ne � i 1 9 � _ ��l.F � � �l � �Y�Y r 1 � 4 O \ Y y r � ' � �k 4 � � � �y �P jl � � a ii �- i \ /JOg � =_ � zzPoes. :se oa wa�a�rv•rva G ka� ssLLn�, aim a��x�a aNO :a,a �yygy S`- �� swsr, a000r sa a8eu!ez u�IFY 03. wws�ox.,�i �m rr� aN a 14 .. auawdo�anaQysod W,eap nw :1.�YOntl 9 3LLLL 13N6 z1 rn n a Iz t 4t1n r! r W-V T... IVA �Ape`'yn.rl fin r I!j0 �y \� i.!1i1 111 \1 W MYp rlyr r \ r ql R � � � lizii dnipr r��lin 1 M . rrr o!y a Q .- �. fFm ♦(1v�, �_(,•y' {fop ! _ il0 i fII 1 L�.SR�� 1 P i I t t pt - -4. x x a r a 9 r r �— u Q° S a S �W� gEn ° GFt55�9e1�00�1 SB'Al W ^no p n 2811181 ]2M? W]% imu'iM nw dew Mw��kw `a3vna n 3uu ui�¢ /�,` I IIII IIIIII IIII in \ `j t I I1 11 \I IA I a ",/ I -- III�1 ITIII II 3 \ - \�\ - 111111111 IIII II 111 z 1 a �. 1111111 ITIII �i _ — III 1 i �,;�I�1I1�11 II IIIj,I, 6 , 11 ,II II 111 J II II /111 111 1 \ IS /, 1,1 1111111 �8 � � �uuro4J d Bf �ioauaN ad3d LanaS uuo1S �e'µm mie na �vy� lwyµa�ewau l Iu A 3LU 133b A tl Lv0 8 1 a 0 °x sa z� 0 K• N S� Fri a f mb - � 9 mEi O D� F N f 6 O N > Rm m 2O2ex- amass S 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 July 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 — Planning Case 2013 -12 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 ;3rj day of 2013. 1 AAA Notary PUMIC a " -•` .� KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public•Minnesota Fd'•.....; +� MY Commissron ExDlres Jan 31, 2015 C O 0 O 0 D/ C a V2 6 N 01 C L .2 0 = N N Q V O C S C v 3 E C'> m m w (D (6 �O U m 0. 'ma° mE OC_N� ccd no m> JOL a5 0. 0) O U m ... 0— N O R >. ms ad OEo Oo .Ha 05 o YLc 470) =w .L-.L = N N m EM CC'j 0� .amt momo.wU °n °m y« 'Scm 0!NfA 7 O d m > 0)r 0) �� =`aoio Ea EU 0,2 dw m C w:-:N 0-0 4) V N Y >. > d 7 araa $a mm ov « 9 ra> yoc° c s p yo aL U m @�N m =_ 3L 3�w d >aYU« „dN p .P- E �Q: yO 7 N N O -O O. O NN.O -� 3 E y rvami °c a >nEE cnw i,g Ems« r Da 16 >1 0) d N O L _?� N r..L+ Oua m°iv acmo> =o'v am �ca d 0.- 30— m O E.L.. N N NQd) a� y d c �° o3$Ew;c aEy o> °c o'E m w m l6> ai 3 N d .3 c N > and .who 0LO omL m aUm '2 d m c J. u 0 U N 0) L c m'w 3a .... .m w' «c H w Tc C m to N C O'O w T:: C 0'@ a�� E 0) =O a) 0)L 0)� d x246 0 UE ccw ..um•_ °U� O)p s"° Y 01� 0).0 3 m [ .rL O = E E >.E C 1? C O m m5d 'EcamiN MOBEEr `� �w C U) N N E E X m gym, L W 0 U a C d� 0) Co L... (D .0 �dy 4iz , �`8E ?: �L"d C m y m a NOa mt. L) =O. 0) 0) y 0) L.. L O- 4)t' ad+ o`a,w �Eo _>.w� w >p wy U «m C-O 'O� _� C.L.. V)L w N� Tw E O y C acL rcuvo me mN v Ow a) E E v 0 0) 0) c U C O p)._ 0_... C N r L C 0.- = � w" aocaL w W w c >_ � nm SE[ls..0 �mC00 OarCCO).m -OmE'O O (`7U 0)E d ov,° - 'N'n'c^i,S'E °yc ao U`c V O O o n O) N.7 .O C m O.O C 0) m O E .m. d Uyy �0- a:cNw n.m on vvc 1� 'O LL m 10 _ m E w la O E 6: 2 L V N CL C C7 d'O N N ,0 O) 3 C m .0 N O N E y E ' E` w E «'� o c w Td 2 m �o W m Co O f 0 i uj O N C N N'O 'O N" O H O r C m¢oo� �° mEwo o£c °wn hod O. C 0 0) m U m' 2* m 0) 0) C m 0 U C U m N .0 O win V o aL `o y O y Y E L° t m Da 0 m i 3 a Y Q o d. o E 3 0> y U m. w c s L O@> c> 0 0) p m 0) O E C C 0 y m$c v._cv- °Ev_.7- o« v �" p C M'`. E d_) 0) O'O m L'O 0) > d �. iTC m ) mL 3 U) cU.