The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda and PacketAGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.CALL TO ORDER B.NEW BUSINESS C.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Recommend Adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Amend Floodplain Protection Ordinance 2.Holasek Business Park: Consider Approval of Rezoning Parcel, Subdivision, Wetland Alteration Permit and Site Plan Review D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Planning Commission minutes dated October 2, 2018 2.Approval of Planning Commission Work Session Minutes dated October 16, 2018 E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1.City Council Action Update 2.Future Planning Commission Items G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION H.ADJOURNMENT I.OPEN DISCUSSION NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Subject Recommend Adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Amend Floodplain Protection Ordinance Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: General 49 PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code.” SUMMARY OF REQUEST The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is in the process of updating Carver County’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). As part of this update, cities are required to update their floodplain ordinances and adopt the new maps by December 21, 2018 or lose their ability to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 1, Section 12. – Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article V. – Floodplain Overlay District BACKGROUND The current FIRMs for the City of Chanhassen went into effect on July 2, 1979. The city adopted these maps and established the floodplain overlay district with the passage of Ordinance 68 on July 16, 1979. The existing floodplain overlay district dates back to the reorganization and overhaul of Chapter 20 by Ordinance 80 on December 12, 1986. Many provisions and definitions from Ordinance 68 appear to have been removed, relocated, or summarized by Ordinance 80. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has provided a model floodplain ordinance and, due to discrepancies between the model floodplain ordinance and the floodplain ordinance established by Ordinance 80, staff believes that the existing floodplain ordinance should be replaced with a tailored version of the model ordinance. Since the modeling and understanding of floods has advanced significantly since 1979, there have been changes in the location and extent of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area subject to flooding by a 1% annual chance flood/100year flood. In Chanhassen, this has resulted in approximately 16 properties where the principal structure may have been added or removed from the floodplain overlay district; however, in some cases the addition or removal of a property may be the result of a mapping error. Homeowners who are now shown as being located within the floodplain PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, November 20, 2018SubjectRecommend Adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and Amend Floodplain ProtectionOrdinanceSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: General 49PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amendingChapters 1 and 20 of the City Code.”SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is in the process of updating Carver County’s Flood InsuranceRate Maps (FIRMs). As part of this update, cities are required to update their floodplain ordinances and adopt the newmaps by December 21, 2018 or lose their ability to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program.APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, Section 12. – Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article V. – Floodplain Overlay DistrictBACKGROUNDThe current FIRMs for the City of Chanhassen went into effect on July 2, 1979. The city adopted these maps andestablished the floodplain overlay district with the passage of Ordinance 68 on July 16, 1979. The existing floodplainoverlay district dates back to the reorganization and overhaul of Chapter 20 by Ordinance 80 on December 12, 1986.Many provisions and definitions from Ordinance 68 appear to have been removed, relocated, or summarized byOrdinance 80. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has provided a model floodplainordinance and, due to discrepancies between the model floodplain ordinance and the floodplain ordinance establishedby Ordinance 80, staff believes that the existing floodplain ordinance should be replaced with a tailored version of themodel ordinance. Since the modeling and understanding of floods has advanced significantly since 1979, there have been changes in thelocation and extent of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area subject to flooding by a 1% annual chanceflood/100year flood. In Chanhassen, this has resulted in approximately 16 properties where the principal structure may have been added or removed from the floodplain overlay district; however, in some cases the addition or removal of a property may be the result of a mapping error. Homeowners who are now shown as being located within the floodplain will be notified by their mortgage holder that they now require flood insurance after the new FIRMs go into effect. There is no mechanism for notifying homeowners who are no longer shown as being located in a floodplain that they may no longer require flood insurance. Staff will conduct a mailing in advance of the adoption of the new FIRMs to inform these homeowners of their change in status and of their ability to appeal this determination. There are approximately 130 residential properties in the city where some portion of the property is newly shown as within the floodplain; however, except for the 16 properties referenced above, it does not appear that the principal structure is located near the SFHA. Since the insurance requirements for these properties should not be impacted by the map update, staff is not proposing individually notifying these property owners. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code.” ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report_Floodplain Proposed Floodplain Ordinance Model Floodplain Ordinance Letter for Properties Possibly Clear of SFHA Letter for Properties Possibly Removed from SFHA Changes in Annual 1% Chance Flood Areas DNR Conditional Approval MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: November 20, 2018 SUBJ: Floodplain Update ISSUE The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is in the process of updating Carver County’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). As part of this update, cities are required to update their floodplain ordinances and adopt the new maps by December 21, 2018 or lose their ability to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. SUMMARY The FRIMs currently in effect for the City of Chanhassen went into effect on July 2, 1979. The city adopted these maps and established the floodplain overlay district with the passage of Ordinance 68 on July 16, 1979. The existing floodplain overlay district dates back to the reorganization and overhaul of Chapter 20 by Ordinance 80 on December 12, 1986. Many provisions and definitions from Ordinance 68 appear to have been removed, relocated, or summarized by Ordinance 80. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) has provided a model floodplain ordinance, and, due to discrepancies between the model floodplain ordinance and the floodplain ordinance established by Ordinance 80, staff believes that the existing floodplain ordinance should be replaced with a tailored version of the model ordinance. Since the modeling and understanding of floods has advanced significantly since 1979, there have been changes in the location and extent of the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the area subject to flooding by a 1% annual chance flood/100-year flood. In Chanhassen, this has resulted in approximately 16 properties where the principal structure may have been added or removed from the floodplain overlay district; however, in some cases the addition or removal of a PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1 and 20 of the City Code.” Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 2 property may be the result of a mapping error. Homeowners who are now shown as being located within the floodplain will be notified by their mortgage holder that they now require flood insurance after the new FIRMs go into effect. There is no mechanism for notifying homeowners who are no longer shown as being located in a floodplain that they may no longer require flood insurance. Staff will conduct a mailing in advance of the adoption of the new FIRMs to inform these homeowners of their change in status and of their ability to appeal this determination. There are approximately 130 residential properties in the city where some portion of the property is newly shown as within the floodplain; however, except for the 16 properties referenced above, it does not appear that the principal structure is located near the SFHA. Since the insurance requirements for these properties should not be impacted by the map update, staff is not proposing individually notifying these property owners. RELEVANT CITY CODE Chapter 1, Section 1-2. – Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article V. – Floodplain Overlay District ANALYSIS Issues 1: Flood Insurance 101 Federal law requires a federally regulated and/or insured lender to require flood insurance for primary structures on mortgage properties located in the SFHA. The SFHA is the area that has a one-percent annual flood chance. The structure is deemed to be located in the SFHA if any portion of the house or its attached deck, if present, is within the SFHA. The federal government relies on lenders to determine who needs flood insurance, and some lenders may require flood insurance for homes that are located outside of the SFHA but which they determine to have elevated flood risks. Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 3 Homeowners can purchase flood insurance either through the NFIP or through private flood insurance providers. The federally mandated minimum flood insurance covers the building, HVAC systems, and major appliances; however, it does not cover most other contents of the building. Homeowners can purchase supplemental insurance either through the NFIP or other insurance providers to cover their furniture and other household items. Rates will vary significantly depending on the distance between a home’s lowest floor elevation and the area’s base flood elevation. In cases where the lowest floor elevation is lower than the base flood elevation, flood insurance can be very expensive. Issue 2: New Maps v. Old Maps The initial and current FIRMs for Carver County went into effect in 1979. Throughout the nearly 40 years they have been in effect, FEMA has collected new data on observed floods and improved its understanding and modeling of floods. New technologies, such as LIDAR, have also allowed for more accurate measuring and mapping of Carver County’s topography. Finally, changing weather patterns and increased development has also changed the location and extent of the SFHA in some areas. Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 4 The result of the above factors is that FEMA has been able to create new FIRMs for Carver County that more accurately represent the actual location of the SFHA. These new maps will go into effect on December 21, 2018. Unfortunately, there is a known issue with some portions of Bluff Creek’s SFHA where the new maps show the SFHA as being located at elevations that do not correspond to the creek’s base flood elevation. There is a process that the City could use to request the FIRMs be updated or revised to correct this issue; however, it is not available until after the new maps go into effect and would take a significant amount of time to work through FEMA’s amendment process. Issue 3: Impact on Residents Once the new maps are adopted, the location and extent of SFHAs within Chanhassen will change and some properties that are not currently located within the SFHA will be added to it, and some properties that are currently within the SFHA will no longer be located within it. According to the MN DNR, throughout Carver County, more homes will be removed from the SFHA than will be added to it; however, Chanhassen is one of the communities that has homes that will be added to the SFHA. If a resident’s property is shown as being within the SFHA on the new FIRMs and they do not currently have flood insurance, they may receive a letter from their mortgage holder informing them that they are required to purchase flood insurances. The homeowner would then have to either purchase flood insurance within 45 days or appeal the determination through a letter of Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 5 map amendment (LOMA). If the homeowner does not purchase flood insurance or receive a LOMA within the 45-day period, the lender will be able to force purchase flood insurance for the property and pass the cost on to the homeowner. Policies purchased in this way are typically significantly more expensive than those available through the NFIP. Generally, lenders use an automated system to determine which properties are located within the SFHA. These systems can flag every parcel that has any portion within the SFHA as requiring flood insurance and sends out the appropriate notification. It is important to note that even if a portion of the parcel is located within the SFHA, the owner is not legally required to carry flood insurance unless a portion of the principal structure or its attached deck is located within the SFHA. This means that homeowners may be notified that they require flood insurance when, in fact, they do not. In these instances, residents have the ability to appeal their placement within the SFHA for insurances purposes through a LOMA. In cases where it is visually obvious on the city or county’s GIS map that the house is located outside of the SFHA, the LOMA request can be substantiated by submitting a map generated by the city or county’s GIS programs. If it is not visually clear that the principle structure is located outside of the SFHA, the owner will need to hire a surveyor to verify that the building’s elevations are above the areas base flood elevation. FEMA does not require the city to inform residents that they have been added to, removed from, or have the right to appeal their placement within the SFHA. In practice, residents will only be informed by their mortgage holder that they need insurance, but may not be made aware that they can appeal this determination or if they are no longer required to carry flood insurance. Staff has identified six parcels that may have been incorrectly added to the SFHA and 10 parcels that may no longer require flood insurance due to being removed from the SFHA. Staff will conduct a mailing informing these property owners that they may be added or removed from the SFHA and informing them of the process they will need to go through to get a LOMA. Due to the relatively small number of homes impacted by this, staff believes that it will be able to assist residents by generating GIS maps that meet the LOMA requirements. The watershed districts may also have access to additional information on base flood elevations that could assist residents who choose to pursue a LOMA. Some homeowners that have existing LOMA’s that exempt them from carrying flood insurance may have these letters either revalidated or superseded. A list of these properties was sent out as part of the June 7, 2018 letter of final determination and staff can work with the MN DNR to get additional information about these properties. Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 6 Issue 4: Ordinance Update In order to remain enrolled in the NFIP, Chanhassen must officially adopt the new FIRMs and update its floodplain protection ordinance by December 21, 2018. Chanhassen first adopted a floodplain ordinance in 1979 that was similar to the model ordinance being provided by the MN DNR. When the city overhauled its zoning code in 1986, the city’s floodplain ordinance appears to have been significantly simplified and condensed. The 1986 iteration of the floodplain ordinance was amended in 2004 to remove previously listed interim and conditional uses, but no other changes have been made since its adoption. Many of the provisions contained in the model ordinance are mandatory provisions/language that the City must adopt if it wishes to remain enrolled in the NFIP. Staff has incorporated all of the required provisions into its proposed ordinance, has endeavored to eliminate redundancies between the floodplain ordinance and other sections of the City Code, and whenever possible has attempted to minimize the change from the existing ordinance. The full text of the proposed floodplain ordinance is provided as an attachment; however, the most significant changes/additions are highlighted below: 1) Definitions: Many new definitions will need to be adopted and the definitions of words like “Floodplain” have changed to provide increased clarity. Staff has worked with the MN DNR to retain existing definitions like “basement” in cases where the model ordinance’s language has the potential to negatively impact other aspects of the City Code. Finally, staff has requested that the City not be required to adopt definitions such as “start of construction” which it feels can best be handled though the common understanding of the term and could have unforeseen consequences on other sections of the City Code. 2) Critical Facilities: This is a new category of uses that are either necessary to the community’s public health and safety or have the potential to cause significant environmental damages or loss of life in the event of a flood, examples include hospitals, fire stations, electrical utilities, and fuel storage facilities. These facilities must be located at least three feet above the regional flood elevation or 500-year flood elevation, whichever is higher. Previous provisions addressed some, but not all, of these uses and typically required either floodproofing or elevation above the regulatory flood protection elevation, previously defined as two feet above regional flood elevation. 3) Regulatory flood protection elevation: Staff is proposing increasing this from two feet to three feet in order to bring it in line with the city’s Local Water Management Plan and other minimum elevation provisions in other sections of the City Code. In all cases, the stricter standard would apply and the presence of two differing standards would create confusion. 4) Permitted Uses: The new ordinance requires that the city adopt more stringent performance standards for permitted uses within the floodplain overlay districts. These Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 7 standards are intended to insure any use within the floodplain has a low probability of being damaged by a flood and will not obstruct flood flows or flood elevations. These standards differ between the Floodway and Floodway Fringe districts, with the Floodway Fringe allowing more uses. 5) Conditional Uses: Are substantially similar to what were previously allowed; however, additional standards have been added as a requirement for receiving a conditional use permit. The model ordinance proposes making grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards a conditional use; however, the City Code already requires an interim use permit for grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards, and the city prefers to address these types of activities though the existing ordinances. 6) General Floodplain District: The existing ordinance does not specify how to determine if an area within the General Floodplain District is actually floodway or flood fringe. The proposed ordinance will adopt the mandated standards for determining the property classification of land within the general floodplain district when developments are proposed within that area. 7) Subdivisions: The proposed ordinance would require new subdivision within a floodplain district to show viable building sites outside of the floodway and flood fringe district boundaries. Subdivisions must also be reviewed to assure that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within flood prone areas and that critical facilities are properly located. 8) Public Infrastructure: Additional standards, i.e. floodproofing or being elevated above the regulatory flood protection elevation, are required for public utilities, public transportation facilities, and on-site water supply and sewage treatment systems. 9) Manufactured Homes/Recreational Vehicles: The MN DNR requires the city to adopt provisions regulating manufactured home and recreational vehicle parks, regardless of if these facilities are permitted by the City Code. Staff is proposing adopting the model ordinance’s provisions in order to comply with this requirement. 10) Administrative Provisions: The new floodplain ordinance contains mandatory additional requirements for the issuance of permits, conditional use permits, and variances beyond what is required in other areas of the Code. Many of these requirements involve additional information that an applicant must submit, criteria they must meet, or additional factors the Planning Commission or City Council must consider. There are also additional record keeping requirements, particularly concerning certificates of zoning compliance and floodproofing, which only apply to the above. Finally, the administrative sections stipulate the process and notifications required to amend the floodplain ordinance as well as the City’s obligation to enforce the ordinance. Planning Commission Floodplain Update November 20, 2018 Page 8 11) Nonconforming Uses: The provisions governing nonconforming uses within the floodplain are stricter than those found in the general City Code. In particular, repairs/alterations beyond a specified extent will require a nonconforming use to meet the standards of the floodplain protection ordinance and nonconforming structures damaged beyond a specified extent must be repaired or rebuilt in a manner that conforms to current standards. The proposed floodplain ordinance is currently awaiting final approval by the MN DNR; however, based on conversations with the DNR, staff is not expecting that any significant revisions will be required. Staff will make any revisions required by the MN DNR before the City Council votes on the final version of the ordinance. ALTERNATIVES 1) Do nothing. Chanhassen residents will lose access to the National Flood Insurance Program on December 21, 2018. 2) Adopt the new FRIMs and amend the existing floodplain ordinance to meet the minimum requirements to maintain eligibility for the NFIP. 3) Adopt the new FIRMs and a tailored version of Minnesota Department of Natural Resource’s model ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends alternative three, as the existing ordinance differs significantly from the model ordinance and it would be difficult to reconcile the two. ATTACHMENTS 1) Proposed Floodplain Ordinance 2) Model Floodplain Ordinance 3) Letter for Properties Possibly Clear of SFHA 4) Letter for Properties Possibly Removed from SFHA 5) Changes in Annual 1 percent (1%) Chance Flood Areas G:\PLAN\City Code\2018\Floodplain\Staff Report_Floodplain Update.docx Sec. 1-2. – Rules of Construction and Definitions Base Flood Elevation means The elevation of the “regional flood.” The term “base flood elevation” is used in the flood insurance survey. Critical Facilities means facilities necessary to a community’s public health and safety, those that store or produce highly volatile, toxic or water-reactive materials, and those that house occupants that may be insufficiently mobile to avoid loss of life or injury. Examples of critical facilities include hospitals, correctional facilities, schools, daycare facilities, nursing homes, fire and police stations, wastewater treatment facilities, public electric utilities, water plants, fuel storage facilities, and waste handling and storage facilities. Dwelling, manufactured, also called mobile home, means a structure which is transportable in one or more sections on its own chassis, and which is equipped with necessary utility service connections and designed to be used for single-family occupancy with or without a permanent foundation when attached to required utilities. The term “manufactured home” does not include the term “recreational vehicle.” (20) Equal Degree of Encroachment means a method of determining the location of Flood Fringe means the portion of the Special Flood Hazard Area (one percent annual chance flood) located outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term “floodway fringe” used in the Flood Insurance Study for Carver County, Minnesota. Flood Insurance Rate Map means an official map on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). Flood Prone Area means any land susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. Floodproofing – means a combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. Flood, regional means a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in the state and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 1% chance or 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in a flood insurance study (20). Floodplain means the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. (20) Floodway means the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood. (20) Lowest Floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). Manufactured Home. See Dwelling, manufacture. Recreational vehicle means a vehicle or vehicular unit that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self- propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck, and which is primarily designed as a temporary living accommodation for recreational camping, seasonal, and travel use. Recreational vehicles include, travel trailers, travel vehicle, camping trailers, truck campers and self-propelled motor homes. (20) Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) means an elevation not less than three feet above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. Repetitive Loss means Flood related damages sustained by a structure on two separate occasions during a ten year period for which the cost of repairs at the time of each such flood event on the average equals or exceeds 25% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Special Flood Hazard Area means a term used for flood insurance purposes synonymous with “One Hundred Year Floodplain.” Substantial Damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. Substantial Improvement means within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement. This term includes structures that have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: (a) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or (b) Any alteration of a “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a “historic structure.” For the purpose of this ordinance, “historic structure” is as defined in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1. ARTICLE V. - FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Sec. 20-326. - Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact and Purpose (1) Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and Chapter 462 delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the City Council of Chanhassen, Minnesota, does ordain as follows. (2) Purpose: a. This ordinance regulates development in the flood hazard areas of the City of Chanhassen. These flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base. It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing these losses and disruptions. b. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance. This ordinance is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain the community’s eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. c. This ordinance is also intended to preserve the natural characteristics and functions of watercourses and floodplains in order to moderate flood and stormwater impacts, improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, protect aquatic and riparian habitat, provide recreational opportunities, provide aesthetic benefits and enhance community and economic development. Sec. 20-327. - General Provisions (1) Lands to which Ordinance Applies: This article applies to all lands within the jurisdiction of the City of Chanhassen within the boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts. The boundaries of these districts are determined by scaling distances on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as modified in accordance with Section 20-328 a. The Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts are overlay districts that are superimposed on all existing zoning districts. The standards imposed in the overlay districts are in addition to any other requirements in this ordinance. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply. b. Where a conflict exists between the floodplain limits illustrated on the official floodplain maps and actual field conditions, the flood elevations shall be the governing factor in locating the regulatory floodplain limits. c. Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Planning Commission and to submit technical evidence. (2) Incorporation of Maps by Reference: The following maps together with all attached material are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of the Official Zoning Map and this ordinance. The attached material includes the Flood Insurance Study for Carver County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated December 21, 2108, the Flood Insurance Study for Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated November 4, 2016, the Carver County Flood Insurance Rate map panels numbered 27019C0113D, 27019C0114D, 27019C0118D, 27019C0119D, 27019C0207D, 27019C0226D, 27019C0277D, 27019C0229D, 27019C0231D, 27019C0232D, 27019C0233D, 27019C0234D, 27019C0237D, 27019C0241D, and 27019C0242D dated December 21, 2018, and Hennepin County Flood Insurance Rate Map panel number 27053C0410F dated November 4, 2016 all prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These materials are on file with the city. (3) Flood studies performed by local Watershed Districts and Water Management Districts shall be adopted by reference as part of the City’s Local Wastewater Management Plan. (4) Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or other private agreements. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this ordinance prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. (5) Warning and Disclaimer of Liability: This ordinance does not imply that areas outside the floodplain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance does not create liability on the part of the City of Chanhassen or its officers or employees for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. (6) Severability: If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of law, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected and shall remain in full force. Sec. 20-328. - Establishment of Floodplain Districts 1) Districts: a. Floodway District. The Floodway District includes those areas within Zone AE delineated within floodway areas as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted in Section 20-237(2). b. Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District includes areas within Zones AE on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 20-237(2), but located outside of the floodway. c. General Floodplain District. The General Floodplain District includes those areas within Zones A and AE (that do not have a floodway delineated) as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps adopted in Section 20-237(2). 2) Applicability: Where Floodway and Flood Fringe districts are delineated on the floodplain maps, the standards in Division 2 or 3 will apply, depending on the location of a property. Locations where Floodway and Flood Fringe districts are not delineated on the floodplain maps are considered to fall within the General Floodplain district. Within the General Floodplain district, the Floodway District standards in Division 2 apply unless the floodway boundary is determined, according to the process outlined in Section 20-378. Sec. 20-329. - Requirements for all Floodplain Districts 1) Minimum Development Standards. All new construction and substantial improvements must be: a. Designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy; b. Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; c. Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage; and d. Constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, ductwork, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 2) Flood Capacity. Floodplain developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system. 3) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 4) Critical Facilities are to be located, so that the lowest floor is not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation, or the 500 year flood elevation, whichever is higher. Sec. 20-330. Reserved Sec. 20-331. – Reserved Sec. 20-332. - Reserved Sec. 20-333. – Reserved Secs. 20-334—20-345. – Reserved DIVISION 2. - FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) Sec. 20-346. - Reserved Sec. 20-347. – Reserved Sec. 20-348. - Permitted uses. 1) Permitted Uses: The following uses, subject to the standards set forth in Section 20- 348(2), are permitted uses if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district or any applicable overlay district: a. Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, farm fences, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. b. Industrial-commercial loading areas, parking areas, and airport landing strips. c. Open space uses, including but not limited to private and public golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails. d. Residential yards, lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. e. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines and pipelines, provided that the Department of Natural Resources’ Area Hydrologist is notified at least ten days prior to issuance of any permit. 2) Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses: a. The use must have a low flood damage potential. b. The use must not involve structures or obstruct flood flows. The use must not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. c. Any facility that will be used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood. Sec. 20-349. - Reserved Sec. 20-350. – Reserved Sec. 20-351. - Conditional use permits The following open space uses require accessory structures or fill or storage of materials or equipment. These uses may be permitted in the Floodway District only after the issuance of a conditional use permit as provided in Section 20-351: 1) Structures accessory to primary uses listed in Section 20-348(1)(a-c); provided that: a. Structures are not intended for human habitation; b. Structures will have a low flood damage potential; c. Structures will be constructed and placed so as to offer a minimal obstruction to the flow of flood waters; d. Structures must be elevated on fill, open sided or structurally dry floodproofed and watertight to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Certifications consistent with Section 20-385(3) shall be required. e. Structures will not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 2) Placement of fill; provided: a. Any fill deposited in the floodway shall be no more than the minimum necessary for use. Generally, fill shall be limited to that needed to grade or landscape for that use and shall not in any way obstruct the flow of floodwaters, cause an increase in flood damages, or increase flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. b. Spoil from dredging or sand and gravel operations shall not be deposited in the floodway unless it can be done in accordance with paragraph (a). c. Fill, dredge spoil, and other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain must be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method. Permanent sand and gravel operations and similar uses must be covered by a long-term site development plan. 3) Storage of materials and equipment; provided: a. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal or plant life is prohibited. b. Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed only be allowed if the City of Chanhassen has approved a plan that assures removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available. c. Storage of other materials or equipment must not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 4) A levee, dike or floodwall; provided: a. It must not cause an increase to the 1% chance or regional flood. The technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream b. It must not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 5) Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245. Sec. 20-352. - Reserved Sec. 20-353 Reserved Secs. 20-354—20-365. - Reserved. DIVISION 3. – FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) Sec. 20-366. - Permitted uses. Permitted uses are those uses of land or structures allowed in the underlying zoning district(s) that comply with the standards in Section 20-367. Sec. 20-367. - Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses: 1) All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor, as defined, is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures must be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill must extend at the same elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure. Elevations must be certified by a registered professional engineer, land surveyor or other qualified person designated by the community. 2) Accessory Structures. As an alternative to the fill requirements of Section 20-367(1), structures accessory to the uses identified in Section 20-367(1) may be designed to accommodate the inundation of floodwaters, meeting the following provisions, as appropriate: a. The accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment and satisfy the development requirements in Section 20-329. b. Any enclosed accessory structure shall not exceed 576 square feet in size, and only be used for parking and storage. Any such structure shall be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer, or be designed in accordance with the following floodproofing standards: i. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, have a net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, and shall allow automatic entry and exit of floodwaters without human intervention. c. All service utilities, including ductwork, must be elevated or water-tight to prevent infiltration of floodwaters. d. All fill must be properly compacted and the slopes must be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. e. All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, or must have a flood warning /emergency evacuation plan acceptable to the City of Chanhassen. f. Accessory uses such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at an elevation lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, any facilities used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood. g. Manufactured homes and recreational vehicles must meet the standards of Division 7 of this ordinance. Sec. 20-368. – Conditional Uses The following uses may be permitted in the Flood Fringe District only after the issuance of a conditional use permit as provided in Section 20-351: 1) The placement of floodproofed nonresidential basements below the regulatory flood protection elevation; provided: a. The standards for permitted uses in the flood fringe listed in Section 20- 367 are meet. b. All areas of nonresidential structures, including basements, to be placed below the regulatory flood protection elevation must be structurally dry floodproofed, which requires making the structure watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. A floodproofing certification consistent with Section 20-385(3) shall be required. c. Residential basements are not allowed below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Secs. 20-367 —20-375. - Reserved. DIVISION 4. - GENERAL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (GF) Sec. 20-376. –Reserved Sec. 20-377. - Permitted uses. 1) The uses listed in Section 20-348 of this ordinance, Floodway District Permitted Uses, are permitted uses. 2) All other uses are subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria specified in Section 20-378. Division 2 of this article applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Floodway District. Division 3 of this article applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Flood Fringe District. Sec. 20-378. - Procedures for Determining Floodway Boundaries and Regional Flood Elevations: 1) Detailed Study. Developments greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, or as requested by the zoning administrator, shall be subject to a detailed study to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation and the limits of the Floodway District. The determination of the floodway and flood fringe must be consistent with accepted hydrological and hydraulic engineering standards, and must include the following components, as applicable: a. Estimate the peak discharge of the regional (1% chance) flood. b. Calculate the water surface profile of the regional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and overbank areas. c. Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood without increasing flood stages more than one-half (0.5) foot. A lesser stage increase than 0.5 foot is required if, as a result of the stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream within the reach must be assumed in computing floodway boundaries, unless development or geographic features warrant other analysis, as approved by the Department of Natural Resources. 2) Alternative Methods. Provided no detailed study is available, an applicant must identify a base flood elevation, at minimum, to determine the boundaries of the special flood hazard area. The applicant shall obtain and utilize best available data to determine the regional flood elevation and floodway boundaries from a state, federal, or other source. If no such data exists, the applicant may determine the base flood elevation and floodway limits through other accepted engineering practices. Any such method shall assume a 0.5 foot stage increase to accommodate for future floodway determination. 3) The Zoning Administrator will review the submitted information and assess the technical evaluation and the recommended Floodway and/or Flood Fringe District boundary. The assessment must include the cumulative effects of previous floodway encroachments. The Zoning Administrator may seek technical assistance from an engineer or other expert person or agency, including the Department of Natural Resources. Based on this assessment, the Zoning Administrator may approve or deny the application. 4) Once the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries have been determined, the Zoning Administrator must process the permit application consistent with the applicable provisions of Division 2 and Division 3 of this article. DIVISION 5. - SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS Sec. 20-379. – Subdivisions In addition to the standards contained in Chapter 18, subdivision of lands within the floodplain districts must meet the standards enumerated in this section. Manufactured home parks and recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are considered subdivisions under this division. 1) All lots within the floodplain districts must be able to contain a building site outside of the Floodway District at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. 2) All subdivisions must have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, unless a flood warning emergency plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and people during the regional (1% chance) flood has been approved by the City of Chanhassen. The plan must be prepared by a registered engineer or other qualified individual, and must demonstrate that adequate time and personnel exist to carry out the evacuation. 3) For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries, the regulatory flood protection elevation and the required elevation of all access roads must be clearly labeled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. 4) In the General Floodplain District, applicants must provide the information required in Division 4 of this ordinance to determine the regional flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for the subdivision site. 5) Subdivision proposals must be reviewed to assure that: a. All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood prone area, b. All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and c. Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure of flood hazard. DIVISION 6. - UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES Sec. 20-380. - Public Utilities Public Utilities: All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be located in the floodplain must be floodproofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Sec. 20-381. – Public Transportation Facilities Public Transportation Facilities: Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges to be located within the floodplain must comply with divisions 2 and 3 of this ordinance. These transportation facilities must be elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation where failure or interruption of these facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. Sec. 20-382.- On-site Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Systems On-site Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725.4350, as amended; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters, they must not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding, and are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080.2270, as amended. DIVISION 7. - MANUFACTURED HOMES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES Sec 20-383.- Manufactured Homes Manufactured Homes: Manufactured homes and manufactured home parks are subject to applicable standards for each floodplain district. In addition: 1) New and replacement manufactured homes must be elevated in compliance with Division 3 of this ordinance and must be securely anchored to a system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. 2) New manufactured home parks and expansions to existing manufactured home parks must meet the appropriate standards for subdivisions in Division 5 of this article. New or replacement manufactured homes in existing manufactured home parks must meet the vehicular access requirements for subdivisions in Section 20-379(2) of this ordinance. Sec 20-384.-Recreational Vehicles Recreational Vehicles: New recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds and expansions to existing recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are prohibited in any floodplain district. Recreational vehicles placed in existing recreational vehicle parks, campgrounds or lots of record in the floodplain must either: 1) Meet the requirements for manufactured homes in Section 20-383(1), or 2) Be travel ready, meeting the following criteria: a. The vehicle must have a current license required for highway use. b. The vehicle must be highway ready, meaning on wheels or the internal jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks. c. No permanent structural type additions may be attached to the vehicle. d. Accessory structures may be permitted in the Flood Fringe District, provided that they constitute a minimal investment, do not hinder the removal of the vehicle should flooding occur, and meet the standards outlined in Sections 20-329(1) and 20-367(2). DIVISION 8. - ADMINISTRATION Sec 20-385.- Permits Unless otherwise stated the permit requirements within the floodplain districts shall be identical to those contained in Chapter 7and Chapter 20. Additional permit requirements within the floodplain districts shall be as follows: 1) Show location of fill or storage of materials in relation to the stream channel. 2) Provide copies of any required municipal, county, state or federal permits or approvals. 3) Certification. The applicant is required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Floodproofing measures must be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect as being in compliance with applicable floodproofing standards in in the State Building Code. Accessory structures designed in accordance with Section 6.22 of this ordinance are exempt from certification, provided sufficient assurances are documented. Any development in established floodways must not cause any increase in flood elevations or damages, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 4) Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming Use. No building, land or structure may be occupied or used in any manner until a certificate of zoning compliance has been issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this ordinance. 5) Recordkeeping of Certifications and As-Built Documentation. The Zoning Administrator must maintain records in perpetuity documenting: a. all certifications referenced in Section 20-385(3) of this ordinance as applicable b. Elevations complying with Section 20-367(1) of this ordinance. The Zoning Administrator must also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures and alterations to structures are constructed or floodproofed. 6) Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning Administrator must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A copy of the notification must also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 7) Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base Flood Elevations. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six months after the date such supporting information becomes available, the Zoning Administrator must notify the Chicago Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data. Sec. 20-386.- Variances: Unless otherwise stated a variance request from the provisions of this article will be processed and reviewed in accordance with applicable State Statutes and Chapter 20, Article II of the City Code. Additional variance requirements within the floodplain districts shall be as follows: 1) Adherence to State Floodplain Management Standards. A variance must not allow a use that is not allowed in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by state law. 2) Additional Variance Criteria. The following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must be satisfied: a. Variances must not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. b. Variances may only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. c. Variances may only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 3) Flood Insurance Notice. The Zoning Administrator must notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and 2) Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification must be maintained with a record of all variance actions. 4) General Considerations. The community may consider the following factors in granting variances and imposing conditions on variances and conditional uses in floodplains: a. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others; b. The availability of viable alternative locations for the proposed use that are not subject to flooding; c. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. 5) Submittal of Hearing Notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Zoning Administrator must submit hearing notices for proposed variances to the DNR sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten days’ notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 6) Submittal of Final Decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting variances must be forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 7) Record-Keeping. The Zoning Administrator must maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and must report such variances in an annual or biennial report to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, when requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Sec. 20-387.- Conditional Uses Unless otherwise stated an application for a conditional use permit under the provisions of this article will be processed and reviewed in accordance with Chapter 20, Article IV of the City Code. Additional requirements for conditional uses within the floodplain districts shall be as follows: 1) Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. In addition to the standards identified in Sections 20-351 and 20-368, the City of Chanhassen may attach such conditions to the granting of conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. b. Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. c. Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. 2) Submittal of Hearing Notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Zoning Administrator must submit hearing notices for proposed conditional uses to the DNR sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten days’ notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 3) Submittal of Final Decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting conditional uses must be forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. Sec. 20-388.- Nonconformities Continuance of Nonconformities: A use, structure, or occupancy of land which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic structures, are subject to the provisions of this section. 1) A nonconforming use, structure, or occupancy must not be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that increases its flood damage potential or degree of obstruction to flood flows except as provided in Sec. 20-388(2) below. Expansion or enlargement of uses, structures or occupancies within the Floodway District is prohibited. 2) Any addition or structural alteration to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that would result in increasing its flood damage potential must be protected to the regulatory flood protection elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or floodproofing techniques (i.e., FP1 thru FP4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code, except as further restricted in Sec. 20-388(4) below. 3) If any nonconforming use, or any use of a nonconforming structure, is discontinued for more than one year, any future use of the premises must conform to this ordinance. 4) If any structure experiences a substantial improvement as defined in this ordinance, then the entire structure must meet the standards of Division 2 or Division 3 of this article for new structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively. 5) If any nonconformity is substantially damaged, as defined in this ordinance, it may not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new structures in Division 2 or 3 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively. 6) If any nonconforming use or structure experiences a repetitive loss, it must not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. Sec. 20-389.- Violations and Penalties 1) Violation Constitutes a Misdemeanor: Violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) constitute a misdemeanor and will be punishable as defined by law. 2) Other Lawful Action: Nothing in this ordinance restricts the City of Chanhassen from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses will constitute an additional violation of this ordinance and will be prosecuted accordingly. 3) Enforcement: Violations of the provisions of this ordinance will be investigated and resolved in accordance with the provisions of Section 20-26 of the zoning ordinance/code. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and City Council may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after- the- fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The City of Chanhassen must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Sec. 20-390.- Amendments 1) Floodplain Designation – Restrictions on Removal: The floodplain designation on the Official Zoning Map must not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) if it is determined that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. 2) Amendments Require DNR Approval: All amendments to this ordinance must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to adoption. 3) Map Revisions Require Ordinance Amendments. The floodplain district regulations must be amended to incorporate any revisions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the floodplain maps adopted in Section 20-327(2) of this ordinance. Secs. 20-381—20-400. - Reserved Minnesota Sample Floodplain Ordinance Three District Ordinance This sample ordinance includes the three primary types of floodplain districts: Floodway, Flood Fringe, and General Floodplain. It can be used in a variety of situations, where all three districts or only some of them are present. Highlights and blank spaces identify parts of the ordinance that should be customized for the community as appropriate. Contents SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE ...................................... 2 SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS .......................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS ....................................................................... 6 SECTION 4.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS ............................................................... 6 SECTION 5.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) ................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 6.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) ............................................................................................... 9 SECTION 7.0 GENERAL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (GF) ................................................................................ 11 SECTION 8.0 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS .................................................................................................. 12 SECTION 9.0 UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES ................................................................... 12 SECTION 10.0 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. ............................................. 13 SECTION 11.0 ADMINISTRATION .............................................................................................................. 13 SECTION 12.0 NONCONFORMITIES .......................................................................................................... 16 SECTION 13.0 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES ............................................................................................ 17 SECTION 14.0 AMENDMENTS .................................................................................................................. 17 Ordinance Language Commentary SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE 1.1 Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and Chapter [394/462] delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the City Council/Board of Commissioners of [community], Minnesota, does ordain as follows. 1.2 Purpose: 1.21 This ordinance regulates development in the flood hazard areas of the [community]. These flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base. It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing these losses and disruptions. 1.22 National Flood Insurance Program Compliance. This ordinance is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain the community’s eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 1.23 This ordinance is also intended to preserve the natural characteristics and functions of watercourses and floodplains in order to moderate flood and stormwater impacts, improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, protect aquatic and riparian habitat, provide recreational opportunities, provide aesthetic benefits and enhance community and economic development. SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies: This ordinance applies to all lands within the jurisdiction of the [community] within the boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts. The boundaries of these districts are determined by scaling distances on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as modified in accordance with Section 3.2. 2.11 The Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts are overlay districts that are superimposed on all existing zoning districts. The standards imposed in the overlay districts are in addition to any other requirements in this ordinance. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply. 2.12 Where a conflict exists between the floodplain limits illustrated on the official floodplain maps and actual field conditions, the flood elevations shall be the governing factor in locating the regulatory floodplain limits. 2.13 Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the (Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment) and to submit technical evidence. 2.2 Incorporation of Maps by Reference: The following maps together with all attached material are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of the Official Zoning Map and this ordinance. The attached material includes the Flood Insurance Study for ____ County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated ____ and the Flood Insurance Rate map panels enumerated below, dated ____, all prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These materials are on file in the (list location where maps will be filed – i.e., Town Hall). 2.3 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or other private agreements. However, where this ordinance imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this 1.1. is mandatory language. The zoning enabling statute reference is Chapter 394 for counties and Chapter 462 for cities and townships. “Governing body” is the City Council or County or Township Board. 1.21 & 1.22 is mandatory language 1.23 is optional language referencing the natural beneficial functions of floodplains. 2.1. The types of floodplain zones present in a community will vary, depending on hydrologic conditions and the level of detail of the applicable maps. 2.11 is optional – if the community has a zoning ordinance – as most do – it’s helpful to define these districts as overlay districts. If not, then delete this statement and other overlay references. 2.2 is mandatory, but should be customized by jurisdiction and map type. Under Minnesota Rules 6120.5700, Subp. 2, these materials are considered attachments to the Zoning Map. For counties, the map index may be used in lieu of listing all the map panels individually. Cities may choose to adopt additional map panels to encompass areas that may potentially be annexed in the future. See Section 2.7. Communities are also encouraged to adopt preliminary flood studies and/or other best available data for regulatory purposes. Estimated 1% Base Flood Elevations (or “pink lines”) would only have to be referenced here if this data exists in unmapped locations in your community. ordinance prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. 2.4 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability: This ordinance does not imply that areas outside the floodplain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This ordinance does not create liability on the part of [community] or its officers or employees for any flood damages that result from reliance on this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. 2.5 Severability: If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of law, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected and shall remain in full force. 2.6 Definitions: Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this ordinance must be interpreted according to common usage and so as to give this ordinance its most reasonable application. 2.611 Accessory Use or Structure – a use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. 2.612 Base Flood – the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. 2.613 Base Flood Elevation – The elevation of the “regional flood.” The term “base flood elevation” is used in the flood insurance survey. 2.614 Basement – any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. 2.615 Conditional Use – a specific type of structure or land use listed in the official control that may be allowed but only after an in-depth review procedure and with appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the official zoning controls or building codes and upon a finding that: (a) Certain conditions as detailed in the zoning ordinance exist, and (b) The structure and/or land use conform to the comprehensive land use plan if one exists and are compatible with the existing neighborhood. 2.616 Critical Facilities – facilities necessary to a community’s public health and safety, those that store or produce highly volatile, toxic or water-reactive materials, and those that house occupants that may be insufficiently mobile to avoid loss of life or injury. Examples of critical facilities include hospitals, correctional facilities, schools, daycare facilities, nursing homes, fire and police stations, wastewater treatment facilities, public electric utilities, water plants, fuel storage facilities, and waste handling and storage facilities. 2.617 Development – any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials. 2.618 Equal Degree of Encroachment – a method of determining the location of floodway boundaries so that floodplain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share of flood flows. 2.619 Farm Fence – A fence as defined by Minn. Statutes Section 344.02, Subd. 1(a)-(d). An open type fence of posts and wire is not considered to be a structure under this ordinance. Fences that have the potential to obstruct flood flows, such as chain link fences and rigid walls, are regulated as structures under this ordinance. 2.620 Flood – a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas. 2.3. This statement not needed if already included in zoning ordinance. 2.4. This statement not needed if already included in zoning ordinance. 2.5. This statement not needed if already included in zoning ordinance. 2.6. These definitions may already exist as part of zoning ordinance, but check for consistency. Definitions are mandatory unless otherwise indicated. 2.612 is an optional definition. This term is synonymous with the term “regional flood, which is predominantly used in this ordinance. 2.615. Some local ordinances – and the state rules that apply to floodplains – use the older term “special use.” 2.616. At the moment, this is an optional definition, but MN Rules 1335 is expected to be revised to adopt ASCE 24-14, which details the provision in Section 4.5 2.619 is an optional definition – to be left in if this type of farm fence is to be exempted from permit requirements. See 4.12. 2.620. Optional definition 2.621 Flood Frequency – the frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded. 2.622 Flood Fringe – the portion of the Special Flood Hazard Area (one percent annual chance flood) located outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term “floodway fringe” used in the Flood Insurance Study for [community], Minnesota. 2.623 Flood Insurance Rate Map – An official map on which the Federal Insurance Administrator has delineated both the special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). 2.624 Flood Prone Area – any land susceptible to being inundated by water from any source. 2.625 Floodplain – the beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. 2.626 Floodproofing – a combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. 2.627 Floodway – the bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. 2.628 Lowest Floor – the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60.3. 2.629 Manufactured Home – a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term “manufactured home” does not include the term “recreational vehicle.” 2.630 New Construction - Structures, including additions and improvements, and placement of manufactured homes, for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of this ordinance. 2.631 Obstruction – any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory floodplain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. 2.632 One Hundred Year Floodplain – lands inundated by the “Regional Flood” (see definition). 2.633 Principal Use or Structure – all uses or structures that are not accessory uses or structures. 2.634 Reach – a hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach. 2.635 Recreational Vehicle – a vehicle that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self- 2.621. Optional definition 2.622. For cities mapped as part of county- wide flood insurance study, the county name should be inserted here. 2.624 is an optional definition – sections 8.15 use the term flood-prone to encompass vulnerable structures outside of mapped areas. 2.628. If not adopting the optional alternative elevation methods outlined in 6.33 and 6.46, the second sentence can be deleted. 2.631. Optional definition 2.632. Optional definition 2.633. Optional definition propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck, and is designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use. For the purposes of this ordinance, the term recreational vehicle is synonymous with the term “travel trailer/travel vehicle.” 2.636 Regional Flood – a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 1% chance or 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in a flood insurance study. 2.637 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) - an elevation not less than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. 2.638 Repetitive Loss: Flood related damages sustained by a structure on two separate occasions during a ten year period for which the cost of repairs at the time of each such flood event on the average equals or exceeds 25% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 2.639 Special Flood Hazard Area – a term used for flood insurance purposes synonymous with “One Hundred Year Floodplain.” 2.640 Start of Construction – includes substantial improvement, and means the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement or other improvement that occurred before the permit’s expiration date. The actual start is either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, foundations, or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. 2.641 Structure - anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on-site utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, decks manufactured homes, recreational vehicles not considered travel ready as detailed in Section 10.22 of this ordinance and other similar items. 2.642 Substantial Damage - means damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 2.643 Substantial Improvement - within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures that 2.637. Freeboard higher than one foot is strongly recommended, as it can yield increased protection, result in lower premiums, and can be easier to administer by taking stage increases (encroachments) out of the equation. 2.638. This is an optional, but highly encouraged definition linked to the optional provision for repetitive loss properties in Section 12.16. Communities are required to adopt repetitive loss provisions to be eligible for Increased Cost of Compliance – which are funds to get such a structure into compliance. have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: (a) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions, or (b) Any alteration of a “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a “historic structure.” For the purpose of this ordinance, “historic structure” is as defined in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1. 2.7 Annexations: The Flood Insurance Rate Map panels adopted by reference into Section 2.2 above may include floodplain areas that lie outside of the corporate boundaries of the [community] at the time of adoption of this ordinance. If any of these floodplain land areas are annexed into the [community] after the date of adoption of this ordinance, the newly annexed floodplain lands will be subject to the provisions of this ordinance immediately upon the date of annexation. 2.8 Detachments. The Flood Insurance Rate Map panels adopted by reference into Section 2.2 above will include floodplain areas that lie inside the corporate boundaries of municipalities at the time of adoption of this ordinance. If any of these floodplain land areas are detached from a municipality and come under the jurisdiction of [community] after the date of adoption of this ordinance, the newly detached floodplain lands will be subject to the provisions of this ordinance immediately upon the date of detachment. SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS 3.1 Districts: 3.11 Floodway District. The Floodway District includes those areas within Zones AH delineated within floodway areas as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps adopted in Section 2.2. 3.12 Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District includes areas within Zones AH on the Flood Insurance Rate Map and Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps adopted in Section 2.2, but located outside of the floodway. 3.13 General Floodplain District. The General Floodplain District includes those areas within (Zone A or Zones AE/AO/AH) (that do not have a floodway delineated) as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 2.2. 3.2 Applicability: Where Floodway and Flood Fringe districts are delineated on the floodplain maps, the standards in Sections 5 or 6 will apply, depending on the location of a property. Locations where Floodway and Flood Fringe districts are not delineated on the floodplain maps are considered to fall within the General Floodplain district. Within the General Floodplain district, the Floodway District standards in Section 5 apply unless the floodway boundary is determined, according to the process outlined in Section 7.2. SECTION 4.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS 4.1 Permit Required. A permit must be obtained from the Zoning Administrator to verify if a development meets all applicable standards outlined in this ordinance prior to conducting the following activities: 4.11 The erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation, or alteration of any building, structure, or portion thereof. Normal maintenance and repair also requires a permit if such work, separately or in conjunction with other planned work, constitutes a substantial improvement as defined in this ordinance. 4.12 The construction of a dam, on-site septic system, or any fence not meeting the definition of farm fence outlined in Section 2.619 of this ordinance. 2.643(b). “Historic structures” as defined in the CFR generally include sites listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and state- or locally-designated historic properties. 2.7 applies to cities only. It is optional but recommended – if not included, any annexation will trigger an amendment of the floodplain ordinance. Section 2.8 applies only to counties or townships that exercise zoning authority. Counties may choose to adopt specific map panels or adopt the countywide map index. 3.11 – 3.13. These sections will reference applicable flood zones in each community. For communities that have a mapped 500- year floodplain (areas with .02 percent chance of being flooded any given year), it is recommended that these areas are also identified in Section 3.12. If your community has Estimated 1% Base Flood Elevations (or “pink lines”) in areas that are completely unmapped, these should be referenced in both Sections 2.2 and 3.13. For lakes, ponds and wetlands, the area at or below the Ordinary High Water Level can be administratively defined as floodway. If a community has floodplain delineations on the FIRM for lakes, ponds and wetland without delineated floodways, contact DNR Floodplain Program staff for specific language. Zones AO and AH are areas prone to flooding due to overland flow or small ponds, and are not typically found on most FIRMs. 4.12. The exemption for farm fences is optional. 4.13 The change or extension of a nonconforming use. 4.14 The repair of a structure that has been damaged by flood, fire, tornado, or any other source. 4.15 The placement of fill, excavation of materials, or the storage of materials or equipment within the floodplain. 4.16 Relocation or alteration of a watercourse (including new or replacement culverts and bridges), unless a public waters work permit has been applied for. 4.17 Any other type of “development” as defined in this ordinance. 4.2 Minimum Development Standards. All new construction and substantial improvements must be: 4.21 Designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy; 4.22 Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; 4.23 Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage; and 4.24 Constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, ductwork, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 4.3 Flood Capacity. Floodplain developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system. 4.4 The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. 4.5 Critical Facilities, as defined in Section 2.616, are to be located, so that the lowest floor is not less than two feet above the regional flood elevation, or the 500 year flood elevation, whichever is higher. SECTION 5.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) 5.1 Permitted Uses: The following uses, subject to the standards set forth in Section 5.2, are permitted uses if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district or any applicable overlay district: 5.11 General farming, pasture, grazing, farm fences, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. 5.12 Industrial-commercial loading areas, parking areas, and airport landing strips. 5.13 Open space uses, including but not limited to private and public golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails. 5.14 Residential yards, lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. 5.15 Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines and pipelines, provided that the Department of Natural Resources’ Area Hydrologist is notified at least ten days prior to issuance of any permit. 5.2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses: 5.21 The use must have a low flood damage potential. 4.17. Any change in the course, current or cross-section of public waters requires a public waters work permit from the DNR under Minn Stat 103G.245. See also 5.44. 4.22. FEMA Technical Bulletin 2 details requirements for flood-damage resistant materials 4.5. At the moment, this is an optional provision, but Minnesota Rules 1335 is expected to be revised to adopt ASCE 24- 14, which includes this provision. It is encouraged to adopt a further higher standard here and prohibit critical facilities from mapped floodplain areas entirely. 5.0. This section (along with section 6) can be revised to be more restrictive. Permitted uses identified in Section 5.1 must meet the standards in 5.2. Floodways need to be protected so that they can transport and store the waters of the regional (100-year) flood without increased flood heights or velocities or threats to public health and safety. Note that communities are not required to accommodate all of the listed uses. Communities are encouraged to be more restrictive, but must provide for some reasonable use of the floodway land. Other similar uses may be included in this section if they meet the standards in Section 5.2. 5.22 The use must not involve structures or obstruct flood flows. The use must not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 5.23 Any facility that will be used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood. 5.3 Conditional Uses: The following uses may be allowed as conditional uses following the standards and procedures set forth in Section 11.4 of this ordinance and further subject to the standards set forth in Section 5.4, if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district. 5.31 Structures accessory to primary uses listed in 5.11 – 5.13 above and primary uses listed in 5.32 - 5.33 below. 5.32 Grading, extraction, fill and storage of soil, sand, gravel, and other materials. 5.33 Marinas, boat rentals, permanent docks, piers, wharves, water control structures, and navigational facilities. 5.34 Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials. 5.35 Fences that have the potential to obstruct flood flows. 5.36 Levees or dikes intended to protect agricultural crops for a frequency flood event equal to or less than the 10-year frequency flood event. 5.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses: 5.41 A conditional use must not cause any increase in flood damages, nor any increase in flood elevations in areas where a floodway has been established, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 5.42 Fill; Storage of Materials and Equipment: (a) Fill, dredge spoil, and other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain must be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method. Permanent sand and gravel operations and similar uses must be covered by a long-term site development plan. (b) Temporary placement of fill, other materials, or equipment which would cause an increase to the stage of the 1% percent chance or regional flood may only be allowed if the (Governing Body) has approved a plan that assures removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available. 5.43 Accessory Structures. Accessory structures, as identified in Section 5.31, may be permitted, provided that: (a) Structures are not intended for human habitation; (b) Structures will have a low flood damage potential; (c) Structures will be constructed and placed so as to offer a minimal obstruction to the flow of flood waters; (d) Structures must be elevated on fill, open sided or structurally dry floodproofed and watertight to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Certifications consistent with Section 11.22 shall be required. (e) As an alternative, an accessory structure may be floodproofed in a way to accommodate internal flooding. To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic 5.3. Note that these conditional uses are optional for the community, provided they meet the standards in Sections 5.4. Any of these uses (and corresponding standards in 5.4) can be identified as permitted uses in 5.1 (and 5.2) as appropriate. Requiring CUP gives additional community control for these sensitive areas. 5.32. Communities may choose to further limit these activities. 5.33. Wharves, breakwaters and other similar structures must satisfy Minnesota Rules 6115.0211. 5.35. Farm fences do not require a permit. See Section 4.12 5.36. Use does not need to demonstrate that it will not cause an increase in flood damages per 5.41 as long as the top of the dike does not exceed the 10-year event. 5.4. Note that flood control projects intended to remove areas from the floodway to allow development of single or multiple structures are not permitted unless a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) can be obtained to change the floodway boundary. Contact DNR Floodplain Program staff for further information. 5.42(a) must be included if community chooses to allow deposition or storage of fill in the floodway 5.42(b) is an optional alternative allowing temporary storage of fill or other materials that could increase flood stage, suitable for the types of locations where adequate flood warning times will be available to allow removal of materials. pressure, there shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, have a net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, and shall allow automatic entry and exit of floodwaters without human intervention. A floodproofing certification consistent with Section 11.22 shall be required. 5.44 Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245. 5.45 A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway must not cause an increase to the 1% chance or regional flood. The technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. SECTION 6.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 6.1 Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are those uses of land or structures allowed in the underlying zoning district(s) that comply with the standards in Sections 6.2. If no pre- existing, underlying zoning districts exist, then any residential or nonresidential structure or use of a structure or land is a permitted use provided it does not constitute a public nuisance. 6.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses: 6.21 All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor, as defined, is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures must be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill must extend at the same elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure. Elevations must be certified by a registered professional engineer, land surveyor or other qualified person designated by the community. 6.22 Accessory Structures. As an alternative to the fill requirements of section 6.21, structures accessory to the uses identified in Section 6.1 may be designed to accommodate the inundation of floodwaters, meeting the following provisions, as appropriate: (a) The accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment and satisfy the development requirements in Section 4.2. (b) Any enclosed accessory structure shall not exceed 576 square feet in size, and only be used for parking and storage. Any such structure shall be designed and certified by a registered professional engineer, or be designed in accordance with the following floodproofing standards: (1) To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, have a net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding, and shall allow automatic entry and exit of floodwaters without human intervention. 6.23 The cumulative placement of fill or similar material on a parcel must not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, unless the fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 6.21 of this ordinance, or if allowed as a conditional use under Section 6.33 below. 5.43(e) is optional language allowing for wet floodproofing of small accessory structures that constitute a minimal investment. Specifications are further guided by FEMA Technical Bulletins 1 and 7-93 5.44 is an optional provision providing notice that work in public waters requires a DNR permit. 6.1. If underlying zoning district(s) are present (as in most communities) the second sentence can be deleted. 6.21. “Lowest floor” is defined as the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including basements, crawl spaces, etc. See definition in Section 2.628. FEMA Technical Bulletin 10-01 details specifications for structures built on fill. 6.22(a). A special note that the bulk standards here slightly exceed those allowed through 6120.3300, Subp 3(H) of the Shoreland Rules. Most restrictive standard applies. 6.22(b). If an accessory structure exceeds 576 square feet, then FEMA will not allow internal floodproofing, and the structure must be elevated on fill in accordance to 6.21 or dry floodproofed in accordance with 6.42. 6.23. Applying a given volume threshold is an optional provision. Requiring a CUP for larger volumes of fill (see 6.32) allows communities to require an erosion control and emergency removal plan for uses such as sand and gravel mining or dredge spoil storage. 6.24 All service utilities, including ductwork, must be elevated or water-tight to prevent infiltration of floodwaters. 6.25 All fill must be properly compacted and the slopes must be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. 6.26 All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, or must have a flood warning /emergency evacuation plan acceptable to the (Governing Body). 6.27 Accessory uses such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at an elevation lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, any facilities used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood. 6.28 Manufactured homes and recreational vehicles must meet the standards of Section 10 of this ordinance. 6.3 Conditional Uses: The following uses may be allowed as conditional uses following the standards and procedures set forth in Section 11.4 of this ordinance and further subject to the standards set forth in Section 6.4, if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district(s). 6.31 The placement of floodproofed nonresidential basements below the regulatory flood protection elevation. Residential basements, are not allowed below the regulatory flood protection elevation. 6.32 The cumulative placement of more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill when the fill is not being used to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 6.21 of this ordinance. 6.33 (OPTIONAL) The use of methods other than fill to elevate structures above the regulatory flood protection elevation. This includes the use of: stilts, pilings, filled stem walls, or above-grade, internally flooded enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages, meeting the standards in Section 6.44. 6.4 Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses: 6.41 The standards for permitted uses in the flood fringe, listed in Sections 6.24 through 6.28, apply to all conditional uses. 6.42 All areas of nonresidential structures, including basements, to be placed below the regulatory flood protection elevation must be structurally dry floodproofed, which requires making the structure watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. A floodproofing certification consistent with Section 11.22 shall be required. 6.43 The placement of more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill or other similar material on a parcel (other than for the purpose of elevating a structure to the regulatory flood protection elevation) must comply with an approved erosion/sedimentation control plan. (a) The plan must clearly specify methods to be used to stabilize the fill on site for a flood event at a minimum of the regional (1% chance) flood event. (b) The plan must be prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer or other qualified individual acceptable to the (Governing Body). 6.26 is optional, but such access requirements is mandatory for subdivisions 6.31 FEMA Technical Bulletin 3-93 detail requirements for floodproofing through watertight construction methods. Select communities have been granted “basement exceptions”, allowing dry-floodproofing of residential structures below the RFPE. 6.32. These fill requirements are an optional conditional use. This (along with the corresponding standard in 6.43) can be identified as permitted uses in 6.1 (and 6.2) as appropriate. Requiring CUP gives additional community control to require an erosion control and emergency removal plan for uses such as sand and gravel mining or dredge spoil storage. 6.33. The DNR refers to these as “alternative elevation methods”, meaning it is an alternative to fill. This is designated optional because they are burdensome to administer – typically requiring nonconversion agreements and detailed monitoring and inspections. These uses must follow the standards listed in 6.46, which are further detailed in FEMA Technical Bulletins 1 and 7-93 6.43. Optional provision, depending on community’s application of 6.32. (c) The plan may incorporate alternative procedures for removal of the material from the floodplain if adequate flood warning time exists. 6.44 (OPTIONAL) Alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered above-grade and not a structure’s basement or lowest floor if: 1) the enclosed area is above-grade on at least one side of the structure; 2) it is designed to internally flood; and 3) it is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. These alternative elevation methods are subject to the following additional standards: (a) Above-grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and include a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade, and have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding unless a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that a smaller net area would suffice. (b) Floodproofing certifications consistent with Section 11.22 shall be required. The structure shall be subject to a deed-restricted nonconversion agreement with the issuance of any permit. SECTION 7.0 GENERAL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (GF) 7.1 Permitted Uses: 7.11 The uses listed in Section 5.1 of this ordinance, Floodway District Permitted Uses, are permitted uses. 7.12 All other uses are subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria specified in Section 7.2 below. Section 5.0 applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Floodway District. Section 6.0 applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Flood Fringe District. 7.2 Procedures for Determining Floodway Boundaries and Regional Flood Elevations: 7.21 Detailed Study. Developments greater than 50 lots or 5 acres, or as requested by the zoning administrator, shall be subject to a detailed study to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation and the limits of the Floodway District. The determination of the floodway and flood fringe must be consistent with accepted hydrological and hydraulic engineering standards, and must include the following components, as applicable: (a) Estimate the peak discharge of the regional (1% chance) flood. (b) Calculate the water surface profile of the regional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and overbank areas. (c) Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood without increasing flood stages more than one-half (0.5) foot. A lesser stage increase than 0.5 foot is required if, as a result of the stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream within the reach must be assumed in computing floodway boundaries, unless development or geographic features warrant other analysis, as approved by the Department of Natural Resources. 7.22 Alternative Methods. Provided no detailed study is available, an applicant must identify a base flood elevation, at minimum, to determine the boundaries of the special flood hazard area. The applicant shall obtain and utilize best available data to determine the regional flood elevation and floodway boundaries from a 6.44. Standard tied to the optional 6.34. The DNR refers to these as “alternative elevation methods”, meaning it is an alternative to fill. 7.1. If the General Floodplain District (the A zone, or the AE, AO or AH zones without a defined floodway) is not present within the community, delete the contents of this section and retitle it “Reserved for Future Use” (i.e., in case a future annexation or map update would add an A zone). 7.2. State and federal rules establish standards for this determination but do not specify a procedure to be followed. (However, the community is required under 44 CFR 60.3(b)(4) to “obtain, review and reasonably utilize” base flood elevation and floodway data.) The procedure shown here is one that DNR suggests that communities follow, and accommodates for obtaining best available data that is commonly available – most notably, the Estimated 1% Base Flood Elevations (or “pink lines”). DNR Floodplain Program staff can assist communities in obtaining relevant data and completing determinations as they arise. state, federal, or other source. If no such data exists, the applicant may determine the base flood elevation and floodway limits through other accepted engineering practices. Any such method shall assume a 0.5 foot stage increase to accommodate for future floodway determination. 7.23 The Zoning Administrator will review the submitted information and assess the technical evaluation and the recommended Floodway and/or Flood Fringe District boundary. The assessment must include the cumulative effects of previous floodway encroachments. The Zoning Administrator may seek technical assistance from an engineer or other expert person or agency, including the Department of Natural Resources. Based on this assessment, the Zoning Administrator may approve or deny the application. 7.24 Once the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries have been determined, the Zoning Administrator must process the permit application consistent with the applicable provisions of Section 5.0 and 6.0 of this ordinance. SECTION 8.0 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS 8.1 Subdivisions: No land may be subdivided which is unsuitable for reasons of flooding or inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Manufactured home parks and recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are considered subdivisions under this ordinance. 8.11 All lots within the floodplain districts must be able to contain a building site outside of the Floodway District at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. 8.12 All subdivisions must have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, unless a flood warning emergency plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and people during the regional (1% chance) flood has been approved by the (Governing Body). The plan must be prepared by a registered engineer or other qualified individual, and must demonstrate that adequate time and personnel exist to carry out the evacuation. 8.13 For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries, the regulatory flood protection elevation and the required elevation of all access roads must be clearly labeled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. 8.14 In the General Floodplain District, applicants must provide the information required in Section 7.2 of this ordinance to determine the regional flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for the subdivision site. 8.15 Subdivision proposals must be reviewed to assure that: (a) All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood prone area, (b) All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and (c) Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure of flood hazard. SECTION 9.0 UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES 9.1 Public Utilities: All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be located in the floodplain must be floodproofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Section 8.0 is mandatory as long as the community is not built out. These provisions can be integrated into a city or county subdivision ordinance, where one exists. Note that manufactured home and recreational vehicle parks are treated as subdivisions. 8.12. The two foot access requirement is a suggested standard. 6120.5900, Subd. 2 requires the establishment of access standards, but does not detail what those standards should be. 9.2 Public Transportation Facilities: Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges to be located within the floodplain must comply with Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of this ordinance. These transportation facilities must be elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation where failure or interruption of these facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. 9.3 On-site Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725.4350, as amended; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters, they must not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding, and are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080.2270, as amended. SECTION 10.0 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. 10.1 Manufactured Homes: Manufactured homes and manufactured home parks are subject to applicable standards for each floodplain district. In addition: 10.11 New and replacement manufactured homes must be elevated in compliance with Section 6 of this ordinance and must be securely anchored to a system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. 10.12 New manufactured home parks and expansions to existing manufactured home parks must meet the appropriate standards for subdivisions in Section 8 of this ordinance. New or replacement manufactured homes in existing manufactured home parks must meet the vehicular access requirements for subdivisions in Section 8.12 of this ordinance. 10.2 Recreational Vehicles: New recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds and expansions to existing recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are prohibited in any floodplain district. Recreational vehicles placed in existing recreational vehicle parks, campgrounds or lots of record in the floodplain must either: 10.21 Meet the requirements for manufactured homes in Section 10.1, or 10.22 Be travel ready, meeting the following criteria: (a) The vehicle must have a current license required for highway use. (b) The vehicle must be highway ready, meaning on wheels or the internal jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks. (c) No permanent structural type additions may be attached to the vehicle. (d) Accessory structures may be permitted in the Flood Fringe District, provided that they constitute a minimal investment, do not hinder the removal of the vehicle should flooding occur, and meet the standards outlined in Sections 4.2 and 6.22. SECTION 11.0 ADMINISTRATION 11.1 Duties: A Zoning Administrator or other official designated by the (Governing Body) must administer and enforce this ordinance. 11.2 Permit Application Requirements: 9.3. MPCA oversees the Rules regulating septic systems (7080.2270) and wells (4725.4350), which regulate location and design in relation to floodplains. 10.1 and 10.2 are mandatory, but can be reworded based on the prevalence of manufactured/RV home parks. 10.2 is worded to recognize MN Department of Health rules (4630.0200), which prohibit mobile home parks and recreational camping areas in flood-prone areas. Placement or replacement of manufactured home units may be allowed in existing manufactured home parks or on lots of record. 10.21. If other provisions in your zoning ordinance do not allow the establishment of permanent RVs, this provision can be omitted. 10.22 (d). Communities may apply a monetary limit such as $500 as a threshold for a “minimal investment,” recognizing that this threshold will vary from place to place. 11.0. Many of the standards and procedures in this section are likely to exist in other parts of the community’s zoning ordinance, and may be cross-referenced rather than repeated here. However, the 11.21 Application for Permit. Permit applications must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on forms provided by the Zoning Administrator. The permit application must include the following as applicable: (a) A site plan showing all pertinent dimensions, existing or proposed buildings, structures, and significant natural features having an influence on the permit. (b) Location of fill or storage of materials in relation to the stream channel. (c) Copies of any required municipal, county, state or federal permits or approvals. (d) Other relevant information requested by the Zoning Administrator as necessary to properly evaluate the permit application. 11.22 Certification. The applicant is required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. Floodproofing measures must be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect as being in compliance with applicable floodproofing standards in in the State Building Code. Accessory structures designed in accordance with Section 6.22 of this ordinance are exempt from certification, provided sufficient assurances are documented. Any development in established floodways must not cause any increase in flood elevations or damages, as certified by a registered professional engineer. 11. 23 Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming Use. No building, land or structure may be occupied or used in any manner until a certificate of zoning compliance has been issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this ordinance. 11.24 Recordkeeping of Certifications and As-Built Documentation. The Zoning Administrator must maintain records in perpetuity documenting: (a) all certifications referenced in Section 11.22 of this ordinance as applicable (b) Elevations complying with Section 6.21 of this ordinance. The Zoning Administrator must also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures and alterations to structures are constructed or floodproofed. 11.25 Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning Administrator must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A copy of the notification must also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 11.26 Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base Flood Elevations. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six months after the date such supporting information becomes available, the Zoning Administrator must notify the Chicago Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data. 11.3 Variances: 11.31 Variance Applications. An application for a variance to the provisions of this ordinance will be processed and reviewed in accordance with applicable State Statutes and Section(s) _________________ of the zoning ordinance/code. 11.32 Adherence to State Floodplain Management Standards. A variance must not allow a use that is not allowed in that district, permit a lower degree of flood community must be able to demonstrate that these procedures or comparable ones are in place. The term “Zoning Administrator” is used throughout this section for ease of reference, but in some communities the City Clerk or other official may fill this role. 11.21. This section may cross-reference any other permitting requirements in the zoning ordinance. 11.31 should cross-reference all sections of the zoning ordinance that regulate processing and review of variance applications. 11.3 only contains DNR/FEMA – mandated regulatory & notification provisions. protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by state law. 11.33 Additional Variance Criteria. The following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must be satisfied: (a) Variances must not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. (b) Variances may only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. (c) Variances may only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 11.34 Flood Insurance Notice. The Zoning Administrator must notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and 2) Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification must be maintained with a record of all variance actions. 11.35 General Considerations. The community may consider the following factors in granting variances and imposing conditions on variances and conditional uses in floodplains: (a) The potential danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments; (b) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others; (c) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems, if any, and the ability of these systems to minimize the potential for disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions; (d) The susceptibility of any proposed use and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; (e) The importance of the services to be provided by the proposed use to the community; (f) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location; (g) The availability of viable alternative locations for the proposed use that are not subject to flooding; (h) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future; (i) The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and flood plain management program for the area; (j) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (k) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. 11.33 is language required by FEMA. Note specifically that the reference to “exceptional hardship” in (b)(ii) must remain in the ordinance, even though it has been replaced by the term “practical difficulties” in state zoning enabling statutes. Federal standards for variances are detailed in 44 CFR 60.6, and further clarified in FEMA Publication P-993 – Variances and the National Flood Insurance Program. 11.34 is required by FEMA. Section 11.35 is optional guidance for communities in reviewing variance applications. The same suggested considerations are recommended for review of conditional use applications, below. 11.36 Submittal of Hearing Notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The (designated body/community official) must submit hearing notices for proposed variances to the DNR sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten days’ notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 11.37 Submittal of Final Decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting variances must be forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 11.38 Record-Keeping. The Zoning Administrator must maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and must report such variances in an annual or biennial report to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, when requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 11.4 Conditional Uses: 11.41 Administrative Review. An application for a conditional use permit under the provisions of this ordinance will be processed and reviewed in accordance with Section(s) ______________ of the zoning ordinance/code. 11.42 Factors Used in Decision-Making. In passing upon conditional use applications, the (Governing Body) must consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this ordinance, and those factors identified in Section 11.35 of this ordinance. 11.43 Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. In addition to the standards identified in Sections 5.4 and 6.4, the (Governing Body) may attach such conditions to the granting of conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this ordinance. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. (b) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. (c) Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. 11.44 Submittal of Hearing Notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The (designated body/community official) must submit hearing notices for proposed conditional uses to the DNR sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten days’ notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 11.45 Submittal of Final Decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting conditional uses must be forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. SECTION 12.0 NONCONFORMITIES 12.1 Continuance of Nonconformities: A use, structure, or occupancy of land which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic structures, as defined in Section 2.643(b) of this ordinance, are subject to the provisions of Sections 12.11 – 12.16 below. 12.11 A nonconforming use, structure, or occupancy must not be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that increases its flood damage potential or degree of obstruction to flood flows except as provided in 12.12 below. Expansion or 11.41 should cross-reference any conditional use procedures in the zoning ordinance, if these exist. Section 11.42 is optional but recommended as guidance for decisions on conditional uses (and variances, as noted above). 11.43 is also optional; conditions are intended to be specific to the particular site and proposed use. 12.11. Buildings and structures within the Floodway District may not be enlarged or expanded. In some cases, a floodway area can be filled without causing any rise in flood stage. In such cases, a Letter of Map Revision may be obtained that changes the floodway boundary, placing the area in the Flood Fringe. Contact Floodplain Program staff for details. enlargement of uses, structures or occupancies within the Floodway District is prohibited. 12.12 Any addition or structural alteration to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that would result in increasing its flood damage potential must be protected to the regulatory flood protection elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or floodproofing techniques (i.e., FP1 thru FP4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code, except as further restricted in 12.14 below. 12.13 If any nonconforming use, or any use of a nonconforming structure, is discontinued for more than one year, any future use of the premises must conform to this ordinance. 12.14 If any structure experiences a substantial improvement as defined in this ordinance, then the entire structure must meet the standards of Section 5.0 or 6.0 of this ordinance for new structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively. If the current proposal, including maintenance and repair during the previous 365 days, plus the costs of any previous alterations and additions since the first Flood Insurance Rate Map exceeds 50 percent of the market value of any nonconforming structure, the entire structure must meet the standards of Section 5.0 or 6.0 of this ordinance. 12.15 If any nonconformity is substantially damaged, as defined in this ordinance, it may not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new structures in Sections 5.0 or 6.0 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively. 12.16 If any nonconforming use or structure experiences a repetitive loss, as defined in Section 2.638 of this ordinance, it must not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 13.0 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES 13.1 Violation Constitutes a Misdemeanor: Violation of the provisions of this ordinance or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) constitute a misdemeanor and will be punishable as defined by law. 13.2 Other Lawful Action: Nothing in this ordinance restricts the [community] from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses will constitute an additional violation of this ordinance and will be prosecuted accordingly. 13.3 Enforcement: Violations of the provisions of this ordinance will be investigated and resolved in accordance with the provisions of Section(s) ________________ of the zoning ordinance/code. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and (Governing Body) may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the- fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The [community] must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. SECTION 14.0 AMENDMENTS 14.1 Floodplain Designation – Restrictions on Removal: The floodplain designation on the Official Zoning Map must not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation Section 12.13 reflects an optional provision in Statute (462.357(Subd 1e)(1) and 394.36) – local government may impose reasonable conditions on the nonconforming use or structure. Many communities have adopted similar provisions in their zoning ordinances. 12.14. The language presented is recommended, in order to gradually eliminate nonconformities over time. Federal standards require that substantial improvement is tracked over a one-year period. The last sentence can be omitted if community does not wish to track improvements over the life of a structure. Section 12.15 is specific to floodplain uses in state and federal statute, as distinct from the standard provisions for nonconformities in Chapters 394 and 462. Section 12.16 is optional but highly encouaraged, in order to gradually eliminate nonconformities that are frequently damaged but not to the “50%” level. Communities are required to adopt repetitive loss provisions to be eligible for Increased Cost of Compliance – which are funds to get such a structure into compliance. 13.3. Cross-reference any sections of the zoning ordinance that deal with enforcement procedures. If such provisions don’t exist, contact Floodplain Program staff for sample language. of the regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) if it is determined that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. 14.2 Amendments Require DNR Approval: All amendments to this ordinance must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to adoption. 14.3 Map Revisions Require Ordinance Amendments. The floodplain district regulations must be amended to incorporate any revisions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the floodplain maps adopted in Section 2.2 of this ordinance. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval and publication, as required by law and/or charter. Adopted by the [community] Board/City Council This _____ of _______, _____ (Day) (Month) (Year) Attest: _________________________ , County Board Chairperson/Mayor (Name of Elected Official) Attest: __________________________, County Administrator/City Clerk (Name of Community Official) Stamp with Community Seal: November 8, 2018 «TAX_NAME» «TAX_ADD_L1» «TAX_ADD_L2» Re: Notification of Updates to FEMA Flood Hazard Maps – Planning General File No. 49 Dear Property Owner: A multiyear project by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to re-examine flood risks throughout Carver County and develop digital flood hazard maps is nearing completion. The updated maps will become effective on December 21, 2018. Preliminary versions of the maps and additional information can be found on the City’s website at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/floodplain. «SITEADD» The principle structure located at the address identified above 1) appears to be located in, or 2) is located adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area (aka SFHA, the 1 percent (1%) or 100-year floodplain). Please be aware that the City does not establish the location of the SFHA and does not have the ability to alter the location of the SFHA. How will these updated maps affect you? If you have a mortgage or secured loan from a federally regulated or insured lender (this includes most loans) and the principle structure on this parcel is within the SFHA, then by Federal law your lender must require you to carry flood insurance. Most lenders will check their loans when the updated maps become effective on December 21, 2018. They will send a letter to all properties in the SFHA (or close to it) to notify them that they must purchase flood insurance within 45 days. If a policy is not purchased within this time period, the lender will “force place” a policy, which is normally much more expensive than what is otherwise available. In most cases, flood insurance is available through your home or car insurance agent. If your insurance agent does not sell flood insurance, you can call the National Flood Insurance Program Help Center at 800-427-4661. You can see additional information at FEMA’s Flood Insurance website, FloodSmart.gov. If you have any kind of risk for flood damages, both in or out of the floodplain, the city encourages you to purchase flood insurance. What to do if you believe you’ve been inadvertently included in the SFHA? There are often scenarios where the boundaries of the floodplain do not accurately reflect the true topographic characteristics of a site. If you believe your structure and/or parcel is higher than the Planning Commission Notification of Updates to FEMA Flood Hazard Maps November 8, 2018 Page 2 actual flood elevation, there is a procedure for appeals known as a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA). Traditionally, a LOMA involves hiring a surveyor to verify the lowest ground touching the structure, deck or stairs is above the 100-year flood elevation. Under the right circumstances, two streamlined methods can be pursued in lieu of a field survey: • Letter of Map Amendments using updated elevation data would be used when LIDAR- derived contour elevations can verify that a structure is above the 100-year flood elevation. • Letter of Map Amendment – Out as Shown (LOMA-OAS) would be used when a flood map overlaid on top of an aerial photo plainly shows that a structure is completely out of the floodplain. Lenders often use automated systems (i.e. computers) to see if a lot has floodplain and may not check whether your structure is actually touching the floodplain. You can check the FEMA floodplain map to see if your structure is really in or touching the floodplain. If your structure is not in or touching the floodplain, give a copy of the FEMA floodplain map to your lender. If they want something more official from FEMA beyond a simple map, you would go through the LOMA-OAS process. For those that would qualify for either of the two streamlined methods described above, the city can assist in obtaining a map that can be used in lieu of a field survey. Please contact the city’s Water Resources Coordinator, Vanessa Strong, (Email: vstrong@ci.chanhassen.mn.us) if you believe your property’s principal structure is not located within SFHA and would like the city’s help in obtaining a map. Please be aware that the city does not have the ability to approve or deny LOMA. The city is assisting in map creation for certain types of LOMA as a public service, but has no formal role in the process. More information on the process for submitting a LOMA is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/floodplain/map_appeals.html What can be done to mitigate flood risk and/or reduce premiums? If it is verified that your structure is located in the SFHA, elevating, retrofitting, or flood proofing may help to reduce both risk and insurance premiums. If the lowest walking surface of the structure is within just a few feet of the 100-year flood elevation, you would likely qualify for lower premiums by hiring a surveyor to complete a FEMA Elevation Certificate. Sincerely, MacKenzie Walters Assistant Planner g:\plan\city code\2018\floodplain\fp letter for properties likely clear of sfha.docx November 8, 2018 «First_Name» «Last_Name» «House_number» «Street_Name» «City», «State» «Zip_Code» Re: Notification of Updates to FEMA Flood Hazard Maps – Planning General File No. 49 Dear Property Owner: A multiyear project by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to re-examine flood risks throughout Carver County and develop digital flood hazard maps is nearing completion. The updated maps will become effective on December 21, 2018. Preliminary versions of the maps and additional information can be found on the City’s website at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/floodplain. [Insert Parcel Address] The principle structure located at the address identified above is located adjacent to the Special Flood Hazard Area (aka SFHA, the 1 percent (1%) or 100-year floodplain). Please be aware that the city does not establish the location of the SFHA and does not have the ability to alter the location of the SFHA. How will these updated maps affect you? If you have a mortgage or secured loan from a federally regulated or insured lender (this includes most loans) and the principle structure on this parcel is within the SFHA, then by Federal law, your lender must require you to carry flood insurance. The map update may mean that your principal structure is no longer located within the SFHA. If this is the case, you may no longer be required to carry flood insurance. What to do if you believe your principal structure is no longer located in the SFHA? There are often scenarios where the boundaries of the floodplain do not accurately reflect the true topographic characteristics of a site. If you believe your structure and/or parcel is higher than the actual flood elevation, there is a procedure for appeals known as a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA). Traditionally, a LOMA involves hiring a surveyor to verify the lowest ground touching the structure, deck or stairs is above the 100-year flood elevation. Under the right circumstances, two streamlined methods can be pursued in lieu of a field survey: • Letter of Map Amendments using updated elevation data would be used when LIDAR- derived contour elevations can verify that a structure is above the 100-year flood elevation. Notification of Updates to FEMA Flood Hazard Maps November 8, 2018 Page 2 • Letter of Map Amendment – Out as Shown (LOMA-OAS) would be used when a flood map overlaid on top of an aerial photo plainly shows that a structure is completely out of the floodplain. Lenders often use automated systems (i.e., computers) to see if a lot has floodplain and may not check whether your structure is actually touching the floodplain. You can check the FEMA floodplain map to see if your structure is really in or touching the floodplain. If your structure is not in or touching the floodplain, give a copy of the FEMA floodplain map to your lender. If they want something more official from FEMA beyond a simple map, you would go through the LOMA-OAS process. For those that would qualify for either of the two streamlined methods described above, the city can assist in obtaining a map that can be used in lieu of a field survey. Please contact the city’s Water Resources Coordinator, Vanessa Strong, (Email: vstrong@ci.chanhassen.mn.us) if you believe your property’s principal structure is not located within SFHA and would like the city’s help in obtaining a map. Please be aware that the city does not have the ability to approve or deny LOMA. The city is assisting in map creation for certain types of LOMA as a public service, but has no formal role in the process. More information on the process for submitting a LOMA is available from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/floodplain/map_appeals.html What can be done to mitigate flood risk and/or reduce premiums? If it is verified that your structure is located in the SFHA, elevating, retrofitting, or flood proofing may help to reduce both risk and insurance premiums. If the lowest walking surface of the structure is within just a few feet of the 100-year flood elevation, you would likely qualify for lower premiums by hiring a surveyor to complete a FEMA Elevation Certificate. Sincerely, MacKenzie Walters Assistant Planner g:\plan\city code\2018\floodplain\fp letter for properties likely removed from sfha.docx 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A E FCDB 11300 11200 11100 11000 11400 40012001600200010070090015001700200600100014001800220030050011001300190021002300270028008800 8700 8900 260010900 10800 10700 10600 10500 10400 10300 10200 10100 10000 9900 9800 9700 9600 9500 9400 9300 9200 9100 9000 8900 8800 8700 8500 8400 8300 80 0 0 79 0 0 78 0 0 77 0 0 76 0 0 75 0 0 6900 7000 7100 7200 19000188007400 186008200 8100 7300 9000 8600 8006400 6300 6200 6500 6600 6700 680013001200110010009008006007001002003004005000280035003400330032003100300029002700260025002400230022002100200019001800170015001600140042004100400039003800370036006200 6300 6400 6500 6600 6700 6800 6900 7000 7200 7300 7100 7400 7500 7600 7700 7800 7900 8000 8100 8200 8300 8600 8500 8400 40003900380037003600350033003400320031003000290010600 10500 10400 10300 10200 10100 9100 9200 9300 9400 9500 9600 9700 9800 9900 10000 11400 11300 11100 11000 11200 10900 10800 10700 Lake Ann Park Rice Marsh Lake Preserve North LotusLake ParkLake Minnewashta Regional Park (County Park)SunsetRidgeParkMeadowGreenPark K e rb e rP o n d P a rk Lake Susan PreserveBluff Creek Preserve ChanhassenRecreationCenter He sse Fa rm Preserve Pheasant HillPark CurryFarmsPark CityCenterParkStoneCreekPark RoundhousePark HermanFieldPark CarverBeachPlayground Park PrairieKnollParkPowerHillPark ChanhassenHillsPark BandimereHeightsPark Greenwo od Shores Park Ca rve rBeachPark Bluff Creek Golf Course RaguetWildlifeManagement Area (WMA) MN Valley NationalWildlife Refuge Mi n n e s o t a L a n d s c a p e A r b o r et u m SugarbushPark ChanhassenNaturePreserve Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Pleasant ViewPreserveFoxwoodsPreserve Minnew as hta Heights Park S LotusLake Park BandimerePark Chanhassen Estates Park La ke S u san P ar k Seminary FenScientific andNatural Area (SNA) Park RileyRidge Park Pi on e erPass P ark Raguet WildlifeManagement Area (WMA) Bluff CreekPreserve Rice MarshLake Park San d y H o o k R oad W82ndStWestLa ke Crt LakeSusanDriveL a k o t a L aneSunset TrailSandyHook C irCheyenneBighornDrive HazeltineBlvd(Hwy41)Lym an Blvd ( C S A H 1 8 )MinnewashtaParkwayCircle JuniperAve.DogwoodRdSommerGate RingneckDr.Pheasant D r Hillsd ale Crt S o u th e rnCrt ForestRidgeCircleHawthorne ChaskaRoadMolineCirS telle rCir WhiteDoveDr S t r a t ton Cr tCharing Bend H eatherCourtPowersBlvd(CSAH17)SaddlebrookP ass Trott ersCirTargetLaneK er berBlvdChippewaCir ChippewaTrailSantaV e r a DrSaratogaDr SaratogaCirSanta Fe Trail S i e rraTrailSierraCourt S h a d o w m ere CanterburyCir R e d w in g C t.NezPerceCt O x b o wBendSum mit Circle Sta gHornLn Oxbow B endD akotaDa k o t aCir c l eBuckingw oodCourtT im berwood Dr Pin e w o o d Circle AcornLaneMaplewoodTerraceOakwoodRidge R e n a i s s a n c e C o u r tBenwoodCircle StoneCr eekRdStoneCre e kDrStoneCreekDr BluffViewCourt CreekViewCourt Lake D riveWestCommerce DrValleyRidge Trail North V alley Rid g eTrail South ValleyViewCourt ValleyRidgeCourtValleyRidge Place ValleyViewPlSpoon b illCirM a lla rd C rtEgretCrtLakeSusanHillsD r FlamingoDrT e rn C rtK ingfis h e r Crt Th r ush Crt Merga nserCrt Oakside CircleLyman Court M aryJ aneCirBarbara C r tDrakeCrtDoveCrtParkDrPark R oadL a keDriveDakotaCirErie AveW 86thSt Quinn RoadBluffCircleF awnH i l l Cou r t RidgeRoadBelm ont LnW 78th St W.VillageRoad LakeLucy Lane C r e s t v i e wCir W h ite ta ilR id g e C o u r t MoccasinTrai l W 7 9 t h S t .Crimson Bay RdGreatPlainsBlvdIndian Hill Rd Yu ma Dr KiowaLongacre s D rMcGlynn DrMelodyLane P.V.LN.P.V.CirLake LucyRoad CenturyBoulevardLon g acre sDrFawnHillRdFAWNHILLROAD82nd Street MainStreetHighoverDriveHighoverCrtS HighoverCrtN 21 3 4 5 6 Grandview RdStone CreekCrt HeronDr AlisaCourtAlisaLaneBentBowTrail GunflintCourt 3 C o u lte rB o u le v a rd Coulter Blvd Andrew Court Coulter Blvd 1 KIMBERLY LANE 3 Nicholas Way2 Kelly CourtLakewayDrive Lake DriveWestL a ke D riveLakeDrE.Deerbrook DrHorseshoeLaneHorseshoeCurveBridleCreekCircle NorthwoodCourt4 Autumn Ridge Ct5 Autumn Ridge Ln6 Autumn Ridge Way StoughtonAveHennepinCountyRegionalTrailC o rrid o rWest F arm R o a d H e id i L a neHesse Farm Cir VogelsbergTrailMandan RaspberryHillBl uf f CreekDriveMillsRoad FlintlockTrailW. 