-E Ac ca E maw; °u� '`um C m y C C U O C Y 0 0 U m E m e .. > h a+ . m 3 s« m n n m c m d m O p 7 m 0) (O 16 N m d m w = `) y 0) d N N._.O U a m c -o maa U N N d E" ad a aa_ now mm °go O. m U '6 c O C O d _ N m N C L, m a p 0) 0) 0) N a N 3 C C O E y N n a`i m c a a '" ° " ° °° w 2r v- w 0 C O C p r TO w 0)' 0) c m C UL O L O m22 �� =N >.a f°ta >D «3m Z 07 �- c U J.O Q. -p. y N y w m mL > m N a m 0) C E w 0. (,) �v =o nn< OZ2mE Nor c °o mod m Ap C N 0) m m 0) 3•_ 0 0'0 1Tm U m wL CU .0 C N d acm «ate; E Tv„ £ Iy0 O m 0) 1.0 L m O. NL N C E`V..N v EN ON v oYo m9 C d'O O) N = d U C O.0 W E r n w� v �w 3 °cow vmi a Lm L U o E m p m c E o y u� 3 °-E U c 40) cu E E s <o' >ao-Lo =�awaw nL c "gw rn w O m = m m' O C C a c c w u u w of 4 n C >.c — Na 0) C d`.' N 0) m 0 0) () O mv_ o "NCmEm coy m L 'm0 d 2 O) O N �> Oy dU O O)NL O 7 O 3 nU.•L• N O) N d O Ov�'� oEO rnmM 0612^ w E «� V�d Qcm ��U10mn[1 c/) C) U �C6. " >Nmn as oA m'nzv aL_,_.oca 13 O m O "O c._ c m c a m G _ w« rn._ Ot 0) 0) Coq- d 4'S O � L dY N �'= � co j-• p C L tia ma8ir io u ayd'a'? m �m w*� c rnt, F-.. U��(n ....00' O ZQ F- m L�NM V' —U m m U 0.+,`� 0'i `om nm EL OyaoEe o cow d Eaaw Qrasl -I-c�y Qr�`c o c om N«143o�.'v ¢ o m o a 1 o 0 0 C E cE°O 0 :nmn H _ c n a Smw vi acnE u a t - c C omoo-AmmcV£ O U) m. 0d A CL CL CL. CL U) 0 'EE �m 3C y 00 c.�E om� CL I J Q J 2m F- O O U o N m C d 2 O O C 'y d E = E V O aU a'cm 0 C C 4)a Z a 0 U) L C m L U m (U C O L o w m w O � m � _ c > a a J E E ) O O m 0 0) m 0 c aa av c Q d a y° o ¢ a mr C m CO O) () d of L -p 0) L E m O n E d5 « m ° E- m > nna i,U n O C 0 O L T > >C EO 0O: at w c a m > o m« E c ;O p Q' w E LL m — 0) m O L N ' o °> . w m ° « m 0) 0 " O m o Co m 0dor w w w a c w c _ m m « Oc ) 'O E O M a) O ' V' C N W = U E. E% D a C C W o w N`aT O L m v > pm O O 'O O E. L N Q w y O nw a o0 . E 0 E 0m C6 t L0 r C J c"O Ic0 O E 0) y d U E N d m N �0� H 0) Amy ENV «O mEEO C o.^-T' o c 0) CQ N C a/ m 0 0 a) C E d�.0 O m C CL 4) mu >m ca aV N °cd 'cp �Y O) 0) x;O Co 07 ?� C d 0) O m 0 p E O N O) y E OE•-sL mo° °o.O.3 and o N 'uw d m 16 E E N L u) 0): Ow CA t' C d N O_C y O. p 0) L _ E L d� E`•O O .._ao mmw a'c v"'"E wt oi^Y�a c_Eaav °w mt_ °gym m 'O x ,F 0)U C O y O .L.. O T w Q) y O I♦ L-. 3 vv�i w C O a m w w N T' .O_ T O (n ac n.d dOO 0 07 0) C co E -S mc c 0 pa 0)._ p. C L-. y CC 3wmE i L C U) O MU�O)w .5 E-E no Ea wm; om n o'ocw =NL C@m5 EEa 2 ULD c O a� Oa Q -p LL m m E 'O m'y m Co E 0 0 Cl o C N .@. O E O L OUf 0 O U w «« y'E m> a n D,wc o owaoE u o 1� o` O. C U) CL S 3 1U m °) 0)— 0)� O >i C w m L '� -p C m N O m E OF -'p^C C a w ax a 3E §c W E`L`u oa m.a D`p c- T o a T m 0: O m _d W 12 O N a% 'p N O L c m 1") C p m m o< w O w O _ w ` E T o m w > >Ud C >�OO).Lm.�a) >0 m0) OE a>Oad d a D m C OI j m C O L m w L tr°on9 �.RH-mwcON O.._ ate.. McLaOm O E m yJ m m IX CQ �j m O O'O L > dd 0 C 7 p U p Clm C y �. O) m C: 0'O .yL 07 d m E p p m N a+L U V O O L_U ` name °w c OE:. '�w °� v m °= a�10 ° «'oa °c u «a amv mac O m N c L 1Q 0) N C ... N p :O 'C m G N a .t. O) __ 0) = C. N N 3 Cl w C D.N C C a. L y 3' E o. mm5 c- -v cw- ° c avo > oa -NUa no Qamm Oau m '}' E.G a 3 E rn n (O c U — C N y��a `- N CL.. TO N O m O) 0) U C 0) 0) N_ m_ E O r UL' C 0) o D_ U5 ..5 �« u._ .m m�a >v my «;m v o.0 >.N C 01 0) J.0 �'Ow Oly N O) O = myw70) 3•- 0) m C > O CT. -•O)'- U.y. 0) N p L y3 0)CE () C EU O_ Eo- T_..E_U AO£Eaa 4a 2'c n¢a 3tcO m -`qO N`- �cNam dcmc yc ao = 0 7 O m 0) T C C w d L a m 0) E OL C O)._ G 0) yy„L mS] O U C E L O 'C 0) C� «wcl -pa E w V v Ti w L o N C O o J N O r r ~'m Mdi c L) �' C p E m ._ vi .0.. c= m� E m d'L = a L 0) p y m 3° d U N L 0) m _ m O c' L n c o<mmm O .