96th Street Hwy101GreatPlainsBlvdFoxfordRoadW 94thSt.KiowaTrailLake Riley BlvdDeerfootTrail ParklandWay Sprin g fiel d D rE a s t woodCrt OverlookCourt S u n n yv a l e DrGree n vie w Dr. ShoreviewCourt GreenleafCourtSummerfieldDr Summerfie ld D riveLyman B lvd L a k eviewRdE N o r t hB ayDr1 Mission Way Hill W2 Marshland Tr3 Blackbird Ct4 Hartland Ct5 Mission Hill Way E6 Rice Ct7 Monk Ct8 Mayfield Ct9 Mission Hills Dr10 Frisco Ct Tigu a L aChanhass en Hills Dr NorthC hanh assenHillsDrSouthLakeSusanCrtL akeSusan H i l l s Dr2 43 1 W 187th StW 77th St 5PelicanCrtOspreyLnBluebillTrailBitternCourtSwanCourtIbi s CrtWestLakeDr MarketBlvd DellRoadL a keDrive E. Cheyenne Spur CheyenneAveLake Dr E .H id d e n Cir Eri eCircleErie SpurDakota Lane Dakot a LaneHiddenCourtMarsh D r DakotaAveHiddenLaneSinnen CirGreatPlainsBlvdW79thSt 77 th S tQuattroD r Park Roa d Park Court ParkPlac e 3 Autumn Ridge Avenue2 Harvest Way1 Harvest Lane LukewoodDr S tone C r e e k Lan e W S t o n e C r eekLaneEBoulderRoadBridle CreekT ra i l W 82nd St. A r b o r e t u m Boulevar d Highway 41State Hwy 5 ArboretumDrive77thS t L o neCedarL ane Minnewashta Court South Cedar DriveRed O a kLane White OakLane WhiteOakLane Hallgren Lane CountryOaksRoadStratford RidgeGlendale D r 6 6 Jersey Way StratfordLn StratfordBlvdStateHwy7Crestview Dr Linden C irK i rkw o o dC ir Landin g sDriveLandingsCrtJoshuaCi rCountryO aks RdLes leeCurveGreenbri ar AveN ez P erce Dr AudubonRd(CSAH15)Glendale Dr. Maple Cir Maple DrLeslee Curve Chur chRoadMeadow LaneW. 62nd St.MeadowCourtElmTreeCypressDriveDartm o u th D rFi rTreeS h o r e Drive Highover LaneBar b erryCirAr borLan eDogwoodAveI r o n w o o d P ip e r R id g e L n TanagersPointNorth Man orWash taBay R oadTanagersLnS a n dpiperTrailMin n e washtaW o o d s DrForrestCirForest A v e OrioleAve6 4th St.MelodyHill MurrayHillRoadW. 65th St.Hummingbird RdMelod yHillCirHighover Way Ches Mar Farm Rd Ches Mar DrHun te r Dr LodgepolePointHarrisonHillTrailHarrisonHillCourt R e d F o xCircle Brinker St CrocusCt.TulipCt.Maje s ticWa y WindmillDr5 BANEBERRY WAY E6 CONE FLOWER CRV S7 BLUEBONNET BLVD 10 BLUE SAGE LN E9 POPPY DR8 CHICORY WAY 13 BUTTER CUP CRT14 BLUESAGE LN WMillCreekLNKings R oad Settlers CtTrailsEndRdTrails E n dRdLake Lucy Rd W.78thSt HighwoodDr TreeTopRdMarket St Crestview Dr. C h estnut L a n e Pinehu rstDrPinehurst Dr 16 SNAPDRAGON DR 4 PRIMROSE PLACE 2 CLOVER1 BANEBERRY WAY W 3 CONEFLOWER CRV N 12 LADY SLIPPER LANE11 WATERLEAF LANE E 15 WATERLEAF LANE WWalnutCurve 6 7 89101115 1 4 2 3 1 3 1 1 6 5 5 4 12Prairie Flow e r BlvdWhiteDoveCir Wood Duck CirPintailCir Partridge Cir TealCir We st 6 3r d StCardinal Ave.CreekRu n Tr.AudubonBlue JayKoehnen Cir. EastKoehnenCir. West P h easantCir Shadow LaneIthlienAshton CT Te tonLaneBretton WayPipewood Cir £¤212 Arlington Ct. WelsleyCt.PleasantViewCoveW illow C reekDevonshireDrPointeLakeLucyMulberryCirEastMul b erryCir W est PeacefulLaneTroendleCircleTecumsehLaneShawneeLa ne RedmanLnUticaLaneUticaTerraceUticaCircleU t i c a L ane State Hwy 5 Picha KerberBlvdMarketBlv d W 78th St Chan ViewKiowaIroquois AveHuronFrontierTrailWest 76th St Great Plains BlvdSouthShore D r S o uthS h oreCtErieAveFrontierCourtLaredoDrive21 S a n t a VeraDrLaredoLaneSantaFeCirFrontier TrlIroqu ois Cimarron Cir SantaFeCirC a nyonC urveSad d le b rook Trail C one s togaTrailConestogaCourtButte C o urt PontiacCrt.Ponti a cCircle Pon t i a c L n DerbyDrive D e lRioDrDel Rio Dr PreaknessLn PimlicoLaneF o x H ill D rNa v a j o DrBroken A rro wDrRin g o Dr C a rv e r Be a c h Rd Pi ma LnCh a p a rr al LnRed w i ngL a n eKerber Blvd NezPerceDrWoodhill Dr Cr e e D r Ponderosa Dr Impe ria l Lone E a g leRd Carver BeachRd PenamintCtRedwingLnPenamintLnChaparralL N Hiawatha Dr Western Dr ChaparralCourtLotusTr a ilMohawk DrLakeAnnParkDrPawneeV i n elan d CtFoxPat hH opi R d DeerwoodDrQ uiverDrive NapaDr. P leasa n t V iewRoadFox Pat hFoxCtLake P oi ntPl e a sant Vie w R o ad TrappersP ass Mountai n W a yMountainViewCt NearMou n t a i nBl vd Pi edm ontCt Cascade Court S hastaC ir.W C a s tl eRidgeC a s cade Cir Shasta Cir. E Olympic Cir. CastleRidgeCourtCa s c ade P a s s Townline Road Tra pLin eCircle Tim b e r Hill RdRojinaLaneTrapLineLn PleasantParkDrBluffRidgeCrtGr a yFoxC urveFoxtail Crt QuailCrossingGrayFoxLaneHuntersCrtFox Hollow D r Chanhassen Rd. HWY. 101PleasantViewWayC h octawCirBrule CircleKruversPointRdW i l l o w ViewCove TwinMapleLn Basswood CirHorseshoeCurve M e rry P laceH olly LaneKNOBHILLLANE Lakew ay Lan eWoodDuckLn HighgateCir O r chard L a n e M aplewoodC irCactusC urveS a d dlebrookCurveChan View Dakota Lane HennepinCountyRegionalTrailCorridorF lyin g C lo u d D r ( C S A H 6 1 )State H W Y 10112 3 4 5Highland DrLaredoLn 7 6 MissionHillsCourtMissionHillsCircleMissionHillsLan e1098 P i o n e erT rail(C S A H 14)Meadowlark LnHesse F arm Road Sun r idgeCrtAudubonRdPioneerCircleCreekwood Dr H omestead LaneUp l a n d C ir cl e MalloryCourtBriarwoodCt.Galpin Blvd. (CR 117)LakeL u c y Road Lake Lucy Road D ia mo n d C o urt Melody HillMurrayHillCrt AudubonRdHill StLongviewCirGalpinBlvd(CSAH 15)C e n tu r y Trail CenturyBlvd1 234 7 6 5 3 Coach Place2 Coach Lane1 Coach Court 4 Coach Dr !Chesterfield Ln 5 Village Street6 Village Place !Century CircleCentury Ct.Century Place 7 Arboretum Village Trl Big Woods Blvd ArboretumVill a geCircleWaterTower Place Corporate Place Century BlvdSteller Court LucyRidgeCourt Em eral dLaneLucy Ridge LaneBentBowTrailW 78thStreet W78thStree tW78thStreet W78th St r e e t W 78th Stre etPond P ro m e n a d ePipewoodCurvePipewoodCrt Ruby L a n e T o pazDriveSapphireLane Ridgeview Way RidgeviewPoint Lakerid g eRoadRidgehillRoadT r i s t a n D r Trista n KnollVas s erman Trail VassermanPlace Delphinium LaneBramble Dr H ancock Place Hickory Road ShenendoahCircle GoldenCourtCountry OaksDr EdgewoodCt LakeLuc y R oadBrendenCourtManchesterDriveLakeH arrisonCircle High o v e rT railGal pi nCr t F o x D r Lake Harrison Rd A m berwoodLN Alder Way GunflintTrailArrowheadL n G unflint TrailH ig h cre stC irStonefieldLNPipewoodLaneCartwayLanePowersPlace4 Rosewood Dr3 Burlwood Dr2 Suffolk Dr1 Essex Rd LakeSusan HillsDr L a k e DriveWestYosemiteYosemiteLilacLane B lu ffCreekBlvd1234 5 Lyman Blvd (C S A H 18) PioneerTrail(CSAH14) B l u ffCre e k B l v d 1 Degler Circle2 Ellendale Lane3 Pembroke Pass4 River Rock Drive N. 78th St W Beacon Court 5 Bethesda Circle 7 8 9 1011 12 13 13 14 15 15 Roosevelt Dr 16 16 Columbia Lane 1717 Freedom Lane 7 Lincoln Lane8 Washington Circle9 Commonwealth Blvd10 Franklin Lane11 Madison Dr12 Jefferson Dr 14 Declaration Dr13 Washington Blvd Springfield Dr Pineview CrtPowers Blvd (CSAH 17)Maple Shores Dr RedCedarPoint Rd PaddockLn Lake Riley DrLakeR i leyTrl W atersEdgeDrFoxHollowCt CrossroadsBlvd18 Independance Circle 1819 Colonial Lane 1920 20 Freedom Lane Dell RoadTanadoonaDrive WestwoodDrSW Vil la ge DrA p p l e T r e e L a n eMotorplex CtWashta Bay Ct £¤212 £¤212 Flyin g C loudDr(CSA H 6 1 )Bl uffCr eekDrH em lockWayM a ya p p le P a ss!Village Ln Riley Ridge !Village Cir !Village Crt !Arboretum VillageLn, Pl, Crt, & Crv!Rock Island Ln VioletReflectionsRdL a k e vi ewRdE!BellevueCt 1 Hemlo ckWay Cottongrass CourtM a rig o ld C o u rtRed CedarCove Reflections RdWynsongLane Pleasant View Rd Blaze TrlRiver R ock DrS C a m denRidgeDrHenryCrtStrawberryLane HWY 101Mission Hills Stre et Names P r e serveC T F a wn HillRd Degler LNBentz CtWindsorCt14-07 EagleRidgeRdHawkcre s t Cir HawkcrestCtEagleCtCrossroad CourtAnthemPlace OHW 877.0 OHW 699.2 OHW 896.3 OHW 865.3 OHW 944.5 OHW 956.1 OHW 881.8 OHW 955.5 OHW 993.6 OHW945.2 OHW 932.77 OHW 929.8 Lotus Lake Lake Riley Lake Minnewashta Lake Lucy Rice Lake Lake Su sa n LakeAnn Lake Virginia LakeHarrison RiceMarshLake Clasen Lake Lake St J o e ChristmasLake Hennepin County Carver County CityofChaskaCity of ChanhassenC i ty o f S h a k o p e e City of Chanhassen S c o t t C o untyC a r v e rC ountyHennepin CountyCarver CountyCity of ChanhassenCity of Eden PrairieCity of Shorewood City of VictoriaCity ofChanhassen Flood Plain Changes Current vs Preliminary Flood Plains Added to 100 year flood plain Added 500 year flood plain Change from 100 to 500 year flood plain Change from 500 to 100 year flood plain No Change Removed from floodplain µ 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000Feet K:\NickLH\Projects\Special_Projects\FEMAFloodmaps\MapsforWebsite\Flood_Zone_Changes.mxd Date: 10/11/2018 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources • Division of Ecological and Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25, Saint Paul, MN 55155-4025 November 9, 2018 The Honorable Denny Laufenburger Mayor, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CONDITIONAL STATE APPROVAL OF FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE & REQUIRED NEXT STEPS Dear Mayor Laufenburger, On behalf of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), I am writing to conditionally approve the City of Chanhassen’s draft floodplain management ordinance. We received the most recent draft of the city’s floodplain management ordinance via email on November 2, 2018 from Assistant Planner, MacKenzie Walters. The ordinance is being amended to incorporate the Flood Insurance Study, Carver County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas, and the accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map panels with an effective date of December 7, 2018. We will provide final approval of the city’s draft ordinance once the following conditions have been met: • Please edit the items in Sections 20-327(2), 20-328(1), and 20-351(1) as indicated in the enclosed ordinance, and • Submit the following materials to the DNR no later than December 18, 2018: o one (1) copy each of the adopted ordinance incorporating the items noted above (signed and stamped with the community seal), o the affidavit of publication, and o the completed “Ordinance Certification Checklist” (enclosed). Please forward the documents listed above to Ceil Strauss, the DNR’s State NFIP Coordinator in St. Paul via email or to the address below in the footer. Upon receipt and verification, Ms. Strauss will transmit one copy of these materials and other required NFIP enrollment materials to Mr. John Kinley at FEMA’s Chicago Regional Office. Please remember, FEMA must receive a signed, certified, and effective ordinance no later than December 21, 2018. To allow sufficient time for processing and transmittal, we request that you submit the materials noted above to the DNR no later than December 18, 2018. If FEMA has not received the documentation by the map effective date, FEMA will suspend the City from the National Flood Insurance Program. Any future amendments of this ordinance or change in the designation of flood prone areas require prior DNR approval. In addition, you are required to send copies of hearing notices and final decisions pertaining to variances, conditional uses, and ordinance amendments to this agency. Those notices may also be sent to State NFIP Coordinator Ceil Strauss at the address below. Should you have any questions on this ordinance or related matters, please contact Ms. Strauss at (651) 259-5713 or ceil.strauss@state.mn.us. While our office in St. Paul will continue to be the main contact for the ordinance update, your DNR Area Hydrologist will continue to be your main contact for day to day assistance with administering your floodplain management ordinance and questions about other DNR water-related programs and permits. Your Area Hydrologist is Jennie Skancke, who can be contacted at (612) 259-5790, or jennie.skancke@state.mn.us. The DNR greatly appreciates your community’s cooperation and initiative in providing for the reduction of flood damages through the adoption and administration of this ordinance. Sincerely, Jennifer Shillcox Land Use Unit Supervisor Enclosures: Ordinance Processing Checklist Draft Ordinance with DNR edits ec: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner – City of Chanhassen Dan Lais, DNR Eco-Waters’ Regional Manager Jeanne Daniels, DNR Eco-Waters’ District Manager Jennie Skancke, DNR Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss, DNR NFIP Coordinator PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Subject Holasek Business Park: Consider Approval of Rezoning Parcel, Subdivision, Wetland Alteration Permit and Site Plan Review Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2. Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: PC 201818 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP); preliminary plat approval creating three lots and an outlot; approval of a Wetland Alteration Permit; and Site Plan approval for a total of 449,350 square feet in three office industrial buildings subject to the corresponding conditions of approval, and Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting a rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP) to permit development of an officewarehouse development.They are also requesting subdivision review creating three lots and one outlot with the dedication of rightofway for Lyman Boulevard.Access to the lots will be via a private street south of Lyman Boulevard.In conjunction with the development, a Wetland Alteration Permit is required to fill wetlands on the site.They are also requesting Site Plan Review for a total of 449,350 square feet in three office industrial buildings with areas of 161,500 or up to 179,500 square feet with a mezzanine (Building A), 109,250 square feet (Building B) and 160,600 or up to 178,600 square feet if Building A does not have a mezzanine (Building C). APPLICANT Eden Trace Corporation, 8821 Sunset Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317, mark@edentrace.com, (612) 8036970 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2 LAND USE:Office Industrial ACREAGE: 49 acres DENSITY: 0.28 F.A.R. APPLICATION REGULATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, November 20, 2018SubjectHolasek Business Park: Consider Approval of Rezoning Parcel, Subdivision, Wetland AlterationPermit and Site Plan ReviewSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2.Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: PC 201818PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2)to Industrial Office Park (IOP); preliminary plat approval creating three lots and an outlot; approval of a WetlandAlteration Permit; and Site Plan approval for a total of 449,350 square feet in three office industrial buildingssubject to the corresponding conditions of approval, andAdoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP) to permitdevelopment of an officewarehouse development.They are also requesting subdivision review creating three lots andone outlot with the dedication of rightofway for Lyman Boulevard.Access to the lots will be via a private street southof Lyman Boulevard.In conjunction with the development, a Wetland Alteration Permit is required to fill wetlands onthe site.They are also requesting Site Plan Review for a total of 449,350 square feet in three office industrial buildingswith areas of 161,500 or up to 179,500 square feet with a mezzanine (Building A), 109,250 square feet (Building B)and 160,600 or up to 178,600 square feet if Building A does not have a mezzanine (Building C).APPLICANTEden Trace Corporation, 8821 Sunset Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317, mark@edentrace.com, (612) 8036970SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2LAND USE:Office IndustrialACREAGE: 49 acres DENSITY: 0.28 F.A.R. APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article XXII, “IOP” Industrial Office Park District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and OfficeInstitutional Developments BACKGROUND On June 22, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council approved an Interim Use Permit (Planning Case #201512) to permit the removal of organic soils (peat) from the property and the stockpiling of soil on the property in anticipation of the eventual development of the site. On September 11, 1995, the city approved Interim Use Permit #953 for the placement of 36,000 cubic yards of fill material on the site. In 1957, Betty and Earl Holasek founded the nursery and greenhouse on the property which operated until the end of 2014. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP); Preliminary Plat approval creating three lots and one outlot with access via a private street; a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill wetlands on site; and Site Plan approval for three office industrial buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet, plans prepared by Sambate, dated 11022018, and Edward Farr Architects, dated 10192018, subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application Holasek Business Park Plans Cover Sheet Holasek Business Park Plans Existing Conditions Holasek Business Park Plans Site Plan Holasek Business Park Plans Grading Holasek Business Park Plans Erosion Control & Utility Plan Holasek Business Park Plans Landscaping Holasek Business Park Plans Architectural Holasek Business Park Plans Electrical Magellan Pipeline Agency Response Affidavit of Public Hearing Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: November 20, 2018 CC DATE: December 10, 2018 REVIEW DEADLINE: December 18, 2018 CASE #: 2018-18 BY: RG, EH, TH, DN, JS, VS, ET SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP); Subdivision review creating three lots and an outlot; Wetland Alteration Permit; Site Plan Review of a total of 449,350 square feet in three office industrial buildings. (The wetland boundary type and determination has been submitted and is near review completion.) LOCATION: 8610 Galpin Boulevard (South of Lyman Boulevard at the Galpin Boulevard intersection) PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to IOP; preliminary plat approval creating three lots and an outlot; approval of a Wetland Alteration Permit; and Site Plan approval for a total of 449,350 square feet in three office industrial buildings subject to the corresponding conditions of approval, and Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 2 APPLICANT: Eden Trace Corporation Holasek Farms, LP 8821 Sunset Trail 917 Kelly Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 mark@edentrace.com holasekghs@aol.com (612) 803-6970 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A2 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial ACREAGE: 49 acres DENSITY: F.A.R. 0.28 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving Rezonings because the city is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. A rezoning 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. The city’s discretion in approving or denying a Wetland Alteration Permit is limited to whether or not the proposal meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the city must approve the wetland alteration permit. This is a quasi-judicial decision. 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. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a rezoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP) to permit development of an office-warehouse development. They are also requesting subdivision review creating three lots and one outlot with the dedication of right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard. Access to the lots will be via a private street south of Lyman Boulevard. In conjunction with the development, a Wetland Alteration Permit is required to fill wetlands on the site. They are also requesting Site Plan Review for a total of 449,350 square feet of buildings in three office industrial buildings with areas of 161,500 or up to 179,500 square feet with a mezzanine (Building A), 109,250 square feet (Building B) and 160,600 or up to 178,600 square feet if Building A does not have a mezzanine (Building C). Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article II, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article XXII, “IOP” Industrial Office Park District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office- Institutional Developments BACKGROUND On June 22, 2015, the Chanhassen City Council approved an Interim Use Permit (Planning Case #2015-12) to permit the removal of organic soils (peat) from the property and the stockpiling of soil on the property in anticipation of the eventual development of the site. On September 11, 1995, the City approved Interim Use Permit #95-3 for the placement of 36,000 cubic yards of fill material on the site. In 1957, Betty and Earl Holasek founded the nursery and greenhouse on the property which operated until the end of 2014. SITE CONSTRAINTS Wetland Protection There are wetlands located on the property. The proposed development will impact the wetlands. A Wetland Alteration Permit is being applied for as part of the development review. Bluff Protection There are no bluffs on the property. Shoreland Management The property is partially located within a shoreland overlay district. The southwest corner of Outlot A is within 1,000 feet of Lake Hazeltine. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. REZONING The applicant is requesting the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Industrial Office Park (IOP). The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for Office Industrial Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 4 uses. Zonings, which are consistent with this designation, are Industrial Office Park District (IOP) or Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed development complies with all the requirements of the IOP zoning district. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to IOP district. SUBDIVISION REVIEW The applicant is requesting subdivision approval to create three lots and one outlot with the dedication of right-of-way for Lyman Boulevard. PRELIMINARY PLAT The developer is requesting plat approval to create three lots and one outlot with access via private streets. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 5 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL Grading The applicant is proposing to construct two wet ponds (pond A and pond B) on the east portion of the site. Through the proposed grading plan, drainage will be routed away from buildings into a series of catch basins and 12” - 48” stormwater pipe located in the parking areas and directed to the ponds. The applicant is proposing to substantially fill a wetland located south of Lot 3 in Outlot A. Due to the amount of fill proposed, this will create a bluff as defined under City Ordinance Chapter 1 Sec. 1-2. – Rules of construction and definitions. The Holasek Business Park construction plans show areas of grading over the main stormwater pipe that runs north to south along the western property boundary. Construction on this pipe may be planned for the next couple of years. Please coordinate earthwork in this area with the city and Carver County Public Works Department. The plans show significant grading in the south outlot. Sec. 19-145 of City Code does not allow unbroken slopes greater than 30’ and slopes steeper than 3:1. Additionally, the proposed grading would trigger bluff regulations Sec. 20-1401 and Sec. 20-1405. Staff recommends removing the stockpile from the proposed plans. If the stockpile cannot be removed, it will need to be reduced to slope less than 20’ 3:1 max. It must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology, erosion and sediment control, and surface water management. Drainage This project drains to Lake Hazeltine. Lake Hazeltine is on the MN 303D list. Staff has also received information from the DNR that the south wetland is a public waters wetland and considered within the OHW of Lake Hazeltine. DNR has stated Shoreline Regulations should extend from the south wetland. Staff recommends the applicant contact the DNR to discuss this issue. Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). The applicant shall prepare a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and submit to the city for approval prior to the issuance of any grading permits or the commencement of any earth disturbing activities. This SWPPP shall be consistent with the NPDES Construction Permit and shall contain all required elements as listed in Parts III and IV of the permit. Financial Assurance. To guarantee compliance with the plan, and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished to the city before a building permit is issued. The escrow amount shall be $7,500.00 per acre. The city may use the escrow or Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 6 draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls. Erosion and Sediment Control Details. Erosion and sediment control must meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 including a dewatering plan. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices including temporary sedimentation basins, silt fence, the construction entrance, and ESC BMPs are shown in the legend on sheet C5.02, but not on the plans. Please indicate the location of these practices on the Erosion Control Plan sheet. EOF Stabilization. EOFs should be stabilized with TRM or similar. Please include chosen stabilization measures in the construction plans. Temporary Sediment Ponds. The proposed stormwater ponds will need to be utilized as temporary sediment ponds during construction. A faircloth skimmer will need to be installed, and the outlets of the pond will need to be sealed off for the duration of construction until the site is stabilized. Skimming devices should be designed to remove oils and floatable materials up to a one-year frequency event. The skimmer should be set 12 inches below the normal surface water elevation and should control the discharge velocity to 0.5 fps. Please incorporate these notes and details into the construction plans. Topsoil and Vegetation Management Subsoil Decompaction. Please add a note about subsoil decompaction to the topsoil section on sheet L1.03. Subsoil must be decompacted to a depth of 6” inches in all pervious areas, prior to placement of 6” inches of topsoil. Contractor must identify the method used to decompact 6” inches of subsoil prior to placing topsoil. Topsoil Depth. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 reads that a minimum of 4” topsoil is required. Carver County Water Management Organization (CCWMO) Standards require that 6” of topsoil be replaced in all disturbed pervious areas. Please update this note to reflect the 6” requirement. Stockpiles. Please indicate the quantity of topsoil needed to restore 6” in all pervious areas of the development. Show location(s) where existing topsoil is to be stockpiled on the site. Soil Hauling. Please describe topsoil hauling plans, including locations and estimated quantities. Please note that if topsoil is exported or imported to the site, an additional permit may be required. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 7 Vegetative Cover. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 refers to a healthy stand of vegetation in all disturbed pervious areas of the development. Please note that 90% of the expected vegetative density is required. Retaining Walls Due to the substantially lower grade from the proposed site and Lyman Boulevard, the applicant is proposing an approximate 910’ long retaining wall on the north side of Lot 1. A majority of the retaining wall is proposed to have a height greater than 4’ (12.5’ at its highest, as noted on the plans). This retaining wall shall be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect and shall be constructed of a durable material (smooth face concrete/poured in place, masonry/mortared, railroad ties and timber are prohibited). No such plans or details were submitted with the site plan, and must be provided prior to issuance of building permits. Additionally, due to substantial grade changes at the southwest corner of the development, a second retaining wall of approximately 200’ in length exceeding 4’ in height is proposed, and shall also be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. Building C Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 8 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT This site lies within the boundaries of the CCWMO and is subject to their stormwater management requirements. These requirements are similar to Minimal Impact Design Standards and have the same required removals of total phosphorus and total suspended solids as does Chanhassen’s code. Chanhassen’s MS4 permit was re-issued in 2014. Part III.D.5 states that each MS4 is required to develop local controls that require new developments, in excess of one acre, to have no net-increase in stormwater discharge volume nor any increase in TP and TSS from predevelopment conditions. Finally, the NPDES construction permit, under which the applicant must develop, states that: “Where a project’s ultimate development replaces vegetation and/or other pervious surfaces with one (1) or more acres of cumulative impervious surface, the Permittee(s) must design the project so that the water quality volume of one (1) inch of runoff from the new impervious surfaces created by the project is retained on site (i.e. infiltration or other volume-reduction practices) and not discharged to a surface water.” Under the new NPDES – Construction Permit, the new NPDES – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer permit and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules, the applicant must meet the abstraction requirements of one (1) inch of runoff from all new impervious surfaces. With all subdivisions, stormwater utility connection fees are collected. These fees are based upon development type and area. Fees are used to maintain storm sewer infrastructure and to construct water quality improvement projects. Fees in effect at the time of final plat approval will be collected prior to recording the final plat. 1. Stormwater Development Charges. Estimated Stormwater development fees in the amount of $770,012.40 (36.39 acres x $21,160) shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. It is often possible that the preservation of open space in a natural condition significantly reduces, or even eliminates, the need for additional stormwater best management practices realizing significant reductions in development costs. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual lists average costs for the activities required to create a pond. Discounting the cost of site preparation, survey costs, storm sewer conveyance and site restoration, the typical pond costs approximately $21.50/yard to construct and approximately $3,500 for an overflow structure. So a one acre-foot pond would cost over $38,000 to excavate and outlet. It is the policy of Chanhassen to provide a credit for Water Quality fees equal to 50% of the base rate times the area treated provided it, at a minimum, meets the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) recommendations. Drainage and Utility Easements will be required over all remaining wetlands, and public stormwater utilities. This includes the western boundary of the project which should have a sufficient easement for the main drainage pipe for this area (required in conjunction with final plat). Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 9 Private stormwater easements will be required over all private stormwater facilities using the City’s template (required in conjunction with final plat). Stormwater Management Additional Comments. Please note that due to the need to review additional stormwater information, additional comments will likely be provided on any resubmitted plans. Sec. 19-142. - Plans required. All plans shall be reviewed and stamped "Approved by the City Engineer" and all applicable permits must be obtained prior to commencing construction. For all newly constructed stormwater facilities (ponds, retention areas, infiltration basins, storm sewer, etc.) or existing facilities that are modified, as-built plans shall be prepared by the developer. As-built plans shall be signed and certified by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota and record drawings shall be provided to the city. Standard details for many typical storm structures (e.g., storm sewer, outlet structures, catch basins, sump manholes, etc.) are available on the city's website. Sec. 19-144 Major facility design elements. a. For basins intended to have permanent water levels, a minimum of four feet of standing water (dead storage depth) and a maximum of ten feet shall be provided. b. Separation between the inlet(s) and outlet shall be maximized to prevent short-circuiting. c. Outlets shall be evaluated for the need to dissipate energy so as to reduce velocities to permissible levels as allowed by the soil and vegetation. At a minimum, flared end sections should be provided with riprap consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. For areas with high flows or where excessive erosion occurs or is anticipated, energy dissipation per Federal Highway Administration standards shall be followed. d. Riprap shall be provided below the channel grade and above the outfall or channel bottom to ensure that riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective by displacement. Riprap consisting of natural angular stone suitably graded by weight shall be designed for anticipated velocities. Riprap shall be placed over a suitable filter material or filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not move through the riprap and reduce its stability. BMP Details. Include the following BMP details in the construction plans: a. BMP Cross Sections. Include site-specific elevations on the Bioretention Bench and Bioretention Trench details on Sheet C4.02. b. OCS Details. Include Outlet Control Structure Details (attached) for the stormwater BMPs with specific elevations for inlets, outlets, and draintile (when applicable). c. BMP Profiles. Include profiles of the stormwater BMPs with draintile (Pond B Filtration Bench and Filtration Trench) showing draintile slope. Please note that all draintile must have a positive drainage slope of at least 0.5%. Include site-specific invert elevations for assistance with field construction. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 10 d. EOF elevations. EOF elevations should be set to at least 0.5 ft. above the HWL to allow for construction tolerance. Include cross-sections of the EOFs in the plan set. Impervious Acreage. The area (ac) of proposed new impervious is inconsistent between the application (25.10), stormwater report (27.5), project narrative (25.08), plan sheet C5.03 (28.4), and HydroCAD model (25.34). Please clarify the correct area of new impervious and update components of the submittal to match. Elevation-Storage Tables. Include the Filtration Bench bottom (should be 928.5) in the elevation- storage table in the HydroCAD report so that the treatment volumes can be determined for the ponds, bench, and re-use system. Filtration Trench. The filtration trench design is not compliant in the current design. a. Contributing Area. The filtration trench appears to receive runoff from pervious areas only. Stormwater BMPs should capture and treat runoff from impervious areas on the site. b. Tree Roots. The filtration trench is proposed in an area that is wooded on the landscape plan. Trees may be planted on the side-slopes or adjacent to the trench but are not allowed in the trench bottom. Tree roots may impact the draintile and prevent proper drainage. c. Model and Plan Details. The filtration trench is not included in the HydroCAD model and the construction plans do not show details (bottom, NWL, HWL, OCS, EOF) for this BMP. Please include the details listed in Comment #2 above and include information for this practice in the construction plans and HydroCAD model. Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plan. Provide a draft O&M plan outlining the responsibilities for inspecting and maintaining the stormwater BMPs on site. The O&M plan must be signed by all responsible parties. a. Reuse Maintenance Plan. Provide a draft Reuse Maintenance Plan as part of the overall O&M plan. Please include all details outlined in the corresponding section on the Stormwater Reuse Design Guidance document. Reuse Plan Sheet. Please add the following information to the stormwater reuse plan: a. Location of the following reuse system components: irrigation lines, irrigation zones, sprinkler heads, pumps, intakes from ponds, and usage meters. If applicable, include the locations of the potable connection, backflow prevention devices, filters, and debris collection sumps. b. Narrative describing operation of the systems. If the irrigated areas will be actively used during daytime hours, the irrigation needs to be scheduled for times when the areas will not be in use. c. Location of access for reuse system maintenance. d. Drawdown elevations of the reuse ponds. e. Volume reduction and/or water quality calculations. f. Other information relevant to the reuse systems. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 11 SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP including soils/infiltration data within the perimeter of all infiltration/filtration devices is required prior to review for final plat. The SWPPP must also meet all requirements of City Code 19-145. The applicant has communicated they are working on this item and will have it completed in time Basin. There is a bioretention basin south of Lyman Boulevard in the road construction plans. Please show this basin on the construction plans for Holasek Business Park and demonstrate that road project plans do not interfere with this project. Chloride Management Plan. A chloride management plan is required. The applicant has submitted a document of intent Other Agencies TCW. Applicant will need to respond to the comments received by Twin Cities & Western (Wednesday, October 24, 2018, 6:39 AM): “In response to this proposal, Twin Cities & Western offers the following comment: Twin Cities & Western has concerns of stormwater and general runoff impacts with this land being developed making it non-pervious. What will happen to the stormwater runoff and will the increased runoff adversely impact the railroad roadbed?” CCWMO. The following section includes recommendations on the submitted plans and information. The notes below are not conditions for project approval. 1. Stormwater Treatment Coordination. The WMO recommends coordinating with the city and county to determine if a stormwater BMP can be shared between the Holasek site and the road project. Please consider co-locating a stormwater pond or other practice in the southwest corner of the Holasek site with the city and county to provide volume control and treatment for runoff from Lyman Boulevard. 2. Pond Retrofit or Expansion. The WMO recommends investigating the possibility of adding to the existing stormwater pond for water quality treatment. 3. Financial Security. Financial Security in the amount of $50,000.00 is required for this project and should be submitted prior to the start of construction. The security is deposited with the county for faithful performance of the approved plans and to finance any necessary remedial work. EASEMENTS Drainage and utility easements will be required over all remaining wetlands, and public stormwater utilities. This includes the western boundary of the project which should have a sufficient easement for the main drainage pipe for this area (required in conjunction with final plat). Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 12 Private stormwater easements will be required over all private stormwater facilities using the City’s template (required in conjunction with final plat). There is an existing 100’ wide pipeline easement on the property as shown on the submitted plans. The easement is located in the middle of the property and extends from the west property boundary to the east property boundary, bisecting the site. The easement is for an underground natural gas pipeline operated by Magellan Pipeline Company. The applicant is proposing the construction of a parking area over the easement. An agreement to construct any of the proposed improvements over Magellan Pipeline Company’s easement must be executed and supplied to the city for review prior to the issuance of grading permits. Magellan Pipeline Company has been supplied the site plan and is conducting their review. All comments and conditions shall be addressed by the applicant. The applicant is proposing standard drainage and utility easements around each lot on the provided site plans. However, the 5’ drainage and utility easement on the south side of Lot 2, and the 5’ drainage and utility easement on the north side of Lot 3, located over the Magellan Pipeline’s easement, shall be removed from the preliminary and final plat. See image below. RIGHT-OF-WAY, STREETS AND EASEMENTS The applicant is proposing access to the site from Lot 1, which fronts County State Aid Highway 18 (C.S.A.H. 18), also known as Lyman Boulevard. Currently, there is an existing 50’ wide access to the property at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard, located at the northeast portion of the property. The intersection is controlled by traffic signals operated and maintained by Carver County, with power supplied by Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 13 The applicant is proposing to utilize the 50’ wide access at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard, along with the addition of a right-in/right-out access towards the northwest portion of the property. These access points then routes traffic to private roads throughout the development. No approach widths are called out on the site plan for the right-in/right-out access point. The width shall be required to ensure Carver County standards are met. In addition, no signal design drawings were provided (existing or proposed) for the signalized intersection and existing stub out. Any requirements by Carver County to improve the intersection (i.e. installation or protection of magnetic loops, signal timing adjustments, etc.) shall be addressed by the applicant (if necessary). Carver County will require an approximate 4,000 square foot drainage and utility easement located at the northwest section of the property. This is a required drainage improvement due to a large road project to upgrade Lyman Boulevard. A trip generation study was provided by Vernon Swing, PE with Swing Traffic Solutions, LLC on November 1, 2018. The methodology for trip generation for the development was the Institute for Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 10th Edition. The memo concludes that the existing roadway system operations will not experience significant change. Based on the provided trip generation study, Engineering does not anticipate any extraordinary transportation impacts associated with this development and proposes no conditions. However, impacts associated with Lyman Boulevard, or any subsequent Carver County jurisdictional road(s), will require Carver County’s review and approval. Coordination with Road Project. Additional information is needed about coordination with the city and county road project on Lyman Boulevard. Please contact Scott Smith, Carver County Public Works, at 952.466.5217 or Bob Leba, SRF Consulting, at 763.249.6786 for plans and additional information on the road project. Please also see the recommendations section below for WMO recommendations on coordination with the city and county. Access to the individual lots will be via private street extensions from Lyman Boulevard (C.S.A.H. 18) at the west end of the property (right-in/right-out) and at the intersection with Galpin Boulevard. A 40-foot access and maintenance easement shall be recorded over the private streets. The private street shall be constructed to a nine-ton design with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet and a maximum slope of 10 percent. The primary private street shall receive a street name for addressing and public safety purposes. The Building Official and Fire Marshall shall approve the street name. Private streets may be permitted in office industrial developments if the city finds the following conditions to exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to constrict a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. A public street would serve no added public function since this is a single, unified development. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 14 (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. There are no adjacent parcels that would be accessed via an extension of a street within the development. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. The use of a public street would add more impervious surface, but provide no additional transportation benefit. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN A 10” DIP water service stub and an 8” PVC sanitary sewer stub currently exist to serve the proposed development. Both stubs are located within the existing 50’ wide access at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Galpin Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing 10” DIP water service stub and install a private 10” water main to serve all three buildings. No connection methodology to the existing stub, material type, or location of service valves and other water main appurtenances have been indicated on the utility plans. Engineering recommends the designer utilize PVC C900 water main grade pipe on the submittal of building plans. Prior to construction of the private water main within the development, all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. An 8” PVC sanitary sewer stub currently exists to serve the proposed development. However, the applicant is proposing to discharge sanitary sewer effluent to the neighboring city of Chaska, which lies outside Chanhassen’s sewer service territory and city boundary. The applicant has expressed that this is the only means of discharging sanitary sewer by means of a gravity system. As currently designed on the submitted plans, this method and point of discharge is not approved. The applicant will be required to submit plans that utilize a discharge method to the service territory where the development is to take place, i.e. discharge to Chanhassen’s sewer utilizing the existing 8” PVC sanitary sewer stub. Based on the in-situ topographic conditions and proposed grading plans, this will require the applicant to construct, operate and maintain a private lift station with a maintainable force main. Subsequently, an operation and maintenance plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits, and improvements to the existing manhole in which the 8” PVC service stub is located to receive the discharge from lift station operations. If the applicant desires to connect sewer to the Chaska system, it would require formal approval by both municipalities. The applicant shall facilitate a meeting to discuss the feasibility of this discharge method, address concerns over capacity and sewer billings, and any other additional analysis required by Chaska and Chanhassen to evaluate the connection and discharge. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 15 ASSESSMENTS Water and sewer partial hookups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hookup fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time. The remaining partial hookups fees are due with the building permit. Fees Based on the proposal, the following fees would be collected with the development contract: a) A portion of the water hook-up charge: $2,233/unit b) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $691/unit c) GIS fees: $25 for the plat plus $10 per parcel d) Parks fees: $454,875.00 e) Stormwater: $770,012.40 LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The landscaping requirements are reviewed under the site plan review. PARKS & RECREATION Parks Holasek Business Park is located within the neighborhood park service area of Stone Creek Park and the community park service areas of Lake Ann Park, Chanhassen Recreation Center, Chanhassen Nature Preserve and Bluff Creek Preserve. Future employees and visitors to the Holasek Business Park will enjoy convenient access to a variety of Chanhassen parks and park preserves. Stone Creek Park, Chanhassen Recreation Center, and Chanhassen Nature Preserve are all within walking distance of the newly proposed business park and offer a total of 155 acres of parkland featuring children’s playgrounds, basketball courts, picnic shelters, hockey rinks, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, a sledding hill, nature walks, and more than three miles of pedestrian trails. The Chanhassen Recreation Center is located one mile north of the business park and offers a broad array of indoor and outdoor public recreation services for all ages. No additional parkland acquisition or construction is being recommended as a condition of approval for the Holasek Business Park. Trails Holasek Business Park will have direct access to the city’s comprehensive trail system. Extensive public trails can be accessed to the north and east upon leaving the subject property. An additional trail connection to the west will be installed concurrent with future upgrades to Lyman Boulevard. Crosswalks are in place at the main entrance to the business park and care should be taken to connect all interior pedestrian walkways to this intersection. No additional trail construction is being sought as a condition of approval for the business park. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 16 Staff recommends that full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction be collected for the three proposed lots totaling 36.39 acres as a condition of approval for Holasek Business Park. These park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. At today’s industrial park fee rate of $12,500 per acre this fee would total $454,875. MISCELLANEOUS Pedestrian ramps shall be added at each curb at the driveway entrance to Building A and included on the site plan sheet C3.01. COMPLIANCE TABLE Area (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) Depth (ft.) Hard Cover sq. ft. Notes Code 43,560 150 200 70/30,492 1 acre Lot 1 544,064 1,530 353 380,845 12.49 acres Lot 2 434,293 1,44 285 304,005 9.97 acres Lot 3 606,791 1,535 432 424,754 13.93 acres Outlot A 554,511 12.73 acres ROW 226,948 5.21 Total 2,366,607 54.33acres Setbacks: Front - 30 feet, Side - 10 feet, Rear - 10 feet Hard cover - 70 percent Building Height - four stories/50 feet WETLAND ALTERATION Wetland Protection The plan set shows intent to impact several wetlands on site. Until a Notice Of Decision (NOD) for Wetland Boundary and Type has been issued, all water resources on site are considered wetlands and fall under the Wetland Conservation Act and Article VI of City Code. Many requirements of Article VI have not been addressed. Staff believes it is possible the applicant will be able to address all requirements. Some of the important requirements include: 1. Sec. 20-409. Decisions under this article must not be made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the city council, the landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel asks for such determinations. 2. Any projects seeking a wetland alteration permit subject to this article will also be required to submit the following incomplete requirements: Existing and proposed drainage areas to wetlands; Buffer strip plan meeting the criteria of subsections 20-411(c) and (d). Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 17 3. Sec. 20-416. Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall be undertaken on-site. If this is not feasible, then mitigation may occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible, then mitigation may occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be accomplished on-site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off-site, then the applicant shall be responsible for providing off-site mitigation within the major subwatershed, as designated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, or purchasing wetland credits from the state wetland bank. Staff believes mitigation can occur on site by expanding the wetlands in the south outlot. 4. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by this Code. 5. If a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland. (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation. (3) It shall not adversely change water flow. (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action. (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas. (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures. (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning. (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. 6. The alteration shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland, if a portion of the wetland remains, unless exempted under Sec. 20-417. Please show how hydrologic patterns will not be altered for the remaining wetlands. 7. Sec. 20-405. Wetland delineation. An electronic copy of the delineated wetland boundaries must be submitted in a format compatible with the city's GIS database. 8. Sec. 20-406. Wetland classification. All wetlands delineated under Sec. 20-405 of this article that have not been previously classified shall be classified using the results from the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version 3.0), or future versions. A MnRAM shall be completed by the property owner or applicant for each previously unclassified wetland. An electronic version of the MnRAM evaluation must be submitted to and approved by the city to establish the classification of each wetland prior to any alteration or impact to the wetland. 9. An approved NOD for Boundary and Type is required for a complete application; however, the applicant has been very involved, communicative, responsive, and fully participatory in the application process. Staff will accept the application in process as the TEP has met prior to deadline for completion. The NOD will be issued by November 27, 2018. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 18 10. Staff review will be conditional upon an approved NOD for Boundary and Type. 11. Based on the submission, the site will require at least one additional Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process. 12. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on site. Please indicate wetland buffers widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in the guidance document attached. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Alternative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. 13. Sec. 19-146. Wetland elements. a. Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to two feet and duration not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destruction of wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation. b. Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to discharge into wetlands. c. Variable bottom contours should be considered to provide deeper holes and flat shallow benches. This feature will provide habitat for diversity of plants and wetland inhabitants for wetland mitigation sites and stormwater basins. SITE PLAN REVIEW The applicant is proposing Holasek Business Park, an Office / Warehouse campus consisting of three multi-tenant Office / Warehouse buildings. Each building will repeat the architectural elements of the others. The buildings will be one-story with 28 feet of clear height internally. Mezzanine levels may be added to a building, but the overall building area will not exceed 450,000 square feet. The only difference between buildings will be the finished sizes of the buildings. Initially, Buildings A and B will be constructed. Building C will be constructed as the market requires. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 19 ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE Size Portion Placement Major entries are proposed at the corner of each of the buildings with a two-level glass entrance curtain wall. Additional entries are proposed for the tenant spaces along the front of the building. All entrances have two level metal canopies. Entrances are framed with recessed columns of medium sandblast precast (gray with hints of reds and tan). The primary building materials are precast exposed aggregate buff (tan) and exposed aggregate red. The building articulation is provided by recessed architectural detailing every 108 feet with a change in color and building patterning every 54 feet. Groupings of three windows are provided in every segment of the building with two levels of windows flanking every entrance. Projected columns are located to the left of every front entry. Material, Color and Detail The primary building materials are precast exposed aggregate buff (tan), exposed aggregate red and sand blast gray. Champaign metal window frames contain bronze tinted glass. Dark bronze coping is provided at the top of the parapet and the top of the columns. Height and Roof Design Building heights are proposed at 36 feet. Mechanical equipment is screened with parapet walls as well as strategic placement on the building roof. Facade Transparency Each of the buildings are 950 long with depths of 170, 115 and 188 feet, respectively. The highest parapet height is 36 feet on the front. Fifty percent (50%) of the first floor elevation that is viewed by the public includes transparent windows and/or doors. All other areas shall include landscaping material and architectural detailing and articulation. Entrance areas have a double height of Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 20 storefront type windows. The transom band of windows consists of spandrel windows rather than vision glass. Clerestory windows shall be vision glass to allow natural lighting into the building. Where each floor has horizontal mullions across the windows, the upper pane is spandrel and the lower panes are vision. The clerestory windows are all vision. Site Furnishing Community features including benches, bike racks and picnic tables shall be incorporated in the site. The green areas to the east of Buildings A and B provide a good opportunity to create an employee break area. Benches along the sidewalk create good rest and view options. Loading Areas, Refuse Area, Etc. Screening of service yards, refuse and waste removal, other unsightly areas and truck parking/loading areas are being provided through their location on the site as well as site landscaping. Loading docks are located between Buildings A and B creating a screened truck court. The loading docks for Building C will be located south of the building, screened from view off Lyman Boulevard. Lot Frontage and Parking Location The business park fronts on Lyman Boulevard, but is accessed via private streets off the arterial roadway. Parking is distributed around three sides of Buildings A and C, the largest of the three buildings. Parking for Buildings B and C will be located between the two buildings. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 21 ACCESS Access shall be provided via private streets at the east and west ends of the development. Drive aisles for these streets are proposed at 30 feet. The easterly private street will be named. GRADING Primary grading for the entire site will be done in conjunction with the subdivision. Only final grading elevations will be completed as part of the building permit process. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 22 Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of site grading activities. LANDSCAPING Minimum requirements for overall landscaping at the proposed development includes 49,972 sq. ft. of landscaped area around the parking lots, 104 landscape islands or peninsulas, and 199 trees for the parking lot. The applicant’s proposed landscaping as compared to the requirements for landscape area and parking lot trees is shown in the following table. Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 49,972 sq. ft. > 49,972 sq. ft. Trees/parking lot 199 trees 83 shade trees Islands or peninsulas/parking lot 39 islands/peninsulas 39 islands/peninsulas The applicant does not meet minimum requirements for trees and landscaping in the parking lot area. Staff recommends that the applicant increase landscaping quantities to meet minimum requirements. When broken down for each lot, the requirements are shown in the table below. LOT 1 Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 16,518 sq. ft. > 16,518 sq. ft. Trees/parking lot 66 trees 26 Trees Islands or peninsulas/parking lot 16 islands/peninsulas 18 islands/peninsulas LOT 2 Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 14,078 sq. ft. > 14,078 sq. ft. Trees/parking lot 56 trees 15 trees Islands or peninsulas/parking lot 10 islands/peninsulas 8 islands/peninsulas LOT 3 Required Proposed Vehicular use landscape area 19,375 sq. ft. > 19,375 sq. ft. Trees/parking lot 77 trees 42 Trees Islands or peninsulas/parking lot 13 islands/peninsulas 13 islands/peninsulas The applicant comes up short by 116 on the minimum number of trees required for parking lot landscaping. By changing understory to overstory selections, an additional quantity of almost 40 trees could be added to the applicant’s proposed minimums. Additionally, a line of overstory trees on Lot 3 could be moved closer to the parking area and counted for required landscaping. When adding additional trees to the overall landscape plan, the applicant shall maintain diversity in the plant schedule. The city can approve additional species selections, if appropriate, not listed in the city’s Approved Tree List. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 23 Japanese beetles have become an issue in new plantings. The beetles can completely defoliate a young tree and severely compromise its future health. Lindens are especially concerning since it is a preferred food choice of the beetles and chemical application to prevent beetle feeding on these trees can be fatal to honey bees, which are frequent visitors to lindens during bloom time. An ill-timed chemical application can kill hundreds of bees. This proposed landscape plan shows a large number of lindens and elms planted in blocks, both of which can be heavily attacked by Japanese beetles. The applicant should consider limiting the number of lindens called for in the plant schedule and avoid planting elms and lindens in groupings. Snow storage on a site can damage landscaping if not planned for appropriately. Ensuring that there are various clear areas around the perimeter for snow storage will prevent damage to the proposed plantings. The applicant should designate snow removal/storage areas on each lot that do not conflict with proposed landscaping. Parking lot islands located in the pipeline easement should be considered for small shrub or perennial plantings to enhance green space in the parking lot. Plantings under three feet can be installed in islands which will comply with pipeline easement restrictions. Including landscaping features in the islands will improve aesthetics and reduce some stormwater runoff. All parking lot islands and peninsulas that contain a tree planting must have an inside width of 10 feet. They also will be required to have proper planting soil as specified in the Planting Notes. LIGHTING/SIGNAGE The applicant is proposing 25-foot tall light poles on three-foot tall concrete piers along the parking area. Wall-pack lighting units are proposed as well as decorative area lights. All fixtures must be shielded, high-pressure sodium or light-emitting diode (LED), with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 degrees. Wall-mounted lighting shall be shielded with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 degrees Monument signs are proposed at the private street entrances to the site. Each monument may be eight feet tall with a sign display area of 64 square feet. Wall mounted signs are proposed above the entrances to the building. Each business is permitted one wall mounted sign per street frontage. Separate sign permit applications are required for each sign. MISCELLANEOUS The building is required to have an automatic fire-extinguishing system. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota (if applicable). Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. Detailed occupancy and accessibility-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. The building will be subject to the State Building Code in effect on the date of permit application (2015 MN Building Code). Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 24 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Article VII, Chapter 19 of City Code describes the required stormwater management development standards. Sec. 19-141 states that “these development standards shall be reflected in plans prepared by developers and/or project proposers in the design and layout of site plans, subdivisions and water management features.” These standards include abstraction of runoff and water quality treatment resulting in the removal of 90% total suspended solids (TSS) and 60% total phosphorous (TP). UTILITIES Utilities for the site are being provided as part of the subdivision process. Final connections shall be done in conjunction with the building permit process. COMPLIANCE TABLE Parcel Area Building Building Area* Building Area** Height/Hard Cover Parking Code 43,560 sq. ft. 1 ac. 50 ft. 70% @ Lot 1 544,064 sq. ft. / 12.49 ac A 179,500 sq. ft. 161,500 sq. ft. 36 ft. 69% 257 Lot 2 434,293 sq. ft. / 9.97 ac B 109,250 sq. ft. 109,250 sq. ft. 36 ft. 67% 207 Lot 3 606,791 sq. ft. / 13.93 ac C 160,600 sq. ft. 178,600 sq. ft. 36 ft. 70% 269 Outlot A 554,346 sq. ft. / 12.73 ac. Open Space/Storm water ponds 0% Total 2,149,494 sq. ft. / 49.35 ac. 449,350 sq. ft. 449,350 sq. ft. 51% 733 *Proposed building areas. They include an 18,000 sq. ft. mezzanine in Building A. **Alternate building areas, if Building A does not get the mezzanine. @ Parking Standards: Office = 5/1,000 sq. ft. for first 50,000 sq. ft., 4/1,000 sq. ft. next 50,000 sq. ft., 3/1,000 sq. ft. over 100,000 sq. ft.; Warehouse = 1/1,000 sq. ft. first 10,000 sq. ft. then 1/ 2,000 over 10,000 sq. ft. Building Setbacks: Front = 30 ft., Side = 10 ft.; Rear = 10 ft.; 20 ft. from gas line easement Parking Setbacks: Front = 30 unless screened, then may be 10 ft. unless adjacent to another parking lot; Side and rear = 10 ft. unless adjacent to another parking lot Wetland Setbacks: To be determined Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 25 Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A-2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP; Preliminary Plat approval creating three lots and one outlot with access via a private street; a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill wetlands on site; and Site Plan approval for three office industrial buildings for a total of 449,350 square feet, plans prepared by Sambate, dated 11-02-2018, and Edward Farr Architects, dated 10-19-2018, subject to the following conditions: SUBDIVISION Engineering All ingress/egress locations, including the right-in/right-out access located at the northwestern portion of the property, and subsequent impacts of trip generation by the development, shall be designed to Carver County standards and shall meet all Carver County’s requirements. Any requirements set by Carver County to improve the intersection shall be addressed by the applicant (if necessary). The applicant shall dedicate the 40’ x 120’ drainage and utility easement at the northwest corner of Lot 1 on the preliminary and final plat prior to recording. An executed agreement between the developer and Magellan Pipeline Company allowing construction over Magellan Pipeline Company’s easement shall be provided to the city prior to the issuance of grading permits. The preliminary and final plat shall not include the 5’ drainage and utility easements located at the south side of Lot 2, and the north side of Lot 3, prior to acceptance and recording. All retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect prior to issuance of building permits. At the time of building permit submittal, connection methodology to the existing stubs (sanitary sewer and water services), material type, and location of service valves and other appurtenances shall be identified for review. Prior to construction of the water and sanitary utilities within the development, all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 26 An O&M plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. Acceptable O&M plan standards can be found under the League of Minnesota Cities information memo “Sanitary Sewer Toolkit: A Guide for Maintenance Policies and Procedures,” and also found here: https://www.lmc.org/media/document/1/sanitarysewertoolkit.pdf Improvements to the existing manhole where the effluent will be received via the lift station. Parks Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected for the three proposed lots totaling 36.39 acres as a condition of approval for Holasek Business Park. These park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Planning A 40-foot access and maintenance easement shall be recorded over the private streets. The private streets shall be constructed to a nine-ton design with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet and a maximum slope of 10 percent. A street name for the private street at Galpin Boulevard and Lyman Boulevard shall be submitted to the Building Official and Fire Marshall for review and approval prior to recording the final plat. Water Resources Coordinator Stormwater Development Charges. Estimated stormwater development fees in the amount of $770,012.40 (36.39 acres x $21,160) shall be paid prior to recording the final plat. Financial Assurance. To guarantee compliance with the plan and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished to the city before a building permit is issued. The escrow amount shall be $7,500.00 per acre. The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. The assurance shall be maintained until final stabilization and removal of erosion and sediment controls. Drainage and utility easements will be required over all remaining wetlands and public stormwater utilities. This includes the western boundary of the project as well as the southwest corner of the parcel which should have a sufficient easement for the main drainage pipe for this area (required in conjunction with final plat). Private stormwater easements will be required over all private stormwater facilities using the city’s template (required in conjunction with final plat). Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 27 The Holasek Business Park construction plans show areas of grading over the main stormwater pipe that runs north to south along the western property boundary. Construction on this pipe may be planned for the next couple of years. Please coordinate earthwork in this area with the city and Carver County Public Works Department. The plans show significant grading in the south outlot. Sec. 19-145 of City Code does not allow unbroken slopes greater than 30’ and slopes steeper than 3:1. Additionally, the proposed grading would trigger bluff regulations Sec. 20-1401 and Sec. 20-1405. Staff recommends removing the stockpile from the proposed plans. If the stockpile cannot be removed it will need to be reduced to slope less than 20’, 3:1 max. It must meet all other regulatory requirements for wetland hydrology, erosion and sediment control, and surface water management. Erosion and sediment control must meet the requirements of Sec. 19-145 including a dewatering plan. Erosion and Sediment Control Practices including temporary sedimentation basins, silt fence, the construction entrance, and ESC BMPs are shown in the legend on sheet C5.02, but not on the plans. Indicate the location of these practices on the Erosion Control Plan sheet. EOFs should be stabilized with TRM or similar. Include chosen stabilization measures in the construction plans. Temporary Sediment Ponds. The proposed stormwater ponds will need to be utilized as temporary sediment ponds during construction. A faircloth skimmer will need to be installed, and the outlets of the pond will need to be sealed off for the duration of construction until the site is stabilized. Skimming devices should be designed to remove oils and floatable materials up to a one-year frequency event. The skimmer should be set 12 inches below the normal surface water elevation and should control the discharge velocity to 0.5 fps. Incorporate these notes and details into the construction plans. Topsoil Management a. Subsoil Decompaction. Please add a note about subsoil decompaction to the topsoil section on sheet L1.03. Subsoil must be decompacted to a depth of six inches in all pervious areas, prior to placement of six inches of topsoil. Contractor must identify the method used to decompact six inches of subsoil prior to placing topsoil. b. Topsoil Depth. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 reads that a minimum of four inches of topsoil is required. CCWMO Standards require that six inches of topsoil be replaced in all disturbed pervious areas. Update this note to reflect the six inch requirement. c. Stockpiles. Please indicate the quantity of topsoil needed to restore six inches in all pervious areas of the development. Show location(s) where existing topsoil is to be stockpiled on the site. d. Soil Hauling. Describe topsoil hauling plans, including locations and estimated quantities. Note that if topsoil is exported or imported to the site, an additional permit may be required. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 28 e. Vegetative Cover. Note 5 under Turf Establishment on sheet L1.03 refers to a healthy stand of vegetation in all disturbed pervious areas of the development. Please note that 90% of the expected vegetative density is required. Stormwater Management Sec. 19-142. Plans required. All plans shall be reviewed and stamped “Approved by the City Engineer” and all applicable permits must be obtained prior to commencing construction. For all newly constructed stormwater facilities (ponds, retention areas, infiltration basins, storm sewer, etc.) or existing facilities that are modified, as-built plans shall be prepared by the developer. As-built plans shall be signed and certified by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Minnesota and record drawings shall be provided to the city. Standard details for many typical storm structures (e.g., storm sewer, outlet structures, catch basins, sump manholes, etc.) are available on the city's website. Sec. 19-144. Major facility design elements. a. For basins intended to have permanent water levels, a minimum of four feet of standing water (dead storage depth) and a maximum of ten feet shall be provided. b. Separation between the inlet(s) and outlet shall be maximized to prevent short-circuiting. c. Outlets shall be evaluated for the need to dissipate energy so as to reduce velocities to permissible levels as allowed by the soil and vegetation. At a minimum, flared-end sections should be provided with riprap consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation standards. For areas with high flows or where excessive erosion occurs or is anticipated, energy dissipation per Federal Highway Administration standards shall be followed. d. Riprap shall be provided below the channel grade and above the outfall or channel bottom to ensure that riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective by displacement. Riprap consisting of natural angular stone suitably graded by weight shall be designed for anticipated velocities. Riprap shall be placed over a suitable filter material or filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not move through the riprap and reduce its stability. BMP Details. Include the following BMP details in the construction plans: a. BMP Cross Sections. Include site-specific elevations on the Bioretention Bench and Bioretention Trench details on sheet C4.02. b. OCS Details. Include Outlet Control Structure Details (attached) for the stormwater BMPs with specific elevations for inlets, outlets, and draintile (when applicable). Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 29 c. BMP Profiles. Include profiles of the stormwater BMPs with draintile (Pond B Filtration Bench and Filtration Trench) showing draintile slope. Please note that all draintile must have a positive drainage slope of at least 0.5%. Include site-specific invert elevations for assistance with field construction. d. EOF elevations. EOF elevations should be set to at least 0.5 ft. above the HWL to allow for construction tolerance. Include cross-sections of the EOFs in the plan set. Impervious Acreage. The area (ac) of proposed new impervious is inconsistent between the application (25.10), stormwater report (27.5), project narrative (25.08), plan sheet C5.03 (28.4), and HydroCAD model (25.34). Clarify the correct area of new impervious and update components of the submittal to match. Elevation-Storage Tables. Include the Filtration Bench bottom (should be 928.5) in the elevation- storage table in the HydroCAD report so that the treatment volumes can be determined for the ponds, bench, and re-use system. Filtration Trench. The filtration trench design is not compliant in the current design. a. Contributing Area. The filtration trench appears to receive runoff from pervious areas only. Stormwater BMPs should capture and treat runoff from impervious areas on the site. b. Tree Roots. The filtration trench is proposed in an area that is wooded on the landscape plan. Trees may be planted on the side-slopes or adjacent to the trench but are not allowed in the trench bottom. Tree roots may impact the draintile and prevent proper drainage. c. Model and Plan Details. The filtration trench is not included in the HydroCAD model and the construction plans do not show details (bottom, NWL, HWL, OCS, EOF) for this BMP. Please include the details listed in Comment #2 above and include information for this practice in the construction plans and HydroCAD model. Operation & Maintenance Plan (O&M). Provide a draft O&M plan outlining the responsibilities for inspecting and maintaining the stormwater BMPs on site. The O&M plan must be signed by all responsible parties. a. Reuse Maintenance Plan. Provide a draft Reuse Maintenance Plan as part of the overall O&M plan. Please include all details outlined in the corresponding section on the Stormwater Reuse Design Guidance document. Reuse Plan Sheet. Please add the following information to the stormwater reuse plan: a. Location of the following reuse system components: irrigation lines, irrigation zones, sprinkler heads, pumps, intakes from ponds, and usage meters. If applicable, include the locations of the potable connection, backflow prevention devices, filters, and debris collection sumps. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 30 b. Narrative describing operation of the systems. If the irrigated areas will be actively used during daytime hours, the irrigation needs to be scheduled for times when the areas will not be in use. c. Location of access for reuse system maintenance. d. Drawdown elevations of the reuse ponds. e. Volume reduction and/or water quality calculations. f. Other information relevant to the reuse systems. SWPPP. A copy of the SWPPP including soils/infiltration data within the perimeter of all infiltration/filtration devices is required prior to review for final plat. The SWPPP must also meet all requirements of City Code 19-145. Basin. There is a bioretention basin south of Lyman Boulevard in the road construction plans. Please show this basin on the construction plans for Holasek Business Park and demonstrate that the road project plans don’t interfere with this project. Chloride Management Plan. A chloride management plan is required. Applicant will need to respond to the comments received by Twin Cities & Western (Wednesday, October 24, 2018 6:39 AM): “In response to this proposal Twin Cities & Western offers the following comment: Twin Cities & Western has concerns of stormwater and general runoff impacts with this land being developed making it non-pervious. What will happen to the stormwater runoff and will the increased runoff adversely impact the railroad roadbed?” SITE PLAN Engineering Must comply with the conditions of the Holasek Business Park conditions of approval for the subdivision. Environmental Resources The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to increase quantities to meet minimum ordinance requirements for parking lot trees. Additional tree species will need to be added rather than increasing quantities of existing selection. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 31 The applicant should consider limiting the number of lindens called for in the plant schedule and avoid planting elms and lindens in groupings. The applicant should designate snow removal/storage areas on each lot that do not conflict with proposed landscaping. All parking lot islands and peninsulas that contain a tree planting must have an inside width of 10 feet. They also will be required to have proper planting soil as specified in the Planting Notes. Parking lot islands located in the pipeline easement shall be planted with small shrubs or perennial plantings, if allowed. Planning The applicant shall enter into separate site plan agreements with the city for each lot and building and provide the necessary security to guarantee grading and erosion control, site restoration, stormwater and landscaping. Pedestrian ramps shall be added at each curb at the driveway entrance to Building A and included on the site plan sheet C3.01. Community features including benches, bike racks and picnic tables shall be incorporated in the site. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. Water Resources Coordinator Must comply with the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT a. Sec. 20-409. Decisions under this article must not be made until after receiving the determination of the technical evaluation panel regarding wetland public values, location, size, and/or type if the city council, the landowner, or a member of the technical evaluation panel asks for such determinations. b. Any projects seeking a wetland alteration permit subject to this article will also be required to submit the following incomplete requirements: Existing and proposed drainage areas to wetlands; Buffer strip plan meeting the criteria of subsections 20-411(c) and (d) c. Sec. 20-416. Mitigation. Wetland mitigation shall be undertaken on-site. If this is not feasible, then mitigation may occur locally within the subwatershed. If this is not possible, then mitigation may occur outside the subwatershed, elsewhere in the city. If mitigation cannot be Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 32 accomplished on-site, or if the city deems it necessary to perform mitigation off-site, then the applicant shall be responsible for providing off-site mitigation within the major subwatershed, as designated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, or purchasing wetland credits from the state wetland bank. Staff believes mitigation can occur on site by expanding the wetlands in the south outlot. d. Stormwater runoff shall not be discharged into wetlands without water quality pretreatment as prescribed by this Code. e. If a wetland alteration permit is issued allowing wetland alteration, the following standards shall be followed: (1) The alteration will not have a net adverse effect on the ecological and hydrological characteristics of remaining wetland; (2) It shall be located as to minimize the impact on vegetation; (3) It shall not adversely change water flow; (4) The size of the altered area shall be limited to the minimum required for the proposed action; (5) The disposal of any excess material is prohibited within remaining wetland areas; (6) The disposal of any excess material shall include proper erosion control and nutrient retention measures; (7) Alterations to any wetland area are prohibited during waterfowl breeding season or fish spawning season, unless it is determined by the city that the wetland is not used for waterfowl breeding or fish spawning; (8) Alterations to wetland areas shall be mitigated in accordance with the requirements of this article if the activity results in a loss of wetland area and/or function and value of the wetland. f. The alteration shall not alter the hydrological patterns in the remainder of the wetland, if a portion of the wetland remains, unless exempted under Sec. 20-417. Please show how hydrologic patterns will not be altered for the remaining wetlands. g. Sec. 20-405. Wetland delineation. An electronic copy of the delineated wetland boundaries must be submitted in a format compatible with the city's GIS database. h. Sec. 20-406. Wetland classification. All wetlands delineated under Sec. 20-405 of this article that have not been previously classified shall be classified using the results from the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM Version 3.0), or future versions. A MnRAM shall be completed by the property owner or applicant for each previously unclassified wetland. An electronic version of the MnRAM evaluation must be submitted to and approved by the city to establish the classification of each wetland prior to any alteration or impact to the wetland. i. An approved Notice of Decision (NOD) for Boundary and Type is required for a complete application, however, the applicant has been very involved, communicative, responsive, and fully participatory in the application process. Staff will accept the application in process as the TEP has met prior to deadline for completion. The NOD will be issued by November 27, 2018. j. Staff review will be conditional upon an approved NOD for Boundary and Type. Holasek Business Park November 20, 2018 Page 33 k. Based on the submission the site will require at least one additional Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Application. A grading permit cannot be issued until the applicant has completed the WCA process. l. Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers and buffer monumentation will be required adjacent to the wetlands on-site. Please indicate wetland buffers widths and locations where signage will be placed on a plan sheet. Please find additional information on signage placement in the guidance document attached. The WMO provides signs and sign posts for the cost of materials. Alternative signs (by the city or applicant) are also acceptable provided they contain similar information. Due to the wetland in the southwest corner of the site, Building C on Lot 3 may need to be shifted east or reduced in size, the drive aisle, parking and loading areas may need to be shifted to the east and north. m. Sec. 19-146. Wetland elements. 1) Water level fluctuations (peak elevation and duration) for wetlands shall be limited to two feet and duration not to exceed 48 hours so as to prevent the destruction of wildlife habitat and wetland vegetation. 2) Sedimentation basins or sediment removal devices shall be provided prior to discharge into wetlands. 3) Variable bottom contours should be considered to provide deeper holes and flat shallow benches. This feature will provide habitat for diversity of plants and wetland inhabitants for wetland mitigation sites and stormwater basins. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Holasek Business Park Sheets Cover Sheet A0, Existing Conditions C2.01-C2.03, Site Plan C3.01, Grading Plan, Erosion Control C4.01-C4.02, C5.01-C5.03, C6.01, Landscaping Plans L1.01-L2.01, Architectural A1-A3 and Electrical 1 4. Magellan Midstream Partners Agency Response Letter Dated November 12, 2018 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List g:\plan\2018 planning cases\18-18 holasek business park\staff report holasek business park.docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Eden Trace Corporation and Holasek Farms, LLC for Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, Wetland Alteration Permit and Site Plan Review. On November 20, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Eden Trace Corporation and Holasek Farms, LLC for a Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to IOP; Preliminary Plat approval creating three lots and an outlot; approval of a Wetland Alteration Permit; and Site Plan approval for a total of 449,350 square feet in three office industrial buildings. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning, subdivision and variance 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 Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Office Industrial use. 3. The legal description of the property is: (See Exhibit A) 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 since the zoning is consistent with the land use designation of the property, utilizes available infrastructure and provides business opportunities. b. The proposed use is or will be compatible with the present and future land uses of the area, which are office industrial uses to the west and north, an arterial roadway to the north and is buffered from the single-family homes by distance and landscaping. c. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the conditions of approval for the subdivision, wetland alteration and site plan review. d. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed since the use is similar to surrounding uses. e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity since adequate infrastructure is available to the site. 2 f. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. 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 complies 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 stormwater 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 the subdivision ordinance; e. The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage; f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record, but will provide additional required easements; and g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) Lack of adequate stormwater drainage. 2) Lack of adequate roads. 3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. 6. When approving a Wetland Alteration Permit the city must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Sec. 20-232, include the following 12 items: a. The proposed development will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The developer shall mitigate any wetland impacts. b. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives of the city's Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. The developer shall meet all water quality standards required of it. 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. The project proposes the development of a business park, which are currently existing to the west and north of this parcel. d. The proposed development will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The project proposes the development of an office / warehouse business park. e. The proposed development will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse 3 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. The developer shall preserve the southern outlot as permanent open space. 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. The development shall provide additional economic and employment opportunities for 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. Primary access is provided via a signal controlled intersection. 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. The project proposes the development of office industrial buildings similar to those in the development to the north and west. k. The proposed development will not depreciate surrounding property values. The project proposes the development of office industrial uses similar to those in the development to the north and west. l. The proposed development will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Chapter 20, Articles IV, VI, XIV, Division 1, and XXXI of the Chanhassen City Code. 7. Site Plan Review a. Is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the Comprehensive Plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; Finding: The proposed development is with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides as well as meeting the design standards for Industrial Office Park developments. b. Is consistent with site plan division; Finding: The proposed development complies with the Site Plan review requirements of the Chanhassen City Code. c. Preserves the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; Finding: The site has been significantly altered by previous grading on the parcel. 4 The proposed development is in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed areas. d. Creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; Finding: The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. e. Creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 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. Finding: The proposed development creates a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, subject to compliance with the conditions of approval. f. Protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and traffic circulation. 8. The Planning Report #2018-18 dated November 20, 2018, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the rezoning of the property from Agricultural Estate District, A-2, to Industrial Office Park, IOP; Preliminary Plat approval creating three lots and one outlot with access via a private street; a Wetland Alteration 5 Permit; and Site Plan approval for three office industrial buildings with a total of 449,350 square subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 20th day of November, 2018. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:___________________________________ Its Chairman 6 EXHIBIT A Legal Description The South 100 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4 SE 1/4) of Section 16, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota; AND That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4 SW 1/4) of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 15, and running thence East along the South line of said Section 15 a distance of 275 feet more or less to the centerline of County Road No. 117; thence Northwesterly along the said centerline of said County Road No. 117 a distance of 115.5 feet to the point of intersection with a line 100 feet distant and running parallel to the said South line of said Section 15; thence Westerly, along said line running parallel to the said South line of said Section 15, to the West line of said Section 15; thence South a distance of 100 feet along said West line of said Section 15, to the point of beginning; AND The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4 NE 1/4) of Section 21, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota; EXCEPT all that part of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 21, lying Southeasterly of the Northwesterly right of way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company; AND That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22, which point is 3.60 chains West of the Southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; running thence North 22 1/2 degrees West 17.18 chains; thence North 47 1/2 degrees West 2 chains; thence North 71 1/2 degrees West 8.60 chains to the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 20 chains to the Southwest corner thereof; thence East 16.40 chains to the place of beginning; EXCEPT all that part of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22, lying Southeasterly of the right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company and Southwesterly of the Excelsior and Shakopee Road; AND EXCEPT any portion of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22 located within the boundaries of the plat of Stone Creek First Addition recorded as Document No. 152353 in the records of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota; 7 AND ALSO EXCEPT any portion of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22 located within the boundaries of the registered land described in Certificate of Title No. 31519 as follows: That part of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as: Beginning at the north quarter corner of said Section 22; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds West, a distance of 969.75 feet along the north line of said Northwest Quarter; thence South 56 degrees 57 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 1138.88 feet to the center line of County Road No. 117; thence South 32 degrees 02 minutes East a distance of 56.45 feet; thence southeasterly 484.22 feet along a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 3322.60 feet; thence South 23 degrees 41 minutes East a distance of 241.78 feet to the south line of said North Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 06 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 1570.38 feet along said south line of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter to the southeast corner thereof; thence North 0 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 1326.84 feet along the east line of said Northeast Quarter to the point of beginning, according to the Government survey thereof; AND All that part of Government Lot One in Section 21, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company. 3o( 6^ lB K' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147 , Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952)227-1300 / Fax: (952)227-1110 APPLICATION FOR Submittarout", l0 ' tQ - (Y pc Date: t\ - )O t X DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ccDate: t a^ (O' i 8 60-DayReviewDate: CITY OT CIilI'IIIASSII\I le - (8- (t (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) tr tr tr a Comprehensive Plan Amendment ..... $600 Z E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) I Singte-Family Residence ................................ $325E rut others......... ........ $425 lnterim Use Permit (lUP) E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325n rut others......... ........ $425 Rezoning (REZ) ! Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 tr E MinorAmendment to existing PUD................. $100E rut others......... ........ $500 tr Sign Plan Review........ ... $150 Z Site Plan Review (SPR) E Administrative........... ................... $100 E Commercial/lndustrial Districts. .. $500 Plus $10 per 1 ,000 square feet of building area:( 289 thousand square feet) *lnclude number of exlsllnq employees: _*lnclude number of new employees: I Residential Districts. ....................$500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units) Subdivision (SUB) E Create 3lots or |ess............. .......$300 E Create over 3 lots .......................$600 + $15 per lot ( 4 lots) E Metes & Bounds (2 lots) ..............$300 E Consolidate Lots....... ...................$150 E t-ot Line Adjustment............... ......$150 f] Fina|P1at.............. ....$700 (lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)* .Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. Vacation of Easem ents/Rig ht-of-way (VAC)........ $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) fl Single-Family Residence............................... $1 50E rutothers......... ......$275 fl Zoning Appeal .............. $100 ! Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. n Z Z a Z Property Owners' List within 500' lcity to generate after pre-application meeting) ........$S per address ( 40 addresses) Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply).......... ...................jj:. $50 per document E Conditional Use Permit f] lnterim Use Permit E Site Plan Agreement E Vacation E Variance @ Wetland Alteration Permit fl Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) n Easements ( easements) ! Deeds TOTAL FEE: $5'245'00 Description of Proposal: Three office/warehouse buildings and related parking lots, utility services, and stormwater management ponds. SW of Lyman Blvd. (CSAH 18) & Galpin Blvd.Property Address or Location: parcel #: 250210100 Total Acreage: Legal Description:See attached ALTA survey :1"J, J',l'"[il:il,,{;:,ffi ."' tffiHttlflLRss'en- 49.00 Wetlands Present? Z Yes E ruo Present Zoning: Agricultural Estate District (A2) ECfreck box if separate narrative is attached. Requested Zoning:lndustrial Office Park District (lOP) OcT t I20ts CHANHASSEN ilflIIIilG DEPT Section 1:all that APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. 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 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. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name:Eden Trace Corporation Contact: Phone: Mark Undestad Address:BB21 Sunset Trail City/State/Zip: Email. Chanhassen / MN / 5531 7 (612) 803-6970 mark@edentrace.com Cell: Fax: signature: Y1^-.=€- Date:tO- tf -19 PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legalcapacity to, and hereby do, aulhorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. A ? Phone: N trF Sambatek, lnc.Contact:Pete Moreau Address:12800 Whitewater Drive (763) 476-6010 City/StatelZip: Email: Minnetonka/MN/55343 Phone: Cell: This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) pmoreau@sambatek.com Who should receive copies of staff reports?*Other Contact lnformation : Name: Edward Farr Architects, lnc. (attn: Ed Farr) Address: 7710 Golden Triangle Drive Citv/State/Zio: Eden Prairie / MN / 55344 Email:e.farr@edfarrarch.com aaaa Property Owner Applicant Engineer Other* Via: Via: Via: Via: E Email El ruaiteo Paper Copy E] Emait EJ trlaiteo Paper Copy E Email E wtaileo Paper Copy E Email E tvtaiteo Paper Copy INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing. SUBMIT FORM Section 3:Owner and lnformation Name:Contact: Address: City/State/Zip:Cell: Fax:Email: Signature: Fax: Section 4: Notification lnformation SAVE FORM PRINT FORM VICINITY MAPSITEGalpin BlvdDEVELOPER:EDEN TRACE CORPORATION8821 SUNSET TRAILCHANHASSEN, MN 55317PHONE: 952-361-0722CONTACT: MARK UNDESTADARCHITECT:EDWARD FARR ARCHETECTS7710 GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVEEDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344PHONE: 952-943-9660CONTACT: DON ANDERSENCIVIL ENGINEER:SAMBATEK12800 WHITEWATER DR, STE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343PHONE: 763-476-6010CONTACT: PETE MOREAUSURVEYOR:LANDSCAPING:SAMBATEK12800 WHITEWATER DR, STE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343PHONE: 763-476-6010CONTACT: CRAIG JOHNSONSAMBATEK12800 WHITEWATER DR, STE 300MINNETONKA, MN 55343PHONE: 763-476-6010CONTACT: WILLIAM DELANEYHolasek Business Park8610 Galpin BoulevardChanhassen, MNCIVILARCHITECTURALSHEET INDEX:A0 COVER SHEETC2.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS - SHEET 1C2.02 EXISTING CONDITIONS - SHEET 2C2.03 PRELIMINARY PLATC3.01 SITE PLANC4.01 GRADING PLANC4.02 GRADING NOTESC5.01 PHASE I EROSION CONTROL PLANC5.02 PHASE II EROSION CONTROL PLANC5.03 EROSION CONTROL NOTES & DETAILSC6.01 UTILITY PLAN A1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANA2 BUILDING A FLOOR PLAN / ELEVATIONSA3 BUILDING B FLOOR PLAN / ELEVATIONS /SITE SECTIONSLANDSCAPINGL1.01 LANDSCAPE PLANL1.02 SHRUB PLAN NORTHL1.03 SHRUB PLAN SOUTH & DETAILSL2.01 TREE PRESERVATION CANOPY PLANELECTRICAL1 of 1 SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC PLANSheet TitleProject NumberSheet NumberIssued ForDateLocationProjectClientProject ManagerDateReg. No.I hereby certified that this plan,specification or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision andthat I am a duly Licensed Architectunder the laws of the State ofMinnesotaEdward A. Farr©COPYRIGHT 2018C:\Users\DLA\Documents\18067 CIP BLDGA_SPR_R19_DLA.rvt11/2/2018 12:45:45 PMA018.066COVER SHEETHOLASEK BUSINESSPARK8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MNEDEN TRACECORPORATIONDate16362DLASPR 10-19-2018SPR - REV 1 11-02-2018 BM #2TNH=953.05BM #3BM #4LYMAN BLVD. (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)LYMAN BLVD. (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)GALPIN BL V D . (C. S. A. H. N O . 1 1 7 )E X C E P T I O N100.0' 100.0' 10 0 . 0 ' Nov 02, 2018 - 12:29pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C2-EXCND.dwgC2.01EXISTINGCONDITIONSSHEET 1ProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/20182127411/02/18JMWCity ResubmittalOVERHEAD ELECTRICAL WIRELIGHTSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATERMAINUNDERGROUND ELECTRICGUY ANCHORUTILITY POLEGUARD POSTUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEUNDERGROUND GASCHAIN LINK FENCEWOOD FENCEBUILDING LINECONCRETE CURBBITUMINOUS SURFACECONCRETE SURFACEWET LANDSIGNTRAFFIC MARKERSPOND / WATER LINEFEMA FLOOD ZONE LINESOIL BORINGTREE LINEFOUND MONUMENTFOUND CAST IRONMONUMENTEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINERESTRICTED ACCESSFOUND RIGHT-OF-WAYMONUMENTSET MONUMENTMARKED LS 21729SECTION LINEUNDERLYING / ADJACENT LOTTIE LINEBOUNDARY LINEDEED DISTANCE(100.00)CONIFEROUS TREETRANSFORMERBUILDING CANOPYREGULAR PARKINGSTALL COUNTGAS METERCOMMUNICATIONS MANHOLEELECTRIC MANHOLEGAS MANHOLEELECTRIC METERTELEPHONE PEDESTALCABLE TV BOXGATE VALVE / HYDRANTSANITARY MANHOLECLEAN OUTSTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINFLARED END SECTIONSPOT ELEVATIONCONTOURRETAINING WALLBLOCK RETAINING WALLSTONE RETAINING WALLRIGHT-OF-WAY LINEWIRE FENCEDECIDUOUS TREE##0NORTHSCALE IN FEET0NORTHSCALE IN FEET601201.SUBJECT PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS 25.0210100.2.THE GROSS AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 2,204,158 SQ. FT. OR 50.601 ACRES.1.SURVEY COORDINATE BASIS: CARVER COUNTY COORDINATE SYATEM NAD 83 (1986)2.FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED ON 10/4/2018.3.The vertical datum is based on NAVD88.BENCHMARK #1TNH LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST R.O.W. OF GALPIN BLVD & ENGLER BLVD.ELEV = 960.22BENCHMARK #2TNH LOCATED AT MNDOT R.O.W. MARKER NO. B65ELEV = 953.05LEGENDDESCRIPTIONPROPERTY SUMMARYSURVEY NOTESThe South 100 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4 SE 1/4) of Section 16, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County,Minnesota;ANDThat part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4 SW 1/4) of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota,described as follows:Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 15, and running thence East along the South line of said Section 15 a distance of 275 feetmore or less to the centerline of County Road No. 117; thence Northwesterly along the said centerline of said County Road No. 117 a distance of115.5 feet to the point of intersection with a line 100 feet distant and running parallel to the said South line of said Section 15; thence Westerly,along said line running parallel to the said South line of said Section 15, to the West line of said Section 15; thence South a distance of 100 feetalong said West line of said Section 15, to the point of beginning;ANDThe Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4 NE 1/4) of Section 21, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota;EXCEPT all that part of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 21, lying Southeasterly of the Northwesterly right of wayline of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company;ANDThat part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described asfollows: Beginning at a point on the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22, which point is 3.60 chainsWest of the Southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; running thence North 22 1/2 degrees West 17.18 chains;thence North 47 1/2 degrees West 2 chains; thence North 71 1/2 degrees West 8.60 chains to the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter ofthe Northwest Quarter; thence South 20 chains to the Southwest corner thereof; thence East 16.40 chains to the place of beginning;EXCEPT all that part of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22, lying Southeasterly of the right of way of the Chicago,Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company and Southwesterly of the Excelsior and Shakopee Road;AND EXCEPT any portion of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22 located within the boundaries of the plat of StoneCreek First Addition recorded as Document No. 152353 in the records of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota;AND ALSO EXCEPT any portion of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22 located within the boundaries of the registeredland described in Certificate of Title No. 31519 as follows: That part of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116 North,Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as: Beginning at the north quarter corner of said Section 22; thence on an assumed bearingof North 89 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds West, a distance of 969.75 feet along the north line of said Northwest Quarter; thence South 56degrees 57 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 1138.88 feet to the center line of County Road No. 117; thence South 32 degrees 02 minutesEast a distance of 56.45 feet; thence southeasterly 484.22 feet along a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 3322.60 feet; thence South23 degrees 41 minutes East a distance of 241.78 feet to the south line of said North Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 06minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 1570.38 feet along said south line of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter to the southeast cornerthereof; thence North 0 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 1326.84 feet along the east line of said Northeast Quarter to the pointof beginning, according to the Government survey thereof;ANDAll that part of Government Lot One in Section 21, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the right of way ofthe Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company. TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RR CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . )E X C E P T I O NE X C E P T I O N100.0 ' Nov 02, 2018 - 12:29pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C2-EXCND.dwgC2.02EXISTINGCONDITIONSSHEET 2ProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/20182127411/02/18JMWCity ResubmittalXXXOVERHEAD ELECTRICAL WIRELIGHTSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERWATERMAINUNDERGROUND ELECTRICGUY ANCHORUTILITY POLEGUARD POSTUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEUNDERGROUND GASCHAIN LINK FENCEWOOD FENCEBUILDING LINECONCRETE CURBBITUMINOUS SURFACECONCRETE SURFACEWET LANDSIGNTRAFFIC MARKERSPOND / WATER LINEFEMA FLOOD ZONE LINESOIL BORINGTREE LINEFOUND MONUMENTFOUND CAST IRONMONUMENTEASEMENT LINESETBACK LINERESTRICTED ACCESSFOUND RIGHT-OF-WAYMONUMENTSET MONUMENTMARKED LS 21729SECTION LINEUNDERLYING / ADJACENT LOTTIE LINEBOUNDARY LINEDEED DISTANCE(100.00)CONIFEROUS TREETRANSFORMERBUILDING CANOPYREGULAR PARKINGSTALL COUNTGAS METERCOMMUNICATIONS MANHOLEELECTRIC MANHOLEGAS MANHOLEELECTRIC METERTELEPHONE PEDESTALCABLE TV BOXGATE VALVE / HYDRANTSANITARY MANHOLECLEAN OUTSTORM MANHOLESTORM CATCH BASINFLARED END SECTIONSPOT ELEVATIONCONTOURRETAINING WALLBLOCK RETAINING WALLSTONE RETAINING WALLRIGHT-OF-WAY LINEWIRE FENCEDECIDUOUS TREE##LEGEND0NORTHSCALE IN FEET0NORTHSCALE IN FEET60120 0.614 AC26,730 SF100.0' 100.0'100.0 ' 10 0 . 0 ' 100.0'LYMAN BLVD.LOT 1BLOCK 1LOT 2LOT 3OUTLOT A5'10'10'5'5'5'5' 5'5'5'5'5' 5' 5' 5' 10' 10' 10'LYMAN BLVD.0.866 AC 37,737 SF9.971 AC434,326 SF13.928 AC606,708 SF12.736 AC554,767 SF12.486 AC543,890 SFProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/20182127411/02/18JMWCity ResubmittalPROPOSED LOT 1, BLOCK 1 =543,890 SQ. FT. OR 12.486 ACRESPROPOSED LOT 2, BLOCK 1 =434,326 SQ. FT. OR 9.971 ACRESPROPOSED LOT 3, BLOCK 1 =606,708 SQ. FT. OR 13.928 ACRESOUTLOT A =554,767 SQ. FT. OR 12.736 ACRESRIGHT OF WAY =64,467 SQ. FT. OR 1.480 ACRES1.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.2.DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED. DRAINAGE AND UTILITYEASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PONDS.3.THE BEARING SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE CARVER COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAD83 (1986ADJUST) . WITH AN ASSUMED BEARING OF SOUTH 57 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 33 SECOND WEST FORTHE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RR CO.PROPERTY SUMMARYDEVELOPMENT NOTES0NORTHSCALE IN FEET0NORTHSCALE IN FEET100200DESCRIPTIONThe South 100 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4 SE 1/4) of Section 16, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County,Minnesota;ANDThat part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4 SW 1/4) of Section 15, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota,described as follows:Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 15, and running thence East along the South line of said Section 15 a distance of 275 feetmore or less to the centerline of County Road No. 117; thence Northwesterly along the said centerline of said County Road No. 117 a distance of115.5 feet to the point of intersection with a line 100 feet distant and running parallel to the said South line of said Section 15; thence Westerly,along said line running parallel to the said South line of said Section 15, to the West line of said Section 15; thence South a distance of 100 feetalong said West line of said Section 15, to the point of beginning;ANDThe Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4 NE 1/4) of Section 21, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota;EXCEPT all that part of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 21, lying Southeasterly of the Northwesterly right of wayline of the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company;ANDThat part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, described asfollows: Beginning at a point on the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22, which point is 3.60 chainsWest of the Southeast corner of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; running thence North 22 1/2 degrees West 17.18 chains;thence North 47 1/2 degrees West 2 chains; thence North 71 1/2 degrees West 8.60 chains to the Northwest corner of said Northwest Quarter ofthe Northwest Quarter; thence South 20 chains to the Southwest corner thereof; thence East 16.40 chains to the place of beginning;EXCEPT all that part of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 22, lying Southeasterly of the right of way of the Chicago,Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company and Southwesterly of the Excelsior and Shakopee Road;AND EXCEPT any portion of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22 located within the boundaries of the plat of StoneCreek First Addition recorded as Document No. 152353 in the records of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota;AND ALSO EXCEPT any portion of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22 located within the boundaries of the registeredland described in Certificate of Title No. 31519 as follows: That part of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, Township 116 North,Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as: Beginning at the north quarter corner of said Section 22; thence on an assumed bearingof North 89 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds West, a distance of 969.75 feet along the north line of said Northwest Quarter; thence South 56degrees 57 minutes 24 seconds West a distance of 1138.88 feet to the center line of County Road No. 117; thence South 32 degrees 02 minutesEast a distance of 56.45 feet; thence southeasterly 484.22 feet along a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 3322.60 feet; thence South23 degrees 41 minutes East a distance of 241.78 feet to the south line of said North Half of the Northwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 06minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 1570.38 feet along said south line of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter to the southeast cornerthereof; thence North 0 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 1326.84 feet along the east line of said Northeast Quarter to the pointof beginning, according to the Government survey thereof;ANDAll that part of Government Lot One in Section 21, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, lying Northwesterly of the right of way ofthe Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company. Nov 02, 2018 - 1:13pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C2-PPLAT.dwgC2.03PRELIMINARYPLAT LYMAN BLVD. (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)LYMAN BLVD.TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)TWIN CITIES & WESTERN R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) GALPIN BL V D . (C. S. A. H. N O . 1 1 7 ) 100.0' 100.0'100.0 ' 10 0 . 0 'PROPOSED BUILDING A161,500S.F.FFE=945.0PROPOSED BUILDING B109,250 S.F.FFE=941.5PROPOSED BUILDING C178,600 S.F.FFE=940.5100.0'121415141415162211152211143014143014132815171415257 STALLS207 STALLS269 STALLS18'26'18'26'18'10.7'950'10.7'18'30'18'10'950'28.7'30'18'26'36'26'18'12.7'115'190'170'12.7'26'18'30'26' 12.7'188'10'91811'18'139'818' 56.7'42.1' R1 5 ' R 3 4 ' R100'R20'26' 50'20'50'20'R15'R5' R 3 'R3'R8 'R8'R4.5'27' R 1 0 'R10'R15'R20'R10'R10'R15'10' PARKING SETBACK10' PARKING SETBACK B13.9'15R20'50'R230'R20'R20' 26'R40'R50'R75'R15'R34'R50'30' R 2 0 'R10'R20'R25'R6.8'R 1 0 'R10'R40'R20'R10'R30'R10'10.9'AAAAATYPATYPAR5'14.7'R5'R 5 '11.5'30'R 5 . 7 'R5.7'11.5'TYPR5'R5'R5'9'TYPATYPATYPAATYPATYPAAAAAAAAA18'26'18'10.7'950'10.7'18'30'21'30'8' TYP 8'8'8'8'TYP8'9'TYP8'8'8'TYP9'TYP8'TYP8'8'9'TYP 9' TYP 9' TYP 10141115159151512303030151515131311.5'TYPR5'R5' 11.5' 9' 11'9'11' 11.5'R5'R5'11.5'GGGGGGGII7JJSCALE IN FEET012060NORTH Nov 02, 2018 - 12:29pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C3-SITE.dwgC3.01SITE PLANProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.Date:If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,Minnetonka, MN office.43505George D. Abernathy10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity Resubmittal1.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT.2.ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT “GUTTER OUT” WHERE WATERDRAINS AWAY FROM CURB. ALL OTHER AREAS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS “GUTTER IN” CURB.COORDINATE WITH GRADING CONTRACTOR.4.ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.5.ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OFEXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDING UTILITY ENTRANCELOCATIONS.7.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR PYLON SIGN DETAILS8.SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR LIGHT POLE FOUNDATION DETAIL AND FOR EXACT LOCATIONS OF LIGHTPOLE.9.REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, LOT NUMBERS, LOT AREAS, AND LOT DIMENSIONS.10.ALL GRADIENTS ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPEOF 5% (1:20), EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). THEMAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR ACCESS AISLE SHALL BE 2.08%(1:48). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW AND VERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADAROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFYTHE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD VERSUSTHE DESIGN GRADIENT AND COORDINATE WITH GRADING CONTRACTOR.11."NO PARKING" SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED ALONG ALL DRIVEWAYS AS REQUIRED BY CITY.LEGENDEASEMENTCURB & GUTTERBUILDINGRETAINING WALLSAWCUT LINENUMBER OF PARKINGSTALLS PER ROWSIGNPIPE BOLLARDSTANDARD DUTYASPHALT PAVINGHEAVY DUTYASPHALT PAVINGCONCRETE PAVINGPROPERTY LIMITEXISTINGPROPOSEDKEY NOTEDEVELOPMENT SUMMARYDEVELOPMENT NOTESKEY NOTESWETLAND LIMITSTREELINEA.BUILDING, STOOPS, STAIRS (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS)B.B-612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERC.B-618 6CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTERD.CONCRETE APRONE.FLAT CURB SECTIONF.SEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALLG.ACCESSIBLE RAMPH.TRANSFORMERI.MONUMENT SIGN (SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS)J.CURB CUTXXXXTHE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINEDACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTINGSUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTINGUTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THECONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BYHIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD).IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE,INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER.IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.CONCRETE SIDEWALKAREAGROSS SITE AREAPROPOSED LOTSLOT 1LOT 2LOT 3OUTLOT ARIGHT OF WAYSETBACKSFRONT YARDREAR YARDSIDE YARDMINIMUM LOT SIZEMINIMUM FRONTAGEMINIMUM LOT DEPTHMAXIMUM LOT COVERAGEZONINGEXISTING ZONINGPROPOSED ZONINGCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONBUILDING REQUIREMENTSMAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTPROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTPARKING SUMMARYBUILDING A - 179,500 GROSS SQUARE FEET80% WAREHOUSE USE: 143,600 SF @ 10 SPACES FOR FIRST 10,000 SFAND 1 SPACE / 2,000 SF THEREAFTER = 77 SPACES REQUIRED20% OFFICE USE: 35,900 SF @ 5 / 1000 SF = 180 SPACES REQUIREDSUBTOTAL BUILDING A: 257 SPACES REQUIREDPROVIDED PARKING: 257 SPACESBUILDING B - 109,250 GROSS SQUARE FEET70% WAREHOUSE USE: 76,475 SF @ 10 SPACES FOR FIRST 10,000 SFAND 1 SPACE / 2,000 SF THEREAFTER = 43 SPACES REQUIRED30% OFFICE USE: 32,775 SF @ 5 / 1000 SF = 164 SPACES REQUIREDSUBTOTAL BUILDING B: 207 SPACES REQUIREDPROVIDED PARKING: 207 SPACESBUILDING C - 178,600 GROSS SQUARE FEET80% WAREHOUSE USE: 142,880 SF @ 10 SPACES FOR FIRST 10,000 SFAND 1 SPACE / 2,000 SF THEREAFTER = 76 SPACES REQUIRED20% OFFICE USE: 35,720 SF @ 5 / 1000 SF = 179 SPACES REQUIREDSUBTOTAL BUILDING C: 255 CARS REQUIREDPROVIDED PARKING: 269 SPACESBUILDING AADA STALLS REQUIRED = 7 STALLSADA STALLS PROVIDED = 8 STALLSBUILDING BADA STALLS REQUIRED = 7 STALLSADA STALLS PROVIDED = 8 STALLSBUILDING CADA STALLS REQUIRED = 7 STALLSADA STALLS PROVIDED = 8 STALLSAGIOP - INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARKOFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 50 FTSINGLE STORY, 36 FTIMPERVIOUSCOVERAGE8.60 AC (69%)6.70 AC (67%)9.78 AC (70%)BUILDING3.70 AC ( 30%)2.51 AC (25%)4.10 AC (29%)PARKING4.74 AC (38%)4.04 AC (41%)5.56 AC (40%)2,366,442 SF54.33 AC12.49 AC9.97 AC13.93 AC12.73 AC5.21 AC30 FT 10 FT 10 FT1 AC150 FT200 FT70%WARNINGHIGH-PRESSURE PIPELINE(S)Excavation and/or ConstructionProhibited Without compliance withState One-Call, AND Without WrittenPermission FromMAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, L.P. BM #2TNH=953.05BM #3BM #4LYMAN BLVD. (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)LYMAN BLVD.TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)TWIN CITIES & WESTERN R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) GALPIN BL V D . (C. S. A. H. N O . 1 1 7 ) 100.0' 100.0'100.0 ' 10 0 . 0 'PROPOSED BUILDING A161,500S.F.FFE=945.0PROPOSED BUILDING B109,250 S.F.FFE=941.5PROPOSED BUILDING C178,600 S.F.FFE=940.59379379409399 4 0 9 4 0 9419409409389389399399419419419409409559 4 2 94 3 9 4 4 945 9 4 4 944944944941942943944940943944942943940938939941941 942943944940940940 941938938 943942928 942.25943.13943.32943.87944.38943.87944.48943.78943.58943.06943.06943.06943.08943.00943.15941.45942.87939.50938.30937.83939.50939.50939.25943.59943.76943.59944.30944.15944.12944.30944.30944.30944.17943.78944.17944.30943.44944.30943.65944.30944.30944.30943.43943.80944.17944.30944.30943.44944.30943.65944.30943.44943.81944.17944.30944.30943.22943.87944.30943.74943.32943.52943.20943.54943.34944.13944.50943.43943.22942.39943.36943.49944.09944.30941.02941.10941.31942.17941.28940.62939.97939.50940.10940.58940.80940.80940.40940.02940.26939.68944.30944.15944.07944.30943.65943.28943.73943.60944.65944.35944.72945.36945.97946.26944.13944.07944.87945.48945.74949.15948.58950.55951.65952.15951.85947.45947.75947.45949.10949.40949.10952.90956.01955957945941.68943.09943.87944.49942.90942.50942.36941.98941.07939.97940.62942.22942.65941.64942.11941.81941.15941.45942.21940.63937.77956.01937.37937.10937.30937.10937.30937.10937.30937.10937.45937.48939.97940.13939.97937.10937.30937.10937.30937.10937.30937.10937.27941.63941.50941.35940.80945.00941.00941.00940.97941.35941.51941.35941.00945.00940.96942943.00940.80940.60940.60940.80940.60940.80940.60940.60940.80940.60940.80940.60940.80940.60937.29937.30939.10939.52939.80939.80939.31939.57939.80939.80939.80939.80939.80938.76939.80938.89940.80940.80940.37939.59939.36939.36939.14938.94938.30939.64939.64939.13940.15940.16940.80940.80940.67938.17939.10939.27939.32939.66940.58940.80940.80940.80940.80940.86940.21939.83939.83939.45939.58939.91940.12939.91939.70940.80940.80940.65940.80940.80940.67940.27939.57939.57938.88939.64940.12940.65940.80950 95 5 961960945946945944T/W: 947.50B/W: 947.50T/W: 958.50T/W: 952.40T/W: 947.00T/W: 960.00T/W: 961.00B/W: 947.50B/W: 947.00B/W: 947.00B/W: 947.50B/W: 947.50T/W: 949.00T/W: 959.00T/W: 959.50T/W: 961.00T/W: 961.50T/W: 956.00T/W: 951.00B/W: 947.50B/W: 947.50B/W: 947.50B/W: 947.50B/W: 947.50B/W: 947.50B/W: 947.50938.30938.30939.50938.53938.04938.50937.60935.09936.19935.04936.19936.69937.74937.24937.30937.60938.38937.97937.45937.61936.03936.33936.03940.50940.50936.50936.20936.40936.20936.40936.20936.40936.20936.40936.75936.50940.50940.50936.50937.30937.30936.40936.20936.40936.20936.40936.20936.42936.20936.50940.50939.80939.80939.37938.85938.58938.42938.14937.57937.87937.57939.80939.80939.53939.53938.48939.80939.38938.86938.73938.24938.24938.54938.24939.50940.28939.11939.41939.11940.63940.93939.25939.50939.80938.99939.48939.43939.80939.80939.23939.80939.09939.30939.80939.13940.34940.94940 935 930 925 92 2 955950945940925923928929939937937936937936939 939939939939 939935 934 936 937 938 939 939 9359369 3 7 938922 925 928 929 9419449439429369509519659649669659649529539459449409419 5 5 9 5 6 9 4 4 9 4 7 9 4 8 936 935934T/W: 939.00B/W: 938.50T/W: 938.80B/W: 932.00B/W: 933.00B/W: 933.00B/W: 930.00B/W: 936.50T/W: 937.00T/W: 937.14T/W: 938.00T/W: 938.27T/W: 938.38B/W: 930.00EOF EOFEOFEOFEOFEOFEOFEOF935.50 EOF933.50 EOF933.50933.85933.50933.50933.85933.80933.80933.80933.80933.50933.50933.80933.85933.85933.85WET POND AHWL = 933.10NWL = 929.00BOT = 922.00WET POND BHWL = 933.10NWL = 929.00BOT = 922.00BBAASCALE IN FEET012060NORTH Nov 02, 2018 - 12:29pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C4-GRADE.dwgC4.01GRADING PLANProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.Date:If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,Minnetonka, MN office.43505George D. Abernathy10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity Resubmittal902.5X902SPOT ELEVATIONCONTOURRIP RAPOVERFLOW ELEV.CURB & GUTTERBUILDINGRETAINING WALLPROPERTY LIMITEXISTINGPROPOSEDLEGENDWETLAND LIMITSTREELINESTORM SEWERSOIL BORINGSDRAINTILEEOF902.5DTHE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINEDACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTINGSUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTINGUTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THECONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BYHIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD).IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE,INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER.IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.WARNINGHIGH-PRESSURE PIPELINE(S)Excavation and/or ConstructionProhibited Without compliance withState One-Call, AND Without WrittenPermission FromMAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, L.P. Nov 02, 2018 - 12:29pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C4-GRADE.dwgC4.02GRADINGNOTESProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.Date:If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,Minnetonka, MN office.43505George D. Abernathy10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity Resubmittal1.PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION. SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG PROPOSED CURB DENOTEGUTTER GRADE.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW PAVEMENT GRADIENT AND CONSTRUCT “GUTTER OUT” WHERE WATER DRAINS AWAYFROM CURB. ALL OTHER AREAS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS “GUTTER IN” CURB.3.ALL GRADIENT ON SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ADA ROUTE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF 5% (1:20),EXCEPT AT CURB RAMPS (1:12), AND A MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE OF 2.08% (1:48). MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANYDIRECTION ON AN ADA PARKING STALL OR ACCESS AISLE SHALL BE IN 2.08% (1:48). CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEWAND VERIFY THE GRADIENT IN THE FIELD ALONG THE ADA ROUTES PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE GRADIENT INTHE FIELD VERSUS THE DESIGN GRADIENT. COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PAVING CONTRACTOR.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIESDURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYDAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT.5.SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES,CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDINGSAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLYCONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THEDEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TOINCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTIONSITE.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OFTHE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THESOILS ENGINEER.A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SOILS REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY:COMPANY: AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC. (AET)ADDRESS: 550 CLEVELAND AVE N, SAINT PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-659-9001DATED: JULY 12, 2018CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SOILS REPORT.7.CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE DEWATERING AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION.8.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL SHALL BE PERFORMED ON THE STREET AND PARKINGAREA SUBGRADE. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREASAS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER.9.REPLACE ALL SUBGRADE SOIL DISTURBED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION THAT HAVE BECOME UNSUITABLE AND WILLNOT PASS A TEST ROLL. REMOVE UNSUITABLE SOIL FROM THE SITE AND IMPORT SUITABLE SOIL AT NO ADDITIONALCOST TO THE OWNER.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFICCONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROLTHE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATEMINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS.11.EXISTING TREES AND OTHER NATURAL VEGETATION WITHIN THE PROJECT AND/OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT AREOF PRIME CONCERN TO THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS AND SHALL BE A RESTRICTED AREA. CONTRACTOR SHALLPROTECT TREES TO REMAIN AT ALL TIMES. EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT NEEDLESSLY BE OPERATED UNDER NEARBY TREESAND EXTREME CAUTION SHALL BE EXERCISED WHEN WORKING ADJACENT TO TREES. SHOULD ANY PORTION OF THETREE BRANCHES REQUIRE REMOVAL TO PERMIT OPERATION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT, CONTRACTORSHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL TREE TRIMMING SERVICE TO TRIM THE TREES PRIOR TO THEBEGINNING OF OPERATION. SHOULD CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS RESULT IN THE BREAKING OF ANY LIMBS, THEBROKEN LIMBS SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND CUTS SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED TO MINIMIZE ANYLASTING DAMAGE TO THE TREE. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY THE ENGINEER. COSTSFOR TRIMMING SERVICES SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONSTRUCTION AND NO SPECIALPAYMENT WILL BE MADE.12.EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATEDON THE SITE. CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESSTOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENT AREAS, OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS.CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. RESPREADTOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6 INCHES.13.TRENCH BORROW CONSTRUCTION: IF ALLOWED BY THE OWNER, CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE “TRENCHBORROW” EXCAVATION IN AREAS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN ORDER TO OBTAIN STRUCTURAL MATERIAL. TREESSHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF THE EXCAVATION, UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.THE EXCAVATION SHALL COMMENCE A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET FROM THE LIMIT OF THE BUILDING PAD. THEEXCAVATION FROM THIS LIMIT SHALL EXTEND AT A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 1 FOOT HORIZONTAL TO 1 FOOT VERTICAL(1:1) DOWNWARD AND OUTWARD FROM THE FINISHED SURFACE GRADE ELEVATION. THE TRENCH BORROWEXCAVATION SHALL BE BACKFILLED TO THE PROPOSED FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION, AND SHALL BE COMPACTED INACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE QUALITY COMPACTION METHOD AS OUTLINED IN MN/DOTSPECIFICATION 2105.3F2. SNOW FENCE SHALL BE FURNISHED AND PLACED ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE TRENCHBORROW AREA WHERE THE SLOPES EXCEED 2 FOOT HORIZONTAL TO 1 FOOT VERTICAL (2:1).14.FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED, CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OFGRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIEDTOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEENSUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISHED GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROMSUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED,ERODED OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONSSHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEWWORK.15.TOLERANCES15.a.THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN0.10 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENTIS MADE.15.b.THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENTIS MADE.15.c.AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THEREQUIRED ELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER.15.d.TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS.16.AFTER THE SITE GRADING IS COMPLETED, IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, CONTRACTOR SHALLTRANSPORT ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORTSUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE.17.CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF ANY HAUL ROADS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THESITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL INDICATE HAUL ROADS ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL “SITEMAP”. CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF EACHROADWAY. CONTRACTOR SHALL POST WHATEVER SECURITY, AND COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS WHICH AREREQUIRED BY EACH GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF EACH ROADWAY.18.DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN WETLAND MITIGATION SITE AND ANY DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN THE WETLAND SHALL BERESTORED WITH 6 TO 12 INCHES OF ORGANIC SOILS, PREFERABLY SOILS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY REMOVED FROMWETLAND AREAS. SEEDING IN THE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS ABOVE THE NORMAL WATER LEVEL SHALL BE MNSTATE SEED MIX 34-271, WET MEADOW SOUTH AND WEST, OR APPROVED EQUAL. FOR STATE SEED MIXES, OATSAND WINTER WHEAT SHOULD BE SELECTED BASED ON THE TIME OF YEAR THAT THE MIX IS BEING USED. OATSSHOULD BE INCLUDED IN MIXES IF BEING USED BETWEEN OCTOBER 15TH AND AUGUST 1ST. WINTER WHEATSHOULD BE USED BETWEEN AUGUST 1ST AND OCTOBER 15TH. THE SEEDING RATE IS THE SAME FOR OATS ANDWINTER WHEAT. MIX 34-271 SHOULD BE APPLIED AT 12 POUNDS PER ACRE. SEED SHALL BE WATERED UNTIL AHEALTHY STAND OF VEGETATION IS OBTAINED.19.FILL PLACED WITHIN THE BUILDING PAD AREAS SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH HUD/FHA PROCEDURES AND DATASHEET 79G.20.RETAINING WALL(S) SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MODULAR BLOCK MATERIAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THEENGINEER AND LOCAL AUTHORITY CERTIFIED ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND SOIL BORINGS.THE CERTIFIED ENGINEER FOR THE RETAINING WALL(S) SHALL PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS OF THERETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT, AND A LETTER CERTIFYING THE INSTALLATION OF THE WALL(S) WAS CONSTRUCTEDIN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.GRADING NOTES1'-4"VARIABLE 6"6"6"4.0' NOTE:OTHER ACCEPTABLE CATCH BASIN CASTINGS DEPENDING UPON THECIRCUMSTANCES.NEENAH R-2561-A BEEHIVE GRATE AND CASTINGNEENAH R-2573 CONCAVE GRATE AND CASTINGNEENAH R-2577 CONVEX GRATE AND CASTING24"X36"SLAB OPENING FOR NEENAH R-3067 CASTING, FOR EQUAL,WITH D.L., D.R. OR VANE GRATE. 27" DIAMETER OPENING FORNEENAH R-1642-B COVER AND CASTING.MANHOLE STEPS NEENAH R-1981-JPLASTIC COATED OR APPROVEDEQUAL 16" O.C.MINIMUM SLAB THICKNESS IS 6" FOR14' DEPTH. INCREASE THICKNESS 1"FOR 4' OF DEPTH GREATER THAN 14'AND REINFORCE WITH 6"X6", 10/10MESH.GASKETED, FLEXIBLE, WATERTIGHTCONNECTION AT ALL PIPE CONNECTIONSUNLESS GROUTED CONNECTION IS APPROVEDBY THE ENGINEERPRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE SECTIONS.6" PRECAST REINFORCEDCONCRETE SLAB.MINIMUM OF 2, MAXIMUM OF4 CONCRETE ADJUSTING RINGS.FULL BED OF MORTAR BETWEENRINGS, AND A 6" COLLAR ON THEOUTSIDE OF THE RINGS.N.T.S.02CATCH BASIN MANHOLEWITH SUMPWET POND B BOTTOM = 922.004: 1 S L O P E S M A X ( V A R I E S )10:1 BENCH4:1 SLOPES MAX (VARIES)EXIST DITCH BOTTOM = 927.00NWL = 929.0012"x18"ORIFICEIE = 929.00IE = 923.00IE = 927.3366 LF - 48"STORM @ 0.3%FESIE = 923.0053 LF - 48"STORM @ 0.0%OCS RIM ELEVATION = 933.60N.T.S.WET POND B OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL/CROSS SECTION B-BTOP WEIRELEVATION = 930.80OCS RIM ELEVATION = 933.10GALVANIZED GRATE(SPLIT) 4"X4" OPENINGSGASKETED, FLEXIBLE,WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONAT ALL PIPE CONNECTIONS60"HWL = 933.10BERM ELEVATION = 933.85FESIE = 927.00046" DRAIN TILEIE = 927.50WEIR WALL60"21"21"18"12"929.00927.33930.80500028016600.0%929.50929.00928.00927.506"935.00933.50932.50932.25931.50929.50 18"WET PONDS A & BWET POND BBOTTOM = 922.004:1 SLOPES MAX (VARIES)10:1 BENCH4: 1 S L O P E S M A X ( V A R I E S )NWL = 929.00FESIE = 923.00N.T.S.WET POND A CROSS SECTION A-AHWL = 933.10BERM ELEVATION = 933.8503WET POND ABOTTOM = 922.004:1 SLOPES MAX (VARIES)10:1 BENCH4:1 SLOPES MAX (VARIES)NWL = 929.00213 LF - 48"STORM @ 0.0%FESIE = 923.00HWL = 933.10BERM ELEVATION = 933.80 BM #2TNH=953.05BM #3BM #4LYMAN BLVD. (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)LYMAN BLVD.TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)TWIN CITIES & WESTERN R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) GALPIN BL V D . (C. S. A. H. N O . 1 1 7 ) 100.0' 100.0'100.0 ' 10 0 . 0 'X-13.67 ACX-214.25 ACX-317.39 ACX-47.67 ACIP1IP2SCALE IN FEET012060NORTH Nov 02, 2018 - 12:30pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C5-EROS.dwgC5.01PHASE IEROSIONCONTROL PLANProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.Date:If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,Minnetonka, MN office.43505George D. Abernathy10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity ResubmittalTEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEASURES(SEED, MULCH, MATS OR BLANKETS ASOUTLINED IN THE SWPPP)TEMPORARY STORAGE AND PARKING AREADIRECTION OFOVERLAND FLOWTEMPORARY DIVERSIONDITCHLIMITS OF DRAINAGESUB-BASININLET PROTECTION DEVICE 1INLET PROTECTION DEVICE 2TEMPORARY STONECONSTRUCTION ENTRANCETEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINLIMITS OF DISTURBANCEOVERFLOW ELEV.CONTOURRIP RAPCHECK DAMSILT FENCESOIL BORINGSEXISTINGPROPOSEDSTORM SEWERCURB & GUTTERDRAINTILESOIL EROSION / SEDIMENTATION CONTROL OPERATION TIME SCHEDULECONSTRUCTION SEQUENCEJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNTEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURESSTRIP & STOCKPILE TOPSOILROUGH GRADE / SEDIMENT CONTROLTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ROADSFOUNDATION / BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONSITE CONSTRUCTIONPERMANENT CONTROL STRUCTURESFINISH GRADINGLANDSCAPING / SEED / FINAL STABILIZATIONSTORM FACILITIESNOTE: CONTRACTOR OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE TABLE WITH THEIR SPECIFIC PROJECT SCHEDULETHE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE SWPPP MUST BE KEPT ONSITE UNTILTHE NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS FILED WITH THE MPCA, THE CONTRACTOR MUST UPDATE THE SWPPP,INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS,SUCH AS ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED BMPS DESIGNED TO CORRECT PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED. AFTER FILING THENOTICE OF TERMINATION, THE SWPPP, INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS, AND ALLREVISIONS TO IT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER, TO BE KEPT ON FILE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THERECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE SWPPP NARRATIVE.TSMTSSBEROSION CONTROL MATERIALSQUANTITIESITEMUNITQUANTITYSILT FENCELINEAR FEETXSILT DIKELINEAR FEETXBIO-ROLLLINEAR FEETXCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEUNITXINLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-1)UNITXINLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-2)UNITXSILT DIKEBIO-ROLLLEGENDNOTE TO CONTRACTORIP-1EOF902.5DTHE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINEDACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTINGSUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTINGUTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THECONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BYHIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD).IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE,INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER.IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.902* REFER TO SHEET C5.03 FOR GENERAL NOTES, MAINTENANCENOTES, LOCATION MAPS, AND STANDARD DETAILSWARNINGHIGH-PRESSURE PIPELINE(S)Excavation and/or ConstructionProhibited Without compliance withState One-Call, AND Without WrittenPermission FromMAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, L.P. BM #2TNH=953.05BM #3BM #4LYMAN BLVD. (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)LYMAN BLVD.TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)TWIN CITIES & WESTERN R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) GALPIN BL V D . (C. S. A. H. N O . 1 1 7 ) 100.0' 100.0'100.0 ' 10 0 . 0 'PROPOSED BUILDING A161,500S.F.FFE=945.0PROPOSED BUILDING B109,250 S.F.FFE=941.5PROPOSED BUILDING C178,600 S.F.FFE=940.59379379409399 4 0 9 4 0 9419409409389389399399419419419409409559 4 2 94 3 9 4 4 945 9 4 4 944944944941942943944940943944942943940938939941941 942943944940940940 941938938 943942928 955957945942950 95 5 961960945946945944940 935 930 925 92 2 955950945940925923928929939937937936937936939 939939939939 939935 934 936 937 938 939 939 9359369 3 7 938922 925 928 929 9419449439429369509519659649669659649529539459449409419 5 5 9 5 6 9 4 4 9 4 7 9 4 8 936 935934S-215.34 ACIP2S-33.73 ACS-41.16 ACS-51.90 ACS-70.93 ACS-613.14 ACS-81.88 ACS-94.77 ACS-10.12 ACIP1IP3IP1IP3IP1IP3IP1IP3IP1IP3IP1IP3IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP2IP1IP1IP2SCALE IN FEET012060NORTH Nov 02, 2018 - 12:30pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C5-EROS.dwgC5.02PHASE IIEROSIONCONTROL PLANProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.Date:If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,Minnetonka, MN office.43505George D. Abernathy10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity ResubmittalTEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEASURES(SEED, MULCH, MATS OR BLANKETS ASOUTLINED IN THE SWPPP)TEMPORARY STORAGE AND PARKING AREADIRECTION OFOVERLAND FLOWTEMPORARY DIVERSIONDITCHLIMITS OF DRAINAGESUB-BASININLET PROTECTION DEVICE 1INLET PROTECTION DEVICE 2TEMPORARY STONECONSTRUCTION ENTRANCETEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINLIMITS OF DISTURBANCEOVERFLOW ELEV.CONTOURRIP RAPCHECK DAMSILT FENCESOIL BORINGSEXISTINGPROPOSEDSTORM SEWERCURB & GUTTERDRAINTILESOIL EROSION / SEDIMENTATION CONTROL OPERATION TIME SCHEDULECONSTRUCTION SEQUENCEJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNJULAUGSEPOCTNOVDECJANFEBMARAPRMAYJUNTEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURESSTRIP & STOCKPILE TOPSOILROUGH GRADE / SEDIMENT CONTROLTEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ROADSFOUNDATION / BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONSITE CONSTRUCTIONPERMANENT CONTROL STRUCTURESFINISH GRADINGLANDSCAPING / SEED / FINAL STABILIZATIONSTORM FACILITIESNOTE: CONTRACTOR OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE TABLE WITH THEIR SPECIFIC PROJECT SCHEDULETHE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE SWPPP MUST BE KEPT ONSITE UNTILTHE NOTICE OF TERMINATION IS FILED WITH THE MPCA, THE CONTRACTOR MUST UPDATE THE SWPPP,INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS AS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS,SUCH AS ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED BMPS DESIGNED TO CORRECT PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED. AFTER FILING THENOTICE OF TERMINATION, THE SWPPP, INCLUDING THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN SHEETS, AND ALLREVISIONS TO IT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER, TO BE KEPT ON FILE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THERECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE SWPPP NARRATIVE.TSMTSSBEROSION CONTROL MATERIALSQUANTITIESITEMUNITQUANTITYSILT FENCELINEAR FEETXSILT DIKELINEAR FEETXBIO-ROLLLINEAR FEETXCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEUNITXINLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-1)UNITXINLET PROTECTION DEVICE (IP-2)UNITXSILT DIKEBIO-ROLLLEGENDNOTE TO CONTRACTORIP-1EOF902.5DTHE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINEDACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTINGSUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTINGUTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THECONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BYHIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD).IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE,INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER.IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.902* REFER TO SHEET C5.03 FOR GENERAL NOTES, MAINTENANCENOTES, LOCATION MAPS, AND STANDARD DETAILSWARNINGHIGH-PRESSURE PIPELINE(S)Excavation and/or ConstructionProhibited Without compliance withState One-Call, AND Without WrittenPermission FromMAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, L.P. 100.0'100.0'100.0'100.0' Nov 02, 2018 - 12:30pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C5-EROS.dwgC5.03EROSIONCONTROLNOTES &DETAILSProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.Date:If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,Minnetonka, MN office.43505George D. Abernathy10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity ResubmittalALL MEASURES STATED ON THIS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, AND IN THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN FULLY FUNCTIONAL CONDITION UNTIL NOLONGER REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETED PHASE OF WORK OR FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE. THE DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON NOTED ON THIS PLAN MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT THE CONSTRUCTIONON SITE ONCE EVERY SEVEN DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN 24 HOURS. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATIONCONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CLEANED AND REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:1.ALL SILT FENCES MUST BE REPAIRED, REPLACED, OR SUPPLEMENTED WHEN THEY BECOME NONFUNCTIONAL OR THE SEDIMENT REACHES 1/3 OF THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. THESE REPAIRS MUST BEMADE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY, OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS.2.TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEDIMENTATION BASINS MUST BE DRAINED AND THE SEDIMENT REMOVED WHEN THE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT COLLECTED IN THE BASIN REACHES 1/2 THE STORAGEVOLUME. DRAINAGE AND REMOVAL MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 72 HOURS OF DISCOVERY, OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS (SEE PART IV.D. OF THE GENERAL PERMIT).3.SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING DRAINAGE DITCHES AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS, MUST BE INSPECTED FOR EVIDENCE OF SEDIMENT BEING DEPOSITED BY EROSION. CONTRACTOR MUST REMOVE ALLDELTAS AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITED IN SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING DRAINAGE WAYS, CATCH BASINS, AND OTHER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, AND RESTABILIZE THE AREAS WHERE SEDIMENT REMOVALRESULTS IN EXPOSED SOIL. THE REMOVAL AND STABILIZATION MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS OF DISCOVERY UNLESS PRECLUDED BY LEGAL, REGULATORY, OR PHYSICAL ACCESSCONSTRAINTS. CONTRACTOR SHALL USE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN ACCESS. IF PRECLUDED, REMOVAL AND STABILIZATION MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN SEVEN (7) CALENDAR DAYS OFOBTAINING ACCESS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL LOCAL, REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES AND RECEIVING ANY APPLICABLE PERMITS, PRIOR TO CONDUCTINGANY WORK.4.CONSTRUCTION SITE VEHICLE EXIT LOCATIONS MUST BE INSPECTED FOR EVIDENCE OF OFF-SITE SEDIMENT TRACKING ONTO PAVED SURFACES. TRACKED SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED FROM ALLOFF-SITE PAVED SURFACES, WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY, OR IF APPLICABLE, WITHIN A SHORTER TIME TO COMPLY WITH PART IV.C.6 OF THE GENERAL PERMIT.5.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BMPS, AS WELL AS ALL EROSION PREVENTION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS, FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AT THE SITE. THE PERMITTEE(S) ARE RESPONSIBLE UNTIL ANOTHER PERMITTEE HAS ASSUMED CONTROL (ACCORDINGTO PART II.B.5 OF THE MPCA GENERAL PERMIT) OVER ALL AREAS OF THE SITE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FINALLY STABILIZED OR THE SITE HAS UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION, AND A (N.O.T.) HASBEEN SUBMITTED TO THE MPCA.6.IF SEDIMENT ESCAPES THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, OFF-SITE ACCUMULATIONS OF SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED IN A MANNER AND AT A FREQUENCY SUFFICIENT TO MINIMIZE OFF-SITE IMPACTS(E.G., FUGITIVE SEDIMENT IN STREETS COULD BE WASHED INTO STORM SEWERS BY THE NEXT RAIN AND/OR POSE A SAFETY HAZARD TO USERS OF PUBLIC STREETS).7.ALL INFILTRATION AREAS MUST BE INSPECTED TO ENSURE THAT NO SEDIMENT FROM ONGOING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IS REACHING THE INFILTRATION AREA AND THESE AREAS ARE PROTECTEDFROM COMPACTION DUE TO CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT DRIVING ACROSS THE INFILTRATION AREA.1.CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE GOVERNING CODES AND BE CONSTRUCTED TO SAME. WHERE A CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONSAND SAMBATEK STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, THE MORE STRINGENT SPECIFICATION SHALL APPLY.2.THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) IS COMPRISED OF THIS DRAWING (EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN-ESC PLAN), THE STANDARD DETAILS, THE PLANNARRATIVE, AND ITS APPENDICES, PLUS THE PERMIT AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETING & SUBMITTING THE APPLICATION FOR THE MPCA GENERAL STORMWATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. ALL CONTRACTORS ANDSUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED WITH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SWPPP AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATIONSYSTEM GENERAL PERMIT (NPDES PERMIT) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS. THE SWPPP AND ALL OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS MUST BE KEPT AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION.(NOTE TO THE PREPARER: EDIT APPLICATION PROCESS PER PROJECT REQUIREMENTS)4.CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S) AS REQUIRED BY THE SWPPP & PERMITS. CONTRACTOR SHALL OVERSEE THE INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE OF THE BMP'SAND EROSION PREVENTION FROM BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, IS APPROVED BY ALL AUTHORITIES, AND THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) HAS BEENFILED WITH THE MPCA BY EITHER THE OWNER OR OPERATOR AS APPROVED ON PERMIT. ADDITIONAL BMP'S SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AS DICTATED BY CONDITIONS AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TOOWNER THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. (NOTE TO THE PREPARER: REVISE INSPECTION RESPONSIBILITY PER OPTIONS IN SWPPP NARRATIVE (SECTION 02370))5.CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH TRAINING REQUIREMENTS IN PART III.A.2 OF THE GENERAL PERMIT.6.BMP'S AND CONTROLS SHALL CONFORM TO FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS OR MANUAL OF PRACTICE, AS APPLICABLE. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL CONTROLS ASDIRECTED BY PERMITTING AGENCY OR OWNER.7.ESC PLAN MUST CLEARLY DELINEATE ALL STATE WATERS. PERMITS FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTING STATE WATERS OR REGULATED WETLANDS MUST BE MAINTAINED ON SITE AT ALLTIMES.8.CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE CLEARING TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL OR AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL PERMIT. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN ON THE ESC PLANSSHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED (E.G. WITH FLAGS, STAKES, SIGNS, SILT FENCE, ETC.) ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS. GROUND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES MUST NOT OCCUR OUTSIDETHE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.9.GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL DENOTE ON PLAN THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA WHICH SHALL ALSO BE USED AS THE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING AREA, EMPLOYEEPARKING AREA, AND AREA FOR LOCATING PORTABLE FACILITIES, OFFICE TRAILERS, AND TOILET FACILITIES.10.ALL WASH WATER (CONCRETE TRUCKS, VEHICLE CLEANING, EQUIPMENT CLEANING, ETC.) MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE AND SHALL BE CONTAINED AND PROPERLY TREATED ORDISPOSED. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE.11.ALL LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES GENERATED BY CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS MUST BE CONTAINED IN A LEAK-PROOF CONTAINMENT FACILITY OR IMPERMEABLE LINER. A COMPACTED CLAYLINER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES MUST NOT CONTACT THE GROUND, AND THERE MUST NOT BE RUNOFF FROM THE CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS OR AREAS. LIQUIDAND SOLID WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. A SIGN MUST BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO EACH WASHOUT FACILITY TO INFORM CONCRETEEQUIPMENT OPERATORS TO UTILIZE THE PROPER FACILITIES. SELF-CONTAINED CONCRETE WASHOUTS ON CONCRETE DELIVERY TRUCKS ARE ALLOWED.12.SUFFICIENT OIL AND GREASE ABSORBING MATERIALS AND FLOTATION BOOMS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SITE OR READILY AVAILABLE TO CONTAIN AND CLEAN-UP FUEL OR CHEMICAL SPILLS ANDLEAKS.13.DUST ON THE SITE SHALL BE CONTROLLED. THE USE OF MOTOR OILS AND OTHER PETROLEUM BASED OR TOXIC LIQUIDS FOR DUST SUPPRESSION OPERATIONS IS PROHIBITED.14.SOLID WASTE: COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT & CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION DEBRIS & OTHER WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OFPROPERLY & MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS.15.HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT & ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED, INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, TO PREVENT SPILLS, LEAKS OR OTHERDISCHARGE. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. STORAGE & DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCAREGULATIONS.16.ALL STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES PRESENTED ON THIS PLAN, AND IN THE SWPPP, SHALL BE INITIATED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AND PRIOR TO SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITIESUPSLOPE.17.DISTURBED PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS STOPPED SHALL BE TEMPORARILY SEEDED, WITHIN 14 DAYS OF INACTIVITY. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITHMN/DOT SEED MIXTURE NUMBER 21-111 OR 21-112 DEPENDING ON THE SEASON OF PLANTING ( SEE MN/DOT SPECIFICATION SECTION 2575.3) SEEDING METHOD AND APPLICATION RATE SHALLCONFORM TO MN/DOT SPECIFICATION SECTION 2575.3. TEMPORARY MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION SECTION 2575.3F1 AND 2575.3G. ALTERNATIVELY,HYDRAULIC SOIL STABILIZER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION SECTION 2575.3H MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF TEMPORARY MULCH.18.DISTURBED PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS PERMANENTLY STOPPED SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. THESE AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITHTHE TIME TABLE DESCRIBED ABOVE. REFER TO THE GRADING PLAN AND/OR LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR VEGETATIVE COVER.19.CONTRACTORS OR SUBCONTRACTORS WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING SEDIMENT FROM CONVEYANCES & FROM TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS THAT ARE TO BE USED AS PERMANENTWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BASINS. SEDIMENT MUST BE STABILIZED TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING WASHED BACK INTO THE BASIN, CONVEYANCES, OR DRAINAGEWAYS DISCHARGING OFF-SITE ORTO SURFACE WATERS. THE CLEANOUT OF PERMANENT BASINS MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO RETURN THE BASIN TO DESIGN CAPACITY.20.ON-SITE & OFF-SITE SOIL STOCKPILE AND BORROW AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF BMP'S. STOCKPILE AND BORROW AREALOCATIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE SITE MAP AND PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.21.TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SILT FENCE OR OTHER EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS & CANNOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING STORMWATER CONVEYANCES SUCH ASCURB & GUTTER SYSTEMS OR CONDUITS & DITCHES.22.SLOPES SHALL BE LEFT IN A ROUGHENED CONDITION DURING THE GRADING PHASE TO REDUCE RUNOFF VELOCITIES AND EROSION.23.DUE TO THE GRADE CHANGES DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTING THE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES (SILT FENCES, CHECK DAMS,INLET PROTECTION DEVICES, ETC.) TO PREVENT EROSION.24.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY, THIS INCLUDES BACKFILLING OF TRENCHES FOR UTILITY CONSTRUCTION AND PLACEMENT OF GRAVEL OR BITUMINOUSPAVING FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION.DEVELOPER/OWNER:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX-XXX-XXXXSITE OPERATOR / GENERAL CONTRACTORSUPERINTENDENT:CROSS BRACEMIN.15"18"MAX.2" X 4" STAKE3' MIN.DROP INLETWITH GRATE2" X 4" WOOD(TYP.)5' MIN.SECURELY FASTEN OVERLAPPINGENDS OF SILT FENCE MATERIALTO ADJACENT STAKES WITHTHREE WIRE TIES OR OTHERFASTENERSATTACH THE WOVEN WIREFENCE TO EACH POST WITHTHREE WIRE TIES OR OTHERFASTENERS (SEE NOTE 1)1. ATTACH THE WOVEN WIRE FENCE TO EACH POST AND THE GEOTEXTILE TO THE WOVEN WIRE FENCE(SPACED EVERY 30") WITH THREE WIRE TIES OR OTHER FASTENERS, ALL SPACED WITHIN THE TOP 8" OFTHE FABRIC. ATTACH EACH TIE DIAGONALLY 45 DEGREES THROUGH THE FABRIC, WITH EACH PUNCTUREAT LEAST 1" VERTICALLY APART.2. WHEN TWO SECTIONS OF SILT FENCE MATERIAL ADJOIN EACH OTHER, THEY SHALL BE OVERLAPPEDACROSS TWO POSTS.3. MAINTENANCE SHALL BE PERFORMED AS NOTED IN THE SWPPP. DEPTH OF ACCUMULATED SEDIMENTSMAY NOT EXCEED ONE-HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE FABRIC. MAINTENANCE CLEANOUT MUST BECONDUCTED REGULARLY TO PREVENT ACCUMULATED SEDIMENTS FROM REACHING ONE-HALF THEHEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE MATERIAL ABOVE GRADE.4. ALL SILT FENCE INLETS SHALL INCLUDE WIRE SUPPORT.OVERLAP5' MIN.SILT FENCE MATERIAL TO BEFASTENED SECURELY TO WOVENWIRE FENCE WITH THREE TIESSPACED AT 30" ON CENTER (SEENOTE 1)DEFLECTOR PLATEOVERFLOW 2 - TOP OF CURB BOXOVERFLOW 1 - CENTER OF FILTER ASSEMBLY10" FILTER ASSEMBLYCURBCG 3067HIGH-FLOW FABRICMIRAFI FF101ROAD DRAIN CASTING APPLICABILTY·NEENAH R-3067·NEENAH R-3512NOT TO SCALE50' MIN.ROAD6" MIN.CONSTRUCT 2' HIGH BERM WITHMAXIMUM SIDE SLOPE OF 4:12" TO 3" GRAVELNOTE: ROCK EXITS SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THESTART OF ANY SITE WORK. ROCK EXITS SHALL BEINSPECTED FOLLOWING EACH RAINFALL.MAINTENANCE OF ROCK EXITS SHALL INCLUDE A TOPDRESSING OF NEW GRAVEL, OR REMOVAL ANDREPLACEMENT OF THE GRAVEL AS NEEDED, TO KEEPTHE EXITS FREE FROM COLLECTED MUD.ASREQUIRED MIN 0.5% GRADE8' X 8' MIN OR ASREQUIRED TOCONTAIN WASTECONCRETESIGN TO INDICATE THE LOCATION OFTHE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA2'-0" MINBERM AROUND PERIMETERGROUND SURFACE12" MIN12" MINCOMPACTED EMBANKMENTMATERIAL (TYP.)3:1 OR FLATTERSIDE SLOPESNOTES:1.CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CONCRETE PLACEMENTON SITE.2.CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA SHALL BE LINED WITH MINIMUM 10 MIL THICK PLASTICLINER.3.VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL IS REQUIRED IF ACCESS TO CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA ISOFF PAVEMENT.4.SIGNS SHALL BE PLACED AT THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE, AT THE WASHOUT AREA,AND ELSEWHERE AS NECESSARY TO CLEARLY INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THECONCRETE WASHOUT AREA TO OPERATORS OF CONCRETE TRUCKS AND PUMP RIGS.5.THE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA SHALL BE REPAIRED AND ENLARGED OR CLEANED OUTAS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN CAPACITY FOR WASTED CONCRETE.6.AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION, ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITEAND DISPOSED OF AT AN ACCEPTED WASTE SITE.7.WHEN THE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA IS REMOVED, THE DISTURBED AREA SHALL BESEEDED AND MULCHED OR OTHERWISE STABILIZED IN A MANNER ACCEPTED BY THECITY.WOVEN WIREFENCE WITH SILTFENCE MATERIALCOVEREXTEND WIRE FENCEA MIN. OF 3" INTOGROUNDEXTEND SILT FENCEMATERIAL A MIN. OF1'-0" INTO GROUNDEROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS / "SITE MAP"SITE LOCATION MAPNOT TO SCALEUSGS MAPGENERAL EROSION NOTES:NOT TO SCALEROCK EXIT DRIVENOT TO SCALECONCRETE WASHOUT AREAROAD DRAIN INLET PROTECTION (IP-2)SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION (IP-1)NOT TO SCALEPOSTS: 2 X 4 WOODEN STAKE FENCE:WOVEN WIRE, 14-1/2 GA., 6" MAX. MESHOPENING FABRIC: IN ACCORDANCE WITHASTM D 6461 LATEST EDITION.NOT TO SCALEPHASE I:1.INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES.2.PREPARE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA.3.CONSTRUCT THE SILT FENCES ON THE SITE.4. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENTATION AND SEDIMENT TRAP BASINS.5. HALT ALL ACTIVITIES AND CONTACT THE CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT TO PERFORM INSPECTION OF BMPs. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULEAND CONDUCT STORM WATER PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH ENGINEER AND ALL GROUND DISTURBING CONTRACTORS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITHCONSTRUCTION.6. CLEAR AND GRUB THE SITE.7. BEGIN GRADING THE SITE.8. START CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING PAD AND STRUCTURES.PHASE II:1.TEMPORARILY SEED DENUDED AREAS.2.INSTALL UTILITIES, UNDERDRAINS, STORM SEWERS, CURBS AND GUTTERS.3.INSTALL RIP RAP AROUND OUTLET STRUCTURES.4.INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AROUND ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES.5.PREPARE SITE FOR PAVING.6.PAVE SITE.7.INSTALL INLET PROTECTION DEVICES.8.COMPLETE GRADING AND INSTALL PERMANENT SEEDING AND PLANTING.9.REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES (ONLY IF SITE IS STABILIZED), IF REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACTAREA SUMMARY IN ACRESPAVEMENT AREA18.18 AC±BUILDING AREA10.32 AC±SEEDED AREA13.73 AC±TOTAL DISTURBED42.22 AC±PRE - CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS0.10 AC±POST - CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS28.49 AC±SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTIONFRAMEMAINTENANCE NOTES:212LYMAN BLVD5SITELAKE HAZELTINEHAZELTINE BLVD18PIONEER TRAILAUDUBON RD POWERS BLVD AUDUBON RD ARBORETUM BLVDGALPIN BLVD14 SITE BM #2TNH=953.05BM #3BM #4LYMAN BLVD. (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)LYMAN BLVD.TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)TWIN CITIES & WESTERN R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) GALPIN BL V D . (C. S. A. H. N O . 1 1 7 ) 100.0' 100.0'100.0 ' 10 0 . 0 'PROPOSED BUILDING A161,500S.F.FFE=945.0PROPOSED BUILDING B109,250 S.F.FFE=941.5PROPOSED BUILDING C178,600 S.F.FFE=940.5CB 210RE=942.29IE=939.29162 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 0.50%CBMH 209RE=942.96IE=938.48CBMH 208RE=942.96IE=937.75CBMH 207RE=942.96IE=936.66CBMH 206RE=942.98IE=935.21CBMH 205RE=942.90IE=933.67CBMH 204RE=943.05IE=933.44CBMH 202RE=942.77IE=932.40CBMH 203RE=941.35IE=932.45FES 200IE=929.00147 LF - 15" STMSWR @ 0.50%218 LF - 18" STMSWR @ 0.50%290 LF - 18" STMSWR @ 0.50%309 LF - 21" STMSWR @ 0.50%46 LF - 21" STMSWR @ 0.50%197 LF - 24" STMSWR @ 0.50%11 LF - 24" STMSWR @ 0.50%157 LF - 36" STMSWR @ 1.5%CBMH 303-BRE=940.92IE=937.92CB 303-ARE=939.40IE=936.4098 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 1.0%CBMH 509RE=937.73IE=934.44CBMH 507RE=938.20IE=932.81CBMH 505RE=938.20IE=931.21126 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 0.50%TD 303-CRE=940.50IE=935.90TD 302-ARE=940.50IE=935.901.65' RISERTD 302-BRE=940.50IE=935.90TD 302-CRE=940.50IE=935.90TD 301-ARE=940.50IE=935.90TD 301-BRE=940.50IE=935.90TD 300-ARE=940.50IE=935.901.65' RISERTD 300-BRE=940.50IE=935.90TD 303-DRE=937.00IE=934.00TD 302-DRE=937.00IE=934.001.65' RISERTD 302-ERE=937.00IE=934.00TD 302-FRE=937.00IE=934.00TD 301-CRE=937.00IE=934.00TD 301-DRE=937.00IE=934.00TD 300-CRE=937.00IE=934.001.65' RISERTD 300-DRE=937.00IE=934.00CBMH 510RE=938.07IE=935.07CBMH 508RE=938.43IE=933.53CBMH 506RE=938.20IE=932.01182 LF - 18" STMSWR @ 0.50%145 LF - 24" STMSWR @ 0.50%159 LF - 24" STMSWR @ 0.50%160 LF - 24" STMSWR @ 0.50%FES 802IE=927.0OCS 801RE=933.30IE=927.3366 LF - 48" STMSWR @ 0.3%CB 607RE=937.94IE=934.94STMH 602RE=936.92IE=930.18 E,WIE=932.50 N216 LF - 36" STMSWR @ 0.30%245 LF - 42" STMSWR @ 0.20%30 LF - 42" STMSWR @ 0.20%170 LF - 42" STMSWR @ 0.27%CBMH 601RE=935.93IE=929.78CBMH 600RE=935.93IE=929.63CBMH 501W/ "SNOUT"SKIMMER HOOD (SEEDETAIL, SHEET C4.02)RE=937.47IE=929.78 E,WIE=929.17 S4' SUMPCBMH 502RE=937.47IE=929.93CBMH 503RE=938.04IE=929.99CBMH 504RE=938.14IE=930.39164 LF - 24" STMSWR @ 0.50%133 LF - 36" STMSWR @ 0.30%21 LF - 36" STMSWR @ 0.30%30 LF - 36" STMSWR @ 0.03%55 LF - 48" STMSWR @ 0.30%STMH 303RE=941.93IE=937.88 NIE=935.42 SIE=933.96 ESTMH 302RE=940.66IE=935.53 NIE=932.03 SIE=932.70 E&WSTMH 301RE=940.97IE=935.53 NIE=932.03 SIE=931.16 EIE=931.73 WSTMH 300RE=940.66IE=935.53 NIE=932.03 SIE=930.18 E,WSTMH 201W/ "SNOUT"SKIMMER HOOD (SEEDETAIL, SHEET C4.02)RE=942.39IE=932.0 NIE=936.06 SIE=931.33 E,W4' SUMP155 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 2.0%FES 100IE=940.00CB 101RE=946.00IE=942.70FES 700IE=923.00FES 701IE=923.00FES 500IE=929.00FES 800IE=923.00213 LF - 48" STMSWR @ 0.00%53 LF - 48" STMSWR @ 0.00%32 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 1.00%220 LF - 18" STMSWR @ 0.30%325 LF - 36" STMSWR @ 0.30%325 LF - 36" STMSWR @ 0.3%235 LF - 42" STMSWR @ 0.3%78 LF - 24" STMSWR @ 0.50%MH 01RE=942.79IE=924.39 WIE=924.49 SMH 02RE=941.42IE=925.25 NIE=925.35 EMH 04RE=940.97IE=930.55 WIE=930.65 N, SMH 03RE=940.94IE=927.90 WIE=928.00 ESANITARY SEWER SERVICEIE=931.43SANITARY SEWER SERVICEIE=924.748" COMBINATIONDOMESTIC/FIRE PROTECTIONWATER SERVICEMH 06RE=937.28IE=924.03 WIE=924.13 NMH 05RE=937.27IE=921.14 WIE=921.24 ECONNECT TO EXISTINGSANITARY SEWER MANHOLEEXTERIOR DROPIE=918.35 EIE=914.0 (DROP)(FIELD VERIFY)CONNECT TO EXISTINGSANITARY SEWER MANHOLEIE=924.0 (FIELD VERIFY)39 LF - 8" PVCSCH 40 @ 1.0%76 LF - 8" PVCSCH 40 @ 1.0%255 LF - 8" PVCSSCH 40 @ 1.0%255 LF - 8" PVCSCH 40 @ 1.0%78 LF - 8" PVCSCH 40 @ 1.0%279 LF - 8" PVCSCH 40 @ 1.0%279 LF - 8" PVCSCH 40 @ 1.0%61 LF - 8" PVCSCH 40 @ 1.0%HYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEEHYDRANT6" GATE VALVE8" x 6" TEE10" WATERMAIN10" WATERMAIN10" WATERMAIN10" W A T E R M A I N 10" WATERMAIN 10" WATERMAIN 8" WATERMAIN 8" WATERMAIN8" WATERMAIN 10" WATERMAIN10" WATERMAIN10" WATERMAIN10" WATERMAIN10" WATERMAIN10" WATERMAIN 10" WATERMAIN 10" WATERMAIN10" WATERMAIN 102 LF - 8" PVCSCH 40 @ 1.0% SANITARYSEWERSERVICEIE=931.67ROOF DRAIN C-1IE=932.90ROOF DRAIN C-2IE=932.90ROOF DRAIN C-3IE=932.90ROOF DRAIN A-1IE=936.00ROOF DRAIN A-2IE=936.00ROOF DRAIN A-3IE=936.00ROOF DRAIN B-1IE=932.50ROOFDRAIN B-2IE=932.50ROOF DRAIN B-3IE=932.508" COMBINATIONDOMESTIC/FIREPROTECTIONWATER SERVICE8" COMBINATIONDOMESTIC/FIREPROTECTION WATERSERVICESTMH 603RE=936.81IE=932.6 NIE=930.40 E,W108 LF - 36" STMSWR @ 0.20%STMH 604RE=937.05IE=931.05 E,WIE=932.50 NSTMH 605RE=936.82IE=932.60 NIE=932.18 WIE=931.70 ESTMH 606RE=936.92IE=932.50STMH 607RE=937.44IE=933.99 NIE=933.1 E216 LF - 36" STMSWR @ 0.30%107 LF - 24" STMSWR @ 0.30%201 LF - 15" STMSWR @ 0.30%190 LF - 12"STM SWR@ 0.50%80 LF - 18" STMSWR @ 0.5%60 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 1.0%60 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 1.0%60 LF - 12" STMSWR @1.0%60 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 0.5%60 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 1.0%80 LF - 18" STMSWR @ 0.50%60 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 1.0%TD 607-ARE=936.20IE=933.20TD 606-ARE=936.20IE=933.201.65' RISERTD 605-ARE=936.20IE=933.20TD 605-BRE=936.20IE=933.20TD 604-ARE=936.20IE=933.20TD 603-ARE=936.20IE=933.20TD 602-ARE=936.20IE=933.201.65' RISERTD 602-BRE=936.20IE=933.2095 LF - 15" STMSWR @ 0.5%95 LF - 15" STMSWR @ 0.5%95 LF - 15''STM SWR@ 0.5%95 LF - 15"STM SWR@ 0.5%95 LF - 18" STMSWR @ 0.5%95 LF - 18" STMSWR @ 0.5%75 LF - 12"STM SWR@ 1.0%75 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 1.0%75 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 0.5%75 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 0.5%75 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 1.0%75 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 1.0%75 LF - 12"STM SWR@ 0.5%75 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 0.5%75 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 0.5%75 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 0.5%75 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 0.5%75 LF - 12" STMSWR @ 1.0%FIRE DEPARTMENTCONNECTIONFIRE DEPARTMENTCONNECTIONFIRE DEPARTMENTCONNECTION80 LF - 18'' STMSWR @ 0.5%CB 201-ARE=939.41IE=936.4170 LF - 12'' STMSWR @ 0.50%WIE CONNECTIONW/ RISER (TYP.)WET POND AHWL = 933.10NWL = 929.00BOT = 922.00WET POND BHWL = 933.10NWL = 929.00BOT = 922.00BIORETENTION TRENCH(SEE DETAIL 1, SHEET C4.02)BIORETENTION BENCH(SEE DETAIL 8, SHEET C4.02)RAINGUARDIAN(SEE DETAIL, SHEET C4.02)RAINGUARDIAN(SEE DETAIL, SHEET C4.02)SCALE IN FEET012060NORTH Nov 02, 2018 - 1:16pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-C6-UTIL.dwgC6.01UTILITY PLANProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this plan, specification orreport was prepared by me or under my directsupervision and that I am a duly licensedprofessional ENGINEER under the laws of the stateof Minnesota.Date:If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of thisplan which is available upon request at Sambatek's,Minnetonka, MN office.43505George D. Abernathy10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity Resubmittal1.THE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BECONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STANDARD UTILITIESSPECIFICATIONS" AS PUBLISHED BY THE CITY ENGINEERSASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), EXCEPT AS MODIFIEDHEREIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THESESPECIFICATIONS.1.1.ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCEWITH CITY REQUIREMENTS.1.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPEN, TURN OFF, INTERFEREWITH, OR ATTACH ANY PIPE OR HOSE TO OR TAPWATERMAIN BELONGING TO THE CITY UNLESS DULYAUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CITY. ANY ADVERSECONSEQUENCES OF ANY SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULEDDISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC ARE THELIABILITY OF CONTRACTOR.1.3.A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES ANDHORIZONTAL SEPARATION OF 10-FEET BETWEEN OUTSIDEPIPE DIAMETERS IS REQUIRED AT ALL WATERMAIN ANDSEWER MAIN (BUILDING, STORM AND SANITARY)CROSSINGS.2.ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPECIFICATIONSEXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN.2.1.ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTSOF THE CITY.2.2.ALL SANITARY SEWER TO BE PVC SDR-35, UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.2.2.1.ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICES TO BUILDING SHALLBE PVC SCH 40 CONFORMING TO ASTM D2665.2.3.ALL WATERMAIN TO BE DUCTILE IRON - CLASS 52, UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE.2.3.1.ALL WATERMAIN TO HAVE 7.5-FEET OF COVEROVER TOP OF WATERMAIN.2.3.2.PROVIDE THRUST BLOCKING AND MECHANICALJOINT RESTRAINTS ON ALL WATERMAIN JOINTS PERCITY STANDARDS.2.4.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE TO BE SMOOTH INTERIOR DUALWALL HDPE PIPE WITH WATER TIGHT GASKETS, UNLESSNOTED OTHERWISE.2.4.1.ALL STORM SEWER PIPE FOR ROOF DRAIN SERVICESTO BUILDING SHALL BE PVC SCH 40 CONFORMINGTO ASTM D2665.2.5.RIP RAP SHALL BE Mn/DOT CLASS 3.3.COORDINATE ALL BUILDING SERVICE CONNECTION LOCATIONSAND INVERT ELEVATIONS WITH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORPRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.4.ALL BUILDING SERVICE CONNECTIONS (STORM, SANITARY,WATER) WITH FIVE FEET OR LESS COVER ARE TO BE INSULATEDFROM BUILDING TO POINT WHERE 5-FEET OF COVER IS ACHIEVED.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TOAVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURINGTHE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. CONTRACTORWILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THEADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTIONPHASES OF THIS PROJECT.6.SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITHGENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONTRACTORWILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONSON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS ANDPROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THISREQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITEDTO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER ORTHE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OFCONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDEREVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURESIN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.7.ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES THAT AREDISTURBED BY UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED INKIND. SODDED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH 6 INCHES OFTOPSOIL PLACED BENEATH THE SOD.8.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ANDMAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES,WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TOCONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY.TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATEMINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS.9.ALL SOILS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENTSOILS ENGINEER. EXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVINGUNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED ASREQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE UTILITY BACKFILLCONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OFTHE SOILS ENGINEER. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORCOORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND SOILINSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER.A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETEDBY:COMPANY: ___________________________________________ADDRESS: ____________________________________________PHONE: _______________________________________________DATED: _______________________________________________CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THIS SOILS REPORT.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT 2 COPIES OF SHOP DRAWINGS FORMANHOLE AND CATCH BASIN STRUCTURES TO ______________.CONTRACTOR SHALL ALLOW 5 WORKING DAYS FOR SHOPDRAWING REVIEW.11.CONTRACTOR AND MATERIAL SUPPLIER SHALL DETERMINE THEMINIMUM DIAMETER REQUIRED FOR EACH STORM SEWERSTRUCTURE.12.(REMOVE IF THERE IS NO UNDERGROUND SYSTEM)THE UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEM SHOWN ON THEUTILITY PLAN AND THE DETAIL SHEETS IS FOR INFORMATIONALPURPOSES ONLY AND DEPICTS THE MINIMUM STORAGEREQUIREMENTS AND THE SYSTEM ELEVATIONS. THECONTRACTOR (WITH THEIR SUPPLIER OR DESIGNER) SHALLSUBMIT DESIGN DRAWINGS TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE DESIGN DRAWINGSSHALL DEPICT THE FINAL LAYOUT AND DETAILS FORCONSTRUCTION. THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY ALICENSED ENGINEER FOR THE STATE IN WHICH THE PROJECT ISCONSTRUCTED. THE SUBMITTAL SHALL INCLUDE ALL NECESSARYPRODUCT INFORMATION, DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND BEDDINGREQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM.FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION, THE CERTIFYING ENGINEER SHALLSUBMIT A LETTER TO THE OWNER AND ENGINEER INDICATINGTHEY OBSERVED THE INSTALLATION AND THE INSTALLATION OFTHE STORMWATER SYSTEM WAS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THECERTIFIED DRAWINGS.TELEPHONEELECTRICGAS LINEFORCEMAIN (SAN.)EASEMENTWATERMAINSANITARY SEWEREXISTINGPROPOSEDSTORM SEWERCURB & GUTTERDRAINTILEDSSSLSLEGENDTHE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINEDACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF ASCE/CI 38-02, TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTINGSUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTINGUTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THECONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BYHIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD).IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE,INVERT AND IF THE TILE LINE IS ACTIVE. NO DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER.IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSEDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.WARNINGHIGH-PRESSURE PIPELINE(S)Excavation and/or ConstructionProhibited Without compliance withState One-Call, AND Without WrittenPermission FromMAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, L.P.UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES BM #2TNH=953.05BM #3BM #4LYMAN BLVD. (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)LYMAN BLVD.TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)TWIN CITIES & WESTERN R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) GALPIN BL V D . (C. S. A. H. N O . 1 1 7 ) 100.0' 100.0'100.0 ' 10 0 . 0 '9379379409399 4 0 9 4 0 9419409409389389399399419419419409409559 4 2 94 3 9 4 4 945 9 4 4 944944944941942943944940943944942943940938939941941 942943944940940940 941938938 943942928 955957945942950 95 5 961960945946945944940 935 930 925 92 2 955950945940925923928929939937937936937936939 939939939939 939935 934 936 937 938 939 939 9359369 3 7 938922 925 928 929 9419449439429369509519659649669659649529539459449409419 5 5 9 5 6 9 4 4 9 4 7 9 4 8 936 935934100.0'SCALE IN FEET012060NORTH Nov 02, 2018 - 12:30pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-L1-LAND.dwgL1.01LANDSCAPEPLANProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPEARCHITECT under the laws of the State ofMinnesota.Date:This certification is not valid unless wet signed in blueink. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy ofthis survey which is available upon request atSambatek, Minnetonka, MN office.40252William L. Delaney10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity ResubmittalLANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS:PROJECT VALUE, INCLUDING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, SITE PREPARATION AND SITE IMPROVEMENTSIF OVER 4,000,000 = 1% LANDSCAPE VALUEESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $10,000,000 = $100,000 LANDSCAPE VALUELANDSCAPINGSHADE TREES167CONIFER TREES84290 TREES TOTAL PROPOSEDORNAMENTAL TREES39SHRUBS666Landscape Estimate +/-$198,000 TOTAL LANDSCAPE VALUE TO MEET CHANHASSEN LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT CODE AT A MINIMUMVEHICULAR AREAS:1 TREE FOR EVERY 250 SF OF REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREA. 604972 x 8% / 250 = 193 TREESFOUNDATION AND AESTHETIC PLANTINGS:1 TREE FOR EVERY 30' OF PUBLIC ROW FRONTAGE - 2180 LIN FT = 73 TREES266 TREES TOTAL REQUIREDCHANHASSEN, MN LANDSCAPE CODETREESCODEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMECONTCALSIZEQTYSGAcer freemanii `Sienna Glen` / Sienna Glen MapleB & B2.5"Cal22HBCeltis occidentalis / Common HackberryB & B2.5"Cal33HLGleditsia triacanthos `Skyline` / Skyline Honey LocustB & B2.5"Cal15KCGymnocladus dioica `Espresso` / Kentucky CoffeetreeB & B2.5"Cal25IWOstrya virginiana / American HophornbeamB & B2.5"Cal14SOQuercus bicolor / Swamp White OakB & B2.5"Cal13ROQuercus rubra / Red OakB & B2.5"Cal9BLTilia americana `Boulevard` / Boulevard LindenB & B2.5"Cal22PEUlmus americana `Princeton` / American ElmB & B2.5"Cal14CONIFERSCODEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMECONTCALSIZEQTYNSPicea abies / Norway SpruceB & B6`44BSPicea glauca densata / Black Hills SpruceB & B6`24APPinus nigra / Austrian Black PineB & B6`16ORN. TREESCODEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMECONTCALSIZEQTYSBAmelanchier canadensis `Autumn Brilliance` / Autumn Brilliance ServiceberryB & B2"Cal20JLSyringa reticulata / Japanese Tree LilacB & B2"Cal19GROUND COVERSCODEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMECONTQTY25-151MNDOT Seed Mix 25-151 / High Maintenance TurfSeed64,566 sf33-261MNDOT Seed Mix 33-261 / Ponds and Wet AreasSeed56,842 sf35-241MNDOT Seed Mix 35-241 / Native - General RoadsideSeed329,077TUR HIGTurf Sod Highland Sod / SodSod102,281 sfPLANT SCHEDULE TREESLEGENDEASEMENTCURB & GUTTERBUILDINGRETAINING WALLSIGNPIPE BOLLARDPROPERTY LIMITEXISTINGPROPOSEDWETLAND LIMITSTREELINEWATERMAINSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERDRAINTILEDSSYARDDRAINLANDSCAPE EDGINGTREE TO BE REMOVEDLIMITS OF DISTURBANCETREE PROTECTION FENCETPRIP RAPWARNINGHIGH-PRESSURE PIPELINE(S)Excavation and/or ConstructionProhibited Without compliance withState One-Call, AND Without WrittenPermission FromMAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, L.P. BM #4100.0'9409399 4 0 9 4 0 9419409409389389399399419419419409409 4 2 94 3 9 4 4 944944944944942943940938939941941 942943944940940 94194294194410BH29ICLH33AD18IC31LH25AD26IC19LB2926LBSS259BHGL32LB30SS25GL38LB22AW19SCALE IN FEET06030NORTH Nov 02, 2018 - 12:31pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-L1-LAND.dwgL1.02SHRUB PLAN-NORTHProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPEARCHITECT under the laws of the State ofMinnesota.Date:This certification is not valid unless wet signed in blueink. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy ofthis survey which is available upon request atSambatek, Minnetonka, MN office.40252William L. Delaney10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity ResubmittalLEGENDEASEMENTCURB & GUTTERBUILDINGRETAINING WALLSIGNPIPE BOLLARDPROPERTY LIMITEXISTINGPROPOSEDWETLAND LIMITSTREELINEWATERMAINSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERDRAINTILEDSSYARDDRAINLANDSCAPE EDGINGTREE TO BE REMOVEDLIMITS OF DISTURBANCETREE PROTECTION FENCETPRIP RAPSHRUBSCODEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMECONTQTYICAronia melanocarpa `Iroquois Beauty` TM / Black Chokeberry5 gal79ADCornus alba `Alleman`s Compact` / Tatarian DogwoodBulb44BHDiervilla lonicera / Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle5 gal19LHHydrangea paniculata `Jane` / Little Lime Hydrangea5 gal58GLRhus aromatica `Gro-Low` / Gro-Low Fragrant Sumac5 gal70SSSpiraea nipponica `Snowmound` / Snowmound Spirea5 gal50LBSyringa x `Bloomerang` / Lilac5 gal109MVViburnum lantana `Mohican` / Mohican Wayfaring Tree5 gal19PERENNIALSCODEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMECONTQTYAFSSedum x `Autumn Fire` / Autumn Fire Sedum1 gal32PLANT SCHEDULE SHRUBS NORTHSEE SHEET L1.03 FOR SOUTH BUILDING SHRUB PLANTINGSALL SHRUB AREAS TO BE MULCHED WITH DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO A 4" DEPTH-MULCH TO BE NATURAL COLOR 100.0'9409399 4 0 9 4 0 941940938939 939 9399399399 3 9 9399BH26ICLH28AD24SF21LH28AD27SF15LB31BH9SCALE IN FEET06030NORTH Nov 02, 2018 - 12:31pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-L1-LAND.dwgL1.03SHRUBPLAN-SOUTH &DETAILSProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPEARCHITECT under the laws of the State ofMinnesota.Date:This certification is not valid unless wet signed in blueink. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy ofthis survey which is available upon request atSambatek, Minnetonka, MN office.40252William L. Delaney10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity ResubmittalGENERAL NOTES:1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE EXISTING CONDITIONSRELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE WORK.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN OR INTENT OF THE LAYOUT.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS,AND PERMITS GOVERNING THE WORK.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS, TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITEELEMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION. DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AND/OR REPLACED AT NOADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.5.LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL UTILITIES, INCLUDING IRRIGATION LINES, WITH THE OWNER FOR PROPRIETARYUTILITIES AND GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING. CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ANY DAMAGES TO SAME. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS TO FACILITATE PLANT RELOCATION.6.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION AND PLANTINGINSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORS WORKING ON SITE.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN SITE CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHTNEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR WARRANTY. UNDESIRABLE SITE CONDITIONSSHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK.8.THE PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST. QUANTITIESSHOWN IN THE PLANTING SCHEDULE ARE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE. CONTRACTOR TOVERIFY QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE PLAN.9.THE SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PLANTING NOTES AND GENERAL NOTES.10.EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED TO THE DRIP LINE FROM ALLCONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, STORAGE OF MATERIALS ETC. WITH 4' HT. ORANGE PLASTIC SAFETY FENCINGADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY STEEL FENCE POSTS 6' O.C. MAXIMUM SPACING.11.LONG-TERM STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES ON-SITE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.12.CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST IN WRITING, A FINAL ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION.PLANTING NOTES:1.NO PLANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL FINAL GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED INTHE IMMEDIATE AREA.2.A GRANULAR PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL PLANT BEDS AT THE MANUFACTURERSRECOMMENDED RATE PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION.3.ALL PLANTING STOCK SHALL CONFORM TO THE "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK," ANSI-Z60,LATEST EDITION, OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, INC. AND SHALL CONSTITUTEMINIMUM QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT MATERIALS.4.OVERSTORY TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6' ABOVE PAVED SURFACES.5.ALL PLANTS MUST BE HEALTHY, VIGOROUS MATERIAL, FREE OF PESTS AND DISEASE AND BE CONTAINERGROWN OR BALLED AND BURLAPPED AS INDICATED IN THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND.6.PLANT MATERIALS TO BE INSTALLED PER PLANTING DETAILS.7.ALL TREES MUST BE STRAIGHT TRUNKED AND FULL HEADED AND MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED.8.THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PLANTS WHICH ARE DEEMEDUNSATISFACTORY BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER INSTALLATION.9.NO SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.10.ALL PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES, SHAPES OF BEDS AND LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETE COVERAGE OF ALL PLANTING BEDS AT SPACINGSHOWN AND ADJUSTED TO CONFORM TO THE EXACT CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT SHALL APPROVE THE STAKING LOCATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.11.ALL PLANTING AREAS MUST BE COMPLETELY MULCHED AS SPECIFIED.12.MULCH: SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, CLEAN AND FREE OF NOXIOUS WEEDS OR OTHER DELETERIOUSMATERIAL, IN ALL MASS PLANTING BEDS AND FOR TREES, UNLESS INDICATED AS ROCK MULCH ONDRAWINGS. SUBMIT SAMPLE TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO DELIVERY ON-SITE FOR APPROVAL.DELIVER MULCH ON DAY OF INSTALLATION. USE 4" FOR SHRUB BEDS, AND 3" FOR PERENNIAL/GROUNDCOVER BEDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED.13.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MULCHES AND PLANTING SOIL QUANTITIES TOCOMPLETE THE WORK SHOWN ON THE PLAN.14.USE ANTI-DESICCANT (WILTPRUF OR APPROVED EQUAL) ON DECIDUOUS PLANTS MOVED IN LEAF ANDFOR EVERGREENS MOVED ANYTIME. APPLY AS PER MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTION. ALL EVERGREENSSHALL BE SPRAYED IN THE LATE FALL FOR WINTER PROTECTION DURING WARRANTY PERIOD.14.PLANTING SOIL FOR TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS: FERTILE FRIABLE LOAM CONTAININGA LIBERAL AMOUNT (4% MIN.) OF HUMUS AND CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING VIGOROUS PLANTGROWTH. IT SHALL COMPLY WITH MNDOT SPECIFICATION 3877 TYPE B SELECT TOPSOIL.MIXTURE SHALL BE FREE FROM HARDPACK SUBSOIL, STONES, CHEMICALS, NOXIOUS WEEDS,ETC. SOIL MIXTURE SHALL HAVE A PH BETWEEN 6.1 AND 7.5 AND 10-0-10 FERTILIZER AT THE RATEOF 3 POUNDS PER CUBIC YARD. IN PLANTING BEDS INCORPORATE THIS MIXTURE THROUGHOUTTHE ENTIRE BED IN A 6" LAYER AND ROTO-TILLING IT INTO THE TOP 12" OF SOIL AT A 1:1RATIO.ANY PLANT STOCK NOT PLANTED ON DAY OF DELIVERY SHALL BE HEELED IN AND WATERED UNTILINSTALLATION. PLANTS NOT MAINTAINED IN THIS MANNER WILL BE REJECTED.15.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR TWO COMPLETE GROWING SEASONS (APRIL 1 - NOVEMBER 1),UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. THE GUARANTEE SHALL COVER THE FULL COST OF REPLACEMENTINCLUDING LABOR AND PLANTS.16.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 3 DAYS PRIOR TO PLANNED DELIVERY.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OFBEGINNING PLANT INSTALLATION.17.SEASONS/TIME OF PLANTING AND SEEDING: NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT TO PLANT INOFF-SEASONS ENTIRELY AT HIS/HER RISK. DECIDUOUS17.1.POTTED PLANTS: 4/1 - 6/1; 9/21 - 11/117.2.DECIDUOUS /B&B: 4/1 - 6/1; 9/21 - 11/117.3.EVERGREEN POTTED PLANTS: 4/1 - 6/1; 9/21-11/117.4.EVERGREEN B&B: 4/1 - 5/1; 9/21 - 11/1 17.5.TURF/LAWN SEEDING: 4/1 - 6/1; 7/20 - 9/2017.6.NATIVE MIX SEEDING: 4/1 - 7/20; 9/20-10/2018.MAINTENANCE SHALL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH PORTION OF THE WORK IS IN PLACE. PLANTMATERIAL SHALL BE PROTECTED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL THE INSTALLATION OF THE PLANTS ISCOMPLETE, INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE, AND PLANTINGS ARE ACCEPTED EXCLUSIVE OF THEGUARANTEE. MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE WATERING, CULTIVATING, MULCHING, REMOVAL OF DEADMATERIALS, RE-SETTING PLANTS TO PROPER GRADE AND KEEPING PLANTS IN A PLUMB POSITION. AFTERACCEPTANCE, THE OWNER SHALL ASSUME MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. HOWEVER, THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE TREES PLUMB THROUGHOUT THEGUARANTEE PERIOD.19.ANY PLANT MATERIAL WHICH DIES, TURNS BROWN, OR DEFOLIATES (PRIOR TO TOTAL ACCEPTANCE OFTHE WORK) SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND REPLACED WITH MATERIAL OF THESAME SPECIES, QUANTITY, AND SIZE AND MEETING ALL LANDSCAPE LEGEND SPECIFICATIONS.20.WATERING: MAINTAIN A WATERING SCHEDULE WHICH WILL THOROUGHLY WATER ALL PLANTS ONCE AWEEK. IN EXTREMELY HOT, DRY WEATHER, WATER MORE OFTEN AS REQUIRED BY INDICATIONS OF HEATSTRESS SUCH AS WILTING LEAVES. CHECK MOISTURE UNDER MULCH PRIOR TO WATERING TO DETERMINENEED. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR WATER.TURF AND TOPSOIL MANAGEMENT NOTES:TURF ESTABLISHMENT SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS ABOVE:1.ALL AREAS TO RECEIVE SOD SHALL ALSO RECEIVE 6" OF TOPSOIL PRIOR TO INSTALLING SOD.TOPSOIL SHALL BE FREE OF TREE ROOTS, STUMPS, BUILDING MATERIAL, AND TRASH, AND SHALLMEET ABOVE REQUIREMENTS.2.WHERE SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD/SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACEELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC.3.SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPESSTEEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGE SWALES, SOD SHALL BE STAKED SECURELY.4.TURF ON ALL OTHER AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED BY SEEDING,MULCHING AND FERTILIZING. SEED MIXTURE NO.25-121 WILL BE PLACED AT THE RATE OF 65 POUNDSPER ACRE.5.ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE TURF SEEDED, ARE TO RECEIVE 4" TOP SOIL, SEED, MULCH, AND WATERUNTIL A HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS IS OBTAINED. FOR SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR IN DRAINAGESWALES INSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET.6.ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO RECEIVE NATIVE SEED, ARE TO RECEIVE PLANTING SOIL, SEED, MULCH, ANDWATER UNTIL A HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS IS OBTAINED. FOR SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR INDRAINAGE SWALES INSTALL EROSION CONTROL BLANKET.IRRIGATION NOTES:1.IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN/BUILD. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FORAPPROVAL OF SYSTEM LAYOUT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.2.ALL SOD TO RECEIVE SPRAY OR ROTOR IRRIGATION HEADS WITH MINIMUM DESIGN OF 1" IRRIGATIONPER WEEK.3.ALL PLANT BEDS TO RECEIVE DRIP LINE IRRIGATION , WITH A MINIMUM DESIGN OF .25" IRRIGATIONPER WEEK.4.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL A TOTAL OF 4 QUICK COUPLERS AT THE CORNERS OF THE PROPERTY. A 2.5"TYPE K SOURCE PIPE IS PROVIDED BY MECHANICAL.NOTESPROVIDE & INSTALL RODENT PROTECTION1/2" HARDWIRE CLOTH, MESH CYLINDER, 8" DIA ORGREATER X 36" HT.. STAKE IN PLACEINSTALL TREE WITH ROOT FLARE VISIBLE AT TOP OFTHE ROOT BALL. REMOVE SOIL IN LEVEL MANNER FROMTOP OF ROOT BALL TO EXPOSE 1ST 1/2" OR LARGER MAINORDER ROOT IF NEEDED. SET ROOT BALL WITH MAINORDER ROOT 1" ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE. DO NOTCOVER TOP OF ROOT BALL WITH SOIL.PLACE NO MULCH IN CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNKREMOVE BURLAP, TWINE, ROPE AND WIRE FROMTOP HALF OF ROOT BALLBUILD 4" HIGH EARTH SAUCER BEYOND EDGE OFROOT BALLEDGE CONDITION VARIESPLACE ROOT BALL ON UNDISTURBED ORCOMPACTED SOILSCARIFY SIDES OF TREE PIT WITH SPADE BY HANDTO BIND WITH PREPARED SOILPLANTING SOIL, REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS, COMPACT TO 85%OF MAX. DRY UNIT WEIGHT ACCORDING TO ASTM D 698TAMP SOIL AROUND ROOT BALL BASE FIRMLY WITH FOOTPRESSURE SO THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFTDIG PLANTING PIT 4" TO 6"DEEPER THAN ROOT BALLUNDISTURBEDSUBGRADENOTE:CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TREES IN A PLUMBPOSITION THROUGHOUT THE WARRANTY PERIOD. IFSTAKING IS REQUIRED BY SITE CONDITIONS,CONTRACTOR TO USE 2 OR 3 STAKE METHOD WITH 1"WEBBING AROUND TRUNK OF THREE (NO WIRE ORCABLING TO BE USED)WRAP TREE TRUNKS ONLY UPON APPROVAL BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT30" RADIUS MULCH RINGA1.5 X AMIN.11 TREE PLANTING DETAIL1/4" = 1'-0" L1.03P-011INSTALL 2" LAYER OF MULCH, DO NOT PLACE INCONTACT W/ SHRUB STEMAPPLY PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDEEDGE CONDITION VARIESEDGER, REFER TO PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONLOOSEN ROOTS OF CONTAINER GROWN PLANTSEXCAVATE PLANT BED MIN. 4" DEEPER THANROOT BALL HT.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF PLANTING BEDWITH SPADEUNDISTURBED SUBGRADEPREPARE SOIL FORTHE ENTIRE BEDSEE PLAN12"MIN4"SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL3/8" = 1'-0" L1.03P-0221.5" WASHED RIVER ROCK MULCH18" WIDTH FROM BUILDING316" THICK STEEL EDGER (BLACK) W/ STAKEFINISHED GRADE AND EDGECONDITION VARIES - SEEPLANMAINTENANCE STRIP1 1/2" = 1'-0"3P-20L1.034"FINISH GRADE - SLOPE TO DRAINLANDSCAPE ROCK - SEE NOTESCOMMERCIAL WEED BARRIERPREPARED SUBGRADEROCK MULCH1" = 1'-0" EDGERL1.03P-094LEGENDEASEMENTCURB & GUTTERBUILDINGRETAINING WALLSIGNPIPE BOLLARDPROPERTY LIMITEXISTINGPROPOSEDWETLAND LIMITSTREELINEWATERMAINSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERDRAINTILEDSSYARDDRAINLANDSCAPE EDGINGTREE TO BE REMOVEDLIMITS OF DISTURBANCETREE PROTECTION FENCETPRIP RAPSHRUBSCODEBOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAMECONTQTYICAronia melanocarpa `Iroquois Beauty` TM / Black Chokeberry5 gal26ADCornus alba `Alleman`s Compact` / Tatarian DogwoodBulb51BHDiervilla lonicera / Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle5 gal18LHHydrangea paniculata `Jane` / Little Lime Hydrangea5 gal56SFSorbaria sorbifolia `Sem` / Sem Ash Leaf Spirea5 gal36LBSyringa x `Bloomerang` / Lilac5 gal31PLANT SCHEDULE SHRUBS SOUTHSEE SHEET L1.02 FOR NORTH BUILDING SHRUB PLANTINGSCarver County, MN Code of Ordinances American Legal Publishing 183 (1) (a) Stockpile existing material and respread. When available, on-sitetopsoil (A soil horizon) shall be stripped and stockpiled for later reapplication. Stockpiled topsoilshall meet the standard selected for the project. If stockpiled material does not meet the selectedstandard for the project, the material shall be amended to meet the selected standard or topsoilmeeting the selected standard shall be imported to the site. (b) Stockpile testing. The stockpile shall be tested prior to respreading.Sample results must be submitted to county staff a minimum of two business days prior torespreading. (2) Submittal requirements. A “Topsoil Management Plan” shall be submittedand shall include information on the topsoil management strategies to be utilized to maintain soilpermeability at or above required standards.(Ord. 83-2016, passed 9-20-16)Requirement. A minimum of twelve inches of topsoil must be provided in all green spaceareas of the project. Topsoil shall meet one of the topsoil standards described in § 153.60(A)below. When available on-site, topsoil shall be managed to protect and/or restore soilpermeability to non-compacted soil conditions following construction. (A) Topsoil standards. (1) Carver County topsoil standard.Table 2. Carver County Topsoil Standard.Requirement Range Test MethodMaterial passing the ¾ in [19 mm] 100% ASTM D 422Material passing No 4 in [4.75 mm] 85% -Clay 5% - 30% ASTM D 422Silt 5% - 35% ASTM D 422Sand 38% - 75% ASTM D 422Organic matter 3% - 15% ASTM D 2974pH 6.1 - 7.5 ASTM G 51Compaction - 1,400 kilopascals (kPa) /Field test200 pounds per square inch(psi) in the upper 12 inchesof soil, or- bulk density of less than1.4 grams per cubiccentimeter (g/cm3) in theupper 12 inches of soil (2) Match existing soils. For sites that have not been previously graded, a sitespecific topsoil standard can be developed using one of the methods described below: (a) Soil survey data. A site specific topsoil standard can be developedusing information on physical soil properties from the Natural Resource Conservation Service’sWeb Soil Survey for Carver County. The proposed site specific standard must be submitted priorto permit approval; (b) On-site testing. A site specific topsoil standard may be developedusing on- site sampling results. One sample shall be collected of the top 12 inches of soil fromeach soil map unit within the disturbed area of the project. Samples shall be collected andanalyzed for percent clay, percent sand, percent silt, organic matter content, and pH. A sitespecific standard shall then be developed using a weighted average of the samples collectedon-site. Sample results and the proposed site specific standard must be submitted prior to permitapproval; or (c) Organic matter, pH, and compaction standards. All site specificstandards shall include the ranges described in the Carver County Topsoil Standard for organicmatter, pH, and compaction. (B) Topsoil replacement methods.ALL SHRUB AREAS TO BE MULCHED WITH DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH TO A 4" DEPTH-MULCH TO BE NATURAL COLOR BM #2TNH=953.05BM #3BM #4LYMAN BLVD. (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)LYMAN BLVD.TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) (C. S. A. H. NO. 18)TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RR CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) TW I N C I T I E S & W E S T E R N R R CO . ( FO RM E R L Y C . , M . , S T . P . , & P . R R CO . ) GALPIN BL V D . (C. S. A. H. N O . 1 1 7 )E X C E P T I O NE X C E P T I O NE X C E P T I O N100.0' 100.0'100.0 ' 10 0 . 0 'RAIL CORRIDOR TREE LINE TO REMAINRAIL CORRIDOR TREE LINE TO REMAINRAIL CORRIDOR TREE LINE TO REMAINTREE GROUPING TO BE REMOVEDTREE GROUPING TO BE REMOVEDREMNANT HOMESTEAD TREES TO BE REMOVEDTREE GROUPING TO BE REMOVEDSCALE IN FEET012060NORTH Nov 02, 2018 - 12:31pm - User:jweyenberg L:\PROJECTS\21274\CAD\Civil\Sheets\21274-L2-TREEPRES.dwgL2.01TREEPRESERVATIONCANOPY PLANProjectLocationCertificationSheet TitleSummaryRevision HistorySheet No.RevisionProject No.DateSubmittal / RevisionNo.ByDesigned:Drawn:Approved:Book / Page:Phase:Initial Issued:ClientEDEN TRACECORPORATION8156 MALLORY CT,CHANHASSEN, MN 55317HOLASEKBUSINESS PARKCHANHASSEN,MN8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MN 55317PSMPLFGDAPRELIMINARY10/19/201821274Registration No.I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report wasprepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Licensed LANDSCAPEARCHITECT under the laws of the State ofMinnesota.Date:This certification is not valid unless wet signed in blueink. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy ofthis survey which is available upon request atSambatek, Minnetonka, MN office.40252William L. Delaney10/19/201811/02/18JMWCity ResubmittalBASE LINE CANOPY COVERAGE = 19% OR LESSCOMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL/INSTITUTIONALMINIMUM CANOPY COVERAGE REQUIREMENT = 10%TOTAL PROPERTY AREA = 2,139,667X 10% = 213,966 SF1 NEW TREE = 1089 SF OF CANOPY COVERAGE290 PROPOSED TREES = 315,810 SFCHANHASSEN, MN LANDSCAPE CODELEGENDEASEMENTCURB & GUTTERBUILDINGRETAINING WALLSIGNPIPE BOLLARDPROPERTY LIMITEXISTINGPROPOSEDWETLAND LIMITSTREELINEWATERMAINSANITARY SEWERSTORM SEWERDRAINTILEDSSYARDDRAINLANDSCAPE EDGINGTREE TO BE REMOVEDLIMITS OF DISTURBANCETREE PROTECTION FENCETPRIP RAPWARNINGHIGH-PRESSURE PIPELINE(S)Excavation and/or ConstructionProhibited Without compliance withState One-Call, AND Without WrittenPermission FromMAGELLAN PIPELINE COMPANY, L.P. Sheet TitleProject NumberSheet NumberIssued ForDateLocationProjectClientProject ManagerDateReg. No.I hereby certified that this plan,specification or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision andthat I am a duly Licensed Architectunder the laws of the State ofMinnesotaEdward A. Farr©COPYRIGHT 2018C:\Users\DLA\Documents\18067 CIP BLDGA_SPR_R19_DLA.rvt10/19/2018 8:55:47 AMA118.066ARCHITECTURAL SITEPLANHOLASEK BUSINESSPARK8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MNEDEN TRACECORPORATIONDate16362DLASPR 10-19-2018ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN0'30'60'120'NSECTION AASECTION BBMONUMENT SIGN64 sf / 8' TALLMONUMNET SIGN64 sf / 8' TALL179,500 sf109,250 sf178,600 sfLYMAN BLVDGALPINRAILROAD TRACKSTREEBUFFERTREEBUFFER A23A24A22A2512345678910111213141516171842' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"42' - 0"19ABCDE49' - 0"40' - 0"40' - 0"39' - 0"1' - 0"168' - 0"Building A179,500 SF18,000 sfMEZZANINE ABOVET/PRECAST136' - 0"FLOOR 1100' - 0"12345678910111213141516171819----1234567899.4.3.2.1.9.9.6.5.LIGHT FIXTURE AON BLDG B ONLYTHIS ELEVATION6' - 0"8' - 0"40' - 0"6' - 0"40' - 0"8' - 0"6' - 0"8' - 0"40' - 0"6' - 0"40' - 0"11' - 0"ENTRYENTRYT/PRECAST136' - 0"FLOOR 1100' - 0"23456789101112131415161718191.2.6.10111213141512.16171818.19LIGHTLIGHT OVER STAIRS (TYP)T/PRECAST136' - 0"FLOOR 1100' - 0"ABCDE----LIGHT FIXT AAENTRYT/PRECAST136' - 0"FLOOR 1100' - 0"ABCDEENTRYSheet TitleProject NumberSheet NumberIssued ForDateLocationProjectClientProject ManagerDateReg. No.I hereby certified that this plan,specification or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision andthat I am a duly Licensed Architectunder the laws of the State ofMinnesotaEdward A. Farr©COPYRIGHT 2018C:\Users\DLA\Documents\18067 CIP BLDGA_SPR_R19_DLA.rvt10/19/2018 8:50:07 AMA218.066BUILDING A FLOORPLAN / ELEVATIONSHOLASEK BUSINESSPARK8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MNEDEN TRACECORPORATIONDate16362DLASCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A21BLDG A FLOOR PLANSPR 10-19-2018SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A22BUILIDNG A NORTH - BUILDING B SOUTHSCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A23BUILDING A SOUTH - BUILDING B NORTHSCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A24BUILDING A EASTSCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A25BUILDING A WESTMATERIALS1 PRECAST #12 PRECAST #23 PRECAST #34 ALUMINUM FRAMING SYSTEM5 TINTED INSULATED GLASS(V= VISION / S = SPANDREL)6 PREFINISHED METAL COPING7 TENANT SIGNAGE8 AL/GLS ENTRY DOORS9CANOPY10 DOCK DOOR WITH LEVELER11 DOCK STAIR12 HOLLOW METAL DOOR & FRAME13 PIPE BOLLARD14 DOCK SEAL15 CLERESTORY WINDOW16 AREA LIGHT FIXTURE17 EXIT LIGHT FIXTURE18 DRIVE-UP DOOR19 KNOCK-OUT PANEL20 SPANDREL GLASS0'15'30' 60'N0'15'30' 60'0'15'30' 60'0'15'30' 60'0'15'30' 60'6.1.2.7.9.3.4.8.2.6.1.2.7.9.3.4.8.2.3.SVVVSVVVSVVVSVVVV+34'-0"+36'-0"FRONT ENTRY PERSPECTIVE CORNER ENTRY PERSPECTIVE+34'-0"+ 36'-0" DCBA12345678910111213141516171819A35A34A22A23Building B109,250 SF43' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"54' - 0"108' - 0"43' - 0"35' - 0"35' - 0"44' - 0"114' - 0"950' - 0"DCBAT/ PRECAST136' - 0"BLDG C FLOORPLAN100' - 0"46' - 0"69' - 0"1.2.1.2.6.3.3.4.8.9.5.2020.5.5.LIGHT FIXTURE AASOFFIT LIGHT OVER DOORDCBAT/ PRECAST136' - 0"BLDG C FLOORPLAN100' - 0"SEE 4/A2 FORTYPICAL NOTESLIGHT FIXT AASOFFIT LIGHT OVER DOOROUTLOT ALOT 3LOT 2LOT 1RETAINING WALLLYMANBOULVEARDROOFTOP MECH. UNITSVIEW LINEDOCKDOCKBUILDING ABUILDING BBUILDING C (FUTURE)GRADELOT LINELOT LINELOT LINER.O.W.18' +-BUILDING ABUILDING BLOT LINELOT LINER.O.W.RETAINING WALLDOCKLOT 2LOT 111 ft +-Sheet TitleProject NumberSheet NumberIssued ForDateLocationProjectClientProject ManagerDateReg. No.I hereby certified that this plan,specification or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision andthat I am a duly Licensed Architectunder the laws of the State ofMinnesotaEdward A. Farr©COPYRIGHT 2018C:\Users\DLA\Documents\18067 CIP BLDGA_SPR_R19_DLA.rvt10/19/2018 8:54:26 AMA318.066BLDG B PLAN & ELEV.and SITE SECTIONSHOLASEK BUSINESSPARK8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MNEDEN TRACECORPORATIONDate16362DLASPR 10-19-2018SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A31BLDG B FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"A34BUILDING B EASTSCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"A35BUILDING B WEST0'15'30' 60'NMATERIALS1 PRECAST #12 PRECAST #23 PRECAST #34 ALUMINUM FRAMING SYSTEM5 TINTED INSULATED GLASS(V= VISION / S = SPANDREL)6 PREFINISHED METAL COPING7 TENANT SIGNAGE8 AL/GLS ENTRY DOORS9CANOPY10 DOCK DOOR WITH LEVELER11 DOCK STAIR12 HOLLOW METAL DOOR & FRAME13 PIPE BOLLARD14 DOCK SEAL15 CLERESTORY WINDOW16 AREA LIGHT FIXTURE17 EXIT LIGHT FIXTURE18 DRIVE-UP DOOR19 KNOCK-OUT PANEL20 SPANDREL GLASS0'8'16' 32'0'8'16' 32'SITE SECTION AASITE ECTION BB1" = 40'1" = 40' Sheet TitleProject NumberSheet NumberIssued ForDateLocationProjectClientProject ManagerDateReg. No.I hereby certified that this plan,specification or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision andthat I am a duly Licensed Architectunder the laws of the State ofMinnesotaEdward A. Farr©COPYRIGHT 2018C:\Users\DLA\Documents\18067 CIP BLDGA_SPR_R19_DLA.rvt10/19/2018 10:43:48 AM1 of 118.066SITE LIGHTINGPHOTOMETRICSHOLASEK BUSINESSPARK8610 GALPIN BLVD.CHANHASSEN, MNEDEN TRACECORPORATIONDate16362DLASCALE: 1" = 60'-0"1 of 11PHOTOMETRIC CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 8, 2018, 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 Holasek Business Park, 8610 Galpin Boulevard, Planning Case File No. 2018-18, 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 thiQ{-h day of ll-loui< r*h',',- ,2018. Meuwissen, Deputy Notary Public Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offlces and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigatronal, tracking or any other purpose requiring exactrng measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all clarms brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. (TAX_NAMED (TAX_ADD_LI) (TAX_AD D_L2D, (TAX_AD D_L3D Subject Property _l Subject Property < Next Record ><TAX_NAMED (TAX_ADD_LID (TAX_ADD_L2>, sfAX*AD D_L3D Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time:Tuesday November 20,2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the eveninq. dependinq on the order of the aqenda. Location:City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard Proposal Consider rezoning parcelfrom Agricultural Estate District (A2) to lndustrial Office Park District (lOP); Subdivision review creating three lots and an outlot; Wetland Alteration Permit; Site Plan Review of a total of 449,350 sf. in three office industrial buildinqs. Applicant:Mark Undestad, Eden Trace Corporation Owner:Holasek Farms LP Property Location: 8610 Galpin Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the proiect. Questions & Gomments: lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's proposed developments web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-18. lf you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by email at bqenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1131. lf you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project website listed above the Thursday prior to the Planninq Commission meetinq. Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen. mn. us/notifyme to sig n up! City Review Procedure:. Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within at least 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the appli€tion in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting . Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item wiil be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial . Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. . A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is en@uraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s) . Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be included in the report, olease contact the Plannino staff oerson named on the notification. Date & Time:Tuesday, November 20,2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, dependinq on the order of the agenda. Location:Citv Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard Proposal Consider rezonrng parcelfrom Agricultural Estate District (A2) to lndustrial Office Park District (lOP); Subdivision review creating three lots and an outlot;Wetland Alteration Permit; Site Plan Review of a total of 449,350 sf. in three office industrial buildinss. Applicant:Mark Undestad, Eden Trace Corporation Owner:Holasek Farms LP Property Location: 8610 Galpin Boulevard A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the proiect. Questions & Comments: lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the city's proposed developments web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-18. lf you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob Generous by email at bqenerous @ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952-227-1131. lf you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project website listed above the Thursday prior to the Planninq Commission meetinq. Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen. mn. us/notifyme to siqn u pl City Review Procedure: . Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within at least 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the appliGtion in writing Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.. Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. . Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be procssed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. . A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meetwiththeneighborhoodregardingtheirproposal. Staffisalsoavailabletoreviewtheprolectwithanyinterestedperson(s). . Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any mrrespondence regardingtheapplicationwillbeincludedinthereporttotheCityCouncil. lfyouwishtohavesomethingtobeincludedinthereport, please contact the Planning staff person named on the notification. PIN TAX NAME 305330030 CHASKA CrTY 250220100 tND SCHOOI DIST 112 25O21O1OO HOLASEK FARMS LP 3O518OO3O HAMLET GREEN LLC 251880010 JC INVESTMENTS OF CHASKA LLC 305330011 VR INVESTMENTS LLC 25224OO9O VOLK.MINGER PROPERTIES LLC 258120100 SCOTT A HANSON 258110120 NEVIN A SEQUEIRA 258110110 JEFFREY P & SARAH L WENDORF 258110200 BRIAN T & SONYA A BENKSTEIN 258110100 MATTHEW SCHILLERSTROM 258110090 MICHAET & JACQUELINE R MROSKO 258110190 MATTHEW & ROBIN WARDEN 258110080 GERHARD & HELENE A SCHOCK 258110070 RORY D & AMY J LEA 258110060 KEN NETH B BAKER 258110180 JAMES M &JENNIFER D LARRANAGA 258110050 ETENA TYADOVA 258110170 DOUGLAS VERNON .JOHNSON 258110040 MORLOCK-ROMANSKI REV LIV TRUST 258130070 THOMASV & BEVERLY LANTILLEY 258130050 JOHN VOSKAMP 25832OOO2 TAUNTON VENTURES LLC 252240060 KJMINNESOTAPROPERTIES LLC 252240070 MP DEVELOPMENT LLC 30521OO5O BECKMAN COULTER INC 3O999O2OO TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD 3O521OO2O QUATI-TECH PRODUCTS INC 305330010 ACORN M|N|-STORAGE Vlll LLC 3O519OO3O RAS PROPERTIES - CHASKA tLC 3OO57OO5O CROWN FAB LLC 258320001 SUNNY DAY FITNESS PROPERTIES LLC 3O519OO5O CHASKA HAZELTINE INVESTORS LLC TAX_ADD-11 1 CITY HALL PLAZA 11 PEAVEY RD 1312 SHADWVOOD LN 134 COLUMBIA CT S 1405 WEST FARM RD 147 N IONATHAN BLVD STE 4 15925 COUNW ROAD 40 2267 BOULDER RD 2279 BOULDER RO 2291 BOULDER RD 2292 BOUTDER RD 230], BOULDER RD 2305 BOULDER RD 2308 BOULDER RD 2309 BOUTDER RD 2313 BOULDER RD 2317 BOULDER RD 2318 BOULDER RD 2321 BOUI.DER CREEK RD 2322 BOULDER RD 2325 BOULDER RD 2361 STONE CREEK DR 2375 STONE CREEK DR 2411 GALPIN CT # 120 2471 GALPIN CT STE 110 2471 GALPIN CT STE 1,10 250 S KRAEMER BLVD 2925 12TH ST E 318 LAKE HAZELTINE DR 3410 WINNETKA AVE N STE C 3647 MCKINLEY 5T NE 4035 NOREX DR 4640 PALMER POINT RD 47 W DtVtStON 5T STE 389 TAX_ADD_12 CHASKA CHASKA WACONIA CHASKA CHASKA CHASKA CARVER CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN CHANHASSEN BREA GTENCOE CHASKA NEW HOPE MINNEAPOLIS CHASKA MINNETRISTA CHICAGO TAX_ADD_13 MN 55318-1952 MN 55318-2321 MN 55387-1179 MN 55318-2304 MN ss318-9517 MN 55318-2325 MN 5531s MN 55317-7400 MN 55317-7400 MN 55317-7400 MN 55317-7400 MN 55317-7401 MN 55317-7401 MN 55317-7401 MN 55317-7401 MN 55317-7401 MN 55317-7401 MN 55317-7401 MN 55317-7401 MN 55317-7401 MN 55317-7401 MN 55317-7403 MN 5s31.7-7403 MN 55317-4634 MN 55317-4717 MN 55317-4717 cA 92822-6232 MN ss336-3368 MN 55318-1093 MN 5s427-2090 MN 55418-1562 MN 55318-3043 MN 55331-9176 tL 60610-2220 SHAPE 22OO LYMAN BLVD 85],0 GALPIN BLVD 131 COLUMBIA CT W 2431 GATPIN CT 2267 BOULDER RD 2279 BOULDER RD 2291 BOULDER RD 2292 BOULDER RD 2301 BOULDER RD 2305 BOULDER RD 2308 BOULDER RD 2309 BOULDER RD 2313 BOULDER RD 2317 BOULDER RD 2318 BOULDER RD 2321 BOULDER RD 2322 BOULDER RD 2325 BOULDER RD 2361 STONE CREEK DR 2375 STONE CREEK DR 2411 GALPIN CT 2451 GATPIN CT 2471 GALPIN CT 316 LAKE HAZELTINE DR 318 TAKE HAZELTIN E DR 312 LAKE HAZELTINE BLVD 4035 NOREX DR 2411 GALPIN CT 322 LAKE HAZELTINE DR 3O521OO4O KEVIN LANDVIK 6606 MULBERRY CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317.8408 3O518OO7O M K KIRSCH LTD PTRSHP 8280HWY5 WACONIA MN55387 252240050 CHAN WEST II LLP 8821 SUNSETTRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9137 2431 GALPIN CT 3O512OO9O CHASKA INVESTMENT LP 9531 W78THSTsTE35O EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 258329999 TAUNTON VENTURES LP 9980 DEERBROOK DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-8551 258170240 MERLE & JANE VOLK PO BOX 2549 ADDISON TX 75001.2549 2290 LYMAN BLVD ti a-t.t".$r-ui"-"-Qr,l - ff\o-tL \.^-,.&- 19 frl,ec,dL*c -- ', ''lili'4rM ""ffi--#-N,# -r4 18 l';ldl , | , 7 11.j't i .i-r I ti ",1l' l,l lnd60€nderi Sfiodtrslit 112 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Subject Approval of Planning Commission minutes dated October 2, 2018 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No: N/A PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of minutes dated October 2, 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated October 2, 2018 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated October 2, 2018 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES OCTOBER 2, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, and Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer and Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: GLENDALE DRIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST WITH VARIANCE. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this issue. George Bender addressed issues associated with right-of-way. Vanessa Strong discussed surface water issues, drainage and utility easements. Chairman Aller asked staff to discuss the new stormwater management regulations pertaining to the 1 inch requirement for the first inch of rain, the requirement for additional overstory trees, and the requirement for the one foot differential in the lowest and highest point of adjacent properties and what impact that would have on water flow. The applicant Curt Fretham with Lakewest Development, 14525 Highway 7, Minnetonka discussed the confusion surrounding staff’s request that a through street be stubbed in on the proposed property, the number of cul-de-sacs in the Stratford Ridge development, how staff is measuring a possible future cul-de-sac that would require a variance, and the statement in the staff report that the City’s discretion of approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plan meets the standards outlined in the subdivision zoning ordinance. He reiterated that they are not going to have a through street associated with their proposal. The engineer Perry Ryan with Lakewest Development addressed issues associated with stormwater management, that plans were submitted to staff on August 29th and August 31st and have not heard from staff until this meeting. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Jason Watt, 3961 Stratford Ridge read from a handout in which they respectfully submit the following prepared statement in opposition on behalf of the 15 families residing in the subdivision dedicated as Stratford Ridge on October 11, 1988. He discussed standards of review for subdivisions and variances, street connections, fairness, and a conflict of interest of Mr. Dave Headla on the Planning Commission when the Stratford Ridge development was approved. David Lieser, 3881 Stratford Ridge discussed the potential benefit to a few versus many, if the through street is installed home values will be severely impacted, the financial impact associated with changing the name of the street to Leslee Curve, and environmental impact to their properties. Carin Moore, speaking as the personal representative for the Estate of James and Ruth Boylan at 6760 Planning Commission Summary – October 2, 2018 2 Minnewashta Parkway reviewed issues brought up in her letter to the City regarding development concept options for her parent’s property, and concerns with drainage from the proposed development onto their property. Jeff Kersten, 6810 Minnewashta Parkway continued with discussion of the drop in elevation from the Glendale Drive subdivision to his property and a concern with stormwater drainage. Chairman Aller closed the public hearing. After comments and discussion by commission members the following motion was made. Weick moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into five lots and one outlot as shown in plans stamped Received August 29, 2018 subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the findings of fact and recommendation: SUBDIVISION Engineering: 1. Deleted. 2. Deleted. 3. Provide ROW over the entirety of the trail along the west side of Minnewashta Parkway. (The site plan indicates the eastern property line will comply with Condition #3 but the concern identified in Condition #4 in relation to the existing survey was not addressed. Therefore, Condition #3 remains as previously indicated.) 4. The survey of existing conditions does not indicate ROW between Glendale Drive and to the south for approximately 100 feet. (The survey does not correlate with Carver County’s property information which indicates right-of-way for the road section is in place but a portion of the bituminous trail on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway is not within the ROW.) 5. No stationing is shown in the plan set. 6. The drainage and utility easements are shown only on the plat. They should also be conveyed on the site plan. (D&U easements were added to the grading plan but not the site and utility plan.) 7. Indicate surface water drainage flow arrows on the grading plan. 8. Provide existing and proposed elevations at the following locations: each lot corner, top of curb or centerline of the street at each lot line extension, center of proposed driveway at the curb or edge of the roadway. Planning Commission Summary – October 2, 2018 3 9. Additional conditions will be identified after the developer has an opportunity to revise the design based upon the current conditions that are considered to be major in nature as they will require significant changes to the design. Water Resources: 1. Private stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are not permitted in public drainage and utility easements. Private BMPs shall be located outside of public drainage and utility easements. 2. Easements for private stormwater treatment devices must be recorded against the properties using the city’s private stormwater easement template and approved by the City Engineer. 3. A Homeowners Association (HOA) encompassing all lots is required to ensure the technical expertise and a funding mechanism for the operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment devices is ensured in perpetuity. 4. Operation and maintenance of private stormwater BMPs is required in perpetuity. An operation and maintenance plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator and recorded against the properties that details the HOA’s permanent inspection, maintenance, and funding mechanism that ensures stormwater BMPs will function as designed. 5. To ensure stormwater treatment devices function as designed, the developer is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and performance of all stormwater improvements including vegetation, structures, soils, inspections, and erosion/sediment control for the first five years after project completion. After the first five years, responsibility shall transfer to the HOA. The developer is responsible for ensuring all stormwater improvements are functioning as designed at the end of the first five years. If stormwater improvements are not functioning as designed at the end of the first five years, as determined by the City Engineer, than the developer shall remain responsible for all operation and maintenance until devices are functioning as designed. 6. Infiltration/filtration basins must be located a minimum of 10’ from the building envelope of any primary structure. 7. If an emergency overflow route is adjacent to the property the lowest building opening must be a minimum of one foot above the emergency overflow (City Code Sec. 19-144). Proposed EOF for lots 1-4 = 978.5’-978’. EOF route proposed onto adjacent property 6760 Minnewashta Parkway with lowest building opening approx. 976’ (window well). All EOFs routing onto this adjacent property must be 1’ below the lowest floor opening. Developer may provide a treatment train or single stormwater treatment device on Lot 5 to meet this requirement. Planning Commission Summary – October 2, 2018 4 8. EOF routes shall not create a hazard or nuisance condition onto adjacent property (City Code Sec. 7-78). 9. SWPPP contact must be identified. 10. Developer must provide an erosion and sediment control plan, and dewatering plan approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 11. Maximum impervious per lot is 25%. 12. All pervious surfaces require six inches of topsoil and 18 inches of decompaction. Topsoil shall be tested and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 13. The developer shall provide an updated Hydrocad model and stormwater management plan that is consistent with and supports the engineered plans and geotechnical report. 14. The geotechnical report identifies the presence of groundwater at 972 elevation on Lot 5 (SB-1). There must be three feet of separation between the bottom elevation of stormwater infiltration devices and the water table. Based on the geotechnical report, the bottom elevation for an infiltration basin on Lot 5 can be no lower than elevation 975. 15. The geotechnical report identifies moderately slow permeability of soils. Basins are proposed with 12” ponding depth suitable for well draining soils. Basins must be sized to allow no more than 6” of ponding depth and drawdown within 24-48 hours. 16. Soil borings and infiltration tests must be performed within the perimeter of all basin locations prior to final approval. 17. Design plans must be provided for all vegetated BMPs including contours, grading, inlet and outlet structures, underdrains, filtration media/amended soils, location and quantities of all species used. Ecotype must be native or approved native hybrid. 18. Details must be provided and approved for all stormwater treatment devices. 19. The proposed redevelopment requires Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) development review and permits. 20. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, MCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.) prior to the City issuing permits. 21. Project must meet all stormwater requirements of the city and the MCWD. Planning Commission Summary – October 2, 2018 5 22. Project will require stormwater management fees associated with city development review and permitting process. Fees can be estimated but cannot be accurately calculated until approvals have been received from the MCWD. 23. The site plan must identify the ability to install a future stormwater pipe that could connect the development to a regional pond southeast of the development. 24. The development must use Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Parks: 1. In lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction, full park dedication fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. At today’s rate, these fees would total $29,000 (five lots x $5,800 per lot). Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. The minimum number of overstory trees required to be planted in the development is 41. 2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities and remain installed until completion. 3. The applicant shall install the required buffer yard plantings on Lot 5 along Minnewashta Parkway. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Tietz who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 18, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Bob Generous presented an update on actions taken by the City Council and discussed future Planning Commission agenda items. Commissioner Weick moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 2, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, and Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer and Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: GLENDALE DRIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST WITH VARIANCE. Aller: For the record this item had been before us before on a prior occasion. The public hearing was held. If my memory serves me correct at that time, and it should be reflected in the Minutes we reserve the right to hear from the public again as we would expect different plans tonight so it is our intention to hold a public hearing on this item. Items before the Planning Commission will be reviewed in the following order. First the staff report will be presented. Then the applicant can make it’s presentation and then again tonight we will be hearing I think in a public hearing on the item. That means that an individual present can come forward, speak either for or against the item before us. After that the public hearing will be closed. Commissioners will discuss the item and take appropriate action at that time on the matter. Tonight we have one item before us and that’s the Glendale Drive Subdivision. It’s a subdivision request with a variance. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. As mentioned by Chairman Aller this item did appear before you on August 7th and at that time this application was recommended for tabling. There were certain issues that we requested that the applicant address before we move forward with this application and send it to the City Council. So briefly the applicant is requesting a subdivision for 5 lots. However staff is recommending that a street be stubbed through this development and the variance is associated with the width of the street which is recommended by staff. Typical city code requires a 60 foot right-of-way. Due to the width of all of the streets within that area the right-of-way is at 50. We are recommending a 50 foot right-of-way for consistency within the surrounding area. Again the variance was not requested by the applicant. This is something that was completely recommended by staff. The application before you is for a site that has an area of 2.4 acres. It is located south of Glendale Drive, west of Minnewashta Parkway. There is a small sliver that is currently owned by the City and the applicant is requesting that it be deeded to them. The site falls within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Minnewashta. Grades on this property generally slope from the northwest to the east. The parks in this area are located within half a mile as required by city Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 2 code. The City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for neighborhood parks to be within half a mile so again this is consistent. Roundhouse Park is located south of the subject site. One of the issues that has to do with trails within the vicinity is a bit unclear to us. The applicant has enclosed a survey that shows the location of the city trail completely within the right-of-way of Minnewashta Parkway. However based on aerials that we have seen with the county it appears that a portion of this trail is actually located on the applicant’s property. This is one of the conditions of approval. We just wanted to point out that should clarification and further research determine that the trail is actually on the subject site, on this property we are going to require additional right-of-way. At this point I would like to turn it over to our engineering staff to address right-of-way issues as well as stormwater. Bender: Thank you Sharmeen. One thing that I wanted to point out on this slide was that on the left is a picture from the Carver County property website and on the right is the certified survey that was submitted as part of the developer’s, or the applicant’s plan set. Some of these are similar slides that you saw last time. The point of them is just to make sure that we’re reviewing the same information because the plans aren’t that different than last time. So if you remember the discussion, there was discussion of a through street. There was discussion of Stratford Ridge originally being planned to continue up and connect to Leslee Curve at Glendale. There was discussion of the street you know being an analysis done there could be various options that could go in order to connect it and the emergency management services and fire department were you know in favor of the additional access. Staff was in favor of it because primarily you get two additional accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway that are currently in existence and it would provide better, it wouldn’t add that much average daily traffic. There wouldn’t be many cars going through this section and it would be another connection through the area so that it wouldn’t be primarily just the cul-de-sac. And this kind of showed just generally where the connection was originally planned to go. This was documents, there were two options that BRW at the time was the engineer that worked with Stratford Ridge that they prepared. It was different through routes with two routes of access or egress through the area. This also shows the temporary cul-de-sac that was at the end of Stratford Ridge in the dashed area here. Option A was more consistent with what was built out there. With this, or Option B I mean. This is not in. Here’s the temporary cul-de-sac. Here’s the connection at Minnewashta Parkway. One thing we wanted to talk about with respect to grading, to allow for the roadway to go through the existing lot that the applicant is proposing to develop we want to make sure that it leaves options available to connect Stratford Ridge and Glendale and so there would have to be, make sure that the right-of-way and the grading is consistent to allow for a consistent grade. So the road has to be the primary development item, factor rather than the adjacent lot design. There are other options as far as you know I mean coming in from the south is something that was discussed with a cul-de-sac. Whether that’s completely fair was part of that discussion. There could be a cul-de-sac that comes in from the north as well. This would be in lieu of the through street alternative. This was a ghost plat that was prepared by, originally by the developer to show how there are, there is another option that the cul-de-sac could be chosen to be extended to the north from Stratford Ridge. Please keep in mind that, and there will be additional slides that will show it. This would require a variance because the length of the cul-de-sac would extend beyond 800 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 3 feet. It’s currently just under 800 feet right now. This is a couple items that we discussed related to the city code. There’s nothing surprising here. The main point is highlighted in we want to consider the existing and planned streets as well. The street was planned even though it was a long time ago. And also the geography and topographic conditions. The second part of this is also important in that there can’t be any undue hardship on adjoining property owners when it comes time for them or the right time for them to subdivide their property. This is an item that the, is a concept. It was prepared by Alliant Engineering. It was done for the property, the middle property immediately adjacent to the south and provided to the City and it shows that alternate or another concept of the instead of the cul-de-sac coming from the south it coming in from the north. One thing that there was multiple concepts that were submitted. This is an example of one of them. This resident was intending to be at the meeting today and was planning on speaking so I’ll allow her the opportunity to kind of present some of the other concepts. These concepts kind of show what could be done. It also shows some of the, some of the problems of, if there’s 5 lots across the existing proposed, proposal and it essentially seals the access off to the north so the middle lot would only have access from the south. Staff has looked at any possibility of that lot connecting to Country Oaks and there’s not enough frontage for that to happen. And you know one of the goals is still along a collector roadway such as Minnewashta Parkway as designated in the code is to remove accesses as much as possible. At this time I’m going to let Vanessa talk about, more about the stormwater items. Strong: Thank you George. Thank you commissioners. As George mentioned there were many similarities to the previous submission. The applicant chose to follow their original plan design but they did provide more information which allowed us to respond with our own conditions and comments at this time. While one of the primary areas of concern is again the City is still focused on…to see overflow issue. Where is the water going when it leaves the site at major rainfall events? We’re not talking about overall is water still flowing to the south. Yes, of course water is still flowing to the south. We’re talking about focused high volumes of water during large rainfall events and one of the items that the applicant brought up was a similar development. I wasn’t here at the time in Fawn Hill. How there’s another EOF that comes in higher and crosses a lot but honestly it’s a very different development. That one has a very clear emergency overflow route all the way through the property he was comparing to and out the other side. This one has all the emergency overflow routes going directly onto that adjacent property with no outlet so staff doesn’t feel that this meets the city code requirements or the City’s intent for stormwater management. The City feels that their interpretation of the city code is appropriate. So if the applicant would still like to follow the 5 rain garden basin plan, city staff would then recommend instead of discharging those emergency outflows, all of them directly to the south, that instead they could either do a treatment train which is one basin into the next, into the next, to the approved far eastern basin where that would have an EOF that would meet city code. But they also work with the property owner to the south and the City to make sure that final emergency overflow route does not create undue hardship onto them as well. That was part of one of our conditions. Alternatively they could simply perhaps swale the back and just have it all run into a large basin on the far east. Those are two options the City recommended as alternatives and we would prefer to see at this time. Placement of easements. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 4 They did show this time around the drainage and utility easements for city drainage and utilities. It’s 10 feet in back and 5 feet on the sides to show that these private stormwater treatment devices are outside of the public easements and that’s very important because these are private. These aren’t city owned. They’re not city maintained. One concern that I would have is that because they also have to have now a separate easement on top of these, and our attorney has drafted up a draft example for this that we’ve used before, is that once you have the City’s drainage and utility easement in the far back of the corner of the property, you then place a private stormwater easement on top of that and the easement has to also allow for maintenance and access of these devices. It really limits really the usable yard of these homeowners and that’s not necessarily a requirement for stormwater management but it’s certainly something that I want to point out that once you have all these multiple easements over the rear of their properties long term enjoyment of it seems very questionable I guess from my perspective. Additionally the other issue is that, actually can you go back one. The other issue like I said too is that we also need to see easements for maintenance and access. Not just like that’s where they’re going to be located but how are they getting to them? I mean if you’re going to have to run equipment through those to care for them and maintain them how will that occur? Where is the space designated for that? Because right now it’s true they’re out of the public but once you put private easements over it you have to designate how that use will work as well. What if they want to plant trees and shrubs, now how are you getting to these devices in the back corner? So that will have to be worked out a little bit more as well but it is a concern that staff has definitely voiced. Soils. We would like the developer to provide an updated hydrocad model and stormwater management plan that’s a little bit more consistent with and supports their engineered plans and geotechnical report. They did commit to doing that. Item 10 of their email to us. We haven’t seen it yet but they are committing to being able to do that as long as it can meet the design that they have. So right now the site plan design shows where they could be located and that they’ll fit on the property. The hydrocad model and the stormwater report show the math and the science to support that that can actually happen there so it’s a multi-phase requirement so you need both parts to show that it can be done. There are a few concerns how we did just finally receive the, we did finally receive the full geotechnical report. It did identify the presence of ground water at 972 elevation on Lot 5. That’s the far eastern lot. At that soil boring. Now you are required to have 3 feet of separation between the bottom elevation of those rain garden basins that infiltrate and ground water or seasonally high ground water tables and that’s to prevent contamination of ground water supplies. If you cannot provide 3 feet of separation you actually have to then provide a lined basin and then you’re options are filtration or detention so you end up with a wet pond instead of a rain garden so that is a requirement as well from staff that we make sure that the soils match the site. They did do soil borings. They will be required to do soil borings and infiltration tests at the site of the actual pond themselves or basins themselves or rain gardens. Again a few different areas that staff is really focusing on is again just a very slow permeability of soils. They are required to show that they are attempting to achieve infiltration but the soils here aren’t necessarily supporting it at the moment so we want to make sure that what they design meets what the site conditions are. We don’t want them to just sit there and pond. This would be the other larger issue that you know staff is very concerned about. Again they decided to come back again with 5 individual rain gardens Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 5 recorded individually against each lot. Honestly it’s just simply not acceptable to the City. It does not meet our code requirements for maintenance access. It doesn’t adequately provide the operation maintenance and funding mechanism to ensure these devices are going to function in perpetuity. We’ve had several issues with this happening in the city previously. We don’t allow it anymore because of that. When individual rain gardens have been recorded against properties it’s been nothing but trouble and problems for both the property owner and the city so staff feels very strongly that an HOA is necessary to ensure that there is a mechanism in place long term to take care of these devices as well as a funding mechanism in that HOA as well. And that would be the larger key items of staff concerns and staff conditions in the report. There are additional items in the report so if you have questions I can certainly answer those as well. Aller: Can we talk about stormwater management with regard to the new regulations that are in place when they build these locations are not supposed to, well first of all they’re supposed to meet that 1 inch requirement for the first inch and then what happens to the water thereafter. Strong: So that for the City at the moment defers a little bit more to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. So actually if you click the last. At this time this proposed development does require Minnehaha Creek Watershed District development review and permitting so they must go through Minnehaha Creek for the full stormwater management process. In this case they have the authority and they will be performing that level of review. We’ll be keeping an eye on it as well but their standards will have to be met for that. Aller: And then the staff report indicates that the overstory trees, we would need about 41 overstory trees. Is that one of the issues with regard to maintenance and whether or not you can actually get to those trees to maintain the property? Strong: That is exactly what staff’s concern is. You have you know multiple requirements that have to be met and once you meet these multiple requirements in the way that it’s currently proposed it raises significant concerns for long term maintenance. How do you access? I consistently run into issues with trees being in drainage and utility easements. They were planted. People didn’t realize it and it’s a significant issue for the City. Especially when it becomes rainy like this and we need to get to them quickly to prevent flooding. Aller: Any additional questions at this point? Bender: I had more points. Aller: Mr. Strong please. Bender: To get back to. Kind of I wanted to note, it’s included in the staff report and you mentioned with changes to the plans between the original set and this set. I wanted to note that this set there was no change regarding the street. You know there is still the 5 lots proposed. There is no provision or right-of-way shown. Another thing I wanted to talk about a little bit, Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 6 when these lots develop individually it can be a little challenging for the mass grading over the area to kind of fit the roadway because the adjoining lot lines have to match in when the development is approved. Now we look at 100 feet to the south but you know unless there’s going to be a requirement for a significant retaining wall to drop the grade as we’re going downhill from north to south, you know let’s say the middle lot developed next. They would have to grade their site internally and then match into that property line to the south again so like when some of the concepts are kind of shown they may include more than just the original lot. They may include 2 lots of the 3. They may include all 3 of the 3 but you know if the development isn’t going to occur as such where it’s going to be more of an individual process some of that can be very challenging. And the concern is you know making sure that the grade on the street is the first priority so. And then the only other thing that I was going to mention that Vanessa was talking about is the geotech report did indicate that that ground water table was seasonal. It may vary. This is a very typical geotechnical reports. They tend to leave room for flexibility or variation. So that’s about all. Aller: Well that brings up another question that I had so thank you for bringing that up. Bender: Yep. Aller: I would like an explanation as to the requirement for the one foot differential in the lowest and highest point of adjacent properties and what impact that would have on water flow. Strong: Can you rephrase your question? Aller: So you have, we have a requirement that when you’re developing property the next to the adjacent property and you have water that’s on that grade that’s going to flow to the neighboring property, that it has to be a foot or more below that and so I want to know how that works with this particular development. Or doesn’t work. Strong: Well that was one of staff’s initial and kind of ongoing issues which is why staff made the recommendation to outlet the emergency overflow to the far east. As far as the grading and proposed grading and drainage of this parcel is concerned, all points along that south border are higher than the lowest floor elevation of the adjacent property to the south and again the water is being discharged as an emergency overflow to that property and it’s staying on that property. It has nowhere else to go so yes, they are discharging off of their property but it’s going to somebody else’s and again it has no place else to go. Now again always done that to some extent but they’re creating a lot more impervious and we’re talking about now large storm events, we’re talking about point flows. Focused. High volume. High rate. Large rain event. And so the one location that does meet city code requirement, just based upon grading is the southeastern corner of the property or the eastern portion of the property. Although of course that parcel also had high ground water elevations as well so you know that’s something else the City had to make note of that they have to meet that as well. But that was also why we said you need to work with the property owner to the south in this case and city staff to make sure that that route is fully Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 7 planned out because right now they did comply and do you know showing us the directional arrows this time which was nice but it doesn’t fully show elevations of all points and it’s not really showing us exactly where the water is ending up. They’re doing a good job of heading what direction but what does that mean for that property owner to the south? At this point it’s a concern that we feel is important to address. Aller: So we know that there’s a certain level of water that is there at the time of the boring. Do we know what the water table, the standard water table would be at that location? Or is that yet to be determined? Strong: Based upon their geotechnical report it will be consistent with what staff has experienced. The utility department has experienced at other locations in this area. It is a seasonally high water table at about you know 972. Again as I pointed out too they have to take soil borings and infiltration tests at the site of the actual BMP’s because soils and water tables can vary across a single parcel so you know they’ll need to be able to show that they can infiltrate. Aller: Great, thank you. Anything else that you’d like to bring up? Bender: The only thing that I could add, Minnewashta Parkway is scheduled for a redevelopment in 2020. As part of that we’ve already done some soil borings along the parkway in preparation for the plan design to begin and we currently have areas along Minnewashta Parkway where ground water is oozing up through the street. There is going to be a considerable amount of drain tile that is going to be needed along Minnewashta Parkway to help control this so generally the closer that you get to the lake and the eastern part of this site the wetter it’s expected to be so Glendale does climb and as you get to the western half of the site you know it should be drier and that was kind of indicated in their soil borings. Strong: The effect of stormwater of course is the less you can infiltrate the more you are required to hold on site so you’re basins, whatever type of basins they end up being. Whether they infiltrate or filter or they’re wet holding pond still grow in size to compensate for the fact that they now have to hold a larger volume because they’re not able to soak anything in. So it could affect, certainly impact their overall design if they can’t provide the… Aller: Great thank you. Does that conclude the staff report or, Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: With all the questions that you have with regard to where the water will flow. How it will infiltrate. Is it easy to get the additional information that you need to make a determination that water will not flow onto that lot to the south or what is required? Strong: Water is going to flow onto the property to the south. At this point the best mechanism we have is to follow the code and make sure that the emergency overflow route is lower than the floor opening of that property. Write conditions to ensure that as that route is fully determined Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 8 that it doesn’t impact that building or their ability to develop the property but at the most part just the building itself. They’re going to have to meet Minnehaha Creek watershed district’s development review because we haven’t seen that. They could come in with additional requirements and so we need to see some of these other pieces. You know they did say that they would submit also additional information for dry wells and cross sections for basins which we haven’t seen yet but you know as long as those are conditions and they provide them and they meet the requirements then that would be what we would need to issue them their permit at that point in time. Madsen: Thank you. And earlier you had made a comment about how easements affect the enjoyment of a property and I know, could you just expand upon that? How does that affect it? Does it limit what trees and shrubs you can plant? Can you put a fence there? Does it actually make it so that the usable part of your property is smaller? Strong: It depends on how you want to use it. So for a city drainage and utility easement for stormwater you are basically allowed to grow grass. We then if you need to put in a fence you can do an encroachment agreement but that also means if the City needs to come in and do work we will take your fence down. We’ll have to take your trees down but we won’t replace them as part of the encroachment agreement. The same is similar for that private easement to allow maintenance access. It’s basically you’re allowed grass because you need to be able to get in there with equipment to do the work necessary and if you’re blocked by landscaping and shrubs and playground equipment, patios, fire pits, you can’t get in there to do the work to make these things function long term. More importantly, especially like this time of year we see a lot of inlets and outlets get clogged and we see flooding a lot and so usually we need to have immediate maintenance access. You don’t want to have to remove large trees. That’s very expensive. You might not be able to get there in time so yeah I think it really does limit what a lot of people call about in the city. You know a lot of people are also just happy with grass so mayb e for them it’d be fine. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Strong: But yeah. Aller: And then before we get into any additional topics, could someone please refresh my memory and give me a little history lesson on the road construction and tentative road construction because I know that’s going to be a topic of concern for people and certainly is for me. So where was it? And where are we now? And where would we like to be? Bender: If you kind of look at the background picture there’s no road that goes through these, this applicant’s lot but as part of previous planning, which has not changed, the Stratford Ridge development was to connect through here. These lots were owned and it was part of a, you know the future with an undetermined time table. There was you know where do we want to go with it? That’s kind of why we asked for that intersection analysis from the applicant to be able to Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 9 kind of work with them. We give them the direction of what is in place and you know if something different had been submitted or a report prepared about it we could have had communications that would have you know had discussions about it. What we really want to do with it is make sure that the, each of the properties has a fair way of developing so that’s the kind of the primary thing. We also want to have more timely access to the properties for emergency management services. Another priority is to eliminate more accesses off of our collector roads so. Where would we like to go with it generally is to find the right way for all 3 of these properties to eventually develop so. Aller: Thank you. Are we good? Al-Jaff: Just that staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report. And if you have additional questions we’ll be happy to answer them. Aller: So with regard to that roadway what conditions would apply? As requested in the staff report. Al-Jaff: Staff is recommending a 50 foot right-of-way. Aller: ROW. Al-Jaff: And that it would basically be, provide right-of-way over, oh I’m sorry. Incorporate provisions for a through street into the site design with a 50 foot right-of-way versus the required 60. Bender: So the design that include the utility design as well which incorporates conditions 1 and 2. Sorry to interrupt. Weick: That’s okay. The subdivision lot proposal as shown in the report then would not be possible correct? So it’s kind of right? They’d have to redraw the lots. Al-Jaff: That’s correct. They would need to redraw the lots to accommodate a street stub to the south. Weick: So you, okay. I mean although it says approving 5 lots for all intensive purposes we wouldn’t be right? Al-Jaff: It depends. Bender: It would be up to 5 lots. Weick: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 10 Bender: And that would be primarily you know a result of what the developer can come up with and fit in there. Weick: Okay I just wanted a clarification of what it would look like. Bender: Yep. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Okay at this point in time I’ll let the applicant come forward and make a presentation. Curt Fretham: Good evening. My name is Curt Fretham, Lakewest Development, 14525 Highway 7, Minnetonka, Minnesota. Aller: Welcome. Curt Fretham: I thank you all for hearing our application again tonight. I appreciate the staff’s efforts that have been put into it and also the neighbors that are here. I’m not sure where to start on this. There seems to be a lot of confusion. I mean I look at, if the overhead is working tonight. I look at the staff report as was just pointed out. Aller: There we go. Curt Fretham: I look at the staff report and it was just pointed out that staff is recommending a 5 lot development approval and yet I see more confusion when they’re asking for a through street to be put in and we take a look and not to reiterate what we went through a couple weeks ago but this is right out of your comprehensive guide plan and it discourages through streets. I mean it says residential street systems should be designed to discourage through traffic and be compatible with other transportation modes, etcetera so why are we trying to put in a through street. And then we talked about this last time too but let’s take a look at the make up of the neighborhood. Here’s the neighborhood, and I don’t know if that can be zoomed in so it can be seen a little better but there’s 11 cul-de-sacs in that neighborhood and one through street that I can see. Why would we put another through street? It’s inconsistent with your comprehensive guide plan. It’s inconsistent with the make up of the neighborhood. And then I look at there’s talk about that the property was previously planned for a through street. There was a bunch of plans. I say baloney. This property’s had 6 sewer and water services paid for, stubbed in. Why would you put 6 services in and plan for a through street? Give me that answer. Who planned that? And then there’s talk about the length of the cul-de-sac if they were to expand in the future on the south that would require a variance. You’re measuring it wrong. We talked about this last week. You’re measuring down this street. Down this street. Down this street to here to get to 800 some feet. That is not how the city code calls to measure a cul-de-sac. I mean come on play by your own rules. Why are we even having this discussion? I look back at the front page of the staff report from last time, it says right here that the City’s discretion of approving or Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 11 denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plan meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations zoning ordinance. If it meets the standards must approve, I repeat must approve. Why are we talking about this? We’ve got a 5 lot subdivision that meets the ordinance. Why are we having this discussion? A second time. You asked us to go back, meet with staff. Address the concerns and we did. So why are you coming back with this pitch again about a through street? We’re not doing it. I brought our engineer along. He’s going to address the sewer and stormwater concerns. We believe we can address those. We’ve reached out. We’re not getting correspondence from the staff. I mean why would we get this dropped on us tonight? We gave you all this information back on the 30th of August and tonight is the first we’ve heard that you’re not satisfied. We can address that but let’s get some conversation back and forth. That’s what I have to say. Aller: Thank you. Perry Ryan: Good evening, Perry Ryan, Lakewest Development, 14525 Highway 7, Minnetonka. Aller: Welcome Mr. Ryan. Perry Ryan: Thank you. I just wanted to address a couple of statements that staff brought up. We did, I believe, I wasn’t here at the August 7th meeting but I did go back and listen to the whole tape and read the Minutes and I believe, I could be wrong but I believe the direction was for us to go back, work with staff in general on the stormwater management issues and I can go back and look at the tape again but I think that was in general what was talked about because we do in fact have a conforming plat and so I think even many members of the commission agreed with that so we looked at that. This is the first time, actually yesterday was the first time. We submitted plans on August 29th and we then submitted subsequent plans. It was a short window to try to get it done. We were trying to meet that August 31st deadline to stay on the October 2nd meeting which is tonight and so we did meet with staff approximately, or no I think it was exactly October 22nd. I’m very sorry, August 22nd. Sorry about that. I was out of town during the 7th meeting. We met with staff. We talked about resolutions for the stormwater management and Sharmeen asked me, Ms. Al-Jaff asked me when can you get this back into us and I said I’ll get it back into you next Wednesday which I did and I sent it back in, and I knew it was a short fuse and I knew you know we showed what we said we were going to show on there. We weren’t, we weren’t honestly we, I met with staff for over an hour and as I got up and left Ms. Al-Jaff said well you know we’re still, we’re still wanting a through street and I said well we’re not going to show as a through street. We’ll deal with these stormwater issues. So submitted it on August 29th and I hate to bore you with these logistics but didn’t hear back and so I was concerned that we weren’t going to meet the 31st deadline. I then submitted the full package on the 31st. Ms. Strong was kind enough on September 7th to send me an email acknowledging receipt of my plans on the 29th and the 31st and I apologize that you aren’t seeing our plans from August 31st but staff did get them and it does have a landscape plan in it and I’m going to show it to you but anyway they acknowledged receipt of those. Two of the items that Ms. Strong Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 12 brought up today as potential solutions, additional solutions in looking at the rain gardens were this treatment train or putting a swale in back with a pond entirely on what we’re showing as Lot 5. Those are possibly good solutions. First I’ve ever heard of them. When we submitted these on the August 29th and August 31st, happy to show you my email. I said I’m happy to come in anytime with staff to talk about these and any other solutions and I didn’t hear any word at all. Usually we would hear from staff that your report is done. Or you know we could get together and change something before the report and heard nothing. I didn’t see the report until I went online and saw the report so we’ll certainly look at those, at those possible solutions. So to hear, to hear staff say things like, tonight like the hydrocad report modifications we haven’t seen yet or a quote was we finally received the geotech report. Well they received the geotech report on August 31st and we asked to get together and they did not respond so we’re trying to. I think that the direction from Planning Commission was for us to get together and work out a solution. We did get together. We gave them our solution based on that meeting and heard nothing from staff so that’s a little disappointing. I do want to, I guess a couple things. One of the items that, I’m going to walk through if you can zoom in on Fawn Hill. I know some people think it’s different. Can you zoom in on that? There you go Sharmeen, thank you. Stop right there. Thank you. I’m going to go like this. Don’t mind me moving it. Water. Everybody knows what Sir Isaac Newton came up with on gravity. Water runs downhill. It does not run side hill. It does not run uphill. It runs downhill and so the way to look at contours is water runs perpendicular across contours. I want to show you what Fawn Hill did. I’m going to first read I think the quote from the… Ms. Strong actually mentioned this at the Planning Commission on August 7th. She said properties are allowed to send stormwater in the natural direction, and I’m going to show the existing conditions of our property and the proposed conditions on what direction that runs but the other thing is, I’m going to discuss in light of this Fawn Hill and show exactly what we’re doing. Very common practice as you talk about emergency overflows. She mentioned Section 19-144 of the code which states if an emergency overflow route is adjacent to the property the lowest building opening must be a minimum of one foot above the emergency overflow. Very common sense right? We don’t want this to flood out your basements so the basement’s a foot above right or your lowest opening. What that means each, what the word property means is the property’s referring to the property on which the emergency overflow and the building share. Okay which is very important. Otherwise if it was the definition that they’re choosing, meaning our downstream property owners, then we could put no ponds anywhere on our property except the one they like on Lot 5 and I’ll show you on the Fawn Hill one. So Fawn Hill which was approved. I’ll speak a little louder without the mic, sorry about that. It’s showing a low opening on Lot 6, and if you guys don’t have this I apologize. This was sent to the city staff back on August 29th and 31st. The low opening of this lot is at a 974.4. Emergency overflow on this lot is a 973. Right, it’s over a foot above. Well if you go downstream there’s an emergency overflow, or sorry a low opening on an adjacent lot about the same distance actually of a 971.8 and one could say well jeepers, your emergency overflow on your lot upstream is 1.2 feet above that. You can’t do that. That would be using the same rules as staff is imposing on our project. However the emergency overflow on this lot, or actually it’s neighbor is 970 so it doesn’t flood out. You could never have subsequent homes and drainage ways and emergency overflows unless each lot had it’s own emergency overflow. So what we’re trying to show, let me show Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 13 you our project. Want to zoom out just a little bit please. That’s good, thank you. So we’ve got our 5 proposed ponds here, here, here, here and here. And they’ve got a low opening on this house at a 976. Well we placed these ponds very strategically. I’m going to go up here so you can see it. We placed them at the exact low point of each lot. These ones have an emergency overflow of a 978.5, 78.5, 78 and a 70. When the water comes out of these, just like it is currently it is going downstream. Water coming out of this pond cannot go across this hill. Cannot go sideways. It has to go downhill. Water coming out of this pond comes out this way. It cannot go sideways. Same thing with this pond. It can only go perpendicular to the contour lines. It cannot go sideways and come over here. This house also has an emergency overflow at a 968 and it’s also got a 968 here. Our understanding is there’s a pipe on this low area because this is landlocked. So we are not affecting that low opening of the adjacent house. There is absolutely no way unless you can defy the law of gravity that we are going to affect that. The other thing is, they talk about it negatively affecting the property to the south. This is the existing drainage pattern. Want to zoom out just a touch again please. This one’s a little bit different scale, sorry. Little more. Thank you. Good. That’s fine. Doesn’t matter. This is just the existing contours and again I’m showing drainage lines perpendicular to the contours which is what drainage does. We put this exactly at the low point of each lot and this is exactly where the water currently is coming from onto the adjacent property. Common law states you can put the drainage onto your adjacent property owner as long as it does not exceed it. We are showing in our hydrocad models we will not exceed the quantity of flow going to our neighbors. There’s just no question about it. So Ms. Strong also talked about, want to zoom in on this one please. This is our landscape plan that we gave to staff on August 31st which they acknowledged receipt of in an email. Can you zoom in on that please? We should put the zoom over here Sharmeen. Good right there. Right there. Right there. So this plan shows the 41 required trees that they’re suggesting. It’s not that it’s that many trees. It’s 8 overstory trees per lot I think it is. As you can see, you know I know there’s a lot of concern on staff’s part that gosh, how are we going to access this pond. Are we going to have enough? I mean you can look. We’re keeping it out of the drainage and utility easements. All the plantings. There is a lot of yard area here. There’s a lot of access even if you had to bring a skid steer in to do something with that pond. There’s access all over the place for these. It’s not, I just get very concerned that the tone of staff is how are we going to do this? How are people going to enjoy their lots? Well jeepers how did we get as many people as we have in Chanhassen right now? People are doing it everywhere where they’re having to access even ponds and so it’s not, it’s not rocket science. It’s not like it’s never been done before. Ms. Madsen you asked a question is it easy to get the additional information. Staff saying we need additional information. We need additional information but when pressed on that I think Ms. Strong at the end said well, it is going to run downstream. It is going to run to the neighbor. We just have to make sure that the emergency overflows are correct and I’d even be happy to, I saw something up there from Alliant Engineering that I’ve never seen before. I’m not sure why we’re looking at concept plans for the south but I’d be willing to go to, pick another hydrologic engineer if you’d like. I’m a registered engineer and any engineer that will look at emergency overflows in the context of saying we cannot have those emergency overflows dumping onto this property because it’s going to affect this one window over here. That it absolutely has no way physically getting to unless you pump it there. The water’s going to run Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 14 downhill so, so additional information. Again Ms. Madsen we tried. We submitted this information August 31st and we said we would be happy to come, I’m 10 minutes away from this building. My office is. I said I’d be happy to meet with you guys anytime and we received no reaction to it other than Ms. Strong was kind enough on September 7th, a week later to acknowledge receipt of our emails on the 29th and the 31st of August. So we’re always happy to meet. We want to work the details out. We’ll give the additional detail. The reason we didn’t give the updated hydrocad models, I really wanted input you know closer to the August 31st date to say you know here’s what we’ve got. I can certainly provide you with additional information. Can you give me some reaction on this? So history of the road, again. Again Curt talked about this project. You know it was just like brought up again about the old plans showing the stub on Stratford. You know was that good planning? We don’t know. We do know this that there’s 6 utility stubs put along here certainly didn’t contemplate that a road was coming through here. We have a conforming plat before you. We will meet the water, stormwater requirements. We will meet the MCWD requirements. We have a conforming plat and we’d, I guess we’re asking for the commission to decide on that tonight. Stand for any questions that you might have. And if you’d like I can pass around a copy of the August 31st plans with the landscape plan if you’d like to see that too. Aller: So what are the sizes of the rain gardens? The proposed rain gardens. Perry Ryan: Well they are approximately, good question. I’ve never been asked that question. Aller: And are they? Perry Ryan: They’re about oh maybe 30 feet and let me put up, let me put up this if you don’t mind. These are approximately 30 feet in length and probably 15 feet across. They’re all pretty close to the same. I actually appreciate some of the comments from Ms. Strong about, about maybe tying those together. Happy to explore that. You know if that makes sense and they’re happier about that we’re happy to explore that. I’m not against that. I would have loved to have that conversation in early September. And made myself available for them. Tietz: Sir I have a question regarding the drainage. Perry Ryan: Yes. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: You said that water runs perpendicular to the topographic lines. Perry Ryan: Yes. Tietz: So I’m looking at Lots 2, 3, and 4. Or 3 and 4. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 15 Perry Ryan: Yes. Tietz: Looks like 75 percent of 3 does not drain to your holding pond. Perry Ryan: Yeah what we generally do on these cases is we’ll try to pick up all of the hard surface. All the new hard surface. Most watershed districts and stormwater management designers would want to at least pick up the hard surface so that means that anything that’s hitting the roof of that house would be picked up in gutters and so then that would be directed to those rain gardens. Tietz: So it will all be piped to those areas? Perry Ryan: No I didn’t, no I’m sorry. I said those would be directed to the rain gardens. Tietz: But hard directed or just surface directed? Perry Ryan: We usually surface direct it but I guess. Tietz: So will this be, will a grading plan that’s down to a half foot intervals be given to the contractor so that everything does drain to these proposed rain gardens? And do the rain gardens, can they satisfy the requirements for holding? Perry Ryan: They will satisfy the requirements I guarantee that and to half of them. Tietz: They all look about the same size right now. Perry Ryan: I’m sorry? Tietz: They all look to be about the same size right now… Perry Ryan: That’s because they’re, because of the 25 percent mandate of hard surface coverage, even if you look at the staff’s report, they’re not that different. You know the lots are a little bit different but the hard surface ranges from 3,700 square feet to 4,600 square feet so it’s, they’re very similar. Tietz: Well that’s proposed. Perry Ryan: No and that’s, that’s the maximum we could put on these at the 25 percent max. That’s why the ponds end up being similar in size. So I don’t think, I’ve yet to see a half foot contour drawing demanded on residential development. Tietz: I’d like to see a contractor that can grade it to that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 16 Perry Ryan: I’m sorry? Tietz: I’d like to see a contractor that could grade it to that. Perry Ryan: Yeah right, that’s probably why we don’t do them. You know actually to be honest we rarely, we rarely do them to one foot contours. We usually, I bet 95 percent of your engineering documents in your staff’s office are two footers. But I agree there certainly could be a reason on those to ensure all the hard surface does get into those. I think that’s a great idea. Aller: When you drew the plans did you consider the properties to the south? Other than with regard to the water. As far as land locking them and a statute that says we should be looking to see… Perry Ryan: Yeah that’s why. Aller: Surrounding properties. Perry Ryan: Yeah. Aller: So you developed the ghost plat? Perry Ryan: Yes I did. Aller: Indicating what they should develop based on your plans. Perry Ryan: I developed at the request of staff. I didn’t, first of all they aren’t landlocked. They both have access to public right-of-way. And so I would respectfully I disagree that they’d be landlocked so staff asked us to do a conforming plat for that property and that’s what we did. And quite honestly, okay I’ve only seen one of the concepts. I saw some reading that there were more concepts that, that Alliant did. That concept right there, first of all doesn’t do what staff says they want to do and have a through street and it still gives our immediate adjacent property to the south only two lots. And then the furthest one to the south three lots which is the same as our ghost plat so I don’t, I don’t see the benefit of it. There’s a disbenefit. I mean they talk heavily about that you can’t be doing things that cause a hindrance to your neighbor. The disbenefit is it makes a road go through our property and it takes a lot out. Whereas we have a conforming 5 lot subdivision so there’s a disbenefit. I don’t know how you could say that would be preferable to our ghost plat. Our ghost plat has a huge benefit that we, I haven’t had a chance to talk to this board about and we submitted this to the City a long time ago that in putting that through street I think our hard surface just from that roadway is between 2 and 2 ½ times more hard surface than our ghost plat shows on putting that road through there. And you end up doing double and triple frontage lots as well which is really a disbenefit to every future homeowner. So we just didn’t see the positive in it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 17 Aller: Did you consider doing a cul-de-sac entrance connecting from the north through your properties at all? Perry Ryan: No we didn’t. Again we looked at, we didn’t consider it but when I look at the plan that was just up before us about a half hour ago showing just what you described there is no benefit to either of those two south properties. They get the same kind of access at a cul-de-sac. They get the same number of lots. The only real difference is there’s a disbenefit to our property and to removing a conforming lot and not utilizing the utilities that are already stubbed there you know so I, we try to look at things that are beneficial. Not disbeneficial. Aller: Well I don’t have any further questions at this point. Commissioner Weick. Weick: On page 10 of the staff report where it’s listing I think water resource either recommendations or requirements, items number 3, 4 and 5 reference I think a requirement for an HOA. Is that a consideration in your plan? Is that something you were considering as part of the development? Perry Ryan: It was not. We had submitted a draft of a stormwater management agreement in which we as the developer take the ownership and responsibility of that and then there is TRAM. The responsibility of each individual pond is transferred to that homeowner. What I had suggested to staff, I have not heard any response is, I know that staff has said in her, in her experience that that doesn’t work to ensure that a homeowner does that. That they actually have financial responsibility for it. Our experience is quite opposite of that around the metro and so my suggestion to staff was we are happy to have our attorney and the City’s attorney work out that detail. Whether or not we can do it without an HOA or there has to be an HOA. I would let the attorneys do that. I’m going by an individual response to that and so is Ms. Strong and so I’m happy to have, I’m happy to have the City’s attorney and our attorney come to an agreement on that. I’m fine with that. Weick: Okay. Perry Ryan: Either way I understand the reason for the… Aller: Are you talking about indemnification agreements? Perry Ryan: No I’m talking about an HOA agreement or a stormwater management agreement on how to manage and ensure that those infiltration basins are managed properly. Aller: Right in other words if the homeowner from the south is damaged that you’re going to indemnified that homeowner. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 18 Perry Ryan: I don’t know if that has, if that language is in there or not but if that’s what the City Attorney is recommending then, then I’m happy to have our attorney and the City Attorney look at that. They’re a lot smarter than I would claim to be on those issues. Aller: Great thanks. Additional comments, questions. Thank you. Perry Ryan: Let me know if you have anything else, thanks. Aller: We will. Okay so at this point in time I’m going to open up the public hearing portion of this item. Unlike CNN and anything else anybody has seen this past week we’re going to try to be civil and nobody’s going to be yelling at anybody and we’re going to get everybody’s opinion on the record. We’re going to build a good record for the City Council to make any decisions it has to make. And I double checked and for the record I believe this is going to be before the City Council on Monday, October 22nd at this point in time so with that I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Jason Watt: Can you start with an Eagle Scout? Aller: Any person wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item. Audience: That’s why he volunteered. Aller: Please state your name and address for the record. Jason Watt: My name is Jason Watt. I work at, I live at 3961 Stratford Ridge here in Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome. Jason Watt: Thank you. And thank you for listening to us. We have worked together as a neighborhood to come up with some comments that we’d like to share with you. We have a printed version and our plan is to read that aloud to you if that’s helpful. Aller: Great. Jason Watt: I’m happy to put it on the screen so, we don’t have enough handouts for everyone but we can all kind of walk along as we move through. Aller: Perfect. Jason Watt: So if you could maybe just pass those along to everyone on the committee. I’ll keep my copy. I will give one to the proposed developer. And then our neighborhood’s pretty familiar with our arguments. I’m going to give some to folks that maybe are not quite as familiar Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 19 with our arguments. Anyone else need a copy? Does staff want a copy over on the other end there? It looks like 3 more copies. Does anyone else want a copy before we move through this. We’ve been talking a lot about water so I am getting a little thirsty so I might need to stop for a moment to step out and get a glass of water if that’s alright with you guys. Again my name is Jason Watt. I work or live in the neighborhood. I was blessed with stunning good looks and a brilliant mind and a deep sense of humility but not with a preachers voice so we’re going to actually tag team this. I’m going to speak for a while and one of the other neighbors in our development is going to speak so with that I will begin. In terms of questions, I’m happy to field questions as we move along. If you want to just wait til we’re done that works too. So many of us were here at the meeting earlier this summer. In addition to our previous objections, comments presented verbally at the last Planning Commission meeting, which was August 7th, on the subject of the Glendale Drive Subdivision application we respectfully submit the following prepared statement in opposition on behalf of the 15 families residing in the subdivision dedicated as Stratford Ridge on October 11, 1988. As we had previously stated we are dedicated and determined that our well established neighborhood comprised of Stratford Lane, Stratford Boulevard, and Stratford Ridge which has existing since the late 1980’s remain intact as a no outlet double cul-de-sac in it’s present configuration. The GDS project as presently requested by the developer and/or the current alternatives laid out by the Chanhassen Planning Commission staff would destroy the safe surroundings enjoyed by our children, upset the very limited internal traffic that we enjoy and wind the convenient and comfortable access to our beach outlot as well as disturbing the positive surrounding environment of our neighborhood and beach outlot. The GDS will also impose substantial financial burden on our 15 homeowner families by way of reduced valuation and if the roadway options as proposed are carried out the cost of construction and ongoing maintenance will be an unnecessary burden for the City of Chanhassen and it’s taxpayers. Therefore we respectfully request that this prepared statement be made part of the printed record. And first before we move on we structured this, the first topic that we’re going to talk about is standard of review. I think from our last meeting there was some confusion about what the review should be in terms of how you make your decision. I’ve heard comments this evening that I think are a little bit contrary to what the ordinance actually requires and what Minnesota State Law requires as well so that’s where we’re going to start with. So prior to reviewing our arguments and perspective as to why this proposal should not be approved it is essential that the committee, the City Council, the constituents, and the city staff have a clear understanding of the standard of review and related law that the committee and it’s counsel should apply in making this important decision. Following is the guidance the City staff provided to the committee in it’s report dated as of August 7th of 2018. We argue that that guidance was provided, we argue that the guidance that was provided did not properly inform the committee or it’s constituents pursuant to city ordinances, Minnesota statutes and case law. We first will share the original guidance provided by the city staff followed by what is required by city ordinance and Minnesota statute. So first we want to start with the staff report on page 1 it was quoted to say 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 those standards the City must, that was a term that they used, must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi judicial decision and we bolded for emphasis. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 20 When you actually look at the ordinance per Chanhassen City Ordinance Division 2, Platting Procedures under Section 18-39(d) it reads as follows: The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation on the preliminary plat to the City Council within 45 days from the dates of the opening of the public hearing unless the applicant consents on record to a continuance. The Planning Commission may, the term is may, not must. The commission may recommend approval. Approval subject to conditions or that the preliminary plat be declined. Or denied. If denial is recommended the reasons for that recommendation shall be stated in the record. So our first argument is pursuant to city code the standard of review allows the commission to deny the preliminary plat. There is not language in the ordinance that specifically states that it must approve a proposal if it complies with city ordinances. Moreover pursuant to the section I’ve just quoted the City Council may choose to approve or reject such proposals. The ordinance lists specific elements that must be met prior to approval but it does not articulate situations in which it may deny a proposal. Minnesota case law reinforces this concept that local government is provided by discretion in deciding to approve or deny a proposal. And I have quoted a court case here and I’ll read it aloud. Regardless of whether the zoning matter was legislative or quasi judicial we determined whether or not the municipality action in a particular case was reasonable. We examined the action to determine whether it was arbitrary or capricious or whether the reasons articulated by the municipality did not have the slightest validity or bearing on the general welfare or whether the reasons were legally sufficient and had a factual basis. The next thing that we saw in the report that we take issue with is on the same page, page 1 it said quote, the City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the subdivision ordinances for variances. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with variances because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. The staff’s summary correctly states that the City has a relatively high level of discretion with regard to variances. However it would have been much more helpful for the commission and their constituents if the statute that provides this guidance was cited in the report and the report provided a quote of the entire ordinance. We have provided the language of the entire ordinance below for your review. So pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Division 2, Platting Procedures, Section 18-37(b) it is read, is written as follows. The City Council may, again the word is may, grant a variance from the regulations contained in it’s chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist. One, hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Two the hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographic conditions of the land. Three, the condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property and four, the granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accordance with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. So our next argument to the City is that city staff reports should properly explain law and provide citations and quotes of the citation to properly inform the committee and it’s constituents. The staff report did not adequately explain the broad discretion that the City has to approve or deny a variance pursuant to the city code and Minnesota law. Moving on. Again in the staff report on page 3 it was written as follows. Engineering staff recommends that the layout be revised to accommodate the future development of the two lots to the south as quote, required by city code Section 18-57-A and Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 21 Section 18-60(f). The code actually reads as follows. Streets shall be dedicated on the plat to the public. The location and design of the street shall consider existing and planned streets, reasonable traffic circulation, topographical conditions, runoff of stormwater, public convenience and safety and the proposed land uses of property to be served. Our next argument is the city staff report incorrectly stated that the layout must accommodate for the future development of the two lots south of the Glendale development pursuant to city code. Nowhere in that city code that was cited does it specifically state that this should be considered. It does state the proposed land use should be considered when roads are designed but not that roads should be planned based on hypothetical land use in the future. When streets are planned the planning process should take into consideration how the surrounding land is to be used. For example the committee would want to consider it’s review of neighboring land. Review of neighboring land will involve whether or not it will involve heavy equipment such as a manufacturing development or if it has substantial traffic that will result such as a nearby hospital or school. These known factors should affect how streets are planned and designed. However in this specific case there is not a proposed development planned for the two lots south of Glendale, south of the Glendale development. During the committee’s meeting there is much confusion on this point of whether or not the committee should speculate on the future use of these two properties. The potential development of these two lots consumed much of the discussion that evening rather than the clearly identified elements laid out in the city code such as traffic, topographical issues, stormwater, etcetera. The statute does not require the committee to consider any and all potential future uses of surrounding land. Next, they quoted two sections there so the next section is read as follows and it’s Section 18-60 paragraph F. Street arrangements for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue hardship to owners of adjoining property in subdividing their own land. Our next argument. Per the city code of Section 18-60 paragraph F the City should only consider owners of adjoining property. We did not find a definition of adjoining in the city ordinances, state statutes or case law. However the commonly accepted definition of adjoining per Webster’s Dictionary would be having a common border. Thus we question why the City would factor into it’s analysis the effects of this development proposal on the person’s property since it does not adjoin the Glendale development. Argument 5. We’ve asked the staff and commission at the August 7th meeting what the definition of undue hardship meant pursuant to the Section of 18-60 paragraph F. We did not receive a citation of a city ordinance or any case law at that meeting to provide clarity on this term. We have researched on our own and have not found a city ordinance that defines this term. Nor have we found a Minnesota statute or case law directly on point with regard to installation of streets. Streets. However we have found Minnesota statutes and case law that defines that same term in relation to denying or approving a variance. We should note that that term undue hardship in relation to variances was changed to the term practical difficulties in May of 2011 but the rest of that statute is generally the same as it was prior to the change in those terms so if you go to Minnesota Statute Section 462.357 Subdivision 6, Paragraph 2 it reads as follows, variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that 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 the zoning ordinance. The plight of the landowner is due to Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 22 circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner and the variance if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight or solar energy systems. If the owners of the Boylan property wanted to subdivide their property that could be considered a reasonable use. However the owners have not submitted an application for subdivision. In fact the owners are actively trying to sell the property. The commission should not base a decision on hypotheticals but on the facts that are known at the time of the proposal. It should be noted pursuant to the statute that adverse economic conditions alone should not constitute practical difficulties. Furthermore we would like to highlight that the transcripts from the Planning Commission meeting for the development of our neighborhood back in October 28th of 1987 on page 14 of those transcripts quoted a member of this commission at that time, Mr. Conrad as saying quote, I’ve never found that reduced value creates a hardship as long as you had some reasonable use of that property. So our question is why would the commission apply an inconsistent standard years later if this is truly about economic development. Furthermore the Boylan property is not subject to unique circumstances. Again that was one of the elements within the statute unique circumstances. If the owners desire to subdivide the property the existing driveway could be extended and modified so that their needs for a second access road could be installed, let me start that over. If the owners desire to subdivide the property the existing driveway could be extended and modified for these needs or a second access road could be installed from the northwest corner of the land that borders with Country Oaks Drive. It was mentioned this evening that it may not necessarily comply with ordinance but we could probably talk about a variance for that to be accomplished. There are many options available that would be better compared to a through road when considering traffic, safety, green space, city maintenance, environmental concerns, maximizing the entire neighborhood’s property tax values rather than a select few. Lastly this proposed street installation would change the essential character of our locality. As was pointed out at the August 7th meeting, and as was pointed out this evening, if you look at the map of our neighborhood you will quickly see that the common layout of our neighborhood is a series of multiple cul-de-sac. I believe you counted 11, is that correct? Audience: Yes. Jason Watts: There are many valuable elements to living in a cul-de-sac which are highlighted later in this document but it should be noted that the installation of a through street would eliminate many, if not all of those values. It would change the essential character of our immediate neighborhood and our locality. So our question to you is why are you concerned about the size of a road and getting a variance from 60 to 50 but you’re not concerned about the overall character of our neighborhoods. I’d like to move on to our next topic. Fundamental and fairness and a conflict of interest. Our next argument is due notice. There are multiple attorneys located in our cul-de-sac and many others are highly educated professionals. Many of us conducted very detailed due diligence prior to purchasing our homes and purchased our homes based on public records. One of the biggest motivations for purchasing the homes was the seclusion and safety a cul-de-sac provides. Assuming that we reviewed the plat recorded at the Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 23 county how would we have possibly known that a street could potentially be installed in the future. There is not a physical stub road in our cul-de-sac. We acknowledge that Option B shows a stub road on the Martin Foy’s land but how would be the common constituent of this city know that that was what that notation represents. Furthermore on the copy of the Option B that we have there are no markings on the sketch showing a proposed road going through the Martin Foy property, James Boylan property, or Mildred Kersten’s property. Furthermore when you look at the western half of this sketch, and I don’t know if you can pull up a copy of Option B. I’ll just pause if you can quickly pull that up. Otherwise I can pull out my cell phone and show you on my cell phone. Should we have a race? Who’s going to win? I got it. You got it? You got it, okay. It’s a tie. So when you look at this, when you look at this, if you can zoom in a little bit and look at the southwest corner of Option B. You can’t zoom in on this? Al-Jaff: No. Jason Watt: What if I put this under your little contraption here? Can you look? Is this going to work? I don’t know if that’s working much better. Yeah hopefully I don’t get a crude text from one of my buddies from college. But when you look at this, when you look at this and think of yourself as a person trying to buy in this neighborhood and doing your due diligence do any of these layouts actually look like how this neighborhood looks like today? And if you’re not familiar with the neighborhood, absolutely not. Nothing in that southwest corner looks like it actually looks today. Nothing. So again our point is, if you’re trying to do diligence and trying to figure out whether or not your neighborhood is going to stay the way that it’s going to stay you can’t rely on this as a very probable piece of evidence to make that decision. Furthermore I would argue that this is not a permanent plan. I got lost on my notes here. Let me get back to that. Audience: Three quarters of the way down. Furthermore. Jason Watt: Furthermore. When you look at the western half of this sketch and compare that to how the land was actually developed a reasonable person would not get an impression that this reflects the future plans of the city. Moreover reading through the transcript of the city meeting on January 6, 1988 city staff member Joanne Olson is quoted in answering questions by a constituent that was concerned about the plans at that time as saying no. The only plan that would be maintained would be this one. The only way that this altering the impact of the surrounding properties is that it is designing or designating where future roads will be provided to the north and then it will be providing this whole link. These plans are just going to be used for general use to give us a better picture of what the street layouts could possibly have. There are many possibilities. Many possibilities. So can we possibly argue that this is indeed the City’s plan where you’ve got someone on staff saying no. These are possibilities. This is not permanent. The transcript certainly does not give a reader a sense of permanence to this plan. How can the City again justify picking and choosing what potions of Option B or Option A are permanent and which are not? What authority is this based on and where is equity and justice in this with regard to your 30 plus voting constituents in this development? Moreover and perhaps Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 24 the most, and before I even get to this I just want to acknowledge it’s hard for me to say this. I want to say this in a respectful manner. I did work for the federal government for years. I worked for the State so I do recognize that we have honorable people in this room but I just want to get to the point then. Moreover and perhaps most importantly of anything else that we share with you tonight it appears that from the very beginning of the planning of our neighborhood and the development and it’s surrounding neighborhood the process was tainted by allowing a committee member with a clear conflict of interest play a role in how all of this neighborhood, basically how the neighborhood was structured. Member David Headla acknowledged in the transcript that I just referenced earlier that he owned the land adjoining to the southern border of our development. This indisputable fact raises significant concerns among us regarding the professionalism and integrity of how the City structured this plan. It raises current concerns about the public trust. When you look at how this has transpired we have a staff report that has incorrectly quoted Minnesota and City ordinances. We have a staff report that is recommending that we move forward with this plan but listing 25 other things that actually need to be addressed before we can move forward with the development. It raises some significant concerns within our neighborhood in terms of independence. With that said we hope that through a professional and respectful dialogue with you our voices will be heard and we can find an equitable solution. With that I’m going to let you listen to a new voice but be happy if you have questions later I’d be happy to address those. Dave. David Lieser: Hello, my name’s David Lieser and I live at 3881 Stratford Ridge. Aller: Welcome. David Lieser: Thank you. I hope that this won’t duplicate too many things but we have the benefit of being able to tell you the issues and problems that we have that aren’t necessarily related to the same legal arguments that Jason has so well presented. One of our issues is a potential benefit versus for a few versus the benefit to many. As we’ve mentioned with there are 15 established residents. Residents in the Stratford Ridge Association. All of whom enjoy the sense of community that the two cul-de-sac street structure affords. In fact this was a major contributing factor as to why many of the residents purchased their homes here. The burdens that are outlined below for these residents are significant and I purchased my home there 21, almost 22 years ago. The burden, oh in addition their precedence established for the alternatives to gain access to these properties for future development. That is separate cul-de-sacs off Glendale Drive from the north or short access roads such as the Rocky Island Lane. I don’t know if you’re familiar with that area but that is right along Minnewashta Parkway. It has 3 or 4 homes on it I think and that’s one of the other alternatives. It could be afforded to the people that may want to develop property in the future. If Stratford Ridge now or in the future is altered to either extend the north cul-de-sac or provide a through street the home values will be severely impacted. Residential real estate professionals quoted to us as much as a negative $50,000 per home devaluation immediately and while the amount could be debated the significance of the financial impact for resale value cannot be. In fact it can be argued where there’s already negative impact due to the City really relaying any intent that it has an interest to put through a Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 25 right-of-way all the way from Glendale to our property. In that case disclosure would be warranted in the event of a sale from us at this point to, of all existing homes. Some bringing the price down significantly. Even for the homes not for sale the City should expect property tax appeals to account for this loss in valuation. There is a negative impact to road safety due to increased traffic if this street would be extended from Glendale, which I assume would be the street would be called Leslee Curve. Based on data from the Chanhassen engineering department we can assume that there are 2.5 average trips per person each day with an average of 3.5 people per home. Therefore at the north cul-de-sac would have to be extended as shown in the ghost plot, which was the other, one of the other alternatives mentioned. There will be 15,970 additional trips per year through Stratford Ridge. If there’s a through street new residents may exit through Stratford Ridge or Glendale Drive to Minnewashta Parkway but significant additional traffic beyond that would certainly be a factor. Stratford Ridge does not have any sidewalks and the numerous children of the neighborhood, 15 plus walk and play in the street and the cul-de-sacs. The cul-de-sac bubbles. We’ve already had numerous incidences in the last few years of visitors to the neighborhood not heeding the stop sign at the intersection of Stratford Lane and Stratford Ridge. Any change due to increased number of homes accessing through Stratford Ridge would certainly contribute much more to that problem. None of the existing residents previously made aware, that is previous to their buying the property were previously made aware that the Stratford Ridge cul-de-sac bubble on the north was ever viewed as a likely extension of Leslee Curve. Nothing exists that raises that idea to enforceable mandate against Stratford Ridge. Jason already talked about the old Minutes and notes so I’ll skip on past that. The fact that for the past 30 years the current street structure has existed should defacto render permanent the structure that we have now, the double cul-de-sac. This includes the burden of changing our family street addresses would inflict since imposing an extension of Leslee Curve would likely change our street name. There’s also a broader cost implication to the City and it’s residents to put a road through or extension. Not only for the building of it but in the ongoing maintenance, snow removal and so forth. It’s our argument that the cost is not necessary to support any existing ordinance or obligation by the City. We’re also obviously concerned about the environmental impact on our properties. The potential negative environmental impact of the GSD project is substantial. The Planning Commission staff report is replete with significant objections to the development ranging from…to meet stormwater requirements, including the need for the emergency overflow routes designed to avoid impacting the wetland areas south of the project. And the need for the relevant drainage easements permits from the 7 or more government, quasi government agencies that were enumerated in the water resources section of the staff report. To the best of our knowledge none of the requirements set forth by the water resources coordinator other than the provision of a bare bone stormwater maintenance agreement have been accomplished as agreed or reported thereon. The loss of significant amount of green space which has graced this area is also of great concern. While the overlay, the overall quality of tree species on the parcel do not rival the Minnesota Arboretum, the degree to which the area has been developed certainly needs as much green space as it can mustard. The PC staff has many issues in that regard which do not appear to have been met or the response has not been made public yet. The topography and the negative drainage issues or this and the two large parcels to the south has led the neighbors of these parcels to believe that they would not be Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 26 developed beyond their current state of development. All 3 of those lots I believe were at one time classified in the past as equivalent of a residential large lot. The fact that no apparent steps had been taken to develop those 3 parcels would also certainly reinforce that point of view. In terms of trees I would mention that it was interesting that through the past week there have been a lot of trees removed from the Foy parcel and we didn’t really notice any, I don’t know of any markers or protection areas around the trees you want to save. Has that been done yet? Audience: The only thing that was removed was buckthorn. David Lieser: Okay. Well we love that, buckthorn removal. No doubt about that. We certainly made it clear that we don’t agree with the view of the Planning Commission staff that an extension of Leslee Curve should now be designed through the GDS project to connect with our cul-de-sac at the north end of Stratford Ridge. Aside from the many, many significant negatives impacts such requirement would visit upon our 15 families, the expense and difficulty of building such an extension would be a serious burden on the city and it’s taxpayers without a clear significant benefit. The grading in and of itself through the topography over the intervening parcels would result in serious down and up roller coaster type grade. Certainly lacking in safety for our children and providing unnecessary challenges to the city in the winter plowing and ongoing road maintenance. We’re prepared to take further action as necessary to demonstrate current or future road changes to Stratford Ridge unduly penalize our 15 families for the speculative benefit of a few. These points are material and the evaluation of the Glendale proposed project but we welcome any questions or comments on the above as well as discussing any alternatives for the City to consider. And in the prepared paperwork you’ll find some photographs of how we use our neighborhood and how we value it. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Having had that read into the record by two individuals and having it formally received into the record it will be forwarded onto the council for it’s review as well as the Minutes that have been recorded. Would anyone else like to come up and speak either for or against this item? You can briefly touch on. There was a lot said but if you wouldn’t just regurgitate the arguments that would be great. But if you have something to add I certainly would love to hear it. Carin Moore: Good evening. My name is Carin Moore and I am the personal representative of the Estate of James and Ruth Boylan at 6760 Minnewashta Parkway. Aller: Welcome. Carin Moore: My parents are both deceased so I am the homeowner. I did actually submit a letter to the city planning group but I’m not sure if everybody got a copy of that and I’m sorry I did not come as prepared as you guys so I’m going to just repeat a few things. Yeah right, great perfect. I’ll grab some more to frame at home but. Aller: And for the record we did receive it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 27 Carin Moore: You did receive it. Aller: And it has been read. Carin Moore: Wonderful. Aller: And it is part of the record. Carin Moore: Great. I did want to address a few things off that letter and as well as show some documentation. Just a little bit of history. I do want it known that personally myself I have been meeting with the city planning group for over 7 years regarding my parents property and potential development so I know that perception may have shown otherwise because my parents had a choice and made a choice what they were doing with their property. Behind the scenes we were working as a family to see what potential options there may be for future. I did want to address the first comment in my letter. I am requesting that the strip of land that is adjacent to Country Oaks Drive that is west of our property and also the current property currently owned by Lakewest be split accordingly to line up to our property lines. So one of the pictures that I think you have Sharmeen shows that strip that was addressed earlier and I just, I know that it was commented by Lakewest would be taking that over but if you see there is about a 12 foot, 11 foot give or take piece of property that goes behind our property that we would like to maintain as our’s just because now we really are officially landlocked at that point without having access off the back side of our property. With that being said I’m going to actually skip over to one of the concept drawings. I was requested by city planning group to give options. To show things and I sat through the August 7th meeting and heard a lot of what my neighbors to the south, Stratford had made comments and how the options that were given aren’t really feasible for families. Being a parent of 3 children, living on a cul-de-sac in Minnetrista I totally understand that and I want to, I wanted to support them as well because as neighbors that’s what you do. You’re concerned on the hardships that may be affecting them. Not intentionally but just because something is happening and one of the comments that was made earlier is why are we even addressing the Kersten’s? Well the Kersten’s are our dear friends and our neighbors and they’re on our property line so if it affects our property and the future development or options that we have to consider for our property, we also have to consider our neighbors to the south as well so. The first one that I want to show actually is the fact that came to my head 7 plus years ago. This is really fun. Okay. So it shows just our property. It shows what could be done with our property to make it maybe 2 useable lots. Very large lots because this is over 2 acres worth of land. However we wanted to kind of keep some of the green space for sure. There was a luxury of growing up in a forest when you’re 5 years old and 10 years old and you feel that but also the privacy and you want to keep kind of what, what could be offered. We have a little paradise. A little slice of heaven with the lakeshore property to the west. East, excuse me is all our own private property as well as another 2 plus acres. We wanted to maintain some of that so we looked at okay what if we just made a change to our land, what would that require? It requires access to Country Oaks. Currently even with that little sliver that is definitely not enough to, for Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 28 any sort of driveway requirement. We have just been in discussion, please remember these are full concepts. This is nothing set in stone. No development company has been hired out or anything. These are just ideas because I want it to be known that we’ve had ideas but some just don’t potentially work with the City. Some don’t work with the neighbors so we have to figure it out. That’s what we’re here for. We want to work with everybody the best way possible but we also have to think of ourselves first quite honestly just as I would expect my neighbors to think of themselves first. We talked about giving land up so it allows for us to have more of an access to Country Oaks and then giving them some extra side yard or back yard for them since they only have about a 6 to 7 foot distance between their home and property line that was missed on the development when it was previously, when the house was built but even so we tried to go for the 90 feet that is required. This was not taken in consideration. The curve of the road which I’ve already talked to city planning group and they have told me well because that wasn’t considered that’s really not the right distance. It’s not fully the 90 feet so not only am I trying to ask for a variance for myself if we went this route but I’d also, we’d also have to be asking for a variance for this homeowner to allow them to now be short. To not, to basically be non- conforming to the city code requirements. That may not be approved right, so that was our first original plan in essence. That way we weren’t hurting anybody’s feelings. We weren’t trying to incringe on anybody else. We were just focused on our property. Okay. Back at the concepts, and I think you know really the focus is for us the drainage and I know that they brought up the fact that the rain gardens, they’ll you know hold everything. They’ll take care of it and because the current house has that certain level it doesn’t affect us but again it’s not just about current. It’s about future. That’s what you guys are talking about. That’s what the City is talking about is what could the future bring? We could as a family never develop our property. I understand that but we also could develop and so we have to look at those options and it’s because of the size of the property. If this was a half an acre, if it was even a quarter acre probably you wouldn’t, we wouldn’t even be talking about our property. It would not be of an issue except if all the water was coming into our land. The problem is, is that if you add hard cover there’s no more soil there to take the rain so regardless of what’s happening today you throw a house on there, you throw 5 houses on there, there has to be a proper way to drive this water not coming into our property anymore than it currently does. I am not an engineer. I am not somebody who studies weather but that’s common knowledge. If you put cement down that’s non-porous. It’s not going to take the water the way the soil does so what are we doing to fix that? That’s all I really care about. That’s my number one concern. Okay. Sorry for skipping around but I have a lot to say so. Alright we commented on this one earlier that this is the first that this was seen. Again these are concepts that were requested, hey if you want an option throw options. What would happen? So I have been working with my neighbor to the south to go what would we be open to? If we work together this is concept. This is not an ideal concept for Lakewest because they lose a lot. Like you when you were addressing earlier. You can barely see it but their 5 lots are still written in in the background but this is if the Kersten’s and the Boylan Estate only work together and didn’t involve Lakewest, what would be a good concept? Now these are also done with the 60 foot road where I think there’s a 50 foot variance discussion for roadways so that would narrow that property. Again just an idea. Taking into consideration the drainage and stormwater management, this is another concept showing all 5 lots. Keeping the road again at Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 29 that 60 feet but then also saying okay, if you want 5 lots maybe there’s some shared, some land that comes from the Boylan property to help make those 5 lots happen. I’m not giving any land away. I’m not claiming that. It’s just an idea. Okay. And then another concept. Just another cul-de-sac. Okay coming in. This one obviously combines all 3 properties. Saying let’s all work together. What could we develop? What could come off of this? This one does however include a property that would have access to the parkway and I know the City’s encouraging to try to limit that access but this is again just an idea. One of the things that you won’t see from me is a drawing like that. Okay. And the reason you see it right is because this is what we took as the message from what the City thought was great. But I made a comment in here that, I’m going to read this kind of verbatim for the folks that are sitting here. I’m requesting that the City review multiple options for this development as well as the potential development of the two adjoining properties. I know that the City has a plan to connect Stratford Ridge and the neighborhood to the south. The neighborhood to the south and Leslee Curve with a street that would run through all 3 properties. I’m also aware that Lakewest is suggesting that a cul-de-sac be installed instead from the south out of Stratford Ridge current cul-de-sac. I don’t think that would be the best option due to the land grading that is currently at the north point of the cul-de- sac. So this area right here. It’s a severe drop. Can’t really see it very well here but it’s about a solid 10 feet drop in a very short space so it’s definitely a lot of work to have some extra road coming off of there for sure. As well as the current homeowners are not in support of this opinion and this option, excuse me. Meaning Stratford Ridge families. While I know the City developed Stratford’s cul-de-sac with the intention of continuing the road, that information wasn’t made clear to the current homeowners. At no point was there signage stating that a future road would be built in it’s place and most people wouldn’t know that the dimensions of the current cul-de-sac aren’t of the normal size. I do think it’s in everyone’s best interest to maybe consider alternate options. That’s all I’m doing is just trying to show that there are alternate options. I think a really good comment again I stressed a little bit a few minutes ago is that it’s about the neighbors. It really is and a comment was made to not do any hardships to the neighbors. No offense you’re not our neighbors, okay. These are our neighbors. These are the people that we care about. The people that I grew up with. I played in Stratford with friends when I was growing up. My sister did. The Kersten’s have been a second family to us. This is our family. This is our neighbors. This is our neighborhood. How will it benefit everybody? That’s all we’re concerned about. That’s what I want to take in consideration. Did I miss anything that was? And I just, I feel like I want to stress again that a comment was made at the last meeting that properties should figure out how to develop their own properties you know and it’s easier said than done. It really is. But here’s me who’s never done something like this before and I’ve stepped out of the box and tried to give options because I feel that there are so many options. If it means keeping all 3 properties the way they are, that’s an option. But is this really the best option for you? Or is this the best option for you? Or is this the best, there’s so many. Why don’t we take the time to actually figure out what works the best for everybody in the community and the current homeowners. Thank you. You have any questions? Aller: Thank you, no. Any additional individuals wishing to come forward to speak either for or against this item? Seeing no one, oh there we go. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 30 Jeff Kersten: My name is Jeff Kersten. I live at 6810 Minnewashta Parkway next door to the Boylan’s. Without trying to regurgitate the stormwater drainage, in terms of when we look at the elevations, I’m just going to use where we’ve got a topographical map here. That one will work too. When we take a look at the elevations, in regards to the stormwater we’re not talking about a one foot drop or a two foot drop. We’re talking about from the properties for the Glendale subdivision a drop of almost 25 feet down into my property so that’s a significant drop and when we’re talking about emergency water flow or heavy water, springtime when the snow and you’ve got a lot of flooding and things, all of that water essentially ends up on my property. Okay. It is not classified a wetland so, but it is a low area in that there is, we’ve actually got a way that it does drain out from there but when you’re talking about 25 feet and a lot of rain, and recently you know we had it. It starts to pool up. It does drain out but if you get heavy rains, 4, 6 inches or sometimes when we get in the springtime my water, my yard starts to go under water so you’re not talking about just 1 or 2 inch rains. We’re talking about heavy you know, heavy kinds of rain that come down that can adversely affect it. So when you take a look at the development and you take a look at the hard cover and the amount of rain that is probably, or the amount of water that is going to be in excess of you know what is existing now, that will cause, that will cause a problem in our property at this stage of the game. So when we take a look at the stormwater I would like to see a more comprehensive plan in terms of what they want to do with it. I do not think that the rain gardens are going to you know do that. Again when you’re talking about those kinds of elevation changes that’s different than 1, 2 or 3 feet of drop. I mean that’s a heavy drop so that’s, I guess that is my main concern with things going forward. Does anybody got any questions? Aller: Questions? Jeff Kersten: No? Okay, thank you. Aller: Thank you very much. If I wait long enough someone else will get up. Anyone? Alright, here we go. We’re going to close the public hearing. Thank you all for coming and speaking and providing your input. So with that comments. Concerns. Motions. Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: I’ll comment Andrew. I think if we have, it sounds like we have 3 willing parties on comprehensive development plan and it could be a win/win for everyone if we can get the parties together. We do have a significant drainage issue, I agree with you sir. Looking at the site, walking the site and looking at what’s on there, obviously the work that’s been done taking out buckthorn but there’s an awful lot of you know, what am I looking for? What’s the tree? Why am I, box elder. Looks like it’s dominantly and in the report too it’s dominantly box elder. A lot of trees have been tagged already so at least they’re identified on the plan which is your arborist has done a good job but there’s still a miscellaneous miss in there I think but it looks like there’s a good solution. I’m always concerned about properties and they’re developed to the property line and all of a sudden we have a 9 foot cut on one property line. We’ve looked at some in the last couple years where it’s an interesting development but everything stops at the property line Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 31 and we have significant cuts. Maybe not 9 feet but it doesn’t look, it’s not blended. I think there’s a distinct opportunity to solve a lot of problems here on this site if 3 parties can get together. There’s a lot of good planning that’s been done on that side and I compliment Ms. Moore on working with independently and spending a considerable amount of money coming up with some plans. I think that’s to be commended but if we can, if we can solve it I think the neighborhood will be well served. It may have some alterations. There may be some variances that we’re going to look at again. Not sure that any of those 3 plans or 4 plans are perfect but I think there’s a germ of a start there I think. Something that could turn into something but it needs willing parties on all 3 parties to be willing. Obviously I don’t know if why all the work that was being done for the last 7 years hasn’t been on record or transferred onto the Lakewest group but I think you know it’s, I’m pleased to see the work that’s coming forward tonight. I agree that the cul-de-sacs are a great solution. You know some of the best new towns that were planned, Reston and some of those way back in the 60’s and 70’s dealt almost exclusively with cul-de-sacs with a lot of green space and walk throughs. There’s a lot of evidence in California Andrew where that type of planning is conducive to neighborhood continuity and protection and neighborly activity so I’ll stop talking but I think that there’s, there are some opportunities here and we should, I’d like to hear from my fellow commissioners. Weick: I’m not sure you do. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Were you here at the August 7th? Tietz: No. Weick: Yeah. I. Aller: I can take it. Weick: I guess I’ll reiterate my position from our August 7th meeting and I will go on record as expressing my disappointment that we spent the better part of 2 hours having the same conversation and I put a significant amount of, amount of the burden of that unfortunately this time on the City. It doesn’t sound to me like we had a willing participant to discuss a variance yet we put one in the motion and I don’t understand everything that went on behind the scenes but I think it’s unconventional from my perspective and my years on this committee that we would propose a variance that the applicant has not agreed to and so that point of the process disappoints me. So that said, this is not to me about the street and it never has been about the street and I’m pretty sure I expressed that in my words and my vote on August 7th as well. To me this is all about the drainage and unfortunately we only spent about from 9:05 to 9:06 talking about drainage. That’s the issue. It’s 100 percent about are we sure that we have a plan to capture the rain water off of the new development so it doesn’t add any burden to the property to the south. You know burden in the sense of significant runoff in my mind and that’s what I’m Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 32 struggling with and I do need to, I want to be convinced that there is a path to resolution there in order to allow the developer to develop the land that they have and that they’re requesting to develop on October 2nd, 2018 which is what we have in front of us. So I guess that’s, to me that’s what we have to struggle with and as a committee we should come to a consensus whether we think that path forward is appropriate. The rest of it is very compelling. The arguments are fantastic. I did have a little trouble, I’m not quite sure who David Headla is. If that’s a current person or an old person. Aller: Sins of the father I suppose. Weick: That’s the only thing I didn’t follow exactly but I don’t think it matters because I’m in complete agreement that this is, that we shouldn’t be having a discussion about a through street. I said it at the last meeting and I, nothing that has been said has changed my mind. To me it’s about whether this subdivision significantly will negatively impact the two properties to the south really because they both you know are going to be at the base of that. I’d love to hear conversation about that. From my fellow commissioners. Aller: Commissioner Randall. Randall: I agree with you on that. I really think the water runoff is a huge issue with it. I think the through street is a non-issue. We’ve seen these different proposals and they spend a lot of time on but I have concern about the runoff. It’s one of those areas it’s a hard grade to deal with, especially with these 3 properties and you want to add value to all those properties and is one going to impact the other so those are my concerns. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I would agree with the water drainage and the undue hardship on one for the development of another. Ideally if the 3 owners could get together that might be the most ideal solution to be able to work something out. That would be great. I respect all the concerns of the traffic and the neighborhood. I, the one concern I would have is the current cul-de-sac is not built large enough for the fire code. I didn’t see a concern if you had a fire in the neighborhood would several trucks be able to get in there? Maneuver around and save homes in your neighbors. David Lieser: And we addressed that. Jason Watt: We addressed that in the last meeting. It’s not a concern of our’s. They’ve come to, in fact we were here on National Night Out and they were there probably at the same time they were here and it’s not a concern of our’s. We’re more concerned about traffic. That’s the big probability. We’re more concerned about traffic than any sort of fire issue. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 33 Madsen: The Fire Marshal comment wasn’t updated here so if that has changed perhaps an update could be provided so that that would be more clear. But it’s primarily the water issue and the drainage and what, and these infill developments are the most difficult and challenging that we see. We’ve seen several of them and we’re trying to you know make it the best that we can for all the residents. Tietz: But Nancy if we have infill development, let’s say the two properties to the south come back in 6 months with a plan. Now we’re going to deal with flag lots. Madsen: Right so that’s. Tietz: How are we going to deal with the issues that we’ve been dealing with for the last 2 years when you have a 2 plus acre property and probably another what, acre and three-quarters or something. Almost 2 in the south. We’ve got 4, probably 4 acres that are now essentially landlocked. Not landlocked but they’re going to create, they’re either going to have to continue to come off of Minnewashta Drive, which the City wants to eliminate those exits and entrances and if they try to develop the back side of the property we’re going to be dealing with a variance for a flag lot which puts more property coming out onto Minnewashta. You know if we have the opportunity, I don’t know where everyone is on this but, and we can’t dictate that but I think we solve the water issues. We solve traffic issues and you create another nice neighborhood by putting 3 properties together as opposed to developing a strip of houses. Aller: It’s all been said. In looking at this I agree that, and I’ve always been a proponent of an individual being to develop his or her property to the extent that they’re not intruding on the rights of another. That water has been a big issue especially in this area which is a lake area and in Chanhassen in general. And so I too think that water is the most critical issue. I also would agree that we can’t just plan or develop in a vacuum. This neighborhood is, has expressed itself as a neighborhood because they look out for each other and because they’re next door to each other and I’ve heard the comment that they aren’t, they aren’t my neighbor. Well they might be so when I look at the arguments that are made about statements that were done 20 years ago by individuals that we may or may not have met and not hearing that at the time someone was sitting here or purchasing a property because they heard those comments, I look at it and say life goes on. Things change. Change is inevitable. Properties change. Neighborhoods change. People change and when you buy a piece of property you don’t know where the next road is coming through or the next house is coming from or the next restaurant is going to be French Italian or whatever. We just kind of plan as best we can for the future. Give as much notice as we can and then take care of ourselves as Chanhassen neighbors so I do agree that I’m looking at this more in the sense of what is before us today. But I’m troubled by the fact that there are two competing interests that have been expressed. One the City, their concern with and the information that we have had that hasn’t changed as far as I know and that is that the fire department officials say that it’s better to have a through street then the cul-de-sacs so we’re looking at those competing interests between the health, safety and welfare of the children, just as you are with the traffic coming through and so these decisions are going to be very difficult Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 34 and I don’t know whether anyone is going to be happy but I would hope that we could fashion a motion that could move the potential project forward for further discussion. Allow this applicant to have his hearing before the City Council with the opportunity to have the additional information that has now been provided by this well orchestrated community. Always looked at their interest and have been very forthright in what they’re looking at in a protective fashion and it sounds like that they’re really open to a development. The question is what kind of development and so when we talk about them getting together, we all see that but we can’t as a commission say hey I move that they all sit down and they don’t leave the table and nobody goes to the bathroom until we’re done. I think we have to let the parties take their natural course and before us we have an applicant who’s made a motion and there is a Findings of Fact that have to be made. When we do look at the, the arguments that were made by Stratford Ridge residents and we talk about what has been presented in the packets, I do agree that some of them are not verbatim but if you go through the packet the Findings of Fact are listed and they are through the statute an they go step by step with the proposal for those findings so staff might, and us as a commission might be better to direct staff to try to be a little bit more verbatim but I think, I think we’re as open as we can be by providing all that information on the website including the proposed Findings of Fact so I applaud the City for doing that. I applaud you for pointing out the discrepancies and I think it can be looked at and we can come up with a better product so it’s more consistent. More accurate because that’s what we strive to do is get you as much information as homeowners so I would do that but I would welcome a motion that might strip out those things that you are not in favor of perhaps. Or would like to set aside but at the same time be able to move the applicant forward rather than have a straight denial if that was your intention. And if you feel that the project can’t move forward as is, you don’t have enough information I’m not sure at this point in time that, not having enough information is the same as would be required for a denial. We’ve received information. We’ve received reports and information from the individuals and the applicants and the neighborhood and I think we owe it to them to go ahead and move this forward one way or another. So does anybody have any ideas? Randall: Well I agree with you that it needs to move forward. I’m just trying to think of the best way to do that. To incorporate that so it’s not as vague as it is now. Or does it need to be vague like it is right now and go to the City with all these issues or the City Council. Aller: Well you can make whatever motion you want. I don’t foresee tabling it again to have people get together. Randall: No. Aller: There are conditions in there that could be either enhanced or stripped or the motion as is with the Findings of Fact as is. And if we’re going to deny it then there should be rationale for that denial which may include information not being provided or based upon the information and testimony that’s been provided by the neighborhood and the applicant. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 35 Weick: I can propose a motion. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: I don’t know how to handle the, and the developer will have to maybe have a discussion with the other homeowner about that little nub of land. Aller: Sure. Curt Fretham: Sure, we’d be willing to do that. Can I interrupt for just a second? You probably are. Aller: Sure. Curt Fretham: Okay I’ll keep it short but we believe that, or what we would like to see is a recommendation for approval of our plat that we’ve submitted. We believe that the water concerns of your’s are very important and we feel confident that we can address those properly and make changes to the plan that we can get staff to agree to so we’re hopeful that you could put that in as a condition of approval that we meet your watershed stormwater management requirements with both the watershed and city staff. Aller: I think they’re already in correct? Curt Fretham: Okay so just acknowledging that. And on the two provisions on the top 1 and 2 we’re talking about the through street, that hopefully you would strike that of course but I also want to address your condition or disconcern and maybe it’s out of line but we have looked at a number of other layouts with the properties to the south. We have tried to reach an agreement with the property owners to the south to sell and there just hasn’t been an interest to do that or at a price that was worked for us so I don’t want you to think that we didn’t look at that at all. We certainly did so that’s all. Aller: Thank you. What do you think? Weick: You want to try or? Randall: No you’ve got a train of thought so you go with that. Weick: I do think there’s certainly, I think as I noted on you know page 10. Talk about the HOA and other things about the drainage, I think it’s already written in those conditions if those follow through in a strict, in my mind it’s written in a pretty strict manner that there’s still a lot to prove and overcome in order to make sure that that works so I would propose that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and 1 outlot subject to the conditions of approval and adopting the Findings Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 36 of Fact and Recommendation including for note the letter that we received prior to the meeting and the packet of information that was presented during the meeting. Aller: Which would be the Stratford Ridge subdivision residents packet. Weick: Correct. Aller: Okay. Is that your full motion? Weick: Yes. Aller: So that’s the full motion. Madsen: Just clarification. Aller: Clarification. Madsen: So that would include the requirement for a through street? Weick: No. Randall: Where’s the, I was looking for that. Madsen: Because I believe that’s a condition of that. Weick: Okay. I thought by not including that in the proposal that it would, if that would then strike the applicable conditions. That would be my intention. Madsen: You’re striking the conditions for which? Weick: So I’m striking the sentence that says, and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of- way as shown in plans stamped received August 29, 2018. I’m striking that. That is not part of my proposal. Randall: But isn’t the right-of-way, isn’t that on the top up here? Weick: No I think that’s for the through street I believe. That was the clarification. Aller: That’s the stub for the through. Randall: Okay. Generous: It could be for a cul-de-sac. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 37 Weick: Or anything. My proposal and you’re certainly welcomed to vote against it, my proposal is not to include a stub and to. Aller: Well let me ask the engineer. Do we need a stub for the? Curt Fretham: As a quick point. On the top of page 9 of 12 even though it’s not labeled as conditions of approval, these are the conditions because it follows it saying it on the bottom of page 8. So if we are not talking about the through street we would say that you would need to strike out, and I would look to the city engineer, strike out items 1 and 2 under engineering which is incorporating provisions for a through street as well as providing utility design to extend sanitary water as part of that through street. Those two are directly related to a through street design. Aller: Well let me ask Mr. Bender whether or not would we need that for a cul-de-sac? Bender: If a cul-de-sac went in there we wouldn’t need it. It just wouldn’t be a through street. It’d be a street design that supports providing access and utilities to all of the lots which has been discussed tonight could be of multiple configurations. Curt Fretham: Our proposed…does not need items 1 and 2. Weick: Should I withdraw the motion and restate it? Aller: Sure. It hasn’t been seconded. Weick: Okay. I will withdraw my previous motion and I will make a new motion. I’ll give it another shot. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and one outlot subject to the conditions of approval, striking items number 1 and 2 as it relates to the engineering section but adopting the remaining Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Including the letter provided before the meeting started by the homeowner and the packet provided by the Stratford Ridge Subdivision residents. Aller: Do you want those to be conditions or just to be considered? Weick: No, just noted. Aller: Okay. So they’ve already been noted so those. Weick: Then I didn’t need to say that. Aller: Okay having a motion as stated. Without the reference to the Stratford Ridge subdivision or the letter, do I have a second? Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 38 Randall: I second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Tietz: Yeah Chairman. I’m going to vote no simply because I think there’s a better solution and I think we, I don’t know how the parties, if they did get together, what the correspondence has been. How much time was spent but I’m looking out for the whole neighborhood. I agree with the through street is inappropriate given the conditions we have there but I think there’s a better solution for a three party solution and based on that I will vote against. Weick: As a point of clarification there’s nothing in the motion that prevents any homeowners in this neighborhood from meeting and getting together and making other arrangements. I just want to note that. But that is not what’s in front of us tonight. Aller: Additional comments, concerns, questions amongst the commissioners? Madsen: So it incorporates all the rest including the homeowners association. Aller: Correct. Madsen: All those other items. Okay. Aller: Again this is a motion that would be a recommendation to the City Council and final action would be taken on October 22nd. Jason Watt: Sorry to trouble you. Could you just repeat the motion one more time so we can try to catch up with you? Aller: I don’t have a court reporter to read it back but it’s basically the motion to approve the subdivision with the conditions in the report, adopting the Findings of Fact except for the two conditions that are in the engineering which would apply to a through street. Jason Watt: So that is under the variance findings? Paragraph 1? Aller: There is no request for a variance. So I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Madsen: Just that I think ideally it would be wonderful if the 3 property owners get together but we do have to vote on what’s in front of us so although ideally I think it would be better if the 3 can, we can’t make that happen and we have to make a decision on this so. Aller: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 39 Weick moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into five lots and one outlot as shown in plans stamped Received August 29, 2018 subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the findings of fact and recommendation: SUBDIVISION Engineering: 1. Deleted. 2. Deleted. 3. Provide ROW over the entirety of the trail along the west side of Minnewashta Parkway. (The site plan indicates the eastern property line will comply with Condition #3 but the concern identified in Condition #4 in relation to the existing survey was not addressed. Therefore, Condition #3 remains as previously indicated.) 4. The survey of existing conditions does not indicate ROW between Glendale Drive and to the south for approximately 100 feet. (The survey does not correlate with Carver County’s property information which indicates right-of-way for the road section is in place but a portion of the bituminous trail on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway is not within the ROW.) 5. No stationing is shown in the plan set. 6. The drainage and utility easements are shown only on the plat. They should also be conveyed on the site plan. (D&U easements were added to the grading plan but not the site and utility plan.) 7. Indicate surface water drainage flow arrows on the grading plan. 8. Provide existing and proposed elevations at the following locations: each lot corner, top of curb or centerline of the street at each lot line extension, center of proposed driveway at the curb or edge of the roadway. 9. Additional conditions will be identified after the developer has an opportunity to revise the design based upon the current conditions that are considered to be major in nature as they will require significant changes to the design. Water Resources: Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 40 1. Private stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are not permitted in public drainage and utility easements. Private BMPs shall be located outside of public drainage and utility easements. 2. Easements for private stormwater treatment devices must be recorded against the properties using the city’s private stormwater easement template and approved by the City Engineer. 3. A Homeowners Association (HOA) encompassing all lots is required to ensure the technical expertise and a funding mechanism for the operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment devices is ensured in perpetuity. 4. Operation and maintenance of private stormwater BMPs is required in perpetuity. An operation and maintenance plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator and recorded against the properties that details the HOA’s permanent inspection, maintenance, and funding mechanism that ensures stormwater BMPs will function as designed. 5. To ensure stormwater treatment devices function as designed, the developer is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and performance of all stormwater improvements including vegetation, structures, soils, inspections, and erosion/sediment control for the first five years after project completion. After the first five years, responsibility shall transfer to the HOA. The developer is responsible for ensuring all stormwater improvements are functioning as designed at the end of the first five years. If stormwater improvements are not functioning as designed at the end of the first five years, as determined by the City Engineer, than the developer shall remain responsible for all operation and maintenance until devices are functioning as designed. 6. Infiltration/filtration basins must be located a minimum of 10’ from the building envelope of any primary structure. 7. If an emergency overflow route is adjacent to the property the lowest building opening must be a minimum of one foot above the emergency overflow (City Code Sec. 19-144). Proposed EOF for lots 1-4 = 978.5’-978’. EOF route proposed onto adjacent property 6760 Minnewashta Parkway with lowest building opening approx. 976’ (window well). All EOFs routing onto this adjacent property must be 1’ below the lowest floor opening. Developer may provide a treatment train or single stormwater treatment device on Lot 5 to meet this requirement. 8. EOF routes shall not create a hazard or nuisance condition onto adjacent property (City Code Sec. 7-78). 9. SWPPP contact must be identified. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 41 10. Developer must provide an erosion and sediment control plan, and dewatering plan approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 11. Maximum impervious per lot is 25%. 12. All pervious surfaces require six inches of topsoil and 18 inches of decompaction. Topsoil shall be tested and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 13. The developer shall provide an updated Hydrocad model and stormwater management plan that is consistent with and supports the engineered plans and geotechnical report. 14. The geotechnical report identifies the presence of groundwater at 972 elevation on Lot 5 (SB-1). There must be three feet of separation between the bottom elevation of stormwater infiltration devices and the water table. Based on the geotechnical report, the bottom elevation for an infiltration basin on Lot 5 can be no lower than elevation 975. 15. The geotechnical report identifies moderately slow permeability of soils. Basins are proposed with 12” ponding depth suitable for well draining soils. Basins must be sized to allow no more than 6” of ponding depth and drawdown within 24-48 hours. 16. Soil borings and infiltration tests must be performed within the perimeter of all basin locations prior to final approval. 17. Design plans must be provided for all vegetated BMPs including contours, grading, inlet and outlet structures, underdrains, filtration media/amended soils, location and quantities of all species used. Ecotype must be native or approved native hybrid. 18. Details must be provided and approved for all stormwater treatment devices. 19. The proposed redevelopment requires Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) development review and permits. 20. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, MCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.) prior to the City issuing permits. 21. Project must meet all stormwater requirements of the city and the MCWD. 22. Project will require stormwater management fees associated with city development review and permitting process. Fees can be estimated but cannot be accurately calculated until approvals have been received from the MCWD. 23. The site plan must identify the ability to install a future stormwater pipe that could connect the development to a regional pond southeast of the development. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 42 24. The development must use Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Parks: 1. In lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction, full park dedication fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. At today’s rate, these fees would total $29,000 (five lots x $5,800 per lot). Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. The minimum number of overstory trees required to be planted in the development is 41. 2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any construction activities and remain installed until completion. 3. The applicant shall install the required buffer yard plantings on Lot 5 along Minnewashta Parkway. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Tietz who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Aller: And the motion carries 4 to 1. Again thank you to all the residents for appearing for presenting and taking the opportunity to get together as a community and choosing two representatives. One two representatives but showing your support for them as they presented your information and thank you to the applicant for presenting and listening patiently and I think hopefully we’re on our way to some form of resolution so good luck to all. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 18, 2018 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: We’ll go to City Council action update and administrative. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The only item, planning item that went to the City Council was a variance request. Or the amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center for additional signage and that was denied. Aller: And it was denied on procedure right? It failed for a second? Generous: Yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 43 Aller: So there was a motion made. There was no second and therefore the. Generous: They couldn’t approve it. Aller: Oh no then there was a second motion too to deny. Generous: So and that’s it for council action because we haven’t had any projects that came through. Aller: Right. Generous: Future Planning Commission items. The October 16th meeting is now a work session. We’ll be meeting in the Fountain Conference Room. I was supposed to poll you, would you rather come in at 6:00 and get it done earlier or 7:00 for a meeting time? Aller: The 16th. Generous: October 16th. We’re going to review, there’s been changes to the flood plain protection ordinance and we need to adopt it by the end of the year and so we’d like to present the items to you so that you can. Aller: Is there a work session coming up on that with the City Council before that date too? Generous: Is there a work session? Not that I’m aware of. We will be presenting information to them on that. Aller: Okay. Generous: And then the following, November 6th is an election night so we don’t have a hearing that night and so November 20th we would actually bring the ordinance back for the public hearing and we will notify the people who are affected by the ordinance directly because there are some changes in flood classifications for certain properties and so we’ll go through there. We need to make this amendment so that we can continue to get flood insurance in the community. Aller: Yeah that’s what I was going to comment on. So those of you at home that are watching should keep and eye on that because it does impact your ability to obtain or the cost of insurance and the necessity to have flood insurance. Strong: Do just want to add one note Commissioner Aller. There was, it was an error to the FEMA flood plain maps and it was an error by FEMA that they accidentally offset one of our lines and it will create a couple of parcels to be in the flood plain that shouldn’t be in the flood Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 44 plain. There is an appeals process that staff will help them through and that was FEMA’s direction to correct their error so. Aller: So hopefully after FEMA corrects their error they will not be in a flood plain. Strong: They will not actually be correcting their error. They decided to develop the appeals process for those property owners that are impacted by their error but part of this is also to ensure that those property owners know that there is a process for that. Aller: There’s a process out there. Strong: It’s unique to Chanhassen so. Aller: We are unique. Generous: We’re just lucky. Aller: Any additional comments? Generous: So it was back to the polling. We won’t be having dinner that night but would we rather do it at 6:00 or your normal 7:00? Aller: Those that are challenged as far as time? I can go either way. Weick: I have no preference so. Madsen: I could go either way but how thick is it? I mean how many hours do you anticipate it will take? Generous: It won’t be, it should be less than an hour I would think would be total presentation. It’s basically to give you the background and let you know where we’re going with the ordinance and so that you’re not given all this when we have the public hearing and have these people that we notified that you’re now in the flood plain and as Vanessa said some of them aren’t and we’ll tell them about the process that we’ll help them get through. Aller: Great. Madsen: Whatever works. Aller: 6:00. Weick: 6:00 it is. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018 45 Generous: Okay. Aller: We’ll try to shoot for 6:00. Tietz: But let Mark and Michael know so. I might not read everything that I get and I always go at 7:00 so just let them know. Generous: Okay. And we’ll put that information out to you and again we’ll highlight that it will be in the Fountain Conference Room. We’ll keep, we won’t have Nann here so we’ll just keep summary minutes. Aller: Great. Okay I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Weick moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Work Session Minutes dated October 16, 2018 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: D.2. Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: N/A PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of minutes dated October 16, 2018. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Work Session Summary Minutes dated October 16, 2018 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION SUMMARY MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Michael McGonagill, Mark Undestad MEMBERS ABSENT: Steven Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: None NOTES: 1. MacKenzie Walters discussed the proposed floodplain ordinance and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) updates. a. Staff explained that the city needed to adopt new maps and update the existing floodplain ordinance by December 21, 2018 in order to remain in the National Flood Insurance Program. Staff noted that they intended to adopt a modified version of the Department of Natural Resources’ model ordinance. Staff mentioned that homeowners who are no longer shown as being located within the floodplain and those who may be incorrectly identified as being within the floodplain will receive letters clarifying how they can appeal their status. Staff clarified that the city did not make the determination of where the floodplain is or who is in it. This item will have a public hearing on November 20, 2018 and will go before the City Council on December 10, 2018. b. The Planning Commission asked if staff was aware of any plans to correct the known issue with Bluff Creek. i. Staff responded that there were no plans at this time, but that they may look into requesting a map amendment in the future. c. The Planning Commission asked why the floodplain’s extent had changed. i. Staff clarified that better data and new tools let agencies better understand and more accurately model the floodplain’s location. d. Nancy Madsen clarified how banks administer the government’s flood insurance requirements, and how outside firms that specialize in flood insurance typically determine who needs insurance and what appeals are required/accepted. The meeting was adjourned shortly before 7:00 p.m. Submitted by MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner g:\minutes\pc\2018\summary\october 16 work session notes.docx PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Subject City Council Action Update Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: F.1. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No: PROPOSED MOTION: ATTACHMENTS: City Council Action Update City Council Action Update MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Flood Plain Ordinance Update (Verbal) – Work Session MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Glendale Drive Subdivision Request – Approved Consider Modifying Halla Stipulation Agreement – Tabled to November 13, 2018 City Council meeting MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Amending Halla Stipulation Agreement – Approved Downtown Vision – Accepted The minutes for these meetings can be viewed from the City’s website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. g:\plan\forms\city council action update.doc PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, November 20, 2018 Subject Future Planning Commission Items Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: F.2. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No: PROPOSED MOTION: ATTACHMENTS: Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Schedule DATE ITEMS Work Session Items Possible Future Items (Date Unknown) • Moon Valley – IUP amendment • Santa Vera Apartments – Site Plan Review – PUD • 6480 Oriole Ave. - Subdivision • City Code updates • 330 Pleasant View Road – subdivision • Frontier – subdivision • Avienda PUD Amendment • Rezoning to PUD (Marathon) • 3800 Red Cedar Point Road – Subdivision with variance • Applebees Redevelopment CUP • American Legion Expansion • Subdivision – Kiowa & Hwy. 101 • Villages on the Ponds Senior Coop January 2 January 22 CC (Mark U. absent) • 7052 Minnewashta Pkwy. – setback variances to build a home • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Variance (2 car garage and setback) • 531 West 79th Street – Panera site plan review January 16 February 12 CC • 1651 Motorplex Ct. – LaMettry RLS (subdivision) • 7700 Quattro Dr. – CUP • 7721 Erie Ave. – variance • 7555 Walnut Curve – variance for pool February 6 February 26 CC (Andrew absent) • Cancelled February 20 March 12 CC (Mark R. and Mark U. absent) • Arbor Glen – PUD Amendment • Annual Report • Interview New Commissioners (immediately following meeting) March 6 March 26 (John & Nancy absent) • Cancelled March 20 April 9 CC (Mark U. absent) • Cancelled April 3 6:00 PM start time WORK SESSION • Review Comp Plan – jurisdictional comments • Local Water Management Plan – update • Oath of Office for new commissioners • Adopt Bylaws • Election of Chair April 17 May 14 CC • MEETING CANCELLED (NO ITEMS SUBMITTED) April 23 CC (Andrew absent) • Joint Meeting with City Council May 1 May 29 (Tuesday) CC • MEETING CANCELLED (NO ITEMS SUBMITTED) Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Schedule DATE ITEMS May 15 June 11 CC • Public Hearing - Code Amendment – pervious pavers & Brewery Ordinance, adult daycare OI district amendment, beekeeping, Retail Pickup Signage June 5 June 25 CC • 1110 Lake Susan Drive – lot cover variance for shed • 340 Sinnen Circle - front setback & lot cover variance for garage expansion • Transmission Line – Audubon & Lyman – CUP June 19 July 9 CC (Michael absent) • 3861 Red Cedar Point Road – subdivision with variance July 3 • No Meeting July 17 August 13 CC (Michael absent) • Control Concepts – site plan review • 2040 Comprehensive Plan • Galpin Property – PUD concept review August 7 August 27 CC • Glendale Drive – subdivision • Control Concepts - variance August 8 • Joint Commissions Tour August 21 September 10 CC • Cancelled September 4 September 24 CC • Target PUD Amendment-sign variance • 7644 South Shore Variance for Bluff Setback • Glendale Drive – subdivision September 18 October 8 CC (John absent) • 821 Creekwood Variance for Installation of a Septic System October 2 October 22 CC (Mark U. absent) (Michael McGonagill) • Glendale Drive – subdivision October 16 November 13 CC • Work Session - Review Flood Plain Protection Ordinance November 6 • No Meeting - Election November 20 December 10 CC (Michael McGonagill Absent) • Public Hearing - Flood Protection Ordinance • Public Hearing - Holasek Business Park December 4 January 14 CC • 3790 Lone Cedar Lane Variance • PUD Amendment for PPark \\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\agendas\pc\2018\future planning commission agenda items 2018.docx