�tYm O'uc�nt c.Qo ._ w 465 :6 2 >;'c —_ m d N d N c m E � U CL 0) m y p d" m O U U 0) O N m N C C Vim Two g n >ma d'm °-Eoo Emm nn E"�'a .Nma 'm0 N m N.y>..LL O C i O 2 7 m.L..L 0) ED >i Cl V .L... 0)'O ma'O Owa `o ccna °U �rnm ma w °win E�« m v 6C m IL6 PLC u dU = UUF-U U_ L O->. O m 00 m 7 '�cV caa wU�c�n om- nt o oc_a �£ F- = U 0) O) C a. 7 m W' O fn y> A'S O o Z s aa� >. «� 3 CC r- O > L '_ da w�¢e.m Er 0EN �mo� d.. 2,UDa'.. c @ M 0 0 m� .... � Q F- m CO a' �-N M V U m m 0- U m F- w- o> o O a m ° "Nnc m°ma°iwooayao O N°awi� Edc v .. ° � m v oa EooUw r m am11 a« N �_i L a O C >1 y y O m c o d a m CL U 0-U C C v Ow�n N°u - w 2 0 N O E L ou om'E u3 mt E�UE'O i wL .�c O m a d m d E mO = ccLy m �Uwb � �m nm .t:nac�- .m . L E Ia °w J d Q O LL J a06 U 2oU m¢ m . . . 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 MJOHANNES 405 RICE CT 434 MISSION HILLS WAY E 430 MISSION HILLS WAY E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705 KELLY R MORRISON KENDALL J & KRISTINE R STRAND KURT D & LYNNE MILLER 8773 NORTH BAY DR 8581 TIGUA LN 8590 TIGUA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9615 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9715 LARRY L & SHERRIE D DOBSON LARRY M & MARLENE R NASH LEE A AMIOT 370 86TH ST W 409 RICE CT 428 MONK CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -9784 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 LESLIE M BERGSTROM LILA M ZIMMERMAN LORI LEE PROECHEL 8781 NORTH BAY DR 451 MISSION HILLS WAY E 418 RICE CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7706 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 LUANN M MARKGRAF MARGIE L WESTERGAARD MARK W LINDNER 401 RICE CT 425 MONK CT 8785 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7709 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 MARY E MUIRHEAD MICHELLE H CARPENTER MISSION HILLS GARDEN HOMES 424 MONK CT 464 HEARTLAND CT 2681 LONG LAKE RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7708 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7704 ROSEVILLE MN 55113 -1128 NATHAN HICKS NGA DOAN NICOLE A DELANEY 478 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8799 NORTH BAY DR 8793 NORTH BAY DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7707 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 NICOLE D OPITZ NICOLE M EVENSON NORTH BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSN 437 MISSION HILLS WAY E 8797 NORTH BAY DR INC CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7705 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -7624 ROSEVILLE MN 55113 -1128 2681 LONG LAKE RD 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 MAY -08 -13 12:08 PM JOHN,KNOBLAUCH May 7, 2013 Sharmeen AI -Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dcar Sharmeen: 9524740313 P.01 h%G 75Z- ZZ7 —If10 1 2..�..� c,t s-ry , -M*J K Nc3t -el vcOl u P:-z tS Phis letter is to grant the City of Chanhassen the additional 60 day requirement (until August 18, 2013) to process my subdivision application (site located at the southeast intersection of West 86" Street and Tigue lane and northwest of Highway 212), It is my understanding that the application will be appearing before the Planning Commission on June 4, 2013 and before the City Council on June 10, 2013 or June 24, 2013, Sincerely. John Knoblauch �S Vr.�T1<R5i ZN'c.